Red Bull RB18

[BassVirolla]

He's claiming it's a pro-dive but I'm pretty sure that's not the case. My estimations put it at around 30% anti-dive.

I'm not expert in kinematics nor suspension, but I also see it rather pro-dive...

Possibly to increase front downforce under braking and circumvent the minimum height rule.

Edit:



To me, it looks like point C is going to be over point A, not under A.

[lio007]

All teams bar one have problems with the minimum weight. Rumour has it the RB18 is the most affected.
Marko told that yesterday has been a meeting to discuss another increase of minimum weight, although he doesn't expect a consensus to be found. He also said that Red Bull is going to bring a weight-upgrade (i.e. downgrade ) in Bahrain.
https://www.motorsport-magazin.com/form ... -anhebung/

[PlatinumZealot]

Matt explains it well.

[Tim.Wright]

He's claiming it's a pro-dive but I'm pretty sure that's not the case. My estimations put it at around 30% anti-dive.

I'm not expert in kinematics nor suspension, but I also see it rather pro-dive...

Possibly to increase front downforce under braking and circumvent the minimum height rule.

Edit:

http://performancetrends.com/Definition ... i-Dive.gif

To me, it looks like point C is going to be over point A, not under A.

If it was pro-dive, point Ain your diagram would be under the ground.

This is my estimation - looks close to but above the ground.

[Chuckjr]

He's claiming it's a pro-dive but I'm pretty sure that's not the case. My estimations put it at around 30% anti-dive.

I'm not expert in kinematics nor suspension, but I also see it rather pro-dive...

Possibly to increase front downforce under braking and circumvent the minimum height rule.

Edit:

http://performancetrends.com/Definition ... i-Dive.gif

To me, it looks like point C is going to be over point A, not under A.

If it was pro-dive, point Ain your diagram would be under the ground.

This is my estimation - looks close to but above the ground.
https://dm2306files.storage.live.com/y4 ... pmode=none

Tim, do you think Newey did this radical geometry more for aero purposes or mechanical purposes?

[humble sabot]

Are you sure that it's at all feasible that the CG of the entire vehicle is only 250mm off the ground? That's not much above the crankshaft.
With a driver on board? I can only think of two things on the entire car with their mass centroids that low, the battery and the gearbox, and I'm not that sure about the latter. The driver's, and the engine(taken as a package) will both be a touch above that, especially taking into account regulation ground clearance. The tub's extra mass for safety is from chest to head height.

[jjn9128]

Are you sure that it's at all feasible that the CG of the entire vehicle is only 250mm off the ground? That's not much above the crankshaft.
With a driver on board? I can only think of two things on the entire car with their mass centroids that low, the battery and the gearbox, and I'm not that sure about the latter. The driver's, and the engine(taken as a package) will both be a touch above that, especially taking into account regulation ground clearance. The tub's extra mass for safety is from chest to head height.

250mm would have been quite conservative 15-20 years ago. Sounds about right for these cars.

[Lefty8]

If I recall from previous rules cycles the minimum CoG of the car was a rule specified height. Was that scrapped or is it still enforced? I don't recall it being dropped from the regs

[humble sabot]

250mm would have been quite conservative 15-20 years ago. Sounds about right for these cars.

20 yrs ago the engines were naturally aspirated, there was no halo, and they were using exotic materials in the upper portions of the engines, and there was no centreline cooling. Also, everybody was running significant ballast. Since the v6 most teams have struggled to hit minimum weight.

[PlatinumZealot]

If I recall from previous rules cycles the minimum CoG of the car was a rule specified height. Was that scrapped or is it still enforced? I don't recall it being dropped from the regs

The engine is the heaviest thing in the car so the CG of the engine is a good starting point. Fuel gearbox and and wheels bring that up higher. 250mm sounds like a good estimate IMO.

[DiogoBrand]

All teams bar one have problems with the minimum weight. Rumour has it the RB18 is the most affected.
Marko told that yesterday has been a meeting to discuss another increase of minimum weight, although he doesn't expect a consensus to be found. He also said that Red Bull is going to bring a weight-upgrade (i.e. downgrade ) in Bahrain.
https://www.motorsport-magazin.com/form ... -anhebung/

Could they not just increase the height of the step where the wooden plank and the skid blocks sit?
I know changing the step would possibly not be viable without making a new car, but maybe just increase the thickness of the plank and the blocks for the time being.
Their purpose is to avoid the floor bottoming out and stalling in the first place, so use them for that.

Edit: I meant change the rules to enforce that, not that a team would willingly do that.

[jjn9128]

All teams bar one have problems with the minimum weight. Rumour has it the RB18 is the most affected.
Marko told that yesterday has been a meeting to discuss another increase of minimum weight, although he doesn't expect a consensus to be found. He also said that Red Bull is going to bring a weight-upgrade (i.e. downgrade ) in Bahrain.
https://www.motorsport-magazin.com/form ... -anhebung/

Could they not just increase the height of the step where the wooden plank and the skid blocks sit?
I know changing the step would possibly not be viable without making a new car, but maybe just increase the thickness of the plank and the blocks for the time being.
Their purpose is to avoid the floor bottoming out and stalling in the first place, so use them for that.

Edit: I meant change the rules to enforce that, not that a team would willingly do that.

If the FIA felt strongly enough that the porpoising was a safety issue thickening the plank would probably be their only recourse

[Tim.Wright]

Tim, do you think Newey did this radical geometry more for aero purposes or mechanical purposes?

I have no idea, without looking at what other cars are doing it's pretty hard to draw any decent conclusions.

[Tim.Wright]

Are you sure that it's at all feasible that the CG of the entire vehicle is only 250mm off the ground?

Not really. If it's higher, then the calculated anti-dive will be lower than what I stated.

If I recall from previous rules cycles the minimum CoG of the car was a rule specified height. Was that scrapped or is it still enforced? I don't recall it being dropped from the regs

The engine CG height was(amd maybe still is) regulated. Full vehicle CG height is free.

[henry]

Are you sure that it's at all feasible that the CG of the entire vehicle is only 250mm off the ground?

Not really. If it's higher, then the calculated anti-dive will be lower than what I stated.

If I recall from previous rules cycles the minimum CoG of the car was a rule specified height. Was that scrapped or is it still enforced? I don't recall it being dropped from the regs

The engine CG height was(amd maybe still is) regulated. Full vehicle CG height is free.

PU CG minimum 200mm above the Z plane. I’ve always assumed 300mm for load transfer calcs particularly for the high rake cars. Perhaps it needs to be a bit less now.