Red Bull RB18

[ringo]

Is that sidepod scoop even legal? Does it fit inside the legality box?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMRETa0WUAE ... name=large

Yes its legal. Funny enough i have created this side pod inlet years ago on my 3d model F1 car years ago, the regulations did not permit the lip to be as long though.

[Sevach]

[dxpetrov]

Still cant get my head around how these cars look on track. That front wing just looks wrong, in any shape. It's too high and the non-existent mounting points to flaps are a very retro thing, not in a good way.

[Pany]

impresiosnante.!!1 where is the car between high exhaust and lower wishbone? uauuu

hello diffuser
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMRLxtaXwAM ... name=large

[Bill]

cars with indercut on sidepod are nothing new it has been done before by one of tbe small teams i just forgot which one.what interesting is the Honda logo is still on the car .Rbr wont be buiding pu like the story they sold us .Honda is playing games the got f1 to abandon token system know they got themto abandon devepment just when their pu is top notch.

[PlatinumZealot]

They will have a a high pressure area sitting on top of the throat of the tunnel creating downforce and making good outwash too. And they will have the same on that structure in front of the side pod inlet.

The undercut is actually not as far back as it looks. Maybe about 150mm versus other teams.

Massive anti-drive front suspenion. Not sure why. Maybe they want to heat the contact patch faster on initial braking. Or some other aero reason.

Rear push rod like McLaren... I'm not sold on this being a big differentiator though. The pull-rod cars still look clean in that area to me.

So.. Basically the side pods are if Aston, AT and Alpine had a baby..

[dren]

Seems to me they sacrificed a few mm of diffuser volume to sculpt the walls.

May it be important to extracting performance out of their chosen beam wing concept?

It's for the lower L shaped lip on the edge of the diffuser. Most (all?) teams have done this, too. It's not a novel idea.

[Mandrake]

Looking at the rear views of the diffusers and the area inside the rear wheel, RedBull appear to have a much more developed junction between floor edge and diffuser. Knowing their historic excellence at dealing with tyre squirt, I wonder if this is going to be a key development area.

https://ibb.co/y8nkQRj

https://ibb.co/vPnfYvN

So nice to finally see cars with huge diffusors again!

[dren]

Massive anti-drive front suspenion. Not sure why. Maybe they want to heat the contact patch faster on initial braking. Or some other aero reason.

Maybe it's solely for the aero use of the suspension link? Or too much dive will cause their diffuser to choke during braking?

[BassVirolla]

They are the top "wishbone" although they're set up as separate links. Presumably done for airflow reasons.

Either separate links or a classic anti-dive setup which uses angeled attachment points for the two wishbones.

More than anti-dive, this setup, if my mind doesn't fool me, will work diving more than a "neutral" setup. In other words: I see an "anti-anti-dive".

[Mitch2.0]

IMHO... This car is 100% developed as a front runner.
All the details with kinks and dents trying to have a perfect airflow to maximise the aero package normally only works to it's maximum when the air is flowing as intended.

All the cars are designed to run in clear air, no team designs their car to ‘work especially well in traffic’, so whilst your comment is accurate, it could be said of every car.

Rear brake ducts blowing the underside of the wing?

I’m not sure that’s a valid retort, the fact is no team wastes CFD or tunnel time simulating another car being in front of theirs.

So saying ‘The RedBull is designed to work in clear air’, which is essentially what you said, is a moot point.

[Ryar]

Wonder how long before Mercedes protest the mirror stays!

Both teams (+ AT) exploit the same loophole, which is likely to be closed, perhaps even during the season. FOM representatives mentioned that now tech regs can be changed without teams' consent not only for safety reasons but to bring the letter of the law more in-line with the spirit of the law. This is a prime example where an unintended loophole allows designs that directly contravene the very aim of 2022 regs.

If you mean the upright winglet, Mercedes is doing the same thing there.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMN9XSnXEA8 ... =4096x4096

There is a background to that statement from NicoS I guess.
viewtopic.php?p=1033722#p1033722

[Zynerji]

All the cars are designed to run in clear air, no team designs their car to ‘work especially well in traffic’, so whilst your comment is accurate, it could be said of every car.

Rear brake ducts blowing the underside of the wing?

I’m not sure that’s a valid retort, the fact is no team wastes CFD or tunnel time simulating another car being in front of theirs.

So saying ‘The RedBull is designed to work in clear air’, which is essentially what you said, is a moot point.

I was talking about the brake duct exit that aims at the underside of the rear wing.

Maybe I quoted the wrong post?

[organic]

Rear brake ducts blowing the underside of the wing?

I’m not sure that’s a valid retort, the fact is no team wastes CFD or tunnel time simulating another car being in front of theirs.

So saying ‘The RedBull is designed to work in clear air’, which is essentially what you said, is a moot point.

I was talking about the brake duct exit that aims at the underside of the rear wing.

Maybe I quoted the wrong post?

You probably meant to quote the picture posted by aerodynamic of that region of the car. It's one message previous to the one you ended up quoting.

[PlatinumZealot]

They are the top "wishbone" although they're set up as separate links. Presumably done for airflow reasons.

Either separate links or a classic anti-dive setup which uses angeled attachment points for the two wishbones.

More than anti-dive, this setup, if my mind doesn't fool me, will work diving more than a "neutral" setup. In other words: I see an "anti-anti-dive".

Yup it will work when the car is diving, that's when Newey's team want the effects they're after for sure.. Still it's certainly anti-dive if we think of kinetics. There is more compression of the spring for every inch of dive (pull rod) and the mounts also take any sideways component of the force. So the car dives less.

Kinematically, for aero reasons, maybe less nose movement, or maybe they want to tilt the wheel shrouds back a little or something or even the wishbone itself.. Just guessing of course.