40 replies to this topic

[Seanspeed]

What is it exactly about his cars that enable them to go so fast in wet conditions? We've seen this since 2007, where Vettel and Webber and even Liuzzi were able to put the Red Bulls and Toro Rossos to good use in the rain. In 2008, it was again obvious, particularly at Monza where there were 3 Newey-designed cars on the first 2 rows after qualifying. And now AGAIN, with all new cars, the Red Bulls look to be even more stellar than before, and the Toro Rossos were going good as well.

I had been assuming that the diffuser-three would be the stars of the wet weather conditions as they'd naturally have a downforce advantage, especially at the rear where getting the power down is crucial in the wet. But Toyota wasn't all that special, Williams weren't either, and most surprisingly, the kings of 2009, BrawnGP weren't even able to keep up.

Button mentioned trouble keeping heat in the tires, and this is what I'm thinking is their problem. Its seems as if BrawnGP's biggest advantage is their race pace, and maybe they aren't so hot in cooler conditions and in heating up their tires, kinda like how Ferrari were last year? Is it that simple? Would this also mean that the Newey cars, while good in qualifying or the wet, will be less stellar in normal race conditions over longer stints?

[revmeister]

Newey has been designing great cars for a long time, and it looks as though the drivability is certainly there in the Red Bull.

It's too soon to tell yet, but the next few races should indicate whether Brawn can maintain the advantage they started the season with.

It looks as though Red Bull, McLaren and Renault have all moved closer in performance, and with the diffuser issue settled it's down to a development race.

[Apollonius]

I think it really does highlight what is missing with Newey. If it rained every race then great job but sadly for him it doesn't.

[Anomnader]

As with his legacy of the 2007, 2008 McLaren, great mechanical grip

[eoin]

Originally posted by Anomnader
As with his legacy of the 2007, 2008 McLaren, great mechanical grip

This. The balance changes from aero generated mechanical grip to just pure mechanical grip.

[JesseFriz]

You hit the nail on the head when you liked Brawn's car to the F2008. Their greatest strength in a dry race turns into their greatest weakness in the wet: the inability to maintain proper working temperature in their rubber. Ferrari showed us this is not exactly an easy thing to solve during the course of the year.

[Seanspeed]

Originally posted by revmeister
Too soon to tell, but the next couple of races should indicate whether Brawn can maintain the advantage they held.

It looks as though Red Bull, McLaren and Renault have all moved closer in performance.

Thats not really what I wanted to talk about. I was wondering what is it about Newey's designs that makes the cars so good in the wet.

Can it be as simple as good mechanical grip? Newey is noted as one of the great 'aerodynamicists', so you'd think that his cars would be more aero-orientated, right? Or is that a false assumption?

[Boing 2]

in his williams days the talk was all about how his cars were more aero efficient than the rest, generating the same downforce for less drag, this allowed them to run bigger wing angles without losing top speed to their rivals.

[Seanspeed]

Originally posted by Boing 2
in his williams days the talk was all about how his cars were more aero efficient than the rest, generating the same downforce for less drag, this allowed them to run bigger wing angles without losing top speed to their rivals.

Which would definitely a valuable thing to have in the wet. I remember the Toro Rossos always being right up there in the speed traps when it was raining, while still putting in impressive times. People say that mechanical grip is so important in the wet, but I think we're seeing this year that aerodynamics play a huge role as well.

This is kinda what I was thinking, that maybe there's simply more to it than simple mechanical grip, especially from a designer who is more noted for his aerodynamic proficiencies.

[Verderer]

It's because Newey is basically designing sail boats, rather than cars. Boats are faster in water than cars, simple as that!

[eoin]

Originally posted by TheHumanPromise

Which would definitely a valuable thing to have in the wet. I remember the Toro Rossos always being right up there in the speed traps when it was raining, while still putting in impressive times. People say that mechanical grip is so important in the wet, but I think we're seeing this year that aerodynamics play a huge role as well.

This is kinda what I was thinking, that maybe there's simply more to it than simple mechanical grip, especially from a designer who is more noted for his aerodynamic proficiencies.

Of course aero is important, but the slower one goes the more important mechanical grip becomes.

[Madras]

Originally posted by JesseFriz
You hit the nail on the head when you liked Brawn's car to the F2008. Their greatest strength in a dry race turns into their greatest weakness in the wet: the inability to maintain proper working temperature in their rubber. Ferrari showed us this is not exactly an easy thing to solve during the course of the year.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[nada12]

Good thread. OP, in my layman's opinion you gave the answer yourself already. Keeping the heat in the tyres seems to be key in the rain, and the Red Bull seemingly does that better than any other car, for whatever reason.

I dont have the lap by lap timetables here but if I recall correctly Vettel was especially fast after the restart, he opened up quite a gap there until Button's pace gradually picked up and the lap-times got closer. I assume this was because of tyre temperature, as a car's ability to keep heat in the tyres becomes especially apparent during a safety car period. So I think that's THE main reason, just a guess though.

[BrawnsBrain]

Its because Newey wanted to design the America Cup racing yacht (fact)

He nearly left McLaren to do so. He's obviously been reading the boat design manual in his spare time.

[aditya-now]

Originally posted by TheHumanPromise

Thats not really what I wanted to talk about. I was wondering what is it about Newey's designs that makes the cars so good in the wet.

Can it be as simple as good mechanical grip? Newey is noted as one of the great 'aerodynamicists', so you'd think that his cars would be more aero-orientated, right? Or is that a false assumption?

It think that though Newey is touted as great aerodynamicist, it misses the complete picture that Newey has on a car. He always included great mechanical solutions as well, only he was always one to go to the extreme, resulting often in breakages.
However, let that not fool you from the fact that he surely builts great mechanical grip into his cars.

[Ricardo F1]

Hang on, Newey's Williams and McLaren cars were notoriously crap in the wet. The Red Bull seems to be the first car he's ever designed that goes well in bad conditions.

[Dragonfly]

Originally posted by BrawnsBrain
Its because Newey wanted to design the America Cup racing yacht (fact)

He nearly left McLaren to do so. He's obviously been reading the boat design manual in his spare time.

fact

[bankoq]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
Hang on, Newey's Williams and McLaren cars were notoriously crap in the wet. The Red Bull seems to be the first car he's ever designed that goes well in bad conditions.

I'm not so sure, MP4-22 & MP4-23 are believed to be based on Newey's design and were great in rain.

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by bankoq


I'm not so sure, MP4-22 & MP4-23 are believed to be based on Newey's design and were great in rain.

So at best he's come to wet cars late in life.

[BuzzingHornet]

Not really... check out Damon Hill's lapping of Schumacher in a Newey car in Brazil 96, and beating the all conquering Benetton in the rain at Suzuka 94. The Newey cars were always pretty handy in the wet... a good car is a good car.

[SevenTwoSeven]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
Hang on, Newey's Williams and McLaren cars were notoriously crap in the wet. The Red Bull seems to be the first car he's ever designed that goes well in bad conditions.

Mansell won in Newey cars in the wet didnt he? Barcelona 92 springs to mind but im sure there where others

[pUs]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
Hang on, Newey's Williams and McLaren cars were notoriously crap in the wet. The Red Bull seems to be the first car he's ever designed that goes well in bad conditions.

Just what I thought today as well, it's not exactly what he was known for in the past

[Ali_G]

Red Bull and Toro Rosso are the only two cars running rear pull rod suspension.

[F1Champion]

Originally posted by Madras


That makes no sense whatsoever.

I think what he means is that a fast race pace depends on low tyre wear, which means maintaining a constant tyre temperature, no overheating or having alot of weight on the rear suspension to wear the tyres. You keep a light approach to the tyre usage and don't stress them over a dry race stint.

In the rain you need the opposite. You need alot of tyre temperature to generate grip given that the rain is constantly cooling the tyres. If your mechanical setup is light on the tyres in the dry then in the wet then you might struggle to generate the extra heat needed to maintain a decent race pace in the wet.

[BootLace]

I'm wondering if individual aspects of the different aero approaches have varying minimum speeds before they become effective. Or just different characteristics with respect to speed. My thinking being that the double decker diffuser may not add a significant benefit until say the cars hit 100mph+, whereas the aero approach of the Red Bulls may lead to a more progressive improvement. This would be visible in the dry as similar performance through low to medium speed corners but see an advantage for the double decker diffuser cars in the faster corners.

With the lower speeds associated with the wet, you'd spend less time at the cut off speeds for the double decker diffusers to work in my theory, leading to a disproportionate reduction in downforce and tyre temperature.

Well, just some random thinking, that may or may not make some sense to someone.

[Peter Perfect]

Originally posted by JesseFriz
You hit the nail on the head when you liked Brawn's car to the F2008. Their greatest strength in a dry race turns into their greatest weakness in the wet: the inability to maintain proper working temperature in their rubber. Ferrari showed us this is not exactly an easy thing to solve during the course of the year.

In which case I think we should give them a little time to work on the problem before condemning them. Todays race was only the second time the Brawn has run in the wet, and the first time was during a race too. What they need is for it to rain on a Friday to allow them to experiment a bit and find out how to make best use of the wet tyre. So far they've basically had to guess the setup with no real data to base it on.

[Tenmantaylor]

Aero still plays a big part in the wet. Give or take a few places the cars are generally performing relative to each other in the wet as the dry this season.

The Brawn is very gentle on its tyres. Look at the last stint in Melbourne, Vettel destroyed his softs which allowed Kubica to reel him in. Jenson went even longer on them, ok not pushing as hard, but had no tyre issues whatsoever. Jensons style, IMO, works the tyres less also which was to his detriment today, similar to Aus 06 where he famously had no tyre temps.

Jenson mentioned in the PC that the Red Bull had loads more grip in the fast corners. Im inclined to think that is aero grip rather than mechanical.

Im not disagreeing ofcourse...

[Neophiliac]

I suspect it's a matter of generating downforce the right way. It could be that the diffusers don't work very well in the wet - the airflow under the car basically being disrupted by all that water. This may be why Jense is complaining about the car working differently in wet conditions and not to his liking.

Wings, on the other hand, still work. So if Brawn has better undercar downforce, but RedBull gets more downforce from its wing package, they may just work better in the rain.

[dgduris]

Originally posted by Verderer
It's because Newey is basically designing sail boats, rather than cars. Boats are faster in water than cars, simple as that!

You're right!

[stonebutter]

this thread sucks.

We've seen this since 2007, where Vettel and Webber and even Liuzzi were able to put the Red Bulls and Toro Rossos to good use in the rain.

So since less than 2 years ago...awesome.

[Fatality]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
Hang on, Newey's Williams and McLaren cars were notoriously crap in the wet.

Whats this based on? I seem to remember many great wet weather performances in these cars. I think you are trying to blame occasional poor wet weather driving on the car.

[AyePirate]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
Hang on, Newey's Williams and McLaren cars were notoriously crap in the wet. The Red Bull seems to be the first car he's ever designed that goes well in bad conditions.

I never perceived Newey cars as being bad in the rain as much as Schumacher Sr. making them (and everyone else) look slow.

[Bos]

If you look at Jenson's onboards during China, you'll see that he keeps to the normal dry racing line. He still tries to hit his apexes through 7, 8, 9, 12+13. Hamilton showed that the outside of 7, 8, and 9 had a lot more grip, and Brundle was surprised how Vettel had the confidence to power through the outside of 12 and 13. So I wouldn't just conclude that the Red Bull was faster in the corners just because Button says so.

I think the Newey's concept of "Upper Body Efficiency" makes the RB5 especially good in the wet. Newey knew that the rules this year meant much less downforce generated under the car (even with a DDD diffuser), so he focused on above-car downforce. The frontal area of the RB5 is quite small, which leads to low drag. He's also got a DD front wing with slot gaps, similar to last year's car and the wing on the current McLaren, for lots of efficient front downforce. However, this downforce is only good if you can get similar downforce in the rear. If not, you'll just get oversteer at high speed. The height of the rear suspension allows the sidepods to shrink down much lower than other cars, allowing less drag and cleaner air-flow under the rear wing to those mini-wings above the diffuser (around the crash structure). Also, the shark-fin engine cover helps keep the rear stable during braking and cornering (so much so that Raikonnen couldn't get the rear to behave as he wanted last year, so he opted to not use the fin, whereas Filipe's braking and turn-in style was able to benefit).

This is concept of generating downforce with the surface-airflow, as far as I understand, why Newey's car can be so quick without the DDD. However, since diffuser downforce is much less draggy, Newey had to compensate with less frontal area and small sidepods go really low towards the rear.

And whereas the pull-rod rear suspension isn't really... independent, it seems to be really good for traction. The better your mechanical traction, the quicker your downforce kicks in. And the quicker you can go, the better you can keep temperature in the brakes etc. So it seems like a good car in the wet. But as we saw in Australia, the car absolutely destroyed the super-softs, whereas the Brawns were able to maintain good pace over more laps.

[Atreiu]

I thought the strength of Newey's cars were always the aerodynamics and, if anything, they become less influent in a slower wet race.


How many wet races did Schumacher win over a Newey car? At least a dozen. From the top of my mind:
- 1992 - Spa;
- 1993 - Interlagos, Donington, Suzuka (Senna, obviously)
- 1995 - Nurbugring, Spa, Suzuka;
- 1996 - Barcelona;
- 1997 - Monaco, Spa;
- 1998 - Argentina, Silverstone;
- 2000 - Nurburgring, Canada, Indy, Suzuka
- 2001 - Sepang;
- 2002 - Silverstone;
- 2003 - Indy;
- 2006 - China, etc...


Of course these races weren't all wet and drenched like China was yesterday and the tyre war played a huge role back in the days. But the records give no indication that his cars are special for the wet.

[Madras]

Originally posted by Tenmantaylor
Aero still plays a big part in the wet. Give or take a few places the cars are generally performing relative to each other in the wet as the dry this season.

The Brawn is very gentle on its tyres. Look at the last stint in Melbourne, Vettel destroyed his softs which allowed Kubica to reel him in. Jenson went even longer on them, ok not pushing as hard, but had no tyre issues whatsoever. Jensons style, IMO, works the tyres less also which was to his detriment today, similar to Aus 06 where he famously had no tyre temps.

Jenson mentioned in the PC that the Red Bull had loads more grip in the fast corners. Im inclined to think that is aero grip rather than mechanical.

Im not disagreeing ofcourse...

When they got out of their cars Jensen went up to Vettel and Webber and said "your car has loads of downforce", which would imply he thinks the Red bull was fast in the fast corners which means aero grip, not mechanical.

I dont think the wet tyres need to be kept warm, it wears them out faster, so I doubt it's mechanical grip.

[Zarathustra]

Looked to me like the RB had more downforce at the front. Everyone else was understeering off in the fast corners. Vettel and Webber could steer easier through the corners and get on the power earlier.

[Nobody]

It's about good aero in the wet, isn't it?

[Seanspeed]

Originally posted by stonebutter
this thread sucks.



So since less than 2 years ago...awesome.

Yea, I thought that would have been obvious. But let me reword(or just add in a word, really) my initial comment so you guys who obviously have no idea how to not take everything 115% literally can read it and make sense of it all:

- What is it about his RECENT cars that enable them to go so fast in wet conditions? -

Happier? Probably not.

[Seanspeed]

Originally posted by Neophiliac
I suspect it's a matter of generating downforce the right way. It could be that the diffusers don't work very well in the wet - the airflow under the car basically being disrupted by all that water. This may be why Jense is complaining about the car working differently in wet conditions and not to his liking.

Wings, on the other hand, still work. So if Brawn has better undercar downforce, but RedBull gets more downforce from its wing package, they may just work better in the rain.

Yea, Steve Matchett was saying something similar on WindTunnel last night. And that makes a lot of sense as to why the Brawn's weren't as fast as the Red Bulls, despite probably having a better aero package overall for normal conditions.

[Oho]

I gather the situation has changed somewhat with parc férme rules more or less forcing race setup qualification. The cars were basically forced to race on drenched track with essentially dry setup in Shanghai.

[One]

Willis"s imput has been essential on those RBR car, isn't it? In the rain mechaincal grip conts.