Red Bull Renault RB11 speculation thread

[mith]

RedBull has finally passed all crashtests.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117529

[Leon]

hope to see shorter nose RB11 a-la Mercedes, Lotus or at least Williams.

Why?

RedBull has finally passed all crashtests.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117529

[Juzh]

hope to see shorter nose RB11 a-la Mercedes, Lotus or at least Williams.

Why?

RedBull has finally passed all crashtests.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117529

Relevant how?
I meant from a performance standpoint. Why would you prefer short nose? Any other reason other than a personal preference?
I'm asking because the way you put it is as though a shorter nose is de facto a better solution. In which case I ask you to present evidence or some sort of theory at least.

[fawe4]

Relevant how?
I meant from a performance standpoint. Why would you prefer short nose? Any other reason other than a personal preference?
I'm asking because the way you put it is as though a shorter nose is de facto a better solution. In which case I ask you to present evidence or some sort of theory at least.

Aw, don't be a dick. He prefers a shorter nose, no need being so hostile about it.

[Juzh]

Relevant how?
I meant from a performance standpoint. Why would you prefer short nose? Any other reason other than a personal preference?
I'm asking because the way you put it is as though a shorter nose is de facto a better solution. In which case I ask you to present evidence or some sort of theory at least.

Aw, don't be a dick. He prefers a shorter nose, no need being so hostile about it.

It was a genuine question.

[Moose]

Relevant how?
I meant from a performance standpoint. Why would you prefer short nose? Any other reason other than a personal preference?
I'm asking because the way you put it is as though a shorter nose is de facto a better solution. In which case I ask you to present evidence or some sort of theory at least.

Aw, don't be a dick. He prefers a shorter nose, no need being so hostile about it.

There's no dickishness here. This is a technical forum, and someone asked for a technical explanation of a view point. That's exactly the behaviour that should be encouraged.

[NoDivergence]

Without taking any aero into account, shorter nose probably is lighter?

[Moose]

Without taking any aero into account, shorter nose probably is lighter?

I wouldn't be so sure of that - a shorter nose needs to be stronger in order to pass the crash test. It probably involves more internal structure. I wouldn't want to bet on whether that, offsets the weight saving in being lower volume or not.

[poolboy67]

Without taking any aero into account, shorter nose probably is lighter?

not necessarily. who knows, a shorter nose may even be heavier because it has less length available for decelerating the car upon an impact.

[thisisatest]

Not about the RB11 specifically but answering questions posted above,
from Richland F1:

"The longer nose on the Force India is advantageous for weight saving as the longer crash structure means that energy has a longer time to dissipate, allowing the composite engineers to use less material. In comparison to the Williams, the shorter nose solution is very good aerodynamically as its design emulates that of more recent years and is overall much higher up, so the aerostructures are more familiar to work with. However the shorter crumple zone means that as much as a few kilograms of additional material must have been added to pass the crash tests. "

[URL http://richlandf1.com/?p=32469 /URL]

[ringo]

I don't see how it's a few kilograms. I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. It's carbon fiber after all.

[thisisatest]

I agree. I mean, even one kilo is a lot for that. But it's entirely possible they needed some titanium or other metal reinforcement or containment, who knows, just speculation.
The gist of it is that a shorter nose is very likely heavier, not lighter.

[PlatinumZealot]

Same nose as last year basically....

[GPR-A duplicate2]

Same nose as last year basically....

Considering the fact that, RBR almost stopped developing the car after Singapore GP, they better have done considerable changes to their car to offset power difference in PU, as nothing suggests that Renault would have equaled Merc on PU performance. Although PU was a major reason making them lag behind, but lack of development last season, should only point to major overhaul in their overall new car design. If not, then essentially they stood still 6 months back on car development, only waiting for PU development. That would be quite disappointing. They should know that, in second half of last year, it was Williams that was second best car.

[Leon]

Relevant how?
I meant from a performance standpoint. Why would you prefer short nose? Any other reason other than a personal preference?
I'm asking because the way you put it is as though a shorter nose is de facto a better solution. In which case I ask you to present evidence or some sort of theory at least.

I'll draw some sketches to explain my point of view