Red Bull RB9 Renault

[mart1n401]

hahahah same loophole to bend at the front wing. Make tests for bending down and up if bent in May by the FIA ​​not interested

[Sevach]

Interesting that he persists with the tea tray temperature. As seen in Abu Dhabi, it was registering at the same temperature as the track - 40-50C.

But from who's car did the pictrues come? Weber's maybe?

The hot tea tray images also came from Webber's car.

[turbof1]

That's the catch: we only know that Webber's car is running the T tray that hot. We don't know if the same actually applies for Vettel. Webber also very often chooses a different set up then Vettel does, complicating the matter further.

Perhaps Red Bull chooses Webber's car deliberately for these images. Perhaps there is something different (assumingly still legal though) going on at the t tray of Vettel, which Red Bull does not want to give away.

[DaveW]

I confess that I haven't done the homework, but I believe that the plank must be flat statically. The shape of the plank under load is restricted by an (up)load test - which defeated the Ferrari spring/damper solution (probably a few others as well).

My "geared flap" suggestion makes some logical sense and, actually, it is not beyond the whit of a determined man to design a solution without penetrating the tub....

The "supporting" bolts are a neat idea. Wear rates can be controlled by a ceramic coating (a solution used for sliding skirts, I recall).

[CBeck113]

Interesting that he persists with the tea tray temperature. As seen in Abu Dhabi, it was registering at the same temperature as the track - 40-50C.

As for the hinge, I believe that the floors are not allowed to flex downward, but need to be flexible when they drive over the curbs (i.e. upward), so they need a certain degree of freedom. A fixed support in this location would lead to failures (look at the pictures of MW's RB9 on the hook - the scratches stop where the floor meets the chassis). At first though upward flexing in this area would be a disadvantage, but this would reduce the wear on the floor board, allowing it to be set up lower to the ground.

This is exactly what has been discussed as one of the main topics for the last 10 or so pages. We were all talking about the floor bending up not down. Don't want to be a dick about it but read back.

Don't worry, you are - the discussion was about a system or device to move the tray, and I've been reading since the intro of the car. What I said was that a rigid tray would be destroyed by curbs, and therefore the trays MUST be able to flex upward - no mojo, no tricks (necessarily, although DaveW is on to something - or why would Red Bull choose such a simple form for their stay?). Even if they didn't have to worry about plank wear, the tray still has to hold the entire grand prix.

[shelly]

Very interesting comment form Ross Brawn on thejudge13.com about rb9 leap in performance: he highlights one thing we discussed some weeks ago, i.e. unexpected top speed performance

UPDATE: It appears Ross Brawn concurs with the view that Red Bull will be tough to beat in 2014, though for different reasons than Marko suggests. “Some of the performance I have observed they have gained in the second half of the year, it looks like performance that will translate into next year,

They suddenly have the car that sometimes tops the speed trap times, and they have never done that in years. They have managed to shed some drag off the car, so some of the car’s performance in certain areas of the track, if carried over in to next year, will make it very challenging.

It is a new slate in many ways [in 2014], but I think you don’t unlearn things. So things they have modified with this year’s car will be applicable for next year.”

maybe cooling (crucial next year)?

[Juzh]

I don't think it was that unexpected, given how they are able to run ridiculous amount of rake. This in turn will improve performance of the diffuser and allow you to run much less wing hence giving you more top speed.

[Jonnycraig]

That's the catch: we only know that Webber's car is running the T tray that hot. We don't know if the same actually applies for Vettel. Webber also very often chooses a different set up then Vettel does, complicating the matter further.

Perhaps Red Bull chooses Webber's car deliberately for these images. Perhaps there is something different (assumingly still legal though) going on at the t tray of Vettel, which Red Bull does not want to give away.

Vettel has run the infrared gimmick so far this season.

With regards the heat, the fact the FIA have heated it to 6 times as hot as it's getting on track and found nothing should've ended this myth.

[Matt Somers]

The whole Splitter thing has continued to irk me even though it passed the 300 degree heat test whilst being deflection tested so I continued to dig... It's by no means conclusive and could just be flex in the stay, however when the Splitter doesn't actually impact the ground you have to look for alternatives.... http://somersf1.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/ ... rstay.html

[Blanchimont]

The regulations on the relevant load test are:

3.17.5
Bodywork may deflect no more than 5mm vertically when a 2000N load is applied vertically to it at three different points which lie on the car centre line and 100mm either side of it. Each of these loads will be applied in an upward direction at a point 380mm rearward of the front wheel centre line using a 50mm diameter ram in the two outer locations and a 70mm diameter ram on the car centre line.

Stays or structures between the front of the bodywork lying on the reference plane and the survival cell may be present for this test, provided they are completely rigid and have no system or mechanism which allows non-linear deflection during any part of the test.

Furthermore, the bodywork being tested in this area may not include any component which is capable of allowing more than the permitted amount of deflection under the test load (including any linear deflection above the test load), such components could include, but are not limited to :

a) Joints, bearings pivots or any other form of articulation.
b) Dampers, hydraulics or any form of time dependent component or structure.
c) Buckling members or any component or design which may have any non-linear characteristics.
d) Any parts which may systematically or routinely exhibit permanent deformation.

IMO, the important parts of the text here are "during any part of the test" and "under the test load". As long as the deflection is linear during the test, the car is fine and is allowed to race.

But what does it say about the car racing on the track? The way i read the second half of this paragraph ("including any linear deflection above the test load"), these components are only forbidden if they deflect linear above the test load. Is this interpretation correct?

[turbof1]

It is an interpretation: one truth to the reality. It depends on the FIA if they allow it, but for me it's a valid one. The FIA probably don't want to see any deflection above the allowed parameters, but the wording like always leaves too much room for interpretation.

The rule about lineair, or even non-lineair, deflection above the test load is very redundant anyway. If the current test doesn't prove anything, the car is cleared to race. I am not completely sure, but I believe the FIA can't change the test during the race weekend and has to wait atleast until the next one, while also informing the teams about it. In practice ussually more then one race weekend is given before the new deflection tests are applied.

I am not sure what the FIA could have done if the floor they heated would be outside what is allowed. Heating the floor isn't part of the standard test, nor did they said it would became a part of it. Very probably red bull would have been advised to make changes and next time the tests would have an official character.

For the FIA it wasn't about finding anything illegal inmediately, but more about finding out if that was possible and if they had to revise their deflection tests.

[bhall]

[Tea tray as mass damper]

I think that's a definite possibility, because it's been done before.

Here's an email from Nigel Stepney to Mike Coughlin which details the flexible floor used by Ferrari in Melbourne in 2007.

Mike, apart from the rear wing, I don't think this is the whole story. Once the front floor compresses, when it makes contact with the ground, which is around the 200km per hour to full compression, the drag reduces quite considerably, due to reduction of air beneath the car. At the same time, the turning vanes [aka barge boards] also move. The front floor is about 100 cm long, so it is quite an effective device, also as mentioned in my previous e-mail, as a mass damper, because it helps in this mode to control the arrow and keep the front tyre contact patch. Other areas we look at are rear stall, but this is difficult to control. Another solution has been found, which I'll talk to you some other time. Regards, Nigel.

It appears neither the splitter nor the barge boards move very much relative to the track.

[.poz]

It appears neither the splitter nor the barge boards move very much relative to the track.

but the stay moves as a loose cable

[kalinka]

The whole Splitter thing has continued to irk me even though it passed the 300 degree heat test whilst being deflection tested so I continued to dig... It's by no means conclusive and could just be flex in the stay, however when the Splitter doesn't actually impact the ground you have to look for alternatives.... http://somersf1.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/ ... rstay.html

Well done ! So far it's the most plausible theory methinks. It pretty much can explain every improvement RBR made since tyre change.

[PistoneRovente]

maybe if you posted the whole video...

http://s3.photobucket.com/albums/y62/So ... 974bdd.mp4