F1technical.net

I say Lauda is using a rounded figure. It may make that at max rpm. but i don't think that's the peak hp which is experienced at around 12,000rpm as Cosworth puts it.
Rumours that one team has 160hp more than the other are completely false. The ICE will probably have the same horsepower across the grid. It's really just down to which unit has better management of temperature, power and energy.

Blanchimont wrote:Lauda today told in a talkshow on ServusTV that the Mercedes ICE produces 580hp, Marko next to him was quite surprised about that info but admitted that Renault's power output is lower than that.

That number of 580hp is just slightly less than the Cosworth simulation of just over 600 which seems possible to me with some development time. I made an excel model of the power unit that now includes the MGU-H:


I think the fit to the Cosworth info is pretty good from 9000 to 14000 rpm.

I have now also added a very simplified car sim that includes plotting the energy store that someone wanted to see:



This shows heavy use of the MGU-K from about 2 seconds to 13 seconds. The MGU-H output helps keep the energy store from depleting too rapidly. The downforce and cornering models are pretty rudimentary, but I wanted something to illustrate coming out of a slow corner, accelerating at maximum down a 1.2 km straight, and then harvesting some energy before a high speed corner.

Thanks for those graphs. I need to study them & have filed them for easy reference during the season.
Second spreadsheet, graph 2 - the energy store graph is omitted.

tok-tokkie wrote:Thanks for those graphs. I need to study them & have filed them for easy reference during the season.
Second spreadsheet, graph 2 - the energy store graph is omitted.

The energy store line on the right graph is off-scale (forgot to remove it when I moved it to the left graph), the data is the same as in the left graph.

If anyone has suggestions for additional plots or conditions, I could run them.

ringo wrote:I say Lauda is using a rounded figure. It may make that at max rpm. but i don't think that's the peak hp which is experienced at around 12,000rpm as Cosworth puts it.
Rumours that one team has 160hp more than the other are completely false. The ICE will probably have the same horsepower across the grid. It's really just down to which unit has better management of temperature, power and energy.

The consensus here was around 600hp (not including a few members). I'm a bit surprised it's lower than 600hp. If anything, I figured it would be 20hp over 600, not under.

Rumor has it that Renault failed to test the powerplant as a whole unit on the dyno, something that just baffles me. Apparently this lack of integrated testing was why they didn't find the vibration issues. The Renault teams are saying they are suffering from turbo lag so there is something wrong in the software that they haven't addressed yet.

dren wrote:

ringo wrote:I say Lauda is using a rounded figure. It may make that at max rpm. but i don't think that's the peak hp which is experienced at around 12,000rpm as Cosworth puts it.
Rumours that one team has 160hp more than the other are completely false. The ICE will probably have the same horsepower across the grid. It's really just down to which unit has better management of temperature, power and energy.

The consensus here was around 600hp (not including a few members). I'm a bit surprised it's lower than 600hp. If anything, I figured it would be 20hp over 600, not under.

I guess the Lauda wanted to know how strong the Renault engine is. So he told a relatively low but realistic number to catch Marko off guard to tell if they are with their internal assumptions about right.

rscsr wrote:

dren wrote:

ringo wrote:I say Lauda is using a rounded figure. It may make that at max rpm. but i don't think that's the peak hp which is experienced at around 12,000rpm as Cosworth puts it.
Rumours that one team has 160hp more than the other are completely false. The ICE will probably have the same horsepower across the grid. It's really just down to which unit has better management of temperature, power and energy.

The consensus here was around 600hp (not including a few members). I'm a bit surprised it's lower than 600hp. If anything, I figured it would be 20hp over 600, not under.

I guess the Lauda wanted to know how strong the Renault engine is. So he told a relatively low but realistic number to catch Marko off guard to tell if they are with their internal assumptions about right.

My thoughts as well.

Then Marko said a fake number too
...
The Caterham's topspeed in day 4: 331,7km/h - Wiiliams: 331,2Km/h - 2nd best: 335 - Alonso: 339
Finish line topspeed: Toro Rosso: 299km/h - Williams: 291,8, many others: more or less 291km/h

I dont think the Renault is down on power.

Blackout wrote:Then Marko said a fake number too
...
The Caterham's topspeed in day 4: 331,7km/h - Wiiliams: 331,2Km/h - 2nd best: 335 - Alonso: 339
Finish line topspeed: Toro Rosso: 299km/h - Williams: 291,8, many others: more or less 291km/h

I dont think the Renault is down on power.

More likely it's down on continuous/sustainable power. Peak power is probably on par with other two engines.

Juzh wrote:

Blackout wrote:Then Marko said a fake number too
...
The Caterham's topspeed in day 4: 331,7km/h - Wiiliams: 331,2Km/h - 2nd best: 335 - Alonso: 339
Finish line topspeed: Toro Rosso: 299km/h - Williams: 291,8, many others: more or less 291km/h

I dont think the Renault is down on power.

More likely it's down on continuous/sustainable power. Peak power is probably on par with other two engines.

From what I've gathered it's the control system that Renault is behind on. And as stated above, I find it very hard to believe they never tested the PU as a whole before winter testing.

dren wrote:
From what I've gathered it's the control system that Renault is behind on. And as stated above, I find it very hard to believe they never tested the PU as a whole before winter testing.

That lack of testing is hard to believe. But there was the statement that MGU-K gearing had to be changed to avoid crankcase damage. That should have been obvious in dyno testing.

Maybe they only tested with the MGU-H, and not MGU-K.

tuj wrote:Rumor has it that Renault failed to test the powerplant as a whole unit on the dyno, something that just baffles me. Apparently this lack of integrated testing was why they didn't find the vibration issues. The Renault teams are saying they are suffering from turbo lag so there is something wrong in the software that they haven't addressed yet.

The obvious deficit we know about is the field testing in a car. Ferrari did it for sure and I bet my last € on Merc having done the same. You always find things when you run such complicated systems in a real environment.

Marko now says that Red Bull are two months behind. That is probably a bit exegerated but close to the time that Merc and Ferrari have won by mule testing.

WhiteBlue wrote:The obvious deficit we know about is the field testing in a car. [...]

and it might be a substantial one....
The inherent elasticity of drivetrain and tyres added to the tyre - road contact behaviour (eg stick-slip) is pretty difficult to model on a dyno. This of course can induce load peaks at the gearing/crankcase/bearing interface between MGU-K and crankshaft.
It somehow baffles me if RB didn't want to bring up such evident concerns earlier to Renault. Such things are part of a serious design review with FMEA and whatnot....they seem to have had way too much confidence in the engine partner, being works team or not doesn't really excuse this on both sides.

WhiteBlue wrote:

tuj wrote:Rumor has it that Renault failed to test the powerplant as a whole unit on the dyno, something that just baffles me. Apparently this lack of integrated testing was why they didn't find the vibration issues. The Renault teams are saying they are suffering from turbo lag so there is something wrong in the software that they haven't addressed yet.

The obvious deficit we know about is the field testing in a car. Ferrari did it for sure and I bet my last € on Merc having done the same. You always find things when you run such complicated systems in a real environment.

Marko now says that Red Bull are two months behind. That is probably a bit exegerated but close to the time that Merc and Ferrari have won by mule testing.

I think the McLaren P1 was partially developed for that very purpose, as a power train 'concept' mule for F1.
The technology overlap is extremely important and you can see the similarities.
It is probably why the P1 is slightly slower than the Porsche 918 hybrid which IMO was partly another hybrid development mule for the 919, which is also 4 wheel drive using superior front axle pure electric drive..
Merc and Ferrari of course have multi million dollar in house hybrid development to draw from.
Remember Alonso spinning La Ferrari at Fioranno?
It would be interesting to find out what Hamilton tested with and where.
I bet Williams were involved and that is why Williams is my choice for this years championship they developed lots of the tech that went into Porsche's hybrid programs.