whats wrong with the renault engines?

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
User avatar
Blackout
1566
Joined: 09 Feb 2010, 04:12

Re: whats wrong with the renault engines?

Post

I'm glad Caterham, STR and RBR did confirm what Taffin said yesterday and ran so many laps. I hope Lotus will confirm what Taffin said today: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112588
Otherwise, Lotus is screwed and wont catch up...

It looks like the Renaul dyno at Viry is very limited. Seems like they cant make progress if they dont run the car on a real track... As if they only use the dyno to validate what they learn on track...

User avatar
Juzh
161
Joined: 06 Oct 2012, 08:45

Re: whats wrong with the renault engines?

Post

@andreas
Spoken like a true alonso supporter, oblivious and ignorant.
Renault engine was nowhere compared to merc or ferrari in 2008 indeed. But want to know why? Because both merc and ferrari were exploiting the same "reliability upgrades" during the engine freeze to the much greater extent than renault. Ferrari were also allowed further changes during 2010.

Retirements are ok, IF development is allowed. If you're stuck with a sub-optimal part which you are unable to develop then there will be very little incentive for you to stay in F1. If renault as somehow stuck at the season start with a severely underpowered/unreliable engine then you can be sure as anything they won't continue for long if no upgrades are allowed.
There were a lot of retirements in the past years, yes. But they were also always allowed to develop their engines further.

User avatar
FW17
169
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: whats wrong with the renault engines?

Post

List of problems so far;

1) Battery
2) ERS software
3) Too aggressive power delivery
4) Break by wire

#-o

User avatar
Juzh
161
Joined: 06 Oct 2012, 08:45

Re: whats wrong with the renault engines?

Post

How is brake by wire a renault problem? Seems more like a RB problem to me.

CBeck113
CBeck113
51
Joined: 17 Feb 2013, 19:43

Re: whats wrong with the renault engines?

Post

Here is a short interview with Kobayashi, saying that the Renault motor is too weak and brings the power too agressively:
http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/news ... 22036.html

Edit: in English: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112590
“Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!” Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Pup
Pup
50
Joined: 08 May 2008, 17:45

Re: whats wrong with the renault engines?

Post

Yeah, sadly it's becoming pretty clear that much of Renault's "fix" was simply to reduce the power enough to get the cars running.

Skippon
Skippon
8
Joined: 19 Nov 2010, 00:49
Location: England

Re: whats wrong with the renault engines?

Post

Juzh,

the fly-by-wire on the rear brakes is an "engine" problem as harvesting ERS energy via MGU-K affects the brake bias of the car under control of the power unit..........

gridwalker
gridwalker
7
Joined: 27 Mar 2009, 12:22
Location: Sheffield, UK

Re: whats wrong with the renault engines?

Post

WilliamsF1 wrote:4) Break by wire
No wonder they are failing so often. They should have installed Brake by wire ...

I have long suspected that Bernie had something like this hidden in his office :
Image
Maybe someone just linked it up to the steering wheel. I've heard sillier examples of a typo causing multi-million dollar failures :lol:

Ok, enough joking ... I just couldn't resist that one.
"Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine ..."

autogyro
autogyro
53
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 15:03

Re: whats wrong with the renault engines?

Post

It was fairly easy to predict problems with the balancing of energy recovery with rear wheel braking.
Adding 'brake by wire' in a fully automatic mode on the rear just makes the balancing much worse.

Power train maps that finely and accurately control energy recovery from two sources, heat and deceleration (kinetic), are not really compatible with an automatic brake operating system, the later has too many variables.
Trying to design around the problem hydraulically will usually end up with binding brakes and or glazed disks (or whatever they now call the problem of compromised friction material).

IMO harvesting kinetic energy and applying energy at the crankshaft nose is asking for trouble.
All the counter torques and bending forces are being applied directly to the most important and potentially fragile part of the power train.

The other result of this automatic rear braking control is to further isolate the driver from his skill function.
The cars in effect go very quickly out of driver control and will give far less confidence.

IMO with the problems added to by the aero designers packaging with no lee way for heat extraction, untested tyres having to deal with more constant and higher torque levels and no proper circuit testing available, this will result in a disaster at the first GP. probably a few fires and many crashed and retired cars.

Of course there is a better way with a sensible place to apply and harvest kinetic energy and it is not at the engine.
It depends on how far the 'design by committee' approach to F1 has gone as to whether it would now be allowed.

User avatar
iotar__
7
Joined: 28 Sep 2012, 12:31

Re: whats wrong with the renault engines?

Post

autogyro wrote:It was fairly easy to predict problems with the balancing of energy recovery with rear wheel braking.
Adding 'brake by wire' in a fully automatic mode on the rear just makes the balancing much worse.

Power train maps that finely and accurately control energy recovery from two sources, heat and deceleration (kinetic), are not really compatible with an automatic brake operating system, the later has too many variables.
Trying to design around the problem hydraulically will usually end up with binding brakes and or glazed disks (or whatever they now call the problem of compromised friction material).

IMO harvesting kinetic energy and applying energy at the crankshaft nose is asking for trouble.
All the counter torques and bending forces are being applied directly to the most important and potentially fragile part of the power train.

The other result of this automatic rear braking control is to further isolate the driver from his skill function.
The cars in effect go very quickly out of driver control and will give far less confidence.

IMO with the problems added to by the aero designers packaging with no lee way for heat extraction, untested tyres having to deal with more constant and higher torque levels and no proper circuit testing available, this will result in a disaster at the first GP. probably a few fires and many crashed and retired cars.

Of course there is a better way with a sensible place to apply and harvest kinetic energy and it is not at the engine.
It depends on how far the 'design by committee' approach to F1 has gone as to whether it would now be allowed.
So what?

GB 1996:
Ret 3 Jean Alesi Benetton-Renault 44 Brakes 5
Ret 9 Olivier Panis Ligier-Mugen-Honda 40 Handling 16
Ret 10 Pedro Diniz Ligier-Mugen-Honda 38 Engine 17
Ret 5 Damon Hill Williams-Renault 26 Wheel 1
Ret 20 Pedro Lamy Minardi-Ford 21 Gearbox 19
Ret 16 Ricardo Rosset Footwork-Hart 13 Electrical 20
Ret 18 Ukyo Katayama Tyrrell-Yamaha 12 Engine 12
Ret 2 Eddie Irvine Ferrari 5 Differential 10
Ret 1 Michael Schumacher Ferrari 3 Hydraulics 3

Monaco 1996:
5 19 Mika Salo Tyrrell-Yamaha 70 Collision 11 2
6 7 Mika Hakkinen McLaren-Mercedes 70 Collision 8 1
7 2 Eddie Irvine Ferrari 68 Collision 7
Ret 6 Jacques Villeneuve Williams-Renault 68 Collision 10
Ret 3 Jean Alesi Benetton-Renault 60 Suspension 3
Ret 22 Luca Badoer Forti-Ford 60 Collision 21
Ret 5 Damon Hill Williams-Renault 40 Engine 2
Ret 12 Martin Brundle Jordan-Peugeot 30 Spun off 16
Ret 4 Gerhard Berger Benetton-Renault 9 Gearbox 4
Ret 10 Pedro Diniz Ligier-Mugen-Honda 5 Transmission 17
Ret 16 Ricardo Rosset Footwork-Hart 3 Spun off 20
Ret 18 Ukyo Katayama Tyrrell-Yamaha 2 Spun off 15
Ret 1 Michael Schumacher Ferrari 0 Spun off 1
Ret 11 Rubens Barrichello Jordan-Peugeot 0 Spun off 6
Ret 17 Jos Verstappen Footwork-Hart 0 Spun off 12
Ret 21 Giancarlo Fisichella Minardi-Ford 0 Collision 18
Ret 20 Pedro Lamy Minardi-Ford 0 Collision 19
DNS 23 Andrea Montermini Forti-Ford 0 Collision 19

I remembered those two but there's more ;-) (Canada):
Ret 20 Pedro Lamy Minardi-Ford 44 Collision 19
Ret 22 Luca Badoer Forti-Ford 44 Gearbox 20
Ret 4 Gerhard Berger Benetton-Renault 42 Spun off 7
Ret 1 Michael Schumacher Ferrari 41 Halfshaft 3
Ret 9 Olivier Panis Ligier-Mugen-Honda 39 Engine 11
Ret 19 Mika Salo Tyrrell-Yamaha 39 Engine 14
Ret 10 Pedro Diniz Ligier-Mugen-Honda 38 Engine 18
Ret 11 Rubens Barrichello Jordan-Peugeot 22 Clutch 8
Ret 23 Andrea Montermini Forti-Ford 22 Electrical 22
Ret 15 Heinz-Harald Frentzen Sauber-Ford 19 Gearbox 12
Ret 17 Jos Verstappen Footwork-Hart 10 Engine 13
Ret 16 Ricardo Rosset Footwork-Hart 6 Collision 21
Ret 18 Ukyo Katayama Tyrrell-Yamaha 6 Collision 17
Ret 2 Eddie Irvine Ferrari 1 Suspension 5

User avatar
Andres125sx
166
Joined: 13 Aug 2013, 10:15
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: whats wrong with the renault engines?

Post

Juzh wrote:@andreas
It´s Andres, thanks
Juzh wrote:@andreas
Spoken like a true alonso supporter, oblivious and ignorant.
Is this neccessary? :roll:
Juzh wrote: Renault engine was nowhere compared to merc or ferrari in 2008 indeed. But want to know why? Because both merc and ferrari were exploiting the same "reliability upgrades" during the engine freeze to the much greater extent than renault. Ferrari were also allowed further changes during 2010.
If you read it, I started the phrase with "if you want to be evil-minded" (would be better to think badly?) so it was just a comment that actually was in line with my next quotation where someone was assuming FIA is always fair with all the teams, what IMHO is a big assumption
Juzh wrote:Retirements are ok, IF development is allowed. If you're stuck with a sub-optimal part which you are unable to develop then there will be very little incentive for you to stay in F1. If renault as somehow stuck at the season start with a severely underpowered/unreliable engine then you can be sure as anything they won't continue for long if no upgrades are allowed.
Ok agree, but you´re assuming development is not allowed, and that´s the problem. I can´t understand F1 with frozen engines, and if you add FIA will allow any team with problems to solve them, then where´s the competition?

If we assume engines must be frozen, then I agree, but are you serious?

This is F1, if you start changing the basics of the competition removing the engine from the equation you may end up with some crazy championship with more stupid things like some race scoring more points than the rest... #-o :mrgreen:

munudeges
munudeges
-14
Joined: 10 Jun 2011, 17:08

Re: whats wrong with the renault engines?

Post

autogyro wrote:....untested tyres having to deal with more constant and higher torque levels....
If anyone uses the word 'torque' one more time I'm going to beat them to death. It is a completely meaningless term and anyone who uses it doesn't know what they're talking about.

mudinveins
mudinveins
0
Joined: 27 Jan 2011, 13:27

Re: whats wrong with the renault engines?

Post

Is it that hard to accept that they know what they're talking and just won't bother writing "more torque/power at the wheels with slower engine speeds"?

theTTshark
theTTshark
2
Joined: 19 Jul 2013, 07:19

Re: whats wrong with the renault engines?

Post

munudeges wrote:
autogyro wrote:....untested tyres having to deal with more constant and higher torque levels....
If anyone uses the word 'torque' one more time I'm going to beat them to death. It is a completely meaningless term and anyone who uses it doesn't know what they're talking about.
Torque is a meaningless term? Even doing a simple Wikipedia search you get the definition of what it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque Not only that if torque is meaningless than horsepower is even more meaningless considering you get horsepower by HP=(ft-lbf*RPM)/5252. Or if you're a metric kind of guy kW=(Nm*RPM)/9549.296. Try to tighten the lugnuts on your car without using torque, then tell me how useless it is.

User avatar
FW17
169
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: whats wrong with the renault engines?

Post

Image