agreed, but the changes are not substantial. Red Bull's trump card is gone. from Newey today: "We designed the RB7, last year's car, around that exhaust position and were probably the only people to do so, so we've lost more than other people through that" And why "RB7 was designed around the exhaust, this year knowing that the exhaust position from last year would be taken away, we've had to go back and look at how we developed the car through the last one and two years with the side exit exhaust and try and, if you like, make sure that the routes we had taken that were only suitable for that exhaust position we now had to re-evaluate. Probably one of the key things there is the rear ride height. The exhaust allowed us to run a high rear ride height, it's much more difficult without that to sustain a high rear height so we have to go back down and have to redevelop the car around that lower ride height."
The most important thing that the flat top nose (as used by Ferrari) gives you is that it raises also the underside - because of the requirement for mininum section height of the chassis. In the Toro Rosso, for example (below), the nose clearly shows that any dip in the upper part (as done by TR, Lotus, Catheram, RB, etc.) results in a corresponding dip to the underside if the nose. Quite simply, Ferrari have obviously gone for the biggest clearance under the nose. EDIT: Noted you made the same comment already. Image Unavailable, Please Login
The fact the they went for the highest nose possible is reflected in the extreme angles of the front suspension wishbones - I think the most extreme so far. Almost ATV-like. All logical suspension design rationale got sacrificed on the altar of aerodynamics! Super high roll center (at the front, at least - wonder if the car will not lean INTO the corner ); lots of lateral scrub with suspension travel (albeit limited at the front) - should help pull-rod geometry and tire warming - maybe not so bad . I just hope they at least designed in a decent amount of camber gain.
The short suspension travel would of course create more scrub which would help with their front end tire issues but I don't believe that could be fixed with camber alterations, but I suppose that will be determined by how these more square tires are with a larger contact patch. It seems to me that this type of Ferrari front end would favor Schumacher's driving style more than anyone else.....
Apparently RB8's nose has a 6mm slot which may either be for driver cooling or something else entirely. Tough to say right now but my guess is KERS cooling which they suffered with last year
Hang on a minute!.... Seems to me you're "arguing" both sides of the coin; - I agree RBR probably got the most from the EBD - Newey designed the car around it and it worked. Taking that away means they've therefore lost the most versus the others. Seems they'd need the heaviest redesign as a result. - Mclaren OTOH you said had to "reinvent the wheel". I beg to differ - They were super quick at the end last year so a "subtle evolution" would seem their best approach. And they've certainly done a nicer looking job than everyone else with it...... Cheers, Ian
I dunno.... I can't see Adrian compromising anything in the name of driver cooling - They've never had it before, why start now?...... KERS is buried down deep in front of the engine so unless they're ducting it all the way thru the tub (which I doubt) it's not that either. Maybe (WAG) they've put an ECU or something that needs a little cooling up there somewhere, but even that's doubtful. Or, as someone speculated, "F-duct version 2"? Cheers, Ian
I am hoping that it is not a ominous sign that they are the only team to have air intake in nose step.
I think to Adrian the driver is that heavy mushy lump between the front suspension and the rear bulkhead. Its all about the car. And in some respects he's right. If there are slots or ducts they are about taking care of something in the design.
At the end of the year, barring the EBD, I believe Mclaren had the best car. But the problem was the rule changes dictated a need for them to reinvent their chassis. They've said themselves that their new car is essentially a ground-up new car compared to last year's. I would have hoped they could simply evolve the MP4-26 but it just wasn't in the cards considering the rule change. THIS is what I was expecting Red Bull to do more than anyone as they designed literally everything around that silly EBD on RB7. Instead, they just evolved RB5. Not necessarily a bad thing, just surprising.
Unless they have it ducted well to the rear of the car somewhere I cannot see the front duct as being aerodynamically beneficial for any front component. For it to stall the front wing it would have to turn 180 degrees, and then 90 degrees again not once, but twice. KERS cooling would make sense in a way that the nose inlet could branch in two directions around the driver and to the KERS area.
Im not about to write off RB or anyone else. They have momentum and a winning record in their corner and Newey. Maybe this year with all this nose design going on it will be closer but they had the most to lose with the EBD but had a good record before it. We will not know who is strongest until 3 or more races in. Mercedes have not revealed their machine either. None of this is settled to say 1 team is definitely out of the running before a motor has turned in testing yet.
Definitely not, but their design while not completely surprising is lackluster compared to their last two masterstrokes. Newey admittedly stated they are having to go a different route with their ride height and rake arrangements which is going to seriously hinder the way RB8 performs as it's in essence designed on what RB7 and RB6 were designed to run, which was a very raked design with a soft front end.
But why them more than anyone else? I guess that's what I don't understand about what you're saying. Cheers, Ian
I think its notable they came clean admitting their struggle to make the new car in light of the changes. That being said all teams face the same problem. Who did the best job will be revealed soon but RB can not be taken lightly at all. Their open-ness about the issue is also a way of showing comfort with the solution. Id say politely humble but confident. If it doesnt work out seems they feel they did their best given the parameters to work in.
Good question Ian. RB7 per Newey's own statement was designed around the EBD system which means if they lose that one system it changes the fundamental operating model of the car. Newey has said RB8 will not run the same rear ride height. This is questioning to me as the suspension at the front appears to have not changed in any way to accomodate for this. I was at least expecting the front end to have noticeable geometry changes and for RB to at least make some use of their exhaust. And them more than anyone else because no one else invented their entire chassis around that one very powerful EBD concept. Mclaren and Ferrari patched it together and made it work sort of but it did not define their team like it did RB
many are now saying it's not an opening at all, and if there is there is a screen for driver cooling.
"It's different. Subtle changes, nothing massive" per Webber. He's a straight shooter so I'll take him at face value. Good on ya Webb. I will say this though. it is reported that RB8 has a very tricky back end and Webb was not able to push the same through turns 3 4 and 5.
