Renault Power Unit Hardware & Software

[GhostF1]

I am actually impressed with how many, clearly ill informed, F1 fans there are on this forum. Can we please stick to facts, not veiled half truths to prove points? Honda has had 1, count it, One DNF from a PU issue. Round 1. In Australia. On Gasly's car. After a pretty big jump over a curb to boot. Anyone using "look at Honda's PU total count" as evidence they lack reliability... it proves nothing except for that person is foolish and most likely trolling. Anyway. back to and staying on Renault..

Saw this on Renault's twitter. Top Trumps with the RS18 against the Shinkansen.

https://ibb.co/nc1opK

683kW... 916hp. I know crude but frighteningly close to those "estimates" AMuS made.. but let's discuss..

[Benii6]

I am actually impressed with how many, clearly ill informed, F1 fans there are on this forum. Can we please stick to facts, not veiled half truths to prove points? Honda has had 1, count it, One DNF from a PU issue. Round 1. In Australia. On Gasly's car. After a pretty big jump over a curb to boot. Anyone using "look at Honda's PU total count" as evidence they lack reliability... it proves nothing except for that person is foolish and most likely trolling. Anyway. back to and staying on Renault..

Saw this on Renault's twitter. Top Trumps with the RS18 against the Shinkansen.

https://ibb.co/nc1opK

683kW... 916hp. I know crude but frighteningly close to those "estimates" AMuS made.. but let's discuss..

Of course you can say they lack reliability. Maybe Reanult should use a new engine for every race, that way they'll have perfect reliability since there'll be no PU issues on track.
But then again I'm just an ill informed fan.

[GhostF1]

I am actually impressed with how many, clearly ill informed, F1 fans there are on this forum. Can we please stick to facts, not veiled half truths to prove points? Honda has had 1, count it, One DNF from a PU issue. Round 1. In Australia. On Gasly's car. After a pretty big jump over a curb to boot. Anyone using "look at Honda's PU total count" as evidence they lack reliability... it proves nothing except for that person is foolish and most likely trolling. Anyway. back to and staying on Renault..

Saw this on Renault's twitter. Top Trumps with the RS18 against the Shinkansen.

https://ibb.co/nc1opK

683kW... 916hp. I know crude but frighteningly close to those "estimates" AMuS made.. but let's discuss..

Of course you can say they lack reliability. Maybe Reanult should use a new engine for every race, that way they'll have perfect reliability since there'll be no PU issues on track.
But then again I'm just an ill informed fan.

Jesus. Sour.
It's been well documented that Gasly used the same PU for 6 race weekends (Silverstone through to Singapore) before taking the upgraded Spec 3 unit but then reverting back for Sochi Saturday/Sunday. Hartley used the same PU from Australia through to Monza (albeit with an MGU-H upgrade in Bahrain) before taking the Spec 2 unit in Canada.
Proof enough for me the thing is vastly more reliable than before.
Should they not of taken advantage of the following severe crashes or low grid qualifying results to take new PU's just to appease you?

Renault's problems have been notable and varied. Not to mention in Austria as soon as they reveal a new "qualifying mode", Hulk's turbo went boom. McLaren had their fair share of turbo issues from testing through to race weekends, they've had heat issues, there's been power loss problems. Need I mention RBR's list? Yes there's more on the field so we see more Renault issues just because of that. But the inconsistency of the actual issues is of concern still.

On a side note. Do we know if RBR is running the Spec C in Japan?

[MMMMMMMM]

They ran B spec on Fri, but are switching to spec C for Sat.
The 25x is just to give you an idea, could be 24.5 or 24.8x in reality
What I can rely on is their official site which says “more than 960 hp” right off the bat with spec A.
Let’s see, Suzuka is 71% full throttle, really looking forward to qualy.

[MMMMMMMM]

When asked if he feels Renault would have been better off taking the C-spec engine as its third powerunit with the benefit of hindsight, Sainz responded: "If it comes without reliability, no.

"The team is fully sure that with our fuel it is just not reliable enough, so I fully back the team with whatever decision they take.

"I just think we need more power, which we don't have, and we don't get it for whatever reason. If we wanted to be in Q3 in Japan we just needed more power, and Honda has showed that it is possible."

source: https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13926 ... ault-slump

To me this is clear indication that Spec B has less power than Honda's latest evolution.

[gandharva]

To me this is clear indication that Spec B has less power than Honda's latest evolution.

I hink this is generally accepted now, especially in terms of peak power and quali mode.

[Andres125sx]

When asked if he feels Renault would have been better off taking the C-spec engine as its third powerunit with the benefit of hindsight, Sainz responded: "If it comes without reliability, no.

"The team is fully sure that with our fuel it is just not reliable enough, so I fully back the team with whatever decision they take.

"I just think we need more power, which we don't have, and we don't get it for whatever reason. If we wanted to be in Q3 in Japan we just needed more power, and Honda has showed that it is possible."

source: https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13926 ... ault-slump

To me this is clear indication that Spec B has less power than Honda's latest evolution.

How did you get that conclusion from an article with Sainz talking about Renault?

Maybe with last Honda qualy mode that´s true for saturdays, but watching STR fall from 6th and 7th to both cars out of the points on sunday.... I´d say on race trim they´re still down on power, specially after watching Renault passing STR even when Renault is the slowest Renault powered car (ironically)

[HPD]

Friends, we have to stop drawing conclusions because one team overtakes another on the track.
A clear example is Williams. That does not mean that the PU Mercedes is the weakest in the field. Come on guys..

[gandharva]

Maybe with last Honda qualy mode that´s true for saturdays, but watching STR fall from 6th and 7th to both cars out of the points on sunday.... I´d say on race trim they´re still down on power, specially after watching Renault passing STR even when Renault is the slowest Renault powered car (ironically)

TR completely messed up the tyre strategy in Suzuka. Therefore you cannot make any good predictions about the spec 3 race pace. Wait for the next races.

[Andres125sx]

Friends, we have to stop drawing conclusions because one team overtakes another on the track.
A clear example is Williams. That does not mean that the PU Mercedes is the weakest in the field. Come on guys..

Even when there´re obviously more factors, acceleration and top speed are still some important factors to evaluate a PU, don´t you think so?

[rscsr]

Friends, we have to stop drawing conclusions because one team overtakes another on the track.
A clear example is Williams. That does not mean that the PU Mercedes is the weakest in the field. Come on guys..

Even when there´re obviously more factors, acceleration and top speed are still some important factors to evaluate a PU, don´t you think so?

Acceleration is the only important factor to evaluate a PU. Top speed isn't telling you anything (other than a datapoint to evaluate your model).
If your drag figures are only 1% false (for a guessed figure, that is different for every track, often almost every day and both cars of a team), the power you get is wrong by about 0.3% (for a given topspeed).
Or when you compare different cars to estimate the difference in engine performance your error scales linearly with the error in the drag estimation.

[Walkman]

Acceleration is the only important factor to evaluate a PU. Top speed isn't telling you anything (other than a datapoint to evaluate your model).
If your drag figures are only 1% false (for a guessed figure, that is different for every track, often almost every day and both cars of a team), the power you get is wrong by about 0.3% (for a given topspeed).
Or when you compare different cars to estimate the difference in engine performance your error scales linearly with the error in the drag estimation.

Correct me if I'm wrong but a 1% deviation in drag would create a 1% deviation in power.

P=.5*rho*frontalarea*Cd*Speed^3

[rscsr]

Acceleration is the only important factor to evaluate a PU. Top speed isn't telling you anything (other than a datapoint to evaluate your model).
If your drag figures are only 1% false (for a guessed figure, that is different for every track, often almost every day and both cars of a team), the power you get is wrong by about 0.3% (for a given topspeed).
Or when you compare different cars to estimate the difference in engine performance your error scales linearly with the error in the drag estimation.

Correct me if I'm wrong but a 1% deviation in drag would create a 1% deviation in power.

P=.5*rho*frontalarea*Cd*Speed^3

yeah, of course you are right.
I kinda didn't write what I meant. What I meant was, when you want to know the topspeed for a certain power/drag you are taking the 3rd root of that quotient. This means that the top speed is not really sensitive to power/drag. At least much less sensitive than acceleration.

[Jejking]

They ran B spec on Fri, but are switching to spec C for Sat.
The 25x is just to give you an idea, could be 24.5 or 24.8x in reality
What I can rely on is their official site which says “more than 960 hp” right off the bat with spec A.
Let’s see, Suzuka is 71% full throttle, really looking forward to qualy.

Make that 950+ please In F1 a measly 10 hp still makes a difference, especially with the midfield so close together.

Source: https://www.renaultsport.com/-formula-1 ... ine-modale

[ringo]

Friends, we have to stop drawing conclusions because one team overtakes another on the track.
A clear example is Williams. That does not mean that the PU Mercedes is the weakest in the field. Come on guys..

Even when there´re obviously more factors, acceleration and top speed are still some important factors to evaluate a PU, don´t you think so?

Acceleration is the only important factor to evaluate a PU. Top speed isn't telling you anything (other than a datapoint to evaluate your model).
If your drag figures are only 1% false (for a guessed figure, that is different for every track, often almost every day and both cars of a team), the power you get is wrong by about 0.3% (for a given topspeed).
Or when you compare different cars to estimate the difference in engine performance your error scales linearly with the error in the drag estimation.

Then there is differences with traction.. so it will be difficult to assess the difference between two different engined cars. I believe the effect of traction is a bigger performance differentiator than the power difference currently. The corner exit speed leading onto a straight tends to get half the job done of a drag race type overtake.