Red Bull RB9 Renault

[Shrieker]

Because of the plank underneath I guess.

Looking at the leading edge of the sidepods (just below the Rauch sticker) and it's shadow, there's a fair bit of space between the car's bottom and the ground. Taking that as reference it could be said that the bottom of the car (plank) never contacts the ground upon landing.

Ground level side view would be more conclusive though. Either way there's more than something fishy going on imho.

[OO7]

Because of the plank underneath I guess.

Looking at the leading edge of the sidepods (just below the Rauch sticker) and it's shadow, there's a fair bit of space between the car's bottom and the ground. Taking that as reference it could be said that the bottom of the car (plank) never contacts the ground upon landing.

The area you're referring to is on the step plane, which is 60mm above the bottom of the plank. This doesn't take into account the cars rake, which would make the vertical distance between it and the leading edge of the plank even greater.

[OO7]

Another theory could be that the suspension linked through internal 'elastic' components can influence the rigidity of the stay.

[timbo]

It could that the piece of string is just not stressed and freely moves from the shake.

[i70q7m7ghw]

I think the initial bend is an optical illusion caused by the camera lense, I would say the stay was perfectly straight and only bends when the car drops.

The pre-buckle is already there (images from different GP's showing it)...

All of those images show the splitter under load, so it's not really "pre-buckle". During the pit stop, the car is jacked up at the front wing and under the rear crash structure, so there is no load on the splitter. The mild bend you see on the onboard in my opinion is caused by the camera lens.

[Just_a_fan]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2GLIfeC8FoA/U ... ged+x2.jpg

It appears that they have a jacking device under the tea tray. The question is - are they checking that it complies with the FIA load test or are they calibrating the flexible device?

[myurr]

All of those images show the splitter under load, so it's not really "pre-buckle". During the pit stop, the car is jacked up at the front wing and under the rear crash structure, so there is no load on the splitter. The mild bend you see on the onboard in my opinion is caused by the camera lens.

There is no way that the bend shown in that gif is caused by the camera lens. So the bend is present and real, the question remains is the effect significant and is it breaking the rules?

Out of interest is the length of the stay known so that we can approximate the vertical deflection based upon the movement in that gif?

[i70q7m7ghw]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2GLIfeC8FoA/U ... ged+x2.jpg

It appears that they have a jacking device under the tea tray. The question is - are they checking that it complies with the FIA load test or are they calibrating the flexible device?

That's almost certainly a load test.

All of those images show the splitter under load, so it's not really "pre-buckle". During the pit stop, the car is jacked up at the front wing and under the rear crash structure, so there is no load on the splitter. The mild bend you see on the onboard in my opinion is caused by the camera lens.

There is no way that the bend shown in that gif is caused by the camera lens. So the bend is present and real, the question remains is the effect significant and is it breaking the rules?

Out of interest is the length of the stay known so that we can approximate the vertical deflection based upon the movement in that gif?

Just to be clear I'm talking about the very slight bend that is visible when the car is jacked up, not the bend that appears when the car is dropped.

So you are saying that it's absolutely impossible that the image could be distorted by a wide-angle lens used in the FOM camera? Are you able to provide the specs of the camera so we can rule this out?

Also, are you able to provide a better picture of the stay in a resting state i.e. not under any load? I'm happy to be proven wrong, and to be honest I would rather be proven wrong than simply be dismissed in ignorance.

[Matt Somers]

I think the initial bend is an optical illusion caused by the camera lense, I would say the stay was perfectly straight and only bends when the car drops.

The pre-buckle is already there (images from different GP's showing it)...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KJXLjnAs2qA/U ... tom%29.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DUQTOwEAGlg/U ... tom%29.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2GLIfeC8FoA/U ... ged+x2.jpg

All of those images show the splitter under load, so it's not really "pre-buckle". During the pit stop, the car is jacked up at the front wing and under the rear crash structure, so there is no load on the splitter. The mild bend you see on the onboard in my opinion is caused by the camera lens.

Ok here's an unloaded one, the pre buckle is less visible here but it's there



I likely have plenty more images on my laptop from Sutton like this one but as I'm on the iPhone at the moment Ill have to come back to this thread later...

[atanatizante]

That's Vettel statement after the race:

... I’m not sure what we have done since the summer break in order that we have been winning races, but whatever it was it has worked ...

I've said it before that according to Lauda and Grosjean after the Italian qualy session they said that Newey found something at the back of RB9 car and until now now-one knows what it is, although some people on other forum speculated that they have riffled exhaust pipes in order to induce a vortex trajectory which is further amplified by fences or vanes arrangements on the floor at the back of the car.
But the most important thing is that this exhaust vortex is further accelerated by the curved trajectory of the edge of diffuser and therefore they have gained twice: 1) from creating a better and most of all a more constant skirt which allows them to increase their ride height hence diffuser volume and finally DF and 2) from the woke of the low pressure behind the rear tyres hence widening further more the width of diffuser ...

In addition those people are also speaking there is a frantic quest, from all the teams, for vortex creating elements on the floor at the back of the car, in order to create this air skirt. This thing will be one of the key elements of the new aerodynamics for the 2014 car, in the absence of the blown exhaust effect ...

[SectorOne]

It could that the piece of string is just not stressed and freely moves from the shake.

I thought about this as well, but then im even more confused as to why it's there in the first place.

it breaks "easily", it's not sufficiently strong to absorb the load from either suspension or floor hitting the ground.
it's pre-bendt and flaps around on impact. It makes no sense to me in any way.

the only idea i have is a steel wire connected to the suspension, with 5 times the front ends normal weight during braking its way beyond any fia tests and as the car goes down, splitter gets pulled up to not wear the plank.

The only problem to this theory is that there's no wires, just a very thin piece of metal that in reality seems to serve no purpose at all.

im very confused

[timbo]

The only problem to this theory is that there's no wires, just a very thin piece of metal that in reality seems to serve no purpose at all.

What if it works in tension?
Or maybe there's just a demand to have splitter joint to the tub? I gotta check the rules.

PS. What if there's a piece of ballast (relatively small) which is suspended inside the splitter on that piece of string?

[siskue2005]

It could that the piece of string is just not stressed and freely moves from the shake.

I thought about this as well, but then im even more confused as to why it's there in the first place.

it breaks "easily", it's not sufficiently strong to absorb the load from either suspension or floor hitting the ground.
it's pre-bendt and flaps around on impact. It makes no sense to me in any way.

the only idea i have is a steel wire connected to the suspension, with 5 times the front ends normal weight during braking its way beyond any fia tests and as the car goes down, splitter gets pulled up to not wear the plank.

The only problem to this theory is that there's no wires, just a very thin piece of metal that in reality seems to serve no purpose at all.

im very confused

What if there are thin wires inside of that sheet of metal?

The plank wear pattern of RBR has intreaged me for a long time, their wear is seen mostly behind rather than at the front
If the plank lifts it would get more wear behind than front

[raymondu999]

although some people on other forum speculated that they have riffled exhaust pipes in order to induce a vortex trajectory which is further amplified by fences or vanes arrangements on the floor at the back of the car.

I thought you weren't allowed to rifle the exhaust pipes?

[Kiril Varbanov]

although some people on other forum speculated that they have riffled exhaust pipes in order to induce a vortex trajectory which is further amplified by fences or vanes arrangements on the floor at the back of the car.

I thought you weren't allowed to rifle the exhaust pipes?

I'm not really sure what is implied with 'riffle' but here are the tech regs, in case I've got this one right, being non-native English speaker:

5.8.3 The last 100mm of any tailpipe must in its entirety :
a) Form a thin-walled unobstructed right circular cylinder whose internal diameter is no
greater than 75mm with its axis at +/-10° to the car centre line when viewed from
above the car and between +10° and +30° (tail-up) to the reference plane when viewed
from the side of the car. The entire circumference of the exit should lie on a single plane
normal to the tailpipe axis and be located at the rearmost extremity of the last 100mm
of the tailpipe.
b) Be located between 250mm and 600mm above the reference plane.
c) Be located between 200mm and 500mm from the car centre line.
d) Be positioned in order that the entire circumference of the exit of the tailpipe lies
between two vertical planes normal to the car centre line and which lie 500mm and
1200mm forward of the rear wheel centre line.
5.8.4 Once the exhaust tailpipes, the bodywork required by Article 3.8.4 and any apertures
permitted by Article 3.8.5 have been fully defined there must be no bodywork lying within a
right circular truncated cone which :
a) Shares a common axis with that of the last 100mm of the tailpipe.
b) Has a forward diameter equal to that of each exhaust exit.
c) Starts at the exit of the tailpipe and extends rearwards as far as the rear wheel centre
line.
d) Has a half-cone angle of 3° such that the cone has its larger diameter at the rear wheel
centre line.
Furthermore, there must be a view from above, the side, or any intermediate angle
perpendicular to the car centre line, from which the truncated cone is not obscured by any
bodywork lying more than 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line.