Renault R29

[Roland Ehnström]

So far the R29 hasn't been fast anywhere, tests, practice sessions, qualifying, races... And it's slow even compared to the non-DDD teams; Ferrari, Red Bull and BMW are all clearly faster at this stage. A new diffuser may help get them a little closer to Brawn, Toyota and Williams, but I think they will continue to struggle throughout this season. Worse, Renault may decide to pull the plug before 2010.

I expect Ferrari to get their act together and catch up with Brawn before the season is over, the big question is how many points they will be behind by then. BMW and Red Bull may close up to and overtake Toyota, while I expect Williams to march backwards as the season progresses (hope I'm wrong). McLaren and especially Renault will probably continue to struggle, while Toro Rosso and Force India will fall further and further behind.

[xpensive]

Au contraire mon ami, now that the FIA has forever liberated the interpretation of the rulebook, Renault will very soon show up with a decent-looking beaker and a multi-decker ass, which will instantly hurl my favourite driver back to the top.

[Metar]

Au contraire mon ami, now that the FIA has forever liberated the interpretation of the rulebook, Renault will very soon show up with a decent-looking beaker and a multi-decker ass, which will instantly hurl my favourite driver back to the top.

The "I forgot the scale model in the oven and my sidepods melted" drooped rear actually looks like a perfect candidate...

[imightbewrong]

[xpensive]

There you go Metar, perhaps they were thinking ahead at the time? Anyway, the above aerodynamic tweaks together with a fully functioning KERS and you will soon have the spanish commentator reaching octaves previously unheard of.

[imightbewrong]

Another nice view from china:

[ISLAMATRON]

It is clearly absurd to think that any driver can get more than 100% from the car... The true pace of the R29 may be a tiny bit faster than Alonso pedals it. He is but a human, as are all the drivers, and therefore can not bend the rules of physics to make the car faster than its attributes allow.

Piquet is clearly an inferior driver to Alonso, but lets not let that skew our logical outlook at the evidence at hand.

Alonso tried to get more than the car was capable of in Malaysia and ended up in the kitty Litter... and anytime a driver tries to push a car past its performance capabilities they allways lose time or end their race. No driver can get more than 100% from the car and since they are human and thus imperfect they cannot achieve this level constantly. And this goes for all the top drivers.

Piquet probably only extracts 90% from the car on a good day, and even his good days dont last very long

[ISLAMATRON]

Exactly. The pace of the R29 is better judged looking at Piquet, and so far he's been fairly slow. Even in the hands of Alonso the R29 has looked slow both at Australia and Malaysia. Bob Bell talks about how the R29 has plenty of pace, but they haven't been able to show that on track. I hope for Renault's sake Bell is not just spouting hot air.

Better look at an average between them. You shouldn't judge the Williams solely by Nakajima, nor the Renault be Piquet. While Alonso is a step above the "average", and indeed overperforms for the car - Piquet does the exact opposite.

The fastest time is closest to the true pace of the car, Alonso, nor any great driver can not drive around the Laws of Physics, but only approach their limits... the true pace of the car is faster than even Alonso can pedal it, but probly nby not very much.

Its all physics... no ways around it.

[Metar]

The fastest time is closest to the true pace of the car, Alonso, nor any great driver can not drive around the Laws of Physics, but only approach their limits... the true pace of the car is faster than even Alonso can pedal it, but probly nby not very much.

Its all physics... no ways around it.

I agree with you - it's just that the usually-referenced "speed" of the car isn't the true-absolute-best-possible, but the pace "most" drivers ("most", because it's only most F1 drivers) can get out of the car. The great ones pushed their cars close to the true limit, and the truly-great ones managed to keep it there (and all of them slipped and spun, at some point). So when I say, Alonso drives "over" the car's pace, and Piquet "under", then obviously both drive within the maximum possible pace - but one over the "expected" pace from a car, and the other under. Hamilton, Kimi and Vettel strike me as three other contemporaries that manage that feat. Trulli and Webber too, to an extent - over a single lap, though.

Schumacher's case is similar: Barrichello, agreed by almost all to be a decent driver, got the "expected" results out of the car - he drove on the car's "pace". Schumacher can be said to have driven over the "expected" pace, and near the limit, when he had to push (and with the cars he had, he didn't always have to).

In my previous post, I only meant to imply - you can't judge a car's pace using a bad driver, just like you can't judge a car's pace going by a top driver, unless against another top driver. So, we can compare Alonso's Renault to Hamilton's McLaren - but we can't compare Piquet's Renault to any other car, and claim that's the reason it's slow.

[ISLAMATRON]

I agree with you - it's just that the usually-referenced "speed" of the car isn't the true-absolute-best-possible, but the pace "most" drivers ("most", because it's only most F1 drivers) can get out of the car. The great ones pushed their cars close to the true limit, and the truly-great ones managed to keep it there (and all of them slipped and spun, at some point). So when I say, Alonso drives "over" the car's pace, and Piquet "under", then obviously both drive within the maximum possible pace - but one over the "expected" pace from a car, and the other under. Hamilton, Kimi and Vettel strike me as three other contemporaries that manage that feat. Trulli and Webber too, to an extent - over a single lap, though.

Schumacher's case is similar: Barrichello, agreed by almost all to be a decent driver, got the "expected" results out of the car - he drove on the car's "pace". Schumacher can be said to have driven over the "expected" pace, and near the limit, when he had to push (and with the cars he had, he didn't always have to).

In my previous post, I only meant to imply - you can't judge a car's pace using a bad driver, just like you can't judge a car's pace going by a top driver, unless against another top driver. So, we can compare Alonso's Renault to Hamilton's McLaren - but we can't compare Piquet's Renault to any other car, and claim that's the reason it's slow.

I honestly dont see the point of it... The closest to the true pace of the car is the time of the fastest driver... but even the best driver cant reach 100% perfection. I think its silly to say that Alonso drives over the pace... by my definition that would be a bad driving trait and not one of a top F1 driver as we all agree Alonso is amongst the short list. Alonso drives very close to the true pace of the car and Piquet is way below and still makes mistakes when driving at his lower limit. But it could be setup defined and Piquet lacks in that area as well... that could be from inexperience or from a sheer lack of intelligence.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

The fastest time is closest to the true pace of the car, Alonso, nor any great driver can not drive around the Laws of Physics, but only approach their limits... the true pace of the car is faster than even Alonso can pedal it, but probly nby not very much.

Its all physics... no ways around it.

While that's correct, couldn't you argue that a fast car has to be both physically capable of bein fast AND drive able. What I mean is, say the Renault is actually the fastest car, but its so undriveable that not even Alonso can actually wring out it's full potential.

In that sence, while the car may phycially be capable of lapping any circuit faster than any other F1 car its completely irrelevant if it requires the flight management computer from the Eurofighter in order to actually do so.

btw, I'm not saying any of that is the case with the R29, or any other F1 for that matter. What I'm getting as is, although I agree the fastest time is closest to the car's theoretical maximum (as you pointed out the driver will only ever get percentage of this out of the car) in terms of "A car's pace" in the real world wouldn't the average be a better measure as it shows what the car is capable of in the hands of A driver as opposed to ONE specific driver?

[PlatinumZealot]

I think using the better driver is a good comparison. After all the drivers of the other cars are human too.

[Metar]

While that's correct, couldn't you argue that a fast car has to be both physically capable of bein fast AND drive able. What I mean is, say the Renault is actually the fastest car, but its so undriveable that not even Alonso can actually wring out it's full potential.

Ducati's racing bikes are a prime example. Stoner, world-class rider, is the only one that wrings out the monstrous potential this bike has - but even his world champion teammate can't get it right. The Yamaha, on the other hand, is driven competitively by the Schumacher of bikes, Rossi - but also by a range of other riders just behind him. One is a devastatingly fast machine that is a beast to ride, the other is smooth as silk, though not always as fast.


Also, back on topic: BBC says it's a new temporary-fix diffuser already?

[ISLAMATRON]

While that's correct, couldn't you argue that a fast car has to be both physically capable of bein fast AND drive able. What I mean is, say the Renault is actually the fastest car, but its so undriveable that not even Alonso can actually wring out it's full potential.

In that sence, while the car may phycially be capable of lapping any circuit faster than any other F1 car its completely irrelevant if it requires the flight management computer from the Eurofighter in order to actually do so.

btw, I'm not saying any of that is the case with the R29, or any other F1 for that matter. What I'm getting as is, although I agree the fastest time is closest to the car's theoretical maximum (as you pointed out the driver will only ever get percentage of this out of the car) in terms of "A car's pace" in the real world wouldn't the average be a better measure as it shows what the car is capable of in the hands of A driver as opposed to ONE specific driver?

Driveability is a big factor no doubt, hence why so many say that Schuemacher's setups and furthermore the corresponding Ferrari's design philosophies made it so difficult for any other driver even in the same car to mach him.

Therein lies the problem with using the average... the car was designed to Alonso's specification and so Piquet's struggles may have something to do with that(although it does seems his skills are deficient)... using the average, IMO, artificially lowers the representative pace of the car. In all honestly I think it may be a waste of time to even contemplate most of what Piquet does in the car.

That is why I allways thought it would behoove the teams to sign drivers with very similar driving styles/patterns. Toyota's struggles with Ralf & Truili being self evident. I think JT & Glock are much more similar in styles.

[Giblet]

The fastest time is closest to the true pace of the car, Alonso, nor any great driver can not drive around the Laws of Physics, but only approach their limits... the true pace of the car is faster than even Alonso can pedal it, but probly nby not very much.

Its all physics... no ways around it.

While that's correct, couldn't you argue that a fast car has to be both physically capable of bein fast AND drive able. What I mean is, say the Renault is actually the fastest car, but its so undriveable that not even Alonso can actually wring out it's full potential.

In that sence, while the car may phycially be capable of lapping any circuit faster than any other F1 car its completely irrelevant if it requires the flight management computer from the Eurofighter in order to actually do so.

btw, I'm not saying any of that is the case with the R29, or any other F1 for that matter. What I'm getting as is, although I agree the fastest time is closest to the car's theoretical maximum (as you pointed out the driver will only ever get percentage of this out of the car) in terms of "A car's pace" in the real world wouldn't the average be a better measure as it shows what the car is capable of in the hands of A driver as opposed to ONE specific driver?

I was just thinking that before you wrote that line, how the eurofighter is so capable because it is the equivalent of a dart being thrown backwards, with a computer keeping it backwards, so it's _always_ on the knife edge of a turn. No human being is capable of flying most modern jets without a wire, and the eurofighter it's an impossibility.