Renault Power Unit Hardware & Software

[FPV GTHO]

What if Renault moves next year to a split turbo layout?

Not going to happen. They would have done this years ago.

That doesnt mean anything. They spent the first 3 years hamstrung by the token system afterall. By the same argument they have always used air to air intercoolers, thus they wont switch to water coolers now either.

[toraabe]

What if Renault moves next year to a split turbo layout?

They have to redesign the whole plenum, a new MGU-H, a new intake layout. Probably a complete redesign of the cylinder heads.. Hence a completely new engine.. It makes more sense to work on their current layout,like Ferrari.

[bill shoe]

With ever expanding wheelbases, they probably have more and more room behind the engine for complete turbo/MGU-H assemblies (Renault and Ferrari layout), so less upside to a split turbo layout that requires all the additional monocoque complexity/cutouts up front. Somewhat ironic that Mercedes, pioneer of split layout, has longest wheelbase for last two years...

[blueytoo]

Toto Wolff and I thinking about the same thing

http://classic.autosport.com/news/repor ... ostpopular

Red Bull has TAG Heuer badge. Maybe that gives scope to change things for the better??? Cooling, fuel, engine maps, PU ERS programming...

[blueytoo]

Renault needs to burn more oil. And figure how exactly Merc and Ferrari are using it. Must be more than just "fuel". Energy density of fuel and oil are very similar. 0.5% is not a lot. Fuel flow sensor error is quoted +/- 0.25%. I thought the guesstimated power gap was way more than 0.5%.

[Brake Horse Power]

So of they all consume 0,24% fuel flow above the limit, they can say it is within the tolerances of the sensor? And therefor legitimit

[DC2]

Is it possible to deliberately inject fuel vapor into the crank while the engine isn't at full load? So the crank is full of very dense fuel vapor. And then when the throttle is at WOT, somehow suck the vapor back into the intake? So the engine really isn't burning oil, but burning additional fuel that already passed the fuel flow rate senor.

I am not an engineer. Just want to know if it is possible.

[hardingfv32]

Renault needs to burn more oil.

They were never actually burning what the public would consider an oil product. It was some kind of performance additive that toke the form of a vapor in the crankcase. Chances are very good that current F1 lubricants do not burn even as a vapor under current operating conditions.

Brian

[PlatinumZealot]

IMO one of the reasons that intake plenum is so swept forward is the need to free as much space as possible at the back of the V for the new compressor air duct... The new turbo seems to be much compact and closer to the PU, and the new compressor's intake has been placed inside the V, à la Ferrari, IMO (while it was outisde in 2014-2016)...
And maybe that plenum hides a small air-water intercooler too... or a diaphragm-like system

So I was right... except for the red part As you can see, the compressor's airbox is now located forward of the engine's rear mounting points. That means the whole turbo hase been pushed forward. The red-capped disc-shaped airbox seems to hang inside the V.. well almost.
And the intake plenum bends forward to clear the way for the airbox... A 2014-2016 plenum would sit on the 2017 compressor inlet.
Couldnt find a good pic, but the 2014-2016 PU had its airbox aft the v6 mounting point so outside the engine.
So 2017 engine "2nd gen" is shorter/more compact.
Which, on paper, brings some benefits regarding weight distribution, pipework/lag, gearbox size/aero etc
https://servimg.com/view/14795526/2218

That is the same turbo layout from 2014. Just the auxiliaries have changed.

[blueytoo]

They were never actually burning what the public would consider an oil product. It was some kind of performance additive that toke the form of a vapor in the crankcase. Chances are very good that current F1 lubricants do not burn even as a vapor under current operating conditions.

Doesn't make a lot of sense. Volatile enough be able to evaporate 500mL - 1L over <2 hours without ruining the lubricity of the lubricating oil in an engine running 15,000 rpm, and somehow providing a performance advantage of 5% or more, which is 10 times more than the energy available from burning the fluid going missing.

Source????

[hardingfv32]

Your quote was 'burn more oil'. They were never burning/consuming something that would be considered a lubricant. It was a chemical that promoted better combustion.

Consuming a chemical in vapor form to create more power makes perfect sense.

Brian

[blueytoo]

Consuming a chemical in vapor form to create more power makes perfect sense.

if it's some sort of combustion modifying additive, then surely it needs to make it into the combustion chamber. would be easy to arrange poor cylinder wall scraping or valve stem leakage. can't see how a vapour in the crankcase will produce a huge performance advantage.

[hardingfv32]

If it is not a vapor then how does it get vaporized?

Leaking past the rings will not cut it. Not that much chemical available for this purpose, so it must be released by the computer when it is most beneficial. The chemical had to be part of lubricant formulation that was used for qualifying only. A second formulation, without the chemical, was used during the race.

Brian

[Thunder]

Please keep this Topic about the technical Aspects of the PU. Thanks.

[epo]

In a interview with Verstappen he mentioned again no special qualification mode available. They are just failing in everything they promise.