Marko is saying that the car produces too much downforce for the tyres and they have to turn it down to make the tyres usable.
That's really saying something.
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Team: Adrian Newey (CTO), Petr Prodromou (CA), Rob Marshall (CD), Christian Horner (TP)
Drivers: Sebastian Vettel (1), Mark Webber (2), Sebastian Buemi (reserve)
Team name: Infiniti Red Bull Racing
if they produce such aerodynamic efficenty, they could use it for better top speed instead too much heating tires in corners. but that is not case in RB9, because in Mercedes they could say that last 4 years car produce too much downforce for the tyersringo wrote:Marko is saying that the car produces too much downforce for the tyres and they have to turn it down to make the tyres usable.
That's really saying something.
Marko is uneducated man, who dose not know nothing about f1, specialy about car downforce, and how much other have downforce. His statement is base on his pure ego and his marketing about have good Red Bull is and how good car they have and how much Pirelli suck for his car. 
Wow, you can build a100 bridges, but you f*&^ one goat.......Neno wrote:They can blame only Newey for this, he designed that car. Newey didnt make enough effort to make car with his geometry work good with tires he is special kind of freak. Something like addict, but he is not opssesed with heroin, instead of downforce and formula 1 is much more then only that.
Given the fact that Merc always used to be quite good in the Top Speed department yet lap times and apex speeds usually were wuite off compared to RB I have no idea how you come to this conclusion?!Neno wrote:if they produce such aerodynamic efficenty, they could use it for better top speed instead too much heating tires in corners. but that is not case in RB9, because in Mercedes they could say that last 4 years car produce too much downforce for the tyers
So you know it is the geometry causing the overload of the tires?! Not setup, i.e. camber, anhedral/dihedral, tire pressure, etc. Not downforce either.They can blame only Newey for this, he designed that car. Newey didnt make enough effort to make car with his geometry work good with tires he is special kind of freak. Something like addict, but he is not opssesed with heroin, instead of downforce and formula 1 is much more then only that.
Shelley, I agree that when viewed from behind, the lower right hand endplate vortex ought to be clockwise (to fill in the lower pressure on the bottom of the beam wing.) And, yes, those twisted feathers look like they might be going the wrong way for a clockwise vortex.shelly wrote:...
On the rb9 the rear wing endplate extensions seem much more twisted than on the other cars. The axis of the vortex they interact with should pass along the center of them , since the twist is given to them to have a corrcect angle f attck with respect to the vortex induced perturbation of the local velocity angle.
From the orientation of the twist you can infer the sens of rotation of the vortex. To me, for the right side of the car seen froma the back, it seems that the vortex rotates counterclockwise - that seems strange because the lower endplate vortex is clockwise there
just found this youtube-video (maybe wrong in this thread, but good for comparison):Rikhart wrote:Unbelievable vibration of that front wing (again), just saw it on FP1 around the 7 mins left mark on vettels car. It looked like it was going to fly off. Also its very clearly depressing on the straights and coming back up on braking, so it seems it doesnt really matter what sort of improvements they do to the flexing tests.
Here's a good look at the flow pattern of the RWEP and also the effect the rear tyre has on the air.shelly wrote:
On the rb9 the rear wing endplate extensions seem much more twisted than on the other cars. The axis of the vortex they interact with should pass along the center of them , since the twist is given to them to have a corrcect angle f attck with respect to the vortex induced perturbation of the local velocity angle.
From the orientation of the twist you can infer the sens of rotation of the vortex. To me, for the right side of the car seen froma the back, it seems that the vortex rotates counterclockwise - that seems strange because the lower endplate vortex is clockwise there
The tyres cover the biggest amount of laptime. So they were better on the tyre, but slower than in melborune. Just compare Mercedes performance between those races. So maybe Red Bull has the fastest car, but they have to sacrifice more laptime in order to preserve tires than maybe a ferrari or mercedes. This also is in line with the statement that they have "too much downforce".raymondu999 wrote:
Have we misread this as a tyre-eater?
It's looking increasingly like the car in Melbourne race trim was out of the window, rather than fundamentally being a tyre-eater.
great analysis.raymondu999 wrote:Taking a look at the 2013 Malaysian Grand Prix, Vettel did IOPPO for his strategy. New mediums saw him through for 17 laps (start of lap 6 - end of lap 22)
Considering that the Malaysian GP is 56 laps, have we misread the RB9? It doesn't look like it's a car in much trouble. Only Bottas (Lap 23 - Lap 40, 18 laps) and Maldonado (Lap 14 - 32, 19 laps) did longer stints on the option tyre than Vettel - and crucially, both were later in the race, where the fuel was lighter. Both Lotuses had their longest option stint pegged at 15 laps - and even the somewhat competitively 3-stopping Button was doing 14 lap stints on his options.
Say the whole race had been dry, and they started the race on options - of which Vettel had 2 new sets. Adjust the stint length slightly, thanks to having more fuel on board, and he could probably stretch to maybe 15 or 16. But let's go conservative and say 15 - leaving 41 laps to do. I could definitely see Vettel (having done 17 laps on the option) do a stint of 20 and 21 laps respectively on the prime. Or if the option was that much better - he could have done three 15-lap stints on the options and still only had 11 laps on the prime.
Have we misread this as a tyre-eater?
It's looking increasingly like the car in Melbourne race trim was out of the window, rather than fundamentally being a tyre-eater.
