Aston Martin Red Bull Racing TAG Heuer RB14

[Webber2011]

Ferrari were killer in Monaco last year with their short wheelbase and this year they fell back due to them wanting to claw in a Merc fast-medium corner advantage.

Question is, why don't Red Bull follow too? Or is the Renault (Tag, excuse me) just holding them back too much?

I'm the furthest you will find from being an expert, but to me it seems that whenever Newey is at the helm it will be a quest for more power to complete the potential of his aero design rather than vice versa.

It's hard for me to say which is better, but with a little more power the slightly longer wheelbase seems to have the edge over a season.

Maybe if the Red Bull had another 20hp the short(er) wheelbase would be unbeatable on most tracks instead of just a few ?

[FPV GTHO]

I think you need to ask the question, what gain are Mercedes getting by having one of, of not the longest wheelbase on the grid?

Most pundits believe its how theyre maximising their underfloor downforce. But Red Bull are able to do that with their high rake. Ferrari are trying both concepts, probably because they cant master a single concept like their rivals

[digitalrurouni]

Ferrari were killer in Monaco last year with their short wheelbase and this year they fell back due to them wanting to claw in a Merc fast-medium corner advantage.

Question is, why don't Red Bull follow too? Or is the Renault (Tag, excuse me) just holding them back too much?

I'm the furthest you will find from being an expert, but to me it seems that whenever Newey is at the helm it will be a quest for more power to complete the potential of his aero design rather than vice versa.

It's hard for me to say which is better, but with a little more power the slightly longer wheelbase seems to have the edge over a season.

Maybe if the Red Bull had another 20hp the short(er) wheelbase would be unbeatable on most tracks instead of just a few ?

I agree a 100%. I always thought along the same lines. With great aero comes great drag and needs great horsepower. Mercedes has been able to negate a lot of the lacking in their chassis with sheer horsepower.

[Per]

I'm the furthest you will find from being an expert, but to me it seems that whenever Newey is at the helm it will be a quest for more power to complete the potential of his aero design rather than vice versa.

It's hard for me to say which is better, but with a little more power the slightly longer wheelbase seems to have the edge over a season.

Maybe if the Red Bull had another 20hp the short(er) wheelbase would be unbeatable on most tracks instead of just a few ?

I agree a 100%. I always thought along the same lines. With great aero comes great drag and needs great horsepower. Mercedes has been able to negate a lot of the lacking in their chassis with sheer horsepower.

I believe this is a logical fallacy. Great aero is efficient aero (high L/D ratio). This means that if you want to, you can generate the same amount of downforce for less drag. Great drag is a sign of poor aero.

[digitalrurouni]

I think it goes up to a certain point. At a certain point when you are making so much downforce more than others, yeah Adrian is probably getting a lot out of his designs but if you were right then the Red Bull would be winning races left and right now. Only in super technical high downforce tracks where HP doesn't matter does it shine. So that tells me the car is draggy BECAUSE of all the aero performance its got. Like I said only chink in that car's armor is Crash-to-happen and the lack of a Ferrari or Merc PU in the back of that thing!!

[Per]

They aren't winning every race, because they are still down on horsepower. But that is a different matter altogether. There is no logic in saying "the car is better on tracks where power doesn't matter, therefore it must have high drag".

By the way, I don't think they are at a point where they are making "so much more" downforce than others. They are making marginally more downforce than others, and are marginally down on power. In a close fight, that means you are slightly ahead at one track and slightly behind at others.

[wesley123]

Only in super technical high downforce tracks where HP doesn't matter does it shine. So that tells me the car is draggy BECAUSE of all the aero performance its got.

How does that relate to a draggy car?

[NL_Fer]

It looks like with all the tight rules aero is more fixed than in the past. They can adjust the wings, but a chassis itself is high downforce or low drag. Sure the RB has efficient downforce, but who knows it is more efficient than Ferrari or just biased for more downforce.

[roon]

It looks like with all the tight rules aero is more fixed than in the past. They can adjust the wings, but a chassis itself is high downforce or low drag. Sure the RB has efficient downforce, but who knows it is more efficient than Ferrari or just biased for more downforce.

The body/engine cover shape of the RB14 seems unique in the field. I think everyone else has essentially the same thing going on; rounded sides and undercuts. Nothing new for RB, either, considering how similar the RB7 is. But no other team has pursued similar paths in all these years. I wonder why.

[Musa]

It looks like with all the tight rules aero is more fixed than in the past. They can adjust the wings, but a chassis itself is high downforce or low drag. Sure the RB has efficient downforce, but who knows it is more efficient than Ferrari or just biased for more downforce.

The body/engine cover shape of the RB14 seems unique in the field. I think everyone else has essentially the same thing going on; rounded sides and undercuts. Nothing new for RB, either, considering how similar the RB7 is. But no other team has pursued similar paths in all these years. I wonder why.

I think this unique body shape is not popular because of its cooling requirement which is difficult to master (due to its sidepode sit very low compare to the cooling air intake) Red bull is still having a difficulty some time with this. The advantage is the car COG is lower then the normal sidepode. Hence less downforce is required to achieve the same stability in the corner as other car. Imagine your car has lower cog but it generates same level of downforce as the other car on the grid. Thats why red bull is very fast through out the corner.

But of course to achieve the same level of downforce as the others is quite difficult since there is no sidepode undercut to lead the high energy air to the rear end of the car. My personal view is red bull achieved it by manipulating the vortice created by the wing on top of the sidepode. I remember them having to fine tune it to make it work.

This is my personal view. I might be wrong though.

[iichel]

The RB14 seems to have a rather unique shape, they seem to have very little horizontal surface. This could have the effect of having very little lift on these surfaces.
Some of the air coming over the leading edge of the sidepod could descend to the trailing edge of the diffuser, as opposed to predominantly using the undercut used by other teams.
We need to keep in mind, the RB14 does have some undercut at the inlet of the sidepod and generally, the sidepods are very narrow already.

[cramr]

The RB14 seems to have a rather unique shape, they seem to have very little horizontal surface. This could have the effect of having very little lift on these surfaces.
Some of the air coming over the leading edge of the sidepod could descend to the trailing edge of the diffuser, as opposed to predominantly using the undercut used by other teams.

Hence generating lift... or?

[Thunder]

This is not the Place to find the best suitable Nickname for Max.

[godlameroso]

They aren't winning every race, because they are still down on horsepower. But that is a different matter altogether. There is no logic in saying "the car is better on tracks where power doesn't matter, therefore it must have high drag".

By the way, I don't think they are at a point where they are making "so much more" downforce than others. They are making marginally more downforce than others, and are marginally down on power. In a close fight, that means you are slightly ahead at one track and slightly behind at others.

Maybe not much more downforce, but the chassis dynamics are clearly superior. Red Bull can work the tires as well as the others, or better, so yes down on power & efficiency but better tire wear.

[godlameroso]

It looks like with all the tight rules aero is more fixed than in the past. They can adjust the wings, but a chassis itself is high downforce or low drag. Sure the RB has efficient downforce, but who knows it is more efficient than Ferrari or just biased for more downforce.

The body/engine cover shape of the RB14 seems unique in the field. I think everyone else has essentially the same thing going on; rounded sides and undercuts. Nothing new for RB, either, considering how similar the RB7 is. But no other team has pursued similar paths in all these years. I wonder why.

I think this unique body shape is not popular because of its cooling requirement which is difficult to master (due to its sidepode sit very low compare to the cooling air intake) Red bull is still having a difficulty some time with this. The advantage is the car COG is lower then the normal sidepode. Hence less downforce is required to achieve the same stability in the corner as other car. Imagine your car has lower cog but it generates same level of downforce as the other car on the grid. Thats why red bull is very fast through out the corner.

But of course to achieve the same level of downforce as the others is quite difficult since there is no sidepode undercut to lead the high energy air to the rear end of the car. My personal view is red bull achieved it by manipulating the vortice created by the wing on top of the sidepode. I remember them having to fine tune it to make it work.

This is my personal view. I might be wrong though.

The wings that are above the barge boards and the sidepod are there to increase mass flow. They generate a small amount of lift on their own, but in directing air downwards to interact with the rear of the car it generates more downforce overall as it increases the pressure differential between the top of the diffuser and the floor side, as well as energizing airflow that interacts with the rear tire further constraining tire squirt, and finally the increased air mass also interacts with the underside of the rear wing(and other assorted winglets).

The greater the air mass the more effect it has on the aero surfaces, so channeling air becomes an important way to generate downforce, particularly when critical downforce generating areas are also in zones that are prone to flow stagnation without some air flow channeling up-stream.