Jump to content


Photo

2005 & 2006 Renault - how did they get competitive? [split]


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#1 2ms

2ms
  • Member

  • 2,212 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 29 October 2012 - 12:51

In 2005 and 2006 Enstone built the best car in F1. Basically just as clearly the best car those seasons as the Red Bull is this season. Fisichella did about as well in those cars as Webber has does in the Red Bulls, for example.

I know they had Michelin and Mass Damper advantage. But can anyone tell me what the history was on how they got that point of being so competitive? Were there critical engineers that arrived around 2002 or so (ie similar to how Newey arrived at Red Bull in 2006, couple years prior to start of their winning ways) during that period and then left circa 2007?

Advertisement

#2 tarmac

tarmac
  • Member

  • 1,155 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 29 October 2012 - 14:07

In 2005 and 2006 Enstone built the best car in F1. Basically just as clearly the best car those seasons as the Red Bull is this season. Fisichella did about as well in those cars as Webber has does in the Red Bulls, for example.

I know they had Michelin and Mass Damper advantage. But can anyone tell me what the history was on how they got that point of being so competitive? Were there critical engineers that arrived around 2002 or so (ie similar to how Newey arrived at Red Bull in 2006, couple years prior to start of their winning ways) during that period and then left circa 2007?


They were hardly fastest in 2005. It was newey domination but Mercedes was a joke. Ferrari now is like renault of 2005
Ferrari was slightly faster in 2006 but Micheal had a Monaco meltdown and Ferrari didnt finish enough

#3 Dolph

Dolph
  • Member

  • 5,069 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 29 October 2012 - 14:11

In 2005 and 2006 Enstone built the best car in F1. Basically just as clearly the best car those seasons as the Red Bull is this season. Fisichella did about as well in those cars as Webber has does in the Red Bulls, for example.

I know they had Michelin and Mass Damper advantage. But can anyone tell me what the history was on how they got that point of being so competitive? Were there critical engineers that arrived around 2002 or so (ie similar to how Newey arrived at Red Bull in 2006, couple years prior to start of their winning ways) during that period and then left circa 2007?


I hate to break it to you but Flavio Briatore arrived in 2000 and hired Alonso among others. Just as he arrived at the end of '80s to Benetton and hired Schumacher and other key people.

#4 Avastrol

Avastrol
  • Member

  • 391 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 29 October 2012 - 14:15

I know they had Michelin and Mass Damper advantage. But can anyone tell me what the history was on how they got that point of being so competitive? Were there critical engineers that arrived around 2002 or so (ie similar to how Newey arrived at Red Bull in 2006, couple years prior to start of their winning ways) during that period and then left circa 2007?


While I can't answer the question "how" or "why," as to then "when" - Enstone have been menacingly competitive since 03 and 04, being fringe podium contenders showing a lot of promise, even almost getting best of the rest constructor honors in 04 if only it weren't for the Trulli sabotage (although it must be noted that this was the season Mac and Williams shot themselves in the foot).

I agree that in 05 they had the best car but 06 was a case of equal best. 84/90 points in the first 9 races with the pendulum swinging back the other was in the second half of the season.

#5 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 1,941 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 29 October 2012 - 14:29

Reliability compared to their rivals in 2005 played it's part and a great job by Alonso. 2006 was a great battle between him and Schumacher.

#6 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 14,312 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 29 October 2012 - 14:30

Appointment of cost-cutting Carlos Ghosn as Renault CEO in mid-2005 had an impact. Corporate politics take a while to filter into F1 (witness Honda's most successful season, the season after they pulled out of the sport), but by the end of 2006 they were clearly being outspent. A trend which has continued to this day.

Grand Prix's most recent "manufacturer era" probably lasted the whole of the 2000s, and it's easy just to remember the hyper-spending of 2006-8. But from their re-entry into F1 up until their second world championship, Renault were big cheeses.

Edited by Risil, 29 October 2012 - 14:32.


#7 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 29 October 2012 - 14:32

Topic split from another thread. If the fact this topic exists offends you, please PM me and say why. It's not up for discussion here, thank you.

#8 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 29 October 2012 - 14:50

In 2005 and 2006 Enstone built the best car in F1. Basically just as clearly the best car those seasons as the Red Bull is this season. Fisichella did about as well in those cars as Webber has does in the Red Bulls, for example.

I know they had Michelin and Mass Damper advantage. But can anyone tell me what the history was on how they got that point of being so competitive? Were there critical engineers that arrived around 2002 or so (ie similar to how Newey arrived at Red Bull in 2006, couple years prior to start of their winning ways) during that period and then left circa 2007?


Short version:
Since 01 they improved year over year. Started being abysmal in 01 then made a big step in the closing stages of the season. Solid performance in 02. Occasional poles and wins in 03 and 04 followed by the two WDC/WCC- seasons.

They obviously never got over the switch from Michelins to Bridgstones. Of course Alonso´s move to McLaren was also a factor, but as you can see in 2008 the team was not at the same level as in 05/06 anymore.

Edited by LiJu914, 29 October 2012 - 14:51.


#9 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 29 October 2012 - 16:01

Posts deleted. Please avoid trolling.

This thread is not about 2012.

#10 chrisblades85

chrisblades85
  • Member

  • 2,606 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 29 October 2012 - 16:06

1995 car was better.

#11 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 29 October 2012 - 16:17

Alonso came of age and Michelin found their form after the FIA nerfed them in 03.

They obviously never got over the switch from Michelins to Bridgstones. Of course Alonso´s move to McLaren was also a factor, but as you can see in 2008 the team was not at the same level as in 05/06 anymore.


Actually they were quite strong at the end of 2008. They would've been title contenders in 2009 if it wasn't for the regulation changes.

#12 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 29 October 2012 - 16:22

Money. They were gradually building up steam from early 2003 that enabled them spend more and more to their zenith in 2006. But it was already clear in 2006 that that kind of money was not going to continue to be poured, and this is precisely the reason why Alonso wanted out. Since then, the spending has gradually shrunk. Now, they are well and truly not a manufacturer team, and the spending is more like upper-midfield team. It is not impossible to imagine that some other force may come in and help their push to bigger spending efforts and another run of world titles. But money talks in F1.

#13 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,375 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 29 October 2012 - 16:23

The Enstone team in it's various guises has always been competitive. With manufacturer support, they clearly got the best out of what was already a good team with who has turned out to be (IMO) the best driver in F1 currently. Fisi only got two wins in that those two years.

They've only had slumps due to hiring the wrong people such as Nick Wirth and Piquet Jr. and when an irreplaceable advantage is taken away such as engines from '98 and Michelin tyres from '07.

They were hardly fastest in 2005. It was newey domination but Mercedes was a joke.


Not entirely accurate. McLaren didn't get their act together until Imola, by which point Alonso had two wins which became three when Kimi broke down. Alonso also dominated the Chinese finale when Renault had begun to get the best out of the mass dampers. Likewise Alonso would have won in Japan if he hadn't had to let Klien back past early in the race. From Imola to Brazil, McLaren had the quickest car but obviously as you say the reliability was a shambles.

Edited by Disgrace, 29 October 2012 - 16:27.


#14 MP422

MP422
  • Member

  • 2,004 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 29 October 2012 - 16:27

Alonso came of age and Michelin found their form after the FIA nerfed them in 03.



Actually they were quite strong at the end of 2008. They would've been title contenders in 2009 if it wasn't for the regulation changes.


That's about it.

#15 Gag Bueno

Gag Bueno
  • Member

  • 360 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 29 October 2012 - 16:30

I remember also there were hints about Michelin using the Renault F1 team as a "lab" for suspension development so it would probably go even further than the claimed special Bridgestones for Schumacher. And even if the team did well ( incl. or exc. Crashgate... ) in 2008, it was not to compare with the performance in 2005-6.

#16 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 29 October 2012 - 16:40

Actually they were quite strong at the end of 2008. They would've been title contenders in 2009 if it wasn't for the regulation changes.


I doubt it.
Renault improved, but they weren´t class of the field at the end - the 2 wins were also achieved under "special circumstances"...
And i also don´t see, why a team build such a horrible car under the 2009-regs, when they allegedly had the capability to build a title contender under the old regulations. I know Ferrari and McL also started poor, but unlike Renault they improved significantly throughout the season - and the team with the best car (out of all which didn´t start with the "diffuser-trick" on their cars) is the same team, which has still the best car right now.

#17 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,375 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 29 October 2012 - 16:49

One win was achieved via cheating, but there was nothing dishonest about the second. Even Piquet finished fourth (despite going off at one point) at Fuji. Renault's development in '08 was excellent even without the cheating.

#18 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 29 October 2012 - 16:53

One win was achieved via cheating, but there was nothing dishonest about the second. Even Piquet finished fourth (despite going off at one point) at Fuji. Renault's development in '08 was excellent even without the cheating.


What i meant with "special" regarding Fuji, was the Hamilton/Massa-clash including the penalties. Doesn´t mean that the win was undeserved, but it wasn´t a result of a speed advantage from Alonso/Renault.

Ok thinking it over a Hamilton vs. Massa drama is not really special but more of classic.;)

Edited by LiJu914, 29 October 2012 - 16:56.


#19 ThomFi

ThomFi
  • Member

  • 629 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 29 October 2012 - 17:03

I remember also there were hints about Michelin using the Renault F1 team as a "lab" for suspension development so it would probably go even further than the claimed special Bridgestones for Schumacher. And even if the team did well ( incl. or exc. Crashgate... ) in 2008, it was not to compare with the performance in 2005-6.



I remember that too. After the season was over, the Michelin Teams had their first test with the Bridgestone tyres.
Most of the teams were slightly slower (some tenth), one team even went faster (I think it was McLaren) and on one car, the Renault, the tyres didn't work at all.
It was said, that the suspension of Renault was so much optimized on the Michelin tyres, that it didn't work with Bridgestones.

Edited by ThomFi, 29 October 2012 - 17:04.


Advertisement

#20 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,702 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 29 October 2012 - 17:07

The funny thing is in like, 2002 I think, Briatore was saying "We have a multi year plan. We want to win races by 2004, and challenge for the title in 2005".

And you're thinking "yeah yeah, you and BAR". But...

The McLaren probably was the better car in 05 but it was very brittle(that or the engines, it's hard to tell the difference sometimes even when it looks like engine is to blame) and it wasn't like the Renault wasn't competitive. It was still very good. Better than a BMW Williams and way ahead of the Ferrari.

#21 SCUDmissile

SCUDmissile
  • Member

  • 3,954 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 29 October 2012 - 17:31

Basically, they have always had the people. But back then they had the budget, Michelin (going to Bridgestone screwed them) mass damper and their wind tunnel was also working great, which then went kaput in 2007 iirc.

#22 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 29 October 2012 - 18:37

My memory is they had a bit of a dream team, including Dino Toso and Mark Smith, that was then poached by other teams. IIRC Flav was trying to get more money out of Renault to keep them?

And ISTR Jenson commenting in 2005 winter testing how much faster the Renault was in the corners.

#23 F1Champion

F1Champion
  • Member

  • 2,925 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 29 October 2012 - 19:43

From memory, the Renault-Michelin French relationship was close as Ferrari and Bridgestone. Renault had a mass-damper, tailor made tyres, a suspension system developed by Michelin with and only for Renault (OPT?) optimum contact patch was the name of it. Any surprise that after 06, the Renault bombed?

#24 Vesuvius

Vesuvius
  • Member

  • 6,097 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 29 October 2012 - 19:48

Renault had michelin and mass advantage, also they were superb because of traction controls were allowed.also they had awesome launch control system.

#25 toxicfusion

toxicfusion
  • Member

  • 521 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 29 October 2012 - 19:53

2006 was tale of two halves. The first half the season Fernando and Renault were superb with 6 wins from 9 and 3 second places.

Then the second the FIA got rid of the mass damper, wheel nuts came off (Hungary) and Ferrari were starting to become faster and the Birdgestone tyres were superior.

Alonso came of age and Michelin found their form after the FIA nerfed them in 03.

Actually they were quite strong at the end of 2008. They would've been title contenders in 2009 if it wasn't for the regulation changes.


They threw everything at 2008 and BMW slowed to a near stop so by the end Renault had moved into the third slot behind McLaren and Ferrari.

Would cost them dear in 2009, they were so adamant that they could cope, then churned out the R29 :lol:

Edited by toxicfusion, 29 October 2012 - 19:59.


#26 DutchQuicksilver

DutchQuicksilver
  • Member

  • 2,095 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 29 October 2012 - 21:34

Actually they were quite strong at the end of 2008. They would've been title contenders in 2009 if it wasn't for the regulation changes.

Alonso would have won the championship in 2008 if Renault didn't start off that bad. Was mighty impressive in the second half of the season.

#27 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 14,312 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 29 October 2012 - 21:38

This is the kind of thing people said about Jenson Button in 2006. Alonso would never have won the championship in 2008.

#28 2ms

2ms
  • Member

  • 2,212 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 29 October 2012 - 21:53

So I guess the main things were a special relationship with tire manufacturer during the tire wars, and a ton of money to hire the best engineers. After winning the two championships the team was cut way back and their best engineers drifted off to other teams? Sounds like they rehashed the Benetton story for a couple seasons and then broke it back up again and have been like another Sauber, Williams, etc (ie lower budget, fewer engineering superstars) ever since?

So seems the big question is how they could ever get that big money back then. Doesn't seem likely without the big French connections of before. Particularly as I don't see Grosjean becoming the big star they were hoping.

#29 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 14,312 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 29 October 2012 - 22:01

We'll see. The chaps at Enstone are F1's great survivors. Manufacturers come and go, but the privateers remain in wait for a new company to give them access to the chequebook.

When Red Bull pull out of the sport and go back back to driver sponsorship in 2014, expect Enstone to move a little closer to the front.

#30 Creepy

Creepy
  • Member

  • 582 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 29 October 2012 - 23:00

In 2005 and 2006 Enstone built the best car in F1. Basically just as clearly the best car those seasons as the Red Bull is this season.


Since OP did this comparison, I want to debate it.

Disagree.

Renault was more reliable than McLaren was in 2005, but McLaren was quite faster. I agree that Renault was a better car overall but not in the way RBR is now, which only has a slightly less reliabilty and a quite faster car than anybody else. It's more like a Renault 2005 mixed with a McLaren 2005. At least Renault got beat in speed in 2005 several times which made more competitive the whole thing.


In 2006 both Ferrari and Renault shared more or less the same amount of ups and downs without any of them being clearly the most dominant or better car. MS and FA shared also the same amount of non-fault retirements. Again not comparable as RBR is now.

Edited by Creepy, 29 October 2012 - 23:09.


#31 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,850 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 30 October 2012 - 00:43

Michelin 'works' team
Mass damper and other suspension advances (even now, the Enstone cars visibly have more suspension travel, yet are as nimble as much more stiffly-sprung cars)
Launch and Traction control (Renault were the team to turn these tools into a larger % of their performance than others in 03/04... look at their starts and performance on traction limited circuits the 2 years previously)
Alonso (the next superstar driver after Schumacher/Hakkinen, along with Raikkonen. Briatore always had a good eye for a hot prospect)
Aero. The car was an evolution of a design that first raced in 2003, so naturally the car would be faster each year as improvements and refinements were made.

Have to say though that I actually think the McLaren was the best car in 2005... if only Mercedes had got their act together...

Edited by DanardiF1, 30 October 2012 - 00:44.


#32 decoder

decoder
  • Member

  • 105 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 30 October 2012 - 05:18

In 2005 and 2006 Enstone built the best car in F1. Basically just as clearly the best car those seasons as the Red Bull is this season. Fisichella did about as well in those cars as Webber has does in the Red Bulls, for example.

I know they had Michelin and Mass Damper advantage. But can anyone tell me what the history was on how they got that point of being so competitive? Were there critical engineers that arrived around 2002 or so (ie similar to how Newey arrived at Red Bull in 2006, couple years prior to start of their winning ways) during that period and then left circa 2007?



Nice try but but they were equal best In those seasons, and that's being generous, and that is the most popular opinion on the matter. The 2005 Mclaren was overwhelmingly faster, with Kimi often out qualifying Alonso, with 5+ more laps fuel, although it was less reliable, but most people would take overwhelming speed over 18 races over a bit better reliability. Kimi only had two dnf's that season so the unreliability was exaggerated.

In 2006, Renault and Ferrari were equally matched overall, but you cannot say the same for Redbull and Ferrari this year, so once again a poor comparison. The cars were good but Redbulls are stronger.

My memory is they had a bit of a dream team, including Dino Toso and Mark Smith


And what results have this dream team produced since? I bet you had to look them up just to see who designed those Renaults.

#33 Ravenak

Ravenak
  • Member

  • 939 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 30 October 2012 - 05:23

Didn't read the thread, sorry then if it has already been said, but the R25 and R26 were made exceptionnaly hard to follow thanks to an innovative diffuser that created huge amounts of turbulences.

By now, everyone has implemented thoses concepts, but Renault made it work optimally in both those years.

#34 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,194 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 30 October 2012 - 06:40

I thought it was Bob Bell who designed the mass damper?

#35 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,198 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 30 October 2012 - 07:07

In 2005 and 2006 Enstone built the best car in F1. Basically just as clearly the best car those seasons as the Red Bull is this season. Fisichella did about as well in those cars as Webber has does in the Red Bulls, for example.

I know they had Michelin and Mass Damper advantage. But can anyone tell me what the history was on how they got that point of being so competitive? Were there critical engineers that arrived around 2002 or so (ie similar to how Newey arrived at Red Bull in 2006, couple years prior to start of their winning ways) during that period and then left circa 2007?


Back to reality:

- Nope, they didn't built clearly the best car.
- Nope, nowhere close to the RBR this season.
- In 2006 for example, they used an older Michelin spec than other teams. In 2005, one of the biggest McLaren advantage was that Michelin built a custom super soft tyre only for them as it was so easy on its tyres. So there goes your Michelin advantage theory.
- A lot of teams got mass dampers, but they couldn't make it work as well, so there goes your mass damper theory.
- While they increased the budget for 2005 and 2006, they still spent less money than McLaren and Ferrari
- So it's just that the driver and team got more talent and made better use of what they had than their rivals.

Now back to wonderland if you wish :D

Edited by Buttoneer, 31 October 2012 - 12:40.
Removed; "Another Kimi widow rant it seems" Please avoid the ad hominems


#36 Paul Prost

Paul Prost
  • Member

  • 745 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 30 October 2012 - 08:57

I thought it was Bob Bell who designed the mass damper?

The mass damper was originally developed by a wind tunnel technician, who wanted to stop the model vibrating on the rolling road. When engineers from vehicle dynamics saw it, they adapted it for use on the race car itself.

Edited by Paul Prost, 30 October 2012 - 08:58.


#37 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 7,734 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 30 October 2012 - 11:21

but most people would take overwhelming speed over 18 races over a bit better reliability.


No they would not if the speed routinely came at cost of 10 spot grid penalties as was the case with Räikkönen in 2005. With the early lead in 2005 Renault was able to play it safe. As far as the title race was concerned Renault was the better bet.

Edited by Oho, 30 October 2012 - 11:22.


#38 swiniodzik

swiniodzik
  • Member

  • 606 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 30 October 2012 - 11:41

The special relationship with Michelin and Renault's fat wallet played their parts in the titles glory, but as far as brain power goes Enstone always had great senior technicians whose strength was in the collective.

Maybe nobody was as critical there as Newey has been at Red Bull, maybe no engineers who left the team ever repeated the amount of success they enjoyed while at Enstone and Enstone itself still waits to repeat their glory days. However, the strength being in the collective turned out to be an advantage as when the team started to move up the grid since Benetton became Renault, it was that the other teams actually started to lure in their engineers with better financial offers and they always found a good enough, if not better replacement.

When Renault came onboard a group of engineers were hired from Jordan, a privateer often punching above its weight at that time - Mike Gascoyne came in as the technical director, Bob Bell as his deputy, Mark Smith as the chief designer and Dino Toso as the chief aerodynamicist. Toso remained with the team until he passed away after a long battle with cancer in 2008. Dirk de Beer, a former BMW-Sauber man, became the new aero head and still holds the position.

Gascoyne was lured in by Toyota in 2003 and Smith by Red Bull in 2005 (then both met again at Force India and now at Caterham). Bell took over as the technical director and Tim Densham as the chief designer, both holding their positions during the championship years and beyond. In 2005, James Allison came back to the team after a few years at Ferrari to become Bell's deputy and then the technical director after Bell left in 2009. Tim Densham retired in 2011 and his deputy Martin Tolliday became the chief designer.

And let's not forget Pat Symonds who acted as the technical chief of all chiefs all the time up to the crashgate. They all desevre credit for the title success, as much as Renault, Michelin, Fernando Alonso or all the junior technicians for that matter do. Today, the technical team headed by the likes of Allison and de Beer is doing a great job for Lotus and proving their worth.

#39 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 30 October 2012 - 11:46

Nice try but but they were equal best In those seasons, and that's being generous, and that is the most popular opinion on the matter. The 2005 Mclaren was overwhelmingly faster, with Kimi often out qualifying Alonso, with 5+ more laps fuel, although it was less reliable, but most people would take overwhelming speed over 18 races over a bit better reliability. Kimi only had two dnf's that season so the unreliability was exaggerated.


I´m not a Kimi supporter, but you downplayed the extent and the influence of (un-)reliability far too much.
The 10-8-6 system was the system, which rewarded reliability more than any other points system in F1. Think about it: You could´ve finished first five times in a row, while your opponent finished second each time, and then have a DNF in the next race, in which your opponent got P1. The score would´ve been a tie at this moment....

And regarding the amount of Kimis problems:
Australia: Had to start from the pitlane
Imola: Retired from P1
Nurburgring: Retired from P1
Silverstone: 10 place grid penalty
Hockenheim: Retired from P1
Monza: 10 Place grid penalty

The car was too unreliable. Renault was the car to have.

Edited by LiJu914, 30 October 2012 - 11:50.


Advertisement

#40 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 30 October 2012 - 18:16

^ Nurburgring 2005 was 100% Raikkonen's fault.

#41 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 30 October 2012 - 18:30

^ Nurburgring 2005 was 100% Raikkonen's fault.


Ok, if you like. Doesn´t change much of, what i said, anyway.

#42 my_own_shadow

my_own_shadow
  • Member

  • 214 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 30 October 2012 - 18:48

In 2005 and 2006 Enstone built the best car in F1. Basically just as clearly the best car those seasons as the Red Bull is this season. Fisichella did about as well in those cars as Webber has does in the Red Bulls, for example.

I know they had Michelin and Mass Damper advantage. But can anyone tell me what the history was on how they got that point of being so competitive? Were there critical engineers that arrived around 2002 or so (ie similar to how Newey arrived at Red Bull in 2006, couple years prior to start of their winning ways) during that period and then left circa 2007?

One more very important, critical point is the Renault engines. Their characteristics suited the existed in 2005-06 regulations the best possible way (especially in pair with Michelin tyres).


#43 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 14,312 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 30 October 2012 - 18:56

^ Nurburgring 2005 was 100% Raikkonen's fault.


Plus arguable strategic error from Mclaren, with some unclear rulemaking thrown in.

#44 F1Champion

F1Champion
  • Member

  • 2,925 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 30 October 2012 - 19:27

They had strong reliability in 05 and 06. McLaren were weak - no point having a fast car if it breaks down. The definition of the best car is the one that finishes and collects points. I don't understand people saying McLaren was the better car - the better car finishes, wins races and the championship - that wasn't McLaren. The best car includes speed and reliability...I know which one I would want and Kimi would tell you the same thing.

Ferrari did themselves no favours going into 06 with piston issues - they had to detune their engines in Melbourne and there after until they could get it sorted and in Malaysia and took a grid penalty for changing/replacing an engine and then Suzuka happened as well.

They both shot themselves in the foot but Renault did the better job in both years for reliability.

#45 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,198 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 30 October 2012 - 23:05

I´m not a Kimi supporter, but you downplayed the extent and the influence of (un-)reliability far too much.
The 10-8-6 system was the system, which rewarded reliability more than any other points system in F1. Think about it: You could´ve finished first five times in a row, while your opponent finished second each time, and then have a DNF in the next race, in which your opponent got P1. The score would´ve been a tie at this moment....

And regarding the amount of Kimis problems:
Australia: Had to start from the pitlane
Imola: Retired from P1
Nurburgring: Retired from P1
Silverstone: 10 place grid penalty
Hockenheim: Retired from P1
Monza: 10 Place grid penalty

The car was too unreliable. Renault was the car to have.


In Australia he stalled, in Imola he rode the kerbs hard even though he was told not to, in Nurburgring he flatspotted the tyre, in Monza he also spun in the race, and about engine problems, his team mate never suffered as much as him, this is a likely explanation:

http://www.lotusf1te...Strawberry.html

Rene Speksnijder:
 We learned that you are a bit more harsh on the engine then Romain. In which way does that affect the car? Furthermore, how do you like the engine to pick-up regarding your use of the throttle?

KR: I have driven the car and used the throttle in the same way all my career. Every driver has his own style of going fast. This is mine. It is maybe a bit harsh, but it remains within the scope of what the Renault engine can take.


So, too much for the poor Kimi story some repeat again and again...

Edited by prty, 30 October 2012 - 23:08.


#46 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,921 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 30 October 2012 - 23:08

In Australia he stalled, in Imola he rode the kerbs hard even though he was told not to, and about engine problems, his team mate never suffered as much as him, this is a likely explanation:

http://www.lotusf1te...Strawberry.html



So, too much for the poor Kimi story some repeat again and again...

And guess what - quite relevant as this was a 2012 Q&A - Kimi is the only driver on the grid who finished every lap of every GP this year  ;)

#47 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,198 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 30 October 2012 - 23:13

And guess what - quite relevant as this was a 2012 Q&A - Kimi is the only driver on the grid who finished every lap of every GP this year ;)


Sure, because he wasn't taken out and the engines are more reliable now that there's no engine war. So? The thing is, he admitted that 1) his way of using the engine is "a bit harsh" 2) he did the same all through his career. He also for example put the throttle to the ground in Bahrain 2004 when he realized his engine had gone, doing a nice fire and making it even harder to determine the cause. It sure helped to solve the reliability problems :)

Edited by prty, 30 October 2012 - 23:15.


#48 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,921 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 30 October 2012 - 23:15

Sure, because he wasn't taken out and the engines are more reliable now that there's no engine war. So? The thing is, he admitted that 1) his way of using the engine is "a bit harsh" 2) he did the same all through his career.

And only in 2005 he suffered because of that.

#49 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,198 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 30 October 2012 - 23:17

And only in 2005 he suffered because of that.


Really? :well:

#50 Henrytheeigth

Henrytheeigth
  • Member

  • 4,655 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 31 October 2012 - 10:04

I just have to post this pic here. I also have the R26, but this was Alonso's first title and it was with the last V10 F1 car!

Posted Image