Red Bull RB16

[zibby43]

[TNTHead]

With Monza ultra low DF package the balance issues of the RB16 returned full swing. For me it is very tempting to say that it is therefore caused in the realm of floor/diffusor, or suspension (because balance =roughly sum of DF + mechanical grip) Bit simplistic, just trying to learn more about car dynamics and aero.

Could it also be that still the less outwash front wing works against them? I know that the front wing is not only DF generator but also a flow conditioner. With lower DF the air is worked less harder, therefore more dirty air channeling from the front to the back of the car?

[McMika98]

Its all to do with the new suspension layout, they cant tune the car to get a good balance in corners. The steering input response is all over the place and the car is poor with tyres something they were always good at. When they are fully fuelled it looks stable but one lap pace the car is all over the place.

[yener]

The rear suspension is making the rear wing bend / change in angle someway. This way they have less drag on the straights, the problem is that ad mid an high speed corners, the suspension is still causing the rear wing into an angle and by that they lose df on the rear. Just watch the onboards

[etusch]

The rear suspension is making the rear wing bend / change in angle someway. This way they have less drag on the straights, the problem is that ad mid an high speed corners, the suspension is still causing the rear wing into an angle and by that they lose df on the rear. Just watch the onboards

is it legal? I think it is not.
I think Redbull just changes ride hight of rear and this automatically change whole cars angle. I think this is core of high rake concept

[yener]

The rear suspension is making the rear wing bend / change in angle someway. This way they have less drag on the straights, the problem is that ad mid an high speed corners, the suspension is still causing the rear wing into an angle and by that they lose df on the rear. Just watch the onboards

is it legal? I think it is not.
I think Redbull just changes ride hight of rear and this automatically change whole cars angle. I think this is core of high rake concept

Sorry for my earlier post. The rear wing flexing has nothing to do with the suspension angle / geometry. But i'm almost a 100% sure the twitchy rear of the RB16 is due to the flexing rear wing. RB16 is simply not fast enough trough the mid and highspeed courners, because that the rear wing angle is not stable from a certain speed which cause instability at the rear. Just watch the movie below.

[JordanMugen]

Sorry for my earlier post. The rear wing flexing has nothing to do with the suspension angle / geometry. But i'm almost a 100% sure the twitchy rear of the RB16 is due to the flexing rear wing. RB16 is simply not fast enough trough the mid and highspeed courners, because that the rear wing angle is not stable from a certain speed which cause instability at the rear. Just watch the movie below.

Interesting theory, but I find it difficult to believe the handling issues are caused by Red Bull miscalculating the stiffness of the rear wing endplates, and the degree of rear wing deflection (literally the degree of deflection !). If that is the problem, that would be such an easy thing to fix. The team could make various rear wing end plates of different stiffness to bring to free practice in a week!

I can't imagine it's such a simple problem as that.

[PhillipM]

Yeah, it's supposed to do that in the video. ALL the cars do that, it's why they all run the front loaded endplates. It's to reduce downforce and drag on the straights. No problem there.

As said above, if lateral stiffness was an issue they could literally knock prototype parts up at the track the same day to test it. But it's likely not, it's no worse than everyone else's wings.

[seense]

Sorry for my earlier post. The rear wing flexing has nothing to do with the suspension angle / geometry. But i'm almost a 100% sure the twitchy rear of the RB16 is due to the flexing rear wing. RB16 is simply not fast enough trough the mid and highspeed courners, because that the rear wing angle is not stable from a certain speed which cause instability at the rear. Just watch the movie below.

Nice video Yener! However, do you really think that one man from the outside has the solution and 100+ engineers on the inside don't? Seems of a too simple solution for me. But nice video anyway. I didn't realize it was flexing that much.

[hecti]

The wing is doing exactly what it is meant to be doing, the flex is 100% designed into the pilars, resulting in less drag at higher speeds (and slightly less downforce as well). Whether that amount of flex is too much according to the rules is something else entirely, but it seems to be doing its job as intended (just like the front wing flex in the early 2010s)

[SiLo]

That is a serious amount of flex. I'd love to see the same shot from other cars and see how they compare.

[Big Tea]

The wing is doing exactly what it is meant to be doing, the flex is 100% designed into the pilars, resulting in less drag at higher speeds (and slightly less downforce as well). Whether that amount of flex is too much according to the rules is something else entirely, but it seems to be doing its job as intended (just like the front wing flex in the early 2010s)

What is the effect of that 'moving' airstream on cars behind? does it destabilise them as it is inconsistent?

I wondered the same when we see slo-mo shots of the front wing waving about in a corner.

[hecti]

The wing is doing exactly what it is meant to be doing, the flex is 100% designed into the pilars, resulting in less drag at higher speeds (and slightly less downforce as well). Whether that amount of flex is too much according to the rules is something else entirely, but it seems to be doing its job as intended (just like the front wing flex in the early 2010s)

What is the effect of that 'moving' airstream on cars behind? does it destabilise them as it is inconsistent?

I wondered the same when we see slo-mo shots of the front wing waving about in a corner.

Why would it destabilize the car behind more? If you are reducing drag and downforce with this flex motion, it would make for a slightly less turbulent wake. The flex looks pretty consistent, and if you look at other cars wings (both front and rear) you will notice flex as well, maybe not to the same degree, as Redbull seem to be the kings of well engineered wing flex.

[Big Tea]

The wing is doing exactly what it is meant to be doing, the flex is 100% designed into the pilars, resulting in less drag at higher speeds (and slightly less downforce as well). Whether that amount of flex is too much according to the rules is something else entirely, but it seems to be doing its job as intended (just like the front wing flex in the early 2010s)

What is the effect of that 'moving' airstream on cars behind? does it destabilise them as it is inconsistent?

I wondered the same when we see slo-mo shots of the front wing waving about in a corner.

Why would it destabilize the car behind more? If you are reducing drag and downforce with this flex motion, it would make for a slightly less turbulent wake. The flex looks pretty consistent, and if you look at other cars wings (both front and rear) you will notice flex as well, maybe not to the same degree, as Redbull seem to be the kings of well engineered wing flex.

I was thinking of a gust effect

[wesley123]

Sorry for my earlier post. The rear wing flexing has nothing to do with the suspension angle / geometry. But i'm almost a 100% sure the twitchy rear of the RB16 is due to the flexing rear wing. RB16 is simply not fast enough trough the mid and highspeed courners, because that the rear wing angle is not stable from a certain speed which cause instability at the rear. Just watch the movie below.

Flex wings are nothing new, the extent on which you see here isn't either.