Red Bull RB7 Renault

[tjaeger]

Looks like RB taking a different slant from previous years. While other teams follow this year the RB previous used approach RB starts to depart form it a little.
The nose is coming down, the V shape is more mild than before and the car got longer.

Is that correct or do I miss something?

[wesley123]

you are missing the 2011 rules regarding to Chassis height making the RB6's humps illegal thus they had to remove them to make the chassis legal. The nose is the same height.

[tjaeger]

Thanks for pointing that out. But would u not be able to just drop the V shape lower but keep the same design shape, still keeping within the limit of the total height?

[wesley123]

yes but then you lower the overall tubheight, thus less flow is possible under the nose

[raymondu999]

Yeah. I believe the main point of the V ridges was to put the sides UP, and not the central part LOWER, no? If you understand what I'm saying?

[wesley123]

Yep that is correct, by this they could remove that area on the underside and allow more flow under the nose, now this part has to be removed due to the rules and has been put back on the underside again, making it essentially a square tub again.

[raymondu999]

Kinda makes you wonder why they didn't make it a square tub then. I mean, they (logically) should've been able to make the whole nose's upper surface at maximum height no? Right now, wouldn't they just be making the ridges at maximum height, and the main part of the nose at a lower-than-maximum height?

[wesley123]

Well when the RB5 was launched the maximum height rule wasnt implemented yet, so they added these humps to give that little bit room on the udnerside of the nose. They couldnt raise the tub anyhigher so the only option to give more space udner the car was to remove the edges there and add them on the top. This was continued with the RB6 but with the RB7 these where removed as these humps where above the maximum height.

So the RB7 is the only car on the grid to have less space under the nose, every other team could raise their whole tub/nose but red bull couldnt and even had to cut these edges off the top to conform to the rules.

[tjaeger]

Sort of thought that the 2 ridges on either side had some areo functionality to guide airflow along the nose and due to that achieve better, or cleaner airflow back to the cockpit? Maybe not.

[raymondu999]

Well when the RB5 was launched the maximum height rule wasnt implemented yet, so they added these humps to give that little bit room on the udnerside of the nose. They couldnt raise the tub anyhigher so the only option to give more space udner the car was to remove the edges there and add them on the top. This was continued with the RB6 but with the RB7 these where removed as these humps where above the maximum height.

So the RB7 is the only car on the grid to have less space under the nose, every other team could raise their whole tub/nose but red bull couldnt and even had to cut these edges off the top to conform to the rules.

Yes, but the RB7 has ridges too this year. The sides are higher than the main footwell. Which kind of means that the central part of the nose is lower than the sides. I thought the philosophy behind the V nose was to keep the central part as high as possible, then make the sides even higher. If that is true (to put as much stuff as high as possible) then wouldn't it be more logical to kind of do like Ferrari did, and ditch the V-nose idea, going for a flat top constantly at max height? Or is there something else with RB's design (possibly) that necessitates the V-nose?

[dren]

Sort of thought that the 2 ridges on either side had some areo functionality to guide airflow along the nose and due to that achieve better, or cleaner airflow back to the cockpit? Maybe not.

I think the main purpose of the V nose was to reduce frontal area while meeting the regulations and keeping the bottom of the nose high.

[aral]

Sort of thought that the 2 ridges on either side had some areo functionality to guide airflow along the nose and due to that achieve better, or cleaner airflow back to the cockpit? Maybe not.

I think the main purpose of the V nose was to reduce frontal area while meeting the regulations and keeping the bottom of the nose high.

The ridges were indeed there to direct airflow and prevent overspill downwards. Mercedes fitted strakes, so there was no problem about the height of the tub/nose.

[dren]

Sort of thought that the 2 ridges on either side had some areo functionality to guide airflow along the nose and due to that achieve better, or cleaner airflow back to the cockpit? Maybe not.

I think the main purpose of the V nose was to reduce frontal area while meeting the regulations and keeping the bottom of the nose high.

The ridges were indeed there to direct airflow and prevent overspill downwards. Mercedes fitted strakes, so there was no problem about the height of the tub/nose.

Thanks, I was thinking it was mainly area reduction.

[scarbs]

No, the ridged nose, termed "V" nose by Newey, was not to create the ridges, but to raise the nose to reduce the blockage between the front wheels. I had Newey confirm this to me in an interview I had with him in 2009.

Raising a rectangular nose to a similar height excessively raises CofG and also provides a less attractive wishbone mounting.
Newey found the "V" nose solution, by working around the minimum cross section rules, which state the X and Y dimensions. These suggest a rectangular shape, but the rules were not specific that the dimensions had to be relative to each other, thus the bottom drops from the rectangle and forms the "V" shape.

The "V" nose is a compromise that creates more space beneath the nose, creates a nice shape for unequal length wishbones and has a slightly lower CofG. the resulting bulges on top of the chassis are merely there due to the need to maintain the minimum cross section and still meet the minimum dimensions. Teams alter their treatment of them to suit, but this is a secondary consideration.

With a maximum height specified in 2012, teams will no doubt resort to high rectangular noses, as the aero benefit has to be realised and then compromises made in CofG height and suspension mounting.

[RH1300S]

Not that anyone doubts Scarbs, but I'll back him up anyway - this is exactly how Newey described this solution when it first came out. Clever reading of the wording in the regs to overcome a problem.

I have to confess - it's very tempting to see the raised strakes as guiding the air on top of the chassis.