Renault down because of engine and tyres

[zenvision]

I think this year they are suffering because they stretched themselves too thin last year. They are a smaller company than Ferrari and they concentrated so much on last year that they probably put this year on the back burner and even though they have a rolling developing system the resources were too stretched I feel and now its taking its toll. Certainly they won't lose the knowledge and unless rules are changed I fully expect a huge revival next year, if not in the middle of this.

[Ciro Pabón]

I think that the most important piece of a car is the chassis. You need a rigid but light one to be able to deliver the power to the ground under all loads and circumstances. The art of keeping a wheel "put on the tarmac" is hard to deliver under variable conditions and in different tracks. Anyone who has tried to tune a racecar knows how difficult to achieve it is and how, when you fail to get that extra seconds, you blame it on the frame and its suspension.

The regulations being evaluated about the possibility of buying chassises made by half a dozen of makers show how critical is this component to a team: critics allege that, if you don't build your own chassis, you hardly can call yourself a car maker. You can buy an engine, tyres, brakes, dampers, electronics, but the monocoque is what differentiates a builder from a "mere" racer. After all, is what you see of the machine: the chassis is the car. It is its true soul: you can substitute anything and the car is still the same. Take away that "magic" plate, the one attached to the chassis, the one that has the ID of the car engraved on its top, and you can no longer argue it is the same vehicle.

This year's time differences show how important it is: after all, the aerodynamic parts you can develop are on top of it and the engines are more equalized than ever. Anyone can copy an aerodynamic development that takes months or years to figure out, simply by taking an stereographic photograph of your ardous work and then modelling it in a few days, using more or less standard CAD packages. But it is much more difficult to deduce what's behind the paint job.

Another thing is that F1 is darwinism in action: teams compete for survival, as the relatively high rate of team attrition shows in recent history. After all, we're talking of a dozen teams and, even being so few, it is not infrequent for a team to crash financially.

Renault achieved a wonderful result with a shoestring budget. Of course, the talent of Alonso helped, but they did it through ingenuity and revolutionary advances, bordering the regulations. This trend is hard to guarantee: inspiration comes and goes and regulations tighten. This year, Renault has one half of Toyota's budget for consecutive years (250 millions compared with 500 millions, I've heard), and it shows. If this is survival of the fittest, the food of a team is money. No one can stay in shape when this source of energy falters. Besides, Flavio has a fame of being a tight guy and, if true, that doesn't help to attract (and keep!) the most brilliant, even if Renault has more or less guaranteed the ability of french engineering by being the only french option in F1.

Finally, hesitation took its toll: Renault lived an interregnum about its commitment to F1, until Goshn took the helm. I believe this was one of the reasons, if not the main one, that convinced Alonso to switch teams.

[bizadfar]

In 2005 and 2006 Renault won because they had the best engine, the best tyres and the most effective team orders.

Now we see what they can do when they no longer enjoy these advantages...

2005 They were not as powerful(referring to hp) as BMW/Honda. Torque, yes please.
2006, they had one of the best engines. I still believe the Ferrari or even Mercedes engine (when fully developed) were better. The advantage was it didn't need to rev so high to maintain competitiveness. BMW, Ferrari, Mercedes were all stretched out to 20700 - 21000rpm.

But with the rew-limiter the best side of the engine cannot be used like in the past. Remember Alonso playng with the rew limiter for passing other cars in 2005 and 2006.

Rubbish. They still got mappings/software and air/fuel ratios available to them. Revs is not everything...

On a contrary - all Renault normally aspirated engines were less powerful and with less max rpm than for example Ferrari engines. They've always relied on torque so limiting revs to 19k probably harmed them the least of all teams.

In terms of development costs for optimal performance at 19k, yes. Actual peak performance? Not sure.

wrong. in 2005 Ferrari rewed higher..true, but could not exploit it due to stresses created from tyre-wear

bur in 2006 Renault produced more power related to calculated "overrewing". Ferrari caught up by the end of the season, yet as we saw..reliability didn`t match.

Renault was really clever with the potential loop-holes in 2006. I actually didn`t expect that they would make it in 2006 based on their 2005-success based on reliability and other teams poor reliability. But they did...they did manage to build the fastest race-engine of all in 2006 thanks to ingenious use of rew-limiter. And with the superiour Michelins... they could only lose it by themselves.

They could exploit it.... qualifying and inlaps/outlaps
Check out the fastest laps. A good chunk are held by MS.

Renault was really clever with the potential loop-holes in 2006. I actually didn`t expect that they would make it in 2006 based on their 2005-success based on reliability and other teams poor reliability. But they did...they did manage to build the fastest race-engine of all in 2006 thanks to ingenious use of rew-limiter. And with the superiour Michelins... they could only lose it by themselves.

"Ingenious use of a rew-limiter" Wow Renault pioneered a rev limiter in 2005/2006? Brainless.....

As always with a tyre war (well most of time, excluding 2002 for example) you got trades of superiority regularly. By season end, even from 3/5 way Bridgestone had the best tyre.

last year Renault R26 had 730bhp...similar to SF..whereas Williams Cosworth had 750bhp(claimed)...but the RS26 was reliable...only one engine failure (at Monza)...there is no doubt that Renault is struggling with Bridgestone tyres..bu they ll turn things around soon..Heikki is da one to look out for

Source for that 730bhp? Hope its not a pre-season figure lol

I'm sure cosworth had more than 750bhp fully developed (even if budget for development was low). Reliable sources say 745+ @ 19800rpm. They revved to 20k in Bahrain easy. Fastest down the straights. I'm pretty sure Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes, Renault are just as powerful (later on, when sorted out with v8 issues). For sure certain BMW was more powerful (info direct from Munich ) than 750bhp


My Opinion on aero:
Aero parts depend alot if they actually work on the car. F2006 had mirror location revolution. RB did it, they went back to the conventional design. Also the R27 "looks" alot sleeker than the R26 as you would expect in development. But they say they are having to work on regaining the lost downforce. Remember in 98, most of the cars had those hideous side wings(later banned), but Mclaren never bothered with them.
Brief: An aero part on one car that makes an improvement is no means to think that the same part will work on another car.

[Sawtooth-spike]

Brief: An aero part on one car that makes an improvement is no means to think that the same part will work on another car.

Amen!

If you car has less devices but still get the same performace as one with load then why add the drag?

Mclaren and redbull/STR are the only teams i think who are running a more classic front wing. (by the way i exclude honda from this as there it seems is an areo nightmare anyway) So if thats works for them then why add something because everybody else has

[ds.raikkonen]

Source is Autocar india...F1 Racing section...Feb issue