What are Renault getting from F1?
Discussion
TheDeuce said:
I agree with all you have said - but it doesn't answer the question I actually asked. All you have said would stand true even if they weren't in F1, yet they are - which is why I asked what person would be 'more' likely to buy their cars following seeing them in F1.
Have another read! 
You can't really define a typical person as there's few, if any people that would make a buying discussion based purely upon a manufacturers involvement in F1 - save perhaps a Ferrari or McLaren customer.
It's anyone in the market for, say, a small family car deciding which one to go for. If one of the options is from a manufacturer with pictures of their F1 car on the dealer wall or in the brochure, then recognition of this may influence the buyer's decision. If Renault left F1, they wouldn't have the ability to use it as an influencer in the buying process and would thus need to spend the money that save from not competing in other means to stimulate that influence. It's the balance of this that influences a board's decision to support F1 or not.
StevieBee said:
Have another read!
You can't really define a typical person as there's few, if any people that would make a buying discussion based purely upon a manufacturers involvement in F1 - save perhaps a Ferrari or McLaren customer.
It's anyone in the market for, say, a small family car deciding which one to go for. If one of the options is from a manufacturer with pictures of their F1 car on the dealer wall or in the brochure, then recognition of this may influence the buyer's decision. If Renault left F1, they wouldn't have the ability to use it as an influencer in the buying process and would thus need to spend the money that save from not competing in other means to stimulate that influence. It's the balance of this that influences a board's decision to support F1 or not.
Renault clearly believe that enough customers exist that will be influenced based on F1 involvement to make the spend worthwhile - otherwise why do it? It has been said that pound for pound F1 involvement gives better brand exposure than most other options, providing the angle works for the brand of course. That is where I struggle to see the value for an auto maker team, because their angle is 'look at how impressive our F1 car is - now, buy our cars'. Which is an excellent angle. But also an angle the reverses if the results are more negative than positive.You can't really define a typical person as there's few, if any people that would make a buying discussion based purely upon a manufacturers involvement in F1 - save perhaps a Ferrari or McLaren customer.
It's anyone in the market for, say, a small family car deciding which one to go for. If one of the options is from a manufacturer with pictures of their F1 car on the dealer wall or in the brochure, then recognition of this may influence the buyer's decision. If Renault left F1, they wouldn't have the ability to use it as an influencer in the buying process and would thus need to spend the money that save from not competing in other means to stimulate that influence. It's the balance of this that influences a board's decision to support F1 or not.
I wouldn't say Renault's results are negative as such - but in comparison to some other teams, they are. Most notably their PU efforts vs Honda and their car building efforts vs McLaren - at least in the eyes of the average viewer I would imagine.
TheDeuce said:
That is where I struggle to see the value for an auto maker team, because their angle is 'look at how impressive our F1 car is - now, buy our cars'. Which is an excellent angle. But also an angle the reverses if the results are more negative than positive.
I wouldn't say Renault's results are negative as such - but in comparison to some other teams, they are. Most notably their PU efforts vs Honda and their car building efforts vs McLaren - at least in the eyes of the average viewer I would imagine.
It’s an odd dynamic. You and I and any other F1 or indeed motor sport fan might be more circumspect in deciding whether to buy a car from a manufacturer who’s F1 team is underperforming – although as a fan, we know that the comparison between F1 and road cars is non-existent so either it won’t factor in our decision or if it does, it will be more a case of reputation by association.I wouldn't say Renault's results are negative as such - but in comparison to some other teams, they are. Most notably their PU efforts vs Honda and their car building efforts vs McLaren - at least in the eyes of the average viewer I would imagine.
For Mr and Mrs Jones looking for a new car, they might well be enamoured at the fact that Renault are in F1 to sufficient levels that convince them to buy a Renault over, say a Ford or a Kia given that the prices and spec are all similar. They wouldn’t necessarily know that the team aren’t that good. Just being in F1 is good enough.
You then have the bulk-buyers, the fleet managers, car hire companies, etc buying 100 cars at a time and more. Renault can entertain these buyers at the Grands Prix. Nice if the team does well but more than that, the buyers have had a nice time and may be more inclined to buy from Renault as a result. Ford only took them to the Golf. Kia…. well, they didn’t do anything.
Newscuttlepanel said:
Irrespective of results I’d say Renault get more exposure from being a constructer than Honda do from being an engine supplier, despite the poorer results this year than the Red Bull’s.
Exposure is a given. Its about the message that exposure lends to the brand though. I'm sure Honda would gladly have 1 person see them win a race as opposed to Renault have 10 people see their car pull over in a cloud of smoke.TheDeuce said:
Newscuttlepanel said:
Irrespective of results I’d say Renault get more exposure from being a constructer than Honda do from being an engine supplier, despite the poorer results this year than the Red Bull’s.
Exposure is a given. Its about the message that exposure lends to the brand though. I'm sure Honda would gladly have 1 person see them win a race as opposed to Renault have 10 people see their car pull over in a cloud of smoke.thegreenhell said:
Nobody will look at F1 results to help decide between a Clio or a Civic. These days it's all about PCP and CO2 numbers, or simply what's available on the company car list.
Nobody is influenced at all by auto makers being in F1 then? Why are the car makers bothering?Newscuttlepanel said:
Undoubtedly, but in reality how much exposure will Honda get from a Red Bull winning a Grand Prix? Obviously the risk/reward is much bigger as a Constructor than as an Engine Supplier.
Apparently, the correct answer to that question is: "Enough". Honda have guaged the level of exposure and decided that along with whatever RB pay them, the whole enterprise is worth it.To unlock the value of that exposure, they have to look at least good at building the PU's - and the more competitive their efforts are the better.
Apply the same to Renault, who will also have calculated the exposure as worthwhile for whatever they as a company pour in each year. Are they unlocking the potential of that exposure though..? They're not where they wanted to be or expected to be, so I would imagine probably not at the moment.
thegreenhell said:
Nobody will look at F1 results to help decide between a Clio or a Civic. These days it's all about PCP and CO2 numbers, or simply what's available on the company car list.
It really does.To understand it you have to understand how branding works which is no mean feat because it's a complex beast. Brand is about the intangible values that are attributed to a product or company which if applied correctly and well can influence the price someone pays, their loyalty to a particular brand, their likihood to recommend and so on. A brand has (or can) have financial equity in its own right and is possible to accurately calculate that value this in turn can positively influence share prices.
Participation in F1 is part of the process that goes towards the generation of that brand equity by assigning positive, technologically advanced values to it regardless of on-track success.
For the reason I mentioned earlier, you can't look at this from the perspective of a F1 fan. We know which side the bread is buttered. But the wider car-buying public is more pliable in this regards and more perusable through the effect of the values that are associated with a particular brand.
You're right to highlight things like PCP, CO2 as dominant buying influencers. However, these prevail only in certain locations around the world. In emerging markets such things don't exist. There; you want a car, you buy a car either with cash or a bank loan.
Commercially, F1 doesn't target enthusiasts and nor does it principle target UK or even European consumers. How many people attending the British GP would have been motivated to buy a Rolex?
I think if you listened to French radio for F1 you would understand that Renault are actually the best team, they are just being let down by HUL and RIC. Hass are not really good enough for GRO and Max is such a superb driver it makes life a little difficult for GAS.
Their feeble efforts are not a matter of national shame in the same way that Tiffosi treat Ferrari.
My French friend agrees with the proposition put forward by this thread. I think that the ramifications of Ghosn will eventually impact on their remaining in F1 post 2021. Falling out with Nissan and falling to do a deal with FCA is making them look like losers.
Their feeble efforts are not a matter of national shame in the same way that Tiffosi treat Ferrari.
My French friend agrees with the proposition put forward by this thread. I think that the ramifications of Ghosn will eventually impact on their remaining in F1 post 2021. Falling out with Nissan and falling to do a deal with FCA is making them look like losers.
thegreenhell said:
Renault (as a constructor team) signed up to F1 until the end of 2024, with massive penalties if they leave sooner than that.
Note that I wrote post 2021 and they were reducing penalties. Liberty have contracted to have 20 cars on the grid, Renault would need to sell their contract on. But they do have form on that front.
Nothing is really guaranteed.
They are there for the same reason everyone else is there. Develop the technology and their engineers/people and processes.
Being off the pace by a second or so hardly matters in translating to road cars.
F1 doesnt have that big a profile so I doubt the public look at the results to choose their next car.
They just want to know it has the same buzzwords and gadgets as the other makers.
At some stage some bean counter with no vision decides to stop it all. That can happen at mercedes or honda just as easily regardless of results.
Being off the pace by a second or so hardly matters in translating to road cars.
F1 doesnt have that big a profile so I doubt the public look at the results to choose their next car.
They just want to know it has the same buzzwords and gadgets as the other makers.
At some stage some bean counter with no vision decides to stop it all. That can happen at mercedes or honda just as easily regardless of results.
Fundoreen said:
They are there for the same reason everyone else is there. Develop the technology and their engineers/people and processes.
Whilst there is some technology transfer between F1 and Road Cars - and probably more than it has ever been - it is not the reason they participate. Engineers are Mercedes or Renault or whoever do not sit at their terminals thinking how the application of their idea might positively impact the fuel efficiency of the next series C-Class. They are thinking squarely on whether it will make the F1 car faster.
There are many series far better suited to the evolution of road car technology; Rallying, Touring Cars, GT, Endurance....
rdjohn said:
I think if you listened to French radio for F1 you would understand that Renault are actually the best team, they are just being let down by HUL and RIC. Hass are not really good enough for GRO and Max is such a superb driver it makes life a little difficult for GAS.
Their feeble efforts are not a matter of national shame in the same way that Tiffosi treat Ferrari.
My French friend agrees with the proposition put forward by this thread. I think that the ramifications of Ghosn will eventually impact on their remaining in F1 post 2021. Falling out with Nissan and falling to do a deal with FCA is making them look like losers.
I wasn't even going to bring Renault's wider industry and political shenanigans into this thread Their feeble efforts are not a matter of national shame in the same way that Tiffosi treat Ferrari.
My French friend agrees with the proposition put forward by this thread. I think that the ramifications of Ghosn will eventually impact on their remaining in F1 post 2021. Falling out with Nissan and falling to do a deal with FCA is making them look like losers.
But yes, one of my reasons for asking is that they're effectively a risk for the French government yet their F1 exploits are supposed to be a matter of French pride - a good way of showing the man in the street that their tax money can yield results. That was sort of working out quite well with a gentle upwards tradjectory the last few years... But this year? I could argue they have slipped back slightly overall compared to their F1 competitors. That is a hard message for taxpayers to absorb - not least when one of their customer teams is British and beating them - almost double the points..
Not sure the cause, but the F1 team like Renault themselves isn't exactly leading the field right now. On both the road and track others are doing more with less.
StevieBee said:
Fundoreen said:
They are there for the same reason everyone else is there. Develop the technology and their engineers/people and processes.
Whilst there is some technology transfer between F1 and Road Cars - and probably more than it has ever been - it is not the reason they participate. Engineers are Mercedes or Renault or whoever do not sit at their terminals thinking how the application of their idea might positively impact the fuel efficiency of the next series C-Class. They are thinking squarely on whether it will make the F1 car faster.
There are many series far better suited to the evolution of road car technology; Rallying, Touring Cars, GT, Endurance....
I'm sure there are benefits and crossovers of some value between an F1 team and their car making owners, but not significant enough to justify setting up an F1 team for that reason alone. In the end, regardless of us understanding the details, the benefit is marketing/branding of the associated marque.
TheDeuce said:
StevieBee said:
Fundoreen said:
They are there for the same reason everyone else is there. Develop the technology and their engineers/people and processes.
Whilst there is some technology transfer between F1 and Road Cars - and probably more than it has ever been - it is not the reason they participate. Engineers are Mercedes or Renault or whoever do not sit at their terminals thinking how the application of their idea might positively impact the fuel efficiency of the next series C-Class. They are thinking squarely on whether it will make the F1 car faster.
There are many series far better suited to the evolution of road car technology; Rallying, Touring Cars, GT, Endurance....
I'm sure there are benefits and crossovers of some value between an F1 team and their car making owners, but not significant enough to justify setting up an F1 team for that reason alone. In the end, regardless of us understanding the details, the benefit is marketing/branding of the associated marque.
Fundoreen said:
Ok then , lets just assume they are doing it for the fun of it and to give the troops something to get behind. What else is there? If its winning very few teams do that in F1.
It's not winning, nice as that is. It's being competitive - best summed up as getting results people (and commentators) can be at least mildly impressed/surprised by. The way to do that is to pick your battles.. for honda to look the dogs wotsits in F1 right now they simply had to demonstrate a better PU than Renault - in most people's eyes they have.For Renault, they defined their own battle this year by saying they want podiums and race wins - not gonna happen. Not unless every race is like last week's German GP and they eventually get lucky. They have also spent years going on about a measured and realistic ascendancy to the top, but have now slipped back (or maybe hit the limit of their reach).
F1 works great for car manufacturers so long as their efforts bring results at least better than their competitors on track that they are most easily compared with on the road. For Renault, that means beating honda power right now. Their ideal would be becoming a top 3 team but that seems a very long way off.
In a nutshell, however they thought it would work out a few years ago - I don't think it has.
Fundoreen said:
They are there for the same reason everyone else is there. Develop the technology and their engineers/people and processes.
Agreed. Developing engineers and people plays a big part. AMG HPE was more than just taking over Ilmor you had Merc engineers bounce back & forth Germany-UK-Germany. Similarly with Honda Tochigi has been a good training ground for their engineers; the boss of Honda F1 from its glory years ended up at a very senior position with Honda.Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff