F1technical.net

So that's finally settled. Confirmed from the horses mouth. I've read a number of articles not too long ago claiming only merc and ferrari used pre-chamber method

http://www.f1i.com/magazine/remi-taffin/
Using google translate..

First time we got the chance to work hand in hand with the chassis team so we worked a lot on the weigh and configuration of the cooling system.
A lot of work on optimising the weigh of the ERS
ICE has a new architecture has reached a new power level. Its installation is also slightly different.
Upgrades should be introduced along with introductions of new PUs.
Most of the efforts spend at Viry were focused on enhancing the methodologies, R&D capacity also upgraded.

I expect a step up from Renault this season. It could spell well for Red Bull, too. I don't think Renault was that far aft of the front runners based on Red Bull's performances. The biggest gains for the Renault team I'd expect would be in chassis integration.

Can we assume their ERS was on par with the best and the ICE just needed work?

dren wrote:I expect a step up from Renault this season. It could spell well for Red Bull, too. I don't think Renault was that far aft of the front runners based on Red Bull's performances. The biggest gains for the Renault team I'd expect would be in chassis integration.

Can we assume their ERS was on par with the best and the ICE just needed work?

You are correct. Here's what Bob Bell said.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/adop ... ll-875847/

-Bell, who played a part in Mercedes' preparation for the hybrid era during his 2011-2014 stint with the team before joining Renault last year, says he specifically worked on fostering an extra focus on engine integration.

"The message I could bring from Mercedes, which is not rocket science, is the importance of the unification of the engine and chassis teams, the importance of close collaboration and integration, and not expecting anything but the best for the car.

"Because on the Sunday afternoon we race the car – we don't race the engine, we don't race the chassis.

"There's no points for horsepower, there's no points for wind tunnel CL. It's about the car. So that's what I've been teaching."

ICE thermal efficiency is quite close to 50% https://youtu.be/DF_z7GlZoBc?t=186 (in the "self sustained mode obviously)

dren wrote:I expect a step up from Renault this season. It could spell well for Red Bull, too. I don't think Renault was that far aft of the front runners based on Red Bull's performances. The biggest gains for the Renault team I'd expect would be in chassis integration.

Can we assume their ERS was on par with the best and the ICE just needed work?

The 2016 Renault was designed with the Mercedes V6 in mind, I think it was around December 2015 time when the deal was finalised. Even if we say mid November to have a contingency when talks started, that is still a big task to switch engines for a Formula which was very reliant on "integration".

Could see some really big gains by factoring not only the above in, but the gains Renault have made over this winter with the engine.

Quantum wrote:

dren wrote:I expect a step up from Renault this season. It could spell well for Red Bull, too. I don't think Renault was that far aft of the front runners based on Red Bull's performances. The biggest gains for the Renault team I'd expect would be in chassis integration.

Can we assume their ERS was on par with the best and the ICE just needed work?

The 2016 Renault was designed with the Mercedes V6 in mind, I think it was around December 2015 time when the deal was finalised. Even if we say mid November to have a contingency when talks started, that is still a big task to switch engines for a Formula which was very reliant on "integration".

Could see some really big gains by factoring not only the above in, but the gains Renault have made over this winter with the engine.

Yes, I'm expecting both Renault and Mclaren to make a good step against the competition unless somebody really screws up their aero with the new regulations.

So what do we know about the new PU:
# non-split layout
# nearly 50% efficiency
# 95% of the PU is new

Can anybody point out (for me as an engine-dummy) why they stick with their non-split-layout, what are the pros of a non-split solution!?

lio007 wrote:Can anybody point out (for me as an engine-dummy) why they stick with their non-split-layout (...)

Because they decided cons outweight pros.

Split turbo has no real cons, it's just not easy to do. It has a ton of advantages for the PU and the chassis.
So the only advantage of the classic turbo is its 'simplicity' and maybe its drawbacks regarding size or weight distribution are attenuated today because the cars are longer, heavier, larger...

Blackout wrote:Split turbo has no real cons, it's just not easy to do.

Isn't that, in itself, a con?

Yes and no it's not a performance con I mean

lio007 wrote:So what do we know about the new PU:
# non-split layout
# nearly 50% efficiency
# 95% of the PU is new

# ERS system is completely new
# cooling system is new in the RS.17

A guy who claims he knows some people in Viry says that the PU running today on the dynos produces 55 more hp approximately than the 2016 version but this PU will come in two steps; the winter testing version (+25hp) and the Spanish GP spec or later (+30hp)

You think they went back to this?

Does anyone remember how much of a gain Renault seemed to receive with the prechamber ignition?

55hp gain is believable, especially considering where Mercedes and Ferrari were last year relative to Renault and Honda.

I'm guessing the bulk of that is from the ICE power output, but I have no clue. We all assume everyone is able to output the max MGUK allotment, but is that really true across the field?