Red Bull RB5

[djos]

WoooHooo, awesome awesome race and a simply Brilliant 1-2 result for Vettel & Webber! =D>

I think the reason the RB5 is so good in the wet is it's Mechanical Grip levels thanks to the front suspension design (the V style "keel" provides a very low mount point for the lower suspension arms) and the incredibly low center of gravity created by Newey's Pull-Rod suspension packaging etc.

I wonder if the DDD teams loose out in the wet with the feeder holes in the floor only able to suck in water?

[xpensive]

For timbo:
Eeh...I was kinda hoping you would figure something about the drivers involved...

[Jersey Tom]

WoooHooo, awesome awesome race and a simply Brilliant 1-2 result for Vettel & Webber! =D>

I think the reason the RB5 is so good in the wet is it's Mechanical Grip levels thanks to the front suspension design (the V style "keel" provides a very low mount point for the lower suspension arms) and the incredibly low center of gravity created by Newey's Pull-Rod suspension packaging etc.

I wonder if the DDD teams loose out in the wet with the feeder holes in the floor only able to suck in water?

Don't think I'd call the CG change of a pullrod suspension "incredibly low." The difference is very small. With everything else involved it's entirely possible the BGP001 has equal or lower sprung mass cgh than the RB5. Same goes for the front suspension design.

Could be the wheel bearings on the RB5 for all we know.

I think people are forgetting that S. Vettel grabbed pole with it perfectly dry out. It's not necessarily that the RB5 is good in the rain and the BGP001 isn't. RB5 was just quick period. I'd put my money on the RBR engineers just having brought a better setup in general.

[djos]

WoooHooo, awesome awesome race and a simply Brilliant 1-2 result for Vettel & Webber! =D>

I think the reason the RB5 is so good in the wet is it's Mechanical Grip levels thanks to the front suspension design (the V style "keel" provides a very low mount point for the lower suspension arms) and the incredibly low center of gravity created by Newey's Pull-Rod suspension packaging etc.

I wonder if the DDD teams loose out in the wet with the feeder holes in the floor only able to suck in water?

Don't think I'd call the CG change of a pullrod suspension "incredibly low." The difference is very small. With everything else involved it's entirely possible the BGP001 has equal or lower sprung mass cgh than the RB5. Same goes for the front suspension design.

Could be the wheel bearings on the RB5 for all we know.

I think people are forgetting that S. Vettel grabbed pole with it perfectly dry out. It's not necessarily that the RB5 is good in the rain and the BGP001 isn't. RB5 was just quick period. I'd put my money on the RBR engineers just having brought a better setup in general.

Well i guess it is all relative, in F1 even more so.

Btw, I certainly hadn't forgotten that Vettel and Webber where the fastest cars in Q2 when everyone was running on fumes.

[alelanza]

WoooHooo, awesome awesome race and a simply Brilliant 1-2 result for Vettel & Webber! =D>

I think the reason the RB5 is so good in the wet is it's Mechanical Grip levels thanks to the front suspension design (the V style "keel" provides a very low mount point for the lower suspension arms) and the incredibly low center of gravity created by Newey's Pull-Rod suspension packaging etc.

I wonder if the DDD teams loose out in the wet with the feeder holes in the floor only able to suck in water?

Don't think I'd call the CG change of a pullrod suspension "incredibly low." The difference is very small. With everything else involved it's entirely possible the BGP001 has equal or lower sprung mass cgh than the RB5. Same goes for the front suspension design.

Could be the wheel bearings on the RB5 for all we know.

I think people are forgetting that S. Vettel grabbed pole with it perfectly dry out. It's not necessarily that the RB5 is good in the rain and the BGP001 isn't. RB5 was just quick period. I'd put my money on the RBR engineers just having brought a better setup in general.

Well i guess it is all relative, in F1 even more so.

Btw, I certainly hadn't forgotten that Vettel and Webber where the fastest cars in Q2 when everyone was running on fumes.

True, that being said I read somewhere that a fuel corrected Q3 still put the Brawns as the fastest ones, not sure if that's correct though

[PlatinumZealot]

Yes I agree.. The Redbulls had to be much lighter to beat the Brawns.

I think the Redbull has the better suspension because when down force and grip levels were down in the Rain the RB was superior.

[RacingManiac]

...or it just might be the drivers were better....

[ISLAMATRON]

...or it just might be the drivers were better....

not that much better... the SC had a big part in it as well, when the RBR's had pitted(early mind you and not at the best strategic time) the lead that the BGP's had disappeared... Button had a 21 sec lead on Vettle when the SC came out... and they decided to pit instead of staying out and rebuilding a lead when the safety car pulled off. Pitting on lap 19 forced them to switch to a 2 stop strategy when I think they could have easily done a 1 stopper and possibly having Button win the race.... big emphasis on possibly because the RBR's were ridiculously fast in the rain.

Button had 15kg more fuel than Vettle so he could has easily stayed out more than the 4 laps longer than he did.

[Shi Ruan]

True, that being said I read somewhere that a fuel corrected Q3 still put the Brawns as the fastest ones, not sure if that's correct though

Yeah, that would make sense; I've heard Jense mention on a few different occasions that the BGP001's tendency to be comparatively faster with high fuel on board than when running light.

[kilcoo316]

I note with interest these comments by Adrian Newey:

As has been speculated, given the design of RB5, it's not the easiest task getting it to fit the car and while we work on this one item, we also need to keep working on the general development of the car, to ensure we don't fall behind in other areas," said Newey.

"The unique feature of the Red Bull cars is the pullrod rear suspension, which is a good solution when you don't have a double-diffuser. But getting it to work with the diffuser will be more difficult. We won't have a double-diffuser before Monaco.

"There is no doubt that a double-diffuser does give performance. How much performance depends on how you interpret the regulations and how you adapt it to suit your own car, so that some teams will get more out of it than others. It is worth doing for everyone on the grid. Our challenge is to adapt one to work on our car."

Now... the pickup point for the pullrod is far ahead of the diffuser area. We have seen that in photos.

http://premium.f1-live.com/f1/photos/20 ... po_024.jpg

From what I see, it is the gearbox that will cause the problem, and I didn't think the lower wishbone pickup points were at the bottom of the casing.

http://premium.f1-live.com/f1/photos-hi ... oa_633.jpg


Is Adrian Newey just throwing out any answer to keep the press happy (as most of them wouldn't know the difference), or is there something I've missed?

[xpensive]

Kilcoo, I think what Newey is trying to say is that with this "interpretation" of the rules, there is really no telling how far to the front a secondary, or even a tertiary, central difuser can stretch, why the existing pull-rod might get in the way?

[kilcoo316]

I think what Newey is trying to say, is that with this "interpretation" of the rules, there is really no telling how far to the front a secondary, or even a tertiary, central difuser can stretch?

Ahhh, its only the bottom surface (visible from the ground) that has to ramp at the rear wheel axle line isn't it?


Well, as a work around - you could pull the air "into" the hollowed out plank* and then lift above the step plane, turn it 180 degrees and split into passages either side of the gearbox - that would enable alot more potential volume to be used, and not compromise the gearbox c.g drastically.


*which is what they are effectively doing now - then they extend the geometric feature to become the diffuser upper deck.

[kilcoo316]

In fact... take this one step further.


Redo the whole floor of the car.


The step between plank and split plane can be perforated the full length of the car - these perforations then are connected to expanding ducts which exit the car laterally. Stick the exits in a highly curved area of the sidepods (for instance), and you can get very low local exit pressures...

[xpensive]

Something like that I guess, but you are the aerodynamicist here.

This is why I joked about Newey's coming central multi-blade "fusion"-diffuser, with the fifth blade starting under Wunderkind's arse.

[djos]

In fact... take this one step further.


Redo the whole floor of the car.


The step between plank and split plane can be perforated the full length of the car - these perforations then are connected to expanding ducts which exit the car laterally. Stick the exits in a highly curved area of the sidepods (for instance), and you can get very low local exit pressures...

Brawn et al have really let Pandora out of her box with their Diffusers; I bet Newey is gonna come up with a Diffuser that is as radical as the rest of the car and it will send the RB5's right to the front of the grid by a good margin!