Renault Power Unit Hardware & Software

[FoxHound]

I'm not sure however where you get the idea that every company is in F1 to compete on every single aspect

Here is the problem....you are looking at Renault as a company and not a supplier of engines for a competitive series. The other issue is Renault did not want to compete on every single aspect, just the one that brought them to the table in the first place.

If we applied your argument to every competitor or engine supplier, there would no longer be competition.
You cannot simply freeze their main ability, engines, and expect them to want to stay.

The starkest way possible I can now point this out to you, as I have to DJOS, is thus:

Red Bull and all other chassis/aero teams (companies right..?) are frozen from making developments, with some given allowances to "equalise" performance to catch up.
The leading chassis/aero teams would all question their participation, and rightly so.

Would it then be fair to level this at them?
"I'm not sure however where you get the idea that every company is in F1 to compete on every single aspect"

[Phil]

You cannot simply freeze their main ability, engines, and expect them to want to stay.

Why not? The engine is but one single component. I don't see why Renault who isn't a factory team but a mere supplier wouldn't mind frozen equal engines as long as they are associated with a winning team. That's effectively what they were during the years RedBull won all those titles.

You're right that Mercedes wants to compete on engines, because they can and they proved they can be better than everyone else. So for them, it's win/win. That's the same like asking the wealthiest company on this planet if they'd want to compete on anything that requires money to be better than anyone else. They simply outspend them.

Not all companies are equal and not all have the same means to compete under a fixed budget. As I said, Renault is in an uncomfortable position. Since these new regulations, the focus is all on them and right now, it's anything but a certainty if they can turn it around. Right now, they are seen as a company that can't compete, are doing a worse job and it seems like a certainty they won't be anywhere near the top in the next few year under these regulations. They've already fallen back and even if the engines do reach parity, having the means to make a competitive car is not a given. So again, developing an engine is a double edged sword.

They are happy to develop and compete on that premise as long as they know that they have adequate chances of doing a good enough job. But if they can't - then this whole marketing exercise is one that will backfire. They will neither turn a profit, nor will that exposure help them to sell more cars. The alternative - a frozen engine formula where one competes on aero alone is probably a lot more attractive and less risky.

[turbof1]

The issue with the other main components of F1, chassis and aerodynamics, have very little relevance to road cars. For instance how is the development of a front wing endplate canard going to be anywhere near relevant to your average Renault Clio?

The PU is only thing that is remotely relevant and transferable to road cars. You are not going to run cars which have a golden layer on top of their PUs to maximize heat efficiency, but you are going to take turbo-mguh concepts to it. That's why it is important.

[FoxHound]

You cannot simply freeze their main ability, engines, and expect them to want to stay.

The engine is but one single component. I don't see why Renault who isn't a factory team but a mere supplier wouldn't mind frozen equal engines as long as they are associated with a winning team. That's effectively what they were during the years RedBull won all those titles.

Even though it was their engine winning, Renault still wanted change. Is that clear enough?

You cannot simply freeze their main ability, engines, and expect them to want to stay.

You're right that Mercedes wants to compete on engines, because they can and they proved they can be better than everyone else. So for them, it's win/win. That's the same like asking the wealthiest company on this planet if they'd want to compete on anything that requires money to be better than anyone else. They simply outspend them.

Is engine development new to you? Or did you reach your conclusion watching F1 from 2009?
Engine development is a staple to F1, the same as any other discipline. It's extremely disingenuous to say competitor X will simply outspend competitor Y to be better on engines, and that is a problem for the sport but it's okay for this to happen in chassis and aero development.

Why in your view, is it ok to outspend others in chassis and aero, but when the discipline changes to engines it becomes an issue?

The alternative - a frozen engine formula where one competes on aero alone is probably a lot more attractive and less risky.

Sweet Jesus.... I see nothing attractive about it. Nor will the manufacturers, and probably most of the fans.
The frozen engine formula was about saving money, and it did that. But what happened to the money saved, Phil?
Simply got reinvested in aero/chassis development.

You also in one fell swoop eliminate any potential for new manufacturers to join in.

[turbof1]

Please watch the tone. Keep it professional, gents.

[ME4ME]

Pretty fair assessment from Abiteboul:

“I think we have the skills, but I think we are lacking a bit the momentum, and technical leadership, of where we want to go and putting the right disciplines in place," he said.

“This season is an example of a complete lack of discipline that there is in the management of our technical programme, and I am a part of that.

“I am not saying it is not my problem, because I am part of the problem also. So there will have to be, when we know what we do, a deep management change that could also involve my own position.”

“I think Viry needs someone who is full time at the factory," he said. "In that respect, it is impossible for me to think about the strategy, enter in to a transaction with Lotus, form a new F1 project and spend and give the necessary time to Viry.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/renau ... t-in-2016/

[FW17]

They have 2 single cylinder dynos, makes me wonder how many full sized dynos they have.

Honda in comparison has more than 30 dynos for the F1 program

[zack!]

They have 2 single cylinder dynos, makes me wonder how many full sized dynos they have.

Honda in comparison has more than 30 dynos for the F1 program

Did read 18.

[djos]

DJos,

You are saying that Renault wanting to develop an engine, and waiting over 3 years to do so respectfully.....is the same as....complaining that cannot win because you dont have the best engine after a year, and that you'll quit if you don't get one.

Even then, Renault are doing a V6.

You have to ask yourself this....what are Renault doing in F1....if they are not to be allowed to develop an engine. There is no point them being there.
It would be the same as Red Bull being asked to freeze their aero and chassis development, whilst engines became the only differentiator.
There is completely no correlation Red Bull quit threats,

Mate, you're conflating different unrelated issues.

You are also making it sound like I'm a all for an engine freeze which is absolutely not the case. I've argued against the PU freeze since it first became known it would start on day 1.

In general I'm diametrically opposed to bans on relevant technology development in F1 full stop. Case in point active suspension, that should have never been banned and I hold the FiA responsible for us losing Senna as a result. Other road relevant tech has been banned too which is now common in even the cheapest road car.

F1 is a development series and in general imo should stay that way.

[ReoPTy]

Here is my think,

Renault is dropping 2016 as engine manufacturer, they will make a deal to provide via mechacrome or whatever want red bull a base PU in 2016!

renault are following pre 2014 mercedes strategy in investing money and peoples actually, They will keep a feet at Lotus without taking the whole thing.

the time to get a clean sheet with the PU , because they knows that withing FIA rules freeze and all reglementation they can't make it competitive enough to beat the others, while under fia rules others will struggle with small steps!

so why pooring money for small steps?

[Phil]

Edit: you're right Turbo. Decided to delete the post. Nothing good will come of it.

[turbof1]

Can we go back to the hardware aspects of the power unit instead of ruining the topic with political issues and attractiveness of the sport?

[jure]

the time to get a clean sheet with the PU , because they knows that withing FIA rules freeze and all reglementation they can't make it competitive enough to beat the others, while under fia rules others will struggle with small steps!

so why pooring money for small steps?

Does that mean there will be no big power increase next year? They could enter as Nissan or Infinity with completely changed layout.

[Juzh]

20bhp is aprox. 0.333s a lap I presume?

Old 80bhp KERS for 6.7s was said to be around 0.3-0.4s. Interlaggos is ~50% full throttle. That's 38s (1:16 laptime) a lap. Comes out at 0.5s a lap which seems a bit excessive. I'd agree at around 0.3 mark.

Some new information here:

http://www.somersf1.co.uk/2015/11/power ... right.html

Pretty close.

[turbof1]

He mentions it varies from track to track, but yes indeed pretty close. I'm simply using the common saying that 60bhp (constantly) is worth 1s of laptime. Although certainly not an all dominating truth, it is a good rule of thumb to have a numerical value for laptime differences in the margins of current F1 PUs.