Red Bull RB5

[Spencifer_Murphy]

You've got to be kidding me?! Does that thing actually join the rear wing?!

All of a sudden the RB5 is trying to take the R29's title as fugliest car of 2009!

[modbaraban]

You've got to be kidding me?! Does that thing actually join the rear wing?!

By the way, a few F1T forumers including myself mentioned this idea not long after the fist shark fin was introduced

I don't think it's hideous to be honest. But they do need to adapt their livery to it. I'm sure the STR artwork would look great out there.

[natef1]

Wow that is hideous.

Presumably it's operating in a similar vain to the sharkfins we saw last year? (poor knowledge )

On a cynical note it presents a nice advertising opportunity..

[myurr]

That is spectacularly ugly. Almost rivaling the Renault.

[yzfr7]

I was sure that it was illegal to have anything connected to the rear wing's main plane. That's why they use the shark fin instead of vertical fins like rally cars do.



But now this. I guess it is a loophole of the rules for the central section of the car.

[DM0407]

That's a Red Bluh...

[alelanza]

Interesting, i wonder how much of it is aero driven and how much is for structural rigidity of the back wing, being it has no central rear wing support

EDIT:

Can anyone comment further on the rear suspension not being fully independent? why is it not considered independent? I do see the rear arm of the upper wishbone connecting to the same spot on the gearbox, is that why?

[czt]

Interesting, i wonder how much of it is aero driven and how much is for structural rigidity of the back wing, being it has no central rear wing support

The rear wing would be structurally fine without central pillars, so it'll be an aero reason.

2006 Renault - no pillars http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 06_EMS.jpg

[alelanza]

Nice, thanks for that pic. Now do you think the taller wing might have higher structural requirements? from what i've seen all 09's do have some sort or central support

[ISLAMATRON]

Can anyone comment further on the rear suspension not being fully independent? why is it not considered independent? I do see the rear arm of the upper wishbone connecting to the same spot on the gearbox, is that why?

It is fully independent... sold rear axles are for nascar.

[czt]

No idea whether the requirements would be higher, but they'd certainly be different. Bear in mind that although the endplates are taller, the wing is narrower and therefore going to bend less for a given load. The wing won't generate as much load for the endplates to deal with either!

[xpensive]

Islam, someone mentioned something about a DeDion rear-suspension on the RBR, is that considered fully independent?

[ISLAMATRON]

Islam, someone mentioned something about a DeDion rear-suspension on the RBR, is that considered fully independent?

That is a good question, I would say it is more independent than not, but how much different is it than an anti-roll bar? not much in my eyes, so I'd say pretty much fully independent. But the Red-bull setup is fully independent double wishbone.

[timbo]

Islam, someone mentioned something about a DeDion rear-suspension on the RBR, is that considered fully independent?

That's probably me)))
I made a mistake when I saw first pictures of RB5 and that unusually high upper wishbones + angle of the shot tricked me.
It is not a DeDion of course.

[alelanza]

Cool, thanks for all supah quick replies, my soul is at rest now