A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
I will literally roll on the floor laughing if this turns out to be a zeropod design
Ever since the the bargeboards got banned the sidepods became a critical part for outwash. Mercedes only managed to implement zeropods because of their SIP wing trick (at least in theory).
A zeropod design for RedBull would mean a major chassis overhaul. Too much of a risk and simply unnecessary when having an already perfectly functioning and fast car.
Last edited by LM10 on 14 Feb 2024, 01:35, edited 1 time in total.
I will literally roll on the floor laughing if this turns out to be a zeropod design
Evet since the the bargeboards got banned the sidepods became a critical part for outwash. Mercedes only managed to implement zeropods because of their SIP wing trick (at least in theory).
A zeropod design for RedBull would mean a major chassis overhaul. Too much of a risk and simply unnecessary when having an already perfectly functioning and fast car.
This looks like they took the best of W14 and applied it to their already good chassis and internals packaging.
I don't understand what Scarbs thinks is negative about the design (other than negative connotations because of a differenct car)
I guess the whole development path with the downwashing sidepods has been in maximising the undercut and flow into that region. An 'overbite' inlet would seemingly backpedal on that development, and I would be surprised if that is what the design actually is. It seems that people have just seen Dr Obbs theorize that its this design and people have just accepted it
I personally drew my own conclusion that it was overbite based on the photos.
I'm also confused by why you think the overbite does not support downwash.
Look at the O in the word Oracle.
Just above and to the left of the O, I’m assuming is a square mirror.
From the bottom of that square mirror there is a slightly bent horizontal dark line that runs to what would be the inside shoulder of the side pod.
Is that a shadow or an inlet edge beginning for an underbite?
Best shot i could take out of videos... Engine cover more similar to sf24 than last year mercedes.
Sidepod inlet are defenitely upside down, the cut under the mirrors is huge..... Skinnier airbox too?
Best shot i could take out of videos... Engine cover more similar to sf24 than last year mercedes.
Sidepod inlet are defenitely upside down, the cut under the mirrors is huge..... Skinnier airbox too?
The two tubes that run alongside the centerline of the top of the car seem to form a small, high, Ferrari bathtub idea? To me, it looks like the centerline of the top of the car sinks down into a belly or v shaped gully. Don’t know what to call it.
Best shot i could take out of videos... Engine cover more similar to sf24 than last year mercedes.
Sidepod inlet are defenitely upside down, the cut under the mirrors is huge..... Skinnier airbox too?
I’m seeing a Alpine-like P-opening: combination vertical slot—dare we say ‘22 Merc-style, or enlarged Ferrari S-duct opening—with a small horizontal opening at the top.
Best shot i could take out of videos... Engine cover more similar to sf24 than last year mercedes.
Sidepod inlet are defenitely upside down, the cut under the mirrors is huge..... Skinnier airbox too?
From the pic, I can say there is definitely refinement, over evolution, a Newey trait.
The undercut area is very large in volume, the radiator inlet increasing in height over last year. This would allow the front corner of the floor to be worked a lot harder to produce load.
The intergration of the halo to the engine cover looks sleeker, and the pronounced bulges of the engine cover seemingly increases area for the 'waterslides' of the sidepods.
Perhaps the biggest change i see is the tip of the nose cone being raised significantly to where it finishes in line with the 3rd wing plane, with the 2 lower planes slung beneath, perhaps the 2nd on pylons, presumably to allow more air volume to flow freely under the chassis to feed the tunnels ( much like the previous generation of cars). This is much higher than others launched so far, and would be an expensive change for other teams to implement, as the nose cone/wing needs to be re engineered to re pass the frontal crash test, so this advantage may be fixed for the season.
This is what seems to be the more likely configuration based on the pictures we have. But how small exactly could the thing be? With the letter-box design, it was scooping some air from the top as well (SF70H style), so although from the frontal view, the slit was tiny, in terms of volume when you include the top as well it was more or less the same.
But by "inverting" the letterbox design and going more the W14 route, surely they wouldn't be able to keep the same inlet size. I guess a combination of A and B is possible too, giving more of an " ¬ " shape.
Edit:
On second thought, it could just be the angle combined with very low quality playing tricks on us. Looking at the W14 from a similar angle you can't really see an inlet:
I’m seeing a huge underbite, with the rear edge of the inlet maxing out the legality box rearward (front edge of the side-pod legality area forming the front edge).
Now, have they moved the SIS forward to fit inside the underbite (it is quite thick).
I’m looking forward to seeing decent pictures later, but as pointed out by others, RB did launch a ‘soft’ version of the RB19…
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
Alpine A522 did have a hint of overbite, but this solution seems like it was indeed inspired by W14's unfortunate and compromised B-spec sidepods. Bigger airbox could have lead to smaller side inlets, which would provide almost the same amount of space under the inlet itself as final RB19 spec.
I'd have to say RB would definitely want to open up a new development path, even if the first iteration is a compromise in one specific area. With a top side inlet already up there and high as possible, you can't improve that area further.
The one thing that surprises me is seemingly bigger width of the sides in the undercut region, so called g-line (the joint between floor and sidepod). I'd attribute that to being the compromised solution that resulted from switching to overbite inlet.