Red Bull RB19

[TEHNOS]

https://the-race.com/formula-1/gary-and ... drs-trick/

there is no drs trick here redbullhonda already had a car with high top speed from last year and are continuing the same theme.the only trick is avoiding saying the H word by british media and saying nothing about Mclaren being a backmarker.

I am glad to disagree.
Out of context.

[vorticism]

Can't comment on that sort of DRS domino effect; he does make a good observation about how the RW has no slot gap separators. Wouldn't read too much into that other than it being lower drag.

[organic]

I don't buy into there being a huge trick involved. They have a steeper secondary flap than any other top team and gain more top speed from opening the same flap. Seems to make complete sense to me

There isn't a huge difference in DRS efficiency compared to other teams across the grid which is indicative of not a large trick but rather a very well optimized system with many correct design decisions.

We can say the same thing about the rb19 as a whole. There's nothing in particular that makes the car brilliant but as a package it is obviously excellent

[OO7]

That steep flap would hurt them in a straight line when closed though, but RB still have the best or close to the best top speed with DRS closed.

[vorticism]

No one has yet explained what the function of the second heave device was on last year's rear suspension.

[Andi76]

Motorsport.com Italy published the following drawing from Piola, explaining:



"The suspensions, together with the aerodynamics (not so much extreme, but rather refined) contribute to making the Milton Keynes single-seater the Formula 1 car capable of running more close to the ground, without the risk of damaging the floor or the plank by crawling with the metal skids.


Quite simply, Red Bull does not suffer from porpoising, while Ferrari, and not just the red car, are still afflicted by it. How did Milton Keynes bring a seemingly manageable phenomenon under control? This is the question many are trying to answer.

Attention, in particular, was focused on the inclination of the upper suspension arms: even to the less attentive eyes it seemed clear how much the triangle had been inclined, reaching angles never seen before. Two effects are sought: first, exploiting the anti-dive effect under braking, i.e. avoiding sinking of the nose in braking, helping to reduce pitching and, therefore, the transfer of loads to the front to the advantage of a set-up more stable. Secondly, the arms are the first deflectors that the air encounters and, suitably shaped, they help to generate a clean flow in the venturi channels to increase the downforce.

In the rear, the opposite effect is sought, i.e. the anti-squat, to prevent the rear from crouching under acceleration and, therefore, the triangle (or rather the two elements of the multilink) is very inclined forward. “But the two combined actions – reveals a chief designer, as explained by Motorsport Italy – are not each worth 10% of the shocks of the suspensions, so the effect, however appreciable, is not continuous. It is much more important to have eliminated the bouncing”.

On closer inspection, however, Red Bull reveals an important change of the RB19 compared to the 2022 world champion car: looking at the images from Motorsport Italy, you can see how the front suspension has been tilted forward, to move the front wheels away from the sidepods and Venturi canals.

We don’t have precise measurements, but we can assume that the wheelbase has grown by about 30-40 millimeters. On the RB18 the front triangle arm was perpendicular to the chassis, while now it is clearly oriented forward and the other kinematic mechanisms have been redesigned as a result.

The drawing of Motorsport Italy journalist Giorgio Piola below is eloquent and compares the 2023 suspension in black with the 2022 one in red: the differences are important. The advantage that Adrian Newey sought, therefore, was of an aerodynamic nature. Moving the front wheel away from the sidepods reduces the possibility that the wake can disrupt the flow intended for cooling the radiators and the channels for ground effect with harmful turbulence.


It must be said that with the W14, Mercedes sought a solution similar to that of Red Bull: instead of moving the front wheels forward, the attachment of the radiator vents moved backwards. The result, however, must not have been the same judging by the performance of the black arrow which has unsolved lay-out problems.

Upon closer inspection, the intervention on the R19 was even more subtle, because with this modification the center of aerodynamic pressure was also changed, adapting it to the needs of the new Pirelli tyres, designed to reduce the understeer seen in 2022. In short, more downforce and less tire degradation.

If we add to this picture the ability of the staff directed by Pierre Waché to make the rear suspension “collapse” with progressive springing according to the load exerted, exploiting the Rake effect in reverse, an ever clearer picture emerges of a Red Bull team that continues to refine concepts known to it with great results.

At the rear, the upper arm of the rear suspension is very high, given that it is anchored to the “saddle” of the mono-pylon, on two carbon keels that rise from the transmission box which at that point acts as a “cradle” for the single exhaust. In addition to the refinement of the construction that allows for weight savings, there is also a kinematic mechanism that tries not to take camber recovery to extremes.

We are talking about the angle (static camber) defined with the set-up which forces the tire to work at an angle in a straight line, to increase the tire efficiency when cornering. But when the car is subjected to greater loads on the straight, such as when braking and accelerating, it can trigger an increase in tire wear and temperatures on the tread surface.

With good aerodynamics, the vertical thrust can be generated to transfer the energy necessary for the tires to work in the right temperature window and the suspensions contribute not only to laminar the flows for better efficiency but also to protect the life of the tyres. This means all teams are looking for a mix that is difficult to achieve and for Red Bull today it is as if it has found the Holy Grail."

I think there is some truth to this, although I doubt that the forward tilted front suspension is really worth talking about. Even more than 20 years ago, one of Rory Byrne's design philosophies was to keep the sidepods/front suspension as far apart as possible for the aforementioned reasons. On the other hand, that's probably what actually shows the difference and the key to success - paying attention to every little detail and just maximizing it better than the others. And with thousands of details that exist on an F1 car, if I have a small edge everywhere and do them better than the competition, I will have a dominant car. Actually exactly the philosophy Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne worked by at Ferrari, but I think Red Bull today is actually comparable to that and has a similar philosophy, while others were looking for the one "silver bullet", generally speaking. And just like that team back then, I think Red Bull has also developed technologies in terms of simulation and design into areas that are superior to the others. All this has made it possible to design a car that probably doesn't have a big secret in it, but where everything simply harmonizes with each other and is perfectly coordinated. Even though I think we have to admit that the introduction of the TD39 has also given Red Bull a head start in development and that without it they would certainly have the best car, but without it they would not be dominant.

[henry]

No one has yet explained what the function of the second heave device was on last year's rear suspension.

I think lower spring rate and high rebound damping would be useful characteristics at low ride heights, perhaps that’s what it does.

In my mind I think it might form a non rigid anchor for the “fixed” end of the torsion bars.

It could have a preload that determines at what load the suspension should become less stiff, and a spring rate that combines with the stiffness of the torsion bars to provide a lower rate beyond the preload point. Two springs in series have a lower rate than either individually.

It might also provide asymmetric damping in this deflection region. A high rebound damping, combined with lower return force, would help to control the onset of porpoising. Highly asymmetric damping is restricted in the regulations, but when has that ever stopped F1 engineers.

Just a guess.

[aleallievi]

Very interesting theory by this Italian YouTuber. It seems that the rear suspension’s top wishbone could be dynamically adjusted under (rear wing) load thanks to a clever sliding mechanism. This could change the camber and caster angle at high vs low speeds.

[Stu]

No one has yet explained what the function of the second heave device was on last year's rear suspension.

I think lower spring rate and high rebound damping would be useful characteristics at low ride heights, perhaps that’s what it does.

In my mind I think it might form a non rigid anchor for the “fixed” end of the torsion bars.

It could have a preload that determines at what load the suspension should become less stiff, and a spring rate that combines with the stiffness of the torsion bars to provide a lower rate beyond the preload point. Two springs in series have a lower rate than either individually.

It might also provide asymmetric damping in this deflection region. A high rebound damping, combined with lower return force, would help to control the onset of porpoising. Highly asymmetric damping is restricted in the regulations, but when has that ever stopped F1 engineers.

Just a guess.

The preload spring link is what we determined it to be last year, this wouldn’t work in a conventional suspension system. However, because the ARB is SO BIG it can work; the rear axle behaves like a beam axle.
They are using Multimatic damper units, suggested within their advertising to be using SSV valving.

[Andi76]

An Italian Engineer believes he has found Red Bulls secret. A kind of mechanism where the upper arm of the rear suspension shifts at a certain aerodynamic load on the rear wing, lowering the rear. At least that's how I understand the Italian translation...

[henry]

No one has yet explained what the function of the second heave device was on last year's rear suspension.

I think lower spring rate and high rebound damping would be useful characteristics at low ride heights, perhaps that’s what it does.

In my mind I think it might form a non rigid anchor for the “fixed” end of the torsion bars.

It could have a preload that determines at what load the suspension should become less stiff, and a spring rate that combines with the stiffness of the torsion bars to provide a lower rate beyond the preload point. Two springs in series have a lower rate than either individually.

It might also provide asymmetric damping in this deflection region. A high rebound damping, combined with lower return force, would help to control the onset of porpoising. Highly asymmetric damping is restricted in the regulations, but when has that ever stopped F1 engineers.

Just a guess.

The preload spring link is what we determined it to be last year, this wouldn’t work in a conventional suspension system. However, because the ARB is SO BIG it can work; the rear axle behaves like a beam axle.
They are using Multimatic damper units, suggested within their advertising to be using SSV valving.

Thanks, and apologies for missing this first time round.

So the ARB behaves more as a stiff link than a deformable roll bar? I would expect a need to also have this feature dependant on vertical load, stiff at high loads and soft at low, perhaps even redundant, relying on the roll damper installation for anti roll functionality at low loads. Otherwise your swing is great but your roundabout is not very comfortable.

[AR3-GP]

Very interesting theory by this Italian YouTuber. It seems that the rear suspension’s top wishbone could be dynamically adjusted under (rear wing) load thanks to a clever sliding mechanism. This could change the camber and caster angle at high vs low speeds.

Interesting theory of his but I have doubts about it.

It would violate some of the regulations surrounding moveable aero in addition to some un-physical/non-existent degrees of freedom that the author claims are present.


Here's a picture of last year's Alpha Tauri which has very similar detail, but you can see that the "pins" at the back are more likely to be a locating feature. The cradle itself is rigidly mounted to the top of the gearbox carrier (and since AT and Rb are sharing this...). For many reasons including the rigidity requirements of a structure like this and the picture below (*of the AT), I doubt this structure is "sliding".

[vorticism]

No one has yet explained what the function of the second heave device was on last year's rear suspension.

In my mind I think it might form a non rigid anchor for the “fixed” end of the torsion bars.

It could have a preload that determines at what load the suspension should become less stiff, and a spring rate that combines with the stiffness of the torsion bars to provide a lower rate beyond the preload point. Two springs in series have a lower rate than either individually.

It might also provide asymmetric damping in this deflection region. A high rebound damping, combined with lower return force, would help to control the onset of porpoising. Highly asymmetric damping is restricted in the regulations, but when has that ever stopped F1 engineers.

+1 The wording of that section of the regs is lengthy.

It looked so simple, as a device, that I was at that time thinking it may simply be a turnbuckle; to what end though? Would be a convoluted way to adjust ride height f.e. when you can do the same with more accessible shims or turnbuckles on the pushrod.

The preload spring link is what we determined it to be last year, this wouldn’t work in a conventional suspension system. However, because the ARB is SO BIG it can work; the rear axle behaves like a beam axle.
They are using Multimatic damper units, suggested within their advertising to be using SSV valving.

You're saying it might have a spring rate itself, or it's a rigid link?

Thanks, and apologies for missing this first time round.

So the ARB behaves more as a stiff link than a deformable roll bar? I would expect a need to also have this feature dependant on vertical load, stiff at high loads and soft at low, perhaps even redundant, relying on the roll damper installation for anti roll functionality at low loads. Otherwise your swing is great but your roundabout is not very comfortable.

Same, I missed out on some sections last year. In my many discussions with hollus about the contours of apolitical speech on the website, he would often reply with, "Ban." I digress. Your mention of roll loads makes me think about how 5 g lateral must impose relatively large demands upon an anti-roll system. Can anyone comment on this, what must be a unique value for F1?

[vorticism]

Very interesting theory by this Italian YouTuber. It seems that the rear suspension’s top wishbone could be dynamically adjusted under (rear wing) load thanks to a clever sliding mechanism. This could change the camber and caster angle at high vs low speeds.

https://youtu .be/mmkhiOW8wDU

Interesting theory of his but I have doubts about it.

It would violate some of the regulations surrounding moveable aero in addition to some un-physical/non-existent degrees of freedom that the author claims are present.


Here's a picture of last year's Alpha Tauri which has very similar detail, but you can see that the "pins" at the back are more likely to be a locating feature. The cradle itself is rigidly mounted to the top of the gearbox carrier (and since AT and Rb are sharing this...). For many reasons including the rigidity requirements of a structure like this and the picture below (*of the AT), I doubt this structure is "sliding".

https://i.postimg.cc/xC6H6zSk/image.png

+1 I also would not expect any significant deflection from this structure. Beautiful machined piece though. 95% of that block turned into swarf. And it supports upward of 500kg(?).

The rear facing stem/pin is the mounting point for the exhaust pipe. Note the flange visible inside the saddle here on the RB18:


Source: motorsport-total.com

[Stu]

…

In my mind I think it might form a non rigid anchor for the “fixed” end of the torsion bars.

It could have a preload that determines at what load the suspension should become less stiff, and a spring rate that combines with the stiffness of the torsion bars to provide a lower rate beyond the preload point. Two springs in series have a lower rate than either individually.

…

+1 The wording of that section of the regs is lengthy.

It looked so simple, as a device, that I was at that time thinking it may simply be a turnbuckle; to what end though? Would be a convoluted way to adjust ride height f.e. when you can do the same with more accessible shims or turnbuckles on the pushrod.

The preload spring link is what we determined it to be last year, this wouldn’t work in a conventional suspension system. However, because the ARB is SO BIG it can work; the rear axle behaves like a beam axle.
They are using Multimatic damper units, suggested within their advertising to be using SSV valving.

You're saying it might have a spring rate itself, or it's a rigid link?

Thanks, and apologies for missing this first time round.

So the ARB behaves more as a stiff link than a deformable roll bar? I would expect a need to also have this feature dependant on vertical load, stiff at high loads and soft at low, perhaps even redundant, relying on the roll damper installation for anti roll functionality at low loads. Otherwise your swing is great but your roundabout is not very comfortable.

… Your mention of roll loads makes me think about how 5 g lateral must impose relatively large demands upon an anti-roll system. Can anyone comment on this, what must be a unique value for F1?

As @Henry suggests rather than a solid link (which I had originally thought it may be - for ride height adjustments), I believe that it contains a heavily preloaded spring, so that at a given vertical load you get a drop in ride height.
The torsion spring is then located in a bushing/bearing to allow rotation (such that the two springs act against each other.
If you tried this with a conventional system (torsion springs, t-bar ARB) you would end up with some fairly horrible kinematics, by ‘ditching’ a conventional ARB - replacing with a near-solid link, you retain single-wheel bump/rebound (and are able to control both sides with a single damper), take roll to near-zero levels - making a very stable platform for the rear diffuser operation.
It is really the opposite to the classic Gordon Murray theory of not running a rear ARB (maximising traction) and putting all of your roll-control on the front axle.
We never have seen a picture of the front damper arrangement, but the upper ‘bow’ that appears to link both hubs (retained by two vertical mounts) could function as both helper spring and/or ARB.