planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:59 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:48 pm
Posts: 1452
i have just noticed this and guess they are not getting the praise they think they deserve.

so my first thought is they are not the most powerful engine, any they have has a some alternator failures. My understanding of why the team is a championship winning one is because of the car design ( ie down-force etc.. ) not the engine.

So i dont think they deserve alot of credit .....what do you all think ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
Their engine is a key part of a Red Bull car, so they are part of the success and deserve to receive credit for it.

That being said, one could argue with a Merc or Ferrari engine the RBR could have been just as good as with the Renault engine. But that's a big "could". For all we know the RBR could have been just as good if Byrne had designed it, or if Hamilton had driven it, or if Horner weren't in charge.

No one piece is irreplaceable, but all pieces take part of the credit. That's my take.

edit: by the way, could you give a link to where Renault is saying they don't get enough credit?

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Posts: 2794
Location: Perth, Australia
No doubt they deserve a lot of credit. They provide Red Bull with free engines and pay them on top of that to tell the world about it. Each engine is different, where the Renault supposedly lacks power (though I thought that had been disproved) it may make it up in fuel consumption and/or its exhaust work may be superior to its rivals.

The engine is a big part of the car and the Red Bull cars are designed with it in mind. A larger engine may compromise its aerodynamic efficiency. You can't underestimate the importance of the right engine in the right car. For instance, if Honda had stayed in the sport they may not have won the 2009 World Championship because the Honda engine was well known to lack the power of its rivals.

Suggesting any engine supplier doesn't deserve 'a lot of credit' to a team's success is laughable.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3164
In 2012 each of the 3 engine manufacturers supplied three of the "Division A" teams with engines. They each supplied 1 team who finished in the top three, one team who finished in 4th - 6th and one team that finished 7th - 9th.

Red Bull, Ferrari and McLaren are the three front running teams at the moment.

Lotus, Mercedes and Sauber are three teams who are recent formerly front running, big budget teams. (Renault, Honda/Brawn, BMW)

Force India, Williams and Toro Rosso are teams that have been in the midfield for some time.

So they have a fairly equal distribution across the grid as it stands at the moment.

Lets look at how things went down last year:

WDC Positions:
Code:
Renault:  1,4,8 - average: 4.3
Mercedes: 3,5,7 - average: 5.0
Ferrari:  2,6,9 - average: 5.7


Points scored:
Code:
Renault:  839
Mercedes: 629
Ferrari:  552


It would seem to back up that Renault is the engine of choice at the moment. Probably due to its ability to grant better packaging enabling better aero efficiency at the rear, which has been crucial under the latest set of regulations after the changes in 2009.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6456
The title is a bit misleading or maybe I don't get it. Is this a Renault complaint (that should be accompanied by the relevant link) or just your sentiment A2jdl?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3164
SchumieRules wrote:
The title is a bit misleading or maybe I don't get it. Is this a Renault complaint (that should be accompanied by the relevant link) or just your sentiment A2jdl?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/105880


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:48 pm
Posts: 1452
mds wrote:
Their engine is a key part of a Red Bull car, so they are part of the success and deserve to receive credit for it.

That being said, one could argue with a Merc or Ferrari engine the RBR could have been just as good as with the Renault engine. But that's a big "could". For all we know the RBR could have been just as good if Byrne had designed it, or if Hamilton had driven it, or if Horner weren't in charge.

No one piece is irreplaceable, but all pieces take part of the credit. That's my take.

edit: by the way, could you give a link to where Renault is saying they don't get enough credit?

there you go

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/105880


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:48 pm
Posts: 1452
Toby. wrote:
No doubt they deserve a lot of credit. They provide Red Bull with free engines and pay them on top of that to tell the world about it. Each engine is different, where the Renault supposedly lacks power (though I thought that had been disproved) it may make it up in fuel consumption and/or its exhaust work may be superior to its rivals.

The engine is a big part of the car and the Red Bull cars are designed with it in mind. A larger engine may compromise its aerodynamic efficiency. You can't underestimate the importance of the right engine in the right car. For instance, if Honda had stayed in the sport they may not have won the 2009 World Championship because the Honda engine was well known to lack the power of its rivals.

Suggesting any engine supplier doesn't deserve 'a lot of credit' to a team's success is laughable.

i hadnt heard that the Renault lacking power had been disproved.

but you mention the exhaust design which is crucial part, now i thought that was Newey's work? is it a Renault department ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:48 pm
Posts: 1452
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
In 2012 each of the 3 engine manufacturers supplied three of the "Division A" teams with engines. They each supplied 1 team who finished in the top three, one team who finished in 4th - 6th and one team that finished 7th - 9th.

Red Bull, Ferrari and McLaren are the three front running teams at the moment.

Lotus, Mercedes and Sauber are three teams who are recent formerly front running, big budget teams. (Renault, Honda/Brawn, BMW)

Force India, Williams and Toro Rosso are teams that have been in the midfield for some time.

So they have a fairly equal distribution across the grid as it stands at the moment.

Lets look at how things went down last year:

WDC Positions:
Code:
Renault:  1,4,8 - average: 4.3
Mercedes: 3,5,7 - average: 5.0
Ferrari:  2,6,9 - average: 5.7


Points scored:
Code:
Renault:  839
Mercedes: 629
Ferrari:  552


It would seem to back up that Renault is the engine of choice at the moment. Probably due to its ability to grant better packaging enabling better aero efficiency at the rear, which has been crucial under the latest set of regulations after the changes in 2009.


interesting thanks for that, maybe i am wrong :uhoh:
i just thought also maybe Renault design the maps which they have done a good job on, and maybe there power delivery is better also.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4798
After reading the article it sounds more like they're lamenting their own marketing for the fact that they aren't more acclaimed for their contributions to teams success than saying that their customers aren't giving them enough credit.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 3226
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
Crediting Renault doesn't fit with the RBR philosophy: success is down to the genius of Vettel and Horner and the wonderful dedication of the people at MK. It's always irritated me that they seem to treat Renault like a bunch of incompetents hampering the success of the chosen ones.

They got out of the Ferrari contract because the Renault engine has characteristics Newey wanted. I can't remember other customer teams moaning about how the Merc engine hasn't got such good heat dispersal properties as the Renault, or the Ferrari's centre of gravity is higher etc. Yet these are some of the characteristics RBR benefit from (by choice) whilst making sure everyone knows their engine is down on power in comparison. Mateshitz saying Renault almost cost them the title in 2010 was out of order.

_________________
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 7769
RaggedMan wrote:
After reading the article it sounds more like they're lamenting their own marketing for the fact that they aren't more acclaimed for their contributions to teams success than saying that their customers aren't giving them enough credit.

Yes. It seems that they have issues within their Nissan-Renault alliance where Renault part builds engines and Nissan part promotes Infinity brand.

_________________
eeee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:48 pm
Posts: 1452
Balibari wrote:
Crediting Renault doesn't fit with the RBR philosophy: success is down to the genius of Vettel and Horner and the wonderful dedication of the people at MK. It's always irritated me that they seem to treat Renault like a bunch of incompetents hampering the success of the chosen ones.

They got out of the Ferrari contract because the Renault engine has characteristics Newey wanted. I can't remember other customer teams moaning about how the Merc engine hasn't got such good heat dispersal properties as the Renault, or the Ferrari's centre of gravity is higher etc. Yet these are some of the characteristics RBR benefit from (by choice) whilst making sure everyone knows their engine is down on power in comparison. Mateshitz saying Renault almost cost them the title in 2010 was out of order.

just looked at the Engine poll thread it seems its not just me and RB that didnt give them credit as they are currently 3rd in the list. :o


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:29 am
Posts: 381
Location: 127.0.0.1
I find it weird they feel that. I would agree with the statement if the engine freeze was off and car performance largely depended on engine unlike aero as it is now. 2014...can't wait!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6456
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
SchumieRules wrote:
The title is a bit misleading or maybe I don't get it. Is this a Renault complaint (that should be accompanied by the relevant link) or just your sentiment A2jdl?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/105880


Ta


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3164
A2jdl wrote:
Balibari wrote:
Crediting Renault doesn't fit with the RBR philosophy: success is down to the genius of Vettel and Horner and the wonderful dedication of the people at MK. It's always irritated me that they seem to treat Renault like a bunch of incompetents hampering the success of the chosen ones.

They got out of the Ferrari contract because the Renault engine has characteristics Newey wanted. I can't remember other customer teams moaning about how the Merc engine hasn't got such good heat dispersal properties as the Renault, or the Ferrari's centre of gravity is higher etc. Yet these are some of the characteristics RBR benefit from (by choice) whilst making sure everyone knows their engine is down on power in comparison. Mateshitz saying Renault almost cost them the title in 2010 was out of order.

just looked at the Engine poll thread it seems its not just me and RB that didnt give them credit as they are currently 3rd in the list. :o

That's because in raw horsepower the Renault engine has been down on the Ferrari and Mercedes engines. But people don't realise that peak bhp is just a small part of what is important for a successful engine in F1. Mercedes make the most powerful engine, therefore their engine is the best. The Renault has had reliability issues in Newey's Red Bull therefore it's to blame when Red Bull fail rather than when they succeed. People forget that when Mercedes last supplied a fast Newey car it gave Raikkonen more places lost in grid penalties than points scored during the season. Newey also tried the blown diffuser with the Mercedes engine and had nowhere near the success he achieved with it using a Renault power plant.

Renault is the most successful engine manufacturer of the last 21 seasons, winning the constructors in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2005, 2006, 2010, 2011 and 2012 - more than 50% of the time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 3226
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
A2jdl wrote:
Balibari wrote:
Crediting Renault doesn't fit with the RBR philosophy: success is down to the genius of Vettel and Horner and the wonderful dedication of the people at MK. It's always irritated me that they seem to treat Renault like a bunch of incompetents hampering the success of the chosen ones.

They got out of the Ferrari contract because the Renault engine has characteristics Newey wanted. I can't remember other customer teams moaning about how the Merc engine hasn't got such good heat dispersal properties as the Renault, or the Ferrari's centre of gravity is higher etc. Yet these are some of the characteristics RBR benefit from (by choice) whilst making sure everyone knows their engine is down on power in comparison. Mateshitz saying Renault almost cost them the title in 2010 was out of order.

just looked at the Engine poll thread it seems its not just me and RB that didnt give them credit as they are currently 3rd in the list. :o

That's because in raw horsepower the Renault engine has been down on the Ferrari and Mercedes engines. But people don't realise that peak bhp is just a small part of what is important for a successful engine in F1. Mercedes make the most powerful engine, therefore their engine is the best. The Renault has had reliability issues in Newey's Red Bull therefore it's to blame when Red Bull fail rather than when they succeed. People forget that when Mercedes last supplied a fast Newey car it gave Raikkonen more places lost in grid penalties than points scored during the season. Newey also tried the blown diffuser with the Mercedes engine and had nowhere near the success he achieved with it using a Renault power plant.

Renault is the most successful engine manufacturer of the last 21 seasons, winning the constructors in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2005, 2006, 2010, 2011 and 2012 - more than 50% of the time.

Exactly. You can't say the Renault engine isn't as good as the Merc or Ferrari when RBR chose to cause themselves a lot of trouble and expense to dump the Ferrari in favour of the Renault. And teams like Williams and STR have chosen to go with Renault over Mercedes and Ferrari, even though at least one of those suppliers is offering a cut price rate.

And although the success RBR had with the blown diffuser is automatically attributed to Newey, it was Renault that developed and executed the idea. Newey's team may have made better use of it than other Renault partners but they wouldn't have had it without them.

_________________
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:22 pm 
Red Bull Honda from 2014

you read it here first...


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:20 pm
Posts: 1623
Location: Secret Volcano Lair
As dizselix said Tavares is this is actually an internal matter of Renault & Nissan. Like he said Renault they make the engine bUt Nissan is diverting the limelight to Infinity, which is promoted on the cars. I used to see a lot of ads on Newspaper of Renault promoting the RBR success earlier. No wonder I dont see it anymore.

_________________
[b LOADING KILL LIST.......[/b]
--------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:20 pm
Posts: 1623
Location: Secret Volcano Lair
As dizselix said Tavares is this is actually an internal matter of Renault & Nissan. Like he said Renault they make the engine bUt Nissan is diverting the limelight to Infinity, which is promoted on the cars. I used to see a lot of ads on Newspaper of Renault promoting the RBR success earlier. No wonder I dont see it anymore.

_________________
[b LOADING KILL LIST.......[/b]
--------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:48 pm
Posts: 1452
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
A2jdl wrote:
Balibari wrote:
Crediting Renault doesn't fit with the RBR philosophy: success is down to the genius of Vettel and Horner and the wonderful dedication of the people at MK. It's always irritated me that they seem to treat Renault like a bunch of incompetents hampering the success of the chosen ones.

They got out of the Ferrari contract because the Renault engine has characteristics Newey wanted. I can't remember other customer teams moaning about how the Merc engine hasn't got such good heat dispersal properties as the Renault, or the Ferrari's centre of gravity is higher etc. Yet these are some of the characteristics RBR benefit from (by choice) whilst making sure everyone knows their engine is down on power in comparison. Mateshitz saying Renault almost cost them the title in 2010 was out of order.

just looked at the Engine poll thread it seems its not just me and RB that didnt give them credit as they are currently 3rd in the list. :o

That's because in raw horsepower the Renault engine has been down on the Ferrari and Mercedes engines. But people don't realise that peak bhp is just a small part of what is important for a successful engine in F1. Mercedes make the most powerful engine, therefore their engine is the best. The Renault has had reliability issues in Newey's Red Bull therefore it's to blame when Red Bull fail rather than when they succeed. People forget that when Mercedes last supplied a fast Newey car it gave Raikkonen more places lost in grid penalties than points scored during the season. Newey also tried the blown diffuser with the Mercedes engine and had nowhere near the success he achieved with it using a Renault power plant.

Renault is the most successful engine manufacturer of the last 21 seasons, winning the constructors in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2005, 2006, 2010, 2011 and 2012 - more than 50% of the time.

Wow that last stat is pretty impressive it has past me that they have been so successful over the last 21 yrs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 3226
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
greenwizard13 wrote:
Red Bull Honda from 2014

you read it here first...

And probably last, the RBR/Renault contract runs to at least 2016. How much do I want to see Honda return though! I guess it's actually starting to look quite possible with McLaren.

_________________
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:51 am
Posts: 1167
A2jdl wrote:
i have just noticed this and guess they are not getting the praise they think they deserve.

so my first thought is they are not the most powerful engine, any they have has a some alternator failures. My understanding of why the team is a championship winning one is because of the car design ( ie down-force etc.. ) not the engine.

So i dont think they deserve alot of credit .....what do you all think ?


Williams switched from Cosworth to Renault for 2012 and won in Spain, yes the car was better aerodynamically but if it'd had a Cosworth engine in the back it wouldn't have got anywhere near the race win

As some other posters pointed out the Renault is better on fuel consumption so they can carry less fuel with means at the start of a race they'll be lighter than the competition

_________________
Multi 21 or Catch 22?!

It ain't hating just 'cause it's not love


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:00 am
Posts: 274
Fuel this, exhaust that, power discrepancy(?) ... the engine is tiny compared to the others. "Hey Ades, what engine you want?" "The Renault," "But it's down on power" "But it's all hail the mods tiny!!"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:19 pm
Posts: 159
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
It would seem to back up that Renault is the engine of choice at the moment. Probably due to its ability to grant better packaging enabling better aero efficiency at the rear, which has been crucial under the latest set of regulations after the changes in 2009.

Or it just happens to be in the better cars (at the moment) like the Newey designed RB8 :)
Though I'm not saying that there isn't a big chance that your theory is correct :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:41 pm
Posts: 468
Location: Royal Wootton Bassett
I also believe that Renault deserve a lot of credit for RBR's success but it is also true to say that the package works well. By package I mean Red Bull-Renault-Newey-Vettel.

Newey has designed more winning cars with the Renault engine than with any other make, including the two most successful F1 cars to date - Williams FW14b (1992) and Red Bull RB7 (2011). Renault engines probably suit his design indeas much better than others.

_________________
Vettel / Raikkonen / Button


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
Zekenwolf wrote:
the two most successful F1 cars to date - Williams FW14b (1992) and Red Bull RB7 (2011).


Whoa there... The most successful F1 car of the past 30 years (don't know too much of F1 before that) surely was the 1988 McLaren. Won all but one race, and it was good for victory in Monza too if not for Senna's collision at the end of the race.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 3226
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
mds wrote:
Zekenwolf wrote:
the two most successful F1 cars to date - Williams FW14b (1992) and Red Bull RB7 (2011).


Whoa there... The most successful F1 car of the past 30 years (don't know too much of F1 before that) surely was the 1988 McLaren. Won all but one race, and it was good for victory in Monza too if not for Senna's collision at the end of the race.

Beat me to it. McLaren's MP4/4 (won 15/16 races) was without doubt the most successful modern F1 car. I'd suggest the Ferrari F2004 might be next (won 15/18 races), the FW14b was pretty awesome.

The further you go back the more you have to consider that reliability meant no one car was likely to win such a large percentage of races in a season. But the Lotus 72, the Mas 250F and the Merc W196 all spring to mind.

_________________
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:20 pm
Posts: 1623
Location: Secret Volcano Lair
@Mds @ Zekenwolf @Balibari: Actually all 3 of you are wrong. The most successful Car is the Ferrari 312T. Check this out.
rankings.autosport.com/news/2011/03/what-is-f1s-most-successful-car

_________________
[b LOADING KILL LIST.......[/b]
--------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
Race2win wrote:
@Mds @ Zekenwolf @Balibari: Actually all 3 of you are wrong. The most successful Car is the Ferrari 312T.


Well, the 312T is older than 30 years and I was only talking about the last 30-or-so years :)

But I have to say I don't agree with that article at all. It just counts the number of wins over several seasons. An "iteration" of a car is counted as the same car, which I'm also unsure of I agree with.

In modern F1 there's 1 car per year, so no car can ever win as much as cars of the olden days where "iterations" allowed to get more wins than a season's worth of races.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 7769
mds wrote:
Race2win wrote:
@Mds @ Zekenwolf @Balibari: Actually all 3 of you are wrong. The most successful Car is the Ferrari 312T.


Well, the 312T is older than 30 years and I was only talking about the last 30-or-so years :)

But I have to say I don't agree with that article at all. It just counts the number of wins over several seasons. An "iteration" of a car is counted as the same car, which I'm also unsure of I agree with.

In modern F1 there's 1 car per year, so no car can ever win as much as cars of the olden days where "iterations" allowed to get more wins than a season's worth of races.

Didn't Ferrari 500 win all races, but one, only because Ferrari didn't attend Indy in 1952?

_________________
eeee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
dizlexik wrote:
mds wrote:
Race2win wrote:
@Mds @ Zekenwolf @Balibari: Actually all 3 of you are wrong. The most successful Car is the Ferrari 312T.


Well, the 312T is older than 30 years and I was only talking about the last 30-or-so years :)

But I have to say I don't agree with that article at all. It just counts the number of wins over several seasons. An "iteration" of a car is counted as the same car, which I'm also unsure of I agree with.

In modern F1 there's 1 car per year, so no car can ever win as much as cars of the olden days where "iterations" allowed to get more wins than a season's worth of races.

Didn't Ferrari 500 win all races, but one, only because Ferrari didn't attend Indy in 1952?


Wikipedia says:
Quote:
Ascari won 9 straight races in the 500, a world championship record which still stands today. The 500 won all but one race it was entered in, making it the second most statistically successful car in the history of the FIA world championship, after McLaren MP4/4 which failed to win only one of its 16 races.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 3226
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
Race2win wrote:
@Mds @ Zekenwolf @Balibari: Actually all 3 of you are wrong. The most successful Car is the Ferrari 312T. Check this out.
rankings.autosport.com/news/2011/03/what-is-f1s-most-successful-car

Certainly not saying it isn't, but as said it was cars of the last 30 years. I just mentioned the first few older ones that came to mind.

It's funny how these days we tend to think in terms of a car being 'dominant', whereas before it was usual to use a new design every season it was 'successful'. Subtle but important difference.

_________________
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

-Epicurus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14200
The Williams in 96 won 12/16 races and enjoyed a much larger pace advantage than the 2011 Red Bull as well. Again, powered by Renault!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 7769
mds wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
mds wrote:
Race2win wrote:
@Mds @ Zekenwolf @Balibari: Actually all 3 of you are wrong. The most successful Car is the Ferrari 312T.


Well, the 312T is older than 30 years and I was only talking about the last 30-or-so years :)

But I have to say I don't agree with that article at all. It just counts the number of wins over several seasons. An "iteration" of a car is counted as the same car, which I'm also unsure of I agree with.

In modern F1 there's 1 car per year, so no car can ever win as much as cars of the olden days where "iterations" allowed to get more wins than a season's worth of races.

Didn't Ferrari 500 win all races, but one, only because Ferrari didn't attend Indy in 1952?


Wikipedia says:
Quote:
Ascari won 9 straight races in the 500, a world championship record which still stands today. The 500 won all but one race it was entered in, making it the second most statistically successful car in the history of the FIA world championship, after McLaren MP4/4 which failed to win only one of its 16 races.

It's just wikipedia. Wiki editors just imposed they own metric and they are not always right with statistics. Some F1 teams still got wrong and misleading stats in infobox where some editors decided to ignore official FIA sources, because it doesn't suit their article. Statistically in Ferrari 500 Ascari couldn't score more points and also statistically Ferrari 500 won all races it entered in 1952 etc.

_________________
eeee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
I know the concept of Wikipedia ;)

Quote:
Statistically in Ferrari 500 Ascari couldn't score more points


How so? "The 500 won all but one race it was entered in".
Fangio won Monza '53 in a Maserati, which is the one win keeping the 500 from 100% stats.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 7769
mds wrote:
I know the concept of Wikipedia ;)

Quote:
Statistically in Ferrari 500 Ascari couldn't score more points


How so? "The 500 won all but one race it was entered in".
Fangio won Monza '53 in a Maserati, which is the one win keeping the 500 from 100% stats.

I meant 1952 season.

_________________
eeee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
Well yes, but the same car drove 1953 too, so it still won 14 out of 15 races it entered in. No?

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 427
Location: USA
To the original question I say yes they do. They manufactured a great engine, with some very powerful mapping software that helped RB win. The beauty of a MB or Ferrari is that they have no fear in a partner or customer trying to take more credit over wins or losses. F1 is great and I love being a part of it. Ferrari and now MB have a special place in my heart because they are the team and the constructor complete. The Indies serve a role no question but knowing there are true companies that compete for the love of racing and build the engine/develop the car and have a complete unit is pure in the sense of racing.

Mclaren have the ability to be a complete team and build engines they have the resources and the factory to do this, they choose not to for business reasons not for the love of the sport or any other reason except for financial. Now please I am not saying Mclaren sucks, or they are wrong, just saying in my opinion a true F1 race car is a Ferrari or MB in todays world.

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:51 pm
Posts: 223
Renault certainly should get a lot of credit. But the RB team does have a lot of talent most of all being Newey. So Renault has some competition in the recognition field in this team.

I am not sure Renault is down on power. It could be that it has more torgue assisting out of corners which is more important. Also I believe the top speeds are musleading as RB probably runs higher downforce.

Renault did help RB to win 2 seasons due to engine mapping and exhaust blowing and should get credit for that!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JamWalsh and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group