Jenson86 wrote:hi guys, my name is Andrea and I'm new here on the forum. I have a question : who I can make a comparison between the PU Renault and Honda? thanks.
Red Bull, Torro Rossi and McLaren?
"A pretentious quote taken out of context to make me look deep" - Some old racing driver
Honda PU has more horsepower than Renault, but the Renault can deliver the 120kw ERS boost for a longer duration, around the lap. Honda ERS is empty, before the car reaches the end of the straight.
Jenson86 wrote:hi guys, my name is Andrea and I'm new here on the forum. I have a question : who I can make a comparison between the PU Renault and Honda? thanks.
NL_Fer wrote:Honda PU has more horsepower than Renault, but the Renault can deliver the 120kw ERS boost for a longer duration, around the lap. Honda ERS is empty, before the car reaches the end of the straight.
I think that the power output of Honda is very similar to Renault given the MGU-K problems they seems to have according to Wazari-san. The ICE Honda have is problably really good now, they are rumored to have improved 20 hp in SPA and a further 20 hp in Austin.
I also think Honda's problems are related to energy recovery through the MGU-H, whereas Renault's problems are related to the ICE. It is difficult to compare power of both PU's due to the current engine formula, but in simple terms Honda's peak power is higher, but can only deliver it for a short amount of time.
Jenson86 wrote:hi guys, my name is Andrea and I'm new here on the forum. I have a question : who I can make a comparison between the PU Renault and Honda? thanks.
The Honda as a power unit is far weaker, but the ice of the of the Honda has more power now, there is a large amount power torque and efficiency to come out of the turbo mgu h and mgu k which Honda are nowhere near Renault. So I would say Renault over all has a decent advantage and are able to run at higher engine settings for longer periods
Honda need to develop their TC, MGU-H and make them more reliable then add performance. Their ICE is nicely developed, and even though it is small, it is developing around 20 more HP than the Renault, however it is 30 down on the Ferrari and 50 down on the Mercedes. Honda only need their TC and MGU-H to be 10% larger. One last thing i did hear was the Honda ERS was struggling with AC/DC conversion (not the band) as their power inverter is not the greatest.
Renault have a poor ICE, its almost a full redesign and change in architecture that is needed, its ERS are arguably the best in the business, their TC is quite nice from what I've heard. Renaults ICE upgrade on RIC at Interlagos was 20hp down the non upgrade, but it was seemingly based around the block to make it stronger and be able to develop more power into 2016 as their new TC will be the best in the business.
Both companies will need to be able to gain 30-40% on what Mercedes and Ferrari will have next year in order to make a sufficient inroad to their performance deficit. Which means if Mercedes and Ferrari develop the 60-70hp they are expected to for 2016, Renault and Honda need 18hp to 28 hp more again, it will mean they will still be 40-50hp down, but if they develop the same again in season next year, they both will be on the pace in 2017. Thats when i suggest they will be at their most competitive to Mercedes and Ferrari.
I will suggest one thing that has not really been discussed for both Renault and Honda, they have not really properly integrated with their Oil and Lubricant suppliers. Shell have developed an extra 45hp-55hp for Ferraris ICE this year, Petronas have developed a massive 105hp in the two years we have had the V6Ts for Mercedes. If Mobil1/Esso and Total/ELF get their acts together and develop with their partnered engine companies, both together can easily develop more of the ICE disadvantage both have. If Renault can make their ICE strong with a better TC and with their good ERS, they will be easily able to make the Red Bull/Renault cars look good, and if Honda develop their ERS to be more robust with their 'size zero' engine concept to be more like a 'Size 2' the Honda will be on the pace
The last thing that will have to be properly integrated is the computer monkeys who write the code for each engine, Mercedes are rumoured to have in excess of 100,000 lines of it on the factory cars that the customers don't have. Honda and Renault will need to iron out the software glitches as we know that RIC and ALO have both complained about torque demands and power levels in each gear being different. This i have heard can be worth about a second a lap as if the driver has more confidence in drivability he can deliver more performance from the car.
You will see i have not mentioned the CE, MGU-K and ES for each of the manufacturers, as all are pretty much developed from the V8 era, each 'KERS' unit is pretty much developed, and the ES development does not have too much scope, i did hear that the ES was just about to enter its last 2% of development, and that is worth .35 of a second for that 2%.
In essence, Honda and Renault have a stack load to do on their 'to do' lists, but all it needs is for Ferrari and Mercedes to have a poor off season development with one or both taking a right or a left down a development blind alley and 2016 is just a season away from being a classic.
It's irrelevant now since they will do only one more race in their current specification, the Renault is a lot better overall at the moment, but if i were to take a bet i might go Honda for the future, since Renault seems to be treading water on how to improve their engine.
My point of view on the matter is this:
While Honda has one major flaw that makes them lack a lot of performance, Renault has several little faults that make them loose a little bit of performance. For the future, I believe it's way easier to fix one major mistake than to fix a lot of little mistakes, so while Renault currently has better performance, it looks like Honda's package has a lot more potential.
But we can't know for sure, just look what happened at the start of the year when everybody(including myself) believed Honda would be very competitive...
I would ignore all the hand waving analysis (especially by the likes of ESPImperium) and just consider that no one here (and probably anywhere else on the web) has bothered/managed to do a proper technical analysis between the different cars in order to ascertain engine performance. By that I mean taking GPS data (or turning onboard video into GPS data) and running the numbers from that data to work out the engine performance.
Cold Fussion wrote:By that I mean taking GPS data (or turning onboard video into GPS data) and running the numbers from that data to work out the engine performance.
I think the biggest problem is that you can never fully extract engine performance for any true picture, because if you lack power, you are compromising. More power means you can run more wing for more downforce vs. a car with less power who might run less wing for less drag but at the expense of those sectors where downforce would be important. Thus at that point, you neither have a true picture of chassis/aero performance and straight line that would give any sense of idea about engine power.
This is easily illustrated if you imagine two identical cars with identical engines - but one of the two engines detuned. How you set-up your car will vary to achieve the best possible lap time on a given track. It's get overly more complicated once you are comparing different cars with different abilities and different engines.
So looking at Vmax figures on the speed traps is only one part of the picture. If the McLaren in question and lets say a Ferrari are running the same amount of drag/wing, you could compare them (the Vmax figures), but that's not going to be the case, because the car with less power will most likely always choose to setup the car with less drag to not lose out on the straights because that's where most of the overtaking and defending is done (and lots of the track time is gained or lost).
Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. — bhall II #Team44 supporter
Cold Fussion wrote:By that I mean taking GPS data (or turning onboard video into GPS data) and running the numbers from that data to work out the engine performance.
I think the biggest problem is that you can never fully extract engine performance for any true picture, because if you lack power, you are compromising. More power means you can run more wing for more downforce vs. a car with less power who might run less wing for less drag but at the expense of those sectors where downforce would be important. Thus at that point, you neither have a true picture of chassis/aero performance and straight line that would give any sense of idea about engine power.
If you have GPS data you work out the engine power, downforce and drag levels.
