Red Bull RB15

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
anthonyfa18
anthonyfa18
27
Joined: 12 Mar 2017, 17:03

Re: Red Bull RB15

Post



=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

User avatar
godlameroso
309
Joined: 16 Jan 2010, 21:27
Location: Miami FL

Re: Red Bull RB15

Post

SectorOne wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:47
godlameroso wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 14:39
ENGINE TUNER wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 07:10
Weight and CoG of the PU'S is standardized by the regulations. The Honda pu is no lighter or heavier than it's competition(they are ballasted). The weight of the carbon fiber airboxes above the PU is negligible, it's volume is of much more importance, although less so since the rear wing has been raised. Please stop arguing about nonsense.

The RB15 looks good, but will only go as far as Honda pu reliability(combined with Newey's uncompromising packaging) will allow. They are already planning on taking at least 4 pus this season, if not 5.
There is a lower weight and COG limit, and getting there is stupidly difficult. So difficult, that all 4 manufacturers are overweight, and over COG limit.
Sources on that?

I know back in the V8 days getting to the weight limit was very easy.
So easy BMW claimed they could make the engine weigh as little as 69kg as opposed to the mandated minimum 95kg.

http://sd-2.archive-host.com/membres/up ... BMW_F1.pdf
These engines have to be a fair bit more robust than the NA engines which had 1/4 of the cylinder pressures these engines have to deal with.
Saishū kōnā

User avatar
SectorOne
166
Joined: 26 May 2013, 09:51

Re: Red Bull RB15

Post

godlameroso wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:52
SectorOne wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:47
godlameroso wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 14:39


There is a lower weight and COG limit, and getting there is stupidly difficult. So difficult, that all 4 manufacturers are overweight, and over COG limit.
Sources on that?

I know back in the V8 days getting to the weight limit was very easy.
So easy BMW claimed they could make the engine weigh as little as 69kg as opposed to the mandated minimum 95kg.

http://sd-2.archive-host.com/membres/up ... BMW_F1.pdf
These engines have to be a fair bit more robust than the NA engines which had 1/4 of the cylinder pressures these engines have to deal with.
Absolutely, but i´d like to see the sources if possible to the statement.
"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then brother that person is a piece of sh*t"

paddyf1
paddyf1
5
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 13:34

Re: Red Bull RB15

Post

GhostF1 wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 06:10
atanatizante wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 00:58
carisi2k wrote:
13 Feb 2019, 23:53

high engine cover is due to radiators installed above the engine and not the engine itself.
That! That`s the reason they have so small sidepods air intakes! And that leads obviously to a higher CoG of the car not the engine, which is far worse, btw ...

And that`s not the weakest point in Honda`s PU armour. Maybe this year they reached almost the same max. power output both in the race and in qualy but certainly they are behind Ferrari and Merc in combustion efficiency hence requires more fuel than both ICE`s above mentioned.

With 2 tenths per lap gain for every 5kg of fuel - as Andy Cowell said - this means Merc acknowledged that the gain Ferrari`s ICE was doing last year was mainly due to a better fuel combustion process (coming out from an exclusive technology provided by Mahle and a renowned scientist, had I`m not wrong) and acted this year accordingly ...
The unfortunate thing here is, everything you mention regarding Honda's PU is completely devoid of genuine fact and is totally baseless. Actually sounds like Cyril is talking here.

This high fuel consumption statement... where are you getting this from? And wherever it was, I'm hoping you confirmed it was fact.. I don't recall this being a particular issue at all last year? Not comparatively to Renault anyway.
Honda have also only ever run a cooling package that relies on sidepod radiators since they re-entered F1, IF the radiators are 100% stacked above the PU this year as we are theorising, it is an entirely new design that was decided on with RBR, so I would only assume they have found some benefit in doing it this way, so not sure why that's indicative of a "chink in Honda's armour"? Maybe we should cross examine with the STR14, as last year they used a twin rad setup in both sidepods.
Red Bull decided to put more power unit components such as coolers above the engine in RB14, ot was red bulls idea not Honda.

wesley123
wesley123
204
Joined: 23 Feb 2008, 17:55

Re: Red Bull RB15

Post

atanatizante wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 00:58
That! That`s the reason they have so small sidepods air intakes! And that leads obviously to a higher CoG of the car not the engine, which is far worse, btw ...
Every team these days puts radiators in that area. Aero is more important than the CoG.

And that`s not the weakest point in Honda`s PU armour.
It's not a weak point
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

trinidefender
trinidefender
317
Joined: 19 Apr 2013, 20:37

Re: Red Bull RB15

Post

ENGINE TUNER wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 07:10
Weight and CoG of the PU'S is standardized by the regulations. The Honda pu is no lighter or heavier than it's competition(they are ballasted). The weight of the carbon fiber airboxes above the PU is negligible, it's volume is of much more importance, although less so since the rear wing has been raised. Please stop arguing about nonsense.

The RB15 looks good, but will only go as far as Honda pu reliability(combined with Newey's uncompromising packaging) will allow. They are already planning on taking at least 4 pus this season, if not 5.
"The weight of the carbon fiber airboxes above the PU is negligible" this statement is entirely incorrect. Teams put a lot of R and D into making the roll hoop as light as possible. The reason is that the roll hoop contains the roll over crash protection. There is a lot of carbon fibre up there to create the strength needed.

mzso
mzso
65
Joined: 05 Apr 2014, 14:52

Re: Red Bull RB15

Post

atanatizante wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 00:58
That! That`s the reason they have so small sidepods air intakes! And that leads obviously to a higher CoG of the car not the engine, which is far worse, btw ...
Obviously they didn't do that on accident. May be that the aerodynamic gains are far greater than the losses because of the minor COG increase of a top mounted radiator.
atanatizante wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 00:58
And that`s not the weakest point in Honda`s PU armour. Maybe this year they reached almost the same max. power output both in the race and in qualy but certainly they are behind Ferrari and Merc in combustion efficiency hence requires more fuel than both ICE`s above mentioned.
Are you an oracle? We don't know anything certain about the PUs apart from the sound they make.
atanatizante wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 00:58
With 2 tenths per lap gain for every 5kg of fuel - as Andy Cowell said - this means Merc acknowledged that the gain Ferrari`s ICE was doing last year was mainly due to a better fuel combustion process (coming out from an exclusive technology provided by Mahle and a renowned scientist, had I`m not wrong) and acted this year accordingly ...
This doesn't even come close to even an implication much less an acknowledgement.

mzso
mzso
65
Joined: 05 Apr 2014, 14:52

Re: Red Bull RB15

Post

dren wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 14:25
5.4.1 The overall weight of the power unit must be a minimum of 145kg.
5.4.2 The centre of gravity of the power unit may not lie less than 200mm above the reference plane.
5.4.4 The weight of a piston (with piston-pin, piston-pin retainers and piston rings) may not be less than 300g.
5.4.5 The weight of a connecting rod (with fasteners, small and big end bearings) may not be less than 300g.
5.4.6 The weight of the complete crankshaft assembly between the mid positions of the front and rear main bearing journals (including balance masses, bolts, bungs, O-rings between the boundaries), may not be less than 5300g. See drawing 8.


So assuming you meet all these stipulations, and you're still under weight, you could use ballast to get to the lowest allowed CoG if not already there.
Jeez... Feels like excessive overregulation... What's the point of all these restrictions? Destroying variety? 5.4.1 would have been enough. I'm surprised they didn't prescribe the screws that may be used to attach stuff...
Last edited by mzso on 14 Feb 2019, 22:31, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dren
226
Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 14:14

Re: Red Bull RB15

Post

mzso wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 22:27
dren wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 14:25
5.4.1 The overall weight of the power unit must be a minimum of 145kg.
5.4.2 The centre of gravity of the power unit may not lie less than 200mm above the reference plane.
5.4.4 The weight of a piston (with piston-pin, piston-pin retainers and piston rings) may not be less than 300g.
5.4.5 The weight of a connecting rod (with fasteners, small and big end bearings) may not be less than 300g.
5.4.6 The weight of the complete crankshaft assembly between the mid positions of the front and rear main bearing journals (including balance masses, bolts, bungs, O-rings between the boundaries), may not be less than 5300g. See drawing 8.


So assuming you meet all these stipulations, and you're still under weight, you could use ballast to get to the lowest allowed CoG if not already there.
Jeez... Such overregulation... What's the point of all these restrictions? Destroying variety? 5.4.1 would have been enough. I'm surprised they didn't prescribe the screws that may be used to attach stuff...
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but M12 bolts must be used to secure the PU to the chassis at prescribed points.
Honda!

mzso
mzso
65
Joined: 05 Apr 2014, 14:52

Re: Red Bull RB15

Post

dren wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 22:30
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but M12 bolts must be used to secure the PU to the chassis at prescribed points.
I was trying to, but apparently failed. Ouch. :)

User avatar
godlameroso
309
Joined: 16 Jan 2010, 21:27
Location: Miami FL

Re: Red Bull RB15

Post

mzso wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 22:27
dren wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 14:25
5.4.1 The overall weight of the power unit must be a minimum of 145kg.
5.4.2 The centre of gravity of the power unit may not lie less than 200mm above the reference plane.
5.4.4 The weight of a piston (with piston-pin, piston-pin retainers and piston rings) may not be less than 300g.
5.4.5 The weight of a connecting rod (with fasteners, small and big end bearings) may not be less than 300g.
5.4.6 The weight of the complete crankshaft assembly between the mid positions of the front and rear main bearing journals (including balance masses, bolts, bungs, O-rings between the boundaries), may not be less than 5300g. See drawing 8.


So assuming you meet all these stipulations, and you're still under weight, you could use ballast to get to the lowest allowed CoG if not already there.
Jeez... Feels like excessive overregulation... What's the point of all these restrictions? Destroying variety? 5.4.1 would have been enough. I'm surprised they didn't prescribe the screws that may be used to attach stuff...
The regulations are just numbers to us and the reality of just how difficult it is to manufacture reliable parts that light, is a monumental challenge in itself. A 5.3 KG crank is already insanely light. The bare factory forged crank out of an S2k weighs ~22kg.

The piston with pin included is ~460g, rods are ~630g. Granted this isn't even a race engine we're talking about, however I think it's a fair comparison considering the cylinder pressures these engines deal with(which requires more robustness). I don't know any specific numbers, however I've been told no one is at the weight or COG limit, but they're getting closer. The compression ratio and system voltage limits haven't been reached yet either.
Saishū kōnā

User avatar
Morteza
2308
Joined: 10 Feb 2010, 18:23
Location: Bushehr, Iran

Re: Red Bull RB15

Post

"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool."~William Shakespeare

bill shoe
bill shoe
151
Joined: 19 Nov 2008, 08:18
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Re: Red Bull RB15

Post

godlameroso wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 23:11

The regulations are just numbers to us and the reality of just how difficult it is to manufacture reliable parts that light, is a monumental challenge in itself. A 5.3 KG crank is already insanely light. The bare factory forged crank out of an S2k weighs ~22kg.

I don't know any specific numbers, however I've been told no one is at the weight or COG limit, but they're getting closer.
Yea that's crazy light. A stock crank from a Honda 600cc CBR sportbike is 6.2 kg. Tiny engine with cyl pressures that are a tiny fraction of current F1. So why the 5.3 kg lower limit as opposed to 5.2 or 5.4?

User avatar
dans79
267
Joined: 03 Mar 2013, 19:33
Location: USA

Re: Red Bull RB15

Post

bill shoe wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 00:43
Yea that's crazy light. A stock crank from a Honda 600cc CBR sportbike is 6.2 kg. Tiny engine with cyl pressures that are a tiny fraction of current F1. So why the 5.3 kg lower limit as opposed to 5.2 or 5.4?
Somone(s) determined that was a realistic minimum weight to keep costs under control. The lighter you allow a component to be, the more money teams will throw at R&D to get down to the minimum.
201 105 104 9 9 7

Tzk
Tzk
34
Joined: 28 Jul 2018, 12:49

Re: Red Bull RB15

Post

And cost control is the reason for all of those limitations. This applies for the weight of the pistons, rods, engine and even the whole car. Still, having a lighter component and using ballast is always the preferred way, if you can get the weight down.