This forum contains threads to discuss teams themselves. Anything not technical about the cars, including restructuring, performances etc belongs here.
I really dont think it will affect them to be honest. They will just adapt to be more precise and refined in their designs before they put them into the tunnel.
Wind tunnel time is limited for F1 teams. Not for Honda. The work conducted at HALO could be useful to both AT and RB with the primary purpose of serving Honda development. They could conceivably have a copy of the chassis or aero form to test cooling packages, not aero load or drag ETC. Time zone and distance from Milton Keynes probably isn't an obstacle, Sakura is farther and more time zone difference.
I'll see what I can find out from my acquaintance at HPD who leads the Civic Type R TC program. He's a Checo/RedBull fan who considers Tanabe-san as "God of VTEC". Maybe Wazari-san can give us info about whether HALO can be used for HRC purposes.
The HALO in short can not be used for anything remotely associated with F1. The FIA would definitely frown upon that. Also logistically it would be very costly. I remember there were rumors about a factory team sneaking more wind tunnel time by putting a LMP shell on top of the "real" chassis but nothing was ever proven.
Tanabe-san has the reputation of VTEC no Oo-sama by many.
“If Honda does not race, there is no Honda.”
“Success represents the 1% of your work which results from the 99% that is called failure.”
...
The HALO in short can not be used for anything remotely associated with F1. The FIA would definitely frown upon that. Also logistically it would be very costly. I remember there were rumors about a factory team sneaking more wind tunnel time by putting a LMP shell on top of the "real" chassis but nothing was ever proven.
Tanabe-san has the reputation of VTEC no Oo-sama by many.
That's interesting to know Wazari-san. I'm curious to understand by what you mean as FIA would frown upon anything associated to F1. What if Honda wanted to field a car or if another company wanted to use its services legally on the books? Surely RedBull is not restricted to using its own wind tunnel if Aston and AT use Mercedes and RedBull's?
That's interesting to know Wazari-san. I'm curious to understand by what you mean as FIA would frown upon anything associated to F1. What if Honda wanted to field a car or if another company wanted to use its services legally on the books? Surely RedBull is not restricted to using its own wind tunnel if Aston and AT use Mercedes and RedBull's?
I think I might have misunderstood your question. What I meant is that the FIA would frown upon anyone using the guise of testing product A to circumvent the allowed WT time for product B (F1 product). If the team notifies the FIA of which facility they will use and the facility is proctored then it would not be an issue. Transport from the team's manufacturing facilities to the WT would be a major consideration. One of the main reason HRD built a facility in Milton Keynes was so that if any changes to the PU were necessitated due to aero changes it could be done so quickly for further testing.
“If Honda does not race, there is no Honda.”
“Success represents the 1% of your work which results from the 99% that is called failure.”
Red Bull have to nominate a tunnel for testing that year. No testing for the purpose of the F1 car can be done in any tunnel other than the one nominated.
I'm intrigued as why people might think its okay for a team to try and circumvent a punishment for a breach with actual well defined and understood cheating?
Worth also noting from the above AMuS article, Marko mentions there will be a number of additions to the RB academy for next season. Expecting Maloney to be announced for F2
In this video, the author describes the so-called RB18`s secret weapons that helped to win both WDC and WCC championships:
I wonder had the following things could be implemented in the W14 car bearing in mind they will retain the same no-pods aero philosophy as we did figure out they`ll do next year:
- variable Venturi tunnels hights in order for a constant airflow volume hence velocity, to be achieved underfloor
***
- peak downforce created by the floor at lower-speed corners when the ride height is higher rather than high-speed corners when the car runs at the minimum height
The video is very amateurish about these two claims, unsurprisingly.
Variable height in RB18 tunnels does not represent an effort to achieve constant airspeed in them, on the contrary. Various vertical curves on the keel speed up the airflow and this low pressure is projected onto floor surface creating several low-pressure zones in the tunnel. All these zones are not as dependent of ride height changes as a typical "clean" design would be, even if they are relatively small.
Peak downforce is definitely not created at low speed corners, even if we are talking about aero coefficients and not outright air-velocity-dependent forces. RB18's floor profile is such that it creates a single massive low-pressure zone with the lowest throat height of all cars, more here:
This design still works the best at low ride heights, just like any other ground-effect floor out there. The difference here is that this design emphasizes diffuser performance and strong diffuser vortex generation to prevent diffuser stall when car is at its lowest, while slightly sacrificing overall peak downforce levels. This is completely different from Ferrari, a car that was allowed to bounce at high speed to keep the optimal ride height at all times and all corners.
Both cars had softer suspension and great low-speed corner performance where this performance was most important for lap time (e.g. Monaco), but RB never bounced as much since its diffuser rarely stalled at speed - contrary to Ferrari. As of TD039, RB18 simply managed to retain its original design properties, while Ferrari and others had to make severe compromises with their setup. The top speed of RB came mostly from better RW design with bigger DRS flap, until Ferrari had to cut back on engine power to lower the risk of mid-race failures. From that point RB18 even had a distinctive power advantage over its competitors.
