Red Bull RB8 Renault

[hardingfv32]

Would you also say the same about the hole in tip of the nose in past years?

Please expand.

Brian

[Richard]

You dismiss the idea that the hole could be used for cooling, and your reasoning can also apply to last year.

So by that logic last year's cooling hole was not for cooling either?

[PlatinumZealot]

Brian, there is no problem with black thermal insulation as long as the temperatures don't get very high. The only problem with black is that it absorbs electromagnetic radiation, but that would only come into play at temperatures of 500C or more, I think. Unless that arm is supposed to be point blank in the middle of the exhaust plume all the time, I don't think it has to be designed to withstand more than 200-300C (wild guesstimation), and in that case, black should be no problem. The idea would be for the exhaust plume to just graze it. Plus the piece (and the exhaust's position and angle) could still change before Australia.

Black absorbs ALL forms radiation - no exemption. And radiation from fire is in the form of electromagnetic radiation. Infrared radiation - visible light radiation and some higher frequencies like a tiny bit of UV.

[hardingfv32]

So by that logic last year's cooling hole was not for cooling either?

Are we now talking about the slot (letterbox opening?) on the lower surface at the nose/chassis interface? My latest statements were in regard it the letter box opening on the top of the new 2012 nose.

Before I bore you with an 'off point' answer, I should check.

Brian

[CHT]

Its a cooling hole for something driver or KERS If it didn't work it wouldn't have made it to the car. No need to waste page after page on it.

His point is that it is not for driver cooling. Nothing has change that prevents the teams from using a simple nose tip opening if they wish to cool the driver. You would not have to modify the front bulk head if driver cooling was your goal.

It is also not KERS cooling because you can not duct the air flow through the foot/leg area without increasing the size of the chassis. The interior dimensions are clearly controlled in to rules. The exterior of the chassis in this area looks very much like the interior shape specified in the rules, so we can assume this is what controls the chassis size in this area.

So, there is no logical way to presume it is for cooling. the facts do not add up. It is some kind of aero benefit or maybe a misdirection on the part of RB. What if it does not matter. RB does this to cause confusion. They are the wonder-boys after all.

Brian

What do YOU think the inlet is used for, if not cooling? Easy to say what it isn't for, but let's hear your concept of what it is for.

My $0.02: driver cooling used to be at the nose tip. RB had the option to place it there, or at another high pressure region. The new rule set caused most teams to have the nose bump which causes a region of high pressure. The rules also mandate a maximum size for this opening. Therefore the opening has moved this year to a region of high pressure that hasn't been there in the past, and it is sized according to the regs (that's why it wasn't around in previous years, and that's why it's not bigger this year).

I read that some engineers were having a laugh after reading Newey's comment that the letterbox hole is for cooling drivers.

Sure their drivers are going to get wet feet when it rain. perhaps even flooding the cockpit

[Pierce89]

can we please get off the nose vent? [-o<
Example: Have you guy's seen how "shrinkwrapped" that RB8 rearend is?

Come on guys, it's not hard.

[raymondu999]

Only problem is it's been slim since 2009! We like a little bit of variety in life

[rayden]

I read that some engineers were having a laugh after reading Newey's comment that the letterbox hole is for cooling drivers.

Sure their drivers are going to get wet feet when it rain. perhaps even flooding the cockpit

didn't stop all the teams putting holes in the nose for driver cooling purposes previously.

or are you saying this specific design lends itself to more water capture than the old solutions??

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Wind speed sensor on the RW endplate?

right click>view image

[Shrieker]

I have an idea about the slot at the front. Some members have already pointed out that the air going in there might be ducted to somewhere else(including the splitter area), and I figured, "hell, why not just the underside of the bulkhead, right in front of the splitter ?"

Why ? Well, the nose have been lowered, that means losing some of the air that goes under the nose, why not make the step useful by adding a slot in the middle of it and directing air towards the under of the bulkhead, recovering some air flow lost by the lowered nose ? It adds drag no question, but could aid in feeding more air towards the underside.

Could it be as simple as that ?

[dieguezzz]

Wind speed sensor on the RW endplate?

And device to check diffuser efficiency... pretty cool

[Mandrake]

can we please get off the nose vent? [-o<
Example: Have you guy's seen how "shrinkwrapped" that RB8 rearend is?

Come on guys, it's not hard.

RB for reference:

I've posted a question concerning sidepods in the MGP Thread, but apparently it was not really recognised there.

The striking difference between RedBull and all the other cars is the way the sidepods merge with the floor. It's a very fluent transition at the sides and a unique flat solution at the end. MGP still has an undercut towards the rear suspension whereas RedBull has a flat panel.....just from the looks of it, and I know looks don't tell too much about speed, it lookes miles better and more efficient in regards to feeding air towards the diffuser.

Has this been discussed anywhere? Because I just don't understand why teams do not try to get close to this result with their cars....

[dieguezzz]

can we please get off the nose vent? [-o<
Example: Have you guy's seen how "shrinkwrapped" that RB8 rearend is?

Come on guys, it's not hard.

[img]http://img2.auto-motor-und-sport.de/Mer ... 69.jpg[img]

RB for reference:

[img]http://cdn-0.motorsport.com/static/img/ ... 10.jpg[img]

I've posted a question concerning sidepods in the MGP Thread, but apparently it was not really recognised there.

The striking difference between RedBull and all the other cars is the way the sidepods merge with the floor. It's a very fluent transition at the sides and a unique flat solution at the end. MGP still has an undercut towards the rear suspension whereas RedBull has a flat panel.....just from the looks of it, and I know looks don't tell too much about speed, it lookes miles better and more efficient in regards to feeding air towards the diffuser.

Has this been discussed anywhere? Because I just don't understand why teams do not try to get close to this result with their cars....

I see what you are thinking, the redbull indeed looks next gen.

[shelly]

yes I think it is a interesting point to. The back of the rbr sidepod is tapered form the base to the top, with the widest part being the lowest one; most other teams have isntead a narrow section a the base, the a bulge, than tapered again. I think it is related to exiting some cooling air form the back instead of channelling it in the top exit.

[bhall]

I think it is related to exiting some cooling air form the back instead of channelling it in the top exit.

And I think you would be correct.