Red Bull RB8 Renault

[Pierce89]

10.3.4 Non‐structural parts of suspension members are considered bodywork.

It's not difficult for me to imagine a phone call from Montezemolo to Charlie Whiting that casually mentions this rule having an effect.

(I'm surprised I had to look this rule up. I thought after immersing myself in the Mercedes AMG "speculation" that I had an encyclopedic understanding of the suspension regulations.)

You are TOO right about that INSANE Merc thread.
On the Red Bull part, they'll get the green light.

[Pierce89]

The main objective for the area in between the front tires is to keep from impeding the flow to the front of the undertray. Primarily, that means keeping the underside clean, and without impediment. Secondarily, keeping the sides clean and without impediment. New rules have made the designers lower the nose, but to keep the underside clean the designers have kept the chassis as high as the rules allow. That has created a hump on the top of the nose. This hump forces the oncoming air to go up and over it, but also around it. This air impedes the flow on the sides by making a narrower gap between it and the front tires. Newey's solution, in my opinion, is to let that air go through the hump, and exit through the cockpit opening.

Do you know that the drag doesn't change significantly whether the letter box is there or not? Simply because there is all sorts of suspension bits, a big fat pedal box, a steering wheel, not to mention Vettel's hairy knee cups behind all of that.

If any air flows through it, it's mostly going through Vettel's sweaty crotches before it re-enters the air stream. That small gain in bleed of flow in order to make clean air as you claim is easily substituted and bettered by a design like Caterham. So i think it is not really there to make clean flow.

In fact, In terms of Air flow quality, I haven't really looked at it from that point of view yet.

There are obviously some side walls there. to keep air channeled inwards. The top corners of the nose box are rounded for at least 270 degrees. * side spill does not seem to an issue for other cars, so why? must be something else.

I still feel it's an air dam, that used for driver cooling and making high pressure on top of the nose.

The drag, inside or out (and especially on the top of the nose), is not what matters in the area between the front tires. What matters is eliminating anything that could affect the flow between the tires. Side spill matters to the other cars, that's why their nose humps go straight up like ramps instead of being rounded more on the sides. Newey was the only one who took his solution to the next level. By rounding all the edges of his chassis to 270 degrees, Newey is able to remove that much more material from the path of the airflow. That is how seriously he takes it. Take a look at how plain, square and clunky the Ferrari looks by comparison. Any doubts as to which car will score more points?

according to James Allison, the top of the nose barely matters at all, and that none of the noses will be performance differentiators.

[shelly]

yes we are talking about small changes but it is still worth discussing, even if I am more intrigued by the rear suspension setup of the rb8, to see if it has really one fairing for two or three arms (driveshaft, trackrod and one leg of wishbone).

It has been done in the past (one recent example ferrari 248 iirc) so it would not be anything new, but it would be sometighin visually different from the rb7

[Ferraripilot]

RB8 may have an f-duct

https://twitter.com/#!/Khan_F1/statu...399361/photo/1

[kilcoo316]

according to James Allison, the top of the nose barely matters at all, and that none of the noses will be performance differentiators.

+1

The underside of the nose and the quality/proportion of air it sends to the floor will be a differentiator.

The upperside. Meh. (Unless they do something really stupid - and none of them are stupid.)

[PlatinumZealot]

http://www.taringa.net/posts/autos-moto ... l-RB7.html

This gives a good idea of where:

(1) the top intake could enter the chassis above the driver's toes, "cool the driver", and then exit through the cockpit opening, and

(2) the bottom intake could enter the chassis below the driver's heels and be routed to the KERS unit behind the driver's seat (and under the fuel tank).

Yes this is what I was saying to you above. There is also two big sponges that wrap around the driver's legs. So there is a lot of stuff to back the air up inside there.

The only way it can be circumvented (pun intended) is to have two tube that route around all those obstacles in the cock pit.. but there you are talking about a lot of drag.

[Richard]

So if there is no air flow to the cockpit, why have they bothered with the cooling holes for so many years?

[Tozza Mazza]

So if there is no air flow to the cockpit, why have they bothered with the cooling holes for so many years?

Many electronic components are situated in these areas. These are being cooled, not the drivers.

[Adrian Newby]

according to James Allison, the top of the nose barely matters at all, and that none of the noses will be performance differentiators.

+1

The underside of the nose and the quality/proportion of air it sends to the floor will be a differentiator.

The upperside. Meh. (Unless they do something really stupid - and none of them are stupid.)

Exactly what I have been saying all along.

But I would also add: "Unless they do something really bright", like Newey did, by aerodynamically getting rid of the hump that would disturb the important flow between the tires, which affects the underside.

[bhall]

Smoothing that out does come with a price in the form of sacrificing nose height.

[Adrian Newby]

PIC
http://www.taringa.net/posts/autos-moto ... l-RB7.html

This gives a good idea of where:

(1) the top intake could enter the chassis above the driver's toes, "cool the driver", and then exit through the cockpit opening, and

(2) the bottom intake could enter the chassis below the driver's heels and be routed to the KERS unit behind the driver's seat (and under the fuel tank).

Yes this is what I was saying to you above. There is also two big sponges that wrap around the driver's legs. So there is a lot of stuff to back the air up inside there.

The only way it can be circumvented (pun intended) is to have two tube that route around all those obstacles in the cock pit.. but there you are talking about a lot of drag.

The area along the top inside of the chassis is above the legs and relatively clear, or could be made so easy enough. The bottom intake was there last year, so they already have that ductwork figured out. Once again, this drag does not matter. They have bigger concerns they are trying to address with this air.

[adamdavies_8]

Bottom vent?

RB8:


RB7:

[Adrian Newby]

Yes, that's what we were calling this yesterday.

[PlatinumZealot]

PIC
http://www.taringa.net/posts/autos-moto ... l-RB7.html

This gives a good idea of where:

(1) the top intake could enter the chassis above the driver's toes, "cool the driver", and then exit through the cockpit opening, and

(2) the bottom intake could enter the chassis below the driver's heels and be routed to the KERS unit behind the driver's seat (and under the fuel tank).

Yes this is what I was saying to you above. There is also two big sponges that wrap around the driver's legs. So there is a lot of stuff to back the air up inside there.

The only way it can be circumvented (pun intended) is to have two tube that route around all those obstacles in the cock pit.. but there you are talking about a lot of drag.

The area along the top inside of the chassis is above the legs and relatively clear, or could be made so easy enough. The bottom intake was there last year, so they already have that ductwork figured out. Once again, this drag does not matter. They have bigger concerns they are trying to address with this air.

I know what you are saying I am not going against it, but I think you have to give an Idea as to what magnitude of side spill you claim they are trying to avoid, especially since this is above the chassis and very much close to the wheel centre line. And why didn't they just make the step smoother? Like the Caterham that would be just as or even more effective if it was only side-spill they are trying to control.

Because ironically, damming up the Air as Newey does actually causes more side spill. Very much similar to the top surface of the rear wing and it's end plates. Agree?



Notice that the rear wing has even bigger slots (between top and bottom plane) and you still get massive side spill and vortices causing drag. Just merely because the air is impeded on the wing side and free flowing on free stream side of the end plate. Agree?

And as you know gills are cut in the end-plates to help ease the pressure transisiton resulting is more cleaner flow coming of the rear wing endplates.

So, using this logic, that Is why I believe that Newey would not go down the route of trying to impede air just to turn back then create slot to release it. That would just be creating a problem for the sake of solving it. It must be something else that he is backing up the air for. (Reportedly driver cooling) But the air damn could be for an f-duct, or flow deflection (like the hollow point bullet).

[Adrian Newby]

Probably driver cooling? It's not that big of a vent.

My guess is KERS cooling.