Red Bull RB5

[timbo]

Fine with me chief. I don't need your conviction since I heard it from the source. Pat is also too busy to clarify your doubts. Ever thought it could be both aero and ballast based ?

Tungsten have a density of 19.25 kg per litre. How much do you want to cram in that nose? 100kg or something?
It was reported that Ferrari F2004M had modified nosecone to hold more ballast, and it wasn't THAT huge.
http://picasaweb.google.com/zyc2706/Fer ... 4884994354

Also I heard that nosecone has limited weight for safety reason for last couple of years.

[dnomdec]

And apart from the obvious look of the car, what other novelties are there?
"This year’s chassis is no longer flat at the bottom as it now has a “V” section."

(http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/n ... 46_1.shtml)

I haven't found pictures in which I can spot a "V". Has anyone picked up on this? Does he mean "V" when viewing from the side? or "V" when viewing from the front?

Cheers,
Ned

[Crabbia]

on the RB5's pace yesterday, i smell a marketing excersize... its pretty easy for a team to pull 0.2s out of the bag, with light full loads, fresh tires and optimal track temps when they go on a light run, we all know this but think also of the timing:

The day after it is released, the eyes of the world are still on it, partly cause it is beautiful and there are some different, interesting bits on it, and partly cause its there was a rush of new cars then nothing for 2 weeks till the RB5. Case in point this thread is 15pg long in 2 days, i dont think there will be another 15 pages in the next two days.
It wouldnt really hurt their testing schedule to time it so that the car was light and freshly shod at the hottest time of day just to please the marketing guys and keep the PR ball rolling.

having said that, i still think this is the start of a season long embarrasment for renault the likes of which was experienced by ferrari at monza.

dnomdec:
he's talking about the tub if i have understood it correctly, and you wont see it unsless you get a pic of the RB5 really nakie.

[djos]

And apart from the obvious look of the car, what other novelties are there?
"This year’s chassis is no longer flat at the bottom as it now has a “V” section."

(http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/n ... 46_1.shtml)

I haven't found pictures in which I can spot a "V". Has anyone picked up on this? Does he mean "V" when viewing from the side? or "V" when viewing from the front?

Cheers,
Ned

I think he is referring to under the nose, not the floor itself.

[djos]

RB5 still the quickest '09 car at Jerez but this time it's Webbo and he's even faster thatn Vettel was yesterday!

1. S. Buemi Toro Rosso Toro Rosso STR3 1:18.703 44 pit
2. M. Webber Red Bull Racing Red Bull Racing RB5 1:21.321 +2.618 +2,618 24 pit
3. H. Kovalainen McLaren MP4-24 1:21.324 +2.621 +2,621 23 pit
4. N. Piquet Jr. N. Piquet Jr.. Renault R29 1:22.826 +4.123 +4,123 9 pit
5. K. Nakajima Williams FW31 1:22.827 +4.124 +4,124 18 pit

[tk421]

Fine with me chief. I don't need your conviction since I heard it from the source. Pat is also too busy to clarify your doubts.

And I don't need your sarcasm. You read somewhere that there's room to shift ballast in the Renault nose; so do you think that means there is no room to shift ballast in all the other cars?

Tungsten have a density of 19.25 kg per litre. How much do you want to cram in that nose? 100kg or something? Also I heard that nosecone has limited weight for safety reason for last couple of years.

Good point, going back to being able to put lots of weight in a small area.

I'm getting carried away here, I'll shut up about it now.
Anyway, the RB5 looks great, is the most innovative car out there, and seems to be quick straight out of the box, looking at their test times. Here's wishing them well. =D>

[Moanlower]

Tungsten have a density of 19.25 kg per litre. How much do you want to cram in that nose? 100kg or something?
It was reported that Ferrari F2004M had modified nosecone to hold more ballast, and it wasn't THAT huge.
http://picasaweb.google.com/zyc2706/Fer ... 4884994354

Also I heard that nosecone has limited weight for safety reason for last couple of years.

Thanks. I surely did hear that it gives them more freedom to adjust ballast. My 2 cents is that the nose is also that wide to provide downforce, and along with the skirts provide less turbulance underneath the nose (even create a vacuum) since there are no or very little barge boards.

[spaman]

Didn´t Pat Symonds say, that the R29 is the most light car they ever build, with the possibility to add as much as 60 kg of ballast?

That would surely be an argument for the big nose, since 60 kg are quite a bit. I am sure that I read this somewhere, just can´t find it right now.

[Conceptual]

Didn´t Pat Symonds say, that the R29 is the most light car they ever build, with the possibility to add as much as 60 kg of ballast?

That would surely be an argument for the big nose, since 60 kg are quite a bit. I am sure that I read this somewhere, just can´t find it right now.

I would like to see that story, can you post a link?

[Scotracer]

Yes Pat did say that they spent a lot of time trying to reduce the weight of the chassis to free up some ballast weight.

[Miguel]

Didn´t Pat Symonds say, that the R29 is the most light car they ever build, with the possibility to add as much as 60 kg of ballast?

That would surely be an argument for the big nose, since 60 kg are quite a bit. I am sure that I read this somewhere, just can´t find it right now.

Let's do the math:



This is with fluids. I seem to remember that minimum car weight used to be 525 kg in the early 90s, without the driver. Considering that engines have got smaller and lighter (now fixed at 95 kg, IIRC), let's estimate a moderate saving of 15 kg in engine weight. That puts us at 510. Current cars are also narrower, but as extra width is probably just carbon fiber, let's estimate that the extra 10% width only costs 10 kg. It's also likely cars were somewhat underweight, so let's assume they used around 10 kg of ballast. This puts an estimate at 490 kg. It seems to me that just 12 kg of savings in 15 years is a tad too little. I'd say 70kg to 80kg of ballast is more likely.

But then again, I could be talking bullshit

[Scotracer]

Didn´t Pat Symonds say, that the R29 is the most light car they ever build, with the possibility to add as much as 60 kg of ballast?

That would surely be an argument for the big nose, since 60 kg are quite a bit. I am sure that I read this somewhere, just can´t find it right now.

Let's do the math:



This is with fluids. I seem to remember that minimum car weight used to be 525 kg in the early 90s, without the driver. Considering that engines have got smaller and lighter (now fixed at 95 kg, IIRC), let's estimate a moderate saving of 15 kg in engine weight. That puts us at 510. Current cars are also narrower, but as extra width is probably just carbon fiber, let's estimate that the extra 10% width only costs 10 kg. It's also likely cars were somewhat underweight, and that they used 10 kg of ballast. This puts an estimate at 490 kg. It seems to me that just 12 kg of savings in 15 years is a tad too little.

But then again, I could be talking bullshit

I agree...partially.

That 60kg is on top of the KERS weight, so:



That's base chassis weight with engine and fluids but no KERS.

[slimjim8201]

Didn´t Pat Symonds say, that the R29 is the most light car they ever build, with the possibility to add as much as 60 kg of ballast?

That would surely be an argument for the big nose, since 60 kg are quite a bit. I am sure that I read this somewhere, just can´t find it right now.

Let's do the math:



This is with fluids. I seem to remember that minimum car weight used to be 525 kg in the early 90s, without the driver. Considering that engines have got smaller and lighter (now fixed at 95 kg, IIRC), let's estimate a moderate saving of 15 kg in engine weight. That puts us at 510. Current cars are also narrower, but as extra width is probably just carbon fiber, let's estimate that the extra 10% width only costs 10 kg. It's also likely cars were somewhat underweight, so let's assume they used around 10 kg of ballast. This puts an estimate at 490 kg. It seems to me that just 12 kg of savings in 15 years is a tad too little. I'd say 70kg to 80kg of ballast is more likely.

But then again, I could be talking bullshit

How about torsional and bending rigidity? I'd love to see specs comparing the current cars to ones of 15 years ago. I'm guessing the current cars are in another league altogether.

[Conceptual]

In the Newey Q&A he said that with KERS and mark Webber, that the RB5 had less than 5kg of ballast to play with.

You know, now that I look for the link, I cannot find it... Maybe it was an offshoot from a previous link. Ill go dig it up.

Autosport Q. How much of the ballast does it use up? Half?

AN: Well, more than half, there's not much left. It depends on your driver weight, so for someone like Mark on the taller and heavier end of the scale, it makes it more difficult for him.

Although, for some reason I remember the next question being more specific, like "Less than 10kg?" but maybe I'm crossing it with the Horner interview...

[Miguel]

How about torsional and bending rigidity? I'd love to see specs comparing the current cars to ones of 15 years ago. I'm guessing the current cars are in another league altogether.

That would be great to see indeed, but you'll have to ask an engineer for that. I just barely know how to apply "Granny's thumb count". And even then I forgot about KERS weight Good call on that, Scotracer.

In any case, I can't believe they just have 5kg of ballast for Webber. I mean, I really can't.