F1technical.net

Ever since the 2009 regulations were introduced, The red bull cars have had a distinctive feature on them. The 'V nose'. This reduces the bulkhead area, and is said to improve airflow, although how it does this exactly, I am unsure, although I'd love to know.

However I do not know how it is legal!

The image below shows two different bulkheads. The one on the left is a conventional design, and the one on the right shows the red bull design (not exact, just a guess based on images and intuition).



Its interesting features are the 'V ridges', the fact it is narrower and shallower, and the 'cut out' radii on the bottom corners.

The regulations state that the diagram on the left is the 'minimum external dimensions' at the bulkhead, so how have red bull got around this?

The two bulkheads overlaid.

The Red Bull bulkhead, based on your red diagram; should be 300mm wide. It's also at least 275mm all the way through in terms of height - if you took a total height it would be taller overall.

The If you can imagine the analogy - Newey basically displaces the left and rightmost edges of the bulkhead upwards.

raymondu999 wrote:The Red Bull bulkhead, based on your red diagram; should be 300mm wide. It's also at least 275mm all the way through in terms of height - if you took a total height it would be taller overall.

The If you can imagine the analogy - Newey basically displaces the left and rightmost edges of the bulkhead upwards.

I disagree.

There was a directive to curb the deepness of V noses, which restrict height in the 'V' to a minimum of 220mm.

You are showing an interior specification for the 'Survival Cell'. Not sure what controls the exterior but I could imagine you could make the chassis very wide if you want.

What happens on top is interesting. If the top of the radiuses are in fact at the max height location, then that would mean they have given something up underneath the chassis. There has been talk about the the radius being some kind of exception but I do not know the context of such an opinion or where it shows up in the rules.

Brian

Tozza Mazza wrote:

raymondu999 wrote:The Red Bull bulkhead, based on your red diagram; should be 300mm wide. It's also at least 275mm all the way through in terms of height - if you took a total height it would be taller overall.

The If you can imagine the analogy - Newey basically displaces the left and rightmost edges of the bulkhead upwards.

I disagree.

There was a directive to curb the deepness of V noses, which restrict height in the 'V' to a minimum of 220mm.

Which one was that? The V nose lost some of its effectiveness when the max nose bulkhead heights were reduced last year. But I don't remember anything restricting the V dimensions.

Here's an old Scarbs piece from early 2010, but still relevant: http://scarbsf1.com/2010/vnoses.html

Brian, these are the minimum EXTERNAL dimensions, not internal.

Red Bull run the maximum chassis height of 625mm above the reference plane, so something's gotta give.

I know that teams can go actually reduce this minimum dimensions, as the 'V' is now limited to 55mm (275-220). Whilst not written in regulation, it was issued in a technical directive, and was published by Scarbs.

What is the point in having 'minimum external dimensions', which actually don't do what they say?

As far as I can see it goes against it, therefore is illegal.

If you kind of divided the V nose into 3 sections - middle "normal" section; and 2 trapezoids for the "V-sections" - assuming a very simple V nose like the one on the W01 for example; the total width of the whole nose would still be legal - and the height at any point along the width would also still be legal.

raymondu999 wrote:Here's an old Scarbs piece from early 2010, but still relevant: http://scarbsf1.com/2010/vnoses.html

I suggest everyone reads the Scarbs article before commenting. Its all clearly explained in there.

richard_leeds wrote:

raymondu999 wrote:Here's an old Scarbs piece from early 2010, but still relevant: http://scarbsf1.com/2010/vnoses.html

I suggest everyone reads the Scarbs article before commenting. Its all clearly explained in there.

I think the info there is out of date.

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/10/2 ... gulations/

Explains the height, yes, but not the width.

joseff wrote:Explains the height, yes, but not the width.

same loophole as height no?

Yes, this is an interesting use of the rules, but you effectively have a taller overall chassis section measurement don't you?

Now, I am going to assume the tops of the radius corners still have to be below the max height specification. Would this not mean the floor/bottom of the chassis is lower than what is allowed under the rules? In other words the floor/bottom could be higher.

Brian

Tozza Mazza wrote:

joseff wrote:Explains the height, yes, but not the width.

same loophole as height no?

Are these not minimum external dimensions? Do they not have the right to go bigger. Width would seem simple. The height would have to expand downward because of the max chassis height reg.

Brian

They have the right to go larger than the minimum, of course, but the teams are actually using it to be narrower and shorter than the minimum, how has this not been banned?!