Red Bull RB5

[xpensive]

This is what I am thinking DK, could it be, hypothetically of course, that Newey could not have it his way with the exhaust and the heat-shield was the result?
A compromise, God forbid?

[timbo]

You can't just take a hacksaw and chop off a few offending inches, that just doesn't happen today.

What about Ferrari F60?

[kilcoo316]

My humble question was (is) to what extent Red Bull can design the exhaust and how much is decided by Renault?

RBR can completely customise their exhaust - within the parameters set by the engine characteristics.


Renault will supply the data required to get the acoustic properties right - RBR will work with that to package it inside their rear end - which is notably different to Renaults.

[xpensive]

Thanks kilcoo, that was a most credible explanation.

[kilcoo316]

Thanks kilcoo, that was a most credible explanation.

Sorry, its not great, but I can't think of a more straightforward way of putting it.


I'm sure someone will say acoustics is not the right term, but it is pressure waves and the reflections of the perturbations that are tuned to the engine - so there is a negative pressure gradient out of the exhaust system to aid the "blow" stroke (suck-squeeze-bang-blow)...


So - basically RBR have a wavelength to optimise to... they then work with it.

[axle]

Harmonics, Acoustics...it's all sound waves so yes you're spot on...There will be a sweetspot in the wavelength that's the best place for an exit.

[timbo]

Can anyone do a side by side comparison of R29 and RB5?
I believe exhause positions on both cars are not very different.

[imightbewrong]

From http://www.pitlanefanatic.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=611


The RB5 exhaust is further back and lower

[xpensive]

Given the images above are to scale, which I do not doubt, Ferrari, McLaren and BMW all have considerably shorter wheel-bases than the RB5, what does that mean?

[djos]

Given the images above are to scale, which I do not doubt, Ferrari, McLaren and BMW all have considerably shorter wheel-bases than the RB5, what does that mean?

The Shorter wheelbase that Ferrari, McLaren and BMW all opted for provides slightly better agility vs the longer wheel base of RedBull, Renault, Williams and Toyota who have all gone for slightly more high speed stability.

[timbo]

I think those who opted for short wheelbase tried to maximize gains, and those with longer wheelbase tried to minimize losses.

[Shaddock]

From http://www.pitlanefanatic.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=611


The RB5 exhaust is further back and lower

It looks like the cars fall into two design camps in terms of wheel base.

The long wheel base bunch Toyota, Williams, Renault and RB, all surprisingly close together in terms of wheel base.

The short wheel base crowd, Ferrari, BMW, and McLaren. These were last years 1, 2 & 3 in the championship

Each team will have tested the slick tyres and worked out how much weight needs to on the front wheels for this year to get the best out of them, and the wheelbase would have been calculated from this and the weight/location of the KERS device.

[JiMbO]

look at how much shorter the toyota's nose is compared to the ferrari's

[axle]

look at how much shorter the toyota's nose is compared to the ferrari's

Yeah and the Williams!

Although no one is sure which nose Williams will run long term...I can understand the long nose though as it counters the weight distribution issues of having the driver so far back.

I'm amazed the cars are either short or long wheel base, only Renault has edged towards the middle ground.

[SoliRossi]

I think those who opted for short wheelbase tried to maximize gains, and those with longer wheelbase tried to minimize losses.

Can you please elaborate on this for me? What gains and what losses? Or was it more of a general statment kind of meaning short wheel base is aggressive route and long wheel base is the conservative route?

Also looking at that comparison again it just shows how different the RB5 concept is. We have discussed so many of the different aspects in the RB5 but this just hits it home.

To my uneducated eye, just purley looking at that pic I would guess that the RB5 has the most rear weight bias out there. Say look at the Ferrari, short wheel base, overly long nose cone...to me suggesting more forward bias. Surley its not that simple.

Also there has been much talk about nose shapes and sizes, notably the Renault...and how its coz they want to put the batteries in the nose or ballast etc... BUt surley the nose cone is no way the place to put ballast, surley its far to high of the ground and has a hugley detremantal effect on COG...which lets face it, with lessened downforce is goint to be huge this year.

And as a counter to the argument that Renault is going to put the batteries in the nose for the mentioned bias reasons...well it appear that the RB5 has fitted its batteries in the back end and still managed to have a tighter rear end package....now although their nose cone is much smaller they are at freedom to load it with ballast, ie lead/tungsten/whatever they use is a lot denser and smaller than KERS batteries.

Thats just my take on it all and why i think the different direction the team have gone wiht nose cones are purley based on aero and not locations for ballast.