whats wrong with the renault engines?

[Andres125sx]

....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.

Meaningless? Why?

Or you mean innacurate? But even so I don´t get it, as they actually provide more constant and higher torque levels.... or that´s what many people including myself think, not only because of the turbo but also because of the ERS and also because of the longer use of the ERS compared to the KERS...

Might you explain it a little further?

[rscsr]

....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.

The stress of a part only depends on torque and not on the power. So if you are really engineering something you most likely will need to look at torque and power.

[iotar__]

Horner is shamelessly diverting responsibility and passing the buck: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112596

"We have been supporting them with our experience on the whole energy recovery side of the package," Horner told AUTOSPORT when pressed on Red Bull's role in working with Renault on the ERS. "That's where we can contribute the most and that's where the biggest issues are at the moment." "We have had a limited involvement, and are getting more and more involved."
Sorry but emoticon response is the only one appropriate . So they weren't involved enough? Is he joking?

Explanation about ERS history while technically true is marketing-like prepared BS. RB act like they didn't know it earlier and as a special customer (basically works team with all the perks in the world) it's not their responsibility together. He's talking about 2009 and Briatore to explain 2014 RB problems, can you believe that?! Meanwhile they built their own KERS that didn't run at 100% (?) and was unreliable mostly on one car, while winning everything. [Might explain Lopez saying one of their designer is working in Viry now (Amus) (I'd guess it is more related to cooling, batteries etc. as a difference to Red Bull than unit itself).]

[LionKing]

This is very embarrassing for Renault. Hope they can fix it before the first GP.

[monsi]

From the BBC blog "A bit of detail on the state of play with the Renault engines at the moment. They are not being able to run the full mapping and are about 100-150bhp down on the Mercedes and Ferrari. Teams are not being allowed to do any functionality testing - just running round in circles at a lot less power than everyone else. They have improved massively in a short space of time but there is still a long way to go."

Has anyone got any guidelines that could be used to estimate what the 100-150bhp apparent deficit could mean in terms of the laptime differences we are seeing in testing ?

[darkmninya]

150 never more like.80 or 90, that would mean 2seconds

[Juzh]

From the BBC blog "A bit of detail on the state of play with the Renault engines at the moment. They are not being able to run the full mapping and are about 100-150bhp down on the Mercedes and Ferrari. Teams are not being allowed to do any functionality testing - just running round in circles at a lot less power than everyone else. They have improved massively in a short space of time but there is still a long way to go."

Has anyone got any guidelines that could be used to estimate what the 100-150bhp apparent deficit could mean in terms of the laptime differences we are seeing in testing ?

Lots. Take this as a VERY rough estimation: old KERS 80bhp for 6.7s a lap was worth on average 0.4s. Now in worst case scenario double the HP to get 160bhp and take 65s of full throttle (V8 data).
This amounts to aprox 7.7s a lap. As I said, in the worst case scenario.

[Tommy Cookers]

@ munudeges
......... I know how you feel
2014 will not have more torque where it matters (at the wheels) because it doesn't have more power
the pseudo-technical implication that there is some mysterious effect of torque is a shameful British fiction
coming from the British racing revolution 50+ years ago
ok, the average torque will be greater if the average power is greater, that's another way of saying the powerband is wider

@ Williams F1
...... check the scale of your axle torque plot ??

[mrluke]

From the BBC blog "A bit of detail on the state of play with the Renault engines at the moment. They are not being able to run the full mapping and are about 100-150bhp down on the Mercedes and Ferrari. Teams are not being allowed to do any functionality testing - just running round in circles at a lot less power than everyone else. They have improved massively in a short space of time but there is still a long way to go."

Has anyone got any guidelines that could be used to estimate what the 100-150bhp apparent deficit could mean in terms of the laptime differences we are seeing in testing ?

Lots. Take this as a VERY rough estimation: old KERS 80bhp for 6.7s a lap was worth on average 0.4s. Now in worst case scenario double the HP to get 160bhp and take 65s of full throttle (V8 data).
This amounts to aprox 7.7s a lap. As I said, in the worst case scenario.

Interestingly RBR are about 7-8 seconds off the pace..

[beelsebob]

From the BBC blog "A bit of detail on the state of play with the Renault engines at the moment. They are not being able to run the full mapping and are about 100-150bhp down on the Mercedes and Ferrari. Teams are not being allowed to do any functionality testing - just running round in circles at a lot less power than everyone else. They have improved massively in a short space of time but there is still a long way to go."

Has anyone got any guidelines that could be used to estimate what the 100-150bhp apparent deficit could mean in terms of the laptime differences we are seeing in testing ?

Lots. Take this as a VERY rough estimation: old KERS 80bhp for 6.7s a lap was worth on average 0.4s. Now in worst case scenario double the HP to get 160bhp and take 65s of full throttle (V8 data).
This amounts to aprox 7.7s a lap. As I said, in the worst case scenario.

Interestingly RBR are about 7-8 seconds off the pace..

Interestingly, Caterham are not, which is more likely:
1. Caterham are faster than all the Merc and Ferrari teams
2. No one is running at their ultimate pace.

[tomazy]

The engine could be even better then Mercedes one according to Maldonado:

http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... n-mercedes

[beelsebob]

The engine could be even better then Mercedes one according to Maldonado:

http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12433 ... n-mercedes

There doesn't seem to be any reasoning behind it, just blind hope. It's scary that at this point Mercedes has done twice as much engine testing as either of the other manufacturers.

[rjsa]

He's got to say something...

[Blackout]

What would a 35km/h gap represent in term of power here : P ?
(Renault teams are running with a restrained ERS it seems)
According to AMuS, top speeds yesterday:
Alonso; 336,4 km/h,
Kevin Magnussen: 330,2 km/h
Felipe Massa: 327,2 km/h.

---

Jean-Eric Vergne: 308,5 km/h
Sebastian Vettel: 301,6 km/h
Kamui Kobayashi: 301,5 km/h

[Sombrero]

If we take 35 HP for 10 km/h(*), the difference is more or less 100 HP...

(*) This was for the Le Mans 1977 Renault Alpine A442 : 35 HP for a gain of 10 km/h. I don't remember having seen such figures for F-1 racing.