Team: Adrian Newey (CTO), Petr Prodromou (CA), Rob Marshall (CD), Christian Horner (TP)
Drivers: Sebastian Vettel (1), Mark Webber (2), Sebastian Buemi (reserve)
Team name: Infiniti Red Bull Racing
More likely, teams know all about these smooth curves but are unable to achieve required packaging.ringo wrote:Redbull have been doing this while no one else have caught on but Lotus in the latter stages.
This tbh, I remember during the 2010 season hearing Coulthard saying on numerous occasions that Newey rarely compromises on the Aero Packaging of his cars, and that other teams are a little more easy going on the packaging. HE builds a near perfect aero package, and fits a car around it (That is what REdBull have allowed him to do with the team), where as I think other teams try and get a holistic approach and build a near perfect car and aero device.richard_leeds wrote:More likely, teams know all about these smooth curves but are unable to achieve required packaging.ringo wrote:Redbull have been doing this while no one else have caught on but Lotus in the latter stages.
It's much more complex that "use a radius" or "use an ellipse". That approach can come across in the same way as people who make posts saying team X simple need to copy RB's diffuser/wing/sidepod etc.
Anyway, your CFD models are interesting as an exercise in exploring different forms. Why don't you start a thread exploring those differences?
The flexi wings were the main arms race for a while until the FIA managed to get on top of it. It was absolutely critical to lap time to get the most flexing and the right flexing in balance while passing the FIA load tests which is where RB took a step forward IMO.trinidefender wrote:Really Ringo? Flexi wings are a gimmick? It has been pretty well documented that Flexible wings is what made some Mclarens so fast, RedBull caught on and moved the game ahead with flexible wings. I think when you said that I lost any confidence you may know what you are talking about.
Newey: The front wing will be the trickiest bit
translation of the original article at Auto Motor & Sport
Q: Which influence did the tyres have in the first half of the season?
An unusually big one. All the teams, which now claim that they had tailor-made their cars for the [original] 2013 tyres and all based on a single testing session at Brazil at 50° asphalt temperature are either lying to themselves or they are much cleverer than we are. I simply cannot imagine how anyone could have understood those tyres after a single testing session. I think the characteristics of the tyres just fit for some cars randomly and for others they didn’t. That had nothing to do with know-how.
Q: Did the return to the 2012 tyre construction help Red Bull?
It helped, although we already were on a good way to understand the 2013 tyres. Cars with a high rake, like ours, have profited from it, since the 2012 construction allows to lower the front. The higher the rake, the faster you are in highspeed corners.
Q: So what was the problem of the [original] 2013 tyres?
They reacted badly to lateral forces. With a full load of fuel you could not tackle highspeed corners without destroying the tyres. The 2012 construction works much better in those situations and since highspeed corners were strength of our car, we profited from it.
Q: Which influence did the driving style have?
The drivers did understand the tyres fairly well. They had enough experience with them. The key was more or less to adapt the car to the tyres. It was important, not to stress the tyres and even if that was impossible there were still options. You had to concentrate on using the tyres in situations without much load on them. For that there are mechanical and aerodynamical solutions. The tricky bit is to combine those two.
Q: Red Bull struggled the most on tracks which stressed the front tyres. Why?
That was true for the first part of the season. In Shanghai we were nowhere. In Barcelona we had problems, too. In the second half, things got better. Korea is the one track which is probably most demanding for the front tyres and we made a good impression there. One part was that the 2012 construction worked better on our car and the other part was the massive development of the RB9, which would have helped us even with the original tyres.
Q: Some teams claim that after the return to the 2012 construction they had to shift the aerodynamic balance towards the rear. They say it disadvantaged them. How was it for you?
We didn’t have to change our aerodynamic balance, that’s why I can’t comment on the problems of other teams.
Q: There were two exhaust layouts. How much of a compromise was the ramp behind the tailpipes in connection with the Coke bottle shape?
If the exhaust hadn’t been allowed in that place, the side pods would have looked differently. It is a compromise, but a small one. We’ve been using that solution for quite a while now and have refined it again and again, so I can’t say if the other solution is better.
Q: Did Sebastian Vettel’s driving style influence the design of the car? Was he the reason you concentrated on the blown diffuser even more?
I wouldn’t say that he was the driving force behind it. We developed in that direction, because CFD simulations and wind tunnel results confirmed our theories. Our discussions with Vettel and Webber in terms of car development did not influence us one way or the other. In fact Mark Webber was more sensible to aerodynamical changes on the car, so if anything he was to be the bigger influence. But the development of a car is never orientated towards a single driver.
Q: Why was the Red Bull that dominant in Singapore?
That’s difficult to say. I have no idea what the others were doing that day.
Q: Your car gained the most time in slow corners. That’s when there are less exhaust gasses to blow the diffuser. Which influence does the engine management software have?
A big one. It influences driveability, torque distribution and the production of exhaust gasses. Is our engine different from the others? I don’t know, because I know too little about the competing engine designs.
Q: The aerodynamic concept of the Red Bull has dominated F1 since 2009. How much of a danger is there that this might change in 2014?
The biggest problem next year is the narrower front wing. 150 millimetres might not sound like much, but it makes a huge difference as the end plates will now be right before the front tyres.It’s a monumental task to make up for that disadvantage. You have to decide whether to direct the air flow past the front wheels on the outside or the inside. The second challenge is to package in the engine and all its secondary devices. That powertrain is a complex beast. The installation is a bout two or three times as difficult as with the current V8.
Q: Will it still be possible to run with as much rake as you did in the past?
I cannot say yet. We cannot use the exhaust to seal the diffuser anymore. That’s because we only have one tailpipe under the rear wing and the turbo charger uses up much of the exhaust gasses energy. We probably integrated the exhaust into our aerodynamical concept the best, which is why we have the most to lose. On the other hand, I ran my cars with a rake before the exhaust blown diffuser, so I’ll try it again.
