Renault - KERS testing useless

[WhiteBlue]

We came to the conclusion that the construction of a transitional car is simply not worth it.

Pat Symmonds told the press. From a financial point of view this is a convincing point but engineering wise one can only shake the head in surprise.

There are many things you can prepare by simulation but nothing substitutes for a proper prototype and field test. It is tried and true engineering systematic to use all stages available to development in order to firm up the validity of technical choices you have to make. The more steps you do with proper evaluation and complete gate process the fewer risks you encounter when you have to make the jump and commit your resources to a final concept of design, manufacture and supply chain.

I can anticipate the headlines when Renault are going to find the bugs in their 2009 car in February and suffer the consequences for early reliability and performance. They will have all kinds of wierd reasons for the problem from suppliers letting them down to manufacturing difficulties and safety issues. such issues have to be expected and prototype and field testing is the classical way to eliminate issues before you get hurt in the race when it counts.

Toyota is taking a similar route but they are vastly experienced in using hybrid technology in racing. they can potentially afford some short cuts but its lethal for the guys that want to retain Alonso. Have they already given up on convincing Alonso to stay? What are they going to do with a 30-40% budget increase if they are not spending it on KERS?

[zac510]

Maybe they're going to buy a (reliable) off the shelf solution. Do we know if they're using flywheel or battery/capacitor or hydraulic?

[MrT]

I spoke to one of the R+D KERS engineers at renault and he said they were using electrical i.e batteries/super capacitors.

[jddh1]

Ah Symmonds! Now you complain about the engine "unfreeze" knowing perfectly well that the freeze placed tighter limits but still allowed for some development. Now, you say the transitional car is useless. Next year you'll say that the other teams are cheating as well, as you're sitting behind Force India on the grid.

[Steven]

Well, I would tend to agree with Simonds in that it perfectly fits Renault's methodical approach for new cars. As far as I know, they have so far now really created a hybrid car, but instead opted for more in-house testing, analysing and then fitting it into the eventual race car when everything is ready.

Earlier on, this approach has proved very successful for them, and I think it's the better idea to keep costs under control, something Mosley and Ghosn very much like to see.

Today's testing beds are so advanced, the dyno can easily simulate the engine around a track, and fitting the KERS system to that won't be too hard of a job.

As for the engines... Renault took the rules by their spirit, aiming for reduction costs. As they have said, other teams have simply taken advantage of their lack of reliability. There are only two ways to go here: free up the rules (eg. remove the 'aim for reliability improvements') or make it more strict and equals. The engine situation as it is now is simply not a healthy one.

And jddh... may I point out that Renault's chassis is actually pretty good. Considering a reasonable gap in HP's, they are doing quite well. The car just lacks traction, but it's excellent in high speed corners (a clear indication of aerodynamic and mechanical performance).

[Conceptual]

Well, I would tend to agree with Simonds in that it perfectly fits Renault's methodical approach for new cars. As far as I know, they have so far now really created a hybrid car, but instead opted for more in-house testing, analysing and then fitting it into the eventual race car when everything is ready.

Earlier on, this approach has proved very successful for them, and I think it's the better idea to keep costs under control, something Mosley and Ghosn very much like to see.

Today's testing beds are so advanced, the dyno can easily simulate the engine around a track, and fitting the KERS system to that won't be too hard of a job.

As for the engines... Renault took the rules by their spirit, aiming for reduction costs. As they have said, other teams have simply taken advantage of their lack of reliability. There are only two ways to go here: free up the rules (eg. remove the 'aim for reliability improvements') or make it more strict and equals. The engine situation as it is now is simply not a healthy one.

And jddh... may I point out that Renault's chassis is actually pretty good. Considering a reasonable gap in HP's, they are doing quite well. The car just lacks traction, but it's excellent in high speed corners (a clear indication of aerodynamic and mechanical performance).

Probably due to running less wing to compensate for the HP deficiency.

I'm sure that Renault are going over the upgrades of the other teams, and looking at implementing similar options. I mean, if they can do something like the less-viscous lubricants, they may get back 8-10hp, and that can be done without even applying for an engine mod...

I think that Renault are simply voicing these inequalities so when their upgrades go in for approval, they get rubber stamped.

I would look at Renault to be a dark horse for next year. Especially if they want to keep their engines in the RBR chassis. Who knows? Maybe Renault will concentrate on upgrading the engine, and RBR will concentrate on the KERS, and then they can put them together, and get back on top.

Anyways, 2009 is looking good so far, and we are in a super tight Title Fight in 2008.

F1 may not have what everyone wants, but I must say that from an unbiased (I have no favorite team/driver) point of view, one would have to dig very deep to find another time in F1 history that the gap between pole and last place was as close as it is now, and 2009 looks like the gap may get even closer.

Good times are ahead, and I sincerely hope that the new 2011 regs do not blow the closeness of todays competition.

[alexbarwell]

Sounds a bit like a team with purse strings being tightened and heading for the back half of the grid if they are not piling into any development avenues available. Yes, reducing costs, but at the expense of any placing in the championships? Which is why we are here after all. A team that has missed a move in the past has lost pace for the whole year, possibly more...

[freedom_honda]

does anyone if Renault is using a battery or flywheel?
what about the other teams?