Red Bull RB5

[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.

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

I found the article. It was on german language AMS. You might need to translate it with google language tools.

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 78526.html

Another article referring to the above one:

http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/news ... 21119.html

And yes, indeed they calculate something around 480 kg without KERS, driver and ballast.

[Conceptual]

Thanks!

[spaman]

Thanks!

nothing to thank for

[djos]

http://www.f1technical.net/news/11588

[tk421]

I was impressed by Webber's ability to jump in and be quick immediately, and I think he would have been the best of the 09 challengers if Heikki didnt have the 08 wing on.

[Moanlower]

And ...?

WTF, are you so thick that you need a RedBull Press release explained to you? [-X

Pardon me, had to vent a little. Some people are lightning fast to bash you for just trying to contribute, but disappear if the subject is getting confirmed. Thats kinda why I reacted to a C&P from a rather useless diary. Does that make any sense? The reason could also be having a bad day.

[tk421]

I was just browsing the "general" section and noticed something. In only two days, the RB5 has genereted 16 pages of threads. The F60 has generated 16 pages in 3 weeks...The R29 has generated 14 pages in 2 weeks. The FW31 and F1.09 have generated only 5 pages each in the 2-3 weeks since they've been launched, and the Mp4-24 has generated only 8 pages.

I bring it up because I think it speaks to how interested we all are in all the innovation that the RB5 incorporates into its design. On a broader scale, I believe this is why we're all into F1, why we all come to this great site. The reason the RB5 has generated so many comments is because we're all in love with the design, the innovation, and the interpretation of the new regs. One of my personal mottos is "everything for a reason." Applying that to this thread, there must be a reason that we are all so interested in the RB5...Personally I love it, and I hope it performs well (along with the FW31 [-o< )
Anyway, I know this post is a little "mushy" and I spoke for everyone in one of those sentences (please forgive me, I was generalizing ) but if you get my point overall then it's cool...

To sum it up, and as I mentioned earlier, if the poll on F1T's home page about the most impressive 2009 challenger came out today instead of 2 weeks ago when the RB5 was not included, I think the results would be drastically different.

[ESPImperium]

Do thees do the same duty??? Could i be thinking too much, but i think they could do much the same duty, but in a 2009 way.

RB4 Antlers and RB5 front suspension humps.

[Steven]

I was just browsing the "general" section and noticed something. In only two days, the RB5 has genereted 16 pages of threads. The F60 has generated 16 pages in 3 weeks...The R29 has generated 14 pages in 2 weeks. The FW31 and F1.09 have generated only 5 pages each in the 2-3 weeks since they've been launched, and the Mp4-24 has generated only 8 pages.

Adding to that, from all the news items posted about a car's launch, the RB5's is by far the most read, so I can definitely confirm that.

To me, this is indeed the most interesting car, closely matched by the Renault as it is also pretty different from the rest of the lot.

[rjsa]

I don't think so, RB4 had the BMW horns. The lumps on the RB5 nose look structural to me.

[xpensive]

I am pretty sure that you would find the torsion bars in there if you remove the nosecone.

[rjsa]

Could be, but I think it's too tight. We will find out

[ESPImperium]

They could be structural, but also serve an aerodynamic purpose as well. Could be a intresting development if that idea deals with about 3 or 4 things at once. Housing torsion bars, being structural to the crash structure and also having a aero purpose.

[kilcoo316]

I dunno if it is (purely) structural - would you not try to build the reinforcement in lower down the chassis? (c.g.)

[rjsa]

I dunno if it is (purely) structural - would you not try to build the reinforcement in lower down the chassis? (c.g.)

Look it the way around: he moved the upper center section of the nosecone and cockpit down instead of raising the edges, but he needed some extra reinforcement there.

It could be aero also, but too things bother me:

-Too smooth curves, shallow channel - don't know how much flow it would retain.
-It would be pushing flow within cockpit and against the helmet, not very desirable.

About housing the torsion bars, I don't think it's a great idea to do so much to raise the position of these elements.

It's my understanding of it only, I may very well be entirelly wrong.