What are Renault getting from F1?
Discussion
TheDeuce said:
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.
A winning car with a Honda engine in the back sounded like a ridiculous prospect a few seasons ago!I'd imagine some peoples perspective on honda in F1 for example is already significantly different to what it was following their first season with the new engines.
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.
Why do anything? Why do struggling 2nd or 3rd division teams carry on knowing they'll never get to the Premiership. It's about human and technical endeavour, the spirit of competition and the urge to compete. More a case of 'why not' rather than just 'why?' Imagine what the world would be like if everyone who thought they'd never win anything just gave up and went home?But read my earlier post regarding the accumulation of Brand Value through association with F1 if you want the more bland answer.
As for tech transfer, there may be minimal gain for the motorist but there was an exhibition at the Science Museum a few years back that looked at what F1 had given the world beyond motoring. It was an impressive array of things that you wouldn't expect. Some that I can remember:
F1 Pit Stop techniques have been applied to complex surgery techniques that has helped save thousands of lives (integrated personal responsibility or something).
Advanced composite manufacturing techniques that are now applied to the aerospace sector
CFD design used in the design of Wind Turbines
Wheelchair design for paraplegics (unsurprisingly designed by Williams)
Train aerodynamics
Clean / efficient fuel burn technology now used in domestic heaters / boilers
[/quote]
F1 Pit Stop techniques have been applied to complex surgery techniques that has helped save thousands of lives (integrated personal responsibility or something).
Advanced composite manufacturing techniques that are now applied to the aerospace sector
CFD design used in the design of Wind Turbines
Wheelchair design for paraplegics (unsurprisingly designed by Williams)
Train aerodynamics
Clean / efficient fuel burn technology now used in domestic heaters / boilers
[/quote]
Next time your in a major supermarket, certainly Sainsburys, look at the fridges. On the front of each shelf there is often a bar running along the front of the shelf, sometimes used to hold price labels. It is also a small aerofoil in cross section, and is used to duct cold air back into the fridge and these was developed with the assistance of Williams F1.
Merecedes did it right, buy an existing team, having already bought ilmor years ago. People say you can't buy experience, but you can do the next best thing, buy someone else's who's been there and done it. If you really want to fail in style see Toyota-Bmw-Honda works efforts. $10 billion dollars+ for two lucky wins. At least jaguar KNEW they were s
t.
t. markcoznottz said:
Merecedes did it right, buy an existing team, having already bought ilmor years ago. People say you can't buy experience, but you can do the next best thing, buy someone else's who's been there and done it. If you really want to fail in style see Toyota-Bmw-Honda works efforts. $10 billion dollars+ for two lucky wins. At least jaguar KNEW they were st.
Well, Renault did technically buy their own team back and it's not like they're devoid of experience in the sport.t. TBF team Mercedes were bumbling along in 4th/5th place before Lewis Hamilton rocked up and single handedly made them the mostest bested team ever.
Although its one thing the cost-cap argument does have in its favour, everyone can happily afford the cost of winning but making the cost of losing more bearable must make f1 more attractive. But is that f1?
Although its one thing the cost-cap argument does have in its favour, everyone can happily afford the cost of winning but making the cost of losing more bearable must make f1 more attractive. But is that f1?
StevieBee said:
markcoznottz said:
Merecedes did it right, buy an existing team, having already bought ilmor years ago. People say you can't buy experience, but you can do the next best thing, buy someone else's who's been there and done it. If you really want to fail in style see Toyota-Bmw-Honda works efforts. $10 billion dollars+ for two lucky wins. At least jaguar KNEW they were st.
Well, Renault did technically buy their own team back and it's not like they're devoid of experience in the sport.t. entropy said:
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.
Honda is very good at this, I've visited Tochigi and seen first hand how F1 helped the development of their road cars.A design engineer I worked with in the F1 design team was transferred back to the road car side and put in charge of the body and white for then new SUV. Penny dropped for me, the F1 team wasn't just the ultimate Formula Student programme but a meaningful way for the company to improve their road cars.
At the other end of the road car spectrum I worked at another F1 team with a talented composite designer that took on the the chassis design of the companies composite hyper roadcar, made a very good job of it too. Could have been me but I declined, done the daddy of super road cars and thought it was only fair to let someone else have their go.
I'm currently mentoring/nurturing a bright young road car designer in a F1 team, I'm enjoying it, he seems to be too. I'm sure when he slots back into the road car side he'll do well and apply some of his F1 experience/knowledge. At a guess 1 yr of F1 design experience is about the same as 3 maybe 5 yrs of road car design, like dog years but not as fun.
Works the other way too as F1 teams with direct links to road car companies often use the might of their parent companies technical resource and knowledge to help accelerate the F1 development programme
I've personally applied my road car experience/knowledge to my F1 work and visa versa, probably do it more frequently than I'm probably aware of
carinaman said:
StevieBee said:
markcoznottz said:
Merecedes did it right, buy an existing team, having already bought ilmor years ago. People say you can't buy experience, but you can do the next best thing, buy someone else's who's been there and done it. If you really want to fail in style see Toyota-Bmw-Honda works efforts. $10 billion dollars+ for two lucky wins. At least jaguar KNEW they were st.
Well, Renault did technically buy their own team back and it's not like they're devoid of experience in the sport.t. Teddy Lop said:
TBF team Mercedes were bumbling along in 4th/5th place before Lewis Hamilton rocked up and single handedly made them the mostest bested team ever.
O dear this again, Mercedes made the most of the hybrid engine formula. Up to more than a second a lap faster in qualy alone than any other team, riding to victory in free regulated air almost every race of the season these past 5 years.You only have to look at the results of Rosberg and Bottas to see it has nothing to do with Hamilton. Only fair conclusion is that Ham was better than both his teammates these past years.
DeltonaS said:
Teddy Lop said:
TBF team Mercedes were bumbling along in 4th/5th place before Lewis Hamilton rocked up and single handedly made them the mostest bested team ever.
O dear this again, Mercedes made the most of the hybrid engine formula. Up to more than a second a lap faster in qualy alone than any other team, riding to victory in free regulated air almost every race of the season these past 5 years.You only have to look at the results of Rosberg and Bottas to see it has nothing to do with Hamilton. Only fair conclusion is that Ham was better than both his teammates these past years.
markcoznottz said:
carinaman said:
StevieBee said:
markcoznottz said:
Merecedes did it right, buy an existing team, having already bought ilmor years ago. People say you can't buy experience, but you can do the next best thing, buy someone else's who's been there and done it. If you really want to fail in style see Toyota-Bmw-Honda works efforts. $10 billion dollars+ for two lucky wins. At least jaguar KNEW they were st.
Well, Renault did technically buy their own team back and it's not like they're devoid of experience in the sport.t. markcoznottz said:
Merecedes did it right, buy an existing team, having already bought ilmor years ago. People say you can't buy experience, but you can do the next best thing, buy someone else's who's been there and done it. If you really want to fail in style see Toyota-Bmw-Honda works efforts. $10 billion dollars+ for two lucky wins. At least jaguar KNEW they were st.
Success in F1 is a combination of having a huge budget, works engine, bringing on board the right (very talented) people, good leadership and commitment. Any one of those lacking and it won't be successfult. BAR-Honda under David Richards/Prodrive in 2003-2005 had steady progress upwards and finished 2nd to mighty Ferrari in 2004. Williams-BMW were title contenders. Toyota... what might have been, 2nd-3rd largest budget in F1, eventually poaching Mike Gascoigne from Renault and they started scoring podiums. Unfortunately they lacked solid team principal leadership and commitment due to the global financial crisis
TobyTR said:
Success in F1 is a combination of having a huge budget, works engine, bringing on board the right (very talented) people, good leadership and commitment. Any one of those lacking and it won't be successful
BAR-Honda under David Richards/Prodrive in 2003-2005 had steady progress upwards and finished 2nd to mighty Ferrari in 2004. Williams-BMW were title contenders. Toyota... what might have been, 2nd-3rd largest budget in F1, eventually poaching Mike Gascoigne from Renault and they started scoring podiums. Unfortunately they lacked solid team principal leadership and commitment due to the global financial crisis
And then they left the sport and Brawn bought the team with a small budget and no works engine and won the championship. BAR-Honda under David Richards/Prodrive in 2003-2005 had steady progress upwards and finished 2nd to mighty Ferrari in 2004. Williams-BMW were title contenders. Toyota... what might have been, 2nd-3rd largest budget in F1, eventually poaching Mike Gascoigne from Renault and they started scoring podiums. Unfortunately they lacked solid team principal leadership and commitment due to the global financial crisis
carinaman said:
They make an excellent point in that video, that budget sets the potential for success, and to make the most of that potential requires talent and hard work.We all know that Renault have not invested as heavily as Mercedes (who are the most comparable returning F1 team). Their potential for success is subsequently limited. I also frankly don't think the key figures at Renault are quite as potent as those at Mercedes.
I think Renaults current F1 story will be remembered as one of high expectations from the taxpayer, and lowly results. I have no problem at all believing they could replicate Mercedes (ish) levels of success if they were privately invested in and could extract another £1bn to give them a leap, but that's not going to happen when they're part publicly funded. As it stands, the French taxpayer is bound to be wondering why the hell they're paying for poor results, displayed at the crappest circuit on the calendar. They're French, they will tire of this situation quickly and I don't think it will do Renault (car firm) any favours in the end. At best I think we should view Renault's return to F1 as a potentially good idea that is now crippled by budget and public investment/responsibility. A failed experiment in other words.
Harsh perhaps. Maybe they have a post 2021 plan but without serious investment in their PU division ahead of the budget cap I struggle to see where they can find a fresh advantage.
sandman77 said:
TobyTR said:
Success in F1 is a combination of having a huge budget, works engine, bringing on board the right (very talented) people, good leadership and commitment. Any one of those lacking and it won't be successful
BAR-Honda under David Richards/Prodrive in 2003-2005 had steady progress upwards and finished 2nd to mighty Ferrari in 2004. Williams-BMW were title contenders. Toyota... what might have been, 2nd-3rd largest budget in F1, eventually poaching Mike Gascoigne from Renault and they started scoring podiums. Unfortunately they lacked solid team principal leadership and commitment due to the global financial crisis
And then they left the sport and Brawn bought the team with a small budget and no works engine and won the championship. BAR-Honda under David Richards/Prodrive in 2003-2005 had steady progress upwards and finished 2nd to mighty Ferrari in 2004. Williams-BMW were title contenders. Toyota... what might have been, 2nd-3rd largest budget in F1, eventually poaching Mike Gascoigne from Renault and they started scoring podiums. Unfortunately they lacked solid team principal leadership and commitment due to the global financial crisis
It was a freak year in F1 aided by Ross Brawn's forward-thinking and ingenuity with the new regulations going into 2009. Definitely not the norm
TheDeuce said:
They make an excellent point in that video, that budget sets the potential for success, and to make the most of that potential requires talent and hard work.
We all know that Renault have not invested as heavily as Mercedes (who are the most comparable returning F1 team). Their potential for success is subsequently limited. I also frankly don't think the key figures at Renault are quite as potent as those at Mercedes.
I think Renaults current F1 story will be remembered as one of high expectations from the taxpayer, and lowly results. I have no problem at all believing they could replicate Mercedes (ish) levels of success if they were privately invested in and could extract another £1bn to give them a leap, but that's not going to happen when they're part publicly funded. As it stands, the French taxpayer is bound to be wondering why the hell they're paying for poor results, displayed at the crappest circuit on the calendar. They're French, they will tire of this situation quickly and I don't think it will do Renault (car firm) any favours in the end. At best I think we should view Renault's return to F1 as a potentially good idea that is now crippled by budget and public investment/responsibility. A failed experiment in other words.
Harsh perhaps. Maybe they have a post 2021 plan but without serious investment in their PU division ahead of the budget cap I struggle to see where they can find a fresh advantage.
I don't fully buy into the financial investment as an excuse. Renault/Lotus punched above their weight in the past; Nick Chester has stuck with through thick and thin; things could have been much, much worse during and after the Lopez era and have never fallen to the back of the grid.We all know that Renault have not invested as heavily as Mercedes (who are the most comparable returning F1 team). Their potential for success is subsequently limited. I also frankly don't think the key figures at Renault are quite as potent as those at Mercedes.
I think Renaults current F1 story will be remembered as one of high expectations from the taxpayer, and lowly results. I have no problem at all believing they could replicate Mercedes (ish) levels of success if they were privately invested in and could extract another £1bn to give them a leap, but that's not going to happen when they're part publicly funded. As it stands, the French taxpayer is bound to be wondering why the hell they're paying for poor results, displayed at the crappest circuit on the calendar. They're French, they will tire of this situation quickly and I don't think it will do Renault (car firm) any favours in the end. At best I think we should view Renault's return to F1 as a potentially good idea that is now crippled by budget and public investment/responsibility. A failed experiment in other words.
Harsh perhaps. Maybe they have a post 2021 plan but without serious investment in their PU division ahead of the budget cap I struggle to see where they can find a fresh advantage.
Something isn't right with R&D at Enstone. Package updates haven't as well as planned. First thing that comes to mind is it correlation? This has been McLaren's problem in the past couple of years.
entropy said:
I don't fully buy into the financial investment as an excuse. Renault/Lotus punched above their weight in the past; Nick Chester has stuck with through thick and thin; things could have been much, much worse during and after the Lopez era and have never fallen to the back of the grid.
Something isn't right with R&D at Enstone. Package updates haven't as well as planned. First thing that comes to mind is it correlation? This has been McLaren's problem in the past couple of years.
The past is the past. In the present, money speaks. Innovation used to potentially pivotal in race results but the regs are tightened now to a point that winning requires technical perfection throughout, which costs mega money. Innovation is still important of course, but there isn't the room left in the regs to innovate to a level that a good new idea can outweigh a perfectly executed, potentially less inovative car.Something isn't right with R&D at Enstone. Package updates haven't as well as planned. First thing that comes to mind is it correlation? This has been McLaren's problem in the past couple of years.
I think McLaren are currently performing better than Renault because they set their sights on a target they could achieve with the resources they have, and have subsequently hit that target. Renault however have publicly set their sights on a target they're under-resourced to achieve. As a result, they're now behind McLaren. McLaren are where they should be, Renault are behind where they should be. McLaren aren't winning so much as Renault are losing.
As in all life, it's best to set a target you know you have the potential to achieve. That's why I drive a BMW not a Ferrari! I could afford a Ferrari if it was my sole goal but it would be a compromise Ferrari and I would have to compromise other things to get it. Renault were slightly silly to set such lofty targets given their budget, and of course, the tax paying public backers will be quick to remember what those targets were.
TheDeuce said:
The past is the past. In the present, money speaks. Innovation used to potentially pivotal in race results but the regs are tightened now to a point that winning requires technical perfection throughout, which costs mega money. Innovation is still important of course, but there isn't the room left in the regs to innovate to a level that a good new idea can outweigh a perfectly executed, potentially less inovative car.
I think McLaren are currently performing better than Renault because they set their sights on a target they could achieve with the resources they have, and have subsequently hit that target. Renault however have publicly set their sights on a target they're under-resourced to achieve. As a result, they're now behind McLaren. McLaren are where they should be, Renault are behind where they should be. McLaren aren't winning so much as Renault are losing.
As in all life, it's best to set a target you know you have the potential to achieve. That's why I drive a BMW not a Ferrari! I could afford a Ferrari if it was my sole goal but it would be a compromise Ferrari and I would have to compromise other things to get it. Renault were slightly silly to set such lofty targets given their budget, and of course, the tax paying public backers will be quick to remember what those targets were.
Renault want to compete on a budget without spending megabucks, perhaps with the assumption of financial regulations. I thiink they're in a quandary of whether or not they should spend more than they had in mind.I think McLaren are currently performing better than Renault because they set their sights on a target they could achieve with the resources they have, and have subsequently hit that target. Renault however have publicly set their sights on a target they're under-resourced to achieve. As a result, they're now behind McLaren. McLaren are where they should be, Renault are behind where they should be. McLaren aren't winning so much as Renault are losing.
As in all life, it's best to set a target you know you have the potential to achieve. That's why I drive a BMW not a Ferrari! I could afford a Ferrari if it was my sole goal but it would be a compromise Ferrari and I would have to compromise other things to get it. Renault were slightly silly to set such lofty targets given their budget, and of course, the tax paying public backers will be quick to remember what those targets were.
It took a number of years for McLaren to realise they were lacking in different areas and for the ideal (current) results to come into fruition.
McLaren not winning but Renault losing? I'm assuming that you think McLaren have made no gains at all? Renault have arguably stood still whereas in recent years McLaren have had to rely on the imperious racecraft of Alonso to score their points whilst making Stoffel Vandorne appear to be an over-rated has-been F1 Grand Prix Reject. From that to being arguably the best fourth best team is a mighty turnaround whereas Renault have struggled make gains; Ricciardo struggled to adapt to the Renault and Hulkenberg's reply to Dan is that is how the Renault has been since he drove for them.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff