Red Bull RB8 Renault

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
Post Reply
User avatar
raymondu999
54
Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 07:31

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

hardingfv32 wrote:2) We have had rear engine cars for 5 decades. You want us to believe that in that time no one ever considered routing the front radiator flow in to the cockpit as a simple experiment (disregarding driver comfort)?
Hard to imagine no one pictured it - but it's not impossible.
3) Why are not other FI team doing this? Too difficult to perform CFD or test in the tunnel? You guys thought it up and 200 or so paid professional wouldn't? Does that sound logical?
No. But it's not impossible.

"Surely" statements are nowhere near an absolute. There really isn't much you can apply "absolutes" to in real life. F1 engineers are human beings too - theymight not even be looking at that area as a possible performance gaining place. Bill Gates thought 640K was enough for a home PC.
n smikle wrote:wait till we see the bulkhead. My guts tell me it's for driver cooling + front wing f-duct.
Wouldn't routing the air in a U turn, then down the pylons etc rob the air of a lot of energy? I'd imagine the initial U-turn the air has to make would produce a lot of drag too.
失败者找理由,成功者找方法

Just_a_fan
591
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

Here you go guys, have a play with fluid losses in pipe calculations:
http://www.efunda.com/formulae/fluids/c ... n.cfm#calc
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

User avatar
flynfrog
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2006, 22:31

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

n smikle wrote:
The holes won't weaken the chassis the same way as steel, because of the matrix nature of carbon fibre. Fractures do not propagate like steel. I do not know exactly how fractures behave in CFRP, but I know it won't tear like steel.
Then maybe you should not try to answer a question you don't know the answer to then. Holes do weaken a CFRP structure and fractures do propagate in a similar manner to steel.

AdamCarpenter
0
Joined: 08 Feb 2012, 00:26

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

hardingfv32 wrote:
In the last 4-5 decades when has anyone ever found it beneficial to route air flow into the cockpit? You want us to believe that these guys just came up with a new idea in this area. Do you have even the smallest amount of logic supporting your position?

Brian
McLaren/Everyone else who had a driver controlled F-Duct in 2010. They came up with a brand new concept for 2010. Red Bull/Renault engine dept came up with a brand new idea for off throttle blowing to make the EBD more stable... So yes... People come up with new ideas all the time. Granted the EBD has no relation to cockpit airflow, but it is a valid illustration of my point. As would be the Renault Mass Damper, McLaren J Damper, McLaren's second brake pedal, Double Diffuser, any innovation where one or more teams have stolen a march on the rest of the grid. All new ideas in existing areas.
hardingfv32 wrote:
2) We have had rear engine cars for 5 decades. You want us to believe that in that time no one ever considered routing the front radiator flow in to the cockpit as a simple experiment (disregarding driver comfort)?

3) Why are not other FI team doing this? Too difficult to perform CFD or test in the tunnel? You guys thought it up and 200 or so paid professional wouldn't? Does that sound logical?
Mid Engined cars. From what i've read from many people on here who are way more knowledgeable than myself, flow coming from the back of the radiators would be too turbulent and slow to do any complex routing with. Flow hitting the gap in that letterbox (pretty much unobstructed) at up to 200mph I would suggest is more usable. A front wing F-Duct does seem like some pretty extreme routing, but not a lot more extreme than Mercedes' routing for theirs. Plus the letterbox is way bigger than the intake on the Mercedes nose cone, and if Mercedes can get enough air to their wing to do the job using the hole in the end of their nose cone, then perhaps Red Bull are getting a similar amount of air to their front wing using a more complex system, but starting with a larger amount of air/energy, and losing more along the way.

Nobody here is saying that they invented this letterbox intake... They're speculating as to what it might do. And obviously someone at Red Bull came up with it and the rest of the grid either hasn't looked into it (like 2010 with the F-Duct) or it doesn't bring much of a benefit and other teams didn't feel the need to do whatever it is that the intake does.

User avatar
ringo
225
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 10:57

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

@ flyn you haven't added anything either.
We try to imagine and fabricate processes we don't know about too much in these threads. A safety factor of 1 is not used; never will be.

What redbull did to their tub does not weaken it, hence why it passed the crash tests. That's the simplest way of putting it. :wink:

The same can be said of making holes for test equipment and f ducts. If it risked the driver's life or made the car lose massive performance, they wouldn't run it.

Can we stop trying to fault this innovation and instead constructively figure out if it's more than a cooling hole?
For Sure!!

markp
7
Joined: 19 Feb 2012, 23:53

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

If getting as much flow to the back is so important could the letterbox simply direct air to the back through the cockpit between the small gaps between the drivers head and the side protection. I know the drivers head would block this sometimes but the gain may be small so the occasional loss would be as well. Better to have an occasional small gain. Would this also cut drag at the front by letting air pass through what is othetwise a blunt object you ideally would not have put on the design without current rules.

hardingfv32
32
Joined: 03 Apr 2011, 19:42

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

raymondu999 wrote:Wouldn't routing the air in a U turn, then down the pylons etc rob the air of a lot of energy? I'd imagine the initial U-turn the air has to make would produce a lot of drag too.
On the order of 50%. And we have at least two more sets of double 90's, good for a loss of 25% each to get into each side of the wing? Now was this the primary flow or a signal flow? Or do you even know?

Brian

hardingfv32
32
Joined: 03 Apr 2011, 19:42

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

AdamCarpenter wrote: Flow hitting the gap in that letterbox (pretty much unobstructed) at up to 200mph I would suggest is more usable.
IF the flow is so useable, then why is there a ramp in front of the slot? Why not a full size opening? I know, too much of a good thing.

Brian
Last edited by hardingfv32 on 20 Feb 2012, 00:59, edited 1 time in total.

hardingfv32
32
Joined: 03 Apr 2011, 19:42

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

ringo wrote:Can we stop trying to fault this innovation and instead constructively figure out if it's more than a cooling hole?
You like to dabble with CFD, you have not run a simple simulation to see what is going on?

I believe n smikle ran a simulation and found no difference between the a slot and no slot. It is a little strange that you did not comment on his simulation.

I find his results completely logical considering what the other teams have done. You guys are ignoring that these teams have the latest CFD software, user friendly, with personnel 'motivate' to use it everyday. This is second nature to them. It is like you going to Google to answer a question. That simple when you have all the parameters already available. So, 3-4 aero guys per team brain storm this lowered nose issue for a week or so, hack out some CFD trials and have a pretty good idea what the options are. I say the results we see on the cars indicate it does not matter what you do in this area.

Brian

AdamCarpenter
0
Joined: 08 Feb 2012, 00:26

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

hardingfv32 wrote:
raymondu999 wrote:Wouldn't routing the air in a U turn, then down the pylons etc rob the air of a lot of energy? I'd imagine the initial U-turn the air has to make would produce a lot of drag too.
On the order of 50%. And we have at least two more sets of double 90's, good for a loss of 25% each to get into each side of the wing? Now was this the primary flow or a signal flow? Or do you even know?

Brian
Which means that 28.125% of the original energy is still available (if you're saying that the double 90's will rob 25% of the energy twice from each side, 37.5% if you're saying that it's just 25% once from each side). Maybe that's enough energy to do whatever it is that they may or may not be trying to do with the front wing. Again, nobody is saying they definitely have a front wing f-duct, and I am certainly not, I just think you could maybe be a little less empirical and open your mind to the possibility of a front wing f-duct.
hardingfv32 wrote:IF the flow is so useable, then why is there a ramp in front of the slot? Why not a for size opening? I know, too much of a good thing.
I didn't say the flow was SO useable, I suggested that it might be more useable than radiator exit flow in terms of complex routing. And why that size opening? I don't know, perhaps that size was the size they felt offered the best compromise between whatever benefit it may give and drag. Why didn't McLaren use a bigger intake for the F-Duct? Too much of a good thing? Nope, they didn't need to use a bigger intake. A bigger intake would have caused unnecessary drag as the rear wing would have stalled with a smaller intake.

hardingfv32
32
Joined: 03 Apr 2011, 19:42

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

AdamCarpenter wrote:Why didn't McLaren use a bigger intake for the F-Duct?
Which McLaren rear wing F-Duct intake are you discussing?

Brian

AdamCarpenter
0
Joined: 08 Feb 2012, 00:26

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

hardingfv32 wrote:
AdamCarpenter wrote:Why didn't McLaren use a bigger intake for the F-Duct?
Which McLaren rear wing F-Duct intake are you discussing?

Brian
THE McLaren F Duct Intake... From the MP4-25... In front of the driver on top of the tub.

User avatar
FrukostScones
162
Joined: 25 May 2010, 17:41
Location: European Union

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

AdamCarpenter wrote:
hardingfv32 wrote:
AdamCarpenter wrote:Why didn't McLaren use a bigger intake for the F-Duct?
Which McLaren rear wing F-Duct intake are you discussing?

Brian
THE McLaren F Duct Intake... From the MP4-25... In front of the driver on top of the tub.
there are more than one intake for the f-duct on MP4-25, that is why he was asking...
a bit nit-picky but...
Finishing races is important, but racing is more important.

AdamCarpenter
0
Joined: 08 Feb 2012, 00:26

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

FrukostScones wrote:
AdamCarpenter wrote:
THE McLaren F Duct Intake... From the MP4-25... In front of the driver on top of the tub.
there are more than one intake for the f-duct on MP4-25, that is why he was asking...
a bit nit-picky but...
Well the other one is the roll hoop cooling intake, which isn't really relevant to what we're discussing. That's just semantics though, i'm sure hardingfv knew which one I was talking about. Either way, both intakes will have been designed as small as possible to do their job effectively without causing too much drag. Which is my explanation for why the letterbox on the front of the Red Bull may not be bigger than it is... Simply that it might not need to be any bigger.

User avatar
flynfrog
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2006, 22:31

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

ringo wrote:@ flyn you haven't added anything either.
We try to imagine and fabricate processes we don't know about too much in these threads. A safety factor of 1 is not used; never will be.

What redbull did to their tub does not weaken it, hence why it passed the crash tests. That's the simplest way of putting it. :wink:
Passing the crash test doesn't mean it lost rigidity or strength we just know it meets the minimum requirements of a crash test.

I try not to comment unless I know what I'm talking about instead of throwing random buzz words out or coping some ones blog post like some posters.


Its a cooling hole for something driver or KERS If it didn't work it wouldn't have made it to the car. No need to waste page after page on it.

Post Reply