What are Renault getting from F1?
Discussion
Several years of effort in the current era of F1 and as manufacturer, Renault have been 'promoted' by showing generally middling results combined with unreliability that has had the likes of Red Bull (Horner and drivers) attack them publicly, repeatedly. At least there has been some progress in the right direction, up until this season, where the rest of the field seems to have moved upwards around a rather static Renault.
The reliability thing has to be an issue now surely? The other 3 PU suppliers are seriously solid so far - and in reality anyone who can afford a Renault can afford a Honda, or reach for a Merc. Clearly the road engines have no real link to the F1 PU's but the whole idea is that there is an inferred connection in many consumers mindset.
I wondered if it's an issue of national pride perhaps, that Renault must exist, and must be in F1 because F1 is somehow French..? Their government seemed swayed by this argument at least. I wonder how much national pride there can be though when they tune in to watch their home race and even the commentators are tut-tutting how it's the most boring weekend on the calendar. I appreciate the French commentators perhaps held back from such brutal honesty - but I'm lost as to what they could have found to celebrate.
So here's a challenge - can anyone profile the sort of person that would be more likely to buy a Renault car after watching a bit of F1? I can't. I'm sure it works fine for the other marques. I have no doubt Mclaren, Alfa, Ferrari & Mercedes all have references to F1 technology in their car brochures - which makes sense, they sell cars that at a stretch a consumer might think are somehow close enough to racey to pick up some benefit. Honda can benefit simply by being in the same price bracket as Renault but in F1 terms far quicker and less likely to break down.
The pressure on Cyril must be quite extraordinary this season - a lot of people must be questioning why the momentum of previous seasons has slowed/stopped this season. I personally think it is more to do with the rest of the field moving forwards faster - not that that's an excuse.
The reliability thing has to be an issue now surely? The other 3 PU suppliers are seriously solid so far - and in reality anyone who can afford a Renault can afford a Honda, or reach for a Merc. Clearly the road engines have no real link to the F1 PU's but the whole idea is that there is an inferred connection in many consumers mindset.
I wondered if it's an issue of national pride perhaps, that Renault must exist, and must be in F1 because F1 is somehow French..? Their government seemed swayed by this argument at least. I wonder how much national pride there can be though when they tune in to watch their home race and even the commentators are tut-tutting how it's the most boring weekend on the calendar. I appreciate the French commentators perhaps held back from such brutal honesty - but I'm lost as to what they could have found to celebrate.
So here's a challenge - can anyone profile the sort of person that would be more likely to buy a Renault car after watching a bit of F1? I can't. I'm sure it works fine for the other marques. I have no doubt Mclaren, Alfa, Ferrari & Mercedes all have references to F1 technology in their car brochures - which makes sense, they sell cars that at a stretch a consumer might think are somehow close enough to racey to pick up some benefit. Honda can benefit simply by being in the same price bracket as Renault but in F1 terms far quicker and less likely to break down.
The pressure on Cyril must be quite extraordinary this season - a lot of people must be questioning why the momentum of previous seasons has slowed/stopped this season. I personally think it is more to do with the rest of the field moving forwards faster - not that that's an excuse.
HustleRussell said:
TheDeuce said:
in reality anyone who can afford a Renault can afford a Honda, or reach for a Merc.
You think the Renault is cheaper than the others? Also short memory, Renault made pretty terrific engines in the original turbo era and also smashed it in the V8 era with Red Bull.
They aren’t spending the money the big three are and targeted 4th this year. They’re currently under-performing but you have to keep it in context.
As for short memory - is that relevant when talking about what appeals to consumers? Consumers do have a short memory, they want a car that appears good today, irrespective of the past. I would have thought Renault would want some positives to come from the here and now of their F1 involvement, not from past era's in the sport. I think I am in context, in the context of my original post.
Edited by TheDeuce on Wednesday 31st July 22:16
HardtopManual said:
They didn't expect the other PU manufacturers to scale up as much as they have. They aimed to be within 15% of Mercedes staffing levels - unfortunately, that was Mercedes staffing levels in 2015. Fast forward four years and Renault's PU department in Viry have just over half the payroll of AMG HPP. So, they find themselves unable to get what they wanted out of F1.
That's the thing - I think the investors and backers want to know that the future is predicted fairly accurately. Honda, for example, re-entered the sport (in a way) and have hit the ground running with a 2019 PU that is increasingly looking to have the potential to be up their with the best. Honda figured out what 2019 would demand. And of course, Ferrari/Mercedes both find ways to accurately gauge the level of play in upcoming seasons and make sure they're in the game.The real problem is that their customer, McLaren, are almost doubling their points so far... How to explain that one? It's not as if they have a budget or staffing advantage and they don't have the luxury of designing their own PU. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Renault are taking public money and spending more on achieving less.
StevieBee said:
TheDeuce said:
So here's a challenge - can anyone profile the sort of person that would be more likely to buy a Renault car after watching a bit of F1?
Renault enjoyed an 11% hike in UK sales during the period Mansell was winning with them. They also had a similar level of success in Spain during the Alonso years. The relationship between a buying decision and on-track success is not as straight forwards as 'watch a race - buy a car'. The benefit comes through demonstrating a unique difference. All cars within any class are largely the same; same spec, same price, same quality... so buyers are looking for reason to buy one car over another and if they happen to see that Renault or whoever are having some success in Motor Racing, then that may tip the balance. So in answer to your question; it's anyone in the market for a Renault sort of car whether or not they like F1.Whilst success on track is proven to be effective in driving up sales, a lack fo success on track does not result in less sales. Sales of Honda product was completely unaffected during the McLaren years. This is because most car buyers aren't F1 fans but they do recognise it as a technically advanced endeavour so participation - regardless of results - is an attractive differentiator. Kia make very good cars but don't sell as many as Honda. If Kia were to enter F1, they still wouldn't sell as many cars as Honda but their sales would certainly increase.
So Renault still benefit from involvement in F1. They are one of the established brands associated with the sport over many decades and something that can be capitalised upon in the showroom.
I am aware that for many people there are various good reasons why a Renault is, in general, the car for them.
thegreenhell said:
The Honda is flattered by the Red Bull chassis. It isn't doing anything this year that the Renault hasn't done in the last few seasons - i.e. picking up a handful of wins and podiums when the others falter, but generally quite a way behind the Mercedes and often the Ferrari.
The only thing wrong with the Renault engine this year is that it isn't in one of the big-three teams' cars.
That and the fact it's proving unreliable still. Renault themselves have I think twice this season admitted reducing power due to known issues with stress on The only thing wrong with the Renault engine this year is that it isn't in one of the big-three teams' cars.
specific internal components.
I'm not so sure the RB PU is 'quite a way' behind anymore. I think apples for apples it's a little behind. I also think it's show repeatedly that it has a good amount of headroom left to exploit, which I'm sure will be exploited for the second half of this season.
Whatever the finer details though... Ask 1000 people thinking of buying a new car to watch the races so far this season, and then ask each one which of the two engines they think is probably best. I think you will have more ticks for the Honda in such an exercise. And that's exactly the result that the marketing bods would want for their brand. Obviously, on this forum we see far deeper than the other 95% casual F1 viewers that just have a general gist of who makes what and who gets the most points/wins races.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
entropy said:
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.
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.
It was a little harsh of me to suggest McLaren aren't earning their current results - I don't think that. My comments about it being more Renault 'losing' is because I'd say that relative to their aims and closest rivals, Renault have actually slipped back slightly this year. 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.
I agree they're in a quandary. Not just in their own minds but in the minds of the politicians that are backing this project.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff