Well, there are four nuts in total, so......

D'oh.

How is it even possible? I thought there was a safety pin?

Another thing Ted said that Robert told him that he was driving 70% of the Suzuka lap one-handed, with other hand on the f-duct.

Well, let's look at the positives: Korea is an unknown that may spring a surprise, and Brazil with its mid downforce setup is likely to suit Renault

Where did you get this info from? Kubica said it was the opposite - that they were running their maximum downforce configuration at the beginning of the season no matter what the track, then when others started to mount the F-duct on the team started to take downforce off the car in order to maintain a reasonable top speed. And then as iotar says, when the Renault F-duct finally comes suddenly they're competitive in all the places where the device is very beneficial, while not quite so on those where it's of little benefit - a coincidence or a pattern? Does seem like the system is doing wonders for Renault as the car aero-wise is in no way comparable to Ferrari, let alone Red Bull.

I agree. Kubica was the spoiler today and would have forced Webber and co to alter their strategy or pass on track, which would have been difficult. As soon as he went out, the race intrigue evaporated into the predictable procession.

Was heart broken when kubica retired...he looked so strong today but then again couldve been a lot worse..imagine this happening at 300 km/hr.

Remember safety concerns when they showed Alonso taking one corner with one hand?
I was surprised when I read that somewhere, too. And it's all because of this:
http://www.formula1.com/wi/597x478/sutton/2010/d10jpn260.jpg
It can give some excuses for errors at Spa (learning), although RK himself said that in the wet it's used less time.

Sums up my thoughts, good exiting race, could have been better with KUB in the mix but then again
thankfully it happened under SC not in 130R

If this is true, then Renault have only themselves to blame for this disastrous weekend.

That's just bloody ridiculous, to waste such a great starting position with such dumbassery.

Can anyone donwload this clip andupload it on other hoster?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport...one/9078112.stm

Is BBC content working for you ATM ?? I keep getting "This content doesn't seem to be working. Try again later" message ;/

EDIT:

Apparently all BBC servers died (at least for me).

Just watched it and indeed Kravitz says Renalt told him there was same problem on ALL wheels. For some reason airguns used to tighten wheel nuts did not produce torque required to do so properly...

This was a bizarre situation worthy of independent (FIA ?) Investigation.
Although each wheel is only held by ONE wheel nut, each of these has a retaining collar that is threaded OPPOSITE to the nut.
The theory is that should either element work loose, the opposite threading SHOULD effectively tighten the other element thus preventing what we saw today.
Sorry for Robert and the team as he was the joker in the pack, the one who could have really provoked the 5 title contenders to prove their worth.
The outcome was a somewhat uneventful GP at the front.

Too bad Renault didn't scoop up Kamui. Would have been interesting to seem him partner Robert next year.

How terrible for Kubica and the reast of the Renault team tohave this silly mistakes. Kubica was incredibly strong there.

Is this a Rebel ?

Bob Bell leaves and Eric B takes the chair, then this happens. This happened because the new direction lacks the trust from the members. Renault must think it's act twice more over, Very unprofessional. They are throwing the up turn game.

No, that's not the case. RF1 needed rebuilding the top management badly. Genii did this and team become more competitive. Even corpotare Renault said that this year success lays in rebuilding management.

Why you wasn't talking about lack of trust from team members in the first half of the season?

'cause Bell was there apparently.

Is your theory backd by facts then? Any fact?

Or you just made that up?

I am not sure what kind of accusations you are trying to throw? Team members boycotting the new management? By risking driver's life through sending deliberately ill-assembled car?

If so, they while you call management action unprofessional, I would call the other action criminal.

Please do not make a theory out of what is just about five line texts, which was a question.

Like I said above: An F1 car must have some qualities to run an F-duct successfully. It must have enough downforce, especially ground effect downforce, and a very good balance (good ground connection and grip). Put an F-duct in the HRT and it will destroy its tires in two laps.



That's what I said; this is another reason to not compare Renault to those teams in this season end. Renault stopped the development programme since Spa...



That's what I meant.



I explained it many times in this forum, it's technical and long to explain, so you can read the previous pages if you want. Who said that, me apart ? Even Kubica said that.




False. Barcelona; the R30 was faster than the W01 in race trim. (the only times where the W01 were faster in race trim were China, Singapour, Monza and maybe Silverstone.) Although Kubica had a broken FW in Barcelona. Also in Turkey, the R30 was faster than the Merc and the Ferrari all the weekend (exept the damn Q3) and second faster car in turn 8...
All that despite the fact that the R30 did not have the F-duct.




There is many explanations for that. Remember that Renault brought new suspensions in Valencia. They, maybe, scarified the mechanical grip a little bit to improve the aerodynamic grip in prevision of the F-duct.

and

since Renault stopped the development programme.

all that can explain the fact that the R30 was no more as good as before in the twisty tracks.


All I'm saying is that the F-duct can't do miracles. A bad car, with an F-duct remains a bad car. An F-duct can't transform a bad car to a good one

The F-duct did not transform the R30. it has just made the care more aerodynamicly complete and balanced by compensating the lack of rear downforce without harming top speed.

This is completely false; Alan Permane and other Renault engineers said the exact opposite on many occasions in the beginning of the season.
Yes the R30 lacked rear downforce. Where did I got it from ? It's simple, I analysed the way the R30 evolved since the beginning of the season and I analysed what the pilots say about the weaknesses of the R30. The weight distribution of the car was good according to the engineers, but downforce distribution were perfectible... (you can read my first posts in this thread)
Yes the R30 was already good aerodynamicly and good in the fast corners. Who said that ? Kubica said that just a couple of months ago, and many people here where surprised to read that. (I will look for the interview and find it)... also the sector times proved that many times.



that's normal.

Visibly neither iotar nor you understood this :



All I'm saying is that the F-duct can't do miracles. A bad car with an F-duct remains a bad car.

And do not compare the R30 to the Ferrari, for example. And thus, for different reasons I explained in the previous pages.

And Ferrari nor RBR or Macca didn't face the same problems Renault faced in 2009 and Ferrari do not have the same resources as Renault in 2010.
So stay realistic for 2010. In 2011, you can compare Renault to the three first teams.

© RF1 Paddock Pass

Whatever the reason of last failure, Renault racing team need to pull their socks up. There's been to many silly errors that destroyed Kubica's and factory team efforts. We may have great F-duct but there's no use of it when wheels are not mounted correctly.

Hello!
Can I ask You for the link to the original post. Thank You in advance.

Comment 19059: http://my.renaultf1.com/profiles/blogs/blo...page=3#comments

You started comparing Renault to top 3 teams not me and it was in a specific context - variable performance (track related). Problems of 2009 are well known but irrelevant to this discussion. I may not understand some technical issues but neither do you. At least I am aware of it. Just asking questions.
So, is larger part of Renault's performance (compared to other teams - Mercedes, Williams, Ferrari) related to excellent f-duct or not? F-duct that was developed far longer than any other on the grid. Red Bull started testing in Turkey, Ferrari even earlier.
Let's forget top 3 - even heavily flawed Mercedes (wrong weight distribution) was faster recently. It's a good comparison because both teams abandoned development of current cars.
Renault did great job with in season development, no doubt about it, but since f-duct has no relevance to next season's design it raises some concerns.
It's true, next season's changes are so huge that compared to tyres or KERS it may be very small issue but you can't just dismiss it.
The question is to what extend next year's car will be based on (far from perfect) current car's base design - without f-duct.

Mechanical failures can and do happen.
That's why teams have 2 drivers.
We should too!

@ Iotar
I don't think you have carefully red and understood my answers... but no problem.

Renault's 2010 season is certainly very satisfying (and the 2011 season promising), despite the fact that Renault is only 4th force and despite the fact that teams witch were close to Renault in 2009 (Ferrari and McLaren in the beginning), are 'far' ahead in 2010 ... why ? there are many reasons to that.

These teams have not faced the big problems that Renault faced in 2009. Renault was really tired and ill during 2009 and till the end. To stand up again, Renault had to restructure the house and make the 2010 car with the existing tools...
As Result, we have an R30 which resembles to the R29 (but monstrous and audacious) ... and aggressively developed.

The main reason for the limited progress of Renault in 2010 is clearly here; they took the R29 as a basis, kept a similar 'body' (in shape and dimensions) in order to avoid overspending and reworking the rigidity of the car, and at the same time keeping the weight as low as possible. Renault has therefore preferred to spare money and save time. This is what we see when we analyse the R30 and its organes closely.

The Double diffuser explains a lot too.
(this might be long and boring )
This year, we saw two different aero philosophies. The F10 and RB6 have a totally opposite philosophy if compared to the R30. The McLaren is like a mix of both philosophies.

The the F10 and the R30 generate downforce differently. The F10, is rather conventional; it uses a long and spacious floor and very sculpted side pods at their bottom bottom and rear in order to exploit the air that passes over the floor as much as possible. This air passes over the floor and with the help of gurney flaps helps to extract the air passing underneath the car. Ferrari has deliberately stretched his car, but opted for a small diffuser with a relatively smooth angle of extraction. Like Red Bull.

The R30 is the extreme opposite.
Considering that Renault has done everything to keep its car short, the sidepods are obese (because of the 4 radiators and the widened -instead of stretched- fuel tank), and the floor short. And because of the two additional
channels of the diffuser, the rear end is fat and the floor not very spacefull. The R30 uses its diffuser very differently; that monster diffuser extracts the air flowing under the floor, using its two steep angled channels with a higher speed. That's why the Renault front wing is very complex; it aims to over-feed the ground effect and the monster diffuser, while the F10 has a simple 'FW'.


All I'm saying is that Renault had constraints, the team had to use a known basis, which is the R29, and that its design has strengths and weaknesses witch Renault knew from the beginning. We can also conclude that the three top teams have chosen a better solution, but to implement it, two of them started from a white sheet, have worked more and have spent more money...

the R31 will certainly have completely new design that is very similar to the F10 and RB5/RB6, not only because of the abolition of DDD but also thanks to the stability and the extra time and money available for the 2011 program.

(My sources: interviews from Patrick Head and Willy Rampf, Scarb's articles and hundreds of photos on the R30, the R29 and their competitors )



lol yes for sure well your 'question' was ridiculously simplistic because you seem to think that the f-duct is a magical device that can make a Ferrari from a Super Aguri.

And I'm looking for explanations instead of asking stupid questions.

You're writing some interesting things about the R30 in general but some confusing ones too, because as I said Kubica did say during the Spanish Grand Prix that they were running their maximum downforce configuration everywhere then, here's the link (it's in Polish unfortunately, but my inapt English translation can be found here).

Of course an F-duct mounted on the HRT won't turn it into a car challenging for points all of a sudden, but how can it make the car worse, causing it to eat its tyres? I completely don't get what you're trying to say here. Of course when you run too much wing you can destroy your tyres quite quickly, but what does that have to do with the F-duct? The system shakes drag off on the straight and the more efficient it is, the more improvement in lap-times it'll bring you, right?

I think it's an interesting question - how much is the F-duct worth for Renault? Saying whether the R30 is a good or bad car is playing semantics as it depends which other vehicles are you comparing it to. The fact is we've been more or less mixing it up with Red Bull, Ferrari and McLaren pace-wise on tracks with long straights supplemented with some twisty sections in between (Spa and Suzuka) where the F-duct is said to be bringing considerable gains, while fighting Mercedes and Williams on venues with either very few corners (Monza) or short straights (Singapore) where the device isn't said to be that much important. You haven't actually offered yet any explanations as to why this pattern is occurring or did I miss it?

Could it be that the Renault duct is the most efficient one out there and hence the team gains the most from it on tracks which are tailor-made for the system? If so, that's a small worry with 2011 in mind. It wouldn't mean that the R31 can't be more competitive than the R30, but it's never good when you're losing one of your biggest assets tomorrow, is it?

He surely meant the same thing that I said: they were unable to add more downforce to the already generated level of downforce without destroying top speed. They, first of all, needed more ground effect generated downforce. Wing generated DF at that time was at its maximum...



You should ask an F1 engineer about that, he will explain it far better than me and my basic English.



maybe you should read this...
http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s=&a...t&p=4463801
http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s=&a...t&p=4463883

When the F-duct came, it added the missing amount of downforce directly to the rear of the car and that improved downforce distribution. the car is far less understeery and better aerodynamcly balanced. That's why I think the F-duct showed the real level of the car on fast curves. It solved a problem. it didn't add performance directly.

According to Boullier and Nielsen, they gained more than half a second in Spa. (but also thanks to the EBD newly improved in Budapest, the new rear bodywork and the new diffuser)



no, I gave my explanations and a hypothesis (the new suspensions).



very probable.



If the R31 has the same problem than the R30, we will miss the f-duct. But it's highly unlikely. why ? that's what I explained in my last long post. R30 problems are easily solvable when you start from a blank sheet and when you haven't already homologated your design. So, the R31 wont have that weakness again and wont need an F-duct to compensate it. Mclaren will probably miss the F-duct.

Most of is very, very, very obvious and proves zero understanding of technical issues, as expected.
- Renault was in the process of restructuring? Thanks for information - never heard that before
- They had to base their car on R29 - another surprise.
- And they were short of money - what a big and surprising news.
- How about now? Any news about team's finances for next season? Amounts? Sources? Sponsors? Everything is set and prepared, unlike last year? No news? Thought so. I bet in years time you will have all the information.
- Next year's car will be a new design - wait, how do you know such things? Do you work in F1 or what?
Great job of failing to address any of my points and questions.
And please don't put words into my mouth: I never claimed f-duct was something that transforms Virgin into Ferrari.
What a waste of time.

[Edited part:]
Missed these gems:

........... Easily solvable? Easily. Solvable. F1 engineers? Did you hear that? F1 car design problems are easily solvable. You've solved them already, I presume. No! Writing nonsense on the internet is easy. You should know that.


They will try to copy solutions from the best aerodynamically cars on the grid? How did you figure this out?;)
No, silly me, as it turns out it's "certain" and it will be very similar to two different cars (Ferrari and RB). On top of that, as you wrote extremely different designs than Renault. It will happen just like that and you "know" that. Oh, dear.
Of course it will be different design captain obvious: KERS, new tyres and set weight distribution guarantees that.



Read carefully what you wrote yourself. 1 part - problem. 2 part completely wrong conclusion.
If only adding f-duct solved downforce problem (I very much doubt it was simply the case but for the sake of this discussion...). Then how on earth adding artificial (not part of tube design) and not present in next year's car mechanism - "SOLVED" the problem. How? Mr Aero Expert? How? Gods shoot me. Hint: without f-duct flow of air towards rear wing will be constant, no wing stalling effect (even someone as ignorant in aero issues as me understands that). How is this SOLUTION for next year? This is what the whole concern is all about. . Oh, I know, blank sheet of paper and that...


When was this new suspension introduced again? I'm not holding my breath. Simple answer - don't bother with another wall of text (just to not pollute this thread).

Now I've had enough.

Ad2. So Renault can start from a blank sheet and McLaren not ??

Ad1. F-Duct allowed them to run more rear wing without sacryfying top speed, so it indirectly increased rear downforce, that's right. However I don't agree that F-Duct (by indirectly increasing rear downforce) made the car less understeery. From my understanding, a car which lacks rear downforce and therefore is aerodynamicaly front biased tends to oversteer rather than understeer. A car is understeery when you lack front grip.

My maybe-wrong-but-who-knows-theory, which could explain this confusion is that because initially R30 lacked rear downforce, they had to run less front wing in order to maintain good aerodynamical balance, hence the car was more understeery and generally lacked grip.

This would explain what Kubica meant by saying "we run maximum downforce all the time". They indeed run maximum downforce setup all the time, in which acceptable balance was maintained. When they finally put the F-Duct on the car it allowed them to run more rear wing and therefore allowed them to run more front wing, hence the overall grip much improved (hence this massive lap time gain) as well as the car less understeery.

It also explains this strange pattern which occurs after the introduction of the F-Duct. The more F-Duct-dependent track is, the more rear wing they can run => the more front wing they can run => the more grip they have => the better results they achieve.

Well, examples of that would help.

You really shouldnt be analysing stuff u clearly have very little idea about.

an increase in rear downforce(and increased rear to front df ratio)will produce more understeer while cornering as the rear end will show increased traction and not slide out ..which means the car has a tendency to understeer now.

on a side note this is where Robert Kubica excels...he thrives on good rear downforce because he's cornering style demands it..give him an unstable rear and he doesnt remain so aggressive while taking a corner..the same way an MS or Raikkonen wont excel with high rear/front downforce differential cars.

lol say that to yourself. You just proved that you are the one who shouldn't 'analyse stuff' by this :



that's what many people think but it's wrong especially in our case: 2010 cars.
You must read this :
http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s=&a...t&p=4463801
http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s=&a...t&p=4463883

or look for the correct infos by yourself, before saying something ridiculous...




No that's not what I mean. When I said Mclaren will miss the F-duct, I mean their current car was built around it, since the beginning. Their car generates a large part of its DF thanks to the f-duct, but they even don't have the fastest car in curves. That's why they'll probably miss it the most.
And when I say Renault will start from a blank cheet, I mean that the current design, witch is a compromise with many weaknesses, will be completely useless and obsolete. I also mean that the new homologation rules (the tube, the nose etc are freezed this year) harmed Renault (and some other teams like Mercedes.)



No no that depends on what tires are generating the most amount of grip and in 2010, the answer is obvious; rear tires...

http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s=&a...t&p=4463801
http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?s=&a...t&p=4463883



almost 100% exact

For me, your links are directing me to main forum lobby, hardly helpful

Oh,dear you actually have the audacity to argue further after making such a statement...

Carry on.cant waste my time

Sorry. they direct to the two first posts in page 162. If you need a proof, search by yourself. (look for the interviews Willy Ramps and Patrick Head made before the beginning of this season where they talk about weight and downforce distribution and where they say that most of the weight and the Df must be applied on the tires that generate grip the most... that's one of the elementary rules...)

Oh.. I see... So you linked to your own words as the proof of your words

Hard to debate it then...

Grunge unfortunatly for you, Alburaq is right. More rear downforce means you can run more front downforce so yes... f-duct solved understeer problems of R30.

The funny thing in F1 cars is that solution to your problems sometimes lays somewhere where you don't expect to. For example: you have high front tyres degradation. You try to change something in the front of the car but you should have tried change something in the rear of the car instead. That's why car setup is so tricky.

As we know R31 will be COMPLETLY different project. The whole aero and mech philosophy will be different to what we see in R30. They want it to look more like RB5 before the implementation of DDD. They even try to design a pull-rod suspenssion! That's why Lotus didn't get Renaut's gearbox. Renault is currently working on something extreme, they are designing completly new gearbox which will cope with pull-rod suspenssion.

We don't know about much about aero side of R31 but all we know that Eric gave James Allison a green light to everything he needs. As I heard James is looking for some holes in the regs to make R31 more extreme project. Fingers crossed as this guy is really good.

That's why I advise you to get the proofs by yourself gemini.
I edited:

No lust and no time to debate on elementary things now. Maybe later...
Bye

Yes, that's what Turun Sanomat and J.L. Moncey reported lately... Good news.

Except running more front downforce would induce more FW drag that cannot be stalled by F-Duct.

No,he isnt.i wasnt replying to his post with reference to the R30.

he wrote that increased levels of Rear downforce made the car understeer less....that statement in itself is Bullocks and nonsense.whenever one mentions increased rear downforce ,u cant automatically suppose that such an act was done so that frontal df could be increased.

For eg, Many times Rear wing adjustments,ballast distribution is altered simply to stop the rear tire sliding...such alterations increase Rear df levels and the car shifts to a less oversteery or more understeery tendency.

That's why RB6 is slow on the straights even with F-Duct . But I haven't seen them complaining about it (well, except moaning about underpowered Renault engine)

RW creates way more drag. Front wing isn't as draggy as you may think. Adding more downforce to the front wing won't have such big influence on speed that they have on straights, but rear wing will... That's why f-duct is so important. So adding more downforce to the rear wing (and to the front wing to balance the downforce levels) and then stall it on the straights and less demanding corners. R30 could use f-duct at 130 R and at Spoon (not all the time but most of the time thru the corner).

@Turu it's a bit true and a bit lie. RB6 is a draggy car as a whole piece. More downforce means less top speed but RB6 parallely with downforce they create lots of drag. Their f-duct isn't as good as R30, too. I dare to say that Renault has the best f-duct there now.

No downforce (other than floor induced ground effect) comes without drag price. Sure it's not comparable with RW factor but if front wing is about to produce significant downforce variance at 200kmh corner, it will have its drag variance at 300kmh straight.

No no no... that's not exactly what I said. Tomorrow you'll get my answer.