Red Bull RB5

[djos]

Red Bull has a quite big angle in there driveshaft’s.
The other teams have them almost flat to the ground.
I guess they will lose a significant amount of power there.
This is definitely a compromise for aero and low centre of gravity.

That's a false conclusion you've reached there!

Sure there would be some power loss if there were multiple universal joints required to transmit power per wheel but there are no more on the RB5 than any other F1 Car and therefore no reason to believe there is any more power being lost in transmission to the rear wheels.

[gridwalker]

Red Bull has a quite big angle in there driveshaft’s.
The other teams have them almost flat to the ground.
I guess they will lose a significant amount of power there.
This is definitely a compromise for aero and low centre of gravity.

Just for information, why would that significantly reduce the power output?

[kilcoo316]

This is definitely a compromise for aero and low centre of gravity.

Ironically with the DDD it is now compromising aerodynamic performance, rather than a compromise for additional downforce.

[djos]

This is definitely a compromise for aero and low centre of gravity.

Ironically with the DDD it is now compromising aerodynamic performance, rather than a compromise for additional downforce.

Frankly i'd be very surprised if Newey would implement a backwards step - for him to add the DDD in the way that he has there must be a clear benefit and judging by Webbo's comments there is a tangible & positive improvement.

[kilcoo316]

Frankly i'd be very surprised if Newey would implement a backwards step - for him to add the DDD in the way that he has there must be a clear benefit and judging by Webbo's comments there is a tangible & positive improvement.

Uhhhh....

The low-slung gearbox compromises the DDD...


I didn't say it would mean the DDD is worse than a SDD.

[outer_bongolia]

Frankly i'd be very surprised if Newey would implement a backwards step - for him to add the DDD in the way that he has there must be a clear benefit and judging by Webbo's comments there is a tangible & positive improvement.

Uhhhh....
The low-slung gearbox compromises the DDD...
I didn't say it would mean the DDD is worse than a SDD.

I agree with kilcoo. The very low location of the components leave less room for the DDD, making it less effective than Brawn's. Still, DDD should provide some improvement.

[djos]

Frankly i'd be very surprised if Newey would implement a backwards step - for him to add the DDD in the way that he has there must be a clear benefit and judging by Webbo's comments there is a tangible & positive improvement.

Uhhhh....

The low-slung gearbox compromises the DDD...


I didn't say it would mean the DDD is worse than a SDD.

Your choice of words certainly implied that you thought it compromised the overall solution ... anywho, all the DDD cars use a form of 2 channels to feed their top diffuser so im not convinced that Neweys version is any less efficient (excepting BGP's) - espcially when you consider the novel "ram-scoops" Newey has devised to force feed his top diffuser.

EDIT: the ultra low CG GearBox has forced Newey to have 2 separate top diffusers individually fed rather than 1 fed by 2 holes - was that what you where driving at Kilcoo?

[DaveKillens]

Ideally, a CV joint should operate in a straight line to maximize efficiency. For a racing car designer, this is to design the position of the components so that when under acceleration, the driveline is in a straight line. Of course, as in most designs, compromises have to be made. I discovered this little paper on CV joints, and it appears that if the joint is operating at an angle (which the Red Bull seems to be doing) when under acceleration, heat is generated inside the joint. So a compromised design leads to heat buildup in the joint, and eventually... failure.
http://www.ika.rwth-aachen.de/pdf_eb/gb ... ciency.pdf

[kilcoo316]

espcially when you consider the novel "ram-scoops" Newey has devised to force feed his top diffuser.

EDIT: the ultra low CG GearBox has forced Newey to have 2 separate top diffusers individually fed rather than 1 fed by 2 holes - was that what you where driving at Kilcoo?

Yeap.


The RAM scoops are a bad thing and forced on AN.

As indicated elsewhere on this site, the diffuser also generates downforce at the ramp line (potential flow) - with this scoop comprising a full duct, this effect is compromised as what sucks on the top surface of the scoop also sucks on the bottom surface.


So all RBR are getting from the DDD is additional volume flow rate under the car - good, but could be better.

[djos]

espcially when you consider the novel "ram-scoops" Newey has devised to force feed his top diffuser.

EDIT: the ultra low CG GearBox has forced Newey to have 2 separate top diffusers individually fed rather than 1 fed by 2 holes - was that what you where driving at Kilcoo?

Yeap.


The RAM scoops are a bad thing and forced on AN.

As indicated elsewhere on this site, the diffuser also generates downforce at the ramp line (potential flow) - with this scoop comprising a full duct, this effect is compromised as what sucks on the top surface of the scoop also sucks on the bottom surface.


So all RBR are getting from the DDD is additional volume flow rate under the car - good, but could be better.

Why do you think Newey went with scoops instead of "side holes" in line with tub like Macca etc?

Just looking at the bottom of the tub/floor, I cant see any reason why he couldn't have done exactly that?

[kilcoo316]

I cant see any reason why he couldn't have done exactly that?

Because the gearbox & crash structure is slap bang in the road!


See the bottom surface of your picture, right above it is gearbox. The channels from those scoops blend up above the diffuser, not to the car centreline.


If you cannot ramp the diffuser agressively enough, your not getting much from the upper deck.

[djos]

I cant see any reason why he couldn't have done exactly that?

Because the gearbox & crash structure is slap bang in the road!


See the bottom surface of your picture, right above it is gearbox. The channels from those scoops blend up above the diffuser, not to the car centreline.


If you cannot ramp the diffuser agressively enough, your not getting much from the upper deck.

Understood re the GB and CS - so what you are saying is that a hole on the vertical plane in the tub center-section, in the same location as the cut-out forward of the scoops, would not work? (instead of the scoops and exposed section of the floor)

[mep]

That's a false conclusion you've reached there!

Sure there would be some power loss if there were multiple universal joints required to transmit power per wheel but there are no more on the RB5 than any other F1 Car and therefore no reason to believe there is any more power being lost in transmission to the rear wheels.

What kind of joints do they use?
I can imagine they increase the number of connection points in the joint and therefore flatten out the speed difference between differential and shaft during one turn:
http://www.42fordgpw.com/constant.html

Nevertheless there is still the problem that you have two movements superposed.
The rotation of the diff+shaft+tyre and the rotation of the inclined shaft around the differential axis.
This can cause some friction and wear, but I doubt this is a serious problem in F1.

Ideally, a CV joint should operate in a straight line to maximize efficiency. For a racing car designer, this is to design the position of the components so that when under acceleration, the driveline is in a straight line. Of course, as in most designs, compromises have to be made. I discovered this little paper on CV joints, and it appears that if the joint is operating at an angle (which the Red Bull seems to be doing) when under acceleration, heat is generated inside the joint. So a compromised design leads to heat buildup in the joint, and eventually... failure.
http://www.ika.rwth-aachen.de/pdf_eb/gb ... ciency.pdf

Sorry this link is not working.

[kilcoo316]

so what you are saying is that a hole on the vertical plane in the tub center-section, in the same location as the cut-out forward of the scoops, would not work? (instead of the scoops and exposed section of the floor)

There are 2 factors to consider.

The side cut-out:
1. Without a diffuser ramp exposed to the road: Worse, as your clearing less air out from under the car
2. With a diffuser ramp exposed to the road: Better, as you are getting the benefit of the low pressure acting on the diffuser surface.

[ESPImperium]

I think that the RB5s will go back to launch spec for Turkey, just looking at that sticking plaster design.

Those scoops just arnt doing it for me. What they (Newey) need to do is this:



Make air flow come allong from the central section of the floor and enter from the side of it, making the central section of the difuser as efficent as posible to increase downforce that way. Im thinking that posibly the Mclaren floor cuts may also help with the efficency of the outer extremities of the diffuser as theres more air getting under the floor for this to help.

I dont have the CFD or windtunnels to run the simulations, but i can see that helping from my point of view.