Red Bull RB8 Renault

[ing]

http://www.formula1.com/wi/0x0/sutton/2 ... 7fe262.jpg

Don't know if the rear suspension track rod, or toe link, has been discussed (I have not see it here), but the lower wishbone rear arm fairing appears to not only fairs in the driveshaft, but must also contain the track rod as I don't see it anywhere else.

That's two less individual elements obstructing the airflow to the back compared to some of the other cars - pretty slick.

[hardingfv32]

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.

His point is that it is not for driver cooling. Nothing has change that prevents the teams from using a simple nose tip opening if they wish to cool the driver. You would not have to modify the front bulk head if driver cooling was your goal.

It is also not KERS cooling because you can not duct the air flow through the foot/leg area without increasing the size of the chassis. The interior dimensions are clearly controlled in to rules. The exterior of the chassis in this area looks very much like the interior shape specified in the rules, so we can assume this is what controls the chassis size in this area.

So, there is no logical way to presume it is for cooling. the facts do not add up. It is some kind of aero benefit or maybe a misdirection on the part of RB. What if it does not matter. RB does this to cause confusion. They are the wonder-boys after all.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

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.

I wondered if you realized that the forward F-Duct was a control/signal flow circuit. As such, it did not need to be very large. We do not know the size of the main circuit in the roll hoop area. But we could assume that is size was a compromise, because it is in an area where harvesting flow does come at a cost of drag.

I would argue that their is no such compromise to be made at the top of the nose at the letter box opening. That it could be larger without causing additional drag.

Brian

[Nickel]

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

Pretty sure there is a rule regarding aperture size for driver cooling. Regardless of true function, if this is what they<re passing it off as, it surely must adhere to the rule? Also, I contend that it does not need to present a net benefit versus a nose tip driver cooling aperture, but a net benefit versus a simple nose step.

[madly]

HiRes RW flow-vis:

[AdamCarpenter]

But we could assume that is size was a compromise, because it is in an area where harvesting flow does come at a cost of drag

I would argue that their is no such compromise to be made at the top of the nose at the letter box opening. That it could be larger without causing additional drag.

Brian

This is rather contradictory. All intakes cause drag, the nose intake may cause less drag than the roll hoop, but it still causes some. I really think this is beginning to take up too much space in this thread. None of us on here know what the letterbox is or isn't for. We can speculate, but we can't confirm or vehemently deny anything. Opinion is opinion, but you can't say it definitely is or isn't anything at the moment because we simply don't know.

[hardingfv32]

This is rather contradictory. All intakes cause drag, the nose intake may cause less drag...

No. My contention is that the step in the nose is causing drag with or without a opening, thus no harm to having a larger opening than RB has presently.

Have at it on the flow-vis. Is the exhaust flow making it to the bottom of the wing?

Brian

[f1ssk]

My 2 cents on the letterbox topic

In my opinion, the principle of an Intake is that, there has to be a pressure difference across the inlet and exit that. The fact that drive the flow in these intakes, above the fact that air is pushed into them due to forward velocity (stagnation pressure at inlet), there needs to be a driving force (low back pressure to drive it.)

All intakes work on this principle, IMO. This in effect also reduces the drag of the frontal area of the intake opening.

In the case of the F-duct, it was the low presure region behind the main wing, For the Engine air intake, its the engines intake suction.

So, effectively if the air is being exited anywhere in the underside of the car, there is a low presure region, and reduced drag at the frontal area of the letterbox. I dont think its complicated,just simple method to reduce some drag.

[AdamCarpenter]

No. My contention is that the step in the nose is causing drag with or without a step, thus no harm to having a larger opening than RB has presently.

Brian

That's not what you said, but lets go with it. Whichever way you look at it, if they make it bigger, it will cause more drag than it currently does. If there was no harm in making it any bigger ie it's not specifically sized for an aero purpose or cooling purpose, if it's size isn't constrained by the regs, if it doesn't cause extra drag and brings a benefit by being bigger, then it would be bigger. Logic dictates that one of the reasons I have given (or maybe something I haven't) has lead Red Bull to make it the size that it is. If it was as simple as bigger is better, then they probably would have made it bigger.

[strad]

Contrary to what hardingfv32 says, I think they have many options to route the air to the KERS and battery pack.

[alogoc]

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red-b ... t/?i=3?i=3


what the hell else could they do whit the exhaust?

[dren]

I can't quite figure out how much extra downforce their exhaust is giving them and exactly what it is doing. They did have flo-vis visible coming out of the starter hole, so perhaps the exhaust is being driven downwards by the suspension? Although, others stated the suspension would drive the exhaust up.

[Afterburner]

According to a portuguese newspaper:

http://translate.google.pt/translate?sl ... d%3D742268

[Crucial_Xtreme]

I can't quite figure out how much extra downforce their exhaust is giving them and exactly what it is doing. They did have flo-vis visible coming out of the starter hole, so perhaps the exhaust is being driven downwards by the suspension? Although, others stated the suspension would drive the exhaust up.

The suspension isn't directing the exhaust flow downwards. In fact it's making the exhaust plume larger, look around page 26-29 for the picture by Robbobnob. The current configuration is definitely blowing the beam wing. The question is what effect the downwash from the front of the car(over sidepods) doing/affecting the flow.
Also is everyone in agreement that having the exhaust blow directing onto the bottom side of the suspension arm giving/providing a little DF?

[shelly]

I do not think this is exhausts' configuration for first race. I expect something different from the next tests.