Renault rumoured to be interested in WRC for 2010.. What about F1? [Archive]

gloomyDAY

26th June 2008, 23:32

According to this weeks Motoring news... Maybe they were struggling for an attention grabbing headline and decided to re-issue this old one.. http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns12317.html :D

If this is true.. do you think Renault could carry on with F1?In the shape that the WRC is in right now, it is a bad choice. Citroen have been rumored to ditch the WRC and compete in DTM. As strange as that may sound it just goes to show that on a benefit-cost analysis it is disadvantageous to compete in the WRC in the long-run.

Renault is a company that pinches its pennies. I doubt they can run two successful programs in completely different racing disciplines. Also, 2010 may be the ticket into the WRC for not only Renault but other indecisive manufacturers'. Rule changes are going to make the car cheaper to run/build, therefore, making rallying a spectacle once again.

Zico

27th June 2008, 18:54

Maybe they could be seeing this as a timely and ideal oportunity to get back into rallying.. a level playing field and a re-birth for the WRC.
Totally agree with you re- running two motorsport programs, it doesnt really make sense financially.

I wouldnt be totally shocked if they did switch to the WRC, I'd be more inclined to put my money on them staying in F1 though.

Tallgeese

27th June 2008, 20:37

That's what happens when you put a cheap-skate like Carlos Ghosson in charge of Renault.

AndyRAC

27th June 2008, 20:45

The WRC might be less expensive, but I can't believe they'd seriously think about joining a Championship that is on it's last legs, well at the moment it is. What possible benefits could they get out of it? It's hardly over-promoted is it.
They should stay in F1 for now, there's no way they would do both.

LeonBrooke

27th June 2008, 23:54

Valve Bounce

28th June 2008, 01:07

ShiftingGears

28th June 2008, 01:48

That's what happens when you put a cheap-skate like Carlos Ghosson in charge of Renault.

They look at other options? What point are you trying to make here?

F1boat

28th June 2008, 10:57

Maybe they will if the next season is a disaster as well.

Zico

28th June 2008, 11:26

In Oz, Renault hardly has a presence here, so I cannot judge on that basis. But in Europe, what benefits does Renault get from its successes in F1? Which model would sell better as a result of Successes in F1?

Over here, Peugeot is much more popular and has a better image and reputation.

The same could be said of most of the current F1 teams. I only see Ferrari's road cars as a perfect representation of their involvment in F1. Even Mercedes image, range of road cars and their F1 involvement seems a tad a mis-matched... to me they have this 'reliable/dependable' image more suited to 24 hour racing imo..

I have a theory that people generally dont associate F1 with road cars.. in rallying thats obviously not the case. You only have to look at Subaru's incredible growth since their rallying program started in the 90's.. certainly in the UK at least.
As low to mid range car manufacturers I also see Renault and Toyota's brand image far more suited to rallying.

Perceptions differ but does anyone else make similar associations between brands and certain motorsport programs ?

TMorel

28th June 2008, 16:03

I make the association, but it doesn't affect my purchasing.

I supported Petter in the Subaru but still went and got a Mitsubishi VR4

Mind you, you can't account for all the potential customer decisions, I was in a Merc garage last season and someone was saying he considered them dull and boring previously but he liked the way Hamilton and Alonso were both acting like a pair of ***** which made him now reconsider getting one for his company car as this gave them a better image *shrugs*

DezinerPaul

29th June 2008, 01:25

The fact that they are not able to cheat in F1 anymore (after losing Michelin)They will leave F1, FB will make it a semi-works effort! There again, it could happen quicker as there prized possession, the most overrated driver in history will like a rat leave the sinking ship.
If Alonso, did not have that huge advantage with the cheater tires, he would not have one title to his name!

ShiftingGears

29th June 2008, 01:39

If Alonso, did not have that huge advantage with the cheater tires, he would not have one title to his name!

I must have missed this "cheating". So, explain it to us.

DezinerPaul

29th June 2008, 01:53

It was quite clear , that Renault enjoyed a distinct advantage over the other Michelin shod teams the two years they won the title. This is further evidenced by there inability to be even close with the Bridgestone. There is always a real reason why a team goes from being the fastest to a midfield runner, it does not just happen. This is not an aero or engine issue, it is tires. The year before they won the title, it was quite clear that they enjoyed a real advantage over the other teams in the corners. As for Michelin, we all know about their views on cheating, remember Indygate!

ShiftingGears

29th June 2008, 02:03

It was quite clear , that Renault enjoyed a distinct advantage over the other Michelin shod teams the two years they won the title.

No. That was because Renault could extract more out of the Michelins than any other team. They did something that no other team did, and shifted the weight of their cars back more than any other team, and this helped with their start line advantage, and Alonso could adapt a driving style to eliminate graining from the Michelin tyres.

Do you also think that Ferrari cheated with Bridgestones, considering how dominant they were in the first half of this decade?

This is further evidenced by there inability to be even close with the Bridgestone. There is always a real reason why a team goes from being the fastest to a midfield runner, it does not just happen.

Ahh. So considering Ferrari's success in '04, they must have been cheating, because they were the third best in 2005.

This is not an aero or engine issue, it is tires. The year before they won the title, it was quite clear that they enjoyed a real advantage over the other teams in the corners.

Ferrari were the fastest in other races, and were clearly the best Bridgestone team in 2006. I didn't know you thought Ferrari cheated so much ;)

As for Michelin, we all know about their views on cheating, remember Indygate!

Explain how Indygate was cheating. For whatever reason they didn't get the required information to be competitive at Indy, so how is that cheating?

DezinerPaul

29th June 2008, 02:20

There are two points here, the first is Ferrari. Simply because they were fast on their Bridgestones is not evidence of cheating, as they were the only team for three years on them. Fact that there is parity now, with all of the teams on Bridgestone, would indicate that there never was any cheating
As for Michelin, it was quite clear that they had developed a tire that under load, changed it's sizing and deflection. This gave them a huge advantage over Bridgestone, even if the tire was cheating. The specs were clearly stated, it is the reason that they withdrew all of their tires after the Italian GP, as they had been caught cheating.
That same tire, could not handle the loads of Indy, simply because the tire that had been developed to cheat, by changing the tires footprint, could not hold the high speed lateral loading.

ShiftingGears

29th June 2008, 02:26

There are two points here, the first is Ferrari. Simply because they were fast on their Bridgestones is not evidence of cheating,

The same way that Renault were fast on Michelins is not evidence of them cheating. The Renault was well adapted to the Michelins, end of story.

As for Michelin, it was quite clear that they had developed a tire that under load, changed it's sizing and deflection. This gave them a huge advantage over Bridgestone, even if the tire was cheating. The specs were clearly stated, it is the reason that they withdrew all of their tires after the Italian GP, as they had been caught cheating.
That same tire, could not handle the loads of Indy, simply because the tire that had been developed to cheat, by changing the tires footprint, could not hold the high speed lateral loading.

Michelins weren't banned because they weren't cheating.

DezinerPaul

29th June 2008, 02:48

The same way that Renault were fast on Michelins is not evidence of them cheating. The Renault was well adapted to the Michelins, end of story.

Michelins weren't banned because they weren't cheating.

Oh, I see you are a McLaren fan, that explains it all. Of course they were caught cheating, that is why they had another run of tires ready for the British GP. The rules were very specific and they sought to break the rules, regarding the size. The intent of the original rule was never changed, all that was done was that any ambiguity was clarified.

ShiftingGears

29th June 2008, 03:02

Oh, I see you are a McLaren fan, that explains it all.

Please, continue making assumptions when you run out of logic.

Of course they were caught cheating, that is why they had another run of tires ready for the British GP. The rules were very specific and they sought to break the rules, regarding the size. The intent of the original rule was never changed, all that was done was that any ambiguity was clarified.

Sounds like what you are describing there is pushing the envelope of the rules. All teams do it. See Ferrari's flexi-floor last year, and the flexi wings. Not cheating. In any case, Renault won the championship because their car/tyre/driver package was better than anyone elses.

DezinerPaul

29th June 2008, 03:06

Please, continue making assumptions when you run out of logic.

Sounds like what you are describing there is pushing the envelope of the rules. All teams do it. See Ferrari's flexi-floor last year, and the flexi wings. Not cheating. In any case, Renault won the championship because their car/tyre/driver package was better than anyone elses.

Yes they did, even if the package included special tires, it was the best package.

Valve Bounce

29th June 2008, 05:28

Yes they did, even if the package included special tires, it was the best package.

You don't reckon Fernando had anything to do with it, do you?

DezinerPaul

29th June 2008, 05:40

You don't reckon Fernando had anything to do with it, do you?

Not too much, as is evidenced by his time at McLaren, when he was bested by an average rookie!

ShiftingGears

29th June 2008, 08:08

Not too much, as is evidenced by his time at McLaren, when he was bested by an average rookie!

Lewis has a lot of natural talent, his problem is in harnessing it.

ioan

29th June 2008, 09:11

The Renault was well adapted to the Michelins, end of story.

:laugh:

The Renault suspension was designed in very close collaboration with Michelin whom were also making the tires.
Question is, did Michelin make a suspension to suit the tires or did they rather make a tire suit the suspension.

Anyway you look at it the Renault-Michelin cooperation was well beyond anything that was between Ferrari and Bridgestone.

ShiftingGears

29th June 2008, 09:39

:laugh:

The Renault suspension was designed in very close collaboration with Michelin whom were also making the tires.
Question is, did Michelin make a suspension to suit the tires or did they rather make a tire suit the suspension.

In other words, the Renault was well adapted to the Michelins.

Anyway you look at it the Renault-Michelin cooperation was well beyond anything that was between Ferrari and Bridgestone.

It was not cheating.

DezinerPaul

29th June 2008, 10:20

In other words, the Renault was well adapted to the Michelins.

It was not cheating.

Yes it was, Michelin were caught red handed, they knew it and even had another tire ready to run "just in case"
It is a question of two French companies, cheating together!

ShiftingGears

29th June 2008, 10:23

Yes it was, Michelin were caught red handed, they knew it and even had another tire ready to run "just in case"
It is a question of two French companies, cheating together!

Sources please.

And the Renault F1 operation is based in England.

Valve Bounce

29th June 2008, 10:28

Not too much, as is evidenced by his time at McLaren, when he was bested by an average rookie!

..........yeah, plus Ron Dennis as well. You can't have it both ways; either you say Hamilton is lousy or he is as good as a two times WDC.

ioan

29th June 2008, 11:04

Sources please.

And the Renault F1 operation is based in England.

Just a part of the Renault F1 operation is based in England, and Renault is still a French company.

In other words, the Renault was well adapted to the Michelins.

In other words Michelin was building Renaults tires and suspensions. Tell me how fair that is towards the other teams.

People always criticized the Ferrari - Bridgestone relationship, where BS was seen to make tires adapted for Ferrari (mind you they were the only top team using their tires, so it was common sense), still everyone ignored that the whole Renault suspension and tires were designed by Michelin.

ShiftingGears

29th June 2008, 11:10

Just a part of the Renault F1 operation is based in England, and Renault is still a French company.

Correct :D

In other words Michelin was building Renaults tires and suspensions. Tell me how fair that is towards the other teams.

I didn't make a judgement on fairness, I just said it was not cheating.

jens

29th June 2008, 12:06

As I see - this thread is full of Cheat, cheat and cheat.

I think in this debate you are messing this word with something else. Cheating as such should be an indication of rules being broken, however I doubt a tyre manufacturer's cooperation with a Formula One team is something the rules do forbid.

About WRC rumours. Considering that Citroen may leave after 2009, then I really don't see much reason to join WRC. Renault's current fate in F1 reminds awful lot of their fate during their first attempt as an independent team in F1, when they in the beginning gradually became better and ultimately turned into a top team, but then suddenly dropped more or less to the midfield in one season and never recovered, leaving F1 as a result. Maybe we'll see the same scenario in this century too.

DezinerPaul

29th June 2008, 12:10

The tire that Michelin had that year, was a cheater!

jens

29th June 2008, 12:18

The tire that Michelin had that year, was a cheater!

By "that year" you mean 2003? All right. But what about other seasons? :p :

Oh and in 2003 Renault got beaten by two Michelin-teams, so they weren't the biggest gainers.

DezinerPaul

29th June 2008, 12:24

By "that year" you mean 2003? All right. But what about other seasons? :p :

Oh and in 2003 Renault got beaten by two Michelin-teams, so they weren't the biggest gainers.

June 2005

Dave B

29th June 2008, 13:08

The tire that Michelin had that year, was a cheater!
How would you explain Fisichella's performance, then, given that you claim he too had these super-cheaty tyres? Or did Michelin somehow manage to only fit them to Alonso's Renault?

In short, please either back up your far-fetched accusations or accept that Alonso / Renault won fair and square.

DezinerPaul

29th June 2008, 13:24

How would you explain Fisichella's performance, then, given that you claim he too had these super-cheaty tyres? Or did Michelin somehow manage to only fit them to Alonso's Renault?

In short, please either back up your far-fetched accusations or accept that Alonso / Renault won fair and square.

Fishi is a dud at best!

Valve Bounce

29th June 2008, 13:29

:rolleyes:

ioan

29th June 2008, 13:30

Correct :D

I didn't make a judgement on fairness, I just said it was not cheating.

I know, however I didn't say they were cheating either!

DezinerPaul

29th June 2008, 13:57

I did!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ShiftingGears

29th June 2008, 14:07

I did!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And everyone is still waiting for you to support that claim with some evidence.

Saying they cheated because they did is not supporting your claims with evidence.

DezinerPaul

29th June 2008, 14:44

And everyone is still waiting for you to support that claim with some evidence.

Saying they cheated because they did is not supporting your claims with evidence.

The tire was banned, after photographic evidence, showed that it was clearly breaking the rules. It was clearly designed to measure one way when static and to change under load. The rule was very clear, the tire was created to break the rule, in other words CHEAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Azumanga Davo

29th June 2008, 17:41

The tire was banned, after photographic evidence, showed that it was clearly breaking the rules. It was clearly designed to measure one way when static and to change under load. The rule was very clear, the tire was created to break the rule, in other words CHEAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DP, I even go so far as to say you are twice the idiot that ioan is (take that as a compliment, ioan, while you still can ;) ).

Evidence now, Pics or STFU and other forum sayings.

ioan

29th June 2008, 17:52

DP, I even go so far as to say you are twice the idiot that ioan is (take that as a compliment, ioan, while you still can ;) ).

:laugh:
A bit rich from someone situated on DP's level! :rotflmao: :p :

DezinerPaul

29th June 2008, 18:07

DP, I even go so far as to say you are twice the idiot that ioan is (take that as a compliment, ioan, while you still can ;) ).

Evidence now, Pics or STFU and other forum sayings.

You have 2640 posts, one would think that after that many posts, you would know a little about current F1. How wrong can one be?

pino

29th June 2008, 18:19

Quit the insults right now thank you !

DezinerPaul

29th June 2008, 22:53

I just responded to Monaro Doorslammer

LeonBrooke

30th June 2008, 00:35

I just responded to Monaro Doorslammer

Back up your accusations. Provide us with links to news items at the time which back up your far-fetched assertions, or shut up and go away.

We all know about the Michelin tyre thing in '03; personally I think you're getting confused with that. There was no such tyre debacle in 2005 or 2006. Alonso's titles are fair.

DezinerPaul

30th June 2008, 01:04

Back up your accusations. Provide us with links to news items at the time which back up your far-fetched assertions, or shut up and go away.

We all know about the Michelin tyre thing in '03; personally I think you're getting confused with that. There was no such tyre debacle in 2005 or 2006. Alonso's titles are fair.

2003 Michelin was caught cheating, which brought about a rule clarification, 2005 once again Michelin were caught with their pants down.
The tires were designed to have increased deflection and footprint, with a lower air pressure. The lower air pressure, caused tire failures, the teams using Michelin, knowing that an inflated tire would put them at a disadvantage, refused to race without a chicane. Michelin got caught cheating and in turn ruined the US GP.

LeonBrooke

30th June 2008, 01:07

2003 Michelin was caught cheating, which brought about a rule clarification, 2005 once again Michelin were caught with their pants down.
The tires were designed to have increased deflection and footprint, with a lower air pressure. The lower air pressure, caused tire failures, the teams using Michelin, knowing that an inflated tire would put them at a disadvantage, refused to race without a chicane. Michelin got caught cheating and in turn ruined the US GP.

BACK UP YOUR ASSERTIONS WITH LINKS OR SHUT UP AND GO AWAY

DezinerPaul

30th June 2008, 02:16

BACK UP YOUR ASSERTIONS WITH LINKS OR SHUT UP AND GO AWAY

What I wrote was common knowledge for those that followed F1 for more than a season. If you have no knowledge, or cannot find the info yourself, that is your problem. However, there is no way, I am going to leave, because a loudmouth stars yelling at me, go find somebody else to bully, it is wasted on me!

DezinerPaul

30th June 2008, 02:27

I think they could do the WRC and still supply F1 engines - with the tech freeze it would be profit - but I don't think they'd still be a constructor. I think they could do both - but would they? That's another question.
Why would they supply engines to F1 , when FB is more than capable. They bought back Alonso with the hope of winning the Constructors. Carlos Goshen will not stay in F1 for very long, with full factory support, without winning.
As for WRC, it is a dying sport, not giving real returns, it's days as a viable commercial motor sport are numbered.