Lower lip looks to be there to produce some front downforce and to influence the flow on the upper floor surface and leading edge. The flow is chaotic because the inlet is closed off. This is a technique which isn't 100% accurate, but can keep overall external flow characteristics and saves a lot of processing power and time.
I wonder if Red Bull are using some kind of evolution of the Ferrari SF70H and SF71H top mounted sidepod intake by using the extended lip? I remember that initially many were worried that it would not be effective back then.Vanja #66 wrote:Lower lip looks to be there to produce some front downforce and to influence the flow on the upper floor surface and leading edge. The flow is chaotic because the inlet is closed off. This is a technique which isn't 100% accurate, but can keep overall external flow characteristics and saves a lot of processing power and time.
In reality, the flow here is fully attached on both sides, without any turbulence.
By rumors 10kg lead to loss of 0.3sec per lap in Barcelona, then 0.1sec is lost at 7.35 poundsChuckjr wrote: ↑01 Mar 2022, 06:46Do we know if the RB is overweight in multiple pounds or just a few ounces? If we could not possibly know that, what is more likely?
Does the weight penalty end up being about a tenth of a second per lap, per pound over? I know that changes per track/car, I’m just trying to get an general idea of how hosed they are if they can’t lose weight...and I agree with those who say the weight minimum should not be increased.
This kind of extended lower lip was used recently by a team, I just can't remember which one was it. In a way, yes, it is an evolution of what Ferrari started with 2017 car.
That auto-motor-und-sport article has it wrong. 795is the MINIMUM weight that the cars may be. Most are struggling to reduce their weight down to the limit. The penalty is simply the excess weight they will be carrying. They are not in breach of the regulations by being overweight.organic wrote: ↑27 Feb 2022, 16:22They're also the team that's reportedly under the wheelbase limit by 9cm which is almost certainly why they're able to make it down to the limit:
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... sign-2022/
"What you don't see at first glance is the length of the car. According to information from auto motor und sport, the Alfa Romeo C42 is by far the shortest car in the field. The wheelbase, which was limited by the regulations to 3.6 metres for the first time this year, is said to have been cut by the Sauber engineers by another 9 centimetres.
The trick helps the aerodynamics and saves weight. The Alfa is said to be one of the few cars in the field that made it exactly to the limit of the maximum weight of 795 kilograms. During testing, some of the competitors were still lugging around excess weight in the double-digit kilogram range."
It's possible that this arm is acting like a leaf spring. If they can make the arm have multiple functions with a similar mass, it's an efficient way to spend "mass" on the car. The belleville stack and the pullrod (if that is what they are still using) can be lighter and smaller.ScrewCaptain27 wrote: ↑01 Mar 2022, 13:00The upper front wishbone is one-piece! Similar solution to what was used for the lower wishbone on some mid-2000s cars before “zero keel” was a thing.
(Italian) https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-re ... e/8602347/
Someone has previously mentioned that they may be housing the wheel tethers within it (personally I would put that within the lower wishbone), but a leaf spring is not such a daft idea. If ‘fixed’ at the edge of the chassis it could save weight as it would have the potential to operate in both pitch and roll fairly effectively. We may never see what they are actually doing as the remainder of their suspension system is hidden within the chassis itself.AR3-GP wrote: ↑01 Mar 2022, 20:32It's possible that this arm is acting like a leaf spring. If they can make the arm have multiple functions with a similar mass, it's an efficient way to spend "mass" on the car. The belleville stack and the pullrod (if that is what they are still using) can be lighter and smaller.ScrewCaptain27 wrote: ↑01 Mar 2022, 13:00The upper front wishbone is one-piece! Similar solution to what was used for the lower wishbone on some mid-2000s cars before “zero keel” was a thing.
(Italian) https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-re ... e/8602347/
A pass through for the wheel tether doesn't make sense because you can't fix the wheel tether for the left side upright, to the right-side upright (Which is what a pass-through would imply). According to Article 14.4.1. Each tether must be independently fixed to the survival cell which means there is no reason to do a pass through of wheel tethers from one side to the other.Stu wrote: ↑01 Mar 2022, 20:44Someone has previously mentioned that they may be housing the wheel tethers within it (personally I would put that within the lower wishbone), but a leaf spring is not such a daft idea. If ‘fixed’ at the edge of the chassis it could save weight as it would have the potential to operate in both pitch and roll fairly effectively. We may never see what they are actually doing as the remainder of their suspension system is hidden within the chassis itself.AR3-GP wrote: ↑01 Mar 2022, 20:32It's possible that this arm is acting like a leaf spring. If they can make the arm have multiple functions with a similar mass, it's an efficient way to spend "mass" on the car. The belleville stack and the pullrod (if that is what they are still using) can be lighter and smaller.ScrewCaptain27 wrote: ↑01 Mar 2022, 13:00The upper front wishbone is one-piece! Similar solution to what was used for the lower wishbone on some mid-2000s cars before “zero keel” was a thing.
(Italian) https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-re ... e/8602347/
I've wondered if this single control arm is supported by bushings and actually "floating" inside the chassis. If you didn't know they were using it as a control arm, you'd also think it was just a roll bar. My own vehicle has a very similar looking cross member which is single piece, mounted to chassis with rubber bushing, and mounted to each upright. It's the anti-roll bar14.4.1 Wheel Tethers
Each wheel must be fitted with three tethers, each with a cross sectional area greater than
110mm² and each of which comply with FIA standard 8864-2013 and each of which has a
minimum energy absorption of 7kJ. No suspension member may contain more than two
tethers.
Each tether must have its own separate attachments at both ends, which:
a. Are able to withstand a tensile force of 70kN in any direction within a cone of 45°
(included angle) measured from the load line of the relevant suspension member.
b. Are able to accommodate tether end fittings with a minimum inside diameter of
15mm.
c. Do not share a common fastener and are designed such that the failure of one
attachment point will not lead to the direct failure of an adjacent attachment point.
. But I don't know why you would want to couple the roll stiffness tuning to a cumbersome component like a control arm. It's much easier to tune roll stiffness from the adjustment mechanism on the rocker assembly inside the chassis.
You can put an "outlet" boundary condition for the side pod intake, with some estimate of mass flow there.. And put an "inlet" condition of the two side pod mass flows where the cooling exits are. It's not 100% accurate but it should give a better result infront of the side pod.Vanja #66 wrote: ↑28 Feb 2022, 22:15Lower lip looks to be there to produce some front downforce and to influence the flow on the upper floor surface and leading edge. The flow is chaotic because the inlet is closed off. This is a technique which isn't 100% accurate, but can keep overall external flow characteristics and saves a lot of processing power and time.
In reality, the flow here is fully attached on both sides, without any turbulence.
