Renault R27B

[Keir]

I'll ask my contact at Renault and see what he can tell me

[checkered]

There might not be

an "R27B" designation, but in the new "Auto Sprint" magazine Fisichella laments the current vehicle as "the weakest Renault I have driven at Melbourne". He goes on to say he was shocked to see just how far the team lagged behind McLaren and Ferrari and suggests radical and comprehensive design changes - a new front suspension and chassis alterations - to improve competitiviness. And the work on those should be started without delay.

This prescription sure sounds like what was erroneously reported as the "B" project. At the same time Giancarlo is conscious that the changes will take time and in these days of homologation and a single tyre supplier, there are few if any opportunities at quick fixes. Thus the Ferraris will continue to vanish into the distance at least for a few races on. Renault seems to have nothing like the level of comfort and confidence they had with the Michelins.

I hope they rise to the challenge and get it right. They may not fight for the championships this season, but in some ways their mettle is tested in a whole another level even if they aren't. Winning is nice, but even in F1, it isn't everything.

[manchild]

Since FIA today banned movable floor by introducing new static load test, I say we have no idea about how Renault stands relative to Ferrari and BMW because we don't know how much time per lap movable floor saved to Ferrari and BMW. If FIA starts new tests for next race than we'll have true picture how much Renault is behind Ferrari and BMW (if at all).

Speaking of that, does anyone have any info about how much time per lap movable floor could save relative to static one?

[bizadfar]

Speaking of that, does anyone have any info about how much time per lap movable floor could save relative to static one?

Considering what? The more wing they can use to offset the straight line speed advantage?

[janus]

let get real its just me or this teory sucks even now kimi did a super time im sepang is not the floor its the tires if was the floor bmw was up there whid ferrari.

Last season was the wing now the floor get real mclaren is just piss off the got the drivers and not the car again

let wait and see 2 thing if the teroy is wirght ferrari is going to get beat im sepang by mclaren if is only the tyres let look at R27b if renault make a b version whid longer wheel base its clear that is only because off that that ferrari is at front

I belive more that brigestone told something about hte tyres to ferrari then the teory of the moving floor

[janus]

we can check one thing the speed trap values!!!

the teory is that the floor raise at big the strait let check the speed trap

i read in autosport that on a lap the only advantage is on the strait because the presure is greater there and the floot flex on the turn the floor stay normal because off the low presure.

remenber clin chapan and the lotus they put everybody looking at the diferencial whend the advantage of the lotus was the wing and the downforce ""remember"" i think ferrari is doing the same we are looking at the floor but there is somoething else or its really the tyres or they have oanother thing else that are making then fast legal or not!!! but dont think is the floor

[janus]

ok i think i m wrong this makes sense look at formula1latest.com

shumacher its gone and we keep on the conspiracy theory



The point is that, if the floor moves downwards at speed, it can alter the under-car aerodynamics and lessen drag, thereby allowing more speed on the straights. That would show up on the speed traps but you could disguise it by increasing the wing angles, thus slowing the car to a believable speed on the straights but reaping the benefit of extra downforce in the corners. All of which would be illegal under the “no moveable aerodynamic devices” rule.

[bizadfar]

....... you have just said everything that was already discussed in this thread in some jumbled manner.

I belive more that brigestone told something about hte tyres to ferrari then the teory of the moving floor

....... Tyres based on 2004 construction, quite obvious Ferrari knew more than the others initially. Bridgestone didn't have to tell them LOL.

[manchild]

Speaking of that, does anyone have any info about how much time per lap movable floor could save relative to static one?

Considering what? The more wing they can use to offset the straight line speed advantage?

Yes, how much slower would F2007 be if its floor wasn't flexing?

[flynfrog]

Speaking of that, does anyone have any info about how much time per lap movable floor could save relative to static one?

Considering what? The more wing they can use to offset the straight line speed advantage?

Yes, how much slower would F2007 be if its floor wasn't flexing?

flexing front wing year all over again eh manchild

[manchild]

No, I asked about movable floor. I'm not all over it again. Just wondering if there were two identical F2007s, one with movable floor and one with rigid one how much faster the one with movable floor would be?

[flynfrog]

No, I asked about movable floor. I'm not all over it again. Just wondering if there were two identical F2007s, one with movable floor and one with rigid one how much faster the one with movable floor would be?

I am guessing they would be the same since the nose moves up on impacts not down.

I'm sure the f2007 being faster has nothing to do with them having years on the current construction of tires or the fact no one else has the combination of drivers and car they do they must be cheating there is no way they can win if they don't cheat

changing the flexing wings had no impact then it turned out everyone was doing it any way

Renault is missing FA and moving to midpack

Mclearen has FA and is looking good but they never have not had a decent car since the one tire per race rule

[manchild]

No, I asked about movable floor. I'm not all over it again. Just wondering if there were two identical F2007s, one with movable floor and one with rigid one how much faster the one with movable floor would be?

I am guessing they would be the same since the nose moves up on impacts not down.

I don't get it. What have nose and impact got to do with it?

[flynfrog]

No, I asked about movable floor. I'm not all over it again. Just wondering if there were two identical F2007s, one with movable floor and one with rigid one how much faster the one with movable floor would be?

I am guessing they would be the same since the nose moves up on impacts not down.

I don't get it. What have nose and impact got to do with it?

the nose of the floor sorry for the wrong terms its much more clear in teh thread dedicated to this topic

[checkered]

The image Benjabulle

posted from the Sepang test is interesting for a couple of reasons. Once the R27 was launched, Bob Bell stated in the Autosport tech analysis that while they thought they had just enough front-end downforce for the design, they would've liked to have more since they needed a "margin" there.

This is because they subscribe to the philosophy that the Bridgestones are likely to work better with a more forward biased force distribution than the Michelins did and have thus designed a lighter car to be able to move the CofG accordingly. The trouble is that if they can't yet move the CofP, they can't play with the ballast as much as they would otherwise want to. According to Autosport, if CofG is pushed forward, CofP most must in all likelihood remain only a few percents behind.

Now, obviously in this case there's a problem if you're already getting the maximum front-end downforce out of your design. Interestingly, Dino Toso recently said that a higher downforce construction is on the works. If a markedly different front wing/front end appears on the R27, it will be interesting to see to what extent Renault can regain competitiviness.