Red Bull RB22

[bananapeel23]

Honestly, this macarena looks better than the Ferrari one, but Alpine's is just so much more elegant and simple than both.

This one is likely to have more severe issues with indeced drag from tip vortices, since the wing elements sit so far behind the endplates.

The Ferrari wing doesn’t have this issue. It also doesn’t need a DRS pod, which leads to less drag.

The Alpine wing looks amazing, but is supposedly more draggy than even a conventional DRS opening. A Macarena is a much more aerodynamically efficient design.

I am by no means an aerodynamicist, but I can't understand how stacking both wings one in front of the other in the air path, is worse than having two fully exposed wings!

The reason is because the immobile bottom rear wing element still produces downforce by producing upwash, which also produces drag. By flipping elements 2 and 3 upside down, they end up slightly downstream while producing downwash. The upwashign and downwashing airstreams end up mixing, mostly cancelling each other out. This results in extremely low drag.

The Alpine wing is just a very flat wing. It might have a smaller profile, but it still effectively functions as a wing, albeit a weaker one, by producing upwash, and thus drag. It's not massively more draggy, but it's certainly more draggy than a macarena wing.

[AR3-GP]

This one is likely to have more severe issues with indeced drag from tip vortices, since the wing elements sit so far behind the endplates.

The Ferrari wing doesn’t have this issue. It also doesn’t need a DRS pod, which leads to less drag.

The Alpine wing looks amazing, but is supposedly more draggy than even a conventional DRS opening. A Macarena is a much more aerodynamically efficient design.

I am by no means an aerodynamicist, but I can't understand how stacking both wings one in front of the other in the air path, is worse than having two fully exposed wings!

The reason is because the immobile bottom rear wing element still produces downforce by producing upwash, which also produces drag. By flipping elements 2 and 3 upside down, they end up slightly downstream while producing downwash. The upwashign and downwashing airstreams end up mixing, mostly cancelling each other out. This results in extremely low drag.

The Alpine wing is just a very flat wing. It might have a smaller profile, but it still effectively functions as a wing, albeit a weaker one, by producing upwash, and thus drag. It's not massively more draggy, but it's certainly more draggy than a macarena wing.

The downwash from the macarena also weakens the floor, reducing the floor downforce/drag, and this would even have reduce a small amount of the rolling resistance of the tires, because they are not being pushed into the ground as much.

[ncassi22]

What effect does moving the wing completely clear of the end-fences vs Ferrari's have on drag?

https://i.postimg.cc/zGjTzLXF/Red-Bull-RB22.gif

[AR3-GP]

What effect does moving the wing completely clear of the end-fences vs Ferrari's have on drag?

https://i.postimg.cc/zGjTzLXF/Red-Bull-RB22.gif

It's difficult to say (for me). I don't know if the Red Bull or Ferrari wing drops more drag.

[matteosc]

What effect does moving the wing completely clear of the end-fences vs Ferrari's have on drag?

https://i.postimg.cc/zGjTzLXF/Red-Bull-RB22.gif

It's difficult to say (for me). I don't know if the Red Bull or Ferrari wing drops more drag.

What is interesting is that they seem to be opposite solutions in terms of vortex generation: lots of exposed tips for RedBull, minimized for Ferrari. Maybe someone with more aerodynamic expertise has some insight?

[michl420]

This is B-spec car.

There's some very strange sculpting at the base of that t-tray column, almost as if it's been crushed.

This is a flexible, rubber-like covering. Pretty normal in this area.

[michl420]

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

This bit where the outer sidepods goes into a floor strake. Normally these sidepods have always had to have a healthy radius.

https://i.ibb.co/F4TFzhSX/IMG-0270.jpg

What about the rule that stipulates maximum curve angles? Those inhibits teams to create sharp edges on surfaces like the sidepods, wings.... This one seems to be a sharp edge for pretty long...?

Mayb in the new rules this min radius rules are only for convex and not for concav? Kind of a loophole?

[organic]

This bit where the outer sidepods goes into a floor strake. Normally these sidepods have always had to have a healthy radius.

https://i.ibb.co/F4TFzhSX/IMG-0270.jpg

What about the rule that stipulates maximum curve angles? Those inhibits teams to create sharp edges on surfaces like the sidepods, wings.... This one seems to be a sharp edge for pretty long...?

Mayb in the new rules this min radius rules are only for convex and not for concav? Kind of a loophole?

I believe that above the floor surface especially in rear corner, there is a volume where there is a relaxation or essentially no radius restriction to allow the presence of slots and small flicks and complexity in the rear corner of the floor for teams to regain downforce. I believe where the sidepod outer face slopes down it overlaps with this volume and they are therefore able to use the relaxed radii rules here to blend the outer face of the water slide into the sharp fence

[organic]

What about the rule that stipulates maximum curve angles? Those inhibits teams to create sharp edges on surfaces like the sidepods, wings.... This one seems to be a sharp edge for pretty long...?

Mayb in the new rules this min radius rules are only for convex and not for concav? Kind of a loophole?

I believe that above the floor surface especially in rear corner, there is a volume where there is a relaxation or essentially no radius restriction to allow the presence of slots and small flicks and complexity in the rear corner of the floor for teams to regain downforce. I believe where the sidepod outer face slopes down it overlaps with this volume and they are therefore able to use the relaxed radii rules here to blend the outer face of the water slide into the sharp fence

We have confirmation of this novel approach to waterslides

[Owen.C93]

Looking at the sharp edge, and the way it connects to the floor with the metal footplate, I think they’re using the allowed floor stay wire as part of the solution. It helps create a ridge along the water slide.

I need to read a bit more of the regs to understand where they can avoid the radius rules though.

[PhilippSchr]

So you think they use the stay wire as an edge and then just put the surfaces along it as they wish? That would be a massive loophole in the regulation.

How would they get that "stay" aligned in that direction i thought it must go from the engine cover to the floor?

Also the edge is ending at a floor hole. I wonder if they need that to conform some regulation or if that is for a weird aerodynamic reason.

[SilviuAgo]

Macarena wing in action on the Ferrari of Charles Leclerc and the Red Bull of Max Verstappen.
Look at the size differences in the gap.



Credit:
@XPBImages

[matteosc]

Macarena wing in action on the Ferrari of Charles Leclerc and the Red Bull of Max Verstappen.
Look at the size differences in the gap.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HHhn3xAXQAA ... ame=medium

Credit:
@XPBImages

Very interesting comparison, but gap size does not equal drag reduction, if that was the point (several posts here pointed in that direction).

[Farnborough]

Interesting that the RB in image has lost one of it's front wing Dive plane.

The RB would appear to have less complex direct flow through the front suspension structures than the SF26. The move to less extreme rear leg of top wishbone clears more front facing complexity from direct airflow.

Without definitive CFD trace etc, hard for us observers to quantify much in tangible way about rear wing air flow structures.
The "slot" gap size may not fully describe performance of one over the other, but there's more "interference" on SF26 from top element with its fixed lower wing especially at the narrowed gap directly next to wing end plate. That type of interaction normally causes residual drag complexity between the two in conflict.

The entire shift in aero package for RB in Miami clearly going much of the way to bridge the gap it had to Ferrari in pace prior to this GP. Certainly it looked a genuine advance, that in itself vindication of choice the team has made about it's own rear wing design.

[PlatinumZealot]

You could also think of the leading edge of the flap like points on a clock. It's position relative to the rotation axis defines whether it also moves up or down when it starts to rotate. In Red Bull's case there would be no downward translation of the flap to cause a collision with the mainplane. In Ferrari's case it doesn't matter because they rotate it the opposite way, but you can see if Ferrari rotate there's the same direction as Red Bull, then Ferrari's flap would just smash into the mainplane. The circle plot shows this. The flap leading edge on the Ferrari must move downward before it moves upwards in order to rotate counterclockwise like Red Bull.

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

Your drawing is a bit exaggerated. Both have pivots a few inches rear of the leading edge. The Redbull flap is a bigger barn-door style flap though.