Red Bull RB11 Renault

[lio007]

I think other teams tape over the gaps of the different body parts so i´m not so sure the difference is that big.
Looks amazing though.

Good shot of todays taped gaps on the RB11 (next to the exness logo and the cooling outlets):

[lio007]

RB's new FW (already tested in Austria):

Silverstone - Friday:

[Tommy Cookers]

We'll the thing is even things as small as dead bugs stuck to bodywork and he bump created by tape is enough to somewhat kill laminar flow. This was discovered when designing the P-51 Mustang's wing. By calculations it should have been a true laminar flow design right across its cord. Instead, what they discovered is that due to wartime manufacturing standards, usual (un)cleanliness of the airframe out in the field, one or two bad rivets, bad paint work and a host of other problems, it was never really able to achieve true laminar flow. Granted it was still a good wing design.

Back to formula 1, the less bumps on bodywork the better, this includes tape.

calculations of full-chord laminar flow were and are simply wrong
it's not possible (without a suction system) - the term laminar flow' aerofoil is convenient but not to be taken literally

the NACA section used in the 51 had super-low Cd at very small AoA in wind tunnel model tests (at tunnel Re no)
it' may be a myth that even a perfect 51 could do this - at that time it was shown to be impossible anyway due to propellor turbulence
the 51 section was immediately superceded eg for the A26 and P63 by another 'laminar flow' one that worked better in real life
though in windtunnel models its Cd at very small A0A was worse
(though 'lf' aerofoils did have structural benefits at speed (now forgotten),their proponents had also not considered Mach effects)

discontinuities have little or no effect in accelerating flows - "discuss"
works D type Jaguars were 'said' to be 3 mph faster from having nose numbers spray-painted rather than self-adhesive plastic film
did they test this ?
in F1 the Cd from detached flow must be about 5 times greater than the D type's (and 50 times greater than a plane's)
if Red Bull had a magic paint that eliminated skin drag wouldn't they happily trade it away for Merc level of engine power ?

[PlatinumZealot]

Another thing to consider is hgiher pressure air leakage from inside the side pod out through the gaps. Bet n oone thought about that!

[trinidefender]

We'll the thing is even things as small as dead bugs stuck to bodywork and he bump created by tape is enough to somewhat kill laminar flow. This was discovered when designing the P-51 Mustang's wing. By calculations it should have been a true laminar flow design right across its cord. Instead, what they discovered is that due to wartime manufacturing standards, usual (un)cleanliness of the airframe out in the field, one or two bad rivets, bad paint work and a host of other problems, it was never really able to achieve true laminar flow. Granted it was still a good wing design.

Back to formula 1, the less bumps on bodywork the better, this includes tape.

calculations of full-chord laminar flow were and are simply wrong
it's not possible (without a suction system) - the term laminar flow' aerofoil is convenient but not to be taken literally

the NACA section used in the 51 had super-low Cd at very small AoA in wind tunnel model tests (at tunnel Re no)
it' may be a myth that even a perfect 51 could do this - at that time it was shown to be impossible anyway due to propellor turbulence
the 51 section was immediately superceded eg for the A26 and P63 by another 'laminar flow' one that worked better in real life
though in windtunnel models its Cd at very small A0A was worse
(though 'lf' aerofoils did have structural benefits at speed (now forgotten),their proponents had also not considered Mach effects)

discontinuities have little or no effect in accelerating flows - "discuss"
works D type Jaguars were 'said' to be 3 mph faster from having nose numbers spray-painted rather than self-adhesive plastic film
did they test this ?
in F1 the Cd from detached flow must be about 5 times greater than the D type's (and 50 times greater than a plane's)
if Red Bull had a magic paint that eliminated skin drag wouldn't they happily trade it away for Merc level of engine power ?

I agree 100% but my point still stands that in the wind tunnel in perfect conditions and without prop wash laminar flow was achieved. As you correctly stated, in the real world this was simply not the case (I had forgotten about the prop wash effect also killing laminar flow). Maybe using the analogy of laminar flow was a horrible one vs removing gaps in panels was a horrible one. Forgive me.

My point before was simply that having no gaps in the bodywork will always be smoother and produce less skin friction drag than even using tape or putty or whatever else (unless of course in some weird way teams are using the golf ball dimple effect but that is unlikely as all hell). Whether RedBull does it for this reason I am not in a position to say.

P.s. Part of the additional structural benefits at speed came from the reduction in wing twist achieved at high speed due to aileron deflection. As the majority of their camber profile was constructed fur back along the chord of the wing it meant that the main soars were closer to the ailerons. This placed less stress on the wing to twist as if the only spar at the outer edge of the wing was the D spar at the very front. As per the transonic region and Mach limits, I am actually doing some reading on that now. Ironically I don't believe that the P-51 had the anywhere near the highest Mach limit for WWII aircraft types but I could be very wrong about this.

[Tommy Cookers]

......I agree 100% but my point still stands that in the wind tunnel in perfect conditions and without prop wash laminar flow was achieved.
P.s. Part of the additional structural benefits at speed came from the reduction in wing twist achieved at high speed due to aileron deflection. As the majority of their camber profile was constructed fur back along the chord of the wing it meant that the main soars were closer to the ailerons. This placed less stress on the wing to twist as if the only spar at the outer edge of the wing was the D spar at the very front. As per the transonic region and Mach limits, I am actually doing some reading on that now. Ironically I don't believe that the P-51 had the anywhere near the highest Mach limit for WWII aircraft types but I could be very wrong about this.

fwiw I don't think laminar flow was achieved (and I thought this was well known) but certainly the zero lift Cd was tiny
but laminar flow at zero lift (in a symmetrical body anyway) implies drag is zero ?

F1 is presumably aware of the modern 'laminar' aerofoils eg as used in gliders and even some? light aircraft (higher Cd)

btw (sorry, OT)
WW2 'lfs' (including the Spiteful/Attacker) were used at higher t/c ratios than the Spitfire wing's and iirc had worse Mach effects
but (says Eric Brown) the 51 really took off because the 8th AF were losing too many 38s and 47s from 'Mach dives' into the ground
ie Doolittle was the man who wanted the 51 (as better in this way than the 47 and 38, though he had Farnborough working on those)
big Mach numbers for Spitfires were for good reason from PR marks (no guns and deeper noses, ie area ruled by accident)
ie the 51 was not bad in this respect (I was told of a warning placard in RAF 47s, by someone who put it to the test)


anyway, RB aero seems to be working quite well round Silverstone

[bhall II]

My point before was simply that having no gaps in the bodywork will always be smoother and produce less skin friction drag than even using tape or putty or whatever else (unless of course in some weird way teams are using the golf ball dimple effect but that is unlikely as all hell). Whether RedBull does it for this reason I am not in a position to say.

From the MP4-30, a handful of (tiny) arguments in favor...



I think any detrimental impact is highly questionable, but it's nonetheless quantifiable, and maybe preventing instances of flow irregularity over a large enough area is worth a hundredth or two.

Incidentally, I think the Hughes H-1 Racer is probably a better example of reducing parasitic drag in order to increase speed. In this case, it was the first time anyone used flush rivets in order to better streamline an aircraft.


Mind-bogglingly beautiful airplane

[djos]

So I think Silverstone proves nicely that there is nothing wrong with the rb11 chassis or aero, both cars flew thru the fast twisty stuff and where only slow where horsepower mattered.

[JDC123]

So I think Silverstone proves nicely that there is nothing wrong with the rb11 chassis or aero, both cars flew thru the fast twisty stuff and where only slow where horsepower mattered.

They are not the quickest through the twisty stuff though, which means they have gone backwards relative to the past few seasons and can't blame everything on renault. With a mercedes engine they would probably be around ferraris pace, maybe slightly quicker

[tmoneyr007]

No, it simply means that cannot afford to bolt on all the available downforce and still achieve straight line speed (like MB). If they had the Merc. motor I am 100% confident they would have the DW to still dominate the high speed stuff.

[wesley123]

imo, they are too far behind to blame it all on the engine. If we compare other teams results they have been out-developed over the course of the winter. Red Bull also has applied some quite significant developments(tighter bodywork and shorter nose) both of which haven't shown much improvement.

Another thing that is interesting is Red Bull's front wing. Where everyone runs either a 4 or 5 plane wing, Red Bull runs 6. Now why would you run more elements like that? To either push the wing to high AoA to generate more downforce(although this is largely simplified) or to reduce the sensitivity of the wing.

Since, like said, Red Bull can't bolt all downforce as they lack downforce, the higher AoA is less applicable. Thus, this would leave the sensitivity, which apparently has been found to be an issue else you wouldn't add another element. Teams have stuck with 4-5 elements for a few years now, and teams haven't gone with the 6-element trend(whereas teams naturally copy each other), which leads me to believe that this 6-element solution is something specific to Red Bull rather than an improvement anyone could apply.

Combine that with the lack of pace, even though significant updates have been applied, and I think we can conclude that Red Bull somewhere went wrong with aero.

Red Bulls aero department has been probably the best of the past few years, but many big names of that aero department have moved on. This leaves different guys which obviously dont see things the same as the previous department.

[ME4ME]

So I think Silverstone proves nicely that there is nothing wrong with the rb11 chassis or aero, both cars flew thru the fast twisty stuff and where only slow where horsepower mattered.

I agree. The RB11 hasn't been great so far this season, but things start to turn for the better. Kvyat had pretty good pace at Silverstone. Personally I think the RB11 is at least as good a car as the Ferrari and Williams. Probably better. It's just that they need more power, better driveability, less cooling requirement etc. The result of having a bad engine isn't limited to straights only: to hit a decent top speed the need to limit drag and therefor downforce, they also probably have more issues getting the tires to work as well. All in all if they'd had a Mercedes or even Ferrari engine I believe they would be right at the front, racing the Mercs (but coming 2nd).

[toraabe]

So I think Silverstone proves nicely that there is nothing wrong with the rb11 chassis or aero, both cars flew thru the fast twisty stuff and where only slow where horsepower mattered.

I agree. The RB11 hasn't been great so far this season, but things start to turn for the better. Kvyat had pretty good pace at Silverstone. Personally I think the RB11 is at least as good a car as the Ferrari and Williams. Probably better. It's just that they need more power, better driveability, less cooling requirement etc. The result of having a bad engine isn't limited to straights only: to hit a decent top speed the need to limit drag and therefor downforce, they also probably have more issues getting the tires to work as well. All in all if they'd had a Mercedes or even Ferrari engine I believe they would be right at the front, racing the Mercs (but coming 2nd).

Don't forget the surperiour drivabiity of the Mercedes engine where it is far ahead both of Ferrari and Renault. Honda has good drivability but lacks top end outright power... That also means easier setup. I also think because of Merc turbo solution the engine gravity also is lower than the other three

[Juzh]

I also think because of Merc turbo solution the engine gravity also is lower than the other three

It's also 18 kg lighter. At least it was last year. Difference may not be so high anymore, but it's almost certainly there.

It's also very clear that this weekend in silverstone RB11 would easily be the 2nd fastest car on BHP alone (running merc engine). The difference in straight line was simply astonishing on all measuring points. Factor in other mentioned advantages and one could easily put RB11 near or even next to merc's pace.

[lio007]

Blown front reappeared in Hungary:
https://twitter.com/AlbertFabrega/statu ... 2820161536