Cosworth Engine an UNFAIR advantage?

[xpensive]

I think it’s also important to remember engine degradation. The Merc engine was rumoured to be one of the best in terms of performance loss across multiple races. A peak of 760hp is great, but of you can only run at this level for 100miles or so, and the rest of the Grand Prix(s) at 710hp it’s not much good. How much did Renault have to turn down their engines in the Red Bull’s to make them last at the end of this season. This is where I think the teams have spent most of their development time/budget on. Peak HP is controlled and regulated, but if you can run to close to maximum most all of the time, you have a massive advantage.

I have asked this before on another thread, but can someone xplain what happens in the engine when its power "degrades"?

[ISLAMATRON]

I think it’s also important to remember engine degradation. The Merc engine was rumoured to be one of the best in terms of performance loss across multiple races. A peak of 760hp is great, but of you can only run at this level for 100miles or so, and the rest of the Grand Prix(s) at 710hp it’s not much good. How much did Renault have to turn down their engines in the Red Bull’s to make them last at the end of this season. This is where I think the teams have spent most of their development time/budget on. Peak HP is controlled and regulated, but if you can run to close to maximum most all of the time, you have a massive advantage.

I have asked this before on another thread, but can someone xplain what happens in the engine when its power "degrades"?

RAce engines are designed to be "loose" so as to decrease frictional loses, as they wear in they increase in "looseness" to the point wear they begin to lose compression and thus power. Also special coatings in the engines begin to wear and more frictional loses begin to creep in. There are also other facttors but those are the main ones.

Cosworth was well known in the champ car years for being able to produce long life 2.65L turbo V-8's that even after many miles would still have very little in "degredation"... I think I remember Bourdais winning with the same engine 4 races or something like that.

[Professor]

That's correct. The evidence is in direct measurement of internal parts after usage and compression checks before disassembly. In the old days, valve springs were a primary culprit: the valves didn't seat and compression losses were realized through both the intake and exhaust valves during the power cycle. Cam wear resulted in decreased lift. I guess pneumatics have erased this prob. But, the engine wear causes a "sloppyness" that wastes HP and introduces high frequency vibrations.

[Fil]

I'm going to be extremely vague here now, so i apologise in advance..

During one of the final races of the season, Brundle mentioned that the Renault guys were queried why a new motor wasn't replaced for one of the Red Bulls (i think..?) when they could have..
The reasoning given by the Renault techs/engineers was the motor actually increased in power after an initial 'bedding-in' as the Renault motors are built a lot tighter than usual.. So it wasn't in their best interests at that stage..

Can't remember which Renault-powered car.. or at which race weekend.. but it was late in the season.. and i 'think' it was a Red Bull...

Hoping someone else remembers this a little better than i have! (i need to start drinking less on weekends!)

Please don't shoot me, i'm just the messenger!

[ISLAMATRON]

Its true, a properly broken in motor should have more power than a fresh lumpright off the assembly line, but with these motors a couple of installation and recon laps and scrubbing in a couple sets of tires and thatt baby is properly broken in and already reaching peak.

I think ESPI... was quoting about 2000km was about the maximum usefullness of these 2009 spec engines... I'd say they were broken in after about 50-100km

[autogyro]

Its true, a properly broken in motor should have more power than a fresh lumpright off the assembly line, but with these motors a couple of installation and recon laps and scrubbing in a couple sets of tires and thatt baby is properly broken in and already reaching peak.

I think ESPI... was quoting about 2000km was about the maximum usefullness of these 2009 spec engines... I'd say they were broken in after about 50-100km

Breaking in is a bit of an unfair concept.
Bedding in is more descriptive.
Piston rings or cylinder bores are the only parts AFAIK, that need 'bedding in' on any reciprocating IC engine.
If you want to consider the history, years ago when the old two main bearing Austin Seven engine was common in racing, some engine builders built in a tighter main bearing clearance so that the crank would bend less in the middle.
Upshifts using this engine were executed when the driver heard the two middle pistons hitting the cylinder head. This established maximum revs.
I expect the Renault has similar problems.
What would Brundel know anyway?

[Fil]

What would Brundle know anyway?

he acknowledged Renault techs or engineers (i can't remember exactly) for the info..

i'm too lazy to look back at results of the final 4-5 races. it was where one of the Renault-powered cars failed to finish, then qualified poorly. perhaps Webber at Japan..?

Anyone have any stats on what engine he used at Singapore and Japan?

[xpensive]

[...Upshifts using this engine were executed when the driver heard the two middle pistons hitting the cylinder head. This established maximum revs.
I expect the Renault has similar problems.

Xactly, I have heard that the Renault V8-piston's are optimized to hit the cylinder-head at 18001 Rpm, but sometimes the get it wrong, why you can hear them making this funny noise, typically at Spa and Monza.

[Fil]

[...Upshifts using this engine were executed when the driver heard the two middle pistons hitting the cylinder head. This established maximum revs.
I expect the Renault has similar problems.

Xactly, I have heard that the Renault V8-piston's are optimized to hit the cylinder-head at 18001 Rpm, but sometimes the get it wrong, why you can hear them making this funny noise, typically at Spa and Monza.

obviously they need a seamless transmission to cure their issues. if only someone could invent a truly seamless shift gearbox for them... :^o

[Giblet]

What would Brundle know anyway?

More then most of us put together or individually.

[ISLAMATRON]

[...Upshifts using this engine were executed when the driver heard the two middle pistons hitting the cylinder head. This established maximum revs.
I expect the Renault has similar problems.

Xactly, I have heard that the Renault V8-piston's are optimized to hit the cylinder-head at 18001 Rpm, but sometimes the get it wrong, why you can hear them making this funny noise, typically at Spa and Monza.

obviously they need a seamless transmission to cure their issues. if only someone could invent a truly seamless shift gearbox for them... :^o

I happen to know someone that has made one and it is only 3 inches cubed and weighes negative 1 pound. And you can get one for only 19.95 plus shipping and handling.... act now and he will throw in the only 1 bearing it needs to operate with.

[Shaddock]

All F1 engines are put on a test rig and go through a testing cycle before shipping to the teams. The highest risk of engine fatalities/issues occurring is usually at the start and end, of its life cycle. By running the engine on a rig, you reduce the overall useful life cycle of the engine, but eliminate most of the dangers inherent in running a new engine.

I would imagine the Renault team change the oil very frequently to remove all the bits of metal that’s worn away during running in.

[ISLAMATRON]

absolutely correct

[xpensive]

I should also think that every engine supplier has a very careful schedule for filter-change as well as examination of replaced filters, all in order to keep track of wear.

[xxChrisxx]

If you want to consider the history, years ago when the old two main bearing Austin Seven engine was common in racing, some engine builders built in a tighter main bearing clearance so that the crank would bend less in the middle.

Horrible irritating bastard of an engine. Who thought having to heat the crank case to get the bearings out THEN thread the crankshaft out was a good idea.

It has it's advantages (especially with 2 bearings) but my god it's a bitch to get out when you don't have an oven.