[adamstrags]

From this interview with Newey...

Quote

Newey makes no bones about the differing approach employed by the engine makers to a rule that says engine specifications must be frozen [to save costs], the only exception being updates to improve reliability.

"The fact is the Mercedes engine [used by Brawn and McLaren] enjoyed a good advantage over the rest of the field last year," Newey says. "Lap time-wise it was significant; several 10ths of a second. When you have to try and claw that back in the chassis, it's quite a big ask. So obviously we looked at the Mercedes engine. We also looked at the Cosworth engine very carefully. In the end, Brawn and McLaren blocked us from having the Mercedes engine, but we became very satisfied with staying with Renault in any case.

"Mercedes developed very heavily through what was meant to be a frozen engine, whereas some of the others, Renault in particular, were very honest and said: 'It's a frozen engine, it's cost cutting, we won't develop further.' And they fell behind. But they have had a good programme to address that. They've been a fantastic company to work with, so if we can maintain that good working relationship and they can bring the engine up to scratch, then that's perfect. As for what Mercedes did last year, that's part of motorsport and you have to be philosophical about these things."

interesting.

[AleHop]

Every ****ing new rule is making racing freeze. FFS!!!

[Persevere]

Thanks for the link to the full interview as well as your selective quotes. Newey is much too intriguing (if not brilliant) to ignore.

[cavallino]

Mclaren are smelly cheating b#####ds - is that news?

[Autumnpuma]

When the engine freeze rule was proposed, all the manufacturers were rushing to develop the most advanced lumps they could that still fit within the regulations. Mercedes did the best job at it and then everything 'froze' at that point. Since then it has been legal to streamline the engines if the overall HP and rev-limit wasn't exceeded. Mercedes did this by making a more 'torquey' engine with internal parts that combat engine resistance. All perfectly legal.

Perhaps the French should stop taking their cheese and wine breaks and get back to work.

This post has been edited by Autumnpuma: 16 March 2010 - 06:19 AM

[DOF_power]

Use turbos or maybe turbocharged-supercharged engines (Group B Lancia Delta S4) and limit the boost (but not the rpms) according to what is suitable at every racetrack.

[JHS]

Any freeze is a stupid idea. Because the dishonest teams will just ignore it anyway. Pointless. I'll give credit for Renault for actually following the rules that time. A first for them.

[Autumnpuma]

JHS, on 16 March 2010 - 09:38 PM, said:

Any freeze is a stupid idea. Because the dishonest teams will just ignore it anyway. Pointless. I'll give credit for Renault for actually following the rules that time. A first for them.

Do you bother to think before you post?

[DOF_power]

On track passing dry weather passing:
2004 … 244 (engine + tire + electronics freedom)
2005 … 181 (single tire rule)
2006 … 221 (V8s, return to proper tire rules)
2007 … 157 (frozen/limited V8s, no tire war)
2008 … 140 (SECU: TC + rear ABS ban)
2009 … 144 (lower rev limit + new aero + KERS on some cars)



The engine rules have their blame for ******* F1.


From 2004 till 2009 F1 lost 100 dry weather passes due to stupid ever more restrictive rules witch made cars more and more aero dependent.

This post has been edited by DOF_power: 17 March 2010 - 10:46 AM

[adamstrags]

DOF_power, on 17 March 2010 - 10:46 AM, said:

On track passing dry weather passing:
2004 … 244 (engine + tire + electronics freedom)
2005 … 181 (single tire rule)
2006 … 221 (V8s, return to proper tire rules)
2007 … 157 (frozen/limited V8s, no tire war)
2008 … 140 (SECU: TC + rear ABS ban)
2009 … 144 (lower rev limit + new aero + KERS on some cars)



The engine rules have their blame for ******* F1.


From 2004 till 2009 F1 lost 100 dry weather passes due to stupid ever more restrictive rules witch made cars more and more aero dependent.

Here here.

I don't think advanced aero alone is a bad thing, but restrictive rules in general (especially engine restrictions) lead to aero becoming too important (it has become the only way for a team to get the edge over the competition).
That balance is buggered.
Were they to lift restrictions on engines aero would go back to being a minor aid in winning races - which is what it should be.
They don't have to restrict aero, just allow engine freedom.

[maurethegreat2]

DOF_power, on 17 March 2010 - 10:46 AM, said:

On track passing dry weather passing:
2004 … 244 (engine + tire + electronics freedom)
2005 … 181 (single tire rule)
2006 … 221 (V8s, return to proper tire rules)
2007 … 157 (frozen/limited V8s, no tire war)
2008 … 140 (SECU: TC + rear ABS ban)
2009 … 144 (lower rev limit + new aero + KERS on some cars)



The engine rules have their blame for ******* F1.


From 2004 till 2009 F1 lost 100 dry weather passes due to stupid ever more restrictive rules witch made cars more and more aero dependent.

Makes me sick looking at that chart!! @ least we have ALMS & the highly competitive FIA GT1 championship coming up, oh @ BTCC!

[JHS]

Autumnpuma, on 16 March 2010 - 10:06 PM, said:

Do you bother to think before you post?

Sorry, I won't bother to add my thoughts on a given subject them mardy arse.

[Kopite Girl]

JHS, on 17 March 2010 - 04:28 PM, said:

Sorry, I won't bother to add my thoughts on a given subject them mardy arse.

James! You said arse.

Its st. Patricks day. Say feck, drink and girls too. Go on go on go on go on go on go on GO ON YA WILL lol

[Jean Todt]

Autumnpuma, on 16 March 2010 - 10:06 PM, said:

Do you bother to think before you post?

TF1 will lose its charm if we start to think before we post, perhaps nobody will ever post if we start thinking.....

[AleHop]

Jean Todt, on 17 March 2010 - 11:47 PM, said:

TF1 will lose its charm if we start to think before we post, perhaps nobody will ever post if we start thinking.....

Hey, speak for yourself!

[aussief1]

This is old news really and stupidness on behalf of Renault. They after all were given permission to catch up so to speak in the winter of 2008 - 09.

Red Bull had to stay with Renault because they had little alternative in the end. The advantages being the compact engine and the generally good fuel consumpion figures.

I expect Red Bull to look seriously at attempting to get Volkswagen into F1 prehaps in time for the the new engine regulations in 2012. This then gives Red Bull a possible exit with the option for VW to buy the team or a share with Red Bull remaining as sponsor.

Anyways all pure speculation really.

[Jean Todt]

cavallino, on 15 March 2010 - 03:47 PM, said:

Mclaren are smelly cheating b#####ds - is that news?

and Mercedes? Oh...Micheal is driving for them, so they have to be innocent puppies!

[Autumnpuma]

JHS, on 17 March 2010 - 04:28 PM, said:

Sorry, I won't bother to add my thoughts on a given subject them mardy arse.

Wrong choice. Better would be to spend a few moments reading about the issue then forming thoughts based on that. Then, and only then, post. You still may be wrong (I frequently am) but at least I make an attempt to grasp the subject at hand.