Red Bull RB8 Renault

[GrizzleBoy]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I dont think we can keep discussing where the exhaust gases are going to go until we actually come to an agreement about how the outside air is being moved around the sidepods.

Since this outside air will be the first thing to come into contact with the exhaust gases, it should be given heavy consideration when talking about influencing direction of the exhaust gases.

If we assume that the gases will be dipping straight down immediately after exiting the channel in the sidepod (which is imo shaped in that way as a consequence of the shape of the car, more than it is a direct attempt to get gases to swoop down at such a sharp angle), then we also have to assume that the gases will be completely ignoring the air rushing around the side of the sidepod directly below it (which would imo, impede the exhaust gases from simply dropping downwards towards the floor).

Imo, the gases will just be "carried" along the usual channels of airflow that it comes into contact with and this "carried" airflow will just be increasing the amount of airflow over whatever area they wish for it to cover.

btw, could anyone tell me what piece of bodywork the red arrow is pointing to?

[gridwalker]

What's the corriander effect?

A play on words ...

[dren]

I dont think we can keep discussing where the exhaust gases are going to go until we actually come to an agreement about how the outside air is being moved around the sidepods.

Since this outside air will be the first thing to come into contact with the exhaust gases, it should be given heavy consideration when talking about influencing direction of the exhaust gases.

If we assume that the gases will be dipping straight down immediately after exiting the channel in the sidepod (which is imo shaped in that way as a consequence of the shape of the car, more than it is a direct attempt to get gases to swoop down at such a sharp angle), then we also have to assume that the gases will be completely ignoring the air rushing around the side of the sidepod directly below it (which would imo, impede the exhaust gases from simply dropping downwards towards the floor).

Imo, the gases will just be "carried" along the usual channels of airflow that it comes into contact with and this "carried" airflow will just be increasing the amount of airflow over whatever area they wish for it to cover.

btw, could anyone tell me what piece of bodywork the red arrow is pointing to?

It has been discussed a few pages back. It is an over-under situation. The exhaust is flowing over the channeled air which is being diverted under. The arrow points to where the channeled flow around the sidepod exits. Red Bull are blowing the sides to seal the diffuser just like they did last year, just within the regulations for 2012.

[Coefficient]

Is that extension of the sidepod not just an exit ramp for the exhaust gases therefore employing the corriander effect?

Seriously, is the consensus that it's a tube blowing sidepod air under the floor? I can't see the point in it being there unless they were trying to use it in this way because it causes a bit of a blockage to the flow around the pods to my eye.

If it works it works and fair enough etc but it looks crap! The Mclaren is a far more elegant looking car.

What's the corriander effect?

Imo, the red bull looks much more elegant/refined at the back from a purely aesthetic view, but the McLaren wins hands down from the sidepods forward.

Sorry, just my silly sense of humour. It's the Coanda effect really.

[forty-two]

I expect this has already been suggested, but regarding the slot on the nose of the RB8, could this be used to somehow modify the flexibility of elements within the front wing?

I know that "Moveable aero" as a rule is banned, but like with the F-Duct, there are ways around those regulations.

I just wonder if the air hitting the slot, if it reaches a certain pressure could somehow influence the flexibility of say the pylons supporting the wing, allowing it to flex (change the angle of attack) to reduce drag at high speed?

Or of course they could have some kind of Front wing F-Duct arrangement we hear so much about!

[Ferraripilot]

It has been discussed a few pages back. It is an over-under situation. The exhaust is flowing over the channeled air which is being diverted under. The arrow points to where the channeled flow around the sidepod exits. Red Bull are blowing the sides to seal the diffuser just like they did last year, just within the regulations for 2012.

Yes, but I believe the question remains why would this 'channel' of exhaust flow which is losing velocity be superior to Red Bull losing all that undercut and tidyness they had flowing to the back end. Surely they are not sealing the diffuser that much. The appearance remains rather tidy for what it is but the sidepod flow potential has severely been decreased from two things; the wall of exhaust gases, and the newly formed sidepod ramps moving the exhaust gases. I still do not believe this was a wise move by Red Bull. They have lost a good bit of flow there in favor for an exhaust which only works marginally well.

[beelsebob]

No I definitely don't agree that that's where the flow is going – the flow round the bottom of the side pod is likely staying tight to the bottom of the side pod, flowing into the tunnel, out the back, past the pull rod, and over the top of the diffuser; just like it does on the MP4-27, and just like it does on the RB7.

Edit: see the blue line on my earlier image – flows round the bottom, in and out of the tunnel, and to the top of the diffuser.

[forty-two]

What's the corriander effect?

A play on words ...

The question is; how much thyme would you need to fully optimise the corriander effect?

Thanks gents for your Sage advice!

[Adrian Newby]

Is there any reason to generated a vortex starting at the location of the exhaust tip?

Brian

No, but there will probably be rotation induced to the flow at/along the splitter. Varying with speed, a certain portion of the air will go on either side of the splitter, causing the flow to spiral. Newey used this same trick to help seal the diffuser last year with the EBD. This year's version won't be nearly as efficient, of course, but just as clever.

The vortex that sealed the diffuser was created by a metal strake(vortex generator) at the exhaust tip. Go back and look.

Yes, I know. My point was that he had used spiraling air to help seal the diffuser, not that the spiral was created the same way.

[beelsebob]

Thanks gents for your Sage advice!

The other question is whether it would pars ley regulations.

[GrizzleBoy]

No I definitely don't agree that that's where the flow is going – the flow round the bottom of the side pod is likely staying tight to the bottom of the side pod, flowing into the tunnel, out the back, past the pull rod, and over the top of the diffuser; just like it does on the MP4-27, and just like it does on the RB7.

Edit: see the blue line on my earlier image – flows round the bottom, in and out of the tunnel, and to the top of the diffuser.

The content of my post was to address how the exhaust gases would flow when influenced by air flowing around it.

The air going under the sidepod is too low and too far forward in relation to the exhaust to have an affect on the exhaust gases immediately after they exit.

The air travelling above and around that undercutting channel will be what has the most effect on the exhaust gases, so that's what I chose to address.

In the end I only (purposefully) left out a couple of lines so are you disagreeing fully or just saying that I should have shown an additional line for air that goes through the bottom of the sidepod?

[beelsebob]

The content of my post was to address how the exhaust gases would flow when influenced by air flowing around it.

The air going under the sidepod is too low and too far forward in relation to the exhaust to have an affect on the exhaust gases immediately after they exit.

The air travelling above and around that undercutting channel will be what has the most effect on the exhaust gases, so that's what I chose to address.

In the end I only (purposefully) left out a couple of lines so are you disagreeing fully or just saying that I should have shown an additional line for air that goes through the bottom of the sidepod?

I'm saying that the way your diagram appears, it shows the air flowing around the bottom of the side pod, but doesn't show it entering the tunnel... It also shows air at several levels separating from the bodywork, I highly doubt this is happening to any great effect – I would expect that the body work is designed to allow for laminar flow (as much as possible) all the way around it.

[GrizzleBoy]

The content of my post was to address how the exhaust gases would flow when influenced by air flowing around it.

The air going under the sidepod is too low and too far forward in relation to the exhaust to have an affect on the exhaust gases immediately after they exit.

The air travelling above and around that undercutting channel will be what has the most effect on the exhaust gases, so that's what I chose to address.

In the end I only (purposefully) left out a couple of lines so are you disagreeing fully or just saying that I should have shown an additional line for air that goes through the bottom of the sidepod?

I'm saying that the way your diagram appears, it shows the air flowing around the bottom of the side pod, but doesn't show it entering the tunnel... It also shows air at several levels separating from the bodywork, I highly doubt this is happening to any great effect – I would expect that the body work is designed to allow for laminar flow (as much as possible) all the way around it.

I dont see how you can say that my diagram shows the air separating from the body work when its following the same curvature around the body work of the car, therefore meaning that it is "sticking" to the lines of the car aka laminar?

And I'll say again, the reason I did not draw the lines going into the duct you mention is because I was addressing flows of air that will affect the exhaust gases. The flow at the bottom of the sidepod going under the bodywork is hardly going to have any effect on the exhaust gases.

Even if I drew another line cutting through the rear of the sidepod, I wouldn't have been "wrong" in terms of the lines of flow I drew imo.

Maybe it's because I'm not exactly a MS Paint pro

[dren]

The content of my post was to address how the exhaust gases would flow when influenced by air flowing around it.

The air flowing along the side of the sidepod up at the top that would affect the exhaust is relatively straight, it isn't being bent around like the air in the undercut. The exhaust is spilling over the side with aide from the downwash and channel, then it passes right to the side of the diffuser with the air from the side of the upper sidepod. It is easier to see on the Sauber, but that car just isn't getting to use the undercut sidepod air at all.

[Ferraripilot]

 I would expect that the body work is designed to allow for laminar flow (as much as possible) all the way around it.

Yes I'm sure it is, but the wall of exhaust gases are not really going to allow much through which I see as a fault in this design. The only flow from around the sidepods they will really see is that coming from the slot under the exhaust path. Mclaren have a much better compromise as do Mercedes for that matter, which isn't really a compromise but more of a supercharging of flow headed to the center of the crash structure area between the beam wing and diffuser all while maintaining the massive sidepod undercuts in the coke bottle area with no compromises to laminar flow.