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 does not belong here.

Post Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:19 pm

Newey may be sand bagging by the way ....

Red Bull has clever exhaust solution says Renault boss

Feb.20 (GMM) Red Bull has devised a “clever” way of reclaiming some of the downforce lost through the banning of blown diffusers, claims Jean Francois Caubet, who is in charge of the team’s engine supplier Renault.

Red Bull, the reigning back to back world champions, and Renault Sport F1 have worked more closely than ever before ahead of their 2012 title defence.

“Formula one is about creativity,” Caubet is quoted by Auto Bild, “and although the rules have changed, we have worked with Red Bull and found a solution to compensate for the loss of performance.”
wjpbill
 
Joined: 15 Feb 2012

Post Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:41 pm

Crucial_Xtreme wrote:Also is everyone in agreement that having the exhaust blow directing onto the bottom side of the suspension arm giving/providing a little DF?


Absolute myth!

1) You have no data describing the shape and flow gradient of the exhaust flow. I doubt that the size of the gradient is very small. That being the case the flows in contact with both sides of a suspension would not be that different.

2) That lack of visible insulation, gold or white materials, indicates that the flow has cooled due to mixing, thus demonstrating the growth of the gradient mentioned above.

Brian
hardingfv32
 
Joined: 3 Apr 2011

Post Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:36 pm

Brian, there is no problem with black thermal insulation as long as the temperatures don't get very high. The only problem with black is that it absorbs electromagnetic radiation, but that would only come into play at temperatures of 500C or more, I think. Unless that arm is supposed to be point blank in the middle of the exhaust plume all the time, I don't think it has to be designed to withstand more than 200-300C (wild guesstimation), and in that case, black should be no problem. The idea would be for the exhaust plume to just graze it. Plus the piece (and the exhaust's position and angle) could still change before Australia.
Wind turbines are cool, elegant and magnificent. TANSTAAFL!
hollus
 
Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Post Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:45 pm

hardingfv32 wrote:
Crucial_Xtreme wrote:Also is everyone in agreement that having the exhaust blow directing onto the bottom side of the suspension arm giving/providing a little DF?


Absolute myth!

1) You have no data describing the shape and flow gradient of the exhaust flow. I doubt that the size of the gradient is very small. That being the case the flows in contact with both sides of a suspension would not be that different.

2) That lack of visible insulation, gold or white materials, indicates that the flow has cooled due to mixing, thus demonstrating the growth of the gradient mentioned above.

Brian


You should hop off your high horse. Absolute myth? So now I'm expecting you to post the "data" you have that shows it's indeed false.
Furthermore unless you're part of the RB F1 team you have no idea either way whether the flow has been cooled or not. You're only guessing. Get over it.
Crucial_Xtreme
 
Joined: 15 Oct 2011
Location: Charlotte

Post Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:36 pm

Crucial_Xtreme wrote: you have no idea either way whether the flow has been cooled or not. You're only guessing.


I am not getting of 'my horse' for such ignorance. Demonstrate logic more sound than what I have stated.

1) Are you claiming that the hot exhaust leaving the pipe goes not cool at some rate and reach ambient at some point/distance?

2) There is no heat shielding on the suspension parts. Is flat black the latest thing in heat shielding?

I have not found any data showing what happens to the exhaust as it leaves the pipe. I am not sure jet or rocket exhaust would be applicable to the case.

Brian
hardingfv32
 
Joined: 3 Apr 2011

Post Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:53 pm

....
Last edited by Richard on Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Removed off topic comment and reply furterh down - no need to be furious!
furious_g
 
Joined: 12 Dec 2010

Post Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:55 pm

hollus wrote:Brian, there is no problem with black thermal insulation as long as the temperatures don't get very high..... The idea would be for the exhaust plume to just graze it.


1) My thought is that we have seen heat shielding before and they were not attempt to aim directly at the control arm.

2) Here is the major flaw in the idea. Say we describe the deference in flow from the exhaust flow and ambient flow as a blending or mixing layer. This layer grows as you move away from the exhaust tip until at some point both flows are fully blended.

Now we are going to divid the blending layer with the leading edge of the control arm. A the point in the blend layer where the flow is split the flow on both sides, near the surface, of the control are actually same.

Brian
hardingfv32
 
Joined: 3 Apr 2011

Post Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:59 pm

hardingfv32 wrote:
flynfrog wrote: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


What do YOU think the inlet is used for, if not cooling? Easy to say what it isn't for, but let's hear your concept of what it is for.

My $0.02: driver cooling used to be at the nose tip. RB had the option to place it there, or at another high pressure region. The new rule set caused most teams to have the nose bump which causes a region of high pressure. The rules also mandate a maximum size for this opening. Therefore the opening has moved this year to a region of high pressure that hasn't been there in the past, and it is sized according to the regs (that's why it wasn't around in previous years, and that's why it's not bigger this year).
volarchico
 
Joined: 26 Feb 2010

Post Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:08 pm

volarchico wrote:
hardingfv32 wrote: Nothing has change that prevents the teams from using a simple nose tip opening if they wish to cool the driver.


driver cooling used to be at the nose tip. RB had the option to place it there, or at another high pressure region. The new rule set caused most teams to have the nose bump which causes a region of high pressure. The rules also mandate a maximum size for this opening. Therefore the opening has moved this year to a region of high pressure that hasn't been there in the past, and it is sized according to the regs (that's why it wasn't around in previous years, and that's why it's not bigger this year).


This makes the most sense.

-----

To others - Please lets not get personal about it.
Richard
 
Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Location: UK

Post Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:18 pm

volarchico wrote:What do YOU think the inlet is used for, if not cooling? Easy to say what it isn't for, but let's hear your concept of what it is for.


Edit: But this makes more sense!

The 'letterbox slot':

1) There is no evidence that this slot actually penetrates the front bulkhead.

2) Based on the varied designs from all the teams, I conclude that this area of the nose has NO aero significance. Assuming that most major teams have a well calibrated CFD program, one that represents real on track conditions, and a large number of paid personal motivated to try anything, I think my logic is very sound.

3) There is no general requirement for driver cooling. It is not an obvious option on all cars.

4) Now if RB needs to route air though the letterbox slot for aero reasons, then that is the reason for their slot. No need to even bring up drive cooling.

Brian
hardingfv32
 
Joined: 3 Apr 2011

Post Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:23 pm

God help me, but I agree with Brian. And I've said this before: that slot is for driver cooling in the sense that few things cool a driver better than a champagne shower on the top step of the podium.

There's something else going on there. What? I don't know.
bhall
 
Joined: 28 Feb 2006

Post Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:27 pm

So if I understand correctly, #1-3 are your version of what is not happeing and your actual answer to the question is contained in #4.

#4 basically says: "RB use the slot for aero reasons, but I'm not sure what those reasons are".

Is this a fair assessment of your opinion?
volarchico
 
Joined: 26 Feb 2010

Post Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:29 pm

hardingfv32 wrote:1) There is no evidence that this slot actually penetrates the front bulkhead.

2) Based on the varied designs from all the teams, I conclude that this area of the nose has NO aero significance. Assuming that most major teams have a well calibrated CFD program, one that represents real on track conditions, and a large number of paid personal motivated to try anything, I think my logic is very sound.

3) There is no general requirement for driver cooling. It is not an obvious option on all cars.


Would you also say the same about the hole in tip of the nose in past years?
Richard
 
Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Location: UK

Post Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:35 pm

bhallg2k wrote:There's something else going on there. What? I don't know.


Yes, something else could be going on. I would claim that since it is SO easy to evaluate on the part of all teams, that in fact the solution has no significance.

Brian
hardingfv32
 
Joined: 3 Apr 2011

Post Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:47 pm

volarchico wrote:So if I understand correctly, #1-3 are your version of what is not happening and your actual answer to the question is contained in #4.
#4 basically says: "RB use the slot for aero reasons, but I'm not sure what those reasons are".


Please do not take me for one who has all the answers. I have creative capabilities and I am more than happy to state them on those FEW occasions when they make sense. It is my opinion that working though some of the flawed ideas presented that we can SOMETIMES develop a correct solution. My questions are an attempt to improve the theory or idea.

My position on the letterbox slot is that the RB solution is not anymore significant than that of the other teams.

Brian
hardingfv32
 
Joined: 3 Apr 2011

PreviousNext

Return to F1 Car Hardware & Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AnthonyG, anzx, CCBot [Bot], Coefficient, E46erak, hemetola, Thunders, tom4661 and 53 guests