F1technical.net

They'll be aiming for both of course but reliability brings performance anyway through higher damage cycles (I think that's what they called it anyway, it was an F1 engineer writing for a James Allen piece IIRC).

Basically the modes they can run in reliably increase in power, as does the amount of times they can use those modes throughout the weekend.

amho wrote: ↑

24 Dec 2017, 22:53

If I was a f1 engine designer I wouldn't care of reliability for 4 engine per season and I would go for pure performance. In the last season we have seen that how a fast car with penalties could make its way to near poduim.

I agree with what McHonda is saying and that a pure-performance development approach is not the right way to go forward for Renault.

As has been said elsewhere already, the number of competitive cars is expected to increase with Mclaren and Renault improving. Thus a penalty will cost more, and starting from the back of the grid will be a greater disadvantage.

Also a performance oriented approach, with unreliability as a consequese, might hurt in pre-season testing if sufficient milage can't be achieved. This might not only hurt PU development, but also aero and chassis development as a result of a lack of data.

As said above, pure performance isn't helpfull if it's not sustainable for longer periods of time. Being quick over a qualifying lap isn't beneficial if the PU destroys itself and result in grid penalties. Like we saw in Mexico, if Renault can turn up the PU that they already have to a high power state, then the PU's race-performance is decent. Renault should work to ensure they can sustain a high power state, throughout all the races that the elements are required to do without incuring penalties. That's what will bring the Renault powered teams the most points on a sunday, the most pre-season and in-season development data and the least fire-fighting of unreliability issues.

Not only that but pure perfromance doesnt allow you to analyse the wear in a gradual manner, over select wear intervals to better develop the engine for even more power and reliability.

I have no real clue but in my opinion from what I see first hand in computer engineering is you go for performance. Lack of reliability is just a result of a shortage of testing.

You design something a certain way to get performance. Then you build an environment around that performance to sustain the reliability.

I dont know much about Computer engineeeing but as a mechanical engineer I always design and build a system that is say maybe 75% optimal and I test and analyse with this one. i want to capture all the phenomenon as they happen. Then I crank up performance afterward. On the other hand if I crank the performance up to 100% right out of the box things will breaking left right and center and I will be firefighting the whole way through like what Renault was doing. Not just a reliable engine but reliable data is important to improving performance.

For race pace in current regulations , the better the reliability the longer you can run them at full tilt. The race pace is dictated by the amount of time an engine can run in higher performance modes over a race distance. An engine which can last 7 races can be run much more aggressively over 5 races than an engine which can do only 5 races.

In a nutshell a more reliable engine will have an edge over an engine with slightly better outright performance but lower reliability. Renault in their recent statements have clearly outlined that they are concentrating more on improving the reliability for 2018. They have good outright performance when the engine is maxed out (in race conditions) but they cannot sustain it as much as Mercedes or Ferrari can.

I wonder which is the bigger investment for Renault, the team or engine program.

AMUS has claimed it's sources within a manufacturer has revealed the HP numbers based on GPS data.

Mercedes-949hp
Ferrari----934hp
Renault---907hp
Honda-----881hp

Mercedes did Mexico on 89kg while the closest rival needed 99kg.

Source: https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... 20003.html

Renault are around 42hp behind Mercedes and their race pace is more closer to Mercedes than in qualifying which suggests they have good harvesting and deployment and the engine operates relatively closer to the Mercedes in self sustaining mode than it does in full power mode.

Maybe Renault are closer in race pace because their mapping still causes too much engine damage in the race modes?

The gap between the manufacturers obviously hasn't converged quite yet. It's questionable if it ever will. If you were to rank with regard to reliability the list would be very similair (Honda arguably equal to or better than Renault at the end of 2017). It goes to show how much of a lead Mercedes still has, and how great a job they have done.

Mercedes could probably de-tune the 2017 PU as it is, according to the new reliability requirements, and still match or outperform the new 2018 units that their competitors will bring.

As for Renault, I think they again will have to balance PU penalties and performance throughout the 2018 season. I can't see them make it without penalties while delivering the required power output needed to be competitive.

I don't think anyone but Mercedes and their customers will go through the season penalty free to be honest.

McHonda wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2017, 19:09

I don't think anyone but Mercedes and their customers will go through the season penalty free to be honest.

I don't think a single manufacturer will make it through 2018 without a penalty...

To me the larger disparity is the fuel usage. Starting a race 10kg lighter with a 40hp advantage is a double whammy. 2 areas where all the other manufacturers need to catch up.

AJI wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2017, 23:53

McHonda wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2017, 19:09

I don't think anyone but Mercedes and their customers will go through the season penalty free to be honest.

I don't think a single manufacturer will make it through 2018 without a penalty...

+21
it's obvious that mercedes has a big advantage because of this rule but can't finish it penalty free I think.