Renault rocks F1 ... but will it work?

[Dino IV]

Well the facts about the new Renault F1 assault have been scarse but shocking so far. The French are going to extremes in a totally different direction than their competition.

The V-angle of their V10 is 111 degrees, so we heard. Extremely wide compared tot the competitions 70-75 degrees. There are rumours about electro-magnetic valve actuation, which we discussed some time ago, but it seems if they will run the conventional camshafts in the beginning of the season, maybe for the whole 2001 season. Problems for these angles are especially hard to control vibrations.

The wide angled engine has characteristics which will probably lead to new solutions in F1 cardesign. Latest rumours are that they will minimize (or skip) the central airbox behind the driver and add air-intakes in or on the sidepods. I was wondering if, and if so how much, it is allowed by the rules to lower the airbox or to remove it. There needs to be a roll-hoop but can it be an open curved shape and what size? Has anyone spotted the Benetton's new solution yet?

Another question is, what about the exhaust system? My guess for the reason they choose such a wide angle was focussed on the use of the electro-magnetic valve system. A system like that has a weight disdavantage over the traditional shafts and needs some space and other equipment. By widening up the V-angle they lower the CoG anyhow, but when they'd add the new valve system on the bottomside of the cylinderrow they won't suffer much from the additional weight. This means that the exhaust system needs to be on the upperside, so inbetween the cylinderrows. Breathing from the bottomside of the rows would explain the need for other air-intakes. Renault is doing radical stuff that's one thing that's for sure. Anyone any info, pics or thoughts on this subject?

[Marshal]

I haven't heard anything more than you have I'm afraid, but I hope it will lead to some radical and different solutions in car design, its about time we had something that looks completely different in F1. It'd be even better if it works too.

[GURRYP]

Wether it works or not, lets just hope the the FIA don't ban it. If F1 carries on like this they will drive any original thinking orut of the sport. Just remember, turbo's, ground effect, active suspension, V8 & V12 engines etc all not banned.

[desmo]

I assume that the dimensional requirements for the roll-hoop will be met by an open design with benefits to the quality of the airflow to the rear wing. For an idea on how this might look, I refer you to the '89 Benetton. The vibes are a problem in a 111 degree V-10 but remember that first-order balance is achievable at either 72 or 144 degrees, so as you open up the v-angle it doesn't neccessarily mean the vibes get worse. I wonder about the crank geometry and firing order Renault have chosen for this design, F1 engineers are running into a formidable second-order TV (torsional vibration) at current rev ceilings. A novel geometry or FO could help alleviate this. Obvioiusly the possibilities are constrained by the need to keep a six-main five-throw crank. Another concern is with the engine acting as a stressed member the unbraced distance between the cylinder banks increases. I can see a design where the PTO point is central on the engine and the clutch is mounted between the banks! The housing could double as a bridge perhaps and this would address the TV problem as well. Crazy talk now.

[rds]

The twin airbox arrangement would be difficult to achieve if the openings were restricted to behind the drivers line. The problem with air flowing over a body is that the boundary layer gets more thicker (therefore more turbelent) the further back along the body. The BMW Le Man sportscars got away with this by putting the air box opening alongside the drivers cockpit. I don't think this would be allowed under the rules. I believe the exhaust will run on the side of the engines as now, however how detrimental the wide angle may be in restricting the coke body shape of the sidepod is not known. From what I've heard, this area is very sensitive to change. The plus is the airbox volume could be larger & lower than at the moment, the lower it is, the more underdesturbed airflow to the rear wing. Definitely worth a try.

[Dino IV]

Thanks for your opinions and crazy talks () so far. I found a pic of a 'photoshopped' B200 which might be somewehere in the right direction:



Or do you think the actual solution will be otherwise? For instance more to the outer side of the sidepods or even inside them?

[Sparky]

Sorry Dino; It's another 'no-linker'!

[Dino IV]

I uploaded it to my directory to make sure it shows. Tnx Sparkster.

[desmo]

Packaging will be tight for the Renaultton. You need divergent ductwork with a large difference in cross sectional area to trade air velocity for pressure. I think it would be better if you could feed the airboxes from lower on the sidepod. We'll all see how they've addressed it soon enough.

[Dino IV]

Way2go desmo: Renaultton

Packaging will be tough for sure, desmo, that's why I am wondering if what rds said is actually defined in the regulations:

Originally posted by rds
The twin airbox arrangement would be difficult to achieve if the openings were restricted to behind the drivers line.

So is that true or undefined yet?

Because that would make things even more difficult. I wouldn't go as far as Colani did on his March-transformation for Eiffeland back in the seventies:



But I'd see some healthy opportunities for twin airbox arrangements with air intakes under the rearview mirrors at the sides of the monocoque, don't you?

[Dino IV]

And ofcourse Benetton already has experience with airboxes like this from their B188 car:



If invisible please click here.



If invisible please click here.

[Sparky]

A fairly standard looking airbox for the B201, then...

Does this suggest that it's running conventional cam and valve operation? And that they've squeezed the exhaust manifolding below the cylinder banks?

Do you suppose we'll see a B201B when the car returns to Europe? It's the usual Benetton trick, after all!

[DNQ]

Look at this side-pods - they are very-low. It seems, almost too low. May be Benetton knows something we don't!

[Dino IV]

I guess your right, Sparky. The twin airbox arrangement will probably be used along with the cam-less engine. Which I hope they get to work and introduce later this year.

But indeed we can tell now that the in-ports are on top and the exhaust on the bottomside. I haven't seen a pic yet of the rear end so I don't know where the exhaust exit is. Is it in periscope-style, above the diffuser or inside the diffuser?

The monocoque looks immaculate by the way. Front wing a new solution to the new rules and seems pretty neat. DNQ is right about the sidepods. The airbox is so narrow as well, even at the bottom. Some edges on sidepod-airbox seem kinda whobbly as if they're provisory solutions. Amazing packaging or under development I am not sure.