Red Bull RB18

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.
dxpetrov
dxpetrov
-4
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 2:39 pm

Re: Red Bull RB18

Post

organic wrote:
Thu Jun 16, 2022 8:54 pm
Barcelona/Monaco RW I believe
No, this is medium load wing.

GrrG
GrrG
62
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2022 2:02 pm
Location: Italy Rome

Re: Red Bull RB18

Post

Baku update of Red Bull RB18! Floor fence, floor side and diffuser



Image

User avatar
organic
104
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:24 am
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: Red Bull RB18

Post

GrrG wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 9:27 am
Baku update of Red Bull RB18! Floor fence, floor side and diffuser



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FVbFN1RakAI ... ame=medium
The arrow points to the scalloped feature of the floor that was part of the Spain package, just to be clear

User avatar
gandharva
223
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:19 pm
Location: Munich

Re: Red Bull RB18

Post

GrrG wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 9:27 am
Baku update of Red Bull RB18! Floor fence, floor side and diffuser
I think there is nothing new in that picture.

User avatar
henry
312
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: Red Bull RB18

Post

AeroDynamic wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 12:55 pm
Image
Looking at this mechanism I have a thought about how it might be configured to help with porpoising and high speed braking. Newey has said that he was particularly involved in the suspension, maybe he included this area?

The load response of this mechanism is covered by 3.15.6 in the regulations.
At all times during the test, the load at a given deflection must exceed the load given by a straight-line graph defined by connecting the following coordinates in order: (0 mm, 0 N) (1 mm, 0 N) (5 mm, 4000N) (25mm, 6000N). This must be the case whether the deflection is increasing, decreasing, or held constant. The test will have no more than a maximum load of 8000N or a maximum deflection of 15mm (whichever is reached first) unless specifically requested by the FIA to investigate behaviour above these limits.
The load deflection relationship must be strictly monotonic with both increasing and decreasing deflection
Two things I note. Firstly it is quite stiff, the forces are quite high for quite small movements of this section of the floor. Secondly, the regs are concerned about hysteresis, the bolded part. However there is no mention of how quickly the load is applied or removed.

If the car starts to porpoise, perhaps it hits a bump the road, load on this part of the floor will increase, and then the aero load goes down and the car is pushed up with a force which is the difference between aero load and the sum of the load from the suspension springs, including the tyres, and the floor mechanism. If the floor has hysteresis, as the car starts to lift the floor’s contribution to the upward force, and hence movement will decrease. If the hysteresis is high enough it will lose contact with the road, the load it provides goes to zero and a gap will open allowing air flow under the plank. This would reduce the vigorous and amplitude of porpoising.

The porpoising frequency is around 6hz. I doubt very much that the measurement mechanism applies loads at anything like that rate. The spring elements, Belleville washers are notorious for hysteresis and who knows what damping mechanism there is in the strut.

In high speed braking there is a load transfer to the front of the car, for a 5g stop around 3500N. This will compress the front suspension and tyres and likely load up the front of the floor. This might reduce the braking force and stability. With hysteresis, as soon as the speed reduces the front of the car will rise and the contact force of the floor to the road will drop, perhaps to zero, increasing braking force, improving stability and possibly allowing greater air flow to the floor.

For both these potential mechanisms running the car with a small amount of rake would be needed. I don’t think it’s possible to easily judge rake on these cars given the configuration and flexibility of the floor edge.

This is not necessarily exclusive to RB18, other cars have mechanisms here but the RB one is easy to observe.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
47
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Red Bull RB18

Post

henry wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 2:21 pm
Looking at this mechanism I have a thought about how it might be configured to help with porpoising and high speed braking. Newey has said that he was particularly involved in the suspension, maybe he included this area?

The load response of this mechanism is covered by 3.15.6 in the regulations.
At all times during the test, the load at a given deflection must exceed the load given by a straight-line graph defined by connecting the following coordinates in order: (0 mm, 0 N) (1 mm, 0 N) (5 mm, 4000N) (25mm, 6000N). This must be the case whether the deflection is increasing, decreasing, or held constant. The test will have no more than a maximum load of 8000N or a maximum deflection of 15mm (whichever is reached first) unless specifically requested by the FIA to investigate behaviour above these limits.
The load deflection relationship must be strictly monotonic with both increasing and decreasing deflection
Two things I note. Firstly it is quite stiff, the forces are quite high for quite small movements of this section of the floor. Secondly, the regs are concerned about hysteresis, the bolded part. However there is no mention of how quickly the load is applied or removed.

If the car starts to porpoise, perhaps it hits a bump the road, load on this part of the floor will increase, and then the aero load goes down and the car is pushed up with a force which is the difference between aero load and the sum of the load from the suspension springs, including the tyres, and the floor mechanism. If the floor has hysteresis, as the car starts to lift the floor’s contribution to the upward force, and hence movement will decrease. If the hysteresis is high enough it will lose contact with the road, the load it provides goes to zero and a gap will open allowing air flow under the plank. This would reduce the vigorous and amplitude of porpoising.

The porpoising frequency is around 6hz. I doubt very much that the measurement mechanism applies loads at anything like that rate. The spring elements, Belleville washers are notorious for hysteresis and who knows what damping mechanism there is in the strut.

In high speed braking there is a load transfer to the front of the car, for a 5g stop around 3500N. This will compress the front suspension and tyres and likely load up the front of the floor. This might reduce the braking force and stability. With hysteresis, as soon as the speed reduces the front of the car will rise and the contact force of the floor to the road will drop, perhaps to zero, increasing braking force, improving stability and possibly allowing greater air flow to the floor.

For both these potential mechanisms running the car with a small amount of rake would be needed. I don’t think it’s possible to easily judge rake on these cars given the configuration and flexibility of the floor edge.

This is not necessarily exclusive to RB18, other cars have mechanisms here but the RB one is easy to observe.
The damping is the key point there, it should stop any tendency of hysteresis.
Are you sure about 6 hz?

User avatar
henry
312
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: Red Bull RB18

Post

I’ve measured 6hz on Leclerc’s Ferrari and Newey mentioned it in his interview where he talked about his contribution to this years car. I’ve also made an estimate based on natural frequency for a simple 850kg mass and 60mm total suspension travel with linear rate, which came in the same ballpark. This might suggest why this is difficult problem area.

The damping is hysteresis, it’s what you use to get the effect I’m describing.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus

User avatar
organic
104
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:24 am
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: Red Bull RB18

Post

johnny comelately wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 2:30 pm
henry wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 2:21 pm
Looking at this mechanism I have a thought about how it might be configured to help with porpoising and high speed braking. Newey has said that he was particularly involved in the suspension, maybe he included this area?

The load response of this mechanism is covered by 3.15.6 in the regulations.
At all times during the test, the load at a given deflection must exceed the load given by a straight-line graph defined by connecting the following coordinates in order: (0 mm, 0 N) (1 mm, 0 N) (5 mm, 4000N) (25mm, 6000N). This must be the case whether the deflection is increasing, decreasing, or held constant. The test will have no more than a maximum load of 8000N or a maximum deflection of 15mm (whichever is reached first) unless specifically requested by the FIA to investigate behaviour above these limits.
The load deflection relationship must be strictly monotonic with both increasing and decreasing deflection
Two things I note. Firstly it is quite stiff, the forces are quite high for quite small movements of this section of the floor. Secondly, the regs are concerned about hysteresis, the bolded part. However there is no mention of how quickly the load is applied or removed.

If the car starts to porpoise, perhaps it hits a bump the road, load on this part of the floor will increase, and then the aero load goes down and the car is pushed up with a force which is the difference between aero load and the sum of the load from the suspension springs, including the tyres, and the floor mechanism. If the floor has hysteresis, as the car starts to lift the floor’s contribution to the upward force, and hence movement will decrease. If the hysteresis is high enough it will lose contact with the road, the load it provides goes to zero and a gap will open allowing air flow under the plank. This would reduce the vigorous and amplitude of porpoising.

The porpoising frequency is around 6hz. I doubt very much that the measurement mechanism applies loads at anything like that rate. The spring elements, Belleville washers are notorious for hysteresis and who knows what damping mechanism there is in the strut.

In high speed braking there is a load transfer to the front of the car, for a 5g stop around 3500N. This will compress the front suspension and tyres and likely load up the front of the floor. This might reduce the braking force and stability. With hysteresis, as soon as the speed reduces the front of the car will rise and the contact force of the floor to the road will drop, perhaps to zero, increasing braking force, improving stability and possibly allowing greater air flow to the floor.

For both these potential mechanisms running the car with a small amount of rake would be needed. I don’t think it’s possible to easily judge rake on these cars given the configuration and flexibility of the floor edge.

This is not necessarily exclusive to RB18, other cars have mechanisms here but the RB one is easy to observe.
The damping is the key point there, it should stop any tendency of hysteresis.
Are you sure about 6 hz?
Image

This was shown during Barcelona weekend, possibly post-race

Sevach
Sevach
925
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:00 pm

Re: Red Bull RB18

Post

Image

Image

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
507
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 am

Re: Red Bull RB18

Post

AR3-GP wrote:
Thu Jun 16, 2022 6:35 pm
The detail on the RB floor is absurd.
It's like the dug a hole in the middle of the factory, put three engineers in it with some food rations and carving tools, sealed it with a giant slab of wood and told them they wont be relased until they carved out a masterpeice of a floor!
🖐️✌️☝️👀👌

====Zen level====
|||||||<@>||^||<@>|||||||

GrizzleBoy
GrizzleBoy
26
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:06 am

Re: Red Bull RB18

Post

Every time I see a new angle of those strakes it makes me feel like I have to reconfigure everything about what I thought they were doing lol.

For instance that middle strake in the top picture almost looks in washing, but I'm sure the angle is hiding the last portion of the strake that flicks outward when seen from below.

User avatar
Big Tea
91
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: Red Bull RB18

Post

GrizzleBoy wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:29 pm
Every time I see a new angle of those strakes it makes me feel like I have to reconfigure everything about what I thought they were doing lol.

For instance that middle strake in the top picture almost looks in washing, but I'm sure the angle is hiding the last portion of the strake that flicks outward when seen from below.
I wonder if they look the same once there is some air pressure involved?
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.

Roostfactor
Roostfactor
11
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 3:50 am
Location: Texas

Re: Red Bull RB18

Post

Big Tea wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:31 pm
GrizzleBoy wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:29 pm
Every time I see a new angle of those strakes it makes me feel like I have to reconfigure everything about what I thought they were doing lol.

For instance that middle strake in the top picture almost looks in washing, but I'm sure the angle is hiding the last portion of the strake that flicks outward when seen from below.
I wonder if they look the same once there is some air pressure involved?
Good point! I'm sure it would be very difficult to enforce the "no movable aero parts" when it's not visible.

GrrG
GrrG
62
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2022 2:02 pm
Location: Italy Rome

Re: Red Bull RB18

Post

Red Bull: new anti-overheating brake calipers

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-re ... content=it

Old
Image

New
Image

AR3-GP
AR3-GP
59
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:22 am

Re: Red Bull RB18

Post

I'm always skeptical when someone uses "anti-something" technology. It implies the brakes could never overheat. The more reasonable claim is that the new system is just better than the old one. I'm sure I could overheat those brakes :D