Red Bull RB18

[dialtone]

I was really surprised by the RB18s use of tyres in the sprint-race. RBR was said to have reduced the weight of the car. It seems they reduce it where it was really important, so they were able to lower the COG, which would affect tyre-wear. But maybe it was track-dependant only that the RB18 suddenly had less tyre degradation than the F1-75. Or maybe Leclerc just pushed to hard at the beginning. But it would be reasonable to reduce weight where you can lower the COG.

Nah, mostly porpoising and being able to not overdrive the car in the first few corners to make up the time, unlike what Ferrari needed to do to keep up. Ferrari was basically sliding in Villeneuve and Tamburello, Leclerc was taking them faster than RedBull at minimum speed to make up for the need to brake earlier due to porpoising. Eventually all of that sliding made them grain on saturday. Unfortunately there is no telemetry available for the sprint race or it would be easy to verify, like it's easy to verify for the race.



Look at min speed in the first 2 corners (much higher for LEC) but the braking point is 100m earlier, that's an eternity: 0.2s for each braking point.

[wogx]

A repost from FB, not sure if true:

[AR3-GP]

Could this geometry be why they are not porpoising?

[Andi76]

I was really surprised by the RB18s use of tyres in the sprint-race. RBR was said to have reduced the weight of the car. It seems they reduce it where it was really important, so they were able to lower the COG, which would affect tyre-wear. But maybe it was track-dependant only that the RB18 suddenly had less tyre degradation than the F1-75. Or maybe Leclerc just pushed to hard at the beginning. But it would be reasonable to reduce weight where you can lower the COG.

Nah, mostly porpoising and being able to not overdrive the car in the first few corners to make up the time, unlike what Ferrari needed to do to keep up. Ferrari was basically sliding in Villeneuve and Tamburello, Leclerc was taking them faster than RedBull at minimum speed to make up for the need to brake earlier due to porpoising. Eventually all of that sliding made them grain on saturday. Unfortunately there is no telemetry available for the sprint race or it would be easy to verify, like it's easy to verify for the race.

https://i.imgur.com/T5FXTSk.jpeg

Look at min speed in the first 2 corners (much higher for LEC) but the braking point is 100m earlier, that's an eternity: 0.2s for each braking point.

I do not think porpoising had anything to do with that. Both cars showed no differences in that regard to the previous races, so Red Bulls improved tyre wear had nothing to do with that.

[Andi76]

A repost from FB, not sure if true:
https://www.wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/comme ... M0x8OI.jpg
https://www.wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/comme ... 62ElXg.jpg

I am not sure if this is right. Scarbs was telling exactly the opposite - That it is a "Pro-Dive"-Suspension. Even if that made no sense to me, I agree with Scarbs this would be a pretty unusual Anti-Dive Geometry. But i am not an expert in Suspension Geometry. Maybe there is someone else here with more knowledge about this who can shed some light in who is right here. Scarbs with his Pro-Dive Geometry or this post.

I just can add that some other teams have a similar layout, but less extreme. So i do not think this suspension has anything to do with the RB18s less porpoising(i say less because the RB18 is porpoising, too, just at a lower amplitude than Ferrari and Mercedes). But thats just my opinion. On the other hand Scarbs indeed assumed that this "Pro-Dive"-Suspension probably helps against porpoising. Whats noticeable is that other cars, like i already said, have a similar but less extreme layout like the RB18. And a layout with the front rear wishbones both being lower than the front ones was never used before, i think. So probably it has something to do with the ground-effect cars and porpoising. Maybe there is someone with more knowledge here who can shed some light on this also.

[ing.]

A repost from FB, not sure if true:
https://www.wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/comme ... M0x8OI.jpg
https://www.wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/comme ... 62ElXg.jpg

I am not sure if this is right. Scarbs was telling exactly the opposite - That it is a "Pro-Dive"-Suspension. Even if that made no sense to me, I agree with Scarbs this would be a pretty unusual Anti-Dive Geometry. But i am not an expert in Suspension Geometry. Maybe there is someone else here with more knowledge about this who can shed some light in who is right here. Scarbs with his Pro-Dive Geometry or this post.

I just can add that some other teams have a similar layout, but less extreme. So i do not think this suspension has anything to do with the RB18s less porpoising(i say less because the RB18 is porpoising, too, just at a lower amplitude than Ferrari and Mercedes). But thats just my opinion. On the other hand Scarbs indeed assumed that this "Pro-Dive"-Suspension probably helps against porpoising. Whats noticeable is that other cars, like i already said, have a similar but less extreme layout like the RB18. And a layout with the front rear wishbones both being lower than the front ones was never used before, i think. So probably it has something to do with the ground-effect cars and porpoising. Maybe there is someone with more knowledge here who can shed some light on this also.

There is some amount of anti-dive as the instantaneous center is above ground level. To get the full picture you’d need to know the CG location:



The extreme angle on the upper wishbone also contributes to increasing caster on deflection and as a consequence, camber gain with steering input:

[dialtone]

I was really surprised by the RB18s use of tyres in the sprint-race. RBR was said to have reduced the weight of the car. It seems they reduce it where it was really important, so they were able to lower the COG, which would affect tyre-wear. But maybe it was track-dependant only that the RB18 suddenly had less tyre degradation than the F1-75. Or maybe Leclerc just pushed to hard at the beginning. But it would be reasonable to reduce weight where you can lower the COG.

Nah, mostly porpoising and being able to not overdrive the car in the first few corners to make up the time, unlike what Ferrari needed to do to keep up. Ferrari was basically sliding in Villeneuve and Tamburello, Leclerc was taking them faster than RedBull at minimum speed to make up for the need to brake earlier due to porpoising. Eventually all of that sliding made them grain on saturday. Unfortunately there is no telemetry available for the sprint race or it would be easy to verify, like it's easy to verify for the race.

https://i.imgur.com/T5FXTSk.jpeg

Look at min speed in the first 2 corners (much higher for LEC) but the braking point is 100m earlier, that's an eternity: 0.2s for each braking point.

I do not think porpoising had anything to do with that. Both cars showed no differences in that regard to the previous races, so Red Bulls improved tyre wear had nothing to do with that.

Ferrari had graining not worse tyre wear.

anyway this is OT for this topic.

[PlatinumZealot]

A repost from FB, not sure if true:
https://www.wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/comme ... M0x8OI.jpg
https://www.wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/comme ... 62ElXg.jpg

I am not sure if this is right. Scarbs was telling exactly the opposite - That it is a "Pro-Dive"-Suspension. Even if that made no sense to me, I agree with Scarbs this would be a pretty unusual Anti-Dive Geometry. But i am not an expert in Suspension Geometry. Maybe there is someone else here with more knowledge about this who can shed some light in who is right here. Scarbs with his Pro-Dive Geometry or this post.

I just can add that some other teams have a similar layout, but less extreme. So i do not think this suspension has anything to do with the RB18s less porpoising(i say less because the RB18 is porpoising, too, just at a lower amplitude than Ferrari and Mercedes). But thats just my opinion. On the other hand Scarbs indeed assumed that this "Pro-Dive"-Suspension probably helps against porpoising. Whats noticeable is that other cars, like i already said, have a similar but less extreme layout like the RB18. And a layout with the front rear wishbones both being lower than the front ones was never used before, i think. So probably it has something to do with the ground-effect cars and porpoising. Maybe there is someone with more knowledge here who can shed some light on this also.

It's anti dive. I used to do chassis models in CAD and this type of control arm layout was always anti-dive. Street cars like the Nissan GTR have the wishbones like this. (in fact when the car came out when when I started fooling around with anti-dive in CAD).

Why on earth would you want a car to dive forward more? It's like asking for more roll into the corners! Like having a pro-roll bar! Lol

[AR3-GP]

According to Albano, RB's update has shifted the balance forwards (presumably the floor cp has moved forwards)

https://www.formulapassion.it/opinioni/ ... 14892.html

Car now has beautiful balance.

[Andi76]

A repost from FB, not sure if true:
https://www.wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/comme ... M0x8OI.jpg
https://www.wykop.pl/cdn/c3201142/comme ... 62ElXg.jpg

I am not sure if this is right. Scarbs was telling exactly the opposite - That it is a "Pro-Dive"-Suspension. Even if that made no sense to me, I agree with Scarbs this would be a pretty unusual Anti-Dive Geometry. But i am not an expert in Suspension Geometry. Maybe there is someone else here with more knowledge about this who can shed some light in who is right here. Scarbs with his Pro-Dive Geometry or this post.

I just can add that some other teams have a similar layout, but less extreme. So i do not think this suspension has anything to do with the RB18s less porpoising(i say less because the RB18 is porpoising, too, just at a lower amplitude than Ferrari and Mercedes). But thats just my opinion. On the other hand Scarbs indeed assumed that this "Pro-Dive"-Suspension probably helps against porpoising. Whats noticeable is that other cars, like i already said, have a similar but less extreme layout like the RB18. And a layout with the front rear wishbones both being lower than the front ones was never used before, i think. So probably it has something to do with the ground-effect cars and porpoising. Maybe there is someone with more knowledge here who can shed some light on this also.

It's anti dive. I used to do chassis models in CAD and this type of control arm layout was always anti-dive. Street cars like the Nissan GTR have the wishbones like this. (in fact when the car came out when when I started fooling around with anti-dive in CAD).

Why on earth would you want a car to dive forward more? It's like asking for more roll into the corners! Like having a pro-roll bar! Lol

I glad to hear hear this as i, even not having as much knowledge as Scarbs for sure, left Scarbs a comment that "Pro-Dive" makes no sense at all and that i think its an Anti-Dive geometry.

[Andi76]

Nah, mostly porpoising and being able to not overdrive the car in the first few corners to make up the time, unlike what Ferrari needed to do to keep up. Ferrari was basically sliding in Villeneuve and Tamburello, Leclerc was taking them faster than RedBull at minimum speed to make up for the need to brake earlier due to porpoising. Eventually all of that sliding made them grain on saturday. Unfortunately there is no telemetry available for the sprint race or it would be easy to verify, like it's easy to verify for the race.

https://i.imgur.com/T5FXTSk.jpeg

Look at min speed in the first 2 corners (much higher for LEC) but the braking point is 100m earlier, that's an eternity: 0.2s for each braking point.

I do not think porpoising had anything to do with that. Both cars showed no differences in that regard to the previous races, so Red Bulls improved tyre wear had nothing to do with that.

Ferrari had graining not worse tyre wear.

anyway this is OT for this topic.

In the sprint race, and that was related to the sprint-race, it was wear.

[BassVirolla]

[...]
Why on earth would you want a car to dive forward more? It's like asking for more roll into the corners! Like having a pro-roll bar! Lol

Thinking outside the box, for lowering the FW (high up this year) under braking and while approaching the apex, in order to bring the CP forward at the entry of the corner, and rearwards in the exit.

[PhillipM]

Why on earth would you want a car to dive forward more? It's like asking for more roll into the corners! Like having a pro-roll bar! Lol

Actually seen a few off road racers setup like that to reduce impact forces and prevent body movements from constraining the suspension.
Haven't seen it work well (well, for impacts, yes, see trailing arm baja's, but not for the rest) but have seen it.

[PlatinumZealot]

Why on earth would you want a car to dive forward more? It's like asking for more roll into the corners! Like having a pro-roll bar! Lol

Actually seen a few off road racers setup like that to reduce impact forces and prevent body movements from constraining the suspension.
Haven't seen it work well (well, for impacts, yes, see trailing arm baja's, but not for the rest) but have seen it.

It makes sense in that application I reckon. Thinking about it, hitting rocks at high speed, that would reduce the force going into the front springs and dampers. I am seeing it not fucntioning for braking reasons like in a car, so the pro-dive effect from decceleration we wont reall see it. So yeah probably designed for hitting rocks and stuff.



Here is a photo of what Nissan uses on their GTR btw. I like this one because it's so dramatic like the RedBull.

[vorticism]

Their lower arm is relatively flat, like all the other teams. The lower side of the monocoque is the same shape & height for all teams and they're all placing the lower arm in about the same area. The upper arm alone will not fully define pro or anti roll characteristics.

Given that we don't know where center of mass is, I can see why scarbs would say it's potentiall pro dive. The other teams have more flat arms (both arms) which should suggest that it is they who are more anti dive, with RB being less anti dive or pro dive.

Actually seen a few off road racers setup like that to reduce impact forces and prevent body movements from constraining the suspension.

As pro dive or pro roll?

That GT-R example will be more about altering caster during compression; the lower arm is flat. Which may be what RB are doing.