2015 engine development potential

[Juzh]

Rb7 was the only car to enjoy unrestricted EBD, after that 1 million rules trying to ban it came into effect. 1 of them even mid season.
You talk about fuel efficiency as it's the only thing that mattered. Renault also had their weak power frozen in. You get it?

The "rule change" introduced in mid season was merely to point out that the throttles should act in accordance with driver's right foot. Which EBD clearly didn't. That didn't go very far because Renault whinged about needing to that to cool the exhaust valve or some other BS.

They winged because it was a major technical revision mid-season. Mass dampers anyone?
Merc even tried to maintain it's blowing to some degree before renault were allowed their own parameters for the british gp.

[dans79]

You talk about fuel efficiency as it's the only thing that mattered. Renault also had their weak power frozen in. You get it?

Did you read what I posted? I said efficiency, and tuneability, those two things together are a powerful combination.

Renault and torque/wide power range in 1 sentence Short gears much? Probably there for the lolz. You think RB wanted to run those close ratios if they didn't absolutely need to? Newey said tons of times how renault is a peaky engine.

I'd bet you my next paycheck they deliberate ran short gears. Short gears means higher revs, and that means more hot exhaust dumped over the diffuser, and thus more down force. This is only possible if you have a motor that is efficient enough to let you intentionally waste fuel. Couple that with a motor that was very tunable, and you get what we had from 2010 to 2013.

[dans79]

Everything here falls under "hear say". In 2014, with the fuel flow sensor, we could actually tell which engine was more fuel efficient... I don't see how anyone could realistically say (pre 2014) that Renault's engine was more fuel efficient when nobody but the teams themselves knew how much fuel they were running. Not to mention that all 3 teams are known for posturing.

If you dig, you will find lots of articles from respected members of the F1 community, saying the Renault engine was the most efficient. http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2009/11/a ... e-in-2009/

Even Renault said so.
http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/2745 ... advantage/

[Juzh]

You talk about fuel efficiency as it's the only thing that mattered. Renault also had their weak power frozen in. You get it?

Did you read what I posted? I said efficiency, and tuneability, those two things together are a powerful combination.

Please elaborate on the highlighted part.

I'd bet you my next paycheck they deliberate ran short gears. Short gears means higher revs, and that means more hot exhaust dumped over the diffuser, and thus more down force. This is only possible if you have a motor that is efficient enough to let you intentionally waste fuel. Couple that with a motor that was very tunable, and you get what we had from 2010 to 2013.

They ran them because they matched their aero setup and engine output. Which was considerably less than rival top teams at the time. Some of it was down to drag, but contributing everything down it is ridicioulus.
What fuel wasting? Again, this only applied in full force to 2011. After that OT EBD was banned. OT EBD and normal EBD are 2 quite different things. Old news of course.

Also, how do you explain RB7 having been much dominant in quali when fuel is not as important as during the race? During races their advantage was subdued a lot, indicating their fuel efficiency (or reliability - another aera renault was/still is the worst at by far) was not as big as many thought.

[Juzh]

Even Renault said so.
http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/2745 ... advantage/

Renault also said they're in good shape with the V6t just before pre-season tests.

[dans79]

Please elaborate on the highlighted part.

When you tune a motor you will find that some have a very narrow range in which the motor will run well/properly/at all, while other have a broad range.

What fuel wasting? Again, this only applied in full force to 2011. After that OT EBD was banned. OT EBD and normal EBD are 2 quite different things. Old news of course.

if your motor is fuel efficient and can be run rich without ill effects, then you had an advantage during the blown diffuser era. You could carry more fuel than you needed to complete the race, and run the motor as rich as it would allow. this would put more energy into the exhaust, thus improving down force. This effect would be compounded by running short gears.

[FoxHound]

Even Renault said so.
http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/2745 ... advantage/

Renault also said they're in good shape with the V6t just before pre-season tests.

Are you going to sit there all day and denigrate Renault to make Red Bull look good?

We all know for a fact the Renault used less fuel than the Mercedes or Ferrari V8's. Do you dispute this?
Although down on outright bhp to Mercedes and Ferrari, the deficit cannot be totally calculated through bhp alone.
Torque is the key here.

Torquier engines will also generally, but not as a rule be less thirsty than peaky engines. And as we know, Renault upgraded their engine twice through the V8 engine freeze.
2009 Renault were working on their engine update, and have a guess what turns up in testing for the last test before the start of the 2010 season?

http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/diffuser_blown.html

This is from our very own F1technical:

Just like the RB5, the 2010 contender is fitted with a Renault RS27 engine, despite attempting to seal a deal with Mercedes. The Renault is however upgraded as the French constructor was allowed to make some changes in order to close the performance gap with the fastest engines.

http://www.f1technical.net/f1db/cars/963/red-bull-rb6

Are you suggesting that Renault, in full knowledge of the requirements needed to produce the optimum balance between power and economy, messed up?
They had the best engine to utilise EBD, they even upgraded their engine to handle it!

Renault power then went on to win the double bubble for the next 4 years.
Red Bull massively responsible for that, but no Renault V8...no EBD, and lord knows who you'd be sniping at now.

[Juzh]

We all know for a fact the Renault used less fuel than the Mercedes or Ferrari V8's. Do you dispute this?

No?

When you tune a motor you will find that some have a very narrow range in which the motor will run well/properly/at all, while other have a broad range.

Oh yeah, I know what it means literally, just not how can you know renault was more tunable than others?

[dans79]

Oh yeah, I know what it means literally, just not how can you know renault was more tunable than others?

I would say the biggest indicator, is the sheer number of engine mappings they tried/used. Wasn't it 2012 when they got one taken away from them, because the fia considered it to much like off throttle blowing even though it wasn't.

[FoxHound]

No?

Elaborate. No you don't dispute it or, "No? I dont agree".

If there is no dispute, then why focus your agenda on power, ignoring the other values that make up the engine?

[Sevach]

Everything here falls under "hear say". In 2014, with the fuel flow sensor, we could actually tell which engine was more fuel efficient... I don't see how anyone could realistically say (pre 2014) that Renault's engine was more fuel efficient when nobody but the teams themselves knew how much fuel they were running. Not to mention that all 3 teams are known for posturing.

Back in 2009 there was a rule in which you car weight was declared after qualy.

And if remember correctly going by weight vs laps ran in the opening stint the consumptionpecking order was Renault>Mercedes>>>>Ferrari=Toyota.

I can't for the life of me recall BMW, probably unremarkable failing between Merc and Ferrari.

[FoxHound]

Schumacher alluded between 10/15 kgs at certain race tracks.
And thats the Mercedes contra the Renault.

[Juzh]

No?

Elaborate. No you don't dispute it or, "No? I dont agree".

If there is no dispute, then why focus your agenda on power, ignoring the other values that make up the engine?

No, i do not dispute renault's efficiency and never have.

[dragosmp]

[...]
If all engines are capped at 18k, and one is using less fuel but has marginally less top end bhp, could we assume it has a higher bottom end torque figure or a wider power band?

You are foregoing alot of factors here.

Agreed with this, applicable to V6s too. Some get behind a number like BHP or torque at given RPM (usually not mentioned by the PR) in stead of looking at transients and the overall RPM range at full throttle. I'm not arguing R had a better engine, they had less peak power, but what about the rest?

Some say the Cosworth engine was the most powerful, but also the heaviest, with a giggly power/rpm ratio f(RPM) and a torque loss smack in the middle of the usable range. Without a dyno curve at the very least in my opinion it's impossible to make a proper judgement on the quality of the torque, thus the overall performance. That said, I'm more of an electric motor guy, I wouldn't judge the quality of a motor that powers a car like Formula E's based only on power - it is important at the top end, but what about the torque, the relation between the torque and available battery (fuel rate equivalent in an ICE), etc...

My 2 cents

[FoxHound]

If all engines are capped at 18k, and one is using less fuel but has marginally less top end bhp, could we assume it has a higher bottom end torque figure or a wider power band?

You are foregoing alot of factors here.

Agreed with this, applicable to V6s too. Some get behind a number like BHP or torque at given RPM (usually not mentioned by the PR) in stead of looking at transients and the overall RPM range at full throttle. I'm not arguing R had a better engine, they had less peak power, but what about the rest?

Some say the Cosworth engine was the most powerful, but also the heaviest, with a giggly power/rpm ratio f(RPM) and a torque loss smack in the middle of the usable range. Without a dyno curve at the very least in my opinion it's impossible to make a proper judgement on the quality of the torque, thus the overall performance. That said, I'm more of an electric motor guy, I wouldn't judge the quality of a motor that powers a car like Formula E's based only on power - it is important at the top end, but what about the torque, the relation between the torque and available battery (fuel rate equivalent in an ICE), etc...

My 2 cents

Just correcting your quotes....keeping it real