Red Bull RB8 Renault

[Fil]

Hey guys, impulsive thought.. could the sidepod bridge near the exhaust be hollow, feeding sidepod air into the floor, or above the floor just inside the inside of the wheels?


That sidepod bridge has bugged me since it was discovered.. there must be some reason for it to be shaped as it is, and fed into the floor as it is (beyond just aerodynamics).

There can't be any holes in the floor

Yeah so scratch that one. Could that flow just be directed (tunnel-like) to exit above the floor inside the rear wheels?

[myurr]

If the pylons were cracked, then surely that would affect the neutral section of the wing as well as the flaps + endplates?

Exactly and if only one was damaged why are both endplates at the same angle

Not only that but in both the normal and 'broken' front wing pictures the neutral section's leading edge is a straight line with the majority of the rest of the wing. So the 'broken' wing the central section is remaining static as is the leading edge of the rest of the wing, but the end plates and main flaps are twisting to be tail high.

That's an incredibly weird failure mode, as scarbs said, and would point to some really fishy mechanism inside the front wing that is used to control the angle of attack and/or flex of the wing.

The annoying thing is that you can be sure nothing will be done about this, there won't even be an investigation by the FIA to find out the truth (rather than fan speculation). Horner will continue with his bare faced lies (he's been caught out so many times now I really don't understand why anyone gives him the time of day let alone benefit of the doubt) and claim that the other teams are imagining things and are just jealous, and the ruling body will let him get away with it.

[AnthonyG]

I think it's not that weird to see the wing pointing in that direction if it's broken. (tilting forward)
It's mounted very forward and in the bottom plate can contain lead weights for the weight distribution.

And isn't the front wing suspended to a cable to prevent it from detaching?

[AnthonyG]

[Th0R]

I think it's not that weird to see the wing pointing in that direction if it's broken. (tilting forward)
It's mounted very forward and in the bottom plate can contain lead weights for the weight distribution.

And isn't the front wing suspended to a cable to prevent it from detaching?

That's true but then to whole wing would have been tilted and not only the ends of the wing...

[CHT]

Hey guys, impulsive thought.. could the sidepod bridge near the exhaust be hollow, feeding sidepod air into the floor, or above the floor just inside the inside of the wheels?


That sidepod bridge has bugged me since it was discovered.. there must be some reason for it to be shaped as it is, and fed into the floor as it is (beyond just aerodynamics).

There can't be any holes in the floor

Yeah so scratch that one. Could that flow just be directed (tunnel-like) to exit above the floor inside the rear wheels?

could it feeding air in between the double-skinned floor and the diffuser.

[gandharva]

Looks like Vettel crashed or something on the frontwing broke...

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Some RW & Rear end detail

[eurocentric]

For all the running to cover things up, you can't beat the shutter and a long lens of a camera.

Will have a go at enhancing the detail in the shadows

[eurocentric]

Enhanced shadows areas

[Tomba]

That rear wing looks very dusty perhaps hes been in a gravel trap.

[Fil]

Hey guys, impulsive thought.. could the sidepod bridge near the exhaust be hollow, feeding sidepod air into the floor, or above the floor just inside the inside of the wheels?


That sidepod bridge has bugged me since it was discovered.. there must be some reason for it to be shaped as it is, and fed into the floor as it is (beyond just aerodynamics).

Could that flow just be directed (tunnel-like) to exit above the floor inside the rear wheels?

could it feeding air in between the double-skinned floor and the diffuser.

Yeah something along those lines.. hard to tell from the back where something like that could be fed though..

[Mandrake]

So the list of things to protest on this car so far stands at:

- Bodywork and channels expressly for channeling the exhaust air. Whilst not strictly illegal the FIA have said they would not be happy with such bodywork.

- Channels and holes into the diffuser, either building a double deck diffuser of some description or allowing exhaust gas into the diffuser, depending on who you ask.

- Flexing AOA adjustable front wing of some description.

- Failure to adhere to RRA spending limits and resigning from FOTA over this.

Anything else we need to add to this list?

(lights blue touch paper and retreats to safe distance...)

1. McLaren and Ferrari have that too, so it's 3 teams being protested on that then.

2. Blowing the starter hole is what everyone does. Almost every team has that opening on either side of the gearbox to channel air into the diffusor. That's not a DDD then, just to clarify.

3. The sideview shows an angle that's clearly over the top, I doubt anyone would aim for such an angle....whatever it was, it's not flexing that much!

4. Again, looking at new body parts only to make a statement on spending will lead to the conclusion: Lotus (new chassis), Ferrari (lots of new bodywork to get their exhausts right) and McLaren (new sidepod + exhaust area) have all spent money to build different solutions.....I see no RRA infringement here!

Anything else to banter about?

[myurr]

So the list of things to protest on this car so far stands at:

- Bodywork and channels expressly for channeling the exhaust air. Whilst not strictly illegal the FIA have said they would not be happy with such bodywork.

- Channels and holes into the diffuser, either building a double deck diffuser of some description or allowing exhaust gas into the diffuser, depending on who you ask.

- Flexing AOA adjustable front wing of some description.

- Failure to adhere to RRA spending limits and resigning from FOTA over this.

Anything else we need to add to this list?

(lights blue touch paper and retreats to safe distance...)

1. McLaren and Ferrari have that too, so it's 3 teams being protested on that then.

2. Blowing the starter hole is what everyone does. Almost every team has that opening on either side of the gearbox to channel air into the diffusor. That's not a DDD then, just to clarify.

3. The sideview shows an angle that's clearly over the top, I doubt anyone would aim for such an angle....whatever it was, it's not flexing that much!

4. Again, looking at new body parts only to make a statement on spending will lead to the conclusion: Lotus (new chassis), Ferrari (lots of new bodywork to get their exhausts right) and McLaren (new sidepod + exhaust area) have all spent money to build different solutions.....I see no RRA infringement here!

Anything else to banter about?

1. Several teams, including Sauber and McLaren, have the channels to deflect the exhaust using the coanda effect. However Red Bull have a duct that is definitely influencing the exhaust, either by deflecting the exhaust itself or by keeping other airflow away from the exhaust, plus a series of other vanes and tunnels all over the back of the car. It is those latter devices that the FIA said they would frown upon and didn't want to see on the cars, and are unique to the Red Bull.

2. Red Bull have the most extreme solution here, and again it seems that their ducting is either routing exhaust here or is channeling other air directly here. I'm sure it's legal to the letter of the law but again I expect the FIA to frown upon it if they are to be consistent with their public statements.

3. No but it hints at mechanisms via which they are getting some degree of flexing. That angle of wing during a failure was incredibly unusual.

4. Yet Red Bull left FOTA specifically because of disagreements over the RRA and were the only team to fly out a new chassis. They are also rumoured (unfortunately we don't have anything concrete either way) to have been in breach of the RRA for the last couple of years, and certainly others within FOTA had been making noises about being unhappy with Red Bull's interpretation of the rules.

[Mandrake]

Let's not have double standards here, we have no evidence of how much influence the specific bodyworks have on exhaust gas flow. RedBull is using the Coanda effect as well, who knows how much of an influence their additional bodywork has.

If the FIA were to enforce their ruling "No bodywork my be used to influence the exhaust flow" then they mustn't ban the RedBull solution because it is the most extreme one. All or nothing should be used here. (We have no clue if the RedBull solution is any good, I'm just the devil's advocat here because I like unique ideas and the RedBull shows once again lovely engineering.

The point about the opening is the same as above, everybody does it, so either everyone should abandon it or nobody.

I'm not gonna go into the RRA stuff again, but wasn't it Lotus who flew in a new chassis as well? And I'm pretty certain we might see new chassis from Ferrari and possibly McLaren thoughout the season, I don't see any infringement at all so far