Renault Power Unit Hardware & Software

[Long term F1 Fan]

Why can't they just spend the majority of the tokens on finally splitting their turbo or at least copying the Ferrari layout (air to liquid intercooler in the V, MKH in between the compressor and turbine)?

From reports, Ferrari have revverted to teh Renault style this year - turbine and compressor together, MGUH ahead of the compressor in the vee.

But I think Ferrari still has a much shorter charged air path then the Renaults. It looks to me from the pictures that the air to liquid intercooler is still very close to the front in the V of the engine - thus a much more direct route.

[Long term F1 Fan]

Looking at the on board speed and revs it seems that Kimi was able to rev to just past 12K while the Renaults were limited to around 11,250-11,500, so it would seem the Ferrari's are able to rev higher for the same amount of fuel flow... more efficient combustion at a higher rev rate = more power, right?

No, the efficiency will not get better with higher rev rate. The ammount of energy you can harvest with the MGU-H is the problem. This reduces the energy for the MGU-K on the straights. Looking at the video above, you can see that the Renault runs out of battery power at the end of the straight.

It seems to me that the ridiculous length and path of the charged air intake feeding the ICUs is proving less total boost (runs out of air sooner...) than the Mercedes or the Ferrari for the same amount of fuel flow. It is not really efficient compared to its rivals.

The pressure drop should be neglectable. What do you mean with "runs out of air sooner..."? The turbo pushes air at a certain pressure into the engine. How can anything run out?

Why can't they just spend the majority of the tokens on finally splitting their turbo or at least copying the Ferrari layout (air to liquid intercooler in the V, MKH in between the compressor and turbine)?

Come one guys... properly fund the engine group, hire more engineers and run a parallel design program to fix this layout.- the current layout clearly does not work or others would have gone down the same development road - stop trying to make it work it is a losing battle - the charged air needs to take the path of least resistance and distance- it seems so obvious.

If I see it correctly, than Renault doesn not want external input. So no Ilien input, no copying, no external engineers. You can read all on this on the last page of this thread.

Your analysis of the MGU-H makes sense. My understanding is - and I am no engineer- that the more you can rev an engine the more power you can make. Remember the V10s and V8s, every evolution was seeking higher and higher rev rates to make more power. If Ferrari and Mercedes have been able to increase the rev range while still maintaining the same fuel flow restrictions (limiting factor), then they are more efficient at creating power than the Renault all things being equal (fuel flow), which is a big advantage - just my two cents.

I guess what I meant to say regarding "running out of air" was running out of sufficient cold air as it seems that even the length from the intercooler to the intake is very long on the Renaults and I would think the air is just not as cool at that point compared to the Ferrari and Mercedes who have a much more direct connection. We all know warmer air is less dense the cold air so they can't pack as much air into the chambers as their rivals or risk detonation problems. Less dense air/fuel mixture = less power - thus in sense running out of air. In my view Ferrari and Mercedes are more efficient in that sense.

[trinidefender]

Looking at the on board speed and revs it seems that Kimi was able to rev to just past 12K while the Renaults were limited to around 11,250-11,500, so it would seem the Ferrari's are able to rev higher for the same amount of fuel flow... more efficient combustion at a higher rev rate = more power, right?

No, the efficiency will not get better with higher rev rate. The ammount of energy you can harvest with the MGU-H is the problem. This reduces the energy for the MGU-K on the straights. Looking at the video above, you can see that the Renault runs out of battery power at the end of the straight.

It seems to me that the ridiculous length and path of the charged air intake feeding the ICUs is proving less total boost (runs out of air sooner...) than the Mercedes or the Ferrari for the same amount of fuel flow. It is not really efficient compared to its rivals.

The pressure drop should be neglectable. What do you mean with "runs out of air sooner..."? The turbo pushes air at a certain pressure into the engine. How can anything run out?

Why can't they just spend the majority of the tokens on finally splitting their turbo or at least copying the Ferrari layout (air to liquid intercooler in the V, MKH in between the compressor and turbine)?

Come one guys... properly fund the engine group, hire more engineers and run a parallel design program to fix this layout.- the current layout clearly does not work or others would have gone down the same development road - stop trying to make it work it is a losing battle - the charged air needs to take the path of least resistance and distance- it seems so obvious.

If I see it correctly, than Renault doesn not want external input. So no Ilien input, no copying, no external engineers. You can read all on this on the last page of this thread.

Your analysis of the MGU-H makes sense. My understanding is - and I am no engineer- that the more you can rev an engine the more power you can make. Remember the V10s and V8s, every evolution was seeking higher and higher rev rates to make more power. If Ferrari and Mercedes have been able to increase the rev range while still maintaining the same fuel flow restrictions (limiting factor), then they are more efficient at creating power than the Renault all things being equal (fuel flow), which is a big advantage - just my two cents.

I guess what I meant to say regarding "running out of air" was running out of sufficient cold air as it seems that even the length from the intercooler to the intake is very long on the Renaults and I would think the air is just not as cool at that point compared to the Ferrari and Mercedes who have a much more direct connection. We all know warmer air is less dense the cold air so they can't pack as much air into the chambers as their rivals or risk detonation problems. Less dense air/fuel mixture = less power - thus in sense running out of air. In my view Ferrari and Mercedes are more efficient in that sense.

Negative. Increasing revs past the max fuel flow point according to the regulations (10500rpm) does not increase power. If anything due to increasing friction increase as rpm increases, peak power will decrease.

If you check through the many pages of calculations it has been shown that airflow has never been the problem.

[hurril]

Negative. Increasing revs past the max fuel flow point according to the regulations (10500rpm) does not increase power. If anything due to increasing friction increase as rpm increases, peak power will decrease.

If you check through the many pages of calculations it has been shown that airflow has never been the problem.

If it produces more exhaust gasses then surely that ought to provide for a better compounding via the MGU-h/ MGU-k couple?

[djos]

Illien proposed turbo and some ice update, red bull pressured renault to get it while winter testing , renault started with the mess, illien proposed others solutions meanwhile and renault found it was a draw back, they stopped to put illien "updates" and kept illien as test bed on renault solution !

on the 11 tokens used to austin 6 was ready since 1 mounth , but policy about red bull looking at benz and ferrari slowed their introduction, all Amus stuff gossip are a plain P.O.S

Incorrect, as usual!

Straight from the horse's mouth:

http://au.motorsport.com/f1/news/renaul ... pe-option/

"Renault F1's managing director Cyril Abiteboul said that while he welcomed the help from Illien, his company would not be adopting his design in full.

“I think collaboration is good,” Abiteboul told Motorsport.com. “It is good to work with people outside, because there is no way you can improve inside if you do not put yourself in competition but also in partnership with people that are outside. So first – it is good to get an external look, and support and feedback.

“But right now in our current engine, or the engine that is coming, there is nothing which is coming from Ilmor."

See they have never implemented anything from Mario's work and have no plans to do so!

[wuzak]

To demonstrate just how utterly bad renault's ERS was in monza:

https://vimeo.com/138892993
7:50

Also, If you watch entire vid you can compare any end of straights speeds when the speed shows up and you'll see how much of a difference there is between renault and ferrari. RB also carried only like half the wing angle.

It may be that the Renault has to use more ES energy during the lap - exiting corners, etc, to compensate for lack of ICE hp. And thus they run out of storage early.

[wuzak]

Looking at the on board speed and revs it seems that Kimi was able to rev to just past 12K while the Renaults were limited to around 11,250-11,500, so it would seem the Ferrari's are able to rev higher for the same amount of fuel flow... more efficient combustion at a higher rev rate = more power, right?

In clean air without DRS I made Kimi's revs to be 11,600 - 11,800rpm. It was only able to go above 12,000rpm in the slipstream and/or with DRS.

Verstappen's Renault engine seemed to do about the same rpm, but without the extra rpm in the slipstream.

Note that they all seemed to change gear at around the 11,500rpm mark, +/- 300rpm. Which very much supports the view that revving harder is pointless.

Changing at that rpm brings the engine back to its maximum fuel flow/power point of 10,500rpm, or just below.

[ChrisM40]

Illien proposed turbo and some ice update, red bull pressured renault to get it while winter testing , renault started with the mess, illien proposed others solutions meanwhile and renault found it was a draw back, they stopped to put illien "updates" and kept illien as test bed on renault solution !

on the 11 tokens used to austin 6 was ready since 1 mounth , but policy about red bull looking at benz and ferrari slowed their introduction, all Amus stuff gossip are a plain P.O.S

Incorrect, as usual!

Straight from the horse's mouth:

http://au.motorsport.com/f1/news/renaul ... pe-option/

"Renault F1's managing director Cyril Abiteboul said that while he welcomed the help from Illien, his company would not be adopting his design in full.

“I think collaboration is good,” Abiteboul told Motorsport.com. “It is good to work with people outside, because there is no way you can improve inside if you do not put yourself in competition but also in partnership with people that are outside. So first – it is good to get an external look, and support and feedback.

“But right now in our current engine, or the engine that is coming, there is nothing which is coming from Ilmor."

See they have never implemented anything from Mario's work and have no plans to do so!

You can read that a number of ways. They may not be bringing any Ilmor bits to the track, it doesn't mean they didn't try them on the bench, or that they weren't a distraction that cost them time.

[djos]

You can read that a number of ways. They may not be bringing any Ilmor bits to the track, it doesn't mean they didn't try them on the bench, or that they weren't a distraction that cost them time.

Yep sure but look at the date, the article is around 2 months old, and from well before the mid season break ended, so the timelines dont gel with what he is claiming.

[Cold Fussion]

Your analysis of the MGU-H makes sense. My understanding is - and I am no engineer- that the more you can rev an engine the more power you can make. Remember the V10s and V8s, every evolution was seeking higher and higher rev rates to make more power. If Ferrari and Mercedes have been able to increase the rev range while still maintaining the same fuel flow restrictions (limiting factor), then they are more efficient at creating power than the Renault all things being equal (fuel flow), which is a big advantage - just my two cents.

I guess what I meant to say regarding "running out of air" was running out of sufficient cold air as it seems that even the length from the intercooler to the intake is very long on the Renaults and I would think the air is just not as cool at that point compared to the Ferrari and Mercedes who have a much more direct connection. We all know warmer air is less dense the cold air so they can't pack as much air into the chambers as their rivals or risk detonation problems. Less dense air/fuel mixture = less power - thus in sense running out of air. In my view Ferrari and Mercedes are more efficient in that sense.

This much is evident. Your points are very confused and don't make a great deal of sense.

[ReoPTy]

Illien proposed turbo and some ice update, red bull pressured renault to get it while winter testing , renault started with the mess, illien proposed others solutions meanwhile and renault found it was a draw back, they stopped to put illien "updates" and kept illien as test bed on renault solution !

on the 11 tokens used to austin 6 was ready since 1 mounth , but policy about red bull looking at benz and ferrari slowed their introduction, all Amus stuff gossip are a plain P.O.S

Incorrect, as usual!

Straight from the horse's mouth:

http://au.motorsport.com/f1/news/renaul ... pe-option/

"Renault F1's managing director Cyril Abiteboul said that while he welcomed the help from Illien, his company would not be adopting his design in full.

“I think collaboration is good,” Abiteboul told Motorsport.com. “It is good to work with people outside, because there is no way you can improve inside if you do not put yourself in competition but also in partnership with people that are outside. So first – it is good to get an external look, and support and feedback.

“But right now in our current engine, or the engine that is coming, there is nothing which is coming from Ilmor."

See they have never implemented anything from Mario's work and have no plans to do so!

of course, they yanked out all illien parts by august as the result of thier mess, illien was pushed by red bull to renault in nov 2014, they pushed to put quick advance with illien turbos, it was a mess , and took time to reverse all , till silverstone no illien parts in ren engine

[djos]

Illien proposed turbo and some ice update, red bull pressured renault to get it while winter testing , renault started with the mess, illien proposed others solutions meanwhile and renault found it was a draw back, they stopped to put illien "updates" and kept illien as test bed on renault solution !

on the 11 tokens used to austin 6 was ready since 1 mounth , but policy about red bull looking at benz and ferrari slowed their introduction, all Amus stuff gossip are a plain P.O.S

Incorrect, as usual!

Straight from the horse's mouth:

http://au.motorsport.com/f1/news/renaul ... pe-option/

"Renault F1's managing director Cyril Abiteboul said that while he welcomed the help from Illien, his company would not be adopting his design in full.

“I think collaboration is good,” Abiteboul told Motorsport.com. “It is good to work with people outside, because there is no way you can improve inside if you do not put yourself in competition but also in partnership with people that are outside. So first – it is good to get an external look, and support and feedback.

“But right now in our current engine, or the engine that is coming, there is nothing which is coming from Ilmor."

See they have never implemented anything from Mario's work and have no plans to do so!

of course, they yanked out all illien parts by august as the result of thier mess, illien was pushed by red bull to renault in nov 2014, they pushed to put quick advance with illien turbos, it was a mess , and took time to reverse all , till silverstone no illien parts in ren engine

Again, unsupported claims.

Put up or shut up please!

[PlatinumZealot]

The Renault ICE is now very strong... don't ask how I heard this... wait till Q3..

[Long term F1 Fan]

Your analysis of the MGU-H makes sense. My understanding is - and I am no engineer- that the more you can rev an engine the more power you can make. Remember the V10s and V8s, every evolution was seeking higher and higher rev rates to make more power. If Ferrari and Mercedes have been able to increase the rev range while still maintaining the same fuel flow restrictions (limiting factor), then they are more efficient at creating power than the Renault all things being equal (fuel flow), which is a big advantage - just my two cents.

I guess what I meant to say regarding "running out of air" was running out of sufficient cold air as it seems that even the length from the intercooler to the intake is very long on the Renaults and I would think the air is just not as cool at that point compared to the Ferrari and Mercedes who have a much more direct connection. We all know warmer air is less dense the cold air so they can't pack as much air into the chambers as their rivals or risk detonation problems. Less dense air/fuel mixture = less power - thus in sense running out of air. In my view Ferrari and Mercedes are more efficient in that sense.

This much is evident. Your points are very confused and don't make a great deal of sense.

i GUESS I WILL JUST LEAVE UP TO YOU EXPERTS THEN.

[PlatinumZealot]

That if your engine can rev higher it can make more power is only if other factors stay the same.. but that is not so under this formula. Because of the fuel flow limit, the peak power you can extract from the fuel is basically capped, and as you rev the engine higher the friction losses still increase! So in the end the frictional losses are already dominant and it make no sense to rev higher than say 12k rpm. If the fuel flow limit was eradicated, then we would see engines using the full range 15,000 rpms.

Cool air is not Renaults problem that is an easy one to solve. Very basic one to solve in fact. At 100 miles per hour average speed around a circuit you will have plenty of cool air to cool the intercoolers. The air to the engine is also pressurised by the turbo charger so this cars will never be "gasping" for air. Under open throttle conditions they are almost always above 100% cylinder filling.

Another comment.. The Mercedes engine, actually makes all that power without needing to rev as high as the Ferrari or the Renault! This could either mean that the Ferrari and Ranault have slightly less friction and stand less to lose, or Mercedes makes that much more power there is no need for them to rev high and reduce engine life.