Zero keel or a twin keel after all?

By on

Realising that all teams are now competing this season with a zero keel front suspension, I spotted this at the Belgian Grand Prix. The picture shows how the front suspension - which is totally different than that of the TF107 - is attached to the monocoque. The zero keel - which denotes the lack of vertical suspension support under the nose - allows for a much better airflow under the nose and towards the sidepods. The picture does show an extension on the car's centre line, but that is merely a manner of putting ballast in the right place.
So far for the zero keel then, because a closer look to the tub shows that the lower foremost wishbones are connecting to small extensions. One could therefore argue if this concerns an actual zero keel or a twin keel. The attachment of the turning vanes to the mini-keels does however reflect McLaren's 2003 design which has been adopted by most of today's competitors.


By Saribro on 10-09-2008 at 12:14

While those white brakelines (?) did trick my eye at first, I wouldn't consider those stubs pronounced enough to call this a twin keel.

By wesley123 on 10-09-2008 at 22:03

I dont know how this can add aero efficienty.

If you make a twin keel you dont have to make that weird wave i nit and thus should add aero efficienty, also the wishbones are even shorter then thus reducing drag of it.

By PNSD on 10-09-2008 at 22:08

Its more of a structural issue I think.

Twin keel = more structural strength needed so therefore more weight.

Ive always wondered why teams didnt go to twin keel for this year because more weight is needed at the front (backed up by the ballast chamber pictured) and also reducing the droop would probably make suspension setup easier maybe.

By lambsie on 11-09-2008 at 10:17

doesnt the RB4 still run a twin keel???

i thought it kept a twin keel, can someone confirm this to me

By Steven on 11-09-2008 at 12:14

@lambsis: Red Bull's front suspension mounting is pretty similar to that of Toyota. It does have turning vanes extending from the cockpit, but the lower wishbones connect to the lower end of the cockpit, rather than the - thin - keels which are purely aerodynamic - or perhaps of small structural/ballast aid but not enough to support the front suspension.

Add comment

Please register or log in with your account to comment on this article