Renault Power Unit Hardware & Software

[godlameroso]

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.

.6 liters per 100km, 300km per race that's still nearly 2 liters of oil per race distance. 2 liters is not a trivial amount, these cars burn 1.2(best case scenario in a race situation) - 5.6(worst case scenario(full on Q mode)) liters of fuel per lap depending on track. Spa probably being the thirstiest on a per lap basis.

[PlatinumZealot]

The amount that is naturally destroyed in the engine is a big fraction of that 1.8 liters though.

[godlameroso]

The amount that is naturally destroyed in the engine is a big fraction of that 1.8 liters though.

Apparently Renault and Honda only burn .1 liters per 100km.

[PlatinumZealot]

The amount that is naturally destroyed in the engine is a big fraction of that 1.8 liters though.

Apparently Renault and Honda only burn .1 liters per 100km.

For a 800 horsepower engine screaming like a banshee for 2 hours? My intuition tells me no.

[carisi2k]

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.

https://maxf1.net/en/f1-2018-testing-to ... s-slowest/

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.

You and Goran are obviously too invested in what Cyril says. Cyril is notoriously frugal when it comes to the truth and you should look to recent history when it comes to how Renault will perform in 2018. In 2015 and 2017 there were plenty of engine problems for Renault in testing and look at how it affected Red Bull in those years.

In 2016 they had a good preseason test and were able to beat Ferrari and challenge Mercedes on occasion. If Red Bull hadn't stuffed up Daniels stop in Monaco he would have had 3 victories in 2016. Honda last year had to run there engine detuned because they had problems and the same in 2015 occurred. Recent history shows that if your running detuned in the preseason then you have reliability issues.

As for signing off on parts. How can you sign off on them if you are running at a detuned state and not to their full potential? How can you know how reliable the engine is if you aren't running at full power at nearly 0 degrees centigrade.

Do you have a link to that interview of Daniels? I couldn't find him saying anything about the Renault engine at all on google.

[carisi2k]

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.

Mclaren doesn't have their radiators any lower then the other teams and with the re-positioning of the control electronics every team has more space to mount radiators lower down this year. The Renault PU is apparently more compact this year and the other Renault teams are going for a bigger airbox because turbo's love air. I don't expect Mclaren to opt for the Renault solution but something more like the Red Bull Rb14 would be more beneficial for them if they truly want to climb the ladder.

[Ground Effect]

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.

https://maxf1.net/en/f1-2018-testing-to ... s-slowest/

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.

You and Goran are obviously too invested in what Cyril says. Cyril is notoriously frugal when it comes to the truth and you should look to recent history when it comes to how Renault will perform in 2018. In 2015 and 2017 there were plenty of engine problems for Renault in testing and look at how it affected Red Bull in those years.

In 2016 they had a good preseason test and were able to beat Ferrari and challenge Mercedes on occasion. If Red Bull hadn't stuffed up Daniels stop in Monaco he would have had 3 victories in 2016. Honda last year had to run there engine detuned because they had problems and the same in 2015 occurred. Recent history shows that if your running detuned in the preseason then you have reliability issues.

As for signing off on parts. How can you sign off on them if you are running at a detuned state and not to their full potential? How can you know how reliable the engine is if you aren't running at full power at nearly 0 degrees centigrade.

Do you have a link to that interview of Daniels? I couldn't find him saying anything about the Renault engine at all on google.

I get what you're saying, but what else should we hold on to except the remarks from Renault themselves? It's not uncommon to run an engine detuned during pre-season, I believe Honda are doing the same thing as well. Test 2 starts today, let's wait and see how things pan out, so far we can't say he's been untruthful. As far as I know, nobody from Red Bull or Mclaren has expressed worry or said anything negative so far. It's all about wait and see.
As for Daniel Ricciardo's remarks, I believe I read it on James Allen's blog, one of his test days round up.

[gandharva]

The amount that is naturally destroyed in the engine is a big fraction of that 1.8 liters though.

Apparently Renault and Honda only burn .1 liters per 100km.

For a 800 horsepower engine screaming like a banshee for 2 hours? My intuition tells me no.

Sadly your intuition is wrong.

After the FIA began to measure lubricant consumption more accurately, doubts arose in Paris as to whether the 2017 World Cup opponents were right. Mercedes and Ferrari burned a constant 0.89 litres per 100 kilometres in the races from GP Italy onwards. This was within the bounds of what was allowed, but Renault and Honda only had consumption figures of 0.1 litres per 100 kilometres. So one wondered how there could have been such a drastic difference. So it was quite possible to reduce the limit even further. This has now been reduced to 0.6 litres.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... pfloecher/

[Ground Effect]

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.
[/quote]

.6 liters per 100km, 300km per race that's still nearly 2 liters of oil per race distance. 2 liters is not a trivial amount, these cars burn 1.2(best case scenario in a race situation) - 5.6(worst case scenario(full on Q mode)) liters of fuel per lap depending on track. Spa probably being the thirstiest on a per lap basis.
[/quote]

Apparently, Christian Horner still feels the new oil burn clamp down rules don't address the issue in qualifying, it seems it's race specific. That would be disappointing if he's correct, I thought that was a given. FIA has to do better.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/horn ... 1-1009438/

[PlatinumZealot]

Apparently Renault and Honda only burn .1 liters per 100km.

For a 800 horsepower engine screaming like a banshee for 2 hours? My intuition tells me no.

Sadly your intuition is wrong.

After the FIA began to measure lubricant consumption more accurately, doubts arose in Paris as to whether the 2017 World Cup opponents were right. Mercedes and Ferrari burned a constant 0.89 litres per 100 kilometres in the races from GP Italy onwards. This was within the bounds of what was allowed, but Renault and Honda only had consumption figures of 0.1 litres per 100 kilometres. So one wondered how there could have been such a drastic difference. So it was quite possible to reduce the limit even further. This has now been reduced to 0.6 litres.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... pfloecher/

Hmm. I actually read this article too. Getting old.

[63l8qrrfy6]

For a 800 horsepower engine screaming like a banshee for 2 hours? My intuition tells me no.

Sadly your intuition is wrong.

After the FIA began to measure lubricant consumption more accurately, doubts arose in Paris as to whether the 2017 World Cup opponents were right. Mercedes and Ferrari burned a constant 0.89 litres per 100 kilometres in the races from GP Italy onwards. This was within the bounds of what was allowed, but Renault and Honda only had consumption figures of 0.1 litres per 100 kilometres. So one wondered how there could have been such a drastic difference. So it was quite possible to reduce the limit even further. This has now been reduced to 0.6 litres.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... pfloecher/

Hmm. I actually read this article too. Getting old.

Actually I'd go with your intuition, 0.1 l/100 km is way too low. IIRC qualy V10 engines with low tension piston rings used to consume more than 3l/100 km.

What happens if they set limits to something silly like 0.3l/100 km ? Do you DQ drivers if they have a minor leak ?

[Sieper]

That limit would be even better, or have an actual limit during the Q3 it self, not only the Total race weekend. If you go slightly over or truely have a leak then no DQ, but If you use 0,6l every race then Yeah, oil (with additives outlawed in the fuel itself) is still being burned and DQ should follow. Apparently merc and Ferr are able to exactly control it If they truely burned 0,89 liter per 100km as per the article.

If we see Merc last Q3 lap in Australia still being 0,5 second faster as Any before we will know oil is still being burned.

[baybars]

Renault powerde team battery issue:
Red Bull then lost out on track time in the afternoon as Max Verstappen brought out the red flag. All three stoppages were attributed to problems with the battery, however Renault insisted it is not a big problem.

"The issues that we've had I don't think have any relationship to the installation of the battery at all," said Renault chief technical officer Bob Bell.

“We (the works team) haven’t had any problem, but what we do ahead of Melbourne is that we try and shakedown all of the battery systems to make sure all of the stock that are going racing are in good shape.

“That’s why we test them here. We revolve them around the customer teams and ourselves to make sure they are all tested ahead of Melbourne. So it’s not unusual to find issues.”

Bell said Renault's two customers receive the same specification as the works outfit and sees the problems as a positive as it means the French manufacturer can remove the problematic units from the pool.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/head ... ssues.html

another source:

Bob Bell wiped concerns that the battery could become Renaults coffin nail: "This is a normal process. We're putting in all the batteries we want to use later in the season. They then return to Viry and are put through their paces before they get their race clearance. So we can choose the best for the rest of the season.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... l-mclaren/

[MrPotatoHead]

That limit would be even better, or have an actual limit during the Q3 it self, not only the Total race weekend. If you go slightly over or truely have a leak then no DQ, but If you use 0,6l every race then Yeah, oil (with additives outlawed in the fuel itself) is still being burned and DQ should follow. Apparently merc and Ferr are able to exactly control it If they truely burned 0,89 liter per 100km as per the article.

If we see Merc last Q3 lap in Australia still being 0,5 second faster as Any before we will know oil is still being burned.

Or you will know that the "oil burn" was overrated and does not add up to that much of a performance boost...
The elimination of any active control valves will show that.

[Sieper]

Oil burn was worth it, merc and Ferr burning exactly 0,89 l, merc quickly (against the gentleman deal with Ferr) throwing in a 0,9l burning unit in Monza when the limit for new engine went down to 0,6 and hanging on to it until brazil. It is said to be 20 horses. Merc always being able to go round the last Q3 round significantly faster, also Bottas who was never able to do so whilst et Williams.

If they still can do that this year they still burn and it might still be in a way that is not outlawed (or is not monitored, controlled strictly enough).

I know F1 is about loopholes but this one has now been allowed for 4 years. It is time to really close it, all teams are supposed to be allowed to burn the same amount of fuel and no additives are allowed.