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 do not belong here.
Post Reply
myurr
9
Joined: 20 Mar 2008, 21:58

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

Doesn't always count for much but the FIA disagrees with you.

bonjon1979
30
Joined: 11 Feb 2009, 17:16

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

gilgen wrote:
bonjon1979 wrote:
gilgen wrote:
Could you please explain where you believe the air is supposed to go? The same amount of air is expelled through the wheels on ALL cars, so there will always be an aero effect!
RBR channelled the air past the wheelbearings, but the crux of the matter is that irrespective of what way this air is being channelled, the same amount of air is being expelled by ALL cars.
The FIA tech doc, stated that it was because of the ducts being UNSPRUNG, then any aero mods were not allowed. However they seem to have overlooked all the aero fins on the ducts. These aid aero and are also part of the unsprung mass, so if the FIA tech doc was to be taken literally, these fins, as used by all cars, should also disappear.

But I would point out that the FIA were aware of these hubs, well before clarification was sought, as the official F1 website, had drawings and explanations of the system.

It is now being widely reported that there is a witchhunt by two teams against RBR.
For goodness sake. Read the rules

11.4 Air ducts :
Air ducts around the front and rear brakes will be considered part of the braking system and shall not protrude beyond :
‐ A plane parallel to the ground situated at a distance of 160mm above the horizontal centre line of the wheel.
‐ A plane parallel to the ground situated at a distance of 160mm below the horizontal centre line of the wheel.
‐ A vertical plane parallel to the inner face of the wheel rim and displaced from it by 120mm toward the car centre line.

Furthermore :
‐ When viewed from the side the ducts must not protrude forwards beyond a radius of 330mm from the centre of the wheel or backwards beyond a radius of 180mm from the centre of the wheel.
‐ The ducts may not rotate with the wheels nor may they, or any of their mountings, protrude axially beyond the outer face of the wheel fastener.
‐ No part of the car, other than those specifically defined in Articles 12.8.1 and 12.8.2, may obscure any part of the wheel when viewed from the outside of the car towards the car centre line along the axis of the wheel.

The axle/spindle the wheel is attached to is spinning. The air is ducted through the axle. End of story.

Other solutions have air escaping into moving wheels - they don't have moving ducts in the same way.

Maybe you should re read the rules. Whether the air passes through the wheel or through the stub axle, it is the same. it is the DUCT that is not allowed to spin, nor is its mountings. The duct is not secured to the wheel or axle, it is secured to the carrier, which neither moves or is ducted.
The FIA seems to disagree with you. Red bull have clearly been found to be ducting air through those holes in a way that is in contravention to the rules.

Done debating this as clearly you have an opinion that is fairly well entrenched. Lets agree to disagree.

hardingfv32
32
Joined: 03 Apr 2011, 19:42

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

So..... what is the justification for the rear brake duct cascades, or even some of the new front duct turning vanes?
Why are these not movable aero devices?

Brian

myurr
9
Joined: 20 Mar 2008, 21:58

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

hardingfv32 wrote:So..... what is the justification for the rear brake duct cascades, or even some of the new front duct turning vanes?
Why are these not movable aero devices?

Brian
Because they don't rotate, they are fixed in relation to the part of the car they are attached to.

I don't particularly like the brake cascades and wish the FIA would tighten the rules up a little in their regard, but they are very clearly not the same as having a rotating aerodynamic device.

User avatar
raymondu999
54
Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 07:31

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

I think it's a case of "everyone's doing it anyways, so no one is gaining an advantage" no?
失败者找理由,成功者找方法

alogoc
-10
Joined: 13 Feb 2012, 23:54

Re: Ferrari F2012

Post

Ferrari should focus on whatever RB did in Montreal quali whit the off-throttle!
Last edited by alogoc on 12 Jun 2012, 11:13, edited 1 time in total.
THE F2012!
THE CAR THAN WON 2012 WORLD F1 CHAMPIONSHIP WHIT A TILTED ENGINE!

User avatar
raymondu999
54
Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 07:31

Re: Ferrari F2012

Post

I heard reports about the off-throttle. I haven't paid particular attention to the sound through the slow corner stuff though.

Having said that I think it could be a struggle for Ferrari to do that - they were struggling even last year to do it when the maps were still allowed.

I remember it was said a while back that what Renault were doing was at low speeds was only using 4 cylinders, so the power and torque delivery was a lot less aggressive, and would allow drivers to have a better time managing wheelspin on traction. Maybe what we're hearing isn't off-throttle blowing at all, but rather this 4-cylinder trick?
失败者找理由,成功者找方法

User avatar
Gridlock
30
Joined: 27 Jan 2012, 04:14

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

'I think it's a case of "everyone's doing it anyways, so no one is gaining an advantage" no?'

Show me another team with brake ducts exiting beyond the allowed plane (which these do) and I'd agree...
#58

User avatar
Kiril Varbanov
147
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 15:00
Location: Bulgaria, Sofia
Contact:

Re: Ferrari F2012

Post

raymondu999 wrote:I heard reports about the off-throttle. I haven't paid particular attention to the sound through the slow corner stuff though.
I have. Following a tweet from Darren Heath who said he can swear that there's off-throttle blowing. Later his twitter timeline confirms that Sam Micheal has re-confirmed that?

So, as I mentioned on other thread, I was co-host and guest commentator for the local national TV and I had the chance to watch the race twice from different angles with headphones on my ears playing loud just the V8 music and the team radio - I didn't hear the specific noise from last year RBR was making. That said, it doesn't mean that the sounds is not removed, but the effect is still there.
But again, the sound was straightforward "acceleration, brakes, down shift, brakes, accelerate out fade in" pattern.
When it comes to noise and sound, there are some very interesting aspects which I, as ex-sound engineer, would love to explore, but I still can't get a hold of clear audio stream recorded. TODO :)

hardingfv32
32
Joined: 03 Apr 2011, 19:42

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

myurr wrote:Because they don't rotate, they are fixed in relation to the part of the car they are attached to.
But they do move. While brake ducts can move (not rotate) aero devices can not move. The cascades do not guide the brake duct air flow, so it would seem logical to call them a moving aero device. Yet is seems since they are part of the brake duct assembly they get the OK. This is a difficult maze to maneuver in.

Would the correct solution for the axle hole issue be to design a fixed axle that does not extend beyond the wheel face? This would seem the solution IF this aero benefit is actually measurable. Do you see a flaw in the strategy?

Brian

aral
26
Joined: 03 Apr 2010, 22:49

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

bonjon1979 wrote:
For goodness sake. Read the rules

11.4 Air ducts :
Air ducts around the front and rear brakes will be considered part of the braking system and shall not protrude beyond :
‐ A plane parallel to the ground situated at a distance of 160mm above the horizontal centre line of the wheel.
‐ A plane parallel to the ground situated at a distance of 160mm below the horizontal centre line of the wheel.
‐ A vertical plane parallel to the inner face of the wheel rim and displaced from it by 120mm toward the car centre line.

Furthermore :
‐ When viewed from the side the ducts must not protrude forwards beyond a radius of 330mm from the centre of the wheel or backwards beyond a radius of 180mm from the centre of the wheel.
‐ The ducts may not rotate with the wheels nor may they, or any of their mountings, protrude axially beyond the outer face of the wheel fastener.
‐ No part of the car, other than those specifically defined in Articles 12.8.1 and 12.8.2, may obscure any part of the wheel when viewed from the outside of the car towards the car centre line along the axis of the wheel.

The axle/spindle the wheel is attached to is spinning. The air is ducted through the axle. End of story.

Other solutions have air escaping into moving wheels - they don't have moving ducts in the same way.
I have just seen the Tech Doc, and the FIA did not use any of the above in their deliberations. They cited tech reg 3.15, which, as I stated earlier, refers to UNSPRUNG aero.

User avatar
Mazdaboy
0
Joined: 09 Sep 2009, 18:36
Location: Budapest (Hungary)

Re: Ferrari F2012

Post

Kiril Varbanov wrote:
raymondu999 wrote:I heard reports about the off-throttle. I haven't paid particular attention to the sound through the slow corner stuff though.
I have. Following a tweet from Darren Heath who said he can swear that there's off-throttle blowing. Later his twitter timeline confirms that Sam Micheal has re-confirmed that?

So, as I mentioned on other thread, I was co-host and guest commentator for the local national TV and I had the chance to watch the race twice from different angles with headphones on my ears playing loud just the V8 music and the team radio - I didn't hear the specific noise from last year RBR was making. That said, it doesn't mean that the sounds is not removed, but the effect is still there.
But again, the sound was straightforward "acceleration, brakes, down shift, brakes, accelerate out fade in" pattern.
When it comes to noise and sound, there are some very interesting aspects which I, as ex-sound engineer, would love to explore, but I still can't get a hold of clear audio stream recorded. TODO :)
I also heard this "blowing noise" on sunday's race, but i was think wrong my ears!
Every race ends when the chequered flag is out!

hardingfv32
32
Joined: 03 Apr 2011, 19:42

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

gilgen wrote:.... and the FIA did not use any of the above in their deliberations. They cited tech reg 3.15, which, as I stated earlier, refers to UNSPRUNG aero.
So a fixed axle will not clear this hurdle. It is a matter of what is considered an aero device. These kind of judgments clearly need pre-approval.

Brian

OO7
OO7
171
Joined: 06 Apr 2010, 17:49

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

I saw the following posted on the Autosport forum:
'Watching the BBC highlights of the Canadian GP, I noticed just how much 'touching' that was occurring between the plank and track surface of the RBR cars, particularly Webber's car. The touching would start at a much lower speed in comparison to cars from other teams. I contemplated on the flexible splitter concept Scarbs theorised here: http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/category/ ... splitters/ and wondered if RBR were doing something similar, as they are still able to get the front wing of their cars closer to the ground and appear to run more rake than other teams.

We often hear how the RBR cars are one of the slowest in the speed traps and in the past RBR made some noise about the Renault units being down on power. This however didn't and doesn't tally with what we see from Lotus, as they always seem to have very good straight line speed and of course their cars use the same Renault engines as the RBR cars. It should also be noted that in terms of frontal area/angle (and I know this doesn't tell the whole story), RBR run smaller wings which one would expect to aid top speed. I then thought that perhaps the aerodynamic configuration/design of the RBR cars was the issue, specifically the splitter. If RBR are allowing it to touch the ground excessively, while the lower ride height will increase downforce, the drag cause by friction between the plank and track surface will ultimately slow the car down (in terms of top speed relative to other cars). I checked the qualification speed trap figures and Webber's top speed is slightly down on Seb's, which may be due to him running the car lower (as I mentioned his car suffered from bottoming to a greater extent).

I also thought about the opening/cool vent underneath the front monococque. If the splitter is touching excessively, perhaps additional cooling is required, as the heat generated and transmitted through the floor may cause the electronics situated in this region to overheat. The duct may also be necessary to provide cooling for the drivers backside.

Just a hypothetical guys and girls, maybe I'll ask Scarbs?'
I had a look at the iPlayer race highlights and also noticed on lap 69 around the 1:26.00+ mark on the player, that you can see the front splitter on Sebastian's RBR car deflecting, not only tilting and perhaps moving up and down as a whole unit, but also tilting from side to side as if attached to a ball joint. This allowed it to follow the contours of the circuit and bumps more precisely and certainly gives the impression that the front splitter is floating over the circuits undulations.
Last edited by OO7 on 16 Jun 2012, 11:25, edited 1 time in total.

bhall
244
Joined: 28 Feb 2006, 21:26

Re: Red Bull RB8 Renault

Post

One would think that if the splitter has enough contact with the ground to hinder top speed and require additional cooling for friction that the plank would likely lose through wear more than the maximum 1mm allowed during a race. That's not to say that there isn't anything "tricky" going on with RB8's tea tray, but I think the car's lack of top speed is simply a reflection of the downforce it makes, because downforce always equals drag. Such a trade-off is easy to make with class-leading downforce levels that don't put the car at an especially significant disadvantage in terms of top speed.

Post Reply