Red Bull RB7 Renault

[bot6]

I think it's consistent with the whole "start only KERS" thing. The KERS will be operational for the start, where it is vital, but after that it doesn't really give you much of an advantage so they don't really care if the battery is destroyed by heat.

[bonjon1979]

I think it's consistent with the whole "start only KERS" thing. The KERS will be operational for the start, where it is vital, but after that it doesn't really give you much of an advantage so they don't really care if the battery is destroyed by heat.

If that is what they've decided, which I don't think is the case, it'll hurt them in the long run.

[BreezyRacer]

Hell it's hurting them now. Webber said they had to rebuild his car 4 times in China. Hopefully this 3 week break gives them a chance to fix that behavior and get KERS to work full time. The first year it was pure gimmick, worth only a tenth or two a lap over it's weight penalty. Now though, combined with DRS and fixed weight distribution it's worth far more in the race. Some say a half second a lap, and it's priceless in most passing maneuvers.

The races are no longer processionals from qualifying.

[Richied76]

I think it's consistent with the whole "start only KERS" thing. The KERS will be operational for the start, where it is vital, but after that it doesn't really give you much of an advantage so they don't really care if the battery is destroyed by heat.

I think if it was to explode they would care. No one is 100% sure what kind of chemistry there running in there batterys but a li-Poly battery makes one hell of a mess then they overheat and blow. Not to mention how toxic lithum is. IMO its a silly idea to have put it in one of the hottest places. Under a fundemtal jointing from the engine to the gearbox. Yes it low BUT just to much risk. and judging by the team radio it is getting dangerous by the stern way in which Webbers enginer was telling him to not use it in china

[ringo]

It looks like one of the safest places to me, bar an exhaust manifold failure.
They'll fix.

[l4mbch0ps]

The most interesting thing to me is the false top over the gearbox for airflow. This appears to keep airflow around ~50 mm higher than the structural top of the gearbox. Even though the structural top of this gearbox isn't low like Williams, Red Bull is choosing to run the airflow higher still!!

It appears as though this "false top" is structural support for the suspension mounting? Looks to me like it's more of a CoG effort. Obviously just speculation though.

[Florio]

I just had a thought, this RB rake style, was it used for last year? Also, I'm not sure as to where the RB7 and RB6 fuel tank is situated, but couldn't this be a fairly sound explanation as to why you could hear the skimming against the ground in qualifying, and yet still be able to add the fuel for the race without this ride height adjustment? Seeing as only the rear part of the car is effected (depending on where the fuel tank is obviously)

[Formula None]

[raymondu999]

I just had a thought, this RB rake style, was it used for last year? Also, I'm not sure as to where the RB7 and RB6 fuel tank is situated, but couldn't this be a fairly sound explanation as to why you could hear the skimming against the ground in qualifying, and yet still be able to add the fuel for the race without this ride height adjustment? Seeing as only the rear part of the car is effected (depending on where the fuel tank is obviously)

Interesting thought. I just had a lookie see what I could find, and I found this article by Scarbs: http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/753/ Look for "rake and low front wing" on the page to see the relevant part. Apparently both Ferrari and Red Bull were using significant and almost "abnormal" levels of rake for a low nose; but I guess not much was made of it last year

[hollus]

Much was made of it last year, and in F1T in particular. There was a lot of discussion on how rake could theoretically put the reference plane under the tarmac (this year it really has!) and how bending around the tea tray would help with not having to go insane with the rake (see the floor pics after Webber's flip).
It makes me wonder why Ferrari forgot how to do it, or maybe all that rake (and flexing) was accidental for them, and premeditate for the Red Bulls...

[i70q7m7ghw]

Much was made of it last year, and in F1T in particular. There was a lot of discussion on how rake could theoretically put the reference plane under the tarmac (this year it really has!) and how bending around the tea tray would help with not having to go insane with the rake (see the floor pics after Webber's flip).
It makes me wonder why Ferrari forgot how to do it, or maybe all that rake (and flexing) was accidental for them, and premeditate for the Red Bulls...

I think the change in regulations probably affected Ferrari. Red Bull appear to have found a way around it.

[marcush.]

draw up the situation on a piece of paper and you will soon realise that geometry is not your friend in this case.
If you decide to have a nearly flat plank the mechanical advantage of the wheelbase (even when subtrating the radius of the wheel) is still allmost 3 to 1 over the front wing endplate leadingedge ..giving you a front wing lowering of 1mm for every 3mm of rising the rear of the car...(you will raise the leading edge of the plank by a tenth of the value at the rear axle ,so in fact the available lowering is 1.1mm for every 3mm you raise the rear...

So we are speaking of how much front wing lowering,33mm perhaps? Boys thats a staggering 99mm of rear rideheight added to what you already got ....

First of all you need to bend the rule in :
forming the bottom of the tub as a bow and bend the plank over it - to not ram the leading edge into the ground but let it reach the ground in a more paralell fashion...clearly and explicitly not in the spirit of the rules.

and furthermore allow the teatray area to lift a bit under severe compresion loads...also not intended by the rules.

The rake is there for something else .

[amouzouris]

...The rake is there for something else .

the rake is there for the front wing as well because as the front wing is getting lower towards the ground it can produce more downforce therefore the air is pushing the wing down making it flex more its a combination between the two... i think for 3mm rake the wing must be getting lower than 1mm when you consider the air!

[marcush.]

on what grounds?
the increase of angle of attack is nothing really so we got the wing working a tiny bit closer to the ground...

My reasoning is that RBR and Neweay are again dragging people around at the nose..
last year it started with load leveiing rideheights and this year it´s rake which is responsible for what we see .No it´s not.Calculate and then come back and realise that only the flex will allow the wing to get as close to the ground and only the nose and wingstay flex will allow for the massive change in AoA we have witnessed in some pictures -wich are not a proof that this is really happening...

Forget the discussion,the Fia heros have declared everything legal so Ferrari can undust their bendy wing developments and stick it back on their car and only next year we will see bendy nosecones and bendy what have you thingys in every position you would never have thought of .
2009 Brawn got the favour now it´s RedBull and Vettel who can rely on the FORCE.political ,nothing else.

[SoliRossi]

I really dont see it being political. Surley its a result of a team being smarter than its opponents is it not?

Every team will 'bend' the rules, or will design their car to have every possible advantage whilst still being declared compliant/legal and allowed to race.

I just cant see how anything more has happened here. There is no doubt that the front wing or front end on the RB6 and RB7 flexes. If you did not believe that is the case then the fact that the FiA revised and increased the test's to catch them out should be testiment to the fact that they too agree its flexing.

RBR have been smart enough to develop a car that continues to be declared legal and yet operates in a way that other teams can not replicate.

The FIA can not turn around and say, hey look at this picture or video, see your wing is flexing, you cant race. Also in turn they cant go on a witch hunt to just try to get one car excluded. Their scrutineering is there to do that, should the car pass scritineering then its good to go.

A possible explanation, althrough one is not needed, is that arguably RBR have either 'lucked' onto such a solution or more likley they have more brain power and resouce than the FiA and in turn can create such results.

Either way its a moot point. Perhaps if other teams cant catch them on this point they should look at other areas of performance (ala Renault's exhausts) where instead of playing catch up they could steal a march and have RBR chasing them.