The Renault V8 Engine

[SectorOne]

Popular belief suggests that the Renault engine is the weakest but the most fuel efficient and the most "usable" or map-friendly.

But with Renault being able to "upgrade" their engine a while back, is it possible that they now have horsepower on par with Mercedes (who are believed to have the strongest engine) while still retaining the other good things the engine did well prior to that?

What were they allowed to change during this upgrade?

[kooleracer]

Popular belief suggests that the Renault engine is the weakest but the most fuel efficient and the most "usable" or map-friendly.

But with Renault being able to "upgrade" their engine a while back, is it possible that they now have horsepower on par with Mercedes (who are believed to have the strongest engine) while still retaining the other good things the engine did well prior to that?

What were they allowed to change during this upgrade?

Don't think that FIA, Ferrari and Mercedes would have allowed a change that would gain Renault horsepower. I just think the new Formula without refueling and the delicate Pirelli tires suit the Renault more than the Mercedes engine. Also their way of dealing with exhaust gasses has given them a significant advantage over their competitors, because of the cleverness of Red Bull engineers. With the Renault being more fuel efficient and down on power and more usable. This has given them the advantage of needing less fuel during the race. Also i don't think any team max out their engines anymore, because of fuel saving and engine life rules, maybe that’s why the Renault is now on par with Mercedes and Ferrari. Mercedes only go max during Q3 that’s why they are closer to Red Bull then during quali. These Pirelli don't like to get hit with 750bhp with a 140-150kg fuel onboard. The Renault engine just is more suited for the new formula.

[SectorOne]

So what did they change during the upgrade to bring it to the other engines level?

[Juzh]

They were something like 30-40hp down before the upgrade. Now they're 5-10.

[kooleracer]

So what did they change during the upgrade to bring it to the other engines level?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82246

[Shrieker]

The question is why they were allowed the upgrade in an engine freeze ruleset. If they were, why weren't others ? I guess this was a bribe to prevent Renault from quitting. Politics politics...

Reliability and cost my a$$. I bet those changes were specific towards exhaust blowing. I love how Horner says Mercedes powered cars could win all races if the changes were not allowed. Look how it is now, Renault cars winning all the races haha. As always, the FIA...

[kooleracer]

The question is why they were allowed the upgrade in an engine freeze ruleset. If they were, why weren't others ? I guess this was a bribe to prevent Renault from quitting. Politics politics...

Reliability and cost my a$$. I bet those changes were specific towards exhaust blowing. I love how Horner says Mercedes powered cars could win all races if the changes were not allowed. Look how it is now, Renault cars winning all the races haha. As always, the FIA...

Not totally right, Lotus F1/Renault haven't done well. Newey is a bigger factor. But nowadays the Renault engineers do a wonderful job on their engine maps/modes. Like the article said "reliability" changes. FIA is french and Renault is French 1 + 1= 2. But Ferrari an Mercedes have a big influence as well. Like I said, I don't think that Renault gained much performance after the change, Horner just dramatized the situation. The Renault engine was only marginally down 5-15bhp max compared to Mercedes and Ferrari. But of course clever engineers at renault would find away to make performance changes fall under the reliability flag.

[dren]

Didn't several engine manufacturers do the same thing, make performance gains on the basis of reliability? Renault wasn't the only one. Honda was going to be allowed before they quit, too.

[xpensive]

The real winners in the beginning of the engine "freeze" was Ferrari, when granted a number of "reliability upgrades".

But that was with MrM in charge of the FIA of course, now it's a french-speaking MrT at the helm.

Go figure.

[turbof1]

Popular belief suggests that the Renault engine is the weakest but the most fuel efficient and the most "usable" or map-friendly.

But with Renault being able to "upgrade" their engine a while back, is it possible that they now have horsepower on par with Mercedes (who are believed to have the strongest engine) while still retaining the other good things the engine did well prior to that?

What were they allowed to change during this upgrade?

I'd like to take the most recent change as an example: Ferrari changed their engine spec back in Spain 2010. They effectively were allowed to do so on ground of reliability reasons. Scarbs wrote a very interesting and detailed report about that:
http://scarbsf1.com/blog1/2010/05/12/fe ... ification/

I like to quote this specific piece:

Teams are however allowed to make changes to the their engines for reliability reasons, this applies both to resolving issues that have ‘blown up’ engines, as well as impending failures. To request a change, teams have to apply to the FIA outlining the reason for the change and the resulting changes. This information is passed around the other engine suppliers, this transparency helps to reduce excessive changes and reassures teams what their rivals might or might not be getting up to.

So whatever advantage Renault got out of their engine spec change, other teams were informed about it and accepted it.

I also would like to mention James Allen's article about engine performance in general in 2009, who was brave enough to put numbers on it:
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2009/11/a ... e-in-2009/

The Renault won out this year [2009] on fuel efficiency, however, which was pretty important this year and will be much more important next year [2010] with no refuellling. Compared to the Mercedes, the Renault would go four laps longer on a full tank of fuel, which is worth about 3/10ths of a second per lap next year. The Ferrari was less efficient than the Mercedes, as we saw on several occasions this year.

Most teams reached the conclusion, based on acoustic analysis and GPS, that the spread of engine power from the best to the worst engines was less than 2.5% this year. This means that, if the Mercedes is believed to have had 755hp, the least powerful engine was 18hp down, which is worth just under 3/10ths of a second per lap.

[SectorOne]

Very interesting stuff, i did not know about this transparency (like when Mercedes tested and nobody knew anything except FIA)

So 4 laps more fuel efficient but at the expense of about 18 horses.
Which would equate to about 3 tenths per lap.

Now what would a theoretical start weight fuel be between the Merc and the Red Bull if they would fill up the cars to just make the whole race?

8-10kg´s? maybe? and how many tenths are that in penalty in the opening laps of the race?
Seems like it all adds up to zero when you take it all into account,

[Juzh]

I think it's not that difficult to work it out. More power -> more fuel consumption for mercs and vice versa for renault. Wasn't toyota actually the weakest V8 engine? Even weaker than the reanult.
How does drop in max rpm affect power output? What was the most powerful v10 engine anyway?

[SectorOne]

I think all V10´s eventually hit that top echelon of performance but think if you look at all of the years, BMW seemed to be ahead of the game bar first year.

On some onboards you can almost see the sheer brutality of the engine. Especially the early days, complete utter madness.
There´s a video with Montoya and Schumacher at Malaysia i think, at the start Schumi gets a better start but once not traction limited the BMW just pulls him in quite impressively.

The freaky bit is that their most hardcore engine ever never even raced.

[Spacepace]

Which was what?

[zenji]

P85 b or c, maybe?
I'm not sure why, but most of the 299cc cylinder motors used an 8mm tooth pitch for the timing gear.
And all the most drivable engines had butterfly throttle, and the peakiest had barrell throttle.
Bmw, Toyota, Cosworth used barrell throttle.
Ferrari, Renault, Honda used butteflys.
Ilmor Mercedes earlier had barrell and later to butterfly.
Barrell are more disruptive to flow at mid throttle, but less disruptive at full power.
The opposite is true of butterflys.

I have no Phd or diploma and most of my statement is intuitive.