whats wrong with the renault engines?

[dans79]

Will it be smiles of long faces? I guess we'll know soon enough

To me it doesn't really matter, as long as they have to make due with what they get done by the 28th. The "reliability" updates the FIA have handed out in the past is a bunch of socialist garbage. The only way updates should be allowed is if every manufacture can make unrestricted updates at the same time.

[langwadt]

Will it be smiles of long faces? I guess we'll know soon enough

To me it doesn't really matter, as long as they have to make due with what they get done by the 28th. The "reliability" updates the FIA have handed out in the past is a bunch of socialist garbage. The only way updates should be allowed is if every manufacture can make unrestricted updates at the same time.

don't the other manufacturers have to agree on reliability breaks?

I'd say it more like the unwritten gentleman rules of most other sports, you'd want a fair fight and so does the viewers

[dans79]

don't the other manufacturers have to agree on reliability breaks?

I'd say it more like the unwritten gentleman rules of most other sports, you'd want a fair fight and so does the viewers

as far as I know other teams don't have a say, just the fia.

letting one manufacture catch up because they did a sub-par job initially, is unfair and un-sporting to the manufactures that did do a good job in my opinion. If one manufacture wants to make updates then all manufactures should be allowed to. A manufacture that was behind could still catch up, but to do so they would have to make up for the there original deficiencies and any gains the competition made.

[Manoah2u]

don't the other manufacturers have to agree on reliability breaks?

I'd say it more like the unwritten gentleman rules of most other sports, you'd want a fair fight and so does the viewers

as far as I know other teams don't have a say, just the fia.

letting one manufacture catch up because they did a sub-par job initially, is unfair and un-sporting to the manufactures that did do a good job in my opinion. If one manufacture wants to make updates then all manufactures should be allowed to. A manufacture that was behind could still catch up, but to do so they would have to make up for the there original deficiencies and any gains the competition made.

+2

if they are allowed more time to catch up,

then caterham and other back markers should be granted extra testing time because they aren't as fast as redbull or ferrari.

[FrukostScones]

has this been posted already? from autosport.forums:

OnTheGas, on 19 Feb 2014 - 10:07, said:

Craig Scarborough has reported new information on this Renault problem on the Pit Stop Radio Show podcast on Monday evening. One can download the show here, also.



@ minute 14:17, after discussing the ES problem briefly, Craig then says the big problem is in the ERS-K system. He said the ERS-K was apparently bringing its power in too quickly back to the ICE mainshaft, causing failure in the ERS-K, and the crankcase itself. He said there is a fundamental problem with the shaft of the ERS-K. Consequently, they now have a big redesign.



"For the rest of testing, they're going to have to without full ERS power... There is also some debate as to whether this part will be ready for Melbourne as well. So potentially for some of the first races the Renault engines could be handicapped because of this problem with this motor generator."



That is the fourth person to report some information on this same problem... First the Judge from the Jerez paddock reported it directly, then Rob White of Renault Sport F1 alluded to this in his interview of Jan 31st, Gian Carlo Minardi's own article of Feb 13th had an obtuse reference to this, and now this Scarborough podcast interview describes it more directly.

[FrukostScones]

@ dans79

F1 cannot afford a not working Renault engine (PU), because it would ruin a lot of things (Reputation of Renault, F1, Red Bull etc.); so Renault will be allowd to take the necessary steps to make their not working PU work. I don't see anything unfair in this because if Mercedes or Ferrari would have a reliability problems they will be allowed to take the same steps too. It is the FIA that regulates the whole process, so they will be no relevant powergains, they will just allow Renault to make the necessary changes to make the PU work.
I agree because I don't want to see 8 guaranteed retirements in the first races. I wan to see competition. Even if the Renaulkt cars are 3 seconds off the pace they will compete against each other.
And I think this is in the interest of the fans.

[motobaleno]

@ dans79

F1 cannot afford a not working Renault engine (PU), because it would ruin a lot of things (Reputation of Renault, F1, Red Bull etc.); so Renault will be allowd to take the necessary steps to make their not working PU work. I don't see anything unfair in this because if Mercedes or Ferrari would have a reliability problems they will be allowed to take the same steps too. It is the FIA that regulates the whole process, so they will be no relevant powergains, they will just allow Renault to make the necessary changes to make the PU work.
I agree because I don't want to see 8 guaranteed retirements in the first races. I wan to see competition. Even if the Renaulkt cars are 3 seconds off the pace they will compete against each other.
And I think this is in the interest of the fans.

In theory this reasoning should be final but actually what recent history tells us is that renault has already once solved some reliability problems gaining strategic advantage over all its competitors and the most dangerous thing is that only a posteriori one could certify it. a priori reanult V8 only claimed some cooling problems and needed to flow some air off throttle...an apparent innocent thing...but then there were EBD...
and for what concerns the interest of the fans...well fans are very different each other...personally I liked very much old gp where often half of the cars didn't arrive the flag...

[Juzh]

In the current state you can bet any money that no renault team would finish the race. And I really don't get it why everyone wants to see half the field retired. This is not 30 years ago. There will be a million safety cars because cars will need to be removed which will dull the race more than thrills of numerous retirements. Not to mention a thousand penalties FIA will unleash upon the teams.

[myurr]

In the current state you can bet any money that no renault team would finish the race. And I really don't get it why everyone wants to see half the field retired. This is not 30 years ago. There will be a million safety cars because cars will need to be removed which will dull the race more than thrills of numerous retirements. Not to mention a thousand penalties FIA will unleash upon the teams.

Same reason some people love seeing only one driver / team be able to challenge for the win.

[vtr]

In the current state you can bet any money that no renault team would finish the race. And I really don't get it why everyone wants to see half the field retired. This is not 30 years ago. There will be a million safety cars because cars will need to be removed which will dull the race more than thrills of numerous retirements. Not to mention a thousand penalties FIA will unleash upon the teams.

I'd say most power unit failures would allow the driver to park the car somewhere safe, maybe even close to the little gaps at the walls. No safety car needed for most of them.

[dans79]

In theory this reasoning should be final but actually what recent history tells us is that renault has already once solved some reliability problems gaining strategic advantage over all its competitors and the most dangerous thing is that only a posteriori one could certify it. a priori reanult V8 only claimed some cooling problems and needed to flow some air off throttle...an apparent innocent thing...but then there were EBD...

It wasn't just Renault either, all the competent manufactures managed to squeeze in performance gains when they did reliability updates.

Basically my opinion is that the fia is a bureaucratic institution, that doesn't have the technical skill set or funds to properly regulate something like this. The only way to make sure a manufacture isn't getting performance improvements along with the reliability ones would be to dyno the engine before and after the update on every possible mapping, and them making sure all the numbers deviate by less than a very small percentage.

[Pup]

has this been posted already? from autosport.forums:

OnTheGas, on 19 Feb 2014 - 10:07, said:
...the ERS-K was apparently bringing its power in too quickly back to the ICE mainshaft, causing failure in the ERS-K, and the crankcase itself. He said there is a fundamental problem with the shaft of the ERS-K. Consequently, they now have a big redesign.

"For the rest of testing, they're going to have to without full ERS power... There is also some debate as to whether this part will be ready for Melbourne as well. So potentially for some of the first races the Renault engines could be handicapped because of this problem with this motor generator."

This would explain how Renault was able to get the reliability somewhat sorted via software; presumably at a direct cost to performance.

What I don't understand is how the problem is the shaft of the ERS-K. I mean, if the ERS-K is able to rip the crank case apart, I'd say whatever shaft that connects it to the engine is working pretty damned well. It's the crankcase, crankshaft, piston rods and bearings that I'd be wondering about. Perhaps the shaft is deforming under stress?

Renault's head of track operations Remi Taffin said that the manufacturer believes its cars will be able to run as much as the teams want to from now on.

So it's also confirmed that Renault had previously limited the amount of running their teams could do. Sounds like TJ13 was right on the money.

In addition to the lead time to get a real fix, the other question is how much did they have to turn down the power to make the cars reliable?

[mkable1370]

has this been posted already? from autosport.forums:

OnTheGas, on 19 Feb 2014 - 10:07, said:
...the ERS-K was apparently bringing its power in too quickly back to the ICE mainshaft, causing failure in the ERS-K, and the crankcase itself. He said there is a fundamental problem with the shaft of the ERS-K. Consequently, they now have a big redesign.

"For the rest of testing, they're going to have to without full ERS power... There is also some debate as to whether this part will be ready for Melbourne as well. So potentially for some of the first races the Renault engines could be handicapped because of this problem with this motor generator."

This would explain how Renault was able to get the reliability somewhat sorted via software; presumably at a direct cost to performance.

What I don't understand is how the problem is the shaft of the ERS-K. I mean, if the ERS-K is able to rip the crank case apart, I'd say whatever shaft that connects it to the engine is working pretty damned well. It's the crankcase, crankshaft, piston rods and bearings that I'd be wondering about. Perhaps the shaft is deforming under stress?

Renault's head of track operations Remi Taffin said that the manufacturer believes its cars will be able to run as much as the teams want to from now on.

So it's also confirmed that Renault had previously limited the amount of running their teams could do. Sounds like TJ13 was right on the money.

In addition to the lead time to get a real fix, the other question is how much did they have to turn down the power to make the cars reliable?

Um... from today's running, they don't yet seem to be reliable.

[Pup]

Um... from today's running, they don't yet seem to be reliable.

Somewhat, said I. Caterham did 68 laps.

[Andres125sx]

F1 cannot afford a not working Renault engine (PU), because it would ruin a lot of things (Reputation of Renault, F1, Red Bull etc.); so Renault will be allowd to take the necessary steps to make their not working PU work. I don't see anything unfair in this because if Mercedes or Ferrari would have a reliability problems they will be allowed to take the same steps too.

Agree, but this is supposed to be the pinacle of motorsports, so I don´t really like they promote all the engines perform equally, there should be differences like on any other motorsport.... Or they want F1 to be like GP2, Formula Ford or the Clio Cup?

If you see it from your point of view I agree it´s not unfair, but if you see it from the perspective this is a competition not only between drivers but also between manufacturers, then it is clearly unfair because some are being allowed to evolve their engine more than the rest.

This is competition, if you fail you´re out.... or you should be out, that´s the way I see it

And if you want to be evil-minded.... Renault was struggling until they were allowed to improve their engine in 2009, from that point they´ve been dominant.... What a coincidence...

It is the FIA that regulates the whole process, so they will be no relevant powergains

I agree because I don't want to see 8 guaranteed retirements in the first races. I wan to see competition. Even if the Renaulkt cars are 3 seconds off the pace they will compete against each other.
And I think this is in the interest of the fans.

To me retirements are like any other mistake, I don´t see any reason only driver mistakes must have consequences but if it´s an engineer who make the mistake they are allowed to solve it

Also, retirement can be exciting too... at least for the midfielders. It´s nice to see someone unexpected winning from time to time