Red Bull RB9 Renault

[Unc1e_M0nty]

I think all teams will have to be more conservative with front wing flexing this year, one charcteristic of the new tyre construction is the weaker side walls, this results in more vertical movement so ride heights will have to allow for this (increase).

[BreezyRacer]

I think that much of the reason for the tunnel is to trim away turbulence ahead of the exhaust pattern to the floor. This would vastly help the exhaust flow to be consistent. The RB is the only car I have seen to put down a distinct exhaust pattern on it's bodywork and floor ..

[stefan_]

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/u ... 013-23.jpg

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/u ... 013-12.jpg

[Gridlock]

Interesting how low RB can run their FW. Game over, RB9 is here.

That's a little bit premature to predict now, is it?

not really, but I hope i m wrong.

It's a car that's been developed for nearly 2 years now, the odds are definitely in favour of a 2011 go-around.

I haven't seen that much rake since I worked in B&Q

[avatar]

Is it just me or is the left side of the f/w closer to the ground in this shot?
It doesn't look like the car's jacked up anywhere - any ideas?

Jerez - Day 4 (08.02.2013)

[zonk]

floor in garage isn't strait ?

[radosav]

car is probably jacked from behind, but not full so rear suspension 'relaxed' and rear tyres touched the ground.

[froggy]

Is it just me or is the left side of the f/w closer to the ground in this shot?
It doesn't look like the car's jacked up anywhere - any ideas?

Its the writing on the floor that's throwing you off.

[Richard]

Probably the car is parked slightly off square relative to the paint on the floor. Your brain assumes the near parallel line is exactly parallel, your eyes see convergence, so you deduce a slope.

Makes a change from the usual questions we get about phantom reflections!

[gary123]

Is it just me or is the left side of the f/w closer to the ground in this shot?
It doesn't look like the car's jacked up anywhere - any ideas?

Jerez - Day 4 (08.02.2013)

look at the front wing,is almost touching the floor

[turbof1]

Is that legal? Wasn't there a minimum clearance from the ground?

[wesley123]

Nope, measurements are taken from the reference plane, and never from the ground, since that is variable.

[turbof1]

Nope, measurements are taken from the reference plane, and never from the ground, since that is variable.

The car is running alot of rake, then that would probably the reason why it so low. I have to wonder though, with a full tank and with alot of downforce on it, if that FW isn't going to be damaged by scraping the ground, even with stiff suspension.

[Juzh]

Nope, measurements are taken from the reference plane, and never from the ground, since that is variable.

The car is running alot of rake, then that would probably the reason why it so low. I have to wonder though, with a full tank and with alot of downforce on it, if that FW isn't going to be damaged by scraping the ground, even with stiff suspension.

More fuel in the back --> more lift in front? Isnt that how its supposed to be?

[aral]

Nope, measurements are taken from the reference plane, and never from the ground, since that is variable.

The car is running alot of rake, then that would probably the reason why it so low. I have to wonder though, with a full tank and with alot of downforce on it, if that FW isn't going to be damaged by scraping the ground, even with stiff suspension.

More fuel in the back --> more lift in front? Isnt that how its supposed to be?

Good point. Is the height of the front wing measured when the fuel tank is full? That would lift the front, but as fuel was used, the rear would rise and the front wing would get closer to the ground. Remember too, that as the fuel load lightened, the car would also get faster, so a lower front wing would then be more of an advantage.