Renault to retain F1 involvement

F1 Fanatic round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Renault’s CEO says the company will keep a presence in F1 but has not confirmed whether it will sell its stake in the team.


Renault remains committed to F1 (Autosport)

Renault CEO Carlos Ghosn: “What I can tell you is that Renault will be associated with this team, whatever happens: associated in connection with the supply of engines and chassis, and with the technology around the chassis. Aside from this, there may be financial agreements, marketing agreements to suit our interests. There may be more developments, but for the moment, there is nothing. What I can tell you is that we will be, more and more, technology suppliers to many teams involved in Formula 1.”

I want to see Webber win, Hamilton says (Gulf News)

“Mark has done a great job this year and he has been told by his team what position he is in. Against adversity he has kept at it. I want to see Mark win.”

Merc: ‘Real Schumi’ is on way back (ITV-F1)

Norbert Haug: “I saw Michael on intermediates posting almost the fastest time, he was second-fastest, very close to Lewis Hamilton, and everyone was on intermediates.”

Formula One diary: Brazilian grand prix (Daily Telegraph)

“[Jenson Button’s party] escape unhurt, as do three Sauber engineers who are also held up at gunpoint. They, though, are separated from their personal possessions. I like Brazil, relish its passion for motorsport and wouldn’t want to see it stripped from the calendar. The musk of menace is seldom far away, though, and there’s always a mild feeling of relief when the final taxi trip of the weekend passes without incident.”

Comment of the day

Sean thinks allowing lapped cars to get back on the lead lap during a safety car period is the thin end of the wedge – but he acknowledged he’s in the minority:

This is nothing but the continued dumbing down of a sport to lowest common denominator ents.

I have made concessions to ‘spice’ from time to time, for example I thought divergent tyre compounds, within reason, a lesser-of-the-available-evils wild card element which will lead to performance disparities in a sport in which engineering excellence has been systematically removing sources of performance variability.

But safety car interventions are just the pits to begin with, without amplifying their effect. I might occasionally be glad if the guy I’m rooting for is the beneficiary, but I’m honest enough to recognize that I’m only cheating myself in the long run.

From the forum

The Brazilian Grand Prix confirmed Mercedes in fourth place in the constructors’ championship with Renault in fifth. Karan01 asks if Vitaly Petrov cost Renault a better result.

Site updates

The Community page has had a long-overdue refresh.

Happy birthday!

No F1 Fanatic birthdays today. If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

But we can wish a happy birthday to former Ferrari driver and 1999 championship runner-up Eddie Irvine who is 45 today.

Image © Renault/LAT

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

31 comments on “Renault to retain F1 involvement”

  1. any news on whether you’ll label the round ups with ’round up’ in the ‘more from f1fanatic’ navigation pane?

    on another note, here’s a webcam page of the yas circuit.

    1. here’s an example suggestion keith:
      ‘Round-up: Renault to retain F1 involvement’


      1. Yea, I miss the round-up in the “more from” list. It would be nice if it showed on RSS feeds as well.

        1. I take it from the perspective of how a person coming here for the first time find this site easy to use.

          I think the new layout is very decent and I don’t really have much of an issue with the wording of the roundup heading. Obviously if you guys are posting on this page its not an issue for you guys either as it hasn’t hampered your ability to navigate around the site.

          My only suggestion would be it to say “F1fanatic daily roundup” as the roundups are a good thing, and if people were to be aware they occur daily they are probably likely to come back to the site.

    2. I haven’t forgotten about this, it’s in the pipeline.

      1. ok thanks! :))))))

  2. The risk is everywhere, not just at Brazil.

    Why won’t you be kidnapped at Austin? (no offence to Austin people). The risk is there too. You could be in a terrorist assault aswell, and it’d not be the first time a sporting event looks in danger because of the ‘possible terrorist attacks’.

    But leaving Brazil and never come back won’t solve the problem. If they really think it’s something to worry (which apparently, it is), then work with the organizers to assure every team member gets to the hotel safely.

    Brazil has a long tradition in F1. It’d be such a shame to see it out of the calendar.

    1. I agree that F1 should stay in Brazil, but to say that the danger is just as great in other countries is a bit disingenuous. The likelihood of the same thing happening in other countries F1 visits is highly unlikely in most of the countries. Some journalist (can’t remember who at the moment) pointed out over the weekend that these things happen EVERY year to someone in the paddock, but that much more attention was drawn to the dangers this year as it was the first time a driver had ever been threatened, and not just any driver but the reigning world champion. The Sauber mechanics were successfully mugged this year, and that received much less mention in the news than Button’s unsuccessful mugging. It’s a shame it happens at all, and you’re right, FOM should work with the race promoters and local authorities to ensure greater security for everyone in the paddock moving forward.

    2. Brazil should definitely stay of course, that goes without saying.

      But putting heads in sand when it comes to this is not the right approach either. I can’t remember anyone being car-jacked with machine guns driving back on the A43 from Silverstone recently, and that track also has a fantastic atmosphere.

  3. Yay, Security Tool is gone. I can finally access F1F.
    Anyway, looks like Lewis (and maybe Button, just maybe) could prove to be pivotal in the championship. If Vettel doesn’t help Webber, hopefully he (they) will. Also I guess there are other drivers on the grid that wouldn’t mind seeing Webber win.

    This all, of course, rests on the assumption that the ‘Bulls are still in it near the end of the race on Sunday (or early Monday for us in Australia).

    1. It would be karma wouldn’t it if Hamilton let Webber past to win the WDC! Alonso’s fans hate him enough already, imagine how crazy they would go if he supported Webber!

      1. Sure the Spanish would go nuts if he doesn’t win, but they’ve won enough already, it would just further top off their year of world sport total domination!
        They have to go tits up somewhere and this is (pretty much) the last thing they have not won (yet).
        And we can’t have that, Spain winning everything, can we?

  4. Another vote for a Round up label. Not that I get a vote. But. My mobile browser doesn’t show the sub-title that’s visible on the regular front page. In addition I can’t find the round ups on the archive list of ‘every’ article. Grumble grumble.

  5. Glad to hear Renault will continue investing in Formula 1, hopefully that continue to succeed and that they can secure a Tier 1 sponsor.

    While Renault are in for the long term, there is always a thought that Mercedes will e here for 5 years tops, then just leave: I hope I’m wrong.

    1. Renault promised a long term presence as an engine supplier, but as for the Reanult F1 team they said just to keep engagment with a s little spending as necessary. I don’t find it sounds Renault team will have more money for development than this year.

      Besides I tend to believe Lotus Cars entry into F1 has quite a lot to do with protection of their Lotus brand in racing from types like Hunt, and brand promotion in F1 is merely a second reason.
      We’ll see about those money and partnership, but I stay careful to expect something more in car performance than in 2010. Hope I’m wrong.

      1. You mean types like hunt who were involved in the management of the last racing Team Lotus and then stepped in to take on the company to try and get the Lotus brand back into F1 all the way since?

        I would rather protect that Lotus brand from an ex-Ferrari executive with big dreams to take Lotus cars and make a competitor of his former employer out of it in no time.

  6. Another vote for “roundup” being present in the title. I access F1F almost exclusively through my iPhone and now I can’t find the excellent roundup pages without viewing every single article posted. Very frustrating. Apart from that, great site!

  7. I don’t understand arguments that state a lack of sport in revising safety car rules. I know people say it isn’t sporting to move lapped cars to the back, but I’ve yet to see a convincing argument why it isn’t. Saying that leaders have lapped more cars than those behind them has no bearing here – under current rules lapping cars isn’t work. What I do think lacks sport are the utterly insurmountable leads drivers build up and which are squarely due to superior technology. Is that the essence of sport? Is that what ‘racing’ is all about? That is the real dumbing down of the sport – the emphasis on clean lapping, rather than racing. So how is it not sport to have the safety car element level things out. It’s an utterly false argument that one option is more sporting than the other. What isn’t very sporting at all are the blue flag rules that make already difficult races a complete mockery for the weakest teams.

    So for me: make lapping cars in race conditions a challenge, but move backmarkers to the back under the safety car. There’s nothing artificial or unsporting about that – it just makes winning a race more work than stringing together a few dozen clean laps in the fastest car.

    1. Fully agree.

      As I said in the main article, the Safety Car is there for a reason, which is to provide a long period of clear track for the marshals to do their job (and to slow the cars down when going through the area). In that kind of situation, the “dumbing down” by bringing everyone close is unavoidable. The only other alternative is to stop the race and run it on aggregate at the re-start.

      On Sunday we saw cars about to be lapped suddenly promoted to the back of the queue, almost a whole lap ahead of someone who was formerly just behind them purely because the leader hadn’t lapped them yet. That’s even worse than dumbing down.

      Personally I prefer sending them all to the back rather than letting them unlap themselves, but something at least needs to be done.

  8. I’m with Sean 100%

    Maciek, we shouldn’t have to use the safety car (note the word safety) to improve the show, to use Flavio’s words. The safety car rules should reflect what’s best for safety, and that alone. That’s why your comment: “So how is it not sport to have the safety car element level things out” gets people like myself frustrated, for the reasons I’ve just outlined… The safety car should never be used for any other reason.

    Making lapped cars to overtake was a mess before, we really have short memories when it comes to this. Keep the rule as is and look at other ways to improve the racing.

    1. I don’t think he said we should have them to improve the show, just that they do when they’re deployed.

      It also doesn’t change the fact that what’s best for safety is artificially bunching the cars up. The same cannot be said of having backmarkers awaiting 5 drivers all within 5 seconds of them trying to lap them at the start whilst the backmarkers are engaged in their own battles.

      1. Good point Icthyes with regards the backmarkers being engaged in their own battles, I must admit.

        As I say in the last paragraph, Making lapped cars overtake was a mess before and it will be again. I would have enjoyed the end of the race more just like anyone else if the leaders were together, but in my opinion the SC rules are best as is to avoid the mess we had before.

        1. What about sending them to the back? There’s enough time to do it through team radio.

          1. Possibly – definitely a better alternative. Still sounds a bit messy let’s say if it’s raining hard or we’re at Monte-Carlo. And what if one car pits before moving to the back like they’re rivals? How long do they have to move to the back?

            SC rules really should make the process as simple as possible, regardless of the effects on racing.

          2. @JohnH
            “SC rules really should make the process as simple as possible, regardless of the effects on racing.”

            That’s very good point, though the safety car is rarely out for less than 3-4 laps, which should be plenty enough time for cars to regain their real racing position.

            I think that for me there’s just something about the safety car that says: ‘Reset’. Now that may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but I wish the debate could focus more on the practical ups and downs rather than supposed ‘sporting’ qualities which evidently don’t mean the same thing to everyone.

          3. You can’t legislate for everything to be 100% perfect. If it’s wet or at Monaco, then they have to deal with it. Perhaps tell the cars coming up to be lapped that they have to drive through the pit-lane.

          4. Could do, but what if they’re two laps down?

            What would end up happening is that you end up with a complex set of regulations attempting to cover every eventuality that even the teams themselves do not understand, let alone the fans.

            I think I now like the suggestion earlier about getting rid of the SC altogether!

          5. If they’re a lap down on the leader and any number of laps down on the rest of the pack, just send them through the pits as many times is necessary before the SC comes in. If it isn’t enough, that’s too bad, can’t have everything.

            I don’t see it being that complicated. And there’s no way the SC will go, that is, I’ve yet to see a better solution to do what it does.

  9. Happy Birthday Fast Eddie!

    I’m glad Renault are becoming a “proper” manufacturer – supply and not management. I would really not like to see the brief manufacturer age of the last 2000s make a comeback.

    1. I read that article also a bit of an admitment, that no deal is done for Lotus to step into Renault F1 yet and it might still be Team Lotus Renault run by Fernandez showing for the involvement of Renault and Lotus in F1.
      If Group Lotus management would think the same rational way as Goshn does here, they would be happy to get the brand awareness almost for free!

      1. Let’s be fair, if it is Tony Fernandes’ Team Lotus in F1 next year (and I for one hope it is) then Group Lotus will be getting the exposure completely for free.

        If Proton want their own team then let them buy into Renault and use the Proton name.

Comments are closed.