Was the Mercedes power unit dominant?

[Farnborough]

the weird advantage was burning oil.

I think that is a theory that has no real evidence at all to back it up.

There is actually more evidence to suggest it was other teams such as Ferrari who had a special second oil tank.

Surely you're joking. Mercedes was burning oil.

Absolutely, you could even see the smoky startup on both MB cars regularly before the subject came to light in public discussion and rule shift to control oil burn.

[mrluke]

For 2014? Yes. After that, not so much.

Certainly Ferrari somewhat caught up in 2015, however were not Red Bull Racing's Renault units still up to 70-80hp down on power as late as 2017?

Not aware of any actual data that shows a 70-80bhp shortfall so I wouldnt put any faith in it. My own analysis shows how close the Honda and Renault were in 2017 despite the consensus that Honda was rubbish and way down on power.

Don't forget Red Bull Racing being refused the Mercedes customer supply from 2016 onwards however. If the Renault unit had parity with Mercedes and it would make little difference, why would Mercedes be unhappy to receive this customer supply revenue?

Strangely Mercedes preferred to supply an insolvent team who went bankrupt and therefore did not receive the revenue for those customer power units in any case!

Because Red Bull had just had a very public falling out with Renault who had supplied them to multiple WDC/WCCs.

Most likely outcome would be either RBR beating Mercedes team -> bad outcome for Mercedes. Or RBR losing to Mercedes and blaming Mercedes for providing them an inferior power unit -> still bad for Mercedes.

However all of that is irrelevant to the discussion of Mercedes PU performance.

So as per my earlier comment, start of the period Mercedes PU was definitely dominant but over time this reduced. Mercedes definitely had a dominant package but I wouldn't say it was purely down to the PU otherwise we would still see Williams and Force India occupying top positions.

What happens if you take your data set and normalize the points scored by the budgets?

I imagine that would show some interesting trends as well. Specifically that when comparing teams with like for like budgets, the Mercedes PU was a decisive advantage.

Therefore the real comparisons are MB vs Ferrari vs RB, and then Force India/Williams vs Renault, Mclaren, AT, etc.

So MB, Ferrari and RB are all excluded so the remaining lines show the comparison you suggest.

If you can confirm the budget for every team for those years then I am happy to do that but I dont have that data.

[Juzh]

For 2014? Yes. After that, not so much.

Certainly Ferrari somewhat caught up in 2015, however were not Red Bull Racing's Renault units still up to 70-80hp down on power as late as 2017?

Not aware of any actual data that shows a 70-80bhp shortfall so I wouldnt put any faith in it. My own analysis shows how close the Honda and Renault were in 2017 despite the consensus that Honda was rubbish and way down on power.

yes, honda and renault were close... to each other. And miles behind fer/merc. Even at the end of 2018 renault was still 50 hp down, they only got their stuff together in 2019.

[AR3-GP]

Not aware of any actual data that shows a 70-80bhp shortfall so I wouldnt put any faith in it. My own analysis shows how close the Honda and Renault were in 2017 despite the consensus that Honda was rubbish and way down on power.

...in qualifying modes. It was common knowledge that they were well down on power.

[vorticism]

Don't forget Red Bull Racing being refused the Mercedes customer supply from 2016 onwards however. If the Renault unit had parity with Mercedes and it would make little difference, why would Mercedes be unhappy to receive this customer supply revenue?

Strangely Mercedes preferred to supply an insolvent team who went bankrupt and therefore did not receive the revenue for those customer power units in any case!

Because Red Bull had just had a very public falling out with Renault who had supplied them to multiple WDC/WCCs.

This would not have been a factor. Plugging in the Merc V6 would have had the same effect for RB as plugging in an improved Honda V6: championship contention, or outright victory. That was the simple calculus for Merc.

Recall that the NA V8s had parity; that formula was much easier for suppliers to deliver equal engines. Renault or any other NA V8 supplier for the era would likely not have made a difference to RB's performance through the era; thus they had no special credit owed to Renault which could have purchased pity praise for their engines in the hybrid era. The EBD maps were perhaps the main differentiator; and all suppliers delivered them. RB had to distance itself from Renault 2014 onward as PR in order to maintain their public & media esteem as a chassis builder ("It's not our fault."), as they were the first big garage team to establish an era of their own since the 90s Williams, Benetton, and McLaren.

[Polite]

Burning less fuel and having more power thanks to TJI was the unfair advantage merc had.

But why were the other customer teams not as competitive, did the works engines come with a different spec ignition system?

the weird advantage was burning oil.

I think that is a theory that has no real evidence at all to back it up.

There is actually more evidence to suggest it was other teams such as Ferrari who had a special second oil tank.

not really but ok

AMG used the oil only for combustion while the lubrification was made by a new connecting rod bearing.
and also.. they broke the gentlmen's agreement of the 2017!

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/merce ... 2/4996342/

[ValeVida46]

AMG used the oil only for combustion while the lubrification was made by a new connecting rod bearing.
and also.. they broke the gentlmen's agreement of the 2017!

There is a glaring omission though.

Ahead of this weekend's Italian Grand Prix, the FIA has confirmed that Mercedes will only have to comply with the 1.2l limit that was laid down in the technical directive - because the engine has already been used.
"If an engine [ICE element] is introduced at or after the Monza race weekend, its oil consumption needs to be below 0.9l/100km whenever it is used.If an engine [ICE element] has been introduced at or before the Spa race weekend, its oil consumption needs to be below 1.2l/100km whenever it is used."

If there's any contention it should be because...

Mercedes' move to introduce its final engine at Spa was understood to have caused some unease at Ferrari, because the Italian outfit had not been expecting anyone to bring new engines for that weekend.

Ferrari could've done exactly the same.
Wouldn't it be clear that Ferrari where also burning oil, which explains their "unease" at Mercedes utilising the full extent of the rules?

[Polite]

Ferrari could've done exactly the same.
Wouldn't it be clear that Ferrari where also burning oil, which explains their "unease" at Mercedes utilising the full extent of the rules?

Ferrari could have omologated extra pus in SPA as AMG did, yes. but Ferrari didnt broke the agreement. The gentlemen's agreement is for gentlemen of course precisely because it can be disregarded without consequences. The agreement was done way before the SPA gran prix.
Ferrari and AMG were burning oil (AMG from the beginning of the pu era while ferrari from the 2016).

[ValeVida46]

Ferrari could've done exactly the same.
Wouldn't it be clear that Ferrari where also burning oil, which explains their "unease" at Mercedes utilising the full extent of the rules?

Ferrari could have omologated extra pus in SPA as AMG did, yes. but Ferrari didnt broke the agreement. The gentlemen's agreement is for gentlemen of course precisely because it can be disregarded without consequences. The agreement was done way before the SPA gran prix.
Ferrari and AMG were burning oil (AMG from the beginning of the pu era while ferrari from the 2016).

Ferrari's Arrivabene said there was no conflict.
https://motorsports.nbcsports.com/2017/ ... n-ruling/

And there was no citation of any agreement.

[Polite]

Ferrari could've done exactly the same.
Wouldn't it be clear that Ferrari where also burning oil, which explains their "unease" at Mercedes utilising the full extent of the rules?

Ferrari could have omologated extra pus in SPA as AMG did, yes. but Ferrari didnt broke the agreement. The gentlemen's agreement is for gentlemen of course precisely because it can be disregarded without consequences. The agreement was done way before the SPA gran prix.
Ferrari and AMG were burning oil (AMG from the beginning of the pu era while ferrari from the 2016).

Ferrari's Arrivabene said there was no conflict.
https://motorsports.nbcsports.com/2017/ ... n-ruling/

And there was no citation of any agreement.

here there are
https://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/en/ ... 19787.html
"But Mercedes, Ferrari and the other engine manufacturers had reportedly entered into a ’gentleman’s agreement’ that any upgrade released before Monza would comply with the new 0.9 litre rule."
https://www.f1-fansite.com/f1-news/repo ... agreement/
https://www.newsonf1.com/2017/08/merced ... nt-report/
https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/caso- ... 7/1580306/ in Italy there were a lot of news about that.
are those news enough? i can provide more..

obviously Arrivabene could not say anything else so as not to seem like a loser.

[ValeVida46]

Ferrari could have omologated extra pus in SPA as AMG did, yes. but Ferrari didnt broke the agreement. The gentlemen's agreement is for gentlemen of course precisely because it can be disregarded without consequences. The agreement was done way before the SPA gran prix.
Ferrari and AMG were burning oil (AMG from the beginning of the pu era while ferrari from the 2016).

Ferrari's Arrivabene said there was no conflict.
https://motorsports.nbcsports.com/2017/ ... n-ruling/

And there was no citation of any agreement.

here there are
https://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/en/ ... 19787.html
"But Mercedes, Ferrari and the other engine manufacturers had reportedly entered into a ’gentleman’s agreement’ that any upgrade released before Monza would comply with the new 0.9 litre rule."
https://www.f1-fansite.com/f1-news/repo ... agreement/
https://www.newsonf1.com/2017/08/merced ... nt-report/
https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/caso- ... 7/1580306/ in Italy there were a lot of news about that

obviously Arrivabene could not say anything else so as not to seem like a loser.

Nope still nothing from either Mercedes or Ferrari.

We do know that Arrivabene officially said there was no conflict. Whether that makes him a loser or not, is up for everyones own interpretation.
What I think is pertinent, is that newer engines were expected and Mercedes used an "old" one or that's already been run. If there was an agreement, and it was for new engines, it still abides by that agreement.

[Juzh]

Ferrari's Arrivabene said there was no conflict.
https://motorsports.nbcsports.com/2017/ ... n-ruling/

And there was no citation of any agreement.

here there are
https://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/en/ ... 19787.html
"But Mercedes, Ferrari and the other engine manufacturers had reportedly entered into a ’gentleman’s agreement’ that any upgrade released before Monza would comply with the new 0.9 litre rule."
https://www.f1-fansite.com/f1-news/repo ... agreement/
https://www.newsonf1.com/2017/08/merced ... nt-report/
https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/caso- ... 7/1580306/ in Italy there were a lot of news about that

obviously Arrivabene could not say anything else so as not to seem like a loser.

Nope still nothing from either Mercedes or Ferrari.

We do know that Arrivabene officially said there was no conflict. Whether that makes him a loser or not, is up for everyones own interpretation.
What I think is pertinent, is that newer engines were expected and Mercedes used an "old" one or that's already been run. If there was an agreement, and it was for new engines, it still abides by that agreement.

There was conflict and if there wasn't that would mean ferrari is dumb and just accepts when they're being pulled a sneaky on them, which they're not.

Believing TPs without question (any of them) is just being gullible imo.

[ValeVida46]

There was conflict and if there wasn't that would mean ferrari is dumb and just accepts when they're being pulled a sneaky on them, which they're not.

Believing TPs without question (any of them) is just being gullible imo.

It's cool opining on that speculation but ultimately leads to speculative conclusions. Hence why citing the answer to a direct question on the matter is relevant, albeit open to whatever conclusion anyone wants to make.

The story about the gentlemans agreements was never confirmed either in detail or existence by Mercedes, Ferrari or the FIA either, to my knowledge.

[vorticism]

chrisc90 can you repost your pole/win percentage statistics?

[hollus]

The question was apparently answered satisfactorily in the first post. No need to answer it again. Locked.