Jump to content


Photo

Renault R26


  • Please log in to reply
471 replies to this topic

#51 F1Champion

F1Champion
  • Member

  • 2,922 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 10 January 2006 - 16:30

The rear end of the car is quite impressive. Renault seemed to have shrink wrapped the body work around all of the rear mechanicals. Maybe that's what they mean when they said "daring bodywork". Most bodywork on cars are on top of the mechanicals rather than wrapped around all of it. It probably bring a decent aero advantage.

Much like the R25 Renault have done a good job with the body work....very curvy.

I also like the rear suspension packaging, the strut nearly goes on top of the exhaust pipe.

It seems that Renault have gone for the best compromise of downforce and drag especially with that rear wing. The underbody probably produces enough downforce so they thought why not have a low drag rear wing.

Advertisement

#52 V10 Fireworks

V10 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 982 posts
  • Joined: February 04

Posted 10 January 2006 - 22:15

Originally posted by zac510


Yeah, you're right. You are a contributor to this forum like a winglet is a valuable addition to an F1 car. We shall keep you :)


A venturi tunnel is also a valuable addition to an F1 car doesn't mean it's not banned! :D

micra_k10 quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lustigson
Is it me, or are F1 cars becoming more and more ugly?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are beauties compared to late last decade boxy car...



But these boxy cars were still prominant just a couple of years ago in 2003, and still around up to midway through last year down the back of the grid before the updated versions. The BAR & the Sauber of 2003 were ultra-boxy right? :)

#53 Cittnuova

Cittnuova
  • Member

  • 480 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 11 January 2006 - 03:48

Looks good!

The magazine SAM (italian) went to the factory on the final day of assembly.

Here some infos:

- About 730 HP.
- Gearbox is now 7 gears instead of 6.
- Rear wing design in order to maximise efficiency
- Fuel cell is 15% smaller and its COG is lower

#54 Bravo

Bravo
  • Member

  • 109 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 11 January 2006 - 04:01

What about other engine figures? 730 hp's looks pretty good, but how much powerful are toyota's or ferrari's?

I know it will seem a HSJ thread... :rolleyes:

#55 V10 Fireworks

V10 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 982 posts
  • Joined: February 04

Posted 11 January 2006 - 04:05

I think there are different decals on the front of the Toyota, little more white, and I think the Ferrari might have slightly reconfigured stickers at the front also.

#56 HSJ

HSJ
  • Member

  • 14,002 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 11 January 2006 - 06:49

Originally posted by Bravo
What about other engine figures? 730 hp's looks pretty good, but how much powerful are toyota's or ferrari's?

I know it will seem a HSJ thread... :rolleyes:


730hp is likely to be nothing more than a guess from a journo. Far more interesting is the fact that they now have a 7-speed gearbox instead of 6. The 6-speed box was integral in their philosophy regarding LC, TC, and generally mechanical grip at the rear affecting the acceleration characteristics of the recent Renaults. Whether the 7-speed box indicates a change in their approach/philosophy will be interesting to see.

#57 bpl

bpl
  • Member

  • 304 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 11 January 2006 - 07:45

Dear All,

First of all, just to be very clear, this an experimental reply. I work in Renault F1 Team's PR department and having followed the forum for a while, we are replying to specific threads in order to clarify points or put them to bed. This seemed like a good place to start!

So thanks for the interest in the new car. Just to respond to some points, specifically those picked out from SAM:

- Horsepower figures are purely speculative, and essentially meaningless. They vary between manufacturers, and Renault F1 never distributes them. So it is a pure guess! The measurement standards (temperature, pressure, humidity etc...) used by different manufacturers in F1 vary, and the numbers are meaningless unless you can work to a commonly agreed norm. Nobody does, so any numbers you see in the public domain are pure speculation.

- Gearbox configuration will be announced at the official launch on 31 January.

- Fuel cell capacity estimates are also pure guesses. None of this information has been, or will be, released.

I hope that clears up some basic points. There will only be a limited amount of information between now and 31/01 as we look to put miles on the car on the technical front, and save our interview content for the launch on the PR side. There will be plenty to say at the end of the month.

#58 zac510

zac510
  • Member

  • 1,713 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 11 January 2006 - 09:20

bpl, you will never stop us trying to guess or find out early! :) :) especially without posting facts!

#59 bpl

bpl
  • Member

  • 304 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 11 January 2006 - 09:47

Naturally, it's part of the game! But at least you can be told what's right, what's not...

The idea is to provide info when we can, and in other situations, to at least assert that what is out there is wrong.

For example, SAM quotes a 15% reduction in fuel tank size. That is simply a eneral guesstimate based on the assumption of 20% less fuel consumption for a V8 engine relative to V10 owing to the proportional reduction in capacity; and not Renault-specific, nor a sourced piece of information.

There is plenty we can say, that doesn't get said, and hopefully that can be a useful addition to the forum. But until the 31st (ish), happy guessing!

Advertisement

#60 MrSlow

MrSlow
  • Member

  • 4,928 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 11 January 2006 - 10:20

Welcome to this BB then, bpl. It is for sure nice with some information that is not only based on guesses and even better - someone that can point out when the guesses are completely wrong and leads us astray. I hope you can stand the sometimes rough atmospehere on this forum long enough to to discover the good parts of it as well.

And you promise to read our polls and inform Flavio directly about the results?;)

#61 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 11 January 2006 - 11:16

Hi bpl and welcome to the forum.

In the meantime while we guess things, could you post (if you are allowed to) some figures relative to the V10 Renault engines of the past few years, just like Mario Illien did with Merc? It would be appreciated!

PS: Oh and any other stuff that doesn't need to be kept under secret because the change of rules or whatever, too! ;)

#62 bpl

bpl
  • Member

  • 304 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 11 January 2006 - 11:30

Hi there,

Concerning power outputs, we don't publish anything at all - it is a problem we encounter with historians doing books too. Even if we give the real figures, they still don't tie up, so we try and avoid contributing anything to what is always going to be a debate where people struggle to compare like with like.

In fact, the interesting thing is that internally, we reason in terms of lap-time gained from a development rather than horsepower - which makes sense given that lap-time is the practical expression of the horsepower and takes into account the systems transmitting it to the track!

It is very similar to the constant rpm "war". Each figure quoted seems to be an attempt to seem bigger and better, but 'gigantism' isn't necessarily good. Our RS25 project leader Axel Plasse did a great presentation at the Racetech symposium late last year, which showed how an engine with a 25 bhp deficit in peak power can still produce the same lap-time with different torque curves; equally, engines with identical peak power can have a half-second lap-time difference. All of which is to try and communicate that global performance, not peak power/max rpm, are what count. It is something Renault stresses a lot, even more so since as a full works team our engine-chassis integration has steadily improved.

To go back to what numbers we do publish, though, we produced a full set of rpm stats from the V10 era at the end of 05 - which showed the 50% gain in peak rpm between 1989 and 2005. I can post those if they can be of interest?

Thanks

#63 rfus

rfus
  • Member

  • 648 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 11 January 2006 - 11:31

Originally posted by prty
Hi bpl and welcome to the forum.

In the meantime while we guess things, could you post (if you are allowed to) some figures relative to the V10 Renault engines of the past few years, just like Mario Illien did with Merc? It would be appreciated!

PS: Oh and any other stuff that doesn't need to be kept under secret because the change of rules or whatever, too! ;)


Maybe not such a good idea because knowing Max and his constant rule changes their is a chance we will be back with v10's and no tire changes in a couple of years :rotfl:

#64 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 11 January 2006 - 11:33

Of course they are! (Thanks in advance)

#65 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,474 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 11 January 2006 - 11:38

Originally posted by bpl
To go back to what numbers we do publish, though, we produced a full set of rpm stats from the V10 era at the end of 05 - which showed the 50% gain in peak rpm between 1989 and 2005. I can post those if they can be of interest?
Thanks

Please do. Thanks

#66 angst

angst
  • Member

  • 7,135 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 11 January 2006 - 12:07

Originally posted by bpl
Hi there,

Concerning power outputs, we don't publish anything at all - it is a problem we encounter with historians doing books too. Even if we give the real figures, they still don't tie up, so we try and avoid contributing anything to what is always going to be a debate where people struggle to compare like with like.

In fact, the interesting thing is that internally, we reason in terms of lap-time gained from a development rather than horsepower - which makes sense given that lap-time is the practical expression of the horsepower and takes into account the systems transmitting it to the track!

It is very similar to the constant rpm "war". Each figure quoted seems to be an attempt to seem bigger and better, but 'gigantism' isn't necessarily good. Our RS25 project leader Axel Plasse did a great presentation at the Racetech symposium late last year, which showed how an engine with a 25 bhp deficit in peak power can still produce the same lap-time with different torque curves; equally, engines with identical peak power can have a half-second lap-time difference. All of which is to try and communicate that global performance, not peak power/max rpm, are what count. It is something Renault stresses a lot, even more so since as a full works team our engine-chassis integration has steadily improved.

To go back to what numbers we do publish, though, we produced a full set of rpm stats from the V10 era at the end of 05 - which showed the 50% gain in peak rpm between 1989 and 2005. I can post those if they can be of interest?

Thanks


All very good points, and I'd agree that reasoning in terms of lap time gain has got to be the most practical way of looking at gains. As you say, having an engine with an extra 50bhp is useless if the way it delivers that power would actually have a detrimental effect on lap times.

Are the peak HP figures generally lower proportionally than with the V10s, given that the V8s can no longer use variable length inlets. Does that make it harder to produce a 'driveable' engine giving good torque and power through the widest rev range. And might it be that those teams producing great HP figures may well be 'punished' by having a very 'peaky' engine?

#67 Speed_A

Speed_A
  • Member

  • 2,204 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 11 January 2006 - 12:16

Originally posted by bpl
Our RS25 project leader Axel Plasse did a great presentation at the Racetech symposium late last year, which showed how an engine with a 25 bhp deficit in peak power can still produce the same lap-time with different torque curves; equally, engines with identical peak power can have a half-second lap-time difference.

Welcome bpl, I envy you on your job!

Nice points you made here....and then you have HSJ screaming around about Mercedes being 8th best engine and having power deficit :cool:

#68 bpl

bpl
  • Member

  • 304 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 11 January 2006 - 12:17

Here you go.


Renault V10 History 1989 - 2005
Engine Evolutions cc Max revs Architecture
1989 RS1 A/B/C/D 3500 13000 67°
1990 RS2 C 3500 13500  67°
1991 RS3 A/B  3500 14000  67°
1992 RS3  C 3500 14000  67°
1992 RS4 A  3500 14500  67°
1993 RS5 A/B 3500 14800 67°
1994 RS6 A/B/C 3500 15300 67°
1995 RS7 A/B/C 3000 16400 67°
1996 RS8 A/B 3000 16800  67°
1997 RS9 3000 17500 72°
2001 RS21 A/../E 3000 17500  Wide
2002 RS22  A/../C2 3000 17750  Wide
2003 RS23  A/../H 3000 18000 Wide
2004 RS24 A/B/C/D 3000 18500 72°
2005 RS25 A/B/C/D/E 3000 19250 72°

#69 Fortymark

Fortymark
  • Member

  • 5,752 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 11 January 2006 - 12:24

bpl
Thanks for contributing at this forum :up:

I wonder one thing, you saying that a 25 hp deficit in peak power can still make up in lap times due to having an better torque curve.
I was thinking of Monaco, such gains in having an good torque curve must be enormous there.
Do Renault tune the engine especially for the Monaco track? Different cam shafts, engine mapping etc just for that track? Or is that out of budget to make specific engines for specific tracks?

I know that there´s the two race weekend engine, but winning Monaco is extra important.

Also, at tracks like Monza and maybe Spa where you want extra peak HP´s. Do Renault go the opposite way there, tune for more peak HP´s?

After the season ended Pat Symonds said that Alonsos RS25 was "pratically broken" after the Imola GP. Do you know more about this story and what he meant?

#70 bpl

bpl
  • Member

  • 304 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 11 January 2006 - 12:31

re: your comments angst

For sure, the loss of variable trumpets means that the power band is narrower than it was with the V10, and the driveability characteristics of the engine are therefore different. Of course, you then make your decisions on transmission etc... based on this fact in order to use the engine within its optimum power band for as much of the time as possible each lap.

The honest answer re: a trade-off between peak power and driveability is that I don't know precisely, but that of course, the engineers will be looking to make sure they have both! I will put it to one of our guys in the next few weeks to find out.

Thanks

#71 MrSlow

MrSlow
  • Member

  • 4,928 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 11 January 2006 - 12:49

Apart from the engine, which is obvisouly very different from last year, can you tell us anything about what other parts of the car that has been/is on the top of the priority list?

#72 bpl

bpl
  • Member

  • 304 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 11 January 2006 - 12:50

re: fortymark

1) I think an important is not that you are talking about needing to 'make up' a 25 bhp deficit, but that you are simply looking at 25 bhp less. Of course, we are always looking at ways of improving peak power too, but it is not the only performance parameter. Again, a lighter engine with the same power curve as a heavier one, is not more powerful but will go quicker on the track, installed in the car. That is what they really try and get people to understand - that performance is about much more than a simple peak bhp figure, which is why we don't publish them. And that is why I say that a 'deficit' is not necessarily the right term to use, because the performance envelope is much wider than just one peak power figure.

2) For sure, mapping is specific to Monaco/Spa/Monza in order to get the best from the engine over the circuit, according to its demands; equally (and obviously), ratios are adapted as well. But as you say, major engine components (eg camshafts) cannot be changed unless the rules allow, and there would be no point in winning Monaco with an engine that is then no good for the following race. But the extremes of Monaco/Monza form part of the specs the team works to - they are not unknown quantities. It is fair to say, I think, that that is true for every team.

3) Concerning Imola, it is not something that has ever been discussed in detail, or that the team want to owing to some of the solutions that were put in place. Suffice to say, Fernando's engine showed initial signs of the damage that caused Fisi's failure in Bahrain, but the decision was taken that a 10 place penalty was too high a price at Imola where overtaking is impossible - especially when everybody converges on a 2-stop strategy as it is hard to get into clean air. So they limited mileage, used altered engine mapping and relied on Fernando for the rest. For a bit more info, you can try what we published at the end of last year: http://www.renaultf1...ews=tcm:3-41879 and the second part too, which at least out-line why we thought it was a pretty impressive all-round performance.

#73 bpl

bpl
  • Member

  • 304 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 11 January 2006 - 12:51

re: Mr Slow, that will be talked about more at the launch. We will do our usual technical briefings with Bob/Rob and the respective chief designers.

Thanks

#74 Sir Frank

Sir Frank
  • Member

  • 4,275 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 11 January 2006 - 12:53

Originally posted by bpl

In fact, the interesting thing is that internally, we reason in terms of lap-time gained from a development rather than horsepower - which makes sense given that lap-time is the practical expression of the horsepower and takes into account the systems transmitting it to the track!


Welcome to the board! Thank you for taking the time to come here, Im sure many posters appreciate it.
Very interesting things you mention, especially about Axel Plasses presentation. :up:

May I ask which is the representitive track for such lap time gain measurements? Or do you put all 19 tracks in the hat and look for minimizing the lap time target function for a weighted average?
I assume Monzas weight will be very low, with such method used.

I also heared that 50BHP gained will make you 0,8s faster around the Sepang track. I know this isnt defined in the appropriate way, the commentator didnt mention if the gain was throughout the torque curve or not, but perhaps you could give us an approximate number of how much time a new spec engine will give you around a lap. I suppose it must be around 0.1s.

#75 Sir Frank

Sir Frank
  • Member

  • 4,275 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 11 January 2006 - 13:02

One more question: with the new rules specifying so many things about the engine, such as weight, CoG, dimensions, etc.. are you looking more at lowering fuel consumption (despite going to a V8) and reducing air intakes for cooling? Do you expect peoples engines to be a lot closer in terms of peformance now? Did the role of the engine become less important in the equation?

#76 Fortymark

Fortymark
  • Member

  • 5,752 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 11 January 2006 - 13:03

bpl
Thanks for your answers

For sure your contribution makes it far more interesting to follow an team/engine manufactor like Renault.

#77 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 11 January 2006 - 13:18

About the Renault report in Imola:

Fisico had less luck, running wide on his flying lap and ending up 12th.


I always thought that it was a problem in the car, and Symonds said so. Or it was the race problem which was?

#78 boostpressure

boostpressure
  • Member

  • 1,643 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 11 January 2006 - 13:18

great to see your contribution bpl and look forward to it over the season. :up: :)

#79 bpl

bpl
  • Member

  • 304 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 11 January 2006 - 13:30

re: prty, he ran wide in qually after the rear brakes locked, not through his fault. Then had the failure in the race that put him off. Not a weekend to remember for him, unfortunately.

Advertisement

#80 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 11 January 2006 - 14:43

Originally posted by bpl
re: prty, he ran wide in qually after the rear brakes locked, not through his fault. Then had the failure in the race that put him off. Not a weekend to remember for him, unfortunately.


Thanks for clarifying, and I agree: very good contribution :)

#81 bpl

bpl
  • Member

  • 304 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 11 January 2006 - 17:21

re: Sir Frank,

1) The track used is not revealed for competitive reasons. But the principle, as you suggested, is to have an 'average' F1 duty cycle in order measure engine and aero performance.

2) A new spec engine's lap-time gain depends on the spec! They all vary, so there isn't a standard value. For example, we use a new spec 'letter' when a new family of developments comes in. So a third iteration of an F spec, for example (the terms are fictitious), might be equivalent in every way to the first iteration of a G spec. But the G spec will give further development potential that the F spec didn't have. The lettering system is a convention rather than a firm indicator of specific changes or even immediate performance advantage.

However, our engineers do calculate what they call 'sector sensitivities'. These break the circuit into the three timing sectors you see on the TV, and then assess the impact of more or less power/grip/fuel load in each one. Adding them together gives a rough idea of the fuel penalty, for example, or the power sensitivity of the circuit. I would imagine that is where the figure comes from.

3) The questions re: V8 are for the launch, sorry. Fuel consumption is of course always a development angle - the better it is, the less weight you carry in qualifying and the race. It's a funny coincidence that F1 with its reputation for environmental un friendliness, actually wants better fuel consumption, if only for performance reasons!

Thanks

#82 roadie

roadie
  • Member

  • 1,844 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 11 January 2006 - 17:41

I love this thread. Good to have you onbaord bpl! One of the things that I am wondering about this years cars is what priority reducing drag has over overall downforce. How important is a reduction in drag this year?

#83 kos

kos
  • Member

  • 1,238 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 11 January 2006 - 17:43

bpl, thank you very much, your contribution is much appreciated :up:

#84 Platipus

Platipus
  • Member

  • 240 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 11 January 2006 - 17:47

BPL, now it's time to shut up about renault works!

thx alot!

#85 Jhope

Jhope
  • Member

  • 9,436 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 11 January 2006 - 17:51

Originally posted by Platipus
BPL, now it's time to shut up about renault works!

thx alot!


I don't think I understand this. :confused:

#86 Menace

Menace
  • Member

  • 12,188 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 11 January 2006 - 18:04

Originally posted by Jhope


I don't think I understand this. :confused:


It's Platipus, what do you expect? :drunk:


bpl, thanks a ton for your contribution. :up:

#87 Bravo

Bravo
  • Member

  • 109 posts
  • Joined: September 05

Posted 11 January 2006 - 18:10

It was explain before by BorderReiver:

Originally posted by BorderReiver


I think Platipus actually beleives he is Renault.



#88 Pep

Pep
  • Member

  • 1,040 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 11 January 2006 - 18:40

Thank you very much bpl, great posts, although you can't say too much sometimes. :up:

It is very similar to the constant rpm "war". Each figure quoted seems to be an attempt to seem bigger and better, but 'gigantism' isn't necessarily good. Our RS25 project leader Axel Plasse did a great presentation at the Racetech symposium late last year, which showed how an engine with a 25 bhp deficit in peak power can still produce the same lap-time with different torque curves; equally, engines with identical peak power can have a half-second lap-time difference. All of which is to try and communicate that global performance, not peak power/max rpm, are what count. It is something Renault stresses a lot, even more so since as a full works team our engine-chassis integration has steadily improved.



This reminds me of the war between Intel and AMD about MHz, AMD saying that the MHz of the CPU was just only one half of the equation, and that their processors didn't have as many MHz as Intel's but performed better overall.

2005 RS25 A/B/C/D/E 3000 19250 72°


bpl, 19250 are the maximum revs for the E spec run in China, right?

By the way, for more information about the RS25 and its last spec used in China, Renault website has plenty of things (car-engine section). Dennis Chevrier, interviewed before China GP:

How do you describe the new E spec then?

Well, when it came to taking the decision on the specification to which the engines would be built, we had certain components that were capable of lasting 700 km – but not yet 1400 km. That meant they were not ready for any other races, but potentially were for China. Some of those parts are major enough to justify a change in its specification code – making it an “E”. But it has not been developed specifically for this race, rather it includes components that are currently appropriate for an engine life of 700 km.

What advantages does it bring?

Well, it gives us a better overall performance package. Which means, not only is it an intrinsically more powerful engine, but it gives us more options in how we use the engine over the race weekend. It will be a concrete step forward in lap-time.


Or Axel Plasse, interviewed after China GP:

Did you think it would be possible to catch McLaren at the end of the season?

AP: We were confident. Already in Brazil, we had a big aero update and a D spec engine. McLaren finished in front for a number of reasons, but we knew we had made a step in the right direction. At Suzuka, the fact Fernando had to let Klien past hid the true level of performance, but we were already very, very competitive. And with the E spec V10, we got the power boost that made the difference.



PD: I think Platipus is afraid of somebody (ie bpl) revealing secrets of his beloved team Renault. It's funny :)

#89 Cittnuova

Cittnuova
  • Member

  • 480 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 11 January 2006 - 18:43

bpl :up:

Thanks for your contribution.

#90 Jhope

Jhope
  • Member

  • 9,436 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 11 January 2006 - 19:00

Originally posted by Pep




PD: I think Platipus is afraid of somebody (ie bpl) revealing secrets of his beloved team Renault. It's funny :)


Yeah. it's not like what is being discussed by bpl hasn't been speculated or discussed in the past. All that has been said is juicy confirmation about our discussions, and some other nice information. And for that, I'd like to thank blp. :up:

#91 carbonfibre

carbonfibre
  • Member

  • 6,287 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 11 January 2006 - 19:26

Indeed thank you bpl for the great posts that contained good information. :)

#92 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 4,746 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 11 January 2006 - 19:29

Originally posted by A Wheel Nut
If Lustigson and I are "old timers" does that make you prepubescent, cos a quick check of our repsective profiles shows Lustigson a very old 28 and me, well I'm already verbally incontinent at 24.

:rotfl: We're old, dude! :cool:

#93 Ghostrider

Ghostrider
  • Member

  • 15,790 posts
  • Joined: July 99

Posted 11 January 2006 - 20:36

bpl. :up:

Good luck for this year! GO FISI! :clap:

#94 wawawa

wawawa
  • Member

  • 4,314 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 11 January 2006 - 21:50

Originally posted by bpl
First of all, just to be very clear, this an experimental reply.

Many thanks to the Renault F1 team for initiatives like this to reach out to us fans! The engineers' views in the preview (instead of the usual boring stuff) and the live telemetry during the races were great ideas, and this one is one of the best!

#95 MrSlow

MrSlow
  • Member

  • 4,928 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 11 January 2006 - 22:06

Originally posted by wawawa
Many thanks to the Renault F1 team for initiatives like this to reach out to us fans! The engineers' views in the preview (instead of the usual boring stuff) and the live telemetry during the races were great ideas, and this one is one of the best!

We have now bpl from Renault and HSJ from McLaren, when will the other teams follow? :lol:

Sorry bpl, that "joke" does not make much sense for you I guess, but there is a poster here, HSJ, that posts as if he had access to all data and info that exists at McLaren. Problem is that he does not have that data :)
He seem to be a nice guy though :up:

#96 Jodum5

Jodum5
  • Member

  • 1,247 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 11 January 2006 - 22:46

Heh, I'm not sure whether Bpl and Renualt realise that responding to the request of the Autosport Boards could be a full time job.

#97 GhostR

GhostR
  • Member

  • 2,604 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 11 January 2006 - 23:25

Originally posted by Jodum5
Heh, I'm not sure whether Bpl and Renualt realise that responding to the request of the Autosport Boards could be a full time job.


Actually, they probably do. My full-time job involves a large amount of time spent on forums (responding to questions, gathering and summarising feedback etc etc).

#98 bpl

bpl
  • Member

  • 304 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 12 January 2006 - 08:09

re: roadie, we will talk about this more at launch time. If you don't get the answer then, I can ask the question.

re: Pep, that's right, the figure is max revs from the end of season version of the V10.

Thanks to all of you for the positive feedback on the initiative and the welcome. Hopefully it won't be a full-time job (!), but we think it's important to have some direct contact with fans when we can. Response to the info on our website (positive or negative, as long as it's constructive) is always appreciated too.

Thanks

#99 Chubby_Deuce

Chubby_Deuce
  • Member

  • 5,912 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 12 January 2006 - 08:11

Bravo Renault. You have my satisfaction as does the rest of your office. Send them our regards. :wave:

Advertisement

#100 bira

bira
  • Member

  • 13,348 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 12 January 2006 - 08:20

Originally posted by bpl
Dear All,

First of all, just to be very clear, this an experimental reply. I work in Renault F1 Team's PR department and having followed the forum for a while, we are replying to specific threads in order to clarify points or put them to bed. This seemed like a good place to start!


Welcome :kiss: