|
|
Post by chernaudi on Jul 13, 2020 12:34:25 GMT -8
Well, this could also be Renault being butt-hurt and trying to retaliate for Japan last year when Racing Point protested and, after the FIA initially dismissed the claim, got Renault's cars DQ'd from Japan last year over a brake bias device.
If that's the case or not, Renault have only themselves to blame for their poor showings. Their car isn't great, and their engine seems to be a dog. Not to mention that either Ghosen or their board only gives motorsport funding as a token gesture compared to what Fiat does with Ferrari or Daimler does with Mercedes-Benz. Hence my nickname for Renault being Renn-no (Renn being German for motorsport or racing, and no, being, well, no).
If Renault want to be successful again, they should sell off the team to someone with the resources who cares, and just sell engines. Aside from the late 1970's and early '80s (the first turbo era) and when Alonso was with them in '05 and '06 for their championships, Renault's biggest successes came as an engine supplier, especially in the 1990s with Williams and Benneton (which became the Renault factory team when they bought control of it from Briatore).
|
|
jmjgt
Member
Posts: 3,311
|
Post by jmjgt on Jul 13, 2020 13:52:47 GMT -8
Renault has been angry about the pink Mercs since the pre season tests, Cyril is on record grousing about F1's copy culture vs true R&D, even tried to pull Macca in the fight for back up. Now his worse nightmares have come true. A well(ish) funded team taking the evolution through imitation route rather than the riskier roll you own and see if it lights model F1 is supposed to be based on.
If that part is actually off of last year's Merc it's case closed, but more that likely it's a copy made by Forced Nepotism. And as long as the FIA allows teams to copy parts (they probably secretly encourage the smaller teams to do so) Renault has a very small chance of overturning any race results.
They may win in the long run though because with the new rules (finally) for 2022 no one will have a previous car to copy, and with the budget cap and development tokens allegedly closing the gap between the rich and the poor photo reproduction of parts could get officially put on the naughty list. If not prepared for the A/B team wars.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Jul 13, 2020 15:09:40 GMT -8
I see a difference there in design of the case in the swoosh going from the wheel side to the back side, not much but some. The bottom vent also has a change inside the vent itself but I have no idea if either is enough. Even if you take into account the different angles the shots are taken from i'd agree the shape of the "swoosh " and the lower duct aren't completely the same. But the question is how much do those shapes change (within the same core design) from race to race on the original part? One track may need more/less airflow thru that area than the next so the shape varies to address the need. That doesn't make it a "different" part, that makes it a modified one. I would bet that most of the Teams have similar ones and if they disallow this then they are in for a whole rash of more appeals like this, everyone copies the better Teams stuff to see if it works for them as opposed to redesigning the wheel everytime and still ending up at essentially the same spot anyway. That's why we don't have 6 wheel cars or cars with twin hulls or cars with drivers sitting higher in the car than others, that and the rules that limit the allowable options. F1 created this when they started making the rules essentially telling everyone what they want the car to look like. |
|
|
|
Post by chernaudi on Jul 13, 2020 17:42:49 GMT -8
Renault has been angry about the pink Mercs since the pre season tests, Cyril is on record grousing about F1's copy culture vs true R&D, even tried to pull Macca in the fight for back up. Now his worse nightmares have come true. A well(ish) funded team taking the evolution through imitation route rather than the riskier roll you own and see if it lights model F1 is supposed to be based on. If that part is actually off of last year's Merc it's case closed, but more that likely it's a copy made by Forced Nepotism. And as long as the FIA allows teams to copy parts (they probably secretly encourage the smaller teams to do so) Renault has a very small chance of overturning any race results. They may win in the long run though because with the new rules (finally) for 2022 no one will have a previous car to copy, and with the budget cap and development tokens allegedly closing the gap between the rich and the poor photo reproduction of parts could get officially put on the naughty list. If not prepared for the A/B team wars. Refer to my post about everything from race cars to service rifles/automatic weapons being an evolution of something vs being revolutionary. Only big revolutions I've seen in racing the past 15 years were the introduction of diesel engines and hybrid systems. Everything else is an evolution. Sadly, between loopholes closed in rule books. testing data suggesting things and everything seemingly being done before, there's not much room to evolve or do something new until the tech regs get rewritten. |
|
jmjgt
Member
Posts: 3,311
|
Post by jmjgt on Jul 13, 2020 19:26:53 GMT -8
Well, this could also be Renault being butt-hurt and trying to retaliate for Japan last year when Racing Point protested and, after the FIA initially dismissed the claim, got Renault's cars DQ'd from Japan last year over a brake bias device.
If that's the case or not, Renault have only themselves to blame for their poor showings. Their car isn't great, and their engine seems to be a dog. Not to mention that either Ghosen or their board only gives motorsport funding as a token gesture compared to what Fiat does with Ferrari or Daimler does with Mercedes-Benz. Hence my nickname for Renault being Renn-no (Renn being German for motorsport or racing, and no, being, well, no).
If Renault want to be successful again, they should sell off the team to someone with the resources who cares, and just sell engines. Aside from the late 1970's and early '80s (the first turbo era) and when Alonso was with them in '05 and '06 for their championships, Renault's biggest successes came as an engine supplier, especially in the 1990s with Williams and Benneton (which became the Renault factory team when they bought control of it from Briatore).
What Renault needs is a good power washing of it's management scripture, they remind me a lot of Ronzo era McLaren in that they believe all they have to do is put the pieces on the board to win the game. It's just as Prost said in the 90's that the problem with the French is they have a sense of entitlement to the sport that takes away their hunger for actually reaching the top. Unfortunately he seems powerless to change that attitude in the team right now, maybe he's become part of the problem. The money they've been given is a result of Cyril telling the board he can get the job done on the cheap simply by being a "factory" team. But in reality he's running around like a headless chicken hoping he can hire a driver that can motivate the team forward. He's too dense to understand that's HIS job. I honestly don't see them rising farther above where they are now unless a new leader is found. |
|
|
|
Post by wilmywood8455 on Jul 14, 2020 0:10:03 GMT -8
Well, this could also be Renault being butt-hurt and trying to retaliate for Japan last year when Racing Point protested and, after the FIA initially dismissed the claim, got Renault's cars DQ'd from Japan last year over a brake bias device.
If that's the case or not, Renault have only themselves to blame for their poor showings. Their car isn't great, and their engine seems to be a dog. Not to mention that either Ghosen or their board only gives motorsport funding as a token gesture compared to what Fiat does with Ferrari or Daimler does with Mercedes-Benz. Hence my nickname for Renault being Renn-no (Renn being German for motorsport or racing, and no, being, well, no).
If Renault want to be successful again, they should sell off the team to someone with the resources who cares, and just sell engines. Aside from the late 1970's and early '80s (the first turbo era) and when Alonso was with them in '05 and '06 for their championships, Renault's biggest successes came as an engine supplier, especially in the 1990s with Williams and Benneton (which became the Renault factory team when they bought control of it from Briatore).
What Renault needs is a good power washing of it's management scripture, they remind me a lot of Ronzo era McLaren in that they believe all they have to do is put the pieces on the board to win the game. It's just as Prost said in the 90's that the problem with the French is they have a sense of entitlement to the sport that takes away their hunger for actually reaching the top. Unfortunately he seems powerless to change that attitude in the team right now, maybe he's become part of the problem. The money they've been given is a result of Cyril telling the board he can get the job done on the cheap simply by being a "factory" team. But in reality he's running around like a headless chicken hoping he can hire a driver that can motivate the team forward. He's too dense to understand that's HIS job. I honestly don't see them rising farther above where they are now unless a new leader is found. In all things competitive, only money trumps solid leadership. And great leadership can overcome poor funding. But money cannot overcome poor leadership,. |
|
|
|
Post by chernaudi on Jul 14, 2020 5:48:22 GMT -8
Ask Toyota Gazoo Racing Europe (formerly Toyota Motorsport GmbH) when they tried to run Toyota's F1 program and had to deal with corporate meddling from Toyota City. Then with their LMP1 program they got the management right, but not the funding, which tended to hold them back against Audi and Porsche who had lots of money and effective leadership.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pistola on Jul 14, 2020 7:10:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Pistola on Jul 14, 2020 7:18:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Pistola on Jul 14, 2020 7:27:16 GMT -8
Apparently in 1995 in order to get the Renault V10 for Benetton Flavio bought into Ligier. Part of the swap deal was a transfer of the Benetton design to Ligier. Later in the year Flavio cleared his part by selling his share in Ligier to Tom Walkinshaw. www.unracedf1.com/day-schumacher-drove-a-ligier/ |
|
|
|
Post by montybriscoe on Jul 14, 2020 8:43:12 GMT -8
Red Bull and Toro Rosso, essentially, did the same thing in 2007 & 2008. Same chassis, different engines.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Jul 14, 2020 11:45:59 GMT -8
I think it shows the Engineers all went to similar places to learn their stuff and why it's sooo hard to make leaps in F1, they are ALL very very smart!!! Of course pictures help, but they wouldn't be using what they see in the pictures if it didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Jul 14, 2020 11:55:49 GMT -8
I have a question for the experts here...after 'the accident' the Team gave up and packed up their stuff and then complained that they had lost 71 laps of testing the new floor and rear wings...WHY didn't they take the time to put a new floor on LeClerc's car and a new wing on Vettels car and send them out on test laps then? Sure it would have been 20 minutes or more to change the things but they threw away an hour or more of test laps and then complained about losing test laps!! IF the cars were fast enough they could have even passed a few cars and stayed out of the way of the faster cars with some good pitlane radio work and use of their mirrors. NO they would have never gotten to the points or anywhere near them but they COMPLAINED about the loss of test laps and did NOTHING about getting them back, you can't replace testing so why not use it while you have the chance?
|
|
|
|
Post by wilmywood8455 on Jul 14, 2020 12:02:26 GMT -8
Mikey, that is an excellent question. Pride, most likely. In 1989, in my first season at AAR, and the first season of the Toyota GTP program, we had a problem at the Miami GP, our first race. We fixed the car (lost 6 laps) and ran the rest of the race as a test session, trying different things to see what happened. We learned a lot. It was well worth the effort.
Toyota paid us to race, so we did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carlo_Carrera on Jul 14, 2020 12:03:38 GMT -8
They might not have had all the replacement parts they need. Both cars were severely damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilmywood8455 on Jul 14, 2020 12:05:47 GMT -8
^ True. But I still vote for wounded pride.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carlo_Carrera on Jul 14, 2020 12:52:02 GMT -8
Lewis' lap was cleaner and his car was clearly faster in a straight line.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Jul 14, 2020 14:55:30 GMT -8
Mikey, that is an excellent question. Pride, most likely. In 1989, in my first season at AAR, and the first season of the Toyota GTP program, we had a problem at the Miami GP, our first race. We fixed the car (lost 6 laps) and ran the rest of the race as a test session, trying different things to see what happened. We learned a lot. It was well worth the effort. Toyota paid us to race, so we did. That's what I was thinking but if so WHY misdirect in the PR comments? Why not just say 'this was a wasted race and with all the problems we decided to just call it a day and work harder another day'. If that's the best Binotto can do I don't see him being in charge for long. Now if Vettel said 'hell no' and LeClerc said the same then I would have a L-O-N-G discussion with them and talk about reserve drivers and stop paying the spoiled brats if they can't see the big picture. BUT type A people don't often give up the chance to prove things so that's hopefully not a chance. |
|
|
|
Post by pushtopass on Jul 14, 2020 15:10:07 GMT -8
Lewis' lap was cleaner and his car was clearly faster in a straight line. Lewis gained most of the gap in turn 1 and in the horse-shoe middle section. That was an amazing lap. |
|
|
|
Post by pushtopass on Jul 14, 2020 15:10:54 GMT -8
Mikey, that is an excellent question. Pride, most likely. In 1989, in my first season at AAR, and the first season of the Toyota GTP program, we had a problem at the Miami GP, our first race. We fixed the car (lost 6 laps) and ran the rest of the race as a test session, trying different things to see what happened. We learned a lot. It was well worth the effort. Toyota paid us to race, so we did. That's what I was thinking but if so WHY misdirect in the PR comments? Why not just say 'this was a wasted race and with all the problems we decided to just call it a day and work harder another day'. If that's the best Binotto can do I don't see him being in charge for long. Now if Vettel said 'hell no' and LeClerc said the same then I would have a L-O-N-G discussion with them and talk about reserve drivers and stop paying the spoiled brats if they can't see the big picture. BUT type A people don't often give up the chance to prove things so that's hopefully not a chance. Maybe that quote is for the Italians who won't think too deeply about it? |
|
Korean cable TV is lousy. no more NASCAR nor NHRA