http://www.f1technical.net/development/206

I believe there are a number of changes. Two of them are tyre related and one is engine related.

1. The J-damper was vastly important for them but it took them through the European tour to sort it out and get the 2-3 tenth that the device is worth.

2. The cooling vent hitting the tyres were smoothing them up making for a simmilar behavious compared to the Michelins with the very dynamic side wall that they knew.

3. Renault have woken up and finally booted their lubricant supplier and the remains of their engine engineers into action. Proof: huge engine failure at RBR Webber's car.

Its all an illusion, the renault isnt all that much faster. The falling back of the BMW's make it look as such. Not to mentions the mistakes of the drivers & teams of Ferrari & McLaren.

In Singapore, Alonso was lucky to have just pitted right b4 his teammate bit the wall(very interesting I think, perfect timing... almost too perfect), Kubica's & Rosberg's penalties & Coulthard holding up the LH Mclaren helped him out tremedously.
In Japan, he was lucky to get thru the 1st corner shuffle, he &/or Kubika could have easily been collected in all that mayham. He did well to beat Kubica to the flag but It looked like BMW stopped development along time ago.

Let's not confuse luck with pace please. Alonso's renault has been at least 3 tenths behind LH's McLaren all weekend, the only thing that has changesd is that the BMW's are strugling.

No, it's not illusions.

ISLAMATRON I think you're right when you don't want to read too much in race results which may comes from circumstances, but you should have a look at the recorded times. In Singapore and Japan, the R28 was the second fastest car on race trim (which possibly translate as third fastest in japan since the Mac Laren just couldn't show it's pace, but still, that's impressive).

Then this is backed by Fuji Q3 times, with Alonso longer than Kubica and on similar strategy as the top team, wich means the fourth slot wasn't usurpated. Let's see in a few hours what's behind his Shangai's P4 too...

Also, don't talk nonsense, a team like BMW can hit troubles in their development, but they never go backward! The F1 08 has struggled to keep the contact with the top two, but it's still a fast car. What happens more logically is that Renault and Toyota have recieved the green lights to makes the same "reliability" upgrades than the top three (you know, those reliability upgrades that makes engine blow out ), and those two also are on a late push of development because of their fight for fourth in WCC, while BMW eased out since some time apparently, to Kubica's disarray...

vyselegend wrote:ISLAMATRON I think you're right when you don't want to read too much in race results which may comes from circumstances, but you should have a look at the recorded times. In Singapore and Japan, the R28 was the second fastest car on race trim (which possibly translate as third fastest in japan since the Mac Laren just couldn't show it's pace, but still, that's impressive).

By race trim do you mean the fast lap of the race? As recorded at this site?
http://f1.com/results/season/2008/801/6 ... _laps.html

If so, let me remind you that KIMI has a record 11 race fast laps this year, but we all know how well his season has been thus far. That fast lap cannot be trustworthy in upside down races such as Singapore & Japan. In Singapore, both Ferrari and McLarens were mired in traffic and so were the BMW's if I remeember correctly. Notice that all the usual frontrunners set their fast laps around lap 14 whereas everyone else later in the race. Likewise in the case of Japan.

2. The cooling vent hitting the tyres were smoothing them up making for a simmilar behavious compared to the Michelins with the very dynamic side wall that they knew.

What???

Jersey Tom wrote:

2. The cooling vent hitting the tyres were smoothing them up making for a simmilar behavious compared to the Michelins with the very dynamic side wall that they knew.

What???

Its called reaching. The original poster has a good idea, but when he sits down to type it out, he finds that it is too short, not very good,, and already discussed.

He then determines that he has already invested his valuable time into the original thought, and tries to hide the incoherence under the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" comment just to add some conspiracy drama to an otherwise bland post.

If he would have mentioned Bob Bell talking about the complete Aero overhaul on formula1.com, saying that the R28 that won in Singapore and Japan is NOT the R28 that launched. It is more a R28-B spec, because according to Bell, it is completely different.

So, Ok idea to start, not very much substance, but it is WhiteBlue the Star Farmer, what did you actually expect?

WhiteBlue wrote:2. The cooling vent hitting the tyres were smoothing them up making for a simmilar behavious compared to the Michelins with the very dynamic side wall that they knew.

Is that your own assumption or do you have proof of that. Personally I'm pretty sure that the rear tyres were not the problem, but rather the harder sidewall of the front tyres. Renault have required a year or so to fully understand the problems their car had with the Bridgestone tyres, and the result is paying off.

ISLAMATRON wrote:Let's not confuse luck with pace please. Alonso's renault has been at least 3 tenths behind LH's McLaren all weekend, the only thing that has changesd is that the BMW's are strugling.

Actually, I have taken a look at some fastest lap charts from the beginning of the year compared to the last three races:

GP - Gap in fastest lap time - Fastest lap ranking
AUS - 1.185 - 7
BAH - 1.936 - 12
ESP - 1.013 - 9
MAL - 0.922 - 10
...
JAP - 0.675 - 3
SIN - 0.169 - 3
CHI - 0.334 - 5

This compares the fastest lap with the fastest lap of the best Renault. It's hard to claim an illusion that while in the beginning of the season their ranking in the best lap chart was 9th place, while now they are around 4th. The difference between the fastest and the Renaults has also seriously come down.

Alonso said in the beginning of the year that he didn't see any team gain 1 second over the course of the season compared to the front runners, but at least no they approximate 0.6 seconds, which is a major achievement.

Conceptual wrote:So, Ok idea to start, not very much substance, but it is WhiteBlue the Star Farmer, what did you actually expect?

Thank you for a completely pointless remark...

Jersey Tom wrote:

2. The cooling vent hitting the tyres were smoothing them up making for a simmilar behavious compared to the Michelins with the very dynamic side wall that they knew.

What???

I think he is reffering to this.

http://www.f1technical.net/development/206

Tomba wrote:

ISLAMATRON wrote:Let's not confuse luck with pace please. Alonso's renault has been at least 3 tenths behind LH's McLaren all weekend, the only thing that has changesd is that the BMW's are strugling.

Actually, I have taken a look at some fastest lap charts from the beginning of the year compared to the last three races:

GP - Gap in fastest lap time - Fastest lap ranking
AUS - 1.185 - 7
BAH - 1.936 - 12
ESP - 1.013 - 9
MAL - 0.922 - 10
...
JAP - 0.675 - 3
SIN - 0.169 - 3
CHI - 0.334 - 5

This compares the fastest lap with the fastest lap of the best Renault. It's hard to claim an illusion that while in the beginning of the season their ranking in the best lap chart was 9th place, while now they are around 4th. The difference between the fastest and the Renaults has also seriously come down.

Alonso said in the beginning of the year that he didn't see any team gain 1 second over the course of the season compared to the front runners, but at least no they approximate 0.6 seconds, which is a major achievement.

Go back and do the same analysis for the Force Indias, all the teams catch up to the leading teams over the course of the season. Yes the renaults are faster now when compared to the front runners, but they are still third, they were maybe fifth when the season started. My point about using the fast lap of the race is valid, look at the first 2 races you posted, Aus & Mal. They weren't suddenly 0.8 secs slower from Aus to Bah, it just so happened that Alonso got ran up the back from Hamilton so it was probly Piquet that banked Renault's fast lap.

Yes the Renaults are faster but the BMW's & the Toyota's have certainly "slowed' down as well. Both on the track and in development.

[b]Yes the Renaults are faster but the BMW's & the Toyota's have certainly "slowed' down as well. Both on the track and in development.[/quote][/b]


You are completely off. The Toyota's are faster now then at the begining of the season. The Renault's have just gotten even faster then the Toyota's. Also I do not think Bmw have gone slower they just have not developed as much as their competitors. Both Renault and Toro Rosso have by far made the most progress this year!

TRICKLE69 wrote:You are completely off. The Toyota's are faster now then at the begining of the season. The Renault's have just gotten even faster then the Toyota's. Also I do not think Bmw have gone slower they just have not developed as much as their competitors. Both Renault and Toro Rosso have by far made the most progress this year!

Every team is faster now than at the beginning of the season. If they arent then they shouldnt even be in F1, we are talking about speed relative to the leaders.
The Toyota's are as erratic as John McCain, their pace is very circuit & weather specific. Torro Rosso doesnt count because they switched cars mid season. By the numbers FIF1 has made the biggest improvement relative to the leaders.

ISLAMATRON wrote:Go back and do the same analysis for the Force Indias, all the teams catch up to the leading teams over the course of the season. Yes the renaults are faster now when compared to the front runners, but they are still third, they were maybe fifth when the season started. My point about using the fast lap of the race is valid, look at the first 2 races you posted, Aus & Mal. They weren't suddenly 0.8 secs slower from Aus to Bah, it just so happened that Alonso got ran up the back from Hamilton so it was probly Piquet that banked Renault's fast lap.

Those are valid points, but that is precisely why I took the first 4 GP's, and not just one. And adding to that, also the position in the fastest lap ranking. Additionally, I also said I was comparing the fastest lap with Renault's fastest lap, meaning either Piquet or Alonso.
In the end, when you are 3rd or 5th fastest, and in the beginning of the season could on everage only go 9th fastest, then obviously you have done a better job than the others. And that was my only point.

And for the record, I am analysing Renault's pace, not that of Force India.

I wonder why renault have continued to develop the car....was it to keep Mr eye-brows happy??? If so then they have probably shot themselves in the foot since they should have started focusing on next year like honda.

I reckon flavion should stop licking alonso's ass...

Tomba wrote:

Conceptual wrote:So, Ok idea to start, not very much substance, but it is WhiteBlue the Star Farmer, what did you actually expect?

Thank you for a completely pointless remark...

It is not pointless: his point is being rude and pedantic, I think he likes this

Back on topic, I think that Alonso´s development capability was the key in the process of making Renault faster. Nelsinho should be to have such a teammate.

Tomba wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:2. The cooling vent hitting the tyres were smoothing them up making for a simmilar behavious compared to the Michelins with the very dynamic side wall that they knew.

Is that your own assumption or do you have proof of that. Personally I'm pretty sure that the rear tyres were not the problem, but rather the harder sidewall of the front tyres. Renault have required a year or so to fully understand the problems their car had with the Bridgestone tyres, and the result is paying off....

no, I have no proof for this. I'm just deducting. Perhaps I should be a bit less positive about it when I talk about my own conclusions.

The long version is that the Michies had an extremely flexible side wall which was rumored to be achieved by incorporating a thin steel band. That transpired from the 2005 Indy desaster where they had a resonance problem that destroyed the side walls.

Renault were known to have raced mass dampers in front and rear to take advantage of the superior traction of the soft side walls without suffering too much penalty over bumps and curbs.

During this season Renault got back into the mass damper business with the J-Dampers and sure enough they look for compensation of the stiffer Bridgestone design. You reported the tyre heating aero trick. It seems to fit together.

Regarding the heating of the front tyres I guess that is less of a problem because they receive a ton of heat from the brakes. front brakes dissipate the lion share of the brake energy and they could have adjusted their ducting without someone knowing it when they kicked in with the J-damper. they may have left the rear to fiddle with for later because it did not have the immediate advantage they could initially achieve at the front.

thinking about this I can imagine that the wheel fairings play a big role in keeping the rims hot. they appeared around the time when J-dampers started to spread in the paddock and it was always denied that they have a primary aero function. what if they are mainly there to stop convection cool the wheels and thus the tyres?