Red Bull RB9 Renault

[gandharva]

Sorry guys but for me the car is getting uglier and uglier. It might be super fast but pretty ugly. It's just calculating (signature).

All cars are ugly out of this perspective. Blame FIA not the teams.

[Blackout]

Yes it depends on the perspective too...
2013 cars are beautiful starting from the front wheels IMO. If FIA lowers the tub and nose maximum height a bit and make a return to the late 2003/early 2004 front wings possible (like the early MP4 19 front wing for example) and lower the rear wing a bit and widen it, F1 cars would look awesome.

[Mr.G]

At first, I don't want to start a flame. However I don't agree. The rules are the same for all the teams and there are currently nice cars. This one is just getting worse and worse (not in performance). The nose, the sidepods... It starts to remind me some kind of ugly insect (sorry).

[Juzh]

As long as it competes for top places it doesn't matter. I find it quite good looking.

[aral]

At first, I don't want to start a flame. However I don't agree. The rules are the same for all the teams and there are currently nice cars. This one is just getting worse and worse (not in performance). The nose, the sidepods... It starts to remind me some kind of ugly insect (sorry).

Some of the fastest planes in the world, are downright ugly, but that does not mean they are any the worse for it. Sometimes you have to be brutal with airflow, to gain the best advantage. Look at Marussia, cleanest lines, but slowest car!

[Mr.G]

I understand it well. However, it's my opinion (look on to my signature), I like clean and efficient design. RedBull is just for pure performance (ugly, but fast), McLaren always want to be fancy and for most of the time they find some pretty complicated solution which works (but: a. in very small working window, b. it's too complicated and brings lot of faults during races) and finaly Ferrari. They tries to have both (performance and clean design), they aren't alway successful but they cars have "soul". Thats it.

We are getting a little bit off topic but, nice, clean and fast, very good performance:
- SR-71
- Su-37

[Juzh]

I understand it well. However, it's my opinion (look on to my signature), I like clean and efficient design. RedBull is just for pure performance (ugly, but fast), McLaren always want to be fancy and for most of the time they find some pretty complicated solution which works (but: a. in very small working window, b. it's too complicated and brings lot of faults during races) and finaly Ferrari. They tries to have both (performance and clean design), they aren't alway successful but they cars have "soul". Thats it.

We are getting a little bit off topic but, nice, clean and fast, very good performance:
- SR-71
- Su-37

Nonsense. There is no place for beauty in the world of extreme performance. You really think they though about looks from aesthetic point of view when they designed SR-71?

[Raptor22]

SR 71

A lesson in how to fly a camera as fast as possible, as far as possible, within the bounds of the atmosphere. Yip pretty much a pencil with two ramjets stuck on the ends of the most efficient wings for that purpose.

[sirexilon]

It's an aero neutral camera housing. Nothing more.

Sorry but I don't think ANYTHING in an Adrian Newey car is Aero neutral.

Not that it is wrong, everybody else can do it too.

[Nando]

Nonsense. There is no place for beauty in the world of extreme performance. You really think they though about looks from aesthetic point of view when they designed SR-71?

+1 for the last sentence but i have to disagree slightly with the first statement.

Obviously beauty is not a conscious aspect when going for extreme performance but i do think that in most cases, beauty comes with it.

[Mr.G]

We obviously don't understand each other. Beauty and clean design aren't the some thing. Do you know this? When you create something which is clear design and you maintain the golden ratio, you have the win-win situation. You will get the performance and your clean design will be looking "beautiful", "right" or call it however you like.

Never mind, you need to design something before to understand the beauty of clear design and good engineering (no offense).

[gerishnikov]

can we get back on topic please, this is a technical fourm. I didn't log on to read people arguing about something so ridiculous as beauty.

[Mr.G]

My apologies, sorry.

[Lorenzo_Bandini]

Renault show the data of their engines, the fuel consumption for each races. Sorry, it's in french, i'm on my phone right now on my way to the work, when i will arrive i will traduce.

http://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com/renault,57537.html


Clik on the photo to enlarge

The first column is the name of the country, the second one is the lenght of the track, then it's the average speed, then max speed, then it's the % of the lap at full throttle, then the fuel consumption on one lap then the average consumption (L per 100KM ).

At Melbourne, RS27 engines consumn 2.5 litres of fuel on one lap and 67 after 100 KM.

[zztopless]

Renault show the data of their engines, the fuel consumption for each races. Sorry, it's in french, i'm on my phone right now on my way to the work, when i will arrive i will traduce.

The first column is the name of the country, the second one is the lenght of the track, then it's the average speed, then max speed, then it's the % of the lap at full throttle, then the fuel consumption on one lap then the average consumption (L per 100KM ).

At Melbourne, RS27 engines consumn 2.5 litres of fuel on one lap and 67 after 100 KM.

Thanks Lorenzo, that is really insightful. I am a bit surprised at how close Belgium is to Italy on average speed and how close the overall fuel consumption (l/100km) is.

I wonder if Belgium has been getting closer to Italy in average speed as down-force has become a greater factor relative to engine power. Would love to see these the average speeds for these two tracks over the last 10 years (well, would love to see them all for that matter and how they've changed). I'm surprised that lower down-force doesn't equate to much more than a few percent better fuel consumption compared to medium and high down-force tracks, but I suppose it makes sense when you consider that down-force squares with speed and wind resistance is the biggest cause of high fuel consumption. Also surprising just how much of a difference altitude makes on the fuel consumption in Brazil.