F1technical.net

noname wrote:

FrukostScones wrote:http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... s-for-2017

"We are going to have an all-new architecture on the internal combustion engine, and also be introducing for the first time the second generation of Energy Recovery System."

Bold statement, but it does not mean much. Regulations has not changed, and they are very detailed. Number of cylinders, bore, stroke, bank angle, min. weight, COG height, etc., etc., are still in place. You can move things around, you can exploit different concepts here and there, you can refine certain bits, but calling this "all-new architecture" is exaggeration, to say the least.

From an engineering point of view it might be all-new (turbo compressor layout, combustion technology, cooling requirements,...)

noname wrote:

FrukostScones wrote:http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... s-for-2017

"We are going to have an all-new architecture on the internal combustion engine, and also be introducing for the first time the second generation of Energy Recovery System."

Bold statement, but it does not mean much. Regulations has not changed, and they are very detailed. Number of cylinders, bore, stroke, bank angle, min. weight, COG height, etc., etc., are still in place. You can move things around, you can exploit different concepts here and there, you can refine certain bits, but calling this "all-new architecture" is exaggeration, to say the least.

Whilst the above is prescribed in the regs there is still an incredible amount of influence the geometry of the chamber head, piston head, valve sizing, lift characteristics have on the combustion.
Considering the token system was restrictive with the amount you could change, Renault perhaps chose to develop their design as a wholesale change had the added risk of getting something wrong and being stuck with another dud engine which they couldnt develop for an entire season.

noname wrote:

FrukostScones wrote:http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... s-for-2017

"We are going to have an all-new architecture on the internal combustion engine, and also be introducing for the first time the second generation of Energy Recovery System."

Bold statement, but it does not mean much. Regulations has not changed, and they are very detailed. Number of cylinders, bore, stroke, bank angle, min. weight, COG height, etc., etc., are still in place. You can move things around, you can exploit different concepts here and there, you can refine certain bits, but calling this "all-new architecture" is exaggeration, to say the least.

We can't say this is an exaggeration when we do not know what the design changes are.

As an example ... A radical change to the head/crankcase/block concept could certainly qualify as being a complete architectural change, even whilst respecting the constraints of the regulations.

Exactly. And all these engines have the same"number of cylinders, bore, stroke, bank angle, min. weight, COG height, etc., etc." and yet the Merc engine for example is considered to have a completely different "architecture" than the Renault... primarily because of the turbo layout...
So we don't know what Abiteboul means with the word "architecture"... it could be the turbo layout/ICE packaging as lio007 said, or it could be a change in the head/chamber design/crankcase/block concept/piston shape/, valves/distribution as the others said etc.

Turbo layout is minor variable when it comes to the ultimate power of the ICE. Though the layout has a lot to do with in race conditions, those different conditions do not explain the montrous gap between the engines. The Red Bull's were still slim in the rear, they had good cooling, the engine was not any longer a package because they just sat the big ole turbo on the gearbox where the cooling exit is anyway, so not much was lost packaging wise IMO. The outright power of the engine certainly lies within the ICE itself. I reckon that architechtual features are even more numerous inside the engine than outside.

We'll see
According to this, the new packaging to start with, is very different from 2015 (whish was almost identical to 2014 and 2016)

FrukostScones wrote:TR with matte paint like RB:
it.motorsport.com
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... t=&act=url

The Key technicians were particularly impressed by the packaging of the last power unit of Viry Chatillon: nothing to do with the engine they had left at the end of 2015, underpowered, unreliable but also quite cumbersome.

PlatinumZealot wrote:Turbo layout is minor variable when it comes to the ultimate power of the ICE. Though the layout has a lot to do with in race conditions, those different conditions do not explain the montrous gap between the engines. The Red Bull's were still slim in the rear, they had good cooling, the engine was not any longer a package because they just sat the big ole turbo on the gearbox where the cooling exit is anyway, so not much was lost packaging wise IMO. The outright power of the engine certainly lies within the ICE itself. I reckon that architechtual features are even more numerous inside the engine than outside.

Would expect the turbo layout will have a fairly big impact on the available electrical energy.

" Renault numbers look good." Newey

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... 017--newey

but will it work?

Horner about the horse power deficit:

The three percent figure

Red Bull got back to winning ways last year as Renault's restructuring of its F1 efforts helped it push forward and close the gap to Mercedes.

There remained clear power differences though – with Horner himself saying during 2016 that the gap was around 35Kw – around 45 horsepower. In percentage terms, it was estimated to be just above five per cent.

Hopes are high, however, that an all-new Renault power unit coming for this season can help the deficit be cut further, and Horner suggested prior to the off-season that just halving the gap would be enough for his team to get in the game.

"I think if we got back within three percent, which is where we were with the V8, then you're in the hunt from there," he told Motorsport.com. "And hopefully, with stability, we should be able to get there."

Fighting talk then from Milton Keynes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZiFs3gRPgU

Can we tell anything from the sound compared to last year? Last 30~ seconds of the video

Hmm........not

seezung wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZiFs3gRPgU

Can we tell anything from the sound compared to last year? Last 30~ seconds of the video

It sounds like an N/A V8...

Sounds very similar to the PU106D.
Mainly because of the length of the plenum.
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/vide ... 62058.html

toraabe wrote:Sounds very similar to the PU106D.
Mainly because of the length of the plenum.
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/vide ... 62058.html

How so? (Just interested.)

The Renault takes less than the Mercedes engine to fire up.