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.
Theoritacally McLaren's rear wing should get cleaner air flow from having the samllest top air inlet. Their side pod drag however, may be much high than the other teams. Possible that have found a way to alleviate this.
It has been proven by every other team that a smaller airbox doesn't make a faster turbo hybrid car. What is needed is good air to the diffuser and lots of power. The larger airbox's provide the extra cooling needed for a modern F1 car. This year it is even more so with the Halo.
Getting a straight answer out of Renault about progress must be frustrating Red Bull. All this PR nonsense about Renault having 950+hp is proving as unreliable as a Renault power unit. The Toro Rosso was faster then all of the Renault powered cars by a significant margin and up their with Ferrari and Mercedes.
It would seem that Renault now have the slowest engine on the grid. The actual numbers that Renault is producing is why Mr Horner is one unhappy bunny.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/43246098
Renault's big shortfall - both in terms of performance and reliability - is in the hybrid element of their engine. Last year, they ended up being forced to revert to their 2016-specification energy recovery system (Ers) because the new one they were developing could not be made reliable enough.
This year, they have another updated hybrid system in development, but it is not ready for the start of the season - so they will again be using what is now a two-year-old design. They plan to introduce the upgraded Ers later in the season but are not able to say when that might be.
BS. ERS was new last year, except the MGUK. They used 2016 MGUK and they'll use it again this year, at least for sime GPs.
Getting a straight answer out of Renault about progress must be frustrating Red Bull. All this PR nonsense about Renault having 950+hp is proving as unreliable as a Renault power unit. The Toro Rosso was faster then all of the Renault powered cars by a significant margin and up their with Ferrari and Mercedes.
It would seem that Renault now have the slowest engine on the grid. The actual numbers that Renault is producing is why Mr Horner is one unhappy bunny.
Getting a straight answer out of Renault about progress must be frustrating Red Bull. All this PR nonsense about Renault
It would seem that Renault now have the slowest engine on the grid. The actual numbers that Renault is producing is why Mr Horner is one unhappy bunny. https://maxf1.net/en/f1-2018-testing-to ... s-slowest/
Wrong too. 1-Merc engineers said in Barcelona that the Renault was the most detuned engine during the test. (AMuS) 2-The STR had often better top speed than the RBR with th same engine, because it generated (far) less DF, like the Manors and even the 2016-engined Sauber sometimes did compared to the factory teams. So it's safe to assume the MCL generates more df/drag than the STR + read point 1. 3-Mclaren says the track numbers are accurate compared to the dynos.
Besides, testing speed trap are BS because there is too many variables. Only qualy numbers matter and we should atleast wait for the 2nd test to see if there is a tendency or a pattern.
The 950hp figure wasnt a PR attemp. It was just written in tha technical specs sheet of the car like Renault does every year. And that number increased every year and was allways quite realistic. So they never trumpeted it. Some journos thought they made a discovery and a skoop and did trumpet it.
AFAIR, the number was "over 760" in 2014, ""over 820?" in 2015, "over 875" in 2016, "over 900" in 2017 etc
Getting a straight answer out of Renault about progress must be frustrating Red Bull. All this PR nonsense about Renault
It would seem that Renault now have the slowest engine on the grid. The actual numbers that Renault is producing is why Mr Horner is one unhappy bunny. https://maxf1.net/en/f1-2018-testing-to ... s-slowest/
Wrong too. 1-Merc engineers said in Barcelona that the Renault was the most detuned engine during the test. (AMuS) 2-The STR had often better top speed than the RBR with th same engine, because it generated (far) less DF, like the Manors and even the 2016-engined Sauber sometimes did compared to the factory teams. So it's safe to assume the MCL generates more df/drag than the STR + read point 1. 3-Mclaren says the track numbers are accurate compared to the dynos.
Besides, testing speed trap are BS because there is too many variables. Only qualy numbers matter and we should atleast wait for the 2nd test to see if there is a tendency or a pattern.
The 950hp figure wasnt a PR attemp. It was just written in tha technical specs sheet of the car like Renault does every year. And that number increased every year and was allways quite realistic. So they never trumpeted it. Some journos thought they made a discovery and a skoop and did trumpet it.
AFAIR, the number was "over 760" in 2014, ""over 820?" in 2015, "over 875" in 2016, "over 900" in 2017 etc
I will agree the Toro Rosso generates less downforce then the Red Bull but it is in the ball park with the other mid field teams and certainly not Manor numbers. The MCL33 is nowhere near as good as Mclaren think it is and to match Daniel and Max's fastest lap on mediums it required Vandoorne to run the hypersoft tyre.
If Mercedes said that the Renault was the most detuned engine during the test then the next question must be why? Assuredly the obvious answer is reliability and the Renault's lack of any of that ingredient. If Renault had any confidence in the engine running at 950hp then it would have been running at that number.
It also puts into perspective how impressive the RB14 is and the magic tricks Red Bull Racing continue to pull off with the sorry excuse of a power unit they have. Alas we now have another 4 days of testing to see if Renault have any magical tricks of there own to pull off.
Last edited by Steven on 05 Mar 2018, 14:01, edited 1 time in total.
Here is an interesting article on Renault PU from Autosport
Using the works Renault as a case in point, the packing under the surface has changed significantly and that's partly been facilitated by some tweaks to the power unit package. Presumably, Red Bull with its tight sidepods has been helped by the same thing.
"It's a step forward," says Renault chassis technical director Nick Chester. "The packaging is a bit better for us and there's a little more power.
"It's an evolution of what we finished the year with, so there's a few things that are going to help us performance wise. But the biggest thing was making sure we could run a season on three engines, so they've worked very hard over the winter."
That performance gain is marginal, particularly given Ferrari and, in particular, Mercedes will also have gained over the winter. In Abu Dhabi last year, the Renault power units were sacrificing about three-tenths of performance in the name of reliability that should now be available. That plus a sundry tenth probably adds up to the performance gain Chester refers to.
Late last year, Renault started to phase in its G-spec V6 engine, which featured improved combustion chamber technology. This went well, and what might be termed the 'conventional' side of the game is at least close to where Mercedes and Ferrari are. But the potential for disparity in ERS performance is greater. This is where Renault's reliability main problems lie, this is where its theoretical performance is hidden and this is at the centre of its plans for a conservative start to this season.
"It's coming. I don't want to say too much now, but we have an important development in-season that should change the energy recovery related elements"
Cyril Abiteboul on Renault's new MGU-K
At the heart of the problem is the MGU-K. The first-generation Renault MGU-K was produced in association with Italian company Magneti Marelli. Renault decided to go it alone for the second generation, which was supposed to be introduced at the start of last season. It was postponed because of reliability problems, and it remains postponed.
Abiteboul won't be drawn on when this will be ready to race, and that's maybe because he doesn't yet know. But Renault is certainly hoping to introduce that specification during this season. The first window of opportunity will be whenever the scheduled second power units come on stream for the Renault teams, but he won't commit to a timescale for the arrival of a part that, when it has run in testing, has not been reliable.
"I have no idols. I admire work, dedication & competence."
Getting a straight answer out of Renault about progress must be frustrating Red Bull. All this PR nonsense about Renault having 950+hp is proving as unreliable as a Renault power unit. The Toro Rosso was faster then all of the Renault powered cars by a significant margin and up their with Ferrari and Mercedes.
It would seem that Renault now have the slowest engine on the grid. The actual numbers that Renault is producing is why Mr Horner is one unhappy bunny.
Cyril had already said not to look at test one times, he said the PU would be "massively" detuned, it was about being able to sign off on certain parts and confirming the progress on reliability. Test two will be a bit more indicative, but Ricciardo said in an interview that the Melbourne spec will be an evolution of what their running during the pre-season tests.
Q: (Stefano Mancini – La Stampa) Kimi, will you help Vettel to win his championship this year?
Kimi Raikkonen: I can only drive one car, obviously.
@2018 Singapore Grand Prix drivers press conference.
Getting a straight answer out of Renault about progress must be frustrating Red Bull. All this PR nonsense about Renault
It would seem that Renault now have the slowest engine on the grid. The actual numbers that Renault is producing is why Mr Horner is one unhappy bunny. https://maxf1.net/en/f1-2018-testing-to ... s-slowest/
Wrong too. 1-Merc engineers said in Barcelona that the Renault was the most detuned engine during the test. (AMuS) 2-The STR had often better top speed than the RBR with th same engine, because it generated (far) less DF, like the Manors and even the 2016-engined Sauber sometimes did compared to the factory teams. So it's safe to assume the MCL generates more df/drag than the STR + read point 1. 3-Mclaren says the track numbers are accurate compared to the dynos.
Besides, testing speed trap are BS because there is too many variables. Only qualy numbers matter and we should atleast wait for the 2nd test to see if there is a tendency or a pattern.
The 950hp figure wasnt a PR attemp. It was just written in tha technical specs sheet of the car like Renault does every year. And that number increased every year and was allways quite realistic. So they never trumpeted it. Some journos thought they made a discovery and a skoop and did trumpet it.
AFAIR, the number was "over 760" in 2014, ""over 820?" in 2015, "over 875" in 2016, "over 900" in 2017 etc
I will agree the Toro Rosso generates less downforce then the Red Bull but it is in the ball park with the other mid field teams and certainly not Manor numbers. The MCL33 is nowhere near as good as Mclaren think it is and to match Daniel and Max's fastest lap on mediums it required Vandoorne to run the hypersoft tyre.
If Mercedes said that the Renault was the most detuned engine during the test then the next question must be why? Assuredly the obvious answer is reliability and the Renault's lack of any of that ingredient. If Renault had any confidence in the engine running at 950hp then it would have been running at that number.
It also puts into perspective how impressive the RB14 is and the magic tricks Red Bull Racing continue to pull off with the sorry excuse of a power unit they have. Alas we now have another 4 days of testing to see if Renault have any magical tricks of there own to pull off.
I thought you were going to give some technical insight into why you believe the MCL chassis is nowhere as good as they claim. I'm a bit surprised that you're basing it on lap times and tyres used. There were articles prior to the start of period season stating Mclaren would used test one for compatibility checks on engine packaging and the redesigned rear suspension. Using the softer compounds was more logical under those circumstances. Besides like I've posted before, James Allen has been positive about the chassis. According to him, aero people and engineers have praised the detail on the car and said it's a real statement by Peter Prodromou. Gary Anderson has also been positive. So..... let's just wait till test two, even Melbourne.
Q: (Stefano Mancini – La Stampa) Kimi, will you help Vettel to win his championship this year?
Kimi Raikkonen: I can only drive one car, obviously.
@2018 Singapore Grand Prix drivers press conference.
I will agree the Toro Rosso generates less downforce then the Red Bull but it is in the ball park with the other mid field teams and certainly not Manor numbers. The MCL33 is nowhere near as good as Mclaren think it is and to match Daniel and Max's fastest lap on mediums it required Vandoorne to run the hypersoft tyre.
If Mclaren was doing 1.19s on medium you would probably be talking of very low fuel runs to attract sponsors.
On 1.19s on hypersoft you are talking about not good enough chassis.
Is there any possible scenario on your mind that Mclaren may have a good chassis and the conditions on first test, made reading into the actual test times a completely waste of time ??
Lets say maybe they put a decent amount of fuel to increase the loads on the car and put hyper soft in order to switch them on as fast as possible, risking less time with low grip in track and some possible exit, or even running the Renault engine slightly detunned for what ever reason they had to do it ??
I mean common, there are 1000 scenarios that may happen to each team and explain what ever times they did.
Until we see some race simulations or qualification sims we just can't know whats going on.
And even then only AUS Q2-Q3 will actually show us whats happening.
Here is an interesting article on Renault PU from Autosport
Using the works Renault as a case in point, the packing under the surface has changed significantly and that's partly been facilitated by some tweaks to the power unit package. Presumably, Red Bull with its tight sidepods has been helped by the same thing.
"It's a step forward," says Renault chassis technical director Nick Chester. "The packaging is a bit better for us and there's a little more power.
"It's an evolution of what we finished the year with, so there's a few things that are going to help us performance wise. But the biggest thing was making sure we could run a season on three engines, so they've worked very hard over the winter."
That performance gain is marginal, particularly given Ferrari and, in particular, Mercedes will also have gained over the winter. In Abu Dhabi last year, the Renault power units were sacrificing about three-tenths of performance in the name of reliability that should now be available. That plus a sundry tenth probably adds up to the performance gain Chester refers to.
Late last year, Renault started to phase in its G-spec V6 engine, which featured improved combustion chamber technology. This went well, and what might be termed the 'conventional' side of the game is at least close to where Mercedes and Ferrari are. But the potential for disparity in ERS performance is greater. This is where Renault's reliability main problems lie, this is where its theoretical performance is hidden and this is at the centre of its plans for a conservative start to this season.
"It's coming. I don't want to say too much now, but we have an important development in-season that should change the energy recovery related elements"
Cyril Abiteboul on Renault's new MGU-K
At the heart of the problem is the MGU-K. The first-generation Renault MGU-K was produced in association with Italian company Magneti Marelli. Renault decided to go it alone for the second generation, which was supposed to be introduced at the start of last season. It was postponed because of reliability problems, and it remains postponed.
Abiteboul won't be drawn on when this will be ready to race, and that's maybe because he doesn't yet know. But Renault is certainly hoping to introduce that specification during this season. The first window of opportunity will be whenever the scheduled second power units come on stream for the Renault teams, but he won't commit to a timescale for the arrival of a part that, when it has run in testing, has not been reliable.
Maybe Macca is helping Renault with the ERS side which is why McLaren is so optimistic about having parity.
I’d say whatever happens, Merc and Ferrari will be tough to beat in quali- the key to McLaren (and RBR, Renault etc) is whether they can get close on race pace, so long runs will be the thing I try to study this week.
Hopefully it’s closer, but Merc and Ferrari have cards in their favour as works teams with great PUs.
I’d say whatever happens, Merc and Ferrari will be tough to beat in quali- the key to McLaren (and RBR, Renault etc) is whether they can get close on race pace, so long runs will be the thing I try to study this week.
Hopefully it’s closer, but Merc and Ferrari have cards in their favour as works teams with great PUs.
Renault have said on more than one occasion that they're working on a "magic button" for qualifying, plus the FIA's alleged oil burn clamp down should impact Mercedes and Ferrari and make qualifying a bit more of a contest. Then again, it'll boil down to how much power Renault will bring in Melbourne.
Q: (Stefano Mancini – La Stampa) Kimi, will you help Vettel to win his championship this year?
Kimi Raikkonen: I can only drive one car, obviously.
@2018 Singapore Grand Prix drivers press conference.
Theoritacally McLaren's rear wing should get cleaner air flow from having the samllest top air inlet. Their side pod drag however, may be much high than the other teams. Possible that have found a way to alleviate this.
It has been proven by every other team that a smaller airbox doesn't make a faster turbo hybrid car. What is needed is good air to the diffuser and lots of power. The larger airbox's provide the extra cooling needed for a modern F1 car. This year it is even more so with the Halo.
And how was this proven? Just because other teams opted to go the other way?
The smaller airbox on mclaren allows it to reposition the radiators lower in the car, making the centre of gravity lower and aiding overall car balance. Mclaren still have a smaller sidepod than mercedes for instance, which, theoretically, makes the job of redirecting the airflow to the floor of the car easier.
Only listen what Alonso said about engine and that is enough
And took that first test for any benchmark is very very childish
Only one thing is certain - Merc is very powerful and Honda finally can run race distance, but still sounded like a grass cutting machine
