Cyril Abiteboul, Renault, Albert Park, 2015

Quitting F1 still an option for Renault

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Cyril Abiteboul says Renault could still decide to withdraw from Formula One if it doesn’t reach a deal with Bernie Ecclestone.

Tweets

Heath Tweet

Comment of the day

Rosberg’s engine situation adds another dimension to today’s qualifying session:

It’d be interesting if Rosberg was able to qualify on pole despite the power deficit. As much as I admire Hamilton’s abilities, he needs to come to terms with the fact that things won’t always go his way and he needs to handle that better.

I think another Rosberg win would set the tone nicely for the new season and hopefully instil the fight in him that seemed to be lacking throughout this season. Given the Mercedes advantage, the team battle needs to be interesting unless Ferrari have something up their sleeve for next season so Vettel can fight for more victories.
Steven (@Steevkay)

Snapshot

Infiniti Ultimate Test Drive Final - Dubai
Infiniti Ultimate Test Drive Final – Dubai

Carl Lawrence won the chance to drive an Infiniti-branded Formula One car with instruction from Daniil Kvyat.

Happy birthday!

No F1 Fanatic birthdays today

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Twelve months ago today Carlos Sainz Jnr was confirmed as a Toro Rosso driver for this season, alongside Max Verstappen.

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.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 37 comments on “Quitting F1 still an option for Renault”

    1. What’s happened with the prize money Renault were supposed to be getting? I thought Bernie had agreed to that already

      1. Sources have suggested that Ecclestone originally agreed a figure on the basis that Renault remained with RBR – in effect subsidising the team’s supply – but then discovered how much Red Bull has agreed to pay for the French engine on top of that. His view is understood to be that Renault would in effect be being paid twice for the same thing.

      2. He only said publicly that they would be allegeable for the same kind of money Mercedes is getting when they win the championship.

        Although he might have promised more if they sign up until after 2020 (to give BE an advantage in negotiating with the others when their contracts run out), but who knows what games are being played in the background. The engine situation could also have played a role off course.

    2. That 2001 Prost is just gorgeous :-)

      1. @mrboerns so weird with that R25 wing!

        But the livery is epic!

      2. I agree. Well done!

      3. and it was widened. I’ve seen that demo car painted in 3 different liveries.

        Cowell your team has done a great job, you are in a great position, you are trying to sell your product and represent this tech. I’m not brilliant but even I can tell that difference between 190 and 100 is above all down to 2 factors. Turbo and direct fuel injection. The FIA/Bernie PU you are trying to fight against is also “TDI”, it’s projected to produce the same power and shall attain similar fuel efficiency as the current ones. I love these engines don’t get me wrong on that but, all F1 engineers know that carrying a penalty of 100kg+ can’t be retrieved through the efficiency recovered. In short the battery side is not worth it, it’s not logical in 2015, maybe by 2025 but the battery tech shall allow more power and lighter packages, anyhow on a racing car there’s no way the battery side is worth it until the whole recovery package becomes lighter than the trend of .3 per 10kg of added weight.

        1. The “budget engine” is, and never was, planned to come anywhere close to the same fuel efficiency as the hybrid engines @peartree. To get there, it would have to be far too high tech and expensive.

          Yes, it will be a turbo engine and could well be more efficient than the more than 10 year old V8 and V10/V12s, but the cars will still need tanks of about 160-180 kg and/or will need refuelling to make it to the finish line. Fuel flow will also have to be significantly higher if they want to get up to 900 bhp with those engines.

          1. @bascb For cost reasons it won’t match the current spec on efficiency, but you are wrong to believe that a 2.5 fuel injected bi-turbo, isn’t naturally capable of achieving 50% reduction on fuel flow in relation to a naturally aspirated counterpart. If we take the example of a 2.4 v8 and put direct injection and 2 turbo’s on it, you have the potential to achieve well over 1000bhp of which you can bottle down as you will for fuel efficiency, I’m sure they won’t need the old tanks, unless they want to use well over 1000 bhp. Turbo’s are massive power and efficiency boosts, ideally any car in the world would be fitted with turbo technology. F1 was already efficient, I think everyone has forgotten that the 3.0L naturally aspirated engines achieved around 20% better energy efficiency than road cars, of which only recoup around 30% of the energy that’s produced through combustion. The combustion boost was in this case due to the lower friction and much lower weight of engine components, even without 2 major fuel efficient technologies F1 was already about efficiency.

            1. Oh, I agree that F1 engines have been highly efficient by building them light weight and with the purpose of saving fuel loads at the start of the race. But a 2,4 bi Turbo is highly unlikely to be of comparable fuel efficiency AND power with the hybrid packages at once. It might be able to reach one of the two, but not both for more than qualifying.

            2. “Turbo’s are massive power and efficiency boosts, ideally any car in the world would be fitted with turbo technology.”

              there is a difference between fuel efficiency and volumetric efficiency. I think your sentiment just goes to show how successful the manufacturers and commercial aspects of F1 are at indoctrinating people in to buying ‘their’ stuff.

              PS, there is a bigger difference between EFI and GDI than turbo vs non turbo, but you are supposed to believe it’s the hybrid power, which is often misleadingly discussed by the commentators as they often have little clue as to the difference between energy and power.

            3. just to add something, efficiency comes through optimization. Efficiency has nothing to do with brand names, bells and whistles or buzz words. The reason why Mercedes are dominating have more to do with fuel restrictions and the cost to build those motors. So while people celebrate these new great efficient power units, know that they are also celebrating manufacturer dominated racing and rule rigging in favor of auto manufacturers. F1 is not about going faster, it’s about promoting brands and building consumer confidence.

    3. Shame they ruined the livery though

    4. The 85-year-old then asked who might be willing to offer (Red Bull) an engine.

      Probably due to my tiredness, I thought the 85 year old man was Lauda, and I thought blimey, is he really that old already?
      Then I realised the text was referring to the little guy.

    5. Chris (@tophercheese21)
      28th November 2015, 0:58

      Maurizio Arrivabene a.k.a. Joffrey Baratheon.

      1. @tophercheese21
        That doesn’t make any sense at all.

        1. Or you just don’t get it!

          1. Maybe you could explain it?

            1. @raceprouk
              It’s a Game of Thrones reference, I haven’t seen all of it. But Joffrey is the tyrannical King who has people beheaded. If you see the tweets above, it makes sense :)

      2. Fudge Ahmed (@)
        28th November 2015, 11:23

        Haha, very good @tophercheese21

    6. Red Bull: We will quit!
      Renault: No, we!
      You know, they look like sulking lovey-dovey pairing, really worth each other

      1. to be fair, Renault and RBR are at the mercy of the powers that be, and with Renault, it seems that its a board, while with RBR its a single person. In all honesty, I think RBR had an easier journey to convince the one man to stay in F1, while I think Renault have a tougher job convining many people on the board.

    7. V10>V6 hybrid in EVERY WAY except fuel economy and idaf about that in F1. Not at all. I especially loathe seeing F1 cars adapting proven road car technology instead of road cars adapting proven F1 technology!!! You want to know why fans are disenfranchised? How F1 lost the plot and it’s place as the pinnacle of motorsport. There’s your answer.

      Well that and the gimmickry that is lift and coast, drs, limited energy recovery and dissipation, and of course the terrible concept of having a sole tyre supplier in the name of revenue (The Official Supplier of F1 tag) and allowing/mandating that supplier to bring terrible inconsistent tyres that lack grip. That is FUNDAMENTALLY daft.

      They may as well install the artificial sprinkler systems to add 20 wet laps to every race and the fan popularity twitter push to pass nonsense.

      1. The V6s produce as much power as the V10s, and more torque, for little over half the fuel. But hey, let’s just throw away all that progress because you don’t like the sound.

        Nowhere is engine and powertrain technology pushed harder than in motorsport.

    8. The 85-year-old then asked who might be willing to offer (Red Bull) an engine.

      Maybe the problem is can Red Bull be trusted to not disclose what is inside the engine they are supplied with? Every engine manufacturer expects a high level of “keeping your mouth shut” from their customers, and customers who don’t would find it difficult to secure a new contract. According to media reports Red Bull went to Illmore and asked them to improve the engine, and then took Illmore technology and asked Renault to put it into their engine. While Red Bull obviously felt justified in doing this, the way the engine manufacturers view this could be entirely different. This could well be viewed as a very serious breach of contract by Renault and the other engine suppliers.

    9. Making as much power with half the fuel, but all people care about is the sound like it actually does anything other than rattle your teeth. Sometimes I think half the problem in this equation is the fans, not just all the financial issues. We get it: you liked the visceral tones of the old engines. Can we please stop focusing on ONE aspect of the engines missing and start looking at what they do achieve?

      1. Are you talking about the V10’s that produced 650 hp or the ones that made 950 hp?
        When you say V6 are you talking about V6 + ERS or V6 only?
        Do you know the difference between power and energy ?
        Do you realize turbo charged motors can make easily twice as much power as their naturally aspirated brethren with equal displacement?
        Do you know that the chemistry behind combustion and the lean burn process?
        Do you know what GDI stands for and how it effects fuel consumption?

    10. before Ron Dennis, the McLaren chairman, spectacularly lost his cool when asked if he would forgo his veto on Honda supplying any outfit other than his

      I thought McLaren had agreed that Honda should supply one other team in 2016, so it could be to McLaren’s advantage to supply Red Bull, not just because Red Bull will help pay for the research to get more horses out of that hybrid, but because Red Bull will want an engine bay big enough to house a Mercedes or Ferrari engine. That, in turn, will give McLaren an excuse to increase the engine bay size from the barebones one they currently have to one that is sensible, which will give Honda enough room to have a decent MGU-H, which will give them the extra hp needed.

      1. a lot of strange misconceptions in there @drycrust.

        First of all, Red Bull will certainly not be the ones who would want a bigger “engine bay”. Newey has always been the one to try and limit engine sizes (and minimize cooling) as far as possible to enable better aero profiles. Then, the size zero is what McLaren requested/wants from Honda and which dictates the reasoning why Honda chose a small size engine.

        And last but not least, McLaren will surely not profit from Red bull demanding other things from Honda than themselves. And they risk a situation where Honda might focus as much or more on Red Bull, something Ron is clearly not happy about.

        1. @bascb You are partly right! So my thanks for correcting me. There is an report on the Adam Cooper’s F1 Blog with an interview with Ron Dennis, and part of the problem is the rate of development is so fast that there isn’t enough time to create 4 sets of everything, which is what would need to be done if Honda supplied two teams.
          http://adamcooperf1.com/2015/11/28/dennis-on-red-bull-and-honda-someone-had-to-take-a-clear-decision/

    11. Personally, I am yet to see any evidence to suggest Verstappen is better than Ocon. The Mercedes-affiliated Frenchman looks to me to be every bit as exciting a talent – it would certainly be nice if Wehrlein AND Ocon could line up at Manor…

      1. Except MV is now in F1 getting the job done…

        1. @jureo Ocon hasn’t even had a chance yet! He’s currently getting the job done in GP3 instead. Probably as bright a prospect as any.
          I agree I think a Wehrlein/Ocon partnership would be excellent, hopefully at least one of them though.

    12. V6 now as powerful as old V10? Geez! Talk about throwing the gauntlet out to other engine supliers.

      Also ERS recovery is highly relevant for road use, imagine if your Turbo Mercedes did 90% more MPG. Old engines were greatly irrelevent while I see new ones rocking automotive world…

      When will honda do an ERS styled typeR?

      Just amazing.

    13. I wonder how much the Renault upgraded PU in Brazil has impacted the whole saga and affected their Board.

      It seems that plans may have changed, and decisions delayed at the last minute, possibly because the F1 division may have been instructed very clearly to sort out its disaster of a PU or the whole thing would be closed down.

      We’ll never know but it seems like possibly Renault F1 have had to go to RBR and ask them for help when everyone thought it was the other way around.
      Still lots more to play out on this saga yet.

    14. Can anybody please inform me on what happened with arrivabene? I didn’t watch FP1 and didn’t understand the tweet. Thanks

      1. @alfa145 Darren Heath has deleted the tweet (like the one that Keith posted a screencap of), but he stated that ‘a cameraman was doing his job 10 feet away from a car’ when Arrivabene said that.

    Comments are closed.