- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Renault's Cyril Abiteboul has revealed that the French manufacturer aims to continue its ascent in the engine department as the company is preparing a completely new platform, including novel technology that has not yet been seen on the track.
Renault gained 0.5 sec beginning of the season.godlameroso wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 04:24I wonder how much the Renault engine gained over last year, if I had to guess I'd say .5 seconds of whatever Renault gained this year over last was just power unit related, and the other 1.5 came from the chassis. It'll be interesting to see where the power unit ends up, if it actually makes inroads to Ferrari and Mercedes, if they do Red Bull will be as close as they were in 2016.
It's likely part of 2018 engine. Given Abiteboul talked about how 2018 engine is on dynos over 6 months. Which correlates with this. Because we know 2018 engine wont feature some big new design or change.Godius wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 08:55Has there been news about the MGU-K? In pre-season testing Renault couldn't deliver the 2017 version but said they would introduce it in the season, it would come with a 10KG weight reduction and better performance. But as far as I know the Renault powered teams never received the 2017 version.
It's also entirely feasible that Renault end up with some help from McLaren on that, since the Honda PU uses a McLaren ERS-K and battery.Neno wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 15:05It's likely part of 2018 engine. Given Abiteboul talked about how 2018 engine is on dynos over 6 months. Which correlates with this. Because we know 2018 engine wont feature some big new design or change.Godius wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 08:55Has there been news about the MGU-K? In pre-season testing Renault couldn't deliver the 2017 version but said they would introduce it in the season, it would come with a 10KG weight reduction and better performance. But as far as I know the Renault powered teams never received the 2017 version.
Redbull was a full second down in the first races. The latest onces (except Brasil where they ran detuned PU’s) were on par during the race and 0.5s down in Q because of Mercedes high power mode.godlameroso wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 04:24I wonder how much the Renault engine gained over last year, if I had to guess I'd say .5 seconds of whatever Renault gained this year over last was just power unit related, and the other 1.5 came from the chassis. It'll be interesting to see where the power unit ends up, if it actually makes inroads to Ferrari and Mercedes, if they do Red Bull will be as close as they were in 2016.
If only such a haphazard approach could be taken with these one off jewels of engineering right? How would you design a turbo for a setup such as these power units? You have several key advantages over conventional turbos, for instance variable geometry on the compressor side is allowed, and the MGU-H gives you essentially electronic variable geometry turbine when combined with the wastegates. Given the pressure ratios talked about between 4 and 5 bar conventional wisdom would have the turbo sized more or less 74-102 mm on the compressor side, and 70-90mm on the exhaust side. Then you'd have to figure out what would be most efficient, not just wheel characteristics aerodynamically speaking, but also as far as energy recovery is concerned, so wheel inertia further complicates things. I honestly do not envy the engineers that first started developing these power units, they must feel like heroes overcoming all the technical hurdles.noname wrote: ↑08 Nov 2017, 10:46All you said is absolutely right. Maybe except of what I would call underestimating aerodynamics; aero-induced instabilities could have nasty effects, but could be I am just too picky. That being said you would have hard time finding product engineer working on automotive turbochargers being as meticulous as you. Or, maybe, I was not lucky enough to came across too many of them. Their development process is far simpler and can be summarized as “it was always done like this”. Turbochargers those days became almost a commodity, and so I understand why people are not too creative. Price is the king.
Wheels sizing, or to be more precise compressor wheel as it is being selected first, is limited by max tip speed. There are no written rules defining it strictly, but people are hard-wired to certain number and can freak out if you will tell them you can safely go above.
There are good and legit reasons why the limit is set where it is, but this knowledge is not common.
To make the long story short, process of developing automotive turbochargers can be quickly described as follow: select compressor wheel (bearing in mind max tip speed can not be higher then …), select turbine wheel (its size is around certain % of compressor wheel diameter), select shaft diameter (and thus bearing size). LCF and HCF are usually covered by checking if blades’ 1st natural frequency is higher than x*speed. It is good first approximation, however it should be followed by further evaluation as fatigue is more complicated than this. Quite often they’re finding this when hardware testing starts.
Renault ICE on it's own is 6% down compared to merc according to martin brundle with the inside info from engineers. That would make it consistent with the 50 bhp rumours thrown around troughout the year.NL_Fer wrote: ↑18 Nov 2017, 10:35Redbull was a full second down in the first races. The latest onces (except Brasil where they ran detuned PU’s) were on par during the race and 0.5s down in Q because of Mercedes high power mode.godlameroso wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 04:24I wonder how much the Renault engine gained over last year, if I had to guess I'd say .5 seconds of whatever Renault gained this year over last was just power unit related, and the other 1.5 came from the chassis. It'll be interesting to see where the power unit ends up, if it actually makes inroads to Ferrari and Mercedes, if they do Red Bull will be as close as they were in 2016.
If we assume 0,2s is what the Redbull chassis is making up. Then i’d say 20bhp down in race mode and 50bhp down in Q-mode. But that 20bhp is just a figure, which does not represent real crankshaft power. It could just as well be caused by less ERS deployment time.
