Team: Adrian Newey (CTO), Petr Prodromou (CA), Christian Horner (TP)
Drivers: Sebastian Vettel (1), Mark Webber (2), Daniel Ricciaro (31, Reserve)
I don't see what your saying with this picture...?clarkiesyeah wrote: I saw this pic of the RB3. Look at the front wing. Funny how because that car wasn't a potential championship contender, there was never a word about it in 2007.
So Mr Newey has been working on the idea for at least 4 years, hard to catch up what he must have learned.
Since Power = Torque * RPM at a given speed the car with more power is also the car with more torque.Lindz wrote:Why is everyone jumping on seg recently? Slow week?
To say that an F1 engine that has more torque is better for accelerating is ignoring a lot of things.
Snipped from an article: *The transmission amplifies or multiplies the torque coming from the engine by a factor equal to the gear ratio. So to determine how much the car is accelerating at a particular instant, you have to know both the torque output of the engine as well as the gear ratio.*
As the transmission gear gets higher (the ratio gets lower) it is much more important for the engine to have horsepower, since that power is now transmitted much more efficiently to the wheels (vs. the torque the engine makes). Basically, at a high enough speed, horsepower is what will keep your car accelerating.
With the huge Cd that F1 cars have to overcome, peak power is even more important for both top speed and for acceleration in med-fast corners.
You can't say that an engine in car A with more power will ONLY use that power to push it's top speed x% more than car B. It will in every fast corner be using more force to accelerate.
Of course this is ignoring a ton of OTHER variables such as powerband shape, peak rpm, fuel consumption, etc.
I'm just saying... it's dumb to say "Renault engine has more torque, therefore the Red Bull has better acceleration."
I can equally say the same by substituting torque since the two are directly connected.Basically, at a high enough speed, horsepower is what will keep your car accelerating
No one is saying that.Lindz wrote:I'm just saying... it's dumb to say "Renault engine has more torque, therefore the Red Bull has better acceleration."
Yes, it's not like any prospective employer wouldn't be aware of how the industry works. So if you were part of the design team, headed by Adrian Newey, who designed the RB6, then that would still carry plenty of weight.Lindz wrote:I'm a car designer (profession) and no one in the studio gets credit for a deeign except the director/cheif designer. It's part of the job. Either you move up the ladder (politics), are happy working for your boss, or you jump ship to another company to advance your carreer. Newey did the same thing. Besides, SOMEONE needs to be the 'face' of the design team and take responsibility for both the success and the failure.
Bottom line: For what we get paid to do... don't feel bad that we don't get credit for everything we've done. Those who need to know, know.
Autosport: wrote:Guhan Subramaniam asks: Everyone knows the Red Bull is clearly faster then any other car by at least five tenths, so why are they always sandbagging? I do not believe it will try to make other teams think it has no pace.
AUTOSPORT.com features editor @TeamAnglais says:
"It is true that everywhere we try read between the lines, the Red Bull seems to be the fastest car. It's consistency over long stints and ability to make tyres last longer than we expect stands out. It's exit speed out of fast corners at Jerez was quicker than all the others, even when it was lapping slower. And the rear wing flap was opening earlier and for longer than all the others, suggesting a comparative surplus of downforce. But because of the nature of testing, that's all still guess work for us.
"The team isn't sandbagging, as such. As veteran F1 engineer Frank Dernie explained to us when he got in touch with Live at Jerez, it's far less vital for a team to spend time testing on qualifying fuel. So Red Bull is likely just focused on heavy fuel race pace, rather than trying to hide its performance from the likes of Ferrari and McLaren.
"We won't know for sure how quick the RB7 is until the first race, but you can be sure that the rival teams know more about each others' performance than we do."
I've been trying to figure out what the "growhouse" thing they are planting on the RW this year might be in aid of.zgred wrote:
I'm sure they had it last year too. Its just a shelf for tools and per regulations it has to be transparent so that they aren't covering up a part of the car.forty-two wrote: I've been trying to figure out what the "growhouse" thing they are planting on the RW this year might be in aid of.
Steve Matchett on SpeedTV mentioned this; Toyota was doing it as well. As was said, it's against the regs to cover the car, so the team(s) use clear plastic so it's technically not covered. But as is obvious, it's hard to see what's going on back there! I would love to see all the details in the rear, but on the other hand it's also neat to see how seemingly every rule has a loophole.forty-two wrote:I disagree.
They promptly whack that thing on whenever the car arrives in the pits, and it seems only to have horizontal members running from left to right, so placing even a small spanner on it as a shelf would cause it to sag.
I'd say that is definitely designed to cover something up from prying eyes, or a tactic to draw the eye of the oserver to it.
Has anyone got any juicy pictures of the rear of the RB7?
Barcelona Day 2-Autosport wrote:08:30 Red Bull is no longer covering up the rear of the RB7 as soon as it arrives in the pits, as it was yesterday. That could mean the car's not running whatever secretive part was on there on Friday.
