Red Bull RB16

[godlameroso]

I wonder whether the high rake cars are more effective at low speeds than the low rake cars or vice versa. No idea why they are or even should be, of course.

Would you want high rake at low speeds? What if your wheelbase is relatively long? I'm sure there's a level of rake and wheelbase right for every range of speeds.

[Just_a_fan]

I wonder whether the high rake cars are more effective at low speeds than the low rake cars or vice versa. No idea why they are or even should be, of course.

Would you want high rake at low speeds? What if your wheelbase is relatively long? I'm sure there's a level of rake and wheelbase right for every range of speeds.

That's the question - would you want high or low rake at low speed? Red Bull change their rake angle with speed, it appears, by clever tuning of the suspension. No doubt others do the same thing. After all, you generally don't want lots of downforce at 300km/h because you don't corner at that speed. So dropping the rear reduces downforce. Might that suggest they would be better at lower speeds?

[godlameroso]

I wonder whether the high rake cars are more effective at low speeds than the low rake cars or vice versa. No idea why they are or even should be, of course.

Would you want high rake at low speeds? What if your wheelbase is relatively long? I'm sure there's a level of rake and wheelbase right for every range of speeds.

That's the question - would you want high or low rake at low speed? Red Bull change their rake angle with speed, it appears, by clever tuning of the suspension. No doubt others do the same thing. After all, you generally don't want lots of downforce at 300km/h because you don't corner at that speed. So dropping the rear reduces downforce. Might that suggest they would be better at lower speeds?

You probably want whatever is going to give you the most downforce at low speeds. If your wheelbase is longer would it serve you to have more rake, or could you get away with less? Then you have to consider the aero balance, do you want the COP to be in front of the COG at low speeds where mechanical grip matters more to get the car to turn in? Then as load builds the COP shifts back?

Hamilton claims Mercedes has made a step with getting the car to rotate at lower speeds, perhaps they shift the center of pressure forward at low speeds, then it shifts back at speed so they can exit the corners.

A higher rake car with a shorter wheelbase is probably harder to get the COP to move just right, because it's shorter, so less room for error, with a longer car you can get away with misplacing the COP slightly more than with a shorter car.

[wesley123]

I wonder whether the high rake cars are more effective at low speeds than the low rake cars or vice versa. No idea why they are or even should be, of course.

Would you want high rake at low speeds? What if your wheelbase is relatively long? I'm sure there's a level of rake and wheelbase right for every range of speeds.

That's the question - would you want high or low rake at low speed? Red Bull change their rake angle with speed, it appears, by clever tuning of the suspension. No doubt others do the same thing. After all, you generally don't want lots of downforce at 300km/h because you don't corner at that speed. So dropping the rear reduces downforce. Might that suggest they would be better at lower speeds?

They can run softer rear suspension. imo the rake they run isn't aero driven, but rather from a mechanical standpoint.

[godlameroso]

Would you want high rake at low speeds? What if your wheelbase is relatively long? I'm sure there's a level of rake and wheelbase right for every range of speeds.

That's the question - would you want high or low rake at low speed? Red Bull change their rake angle with speed, it appears, by clever tuning of the suspension. No doubt others do the same thing. After all, you generally don't want lots of downforce at 300km/h because you don't corner at that speed. So dropping the rear reduces downforce. Might that suggest they would be better at lower speeds?

They can run softer rear suspension. imo the rake they run isn't aero driven, but rather from a mechanical standpoint.

By raising the rear you also get to fly over kerbs with less damage to the diffuser. But you raise the roll center which affects the amount of rear roll stiffness you need. Rear roll stiffness adds oversteer, in general. Low rear roll stiffness makes trail braking tricky, because the rear moves around more. On the other hand, a softer sprung rear end helps to get traction on exit.

[bosyber]

[yener]

Would you want high rake at low speeds? What if your wheelbase is relatively long? I'm sure there's a level of rake and wheelbase right for every range of speeds.

That's the question - would you want high or low rake at low speed? Red Bull change their rake angle with speed, it appears, by clever tuning of the suspension. No doubt others do the same thing. After all, you generally don't want lots of downforce at 300km/h because you don't corner at that speed. So dropping the rear reduces downforce. Might that suggest they would be better at lower speeds?

They can run softer rear suspension. imo the rake they run isn't aero driven, but rather from a mechanical standpoint.

From which mechanical standpoint? What kind of mechanical advantage do they have with the high rake concept?

[godlameroso]

That's the question - would you want high or low rake at low speed? Red Bull change their rake angle with speed, it appears, by clever tuning of the suspension. No doubt others do the same thing. After all, you generally don't want lots of downforce at 300km/h because you don't corner at that speed. So dropping the rear reduces downforce. Might that suggest they would be better at lower speeds?

They can run softer rear suspension. imo the rake they run isn't aero driven, but rather from a mechanical standpoint.

From which mechanical standpoint? What kind of mechanical advantage do they have with the high rake concept?

Softer rear suspension means more mechanical grip. Potentially more weight transfer to the rear under acceleration, of course you have to have stiffer rebound rates, or a stiffer front end to prevent too much front weight transfer under braking. Stiffer rebound can also make up for lack of roll stiffness, because rebound has high and low speed components, helping the car settle into it's max roll moment.

[Marti_EF3]

[pierrre]

im reading this discussion on high/low rake effects, center of pressure movements seems to be discussed revolving around aerodynamics. ..how about adding to this mix rear suspension geometry and the old adage in motor racing car design, center of gravity's effecting on center of pressure

mix this up we see red bull racing car that has high rake, higher center of gravity assuming the activity would be around slower corners, a greater chassis rake changing angle with downforce that would effect suspension geometry as the car squat and also suspension rake differences between low speed and high speed. short wheelbase and high rake too has greater degree in angle difference for same amount of suspension movement to long wheelbase so their aerodynamics and dynamic set up in general must be very complicated but its mechanical aero angle change is greater in the context of what they want to achieve with flexible wings

with rake movements, designing an aerodynamic package must be very challenging..aero elements too changes, the attack angle, its direction to aim it at another aero element and also its location for those further behind. its obvious here that in typical newey fashion, he is taking everything to the limit. many have said the rbr is a difficult car and some teams have moved away from really aggressive rake. difficult but rewarding means it would most certainly welcome a better driver

then when compared to what mercedes-amg are doing, complete stability. long chassis with low rake

[godlameroso]

im reading this discussion on high/low rake effects, center of pressure movements seems to be discussed revolving around aerodynamics. ..how about adding to this mix rear suspension geometry and the old adage in motor racing car design, center of gravity's effecting on center of pressure

mix this up we see red bull racing car that has high rake, higher center of gravity assuming the activity would be around slower corners, a greater chassis rake changing angle with downforce that would effect suspension geometry as the car squat and also suspension rake differences between low speed and high speed. short wheelbase and high rake too has greater degree in angle difference for same amount of suspension movement to long wheelbase so their aerodynamics and dynamic set up in general must be very complicated but its mechanical aero angle change is greater in the context of what they want to achieve with flexible wings

with rake movements, designing an aerodynamic package must be very challenging..aero elements too changes, the attack angle, its direction to aim it at another aero element and also its location for those further behind. its obvious here that in typical newey fashion, he is taking everything to the limit. many have said the rbr is a difficult car and some teams have moved away from really aggressive rake. difficult but rewarding means it would most certainly welcome a better driver

then when compared to what mercedes-amg are doing, complete stability. long chassis with low rake

How do you know the RB16 has a high center of gravity?

[hardingfv32]

The CG of all the cars as measured from the floor reference plain has to be about the same. No secret to getting everything as low as possible. The engine even has restriction on how low some of its main components can be. So if all the cars are all about the same design layout, the one with the greatest ground clearance has the highest CG.

Brian

[godlameroso]

The CG of all the cars as measured from the floor reference plain has to be about the same. No secret to getting everything as low as possible. The engine even has restriction on how low some of its main components can be. So if all the cars are all about the same design layout, the one with the greatest ground clearance has the highest CG.

Brian

I'll have to disagree with you here. There are things you can do to put stuff lower in the car. The ICE itself and the transmission, and how those are bolted to the chassis affects COG. Much like you can corner balance a car by raising and lowering each individual wheel, so too can you affect COG by tilting the engine/transmission installation relative to the reference plane. The RB 16 has the front of the engine tilted upward slightly, and the transmission tapers upward.

[henry]

Some numbers

The difference between a low rake (Mercedes) and high rake (Red Bull) is about 0.7°. For a wheelbase of 3600mm this makes the difference between front and rear ride heights 44mm. With 55% load on the rear that makes the difference in CoG height 25mm (1 inch).

For the Red Bull to have the same CoG height, referred to the ground plane, as the Mercedes, its CoG ,referred to the reference plane, must be 25mm lower.

I suspect that would be an extremely difficult ask. I think that it is fair to say the RB has a higher CoG at low speeds.

[etusch]

longer wheelbase allow mercedes to make wider fuel tank to lower cog. When it goes empty, it may lost it's affect but in these no fueling in the race era they will have more affect from it most of the race.