Red Bull RB19

[clownfish]

At the risk of sounding a bit naive and knowing this is about the RB19;

I can't shake the thought that RB has linked the floor beams to the suspension. They can deform the floor with much higher force tha aero could circumventing stiffness regulations and they can flex it opposing to aero forces.

Rolling in a corner increases the downforce on the outside corner side and reduces the downforce on the inner corner side. This increases the rolling force on the car that needs to be countered with suspension. It also increases the load shift to the outer wheels.

If the suspension is linked to the floor and keeps the floor level while the car rolls, the inner corner tires take more of the load, reducing the load on the outer corner rear wheel. The aero does expert less rolling force, allowing for les stiff suspension setting.

But maybe thats just dumb...

I must admit i had the same thought when I saw how complex their floor stays were and how flat their floor stayed during cornering.
However, that would surely be illegal as a moveable aero device?

[aleks_ader]

Guys, I think sorta double chassis would be quite obvious one for scrutineering to notice. Like Lotus 79 witch got banned even before season.

More so i think there is clear intend to control flex that is stable and predictable in any phase of corner. Not as highly adaptable as many here are suggesting. Ofc suspension setup is tailored to suit around predetermined yaw, rake aero maps clearly. Remember such dynamics events are nightmare to control and simulate in CFD or wind tunnels. And furthermore such events become exponentially harder and as consequence you heavily restricts any resources available for any parallel R&D projects.

So stable platform is name of game if u will. That will give u "easier" environment too work with. As setups, simulations of such "simple" events will payed dividends in sense of more gradual improvements trough much bigger data throughput.

Maybe there is TRUE power of RB aero team. They know what they want. And they just chipp away problem by problem without too outlandish ideas (cought cought Merc) or outlandish loopholes (cought cought Ferrari) witch can and will get banned in any minute. They simply engineered efficient and balanced car.

[marcel171281]

Guys, I think sorta double chassis would be quite obvious one for scrutineering to notice. Like Lotus 79 witch got banned even before season.

More so i think there is clear intend to control flex that is stable and predictable in any phase of corner. Not as highly adaptable as many here are suggesting. Ofc suspension setup is tailored to suit around predetermined yaw, rake aero maps clearly. Remember such dynamics events are nightmare to control and simulate in CFD or wind tunnels. And furthermore such events become exponentially harder and as consequence you heavily restricts any resources available for any parallel R&D projects.

So stable platform is name of game if u will. That will give u "easier" environment too work with. As setups, simulations of such "simple" events will payed dividends in sense of more gradual improvements trough much bigger data throughput.

Maybe there is TRUE power of RB aero team. They know what they want. And they just chipp away problem by problem without too outlandish ideas (cought cought Merc) or outlandish loopholes (cought cought Ferrari) witch can and will get banned in any minute. They simply engineered efficient and balanced car.

It is what Adrian Newey has said more than once. It is not about peak downforce, it is all about a stable platform with a wide enough working range.

RB might well have the concept that in CFD or the windtunnel isn't the one with the most downforce or best numbers, or whatever you want to call it. But races are not in the windtunnel, they are in the real world.

[organic]

The team has said many times they spent the entire first portion last season's updates making the car a more stable aero platform rather than focusing on adding performance. It's why Ferrari gained laptime through development after the first few races (before they had to turn engines down). A lot of the performance upgrades they had in mind for the rb18 never came to the car because by summer, development was no longer needed. So what we see now in the rb19 is not far off what the final rb18 could've looked like.

Marko has already hinted that a majority of their efforts are going to the rb20 due to the restrictions of aero testing that they are under - see the team thread. I suspect the rb19 won't be developed a huge amount, and the first half of the season is therefore crucial

[ing.]

Guys, I think sorta double chassis would be quite obvious one for scrutineering to notice. Like Lotus 79 witch got banned even before season.

Good post, but the car in question is the Lotus 88, which practiced at the 1st race at Long Beach in ‘81 but was not allowed to race.

The bodywork, including sidepods and venturi tunnels, was in effect supported at—and therefore transferring DF directly to—the lower wishbone outer (near ball joint) end at all four corners. Not dissimilar to the first F1 RW installations mounted on the rear suspension before these were outlawed.

[clownfish]

Guys, I think sorta double chassis would be quite obvious one for scrutineering to notice. Like Lotus 79 witch got banned even before season.

I wasn't meaning anything like that extent! More just the possibility of applying lateral load from the suspension to the floor stays, in order to flex the edge of the floor a few mm

In fact i forgot that posted the pic of the stay in question myself in the RB18 thread.

viewtopic.php?p=1083154#p1083154

I don't think it's possible however, and also as I said, it would be quite obviously illegal.

[Henk_v]

Well obviously this would not be e clear cut lever-hinge-beam connection between floor and suspension. I am more thinking about something more refined and passive. As long as one stays inside the flexural limit, stuff is not regarded movable.

RB worked a lot on the diffuser keel, which would provide an excellent flexing point for the floor and could provide usefull flexing while passing all flex tests.

I posted last year about how the aluminium floor beams could be there to move the floor attachment point (and thus its hinging point under flexing) outward.

[AR3-GP]

We’re starting to get into the realm of wild speculation.

I see no physical connection between the suspension elements, and the carbon floor. The front suspension is mounted to the front of the monocoque. The rear suspension is mounted to the gearbox casing.

Where are the lines of action which would cause the floor to move in response to the suspension? I don’t see it at all. The only way the floor would move is if the monocoque itself was not very rigid, and that is not desirable.

[Stu]

I have posted this elsewhere (Mercedes or Ferrari thread, I think)….
Have a read through some of the analysis done here in the RB18 thread, there is no magic. RedBull have approached the suspension design from the solution (how do you build a stable platform) rather than trying to create a stable platform from a conventional suspension concept. No surprise there, really, it was reported that Adrian Newey concentrated on the rear suspension for the RB18.

Once you see it, you will wonder how nobody else has done it (although maybe Dan Fallows understands and has been able to incorporate it into the Mercedes supplied hardware!!?).

[GrrG]

RedBull RB18 - RB19 suspension, many (perhaps too many ...) similarities ...
The secret of red bull rear suspension

[ringo]

I have posted this elsewhere (Mercedes or Ferrari thread, I think)….
Have a read through some of the analysis done here in the RB18 thread, there is no magic. RedBull have approached the suspension design from the solution (how do you build a stable platform) rather than trying to create a stable platform from a conventional suspension concept. No surprise there, really, it was reported that Adrian Newey concentrated on the rear suspension for the RB18.

Once you see it, you will wonder how nobody else has done it (although maybe Dan Fallows understands and has been able to incorporate it into the Mercedes supplied hardware!!?).

Yes I believe Newey did not design the components, but he created the control narrative and philosophy for the suspension. He knows how he wants it to behave to complement the aero characteristics.

Maybe this has been shared on the site before, but I came across a auto technology maker multimatic. It seems they ahve been making passive suspension for Redbull F-1 for years. It seems they have worked with other f-1 teams as well. They have created a new active system for the Ferrari Purosangue SUV. Apparently their systems are unmatched in terms of speed and simplicity.
I would not be surprised if Redbull worked closely with them to develop proprietary technology for passive damping and movement.

https://www.multimatic.com/motorsports/ ... ng-dampers

[zioture]

[AR3-GP]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PjFOkgO5uw

If people knew the "secrets" of the RB19, they'd be paid very highly to replicate it.

[organic]

The secret to rb19 is the wide working window that they spent half of last year working on. It's why the rb18 worked at every track in second half (apart from sprint weekend Brazil). Simple as that

[Andi76]

Guys, I think sorta double chassis would be quite obvious one for scrutineering to notice. Like Lotus 79 witch got banned even before season.

More so i think there is clear intend to control flex that is stable and predictable in any phase of corner. Not as highly adaptable as many here are suggesting. Ofc suspension setup is tailored to suit around predetermined yaw, rake aero maps clearly. Remember such dynamics events are nightmare to control and simulate in CFD or wind tunnels. And furthermore such events become exponentially harder and as consequence you heavily restricts any resources available for any parallel R&D projects.

So stable platform is name of game if u will. That will give u "easier" environment too work with. As setups, simulations of such "simple" events will payed dividends in sense of more gradual improvements trough much bigger data throughput.

Maybe there is TRUE power of RB aero team. They know what they want. And they just chipp away problem by problem without too outlandish ideas (cought cought Merc) or outlandish loopholes (cought cought Ferrari) witch can and will get banned in any minute. They simply engineered efficient and balanced car.

It is what Adrian Newey has said more than once. It is not about peak downforce, it is all about a stable platform with a wide enough working range.

RB might well have the concept that in CFD or the windtunnel isn't the one with the most downforce or best numbers, or whatever you want to call it. But races are not in the windtunnel, they are in the real world.

I agree that the stability of the aero platform has a lot to do with it. I think you could also see on the top, the airflow along the sidepods when they used Flow-Vis here in the test, that the airflow on Red Bull is extremely even and "clean". This very stable, even airflow makes a difference, I think.