I'm not sure what you mean Pup? I don't think the reason for the tunnel is under discussion, McLaren achieve the same thing without a tunnel.Pup wrote:Hey everybody, I'm new here and was wondering if you guys have any idea what Red Bull are trying to accomplish with their exhaust?
Just kidding. Oh, how I kid.
Personally, I think y'alls problem is that you're thinking too much about the tunnel and not enough about what makes it. That is, the tunnel has always been there - it's just that they hadn't pointed it out for you.
Brian, let's just agree to disagree.hardingfv32 wrote:
It is my claim that even if the flow is routed to the diffuser edge it is of no value for sealing.
Brian
Hey Neweby, we can add Scarbs to our side.Adrian Newby wrote:Brian, let's just agree to disagree.hardingfv32 wrote:
It is my claim that even if the flow is routed to the diffuser edge it is of no value for sealing.
Brian
You don't think the exhaust is intended to seal the diffuser, so you look for numbers that tell you that.
We think the exhaust is intended to seal the diffuser, and we will always believe Adrian Newey's numbers over yours.
I have asked an interesting question. My though is if it can not be demonstrated that this exhaust flow can seal the diffuser, then there is no reason to route it there.Adrian Newby wrote: let's just agree to disagree.
Nice field work, Crucial!!! Well done, Sir!Crucial_Xtreme wrote:Hey Neweby, we can add Scarbs to our side.Adrian Newby wrote:Brian, let's just agree to disagree.hardingfv32 wrote:
It is my claim that even if the flow is routed to the diffuser edge it is of no value for sealing.
Brian
You don't think the exhaust is intended to seal the diffuser, so you look for numbers that tell you that.
We think the exhaust is intended to seal the diffuser, and we will always believe Adrian Newey's numbers over yours.
I mean it's not a coincidence Ferrari, RB & McLaren all tried similar solutions. All with the same intention...
Sorry, I have no clue why those pictures are shown and what on them proves flow goes inboard.bhallg2k wrote:I guess I needed to be a little more explicit.
I think the "inboarders" have won the day.
(You know what I hate more than being wrong? Having to say it twice.)
Well we lost Bhall so we needed another voice.Adrian Newby wrote:
Nice field work, Crucial!!! Well done, Sir!
Well, you picked a good one with Scarbs! =D> Not that he would have fallen for it, but nice work not presenting it as a "leading" question to him. A simple, direct question and a simple, direct answer.Crucial_Xtreme wrote:Well we lost Bhall so we needed another voice.Adrian Newby wrote:
Nice field work, Crucial!!! Well done, Sir!
I just don't get how some don't see it.
Yes, it's two different ways of looking at it. You are saying that if there isn't enough flow, it doesn't matter where the exhaust is meant to go. And we are saying that if Adrian Newey intends for the exhaust to go there, he would have first determined there was enough exhaust flow to get the job done.hardingfv32 wrote:I have asked an interesting question. My though is if it can not be demonstrated that this exhaust flow can seal the diffuser, then there is no reason to route it there.Adrian Newby wrote: let's just agree to disagree.
Brian
What does the flow do when it gets to the edge of the diffuser? How is it made to do something useful? How does it seal the diffuser? Why route it there if you can not demonstrate value?Crucial_Xtreme wrote:I just don't get how some don't see it.
Please expand on the 'job to be done'.Adrian Newby wrote: to get the job done.
If you want flow to seal the edge of the diffuser, why would you route some of the body air flow away with the tunnel? I know you are claiming that this makes it better for the exhaust flow to make its way to the edge, but why not use a system that routes all flows to the edge?Pup wrote:My opinion is that the philosophy of the RB's rear end is in conflict with McLaren's exhaust solution, and the 'bridge', which is what's important, was Newey's strategy of resolving that conflict and keeping the airflows separate. It didn't seem to have worked.
Apply your argument to the RB7, and then realise how invalid it is.hardingfv32 wrote:If you want flow to seal the edge of the diffuser, why would you route some of the body air flow away with the tunnel? I know you are claiming that this makes it better for the exhaust flow to make its way to the edge, but why not use a system that routes all flows to the edge?Pup wrote:My opinion is that the philosophy of the RB's rear end is in conflict with McLaren's exhaust solution, and the 'bridge', which is what's important, was Newey's strategy of resolving that conflict and keeping the airflows separate. It didn't seem to have worked.
