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.
That's grossly inaccurate.
There is a field of flows around the entire car and the different streams interact in three dimensions. Think of a 3D lattice, or mesh. There is a "ripple effect" of changing the pressure in a given area on other areas.
Opening the DRS means more air static pressure behind not just the wing but pretty much the entire rear of the car.
Not sure if you missed this:
(assuming it's not the trigger for stall elsewhere when it's open)
Does not matter. Trigger or no trigger. Stall or no stall. Not having the blockage if the rear will will also reduce the drag of the surrounding areas behind it.
This applies to all cars, not just the Red Bull. Opening the rear wing doesn't "reveal" that the body of one car has less drag than another. Something does not sound correct with this description.
Nope. Your argument was to isolate the drag reduction if the rear wing alone to compare bewteen the cars as a measure of DRS effectiveness and I'm telling you that this would be grossly inaccurate.
Nope. Your argument was to isolate the drag reduction if the rear wing alone to compare bewteen the cars as a measure of DRS effectiveness and I'm telling you that this would be grossly inaccurate.
I do understand that the flow field solution depends on the DRS being open or closed. My first comment was probably an overstatement but still it was suggested that opening the wing somehow "reveals" that the rest of the car doesn't have so much drag. This description doesn't seem quite right.
In any case, it would suggest there is something profound and not easy to copy going on with the Red Bull if the DRS effect depends greatly on the upstream bodywork, and that the wing opening is actually causing a drag reduction upstream. That theory is deeper and more complex than beam wing stall. I can't see how others would replicate this without copying the rest of the Red Bull.
For your reference, Shub youtube channel did some DRS calculations on a hypothetical F1 car here:
There isn't much discussion of the upstream drag reduction effect which suggest it's either not massive or it's an oversight....
Vanja also suggested we are barking up the wrong tree with it.
Yes just the one like in Azerbaijan. You can see in that photo they have an extra hidden louver (of sorts) where the pushrod enters, and another down where the lower control arm enters. So it's not strictly the cannon exit they rely on.
You can also see the feature of the engine cover flanks that is new for this season, more clear in this picture
There is a large discontinuity where the rear suspension inserts, allowing hot air to vent here and letting the engineers close up the rear exit more
Just noticed in that image they are running a continuous second element on the BW this year (when running a two element BW). The monkey seat want to return. 🛋
Seems there was some misunderstanding as to what the "stacked" arrangement of the RB beam-wing is. They've had multiple dual element designs that could be considered to be stacked.. The one they ran in Bahrain was the more conventional dual-element design that they used at high downforce tracks in the 2nd half of '22, so I think it's safe to say I misinterpreted which BW was being discussed.
I was winging the nomenclature since there aren't formal terms for these features yet. I say stacked beam wing for the '22 BW because it resembles more the stacked wing of a biplane. 'Two-element' wing to indicate a more familiar multi element single wing.
I think its just a reflection and lighting playing tricks.
There are actually openings. I could well imagine that you slowly get into the area that you play with the pressure between the top and bottom of the floor and this is perfected. But I'm not an aerodynamicist. Maybe one of our specialists here can say something about this.
I think its just a reflection and lighting playing tricks.
There are actually openings. I could well imagine that you slowly get into the area that you play with the pressure between the top and bottom of the floor and this is perfected. But I'm not an aerodynamicist. Maybe one of our specialists here can say something about this.
Openings in the sense that they can remove a panel that covers it yes, but otherwise that's just the way the light has reflected off the curved surface. There is no actual opening there, it's just a cover for the lower SIP.
I think its just a reflection and lighting playing tricks.
There are actually openings. I could well imagine that you slowly get into the area that you play with the pressure between the top and bottom of the floor and this is perfected. But I'm not an aerodynamicist. Maybe one of our specialists here can say something about this.
Openings in the sense that they can remove a panel that covers it yes, but otherwise that's just the way the light has reflected off the curved surface. There is no actual opening there, it's just a cover for the lower SIP.
Unfortunately, I'm at work and can only watch it on my phone and in quite a rush. You can certainly judge better right now. So no openings. Probably have also misunderstood Shubs in a hurry. Sorry Shubs, Sorry guys.
🛋
