Red Bull RB15

[anthonyfa18]

[godlameroso]

Weight and CoG of the PU'S is standardized by the regulations. The Honda pu is no lighter or heavier than it's competition(they are ballasted). The weight of the carbon fiber airboxes above the PU is negligible, it's volume is of much more importance, although less so since the rear wing has been raised. Please stop arguing about nonsense.

The RB15 looks good, but will only go as far as Honda pu reliability(combined with Newey's uncompromising packaging) will allow. They are already planning on taking at least 4 pus this season, if not 5.

There is a lower weight and COG limit, and getting there is stupidly difficult. So difficult, that all 4 manufacturers are overweight, and over COG limit.

Sources on that?

I know back in the V8 days getting to the weight limit was very easy.
So easy BMW claimed they could make the engine weigh as little as 69kg as opposed to the mandated minimum 95kg.

http://sd-2.archive-host.com/membres/up ... BMW_F1.pdf

These engines have to be a fair bit more robust than the NA engines which had 1/4 of the cylinder pressures these engines have to deal with.

[SectorOne]

There is a lower weight and COG limit, and getting there is stupidly difficult. So difficult, that all 4 manufacturers are overweight, and over COG limit.

Sources on that?

I know back in the V8 days getting to the weight limit was very easy.
So easy BMW claimed they could make the engine weigh as little as 69kg as opposed to the mandated minimum 95kg.

http://sd-2.archive-host.com/membres/up ... BMW_F1.pdf

These engines have to be a fair bit more robust than the NA engines which had 1/4 of the cylinder pressures these engines have to deal with.

Absolutely, but i´d like to see the sources if possible to the statement.

[paddyf1]

high engine cover is due to radiators installed above the engine and not the engine itself.

That! That`s the reason they have so small sidepods air intakes! And that leads obviously to a higher CoG of the car not the engine, which is far worse, btw ...

And that`s not the weakest point in Honda`s PU armour. Maybe this year they reached almost the same max. power output both in the race and in qualy but certainly they are behind Ferrari and Merc in combustion efficiency hence requires more fuel than both ICE`s above mentioned.

With 2 tenths per lap gain for every 5kg of fuel - as Andy Cowell said - this means Merc acknowledged that the gain Ferrari`s ICE was doing last year was mainly due to a better fuel combustion process (coming out from an exclusive technology provided by Mahle and a renowned scientist, had I`m not wrong) and acted this year accordingly ...

The unfortunate thing here is, everything you mention regarding Honda's PU is completely devoid of genuine fact and is totally baseless. Actually sounds like Cyril is talking here.

This high fuel consumption statement... where are you getting this from? And wherever it was, I'm hoping you confirmed it was fact.. I don't recall this being a particular issue at all last year? Not comparatively to Renault anyway.
Honda have also only ever run a cooling package that relies on sidepod radiators since they re-entered F1, IF the radiators are 100% stacked above the PU this year as we are theorising, it is an entirely new design that was decided on with RBR, so I would only assume they have found some benefit in doing it this way, so not sure why that's indicative of a "chink in Honda's armour"? Maybe we should cross examine with the STR14, as last year they used a twin rad setup in both sidepods.

Red Bull decided to put more power unit components such as coolers above the engine in RB14, ot was red bulls idea not Honda.

[wesley123]

That! That`s the reason they have so small sidepods air intakes! And that leads obviously to a higher CoG of the car not the engine, which is far worse, btw ...

Every team these days puts radiators in that area. Aero is more important than the CoG.

And that`s not the weakest point in Honda`s PU armour.

It's not a weak point

[trinidefender]

Weight and CoG of the PU'S is standardized by the regulations. The Honda pu is no lighter or heavier than it's competition(they are ballasted). The weight of the carbon fiber airboxes above the PU is negligible, it's volume is of much more importance, although less so since the rear wing has been raised. Please stop arguing about nonsense.

The RB15 looks good, but will only go as far as Honda pu reliability(combined with Newey's uncompromising packaging) will allow. They are already planning on taking at least 4 pus this season, if not 5.

"The weight of the carbon fiber airboxes above the PU is negligible" this statement is entirely incorrect. Teams put a lot of R and D into making the roll hoop as light as possible. The reason is that the roll hoop contains the roll over crash protection. There is a lot of carbon fibre up there to create the strength needed.

[mzso]

That! That`s the reason they have so small sidepods air intakes! And that leads obviously to a higher CoG of the car not the engine, which is far worse, btw ...

Obviously they didn't do that on accident. May be that the aerodynamic gains are far greater than the losses because of the minor COG increase of a top mounted radiator.

And that`s not the weakest point in Honda`s PU armour. Maybe this year they reached almost the same max. power output both in the race and in qualy but certainly they are behind Ferrari and Merc in combustion efficiency hence requires more fuel than both ICE`s above mentioned.

Are you an oracle? We don't know anything certain about the PUs apart from the sound they make.

With 2 tenths per lap gain for every 5kg of fuel - as Andy Cowell said - this means Merc acknowledged that the gain Ferrari`s ICE was doing last year was mainly due to a better fuel combustion process (coming out from an exclusive technology provided by Mahle and a renowned scientist, had I`m not wrong) and acted this year accordingly ...

This doesn't even come close to even an implication much less an acknowledgement.

[mzso]

5.4.1 The overall weight of the power unit must be a minimum of 145kg.
5.4.2 The centre of gravity of the power unit may not lie less than 200mm above the reference plane.
5.4.4 The weight of a piston (with piston-pin, piston-pin retainers and piston rings) may not be less than 300g.
5.4.5 The weight of a connecting rod (with fasteners, small and big end bearings) may not be less than 300g.
5.4.6 The weight of the complete crankshaft assembly between the mid positions of the front and rear main bearing journals (including balance masses, bolts, bungs, O-rings between the boundaries), may not be less than 5300g. See drawing 8.

So assuming you meet all these stipulations, and you're still under weight, you could use ballast to get to the lowest allowed CoG if not already there.

Jeez... Feels like excessive overregulation... What's the point of all these restrictions? Destroying variety? 5.4.1 would have been enough. I'm surprised they didn't prescribe the screws that may be used to attach stuff...

[dren]

5.4.1 The overall weight of the power unit must be a minimum of 145kg.
5.4.2 The centre of gravity of the power unit may not lie less than 200mm above the reference plane.
5.4.4 The weight of a piston (with piston-pin, piston-pin retainers and piston rings) may not be less than 300g.
5.4.5 The weight of a connecting rod (with fasteners, small and big end bearings) may not be less than 300g.
5.4.6 The weight of the complete crankshaft assembly between the mid positions of the front and rear main bearing journals (including balance masses, bolts, bungs, O-rings between the boundaries), may not be less than 5300g. See drawing 8.

So assuming you meet all these stipulations, and you're still under weight, you could use ballast to get to the lowest allowed CoG if not already there.

Jeez... Such overregulation... What's the point of all these restrictions? Destroying variety? 5.4.1 would have been enough. I'm surprised they didn't prescribe the screws that may be used to attach stuff...

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but M12 bolts must be used to secure the PU to the chassis at prescribed points.

[mzso]

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but M12 bolts must be used to secure the PU to the chassis at prescribed points.

I was trying to, but apparently failed. Ouch.

[godlameroso]

5.4.1 The overall weight of the power unit must be a minimum of 145kg.
5.4.2 The centre of gravity of the power unit may not lie less than 200mm above the reference plane.
5.4.4 The weight of a piston (with piston-pin, piston-pin retainers and piston rings) may not be less than 300g.
5.4.5 The weight of a connecting rod (with fasteners, small and big end bearings) may not be less than 300g.
5.4.6 The weight of the complete crankshaft assembly between the mid positions of the front and rear main bearing journals (including balance masses, bolts, bungs, O-rings between the boundaries), may not be less than 5300g. See drawing 8.

So assuming you meet all these stipulations, and you're still under weight, you could use ballast to get to the lowest allowed CoG if not already there.

Jeez... Feels like excessive overregulation... What's the point of all these restrictions? Destroying variety? 5.4.1 would have been enough. I'm surprised they didn't prescribe the screws that may be used to attach stuff...

The regulations are just numbers to us and the reality of just how difficult it is to manufacture reliable parts that light, is a monumental challenge in itself. A 5.3 KG crank is already insanely light. The bare factory forged crank out of an S2k weighs ~22kg.

The piston with pin included is ~460g, rods are ~630g. Granted this isn't even a race engine we're talking about, however I think it's a fair comparison considering the cylinder pressures these engines deal with(which requires more robustness). I don't know any specific numbers, however I've been told no one is at the weight or COG limit, but they're getting closer. The compression ratio and system voltage limits haven't been reached yet either.

[Morteza]

[bill shoe]

The regulations are just numbers to us and the reality of just how difficult it is to manufacture reliable parts that light, is a monumental challenge in itself. A 5.3 KG crank is already insanely light. The bare factory forged crank out of an S2k weighs ~22kg.

I don't know any specific numbers, however I've been told no one is at the weight or COG limit, but they're getting closer.

Yea that's crazy light. A stock crank from a Honda 600cc CBR sportbike is 6.2 kg. Tiny engine with cyl pressures that are a tiny fraction of current F1. So why the 5.3 kg lower limit as opposed to 5.2 or 5.4?

[dans79]

Yea that's crazy light. A stock crank from a Honda 600cc CBR sportbike is 6.2 kg. Tiny engine with cyl pressures that are a tiny fraction of current F1. So why the 5.3 kg lower limit as opposed to 5.2 or 5.4?

Somone(s) determined that was a realistic minimum weight to keep costs under control. The lighter you allow a component to be, the more money teams will throw at R&D to get down to the minimum.

[Tzk]

And cost control is the reason for all of those limitations. This applies for the weight of the pistons, rods, engine and even the whole car. Still, having a lighter component and using ballast is always the preferred way, if you can get the weight down.