Red Bull RB8 Renault

[Ozan]

it's normal for Redbull at monza. BTW,what was RB8's retirement reason, does anyone know ?

[Owen.C93]

it's normal for Redbull at monza. BTW,what was RB8's retirement reason, does anyone know ?

Alternator again. You can see the cooling they added to it but maybe they were once again pushing the limits.

[Ozan]

it's normal for Redbull at monza. BTW,what was RB8's retirement reason, does anyone know ?

Alternator again. You can see the cooling they added to it but maybe they were once again pushing the limits.

I think the reason is newey's tight packaging.

[myurr]

it's normal for Redbull at monza. BTW,what was RB8's retirement reason, does anyone know ?

As others have said it was the alternator again for Vettel (third failure including two this weekend despite a new design for the last couple of races).

With Webber he made a mistake, spun the car, and flat spotted the tyres down to the canvas. Rather than pit for tyres they retired the car due to the vibrations. Presumably they'll get a free gearbox change that way and save some milage on the engine.

[marcush.]

it's normal for Redbull at monza. BTW,what was RB8's retirement reason, does anyone know ?

Alternator again. You can see the cooling they added to it but maybe they were once again pushing the limits.

where can we see the additional alternator cooling?

[marcush.]

why not integrating the alternator into the low temperature cooling circuit of the kers? this would take care of all the peaks and kepp the alternator rock steady under all conditions erasing ALL the trouble in one stroke and making obsolete any ducting needed for that anciliary = better internal flow -

[Owen.C93]

it's normal for Redbull at monza. BTW,what was RB8's retirement reason, does anyone know ?

Alternator again. You can see the cooling they added to it but maybe they were once again pushing the limits.

where can we see the additional alternator cooling?

The silver duct on this side. Lotus also have one I think.

[Dragonfly]

Something I haven't thought about before - with KERS in the car do they use a separate alternator? I don't think voltage compatibility can be a factor. Or this is regarded as a more reliable solution in case of KERS failure.
Haven't looked so deep into KERS rules. Do they allow electric power to be used only for torque generation?

[simieski]

it's normal for Redbull at monza. BTW,what was RB8's retirement reason, does anyone know ?

As others have said it was the alternator again for Vettel (third failure including two this weekend despite a new design for the last couple of races).

With Webber he made a mistake, spun the car, and flat spotted the tyres down to the canvas. Rather than pit for tyres they retired the car due to the vibrations. Presumably they'll get a free gearbox change that way and save some milage on the engine.

Don't think that's quite how it works. A retirement doesn't mean a brand spanking new gearbox. The wording of the rules is something along the lines of a replacement can be fitted without penalty providing the technical delegate accept the retirement was beyond the control of the driver.

[myurr]

it's normal for Redbull at monza. BTW,what was RB8's retirement reason, does anyone know ?

As others have said it was the alternator again for Vettel (third failure including two this weekend despite a new design for the last couple of races).

With Webber he made a mistake, spun the car, and flat spotted the tyres down to the canvas. Rather than pit for tyres they retired the car due to the vibrations. Presumably they'll get a free gearbox change that way and save some milage on the engine.

Don't think that's quite how it works. A retirement doesn't mean a brand spanking new gearbox. The wording of the rules is something along the lines of a replacement can be fitted without penalty providing the technical delegate accept the retirement was beyond the control of the driver.

How about "flat spotted tyres put a huge vibration through the gear box causing fatigue and retirement from the race."

[browney]

Is the lack of top speed from the car a tactical (ie. they choose to run more wing and shorter ratios) or a technical limitation of the car?

I'm not sure down-force, no mater the cost, is the correct strategy for this season.

[Jackles-UK]

A bit of both I think. They have been able to get away with in the last couple of years because they could run such a low DF setup and still create the 'articicial' downforce with their superior EBD to give them the edge.

That being said it does show something that Vettel & Kimi were the only Renault engined cars to make it into Q3, and even then they only just sneaked it! Their top speed is being hampered slightly by a comparative lack in power to the Merc engines and it's not the first time (China, Canada, Spa and now Monza) that the drivers have suffered from and complained about it.

[aero expert 807]

If they were able to make such a good EBD why cann't they put their heads together and come up with another brilliant way to get more downforce without sacrificing drag?
They could use it till the end of the season when it will problably be banned.

[FoxHound]

The blaming of Renault is an easy scapegoat.

When the car performs on tracks like Monaco, Valencia and Hungary, its the vaunted Adrian Newey genius. Yet we forget, these tracks require torque characteristics that the Ferrari or Mercedes units do not have. So while it may not have the outright oomph at Monza, it will make up for it at places such as these.
We then also have the strenuous demands that Newey and his team are putting on Renualt to come up with ever more intricate ways for them to fit the motor and its auxiliaries into his ideological desgin ethos. This will inevitably lead to failures.

I would imagine Red Bull's over reliance on the EBD, and its benefits are more to blame for their current position. Somthing Newey has gone on record as saying.

[raymondu999]

Is the lack of top speed from the car a tactical (ie. they choose to run more wing and shorter ratios) or a technical limitation of the car?

I'm not sure down-force, no mater the cost, is the correct strategy for this season.

I think perhaps a lower-df configuration of the car is potentially less efficient? You go 1 step forward on the straights, but 2 steps back in the corners? If their car is so efficient at producing downforce, it would mean that to reduce just a little bit of drag you'd need to cut back on a lot of downforce.

When the car performs on tracks like Monaco, Valencia and Hungary, its the vaunted Adrian Newey genius. Yet we forget, these tracks require torque characteristics that the Ferrari or Mercedes units do not have. So while it may not have the outright oomph at Monza, it will make up for it at places such as these.

Don't forget though that a part of the reason why is comparison to Lotus. Lotus shared the Monza slump, and it did not share, for example, the Monaco speed.