Red Bull RB22

[mzso]

With regard to the “vanity panel” and the fantastic post: https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewt ... 1#p1298371 @vorticism shared earlier, I’m wondering whether we’ll see a tunnel under the sidepod somewhere.

https://ibb.co/LD8tkc4Q

A tunnel can't be legal, can it?

[AR3-GP]

With regard to the “vanity panel” and the fantastic post: https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewt ... 1#p1298371 @vorticism shared earlier, I’m wondering whether we’ll see a tunnel under the sidepod somewhere.

https://ibb.co/LD8tkc4Q

A tunnel can't be legal, can it?

Not as drawn. There are minimum radii regulations for the sidepod.

[ClassicLivery]

With regard to the “vanity panel” and the fantastic post: https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewt ... 1#p1298371 @vorticism shared earlier, I’m wondering whether we’ll see a tunnel under the sidepod somewhere.

https://ibb.co/LD8tkc4Q

A tunnel can't be legal, can it?

Not as drawn. There are minimum radii regulations for the sidepod.

Yes ofcourse! Just did a quick sketch, but it might be possible and I can see it having benefits especially with the wing down…

[organic]

sidepod as front floor extension (only RBR so far, in part) https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewt ... 1#p1298371

What I was getting at, although it's a small amount here. Seems to be the case that the floor terminates before the LE of the sidepod and is used to blend the fore chassis, t-tray, sidepod, and floor together. There should still be room to move the sidepod even further forward.
https://i.postimg.cc/brmV4znC/rb22FLEXvorticism.jpg

It's an interesting suggestion. However I thought teams were trying to move the cockpit back so that they could increase the space between the front wheel and the floor entrance. So using the sidepod to move the floor forward seems counter to this.

Bringing the floor forward gives more planform so you can generate df over a wider area. And based on vorticism's drawing it'd reduce junction losses of the chassis/floor LE. Maybe red bull's blunt sidepod is the extreme answer to the exact problem of increased ingestion of the lower tyre wake that is the major drawback of this solution

[Henk_v]

It allmost looks like the bluff sidepod combined with the bargeboards generate a sh+tload of df. Could they be attempting to do the high speed cornering stuff in straightline mode?

Thank you. I wasn't aware if modes were made "available" or were mandated. With DRS you were free to not use it.

The bluff sidepod should force much more airflow through the louvres of the bargeboard by pressurising the region. An undercut provides much more of a bypass.

That's not allowed, and secondly how do you know how much df bluff sidepod plus bargeboards would generate?

[organic]

It allmost looks like the bluff sidepod combined with the bargeboards generate a sh+tload of df. Could they be attempting to do the high speed cornering stuff in straightline mode?

Thank you. I wasn't aware if modes were made "available" or were mandated. With DRS you were free to not use it.

The bluff sidepod should force much more airflow through the louvres of the bargeboard by pressurising the region. An undercut provides much more of a bypass.

That's not allowed, and secondly how do you know how much df bluff sidepod plus bargeboards would generate?

There's more to that picture though. We can't quantify the overall performance or df gain/loss from a change like running the bluff sidepods Vs undercut without CFD.

There is an overall picture of reducing undercut, generating more pressurisation at forward floor and area ahead of sidepod.

This should, as you say, generate a flow field that results in more outwash through the porous stacked floorboard elements, and more air running over the floor edge curl, powering this system up and generating local load.

The bluff sidepod is generating a lot of forward pressure that will control ingress of the front tyre wake. It'll reduce the likelihood that the floor ingests lossy air, and help keep it outboard of the rear corner as well. Also, the SIS fairing mid-wing will shed a clockwise rotating vortex that will downwash on top of the sidepod, improving the downwash.

The blunt sidepod is also allowing them to run narrower sidepods, limiting frontal area and should convey less drag. The blunt sidepod design also widens dramatically at first, allowing a tapered and pressure recovery-optimised geometry. And this tapered shape will also promote inwash (hopefully of clean air)

The tradeoff clearly makes sense in red bull's view, giving up undercut (and clean airflow to the diffuser) to gain more control of the tyre wake, improved floor edge extraction, and reduced frontal area. Why it makes sense in this ruleset but didn't make as much sense in 2022-2025 is another thing entirely. Perhaps the rb22's very rearward mounted aft lower front suspension is a key to unlocking that puzzle.

It's a complex system of many tradeoffs rather than a simple one:one mapping of features to benefits

[vorticism]

sidepod as front floor extension (only RBR so far, in part) viewtopic.php?p=1298371#p1298371

What I was getting at, although it's a small amount here. Seems to be the case that the floor terminates before the LE of the sidepod and is used to blend the fore chassis, t-tray, sidepod, and floor together. There should still be room to move the sidepod even further forward.
https://i.postimg.cc/brmV4znC/rb22FLEXvorticism.jpg

Looks like I was conservative. The forward sidepod overhang appears to comprise the inner half of the sidepod, the entirety of the inlet area. It’s bridging the forward chassis to the floor in a more gradual way and effectively increases the plan area of the floor as well as its inlet height, beyond what could be achieved otherwise (with a more typical undercut sidepod). A remarkable departure from ~15 years of standard practice.



What I hinted at last year.
Sidepod as FLEX: viewtopic.php?p=1298371#p1298371
Forward oriented blunt-faced sidepod: viewtopic.php?p=1313121#p1313121

[AR3-GP]

I think you're on to something.

[vorticism]

Make a note of the timestamp of that post. It should illustrate the reach and influence of this website, in how long it takes for this to get picked up by other media, pundits, and spectators online.

With regard to the “vanity panel” and the fantastic post: viewtopic.php?p=1298371#p1298371 @vorticism shared earlier, I’m wondering whether we’ll see a tunnel under the sidepod somewhere.
https://ibb.co/LD8tkc4Q

Thank you. So long as my interpretation of the rules was correct in that post from June. My impression was that the cross sectional limits applied to component bodies evaluated independently, which would mean you could have two or more exposed aero surfaces upon one continuous component section. Physically I can't say if it would be of benefit.

[venkyhere]

@vorticism
Great post.
In layman terms, if what you have interpreted in your sketch is true (which it indeed looks likely), it does look like the RB22 has 'more floor area' and also some kind of 'venturi-like' elongated neck under the 'bib' (instead of a simple wedge) ?

[AR3-GP]

It's difficult to see what's going on in the front floor area of the Red Bull, but there are some indications of the overhang here.

[organic]

It's difficult to see what's going on in the front floor area of the Red Bull, but there are some indications of the overhang here.

https://i.postimg.cc/dV7sDC8s/image.png

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

Can also see from this third angle the rearwards mounting on the chassis of front suspension lower aft arm

I would, like you, be hesitant to definitively call it overhang from this angle, as such a view could also be achieved with sidepods with a small lateral undercut along the g-line.

I think we'd need a more perpendicular shot from the side confirm it as overhanging fore of the floor LE, but with such a view the footplate/bargeboard completely obstructs the region

Alternatively, other oblique and front-on shots showing that there is no undercut (laterally) in that region would give more evidence of overhang

[AR3-GP]

I think we'd need a more perpendicular shot from the side confirm it as overhanging fore of the floor LE, but with such a view the footplate/bargeboard completely obstructs the region

Alternatively, other oblique and front-on shots showing that there is no undercut (laterally) in that region would give more evidence of overhang

money shot

[organic]

I think we'd need a more perpendicular shot from the side confirm it as overhanging fore of the floor LE, but with such a view the footplate/bargeboard completely obstructs the region

Alternatively, other oblique and front-on shots showing that there is no undercut (laterally) in that region would give more evidence of overhang

money shot

https://i.postimg.cc/LXNf27dc/image.png

I can also offer



There's an overhang of the sidepod ahead of the floor LE on the outboard half then?

[AR3-GP]

I think we'd need a more perpendicular shot from the side confirm it as overhanging fore of the floor LE, but with such a view the footplate/bargeboard completely obstructs the region

Alternatively, other oblique and front-on shots showing that there is no undercut (laterally) in that region would give more evidence of overhang

money shot

https://i.postimg.cc/LXNf27dc/image.png

I can also offer

https://i.ibb.co/BH9ByWYT/Screenshot-20 ... u-Tube.jpg

There's an overhang of the sidepod ahead of the floor LE on the outboard half then?

I think it's similar to vorticism's drawing. As he suggest, it is probably for increasing floor inlet height (more air ingested) and increasing the floor area (more suction area)