Red Bull RB9 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 does not belong here.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:59 pm

Re: Red Bull RB9 Renault

Post by thisisatest » Sat Dec 21, 2013 7:18 am

if you say there is fiberglass under the carbon of the parts flexing, that means that the carbon can take the flexing. then why wouldnt you just leave the heavier fiberglass out and lay up more carbon?
i work in the bicycle industry, that is where my expertise lies. here is a picture of a full suspension mountain bike with a carbon - just carbon - flexure built in.
before, the upper tube was aluminum and had just a carbon widget right at the flex point. before that, the little widget was titanium.
here is another bike with the main "pivot" area being a carbon flex plate.
the potential for carbon flexure use in these bikes has yet to be realized, as the rearmost pivots only rotate a few degrees..
there are many examples of this, none have fiberglass in them.

edit- please pardon me for beating this dead horse

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 9:58 pm

Re: Red Bull RB9 Renault

Post by Lycoming » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:42 am

With only a few degrees of rotation, is that enough to get the dampers working? Especially since that bellcrank will further reduce the amount of motion as well as the shaft speed.

I wonder if they would really use glass in an F1 car these days, apart from scrim or other minor applications. If you just want less stiffness, you can use other, lighter polymers. Dyneema, Innegra, or even kevlar are all much less stiff than carbon fibers while also being significantly lighter than glass.

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:59 pm

Re: Red Bull RB9 Renault

Post by thisisatest » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:49 am

The rearmost pivots are by the rear wheel axle. It doesn't take much upward travel until the seatstays (rear upper tubes) are perpendicular to the shock linkage. At that instant,there is no rotation associated with rear wheel travel. The pivots at the shock linkage rotate quite a bit more.
I believe that shock has a 1.5" stroke. Approximately 2-2.5:1 leverage ratio, you're looking at between 3 and 3.75" of rear wheel travel. Which is about right for cross country racing.

User avatar
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:29 am

Re: Red Bull RB9 Renault

Post by Tim.Wright » Sat Dec 21, 2013 11:58 am

shelly wrote:
flynfrog wrote:
shelly wrote:
Where did you get the info about flexi wings and suspension flexures being in carbon? Some years ago they were made with fiberglass - maybe the technology has evolved and now they are made in carbon. Anyway the loads in that cases are higher - for the t-tray glass would be still an option.

@flyinfrog: you cannot get more flexible than 1 layer of carbon, that's why glass is a good option.For example in the regsit is prescribed taht the rear wing spacers cannot be made in a material with modulus less than a certain threshold, specifically to ban fiberglass

You can always tailor your flex by your layup pattern or drop you fiber count going to a 3x fiber over a 12k would be a pretty big drop. one ply of carbon would be incredibly weak not really an issue here.

Unless you are worried about electrical insulation or trying to match a CTE glass is for boats not race cars.

In the picture that you posted probably there is fiberglass: in the flexures of the low wishbone of the renault or in the front wing of the rbr. Stating that there is no use for glass in racing cars is incorrect - you seem to know already something about composites, take this fact as a learning point
Sorry, but all my info on F1 flexures is that they are 100% carbon. The flexures were a high strength low modulus uni, the arms themselves were a high modulus high strength uni with a weave on the OML for damage resistance.

A mix of glass and carbon makes no sense in terms of acheiving a target stiffness. The two materials have a modulus of elasticity which are too different from each other. The higher modulus material (carbon in this case) is simply going to take all of the force and the glass is going to contribute nothing. If you could somehow match the modulus (not sure this is even possible) then you have a situation where the glass is going to fail before the carbon so why not just make it all from glass?

I don't understand why its so difficult to accept that carbon can be desiged to flex substantially. When I was working as a composite engineer several years ago we used a particular unidirectional carbon tape which had a very low modulus (compared to other carbons) but a very high UTS. Perfect for use in a flexing application. I believe it was a T700S from memory which has a modulus half of that of steel (125GPa) and a UTS nearly 10 times higher (2450).

Data sheet:

I've also seen carbon fibre blade anti roll bars and I know people are working on carbon fibre springs too.

The idea of carbon being only a very stiff, therefore uncompliant material may have been true (in general) 10-20 years ago but its not anymore.
Not the engineer at Force India

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:18 am

Re: Red Bull RB9 Renault

Post by shelly » Sun Dec 22, 2013 1:42 pm

As I said above, technology has probably evolved since than. The technology I mentioned - fiberglass for wishbone flexures and other bits around the car - was in f1 some years ago (less than 10).
twitter: @armchair_aero

User avatar
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:38 pm

Re: Red Bull RB9 Renault

Post by Pierce89 » Sun Dec 22, 2013 6:23 pm

To Tim: Carbon fiber spring can already be bought on the open market. They work like the Bellville washers in a mono shock front end.
“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

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:59 pm

Re: Red Bull RB9 Renault

Post by thisisatest » Sun Dec 22, 2013 8:08 pm

...made by Hyperco. what is fantastic about this is the relative ease of changing spring rates. You can just rearrange them, possibly adding or subtracting spacers as well.

User avatar
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 8:51 am

Re: Red Bull RB9 Renault

Post by SectorOne » Thu Dec 26, 2013 4:47 pm

From Somerfield´s tweet, edit: (Apparently it´s the W03. Maybe similar idea to what RBR are running?)

"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a piece of sh*t"

User avatar
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:21 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: Red Bull RB9 Renault

Post by hollus » Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:28 pm

Apologies if this has been suggested earlier, I think it has been, just that then we hadn't seen...
...this incredibly static vortex:
Then there is this interpretation of where it is going:
Certainly the condensation trail goes all the way to the edge of the floor, so it is reasonable to think that the vortex itself extends well beyond the wider part of the sidepod.
This is an interpretation of what it might be doing there, rather than having its effect all the way down at the rear wheel:
In that case, the main effect of this vortex, for Red Bull an teams that get it this static only, would be to extract air from under the floor, "sealing" the floor sides. This would almost certainly work at the floor's edge, very likely at the (suspiciously round) sidepod bulge, and possibly well behind it. The exhaust is presumably still in charge of sealing the floor - rear wheel interaction area.

This might explain the ridiculously extreme rake of the RB9. Some of it from the blown exhausts, that other teams also had, some of it from this flap vortex making sure the air moves outwards (or at least it is pushed that way so some extent) all along the floor's side edge. It is a side skirt of sorts, with this effect alone allowing the middle of the floor to be quite high (a necessary side effect of having the very rear that absurdly high, with the exhaust blowing making that part possible).
Arguably it could be this effect that the other teams were missing, as a vortex that either moves or is shorter, like what the Ferrari showed, will die earlier, or move away from the floor, allowing air to rush in from the sides.
It is not white, it is not black, it is probably gray.

Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:44 pm

Re: Red Bull RB9 Renault

Post by Spacepace » Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:16 am


Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:49 pm

Re: Red Bull RB9 Renault

Post by Blaze1 » Sat Apr 26, 2014 7:07 pm

gary123 wrote: ... _tray_.jpg
Here's what was hiding in the Red Bull Racing T-Tray!
It is a "boomerang" carbon able to move the splitter with a programmed deformation
The secret was , but it was kept cleverly hidden throughout the season . Here's the design Effe 1 Tech Red Bull Racing that shows the detail that probably allowed the T -Tray of RB9 to rise to the top when the vertical load was applied to the splitter that was more than 200 kg . We say it now: This solution has been declared legal by the FIA ​​scrutineers that have occurred in the course of the 2013 season , why not broke any rules of the regulation, although perhaps not respected the spirit .

BOOMERANG CARBON What is it ? Of a sort of " boomerang " realized in composite materials that has been mounted between the skid -block and the T -Tray . Other teams at that point have adopted springs much easier because the bottom resist to audits by the FIA ( the maximum deflection of 5 mm with a load of 200 kg occurred at three points ) and avoided the " table " (which is no longer wood ) would break violently rubbing in the passage on the curbs .

HOW TO RAISE THE " NOSE " What was the point of the car multiple world champion kept an eye on throughout the season , because only by lifting the " beak " , while the car was moving , it was possible to obtain the lower ride height the splitter without ruining the skid -block on the asphalt ( the excessive consumption of the table, in fact, result in a disqualification ) .

THERE 'S ALSO SET- RAKE Thanks to Frick was possible to adopt the attitude beat ( the British call Rake ) with the front wing that almost touched the ground, while the latter was higher than 80 mm to increase the volume air in the loudspeaker that was sealed to the sides from the " miniskirt thermal " fruit of the effect of the exhaust blower .

A LOT OF SPECULATION IN THE YEAR During the world have made ​​a lot of speculation about how Adrian Newey could deflect the T -Tray according to a programmed deformation and studied with care the CFD . There has been talk of a mysterious mass damper effect and those who supported the existence of materials that could become deformed due to the heat. The shooting of a thermal imaging camera of the FIA, in fact, had shown that the splitter right in the RB9 a high temperature that is generated could allow the rod that connects the T -Tray to the body from collapsing , stretching , but without recording the expected consumption of the " shoe " which, however, would have justified the unusual increase of heat to the constant rubbing on the track.

THE THEORY OF GARY ANDERSON The theory put forth by Gary Anderson , a former dt of Jordan , was deemed credible by the technicians of the FIA ​​who proceeded to check out the Grand Prix of India if the T -Tray Red Bull Racing suffer a deformation once the rod was heated by a heat source , while it was subjected to the load provided by the legislature . It , however, did not happen nothing , leaving everyone stunned , because they promptly removed the doubts about legality of RB9 .

CLICK THE MYSTERIOUS At the last GP of Brazil, however , the piece that has remained " bundled " between the T -Tray and the skid block of Red Bull Racing was caught by a photographer who captured the moment in which decreased attention to the mechanics of Milton Keynes. And the massive " crossbow " carbon has not gone unnoticed : it is a particularly sizeable who is openly at odds with the style of Adrian Newey design , a fanatic of miniaturization of the individual elements of the car and that is always looking for maximum savings weight. In short, in F1 does not mount anything that does not have a direct effect on performance.

THE CROSSBOW RAISE THE FIRST PART OF THE SKID BLOCK ? What is the " spring " in carbon ? As a premise, it must be said that the " table" which is the bottom of the keel of the car must not be in one piece , but you can divide it into three parts. This choice was made to save rightly : you only replace the piece that shows the damage crawling on the curbs . The first piece , the one that includes the splitter must be at least 1000 mm . Adrian Newey seems to be able to rotate it by a few millimeters upwards in the front thanks to boomerang in composite materials that acts just like a spring but with little load. As you can see in the image that we publish the crossbow in about half the carbon is held by an interesting mounting system that allows a decrease determined before nailed . Indeed, to be more precise, it would perhaps be better to define the movement of the first piece of the skid block as a small rotation upwards.

THERE ARE OTHER SECRETS IN RB9 ? Interestingly , over all'arcuatura boomerang , also the delta shape of the front part : the English genius , in fact , is able to distribute the load over the entire width of the splitter , avoiding the deformations that could be generated by acting only in a point in this way we obtain a stability in the movement of the T -Tray enviable in the nerve-center of the car. It must be said that between the table and the bottom of the Red Bull Racing has entered a "skin" of a couple of millimeters that seems to kevlar. It may be helpful to close all the holes or as a thermal insulator. I wonder if it's all here and there 's still more hidden in RB9 ? Devil of a Newey ...
Source: ... nel-t-tray
I translated with google translator I hope it is good :) Here omnicorse explains the secret of the T-tray of the RB9.
Thanks for the post gary.
I still don't quite understand how this advanced T-tray works. The T-tray is not supposed to deflect (more than 5 millimeters?) when a 200kg upwards force is applied to it, so does the RBR system allow for greater deflection (more than 5 millimeters) when an upward force less than 200kg is applied while on circuit?