Renault R29

[ESPImperium]

Seemingly the crash tests pre Testing that rhe R29 failed is the problem, this is the result of the origional nose design, suposedly low, thin and sleek, very like the R26-R28 era style.

I have a feeling that once Renault work out their low, thin and sleek design and run a new diffuser design, they will become a force again. Im shure that other teams that are running a more fatter design will follow suit, with exeption of a couple of teams that have a nose design that will not change because they have got it right, but those teams are going to be coppied anyways for one part on their car, so im shure Brawn and Williams wont mind if Renault coppy them again.

Immitation is the gratest form of flattery, so im shure Renault will do a little of that.

[vasia]

Seemingly the crash tests pre Testing that rhe R29 failed is the problem, this is the result of the origional nose design, suposedly low, thin and sleek, very like the R26-R28 era style.

If true that makes a lot of sense. Either way, I would not be surprised to see Renault change the nose on the R29.

[jwielage]

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.

First off you are confusing correlation with causality. Just because the "fastest cars", as you have deemed them, have narrow noses says absolutely nothing about what is causing this parity in performance. Even if you could prove a correlation between nose width and Australian GP performance (statistically you lack the volume of data to do so), this would still not be sufficient evidence to condemn this nose design. The fact is that their are so many other factors influencing performance that you have ignored completely.

Second why did Torro Rosso qualified at the back of the grid? By your logic they should have been at the very front with the RBRs because they have the most narrow nose. And if you tell me that they had other issues affecting their performance I will refer you to your original post where you stated.

the fastest cars have slim noses.

We get it, you don't like the design of the R29's nose. And yes a wider nose, like that on the R29, will produce more drag. I would say there is a good chance Pat Symons knows this as well. The only way Renault loses the wide nose cone is if they do so in conjunction with a major update of the entire body work, including Brawn-esque diffuser. This would constitute a change in the fundamental aero philosophy of the car, based on an updated set of assumptions regarding what is permissible.

[ESPImperium]

It was seemingly to look like this computer generated immage that i think we have all seen in the early pages of this thread;



I can see BMW Sauber going the same way, as altho the fat noses mean you have more weight at the front end get a sleeker design and move some more weight towards the rear in the form of ballast.

I think that fat noses have some good to them, but i feel that Renault have it wrong. They should look towards Williams to get a hybrid design, whitch i feel they have got it right for a fatter nose design. Thiner nose designs look towards Red Bull/Toro Rosso, Toyota and Ferarri for those.

[timbo]

We get it, you don't like the design of the R29's nose. And yes a wider nose, like that on the R29, will produce more drag.

This is actually wrong. What does matter is the total cross section of the car and its drag coefficient. Fat nose does not increase total cross section and have very complicated effect on drag coefficient. If anything, more rounder shape will have a lower drag than pointy at subsonic speed.
So there's no reason for R29 nose to create more drag per se.
Jeez, I have suggestion for vasia - apply for job in any team's aero department, you'd save them tons money, who'd need CFD or wind-tunnel when you can judge aero-efficiency by picture.
There's no dumb people in F1. If car looks certain way that was because it was optimal design. And if you say that ugly cars don't win - look at 412T4.

[Shaddock]

A few years ago (around the time of the R25/26) I read an article where Bob Bell said they'd looked into it, and there wasn't much difference between a wide nose and a thin nose in aero terms, so they went with the more aesthetically pleasing option.

At least they didn't toss a coin

[Agerasia]

So, their rather basic front wing and flaps have nothing to do with it then?

[xpensive]

timbo, don't you get it, picture-aerodynamics is what F1Technical is all about?

Anyway, I noticed that the R29s were the slowest in a straight-line of all cars at Albert Park, still the engine?

[Miguel]

timbo, don't you get it, picture-aerodynamics is what F1Technical is all about?

Anyway, I noticed that the R29s were the slowest in a straight-line of all cars at Albert Park, still the engine?

I don't think it's the engine. Look at RBR (without KERS, I believe). They were middle of the table, with 305.9 km/h (301.x for Renault and 308.x for Toro Rosso). My belief is that they set up the car with more wing to compensate for the stability issues wind was causing them. Also, Vettel was able to run side-by-side with Kubica's BMW before crashing.

@ Shaddock:

That story is about the R26. After the very slim nose of the R25, they did both designs for the R26, and both turned out to be almost identical in performance. You may find some thin-nose R26 pictures somewhere.

EDIT: The computer-generated image is nothing but an R28 adapted to 2009 regulations with the horrible 2009 paint-scheme.

And by the way, so far the quickest car is the Brawn, which happens to have... a pretty fat nose.

[kilcoo316]

still the engine?

No... its obviously the fat nose!!!

Can't you see?


Damn... Renaults CFD and wind tunnel must really be sh!t if they cannot see how bad that nose is.



On a more serious note. The fat nose is there for a reason, that is to induce assymetric flow around the symmetric centre-section of the front wing.

[xpensive]

I beg to differ Paddy, I think the true reason is that with Flavio's cost-cutting at Enstone, they had to assemble the nose from cardboard. Besides, they had used up all the double-curved carbon-fabric at the rear.

[Agerasia]

I beg to differ Paddy, I think the true reason is that with Flavio's cost-cutting at Enstone, they had to assemble the nose from cardboard. Besides, they had used up all the double-curved carbon-fabric at the rear.

It's odd really, you have a car they obviously did a lot of aero work on then it was like they just slapped the nose and wings on without any afterthought.

[jon-mullen]

I may not know much about aero, but it seems to me that eventually the whole car has got to get the air out of its way. That's the track width, not the nose width. There could be an advantage to a wide nose if it keeps the air from hitting less desirable, i.e. draggier, parts of the car, right? I doubt Pat Symons just had an attack of the stupids.

[leomax]

anyone recall who supplies batteries for kers?

[Spencifer_Murphy]

Anyway, I noticed that the R29s were the slowest in a straight-line of all cars at Albert Park, still the engine?

Not nessecarily, could be that their aero is not veryefficent, so to get the required downforce results in higher levels of drag, thus slower top end speed. Remember that the RB5 runs the same engine, and if the R29 was slowest in the speed traps then the RB5 was getting more speed from the same engine.