Red Bull RB11 Renault

[bhall II]

...true laminar flow is not achieved with all of the airflow changes in front of that bodywork, it will still help.

Yeah, that was my first thought, and I dismissed it for that reason. It may very well be the answer, though, especially given the anal-retentive nature of F1.

Another possibility to that it cleans up internal aero...



I like the tape bit, though. Simple solutions tend to be my favorite solutions.

Like using a taut string for wheel alignment...


$100 million car; $0.50 tool

[PlatinumZealot]

That's zylon string right there..

[trinidefender]

We'll the thing is even things as small as dead bugs stuck to bodywork and he bump created by tape is enough to somewhat kill laminar flow. This was discovered when designing the P-51 Mustang's wing. By calculations it should have been a true laminar flow design right across its cord. Instead, what they discovered is that due to wartime manufacturing standards, usual (un)cleanliness of the airframe out in the field, one or two bad rivets, bad paint work and a host of other problems, it was never really able to achieve true laminar flow. Granted it was still a good wing design.

Back to formula 1, the less bumps on bodywork the better, this includes tape. However it really comes down to the resources of the teams and how much time, money and effort they are willing to put into one part that could be spent somewhere else.

If you look at the inside of the bodywork it looks like it started off as many pieces then each piece was bonded together. How they do that while making it so thin far surpasses my knowledge of fibreglass and carbon fibre (which I have gained in the marine construction and repair field).

[bhall II]

Yeah, I understand that a smooth surface will always be advantageous. My only question is degree.

When it comes to four-wheeled transportation, F1 cars are super-fast. But, aerodynamically, they're very, very slow, which means it takes a lot to have even a little effect.

Plus, they deliberately trip the boundary layer over the sidepods anyway...



None of this should be taken to mean that I think it's impossible for this solution to be aimed at reducing parasitic drag. Despite the questionable benefits, that sort of obsessive attention to detail is right up F1's alley, especially at Red Bull. After all, we're talking about people who use genetic algorithms to optimize carbon fiber layups.

[wesley123]

Their effect on performance may not amount to a hill of beans, but I still love Red Bull's single-piece engine covers.

http://i.imgur.com/Md7Gx1v.jpg

Honestly this is something I have wondered for a while. Body panel gaps is enough to instantly kill laminar flow. Granted true laminar flow is not achieved with all of the airflow changes in front of that bodywork, it will still help. Reducing spaces between bodywork has the effect of reducing surface friction and helps reduce inadvertent airflow eddies forming which, incidentally, helps reduce disparity between what is actually happening and what is simulated. It is highly unlikely that the CAD and CFD models replicate spaces in panels.

Reducing panel gaps and spaces helps keep the boundary layer to a minimum which is what reduces the drag.

I would just imagine for such a large and thin panel it would be very time consuming and labour intensive to create those as 1 piece.

This.

It's solely aero driven. The lack of gaps would improve aero over the bodywork. With 3-piece bodywork there's always a gap, and the fit is never absolutely perfect, thus, performance is reduced.

However, this larger piece of carbon would be more difficult(and slower) to fabricate, as well as it being heavier as a larger piece needs more material to be structurally sufficient. Shipping isn't great with such a large, single piece of bodywork either.


If I remember correctly, until a few years ago this was deemed the way to go, but I presume that since the fabrication process has been improved, the downside of three-piece bodywork has been sufficiently reduced.

[PlatinumZealot]

The gaps are minimal. The panels are still flush anyways. The less than 0.1mm gaps dont' create bumps and those don't affect the aerodynamics to any appreciable degree. It must be some other reason RedBull have a one piece engine cover. Remember with a one peice cover you are sacrificing ALOT in terms of making modfications. You have to make a whole new cover or glue two pieces into one when you want to make slight change instead of just changing out a panel. RedBull must have some reason for making this compromise but I know it is not because of gaps. It could be because of weight. It could be because of strength! (less delfection at speed)... etc.. but it is very unlikely it is for the gaps. Even the SR-71 Blackbird had gaps at subsonic speeds. The Bugatti Veyron has a ton of gaps too.

[lio007]

Funny measuring devices ( I think ) instead of cam-pods: (Austria test, Day 2)

[wesley123]

The gaps are minimal. The panels are still flush anyways. The less than 0.1mm gaps dont' create bumps and those don't affect the aerodynamics to any appreciable degree.

These gaps are still something that isn't desirable.

It certainly was something that we saw with Mercedes in 2011, body parts that didn't fit properly and left pretty noticable gaps.

It could be because of weight. It could be because of strength!

A larger piece needs more material to be structurally sufficient.

Even the SR-71 Blackbird had gaps at subsonic speeds.

Yes, because at 3 times the speed of sound, materials heat up and expand. Thus, these gaps are actually necessary. The SR-71 leaks fuel on the runway because of this.

The Bugatti Veyron has a ton of gaps too.

That is more of a modular car thing. Servicing and repairs become much easier if you only have to remove a panel, instead of the whole body.

[PhillipM]

You need less material in a one piece, not more, because it's not actually larger than the multipiece solution. There's just less fixings and seams.

As for the tape being and issue over the panel gaps - I don't know if you've been close up to and F1 car post race, but the amount of dirt, bugs and tyre rubber all over the car would pretty much negate that.

[PlatinumZealot]

A larger piece needs more material to be structurally sufficient.

Not true. A continuous peice will be stronger. With two peices you have to use fasterners and that means you are relying friction to transfer tensile and compressive loads at the interface. Fasteners are much weaker at hoop loads to - you part will have non-uniform stresses.

Even the SR-71 Blackbird had gaps at subsonic speeds.
Yes, because at 3 times the speed of sound, materials heat up and expand. Thus, these gaps are actually necessary. The SR-71 leaks fuel on the runway because of this.

I know this was going to come up that Is why i was very specific to note subsonic. The gaps close at much more over Mach 1.. however the aerodynamics at subsonic are still important is what I was saying.

As long as the panels are flush and the gaps are not too big there shouldn't be a problem aerodynamically. There will be a problem with bumps on the surface though like rivets or non-countersunk screws.

[turbof1]

Isn't the reason just to save weight? Like PZ says, when having multiple sections, you need to fasten them to eachother through the use of rivets, tape, etc. It can quickly add up to half a kilogram saved by going the, very long, way to create one single piece.

[wesley123]

Ah yes, I hadn't thought about that.

Fasteners etc. would indeed add weight.

I'm still convinced on the aero advantage though. although the gaps are negligible they are still there where you'd rather not have them. Most aero tweaks are pretty negligible in it's own right anyways, and i believe this too is one of them.

Red Bull was one of the first to truly optimize airflow through the car, and this could be a big part of that.

[PlatinumZealot]

If they gaps were such a problem they could easily fill them with some form of wax for example. Much easier and cheaper.

[Morteza]

https://twitter.com/AlbertFabrega/statu ... 6488678400

[lio007]

by AMuS:



Removed winglet on the floor in front of rear tyres: