Red Bull RB22

[AR3-GP]

One of the advantages of the Red Bull solution is the rotation time which, having to travel less road, is shorter than that required by the Prancing Horse wing. An advantage that, more than during opening, weighs especially during the closing phase, when you approach the braking point and need stability.

The situation changes when it comes to closure. In terms of downforce recovery, the Red Bull wing seems much quicker to complete the reattachment of the flows, both for the rotation times and for the shape itself, with the flaps in the spoon position the moment they return to the closed configuration. This should guarantee greater safety for the rider, especially in the very first phase of braking. It is no coincidence that Ferrari drivers are among those who in Miami tended to manually anticipate the closing of the wing a few moments before braking, precisely to have more support.

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-al ... /10820435/

[venkyhere]

Is there a clear reason why the bib concept with the isolated forward section that was adopted in miami (a similar design to the launch spec SF-26) is advantageous under these rules?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HHYpApmasAA ... &name=orig

Does it exploit a loophole or is it more a choice around flow conditioning ahead of forward floor/fences

The bib has moved rearwards, probably (my guess) to have more lateral angle to the flow hitting the floor entry, which might sharpen the vortices generated by the daggers. For mechanical reasons, there is a secondary support added fore of the bib.

[AR3-GP]

What has intrigued rivals is a sharp fence at the rear corner of the sidepod where it meets the floor, rather than a smooth curved transition. This helps extend the outside of the sidepod further back, further outboard on the floor - which as Stella noted, completes a clearly unique overall design in this area. And the shape here is not something other teams thought was possible.

The regulations require certain radii that normally force this sidepod bodywork to be smoothly curved and continuous, preventing teams from creating sharp fins, discontinuous edges or multi-element structures in a given plane. They can’t curve inwards (concave radius) less than 50mm or outwards (convex radius) less than 75mm. But the area where its sidepod meets the floor is part of the floor corner - where the rules do not enforce the same geometric limitation, and parts can be made up of multiple sections.

The Race understands that the concession comes down to how the rules only define specific parts of car bodywork as "aerodynamic surfaces". These are the surfaces that remain in contact with the external airstream after all trim and combination operations have been completed - and must be a rounded shape.In this case, Red Bull has split its design in such a way that it is not considered a continuation of the sidepod/engine cover bodywork. Instead it counts as a part in the floor corner with multiple sections that are joined together. And when two bodywork components are trimmed and combined, the surfaces at the internal boundaries where one component meets another are no longer in contact with the external airstream after assembly.

Confusing, to say the least.
https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/the- ... l-concept/

[CjC]

It’s an awesome piece of work by Red Bull.

Like the article said, this will opening up a new battleground now- there’ll be slots, wings and all sorts of aero porn going on in this region by the end of the season

[carisi2k]

But will it as changing direction to this concept might lead to destroying how the other teams aero works on there cars and result in Mclaren wasting valuable time on this instead of something else which might help there car go faster. Remember as world champions they have the least amount of wind tunnel and cfd time. Teams like Williams or Aston Martin have the need, the aero and cfd time to actually look in to this solution.

[FW17]

What has intrigued rivals is a sharp fence at the rear corner of the sidepod where it meets the floor, rather than a smooth curved transition. This helps extend the outside of the sidepod further back, further outboard on the floor - which as Stella noted, completes a clearly unique overall design in this area. And the shape here is not something other teams thought was possible.

The regulations require certain radii that normally force this sidepod bodywork to be smoothly curved and continuous, preventing teams from creating sharp fins, discontinuous edges or multi-element structures in a given plane. They can’t curve inwards (concave radius) less than 50mm or outwards (convex radius) less than 75mm. But the area where its sidepod meets the floor is part of the floor corner - where the rules do not enforce the same geometric limitation, and parts can be made up of multiple sections.

The Race understands that the concession comes down to how the rules only define specific parts of car bodywork as "aerodynamic surfaces". These are the surfaces that remain in contact with the external airstream after all trim and combination operations have been completed - and must be a rounded shape.In this case, Red Bull has split its design in such a way that it is not considered a continuation of the sidepod/engine cover bodywork. Instead it counts as a part in the floor corner with multiple sections that are joined together. And when two bodywork components are trimmed and combined, the surfaces at the internal boundaries where one component meets another are no longer in contact with the external airstream after assembly.

Confusing, to say the least.
https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/the- ... l-concept/

https://storage.ghost.io/c/dd/af/ddafbd ... pped-1.jpg

Whats the purpose of this

[De Wet]

So much for the "brain drain" theory at RBR.

[Stu]

…

Confusing, to say the least.
https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/the- ... l-concept/

https://storage.ghost.io/c/dd/af/ddafbd ... pped-1.jpg

Whats the purpose of this

At a guess…
Driving the diffuser and dealing with tyre squirt.

[Badger]

Confusing, to say the least.
https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/the- ... l-concept/

https://storage.ghost.io/c/dd/af/ddafbd ... pped-1.jpg

Whats the purpose of this

At a guess…
Driving the diffuser and dealing with tyre squirt.

Clean mass flow to the diffuser through the sculpted sidepod and then pushing the dirty air from the front wheels and floor edge outboard with the sidepod acting as a physical divider.

[Farnborough]

Whats the purpose of this

At a guess…
Driving the diffuser and dealing with tyre squirt.

Clean mass flow to the diffuser through the sculpted sidepod and then pushing the dirty air from the front wheels and floor edge outboard with the sidepod acting as a physical divider.

The bluff front at base of sidepod along with flow over top into that valley, has echo of top exit exhaust with coander effect used when blowing the top surface of floor /diffuser from previous era in it's focus.

[Emag]

What has intrigued rivals is a sharp fence at the rear corner of the sidepod where it meets the floor, rather than a smooth curved transition. This helps extend the outside of the sidepod further back, further outboard on the floor - which as Stella noted, completes a clearly unique overall design in this area. And the shape here is not something other teams thought was possible.

The regulations require certain radii that normally force this sidepod bodywork to be smoothly curved and continuous, preventing teams from creating sharp fins, discontinuous edges or multi-element structures in a given plane. They can’t curve inwards (concave radius) less than 50mm or outwards (convex radius) less than 75mm. But the area where its sidepod meets the floor is part of the floor corner - where the rules do not enforce the same geometric limitation, and parts can be made up of multiple sections.

The Race understands that the concession comes down to how the rules only define specific parts of car bodywork as "aerodynamic surfaces". These are the surfaces that remain in contact with the external airstream after all trim and combination operations have been completed - and must be a rounded shape.In this case, Red Bull has split its design in such a way that it is not considered a continuation of the sidepod/engine cover bodywork. Instead it counts as a part in the floor corner with multiple sections that are joined together. And when two bodywork components are trimmed and combined, the surfaces at the internal boundaries where one component meets another are no longer in contact with the external airstream after assembly.

Confusing, to say the least.
https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/the- ... l-concept/

https://storage.ghost.io/c/dd/af/ddafbd ... pped-1.jpg

I think it looks a little ugly, but I would be lying if I said these sort of things don't impress me. I am surprised this works out with this generation of cars though. Considering how crucial the waterslide concept turned out to be for the GE cars, you would think the FIA would be careful not to allow loopholes that derive from that.

[Waz]

What has intrigued rivals is a sharp fence at the rear corner of the sidepod where it meets the floor, rather than a smooth curved transition. This helps extend the outside of the sidepod further back, further outboard on the floor - which as Stella noted, completes a clearly unique overall design in this area. And the shape here is not something other teams thought was possible.

The regulations require certain radii that normally force this sidepod bodywork to be smoothly curved and continuous, preventing teams from creating sharp fins, discontinuous edges or multi-element structures in a given plane. They can’t curve inwards (concave radius) less than 50mm or outwards (convex radius) less than 75mm. But the area where its sidepod meets the floor is part of the floor corner - where the rules do not enforce the same geometric limitation, and parts can be made up of multiple sections.

The Race understands that the concession comes down to how the rules only define specific parts of car bodywork as "aerodynamic surfaces". These are the surfaces that remain in contact with the external airstream after all trim and combination operations have been completed - and must be a rounded shape.In this case, Red Bull has split its design in such a way that it is not considered a continuation of the sidepod/engine cover bodywork. Instead it counts as a part in the floor corner with multiple sections that are joined together. And when two bodywork components are trimmed and combined, the surfaces at the internal boundaries where one component meets another are no longer in contact with the external airstream after assembly.

Confusing, to say the least.
https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/the- ... l-concept/

https://storage.ghost.io/c/dd/af/ddafbd ... pped-1.jpg

This really shows the depth of the Red Bull strength. Such a clever idea, but something that needed a clear head reading the regulations.

I always thought that was Wheatley, but clearly his understudies are doing just fine.

[Cassius]

What has intrigued rivals is a sharp fence at the rear corner of the sidepod where it meets the floor, rather than a smooth curved transition. This helps extend the outside of the sidepod further back, further outboard on the floor - which as Stella noted, completes a clearly unique overall design in this area. And the shape here is not something other teams thought was possible.

The regulations require certain radii that normally force this sidepod bodywork to be smoothly curved and continuous, preventing teams from creating sharp fins, discontinuous edges or multi-element structures in a given plane. They can’t curve inwards (concave radius) less than 50mm or outwards (convex radius) less than 75mm. But the area where its sidepod meets the floor is part of the floor corner - where the rules do not enforce the same geometric limitation, and parts can be made up of multiple sections.

The Race understands that the concession comes down to how the rules only define specific parts of car bodywork as "aerodynamic surfaces". These are the surfaces that remain in contact with the external airstream after all trim and combination operations have been completed - and must be a rounded shape.In this case, Red Bull has split its design in such a way that it is not considered a continuation of the sidepod/engine cover bodywork. Instead it counts as a part in the floor corner with multiple sections that are joined together. And when two bodywork components are trimmed and combined, the surfaces at the internal boundaries where one component meets another are no longer in contact with the external airstream after assembly.

Confusing, to say the least.
https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/the- ... l-concept/

https://storage.ghost.io/c/dd/af/ddafbd ... pped-1.jpg

This really shows the depth of the Red Bull strength. Such a clever idea, but something that needed a clear head reading the regulations.

I always thought that was Wheatley, but clearly his understudies are doing just fine.

You mean Newey? Because Wheatley was sporting director, not technically involved.

Do you really think that all the ideas from the past year's cars were coming from one person? It has always been a team effort, with great individual talent and a very good team governance balancing individual creativity and joint decision making.

Don't believe the media bait about the team disintegrating.

[AR3-GP]

“Those sidepods have been in the pipeline since Bahrain testing,” Wache clarified. “The [original] package for the Bahrain Grand Prix was the one we introduced in Japan, more or less.”

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... /10822482/

[organic]

Is the rib on the front cake tin new?

Looking like they're innovating in this area