Red Bull RB8 Renault

[horse]

Is it really feasible as an air intake (I mean for a lot of volume)? I don't know how big the boundary layers are on the underside of the nose (couple of mms maybe?), but that intake can't extend out much beyond it.

[Adrian Newby]

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).

The difference between our thinking is that I don't believe Newey is blocking the air or damming it up at all. Exactly the opposite, in fact - he is giving that air a place to go. He may have even designed the exit for this air to create a suction at the intake.

Think of the area between the tires as a "squeeze point". The designers must get as much high-energy flow through this area as possible. It is a 3 dimensional area, so affecting any part affects the others to differing extents. Having a hump on the top in this area is not a good idea (because it will directly affect the sides and indirectly affect the bottom), but it is better than having it on the bottom (so it is on top). So Newey figured out how to get rid of the hump by letting/sucking air through it.

[Adrian Newby]

Is it really feasible as an air intake (I mean for a lot of volume)? I don't know how big the boundary layers are on the underside of the nose (couple of mms maybe?), but that intake can't extend out much beyond it.

I proposed that Newey was trying to peel off any turbulent air in that area, and then use that low-energy air to cool the KERS.

[hardingfv32]

Relating to the front bulkhead above:

IF we assume this old bulkhead is design with no excess capacity, how do you fit a slot into it for the new nose bodywork. The central void looks pretty full.

Brian

[Adrian Newby]

The actual slot in the RB8 chassis looks to be about a half inch from the top. It looks to me like they have room to move the few things in that area out of the way.

[bhall]

...air will simply stagnate in that damn...

No matter how many times I see something like that in this thread, it kills me. It shouldn't be that funny, but it really is.

[Adrian Newby]

That ducting wouldn't need to go very far; there will be a pretty adverse pressure gradient in a small duct that ingests only a boundary layer from outside.


Upon entering the narrow slit, the two expanding viscous sublayers (from upper and lower surfaces) will damp out the largest of the outer layer eddies somewhat, but you'll end up with further (form) pressure losses from both sides and a rapidly decreasing u(z). Indeed, which would in fact no longer exist if the flow becomes fully developed, it would be u(δ) instead which will decrease the further the flow travels down the duct.

Obviously, this adverse pressure gradient will perturb back upstream and affect the flow rate coming in (and the boundary layer under the nose/monocoque).


What do the rules say regarding ducting exits? Is it aft of the driver?

It may be that this slit simply bleeds off the boundary layer prior to the splitter (to reduce interference 'drag' effects - not the drag itself, thats incidental in the grand scheme) and cools the driver's backside!

I believe the primary goal of the lower duct is KERS cooling, but Newey is always one to kill two birds with one stone, so he is also bleeding off as much of the boundary layer as he can. Once the flow gets to the KERS area behind the seat, there should be multiple exit paths available.

[hardingfv32]

Yes, exactly, a vent. Newey is venting that high pressure air into the chassis to "cool the driver" and then exiting it through the cockpit opening.

And you think that routing the air around the internal suspension components and the tightly packaged driver causes less drag than say Ferrari's ramp nose? Interesting

Brian

[hardingfv32]

Bottom vent for the water cooled KERS? Do raise the driver CG so you can route the air back to the KERS?

Brian

[Adrian Newby]

Bottom vent for the water cooled KERS? Do raise the driver CG so you can route the air back to the KERS?

Brian

The chassis has more of square cross-section than the driver's seat, leaving small triangles of space on either side of Seb's butt cheeks, which are larger than the lower intake.

[Adrian Newby]

Otherwise known as a vent?

Yes, exactly, a vent. Newey is venting that high pressure air into the chassis to "cool the driver" and then exiting it through the cockpit opening.

Air Dams can have vents. It's just a vent in the air dam.

Ok... ...

One question:

Where the heck are you people seeing an air dam? The ramp portion of the RB8's hump is at a lower (more "streamlined") angle than any of the other step-nose cars. Immediately above and behind that is an open vent, allowing air to pass straight through into the chassis. And all that is left is a small, half inch radius on the very top, which directs nearly all of its flow over the top of the chassis at an angle that is even more streamlined than the ramp.

[Owen.C93]

We'll never know for sure until we see it without a nose on the car. Which considering you are allowed to put up a wall around your garage in testing means we might have to wait a while.

[Adrian Newby]

We'll never know for sure until we see it without a nose on the car. Which considering you are allowed to put up a wall around your garage in testing means we might have to wait a while.

Unfortunately, this is sooo true! Rats!

[Agerasia]

"Traditionally that is right at the front of the nose. Really for styling as much as anything we moved it where you now see it to break up the aesthetics of the ramp that is required by the regulations."

Then he said in the same interview:

"Performance has to come before aesthetics and this is no exception,"

Nice try dude

[Adrian Newby]

I've somewhat had that idea before: putting proper wings on a car configured in such a way as to reduce downforce - drag - at a certain speed when such downforce is unnecessary. Then I realized that would just be countering Drag A with Drag B.

(Looking through this thread, I do find it more than a little amusing that regarding the Red Bull, drag occurring over the top of the nose is, generally speaking, insignificant. Regarding the Ferrari, however, it's critical, and their design is crude. It's always the little things that crack me up.)

In this case, once you break the seals on the front wing and the undertray, you lose a lot of downforce for a fairly small amount of drag in a fairly insignificant location.

I think drag over the top of the nose on all of the cars is pretty insignificant, not just the RB8. And I include the Ferrari in that.

Sorry, but I do think the design of the Ferrari is boxy and crude. It's like they don't even own a wind tunnel (which, apparently, would have been an improvement over what they did with theirs last year (sorry, couldn't help myself)). Honestly though, it looks to me like it was designed by someone who wanted to put the least amount of time into it they could - slap the slab sides on it and call it done. I very much hope I am wrong and it is more refined than it looks. Alonso did get a fast lap or two out of it in Jerez, so... fingers crossed.

The biggest problem I have with Ferrari's nose/hump this year is that, like the rest of the chassis, they have seemingly made no attempt to... do anything with it... in particular they have done nothing to mitigate its effects on the flow of the surrounding air. I don't think it will do much for them, but, being the basic design, what it will do for us is give us a baseline to judge the other designs against.