Red Bull RB12 TAG-Heuer

[motobaleno]

interesting article in motorsport about RB softer rear suspension to stall the rear wing.

here is the italian version but you should easily find the english one

http://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/scalab ... rs-825812/

I read it via Google translate, but it is not stalling. They are reducing the angle of attack, due to soft rear suspension while travelling at speed. They even said that it is not stalling. They are moving to the left on a lift chart like this:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ve.svg.png
On the other hand the active suspension cars could lower the ride height to stall the diffusor (by preventing the air from going under the car) but this is not the case nowadays.

Yes you are right, actually I meant the same: it's my poor english

[lio007]

Oh, I really like those kind of reports...Under the skin of the Red Bull RB12:

http://en.f1i.com/magazine/71053-skin-r ... -rb12.html

[PlatinumZealot]

The Redbull creates allot of downforce with the whole body of the car, to allow for a smaller rearwing. But it is still different downforce, because in Baku they used almost no rearwing and ended up with huge tire degradation in the race.

The slow twisty parts of Baku are like Monaco and in monaco you need maximum DF and not low aero eff. is not a problem. The down-force from he floor of the car you, need speed to make it work, more speed than the wings need, so in Baku RedBull were hurt in the low speed sections.

[trinidefender]

The Redbull creates allot of downforce with the whole body of the car, to allow for a smaller rearwing. But it is still different downforce, because in Baku they used almost no rearwing and ended up with huge tire degradation in the race.

The slow twisty parts of Baku are like Monaco and in monaco you need maximum DF and not low aero eff. is not a problem. The down-force from he floor of the car you, need speed to make it work, more speed than the wings need, so in Baku RedBull were hurt in the low speed sections.

You need more speed for the floor to work than the wing? That's a highly generalised statement and one that that I haven't seen any proof for. Have any CL vs speed graphs for the front or rear wing compared to the floor/diffuser?

[FPV GTHO]

I thought the Baku problem was the tyres running too cold and graining from too little DF

[PlatinumZealot]

The Redbull creates allot of downforce with the whole body of the car, to allow for a smaller rearwing. But it is still different downforce, because in Baku they used almost no rearwing and ended up with huge tire degradation in the race.

The slow twisty parts of Baku are like Monaco and in monaco you need maximum DF and not low aero eff. is not a problem. The down-force from he floor of the car you, need speed to make it work, more speed than the wings need, so in Baku RedBull were hurt in the low speed sections.

You need more speed for the floor to work than the wing? That's a highly generalised statement and one that that I haven't seen any proof for. Have any CL vs speed graphs for the front or rear wing compared to the floor/diffuser?

I have no proof either. I guess I need to edit my original post to be more of an opinion, but just my observation of F1 and motorsports. Under current regulations I think the wings can give your more down-force for less speed. I only say this because in Monaco we don't see much done with the floor to make it "high down-force" - maybe because of regulations? I just never heard any talk about a high-down-force floor before. Red-bull would have used it Baku if we assume that the floor is more efficient than the wings? or in Monaco? Just my empirical observations. It is an interesting topic.

[FPV GTHO]

The teams would be running the most they could get from the floor at all times, that's why you don't see anything special done there for Monaco.

[Paul]

Steeper rear wings and monkey seats might actually help the diffuser, thus improving downforce generation by the floor. So in a way, Monaco floors might be better, without any actual physical differences.

[Godius]

https://twitter.com/AlbertFabrega/statu ... 2036439040

[Muulka]

The slow twisty parts of Baku are like Monaco and in monaco you need maximum DF and not low aero eff. is not a problem. The down-force from he floor of the car you, need speed to make it work, more speed than the wings need, so in Baku RedBull were hurt in the low speed sections.

You need more speed for the floor to work than the wing? That's a highly generalised statement and one that that I haven't seen any proof for. Have any CL vs speed graphs for the front or rear wing compared to the floor/diffuser?

I have no proof either. I guess I need to edit my original post to be more of an opinion, but just my observation of F1 and motorsports. Under current regulations I think the wings can give your more down-force for less speed. I only say this because in Monaco we don't see much done with the floor to make it "high down-force" - maybe because of regulations? I just never heard any talk about a high-down-force floor before. Red-bull would have used it Baku if we assume that the floor is more efficient than the wings? or in Monaco? Just my empirical observations. It is an interesting topic.

Totally incorrect- all the car's downforce is proportional to the square of the car's speed. Doesn't matter if it's underbody or aerofoil lift, it all increases the same way. The reason you don't get high- and low-downforce floors is that the floor DF is much more efficient in terms of drag- you wouldn't gain much straight line speed from having a worse floor, but you sure would lose an awful lot of grip. The rear wing has a much bigger effect on top speed, and as such that is the component they change to adjust the overall level of downforce.

[turbof1]

Well, you cannot do much with the floor in terms of shapes - the regulations are much too narrow. So in that regard there are no high or low downforce floors.

BUT: there are configurations where you can decide how much downforce and indeed drag can be extracted from the floor. And Red Bull are masters in this. There generally 2 ways to change the downforce and drag levels of your floor while driving around: stalling and suspension compression.

-Stalling happens when the diffuser chokes. There are 2 very important vortices inside the diffuser which are criticial in extracting flow from the floor. When these vortices become unstable or even dissolve because of too much flow for the diffuser to handle, the downforce and consequently drag will drop out. So this is how you reduce drag on higher speeds through stalling. There are several ways to induce this.

-Reduced downforce by suspension compression: simply put you have a stiff front suspension combined with a softer rear suspension. Because the car is raked, the floor will become more horizontal under load at higher speeds. This will reduce floor and diffuser AoA, automatically reducing drag and downforce (without stalling).

These options are interchangeable and interconnected. Sometimes you might even want to put an agressive amount of rake on the floor on a circuit like Monza, just to induce a lower speed treshold of stalling. On Monaco you might want a big amount of rake, but combined with very soft suspension to keep the floor from stalling.

[PlatinumZealot]

You need more speed for the floor to work than the wing? That's a highly generalised statement and one that that I haven't seen any proof for. Have any CL vs speed graphs for the front or rear wing compared to the floor/diffuser?

I have no proof either. I guess I need to edit my original post to be more of an opinion, but just my observation of F1 and motorsports. Under current regulations I think the wings can give your more down-force for less speed. I only say this because in Monaco we don't see much done with the floor to make it "high down-force" - maybe because of regulations? I just never heard any talk about a high-down-force floor before. Red-bull would have used it Baku if we assume that the floor is more efficient than the wings? or in Monaco? Just my empirical observations. It is an interesting topic.

Totally incorrect- all the car's downforce is proportional to the square of the car's speed. Doesn't matter if it's underbody or aerofoil lift, it all increases the same way. The reason you don't get high- and low-downforce floors is that the floor DF is much more efficient in terms of drag- you wouldn't gain much straight line speed from having a worse floor, but you sure would lose an awful lot of grip. The rear wing has a much bigger effect on top speed, and as such that is the component they change to adjust the overall level of downforce.

I think you are incorrect though. It is not so simple.

[trinidefender]

You need more speed for the floor to work than the wing? That's a highly generalised statement and one that that I haven't seen any proof for. Have any CL vs speed graphs for the front or rear wing compared to the floor/diffuser?

I have no proof either. I guess I need to edit my original post to be more of an opinion, but just my observation of F1 and motorsports. Under current regulations I think the wings can give your more down-force for less speed. I only say this because in Monaco we don't see much done with the floor to make it "high down-force" - maybe because of regulations? I just never heard any talk about a high-down-force floor before. Red-bull would have used it Baku if we assume that the floor is more efficient than the wings? or in Monaco? Just my empirical observations. It is an interesting topic.

Totally incorrect- all the car's downforce is proportional to the square of the car's speed. Doesn't matter if it's underbody or aerofoil lift, it all increases the same way. The reason you don't get high- and low-downforce floors is that the floor DF is much more efficient in terms of drag- you wouldn't gain much straight line speed from having a worse floor, but you sure would lose an awful lot of grip. The rear wing has a much bigger effect on top speed, and as such that is the component they change to adjust the overall level of downforce.

This would be more true if a car was rock solid. Unfortunately it isn't. The rear of the car squats at speed changing the drag and downforce values of the rear diffuser. The squatting also decreases the angle of attack on the rear wing reducing drag and downforce. The front wings flex, even though the rule makers try their hardest to stop this, which again changes drag and downforce values.

Secondly when a team runs a smaller rear wing it will have less of an effect of the diffuser slightly reducing its effectiveness. So therefore running a smaller rear wing has a similar effect to changing the floor.

Thirdly, about having a "low downforce floor/diffuser," the teams can tune their diffuser with rear ride height, rake angles and how much they allow their car to squat under certain aerodynamic loads.

[lio007]

Has anybody spotted the new parts?

[Muulka]

I have no proof either. I guess I need to edit my original post to be more of an opinion, but just my observation of F1 and motorsports. Under current regulations I think the wings can give your more down-force for less speed. I only say this because in Monaco we don't see much done with the floor to make it "high down-force" - maybe because of regulations? I just never heard any talk about a high-down-force floor before. Red-bull would have used it Baku if we assume that the floor is more efficient than the wings? or in Monaco? Just my empirical observations. It is an interesting topic.

Totally incorrect- all the car's downforce is proportional to the square of the car's speed. Doesn't matter if it's underbody or aerofoil lift, it all increases the same way. The reason you don't get high- and low-downforce floors is that the floor DF is much more efficient in terms of drag- you wouldn't gain much straight line speed from having a worse floor, but you sure would lose an awful lot of grip. The rear wing has a much bigger effect on top speed, and as such that is the component they change to adjust the overall level of downforce.

This would be more true if a car was rock solid. Unfortunately it isn't. The rear of the car squats at speed changing the drag and downforce values of the rear diffuser. The squatting also decreases the angle of attack on the rear wing reducing drag and downforce. The front wings flex, even though the rule makers try their hardest to stop this, which again changes drag and downforce values.

Secondly when a team runs a smaller rear wing it will have less of an effect of the diffuser slightly reducing its effectiveness. So therefore running a smaller rear wing has a similar effect to changing the floor.

Thirdly, about having a "low downforce floor/diffuser," the teams can tune their diffuser with rear ride height, rake angles and how much they allow their car to squat under certain aerodynamic loads.

None of that is inherent to the method of producing DF; the changing properties of the aero parts Under different conditions experienced through a lap. is very carefully controlled through the many, many setup tools which are available (for instance, the clever hydraulic suspension systems can be adjusted a great deal to better orient the car's aero. . There is nothing at all about a diffuser which makes it inherently more efficient at different speeds.

As for the interactions of the different components, that is very much a second-order effect. And besides, the vast majority of that interaction is independent of speed.

So this theory boils down to looking at things which are either second order to second order effects or tunable parameters.