Engine comparison; Renault vs BMW

[drspeed]

I picked these two engines because they seem to contrast directly from each other. To be honest, i forgot their complicated codenames, so lets just call them renault and bimmer.

The bimmer is the ultimate version of where F1 engine designs were flowing to over recent years: 900bhp, 19,000rpm, 90 degrees and an equally high amount of fuel consumption.

The renault on the other hand is something out of nowhere. It's power output should be somewhere between 800~850bhp(considering recent upgrades), 18,100rpm, 111 degrees, and an estimation of low fuel consumption compared to any other engine.

But surprisingly enough, the renault seems to be capable of outrunning the bimmer despite some inherent disadvantages. Do you think this signals a new era of F1 engines, or do you agree with Briatore that it's no use compared to conventional 90 degree-ed engines?

[joseff]

I think a more economical engine lends itself very well to the current qualifying regs. Despite 50bhp less output, the overall lighter car could be good for 3 or 4 places higher up the grid

On the other hand, all these cars have electronically controlled throttles and valvetrain. It's not too hard to imagine the Williams-BMW qualifying with less-than-usual fuel, then remap the whole thing to run much more economically (at say, 18500rpm max). And I'm sure this is already being done, overrevving the engine, running it hotter and thirstier during qualifying.

All in all, having the BMW engine gives the engineers more flexibility in race strategy. In the end, the Renault's only big advantage is the low CoG. Hence, they decided that it's not worth the vibration and power penalty.

[Guest]

i thought the main advantage of renaults wide angle engine was the lower center of gravity, allowing much improved handling, as was show on the final turn in hungary . . . i didn't know about the improved fuel consumption.

[drspeed]

the fuel consumption part comes from it's low power output

[Steven]

idd well lower revs... lower fuel consumption (well there can be a small difference of course, but not too much I think).

About this Renault - BMW battle. All people here seem to talk about pure hp's, but how about the torque... I actually think that is where the Renault is the better engine of all. I happen to think that the power that comes from the engine at let's say 13000 rpm or even less is larger than from any other engine currently running in the field.
I think that would partly explain the good starts the cars make all the time

[Monstrobolaxa]

Well....all combined....if you summarize what has been said....almost eveyone is correct...but each and every one has put a little extra to the story!

Well the main advantage of Renault is their low CofG...just look at the Hungaroring result....it's a circuit that doesn't really depend on the engine you have....remeber 1997? When Damon Hill stormed trhough to an almost certain win with the Arrows A18 Yamaha!

Their small fuel consumption is due to the low power output!

About Tombas post....well....in a certain way I agree....but disagree....I believe it all comes down to engine mapping....Monaco is another circuit where Torque is very important... and who suceeded there this year? Williams....so It's is true that Renault have a very "interesting"egine torque wise....but.....I belive that Williams when they have a good hair (mapping) day might have something better....

[HKS]

I would go with Renault engine only after looking at their gear ratios.

But I must say Renault powered "can" have an upper hand in qualifying.

[modbaraban]

Monstrobolaxa Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2003 11:24 pm

HKS Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:33 pm

That's the funny thing about the 'Similar topics' feature