2019 Renault F1 Team

[Espresso]

That's what I was told straight from a Mclaren guy last week, control electronics shorted/died. Mclaren put mitigations in place for it this race once they realised what it was (so maybe turned it down/altered it in mapping or avoiding certain modes as I don't think they could touch the unit for it to be in spec?)

It would be interesting to understand if the ECM is considered as part of the components of the PU... I would argue that it isn’t, but no idea how it is considered.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The ECM {or also known as the Powertrain Control Module (PCM), Engine Control Unit (ECU), or simply Auto Engine Computer (Automotive Engine Control Module)} is a standardized part.

Try to guess who manufacturers it for all teams...

FORMULA 1 ECU
Formula 1 is the ultimate test of technological excellence and driver skill. But for many years it struggled in its mission to maintain the right balance between these two driving principles. Systems such as traction and launch control made driver ability less critical to the outcome of races – but a ban on these systems proved almost impossible to police.

At the same time, the sport’s governing body, the FIA recognised that the costs of competing were becoming unsustainable for some teams. To solve one problem and assist in the solution of the other, the FIA put out a tender in 2006 for a standard set of electronics for F1.

Why did McLaren – who have a team in F1 – get the contract? Because McLaren Racing and McLaren Applied Technologies are run as separate companies and we have been supplying complete control systems to F1 since 1993, we were already a trusted supplier to many of the teams and we pioneered the use of model-based software at the start of 2000, several years before this approach to control system development was introduced into the series automotive markets. This approach has been a critical part of the success of the standard electronic control unit (ECU).

Source: https://www.mclaren.com/appliedtechnolo ... ula-1-ecu/

[diffuser]

At this point you cannot tell where the honda really is, cause redbull in no way have as good chassis as they had last year. Hell i'd say mclaren even has a better chassis than them and they are 4rth best. However the drivability of the Honda is helping them. I need not to remind you complains from Max last year about how the engine chocked on low rpms. People often think that Hartley did nothing at TR however his role was really specific into providing honda with info on how to improve the drivability of the engine and the overall tune powerband.

There is one of those made up terms, Drive-ability. What does that even mean???? Do they get amazing starts from it? no, they are average so far this, at best. Do they have less wheel spin because of it? no. Less tire consumption? No.

It was something that in the early years of the new PU regs meant something but now means nothing.

[diffuser]

I wonder if they weren't running the same mitigations that Mclaren put in place after Sainz's failure?

Or a mapping issue with one of the settings, given they were both in the same mode at the same corner...

I heard on Sky that they weren't.

[rogazilla]

...
There is one of those made up terms, Drive-ability. What does that even mean???? Do they get amazing starts from it? no, they are average so far this, at best. Do they have less wheel spin because of it? no. Less tire consumption? No.

It was something that in the early years of the new PU regs meant something but now means nothing.

My experience over the year for drive-ability of drive train is real. Over the years, I have always preferred N/A car because of drivability but that's not guranteed. My best way to explain it a predictable power output with my throttle control. If you have driven the 90's Japanese turbo cars or any turbo car in that era, the surge in power when turbo boost built up is great fun but catches out people in corners. 911 Turbo in that era is also known for this. However the predictability is important as driver can learn as long as the power delivery is consistent.

On the motorbikes this is even more amplified and I prefer a consistent delivery of power on the bike. I had a Honda 919 or Hornet F900 in other market. Brand new stock form there is a dip and surge at around the 5000 rpm range. It bothers me a lot because often that's the rpm I am in going into the corner or trying to drive out of the corner. I fixed the issue by removing the EGR valve... My experience tells me that driveability of the engine usually means there is a flat torque curve or the torque curve is as straight line as possible and not have surge and dip. With these new hybrid engine I bet that's hard to control when you have power from ICE and ERS coming and going (I don't have any experience in hybrid powertrain on how that tuning is done)

Point is, driveability is real and that's not something to do with tire spins, fuel consumption what you mentioned. I would say when it comes to wheel spins or lack of traction, a good drive train that's predictable allows the driver to better control that spin but if you have bold tires then nothing will save you from a spin.

[diffuser]

...
There is one of those made up terms, Drive-ability. What does that even mean???? Do they get amazing starts from it? no, they are average so far this, at best. Do they have less wheel spin because of it? no. Less tire consumption? No.

It was something that in the early years of the new PU regs meant something but now means nothing.

My experience over the year for drive-ability of drive train is real. Over the years, I have always preferred N/A car because of drivability but that's not guranteed. My best way to explain it a predictable power output with my throttle control. If you have driven the 90's Japanese turbo cars or any turbo car in that era, the surge in power when turbo boost built up is great fun but catches out people in corners. 911 Turbo in that era is also known for this. However the predictability is important as driver can learn as long as the power delivery is consistent.

On the motorbikes this is even more amplified and I prefer a consistent delivery of power on the bike. I had a Honda 919 or Hornet F900 in other market. Brand new stock form there is a dip and surge at around the 5000 rpm range. It bothers me a lot because often that's the rpm I am in going into the corner or trying to drive out of the corner. I fixed the issue by removing the EGR valve... My experience tells me that driveability of the engine usually means there is a flat torque curve or the torque curve is as straight line as possible and not have surge and dip. With these new hybrid engine I bet that's hard to control when you have power from ICE and ERS coming and going (I don't have any experience in hybrid powertrain on how that tuning is done)

Point is, driveability is real and that's not something to do with tire spins, fuel consumption what you mentioned. I would say when it comes to wheel spins or lack of traction, a good drive train that's predictable allows the driver to better control that spin but if you have bold tires then nothing will save you from a spin.

I don't want to pursue this point to any great detail. I don't see how a mass produced vehicle of any type has anything to do with F1 in 2019. Where the drivers are constantly being ask "how can the car be better ?" You'd think after 5 years they'd have gotten it better or atleast to the point where it makes no difference.

[Zynerji]

I agree that the drivability should be there by now, but will a team sacrifice some of this smoothness if they find 10HP on a rougher/ surge setting, and make the driver adapt?

[diffuser]

I agree that the drivability should be there by now, but will a team sacrifice some of this smoothness if they find 10HP on a rougher/ surge setting, and make the driver adapt?

Agreed. My guess is the Manufactures with more power would NOT sacrifice and the ones with less would. When you're ahead you don't have to take risks, hence, the reliability issues by both Ferrari and Renault this year. Honda in the past.

[FittingMechanics]

If you have 1000 HP on a 100rpm range, and 800 on the rest, what is the point of it. This is why I find top power figures quite meaningless.

It's quite possible for a power unit to have highest peak power, but that over the course of a lap or race their average is lower than other power unit.

[rogazilla]

Won't pursue the drive ability any further but I don't think we are talking about the same definition.

And agree somewhat with what FittingMechanics said, the focus on peak power is misleading. If you can propel the car with 1000 hp with 5 second on a lap but 800 the rest of the lap and compare to another that propel the car at 980 hp with 5 second on a lap but 850 the rest of the lap? The Hybrid is just different and I am still wrapping my head around this new idea and have to constantly remind myself it is a PU and not just ICE.

[SmallSoldier]

That's what I was told straight from a Mclaren guy last week, control electronics shorted/died. Mclaren put mitigations in place for it this race once they realised what it was (so maybe turned it down/altered it in mapping or avoiding certain modes as I don't think they could touch the unit for it to be in spec?)

It would be interesting to understand if the ECM is considered as part of the components of the PU... I would argue that it isn’t, but no idea how it is considered.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The ECM {or also known as the Powertrain Control Module (PCM), Engine Control Unit (ECU), or simply Auto Engine Computer (Automotive Engine Control Module)} is a standardized part.

Try to guess who manufacturers it for all teams...

FORMULA 1 ECU
Formula 1 is the ultimate test of technological excellence and driver skill. But for many years it struggled in its mission to maintain the right balance between these two driving principles. Systems such as traction and launch control made driver ability less critical to the outcome of races – but a ban on these systems proved almost impossible to police.

At the same time, the sport’s governing body, the FIA recognised that the costs of competing were becoming unsustainable for some teams. To solve one problem and assist in the solution of the other, the FIA put out a tender in 2006 for a standard set of electronics for F1.

Why did McLaren – who have a team in F1 – get the contract? Because McLaren Racing and McLaren Applied Technologies are run as separate companies and we have been supplying complete control systems to F1 since 1993, we were already a trusted supplier to many of the teams and we pioneered the use of model-based software at the start of 2000, several years before this approach to control system development was introduced into the series automotive markets. This approach has been a critical part of the success of the standard electronic control unit (ECU).

Source: https://www.mclaren.com/appliedtechnolo ... ula-1-ecu/

The MGU-K has a separate ECM (Electronic Control Module), that’s the one that is creating problems apparently... The ECM/ECU for the Power Unit (as a whole) is created by Mclaren.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[PhillipM]

^^What he said, the K has it's own control unit.

[diffuser]

If you have 1000 HP on a 100rpm range, and 800 on the rest, what is the point of it. This is why I find top power figures quite meaningless.

It's quite possible for a power unit to have highest peak power, but that over the course of a lap or race their average is lower than other power unit.

But none of that is true with any of these pus.
Not sure how much of an effect the extra fuel they can carry has made this year but the biggest differentiator is how much electricity they can generate. It means they can run the mgu-k longer.

I wouldn't be surprised if related to the mgu-k issue, Renault found alot of power in the off season... more power = more electric = busier mgu-k per lap. Change in mapping might just be a limiter of how many laps in succession you can use all the electrical power that's available... force a cool down.

[diffuser]

If you have 1000 HP on a 100rpm range, and 800 on the rest, what is the point of it. This is why I find top power figures quite meaningless.

It's quite possible for a power unit to have highest peak power, but that over the course of a lap or race their average is lower than other power unit.

But none of that is true with any of these pus.
Not sure how much of an effect the extra fuel they can carry has made this year but the biggest differentiator is how much electricity they can generate. It means they can run the mgu-k longer.

I wouldn't be surprised if related to the mgu-k issue, Renault found alot of power in the off season... more power = more electric = busier mgu-k per lap. Change in mapping might just be a limiter of how many laps in succession you can use all the electrical power that's available... force a cool down.

[ispano6]

At this point you cannot tell where the honda really is, cause redbull in no way have as good chassis as they had last year. Hell i'd say mclaren even has a better chassis than them and they are 4rth best. However the drivability of the Honda is helping them. I need not to remind you complains from Max last year about how the engine chocked on low rpms. People often think that Hartley did nothing at TR however his role was really specific into providing honda with info on how to improve the drivability of the engine and the overall tune powerband.

There is one of those made up terms, Drive-ability. What does that even mean???? Do they get amazing starts from it? no, they are average so far this, at best. Do they have less wheel spin because of it? no. Less tire consumption? No.

It was something that in the early years of the new PU regs meant something but now means nothing.

Traction and drivability are the terms Formula engineers and mechanics use. Not "mechanical grip" or some silly term that makes no sense. Drivability is the ability to modulate power delivery of the drivetrain in a way that suits the drivers style and is congruent and predictable with the given pedal input.

[Espresso]

At this point you cannot tell where the honda really is, cause redbull in no way have as good chassis as they had last year. Hell i'd say mclaren even has a better chassis than them and they are 4rth best. However the drivability of the Honda is helping them. I need not to remind you complains from Max last year about how the engine chocked on low rpms. People often think that Hartley did nothing at TR however his role was really specific into providing honda with info on how to improve the drivability of the engine and the overall tune powerband.

There is one of those made up terms, Drive-ability. What does that even mean???? Do they get amazing starts from it? no, they are average so far this, at best. Do they have less wheel spin because of it? no. Less tire consumption? No.

It was something that in the early years of the new PU regs meant something but now means nothing.

Traction and drivability are the terms Formula engineers and mechanics use. Not "mechanical grip" or some silly term that makes no sense. Drivability is the ability to modulate power delivery of the drivetrain in a way that suits the drivers style and is congruent and predictable with the given pedal input.

I always thought:
Driveability = the degree of smoothness and steadiness of acceleration of an automotive vehicle -or- (F1 specific) how good the car suits the driving style of the pilot.

Mechanical grip = The resistance between tire and surface resulting in the amount of traction a car can transfer.

Aerodynamical grip = Stability of the car in the airflow.