Infiniti Red Bull Racing 2014

This forum contains threads to discuss teams themselves. Anything not technical about the cars, including restructuring, performances etc belongs here.
User avatar
Pierce89
96
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:38 pm

Re: Infiniti RedBull Racing 2014

Post

djos wrote:The only firearms you can legally own here in Aus are bolt action rifles or non-automatic shotguns for hunting, pretty much everything else is illegal unless you are a high level Security guard, police Man or professional licensed pest controller (they can have semi-automatic rifles).

Even ex army folk aren't allowed to keep their assault rifles etc.

There are exceptions for target shooters hand guns etc but that requires additional licencing and a probationary period of about 12 months
Wow! That's pretty strict. I'm an avid hunter and to be honest I have legitimate hunting needs for semi- automatic rifles and shotguns. I also own 2 semi-automatic handguns for home protection(and yes I have actually had to use one of them, it neutralised a knife carrying burglar with zero violence, whereas had I not been armed I may have been gutted). Personally though, I respect firearm restrictions in any country as long as they're voted by the people instead of imposed by government.

In this case, we can all be glad the guards were unarmed as we're not having to mourn mnmracer's death.
“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

User avatar
mikeerfol
123
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:19 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Infiniti RedBull Racing 2014

Post

This is getting so off-topic :P

Writinglife
Writinglife
19
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:09 am

Re: Infiniti RedBull Racing 2014

Post

On a serious note, I would imagine that it's a fairly simple (if lengthy) process to replace the trophies Being (for the most part) replicas themselves, the dimensions, materials and markings should be on record (either at RB themselves, at their insurers, or the trophy manufacturers. etc. I hope they can start rebuilding the collection fairly quickly and move on from this act of vandalism.

User avatar
gandharva
234
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:19 pm
Location: Munich

Re: Infiniti RedBull Racing 2014

Post

Adrian will still be on the grid next year.
"I'll be attending half a dozen races or so. I want to keep in the loop, so in the mentoring, advisory role I'm fresh enough that I'm able to keep on top of that.

"I'll certainly be in Melbourne and a few after that, the key ones, the ones that tend to pose the biggest engineering challenges," Newey added.

He also expressed confidence in his successors at Milton Keynes, saying Red Bull is being left in good hands.

"They're a very good bunch," said the 55-year-old.

"What is happening is well timed as they've been developing as a team very well and now it's time for them to really step up to the plate," added Newey.

User avatar
Phil
427
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:22 pm

Re: Infiniti RedBull Racing 2014

Post

Cold Fussion wrote:Perhaps, but you have to consider that how much power you have translates into how much down force you can run before you turn into a sitting duck on the straights. Red Bull have been running very low amounts of wing for most of the year in order to cope with their power deficit. I agree that the Red Bull chassis is over hyped and it's hard to believe that even with Mercedes power levels they would be much better like some claim.
IMO this is the crucial point. how much power translates into how much down force you can run.

Downforce costs power. The more downforce you run, the more friction your car generates. Friction (downforce) is good (to a degree) because it lets you go quicker through corners, but the side effect is, it'll hurt you on the straights. There's a fine line in how much downforce you want to run vs. the top speed/acceleration you can achieve. An extreme example; A car with minimum downfoce will murder the same car with maximum downforce settings on the long straights, but in the corners, the opposite will be true. Essentially, every track is different; Some tracks have more, longer straights relative to high and low downforce corners and some tracks are the other way around. Optimally, every track requires a different 'optimal setting'. A track like Monza with long straights would mandate lower downforce setting for the optimal lap time, where as at a track like Barcelona more downforce at a cost of top-speed and acceleration is better. This is all assuming a single car with fixed performance with a.) maximum and b.) minimum downforce configuration.

If we extend the above example to two cars with similar aero, one with N % more power (it's just an example to highlight the hypothesis), obviously the car with more power will be at a clear advantage. Why? Because the car with more power can run more downforce and still be as quick as the other car on the straights and be faster in the corners because it is effectively running in a higher downforce configuration. And on the straights, it's as quick because the N % power advantage is traded-off for more downforce. So even if it's running more downforce, the added friction it causes is equalized by the more power it has.

RedBull in the last 4 years (prior to 2014) has been in a very good position. The V8 engines were all more or less equalized (similar power, give or take), but RedBull had distinct advantages which allowed them to run more downforce. They were never the quickest car on the straights, but clearly very fast in the corners, especially medium to high downforce corners where the car showed its key strength. Because they were effectively the fastest car, running in front enabled them to play that key strength and drive off into the distance. Vettel, who mostly qualified on pole, did this time and time again. Webber, who, coppled with notoric bad starts, ended up in traffic which is where the key characteristics of his car (fast in the corners, slower on the straights) proved trouble-some. It's also IMO why Webber always seemed more 'ordinary' compared to his team-mate who just disappeared into the distance.

Now, 2014 - we have the situation that the engines have become huge differentiating factors. The Mercedes PU is by far the strongest package. We can only speculate over the power disadvantage both the Ferrari and the Renault engines have. If this is anything but remotely accurate, then even a RedBull with the strongest chassis will have to run their car with a compromised setup. Actually, *any* car not at the front is running a slightly compromised setup. They all do. Because only the front running car(s) can set themselves up to achieve the perfect trade-off between compromised top-speed vs. optimal downforce levels, because they rarely run in traffic and don't have to overtake. So, even if you have the best chassis on the grid, if you are at a disadvantage powerwise, you need to compromise. Being in traffic, means you need good enough topspeed on the straights to either overtake or defend and that comes at a cost; meaning you are going to go with less downforce overal which will hurt you in the corners. There's no point in seting up your car for the 'quickest laptime your car can achieve on a given track' if you are going to be stuck behind a 'slower car (per lap)' but is quicker on the crucial straights where it's easiest to overtake.

I believe the Mercedes car this year is very very good, not only on the undisputed PU front, but also chassis. But being able to have a more powerful PU has its advantages and IMO is slightly distorting the picture on how good the chassis actually is, especially relative to the RedBull who I think is clear have been running a compromised set-up all year. What is clear is that Mercedes certainly have the best chassis among the Mercedes powered cars. But compared to the RedBull? There's no way to effectively compare them fairly. As explained above; downforce costs power. And if you are lacking power, it limits your options in regards to what kind of a downforce coniguration you'll be running relative to the cars with a stronger PU. Having a stronger PU has lots of advantages; in the specific example of the Mercedes, you can run more downforce while still holding a reasonable power advantage on the straights. The results is, your car will likely be stronger in all areas of the track; the straights and especially medium to high downforce corners. And downforce is important, especially in regards to the tyres.

The larger the power differential is between these engines, the bigger the need to compromise your set-up in order to remain competitive over the entire length of a track, especially when you are running in traffic and need to tackle not getting eaten for breakfast on the straights but not compromise it too far in a way that it'll make you too vulnerable in the medium to high downforce corners of the track.

RedBull has performed reasonably well at the high downforce tracks this year; and especially those where mechanical grip is important. But again; a car with a distinct PU advantage can run a higher downforce mode at all times, especially also the high downforce tracks. Which is IMO precisely why the Mercedes has been practically unbeatable at every single track this year.

Williams with the Mercedes PU has also had a good year, but it's pretty clear that their car isn't as aero sophisticated as the Mercedes, running less downforce. The result; they've been often quicker on the straights (speed traps), but slower in the corners and crucially, worse in tyre wear. In regards to RedBull, I'm convinced their chassis is very very good - to the point, I wouldn't be surprised if they actually still have the strongest one on the grid - they just haven't been able to show it (relative to the Mercedes). If the PU gap narrows, I expect them to be very competitive next year. That PU gap will be very crucial IMO and to me proves that there currently is/was a rather large existing difference in power between them this season.
Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. — bhall II
#Team44 supporter

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Infiniti RedBull Racing 2014

Post

Phil, what you say is more or less correct but there's something that's technically incorrect: downforce doesn't reduce straightline speed, drag does. More downforce usually comes with more drag, but not always.

Last year Red Bull had in the second half of the year a mayor breakthrough: they were able to keep or even increase their downforce levels, but at the same time a considerable chunk of the drag got cut away. It's speculating how they managed to do that, perhaps with flexing wings and wings stalling at a certain speed. Ultimately it depends on your drag-lift coëfficient.

Of course a more powerful PU will be able to undo extra drag. Just saying that it's not only PU playing a factor, aero efficiency does as well. Red Bull struggled a bit in the beginning of the season when they had to get neutral airflow flow into the low pressure zone of the rear wing. A clear sign they struggled, and at the same time not willing to reduce AoA of the rear wing. At lower speeds this isn't such a big deal, but at higher speed it compromises downforce by a lot, meaning they had issues with efficiency too.
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
Juzh
515
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:45 am

Re: Infiniti RedBull Racing 2014

Post

Phil wrote: RedBull in the last 4 years (prior to 2014) has been in a very good position. The V8 engines were all more or less equalized (similar power, give or take), but RedBull had distinct advantages which allowed them to run more downforce. They were never the quickest car on the straights, but clearly very fast in the corners, especially medium to high downforce corners where the car showed its key strength. Because they were effectively the fastest car, running in front enabled them to play that key strength and drive off into the distance. Vettel, who mostly qualified on pole, did this time and time again. Webber, who, coppled with notoric bad starts, ended up in traffic which is where the key characteristics of his car (fast in the corners, slower on the straights) proved trouble-some. It's also IMO why Webber always seemed more 'ordinary' compared to his team-mate who just disappeared into the distance.
This is true to an extent. RB6 and RB8 were kinda garbage on the straights (before F-duct or DDRS, and even after that nothing special).
RB7 and especially post summer break RB9 were pretty good in straight line. RB9 was by far the quickest car of the front runners down the straights starting from spa onwards (not necessarily top speed, but sector wise). Merc tried to replicate RB6 all out DF approach late in 2013 but more or less failed.

Agree with the rest.

User avatar
Juzh
515
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:45 am

Re: Infiniti RedBull Racing 2014

Post

turbof1 wrote: Last year Red Bull had in the second half of the year a mayor breakthrough: they were able to keep or even increase their downforce levels, but at the same time a considerable chunk of the drag got cut away. It's speculating how they managed to do that, perhaps with flexing wings and wings stalling at a certain speed. Ultimately it depends on your drag-lift coëfficient.
Amount of drag shedding RB9 was capable of was trully unprecedented (save for F-duct which everyone copied whereas no one could copy RB9's LD efficiency). It showed what RB would be capable of with a more potent engine.

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Infiniti RedBull Racing 2014

Post

Just a simple example. Let's take the simple drag equation:
Image
Let's assume the following variables are actually constants. In real life they differ, slightly or less slightly, depending on the situation. But to simplify:
-Image=1.225 kg/m3 (air density at sea level at 15 degrees Celcius)
-Image= 0.32 (drag coëfficient for a f1 car, but again this varies from situation to situation. We'll let this vary later. Edit: number taken from wikipedia and not a realistic one for a f1 car, but still suits the example.)
-Image= 1 (I absolutely don't know what the reference area of a f1 car is. I'm taking 1 so it's isn't a factor here. Then reference area of a f1 car barely changes anyway).

That leaves us:
Image= 1.225 kg/m3 * 0.32 * 1/2 * Image²

As you see, a major factor here is Image². At 10km this applies a factor of 100 on the formula, at 200 it applies 40000 and at 283 it applies a factor of 80089. In order words, drag doubles by 2 when speed goes from 200 to 283.
Say your drag coefficient halfs to 0.16. Now you just negated your drag increase at that velocity point.
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
Juzh
515
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:45 am

Re: Infiniti RedBull Racing 2014

Post

Cd of just 0.32 for an F1 car? Did I miss something? Source?

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Infiniti RedBull Racing 2014

Post

Juzh wrote:Cd of just 0.32 for an F1 car? Did I miss something? Source?
I just took a wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile ... oefficient

It's probably not true, but it serves well as an example. A number I readed at this site is 1.3.
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
Juzh
515
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:45 am

Re: Infiniti RedBull Racing 2014

Post

Ah, makes sense :wink:

User avatar
Phil
427
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:22 pm

Re: Infiniti RedBull Racing 2014

Post

turbof1 wrote:Phil, what you say is more or less correct but there's something that's technically incorrect: downforce doesn't reduce straightline speed, drag does. More downforce usually comes with more drag, but not always.
Yeah, thanks for correcting. That is of course true. I guess I was operating on the assumption that more downforce will increase drag, even if that is perhaps looking at it from a perhaps too simplified angle. Everything costs something; essentially, nothing is for free.

The way I see it is that last year, the situation was slightly different because we had roughly 3 identical PUs. Yes, Renault might have had slight advantages due to the mapping they were allowed to run due to safety concerns (which I guess allowed them to make better use of EBD), but from a simplistic angle, they were give or take producing very similar power numbers. So the difference in aero between the RedBull and any other car on the grid was down to aero efficiency (efficiency, I didn't really cover in my above post). Efficiency means that a team might get more downforce at less drag than another team.

For a F1 team, I guess the better they can exploit changing the aero configuration during a single lap the better; On the straights, you want maximum power with little drag, in the corners, you want more downforce. DRS helps to reduce drag on the straights, but it's only usable in a limited scope (QF and in the race when you're following another car closely) and the year before, the F-Duct helped too. If everyone has it, it equals out, so we can ignore those as variables. Anything else is really down to trickery - like flexy wings, perhaps even FRIC etc. The more variables you include, the more complicated it gets, so I guess I was trying to keep it simple by assuming more or less identical cars (identical aero efficiency) and compare the advantages and disadvantages if you play around with the PU variable and how that impacts what options you have on set-up.

I think what has been hurting RedBull has not only been the 'weaker' PU, but also the fact that they were faced running in and behind traffic, which made them compromise more than what we've seen them do the last couple of years when they were running at the very front. I think this year, they have been way out of their comfort zone set-up wise, trying to mask the PU power difference.
Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. — bhall II
#Team44 supporter

User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: Infiniti RedBull Racing 2014

Post

I also think that something like slipstreaming barely exist anymore. Teams use vortexes and in what matter possible flexible wings. Only, following an other car means your robbed of clean and mass airflow. If there is not enough air volume due it being upwashed by the car in front, there is a lot less pressure on the wings to bend them down. If air is turbulent, vortices aren't properly formed. You might have less air resistance all together, but you are loosing out on a different front. And that's only at the straights. We know what happens in corners.

Having a lesser car means you aren't just loosing out in peak performance. You are loosing double because of the dirty air. Red Bull is facing several things at once: reshuffled aero rules, a lesser PU and the disadvantage of running in the pack. A triple treat of performance hampering, topped off with a very small scope for development.
#AeroFrodo

elf341
elf341
19
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 6:31 pm

Re: Infiniti RedBull Racing 2014

Post

Phil wrote:Everything costs something; essentially, nothing is for free.
I'm know I'm being a extremist nitpicker here, but this statement again I don't think is quite true (well, it depends what you mean by 'free').

A car may have its aerodynamic configuration altered to produce the same level of downforce with a lower total drag. Conversely, a car may be altered to produce more downforce at the same level of drag.
(e.g. the early ground effect cars when skirts were added, were purported to add up to 100% more downforce at basically zero extra drag)

You might say it's not "free" in the sense that it required research and development cost to know how to alter the aerodynamic profile of the car to achieve this.

Note that this is different from the "set-up" tinkering that engineers do at each grand prix, which really is trading downforce for drag in order to reduce laptime.

The interesting thing for me is how they focus new development. Do they try to find add downforce without adding drag? Or shed drag without shedding downforce? And how do they choose where abouts on the pareto curve they want to aim to be?