Should RBR take the Ferrari engines back from STR?

[Conceptual]

There is no way that Renault could catch up to the Ferrari powerplant by next season, even if they started introducing upgrades today. The lead time is simply too great.

They may have already started I think they have been introducing some small elements since Barcelona or so, but don't quote me on that. In any case, even though it's almost sure they won't catch Ferrari, the gap will be closed and I don't think a, let's say, 10HP difference is all that important.

Then why is McLaren and Ferrari working hard to continue to introduce upgrades?

In an era of an engine freeze, 10HP is a HUGE gain, since no HP gains should have been made at all during the freeze.

Does the FIA still posess the submitted engines from Brasil 2006? If they do, it would be interesting to see them dyno those engines, and then dyno todays engines and compare the results.

And then, they should publish the results.

Chris

[Scotracer]

10BHP is virtually no difference in a car that already has 750BHP. What you want is a more drivable engine, not peak power - especially with a rev limit.

[Conceptual]

10BHP is virtually no difference in a car that already has 750BHP. What you want is a more drivable engine, not peak power - especially with a rev limit.

How does that make sense? I thought the peak power was very important for overcoming drag down the straights, and the drivability was managed by the engine mapping.

Maybe I have put 2 and 2 together and got 5?

Can you explain how a 10HP gain makes "virtually no difference" during an engine freeze? And can you explain why several teams still employ people to continue searching for those 10HP gains in allowable changes?

Thanks!

Chris

[Miguel]

First of all, what I wanted to say is that, if Renault "increased the reliability" of the RS26 they may end with an engine that's about 10HP lower than Ferrari, not that their engine is nowadays 10HP lower.

Second, top speed goes roughly as the third root of the power, so a 10 HP increase in an engine of 750 HP will lead to an increase of topspeed in the same chassis of 100*10/(3*750)%. Numerically, that's 301.3 km/h instead of 300 km/h. It will lead however to a slight improvement in acceleration where it isn't limited by grip. In any case, I wouldn't forego a slight power advantage.

Finally, I suppose the purpose of "reliability improvement" isn't so much a 10HP increase but a succession of improvements that might have lead to 40-50 HP differences, but I may be talking rubbish, since I am not an engineer.

[Scotracer]

Thanks for confirming my points, Miguel

You mentioned 50BHP increase. That, in a normal engine cycle (pre-engine freeze) was normally viable for a year but that was normally because revs increased each year. You saw maybe 500rpm increase each year from '95 to '05 (minus the years that the cars had to be durable).

Say the current cars generate 750BHP @ 18,500rpm. That's 213lb.ft of torque. To increase that by 50BHP, they'd need to increase torque to 227lb.ft @ 18,500rpm. That might normally be possible if engine internals weren't frozen but as so much is restricted, the chances of you seeing a gain like that are minute.

Next year will we see cars with peak power (including KERS) of up to 850BHP, and I can't wait.

Edit: as Miguel pointed out, power increases aren't that big but as a percentage, 50BHP would amount to: 100*50/(3*750)% = 2.22% which would be 306.66km/h instead of 300km/h. Still, not a massive margin.

[Conceptual]

Thanks for confirming my points, Miguel

You mentioned 50BHP increase. That, in a normal engine cycle (pre-engine freeze) was normally viable for a year but that was normally because revs increased each year. You saw maybe 500rpm increase each year from '95 to '05 (minus the years that the cars had to be durable).

Say the current cars generate 750BHP @ 18,500rpm. That's 213lb.ft of torque. To increase that by 50BHP, they'd need to increase torque to 227lb.ft @ 18,500rpm. That might normally be possible if engine internals weren't frozen but as so much is restricted, the chances of you seeing a gain like that are minute.

Next year will we see cars with peak power (including KERS) of up to 850BHP, and I can't wait.

Edit: as Miguel pointed out, power increases aren't that big but as a percentage, 50BHP would amount to: 100*50/(3*750)% = 2.22% which would be 306.66km/h instead of 300km/h. Still, not a massive margin.

I say its a huge margin, since we are talking hundredths separating p1-4 in qualifying.

If RBR wanted to be 3rd in the championship in 09, they have to know that it isnt possible with the Renault engine, but VERY possible with the Ferrari engine.

Time will tell I guess.

Thanks for teh replies/

Chris

[Miguel]

The funny thing is that if Red Bull suddenly found a 2.22% increase in aero efficiency they would no longer need the Ferrari engine Let's just ask Mark Webber about it.

EDIT: 50 HP is indeed a big margin. Even though you don't have a massive gain in terms of top speed, you do have a pretty considerable advantage in terms of acceleration in the mid-speed region and, probably more importantly, you can run more wing with the same top speed, which allows you to go faster everywhere else.

[bar555]

I guess Miguel calculated top speed assuming that downforce level is equal to zero ( downforce=0 ).

My opinion is that teams would prefer to icrease downforce level if they had extra HP to waste instead of their top speeds . All this power just to shake some more air , pity

[Miguel]

I guess Miguel calculated top speed assuming that downforce level is equal to zero ( downforce=0 ).

My opinion is that teams would prefer to icrease downforce level if they had extra HP to waste instead of their top speeds . All this power just to shake some more air , pity

Indeed. After all, it usually makes more sense to go faster in every single corner (especially out of corners) than going faster just at the end of the straight.

[Conceptual]

I guess Miguel calculated top speed assuming that downforce level is equal to zero ( downforce=0 ).

My opinion is that teams would prefer to icrease downforce level if they had extra HP to waste instead of their top speeds . All this power just to shake some more air , pity

Indeed. After all, it usually makes more sense to go faster in every single corner (especially out of corners) than going faster just at the end of the straight.

I find that in rFactor, I tend to run VERY little wing. I often have it set to 25F/10R and no TC.

In Montreal, I can lap faster than they did this year with that setup!

Anyways, thank you for the replies.

I'm sure that Newey knows how well the Ferrari engine compares to the Renault engine in the identical chassis. It would probably be his call that would initiate a trade back if it were warranted.

HEY SCARBS! Can you ask Newey which engine he prefers? And does one actually have the advantage over the other?

Anyways, thanks alot!

Chris

[Scotracer]

I guess Miguel calculated top speed assuming that downforce level is equal to zero ( downforce=0 ).

My opinion is that teams would prefer to icrease downforce level if they had extra HP to waste instead of their top speeds . All this power just to shake some more air , pity

Indeed. After all, it usually makes more sense to go faster in every single corner (especially out of corners) than going faster just at the end of the straight.

I find that in rFactor, I tend to run VERY little wing. I often have it set to 25F/10R and no TC.

In Montreal, I can lap faster than they did this year with that setup!

Anyways, thank you for the replies.

I'm sure that Newey knows how well the Ferrari engine compares to the Renault engine in the identical chassis. It would probably be his call that would initiate a trade back if it were warranted.

HEY SCARBS! Can you ask Newey which engine he prefers? And does one actually have the advantage over the other?

Anyways, thanks alot!

Chris

Newey asked for the change to Renault because the Ferrari requires more cooling

Also, for rFactor I have completely the other ethos, I run a lot more wing than you -- for instance my Silverstone setup is 29FW, 26RW and my Hungary setup is 39FW and 38RW.

[Conceptual]

Newey asked for the change to Renault because the Ferrari requires more cooling

Also, for rFactor I have completely the other ethos, I run a lot more wing than you -- for instance my Silverstone setup is 29FW, 26RW and my Hungary setup is 39FW and 38RW.

Newey did that before any upgrades were made to the Ferrari 056? engine. If the Ferrari engine in the STR can run the same sidepod inlets as the RBR, is there really that much of a cooling problem?

And OT:

To be honest, I really dont drive those tracks. I like Montreal, Turkey, Monaco, Nordschleife and Spa. I find that I would have both wings set to zero if I could get away with it. The guy that I used to play with would always tell me that I was crazy for taking so much wing off, but eventually he started to do the same, since I would lap 4 sec faster on Spa...lol

Chris

[lebesset]

maybe I am mistaken , but I thought each engine manufacturer had to submit an engine for homologation at the beginning of the season , and that every engine supplied this season had to match that exactly no matter who used it ; so I don't understand this thread
I know that the FIA had to buy new equipment to test the engines which is why they started late in the saison

[Conceptual]

maybe I am mistaken , but I thought each engine manufacturer had to submit an engine for homologation at the beginning of the season , and that every engine supplied this season had to match that exactly no matter who used it ; so I don't understand this thread
I know that the FIA had to buy new equipment to test the engines which is why they started late in the saison

The point is that the spec's per manufacturer are different.

STR and Ferrari and FI should all have identical engines, but that does not mean that the Ferrari, Renault, and Mercedes engines are identical.

This thread is about if it is in RBR's best interest to take the Ferrari engines from STR before selling the team.

I, for one, think that it would be the best move for RBR to take them if they want to challenge at the front in 2009.

But, some here think that there is no difference. So until someone can say for sure that the Renault engine is underpowered compared to the Ferrari engine, the point is admittedly rather moot.

Chris

[jddh1]

does anybody know if teams release historical data about their cars? Say, if after 3 or 5 years, they have to disclose performance data?