2013 Testing - Jerez 5-8 Feb

[GrizzleBoy]

The red bull can be mighty fast in a straight line as well with some changes, as demonstrated by vettel in abu dhabi. Their usual low top end speed is by choice, not because of excessive drag. So the car is indeed very efficient.

The changes they used in abu dhabi are illegal in 2013. They were specifically designed to remove some of the abnormally high drag of the car.

All of the cars have similar levels of power, low top speed can only be explained by drag.

Your comment makes me scratch my head....Final drive ratios do not play a role in top speed?

And please outline the changes RedBull made that will be illegal this year. I doubt any change would contravene 2013's rules.

DDRS?

[beelsebob]

The changes they used in abu dhabi are illegal in 2013. They were specifically designed to remove some of the abnormally high drag of the car.

All of the cars have similar levels of power, low top speed can only be explained by drag.

Your comment makes me scratch my head....Final drive ratios do not play a role in top speed?

And please outline the changes RedBull made that will be illegal this year. I doubt any change would contravene 2013's rules.

DDRS?

That's what I was aluding to, yes – Red Bull regained top speed towards the end of 2012, exactly because of their DDRS beam wing.

[beelsebob]

All of the cars have similar levels of power, low top speed can only be explained by drag.

The assumption that all cars have the same power is wrong. It can differ quite a lot, Mercedes having the highest power, Ferrari is off by about 10% and Renault is somewhere in between.

No. Merc enginge is without a shadow of doubt the most powerfull of the 3. Then it is ferrari, and then renault something like 10% off the merc.

The Renault engine is not 70bhp down on the Merc, no. The renault cars would not stand a chance were that the case.

[turbof1]

I would go for 3-5%.

[beelsebob]

I would go for 3-5%.

I can believe that, but this gets us back to the cars all being roughly as powerful as each other. Top speeds are dominated by drag, not by engine power. Note that even Marussia were posting higher top speeds with their underpowered Coswerth, because again – top speeds are drag dominated, not engine power.

[turbof1]

I would go for 3-5%.

I can believe that, but this gets us back to the cars all being roughly as powerful as each other. Top speeds are dominated by drag, not by engine power. Note that even Marussia were posting higher top speeds with their underpowered Coswerth, because again – top speeds are drag dominated, not engine power.

In Red Bull's case it is the gearing and overall set up philosophy. It isn't like their car is more draggy, it is they very often run rear wings with a higher AoA, plus they are very well known to make their end gears short. The proof is in the pudding: when they had that incident at Abu Dhabi, they made set up changes with different gear ratios and different wing set up. Suddenly they were able to reach a much higher top speed.

[Juzh]

Yeah 3-5% is more reasonable. But as we can see again and again, merc powered cars are almost always fastest in speed traps, so there is something to it.

[beelsebob]

I would go for 3-5%.

I can believe that, but this gets us back to the cars all being roughly as powerful as each other. Top speeds are dominated by drag, not by engine power. Note that even Marussia were posting higher top speeds with their underpowered Coswerth, because again – top speeds are drag dominated, not engine power.

In Red Bull's case it is the gearing and overall set up philosophy.

The gearing is set like that to match an aero philosphy. They haven't just gone "you know what, we'll run short gears, no one else will figure out what we're doing and adopt it" – the reason other teams aren't adopting it is because it doesn't match their slipperier car philosophy.

The proof is in the pudding: when they had that incident at Abu Dhabi, they made set up changes with different gear ratios and different wing set up. Suddenly they were able to reach a much higher top speed.

Yes – again, because they changed the aero setup of the car, as well as the gearing. Longer gearing would not have made any difference if they couldn't achieve those higher top speeds due to drag.

[flynfrog]

I would go for 3-5%.

I can believe that, but this gets us back to the cars all being roughly as powerful as each other. Top speeds are dominated by drag, not by engine power. Note that even Marussia were posting higher top speeds with their underpowered Coswerth, because again – top speeds are drag dominated, not engine power.

Drag limited is power limited. If you run out of engine to push your car through the air you are both drag and power limited.

Fluid drag is a cube function so it can mask some pretty big differences in power though. IE. 10 hp difference might only be .5 mph at the top.

[turbof1]

Other teams infact have adopted it. Not to such extreme lengths as Red Bull, but both Ferrari and McLaren use shorter gears too then a few years ago.
It's of course not something that is without disadvantages. It leaves you more vulnerable during the race. A good example of that would be Monza: in 2011 Red Bull used unusual short gears for that circuit, but in 2012, when they did not had a performance advantage, they didn't opt for that anymore.

The gearing is set like that to match an aero philosphy. They haven't just gone "you know what, we'll run short gears, no one else will figure out what we're doing and adopt it" – the reason other teams aren't adopting it is because it doesn't match their slipperier car philosophy.

But that also works the other way around: shedding drag is useless without changing the gearing. It an and-and story.

Anyway, this all deviated too much from the main point: the car isn't more draggy by design. It is one of the best L/D ratio cars out there, if not the best.

[beelsebob]

I would go for 3-5%.

I can believe that, but this gets us back to the cars all being roughly as powerful as each other. Top speeds are dominated by drag, not by engine power. Note that even Marussia were posting higher top speeds with their underpowered Coswerth, because again – top speeds are drag dominated, not engine power.

Drag limited is power limited. If you run out of engine to push your car through the air you are both drag and power limited.

Fluid drag is a cube function so it can mask some pretty big differences in power though. IE. 10 hp difference might only be .5 mph at the top.

Exactly my point – top speed differences are determined by the amount of drag on the car, not by subtle differences in engine power between teams.

Anyway, this all deviated too much from the main point: the car isn't more draggy by design. It is one of the best L/D ratio cars out there, if not the best.

Of course it's one of the best, it's a car from a top team. The question is is it the best. I don't think it is. I think McLaren's L/D was almost certainly significantly better than theirs last year, hence being able to beat the Red Bull through the high speed at CoTA while maintaining a higher top speed.

[CHT]

I thought what they did was changing the gear ratio and aero set up to maximize their straight line speed within the drs zone so that he can overtake the slower cars. Which part is illegal?

[beelsebob]

I thought what they did was changing the gear ratio and aero set up to maximize their straight line speed within the drs zone so that he can overtake the slower cars. Which part is illegal?

The DDRS part of it.

[PlatinumZealot]

The new Red Bull looks a step forward from the car that ended the 2012 season fighting for wins with McLaren. Aerodynamically it is efficient, as Adrian Newey’s cars always are. It’s not done any eye catching times yet; this is classic Red Bull, they don’t show their hand. As has been the trend in recent years, the Red Bull is the second slowest car on the straights: Vettel was clocked at 291km/h in the speed trap, compared to 305km/h for Force India and Lotus.

The parts I have highlighted each contradict each other do they not? Claiming that the Red Bull is aerodynamically efficient, but is also nearly the slowest in a straight line? Also I was under the impression that Newey's cars have never really been very efficient in the sense that he has always gone for the high DF/low top speed approach? Assuming that I'm understanding 'aerodynamically efficient' to mean high DF/low drag?

RedBull is damn aero-efficient. What you see is gearing... the bulls don't need top speed because they can accelerate like a bat out of hell.

[PlatinumZealot]

A little gift