Red Bull RB6

[Phillyred]

what could you achieve by moving that suspension pickup a few millimeters?
the suspension is clearly designed to aid airflow to the rear beam wing and difusser /underfloor area .Ther earward leg of the wishbone is at right angle with the car centreline so they need to spread the second leg forward to get some stiffness .

I don't know, but the devil is in the details.. mm's can = ms's as we've seen! Just throwing out an idea from left field!

[autogyro]

Suspension geometry (at least in the picture) looks much like other cars.

[Simsym]

Horner has just announced that nothing will change on the RB6 after the FIA ruling. That means that the shocks are not repressurised at all in parc ferme to give them their qualifying advantage. They must have developed a new form of rising rate suspension that does not deflect much under load to do what they have been doing. Other teams will need to find out what they are doing and copy asap or they will always be behind in qualifying and as we have seen, once you are behind a car , you cannot pass it even if you are 1.5s a lap faster.

[ringo]

If they are not using a ride height adjustable system, then it has to be something that is inherent with the suspesnion geometry. The trick may well be the design of the suspension joints and their degrees of freedom.

A posible way to offset increase in ride height is to make the increase noticeably disproportionate between the front and rear wheels. the tank is possibly shaped in a way that the fuel weight is not equally distanced between the wheels. Following this the reaction forces aren't as well. When the fuel weight is burnt off the height will have a more drastic increase on the side that it is biased towards.

This motion pitches the floor to have an aerodynamic benefit with the front wing, splitter and the diffuser.

ignore the words full tank, it should be empty tank

[manchild]

Based on a single pic of Vettel's car the whole theory about Red Bulls adjustable ride height was made here.

here is the pic:


There is no proof that such system exists. Nothing but envy of "big" teams fans - a denial of simple fact that RB is just faster. If Ferrari or Mclaren was the car the beat than it would be considered as "normal".

Floor wasn't scraping tyre in Bahrain - dirt glued to hot tyre was scraped off by floor. Just as many other parts, floor is designed to be very close to wheels. Almost touching, but almost not touching!

Most important, that infamous pic from parc ferme shows nothing. RB looks like it has raised floor even at high speed.

Malaysia pic:



So, please how about ending this nonsense? [-o<

[CMSMJ1]

I think I am in the same boat as Manchild here.

We'll have a beer while this blows over and we can talk about the fact that RB have, in Vettel, one of the up and coming starts and also, in Newey, the best aero guy of the last 20 years...

Saying that, the off the wall ideas are good fun to read if a little onerous sometimes.

Lovely car this one - would like to see it in a better livery though

[autogyro]

Based on a single pic of Vettel's car the whole theory about Red Bulls adjustable ride height was made here.

Yes, it was good getting the whole F1 world running around like headless chickens wasnt it.

However, I know that Adrian Newey was looking into ride height suspension as early as his Leyton House days, so the jury is still out.
IMO it is possible to design in a ride height controlling aspect to F1 suspension with little if any visual difference to the current type. Pull rather than push actuation gives me another clue to this.
In anycase, the definition of ride height control is very flimsy at best.

[Intego]

Let's summarize the facts we have: Whitmarsh said he had seen sparks in one corner in Melbourne qualifying. Horner says that RB have nothing and FIA declares the car legal. We find no photos that can clearly prove an anomalous ride height and external measuring while driving is impossible.

Did I forget something?

[autogyro]

Nice pictures Manchild.
The bottom one shows a gap between the floor and the tyre but it is impossible to measure it because the light above the shadow thrown on the tyre could be hiting the car from a whole range of differing potential angles. There is a gap however and the plank of the car looks very low, again inconclusive.
The first picture which started the debate world wide still shows as it has always done, a scrape mark on the tyre from the edge of the floor.
Conclusive proof that the floor is higher in parc ferme than when on track.
Like I have repeatedly said, the jury is still out.

[manchild]

Pull rather than push actuation gives me another clue to this.

They had it last year when refueling was allowed and before FIA legalized DDD.

[autogyro]

Pull rather than push actuation gives me another clue to this.

They had it last year when refueling was allowed and before FIA legalized DDD.

Yes they did and it would have taken that long to develop the system.
I mentioned the pull system because IMO it makes it easier to design in a ride height levelling aspect to the geometry with the suspension working that way rather than push.
Ride levelling is not AFAIK mentioned in the regulations only 'active' suspension which is not the same thing. As I said a flimsy definition in the regulations at best.

[manchild]

Scrape marks aren't on tyre surface, but on part of dirt that wasn't scraped off.

Metaphorically speaking, you're defining close shave as depilation. Short hair isn't bare skin.

There's some space left, just enough to enable wheel with clean tyre surface to rotate freely.

Besides, name the reason why would Newey design suspension what would raise a car so that floor scrapes the tyres? It just makes no sense.



Those were big chunks of that white matter, some over 10mm in diameter, like some you can still see on tyre. They got scraped forming a small pile on the edge of floor and the tyre. That's how the marks on tyre occurred.

BTW, it will be nice to see how that car will perform once they let exhaust trough that opening closed with tear-shaped lid (below the lower wishbone).

[autogyro]

Come on Manchild, I said a scrape 'mark' on the tyre from the floor edge, not that the floor was actualy touching the tyre.

Besides, name the reason why would Newey design suspension what would raise a car so that floor scrapes the tyres? It just makes no sense.

Perhaps Adrian can answer that himself, I certainly cannot.
I can only guess from my own experience of ride levelling.

[marcush.]

discussions going round and round the basic question would be if the ride height
theme would be solely to be counted towards compromising aero.

first of all ,we do not know who of the contenders is the one that is most critical for rideheight changes in developping downforce...we could assume RB is largely insensitive in that area (remember Newey with his Leyton House 1 hit wonder ?)or they are incredible good in maintaining the car in the optimum parts of the aeromap even though there are pronounced peaks you normally would have difficulty to stay in .

Also one can say aerowise 5mm rideheight change at the rear is not a world..so why bother? this would only be a problem if this 5mm would make the car leave its window of operation dramatically ...wich I doubt.
so it all comes down to just how good you are able to control Front ride height where 5 mm is for sure a world in terms of downforce generated.

with the stepped underfloor we do surely only talk about the centre plank section
being affected severely by rideheight changes.

[BreezyRacer]

I am, and always have been of the thinking that this ride height thing is pure red herring conversation. It is truly laughable how everyone latched onto this idea without anything to go on. It's kind of sad to see it coming to an end really. It's been entertaining to see all these "experts" pontificating on this, that, etc.

Anyone who has ever spent time tuning ride heights and alignment on layout rack knows just how stupid all these assumptions based on a pic of a car parked on un-level ground are. Just a little dip(as little as 10 mm even) where the left rear tire was is enough to give you the pic you see. Put it on a level plane and then we can make some assumptions but just sitting on non level ground? Really ..

And in addition, F1 is, and has been for as long as I can remember, home of the rising rate suspension .. like since the early eighties. What's 300 lbs of fuel compared to 2,000 lbs of downforce, in terms of affecting ride height? It's nothing.

And does anyone here know anything about bump stops???? My God, come on. More time/effort is spent on bump stop tuning than I guess anyone here is aware. Bump stops *are* the rising rate suspension these days, and there is your answer. Now let's let it die and move on.

Maybe we can speculate on something real, such as the F duct and how these other teams will implement it. At least that would be based in something real.