wesley123 wrote:wont you think it is pretty unlogical as then your car would be underweight.

Only if you take weight off. But if you take something from car center and put it in front?
With a little ballast they can alter weight bias quickly and conveniently.

timbo wrote:

wesley123 wrote:wont you think it is pretty unlogical as then your car would be underweight.

Only if you take weight off. But if you take something from car center and put it in front?
With a little ballast they can alter weight bias quickly and conveniently.

ow in that way.

I dont think it is that easy, as the ballast is connected to the floor, so yyou have to take the floor off and then again the ballast.

Is the R-29 still as ugly to everyone as it was at the launch?

Either it has grown on me, or I am used to it. I don't think it's fundamental look has changed nearly as much as say, the BMW.

yes i think so, in general i dnt think they look as good as last year

was watching the bbc classic races of spa. God i loved last years cars compared to now. Yes they were 'ugly' some may say, but the looked the part much more and mean machines!

I agree, though when I see last years cars, I can't help but think the rear wings look squashed down, as I've got used to the new tall ones.

Giblet wrote:Is the R-29 still as ugly to everyone as it was at the launch?

Either it has grown on me, or I am used to it. I don't think it's fundamental look has changed nearly as much as say, the BMW.

I think the whole 2009 cars on the whole have grown on me big time. I just forget about massive difference in wing width, until I actually look for it. Both the BMW and the R-29 have gown a little on me but I still think they are mingers. The RB-5 on the other hand is the sex.

Famous Renault floor.

That floor is the porn star of formula one!

@ Abu Dhabi.

Well it's official, regarding the R29's performance this year; the car has been an absolute dog.

I predicted beginning of the season that the R29 would be horrendous during the season, and it turned out to be true. This season it was one of the worst, if not THE worst car on the grid in terms of performance.

This adds further evidence to the idea that the horrible wide, stubby noses make for a slower car. BMW's F1.09 was equally a horrible car until they made major updates to the car, including making the nose sleeker.

Further proof is that the fastest cars this season have had sleek noses. Yes some of the noses are a bit wider like the Brawn car, but they are still sleek.

The F1.09 initially, and the R29 both had blocky, stubby, wide noses and they performed quite badly because of it.

Whilst I agree that the R29 was dog ugly; it and the F1.09 were heavily compromised by a bad version of KERS and never recovered fully.

vasia wrote:The F1.09 initially, and the R29 both had blocky, stubby, wide noses and they performed quite badly because of it.

If you really think the changes to the nose was the key driver to car performance you know very little about subsonic aerodynamics.




The real reason for the initial noses not working better, and Renault's continuing to work poorly through the year is more to do with how much air is directed over the nose, and how much under the nose. The air directed under the nose will feed the floor and the diffuser (both pressure and suction surfaces).

If your diffuser can handle it, and your front wing can still keep your aero-balance good, having a higher nose is the more (aerodynamically) effective way to go (see RBR for example).


The two bits in bold are the design drivers. Not the nose.

The season is over and I'm feeling sentimental, so can I add something to this thread? The Renault R29 was the ugliest car ever.