Red Bull RB9 Renault

[beelsebob]

I've lately wondered if Red Bull's recent aero-dominance came at the expense of sound suspension development. Good aero requires a very stable platform, which isn't exactly conducive to making best use of the tires (see: W04, W03). Such a platform can also penalize low-speed traction, which isn't very conducive to achieving high top-speeds (see: F2012). Neither are competitive problems as long as you have durable tires that can take the abuse and a level of overall aerodynamic efficiency that overcomes the lack of sheer speed (see: RB8, RB7, RB6, etc). But, as with a car's total aerodynamic system, if you change one thing - in this case the tires - everything will change with it.

That to me, sounds like the most convincing theory I've heard so far about RedBull's tyre woes. If the suspension is set up to keep the car level, and the aero working well, at the expense of the tyres, then that would very much explain comments along the lines of "we have more downforce but can't use it because of the tyres". They're saying that in order to preserve tyres they're having to set up the car in a way that compromises their aero package.

To that, I say, tough titties – you should have designed the car with the tyres in mind, and designed the aero to work even with suspension that's more forgiving to the tyres.

[Ferraripilot]

I've lately wondered if Red Bull's recent aero-dominance came at the expense of sound suspension development. Good aero requires a very stable platform, which isn't exactly conducive to making best use of the tires (see: W04, W03). Such a platform can also penalize low-speed traction, which isn't very conducive to achieving high top-speeds (see: F2012). Neither are competitive problems as long as you have durable tires that can take the abuse and a level of overall aerodynamic efficiency that overcomes the lack of sheer speed (see: RB8, RB7, RB6, etc). But, as with a car's total aerodynamic system, if you change one thing - in this case the tires - everything will change with it.

That to me, sounds like the most convincing theory I've heard so far about RedBull's tyre woes. If the suspension is set up to keep the car level, and the aero working well, at the expense of the tyres, then that would very much explain comments along the lines of "we have more downforce but can't use it because of the tyres". They're saying that in order to preserve tyres they're having to set up the car in a way that compromises their aero package.

To that, I say, tough titties – you should have designed the car with the tyres in mind, and designed the aero to work even with suspension that's more forgiving to the tyres.

I had this same theory with W04 in essence suggesting the suspension is working the tires harder due to almost being too proactive in its stability control not to mention its multiple personalities based on speeds. I suspect the suspension for RB9 to a point as well has levied its performance based on working the tires equally as hard as aero works the chassis in general, this is why the car can be so quick everywhere. This is all counterpoint to an almost minimalist approach to working the tires (allowing aero to do more work than the suspension to the tires) that F138 and E21 show hence their qualy pace yet excellent race pace. Ferrari/Lotus have simplified their suspensions as I'm sure they hedged their season based on guessing the tires would fall apart more than ever, and they were right. All the while RB and especially MB have designed more active systems which supports Red Bulls need to turn down the aero a bit as their tires are simply being worked too hard by their suspension. At tracks such as Monaco though, MB and RB will be untouchable with these systems.

[bhall]

That to me, sounds like the most convincing theory I've heard so far about RedBull's tyre woes.
[...]

I'm certainly not the first person to put forward such an idea, but it's the one that makes the most sense to me.

Another aspect of the team's performance that sorta hammers home that idea is their starts. I can't recall how many times over the last couple of years that I've seen other drivers seemingly get the jump on Vettel or Webber when the lights go out, indicating much better low-speed traction from their cars, only to have one or both of them leave everyone else behind after the first corner when the cars are up to speed and the importance of a compliant suspension is minimized drastically. But, who knows?

(I should probably slightly amend what I said before about Red Bull's aero performance coming "at the expense of sound suspension development," because I don't want to imply ineptitude on their part. In previous years, they've done exactly what they needed to do to win, which is the hallmark of very successful development, and their suspension design is no doubt the result of the paths they've chosen. So far, it just appears that whatever they've carried over suspension-wise doesn't seem to translate too well to this season's challenges. I think they're gonna have to learn a new trick or two.)

[wesley123]

They run lower rear and front wing angles to reduce the amount of df they have. Why? Becuase they have more df, and that more df is hurting their tires really bad, so they had to take df out to make them last.

Then why can't they reduce it to the "optimum" and run the same race pace as Ferrari? It's clearly not ALL about too much DF.

Cause they are handicapped with that. Their car has more df in regular trim, but this just puts too much stress in the tires, so they have to tone it down, effectively handicapping themselves.

[dxpetrov]

I'm not sure they do have the down force advantage people claim. If they had more DF than everyone else, they should be sitting on pole. I'm starting to believe their excess tire wear just comes from a lack tire understanding. Maybe they're capable of more DF than other cars, but they don't seem to be running that way. Their poles in the wet and cold might have come from the fact that they abuse the tires(heating them up) rather than any DF advantage.

I was skeptical too of the RB claim that they were taking DF off of the car in order to better preserve the tyres but Mark Hughes from AutoSport says Pirelli, who have access to cars telemetry & data, confirm Red Bull do indeed have more DF than all the other teams. Which is interesting to say the very least.


http://app.racer.com/mobile/pages/appar ... eid=294013

Wow. What a brilliant article and as always what retarded comments by few here who still think that their ''knowledge'' is superior from anyone else's that could come up from this world.
To those - Please spare us from your ''thoughts'' and go back to your self obsessive introverted hole...
Most people here still want to learn more and are open to technically argument-ed [-o< discussion.

[Mui]

Cause they are handicapped with that. Their car has more df in regular trim, but this just puts too much stress in the tires, so they have to tone it down, effectively handicapping themselves.[/quote]

Are you saying that even If RB set up their cars to match the race pace of the Ferraris they would still have too much degradation?

[Huntresa]

Cause they are handicapped with that. Their car has more df in regular trim, but this just puts too much stress in the tires, so they have to tone it down, effectively handicapping themselves.

Are you saying that even If RB set up their cars to match the race pace of the Ferraris they would still have too much degradation?[/quote]

No i think he is saying cayse they have to tune --- down they wont get the race pace they want and can have.

[Artur Craft]

I suspect it has a lot to do with diffuser design, and not really to do with the exhausts. The car has had this characteristic of trimming off rear wing downforce since the RB6, so that suggests to me that RedBull have found a way of making the diffuser work significantly harder than the rest of the teams, but that it has a pretty damn high drag penalty.

I agree with everything you've said in the last page or two beside this. Is it not true that diffuser drag is tiny compared to wing drag, even if you're right about RB's higher DF diffuser (very likely imo.)

yes, diffuser is an expansion zone which generates low pressure under the car, the drag associated with it is indeed much smaller than the ones the FW and specially the RW create, or in other words, the L/D of the underbody is much better than of the wings

The reason for it being that the drag related to the underbody is due to the friction between the underfloor surface and the air(the more viscous the fluid, the more friction between the fluid's inumerous layers).

The drag related with the wing profiles, along with that of the underbody, is due to the collision between the frontal area of the surfaces and the airstream as well as the low pressure at the back of these profiles, as they are being "blocked"

You can see how the RW is the most draggy part of the car(wheels/tire's excluded) because it's almost a wall against the air, while the FW is much smoother and, therefore, generates a lot less drag.

Sorry for the little OT

About "Red Bull having the most df but being jeopardized by the Pirellis", I wouldn't trust that claim that Pirelli have access to all teams telemetry and data and, therefore, knows RB have the most df.

F1 teams are absolutely secret with their aerodynamics figures and don't share it with anybody, AFAIK. I very much doubt teams would be happy to have Pirelli accessing whatever data that could lead them to knowing the relative downforce of the cars.

For obvious reasons, you never know if there wouldn't be any of the Pirelli employees who would have access to it to be bribed and share it with a rival team

RB9 might remain the dominance it always had, since 2009, in downforce over the others but Pirelli shouldn't know that in details, I would bet

[wesley123]

About "Red Bull having the most df but being jeopardized by the Pirellis", I wouldn't trust that claim that Pirelli have access to all teams telemetry and data and, therefore, knows RB have the most df.

So how else is Pirelli going to make suitable tires that will last on every car(which they dont btw but that's a whole other story)?

They need that data to make the suitable tires, else it will be all guesstimates and they'll get it wrong major time at some point in a season, if not at the start already.

F1 teams are absolutely secret with their aerodynamics figures and don't share it with anybody, AFAIK. I very much doubt teams would be happy to have Pirelli accessing whatever data that could lead them to knowing the relative downforce of the cars.

Aero data is different than Telemetry data.

For obvious reasons, you never know if there wouldn't be any of the Pirelli employees who would have access to it to be bribed and share it with a rival team

You never know if there is a McLaren employee at Ferrari that would have access to Ferrari's data. Also telemetry data doesnt show anything other than data happening on the car. It doesnt show that the car makes most of it's df on the front wing, it doesnt show aero data(although can be calculated). It doesnt show anything 'secret'

RB9 might remain the dominance it always had, since 2009, in downforce over the others but Pirelli shouldn't know that in details, I would bet

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/RoadAtlanta1992.html
An article I showed earlier already, and it shows perfectly why a tire manufacturer should have access to the telemetry data.

[beelsebob]

I suspect it has a lot to do with diffuser design, and not really to do with the exhausts. The car has had this characteristic of trimming off rear wing downforce since the RB6, so that suggests to me that RedBull have found a way of making the diffuser work significantly harder than the rest of the teams, but that it has a pretty damn high drag penalty.

I agree with everything you've said in the last page or two beside this. Is it not true that diffuser drag is tiny compared to wing drag, even if you're right about RB's higher DF diffuser (very likely imo.)

And yet, the RedBull is slower down the straights than the other top end cars, despite its tiny rear wing – that drag must be coming from somewhere, and it has been doing since the RB6.

[aral]

And yet, the RedBull is slower down the straights than the other top end cars

Gearing! A fact that has often been acknowledged by Red Bull. It is part of a trade-off.

[stefan_]

Monaco 2013 - Wednesday (22.05.2013)





via AMuS

[beelsebob]

And yet, the RedBull is slower down the straights than the other top end cars

Gearing! A fact that has often been acknowledged by Red Bull. It is part of a trade-off.

You don't gear short unless you know you have a low top speed already, or trouble accelerating, both of which are indicators of high drag.

[bhall]

You don't gear short unless you know you have a low top speed already, or trouble accelerating, both of which are indicators of high drag.

The issue may be that they're using longer gear ratios to preserve the tires, which will have an adverse effect on both acceleration and top-speed, the latter being a bit track-dependent as well.

I don't quite understand the fascination with drag here. Think about their self-professed performance issue: effective use of the tires. What does that have to do with drag?

[Matt Somers]

Red Bull - New Rear Wing incl leading edge hole