F1technical.net

wuzak wrote:

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

Isn't that, in itself, a con?

Perhaps split turbo requires more piping that complicates things and room for compressor ahead of the engine block so engine itself has to be moved somewhat to the back compared to the 'classic' layout? That is the only con I can think of right now, as well as more mass for the shaft (as it is surely longer) that spins at 150 krpm , but I do not know if that is negligible as well.

I'd think one of the benefits is less piping.

dren wrote:I'd think one of the benefits is less piping.

I was thinking along the lines is it better to have more piping where you can afford it than less where you cannot (ie influencing CoG in any way). But F1 packaging is always a compromise as well.

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

Lol, no. Mercedes had by far the best ERS, to the point it was getting ridiculous on some tracks (read baku). This has been mentioned a few times in some articles last year and is obvious as f*** when watching onboards with telemetry overlays.

https://twitter.com/TheChazmR/status/834778116027457537

engine failed after 6 laps persistent ERS issue

dren wrote:I'd think one of the benefits is less piping.

It is less piping only when you are doing what Mercedes are doing with an water intercooler next to the battery

I don't see any advantage with the arrangement for Force India, Williams, Manor or Mclaren when they ran the split turbo setup with Air-Air intercooler. For them it was a messy setup, the turbo at the back would have been better.

FW17 wrote:

dren wrote:I'd think one of the benefits is less piping.

It is less piping only when you are doing what Mercedes are doing with an water intercooler next to the battery

I don't see any advantage with the arrangement for Force India, Williams, Manor or Mclaren when they ran the split turbo setup with Air-Air intercooler. For them it was a messy setup, the turbo at the back would have been better.

There is still less/shorter piping even with a sidepod-placed intercooler because the compressor is simply much closer to the sidepod than a classic turbo... So there is still an advantage there.
It wasnt messy at all on the customer cars.

Don't forget the cooler temperature in the front of the engine than the 1000 degree turbine 5 cm next the compressor ..
Another thing the longer pipes requires more pre spin of the mgu-h to prevent turbo lag, due to the longer piping, and pressure loss etc .. ..

toraabe wrote:Don't forget the cooler temperature in the front of the engine than the 1000 degree turbine 5 cm next the compressor ..
Another thing the longer pipes requires more pre spin of the mgu-h to prevent turbo lag, due to the longer piping, and pressure loss etc .. ..

Do the pre chamber ignition systems reduce the exhaust gas temperatures? Would this help the non split turbo engines out? Could a spacer be used to separate the turbine and compressor in non split configurations to also reduce temperatures in the compressor?

Is Ilmor still tweaking the engines of RBR?
Or is there actual influence of Ilmor?

daniellammers wrote:Is Ilmor still tweaking the engines of RBR?
Or is there actual influence of Ilmor?

nope. renault ended this winter their collaboration with ilmor.

Regarding the split turbo benefits on the chassis, IMO:
-the compressor hangs obviously much closer to the center of the car, the turbine too* so the natural weight distribution is more neutral.... classic turbo tilts the CoG backwards and makes it trickier to balance the car with ballast
- the lonely Merc turbine obviously occupies far less space inside the 'bellhousing' than the 2014-2016 Renault turbo (compressor+its airbox+turbine) and its exhaust pipes obviously penetrate the bellhousing through smaller holes than the classic turbo gbox which needs bigger holes for exhaust and charge air pipes) so it's much easier to make a more compact/thinner/shorter gbox in order to improve the aero and the smaller holes makes it easier to get the stiffness or the weight right.
etc...

*so shorter exhausts too

2014 Renault (Caterham spec) https://twitter.com/KevTs

Neno wrote:

daniellammers wrote:Is Ilmor still tweaking the engines of RBR?
Or is there actual influence of Ilmor?

nope. renault ended this winter their collaboration with ilmor.

Really, where have you got this Information?

lio007 wrote:

Neno wrote:

daniellammers wrote:Is Ilmor still tweaking the engines of RBR?
Or is there actual influence of Ilmor?

nope. renault ended this winter their collaboration with ilmor.

Really, where have you got this Information?

from Abiteboul himself at renault RS17 presentation.