Red Bull RB10 Renault

[tuj]

If the RedBull was so "incredibly efficient" then they'd be winning all of the races. The RedBull doesn't have the downforce margin that it enjoyed in the EBD days. Indeed, they probably have little, if any, more downforce than the Mercedes this season.

I didn't say the whole car was efficient, I specifically was talking about the floor. Is it not unusual that a car that is down at least 80hp to the Merc is setting the fastest trap speeds? I know RBR brought low-drag wings, but you still need a good exit from parabolica to get the highest trap speed. Yes, the Mercs were in a class of their own on overall lap times, but I heard they actually added some wing for the lesmo's since they have plenty of power on tap. I was trying to find out if RBR is doing something clever with the floor or not.

[djos]

Riccardo got a double tow combined with DRS and max power from his ERS - case closed.

[Per]

It's a sufficiently long straight. Sure, a good exit out of Parabolica makes a big difference in laptime but in top speed? I think the difference is not so big. The straight is long enough for top speeds to converge to within a few kph even if the difference in Parabolica exit speed is relatively large. Having a low drag coefficient is far more important in this respect.

So in short, do the RB top speeds in Monza mean they must have an efficient floor? No.

(and I don't buy that they are "at least 80hp down", but that's a different issue)

[trinidefender]

The way they have looked this year is that they are probably on par with merc for highest peak downforce levels but, and it could very well be that I am totally wrong here, it seems the RB car has a higher lift:drag ratio meaning for every point of downforce produced, it produces less drag.

That would be one way of explaining the high speeds they have managed to get.

[Juzh]

(and I don't buy that they are "at least 80hp down", but that's a different issue)

"Strat 1" on W05 is somewhere in that region, while doing race pace it's something like 40-60. And that's just undeniable. We've seen countless onboards of various renault powered cars getting better traction off corners, getting alongside some merc powered stuff, only to lose out by 2-3 car lengths at the end of straights. Multiply times 55 and you get a massive advantage coming purely from bhp.

Otherwise RB with their toothpick wings would clock probably somewhere in the region of 370+ instead of 360.

[gandharva]

Otherwise RB with their toothpick wings would clock probably somewhere in the region of 370+ instead of 360.

Imho, even the Mercs would not be able to run such a tiny rearwing. If they would, the handling would be crap. See Lotus for example. They tried and failed hard because both, the car and the engine, are crap.

I totally agree with tuj. The RBR floor/diffusor is a class of it's own even without EBD.

[tuj]

I totally agree with tuj. The RBR floor/diffusor is a class of it's own even without EBD.

Thanks, see I'm seeing Merc copy things like the tyre 'squirt' slot that we've seen on the RBR for a while now. I think in terms of front wing development, Merc probably is in the lead. In terms of -lift/drag, I think the RBR is significantly ahead of the Merc, otherwise the RBR would be truly uncompetitive given its power deficit (I know, I know, we are not sure how much deficit there is, but let's all agree there *is* a fairly substantial deficit in power).

I'm trying to understand more about what is going on with the floor design in general, and the RBR seems to be the pick of the litter in that regard, with the Merc probably 2nd. I know floors are hard things to analyze because we don't really get to see much of them, but I think it is an area that is seeing lots of focus and development from the teams.

[trinidefender]

I totally agree with tuj. The RBR floor/diffusor is a class of it's own even without EBD.

Thanks, see I'm seeing Merc copy things like the tyre 'squirt' slot that we've seen on the RBR for a while now. I think in terms of front wing development, Merc probably is in the lead. In terms of -lift/drag, I think the RBR is significantly ahead of the Merc, otherwise the RBR would be truly uncompetitive given its power deficit (I know, I know, we are not sure how much deficit there is, but let's all agree there *is* a fairly substantial deficit in power).

I'm trying to understand more about what is going on with the floor design in general, and the RBR seems to be the pick of the litter in that regard, with the Merc probably 2nd. I know floors are hard things to analyze because we don't really get to see much of them, but I think it is an area that is seeing lots of focus and development from the teams.

Award for generalised statement of the year? All the teams know about the effect of "tyre squirt." The problem arises in how to mitigate this airflow phenomenon. The straight slots you see teams run in front of their tyres serve the same purpose, it just seems that RedBull created a solution that McLaren and then Mercedes looked at, modelled and tested and found to work.

Why do you think that the merc front wing produces more downforce but the RBR is better in terms of lift:drag ratio? What, in your eyes? Tells you that?

[godlameroso]

The thing is floor design is extremely limited, the only thing you can really do is maximize the effectiveness of the dimensions you've been given, most teams have already converged on the ideal shape with only details differentiating each design. The part that hasn't been really controlled with regulations is how air flows through the chassis. For a wing, or diffuser, or any other aerodynamic jiggly bit to be effective there has to be a high and low pressure zone interacting on the surface in some way. Well what better way to increase the pressure differential in the diffuser than strategically increasing pressure in the bodywork directly above it.

It's definitely a tricky thing to do because you have packaging considerations and cooling requirements that must be managed, and sometimes the aero requirements don't converge with P.U. performance requirements. We don't see it but I guarantee almost every top team is running some sort of passive stalling. Now if they've figured out a way to do the inverse and passively generate extra downforce at low speed, in conjunction with passive stalling at high speed it would definitely be an advantage. And as teams get to grips with the new P.U.'s and create more efficient packaging for them the scope for developing this passive system will only grow.

[tuj]

We don't see it but I guarantee almost every top team is running some sort of passive stalling.

What are they stalling? Frong wing, rear wing, both?

[Hobbs04]

How rigid is the rear wing structure? We often see the rear wing bouncing, shaking, jolting around on bumpy circuits. Could it be possible for the rear wing to tilt backwards or deflect to the rear such as DTM's fancy drs wings? Red bull had the bendy floor ... 2013 the bendy front wing.... Suzuka 2010?

Note the video SectorOne posted back during Silverstone gp regarding Ricciardo rear wing flapping violently.

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 49#p524549

Edit: posted link

[lio007]

Preperations Singapore-GP




edit: pics from Thursday




by AMuS

[RicerDude]

Wow that's the biggest wing I've seen on a RedBull for years.

[Daliracing]

Quite large slots on the endplates

[PlatinumZealot]

Is that wing legal?! It looks so huge for real!