What??
Where were you during winter testing?? in a hole?
There were reports that during winter break Ferrari had filed many engine change request and were granted by FIA
They say it was for reliability....but they did that for improving their fuel consumption
And wasnt it the Ferrari engines which were the most powerfull in 2007 and 2008??

and the engine changes need approval from all the teams!

All teams need to agree on the changes granted to one team
So basically everyone knows what all changes one team made.
its not that its done behind the doors

Since 2007 the Mercedes has been the best engine, and sometimes by a good margin. So... no.

I see revisionism doesn't only stop in which driver did what

Negative 1: Tifosi90

Negative 2: Yet they are the ones who wanted to go with renault engine the first time around. Would you sign for Ferrari engine 10 million euro where get 1 engineer, when you can get Renault engine for 5 milion euro and you get 5 engineers and Renault actually will help you to win, whilst Ferrari will NEVER EVER help another team to win.

Negative 3: Ferrari is the king of "reliability" upgrades... Even ones that makes there engines LESS reliable but seemingly more powerful.

Totally biased and uncredible post you've got there

Exactly my opinion, too. And since the "frozen" and rev limited V8's were made mandatory by the FIA to "cut costs", I would really like to know how much has been spent by the makers in F1 engine R&D since then. It could be a big surprise...

Just thinking - when will Cosworth ask for a reliability upgrade ...

...err that may be difficult since there never were 12cylinder turbo's.

They won't and even if they do, FIA won't allow them to 'upgrade' anything (unless there is a really serious issue). That's because they have brand new engine, designed from scratch, whilst other engines are 'frozen' for many years. Cosworth had time and possibility to make everything properly.

Alright the turbo era was before my time - Still, this "engine freeze" is one of the cancers that is killing F1, plus it's not very enforceable either...

Something like a 3.5 Turbo V12 with unlimited boost would be nice though.

3000 bhp ?

Spot the difference ??
I have highlighted it for you

Except the actual racing and very limited track testing.

Sure, but still they HAD time and possibility. Other engine suppliers could only request for 'small reliability upgrades', whilst Cosworth could do whatever they wanted.

Best including more powerful. PDLR talked a lot about it during the races. So, still no.

This is the real reason why Renault wants to make an upgrade.
http://www.express.de/sport/motorsport/the...76/-/index.html

I don't think so. Red Bull just took a gamble on SC. SC didn't appear so they were in trouble

Ok.......... i think i need to go into details
The Merc engine was more drivable....had good drive-ability
which means good torque out of corners and worked great without any TC .....thats what PDLR was talking about....thats what Rubens were talking about!

The 19,000 rpm limit in 2007 made Merc's engine more reliable!
Still the Ferrari engines were the most powerful but a tad unreliable

The 18,000 rpm limit in 2009 further improved the Merc engine and PLUS the engine upgrade Mercs had in 2009 made them the Best and Most powerfull of all engines!!

So to get to the point i was making that Ferrari engines were the most powerfull engines in 2007 and 2008

I know the difference between best and more powerful would be driveability (well and consumption). But still he wasn't talking only about only that. He said how the rpm limit played in hands of Mercedes because they were the highest revving engine in 2006, so with the cap they could "compress" the power into a smaller rev band, which other teams were unable to do because the rpm cap was very similar to what they already got. I also remember some interview with Haug or Dennis along the lines of "I don't know how powerful the Ferrari engine is, but I can tell you we are not missing the tiniest bit"

Incidentally, it was also the most driveable. And well, I don't have to put many words in it, apart from a wet Monza qualifying and race in 2008, in 2007 it was 1-2 Mercedes, in 2009 it was another 1-2 for Mercedes engines. So, as I said, all this sudden talk about the Ferrari being the most powerful engine (even with a 20 hp advantage!) is revisionism.

Yup. Back in 2008, I remember rumors about the Mercedes actually having about 20-25hp more than the Ferrari by the time their Silverstone upgrade came around. Just a rumor, sure, but 'Ferrari having the most powerful engine' was nothing different.

I think we are all too 'in-the-dark' about the details to really make any justifiable complaints. Everybody just hates to see the competition get a leg up in any way, so they moan and bitch without really knowing too much about what they're talking about.

Can you povide any links to back that up? Since engine homologation there has not AFAIK been different spec engines.

No they weren't, the whole run out of fuel bit is rubbish.

It was pretty well documented. STR started that season with the previous years Ferrari engine, while Ferrari had an updated one. IIRC STR eventually forced Ferrari to give them the new engines when they publicly stated that Ferrari were breaching the terms of the contract by not supplying the latest engine spec.

Once they had the new engine, the STR package as a whole improved significantly for the rest of season. They went from being definitely behind RBR to being relatively equal to RBR, and in some cases better (Monza).

So, explain to me how is it possible that Vettel stopped his car, just after crossing finish line ?? His exhaust decided to blow up the engine or maybe it is completely normal to stop your car on the grass after the end of the race ??

Please ... He stated in this interview, that he stopped the car to prevent further damage, not because he was running out of fuel.

Vettel enttaeuscht S**t happens

Well, perhaps it is too late to answer the OP question seriously after all those unrelated posts above, but anyways...

That's the second time in a row Renault is allowed to, and only them apparently...
Some say "F1 should not be about engine power...."
Others say "F1 should not be about aero...."
Others can say "F1 should not be neither about fuel, nor brakes, nor tyres, nor strategies, nor tracks, nor ...."

Wouldn't the question be "What's F1 all about but everything?" -- There are many specs series out there "wouldn't you like to try Indy, Renault?" -- well, you'll be crashed if you try, it seems...

I don't remember it, and I cannot find anything regarding complaints. As far as I can find both teams used the 056 spec engine. With homologation I dont believe any team would be running different specs of engine.

Wrong and wrong.

Pretty sure I'm not talking out of my arse here, and that GhostR also remembers it gives me confidence that my mind isn't playing tricks on me!

But where you say 'with homologation I dont believe any team would be running different specs of engine' is why STR were pretty displeased with Ferrari - they may have been running the same spec engine officially, but they definately believed that they weren't recieving engines with the same level of performance. Once they recieved the 'better' engines they went from being behind RBR to outpeforming the parent team in the latter part of the season.

I will try to chase up some links for you.

Other than the differences in on track support, Red Bull also felt they should be getting the same spec engines as Ferrari but they were getting ones with 500rpm less.

Renault seem happy to give same spec engines as they can clearly see where they can improve their own team.

Simply there was no point to do another lap with broken car.

Any team can object to an engine modi faction so long as the FIA is satisfied that it is on reliability grounds. The fact that the FIA has been lax in its interpretation of a reliability upgrade is neither here nor there. Every modification has to be documented and issued to every team for approval. There should be enough clues within the document to identify areas of 'reliability development' to other engine manufacturers.

The C2010 was based on the homogolated CA2007. Cosworth has the same 'reliability' upgrade path as everyone else.

Ferrari did make like 2 engine changes to both their cars, perhaps he's referring to that. In any case if any team is due for improvements due to "reliability concerns" its Ferrari.



Aid them how? Link?

No, he's calling for Ferrari to be allowed to improve their engine on the basis that Renault are allowed to, despite Ferrari having the better engine in terms of speed.


I don't have a link - it was in an old issue of F1 Racing. I think it was in 1997; Peter Sauber claimed Jean Todt had approached the team at the race in Jerez and told them that if Sauber wanted to keep Ferrari engines in 1998, they were to aid Schumacher by blocking Jacques Villeneuve. However, I don't recall Sauber actually following those orders - either he ignored them or Johnny Herbert and Norbeto Fontana never encountered Villeneuve before lap 47.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norberto_Fontana

http://www.f1i.com/features.php?id=5907

But they have a better engine in terms of fuel consumption so it evens out no?



I recall that now, so fair enough. Though that was under the Todt regime and we all know the amount of unsavory things happened then. Point is he's not in charge now, hence why I referred to Stefano.

Sauber denies it and I have not been able to find any comment from Herbert about this. The only one claiming this event ever took place is Fontana.

Well, whatever the case, the point is that Ferrari allegedly asked them to impede Villeneuve.

Of course, given Red Bull's success, Ferrari wouldn't go asking them - they just wouldn't supply engines to them in the first place. When was the last time a car carrying a customer Ferrari engine consistently beat the Ferrari works outfit? Sebastian Vettel at Monza is the only example I can think of it ever happening (at least in the modern era, when engine supply deals became commonplace), and even then, that came under pretty exceptional circumstances. I doubt Vettel would have won that race if the Ferraris and Lewis Hamilton hadn't botched their tyre choice in qualifying.

Allegedly. Just like Mclaren and Williams allegedly colluded in the last race of that season. Herbert was no fan of Schumi either. If it this is true then why has he not said anything? STR has no where near the resources that Red Bull enjoys and that was also the case for Sauber back in 97.

So that completely exonerates Ferrari, does it? For all we know, Jean Todt leant on Fontana to do it because, as Sauber's engine supplier, Ferrari could manipulate the team a little. If Fontana didn't block Villeneuve, then it wouldn't be hard for Ferrari to quietly recommend Sauber take someone else - especially gven Fontana's run of results.

Exonerates Ferrari? Was there a trial? Did the WMSC meet? As far as I can see there was never an investigation. Only one man told the tale, 2 of the other men deny it and the other has said nothing. Is Sauber a liar?

Your scenario does not match what Fontana claimed either. For all we know Fontana thought he might get in Ferraris good graces by blocking and when that did not happen he told a fib. Pulling scenarios out of thin air does not prove a thing.

Allegation: a statement with out proof.

Exoneration: some one convicted but later proven innocent. Ferrari/Sauber were never convicted.

Yes, when all else fails, resort to semantics.

If I recall correctly, Ferrari homologated two engine designs for 2008. The more powerful one was for use by their team, and the less powerful engine was given to other teams. In this way, they were able to tell customers that they were receiving a homologated engine. WHen they needed to try to deprive McLaren of points in order to try to win the WCC and WDC , they then gave their "top of the range" engine to STR, and this is why STR was suddenly faster than Red Bull. Webber in fact test drove the STR and was flabbergasted by the difference in power compared to the Renault engine.

yeah, nice theory

get a tin foil ....a smaller one will do

Haven't been able to find much I'm afraid - found a couple of references on f1fanatic.co.uk here and here...

You waited 4 years to post that?

I couldn't find much on this, and I'm inclined to believe that if STR had been complaining as earlier suggested then there would be plenty of reports on it. I'm still far from convinced that they were running a different spec engine, other than the possibility of updates being applied when they still had races to do on thier current engine.

It's a corker, but I'll bet he is glad to have got that off his chest.

Looks like it might all have been a storm in a teacup.

Unfortunately that may mean the WDC is he who is still alive at the last race.

No one is forcing them to drive.

WW2 fighter planes.