3538 replies to this topic

[CrucialXtreme]

I think for sure not. this means that in 2014 there is no space for big aero gains in 2014 (in which Newey could excel again) only engine/mechanical gains. funny that it came right after Montezemolo crying yet again about "aero this and aero that, we want engines to be dominant factor (because we can't sort out aero)!"...
2013 no DRS in quali also will hamper RBR - again, funny that the rule change came out of the blue, right after ferrari blaming their bad quali pace on (their incompetence to figure out) DRS usage in Q.
might be a coincidence in both cases...but are we allowed to believe in coincidences?

Respectfully, but anyone in this thread that says this does not help(not as if it was done for them as a favor or anything) Red Bull is lying to themselves. This most certainly helps Red Bull(McLaren too)! Who has been the most dominant team since the latest round of major Reg changes? RB. Sure they're changing up some things for FW testing & small changes to the front roll structure but this is no way hurts Red Bull.

In regards to 2014 reg changes & Newey finding other things to exploit, this is simply wrong. The proposed 2014 changes were put in place to reduce both downforce & drag. To help make the Aero on the cars less of a factor. Could Newey have excelled, yes of course. But with the Aerodynamics of the cars being less important with the proposed changes, that would help Ferrari more than RB, as you can see they struggle with Aero now, which is far more complicated. Reducing DF, something Ferrari cars have lacked the last 3 seasons would help them & put more emphasis on the engines & ERS & KERS.
The bottom line is Newey has excelled with the current Regs and we know now they're not changing for a bit. This obviously doesn't hurt the team with the best car and it will allow Newey to continue on with his evolution style he likes. Keeping the regs the same definitely help the teams with the best cars. It gives the teams with lesser cars a chance to catch up, in a sense, but the ones in front will stay in front because there's more to come from this platform.

[H2H]

Apart form the part that the RB8 was the best car - IMHO it was the McLaren, although it was rather close pace-wise -it is quite sensible post. Still in 2014 the mechanical part will play a bigger part in relative performance then today, as it will be teams/engine makers who will work out new regulations better.

Edited by H2H, 07 December 2012 - 13:02.

[CrucialXtreme]

Apart form the part that the RB8 was the best car - IMHO it was the McLaren, although it was rather close pace-wise -it is quite sensible post. Still in 2014 the mechanical part will play a bigger part in relative performance then today, as it will be teams/engine makers who will work out new regulations better.

Mechanical/Engines will be a huge part of 2014. Newey is on record as saying that the proposed 2014 Aero changes were much more restrictive than 2012 and because of that it was going to be about the engines only. But with the current Aero Regs staying, it won't only be about the engines & those that have good(better than average) Aero programs, might have an advantage. Just depends on how engines of said teams are in comparison to the others.

I'm not saying keeping 2012 Aero is some huge advantage for RBR. But it is very good for them as the excel in the current Regulations, so an extension of the current Regs will do anything but hurt them.

[CrucialXtreme]

Red Bull Racing Flexi-Wing(AeroElasticity) at its finest. No team in F1 can compete.

[Kelateboy]

Red Bull Racing Flexi-Wing(AeroElasticity) at its finest. No team in F1 can compete.

Nothing is infinitely rigid. When you go over the humps, the law of physics will dictate a certain amount of movement.

FIA came up with a much stricter load test for the front wings in Suzuka - RB8 passed that test.

[Kelateboy]

In regards to 2014 reg changes & Newey finding other things to exploit, this is simply wrong. The proposed 2014 changes were put in place to reduce both downforce & drag. To help make the Aero on the cars less of a factor. Could Newey have excelled, yes of course. But with the Aerodynamics of the cars being less important with the proposed changes, that would help Ferrari more than RB, as you can see they struggle with Aero now, which is far more complicated. Reducing DF, something Ferrari cars have lacked the last 3 seasons would help them & put more emphasis on the engines & ERS & KERS.

Just a few days ago, FIA came up with the proposed changes for 2014 and made no efforts to reduce the DF by reverting to 2012 bodywork specifications.

FIA press release - "Changes made to bodywork design, originally aimed at reducing downforce and drag for increased efficiency, have reverted to 2012 specification."

Any F1 fans worth his salt know that DF on F1 cars are controlled primarily by 3 items only - front wing, diffuser and rear wing. You want to reduce DF, reduce the efficiency of these 3 components and you have achieved your goals. Obviously by reverting to 2012 specifications, FIA must have a rethinking of whether to limit aero effects for 2014 packages as originally planned.

[CrucialXtreme]

Nothing is infinitely rigid. When you go over the humps, the law of physics will dictate a certain amount of movement.

FIA came up with a much stricter load test for the front wings in Suzuka - RB8 passed that test.

Lol, that phrase is used a lot nowadays. Of course nothing is infinitely rigid. The fact is RBR/RBT have invested heavily in Aeroelasticity. I'm fine with that, this is what F1 is about.

Just a few days ago, FIA came up with the proposed changes for 2014 and made no efforts to reduce the DF by reverting to 2012 bodywork specifications.

FIA press release - "Changes made to bodywork design, originally aimed at reducing downforce and drag for increased efficiency, have reverted to 2012 specification."

Any F1 fans worth his salt know that DF on F1 cars are controlled primarily by 3 items only - front wing, diffuser and rear wing. You want to reduce DF, reduce the efficiency of these 3 components and you have achieved your goals. Obviously by reverting to 2012 specifications, FIA must have a rethinking of whether to limit aero effects for 2014 packages as originally planned.

They're not going to limit 2014 Aero because simulation figures showed lap times were too slow.

[H2H]

Lol, that phrase is used a lot nowadays. Of course nothing is infinitely rigid. The fact is RBR/RBT have invested heavily in Aeroelasticity. I'm fine with that, this is what F1 is about.


They're not going to limit 2014 Aero because simulation figures showed lap times were too slow.

Who knows? Some drivers, like Mark, were certainly not impressed by the gap to GP2 and an F1 getting a lot slower and a lot closer to an inferior feeder series can easily seen as not good press at all. It is one thing to limit the cars performance a la 2006 but one can go only so far in that direction.

I would absolutely hate a RB10 going five seconds slower then a RB8. A big performance element like effective exhaust blowing will be pretty hard to do in 2014 with the regs as they are - for now. So that will already add quite some time even without having to limit the aero heavily. Personally I think they did the right thing with the aero rules, even if I would love some changes to shake things up from an engineering point of view. Still with the show being as good as most think a radical cut was more unlikely in any case.

Typing this with Giorgios analisi tecnica of 2006-2007 on my desk, it is good to look back sometimes.

[shonguiz]

Respectfully, but anyone in this thread that says this does not help(not as if it was done for them as a favor or anything) Red Bull is lying to themselves.

Respectfuly saint Ferrari that's not the case.

This most certainly helps Red Bull(McLaren too)! Who has been the most dominant team since the latest round of major Reg changes? RB. Sure they're changing up some things for FW testing & small changes to the front roll structure but this is no way hurts Red Bull.

If it does allow others to exploit bigger unexploited areas and gaining more, then yes it will hurt RedBull.

In regards to 2014 reg changes & Newey finding other things to exploit, this is simply wrong. The proposed 2014 changes were put in place to reduce both downforce & drag. To help make the Aero on the cars less of a factor. Could Newey have excelled, yes of course. But with the Aerodynamics of the cars being less important with the proposed changes, that would help Ferrari more than RB, as you can see they struggle with Aero now, which is far more complicated. Reducing DF, something Ferrari cars have lacked the last 3 seasons would help them & put more emphasis on the engines & ERS & KERS.

Wrong, the proposed 2014 changes were there to counter balance things thus reducing Aero influence on the overall performance but that doesn't mean that now aero will have less influence than mechanics. Because engines developpement will still be ultra monitored and restricted. Same goes for chassis.

The bottom line is Newey has excelled with the current Regs and we know now they're not changing for a bit. This obviously doesn't hurt the team with the best car and it will allow Newey to continue on with his evolution style he likes. Keeping the regs the same definitely help the teams with the best cars. It gives the teams with lesser cars a chance to catch up, in a sense, but the ones in front will stay in front because there's more to come from this platform.

Wrong, the more you are at the peak of your potential, the less you have margin to progress.

[oetzi]

If it does allow others to exploit bigger unexploited areas and gaining more, then yes it will hurt RedBull.

the more you are at the peak of your potential, the less you have margin to progress.

It's quite possible that while Red Bull is currently at the front of the field, its concept still has more scope for improvement than the other teams' concepts.

Edited by oetzi, 09 December 2012 - 09:11.

[e34]

Nothing is infinitely rigid. When you go over the humps, the law of physics will dictate a certain amount of movement.

FIA came up with a much stricter load test for the front wings in Suzuka - RB8 passed that test.

That would be a fine reason if what we see is RBR (or whoever) best shot at getting a rigid FW. But nobody in his right mind believes that RBR cannot make a FW that flexes less. A lot less.

RBR FW is purposedly designed to behave that way. And as long as that is fine with FIA, that car (and any other that is able to behave that way) is race legal. The problem here is trusting anything FIA says. No holes -> call them slots instead. Engine development freezing -> call it reliability related updates. No EBD -> call it coanda whatever. No flexing -> Well, nothing is infinitely rigid, you know.

And watching how that FW flexes is an undeniable proof that the test used by FIA is as irrelevant to prevent aero from flexing, as, back in 2007, it was the test to prevent flexi-floors once Ferrari developed the jumping support.

Fact is that RBR car flexes. Fact is that FIA allows it. And fact is that now that current aero regulations are here to stay, other teams will have to make their cars flex if they want to compete. Whether FIA will some day decide that

Furthermore, the bodywork being tested in this area may not include any component which is
capable of allowing more than the permitted amount of deflection under the test load
(including any linear deflection above the test load), such components could include, but are
not limited to :
a) Joints, bearings pivots or any other form of articulation.
b) Dampers, hydraulics or any form of time dependent component or structure.
c) Buckling members or any component or design which may have any non-linear characteristics.
d) Any parts which may systematically or routinely exhibit permanent deformation.

clearly includes what the teams (all of them, or the top ones at least) are actively developing nowadays, is anybody guess. But as FIA suddenly banned the mass damper in 2006 calling it a moving aerodynamic device, it could now ban RBR front wing (and that Ferrari shaky one that appeared in Massa's car) saying that it goes against that regulation, notwithstanding the fact that they pass the static tests with flying colours.

If I were prone to conspiracy theories, I would say that FIA is forcing teams to operate outside the regulation if they want to compete, so it has the last word in any potential/future controversy.

[Clatter]

It's quite possible that while Red Bull is currently at the front of the field, its concept still has more scope for improvement than the other teams' concepts.

The fact that the pack is getting ever closer to the RB performance suggests that the current design has quite possibly peaked.

[apoka]

It seems that Newey himself also finds it hard to be ahead without regulation changes:
http://www.autosport...t.php/id/104773

I think the field will continue to be very close in the next years. Already this year, there were 4 teams which I more or less rate as equal. Next year, I wouldn't be surprised to see an even closer field. That's why small things make a difference like pitting a lap earlier or later, fast pitstops, a driver finding a slightly better line through a corner etc.

[showtime]

It seems that Newey himself also finds it hard to be ahead without regulation changes:
http://www.autosport...t.php/id/104773

This is just RB people being RB people. He is just downplaying their favouritism in case they fail to maintain the advantage.

[shonguiz]

Except that he's backed up with facts:

[showtime]

Except that he's backed up with facts:

Facts? Only if you take his word as facts. How do you know they can't improve the car? How do you know if someone has found another rule loophole or trick? They improved a lot during last season and I don't see any facts that tell me they have reached the peak of improvement. The winner team/driver is always talking about how difficult is going to be next season and how much the other teams are going to improve while the other teams go all positive about how next season they will get better. It's always the same song. When there are not important changes because is difficult to bring something new, when there are changes because everyone starts from scratch... there's always a reason to downplay the chances or to be optimistic depending on your needs.

[LiJu914]

This is just RB people being RB people. He is just downplaying their favouritism in case they fail to maintain the advantage.

What advantage?

McLaren was as fast as Red Bull this year.

[showtime]

Ok, ok, I don't know why I even bother to come here. Red Bull is in trouble because they have no room for improvement and they are late with the new car's schedule, if Newey says so it has to be the truth! I'm sure Vettel is not sleeping at night worried about next season...

[LiJu914]

Ok, ok, I don't know why I even bother to come here. Red Bull is in trouble because they have no room for improvement and they are late with the new car's schedule, if Newey says so it has to be the truth! I'm sure Vettel is not sleeping at night worried about next season...

So you have no reasonable answer to a simple question, right?

But of course you are right. The RB8 was an unbeatable rocketship this year and will be even stronger next season.

See....putting words in someones mouth is not that hard after all.

Edited by LiJu914, 11 December 2012 - 22:01.

[prty]

So you have no reasonable answer to a simple question, right?

But of course you are right. The RB8 was an unbeatable rocketship this year and will be even stronger next season.

See....putting words in someones mouth is not that hard after all.

Actually, that wouldn't be a ridiculous statement at all

Edited by prty, 11 December 2012 - 22:22.

[shonguiz]

Facts? Only if you take his word as facts. How do you know they can't improve the car? How do you know if someone has found another rule loophole or trick? They improved a lot during last season and I don't see any facts that tell me they have reached the peak of improvement. The winner team/driver is always talking about how difficult is going to be next season and how much the other teams are going to improve while the other teams go all positive about how next season they will get better. It's always the same song. When there are not important changes because is difficult to bring something new, when there are changes because everyone starts from scratch... there's always a reason to downplay the chances or to be optimistic depending on your needs.

I am not taking his words as facts, i am simply acknowledging some simple truths like the 8 different winners this season, like the fact that their car was very far from the dominance of the RB7, and that even at the last races, the car wasn't untouchabe. The RB7 itself wasn't as dominant pace wise as the RB6, you could possibly stretch that up to the RB5, had it not been for the Brawn's double diffuser. And here you have the general pattern each new RB car is less dominant than the one it replaces.

Edited by shonguiz, 12 December 2012 - 08:42.

[H2H]

Actually, that wouldn't be a ridiculous statement at all

This one would be one though...

And indeed this thread would be better of if some would not bother to come here, as it is their opinion is free but hardly sensible or productive.

--

Anyway it is quite obvious that the RB9 will be an evolution of the RB8. It is really difficult to see big improvements in that ever tighter and explored straight-jacket of rules. Of course F1 is full of clever minds and we will see gains in performances but they should be quite limited. The relative gain will be of course the decisive one but with such a restricted room we will hardly see a truly dominant car. What gives me a bit hope is the fact that a very important performance factor like the exhaust package was heavily modified almost till the end of the season. The fastest car of this season enjoyed the advantage of getting their version 'right' almost from the start. A much deeper understanding and a better integration of the concept into the overall design of the car could pay off.

Edited by H2H, 12 December 2012 - 08:14.

[prty]

And indeed this thread would be better of if some would not bother to come here, as it is their opinion is free but hardly sensible or productive.

Yeah, I agree about that.

[V8 Fireworks]

I am not taking his words as facts, i am simply acknowledging some simple truths like the 8 different winners this season, like the fact that their car was very far from the dominance of the RB7, and that even at the last races, the car wasn't untouchabe. The RB7 itself wasn't as dominant pace wise as the RB6, you could possibly stretch that up to the RB5, had it not been for the Brawn's double diffuser. And here you have the general pattern each new RB car is less dominant than the one it replaces.

Wouldn't a simpler discussion be that McLaren were very fast and should have contended for the championships, but had a disaster season... leaving Red Bull to take an easy win against the generally slower Ferraris?

[H2H]

Yeah, I agree about that.

Thank you for understanding the issue and hopefully the persons in question will avoid this thread

---

AMuS got a nice article about the W03s troubles with it's narrow tyre window. Interesting is the bit about the suspension design which should not come to a big surprise to regular readers of Scarbs and other technical material:

Als einer der Hauptverursacher des Problems steht das so genannte Fric-System im Verdacht, das die Dämpfer an den vier Enden des Auto hydraulisch miteinander vernetzt. Quasi eine Art mechanisch betriebene aktive Aufhängung, mit dem Ziel, bei Nick- und Rollbewegungen des Autos die Reifen immer plan aufliegen zu lassen. Das haben andere zwar auch, und Mercedes hat das System im Vergleich zum Vorjahr schon abgespeckt, und doch griffen sich die Ingenieure immer mal wieder mit der Abstimmung daneben. Vor allem zuletzt, weil das Auto wegen des Coanda-Auspuffs eine andere Aero-Balance hatte und weil beim Start bis zu zehn Liter mehr Benzin im Tank waren, was die Gewichtsverteilung veränderte. Der eigentliche Nutzen verkehrt sich ins Gegenteil. Die vier Reifen nutzten sich ungleichmäßig ab. Weil alle vier unterschiedliche Temperaturen hatten. Die Ingenieure werden sich fragen müssen, ob ihr Fahrwerk nicht immer noch zu kompliziert ist.

In short the front and rear suspension seem to be hydraulically linked, with a system call Fric.

An older Scarb article, mostly about the intra-axle hydraulic linkage.

As we’ve seen for the past few years controlling pitch is critical to maintaining a low front wing ride height, with out sacrificing splitter wear or excessive rear ride height (thus rear downforce).
Linking the hydraulic unitsvalve blocks between both front and rear axles, will allow the same resistance to pitch, as it does to heave on just one axle. This will increase the front heave stiffness, reducing forward pitch and preventing the splitter grounding excessively. This effect under braking could be further augmented with either gravitationally load sensitive valves, altering the displacement of fluid front to rear. Or similarly, a valve directly controlled by brake pressure. The former G-load system already in legal use on the individual wheel dampers and the latter solution a common fitment to motorbikes in the eighties, often termed Anti-Dive.

Summary
With Rake being ever important to the cars aero set up, such linked systems are increasingly being investigated by the teams. Indeed one team has run such a solution since mid 2009 and at least two other teams (one at each end of the grid) ran them last year.

It would be interesting to see the RB8 suspension layed out in it's full glory. Won't happen anytime soon.

Edited by H2H, 12 December 2012 - 11:44.

[encircled]

Car development didn't favour Vettel - Webber

Webber admitted in 2011 that he struggled to adapt his driving style to the exhaust-blown diffuser compared to Vettel, but when asked by ESPN if the Singapore update took this year's RB8 away from him in relation to his team-mate Webber replied: "Not really, no.

"Singapore's been a track - there and Hockenheim - that were the two venues that were probably my weakest performances of the year, although we had a howler with strategy in Singapore to rub salt in the wounds. So not really; I was strong in Suzuka, I was very strong there and Seb and I were on the front row. I was strong in Korea, I was strong in India.

"So I was not uncompetitive after Singapore, it was just that we had an alternator, we had Grosjean, we had things which are like dropping your toast and it lands butter-side down or whatever. That's just the way things were going at some stages."

[tkulla]

I've been trying to find a way to determine the race pace of the cars (as opposed to qualifying pace) and my first attempt has been to take the fastest lap from each of the top four teams (whichever driver was quicker). While obviously there are factors that work against fast lap as a barometer (strategy, motivation, traffic) over a 20-race season a lot of those factors will balance out. Certainly not perfect but it does give an insight into Sunday performance.

Most interesting of all is that Ferrari ends up being the second quickest car (after Red Bull) when the data was complete, ahead of McLaren and Lotus.

Check it out:
http://forums.autosp...howtopic=178951

[Kelateboy]

Wouldn't a simpler discussion be that McLaren were very fast and should have contended for the championships, but had a disaster season... leaving Red Bull to take an easy win against the generally slower Ferraris?

It was an easy win against the Ferraris in the WCC with Massa generally underperforming in the first 3/4 of the season.

[prty]

Interesting comments by Hughes:

Cost control continues to be an incendiary subject among the teams. Red Bull Racing had turned over £176m in 2011 and rival teams were claiming this was beyond the spend limit everyone had loosely agreed to some time earlier. Team boss Horner countered that he doubted his squad was even the biggest spender once engines and driver salaries were factored in, and that it was because of this he was refusing to be party to a cost cap he felt would unfairly punish him.

Other teams viewed that stance with suspicion, as they did his close working relationship with Ecclestone

What is he talking about? A lot of things would make sense.

[AvranaKern]

The Red Bull Racing Story: 2005-2012

Very interesting comments from Newey and Horner. Nice doc.

[showtime]

The Red Bull Racing Story: 2005-2012

Very interesting comments from Newey and Horner. Nice doc.

So Newey admits the RB6 was a dominant car and Horner says 2011 was a championship that could only be lost by themselves. Nothing we didn't know but at least now there's a video of them saying it, very handy for future discussions on the matter.
Nice job by the team during these years anyway, a promising future too.

[AvranaKern]

He also says that there is no such thing as the spirit of the rule book, stressing that there are "You can do it"s or "You can't do it"s, and they took the "You can do" bits a bit to the edge.

He also cheekily recalls a magazine calling him on the front page "Newey lost it" when he moved from McLaren to Red Bull: "Well, no, not yet."

Nice one.

[LiJu914]

So Newey admits the RB6 was a dominant car

Strange choice of words, but quite telling....

[showtime]

He also says that there is no such thing as the spirit of the rule book, stressing that there are "You can do it"s or "You can't do it"s, and they took the "You can do" bits a bit to the edge.

And who is going to deny him that after 2009... The rest should learn from that too, the fact most of the teams doesn't even have any part worth of an investigation is a sign that they are not pushing hard enough.

[goldenboy]

And who is going to deny him that after 2009... The rest should learn from that too, the fact most of the teams doesn't even have any part worth of an investigation is a sign that they are not pushing hard enough.

Precisely. My pet peeve is the ******** fans of other teams whining about red bull cheating when they should be whining about their teams lacklustre technical department, it's absolutely pathetic, but a little funny. However, there are many ferrari/mac fans that support the view that they just need to be better and there is nothing wrong with what red bull do.

newsflash to the people who think RB are always cheating - if your team could have figured it out first, they would have done it!

Edited by goldenboy, 16 December 2012 - 03:37.

[Zava]

as the RB9 topic is closed, I'm posting this one here:
http://www.auto-moto...fotoshow_item=5
AMuS says that red bull won't do the nose job on the RB9, but keep the letterbox inlet in a similar way to last year.

[showtime]

as the RB9 topic is closed, I'm posting this one here:
http://www.auto-moto...fotoshow_item=5
AMuS says that red bull won't do the nose job on the RB9, but keep the letterbox inlet in a similar way to last year.

Who knows what that inlet really does...

[Skinnyguy]

So Newey admits the RB6 was a dominant car and Horner says 2011 was a championship that could only be lost by themselves.

You surely mean 2010... They nearly did just that (losing the title by themselves) with their constant reliability problems.

[gillesthegenius]

You surely mean 2010... They nearly did just that (losing the title by themselves) with their constant reliability problems.

Thats right, Sebastian lost something like 62 points (3 wins) due to reliability issues that season. If not for those issues and a couple of errors from Seb, Seb probably could have wrapped up the title in Suzuka. But it still took some steely driving under the utmost pressure to put all those set backs behind and clinch the title at the final hurdle.

Fast forward to 2012 and it was Mclaren who were in RBR's position. But they just couldnt keep it together like Seb and RBR did in 2010, allowing Seb to do what Alonso almost did to him back then.