Red Bull RB9 Renault

[Just_a_fan]

"Just a support"? You do realise it carries the downforce load from the upper and beam wings, yes? There's a lot of load going through that support. It's also not allowed to flex as that would allow the wing to move and that's illegal.

They probably route the supply to the DRS through it too.

Why do people always have to try and have weird explanations for simple things?

[trinidefender]

"Just a support"? You do realise it carries the downforce load from the upper and beam wings, yes? There's a lot of load going through that support. It's also not allowed to flex as that would allow the wing to move and that's illegal.

They probably route the supply to the DRS through it too.

Why do people always have to try and have weird explanations for simple things?

I looks like it is a good 6" wide. A support purely of carbon fibre laminate wouldn't have to be that thick or even close to that. Are there any other pictures of this piece at a different angle.

I'm not trying to "have weird explanations for simple things" at all. It just looks far bigger than it ought to be that is all. That is what makes me question if it's purpose is solely for use as a support

[theWPTformula]

"Just a support"? You do realise it carries the downforce load from the upper and beam wings, yes? There's a lot of load going through that support. It's also not allowed to flex as that would allow the wing to move and that's illegal.

They probably route the supply to the DRS through it too.

Why do people always have to try and have weird explanations for simple things?

It is fairly thick to be a support, but they have had it all season. It was on the car during pre-season testing (go back to March in this thread and you can see the images).

Previously this "support" has been connected to their own version of DRD so I wouldn't be surprised if it had some duct work inside it.



Perhaps it is just an exhaust exit for the hot air from the car and they're using it to blow the underside of the beamwing?

[trinidefender]

Well with the low pressure under the beamwing it will essentially suck the hot air out of the sidepods and engine bay allowing more efficient extraction of hot air. This allows RedBull to run smaller vents in the back creating a more aero efficient design. A small part of a well put together package. That is if that is what it is for.

[tok-tokkie]

How does Red Bull seal its floor along the sides?

This is a long post. I don’t understand how Red Bull manages to run so much rake and why the other teams do not. I show my observations and thoughts but do so so that any mistakes, misunderstandings or omissions can be corrected by those who do know how they do it.


This picture shows the huge rake that they run – how do they prevent air from getting in under the floor from the sides? I would think the only way would be a strong vortex rotating down alongside the car and outwards away from the car at the track. Renault (Lotus?) had the exhaust coming out at the front of the floor in an attempt to create a strong sealing vortex but it was not a success (because of variations as the throttle was used?)


Looking from the back of 4 cars running straight ahead. The Red Bull has its diffuser set much higher than the others.
If it is a vortex that is sealing the floor I don’t understand how it is created.


Starting from the front. The wing has 2 vanes to assist in sending air out around the outside of the front tire. When it comes in again behind the tire it should help make the air flow clockwise (looking from the front at the right wheel as in this picture). The spinning tire would deflect the airstream upwards which would assist the required rotation. This wing is sending a lot of air around the outside of the tire.


On the underside there is incredible detailing. Long strakes towards the centreline sending the air directly down the inside of the tire. The angle of attack of the wing creates a whole succession of little diffusers under the wing really creating downforce here


I forget the name of the two vanes in front of the tea tray – snow plough I think. It would seem to me that these are critical for initiating the vortex that seals the sides of the floor – am I am correct in my supposition?


View of the underside with one of the vanes still in place. The interaction of the airflow from the vane when it meets up with the air going around the outside of the tire could, I suppose, result in a vortex with the desired rotation. We also see the vane alongside the tea tray, the barge board and the vertical vane at the start of the sidepod The suspension arms and the front brake ducts are also aerodynamically shaped. It is all a complex aerodynamic system.


The front corner of the floor where the vortex should be. The bottom of the vertical sidepod turning vane and the trailing edge of the barge board seem to be directing the airflow towards the little flap along the edge of the front of the floor. That all fits in nicely with the vortex I am looking for. Higher up the turning vane is sending the inside air to nicely keep the air coming around the outside of the tire away from the sidepod to join up with the air coming through on the inside of the tire. We can see the back of the brake duct which is deflecting the air downwards just as required for the vortex.


Same area but with the snow plough visible and more of the barge board showing the slot in it –( to create a vortex?). The suspension wishbones seem to be fairly aerodynamically neutral.


The same area where the beautiful detailing and the massive fillet between the sidepod and the floor – a really critical part for good airflow conditions.


The brake ducting. Does not show the trailing edge details which we glimpsed in a picture higher up. Williams tried taking the air through the front axle from inside to outside but gave up on that scheme. I think the air is fed from inside to outside by all the cars (not through the axle). I know there are rules preventing using impellers to draw the air through the wheel (by shaping the ‘spokes’).

EDIT:
Just seen this in the Ferrari thread. Very different treatment of the sidepod to floor joint. Aero guy that Crucial Extreme asked about the flo viz says it looks pretty good - a little separation after the vane and at the joint. Will this generate a vortex & which way will it turn?

[trinidefender]

I think people are getting a little carried away with vortices. A lot of the time vortices are undesirable because they create turbulence further downstream in the car. Unless you have a specific reason for them such as keeping flow attached to a panel or helping to control how flow moves around a bend then a vortex is a bad thing. They create large amounts of drag.

[shelly]

I think people are getting a little carried away with vortices.

I disagree. The aerodynamics of a modern f1 car basically revolves around vortices (pun intended). Vortex-induced downforce, and vortices' infleunces on flow direction are much more important than one would normally expect by comparison with airplanes. That's partly because planes do not have legality boxes, and can use more efficient and straightforward ways of achieving performance.

In f1 you try to exploit all the vortices there are "natural", i.e they are a consequence of 3d lift effects; and sometimes you deliberatly add surfaces to produce new vortices. Sometimes the two approaches are tangled: for example a bargeboard has a use as an aero surface, but then the two vortices it develops are key for the downforce of the floor, whose front leading edge suction peak is greatly increased by the system of vortices from the bargeboard and the t-tray.

@tok-tokkie: interesting post! Probably @f1_aero on twitter has most of the answers you are looking for. Here are some ideas about your post (I may be wrong of course):
In the picture of the underside of the front wing, notice the the most outboard strake is made up of two parts, with a small slot gap between them, in order to create a tidier vortex.
The vanes in front of the t-tray (some call them front turning vanes, or ftv)develop 1 vortex each; the slot helps in having a cleaner vortex that can propagate more downstream and interact with the bargeboard vortex. This vortex contributes in conditioning the flow around the floor edge
The slotted curl on the edge of the floor create a smlla vortex along the edge, the gives some low pressure and some "seal"
the slot in the bargeboard is there to create a cleaner vortex (@aero_a confirmed tihs in march when lotus ran it first)

The vortex around the edge of the diffuser (and more weak, around the edge of the floor) is created by the pressure difference between top and bottom of the floor.

[theWPTformula]

Well with the low pressure under the beamwing it will essentially suck the hot air out of the sidepods and engine bay allowing more efficient extraction of hot air. This allows RedBull to run smaller vents in the back creating a more aero efficient design. A small part of a well put together package. That is if that is what it is for.

It's the small things all put together. Must admit I quite like that idea.

So it can also be, as a secondary use, a helpful outlet for the DRD as well I presume?

[theWPTformula]

@ tok-tokkie

The perforated section running in parallel with the floor, on top of the floor itself, that you mentioned produces a vortex using the high energy airflow coming off of the leading edge of the sidepod (as mentioned above). This is probably the main sealing agent although, as also mentioned above, it is a combination of the under-chassis turning vanes, bargeboards and splitter that help seal off the sides of the floor.

[trinidefender]

I think people are getting a little carried away with vortices.

I disagree. The aerodynamics of a modern f1 car basically revolves around vortices (pun intended). Vortex-induced downforce, and vortices' infleunces on flow direction are much more important than one would normally expect by comparison with airplanes. That's partly because planes do not have legality boxes, and can use more efficient and straightforward ways of achieving performance.

In f1 you try to exploit all the vortices there are "natural", i.e they are a consequence of 3d lift effects; and sometimes you deliberatly add surfaces to produce new vortices. Sometimes the two approaches are tangled: for example a bargeboard has a use as an aero surface, but then the two vortices it develops are key for the downforce of the floor, whose front leading edge suction peak is greatly increased by the system of vortices from the bargeboard and the t-tray.

@tok-tokkie: interesting post! Probably @f1_aero on twitter has most of the answers you are looking for. Here are some ideas about your post (I may be wrong of course):
In the picture of the underside of the front wing, notice the the most outboard strake is made up of two parts, with a small slot gap between them, in order to create a tidier vortex.
The vanes in front of the t-tray (some call them front turning vanes, or ftv)develop 1 vortex each; the slot helps in having a cleaner vortex that can propagate more downstream and interact with the bargeboard vortex. This vortex contributes in conditioning the flow around the floor edge
The slotted curl on the edge of the floor create a smlla vortex along the edge, the gives some low pressure and some "seal"
the slot in the bargeboard is there to create a cleaner vortex (@aero_a confirmed tihs in march when lotus ran it first)

The vortex around the edge of the diffuser (and more weak, around the edge of the floor) is created by the pressure difference between top and bottom of the floor.

Don't get me wrong. I fully understand the importance of vortices. However my point is that they aren't helpful in all situations. For example the rear wing, the smaller the vortex on the ends of the rear wing, the less drag that is created. Also if you can do the job as effectively as not without the vortex then you will want to minimise it. The two main reasons behind minimising vortices are the less you disturb the air the more an aero element further back can do with the airflow and secondly to reduce drag.

On the picture of the underside of the front wing. You pointed out that the outermost strake is slit in two. The first strake will create a vortex with it at that angle to the apparent airflow however the vertical strake directly behind it will kill the vortex. The purpose of the forward strake is probably to push airflow over to the inside of the wing. I.e. Slightly toward the centre of the car. What this would exactly be for I can't say.

[trinidefender]

Well with the low pressure under the beamwing it will essentially suck the hot air out of the sidepods and engine bay allowing more efficient extraction of hot air. This allows RedBull to run smaller vents in the back creating a more aero efficient design. A small part of a well put together package. That is if that is what it is for.

It's the small things all put together. Must admit I quite like that idea.

So it can also be, as a secondary use, a helpful outlet for the DRD as well I presume?

If it is for some purpose other than just a support then it won't work (or very hard to get to work) as both a hot air exit AND some part of a DRD device. The problem arises trying to use them together. The DRD systems seen this season have involved switching air flows to stall various different areas of wings. When the DRD is not running (slow speed) it has to vent the air away from any wings. So as not to stall them. When the DRD is working (high speed) it will have to vent by the wing to stall it. However which at high speed their would be enough airflow to cool the engine anyway so the extra vent would not be needed.

If this isn't a vent and instead is some sort of DRD device I think it may work by stalling the underside of the beam wing. As in the swan neck support carries airflow, at a cars high speed, to the underside of the wing, stalling it.

So we have three options. Either it is purely a support, a large one at that. It is a hot air exit to help clean up air vents elsewhere on the car. Thirdly it is some sort of DRD. Option one being the simplest, option two being fairly feasible and shouldn't be to hard to design. Option three seems rather far fetched and if this is the case then RedBull have done well to keep it a secret.

Remember this all just speculation at this point. I'm not jumping to any conclusions

[Hobbs04]

Maybe the support is another trick of the hand from Newey. Like the slot in the nose 2012; everyone is looking at the nose instead of anything else.

Kinda of like Alonso card tricks
http://youtu.be/mefLkzDyQS4

[atanatizante]

It's allowed to have a rifling exhaust pipe in order to create a vortex or this could be done just by adjusting the vertical fence AoA down at the rear floor?

[theWPTformula]

Well with the low pressure under the beamwing it will essentially suck the hot air out of the sidepods and engine bay allowing more efficient extraction of hot air. This allows RedBull to run smaller vents in the back creating a more aero efficient design. A small part of a well put together package. That is if that is what it is for.

It's the small things all put together. Must admit I quite like that idea.

So it can also be, as a secondary use, a helpful outlet for the DRD as well I presume?

If it is for some purpose other than just a support then it won't work (or very hard to get to work) as both a hot air exit AND some part of a DRD device. The problem arises trying to use them together. The DRD systems seen this season have involved switching air flows to stall various different areas of wings. When the DRD is not running (slow speed) it has to vent the air away from any wings. So as not to stall them. When the DRD is working (high speed) it will have to vent by the wing to stall it. However which at high speed their would be Anouilh airflow to cool the engine anyway so the extra vent would not be needed.

If this isn't a vent and instead is some sort of DRD device I think it may work by stalling the underside of the beam wing. As in the swan neck support carries airflow, at a cars high speed, to the underside of the wing, stalling it.

So we have three options. Either it is purely a support, a large one at that. It is a hot air exit to help clean up air vents elsewhere on the car. Thirdly it is some sort of DRD. Option one being the simplest, option two being fairly feasible and shouldn't be to hard to design. Option three seems rather far fetched and if this is the case then RedBull have done well to keep it a secret.

Remember this all just speculation at this point. I'm not jumping to any conclusions

I agree with that. Stalling the central section of the beam wing wouldn't be too beneficial as it has quite a lot of blockage from the gearbox/rear crash structure. Unless they are able to spread stalling flow along its entire profile then the second option seems the most feasible.

[Spacepace]

I have a theory on the flexi floor of the red bull. Could it be that when the driver sits in the car the weight of him engages some kind of mechanism that is attached to the rod at the front of the floor to pull up.