Renault V6 Power Unit

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
FPV GTHO
3
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:57 am

Re: Renault V6 Power Unit

Post by FPV GTHO » Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:25 am

gandharva wrote:
Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:46 am
godlameroso wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 5:51 pm
What if Renault moves next year to a split turbo layout?
Not going to happen. They would have done this years ago.
That doesnt mean anything. They spent the first 3 years hamstrung by the token system afterall. By the same argument they have always used air to air intercoolers, thus they wont switch to water coolers now either.

toraabe
11
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:42 am

Re: Renault V6 Power Unit

Post by toraabe » Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:09 am

godlameroso wrote:
Mon Mar 12, 2018 5:51 pm
What if Renault moves next year to a split turbo layout?
They have to redesign the whole plenum, a new MGU-H, a new intake layout. Probably a complete redesign of the cylinder heads.. Hence a completely new engine.. It makes more sense to work on their current layout,like Ferrari.

bill shoe
190
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:18 am
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Re: Renault V6 Power Unit

Post by bill shoe » Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:07 pm

With ever expanding wheelbases, they probably have more and more room behind the engine for complete turbo/MGU-H assemblies (Renault and Ferrari layout), so less upside to a split turbo layout that requires all the additional monocoque complexity/cutouts up front. Somewhat ironic that Mercedes, pioneer of split layout, has longest wheelbase for last two years...

blueytoo
1
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:37 pm

Re: Renault V6 Power Unit

Post by blueytoo » Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:36 am

CLKGTR wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:29 pm
Toto Wolff and I thinking about the same thing :mrgreen:

http://classic.autosport.com/news/repor ... ostpopular
Red Bull has TAG Heuer badge. Maybe that gives scope to change things for the better??? Cooling, fuel, engine maps, PU ERS programming...

blueytoo
1
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:37 pm

Re: Renault V6 Power Unit

Post by blueytoo » Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:54 am

Renault needs to burn more oil. And figure how exactly Merc and Ferrari are using it. Must be more than just "fuel". Energy density of fuel and oil are very similar. 0.5% is not a lot. Fuel flow sensor error is quoted +/- 0.25%. I thought the guesstimated power gap was way more than 0.5%.

Brake Horse Power
0
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:36 pm

Re: Renault V6 Power Unit

Post by Brake Horse Power » Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:52 pm

So of they all consume 0,24% fuel flow above the limit, they can say it is within the tolerances of the sensor? And therefor legitimit

DC2
0
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:14 pm

Re: Renault V6 Power Unit

Post by DC2 » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:52 pm

Is it possible to deliberately inject fuel vapor into the crank while the engine isn't at full load? So the crank is full of very dense fuel vapor. And then when the throttle is at WOT, somehow suck the vapor back into the intake? So the engine really isn't burning oil, but burning additional fuel that already passed the fuel flow rate senor.

I am not an engineer. Just want to know if it is possible.

hardingfv32
30
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Renault V6 Power Unit

Post by hardingfv32 » Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:16 pm

blueytoo wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 11:54 am
Renault needs to burn more oil.
They were never actually burning what the public would consider an oil product. It was some kind of performance additive that toke the form of a vapor in the crankcase. Chances are very good that current F1 lubricants do not burn even as a vapor under current operating conditions.

Brian

PlatinumZealot
298
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 am

Re: Renault V6 Power Unit

Post by PlatinumZealot » Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:33 pm

Blackout wrote:
Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:21 pm
Blackout wrote:
Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:18 pm
IMO one of the reasons that intake plenum is so swept forward is the need to free as much space as possible at the back of the V for the new compressor air duct... The new turbo seems to be much compact and closer to the PU, and the new compressor's intake has been placed inside the V, à la Ferrari, IMO (while it was outisde in 2014-2016)...
And maybe that plenum hides a small air-water intercooler too... or a diaphragm-like system :P
So I was right... except for the red part :mrgreen: As you can see, the compressor's airbox is now located forward of the engine's rear mounting points. That means the whole turbo hase been pushed forward. The red-capped disc-shaped airbox seems to hang inside the V.. well almost.
And the intake plenum bends forward to clear the way for the airbox... A 2014-2016 plenum would sit on the 2017 compressor inlet.
Couldnt find a good pic, but the 2014-2016 PU had its airbox aft the v6 mounting point so outside the engine.
So 2017 engine "2nd gen" is shorter/more compact.
Which, on paper, brings some benefits regarding weight distribution, pipework/lag, gearbox size/aero etc
https://servimg.com/view/14795526/2218
That is the same turbo layout from 2014. Just the auxiliaries have changed.

blueytoo
1
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:37 pm

Re: Renault V6 Power Unit

Post by blueytoo » Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:38 pm

hardingfv32 wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:16 pm
They were never actually burning what the public would consider an oil product. It was some kind of performance additive that toke the form of a vapor in the crankcase. Chances are very good that current F1 lubricants do not burn even as a vapor under current operating conditions.
Doesn't make a lot of sense. Volatile enough be able to evaporate 500mL - 1L over <2 hours without ruining the lubricity of the lubricating oil in an engine running 15,000 rpm, and somehow providing a performance advantage of 5% or more, which is 10 times more than the energy available from burning the fluid going missing.

Source????

hardingfv32
30
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Renault V6 Power Unit

Post by hardingfv32 » Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:58 am

Your quote was 'burn more oil'. They were never burning/consuming something that would be considered a lubricant. It was a chemical that promoted better combustion.

Consuming a chemical in vapor form to create more power makes perfect sense.

Brian

blueytoo
1
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:37 pm

Re: Renault V6 Power Unit

Post by blueytoo » Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:06 am

hardingfv32 wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:58 am
Consuming a chemical in vapor form to create more power makes perfect sense.
if it's some sort of combustion modifying additive, then surely it needs to make it into the combustion chamber. would be easy to arrange poor cylinder wall scraping or valve stem leakage. can't see how a vapour in the crankcase will produce a huge performance advantage.

hardingfv32
30
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Renault V6 Power Unit

Post by hardingfv32 » Mon Mar 19, 2018 5:21 pm

If it is not a vapor then how does it get vaporized?

Leaking past the rings will not cut it. Not that much chemical available for this purpose, so it must be released by the computer when it is most beneficial. The chemical had to be part of lubricant formulation that was used for qualifying only. A second formulation, without the chemical, was used during the race.

Brian

Thunder
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:50 am
Location: Germany

Re: Renault V6 Power Unit

Post by Thunder » Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:27 am

Please keep this Topic about the technical Aspects of the PU. Thanks.

epo
0
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:57 pm

Re: Renault V6 Power Unit

Post by epo » Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:18 pm

In a interview with Verstappen he mentioned again no special qualification mode available. They are just failing in everything they promise.