Team: Adrian Newey (CTO), Petr Prodromou (CA), Rob Marshall (CD), Christian Horner (TP) Drivers: Sebastian Vettel (1), Mark Webber (2), Sebastian Buemi (reserve)
A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
tjaeger wrote:I am not an aero specialist, but I think the above outlines flow path lines are not quite right. The first point where, direction changes to air flow will take place is the very tip of the nose cone. Pressure and velocity will change there, together with re-direction the air. Once the air leaves the tip of the nose cone it likely will not even get directed onto the 'hump' but above the same. So, teh hump will likely not have any and if then a neglectible small influence. Likely some eddy style (dead water) circulation might go on. Probably below the nose cone and on teh side is what counts.
In practice though, the diagrams are wrong – the reason for the hump is to get the nose as high as possible, because of that, everything in front of the hump is flat and level – the air doesn't hit anything before the hump, and hence doesn't get redirected up and over it.
Are there any good photos of the RB8s backside yet and details of the exhaust exit? https://www.redbullcontentpool.com/stoc ... 3-54180636
Im amazed that there is so few photos and little information and speculation since launch...
Distance betwen the podwing and the external top part of the sidepod seems bigger than on rb7;also the shape of the inlet is not as streched as last years, height and width seem more equal
Edit: checked with last year's picture and there's really no big difference
Last edited by shelly on 07 Feb 2012, 13:27, edited 1 time in total.
hardingfv32 wrote:The upper nose configuration is very odd. IF this was an aero benefit it could have been years ago.
Could this be last years chassis and they are delaying production or testing of the new one?
Brian
Newey said explicitly in the interview that it's just making the best of a bad bunch of rules. It's not an aero benefit over what they did last year, but the rules demand it, and they consider it to be an aero benefit over having a concave, or low nose.
hardingfv32 wrote:The upper nose configuration is very odd. IF this was an aero benefit it could have been years ago.
Could this be last years chassis and they are delaying production or testing of the new one?
Brian
The nose config is new for this year because of the new regulations. It just appears that RB are taking the new regs and optimizing for the highest nose possible, which means it has the "broken nose" appearance. To minimize the detriments of this design, they stuck the driving cooling opening at the break to utilize the high pressure region created there.
I thought that was quite a good use of the space. I would imagine that however little drag it produces, a steep transition would cause quite a bit. Rather than letting it be "free" drag - i.e. slowing the car down without benefit, he chose to create cooling from it, which he could then take away from the other sides.
beelsebob wrote:
ell66 wrote:side pods dont seem as tight? or is the wheel base smaller?
Yeh, I was thining that too – there doesn't seem to be anywhere near as much floor showing at the back.
I think we need some same/similar angle shots to really judge that - heck I don't think we've even agreed upon whether or not the MP4-27 has the same/more/less free air space there than the MP4-25.
Can you honestly say that a hole or ramp on the top surface has aero benefit? Why not use a smooth upper surface like McLaren?
If you make that claim that there is aero benefit, then why was it not used in the past? The there was nothing in the old rules to prevent this type of nose from being used.
Could this not in fact be last years chassis? This is the most logical conclusion.
the distance between pushrod and upper chassis is larger on RB8 compare to RB7, i believe they only increase the upper part of the chassis but kept the suspension design
In order to not make a bulge nose, then they make a slit on it, thus the turbulence stream created by ferrari's style nose can be avoided, because some stream is flow to the upper part of the helmet, and some is flow through the slit ...the f-duct analogy
cmiiw
From an interview of James Allison
Q: From a design viewpoint, how difficult has it been designing the transition, because surely such a step is going to create a lot of turbulence?
JA: Upper surfaces of noses are quite insensitive. It is the lower surfaces of noses where all the action is, and if you look at everyone's lower surfaces they don't have anything ugly happening on them.
“To be able to actually make something is awfully nice”
Bruce McLaren on building his first McLaren racecars, 1970
“I've got to be careful what I say, but possibly to probably Juan would have had a bigger go”
Sir Frank Williams after the 2003 Canadian GP, where Ralf hesitated to pass brother M. Schumacher
The new rules require a sudden drop from 625mm to 550mm. Last year this rule didnt exist.
To maximize the airflow under the nose you get these sort of creations, it is barely anything more than 75mm in height scooped off the top off previous years noses.
i think they needed air in the undertray (so they went the opposite direction from McL) and they could have shaped the "hole" as a housing for a steady vortex in order not to have the same kind of flow detachment you could have on a step...who knows? They know for sure!
"Adding power makes you faster on the straights. Subtracting weight makes you faster everywhere" Anthony Bruce Colin Chapman
I wonder if air is being drawn through the slot and out the top of the sidepods. IIRC those openings were not there last year, as in the above picture. It would create one hell of a low pressure point at that height transistion.
