Red Bull RB10 Renault

[djos]

Thanks for stating the obvious. What I meant was this: IMHO such an outlet only makes sense if the air from the inlet doesn't add to the internal airflow. That in return would mean that they are cooling a totally separated area - which for me is hard to believe.
But they have some clever guys so they will know what they are doing.

What goes in must come out right?

And Vents also require an intake an exit to function properly.

[Artur Craft]

Nice comparison. Mercedes clearly has a lower ride height. I believe the rake is comparable or perhaps a bit bigger on the red bull.

just watch the highlights videos by FOM(unfortunately the day 4 one was deleted due to copyrights).

RB10 has MUCH more rake than anybody, maybe even more than they had last year. It's just ridiculously huge. Newey is doing wonders there as I doubt he would use such a rake without giving a good partial seal to it. People like Button and Windsor claiming RB10 to be very fast on corners is not surprising. With that rake, they easily might have the most downforce once more.

They rank, rake-wise, as this from what I saw in the videos:

Red Bull>>> Mercedes> SRT> Caterham> Ferrari > Mclaren, Sauber, FI, Williams

EDIT: Great, I found another version of the video I was talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEOyxK4kiaw

[henra]

http://imageshack.com/a/img703/6489/mwmh.jpg

downsides of having the MGUH between the cylinder heads; higher COG.

Although the conclusion may be right, the pic itself especially with the drawn line could be a bit misleading.
The forward part of the rear crash structure on the RB10 sits low on the floor whereas on the Merc it is 'floating' high above the floor.

Therefore the lines on the Merc are converging from both sides. Exhaust slightly lower, crash structure higher. The exact contribution of each is difficult to tell but I would say that the bigger part of it is due to the Merc's crash structure sitting higher.
If anything it would probably bemore exact to compare simply the exhaust location on an overall rear shot of the two cars.

[BorisTheBlade]

It's a complete and utter disaster. As soon as they bolt on new parts they can't make the car run more than a couple of laps.

To me it looks like they need a miracle to make it to the chequered flag come Melbourne. The penultimate day isn't the time for slogans like "all is not lost" anymore.

[shelly]

[img/]http://img2.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Red ... 758401.jpg[/img]

These extre cooling inlets have more or less the sam siza and position of last year inlets under the coanda bridge - so maybe they will be integrated in a revised sidepod design in a way that will look similar to last years' boodywork

[Jv12]

Vía @motorpasionf1: Helmut Marko has said there is a 165 hp difference between the Mercedes and Renault engine.

[Thunder]

Vía @motorpasionf1: Helmut Marko has said there is a 165 hp difference between the Mercedes and Renault engine.

AMuS reported that too, but that was related to the Complete ERS not working, which is that Power Number. Nothing to do with the Renault Engine.

[gandharva]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmL5tX9na9A[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO9GT-NpdkU[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ECGEY81KyQ[/youtube]

From 2:34
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... gGyA#t=152[/youtube]

[NTS]

Nothing to do with the Renault Engine.

That's a bit misleading way to say it don't you think? It has everything to do with the Renault Power Unit, which includes the ERS.

[atanatizante]

Sorry mods, I know it`s the wrong thread but maybe someone wanna know more about what issues Renault is facing right now:

Changes Renault have made since Jerez...

Change of battery cell provider
The individual cells that make up the Energy Store have individual over-charge and over-discharge protection. These were proving unreliable due to thermal/vibration issues. Whilst the energy store is sealed in our fitment, I am informed the cells are now supplied by Panasonic.

Change to MGU-K to Crank drive gearing
The original torque multiplication factor was calculated to give a wider spread of torque on acceleration. Track testing found that this was causing traction difficulties and overloading the gear set and causing failure of the crank casing.

Change to turbocharger wastegate function
Renault had originally intended for the H to regulate Turbine speed in 95%+ of normal running. They facilitated this by allowing the H to pull charge (when the energy store was at capacity) to an air cooled heat sink. This strategy proved ineffective in certain environments and a more conventional wastegate is now being used to supplement the H.

Due to both the change in K gear ratio, boost control strategy and the energy store, most of the software relating to the charge and discharge cycling has been modified daily and continues to be refined. There are still issues relating to turbine speed control via H but these are mostly to do with fine tuning of the control software and the synchronisation between H control and wastegate control.

There has been swift progress and software related driveability now appears to be the main issue.

Re the H to K transfer
There are times when you can't (or wouldn't want to) transfer power from the H to the K but still need to limit turbo speed.

Think along the lines of a short burst of acceleration then slight deceleration then acceleration (such as feathering throttle for traction or in a switch back). The last thing the driver would want is for the K to feed power into driveline.

During those transitional situations Renault wanted to control the speed of the turbo by using the H to maintain shaft speed at or close to max rpm. It turned out (partly because of the driveability issues) that H was dumping to the heat sink far more than had been predicted or modelled. This was causing severe heat related issues in some cars at Jerez and the Renault 'patch' was to disable the H entirely and rely on the mechanical wastegate for the remainder of the test.

Obviously this resulted in dramatically increased lag and reduced performance but allowed some mileage to be put on the ICE.

In the interests of transparency it should be disclosed that we have had no first-hand experience with the original spec PU used in Jerez.

Our running experience started with a version that had basic H functioning and limited K output.


Source: @enotsne/forums.autosport.com

[Thunder]

That's a bit misleading way to say it don't you think? It has everything to do with the Renault Power Unit, which includes the ERS.

Well yes and no. ^^

Talking about Engine Power always leads to the "Combustion Unit" (sorry not a native English speaker) itself since the ERS Power is regulated. But yes the Word Engine is a bit unclear this Year. Although we didn't talk about the PU.

God i hate the new Rules.

[jagunx51]

Vía @motorpasionf1: Helmut Marko has said there is a 165 hp difference between the Mercedes and Renault engine.

AMuS reported that too, but that was related to the Complete ERS not working, which is that Power Number. Nothing to do with the Renault Engine.

Hmmmm......can they run a race distance with only V6 power ?

[WhiteBlue]

As we can see from the above post the Red Bull problems have very little to do with the ICE and practically everything is related to the ERS.

The issues that are described are of a nature that can be eliminated by running the ERS, the turbo and the ICE together in a mule. Ferrari difinitely did that and one has to assume that MERC also had a mule.

Only Renault were dumb enough to believe in father Xmas and did no mule testing. It really shows now that they are have so many basic issues get got ironed out by their competitors a long time ago.


This shows once again that you have to go to the edge of the rules and use everything available from the black and grey area. Only then you have a decent chance to be competitive. Red Bull screwed up when they decided to rely on Renault for a 2014 engine. They should have made it themselves. The opportunity was there with P.U.R.E. Bad luck they took the wrong turn. The RB10 would have been a much better car from the start. As it stands we know practically nothing about it's competitiveness.

[Thunder]

@WhiteBlue: Of course Renault has Problems but it isn't solely their fault. Caterham did over 100 Laps Today.

[i70q7m7ghw]

http://imageshack.com/a/img703/6489/mwmh.jpg

downsides of having the MGUH between the cylinder heads; higher COG.

The rear crash structures are at different heights on the two cars, that picture isn't really a reliable comparison.