Red Bull RB16B

[Just_a_fan]

https://streamable.com/naudf8

Good video showing the Y250 vortex off the front wing

Edit: Adding u/Cistoran for credit from Reddit.

I wonder if it's actually showing the reinforcement of that vortex by the strakes along the front of the bargeboard. An excellent shot, whatever the source of the vortex.

[e30ernest]

Not sure if this was posted here already... but such a work of art (Source : Mark Sutton):

[Just_a_fan]

Not sure if this was posted here already... but such a work of art (Source : Mark Sutton):

https://i.imgur.com/1dsxaut.png

It's an amazingly complicated thing when one considers it's just trying to move air sideways and bring other air downwards. But the devil is in the detail and we end up with something that wouldn't look out of place in a sculpture art gallery.

[Tizz]

Not sure if this was posted here already... but such a work of art (Source : Mark Sutton):

https://i.imgur.com/1dsxaut.png

It's a beautiful piece of engineering but it's a waste of money in my opinion. Think what they could achieve spending all the money that goes into this on new technology in stead...

[godlameroso]

Not sure if this was posted here already... but such a work of art (Source : Mark Sutton):

https://i.imgur.com/1dsxaut.png

It's a beautiful piece of engineering but it's a waste of money in my opinion. Think what they could achieve spending all the money that goes into this on new technology in stead...

It's not terribly expensive when you consider the performance to cost ratio. There are parts on the car that bring less lap time that cost just as much to design, you just don't see it.

[godlameroso]

The weird handling from the car is likely that the rear end downforce comes on faster than the front end. When they run the big barn door rear wing, the rear end downforce is higher than the front end until a certain car speed where the front end catches up with the rear. The car has a more forward biased COP with the medium downforce wing, the bigger rear wing moves the COP rearward too early. In a way it's the opposite problem that the car had last year, where the car had forward biased COP at low speeds and would correct itself at higher speeds. Now the COP is rear biased and corrects itself at higher speeds.

I have an idea where they can create a strategic disruption to get a little bit better performance from the car in general and it's at the back of the car. I'll give a hint, McLaren already did it. Alignment and toe curve can influence this a lot because the toe and camber of the tire affect airflow downstream and upstream. Thus with alignment you can tune how much you can stall the diffuser. With a general rule of thumb being less negative camber and more toe out means less diffuser stall, more negative camber and less toe out means more diffuser stall. Of course the brake ducts can have a huge effect here.

At the front of the car the toe and camber of the front axle also affects the front wing as well as the bargeboards. Moreso than the rear because you're steering the car at the front so the wheels turn more relative to the bodywork.

If the car rotates really well then you have do less steering so less aero effect from steering. Keeping this in mind you have to wonder what kind of effect does Alonso's sudden understeer inducing steering inputs have on aero.

[godlameroso]

Perhaps, the downforce just before mid corner is rear biased understeer, then as Verstappen compensates by adding more steering lock, the COP moves forward, or stalls the diffuser and becomes oversteer just past mid corner.

This makes sense because during the entry phase the wing is lowest to the ground and the chassis has settled on its suspension mid corner. The low speed damping controls the timing of this behavior. Once you get on the gas, or off the brakes, the front axle begins to unload and the front wing raises off the ground. The stiffer the slow speed dampers the more this motion is delayed, the softer the slow speed damper the faster the motion.

[b2bL44]

The weird handling from the car is likely that the rear end downforce comes on faster than the front end. When they run the big barn door rear wing, the rear end downforce is higher than the front end until a certain car speed where the front end catches up with the rear. The car has a more forward biased COP with the medium downforce wing, the bigger rear wing moves the COP rearward too early. In a way it's the opposite problem that the car had last year, where the car had forward biased COP at low speeds and would correct itself at higher speeds. Now the COP is rear biased and corrects itself at higher speeds.

I have an idea where they can create a strategic disruption to get a little bit better performance from the car in general and it's at the back of the car. I'll give a hint, McLaren already did it. Alignment and toe curve can influence this a lot because the toe and camber of the tire affect airflow downstream and upstream. Thus with alignment you can tune how much you can stall the diffuser. With a general rule of thumb being less negative camber and more toe out means less diffuser stall, more negative camber and less toe out means more diffuser stall. Of course the brake ducts can have a huge effect here.

At the front of the car the toe and camber of the front axle also affects the front wing as well as the bargeboards. Moreso than the rear because you're steering the car at the front so the wheels turn more relative to the bodywork.

If the car rotates really well then you have do less steering so less aero effect from steering. Keeping this in mind you have to wonder what kind of effect does Alonso's sudden understeer inducing steering inputs have on aero.

Did you come up with this? Or just badly rip off an article by Mark Hughes and present it as your own idea?

Essentially the massive grip from the Istanbul Park surface has created a chassis balance problem that the Red Bull’s general concept has probably exacerbated.“It’s a unique car,” says Perez when asked about his difficulties in general in matching the pace of Verstappen through this season. “It’s not at all like cars I have driven previously.”

He steers clear of getting specific on what those unique traits are, but they are to do with the car’s extreme high-rake aero philosophy.

It generates big downforce, but specifically the higher the rake at which a car can be made to work, the more aggressively-loaded the front end will be into slow corners.

The balancing point between downforce acting on the front and rear axles (what aerodynamicists call the centre of aero pressure) moves more dramatically forwards into slow corners on a high-rake car than a low-rake.

This is potentially fantastic news for the vehicle dynamicists because generically a Formula 1 car wants to understeer in slow corners and oversteer in fast ones just because of the way the aerodynamics work in combination with steering lock (as a slower corner requires more lock) and how the squaring downforce loads are acting upon the tyres at different speeds.

Having a way of enhancing the extent to which the aero balance moves forward at slower speeds helps get around that compromise. When slowing, a high-rake car rises more at the rear than a low-rake one, as the downforce loads bleed off.

This gives a greater angle of incidence to the underfloor and front wing, enhancing their ability to create downforce as the negative pressure beneath them is increased, hence the aero balance moving forwards.

How far you can go in this direction is to an extent limited by how comfortable the driver is with the feeling of rear instability into slow corners this forward-migrating aero balance gives.

Like nearly all the great drivers, Verstappen is very comfortable with levels of rear instability that are unnerving for those less gifted.

Red Bull’s aero philosophy has always been high-rake but Verstappen’s ease with the traits have over the years allowed the team to develop further in this direction – because the further the driver is able to go with it, the faster the car will be.

But beyond a certain point, it will tend to mean that a merely good driver will be slower than they would be with a less extreme concept of car. So the gap between Verstappen and team-mates such as Gasly, Alex Albon and Perez is even bigger than it would be in a less extreme (but ultimately slower) car.

Another downside is that the sweet spot where the tyres generate their optimum slip angle (the difference between the direction of travel and where the tyre is pointing) becomes narrower. The tyres grip best at a slip angle of around 3%.

As Gary Anderson explained in a reply to a reader in yesterday’s Friday analysis story, the rear tyre can only begin to build up cornering force once the front tyre has been steered. If the front tyre doesn’t generate its optimum slip angle as it is steered, then the rear tyre will not reach its optimum slip angle either.

The sweet spot is where turning the steering induces the perfect slip angle for the front tyres to quickly load up the rear, but not so quick that it overloads the rear. The more the aero balance is moving forwards, the smaller that sweet spot becomes – and the greater variation there is in that sweet spot between slow corners and fast.

So a high-rake car will tend to be more critical in the choice of wing level. The downforce acting upon the rear axle will help prevent the rear tyres from becoming overloaded. The more resistant they are to that, the more aggressively the car can be steered.

But the greater the grip of the track surface, the more the rear tyres will be resistant to achieving the optimum slip angle. Surface grip plays an essential part in defining the optimum wing level on any car, but it tends to become more critical on a high-rake car.

Any increase in track grip will generally result in more understeer as the rear tyres are bigger and more powerful than the front. A grippier surface increases front and rear tyres by the same percentage of their capacity, but not the same total. It’s the same in proportion but bigger in number at the rear – ie it increases grip by more at the rear than the front. A lower rear wing level will then be more appropriate. More so with a high-rake car than a low-rake one.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/mark-hug ... in-turkey/

[basti313]

Not sure if this was posted here already... but such a work of art (Source : Mark Sutton):

https://i.imgur.com/1dsxaut.png

It's a beautiful piece of engineering but it's a waste of money in my opinion. Think what they could achieve spending all the money that goes into this on new technology in stead...

I agree. But I do not know if this fits this thread...FIA clearly missed to point to say "stop" when Merc started to develop this area. Now we have cathedrals of wings that should have been avoided by the rules...
It is beautiful how RedBull designed it, but it is purely a waste of money. They should have stopped this instead of cutting the floor.

[godlameroso]

The weird handling from the car is likely that the rear end downforce comes on faster than the front end. When they run the big barn door rear wing, the rear end downforce is higher than the front end until a certain car speed where the front end catches up with the rear. The car has a more forward biased COP with the medium downforce wing, the bigger rear wing moves the COP rearward too early. In a way it's the opposite problem that the car had last year, where the car had forward biased COP at low speeds and would correct itself at higher speeds. Now the COP is rear biased and corrects itself at higher speeds.

I have an idea where they can create a strategic disruption to get a little bit better performance from the car in general and it's at the back of the car. I'll give a hint, McLaren already did it. Alignment and toe curve can influence this a lot because the toe and camber of the tire affect airflow downstream and upstream. Thus with alignment you can tune how much you can stall the diffuser. With a general rule of thumb being less negative camber and more toe out means less diffuser stall, more negative camber and less toe out means more diffuser stall. Of course the brake ducts can have a huge effect here.

At the front of the car the toe and camber of the front axle also affects the front wing as well as the bargeboards. Moreso than the rear because you're steering the car at the front so the wheels turn more relative to the bodywork.

If the car rotates really well then you have do less steering so less aero effect from steering. Keeping this in mind you have to wonder what kind of effect does Alonso's sudden understeer inducing steering inputs have on aero.

Did you come up with this? Or just badly rip off an article by Mark Hughes and present it as your own idea?

Essentially the massive grip from the Istanbul Park surface has created a chassis balance problem that the Red Bull’s general concept has probably exacerbated.“It’s a unique car,” says Perez when asked about his difficulties in general in matching the pace of Verstappen through this season. “It’s not at all like cars I have driven previously.”

He steers clear of getting specific on what those unique traits are, but they are to do with the car’s extreme high-rake aero philosophy.

It generates big downforce, but specifically the higher the rake at which a car can be made to work, the more aggressively-loaded the front end will be into slow corners.

The balancing point between downforce acting on the front and rear axles (what aerodynamicists call the centre of aero pressure) moves more dramatically forwards into slow corners on a high-rake car than a low-rake.

This is potentially fantastic news for the vehicle dynamicists because generically a Formula 1 car wants to understeer in slow corners and oversteer in fast ones just because of the way the aerodynamics work in combination with steering lock (as a slower corner requires more lock) and how the squaring downforce loads are acting upon the tyres at different speeds.

Having a way of enhancing the extent to which the aero balance moves forward at slower speeds helps get around that compromise. When slowing, a high-rake car rises more at the rear than a low-rake one, as the downforce loads bleed off.

This gives a greater angle of incidence to the underfloor and front wing, enhancing their ability to create downforce as the negative pressure beneath them is increased, hence the aero balance moving forwards.

How far you can go in this direction is to an extent limited by how comfortable the driver is with the feeling of rear instability into slow corners this forward-migrating aero balance gives.

Like nearly all the great drivers, Verstappen is very comfortable with levels of rear instability that are unnerving for those less gifted.

Red Bull’s aero philosophy has always been high-rake but Verstappen’s ease with the traits have over the years allowed the team to develop further in this direction – because the further the driver is able to go with it, the faster the car will be.

But beyond a certain point, it will tend to mean that a merely good driver will be slower than they would be with a less extreme concept of car. So the gap between Verstappen and team-mates such as Gasly, Alex Albon and Perez is even bigger than it would be in a less extreme (but ultimately slower) car.

Another downside is that the sweet spot where the tyres generate their optimum slip angle (the difference between the direction of travel and where the tyre is pointing) becomes narrower. The tyres grip best at a slip angle of around 3%.

As Gary Anderson explained in a reply to a reader in yesterday’s Friday analysis story, the rear tyre can only begin to build up cornering force once the front tyre has been steered. If the front tyre doesn’t generate its optimum slip angle as it is steered, then the rear tyre will not reach its optimum slip angle either.

The sweet spot is where turning the steering induces the perfect slip angle for the front tyres to quickly load up the rear, but not so quick that it overloads the rear. The more the aero balance is moving forwards, the smaller that sweet spot becomes – and the greater variation there is in that sweet spot between slow corners and fast.

So a high-rake car will tend to be more critical in the choice of wing level. The downforce acting upon the rear axle will help prevent the rear tyres from becoming overloaded. The more resistant they are to that, the more aggressively the car can be steered.

But the greater the grip of the track surface, the more the rear tyres will be resistant to achieving the optimum slip angle. Surface grip plays an essential part in defining the optimum wing level on any car, but it tends to become more critical on a high-rake car.

Any increase in track grip will generally result in more understeer as the rear tyres are bigger and more powerful than the front. A grippier surface increases front and rear tyres by the same percentage of their capacity, but not the same total. It’s the same in proportion but bigger in number at the rear – ie it increases grip by more at the rear than the front. A lower rear wing level will then be more appropriate. More so with a high-rake car than a low-rake one.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/mark-hug ... in-turkey/

I didn't know he wrote that, maybe I plucked it from the collective consciousness, like a thief in the night.

[west52keep64]

The tyres grip best at a slip angle of around 3%.

I'd love to see a source for this claim.

[b2bL44]

The tyres grip best at a slip angle of around 3%.

I'd love to see a source for this claim.

Is it reasonable to assume peak slip angle would change with an evolution of tyre compound and/or structure? If we've got a tyre expert/engineer on here maybe they can answer.

Here's a great article from Racecar Engineering, claiming peak slip angle is ~6°:

https://www.racecar-engineering.com/tec ... -dynamics/

Typical trend in slip angle vs lateral force – a clear peak in lateral force can be seen at around six degrees of slip angle. Balkwill, J. (2017) Performance Vehicle Dynamics

[b2bL44]

The weird handling from the car is likely that the rear end downforce comes on faster than the front end. When they run the big barn door rear wing, the rear end downforce is higher than the front end until a certain car speed where the front end catches up with the rear. The car has a more forward biased COP with the medium downforce wing, the bigger rear wing moves the COP rearward too early. In a way it's the opposite problem that the car had last year, where the car had forward biased COP at low speeds and would correct itself at higher speeds. Now the COP is rear biased and corrects itself at higher speeds.

I have an idea where they can create a strategic disruption to get a little bit better performance from the car in general and it's at the back of the car. I'll give a hint, McLaren already did it. Alignment and toe curve can influence this a lot because the toe and camber of the tire affect airflow downstream and upstream. Thus with alignment you can tune how much you can stall the diffuser. With a general rule of thumb being less negative camber and more toe out means less diffuser stall, more negative camber and less toe out means more diffuser stall. Of course the brake ducts can have a huge effect here.

At the front of the car the toe and camber of the front axle also affects the front wing as well as the bargeboards. Moreso than the rear because you're steering the car at the front so the wheels turn more relative to the bodywork.

If the car rotates really well then you have do less steering so less aero effect from steering. Keeping this in mind you have to wonder what kind of effect does Alonso's sudden understeer inducing steering inputs have on aero.

Did you come up with this? Or just badly rip off an article by Mark Hughes and present it as your own idea?

Essentially the massive grip from the Istanbul Park surface has created a chassis balance problem that the Red Bull’s general concept has probably exacerbated.“It’s a unique car,” says Perez when asked about his difficulties in general in matching the pace of Verstappen through this season. “It’s not at all like cars I have driven previously.”

He steers clear of getting specific on what those unique traits are, but they are to do with the car’s extreme high-rake aero philosophy.

It generates big downforce, but specifically the higher the rake at which a car can be made to work, the more aggressively-loaded the front end will be into slow corners.

The balancing point between downforce acting on the front and rear axles (what aerodynamicists call the centre of aero pressure) moves more dramatically forwards into slow corners on a high-rake car than a low-rake.

This is potentially fantastic news for the vehicle dynamicists because generically a Formula 1 car wants to understeer in slow corners and oversteer in fast ones just because of the way the aerodynamics work in combination with steering lock (as a slower corner requires more lock) and how the squaring downforce loads are acting upon the tyres at different speeds.

Having a way of enhancing the extent to which the aero balance moves forward at slower speeds helps get around that compromise. When slowing, a high-rake car rises more at the rear than a low-rake one, as the downforce loads bleed off.

This gives a greater angle of incidence to the underfloor and front wing, enhancing their ability to create downforce as the negative pressure beneath them is increased, hence the aero balance moving forwards.

How far you can go in this direction is to an extent limited by how comfortable the driver is with the feeling of rear instability into slow corners this forward-migrating aero balance gives.

Like nearly all the great drivers, Verstappen is very comfortable with levels of rear instability that are unnerving for those less gifted.

Red Bull’s aero philosophy has always been high-rake but Verstappen’s ease with the traits have over the years allowed the team to develop further in this direction – because the further the driver is able to go with it, the faster the car will be.

But beyond a certain point, it will tend to mean that a merely good driver will be slower than they would be with a less extreme concept of car. So the gap between Verstappen and team-mates such as Gasly, Alex Albon and Perez is even bigger than it would be in a less extreme (but ultimately slower) car.

Another downside is that the sweet spot where the tyres generate their optimum slip angle (the difference between the direction of travel and where the tyre is pointing) becomes narrower. The tyres grip best at a slip angle of around 3%.

As Gary Anderson explained in a reply to a reader in yesterday’s Friday analysis story, the rear tyre can only begin to build up cornering force once the front tyre has been steered. If the front tyre doesn’t generate its optimum slip angle as it is steered, then the rear tyre will not reach its optimum slip angle either.

The sweet spot is where turning the steering induces the perfect slip angle for the front tyres to quickly load up the rear, but not so quick that it overloads the rear. The more the aero balance is moving forwards, the smaller that sweet spot becomes – and the greater variation there is in that sweet spot between slow corners and fast.

So a high-rake car will tend to be more critical in the choice of wing level. The downforce acting upon the rear axle will help prevent the rear tyres from becoming overloaded. The more resistant they are to that, the more aggressively the car can be steered.

But the greater the grip of the track surface, the more the rear tyres will be resistant to achieving the optimum slip angle. Surface grip plays an essential part in defining the optimum wing level on any car, but it tends to become more critical on a high-rake car.

Any increase in track grip will generally result in more understeer as the rear tyres are bigger and more powerful than the front. A grippier surface increases front and rear tyres by the same percentage of their capacity, but not the same total. It’s the same in proportion but bigger in number at the rear – ie it increases grip by more at the rear than the front. A lower rear wing level will then be more appropriate. More so with a high-rake car than a low-rake one.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/mark-hug ... in-turkey/

I didn't know he wrote that, maybe I plucked it from the collective consciousness, like a thief in the night.

This isn't a pantomime, so I'm not going to go back and forth with you ad infinitum "yes you did, no I didn't".

Thief? Quite apt:

Plagiarism: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize

Not only have you plagiarised someone else's hard work, when called out, you've doubled-down and lied about it instead of owning up to it.

This is a technical forum where people come to learn, share and discuss ideas. If we are lucky enough an expert will drop by to share their knowledge. The least you can do is credit those who work hard to communicate this information to us, as a result they get to earn a living and we get to learn more about a shared passion.

[ispano6]

This isn't a pantomime, so I'm not going to go back and forth with you ad infinitum "yes you did, no I didn't".

Thief? Quite apt:

Plagiarism: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize

Not only have you plagiarised someone else's hard work, when called out, you've doubled-down and lied about it instead of owning up to it.

This is a technical forum where people come to learn, share and discuss ideas. If we are lucky enough an expert will drop by to share their knowledge. The least you can do is credit those who work hard to communicate this information to us, as a result they get to earn a living and we get to learn more about a shared passion.

Since you mention "plagiarize" you should also be careful of "defamation" and "libel". The talk about Red Bull's balance issues have existed since the RB16 of last year, well ahead of the 2021 Season Istanbul race and the balance issues of the 2021 RB16b were well known. You just seem to have assumed that because someone "reputable" has recently written about it that a member here "plagiarized" his work. That would be jumping to conclusions. Godlameroso is talking about tow and squat - those weren't mentioned in the article you quoted.

[Sieper]

Let him talk about the RB16B, even if inspired by things he reads about on the web. That is what this topic is for. We constantly have people here with L44 in their username or other obvious signs of allegiance tell us how --- we are, the car is, or the driving is. I cant stand it. If you absolutely must post on here, talk about the car and stop slagging of members. It is just wrong.