Red Bull RB7 Renault

[timbo]

That's a pretty accurate rendering of KERS and the gearbox......

Interesting how long is the input shaft for the gearbox. Is it solely to keep wheelbase longer?
Seems rather "counter-engineerish" decision.

[PlatinumZealot]

Shaft stability?
Suspension innard location?

[segedunum]

Wow. Now I understand why you seemed so confused earlier in this discussion. I mentioned how rough the RB exhaust system looked and you just instantly defended it, obviously not looking at the evidence.

Look Diesel, just leave it OK? Nothing of the sort happened. There is no comparison between what Red Bull have been doing, which is to fine tune and develop one firm idea in testing, and having at least three completely different exhaust layouts switched from one to another as McLaren have had, OK? Can you seriously not see the difference?

[Tim.Wright]

Interesting how long is the input shaft for the gearbox. Is it solely to keep wheelbase longer?
Seems rather "counter-engineerish" decision.

I was also surprised at this layout. It seems its quite common, because the resident Honda F1 also seems to have a large empty bellhousing.

My logic is this;
Engine is as far forward as possible to concentrate the mass close to the CG (for a low MOI)
The gearbox internals are obviously packaged as compact as possible to reduce weight.
The engine and gearbox are therefore too short together to reach the rear axle line.
The really viable options would be;
1. put the gearbox right up against the engine and have a long extension shaft to the diff.
2. put the gearbox at the back and have a long extension shaft on the input side.

For me option 1 would be the best because it will reduce overall weight. This because the long shaft will be on the input side which is designed for less torque compared to the output shaft so will natually be thinner and lighter. Also the input shaft is lower than the output shaft so this option will also have a lower CG.

Tim

[Formula None]

Thanks Pedro!
I know it is probably not 100% correct, but still a pretty neat overview (click for high-res):
http://imgur.com/Y1kbB

Nice pic. With a bit of photoshopping we can visualize the FW33 gearbox (from what we know based on scarbs earlier illustrations).




Assuming their box is not transverse. Also, total guess that the input shaft would be shorter, but williams seem to be one of the teams without a longer box this year (more vertical pullrods like renault & MB). Also, everything would have to shift forward as the diff is rotated down, to prevent it being behind wheel centerline.

[Robbobnob]

quick note guys, notice the exhaust positioning, out the top periscope type, i dont think you'll find any trade secrets from this render. however i was pretty impressed with its quality

[racer_boy]

One bit to take into consideration is that when you deal with the input side of the gearbox, the torque going into that side of the gearbox is much less than the torque exiting the gearbox. So, if you extended the gearbox output side instead of the input, you might have to make this 'extension' a lot more beefy.

Interesting how long is the input shaft for the gearbox. Is it solely to keep wheelbase longer?
Seems rather "counter-engineerish" decision.

I was also surprised at this layout. It seems its quite common, because the resident Honda F1 also seems to have a large empty bellhousing.

My logic is this;
Engine is as far forward as possible to concentrate the mass close to the CG (for a low MOI)
The gearbox internals are obviously packaged as compact as possible to reduce weight.
The engine and gearbox are therefore too short together to reach the rear axle line.
The really viable options would be;
1. put the gearbox right up against the engine and have a long extension shaft to the diff.
2. put the gearbox at the back and have a long extension shaft on the input side.

For me option 1 would be the best because it will reduce overall weight. This because the long shaft will be on the input side which is designed for less torque compared to the output shaft so will natually be thinner and lighter. Also the input shaft is lower than the output shaft so this option will also have a lower CG.

Tim

[i70q7m7ghw]

Wow. Now I understand why you seemed so confused earlier in this discussion. I mentioned how rough the RB exhaust system looked and you just instantly defended it, obviously not looking at the evidence.

Look Diesel, just leave it OK? Nothing of the sort happened. There is no comparison between what Red Bull have been doing, which is to fine tune and develop one firm idea in testing, and having at least three completely different exhaust layouts switched from one to another as McLaren have had, OK? Can you seriously not see the difference?

Who mentioned McLaren?

[myurr]

Who mentioned McLaren?

+1 Excellent

[Tim.Wright]

One bit to take into consideration is that when you deal with the input side of the gearbox, the torque going into that side of the gearbox is much less than the torque exiting the gearbox. So, if you extended the gearbox output side instead of the input, you might have to make this 'extension' a lot more beefy.

Exactly what I said wasn't it`?

[segedunum]

Who mentioned McLaren?

This qualifies as +1 excellent?

You could, of course, clarify the rather pointless thing you wrote but I suppose it is left up to me.

Ahhhh, yes, I remember now:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9380&p=225557#p225557

This post appeared out of nowhere immediately after I'd been perceived to have been critical of McLaren's markedly different exhaust layouts during testing on the MP4-26 thread, and this was apparently some attempt at sarcasm.

Oh, and Red Bull haven't been caught napping. Ferrari and probably a few others are now rushing to replicate this layout. They had one clear idea and direction in one area with their exhausts and they've refined it, and I bet they didn't take two hours at a time doing it either.

[PlatinumZealot]

Interesting how long is the input shaft for the gearbox. Is it solely to keep wheelbase longer?
Seems rather "counter-engineerish" decision.

I was also surprised at this layout. It seems its quite common, because the resident Honda F1 also seems to have a large empty bellhousing.

My logic is this;
Engine is as far forward as possible to concentrate the mass close to the CG (for a low MOI)
The gearbox internals are obviously packaged as compact as possible to reduce weight.
The engine and gearbox are therefore too short together to reach the rear axle line.
The really viable options would be;
1. put the gearbox right up against the engine and have a long extension shaft to the diff.
2. put the gearbox at the back and have a long extension shaft on the input side.

For me option 1 would be the best because it will reduce overall weight. This because the long shaft will be on the input side which is designed for less torque compared to the output shaft so will natually be thinner and lighter. Also the input shaft is lower than the output shaft so this option will also have a lower CG.

Tim

Tim, check this out...
The diameter of an F1 half shaft /axle looks to be around 40mm. The redbull input shaft looks to be around 30mm from the video.
A typical final drive ratio is about 3.5 to 1. That means that if you put the shaft behind the gearbox, you would not expect it to be bigger than the same 40mm. Which is not that much of an increase in weight especially if it was hollow shaft. Yes the Cog is higher, but your mass is more centralised and you can make the rear of the box more narrow...

So, I am not saying which one is better I am just thinking that Cog height and weight might not be the deciding factor.

Could simply be ease of manufacture and adaptability? It might be easier to vary the length of a predesigned gearbox by varying the length of the bell housing which may be a whole separate part from the gearbox, than to cut open the gearbox, change the shaft, and make back a whole new casing?

[earlrue]

http://img198.imageshack.us/i/vetteltes ... x594f.jpg/

Knowing that photos may fool you, I am not intending to open yet another boring discussion about optical illusions here. That's pretty well done in the Mercedes GP W02 Thread already.

Nevertheless, this shot looks intriguing asymmetrical. I hope all here assembled aerodynamic and technical geniouses will have a close look and clarify. Thx!

[i70q7m7ghw]

Who mentioned McLaren?

This qualifies as +1 excellent?

You could, of course, clarify the rather pointless thing you wrote but I suppose it is left up to me.

Ahhhh, yes, I remember now:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9380&p=225557#p225557

This post appeared out of nowhere immediately after I'd been perceived to have been critical of McLaren's markedly different exhaust layouts during testing on the MP4-26 thread, and this was apparently some attempt at sarcasm.

I don't need to clarify it, you already did:

Forgive me if I've missed something, but I don't recall the floor having a piece cut out of it that the exhaust blows into before. When did this happen? It's clearly very rough because you can see the ad-hoc cut. They're making a bit of a mockery of the regulations, aren't they? There's quite a bit of mileage left in that line of development. I didn't think that was legal to be honest.

"ad-hoc cut" = "Hacking out chunks of the floor"

There's your clarification. Clearly you were the one caught napping, as Red Bull have had this piece missing from the floor for a while now.

[AbbaleRacing77]

edit... oops wrong thread