Renault to decide 2014 customer engines options in September

F1 Fanatic round-up

In the round-up: Renault will decide on its future as a customer engine supplier for the 2014 season and onwards in September.

Links

Top F1 links from the past 24 hours:

Renault to decide in September about customer teams’ supply for 2014 season (Autosport)

??Renault Sport F1′s managing director Jean-Francois Caubet believes that a lifting of the current limitation of manufacturer to supply a maximum of three teams would be a big help – especially amid uncertainty about the number of outfits independent suppliers PURE and Cosworth may reach deals with. That would leave the way open for Renault to supply up to six teams, which could mean that the costs of its deal may not be as high as those engine makers only supplying two or three teams like Mercedes-Benz and Ferrari.??

Button and Wurz become online driver tutors for the next generation (JAonF1)

??Up-and-coming racing drivers are to benefit from the experience and insight of Jenson Button and Alex Wurz after the pair became the first Formula 1 drivers to sign up to an online coaching website. The SAFEisFAST website, run by the American Road Racing Drivers Club, launched the ground-breaking online initiative earlier this year and signed up a host of American racing stars including Dario Franchitti to provide expert advice to aspiring drivers, who were given the opportunity to submit questions to the famous racing names.??

Perez ‘often lets himself down by being too aggressive’ (ESPN F1)

Luca Baldisserri: ??Perez is undoubtedly talented, but he often lets himself down by being too aggressive which, especially in Formula 1, does not deliver results. The Montreal race was a great response, a race in which Sergio not only ran at a great pace, but also managed his race very well, managing to stay on track for fifty laps on the same set of tyres.??

Nico: 2012 is a difficult language (Sky)

??We have to understand the tyres better, although we do understand quite a lot by now. It is an interesting topic – one that I would say is key to this year’s championship. But if you take those seven different winners then all the others are also trying to get acquainted with the tyres – not just us. It is a very difficult language to learn!??

Peter Sauber Q&A: The racing has never been better (Formula1.com)

??If we manage to exploit our full potential as a team, in other words get everything right from Friday morning to Sunday evening, a great deal is possible. After seven races it is patently clear that the C31 can be fast on virtually any kind of track.??

An F1 grid at Le Mans (GrandPrix.com)

??This weekend’s Le Mans 24 hours will feature twenty-two former F1 drivers among those entered for the classic French race. Best placed to win the event is former Toyota F1 driver Allan McNish, and former Minardi and Williams driver Marc Gene, who race for the factory Audi team, the outright favourite for the event, having won the previous two years running.??

Codemasters F1 2012 Interview and First Look from E3 2012 (InsideSimRacing)

InsideSimRacing.tv speak to Codemasters developers Paul Jeal and Stephen Hood about their upcoming F1 2012 game.

Comment of the day

The sport has changed a lot over the last ten years, but is F1 really better without the tyre war? AdrianMorse argues why he would welcome a second tyre manufacturer into the sport.

I am of two minds about your view on the tyre war. On the one hand, we F1 fans enjoy the engineering side of the sport, with teams cleverly finding innovate systems to make their cars go ever faster. Why shouldn?t the tyres be part of that package? And if not, why stop at fixing the tyres? The engines are very expensive, so perhaps there should be a single engine supplier as well. Aerodynamics are largely irrelevant to the road car industry, so perhaps there should be a standard aero-kit as well.

I guess the only way to minimise the chances of one team or driver running away with all the races is to have a very constrained rule book ?ǣ which is what we have now, but many people complain about the lack of freedom the engineers have in designing their cars. And it?s not just F1 that?s struggling with trade-off between engineering freedom and parity, as in touring car series there are (or were, I haven?t kept in touch) these silly rules that the winners have to take extra weight on board, and in IndyCar with 3 (if you count Lotus anyway??) engine suppliers, parity is also a topic of discussion.

I suppose what I?m trying to say is that I would welcome another tyre supplier back in F1. It would be a good opportunity to get rid of all the silly tyre rules (having to race both compounds and starting on the Q3 set), it would improve the purity of the racing (even if that sounds a bit silly), and we might still see some interesting racing (for instance if one tyre supplier is better for qualifying, and the other(s) for the race). What happened in 2002 with one guy completely dominating was unfortunate, but by no means the only logical outcome of having multiple tyre suppliers, nor is domination ruled out with a single tyre supplier. Last year, for instance, it may have been that Vettel?s domination was partly due to the fact that he got on with the Pirellis better than his nearest rivals.
AdrianMorse

From the forum

An interesting debate around the friendships and relationships that exist between current F1 drivers.

Going to the European Grand Prix at Valencia? See what other Fanatics are doing here.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to David A, Vikas and Mateuss!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

James Hunt passed away on this day in 1993. The 1976 world champion died of a heart attack at the age of 45.

Advert | Go Ad-free

52 comments on Renault to decide 2014 customer engines options in September

  1. electrolite (@electrolite) said on 15th June 2012, 0:10

    Perez, tooo aggressive? yeah, and I’m Brian Blessed.

    • Spinmastermic (@spinmastermic) said on 15th June 2012, 7:27

      FYI Brian, Gordon is alive lol

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 15th June 2012, 7:44

      I think I understand where its coming from, on “the flying lap” Rob Wilson described it maybe more accurate, as Perez still having a lot of steering wheel movement to get through corners. I guess that is what is called “being agressive” in the Ferrari article.
      But it remains a bit of a mystery to both you and me, how he can be too aggressive and at the same time make his tyres last all race far better than many others!

      • George (@george) said on 15th June 2012, 15:49

        I assumed Baldisserri was talking about his race strategies rather than his driving style, remember Perez is the guy that popularised going long on these tyres.

        I haven’t seen this particular flying lap but Perez’s driving style has always looked quite economical to me (actually he holds the wheel so lightly it looks weird), if his hand movements are bigger that might simply be a slower steering rack. In any case it doesn’t seem to do either his tyres or his pace any harm so I cant see what’s wrong with it.

        • George (@george) said on 15th June 2012, 15:51

          Ah, I forgot the third source of agressiveness in formula 1: overtaking! I would certainly agree with him on that count, remember his swipe on Kobayashi in Shanghai?

    • vjanik said on 15th June 2012, 9:34

      “Perez is undoubtedly talented, but he often lets himself down by being too aggressive which, especially in Formula 1, does not deliver results”

      Hmm. What has F1 come to? Soon we will end up with a full grid of passive and submissive drivers. God forbid that any of them drive aggressively. That would be outrageous.

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 15th June 2012, 9:42

        That’s not what Baldisserri is saying at all. He means that there is a time and a place for aggression in Perez’s driving style, but Perez is being aggressive in all the wrong places. The end result is that he over-drives the car. After the Malayasian Grand Prix, he finished eleventh in China and Bahrain, retired in Spain and finished eleventh again in Monaco (though he wasn’t helped by his acute Maldonado-itis and subsequent qualifying crash). But then in Canada, he’s back up to third place. He’s evidently tried a little too hard at times this year, but he has reined himself in and has been rewarded as a result.

        Perez hasn’t lost his aggression. He’s simply redirecting it.

      • javlinsharp (@javlinsharp) said on 19th June 2012, 16:10

        To dust off an old chestnut…
        “In order to finish first, you must first, finish”
        It is impossible to do that when your car is mangled in an avoidable impact.

        Thanks a ton, I never miss an opportunity to use a tired old cliche. Thank you for filling my quota for today…

  2. Matt (@agentmulder) said on 15th June 2012, 0:15

    Ferrari-speak to English Translation v2.0

    Ferrari:
    “Perez ‘often lets himself down by being too aggressive’”

    English:
    Sauber have a better grip (no pun intended, or maybe it is intended) on their tires than us, and decided to not bend over and stay behind our team (read: Fernando) when he was driving off the cliff.

    We think Perez, unlike Massa, could give Fernando a run for his money at times, and he seems determined and driven enough to ignore any “faster than you” orders we might throw at him. We pay Fernando $20M a year to make us look good, and we can’t just have any upstart ruining his day. Sergio actually had a career ahead of him, and if he’s going to beat our wonderboy, we sure aren’t going to be the ones paying him.

    • ivz (@ivz) said on 15th June 2012, 1:34

      I seriously doubt Perez could out perform Fernando over a season. Sure he might have the odd race where he finishes ahead, and performs better than Massa, but if you think that Perez could actually beat Alonso over a season, you really don’t understand how good a driver Alonso is.
      The comment about Perez being aggressive sounds very odd though, he is one of the best at looking after tyres!

      • David-A (@david-a) said on 15th June 2012, 2:41

        I think that Agent Mulder, as Matt likes to call himself, was being humorous with his comment. Yes, Perez isn’t on the level of the top drivers like Alonso, but he certainly has the potential to be.

        • And the ethos at Ferrari to strongly favour their number one driver is exactly the reason why, even if offered a contract, it would be a bad career move for Perez to join Ferrari.

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 15th June 2012, 16:52

            But not if Perez can match Alonso. Ferrari didn’t show strong favoritism in 07-08 when their drivers were evenly matched.

          • Dragon (@dragon) said on 17th June 2012, 13:54

            Schumi was a class above Baz, just as ‘Nando is currently a class above Felipe. It’s common sense to direct your attentions towards the driver most likely to deliver you a WDC. The years of Kimi and Felipe showed equal treatment.

    • Cacarella (@cacarella) said on 15th June 2012, 2:09

      Wow, you got all that from ‘Perez often lets himself down by being too aggressive’?

      I’ll try translating you’re entire post…
      English:
      I hate Ferrari, and no matter what any team member says I’ll always think there’s a hidden evil agenda behind their comments. Even if the head of the young driver program comments about one of his young drivers, I’ll think he’s actually speaking on behalf of the devil himself.

      • Matt (@agentmulder) said on 15th June 2012, 2:14

        And where in my post did I say “I had Ferrari?” I was using humor to point out how Ferrari like to obscure what they are really trying to say. It’s something they, and all teams, have done since PR became the new thing. I don’t hate Ferrari, they just tend to obscure things more than others.

        I could translate your translation of my translation into something saying how you must be a Ferrari fan to automatically assume any slight jab at them means the writer “hates them” and believes the team is one big conspiracy machine, but since the first one seemed to have gone over your head I’ll refrain.

        • Julian (@julian) said on 15th June 2012, 3:06

          @agentmoulder
          Maybe a little “:P” at the end would help when making slight jabs that aren’t necessarily serious.

          It’s hard to convey things like that on the Internet so smiley faces help haha

          :)

  3. beneboy (@beneboy) said on 15th June 2012, 2:01

    Interesting COTD…

    I’d be happy to see several manufacturers supplying tires to F1 but I think we’d need at least three of them and a few changes to the tire reg’s (many of which would be welcome even if we stayed with a single supplier – starting on the tires you qualified on for the top ten being top of my list to be done away with).

    I think the biggest problem with having multiple suppliers is the costs.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 15th June 2012, 3:55

      I also would like to see the teams have more choice of tyres, but no team should have an exclusive tyre choice as was the case with Ferrari during the Schumacher years.

      • vjanik said on 15th June 2012, 9:59

        In a perfect world every team would have their own tyre supplier and tyres tailor-made for their cars, with updates for each race. This would be costly but in a perfect world that wouldn’t matter.

        Back in the days, teams were picking different tyre suppliers from race to race depending on which tyre suited the track better. It was all about making cars go faster, not about equalizing all the teams to create close racing (eliminating every possible differentiating factor – tyres, engines, etc)

        It all depends on what you want. A “show” which is unpredictable and entertaining? Or a race between the fastest cars, best drivers and smartest designers and engineers? The latter will lead to the cream rising to the top and might mean some seasons are dominated by a team/driver.

        Its the role of the FIA to manage the balance between the two, and it looks as though they are moving more towards showbiz than sport. DRS is proof of that.

        I am looking forward to 2014 when we will have big technical rule changes, new engines and hopefully new sporting regulations where we will get rid of some of the redundant rules as pointed out in previous articles on this site.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 15th June 2012, 10:07

          I thin the rules really do need to be re-written from the ground up. There have been so many changes over the years that loopholes keep opening up, allowing teams to slip through.

          • beneboy (@beneboy) said on 15th June 2012, 11:34

            @prisoner-monkeys I’ve been thinking the same thing since the mid 90′s. It appears that F1 has got into a situation where they keep trying to make changes to the existing rules and regulations to deal with specific problems – most of which end up causing more problems than they solve – when starting with a completely blank page and coming up with a coherent and above all simple (or as simple as things can be in F1) set of rules and regulations is what is really needed.

          • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 15th June 2012, 11:38

            The problem is that teams go looking for loopholes – like Red Bull’s floor holes. So long as car designers make more money exploiting loopholes than they do closing them, the teams will abuse the regulations however they can.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 15th June 2012, 7:49

      Indeed @beneboy, interesting COTD, although the measures most needed (the must do a pitstop and the top 10 having to start on their quali tyres) could, and IMO should be introduced regardless!

      It really is a question of to what extent a single supplier/specification of parts is needed/wished for safety reasons or to keep costs at bay or to even out the field. Actually I think with the tyres, the biggest concern is not cost but safety though. The simple fact another supplier would show interest would mean they have the money to spend on it!

      • beneboy (@beneboy) said on 15th June 2012, 11:36

        @bascb

        although the measures most needed (the must do a pitstop and the top 10 having to start on their quali tyres) could, and IMO should be introduced regardless!

        I think we’re in total agreement over this !

  4. mantresx said on 15th June 2012, 2:31

    I have a question about the 2014 season, will the number of engines allowed per year be the same as it is now? If they don´t change that rule I can definitely see a lot of failures on Monza and the final races specially from the lower teams with perhaps not the most reliable engines (PURE, Cosworth?)

  5. TED BELL said on 15th June 2012, 2:43

    So it is going to be a one cylinder engine with six turbos ???

    What happened to the in line four banger, turbo charged that was being touted ???

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 15th June 2012, 7:03

      What happened to the in line four banger, turbo charged that was being touted ???

      The teams didn’t like it. Audi expressed interest in joining Formula 1 in 2014 – if only as an engine supplier – but only if the inline-four engines were approved. Renault supported the push, but the other suppliers offered some resistance. Audi eventualy decided against an engine programme, and that was enough for Renault to start supporting the idea of turbocharged V6 engines.

      Which I think is a bit of a shame, really. Formula 1 is built on technical innovation, so I would have been really interested to see how an inline-four engine worked for the sport.

  6. Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 15th June 2012, 3:02

    Guys at Ferrari must be mad. Are they really talking down a driver which is part of the Ferrari Academy?!

    They are defending Massa (which is perfectly fine, really), but “attacking” Perez…. Aggression doesn’t get results, ey? well, Alonso is also aggressive to a degree, and Perez is just a youngster making his first steps in F1. And by the way, being extremely slow and spinning after 5 laps isn’t really that good either, so everyone would rather have the aggressive but fast, than the slow and dumb.

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 15th June 2012, 7:59

      I don’t get it. Perez starts from behind, how could he get in front other than being aggressive?

      • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 15th June 2012, 8:41

        One thing is, @fer-no65 and @jcost, the article doesn’t talk about being too aggressive in Canada, they are in fact very pleased with his performance there.

        Rather, it is about the races before that, and why he couldn’t repeat something like Malaysia before now. The thing about Monaco: his steering seemed jammed, now there was speculation about it being due to contact w. Maldonado, but others thought he just hit a barrier somewhere. Maybe that’s what was seen as too aggressive then, not staying away from the barriers enough in Monaco? Something like that.

    • topdowntoedown (@topdowntoedown) said on 15th June 2012, 10:16

      Baldisseri isn’t attacking Perez. He’s just saying how he needs to change his driving style – or which mistakes he needs to cut out, more accurately. I would like to bet that later in the season – probably around Singapore – someone from the dancing donkey will pop up and say how impressed they’ve been with his improvement. He’ll be in the red car next year.

      Interestingly, Massa was also known as an over-aggressive driver in his Sauber days…

    • Girts (@girts) said on 15th June 2012, 12:28

      I often remember an episode from some German children TV show where some guy commented on his subordinate’s dumb actions: “He’s my best man… What does that say about me?” I wonder if Dr Marko and Mr Baldisserri, the ones responsible for the young driver development, have ever asked themselves the same question.

  7. Coanda (@ming-mong) said on 15th June 2012, 3:53

    He should think long & hard if the opportunity comes & not give into temptation. Then again alot said that about Button joining Hamo. Ferrari in my opinion has always been a very one sided affair.

    Nice to hear about some the changes being made for F1 2012. Cant wait for it & rFactor 2 which hopefully should be out at the same time.

  8. Hare (@hare) said on 15th June 2012, 4:31

    Re COTD:

    Having multiple tyre manufactures is clearly flawed.

    Pirelli aren’t trying to make the best tyre. They’re making the most exciting tyre. Another manufacturer coming in, will mean Pirelli and Company X will have to compete to have the best tyres in terms of performance. Pirelli will be driven to create enduring tyres.

    We have already seen it’s now technically possible to run a complete race on one tyre. That company was called Bridgestone.

    When Bridgestone and Michelin competed, if you didn’t have the right tyre, you were left behind. You were contracted to the wrong tyre, and so contracted to a disadvantage. That was very boring. Ferrari worked closely with Bridgestone to get the best, and Bridgestone based there tyres around Ferrari. So Ferrari were aided to dominate F1 for years. If you were contracted to Michelin, well, you were handicapped for many seasons.

    Personally, I think Pirelli coming in to F1, is a sensational development. F1 isn’t arbitrary so much as it’s added a new factor that requires new learning. When the F1 teams become experts on understanding Pirelli’s ( as they have with so much else ), the quality teams will rise to the top, albeit perhaps with less dominance than in the bygone era of Ferrari/Bridgestone.

    • SatchelCharge (@satchelcharge) said on 15th June 2012, 5:41

      +1. All we need is to remove the Q3 rule that blocks a tire change before the race starts.

    • AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse) said on 15th June 2012, 6:30

      @hare,

      When Bridgestone and Michelin competed, if you didn’t have the right tyre, you were left behind.

      Would you prefer a spec series, then? In the last couple of seasons, if you weren’t driving for Red Bull, McLaren, or Ferrari, you had no chances of winning a race, either. I personally am looking forward to the new engine rules, to see what the manufacturers (and possibly small outfits like PURE) come up with, and how they develop them. Inevitably, there will be times when one team will gain an advantage over others, but that’s not a part of F1 I mind (as long as the domination is not total and lasts for five years…).

      • Hare (@hare) said on 4th July 2012, 22:22

        I don’t think you understand why F1 is so close now. One of the main ingredients is that they are all having to deal with a tyre built for a strategic race, on different tracks, with different settings, with different drivers even.

        Stick another Tyre manufacture in, and one WILL be more enduring that the other. In fact have 2 manufactures and they will compete to produce the most performant rubber. Thus we will lose all the strategy, pitstops, gambles, guesses that lead to challenging races, and racing on the edge.

        That’s at a complete juxtaposition from what we have now. I enjoy F1 as it is!

  9. BasCB (@bascb) said on 15th June 2012, 7:52

    Happy birthday guys – @David-A, @Vikas and @Mateuss

  10. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 15th June 2012, 8:12

    The World Motorsports Council is meeting tonight (well, today, but it’s tonight my time). Is there any idea of what is on the agenda for that meeting? I know they’re discussing the situation in the WRC, but how about business related to Formula 1?

  11. Girts (@girts) said on 15th June 2012, 12:19

    I would like to use the opportunity and whine a bit about Joe Saward’s whining about whining in F1. I’m talking about this article.

    I have read similar views before and I think that one should be more tolerant towards difference in opinions. Having your own view does not necessarily mean you’re ‘whining’. ‘People were complaining about the lack of overtaking and now the same people complain about the DRS being too artificial’ is a very primitive conclusion.

    I’m sure that not everyone of those who don’t like the DRS was complaining about the lack of overtaking before 2011. And, even if they did, the solutions they offered could not always be described as ‘whining’. In my opinion, it’s just self-evident that no rules will ever satisfy each and every current and potential F1 fan in the world so there will always be discussions & different opinions. Moreover, people will change their opinions from time to time.

    I’m talking about this because I know how my own feelings about this overtaking issue and the DRS have been developing. After Bahrain 2010, I also thought that there weren’t enough overtaking opportunities in F1 and that something should be done about that. But it was never like ‘F1-is-killing-itself-and-I’m-getting-off-and-watching-figure-skating-instead’. As for the DRS, I was very unsatisfied with it in 2011 but it doesn’t get on my nerves as much in 2012 (Canada GP looked a bit silly at times though).

    I sometimes find it hard to understand why an experienced journalist that Mr Saward is does not get such simple things.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 15th June 2012, 12:25

      I sometimes find it hard to understand why an experienced journalist that Mr Saward is does not get such simple things.

      I’ve never seen a journalist quite so vindictive and judgemental as Saward. He’s got quite the cult of personality going with that blog.

  12. PJA (@pja) said on 15th June 2012, 14:42

    Personally I am against a tyre war in F1 as I just don’t see how it could be good for the sport.

    With a single tyre supplier they have the opportunity to produce the best tyre for the sport such as Pirelli are now, although I know there will be plenty who don’t agree with what Pirelli are doing and the direction they have taken.

    However with multiple tyre suppliers they will just try to produce the best tyre no matter what affect it has on the racing, this could end up with a tyre with plenty of grip which lasts the whole race, which I don’t think would make for good races.

    Some will say why not standardise other areas such as engine or chassis if you just want a single tyre supplier, but I think it is different.

    I am no engineer but I would have thought it is easier to set regulations to allow competitive racing with different chassis and engines from different teams rather than with tyres from different suppliers.

    Tyres are the biggest performance differentiator on an F1 car and multiple tyre suppliers would turn it into a tyre formula and I fear it would turn into a battle between the tyre suppliers rather than the teams and drivers.

    The main danger would be if you only had one top team on the best tyre. A potential solution mentioned for this would be to make tyre suppliers supply more than one team, but even if you tried to make it so the other team wasn’t a back of the grid outfit, you don’t know from season to season just how good a car each team will produce.

  13. Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 15th June 2012, 23:56

    I can only imagine a return of the tyre war would be negative for the sport; Pirelli have vastly improved the quality of racing in the last 2 seasons.
    This year, complaints have arisen (mainly about the apparent unpredictability of the tyres) – these I believe are a result of the technical regulations being so constrained that the cars are almost carbon-copies of each other, hence resulting in an incredibly close field. As a result, the team who can get the tyres “in the window” during that particular weekend have a great chance of securing a win; the previous year the teams were more evenly spread throughout the field so the effects weren’t as pronounced.
    As for the new engines, I believe the manufacturers should have the option of designing either a V6 or an in-line 4 cylinder engine (still adhering to the fuel restrictions & budget restrictions) to reintroduce more competition on the technical front and to entice the major manufacturers (such as Audi & BMW) into returning to the sport.

  14. AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner) said on 16th June 2012, 9:44

    @adrianmorse I think there are valid arguments both for and against two different tyres manufacturers. I think the rules would need to be tweaked so that we don’t end up with another tyres war and it would be foolish to think that’s where we would immediately end up. The tyres, like any part, are integral to performance and F1 not being a spec series that would only add to the formula. It would allow further variables which are part of the attraction for me. However, on the other side of the coin, watching every team build a car but then ultimately only have the tyres touch the tarmac (and those tyres being the same for all) does make for brilliant transparency when it comes to the quality of car design and technology. Sure, the teams can feed info back to their respective suppliers and construct the tyres to suit the car, but then it’s a trade off between the teams requirements versus the suppliers commercial vision.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.