Red Bull RB22

[Lasssept]

[Ozan]

this is the best iteration of macarena wings in my opinion, just look at that opening size

[Just_a_fan]

this is the best iteration of macarena wings in my opinion, just look at that opening size

Please do explain why this particular design is better than other's...

[Luscion]

[Paa]

this is the best iteration of macarena wings in my opinion, just look at that opening size

Does the opening size matter?

It is an honest question. As a layman I would think only the cross section of the wing (opened and closed) and the profile matter. Is the gap between the top and bottom matters much as long as the profile shape and cross section area is the same?

[Badger]

this is the best iteration of macarena wings in my opinion, just look at that opening size

Does the opening size matter?

It is an honest question. As a layman I would think only the cross section of the wing (opened and closed) and the profile matter. Is the gap between the top and bottom matters much as long as the profile shape and cross section area is the same?

No, I don’t think it does. The theoretical benefit of the RB design should come from speed of operation, weight, and overall simplicity. The drag reduction effects would be similar IMO.

[matteosc]

this is the best iteration of macarena wings in my opinion, just look at that opening size

Does the opening size matter?

It is an honest question. As a layman I would think only the cross section of the wing (opened and closed) and the profile matter. Is the gap between the top and bottom matters much as long as the profile shape and cross section area is the same?

No, I don’t think it does. The theoretical benefit of the RB design should come from speed of operation, weight, and overall simplicity. The drag reduction effects would be similar IMO.

I think that:
1) The central actuator will generate more drag than embedding the actuator in the side
2) The exposed tips of the wing when open will generate vortices (not sure if this is a wanted or a necessity)
3) When closed, the wing will have "standard" efficiency, but Ferrari's version will be more efficient


Edit: Just pointing out the minus here. RedBull solution seems lighter, simpler and easier to tune/iterate upon.

[Badger]

New floor edge?

[amr]

I think there are just different philosophy to it.

RB aims for bigger gap as with a bigger gap one wing element will have less influence on the other one and therefore both will be closer to their theoretical efficiency thus reducing drag as a Rear Wing element.

Ferrari aims for altering the overall flow at the end of the car sacrificing individual wing efficiency maybe. Their macarena is a system solution working in conjunction with the blown exhaust winglets.

But who the hell knows without running cfd and compare.

[Valeo]

[Badger]

Uncertain on the floor, it looks quite similar except for a minor difference on the rear corner. It was new for Japan.

Otherwise they've brought a crazy amount of changes. Sidepods completely different, rear wing, front wing, exhaust flap, mirrors, weight. Make or break.

[Owen.C93]

Looks like it gets quite sharp as the sidepod reaches the floor, forming a strake.

I would have thought that would violate the minimum radius rules, but maybe it’s relaxed lower down.

[venkyhere]

This seems like a 'lets incorporate every flavour of sidepod style seen in recent past' design
waterslide - check
bathtub - check
no undercut - check
narrower than upper SIS width - check
Worryingly, it does look like an 'all-chips-on-red' gamble borne out of a 'lets play it by ear' attitude. How many times has the sidepod been revised from the first bahrain test ? 4 times ? 5 times ? Doesn't it seem like a Thomas-Alva-Edison style invention-purely-via-experimentation ?

[Luscion]

Upgrades at Miami GP

[Brahmal]

Looks like it gets quite sharp as the sidepod reaches the floor, forming a strake.

I would have thought that would violate the minimum radius rules, but maybe it’s relaxed lower down.

Could you be more specific? I'm not seeing what you are referring to.

It is an honest question. As a layman I would think only the cross section of the wing (opened and closed) and the profile matter. Is the gap between the top and bottom matters much as long as the profile shape and cross section area is the same?

Any two aero surfaces running roughly parallel to each other will create a volume of high-pressure air flow between them, and that pressure will increase the closer the two surfaces are, which induces drag. However, there will be a point of diminishing returns beyond which increasing the gap will provide less drag benefit.

It's impossible for us to tell where that point is relative to the Red Bull and Ferrari wings, without access to CFD. However, one possible hint is in Ferrari's design. Their wing pivots around the middle of the flap, and because of how their actuator functions there is no obvious reason why that pivot point can't be higher up, which would increase the gap. So maybe the slot gap when opened is as big as it needs to be.

It's also possible that Red Bull's decision to mount their flap on swing arms (which increases the opened slot gap) is done purely because that is the geometry needed for the whole mechanism to function, rather than chasing a bigger slot gap.