Renault Power Unit Hardware & Software

[lio007]

"Reliability is under control"... I hope so

http://en.f1i.com/news/46026-reliabilit ... affin.html

[Juzh]

Start/finish line is the best example of how nonsensical testing trap numbers are.

Also, s1 and s2 speed trap are utterly meaningless because they're positioned in places where power is not important, but corner exit/late braking is. Last year hamilton was a FULL 15 kmh up on everyone else in S2 speed trap simply because he was braking so late.

[FoxHound]

But if we look at the general gist of that chart, Renault power was in the top 3 of all but one.

In relation to Red Bull, I think that their reputation for being aero wizards also has a price in a straight line. And this follows for the RB12.
I'll agree with anyone who says the Renault PU was not as strong as either Ferrari or Merc in 2015.

This year it looks far more sorted though, and if the Renault team manage to get speeds close to that set by Merc or Ferrari, how can we deduce otherwise that Red Bull aren't running more DF and therefore more drag?

[Juzh]

But if we look at the general gist of that chart, Renault power was in the top 3 of all but one.

In relation to Red Bull, I think that their reputation for being aero wizards also has a price in a straight line. And this follows for the RB12.
I'll agree with anyone who says the Renault PU was not as strong as either Ferrari or Merc in 2015.

This year it looks far more sorted though, and if the Renault team manage to get speeds close to that set by Merc or Ferrari, how can we deduce otherwise that Red Bull aren't running more DF and therefore more drag?

The problem is palmer interview in which he openly admits renault in 2016 is no match for mercedes from 2015 (he tested a merc powered lotus last year). It makes me sceptical on the whole renault gains. RB on most days had almost identical traps to those of last year. I hope somehow those renault trap numbers will translate into something real, but I won't hold my breath.

[FoxHound]

I would hold more faith in the numbers than Palmer's opinion. And that isn't to say he's useless, he's a rookie with limited experience.

Each engine will have their own unique characteristics. But seat of the pants type feedback I'd listen to the likes of Button and Alonso.

As an aside, there are days when my 140,000 mile S2000 feels like it has 400bhp, and others 140. And I've done 100k miles in it.

Edit: the suggestion is that Renault have improved quite a bit, but are still behind.

[ME4ME]

Whatever Renault have gained over the winter, you need to substract Mercedes' PU progress from that to see the net gain. If Renault gained 0.5 sec and Mercedes 0.3 sec PU-wise, then that decreases the gap by 0.2. At Abu Dhabi in qualifying, Ricciardo was 1.2 sec off pole. So if Red Bull and Mercedes have developed at equal speed chassi/aero wise, they'll still be 1.0 seconds behind. Progress is being made, which is good. But it won't dramatically change Red Bulls competitiveness just yet. Just my opinion.

[dot235]

The problem is palmer interview in which he openly admits renault in 2016 is no match for mercedes from 2015 (he tested a merc powered lotus last year).

Doesn't it go without saying?
Ferrari 2015 EPU is also better than Renault 2016.

Did you seriously expect for Renault to make a bigger progress than Ferrari did at the beginning of 2015 season?
Let's not forget also that Renault from 2014 to 2015 practically didn't improve at all. If they did a good work over winter, then that deficit to older Ferrari EPU might not be big, but it's still there. Especially if we were compare it to the Abu Dhabi specs EPU, which I assume Toro Rosso is using.

No it seems Palmer's opinion evolved after he tested the car in Barcelona2. Autosport suggested Palmer noticed a performance difference compared to Barcelona1. And the Brit said this PU is not far off the 2015 Merc... It might be PR though
However, the RS.16 which is basically a tweaked Abu Dhabi version of the Merc-engined E23 aerodynamically, has regularly scored equal or better speed traps than the E23 in 2015 qualy and 2015 winter-testing. Has it less downforce than E23? it has definitely less DF than the best cars, but why would it have less DF than the E23?
No, IMO the 2016 PU is closing the gap to the Spanish spec of the Merc 2015 PU, atleast regarding maximum power.

Same reason why you often have different speedtraps between team-mates during qualy? Both drivers have been replaced, so.. An interesting opinion, but it's far away from being confirmed.

[aral]

No it seems Palmer's opinion evolved after he tested the car in Barcelona2. Autosport suggested Palmer noticed a performance difference compared to Barcelona1. And the Brit said this PU is not far off the 2015 Merc... It might be PR though
However, the RS.16 which is basically a tweaked Abu Dhabi version of the Merc-engined E23 aerodynamically, has regularly scored equal or better speed traps than the E23 in 2015 qualy and 2015 winter-testing. Has it less downforce than E23? it has definitely less DF than the best cars, but why would it have less DF than the E23?
No, IMO the 2016 PU is closing the gap to the Spanish spec of the Merc 2015 PU, atleast regarding maximum power.

After suggesting following his spell in the car last week the Renault power unit was "not as powerful as the Mercedes engine" used by the Enstone team in 2015, Palmer has been pleasantly surprised by what he experienced in his latest outing.
"The Renault power unit is not bad at all really," assessed Palmer.
"After day one we found there was a little issue we hadn't quite got on top of, so it was already feeling a lot better.
"There are improvements all the time, and I'm really happy with how the guys are working at Viry.
"The engine doesn't feel massively different from last year's Mercedes, although I'm sure Mercedes has improved, but they [Renault] are working hard and I'm quite pleased with the direction."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/123090

And i thought that this was a thread about the rb12 TAG-Heuer !

[toraabe]

Well increasing boost pressure at low rpms probably creates much more exhaust pressure as well, which only serves to enhance turbine output as well as recovery. ......

the MGU-H simultaneously motoring and generating ?
or what exactly ?

Both.... depends on the exhaust pressure. The MGU-H is pre spinning to have , let's say 2,5 bar from 4000 rpm. . That means that the engine produces more power hence more exhaust pressure. There is probably a exhaust pressure device that is measuring the exhaust pressure in the manifold and torque measurement in in the MGU-H from the turbine, through advanced algorithms in the ECU together with how much exhaust pressure there has bo be before the MGU-H softly switches from pre spin, to being a generator, where you can gain thermal efficiency-- and so on. This is very advanced software and is contributing to the existing costs of the PU.

[gruntguru]

No question the software is advanced but maintaining a desired level of boost using the MGUH is not rocket science:

- Boost less than target => send power to the MGUH.
- Boost greater than target => draw power from the MGUH.

Agree with the notion that MGUH assistance at low rpm is somewhat self-sustaining.

[Mr.G]

No question the software is advanced but maintaining a desired level of boost using the MGUH is not rocket science:

- Boost less than target => send power to the MGUH.
- Boost greater than target => draw power from the MGUH.

Agree with the notion that MGUH assistance at low rpm is somewhat self-sustaining.

Actually I think this is one of the hardest thing. They need to optimize the hysteresis depending on various rpm, loads, etc... You can not set the system to have only "two" states. They surely need to calculate with the inertia of the system and lots of other variables...

[gruntguru]

I'm sure it is a fairly simple control loop. Boost used to be controlled very accurately with a simple mechanical device (wastegate). Controlling boost with a VFD and the MGUH would be a piece of cake. Simple PID loop would do the trick. All the inertias and lags come out in the wash once the optimum values for P, I and D have been determined.

No doubt the F1 gurus have made it more sophisticated than that, perhaps with mapped values for P,I and D, feed-forward, filtering etc etc.

[Mr.G]

I'm sure it is a fairly simple control loop. Boost used to be controlled very accurately with a simple mechanical device (wastegate). Controlling boost with a VFD and the MGUH would be a piece of cake. Simple PID loop would do the trick. All the inertias and lags come out in the wash once the optimum values for P, I and D have been determined.

No doubt the F1 gurus have made it more sophisticated than that, perhaps with mapped values for P,I and D, feed-forward, filtering etc etc.

That it's exactly what I meant... Of course once you solve it and find the sweet balance it's just "simple" PID regulator...

[gandharva]

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 18779.html

- better reliability
- better driveability
- +35bhp (Canada spec)
- 0.6s improvement per lap (similar like Ferrari did in 2015)

[jure]

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 18779.html

- better reliability
- better driveability
- +35bhp (Canada spec)
- 0.6s improvement per lap (similar like Ferrari did in 2015)

I just don't understand why are they saying the performance gain was modest. Speed traps were good, Ricciardo said engine has more power, Marko praised engine progress,... Maybe it's gain relative to the others?