Red Bull RB19

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
AR3-GP
AR3-GP
364
Joined: 06 Jul 2021, 01:22

Re: Red Bull RB19

Post

Venturiation wrote:
03 May 2023, 00:04
rb19 DRS got better by the rule change of the diffuser height, diffuser beam and rear wing working better together for RB19


Maybe Vanja is interested in having a second look at simulating this phenomenon. Previously he said that this kind of interaction was not probable based on the CFD he did.

Venturiation
Venturiation
98
Joined: 04 Jan 2023, 19:48

Re: Red Bull RB19

Post

AR3-GP wrote:
03 May 2023, 00:13
Venturiation wrote:
03 May 2023, 00:04
rb19 DRS got better by the rule change of the diffuser height, diffuser beam and rear wing working better together for RB19


Maybe Vanja is interested in having a second look at simulating this phenomenon. Previously he said that this kind of interaction was not probable based on the CFD he did.
he also said you need very good corelation between CFD and track and the tools and it's very complicated to nail it

AR3-GP
AR3-GP
364
Joined: 06 Jul 2021, 01:22

Re: Red Bull RB19

Post

Venturiation wrote:
03 May 2023, 00:34
AR3-GP wrote:
03 May 2023, 00:13
Venturiation wrote:
03 May 2023, 00:04
rb19 DRS got better by the rule change of the diffuser height, diffuser beam and rear wing working better together for RB19


Maybe Vanja is interested in having a second look at simulating this phenomenon. Previously he said that this kind of interaction was not probable based on the CFD he did.
he also said you need very good corelation between CFD and track and the tools and it's very complicated to nail it
Yes I’m sure it’s painstaking. I was thinking that you don’t have to focus on any specific car with the cfd model. You could manipulate the model until the effect happens (if possible). Then go from there and see if flow reattachment occurs and whether it’s repeatable with wing changes and beam wing changes.

User avatar
vorticism
323
Joined: 01 Mar 2022, 20:20

Re: Red Bull RB19

Post

Counterpoints:

-they haven't run the stacked beam wing in '23
-their '22 beam wings are not more drastically pitched than competitors
-their diffuser looks about the same as everyone else's

Another explanation is that their car is simply lower drag sans rear wing relative to the other cars i.e. all the other parts are relatively lower drag, so when RW drag is cut we get to see how efficient the rest of the aero package is.
𓄀

AR3-GP
AR3-GP
364
Joined: 06 Jul 2021, 01:22

Re: Red Bull RB19

Post

vorticism wrote:
03 May 2023, 01:56
Counterpoints:

-they haven't run the stacked beam wing in '23
-their '22 beam wings are not more drastically pitched than competitors
-their diffuser looks about the same as everyone else's

Another explanation is that their car is simply lower drag sans rear wing relative to the other cars i.e. all the other parts are relatively lower drag, so when RW drag is cut we get to see how efficient the rest of the aero package is.
That's also a plausible explanation. The rear wing could just be very draggy. Others may not be able to afford to carry this drag.

User avatar
vorticism
323
Joined: 01 Mar 2022, 20:20

Re: Red Bull RB19

Post

The RW could still be as efficient as anyone else's. If the other 90% of the car is lower drag then there's your 10 kph delta or whatever is being claimed.
𓄀

yallkok
yallkok
3
Joined: 22 Mar 2022, 15:26

Re: Red Bull RB19

Post

I personally think the RBs are the least ground effect cars of all.
The bulk of their rear loading is generated by the wing and beam wings.
https://www-funoanalisitecnica-com.tran ... r_pto=wapp

Farnborough
Farnborough
95
Joined: 18 Mar 2023, 14:15

Re: Red Bull RB19

Post

AR3-GP wrote:
03 May 2023, 02:36
vorticism wrote:
03 May 2023, 01:56
Counterpoints:

-they haven't run the stacked beam wing in '23
-their '22 beam wings are not more drastically pitched than competitors
-their diffuser looks about the same as everyone else's

Another explanation is that their car is simply lower drag sans rear wing relative to the other cars i.e. all the other parts are relatively lower drag, so when RW drag is cut we get to see how efficient the rest of the aero package is.
That's also a plausible explanation. The rear wing could just be very draggy. Others may not be able to afford to carry this drag.
This interests me the most "relatively lower drag" and particularly the sidepod inlet, new for this race in changed form. Being (looks like roughly similar area) less vertical and more surface presented horizontal on the lower lip.

There's a parallel in this type of aero (caveat needed here. You need to look at this in scale proportions, both physical and speed difference wise) with the air intake of fast jets, although inverted in this use, as are most car based compared to planes.
The intake entrance on RB 18 19 series is planing the air from topside to enter duct, lower lip prevents underspill after its passed that point.
Taking concorde as example, the internal airflow is slowed to mach 0.5 for turbine intake but restriction there (unlike conventional flat front air intake) give lift and reduced drag as that mouth stalls the air relative to velocity of air stream.
As the throughput effectively chokes, then the mouth geometry becomes important to the overall aero performance.

On RB series, as that internal flow slows relative to outside air velocity the front end of sidepod starts to generate downward pressure combined with less drag in that scenario. Now consider if opening the rear wing extracts less negative pressure from rear outlet of cooling exit, that front end will potentially choke earlier, making more use of that front end geometry pressure accumulation. Would likely need less front wing flap to maintain overall concept downforce of chassis too, which is generally what we see on this car.

Unlike "conventional" intake entry, this one controls exactly what is happening as cooling ducts choke, that's by ensuring the top side surfaces are now favoured relative to the undercut that many of the chassis employ. RB is the only one doing this fully.

Making the duct entry wider on this latest iteration just works that lower lip flat increased surface area more effectively as the reduction in vertical sides has no loss. Appears to be overall gain in chassis load, with added reduction in drag when internal flow chokes.

Potentially less front wing flap could be used for even more gain at terminal velocity, without attendant reduction in front axle load.

User avatar
Vanja #66
1534
Joined: 19 Mar 2012, 16:38

Re: Red Bull RB19

Post

AR3-GP wrote:
03 May 2023, 00:13
Maybe Vanja is interested in having a second look at simulating this phenomenon. Previously he said that this kind of interaction was not probable based on the CFD he did.
No need for any CFD, RB19 in low downforce configurations (Jeddah, Baku - up to +20kmh in Q vs R without slipstream) sheds less drag than in medium downforce config. (Bahrain, Melbourne - up to +25kmh in Q vs R without slipstream). Since low downforce is the centre of the alleged stall myth, you'd expect it will shed more drag, right?

Shub explained everything about this myth in great detail https://youtu.be/WpCT1FeUGJI

Just take a look at single element beam wing, it's at about 40-45 degrees, it should be almost vertical to be able to stall it with flow field change... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FrhC8s2WYAM ... name=large
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

BlueCheetah66
BlueCheetah66
33
Joined: 13 Jul 2021, 20:23

Re: Red Bull RB19

Post

yallkok wrote:
03 May 2023, 10:41
I personally think the RBs are the least ground effect cars of all.
The bulk of their rear loading is generated by the wing and beam wings.
https://www-funoanalisitecnica-com.tran ... r_pto=wapp
Might be true, but based on the amount of detail they had put early in the floor for the RB18 I feel like they would be getting more out of it if they decided to put that much work. When Perez crashed in Monaco last year and people got pictures of their floor, it had a lot of intricacies

User avatar
organic
1049
Joined: 08 Jan 2022, 02:24
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: Red Bull RB19

Post

vorticism wrote:
03 May 2023, 01:56
Counterpoints:

-they haven't run the stacked beam wing in '23
They ran it in Bahrain

User avatar
Vanja #66
1534
Joined: 19 Mar 2012, 16:38

Re: Red Bull RB19

Post

organic wrote:
03 May 2023, 14:07
They ran it in Bahrain
Could you share a photo-proof please? :mrgreen:
And they call it a stall. A STALL!

#DwarvesAreNaturalSprinters
#BlessYouLaddie

AR3-GP
AR3-GP
364
Joined: 06 Jul 2021, 01:22

Re: Red Bull RB19

Post

Vanja #66 wrote:
03 May 2023, 14:02
AR3-GP wrote:
03 May 2023, 00:13
Maybe Vanja is interested in having a second look at simulating this phenomenon. Previously he said that this kind of interaction was not probable based on the CFD he did.
No need for any CFD, RB19 in low downforce configurations (Jeddah, Baku - up to +20kmh in Q vs R without slipstream) sheds less drag than in medium downforce config. (Bahrain, Melbourne - up to +25kmh in Q vs R without slipstream). Since low downforce is the centre of the alleged stall myth, you'd expect it will shed more drag, right?

Shub explained everything about this myth in great detail https://youtu.be/WpCT1FeUGJI

Just take a look at single element beam wing, it's at about 40-45 degrees, it should be almost vertical to be able to stall it with flow field change... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FrhC8s2WYAM ... name=large
From the video, this is interesting right? It looks like it's possible for DRS to decrease the drag on the rear tires.

Image

User avatar
vorticism
323
Joined: 01 Mar 2022, 20:20

Re: Red Bull RB19

Post

organic wrote:
03 May 2023, 14:07
vorticism wrote:
03 May 2023, 01:56
Counterpoints:

-they haven't run the stacked beam wing in '23
They ran it in Bahrain
I mean the stacked independent single element wings, not the familiar unified two element wings.

Many incl. James Allison are saying things like "they have a more powerful DRS." Saying it's the DRS mech alone is probably inaccurate. Note many of RB19's features: no halo wings, simple side mirrors, thinnest suspension members, sidepod design, smallest roll hoop intake this side of Ferrari powered cars.
𓄀

AR3-GP
AR3-GP
364
Joined: 06 Jul 2021, 01:22

Re: Red Bull RB19

Post

vorticism wrote:
03 May 2023, 20:43
organic wrote:
03 May 2023, 14:07
vorticism wrote:
03 May 2023, 01:56
Counterpoints:

-they haven't run the stacked beam wing in '23
They ran it in Bahrain
I mean the stacked independent single element wings, not the familiar unified two element wings.

Many incl. James Allison are saying things like "they have a more powerful DRS." Saying it's the DRS mech alone is probably inaccurate. Note many of RB19's features: no halo wings, simple side mirrors, thinnest suspension members, sidepod design, smallest roll hoop intake this side of Ferrari powered cars.
I understand this point, but the low drag of the rest of the car is present regardless of whether the wing is open or not.

The increase in speed that you get from opening the rear wing, should be solely the result of the drag reduction of the wing itself (assuming it's not the trigger for stall elsewhere when it's open)