RENAULT driver line-up 2009

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.

Post Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:36 am

No, I insist, the Bridgestones were better in some tracks in 2005. It just so happened that F1 did not visit those tracks in 2005! :lol:
Point is, you can't just discredit a driver who won the WDC fair and square by saying it was ONLY the tires. If you do, would you say as well for example that Hamilton won this year's WDC ONLY because of the rain? And justify this by the fact McLaren this year was obviously the car to be in in the wet?
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. H.P.Lovecraft
andartop
 
Joined: 8 Jun 2008
Location: London, UK

Post Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:50 am

andartop wrote:No, I insist, the Bridgestones were better in some tracks in 2005. It just so happened that F1 did not visit those tracks in 2005! :lol:
Point is, you can't just discredit a driver who won the WDC fair and square by saying it was ONLY the tires. If you do, would you say as well for example that Hamilton won this year's WDC ONLY because of the rain? And justify this by the fact McLaren this year was obviously the car to be in in the wet?


OK it wasnt only the tires, it was just mostly the tires.... It didnt rain in Austrailia this year, or in China, but it did in Monaco, Germany, Silverstone & Spa, So I gues it wasnt only the rain, but it was mostly... but werent they all on the same rain tires? So that means the driver must have been the difference, cuz Kovi didnt win any in the rain.
ISLAMATRON
 
Joined: 1 Oct 2008

Post Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:29 am

ISLAMATRON wrote:
andartop wrote:No, I insist, the Bridgestones were better in some tracks in 2005. It just so happened that F1 did not visit those tracks in 2005! :lol:
Point is, you can't just discredit a driver who won the WDC fair and square by saying it was ONLY the tires. If you do, would you say as well for example that Hamilton won this year's WDC ONLY because of the rain? And justify this by the fact McLaren this year was obviously the car to be in in the wet?


OK it wasnt only the tires, it was just mostly the tires.... It didnt rain in Austrailia this year, or in China, but it did in Monaco, Germany, Silverstone & Spa, So I gues it wasnt only the rain, but it was mostly... but werent they all on the same rain tires? So that means the driver must have been the difference, cuz Kovi didnt win any in the rain.


Yes driver plays more of a part when it rains, but when you talk about the really good drivers like Raikkonen, Alonso, they drive at the limit in the wet so they pretty much bring it down to the car, and everyone knows that the Mclaren is much easier to drive in the wet than the Ferrari.
ernos5
 
Joined: 21 May 2008
Location: Flight Level 510

Post Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:05 pm

ernos5 wrote:Yes driver plays more of a part when it rains, but when you talk about the really good drivers like Raikkonen, Alonso, they drive at the limit in the wet so they pretty much bring it down to the car, and everyone knows that the Mclaren is much easier to drive in the wet than the Ferrari.


I actually agree with you that the McLaren is one of the best cars in the wet, along with the Toro Rosso, whereas the Ferrari is amongst the worst.

But if it was as clear cut as that then why did Heikki struggle so much in the wet? Why was Hamilton struggling in the wet in Brasil?

The driver makes a bigger than usual difference in the wet but the car itself and perhaps even more importantly the setup being used play a huge part.
myurr
 
Joined: 20 Mar 2008

Post Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:21 pm

I don´t think there is a "better than the other" car in the wet at all. Cars are not designed for the wet, the design can suit a little better one or another driver style in the wet, but what they do depends much on driver capability and setup. Hamilton was slow in Brazil cause he was running way too conservative IMHO.

Maybe a mixted setup "to be 5th in any condition".

OOT:

ISLAMATRON, if you turn "very" against him you will be just like him. Dont follow that "egg or chicken" path, please. We all know he is arrogant and that was demonstrated several times when many ignored some of his posts, wich is a better way than confronting a stubborn character. Also, you have to recognize you may be a little stubborn or arrogant sometimes, too. I do. We all should. Autocritic is socially healthy :)
"You need great passion, because everything you do with great pleasure, you do well." -Juan Manuel Fangio

"I have no idols. I admire work, dedication and competence." -Ayrton Senna
Belatti
 
Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Location: Argentina

Post Thu Nov 06, 2008 2:03 pm

ISLAMATRON wrote:
In 2005 Bridgestone won a total of 1 GP's... you might remember it... USGP... 6 cars finished. 2005 was the no tire change year and Michilin clearly dominated. The Renault was more reliable than KIMI's McLaren so he took the Michelin driver's Title. In 2006 they changed the rules and Michilin won 7 of the first 9 races and then Bridgestone finally found some speed and in turn won 7 of the last 9 GP's. No you couldnt have beat Fisi in the renault but It was clear that the car was built to suit Alonso more, Remeber Alonso had been ther 3 years already and was already well integrated into the team.

Go to racing underground and download the 2005-2006 seasons if you dont remember how much Michilin dominated the racing back then. Thats partly the reason why we only have 1 tire supplier these days. Tires back then far outweighed aero, engiine or driver... example... the Renault team stayed with the V-keel while most other teams migrated to the zero keel concept. Why? becuz it allowed them to maximize usage of the tires... even if it had an aero drawback... and thats mainly why they have struggled the last couple years... they took longer than most of the top teams to get to grips with the aero flow of a zero keel chassis.


If Bridgestone was so bad, why did the other teams use it? Didn't they have the option to change the tyres. So if say Alonso won it cause of tyres, yes Renault bribed Michelin to give them better tyres the way Mclaren bribed Glock. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Racing cars are neither beautiful nor ugly, they are beautiful only when you win races.
HKS
 
Joined: 5 Mar 2007

Post Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:48 pm

ernos5 wrote:Yes driver plays more of a part when it rains, but when you talk about the really good drivers like Raikkonen, Alonso, they drive at the limit in the wet so they pretty much bring it down to the car, and everyone knows that the Mclaren is much easier to drive in the wet than the Ferrari.


You are forgetting set up... if you have a Monaco Set up in wet Brazil, you will obviously do better than if you have a Monza set up.... but in the dry it would be the complete opposite. You will lose more time with a wet set-up in the dry than a dry set-up in the wet, that is why the McLaren team went for the conservative ultra-dry set up in Brazil

One could argue that the Ferrari was superior in the dry which made up a majority of the races this year, but then we are overlooking many important factors such as track characterisics, tire type(hard, medium, soft, super soft), track temperature, etc, etc
ISLAMATRON
 
Joined: 1 Oct 2008

Post Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:29 pm

... and how is that related to the topic of this thread? Are we in an Eternal September? :D

Image

I do not understand either why Piquet is gaining another year at Renault. Any reason for that?
Ciro
Ciro Pabón
 
Joined: 10 May 2005

Post Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:36 pm

myurr wrote:
ernos5 wrote:But if it was as clear cut as that then why did Heikki struggle so much in the wet? Why was Hamilton struggling in the wet in Brasil?

McLaren took a lot of wing off their cars to increase their straight line speeds on the two straights at Brazil. This compromised their ultimate dry setup and lap time, but would have made them virtually un-passable if it had not rained. When it rained they struggled with their low downforce package - skinny wings and firm springs and dampers.

This meant they could not get the power down and lost traction, as seen by LH trying to close on Vettel on the last couple of laps. The lack of downforce also meant that LH struggled under braking for 3-4 laps behind the Force India before getting past Fisi into turn 1.

The McLaren is the best car in the wet and low temperature conditions as its ‘hard’ on it’s tyres and develops lots of mechanical grip. These factors were out weighed in Brazil by the conservative way McLaren set the cars up for the race.
Shaddock
 
Joined: 7 Nov 2006
Location: UK

Post Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:39 pm

Yeah, sure. You mean Piquet got the contract because McLaren ran a flat wing at Brazil? What about the Michilin tyris?

Now, back to you.

(Just shoot me!) :wtf:
Ciro
Ciro Pabón
 
Joined: 10 May 2005

Post Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:47 pm

Ciro Pabón wrote:I do not understand either why Piquet is gaining another year at Renault. Any reason for that?


Well, I guess there's multiple reason. For a last two years, they had a rookie within a team and on both occasions they were not all that impressive (of course Heikki seemed a bit more capable, but he was not compared to Alonso in the same car), however towards the end of the season they showed some signs of improvement. There's a good reason not to pick another unproven driver and settle with this pairing, and of course Alonso is comfortable being clear #1.
timbo
 
Joined: 22 Oct 2007

Post Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:59 pm

Ciro Pabón wrote:Yeah, sure. You mean Piquet got the contract because McLaren ran a flat wing at Brazil? What about the Michilin tyris?

Now, back to you.

(Just shoot me!) :wtf:


Renault were desperate to hang on the Alonso, and Alonso doesn't like strong team mates. QED.
Shaddock
 
Joined: 7 Nov 2006
Location: UK

Post Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:04 pm

What other options do they have? They could go for another rookie in Grosjan, Di Grassi or Senna, but then they will go thru the same learning process.

They could go for a proven vet like Rubans or evan a frenchman like Bourdais(that would be ideal if they are truly looking for a WCC). There is no doubt that Alonso is the #1, so his wishes have to be taken into account, and he clearly does not like anyone to challege him.

Flavio has never had a problem changing drivers, so its hard to see his thinking this time... maybe there are reasons for keeping Piquet that we are not privy to.
ISLAMATRON
 
Joined: 1 Oct 2008

Post Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:13 pm

ISLAMATRON wrote:


Wow it seems conceptual is an imbecile no matter what thread you read" I wanted to check that post about KERS and there he is ranting & raving again, calling people names... incredible.


Yes, yes. I am a big jerk because I don't spend 3 hours carefully wording my posts so there is no way to misinterperet what I am saying, and I fire back when misinterperetation happens anyways.

I believe that I left these boards for a while following that exchange. I was out of line with some of my language I admit, and it ended up being settled via PM.

Anyways, so Torotrak is ran by ex-Renault people, but they are not working with Renault? Why does that not make any sense?
Conceptual
 
Joined: 15 Nov 2007

Post Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:46 pm

Piquet's renewal has been somewhat of a surprise. However, he wasn't bad with slicks in GP2 (point 1: he may know the tires). His main rival is probably Grosjean, as Lucas di Grasi has been a real suprise this year to a lot of people. Grosjean's season has had its fair share of up and downs, showing that he probably needs grooming and some time to mature (point 2: Grosjean is currently too inconsistent for F1). Finally, Piquet has become closer to Alonso in race pace (point 3: Pat Symonds believes Piquet has improved). Renault management may believe it's possible to shave one or two tenths in qualifying from Piquet and calm him down a little in races during the winter, while putting another "unknown" driver at the other car is repeating the scene of the last two years (point 3: risk/reward game with rookies)

OT: KERS

I've just glanced at the Torotrak site, but I haven't found any hints regarding F1 implication. It's true though that I haven't really looked thoroughly. Regarding its implications with Renault F1, a possibility is that they've compared proposals by Magneti Marelli and Torotrak and found the MM one preferable. However, I've read that not everybody considers KERS a distinct advantage. It's not 60 free BHP. You got weight penalty, integration penalty and possibly a reliability penalty. And it's not mandatory. It's possible that three teams are sharing the development costs at least to see whether KERS is worth it, and develop one's system should they consider an edge can be gained.
I am not amazed by F1 cars in Monaco. I want to see them driving in the A8 highway: Variable radius corners, negative banking, and extreme narrowings that Tilke has never dreamed off. Oh, yes, and "beautiful" weather tops it all.

"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." Niels Bohr
Miguel
 
Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Location: San Sebastian (Spain)

PreviousNext

Return to General chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot], Tweetmeme [Bot] and 2 guests