Renault R29

[NormanBates]

by flavio's reluctance to develop a two-decker diffusser, it sounds like the team is basically broke!
http://www.f1technical.net/news/11988

let's see if they can improve on their pitiful performance in australia (or, maybe more to the point, WHEN)

[vasia]

Australia is not representative yes, but it's nice to see Renault struggle as that adds fuel to the argument against that horrid nose on the R29. If Renault struggles in Sepang, it may be more proof that nose has to go.

I stated this during testing, and I still stand by my opinion, even if it seems silly to some. The Renault (aerodynamically speaking) simply does not look fast. So far it has proved to be true. Looking at the details of the R29, it lacks rear downforce and does not look very efficient aerodynamically speaking. Despite the downforce that nose may produce, I think it comes at the cost of too much drag. From the sidepods back, I see room for improvement in terms of efficient aerodynamics and increased downforce on the R29.

[Metar]

So because the nose looks bad and the car is slow, you deduce that the nose causes the Renault's problems and has to go? By that token, the Turbos on the 1977 Renaults were a terrible idea. Or any wing for that matter, since 1968.

Jeez. And here I thought lack of pirates really did cause global warming.

[xpensive]

For what it's worth, I am with vasia here, if it looks right it is right, remember the 1995 McLaren anyone?

But that Renault nose is so ugly it defies imagination, it should be banned on resons of bringing the sport into disrepute.
I urge Flavio to act now, he will never ever land a self-respecting sponsor, while sporting such a goulish nose.

[vall]

For what it's worth, I am with vasia here, if it looks right it is right, remember the 1995 McLaren anyone?

Do you remember the 2009 McLaren? It is not long ago and you should

Does it look right and pretty? Some says it's cool, but yet its aero efficiency is terrible....

C'mon guys, it is not the pretty look that makes car fast....

[xpensive]

As I recall Sunday, the 2009 McLaren came home third, with only a pair of aerodynamically illegal cars ahead?

[vall]

yeah, he drove great, but it was quite of a luck involved to get 3rd

[Matteoni]

Hi,
Dont you think is wrong maintain the shark-fin engine cover in R29?.
They were problems with the wind in Melbourne. I think they should revome it.
Regards.

[siskue2005]

As I recall Sunday, the 2009 McLaren came home third, with only a pair of aerodynamically illegal cars ahead?

you get unthinkable and Lucky results in first race. its always been like that!

[Roger the knife]

As I recall Sunday, the 2009 McLaren came home third, with only a pair of aerodynamically illegal cars ahead?

you get unthinkable and Lucky results in first race. its always been like that!

Who was the lucky one, Brawn or Macca

[xpensive]

Either way, the R29 is so outrageously ugly, why Symonds and Bell should have "berufsverbot" in F1 for years to come.
Shame on you both!

[vasia]

So because the nose looks bad and the car is slow, you deduce that the nose causes the Renault's problems and has to go? By that token, the Turbos on the 1977 Renaults were a terrible idea. Or any wing for that matter, since 1968.

Jeez. And here I thought lack of pirates really did cause global warming.

When the Ferrari F60 debuted, my opinion was that it's rear bodywork was messy and was not optimal for good airflow. Ferrari seemed to agree with me as they made the rear much cleaner and tighter. The rear bodywork on the Force India is also a horrible mess, and I am sure that is part of the reason why they were are so slow (despite the fact they are running a Mercedes engine, possibly the best engine on the grid right now).

If Renault keeps that ugly nose on the R29, and the car's pace somehow dramatically improves, I will eat my words. If the R29 continues to struggle for pace with that nose, it will simply be further evidence the nose is part of the problem. I did not say it's the whole problem, but my opinion certainly is that the nose is one part of the R29's lack of pace. I also think that bulky exhaust exit on the rear of the R29 right in front of the rear wing isn't exactly helping their performance either.

If Renault changes the nose on the R29, then it would pretty much confirm the nose was an issue.

The MP4-24 certainly looks "cool", but my opinion is that it doesn't look exactly "right". It's wheelbase is too short I think, and the rear bodywork could definitely be more tighter and cleaner. The bulky sidepods of the MP4-24 don't help either. Also despite how cool the front wing looks, I'm not so sure that is the best direction to go with the front wing.

Although we do not yet have an accurate picture of the pecking order, some conclusions can be drawn so far. At the moment, the fastest cars on the grid happen to have the cleanest bodywork and the tighest and cleanest rear ends. I think this is more than just mere coincidence. Also with the exception of BMW, the fastest cars have slim noses. That certainly does not do Renault any favours. BMW's nose though is a bit different than Renault's.

[Metar]

If they change it, it will obviously prove to be a mistake - that's something every idiot will agree with you, as well. But, say the nose works great but, say, the sidepods have some sort of fatal mistake? How the --- can you tell?

And please. "my opinion was that it's rear bodywork was messy and was not optimal for good airflow. Ferrari seemed to agree with me"? I can do that too. "It is my opinion that the 'molten' rear of the Renault sidepods wasn't the best idea, and that it's better to have a tighter package. It is also my opinion that Renault's diffuser isn't the best and should be replaced." I dare you to say Renault (or anybody else) doesn't agree with me, at least on the second point.


I don't like the look of that nose (though I think it's a cool concept), but I can't stand couch-critics and self-proclaimed net-photo aerodynamicists finding correlations between a part they dislike and a car's pace (or lack thereof) and claiming it is the cause. Take one short look at the R29 and you'll see many faults - but are you experienced enough to fix one of them? The bulky sidepods - perhaps they hide tightly-packaged KERS systems in need of cooling? The nasty wing - perhaps it does produce extra downforce, but isn't yet perfected? (never mind that the Brawn wing is also relatively wide, and even lower than the Renault wing)

"It looks wrong" is as much of an argument as "I find women in Fedora hats attractive" - it can still be a fast car and it can still be an ugly woman.

[siskue2005]

As I recall Sunday, the 2009 McLaren came home third, with only a pair of aerodynamically illegal cars ahead?

you get unthinkable and Lucky results in first race. its always been like that!

Who was the lucky one, Brawn or Macca

[vasia]

If they change it, it will obviously prove to be a mistake - that's something every idiot will agree with you, as well. But, say the nose works great but, say, the sidepods have some sort of fatal mistake? How the --- can you tell?

And please. "my opinion was that it's rear bodywork was messy and was not optimal for good airflow. Ferrari seemed to agree with me"? I can do that too. "It is my opinion that the 'molten' rear of the Renault sidepods wasn't the best idea, and that it's better to have a tighter package. It is also my opinion that Renault's diffuser isn't the best and should be replaced." I dare you to say Renault (or anybody else) doesn't agree with me, at least on the second point.


I don't like the look of that nose (though I think it's a cool concept), but I can't stand couch-critics and self-proclaimed net-photo aerodynamicists finding correlations between a part they dislike and a car's pace (or lack thereof) and claiming it is the cause. Take one short look at the R29 and you'll see many faults - but are you experienced enough to fix one of them? The bulky sidepods - perhaps they hide tightly-packaged KERS systems in need of cooling? The nasty wing - perhaps it does produce extra downforce, but isn't yet perfected? (never mind that the Brawn wing is also relatively wide, and even lower than the Renault wing)

"It looks wrong" is as much of an argument as "I find women in Fedora hats attractive" - it can still be a fast car and it can still be an ugly woman.

Like I said, the fastest cars on the grid right now are mostly slim nose cars, not wide-nose cars. Most of the teams this year are running slim-nose cars, only a few teams are running wide-nose cars. So based on your logic, does that mean those running wide noses figured out some breakthrough that the rest of the teams did not? The more likely explanation is that the teams running wide noses may have got it a bit wrong.

I am certainly no aerodynamicist but guys like Adrian Newey, Frank Dernie, Mark Gillan, Nicholas Tombazis are and they helped design cars this year that have slim noses.

Historically and statistically, modern F1 cars with wide noses for the most part have not been extremely successful. There have been a few exceptions, but that's it. Most of the championship-winning cars in F1 in the modern era have had slim noses as opposed to wide noses.

The sidepods are unlikely to be the problem as the curvature of the sidepods on the R29 and undercut allow for efficient and optimal airflow to the rear. The fastest cars on the grid are running similarly-shaped sidepods, so it is unlikely.

This has nothing do with what I dislike or how a part looks aesthetically. My opinions are all based on airflow and efficiency. I really don't care how "ugly" the R29 nose looks, it just doesn't look very efficient in terms of airflow and aerodynamics.

If the bulky rear-end is a problem, and Renault knows it, perhaps they should not have run KERS then, like some other teams. Also if the rumours are true and Renault is struggling because KERS throws off their weight distribution, then it's another reason to maybe not run KERS.