Cheers twoshots, my suspicious mind was working overtime and I'd hoped they'd have more faith in the cars flame retardant properties than that!twoshots wrote:He's the fire extinguisher man.
Cheers twoshots, my suspicious mind was working overtime and I'd hoped they'd have more faith in the cars flame retardant properties than that!twoshots wrote:He's the fire extinguisher man.
It's very interesting to see that as soon as the aero load is gone the RB6 ride height appears to have gone up - Redbull may not have an adaptive ride-height system but they certainly have something clever going on! =D>
Isn't that the point of aero, negative lift?djos wrote: It's very interesting to see that as soon as the aero load is gone the RB6 ride height appears to have gone up - Redbull may not have an adaptive ride-height system but they certainly have something clever going on! =D>
That, and bump stops.tc9604 wrote:Isn't that the point of aero, negative lift?djos wrote: It's very interesting to see that as soon as the aero load is gone the RB6 ride height appears to have gone up - Redbull may not have an adaptive ride-height system but they certainly have something clever going on! =D>
Yes it is, but the aerodynamic effect doesn't seem to lower other cars as much as it does with the Red Bull. There isn't any evidence that they have a ride levelling system, and I'm more convinced now from having looked closely at the car when moving that they dont, but their suspension seems to be much more sensitive than on any other car. The mystery only deepens.tc9604 wrote:Isn't that the point of aero, negative lift?
Only one problem with that idea.Simsym wrote:Everyone knows that Red Bull have the most downforce of all cars on the grid. If they are running stiff shocks and soft springs, the massive aero load may be able to compress the springs fully down to the bump stops. The car is then running on the bump stops and it does not matter what the fuel load is, the ride height will not vary. This gives them the features of a solid suspension, but still complies with FIA rule that they need to have a sprung suspension. It would also show why the ride height does not tend to vary despite different fuel loads in qualifying and in the race. The trick to design the chassis to be able to take the loads and the suspension to be able to take the loads and provide good handling.
Do they? Do you have a source for this information?Simsym wrote:Everyone knows that Red Bull have the most downforce of all cars on the grid.
I'm no expert but that sounds iffy to me. I would have thought that if that were the case, a redbul car approaching a slow corner would tend to "boing" up as the downforce reduces, which would have a sudden and severe effect upon what little downforce was left.Simsym wrote:If they are running stiff shocks and soft springs, the massive aero load may be able to compress the springs fully down to the bump stops. The car is then running on the bump stops and it does not matter what the fuel load is, the ride height will not vary. This gives them the features of a solid suspension, but still complies with FIA rule that they need to have a sprung suspension. It would also show why the ride height does not tend to vary despite different fuel loads in qualifying and in the race. The trick to design the chassis to be able to take the loads and the suspension to be able to take the loads and provide good handling.
I think this idea may have been kicked around somewhere, but if you look at the top suspension support bar that is going into the area where we might otherwise find exhaust outlets; is it possible that this is connected to the fuel tank in some way and whether the weight of the fuel tank is some how translated through mechanical action of the bar changing in angular deviation this changes/maintains ride height? I mean for what other reasons or purpose would they go through the efforts of reworking their exhaust outlets?