| Archive for The Motor Forum talking cars since 2006 |
| Twelfth Monkey |
'Eliminating engine performance differential.'http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=39063Why? |
||
| Boxer6 |
Why indeed. I thought constant tweakery and innovation, improvements throughout the season etc was what F1 was all about (in a technical sense, at least)
Apparently not, by that article. 
|
||
| Sav |
I suspect the current V8's will stay in 'spec' configuration until 2013 when a new engine will be introduced (that has not been decided by the FIA yet. I agree though, what is the point of Mercedes developing a marvellous engine only to be told it will be pegged back because the Renault unit is unreliable and the Toyota one lacks power? | ||
| Eff One |
I confess I'm a bit bemused by this too - they're all operating to the same limits and Mercedes has done a better job than the others. So surely it's up to them to catch up? | ||
| Big Blue |
What a fucking farce. Pinnacle of motorsport? My arse: there's more technology trying to eek an additional ½bhp from a 125cc bike in a club race! | ||
| Rodge |
So the faster cars will be slower and the slower cars will have a better chance of competing.
Why don't they go the whole hog and add balast to the winner's cars? Whatever happens, you can be sure that the laptimes in 2013 will be even quicker than they have been this year. The F1 guy's will find a way around the regulations. |
||
| woof woof |
It all makes sense once you accept that it's the FAI's policy to fiddle with the rules and hand out various restrictions, bans , exceptions and levels of punishment to make it more likely that their preferred driver and manufacturer win. | ||
| Rodge |
Yes, but thankfully that will end when ex Ferrari team manager Jean Todt takes ofer from mad Max. We really need a tongue in cheek smiley. |
||
| Big TC |
Why not get Cosworth to build all the engines, and the manufacturers are then allowed to call it what they want, and put their own cam-covers on.....
<extracts tongue from cheek> As far as the regualtions go, surely the governing body could go way further than they have on restricting aerodynamics? |
||
| cbeaks1 |
If it saves money and makes it a more even contest I quite like the idea. |
||
| DaveGibson |
That's just what Mosley wanted but Ferrari have a veto on any rules they don't like. |
||
| Mike Amos |
I would summise that they are pegging the best engine in the class so that the new boys will be only a bit behind and Ferrari et al will look less like also rans.
If Jean Todd gets the top seat all will be lost, I sincerely hope a certain ex rally driver get the job. I still do not have a 'favourite team' but do like to have at least the illusion of fairness. Sad I know. |
||
| Big TC |
If Ferrari's engine was as superior as Merc's seems to be at the moment, would they be able to veto the de-restriction of it to bring it down to the level of their competitor's engines? And we all know the answer to that one....
I too hope that Vatanen gets the FIA top job. Sincerely. |
||
| Big Blue |
Sorry, Merc's engine alone is NOT superior. The Mclaren was shit all through the first half of the season; the Brawn has been down recently and was only so good at the start of the year because the team started developing the 2009 car in about December 2007; the Force India needed some fundamental redesigns done mid season to be where it is now. | ||
| Big TC |
I agree, BB. I've always wondered how 'they' have decided that the Merc is so superior to all the other engines. Aside from bench-testing examples of all engines alongside one another, I don't know how they can tell definitively. | ||
| Sav |
The Mclaren's shortfalls were aerodynamic issues and that is where teams find the most time and concentrate their development in. However it is not a coincidence that Mercedes-powered cars were high up on the grid on two 'power' circuits of Spa and Monza. Also, the Mercedes engine is more fuel efficient than others too. Fisichella managed to negate Kimi's fuel advantage in Spa under the safety car where the Ferrari pitted exactly as scheduled. As a whole taking into account the performance, reliability and efficiency - its the best engine. Even the Ferrari team principal admitted that the Merc engine is an advantage after Monza and should be pegged back (which of course, it should not). |
||
| Big Blue |
Sav, you've made my point yourself in your own post: the McMerc was shit due to aero issues and if the Force India hadn't been aero-altered for Spa it would have been as shit as it ever was, even if it had 2 Mercedes engines in it.
The Ferrari of Raikkonen was able to stay ahead of the Merc engined Force India due to KERS; I have photographs from the Monza race (I'll post them sometime!) where the Ferrari shat on the Force India off the line due to KERS; F1 isn't an engine-only race and the use of KERS, however good or bad it seems, is a part of the overall technology contest: the Ferrari works with it to some extent. The Merc engine is bound to be more fuel efficient than the Ferrari: it has less weight to carry! Hamilton demonstrated this at Monza where he had to carry less fuel and stop twice because he has.....KERS (and...er... a Merc engine, like the 2 Brawns) As to Domenicalli arguing that his competitors' engines should be pegged back: what would you do in his shoes 
The Merc engine is good; the Ferrari engine is good. The packages they sit in are vastly different such as to make it difficult to be definitive about which is better. |
||
| Humphrey The Pug |
Why though should a better performing engine be "pegged back"?
If the far superior engine was produced to the same rules as an inferior engine then it's the manufacturer of the inferior engine who needs to have a look at their engine and work out where they went wrong. How far do you go, have standard aero across all of the cars just because one or two manufacturers have managed to produce a car with better aero efficiency than the other guys? |
||
| Sav |
I agree with that BB, the days are long gone when engine builders turned to races with 10 bhp more and the main performance gains do come from aerodynamics. But in a way that makes the engine situation even more interesting because tiny differences are making the difference now. Poor RBR for example probably wished they did not have Renault motors this season.
I still think the Mercedes engines were a large contributing factor to many of the Merc-powered cars being fast in the last two races, the aerodynamic confuguration also played a large part in that. But even when engines are frozen that does not stop the fact that engine performance matters a great deal at Spa and Monza, and despite the FIA's willingness to equalize all engines (for whatever reason  ) the small differences do make the difference. The Toyota engine for example is apprentley 25 bhp down on the Merc engine according to some sources, showing how some engine builders have just fallen behind. And coincidently, the Toyota-powered cars were near the bottom of the timesheets in Monza.
I would like Autosport or somebody to find out and analysis the different engines in F1 and the traits of each one, because lets remember the V8's orginally were designed when the engine freeze was not in place - so they are bound to be different in certain ways. |
||
| "him" |
Does the "engine freeze" still allow for the fitment of different exhaust manifolds/systems to suit the requirements of the specific circuit. (More torque vs more 'top end' etc. etc.) Also gearing plays a bit part, and allied to the aero package that the team have has a bearing on the lap time. Which lets face it are all pretty close at the sharp end of the grid. The basic engine can remain the same, and even if they were all producing the same amount of torque, the changes to the exhaust and gearing alone could more than account for a "25 bhp" deficit? Also we have heard talk of "overtake buttons" on Non-KERS cars, this could (for example) advance the spark timing to increase the power by (say?) 10-15hp, but clearly there is a risk of engine failure if used excessively. All the engines are limited to 18k rpm. Also they run different engine "maps" at various stages of the race, to either conserve fuel (or the engine itself?), or to make more power. Who knows, but lets just leave them get on developing the engines without constant meddling from the FIA... the rules are set, and one engine will always be "better", but it isn't always the same one. |
||
| DaveGibson |
The engine specs were fixed at the end of 2007, as I recall but last year Renault were deemed to have slipped off the pace as a result of a different interpretation of the term 'frozen'. They had made no changes while other manufacturers had modified parts, allowed for reliability reasons, which just happened to have produced more power. Consequently Renault were allowed to catch up. I recall reading, earlier this year, that Brawn said the Merc engine was producing 60bhp more than the Honda. |