Red Bull RB13 nose: Regulatory means of legality

[PlatinumZealot]

This thread is to investigate the technical legality of the hole in the nose of the RB13 car. I notice the tech writers have avoided an explanation as to how it works.

That leaves f1tech again to lead the way.

Anyone care to begin?

[JonoNic]

Scarbs POV

[PlatinumZealot]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIBUCV_4sio Scarbs POV

Yep. I saw that video. Scarbs doesn't explain anything there. He gingerly skips over any technical explanation.

Ok. I have a hint from a RedBull employer. The nose is legal using the same principle of the Force India nostrils.

[Just_a_fan]

There was some suggestion that the inlet contains a series of fins that maintain the legality of the device. Much the same as the FI clever geometry to ensure the device, when viewed as a section will always be a not-hole.

[nevill3]

According to Ted Kravitz of Sky Sports the Red Bull nose is designed to accelerate the air above the FIA neutral zone and it is then channeled in such a way that it smooths the otherwise disturbed air that would normally occur around the front of the nose section. He also highlighted a small hole just behind where the front wing supports attach to the nose again there to channel air and prevent unwanted eddies that would spoil the flow structures further down the car. It was all explained by him in his Ted's notebook - Day 4 development corner....

Source...http://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sp ... st-1-day-4

[djos]

There was some suggestion that the inlet contains a series of fins that maintain the legality of the device. Much the same as the FI clever geometry to ensure the device, when viewed as a section will always be a not-hole.

It does, As ted shows in the above video it uses the same regulatory trick that Lotus used for the ugly tusk nose a couple of years back.

[PlatinumZealot]

When Ted said it uses the Lotus trick he made a mistake. It cannot be related to the loust trick.

The lotus trick was to have a crash structure on one side of the nose, with a vanity structure on the other side of the nose. The tip of the vanity structure was 50mm shorter than the tip of real nose cone. In doing that, Lotus met the cross sectional area requirement at the given plane while at the same time having second structure to make a tunnel for aero reasons.

I can say with full confidence that the Lotus twin tusk has nothing in common with the red bull nose.

[makecry]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIBUCV_4sio Scarbs POV

Yep. I saw that video. Scarbs doesn't explain anything there. He gingerly skips over any technical explanation.

Ok. I have a hint from a RedBull employer. The nose is legal using the same principle of the Force India nostrils.

Like he does more often than not?

How much benefit does the nose provide? No one tried to go for the Force India style nose, would anyone try to put RBR's nose on their car?

[djos]

When Ted said it uses the Lotus trick he made a mistake. It cannot be related to the loust trick.

The lotus trick was to have a crash structure on one side of the nose, with a vanity structure on the other side of the nose. The tip of the vanity structure was 50mm shorter than the tip of real nose cone. In doing that, Lotus met the cross sectional area requirement at the given plane while at the same time having second structure to make a tunnel for aero reasons.

I can say with full confidence that the Lotus twin tusk has nothing in common with the red bull nose.

It's the internal vane structure that allows both to be legal from a cross section point of view, lotus used these too.

[n_anirudh]

Is the air passing through the nose hole being bled thru the slit further downstream?

Is there a small portion of this air going towards driver cooling?

Why would you want to air to be accelerated over the neutral section. This neutral section does produce some lift in ground effect though, but why over it?

[scarbs]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIBUCV_4sio Scarbs POV

Yep. I saw that video. Scarbs doesn't explain anything there. He gingerly skips over any technical explanation.

Ok. I have a hint from a RedBull employer. The nose is legal using the same principle of the Force India nostrils.

Explained in that video, on the drivetribe link below and on twitter, all at the time

Craig posted in EVERYTHING TECHNICAL on DRIVETRIBE https://drivetribe.com/p/V5JVEhLoTxCUbB ... VwaDeB2AEA

[Powy]

I've read Scarbs's article, and this is my take on it:

Connection between top and bottom

Vertical vanes in a V-shape

[PlatinumZealot]

Ok lets get going. First I want to address the nose tip and why we must differentriate it from the nose crash structure. Many people confuse the two.

The technical regulations make reference to the nose crash structure in aricle 15.4. The 9000 mm2 cross sectional area is for the crash structure ONLY. We know he crash structure is not part of red bull's nose tip because it would easily fail this last paragrapgh in 15.4.

Furthermore, all lines drawn normally and externally to a vertical cross-section taken 150mm
ahead of the front wheel centre line and perpendicular to the car centre line, must not cross a
vertical longitudinal plane lying on the car centre line.

15.4 was modified that the crash structure has to be symmetrical. This killed the Lotus walrus nose. Which has nothing to do with the Loutus turning vanes under the front fuselage.

All 15.4 tells us is that the nose cannot be shorter than the nose crash structure.. Pretty obvious right? But it is necessary to say this.

There part of the regs force India and redbull have worked is another part. (I am on mobile posts coming up)

Edit: it is article 3.7.8

[PlatinumZealot]

I've read Scarbs's article, and this is my take on it:

Connection between top and bottom

Vertical vanes in a V-shape

@ your first image. The top and bottom segements are allowed to be disconnected to allow for driver cooling hole.

At your second image. It is illegal if more than one open section or any closed sections are formed. I have not checked it yet. But i will.

Edit: your second image does not comply with 3.78. It needs some tweaking to ensure that only a single open cross section is formed.

Tip. Think of the force india solution.
Draw vertical lines from the end of each divider. They vertical lines must not cut more than one divider.

[roon]

Newey himself said that it was a similar solution to Lotus & FI. Video below, at 12:45.