AGGHHH SHUTUP HORNER!

As ive said, im pretty sure that difference in HP is a nothing number.

No difference in horsepower is nothing.


I dont know why that instant can be used as an example, it seems like ... nothing?

It's actually a pretty good example, and it wasn't nothing.


but if those 2seconds are important to some people then who am I to argue?

OK. So people who call out BS are being petty now?
Think you've missed the point here. It's not about the 2 seconds or so "being important to some people", it's the fact that he lied that most of us weren't happy about. If he'd just acknowledged that the team had screwed up and quoted the number of seconds lost, instead of trying his hardest to deny it and pulling BS figures out of a hat, there wouldn't have been a problem.
Some people? Think you'll find most people share my viewpoint on this.

---

chet Wrote:

>
> In turkey in qualifying Kubica's speed was 311.5
> whilst Nico was 307kph. Not a great deal of
> difference. Not significant imo.
>
> In Valencia, Merc was ahead by a difference under
> 3kph. Again not great.

thats a crap example. renault take off more wing to keep up in top speed to not be overtaken down a straight, at the expense of downforce, so they are slower through the turns.
Merc and mclaren on the other hand, can add more downforce while keeping a competitive top speed because they have a superior engine. It is not insignificant as you say, it may well be the reason renault are finishinng 5th instead of fourth. and it may be the reason redbull arent totally dominating.

and it may be the reason redbull arent totally dominating.

I'd say RBR not dominating is there own inexperience at the front. Most of the issues they have had have either been mechanical, or just lack of experience running at the front. Gotta remember that RBR, especially the management side of things, is relatively new to F1 compared to the McLarens and Ferraris of this world. These mistakes and issues will be filtered out over time. Live and learn.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

Using Mercedes as an example of straight-line speed is a bit silly given that they themselves have said that the aerodynamics are horribly inefficient in a straight line (and indeed in general, in terms of downforce:drag).

As to 30hp being a "nothing number"... well, excluding the new teams, it's a field spread out by 1 second (using Valencia Q1 times for as level a playing field as you can get) and that's on one of the longer tracks. I'd say that 30hp makes a massive difference. Yes it may 'only' give you 2-4 tenths per lap, circuit dependant, but if that was the case, in that Valencia Q1 session 3 tenths would have dropped Kubica from 1st to 6th, Vettel from 2nd to 7th, Webber from 6th to 11th and Petrov from 14th to 17th. Conversely, 3 tenths would have bumped Webber from 6th to 2nd and Petrov from 14th to 9th.

There are indeed other factors at play, but it might be fair assume more power would equal more fuel consumption, cancelling that one out, and how do you measure driveability? Power can be measured.

Running lighter only gives you so much of an advantage now that refuelling is banned. It will allow you to run quicker while on heavy tanks and perhaps be ever-so-slightly better for brake and tyre wear... none of which is of any use if you can't overtake because you don't have the grunt to do so.

Quote
chet
I see this as being no different than say Ferrari saying they want downforce equalisation....

Ferrari are free to improve their aerodynamics (and they just have in a significant manner). There is very little you can do to an engine to improve it.

DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and it may be the reason redbull arent totally
> dominating.
>
> I'd say RBR not dominating is there own
> inexperience at the front. Most of the issues they
> have had have either been mechanical, or just lack
> of experience running at the front. Gotta remember
> that RBR, especially the management side of
> things, is relatively new to F1 compared to the
> McLarens and Ferraris of this world. These
> mistakes and issues will be filtered out over
> time. Live and learn.

i meant they could be dominating in outright speed, not results. but they speed would help results too, like in montreal.

[www.autosport.com]

Ahhh much better. now if only Horner worded it like this.

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

Other than what Autosport have randomly added around Horners quotes, I can't actually find a quote where Horner criticises Renault, or moans. In the first article you posted he even said that it was due to the engine freeze, not Renault.

I happen to agree with Horner anyway. The freeze is ridiculous, and teams have been changing parts whilst using the reliability excuse and finding performance gains. The system is quite broken, and if people were complaining about it, they are quite right to.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

Oh I agree about that, the freeze is stupid. The teams had a single job back in (whenever it was bought in!) to make their engines reliable by Suzuka, when they would be homologated and handed to the FIA. I would love to see the difference in spec from that engine to the current.

We should allow engine development, but only bring say 4 updates / team in 1 season.

One of the best F1 rules ever has been this engine useage. The cost savings have been huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge! And its produced racing (in the occurance of failires).

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL