- 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.
Yes it would. The race will be completed in a faster time with more fuel burnt. In the bigger picture you will be rejecting more heat in a shorter time. As i said more heat but only just so.Cold Fussion wrote:Anything is possible but it's my opinion that the teams would have exploited all the low hanging fruits in the cooling system drag reduction. Are the Renault intercoolers air-air or air-water?FPV GTHO wrote: It's possible, but they could also be desperate for any reduction if thr drag increase is as big as predicted.
That would be relevant to the coolant radiators, but Renault has issues that require massive intercoolers.The heat rejection figures should be naturally going down anyway because of the ever increasing engine efficiency.
The 5% fuel increase is only for the race fuel total and not the fuel flow limit so shouldn't affect any heat rejection.PlatinumZealot wrote:Engines will work harder to move heavier draggier cars hence the 5% alotted fuel increase. More heat will be rejected on average but only just so. The cars will be faster through the corners so higher exit speeds means less acceleration out of the corners which help fuel consumption.
The cars will punch a bigger hole trhough the air so there will be lower pressure around the back sides. Heat will be more easily extracted from the sidepods.
The race-averaged heat rejection power will go up but the WOT heat rejection power will remain the same.PlatinumZealot wrote:Yes it would. The race will be completed in a faster time with more fuel burnt. In the bigger picture you will be rejecting more heat in a shorter time. As i said more heat but only just so.Cold Fussion wrote:Anything is possible but it's my opinion that the teams would have exploited all the low hanging fruits in the cooling system drag reduction. Are the Renault intercoolers air-air or air-water?FPV GTHO wrote: It's possible, but they could also be desperate for any reduction if thr drag increase is as big as predicted.
That would be relevant to the coolant radiators, but Renault has issues that require massive intercoolers.
The 5% fuel increase is only for the race fuel total and not the fuel flow limit so shouldn't affect any heat rejection.PlatinumZealot wrote:Engines will work harder to move heavier draggier cars hence the 5% alotted fuel increase. More heat will be rejected on average but only just so. The cars will be faster through the corners so higher exit speeds means less acceleration out of the corners which help fuel consumption.
The cars will punch a bigger hole trhough the air so there will be lower pressure around the back sides. Heat will be more easily extracted from the sidepods.
(e.g. is the dyno testing promising, how's the relationship with Ilmor,...)The big admission in that article is that the gap to Mercedes is significantly more than 3%. I think that that would tend to corroborate Max's statement that the deficit is 50hp. The difference is clearly very biglio007 wrote:http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/renau ... 61660/?s=1
This might get interesting how that pans out.
I'd really like to know what kind of new concepts they are going to introduce! Is anybody close to Viry around here, to give us some hints
I was also wondering if Renault is using RBR's VTT. I think it would be an advantage to test cooling requirements,... of the new PU in a real chassis.
You think a lot but don't have any facts to back things up.djos wrote:I'm not a Mad Max fan but I think some of you are underestimating the current crop of drivers, they can usually detect subtle wing changes so why wouldn't they be able to detect subtle power unit differences?PlatinumZealot wrote:He said the Ferrari menu was easier to navigate. Not sure if he went as fas as knowing the characteristics of his 2015 Ferrari engine versus Raikkonens 2016.. I think you Maxie fans are stretching things too far.
Is your post any better?Godius wrote:You think a lot but don't have any facts to back things up.djos wrote:I'm not a Mad Max fan but I think some of you are underestimating the current crop of drivers, they can usually detect subtle wing changes so why wouldn't they be able to detect subtle power unit differences?PlatinumZealot wrote:He said the Ferrari menu was easier to navigate. Not sure if he went as fas as knowing the characteristics of his 2015 Ferrari engine versus Raikkonens 2016.. I think you Maxie fans are stretching things too far.
VTT?lio007 wrote:http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/renau ... 61660/?s=1
This might get interesting how that pans out.
I'd really like to know what kind of new concepts they are going to introduce! Is anybody close to Viry around here, to give us some hints
I was also wondering if Renault is using RBR's VTT. I think it would be an advantage to test cooling requirements,... of the new PU in a real chassis.
Actually, it's been reported in a few places. AMUS reported on it as early as May.Muulka wrote:It's hilarious how people have just accepted the random reports of Red Bull having this 'VTT'. Totally unsubstantiated and I don't know why it's the subject of so much obsession.
easier? maybe. however doing so might simply put off the work until later. I take it the idea of the VTT is to simulate as many variables at once as they can, hence having the driver in the loop. the rolling road/dyno setup is thus simulating driver errors, habits and preferences instead of a computer programmed to simulate a lap.PlatinumZealot wrote:I'm curious. Wouldn't be easier to download the simulator log file and use it at a time and place convenient to the other party?