jwielage wrote:
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.
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.
I already stated that Australia GP results are not conclusive, and that Sepang (assuming it's a dry race) will be a more accurate indicator. Why did Toro Rosso qualify near the back? That's a silly question to ask isn't it? Toro Rosso has mediocre drivers this year. If Vettel was driving one of the Toro Rosso cars, it's almost certain he would have qualified in the Top 10.
It's highly rumoured Renault is working on a Brawn-esque diffuser, and certainly Renault's front wing will change as it is too underdeveloped at this point. So there is a good possibility Renault's nose may change, especially if their original nose that failed crash testing was slimmer.
timbo wrote:
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.
Obviously the total cross section matters. I was explicitly talking about only the drag coefficient of the nose, and what effect increasing frontal area of the nose has on the drag. Most of the slim-nose cars this year actually have very smooth, and very rounded noses. The only nose that is somewhat 'pointy' is the RB5 nose.
Also let me clarify; I think the nose is an issue on the R29 because in my opinion, it (along with the front wing) does not fit the rest of the car's aerodynamics. Looking at the sidepods, engine cover, floor, and parts of the rear, you can tell the R29 is highly developed aerodynamically. A lot of very complex curvature can be seen in the sidepods and engine cover, as well as the floor ahead and 'round of the sidepods. The front wing and nose on the other hand, are quite simple.
Obviously there are no dumb people in F1, but at the same time nobody is perfect. It would be foolish to expect F1 aerodynamicists and mechanical/chassis people to have optimal/perfect design ALL the time. People in F1 are only human, just like the rest of us. They make mistakes just like all people do. That sometimes includes mistakes of fundamentally going in the wrong design and development direction for an F1 car. There have been examples before in F1 of top teams going in the wrong direction and ending up with a messy car.
Do not think that Renault is immune from that, or that the fat nose is on there because it is the "most optimal" design.
Miguel wrote:
And by the way, so far the quickest car is the Brawn, which happens to have... a pretty fat nose.
The Brawn nose is very rounded and smooth; the R29 nose is more blunt and has more "edges". The complex curvature of the Brawn nose also matches the rest of the car's aerodynamic design and philosophy. That does not seem to be the case on the R29. The nose and front wing on the R29 seem underdeveloped compared to other parts of the car.
xpensive wrote:
Anyway, I noticed that the R29s were the slowest in a straight-line of all cars at Albert Park, still the engine?
Could be they needed more downforce for stability and balance, so they ran more wing. It could also be that the car produces more drag than others at the same downforce levels.
