Red Bull RB20

[organic]

Some new sculpting of surface at the outlet just ahead of rear suspension. Maybe intending to introduce some upwash to prevent losses spilling downwards as much

[f1isgood]

Some new sculpting of surface at the outlet just ahead of rear suspension. Maybe intending to introduce some upwash to prevent losses spilling downwards as much

https://i.imgur.com/PVWq5dH.jpeg

Are you referring to the "dent" to the right of the outlet?

[SSJ4]

Not sure if it’s appropriate to post in here

[FDD]

Is the new wing's bottom most element having 'downwash', or is it an optical illusion that my eyes are getting fooled by ?

First element often features negative angle (or positive angle in aerospace nomenclature). Think of slats on aircraft wings and why they point down instead of up

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 600pix.jpg

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mi ... s-Drag.jpg

If I get it right, first element is acting like slat with downwash working with the second element to generate more negative lift, opposite to aircraft where is up wash for more lift?

[ispano6]

Is the new wing's bottom most element having 'downwash', or is it an optical illusion that my eyes are getting fooled by ?

First element often features negative angle (or positive angle in aerospace nomenclature). Think of slats on aircraft wings and why they point down instead of up

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 600pix.jpg

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mi ... s-Drag.jpg

If I get it right, first element is acting like slat with downwash working with the second element to generate more negative lift, opposite to aircraft where is up wash for more lift?

Seems like in this configuration it is functioning as a slat. I think it was a mistake to extend the RB20 nose tip to the leading first wing element. The other cars have gone for what the RB18 and RB19 had been utilizing and I think that allows for better balance and more ride compliance.

[Just_a_fan]

Is the new wing's bottom most element having 'downwash', or is it an optical illusion that my eyes are getting fooled by ?

First element often features negative angle (or positive angle in aerospace nomenclature). Think of slats on aircraft wings and why they point down instead of up

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 600pix.jpg

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mi ... s-Drag.jpg

If I get it right, first element is acting like slat with downwash working with the second element to generate more negative lift, opposite to aircraft where is up wash for more lift?

It just increases the camber of the front wing system.

[Vanja #66]

If I get it right, first element is acting like slat with downwash working with the second element to generate more negative lift, opposite to aircraft where is up wash for more lift?

It's a bit more complex. First element also generates downforce as a part of the front wing, so there is no downwash involved. Slats (and the first element here) form a slot above the second element (and the main part of the wing on an aircraft) which is used to energise the air by accelerating it. This increases suction on both elements since it bleeds high pressure on top side, converges the air through a channel and blasts it out moving 3-4 times faster.

Some new sculpting of surface at the outlet just ahead of rear suspension. Maybe intending to introduce some upwash to prevent losses spilling downwards as much

https://i.imgur.com/PVWq5dH.jpeg

Looks more like introducing local curvature on both top and bottom side (as much as possible) to form a diffusing surface to aid with hot air extraction. Lovely details

[Vanja #66]

This is quite a nice comparison from Motorsport. Looks like the main idea was to force cockpit losses coming off above shoulders down the engine cover and away from rear wing, in order to improve the efficacy of the wing. There is a telling change to the shark fin and it influences interaction between the shark fin vortex and rear wing, so it's a good guess that rear wing flow treatment was one of the main targets.



I wouldn't be surprised if this bodywork configuration increases lift and drag in isolation by a small amount, but improves the rear wing downforce for a net downforce benefit. This would also explain an effort to drop the top surface of sidepods down to generate pressure recovery as early as possible on this top surface

[AR3-GP]

New rear flap for FP2 at Spa. Less drag when DRS is closed.

[KimiRai]

[KimiRai]

[CMSMJ1]

Stop the bickering please

Some of these posts - not being related to the car directly and with only scant reference to it will be dropped into the team thread if appropriate.

Downvotes for a pile on will also be removed

[FW17]

https://racingnews365.com/how-a-minor-f ... n-red-bull


From RacingNews365's sources, it appears that the RB20, up until the Chinese GP, mounted an inertial valve on the braking system section at the rear downstream of the brake-by-wire system.

In practice, a valve with a T connection received a single hydraulic pressure directed to the rear axle by the brake-by-wire, but which could be precisely directed with greater pressure to the left or right of the rear axle, depending on which way the car was turning through a corner.

These are traits the RB20 has progressively lost from Miami onwards, something not even subsequent upgrades have managed to remedy.

[marcel171281]

https://racingnews365.com/how-a-minor-f ... n-red-bull


From RacingNews365's sources, it appears that the RB20, up until the Chinese GP, mounted an inertial valve on the braking system section at the rear downstream of the brake-by-wire system.

In practice, a valve with a T connection received a single hydraulic pressure directed to the rear axle by the brake-by-wire, but which could be precisely directed with greater pressure to the left or right of the rear axle, depending on which way the car was turning through a corner.

These are traits the RB20 has progressively lost from Miami onwards, something not even subsequent upgrades have managed to remedy.

I have 2 major concerns about this article. The timeline is incorrect, the rule has changed in July, yet the part was not used (while still very much legal) after the Chinese GP? There is months in between those moments.

Second, it is an in-season rule change, which by rules demands a unanimous vote from the teams. Why would RB vote for a rule change that would have such a big effect on (only) there car?

So like many other articles about the relative speed loss of the RB20 (wasn't it illegal suspension at first?) I don't believe one word of it. Again, some other teams simply gained more lap time through upgrades than RB. First McLaren (Miami), later also Mercedes. If just the RB would have lost lap time, ALL other teams would have gained relative to RB, and also on exactly the same moment, but that didn't happen. McLaren and Mercedes jumped ahead of Ferrari as well, which underlines the impact of there upgrades, the RB has no effect on that.

[organic]

There is often a delay between FIA discovering a grey area on a team's car and putting in legislation / an official TD. But in the meantime they can tell the team to stop using this device. There's precedent for them doing this.