Red Bull RB22

[karana]

I'm pretty sure the rules dictate a single axis:

C3.11.6 b) Adjustment of RW Flap is about a fixed axis of rotation, which must be aligned with the Y-Axis.
Furthermore, in Corner Mode, the axis of rotation must:
i. lie within RV-RW-PROFILES.
ii. at Y = 50, lie between the rearmost point and the mid-point of RW Flap, measured in the
X-direction.
iii. between Y = 50 and Y = 530, when viewed from below, be fully obscured by RW Flap.

[Badger]

I'm pretty sure the rules dictate a single axis:

C3.11.6 b) Adjustment of RW Flap is about a fixed axis of rotation, which must be aligned with the Y-Axis.
Furthermore, in Corner Mode, the axis of rotation must:
i. lie within RV-RW-PROFILES.
ii. at Y = 50, lie between the rearmost point and the mid-point of RW Flap, measured in the
X-direction.
iii. between Y = 50 and Y = 530, when viewed from below, be fully obscured by RW Flap.

Hmm, I guess it doesn’t technically need a dual axis to lift the leading edge, I just don’t see how you get the final bit of rotation given that when you look at the pictures (AI enhanced mind you) the hinge arm (yellow) is maybe 75-80 degrees rotated from its resting place on the first element, yet the wing is more like 120 degrees rotated from its normal position. We’ll see. Maybe all of it is AI

[Shorty]

RBR Macarena wing in action. although I must admit I am not sure whether this one is AI generated.

[djos]

RBR Macarena wing in action. although I must admit I am not sure whether this one is AI generated.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_AVsGkkX3Jg

It’s very clearly a render of some description.

[mzso]

High chance Red Bull will use the idea they took from Ferrari before Ferrari. And do it better.

[Brahmal]

Hmm, I guess it doesn’t technically need a dual axis to lift the leading edge, I just don’t see how you get the final bit of rotation given that when you look at the pictures (AI enhanced mind you) the hinge arm (yellow) is maybe 75-80 degrees rotated from its resting place on the first element, yet the wing is more like 120 degrees rotated from its normal position.

I think I see the confusion. If you look at the area where the bell crank is attached to the rear-wing endplate, the lower blue dot is not the hinge point. Rather, the hinge-point is very close to the point of that yellow mark you have made. The rotational axis of the wing lies about 2/3 the way between the fixed first element trailing edge and the top edge of the rear wing endplate.

This is a similar hinge location to the rear wing that Audi first showed up to preseason testing with. The addition of a bell crank enables the vertical displacement that Red Bull has achieved here along with the extra rotation powered by the dual articulating actuator arms.

[Farnborough]

Hmm, I guess it doesn’t technically need a dual axis to lift the leading edge, I just don’t see how you get the final bit of rotation given that when you look at the pictures (AI enhanced mind you) the hinge arm (yellow) is maybe 75-80 degrees rotated from its resting place on the first element, yet the wing is more like 120 degrees rotated from its normal position.

https://i.postimg.cc/Jz5MWws8/image(1).png

I think I see the confusion. If you look at the area where the bell crank is attached to the rear-wing endplate, the lower blue dot is not the hinge point. Rather, the hinge-point is very close to the point of that yellow mark you have made. The rotational axis of the wing lies about 2/3 the way between the fixed first element trailing edge and the top edge of the rear wing endplate.

This is a similar hinge location to the rear wing that Audi first showed up to preseason testing with. The addition of a bell crank enables the vertical displacement that Red Bull has achieved here along with the extra rotation powered by the dual articulating actuator arms.

I see the same, and described the same earlier in thread, with bell crank arrangement too. Those two "actuator" looking component could be passive assistance "rams" that work by going over centre to help movement and give positional stability at each end of travel.

There's very simple illustration of this in normal saloon car trunk lid hinge arrangement, sitting at each side of lid with simple gassed passive strut in folding that panel up and away from its closed position on a notionally displaced centre of rotation (very close to this panel sweep) that to fold the panel in a manner that travels toward inversion (gets the lid out of the way) back over the car rear window.
Audi are routinely good at this too, there's a very good example just outside my house

[mzso]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HGpYaYdbIAA ... ame=medium
link

[/list]

• I bet it's lighter. No dual actuators.

You can't have dual actuators, the rules dictate a single one. The Ferrari issue is likely to be getting a single actuator to work twist the wing smoothly across its span.

In the front they can, so probably on the rear as well.

[SiLo]

[/list]

• I bet it's lighter. No dual actuators.

You can't have dual actuators, the rules dictate a single one. The Ferrari issue is likely to be getting a single actuator to work twist the wing smoothly across its span.

In the front they can, so probably on the rear as well.

I don’t really know how else to tell you that “the rules dictate a single one” means… that can only have one.

[djos]

You can't have dual actuators, the rules dictate a single one. The Ferrari issue is likely to be getting a single actuator to work twist the wing smoothly across its span.

In the front they can, so probably on the rear as well.

I don’t really know how else to tell you that “the rules dictate a single one” means… that can only have one.

Ferrari most likely have a single actuator connected to both sides of the wing. Otherwise the wing wouldn’t rotate so symmetrically.

[SiLo]

In the front they can, so probably on the rear as well.

I don’t really know how else to tell you that “the rules dictate a single one” means… that can only have one.

Ferrari most likely have a single actuator connected to both sides of the wing. Otherwise the wing wouldn’t rotate so symmetrically.

It's likely in one side, and then stiff enough to rotate on either side. Red Bulls solution seems a little less developed but if there is still benefit it's better to get it on the car early.

[Badger]

I don’t really know how else to tell you that “the rules dictate a single one” means… that can only have one.

Ferrari most likely have a single actuator connected to both sides of the wing. Otherwise the wing wouldn’t rotate so symmetrically.

It's likely in one side, and then stiff enough to rotate on either side. Red Bulls solution seems a little less developed but if there is still benefit it's better to get it on the car early.

Complexity is not necessarily development (look at rocket engines). The best solution is the one where performance, reliability, and cost mixes the most favourably. The "Macarena" looks sleek and pretty but they have yet to use it despite revealing it in pre-season. They tried in China but had to abandon it because Hamilton spun in the braking zone during practice. I get the impression that they lack a bit of confidence in it, not the performance but the slow closing speed and perhaps reliability.

With those things in mind the RB wing carries some obvious benefits. It may not be as sleek with the central actuator and the high open position, but if it closes faster and weighs less then it may be more practical. I would also guess that it cost a fraction as much to develop not having to embed the actuator in the side of the wing.