Red Bull RB7 Renault

[volarchico]

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. ...

Wow, not too many people here get to post something quite like that. Thanks for the definitive answer. Sometimes I wish there were more answers like that, but I guess most teams like to keep their secrets, well...secret.

[aral]

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.

Maybe that was the original intention of Newey, however, the cleaning of the airflow was also noticed. Mercedes placed strakes here, not to "raise the nose", but purely to direct air, preventing overspill. Are you saying that Mercedes did not know what they were doing? No don't answer that.
And if you watched development over the year, you will see that other teams sprouted bulges during the year, without affecting the homologated tub and crash structure.

[imightbewrong]

Maybe that was the original intention of Newey, however, the cleaning of the airflow was also noticed. Mercedes placed strakes here, not to "raise the nose", but purely to direct air, preventing overspill. Are you saying that Mercedes did not know what they were doing? No don't answer that.
And if you watched development over the year, you will see that other teams sprouted bulges during the year, without affecting the homologated tub and crash structure.

Can you show us some photos of Merc and the other teams doing this?

[i70q7m7ghw]

Indeed, show us pictures of "other teams sprouted bulges during the year"...

[ringo]

The V nose was a concept that may have worked, a little, but it's no better than a high rectangular nose with zero keel.
The V nose on the RB5 with the keel actual had some flaws. This is why the RB7 is different. The change is not much to do with the regulations.

The belly of the nose is still at a lower height and a good 2/3 of the width is at this height. The raised sides aren't necessarily a marked improvement.
The sides let by some more air in truth. But it's not to much benefit.

Reason being you have some nasty flows over the wish bones, and the curved sides kind of melds this flow with the steadier lower pressure flow under the nose.
A flat side with a flat bottom is better at keeping these flows apart.
The partitions under the nose also help in this regard.

I don't have any sources, this is my observation from placing suspension members close to the centre line of the car under the nose in a few cfd exercises. It's best to keep them on the sides and nowhere under the nose.

[Just_a_fan]

I'm amazed! Someone has posted information from a first hand source as to how the RB nose came about and people are sitting on here saying that the reason was something else.

The guy who designed is probably best placed to say why he did it don't you think?

[ringo]

Depends on how he was asked and what he chooses to say.

Look for yourself at the RB7 and check the regulations for the nose height.
A V nose could have been used just the same. The regs didn't prevent that interpretation.
It's common sense. Look on the suspension as well.

Sometimes you people gobble things up without thinking for yourselves.
All journalists have F1 sources and not all reports or predictions are right, becuase questions can be put a certain way, and answers can be put a certain way as well.
The Renault exhaust was a perfect example. All over the internet it's reported that it's blowing under the floor. When in reality it isn't. These are not engineers themselves saying these things. We have to remember that.

You watch the peter windsor program, and an aerodynamicist himself is not willing to agree with the what we accept as insider reports about the R31 exhaust, and instead says he has never done it before so he will not comment on it.
It was simply a nice way of saying what we believe to be true is not so; the exhuast does no blow under the car.
And so in this case for the RB7 nose, i am inferring that the V nose has benefits but is not ideal, and has few issues that are better dealt with by a flatter bottomed nose and zero keel suspension.
The RB5 and RB7 is there for you to compare. The RB7 is now using a similar bottomed nose to the Mclaren and Ferrari, who chose to retain that feature.
Use your own brain and eyes.

[Just_a_fan]

The Renault exhaust was a perfect example. All over the internet it's reported that it's blowing under the floor. When in reality it isn't.

Until we see the engine in that car blow up and see where the resultant smoke goes, we don't know exactly how it's blowing.

[segedunum]

The Renault exhaust was a perfect example. All over the internet it's reported that it's blowing under the floor. When in reality it isn't.

I think one of the few things we established in that exhaust thread was that blowing under the floor would just be pointless.

[ringo]

Well you see seg, it's not in an internet article, so some rather not ponder such things. They love the spoon feeding
People need to realize that most of these ideas are speculation which are posed to the interviewee. The interviewee will simply answer at the same level of detail. He wont reveal all.

In the case of the RB5 nose, yes the listed benefits are true because Newey said this. Did he say anything about any drawbacks? No.
Did he say anything about the change to the RB7 interpretation? No.

So why is it we reject attempted insights into these un-asked questions and restrict ourselves to a 2 year old comment that doesn't tell enough and is bolstered by opinion?

If an aerodynamicist cannot draw a conclusion about the R31 for example, then logically no one outside of that field has more credibility than anyone else to say how it works, and I'm not singling out journalists or others in the media, because they're just doing their jobs; which is to gather information.
I'm saying that some amount of independent thinking needs to be done by those who read the information.

So to just_a_fan, read what i posted then look if Newey in 2009 commented on anything about the 2011 RB7.
If i'm wrong i'm wrong but you don't know that; no one does, beside redbull.

[tjaeger]

Wow. Ty scarbs fantastic detail about the reasoning, think that gives us a much better appreciation of why and how, rather coming up with own wild guess's out of the blue.

I will take it if Adrian would see some of that he would just have a big grin on his face.

[volarchico]

Depends on how he was asked and what he chooses to say.
...
Sometimes you people gobble things up without thinking for yourselves.
All journalists have F1 sources and not all reports or predictions are right, becuase questions can be put a certain way, and answers can be put a certain way as well....
Use your own brain and eyes.

In general, I agree with the concept of thinking for yourself. It's never a bad idea to engage your brain. But at the same time, I could think for myself for a long, long time about certain technical F1 issue and not come up with an answer, or I could ask an expert whose job it is to design F1 cars and probably get a much more accurate answer much faster. It baffles me how frequently people on this forum think they know "best". Ringo, usually I find your posts intelligent and helpful, but this time I'll side with scarbs and Newey.

[scarbs]

The Renault exhaust was a perfect example. All over the internet it's reported that it's blowing under the floor. When in reality it isn't.

I think one of the few things we established in that exhaust thread was that blowing under the floor would just be pointless.

I dont want to join in just spoiling Ringos comment, but if you re-read the frotn exit exhaust thread, and look closely at SLCs comments, they are bang on. SLC is an aerodynamicist working in industry and I have had his comments pointed out to me by one of the Renault designers, who actually worked on the FEE. Obviously my insider cant tell me the exact details of the system, so he's pointed me to these comments. have a read and consider you're opinion.

[Raptor22]

The Renault exhaust was a perfect example. All over the internet it's reported that it's blowing under the floor. When in reality it isn't.

I think one of the few things we established in that exhaust thread was that blowing under the floor would just be pointless.

I dont want to join in just spoiling Ringos comment, but if you re-read the frotn exit exhaust thread, and look closely at SLCs comments, they are bang on. SLC is an aerodynamicist working in industry and I have had his comments pointed out to me by one of the Renault designers, who actually worked on the FEE. Obviously my insider cant tell me the exact details of the system, so he's pointed me to these comments. have a read and consider you're opinion.

are you seriously asking these great Forum people to reconsider their posts. Heck man we are dealing with Gods of the Internet here. What the heck does SLC know..?

<sarcasm off>

[Raptor22]

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.

1000% correct.