Red Bull RB7 Renault

[Robbobnob]

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2011/05/21/2 ... -analysis/

Evidence that the Mclaren is not only slower in the last corner but in the first sector, where there are other high speed corners. Yes this is only qualifying data and not the race, but that doesnt subtract from the fact that the car has less downforce.

the reason why Hamilton may have been closer through the beginning of each lap could be due to him having fresher tires, vettels tires being warn out, the Mclaren having more KERS available.

The only statment that can be for sure determined from such evidence is the RedBull has superior downforce to the Mclaren, and that is why it was able to pull out through the last corner

[hardingfv32]

This is how I read the data provided:

1) RB has more downforce because the are running more wing. Evidence: They have a very low trap speed standing.

Now one could argue RB does not have KERS, but I doubt this. They know exactly when they will be making their qualifying lap, it is tied to the tire usage strategy. So, even if they are having KERS issues they should be able to get one lap from the system don't you think?

2) I am going to assume that the first sector starts at start/finish. The data indicates that RB and McLaren are at the top of the sector 3 list.

This data does not prove your point.

Brian

[kalinka]

"The RedBull could take the last turn with the DRS open." We are certain that was not the case during the race per the rules.

Ok, then why was McLaren on his RB's tail everywhere but on to the front straight during the closing laps. Where was the "monstrous downforce" the rest of the lap?

Brian

The last turn is a high speeed turn, where is ( we can say now ) RBR traditionally good at in any track ( remember Turkey turn8? ). There were other fast corners on the track where it was fast. In other parts of the track, where there's no high speed turns, McL had the edge over RBR, including the last chicane. That's why Hamilton was right with Vettel until the last chicane. Simply the McLaren was better in low speed corners+in straights too, and that's a bigger part of the track, so McL could do a better laptime overall. Vettel could get away in last corner, and at SOME high speed parts, but not in terms of overall laptime. And where can you overtake in Barcelona ? - you guess- it's a start-finish straight, so if you're much slower in the last turn, you loose that (almost only) chance. Simply as that. If someone could do a 1sec better lap time, he must be on your tail at the last chicane....but it's not enough to overtake.

[HampusA]

Mclaren had better brakes aswell. Much better.
Noticable even at Monaco.

[hardingfv32]

Now what is the logic for McLaren's better braking? RB has better grip, stated earlier, and the brake technology is very mature and restricted by the rules.

Could it be McLaren superior KERS system improves braking that much?

Could RB's superior handling allow them to carry more speed through the turn, thus not requiring as much braking? Would this be observable to the naked eye?

Brian

[Mandrake]

Braking is all down to suspension. The better the bumps are absorbed, the higher the brake forces can be without locking the tires.

The actual performance of the brake itself does barely differ between top teams, the way it is transferred to stopping on the road, this is where McLaren have (suspension wise) an advantage!

[HampusA]

Now what is the logic for McLaren's better braking? RB has better grip, stated earlier, and the brake technology is very mature and restricted by the rules.

Could it be McLaren superior KERS system improves braking that much?

Could RB's superior handling allow them to carry more speed through the turn, thus not requiring as much braking? Would this be observable to the naked eye?

Brian

I think the problems lays with RBR. maybe tyeir KERS is a little so so and haven't really solved the braking part.
you could clearly see at Barcelona how hamilton just ate up the distance and then got out of the turn with more or less the same distance.
Same with Alonso, braking into the chicane he was right on his gearbox everytime.

[Pierce89]

This is how I read the data provided:

1) RB has more downforce because the are running more wing. Evidence: They have a very low trap speed standing.

Now one could argue RB does not have KERS, but I doubt this. They know exactly when they will be making their qualifying lap, it is tied to the tire usage strategy. So, even if they are having KERS issues they should be able to get one lap from the system don't you think?

2) I am going to assume that the first sector starts at start/finish. The data indicates that RB and McLaren are at the top of the sector 3 list.
Brian

This data does not prove your point.
Red Bulls DF advantage does not come from simply running more wing, or Mclaren and Ferrari could just run more wing to catch up.If Red Bull simply ran more wing, then they could simply back it down at Monza and be competitive, but that didn't happen. the RB6 was slow at Monza because even with the wings backd all the way down to minimum the car produced to much downforce(and hence drag) to be competitive. so your analysis that Red Bulls DF advantage comes only from running mre wing, to me, does not hold water. The entire car produces their DF advantage.If not, the Red and Silver cars could simply wind some wing on and go just as fast.

[speedsense]

This is how I read the data provided:

1) RB has more downforce because the are running more wing. Evidence: They have a very low trap speed standing.

Now one could argue RB does not have KERS, but I doubt this. They know exactly when they will be making their qualifying lap, it is tied to the tire usage strategy. So, even if they are having KERS issues they should be able to get one lap from the system don't you think?

2) I am going to assume that the first sector starts at start/finish. The data indicates that RB and McLaren are at the top of the sector 3 list.
Brian

This data does not prove your point.
Red Bulls DF advantage does not come from simply running more wing, or Mclaren and Ferrari could just run more wing to catch up.If Red Bull simply ran more wing, then they could simply back it down at Monza and be competitive, but that didn't happen. the RB6 was slow at Monza because even with the wings backd all the way down to minimum the car produced to much downforce(and hence drag) to be competitive. so your analysis that Red Bulls DF advantage comes only from running mre wing, to me, does not hold water. The entire car produces their DF advantage.If not, the Red and Silver cars could simply wind some wing on and go just as fast.

IMHO, Currently the RB has the largest surface area front wings. With the rake design, are also more effective closer to the ground. To be able to run this high of downforce in the front, the rear must be producing DF very well. Other teams have not caught up to having enough rear downforce to run as high front downforce. Witness what happens when the RB is behind another car, it slows...a lot.., understeer...not enough air to the front wings.
The floor/diffuser is not even close to the drag produced by the wings and in percentage very low effect in drag on straight line speed.
For the others, not simply just more wing, but wing balance front to rear. If you stuck a copy of the RB7 front wing on a Mclaren, it would oversteer, probably wickedly because it would plant the nose.

[speedsense]

I had a foil hat moment in thinking about the KERS system on the RBull, and how the KERS affects brake bias when it's charging and discharging. It's major effect on the brake bias is such they actually need to re bias the car balance, especially in a failure.
The last time a huge protest and banning occurred in F1, was the "extra" brake pedal, that applied brake pressure to an outside rear wheel for traction control. Remember the glowing rotors? Still WDC for that year. That was Newey then....
So the tin foil hat moment...At RB, it's still Newey, and they have problems with their KERS, don't get use of it often during a race, or do they..maybe from one rear wheel, next corner the other rear wheel???? No glowing rotors to be found out, no third brake pedal..just a KERS system that doesn't work right...... all right I'll put the tin hat away, for now.

[Boost]

The MGU is attached to the back of the engine, rather difficult to drive each wheel individually from there.

[PhillipM]

Remember the glowing rotors? Still WDC for that year. That was Newey then....

Maybe, but certainly not a new concept, it's been used in racing for at least 60 years or so, if it were possible within the regulations then I don't doubt the other teams would have looked at it. As it is I don't think it's even possible with the current KERS generator setups.

[hardingfv32]

1) MGU in front of engine, near fuel cell?

2) Any info on the KERS always functioning and routing output to a water cooled resistor pack when the batteries are fully charged? Brakes balance remains constant.

Brian

[speedsense]

Remember the glowing rotors? Still WDC for that year. That was Newey then....

Maybe, but certainly not a new concept, it's been used in racing for at least 60 years or so, if it were possible within the regulations then I don't doubt the other teams would have looked at it. As it is I don't think it's even possible with the current KERS generator setups.

Why not? The generators have enough impact to effect front/rear brake balance, why wouldn't it also be possible to effect left to right, if it were setup that way? Seems fairly simple electronically (switching or data logger argument switching) to have one generator on and the other side of the car off, creating a drag on one side under throttle on application. It would be impossible to detect... IMHO

[hardingfv32]

It would be impossible to detect? You mean two MGU units would not seem odd when everyone is using one.

Brian