single, twin, V or no keel

se7725 · Post 24 Dec 2005, 08:48

Hello eveyone,
I was thinking about which teams are probably going to be using what keels next year and this is what I came up with:

Renault - V, can't say for sure but it's 99.9% likely they will stick with the V.

McLaren - no keel, seem to be very happy with the results and are surely going to stick with it.

Ferrari - single or no keel, I'm leaning twards no keel but they might stick with a single keel.

Toyota - no keel, it's on the new/intern car and I'm sure it'll stay that way.

Williams - no keel?, they had a single in 2005 but think they will switch to no keel.

Honda Racing - single?, I think they are going to stick the single keel they seem to make it work.

Red Bull Racing - V

BMW - single, I think they are going to keep the car simple until they can get the team in order.

MF1 - single, 99% sure.

Scuderia Toro Rosso - single?, 75% sure.

Super Aguri - twin (old arrows chassis)

scarbs · Post 24 Dec 2005, 18:15

Redbull are already running a single keel on the RB2, STR will no doubt run a variation of the RB1 so I expect a single keel.

Plus, I know 100% that BAR-Honda will have a zero keel, with the lower wishbones meeting nearer the centre line than on the the McLaren\Toyota set ups. they will also rise up the pushrod rockers with small blisters to cover the tops, the pushrod will be mounted to the upright in similar fashion to Toyota.

But the choice is not critical to the teams success, so it matters little....

se7725 · Post 24 Dec 2005, 22:48

hmmm, sounds like you know something I don't about Honda's 2006?

The RB2 does have a V keel, one of the designers of the RB2 that started with Reb Bull about a year ago was from renault after a quik stint with jordan, about a month if i recall.

http://www.f1grandprix.it/download/wall ... _RB2/5.jpg

scarbs · Post 28 Dec 2005, 22:10

Point taken about the RB2, thats a pic I've not seen yet...

manchild · Post 28 Dec 2005, 23:18

I think that it is not similar V keel as the one Renault had, RB2 seams to have V shaped tunnel directing air that enters it directly below the floor or at splitter... It is hard to tell from these pics

http://www.f1grandprix.it/download/wall ... _RB2/7.jpg

Looks a lot like mixture of inlets between F16 and Crusader. Left and right upper ends of "V" at first glance look wider than upper part of the chassis.

http://students.ceid.upatras.gr/~kourou ... es/F16.jpg

http://frenchnavy.free.fr/aircraft/crus ... er_015.JPG

Spencifer_Murphy · Post 29 Dec 2005, 11:42

I dunno about a tunnel...but it is a LOT chunkier than the one on the R25...i think the R25 had a more elegant solution.

manchild · Post 29 Dec 2005, 16:05

I agree, that is why I think it is a tunnel (longer than wider shape)

I think that at RB2 it goes all the way to point where bargeboards begin

Spencifer_Murphy · Post 31 Dec 2005, 17:56

The problem is that the RB is a dark blue colour...we cant see where the V-Keel ends!!! If it was white we would know for definate! Grrr!

manchild · Post 31 Dec 2005, 20:42

I’ve been editing those photos in corel and the reason V-keel on RB2 looks so dark inside is in what I’ve suggested before – it is a tunnel reaching all the way to bargeboards and that is why it is so dark even on highly brightened photo. Simply the light can’t penetrate sideways like it can on R25 and that is why the end of it can’t be seen.

DaveKillens · Post 01 Jan 2006, 22:21

In theory, no keel seems the best approach. But the two teams who have tried to make it work, Mclaren and Toyota, have expereinced difficult periods. McLaren have been at the no keel approach for a few years, and the initial attempts did not pay off. It took a lot of time and money to make it work. Toyota introduced their new front end before the end of the season, and they have had to work hard to iron out the bugs. So I'm sure any team contemplating a no keel approach will treat it as a high risk exercise. Renault tried a compromise with the V-keel, and obviously, it was made to work.
At the last two races of the season when Renault finally released the shackles from Alonso, he displayed the fact that the Renault had as good as pace as the Mclaren.
My opinion is that despite the theoretical superiority of no keels, it is high risk and more expensive, and at present, does not offer any obvious great superiority to all the other designs.
I don't think Williams will go after the no keel, they have been burned bad by trying radical nose concepts. As well, in '06 they are just racing for respectability, and to once again go after a high risk concept appears contrary to their present prestige and monetary problems. If Williams crashes and burns in '06, they might find sponsorship going away very quickly.
Red Bull has two teams and two different car designs to play around with. It appears the official Red Bull will be an attempt to fight with the best, and no keel is plausable. The second team, Toro Rosso, don't have the time to make any major changes before the racing season starts. I believe that team will play the conservative route, making sure they finish. As well, they are probably more focused on driver development than going after wins.

TestaRoasta · Post 02 Jan 2006, 06:51

So a V keel has the suspension geometry of a single keel with the aero benefits of a twin keel, i.e. underbody tunnel. But why not use a keel less? Geometry may be the problem, or is it cost?

Spencifer_Murphy · Post 02 Jan 2006, 13:39

I think that the geometry tends to be the problem with a zero-keel (keel-less) chassis design. And I think that trying to overcome the suspension geometry problems leads to an increase in cost.

manchild · Post 12 Jan 2006, 09:46

Was I right about the tunnel on 2006 RBR? It seams to me that even teams with no keel are using some sort of the tunnel below the chassis.

Just look at Mclaren design - they have something very simmilar to diffuser reaching from front end of the chassis to the lowest possible point. Whole area under the front end where suspension is connected is sealed sideways.

Mclaren 2005
http://www.gurneyflap.com/Resources/Mclarensus.jpg

Spencifer_Murphy · Post 12 Jan 2006, 14:16

I realised Mclaren had this at the start of the 2005 season (in fact when i saw this first I thort they still had twin keel....untill I saw a close up!). But its an interesting piont about them using what is in effect a tunnel...

...I always thought it was just a bargeboad setup or a false keel (using the sero benifits of twin keel & bargeboads together in one piece...but with out the stuctural problems that come with it)

scarbs · Post 12 Jan 2006, 18:35

I can see where the your theory that the teams are creating a tunnel comes from, but in fact it is not an objective they have set themselves. The V Keel does in fact for a short tunnel (between the keel and chassis), in particular the RedBull version, but this is really just a "hollow" single keel, allowing some flow to pass between the legs of the Vee.

McLarens Keel set up based around the twin keel since 2001 uses the keels and their non structural extensions as bargeboards, this aims at moving the wake of the front wing around the car to make the floor appear wider than it really is in order to improve the quality of flow going under the floor. Since McLaren diverted to the "no keel" (so why do we still call it a keel design at all..?) late in the cars design, the shape of the old keels (now non structural) and bargeboards remained. They do not in fact curl under to form a tunnel.

I've previously asked Geoff willis why they didn’t make a diffuser under the nose and he responded they tend not to be very efficient and upset the main floor and rear diffuser.

Scarbs