12 replies to this topic

[SlowDrivr]

I've heard in a couple of places that F1 is an engine formula, meaning that the main thing that determines who wins is who has the most horsepower. What's everyone think of this? Is all the (endless!) discussion about MS/MH/DH/JV/AS/....(take your pick) being the greatest driver somewhat irrelevent? The same for Newey and the designers?

Is all the bickering about who's the greatest driver a waste of time when we should be arguing about Mercedes vs Ferrari vs....

Mercedes has the most HP!
Oh yeah, Mugen-Honda is much more driveable!
Is not!
Ford gets the best mileage
Yeah, when its not running!
Oh, you're so biased!

...and so on?

[Christiaan]

I think the driver arguements are usually baseless because the two drivers are in different cars. In DC's book he said that the two Macs were different, and only this year the Macs are the same. So Mika and Coultard could be so potentially close in the WDC.

As for the engine, well last year the Stewart had the fastest straight line speed and this year its Prost. People have suggested that its to do with power output, but I don't think so. Its a combination of power and aeros.

Then Ralph defied all perceptions and wasted a Mclaren with supertec power. So despite having an alleged 100Hp disadvantage, he took them all out.

Well, what does this say? I think we cannot compare any element of the car independantly because the average spectator simply does not have access to the important info. I only say that last year the Hakk/Newey/Ilmor combination was faster than the MS/Ross/Rory/Ferrari team.

[Ursus]

Maybe this "engine formula" theory dates back to the old days when the aeros weren't that important (no wings etc) and most tracks had really long straights that would favour those with a powerful engine.

[BADGER]

Christiaan, I knew if I read this BB long enough, we would eventually agree. There is nothing dumber than when someone states as fact that the Merc has 20-50 more horsepower than so and so or that the drivability of the Mugen is the best. I think that top speed is very relevent to horsepower, but it is definitely not definitive as to the most powerful engines. As Christiaan stated, the Prost has had some of the highest trap speeds this year and I seem to remember that the Peogeot often was fastest when it powered the Jordon. Yet many people flat out state that the Merc is the best engine. Personally, I find it amazing that the company that many acknowledge has the best engine in F1, has the third best engine in CART. Cart comparisons are more valid since most teams use Reynards. I think the Ford and the Honda will definitely challenge the Mercedes next year.

[SlowDrivr]

Where do you get info on straightline speed? I'd be curious to see it.

[DangerMouse]

There is no way the Supertec is 100BHP down on the rest, do you believe the Williams could perform as well as they do with a 10-15% Horsepower deficit? that's too much to make up these days, possible 10+ years ago but not now, excluding the TWR engine I'd be willing to bet that all F1 engines are within 50BHP of each other.

[Christiaan]

Slowdrvr, those stats are available every race. Then again I used to have digital

DM, the real question is...how do we know? I remember an F40 racing against a CT3 Turbo. The Porsche had superoir engine power and apparently a better torque curve. The F40 however was considerable faster because it had much better handling, so the driver could take corners some 15km/h faster than the CT3. This meant that on a straight, even though the F40's top speed (which would be maintained only for about 3seconds) was lower, his average speed was higher.

This story is from SA-Car in 1997. The point is that there are so many factors that come into play, especially at high speeds where the top speed has a squared relationship with the power. We cannot say anything with certainty. 700Hp vs 800Hp is a 14% Hp advantage, but all else being equal, its a 4% gain in top speed. Then drivers and aeros come into play that may be significantly reduced.

The German commentary claims that Supertec is by far the most driveable engine, so it might be quite possible that at given rev bands it is more powerful than the Ilmor.

Who knows, I know I don't...


Hehe Badger you make me laugh

[Alex]

Yep, the Supertec might have more torque than Merc at certain rpm range, but Merc surely has wider rpm band. That is, with a high revving Merc engine, you coud use shorter gears than on a Supertec engine thus increasing torque to the wheels.

I think the main battle in F1 engines is about stretching highest rpm possible, although they try to preserve as much driveability as possible at the same time.

[Yelnats]

Alex, the rear wheels don't care what RPM the engines turing at as long as they recieve the full power delivered by the engine. An engine that delivers 800 hp at 17,000 rpm can be geared to deliver the same torque as an engine that delivers this power at 19,000 rpm. Now if the higher reving engine also delivers 800 hp at 17,000 rpm it will likly be a superior unit due to it's broad power delivery curve. But assuming similar power bandwidths the two engines will accelerate at the same rate.

Practically, one would choose the lower reving engine with similar power because it's more likely to be reliable.

[Yelnats]

Slo Driver. I think that speed in F1 is a little more complicated than a simple measure of Engine power. There have been several recent example of cars using similar engines with completely diferent succes rates. i.e. One winning a WDC and the other completely out of the running. Top speed is a most unreliable indicator of engine power as the theoretical top speed differences between cars with engines of 5% differing powers is the cube root of difference and is easily swamped by aereodynamic drag differences due to different car setups.

A truly fine handeling car will always beat a poor handeler if the engines are within 5%. To win in F1 one needs both power and handeling and may is always continue as such!

[HartleyHare]

I'd favour the higher revving engine because you will get more leeway with gearing. And unless the low revving engine has a powercurve which is identical in linearity to the higher revving unit (which is unlikely) the shorter geared engine would produce more thrust at any given speed in any given gear. But then you need good enough traction and aerodynamics to make the best of it....

.... which is why I agree with Christiaan: the package has to be regarded as a whole. THe only insight we really get is when several teams get the same motors in the same spec, or when a driver switches teams. So we can see the Williams (plus driver(s)) are better than the Benetton/BAR combos. And Salo said the advantage of the Ferrari over the BAR was in usability and ease.

Even if all the manufacturers published what they believed were honest figures, you'd still have discrepancies unless they all tested their motors on the same dyno.

[Tigalola]

No one has mentioned the importance of the size, weight and c.g. of the engines in question. Packaging of the engines is probably just as important as ultimate HP.

[Christiaan]

Good Point. Rememeber the Arrows Yamaha engine that suffered tremendous reliabilty problems because it was mounted all wrong. Only to remount it and not only improve reliability, but available top end power, because the driver could rev it much higher