Red Bull Renault RB11 speculation thread

[gandharva]

AMUS has an article about how Renault, Illmore and RBR split the work for 2015.

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 12004.html

Renault is rumored to spend most of it's tokens before 2015 season start, but not before 3rd test in Barcelona because of too long production times for the parts. Illien and his team will focus on cylinder head, exhaust and injection. Turbocharger development stays at APC Pankl. Energy recovery/storage is done hand in hand by Renault and RedBull Racing.

I think that's the correct link: http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 43588.html

Yes. Thanks!

[Mesteño]

So according to the article, Renault engine is not going to be split turbo. I'm curious about it.

[gandharva]

Exactly. They will keep the old layout in 2015.

[Blackout]

And the old layout has the following disadvantages compared to a Mercedes layout IMO:

1-The compressor is too close to the turbine (some engineers do not hink this is a disadvantage, but others, Illien for ex, do)
2-Compressor/intercooler pipes are too close to the exhaust pipes
3-Compressor and turbo are respectively too far from the intake and exhaust, partly because of the disk shaped compressor airbox
4-Gearbox needs to be larger/longer to accomodate the T, the C, the C air box etc.
5-Gearbox/'clutchbell' housing needs bigger holes to let the C and T pipes pass.

So:
-Because of (1) and (2):
the car needs larger intercoolers ---> drag/aero penalty, weight penalty
or
car needs more heat shielding ---> that costs wieght, space and time
or
engine is less efficient...

-Because of (3):
tubo lag is bigger ---> MGUH spend more time and energy reducing lag ---> MGUK and engine become less electric power

-Because of 4: Gbox CoG is swept backward ---> less flexiblity regarding wight distibution. Gbox foot print on the floor is bigger, sidepods/wasp waist/coke bottle shape are larger --> aero penalty

Because of (5):
Gbox stiffness is reduced and/or its weight is increased

And I'm sure I forgot some other points : P

But as I said in the first page, there is still a big improvement margin especially regarding point (3) and (4).
RBR did well with the RB10 concerning point (2). But there is still a lot to do.

Why not completely wrap the compressor (and the intercooler?), like this Honda mocke up did, in order to isolate it from the turbine's heat, in order to minimise point (1) problems?

[Juzh]

Surely, if the solutions were "as simple" as splitting the turbo and compressor, renault would have jumped all over it? Instead Taffin is on the record saying ever since it became clear merc pu is utterly dominant how this configuration is not the main factor. If renault remains as crap this year as it was last year, then nothing this guy says can even be considered as truth ever again. Even people inside renault publicly disagree for christ's sake.

[Mesteño]

Looking at the way this people do things, maybe next year engine will have the best split turbo ever made.

[Blackout]

Maybe Taffin, White and co were looking at the Merc layout with the engine manufacturer's eyes exclusively. And thought that splitting the T and the C do not reduce temps a lot... Many engineers think the same while others disagree. Renault was also an engine manufacturer exclusively in 2014, they had no chassis team...

And Renault didnt have Merc's budget nor its man power. Renault employed 350 people including subs-tractors while Merc used more or less 500 people for the engine department- So even if Renault thought about that layout in 2011, did they have the resources, the time, a very close chassis partner and the grantees to succeed with it?
Did they have enough dynos to test different architectures in the same time? did they have enough money and time to develop a strong enough C/T shaft, a monocoque-integrated intercooler with RBR etc?
I dont think so. They built an universal PU and developed some bespoke solutions with/for 4 different teams.
RBR shared dyno testing time with caterham. that's a fact.
They made some big mistakes but didnt have Merc's experience with ERS too.

In the recent intervews (Motrosports-magazine), Taffin talked about the Merc layout with the chassis-maker perspective too.
From a chassis point of view, the Merc layout is the best IMO. And it has benefits on the PU itself. It explains 90% of Merc's dominance. IMO. Their experience regarding KERS and the amount of money employed explains the rest.

[lio007]

Taffin on the developments at Renault & RedBull

- They try to be realisitic in terms of 2015
o They don’t expect to be in front of Mercedes, PU-wise
o But they don’t expect to be some couple % behind Mercedes, PU-wise
o They expect to be 1-2% behind Mercedes

- They think, if they are that close,the rest could compensate a good chassis

- Renault’s improvements will be mostly gained by the revised ICE, not by ERS components

- ERS has been new, so they have concentrated on that more than on the ICE and as 2014 has shown, they have underestimated the ICE in the development process of the V6

- The advanced partnership with RedBull is very interesting

- e.g. RedBull helps them with Aero (in respect of the engine)

[OO7]

Taffin on the developments at Renault & RedBull

- They try to be realisitic in terms of 2015
o They don’t expect to be in front of Mercedes, PU-wise
o But they don’t expect to be some couple % behind Mercedes, PU-wise
o They expect to be 1-2% behind Mercedes

- They think, if they are that close,the rest could compensate a good chassis

- Renault’s improvements will be mostly gained by the revised ICE, not by ERS components

- ERS has been new, so they have concentrated on that more than on the ICE and as 2014 has shown, they have underestimated the ICE in the development process of the V6

- The advanced partnership with RedBull is very interesting

- e.g. RedBull helps them with Aero (in respect of the engine)

In terms of horse power, assuming the Mercedes was putting out 800hp (excluding development of the 2015 PUs), a 2% deficit is only 16hp.

[NathanOlder]

I read it as 1-2% behind Mercedes, not 1-2% behind Mercedes PU wise. So 1-2% behind mercedes would be 1-2 seconds!!!! =D>

[ringo]

And the old layout has the following disadvantages compared to a Mercedes layout IMO:

1-The compressor is too close to the turbine (some engineers do not hink this is a disadvantage, but others, Illien for ex, do)
2-Compressor/intercooler pipes are too close to the exhaust pipes
3-Compressor and turbo are respectively too far from the intake and exhaust, partly because of the disk shaped compressor airbox
4-Gearbox needs to be larger/longer to accomodate the T, the C, the C air box etc.
5-Gearbox/'clutchbell' housing needs bigger holes to let the C and T pipes pass.

So:
-Because of (1) and (2):
the car needs larger intercoolers ---> drag/aero penalty, weight penalty
or
car needs more heat shielding ---> that costs wieght, space and time
or
engine is less efficient...

-Because of (3):
tubo lag is bigger ---> MGUH spend more time and energy reducing lag ---> MGUK and engine become less electric power

-Because of 4: Gbox CoG is swept backward ---> less flexiblity regarding wight distibution. Gbox foot print on the floor is bigger, sidepods/wasp waist/coke bottle shape are larger --> aero penalty

Because of (5):
Gbox stiffness is reduced and/or its weight is increased

And I'm sure I forgot some other points : P

But as I said in the first page, there is still a big improvement margin especially regarding point (3) and (4).
RBR did well with the RB10 concerning point (2). But there is still a lot to do.

Why not completely wrap the compressor (and the intercooler?), like this Honda mocke up did, in order to isolate it from the turbine's heat, in order to minimise point (1) problems?
http://vtec.carthrottle.com/image/1/700 ... a5fca2.jpg

Your points are valid, but they are only relevant if these effects are of a big enough magnitude to affect performance in a noticeable way. If it's just a matter of decimal places, then it's not worth redesigning the whole PU. I don't think Renault did so bad with Redbull. They still won 3 races and came second in the constructors; beating the other Mercedes powered cars. They aren't really in bad shape. The works relationship with redbull will reduce the gap without much fundamental changes needing to be made.

[lio007]

I read it as 1-2% behind Mercedes, not 1-2% behind Mercedes PU wise. So 1-2% behind mercedes would be 1-2 seconds!!!! =D>

Actually it was meant PU-wise.

[Moose]

I read it as 1-2% behind Mercedes, not 1-2% behind Mercedes PU wise. So 1-2% behind mercedes would be 1-2 seconds!!!! =D>

Actually it was meant PU-wise.

Even then, they're on throttle for 60% of the lap at some circuits, and close to that at most. If we assume 50%, that's still going to be .5 - 1 seconds a lap that RBR has to make up in aero.

[Richard]

I don't think its that precise, they're simply saying they'll be a little bit behind on the PU not a lot. Then hopefully being a little bit ahead on aero means they'll end up with equal performance.

[bonjon1979]

I read it as 1-2% behind Mercedes, not 1-2% behind Mercedes PU wise. So 1-2% behind mercedes would be 1-2 seconds!!!! =D>

Actually it was meant PU-wise.

Even then, they're on throttle for 60% of the lap at some circuits, and close to that at most. If we assume 50%, that's still going to be .5 - 1 seconds a lap that RBR has to make up in aero.

Would love to see your workings on that one! Sounds like nonsense to me.