Red Bull RB8 Renault

[jz11]

It really seems like Red Bull has figured out a way to use an "elastic" nose to transmit those unsettling forces to the mass of the front wing, which, as it shakes, rattles and rolls, then dampens the effect those forces have on the rest of the car. This is precisely what Renault's tuned mass damper did in 2005-06; it was just hidden from sight within the nose of the car in a package that more closely resembled mass dampers that are commonly found in various other applications.

Incidentally, Renault also had a tuned mass damper mounted on the rear of the R26, or at least they planned to have one. It might be asking too much of the rear wing to do more than just create downforce, but you never know...

one thing I'm suspicious of this nosecone-wing-tmd setup, is that it is relatively difficult and expensive to tune, what I mean is that, it most likely will work only on certain types of kerbs at certain speeds, with a dedicated, adjustable TMD device it is much easier, you can fine tune it whenever, but this nose cone, if I remember the rules correctly from the rules, can contain only structural parts, so the stiffness is as it is from when the part leaves the autoclave, you cannot add any reinforcement or remove anything, because that would require a new crash test be performed on the cone

thus I would think that this is more of a positive side effect, that might have been anticipated, and turned out to work is some specific circumstances, but not a real baseline feature in the design of the nosecone


a bit more thoughts about the laminate:
using aramid (kevlar) fibers instead of carbon, aramid can bend more easy than the carbon fiber will, but it will not stretch, and if you would want to make something flex like that nose cone without any notable damage to the outside surface, you have to use a resin that will flex when fully cured, there is no real other way, don't compare this to the front wind flexing, or aeroplane wing flex, it's different

also, a part of that shape, even with only 3 layers of 150-200gr/sqm CF fabric, will turn out to be very strong, I wouldn't expect it to get damaged from hitting a styrofoam, not at 100km/h, I've seen factory made carbon fiber side view mirrors on rolled rally cars, where at some point the were scraping on tarmac/dirt/gravel, and still they remain structurally sound, mounting points usually shatter, but the shape remains stiff, even if it has a crack or two, it certainly doesn't turn all rubbery like

[godlameroso]

But they swing in a different way. RB FW changes aoa, like the now banned mclaren fw. Others FW just vibrate up and down.

You can see others flexing in a similar way, more or less intensely. As bhallg2k wrote the drivers didn't do us the favour to give an exact comparison opportunity.

No. Look at 0.14 how the RB FW change the angle of FW an then at 0.31 how the Williams FW oscillate while the angle of FW remain the same.

BTW i think that those fast oscillation are not good for FW aerodynamics. IMHO RB FW has a double function:
it flex on high load (i.e on straight ) to lower drag
it vibrate on kerbs acting as a mass damper

Good thing birds disagree with you or they'd never get off the ground.

[Cam]

BTW i think that those fast oscillation are not good for FW aerodynamics. IMHO RB FW has a double function:
it flex on high load (i.e on straight ) to lower drag
it vibrate on kerbs acting as a mass damper

That's a really interesting thought. Why solve one problem when you can solve two. Scary thing is, Newey & co has brains good enough to come up with that. If that is indeed the case, Red Bull are on another planet compared to the rest. It'll be very interesting to see how all this washes out and if it fact any of these theories are correct. A lot sound very plausible, it has to be said.

[.poz]

BTW i think that those fast oscillation are not good for FW aerodynamics.

Good thing birds disagree with you or they'd never get off the ground.

Not to mention hornets.... but afaik they use vortex. Again afaik most of the down-force on the front wing is created by laminar flux not turbulent flux

Are you suggesting that Newey is so ingenious that he designed a FW that vibrate to create vortex like a bird wing ?

[turbof1]

BTW i think that those fast oscillation are not good for FW aerodynamics. IMHO RB FW has a double function:
it flex on high load (i.e on straight ) to lower drag
it vibrate on kerbs acting as a mass damper

That's a really interesting thought. Why solve one problem when you can solve two. Scary thing is, Newey & co has brains good enough to come up with that. If that is indeed the case, Red Bull are on another planet compared to the rest. It'll be very interesting to see how all this washes out and if it fact any of these theories are correct. A lot sound very plausible, it has to be said.

It isn't so much about having the brains, but more having the experience and the data: red bull is doing extensive research in aeroelasticity for years now. For instance carbonfibre that bends: with all the technical regulations it's enormously difficult to find the right lay up of the layers and the composition, but you once found that it is almost childsplay to replicate that. Of all things the databank they have on that must be more worth then their energy drinks: red bull makes you fly but their carbonfibre technology effectively makes the wings clap. Must be worth tenths of billions due it can be used in aircraft, spacecraft and military.

[bhall]

one thing I'm suspicious of this nosecone-wing-tmd setup, is that it is relatively difficult and expensive to tune, what I mean is that, it most likely will work only on certain types of kerbs at certain speeds, with a dedicated, adjustable TMD device it is much easier, you can fine tune it whenever, but this nose cone, if I remember the rules correctly from the rules, can contain only structural parts, so the stiffness is as it is from when the part leaves the autoclave, you cannot add any reinforcement or remove anything, because that would require a new crash test be performed on the cone

thus I would think that this is more of a positive side effect, that might have been anticipated, and turned out to work is some specific circumstances, but not a real baseline feature in the design of the nosecone


a bit more thoughts about the laminate:
using aramid (kevlar) fibers instead of carbon, aramid can bend more easy than the carbon fiber will, but it will not stretch, and if you would want to make something flex like that nose cone without any notable damage to the outside surface, you have to use a resin that will flex when fully cured, there is no real other way, don't compare this to the front wind flexing, or aeroplane wing flex, it's different

also, a part of that shape, even with only 3 layers of 150-200gr/sqm CF fabric, will turn out to be very strong, I wouldn't expect it to get damaged from hitting a styrofoam, not at 100km/h, I've seen factory made carbon fiber side view mirrors on rolled rally cars, where at some point the were scraping on tarmac/dirt/gravel, and still they remain structurally sound, mounting points usually shatter, but the shape remains stiff, even if it has a crack or two, it certainly doesn't turn all rubbery like

I believe ESPImperium posted a story earlier this year that explained how Red Bull used a new front wing at every race last season. The purpose of that was to have optimal flexing characteristics for each circuit. Now, combined with the following regulations concerning the front crash structure and its testing procedure - not the mention the extra-RRA status of Red Bull Racing's chief "supplier," Red Bull Technology - and I really don't think it's so far fetched to posit the use of a single, FIA-approved crash structure wrapped in an "elastic" material of sorts that constitutes the exposed portion of the nose from which the front wing and camera housings are mounted. (Check out hollus' post a few pages back.) To me, that's only as far fetched as the idea that one team can completely dominate a season from start to finish in an era of restricted regulations, restricted budgets and restricted testing and do it against perennial powerhouses like Ferrari and McLaren, all with the weakest "big name" engine in the sport. But, hey, I've been wrong before.

15.4.3 An impact absorbing structure must be fitted in front of the survival cell. This structure need not be an integral part of the survival cell but must be solidly attached to it.

It must have a minimum external cross section, in horizontal projection, of 9000mm² at a point 50mm behind its forward-most point and, furthermore, no part of the cross-section taken at this point may lie more than 500mm above the reference plane.

Frontal impact test :
‐ Front impact structure including properly attached front wing hangers.
‐ A fully representative 500mm wide front wing section. If there is provision within the front
wing to carry ballast the lightest version must be tested.
‐ Ventilation scoops.
‐ Any kind of externally fitted winglets including a dummy camera.
‐ Any kind of externally fitted brackets.
‐ Any part or component which is forward the front end of the survival cell such as the steering
rack, hydraulic lines for the power steering, brake fluid containers etc., even if these fall
outside the deformation zone.

[Nando]

Looks like the sidepod tunnels have been merged?

Must have been before Abu Dhabi Race,

this picture is from Saturday,


And from today or yesterday,

[raymondu999]

How interesting. I don't remember anyone catching/mentioning that.

[jz11]

I believe ESPImperium posted a story earlier this year that explained how Red Bull used a new front wing at every race last season. The purpose of that was to have optimal flexing characteristics for each circuit. Now, combined with the following regulations concerning the front crash structure and its testing procedure - not the mention the extra-RRA status of Red Bull Racing's chief "supplier," Red Bull Technology - and I really don't think it's so far fetched to posit the use of a single, FIA-approved crash structure wrapped in an "elastic" material of sorts that constitutes the exposed portion of the nose from which the front wing and camera housings are mounted. (Check out hollus' post a few pages back.) To me, that's only as far fetched as the idea that one team can completely dominate a season from start to finish in an era of restricted regulations, restricted budgets and restricted testing and do it against perennial powerhouses like Ferrari and McLaren, all with the weakest "big name" engine in the sport. But, hey, I've been wrong before.

I'm not dismissing the whole concept of nosecone-wing-TMD, just trying to say that, in my opinion, it is less significant than some people think, basically, what it does, it improves tire contact patch while riding kerbs at certain speed

anyway, they need to move (or just add additional ones) speed traps from straight line sections to corner exits, for us to have a bit more info to speculate on

[flyboy2160]

.... Must be worth tenths of billions due it can be used in aircraft, spacecraft and military.

not really. you see newey's genius, but you don't see the genius composite engineers in the industries you mention. tailoring composite layups to get unusual bending proprties is decades old news. (the germans may have even done it with plywood in WWII!!!) the most prominent that comes to mind are the forward swept wings on the Grumman/NASA X-29. the layup was tailored to avoid the AOA twisting that normally would have come from wing bending. i assume the russians are doing something similar with the new SU-47.

while i'm at it, i'll also give jackie stewart a huge amount of grief for his statement years ago that "f1 cars are the most technically advanced machines on the planet." he also doesn't have a clue about what goes into designing and building a state-of-the-art fighter plane.

though it is advanced and enjoyable, f1 is not the "pinnacle of engineering" its fans think it is.

[jtc127]

while i'm at it, i'll also give jackie stewart a huge amount of grief for his statement years ago that "f1 cars are the most technically advanced machines on the planet." he also doesn't have a clue about what goes into designing and building a state-of-the-art fighter plane.

though it is advanced and enjoyable, f1 is not the "pinnacle of engineering" its fans think it is.

Most fighter jets aren't state of the art by the time they make it to production, and F1 could be right on the bleeding edge with defense aerospace if it weren't for the rules stifling most of the innovation opportunities.

One thing you do have to give them is the blistering pace of the development cycle. From concept to CFD to wind tunnel to the grid in days!

[shelly]

Fantastic insight from scarbs. It reminds me of 2007 monaco gp coulthard accident with rbr at the chicane. Its nose moved a lot but stayed intact like it was made of rubber. FIberglass maybe?

I was the one who told scarbs,

Fantastic insight form N12ck then! I have tried to fine a picture /movie of the monaco gp2007 in which coulthard nose bends a lot. I remember that the people who saw that were impressed, but as rbr was not as competitive as now, the whole story did not make so much noise.
(also internet was much weaker at the time. it is amazing to see how this observation from n12ck has spread quickly on blogs, sites and forum)

[Intego]

Race Pictures:
http://www.motorsport-magazin.com/forme ... 128,0.html

Race:
F1 Monaco GP 2007
(no good footage of the incident, first corner)

I believe the story was another: Red Bull were under suspicion to use a rear wing at Spain (the race before) that bend backwards under load to decrease drag. They didn't bring it to Monaco and the FIA changed the load tests for Canada. But it was Mclaren who was under suspicion to have a flexing front wing that year. I didn't read or hear from any nose bending stories though, but I might be wrong ...

[PlatinumZealot]

The nose is flexible but the pylons are not. This is nothing new.
the nose is plastic after all.

[Kiril Varbanov]

Latest word from La Gazzetta and Andrea Cremonesi is that FIA said OK:

"Word has arrived from Paris that the parts in question are not structural and are not subject to the rigid tests other parts of the car are," he explained.
"The FIA have made it known that the 'soft nature' of the nose is what is required in order to avoid dangerous consequences should the cone come into contact with the side of another car," Cremonesi explained.