Red Bull RB9 Renault

[hollus]

...which just happens to be the biggest surface on the car...
Sorry Ringo, surfaces pointing to the sides do not produce downfoce.
So, to summarize 4 years of posts: the RB has a particularly curvy, edge lacking, continuous shape pretty much everywhere... Again sorry, but we could all see that!

[Huntresa]

...which just happens to be the biggest surface on the car...
Sorry Ringo, surfaces pointing to the sides do not produce downfoce.
So, to summarize 4 years of posts: the RB has a particularly curvy, edge lacking, continuous shape pretty much everywhere... Again sorry, but we could all see that!

Yeah and what does it matter that we could all see it ? I can see the wings etc but not everyone knows how they work and produce downforce, same with this concept we cant just look at something and think thats good if we dont know how it works. He is explaining how it works no one else has done that. And if you are unsure just get some expert here and they can prob say if its right or not.

[astracrazy]

i do buy into ringo's theory. Maybe it was just too obvious solution, everyone is more concerned with flexi wings, ebd etc. The RB's have always been very smooth

If you look at Merc and Ferrari they have gone down the same route with there sidepod/engine cover design - they are very similar

I don't think this is 100% the reason for there success but i think it is one of the factors + other things. Its just has been overlooked

But, ringo, you said a few pages back you always back up your theories with evidence. You'll only prove your point with cfd evidence

[Richard]

Yes RB has a very smooth profile, it's beautiful. However that is the superficial result of a huge of amount of work under the skin. The difference is that other teams struggle to get the packaging tight enough to enable the smooth profile.

Put it another way, its not as if Ringo can go to Woking or Maranello and say "use radii" and that'll end RB dominance as claimed in his posts. Ringo would probably have a radiator or exhaust thrown at his head with a reply "Of course we know about that, but where are we going to this?"

[hollus]

This is just for you, Ringo.
The arrows point at bodywork parts or details of the late RB9 that have sharp transitions, even edges, although they could be redesigned not to do so (camera positions and shapes are mandatory, the transitions to such shapes are not). These details are not "radiused". There are few, but there they are, so clearly adding radii to everything is not the overriding design principle here. A key reason is that to make shapes smoother you generally have to make them larger or heavier.
This car is over smooth, and presents as few hard challenges to the air as possible, but then, all teams are doing this to the largest extent possible (within their abilities). And if they are not, then I am truly shocked.

[flynfrog]

so the secret it something that has been used since pretty much since the dawn of powered flight? Earth shattering.

[gridwalker]

The work of Figoni & Falaschi from the 30s springs to mind ...



http://bit.ly/IuQaS7

[shelly]

From the "overcut sidepods", thread, 12 months ago:

Yes but in the 70s they did not have proper tools to evaluate aero, The rb5-8 sidepod width is something much more interesting in my opinion. No othe big team seem to follow, except lotus.
Usually you would want the narrowest section of sidepods to decrease energy loss: we have seen mclaren and ferrari this year for example, exposing a large parte of black floor even at the widest sidepod section. Rbr has always treated this zone differently, in a way that's opposite to what otheres try to do. Why?

[flynfrog]

constant radius sidepods not found

[ringo]

i do buy into ringo's theory. Maybe it was just too obvious solution, everyone is more concerned with flexi wings, ebd etc. The RB's have always been very smooth

If you look at Merc and Ferrari they have gone down the same route with there sidepod/engine cover design - they are very similar

I don't think this is 100% the reason for there success but i think it is one of the factors + other things. Its just has been overlooked

But, ringo, you said a few pages back you always back up your theories with evidence. You'll only prove your point with cfd evidence

mercedes and ferrari are not the same design. They are very different. It's not about smoothness.
You see it's not the general shape of the sidepod. It's the suttle difference in equation for the curves used for the sidepods.
And even still there is a massive difference with those three sidepods with geometry especially the ferrari.
Lotus, as i said before, is most similar to redbull. both this year's car and last year's.

this was made when the mclaren l pods were around as a simple example for one of the threads. I posted this but obviously never said what x was.

and as much advantage that the l pods have in pressure recovery over the top, the redbull still had superior pressure recovery near the rear end, and also better flow energy. more red is better in this context above. and this is with no rake.
there should be more images with a typical side-pod comparison.
Tests were done and model refinements were made etc. etc. until i decided to copy the redbull design philosophy on the 3d model car.
I'll be glad to run the cfd on the body of the car, but the file was messed around with since then, so i'll have to clean up things a bit before the cfd runs without error. if anyone else has another car out there, we can compare results for the body only.

[ringo]

Yes RB has a very smooth profile, it's beautiful. However that is the superficial result of a huge of amount of work under the skin. The difference is that other teams struggle to get the packaging tight enough to enable the smooth profile.

Put it another way, its not as if Ringo can go to Woking or Maranello and say "use radii" and that'll end RB dominance as claimed in his posts. Ringo would probably have a radiator or exhaust thrown at his head with a reply "Of course we know about that, but where are we going to this?"

Well it is difficult. There's only one team that has done this in the history of the sport.
It's probably too late now for the 2014 car, hence why i started talking just now.
Is not a matter of just using it still, as it must obviously be fine tuned and have a focus on what is being achieved.
But having kept all variables the same for 3 different philosophies, the redbull pods had the biggest gap in performance.

[ringo]

so the secret it something that has been used since pretty much since the dawn of powered flight? Earth shattering.

http://s3images.coroflot.com/user_files ... jiXrtc.jpg

well if no one else in the sport ever used it, i guess they're all idiots then.
There's a bad habbit here of oversimplifying things.
It's like the use of pull rods in the 70's versus that of the 2009. Same thing different application and execution.
Doesn't do the latter justice for trying to simply and paint with a broad brush.
You might as well post a picture of a vortex generator on a world war 1 plane and compare it to the one on the rb9 and call it "earth shattering" jestingly as well, it doesn't support the case that it isn't innovative.

I revealed something that has been overlooked for 5 years basically, it can be visually validated as unique to one fbloodline of car and one designer. Have numbers on it's difference with other like examples, yet there is no accolade given to Adrian Newey for doing such a good job. A job that no other team could have picked up on, but one team Lotus after 3 years.
Yet it is being chalked up as some gimmicks.
They're more gimmicks like flexi wings, rubber noses, traction control, here that are more far fetched and have no evidence of existing much less being a performance enhancer, but i guess they're more complicated and more cooler.
Well the theory is just my opinion anyway, let's leave it up to the teams to decide if it's worthwhile.

[flynfrog]

its not innovative. You haven't pointed out anything thats not day one stuff in basic streamlining.

you are trying to back it up with obviously crude Cad models and CFD to try to relate to something as refined and complex as an F1 car.

[ringo]

http://www.auto123.com/ArtImages/157924 ... inline.jpg

constant radius sidepods not found

That's a diversion you're trying to play there.
You were not paying attention.
I have said that the coanda exhuasts were an exception, as they add energy to the sidepod flow so the sidepod shaping is less senstive. unforced pressure recovery is not important if you have sound speed thousand degree exhaust coming out the top of the sidepod. It still does help to have the shaping for the sides and the front.
I said that long ago even when i didn't reveal what redbull were doing with the pod curve.
coanda took priority in 2013.

[ringo]

its not innovative. You haven't pointed out anything thats not day one stuff in basic streamlining.

you are trying to back it up with obviously crude Cad models and CFD to try to relate to something as refined and complex as an F1 car.

Ok where's your work?
The models are intentionally made that way. It's elementary science; i am manipulating one variable i don't need a fancy sidepod with a million variables. One variable with extremes to make clear distinctions with results.

Are you familiar with aerodynamic testing? Try to find a refined and complex experiment. I can bet you will find some cubes and cylinders at best. Good luck finding complexity.

A complex model will not help anything, as it has too many variables. It doesn't isolate the feature of interest.