Renault Power Unit Hardware & Software

[PlatinumZealot]

AMUS has claimed it's sources within a manufacturer has revealed the HP numbers based on GPS data.

Mercedes-949hp
Ferrari----934hp
Renault---907hp
Honda-----881hp

Mercedes did Mexico on 89kg while the closest rival needed 99kg.

Source: https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... 20003.html

These Numbers are too low for 2017.

Those numbers are closer to 2015/2016 numbers!

[McHonda]

AMUS has claimed it's sources within a manufacturer has revealed the HP numbers based on GPS data.

Mercedes-949hp
Ferrari----934hp
Renault---907hp
Honda-----881hp

Mercedes did Mexico on 89kg while the closest rival needed 99kg.

Source: https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... 20003.html

These Numbers are too low for 2017.

Those numbers are closer to 2015/2016 numbers!

Or the guesses for previous years were too high.

[baybars]

AMUS has claimed it's sources within a manufacturer has revealed the HP numbers based on GPS data.

Mercedes-949hp
Ferrari----934hp
Renault---907hp
Honda-----881hp

Mercedes did Mexico on 89kg while the closest rival needed 99kg.

Source: https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... 20003.html

According to your source link hp numbers has been calculated base on Abu dhabi gp.
On Abu dhabi gp Renault pu used conservative setting because of possible reliability problem
Additional info Renault official confirmation 2017 power unit(beginning of the season) was over 900 hp

[etusch]

AMUS has claimed it's sources within a manufacturer has revealed the HP numbers based on GPS data.

Mercedes-949hp
Ferrari----934hp
Renault---907hp
Honda-----881hp

Mercedes did Mexico on 89kg while the closest rival needed 99kg.

Source: https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... 20003.html

These Numbers are too low for 2017.

Those numbers are closer to 2015/2016 numbers!

According to mercedes declaration about their development level ( they are close to 1000 hp barrier) at least mercedes number looks close to be real if we assume they will gain extra 50 hp over 2017 power

[MrPotatoHead]

AMUS has claimed it's sources within a manufacturer has revealed the HP numbers based on GPS data.

Mercedes-949hp
Ferrari----934hp
Renault---907hp
Honda-----881hp

Mercedes did Mexico on 89kg while the closest rival needed 99kg.

Source: https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... 20003.html

These Numbers are too low for 2017.

Those numbers are closer to 2015/2016 numbers!

According to mercedes declaration about their development level ( they are close to 1000 hp barrier) at least mercedes number looks close to be real if we assume they will gain extra 50 hp over 2017 power

Close to 1000 on the dyno. They have not run that on the track. The 950 number is closer to what's running on the track - in "Qualifying" mode that is.

[AJI]

Close to 1000 on the dyno. They have not run that on the track. The 950 number is closer to what's running on the track - in "Qualifying" mode that is.

Could it be that Mercedes have stopped chasing outright power and are now only concentrating on efficiency?
The consumption numbers, if they are real, are truly impressive...

[MrPotatoHead]

Close to 1000 on the dyno. They have not run that on the track. The 950 number is closer to what's running on the track - in "Qualifying" mode that is.

Could it be that Mercedes have stopped chasing outright power and are now only concentrating on efficiency?
The consumption numbers, if they are real, are truly impressive...

Efficiency = Power in this fuel restricted formula though. It's hard to really chase one without the other.

[AJI]

Efficiency = Power in this fuel restricted formula though. It's hard to really chase one without the other.

True, but you don't have to use all that power.
All those numbers say to me, if indeed they are real, is that Mercedes are MILES ahead in the efficiency game. Those GPS numbers of course don't separate aero efficiency from PU efficiency.
I don't believe that Mercedes are that far ahead on the PU alone. Maybe the Ferrari is just draggy?

[RedNEO]

AMUS has claimed it's sources within a manufacturer has revealed the HP numbers based on GPS data.

Mercedes-949hp
Ferrari----934hp
Renault---907hp
Honda-----881hp

Mercedes did Mexico on 89kg while the closest rival needed 99kg.

Source: https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... 20003.html

According to your source link hp numbers has been calculated base on Abu dhabi gp.
On Abu dhabi gp Renault pu used conservative setting because of possible reliability problem
Additional info Renault official confirmation 2017 power unit(beginning of the season) was over 900 hp

That clears things up then. So even a Renault engine running on conservative mode is still nearly 30bhp ahead of Honda? Interesting

[hurril]

Close to 1000 on the dyno. They have not run that on the track. The 950 number is closer to what's running on the track - in "Qualifying" mode that is.

Could it be that Mercedes have stopped chasing outright power and are now only concentrating on efficiency?
The consumption numbers, if they are real, are truly impressive...

Efficiency = Power in this fuel restricted formula though. It's hard to really chase one without the other.

There's a bait and switch in there though. There's PU efficiency and there's system efficiency over an entire lap of a particular circuit at a particular point in the race. The key word here is efficiency and the many different connotations it may convey.

Anything at any given now that enables more MGU-k at any given later is going to be good. We shouldn't let ourselves be fooled by the talk of being able to have deployment all lap if that's "bought" with fuel. That's akin to calling _any_ food on your table a free lunch so long as you paid for it some other time.

Of course I know that you know this so I'm not trying to teach you anything. It's just not as easy as what you seem to be making it out to be; if it were, then Mercedes would be running their top Q-modes all the time as that very clearly has the most power and hence the best efficiency. Right?

So, say you select two juicy areas that are highly power sensitive, as in: more power really really pays off. Then the rest of the track will have to pay for the big chunk of fuel and battery energy you consume there in order for the entire lap to land on a net balance. Balance defined here as the amount of fuel allotted according to the total usage equation; you want to drive fast now _and_ reach the checkered flag as early as possible.

And the as-soon-as-possible term there means that both sides are defined in terms of the other. It's a feedback equation. _That_ is why this is _not_ as simple as more power <=> higher efficiency.

Engine mode X could run the engine at 800 Hp instead of 950 _and_ be a lot more efficient because it's not using the whole allowance of fuel flow.

Engine mode Y could run the engine at 970Hp just two seconds, once every lap at the most power sensitive area, combined with "buying battery" a couple of seconds someplace else because that is the most efficient system strategy.

[gruntguru]

It is worth remembering that "Power <=> Efficiency" is a statement that correctly applies to net mechanical power (crankshaft + turbine - compressor) resulting from combustion of fuel ie:

Thermal Efficiency = (Net mechanical power)/(rate of fuel energy consumed)

[Chicane]

Renault "played with fire" in engine performance push

“Clearly, the big negative in 2017 has been reliability, which has cost a lot – to our team, but also to our customer teams, for which I feel sorry,” Abiteboul told Motorsport.com.

“But we had to be very aggressive in order to create the platform to complete the convergence with the other power unit manufacturers.

“It was a combination of a completely new engine, and therefore a lack of dyno mileage over the winter - we discovered some of the issues at the winter test, and also some of them at the start of the season, which was very late [for us] to react and to implement improvements.

“Later into the season, we played a little bit with the fire by unlocking new performance modes, which had some impact also on reliability, and we also had the issue that there was some cooling measure to respect that some teams struggled to follow.”

“We found new ways of operating the engine with more performance, which created the first batch of problems,” Abiteboul added.

“With more mileage, we started to have reliability issues related to simply the life of the parts.

“We tried to manage that by reducing the operating temperature, which some teams managed to do, but not all teams.”

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/rena ... nt-992054/

[mclaren111]

F1i.com:

Renault Sport F1 boss Cyril Abiteboul says the manufacturer's current power deficit to Mercedes can be traced back to a decision taken by Flavio Briatore over ten years ago!

"Today, we continue to pay the price for Flavio Briatore's decision back in 2007 to fire hundreds of people when it was decided to freeze engine development.

Cyril is really stretching the blame here !!!

I am not a Flavio fan, but this is borderline ridiculous !!

[lio007]

F1i.com:

Renault Sport F1 boss Cyril Abiteboul says the manufacturer's current power deficit to Mercedes can be traced back to a decision taken by Flavio Briatore over ten years ago!

"Today, we continue to pay the price for Flavio Briatore's decision back in 2007 to fire hundreds of people when it was decided to freeze engine development.

Cyril is really stretching the blame here !!!

I am not a Flavio fan, but this is borderline ridiculous !!

Absolutely, this guy talks sometimes really crazy stuff.
In addition Renault is also to blame, for me it's hard to believe it was Briatores sole responsibility. I think the Renault board did contribute as well.

[hurril]

It is worth remembering that "Power <=> Efficiency" is a statement that correctly applies to net mechanical power (crankshaft + turbine - compressor) resulting from combustion of fuel ie:

Thermal Efficiency = (Net mechanical power)/(rate of fuel energy consumed)

Certainly!