Red Bull's qualifying advantage

[alelanza]

Brian,

I agree on #1, on #2 as i stated before spreads to race conditions through parc ferme rules.
#3/4, yes i agree fuel may change weight dist, but it won't allow you any distribution you wish. Chassis/ballast won't change, and being the majority of the fuel is in a fixed location close CoG, i'm not sure how much of a difference it can make.

[DaveW]

I favour the idea that RBR has downforce to spare (comparatively) by efficient diffuser "blowing" available by engine mapping, but it comes at a cost of one or more of the following:

- reduced power at the wheels
- increased fuel consumption
- reduced engine life.

The first can be offset during qualifying (but not the race) by judicious use of the DRS. The second & third would be acceptable for qualifying, but not the race. That would lead them to use "aggressive" maps for qualifying & (perhaps) the first couple of race laps, but more "gentle" maps otherwise.

[Fil]

If they are able to deploy the DRS in areas where no one else can, that could only suggest that their downforce advantage is not from their front & rear wings.

Logically thinking, does anyone think the RB7's increased rake angle (comparatively to the rest of the field) may allow the off-throttle overrun to be more effective within the EBD?




As with all things in F1, it's not just one part that makes the difference.

- 'Flexier' legal front wing
- Increased rake & diffuser concept
- Overall higher DF levels (at cost of top speed)
- DRS optimised for Prac/Quali regulations (at cost of Race conditions/regulations)
- Fuel efficiency of Renault RS27 (at cost of peak power)

Red Bull have identified their own strengths, and worked to maximise them, rather than compromise the car to improve their weaknesses.

[DaveW]

Logically thinking, does anyone think the RB7's increased rake angle (comparatively to the rest of the field) may allow the off-throttle overrun to be more effective within the EBD?

Agree with your summary, Fil, but why restrict the EBD advantage to off-throttle overrun (although that must be a factor)?

[hardingfv32]

Is it not correct to assume that RB's setup is perfect for qualifying, pole by almost a second, and perfect at the start of a race, as they usually gap the field a little in the early stages of the race?

How do you account for the car being perfect at both times with the very different usage pattern of the DRS system?

A) The wings and rake are the same.
B) Overall higher DF levels are the same except for DRS
C) EBD: could they be taking something off the traction table by not blowing the diffuser during off throttle to compensate for the DRS being closed during the race?
D) Fuel efficiency of Renault RS27. Does this imply a lighter fuel load? No evidence that the RB race starts are any better than the other teams.

Brian

[alelanza]

What Red Bull do is retard the ignition and maintain some throttle and fuel to allow combustion to continue to take place. However the ignition of the air and fuel mixture now takes place later in the engines revolution, when the exhaust valve has already opened. Rather than driving the piston down, the explosion of the mixture goes into the exhaust, still expanding as it does so. This creates a rush of gas through the exhaust mimicking the effect of running with the throttle open. Thus the diffuser still sees a flow of gas and maintains downforce despite the engine slowing down

Of course this gain doesn’t come for free, the heat of combustion now takes place in the exhaust port, so that the exhaust valve, cylinder head and exhaust pipe all suffer excessive heat. This will affect them, as they cannot withstand this sort of thermal load for long periods. Equally the process burns additional fuel, in the race this is a negative thing as fuel is limited and no refuelling is allowed.
This ignition retard mapping would be controlled via the ECU via the driver selecting a steering wheel control, using quite normal tuning parameters and not some clever workaround.

You know i read this, and given our recent exchange on a different thread i found it contrasting but of course was pleasantly surprised to see a very good contribution coming from you. Then I noticed you posted the exact same thing on another thread and that's when i realized you simply copy pasted it from here:

http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/07/1 ... s-q3-pace/

and that's not very cool, you should quote and provide the link when doing this, otherwise people like myself will think these are your thoughts instead of a copy of someone else's work.

[alelanza]

Brian,

I think for race start they most likely use an engine map not too disimilar from the qualy one, and just like that one it probably can't be used throughout the race without undesireable effects. Except for Spain Vettel has been able to stay first into turn 1 so that makes everything much easier in terms of controlling the race.
Now, i'll include myself in the group that thinks that once out in front he's had more performance in his pocket and only has had to coast to victory, but China/Spain seem to indicate their tyre wear and strategy may not be that great in all circuits.

[Rob01]

alelanza... not looking to be cool. Just providing info to someone who messaged me for the article I quoted on another site. But it's good to know I have a fan on these boards. I will be adding/providing additional information and will try and follow your procedure. In the future if I want your opinion I will give it to you.

[alelanza]

Button's take on this:

Jenson Button says he doesn’t expect McLaren to pose a challenge to Red Bull in qualifying in the near future.

Speaking during a Vodafone McLaren Mercedes phone-in he said: “No, not really! , I don’t think any of us know.

“We think they have a lot more downforce than us, but then we don’t understand why they don’t have that pace in the race. It’s a tough one.

“Maybe their car is not so good on tyres, they degrade quicker, maybe, on their car, I don’t know. But in a few of the races this year we’ve been able to race them. But in qualifying we’ve been a long way off.

“So I don’t know. If you look at the difference in pace in qualifying you’d say the difference in lap time is probably about 30 points of downforce. You’re not going to do that for problem six, seven races. So it’s a difficult one in qualifying. I can’t see us, in the near future, beating them in qualifying. Unless it’s a very unusual circumstance – maybe like Monaco.”

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2011/05/25/b ... ualifying/

[fausto cedros]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/formula ... 514134.stm

what do you think????

[alelanza]

For me it's very hard to agree with the 'too much downforce' theory

The harder the tyre is being squashed into the ground, the more you take out of it and that downforce squares with speed.

That sounds wrong to me, but tyres are mysterious magical things....

[marcush.]

I think the qualy approach of RedBull with the intensive use of the DRS as a means of creating a setup with dRS applied also in high speed corners is adding to their qualy advantage but hurts their race speed.
I also think their higher downforce levels add up to the tyres saturated when the car is carrying high levels of fuel.Maybe it´s as simple as Neweay beiing too agressive with fuel capacity ....when you don´t have the fuel you cannot use the overrun or even have to turn down the engine in the race...which would explain why the degradation of the tyres is not significant for them as well but they just don´t have the speed anymore .

There is not too much downforce but too much vertical load is a distinct possibility ..but this would kill the tyres in no time.

[hardingfv32]

We could use some data on the two DRS conditions on rear wing drag and downforce. I don't think we are going to find any studies or papers on the subject of large open gaps. This is not good for wing performance, aircraft or car, so no one is going to do studies about it except the teams.

1) If RB trades downforce for drag, can we make a judgement on what that relationship might be like from an other rear race wing with data? Something like this: Does a 10% reduction in downforce equal a 10% reduction in drag.

2) If my estimate of a 10% reduction in rear wing downforce with DRS open is close, that would seem like a healthy lose of rear grip.

3) During all the telecast talk of sector times has there developed the belief that RB is always faster on the straights and a little slow in the twisty sections? I have not heard anyone state RB is generally better in a straight line. It is always how much grip they have.

Brian

[alelanza]

I think the opposite is true, usually RBs are towards the bottom of speed traps, while the same engine puts the Renaults very close to the top, so it sounds like they have a very draggy, relatively speaking, car. Of course their approach to gearing may have an impact, but should be minor i think.

[160-R]

Regarding the EBD (and it is my belief that this is where their main advantage comes from, giving enough downforce to allow to early opening of DRS) in order to optimize it, waste gasses are ignited past TDC via retarded ignition.
But as the combustion area has now changed dramatically it would appear to be not very efficient. Maybe their advantage appears in a better full combustion by other means (and therefore more waste gasses at higher flow). Eg: a second set of sparkplugs within the manifold? Or some other means?