Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Red Bull’s hole in floor legality questioned

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    848

    Red Bull’s hole in floor legality questioned

    Sep.22 (GMM) Red Bull’s 2011 car, the RB7, was perfectly legal at Monza despite some suggestions to the contrary.
    That is the finding of a Spanish sports daily in the wake of rumours after the Italian grand prix that the underside of the RB7 seemed to be hiding a suspicious secret.
    When Mark Webber’s crashed car was removed from the circuit, photographs and videos of the highly-secreted floor were leaked onto the internet amid suggestions a ‘hole’ could reignite a double diffuser-type debate.
    But a report in Spain’s Marca insists the Monza-spec floor of the Red Bull was legal.
    “What is evident is the thoroughness of the work Red Bull is doing for each race,” wrote journalist Marco Canseco, “with a nearly always bespoke solution for each circuit.”
    A separate report in Germany’s Auto Motor und Sport said Red Bull’s development success in 2011 has astonished teams like McLaren and Ferrari in the context of the resource restriction agreement.
    “Nearly everything we bring to the race track, works,” said the team’s Dr Helmut Marko. “Our success rate is close to 100 per cent.”

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    2,608
    Helmut Marko - for me the most supercilious guy in F1

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Turkey/Istanbul
    Posts
    655

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    9,882
    Quote Originally Posted by burak karakutuk View Post
    In the 2nd picture, that looks like 2 gaps on each side. Shouldn't the floor be one flat surface without any gap?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Kanada
    Posts
    11,139
    Something is definitely “fishy” about red bull this year and their floor/diffuser.
    They are pushing the limits beyond and I hope they get caught and stripped of all points; but we all know the FIA will do NOTHING about it, because it’s NOT Ferrari.

    I just hope we’ll be the ones that everyone will thrive to copy and catch up to us next season.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    312
    The floor and diffuser is perfectly legal. And there is no FIA conspiracy towards Red Bull or against Ferrari.

    Move along.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,833
    Quote Originally Posted by kazi View Post
    The floor and diffuser is perfectly legal. And there is no FIA conspiracy towards Red Bull or against Ferrari.

    Move along.
    Helmut?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    312
    No but i've followed F1 for quite a bit and if the FIA has been helping any team in that time i'm afraid it's our beloved Ferrari. Just the Veto we have had on the rules since 1998 is proof enough i believe.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    norCal
    Posts
    9,647
    Quote Originally Posted by kazi View Post
    No but i've followed F1 for quite a bit and if the FIA has been helping any team in that time i'm afraid it's our beloved Ferrari. Just the Veto we have had on the rules since 1998 is proof enough i believe.
    McLaren should have been penalized 2 years for SpyGate. Can't recall when we did anything deserving major punishment...

    -Lou(is)
    Forza
    Ferrari 16/15

    Totus Tuus


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    9,882
    Quote Originally Posted by kazi View Post
    The floor and diffuser is perfectly legal. And there is no FIA conspiracy towards Red Bull or against Ferrari.

    Move along.
    I'm not doubting you as I know very little of the technical rules myself

    But I'd be glad if someone could help us understand what are the current rules surrounding the floor, are they still allow any opening like what we're seeing?

    Brawn GP pioneered the concept to championship-winning effect in 2009, everyone had them in 2010, and now they are outlawed. The 2011 rules make it clear that there must be no gap between the reference plane, step plane, and diffuser, so no more big holes in the underbody like those seen in this Ferrari image from last season.
    http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2011/0/815.html

    Due to a previous weakness in the rules defining the underfloor, teams were able to exploit this to create the double diffuser. Double diffusers were only possible as an opening could be created in the gap been the reference plane, step plane and the diffuser. Now the rules close this avenue off.
    http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/1...and-explained/

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    norCal
    Posts
    9,647
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornet View Post
    I'm not doubting you as I know very little of the technical rules myself

    But I'd be glad if someone could help us understand what are the current rules surrounding the floor, are they still allow any opening like what we're seeing?


    http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2011/0/815.html


    http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2010/1...and-explained/

    I am wondering (again) if scarbs would consider posting here. At least about Ferrari related stuff...

    Anybody know him/her?

    -Lou(is)
    Forza
    Ferrari 16/15

    Totus Tuus


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by Scarbsf1's Blog
    Red Bull – Monza Diffuser Analysis
    Red Bull appeared in Monza was a further development of their diffuser. Changes largely appeared to be focussed on the treatment of the trailing edge of the bodywork. For Monza the diffuser gained a flap around almost the entire periphery of the trailing edge.

    This flap have been used above the diffuser since the start of the season, but the flap has been narrower, being only fitted in-between the rear wing endplates. As explained in my analysis of the floor as seen at Monaco (http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/0...loor-analysis/ ).

    Many pictures were taken of the flap now extending around the sides of the diffuser, which I tweeted about during the Monza GP weekend. But it was the fan video taken during the race, as Mark Webbers stricken RB7 was craned off the track that has shown the floor in greater detail. The video posted on Youtube.com by atomik153 and seen here (http://youtu.be/swoomrzECdM ). This clearly shows the floor from about 3m 40s into the clip. Obviously this must have been unpleasant for Red Bull as the floor is so clearly visible, I know that the other teams have seen this clip. Many fans have seen the detail at the back of the diffuser and suggested the slot created around the diffuser was some form of double diffuser or cooling outlet. While the pictures might suggest this, the slot is merely the gap between the aerofoil shaped flap and the diffuser. This following illustration shows how the flap is actualy shaped. There are two parts; the new curved side sections and the pre-existing top sections.

    Diffuser trailing edge theory

    Few ideas in F1 are new, merely older ideas reinterpreted and expanded upon. This flap is not a new idea, its merely an extension of the gurneys teams have been fitted to the trailing edge of downforce producing devices since the sixties. Gurney have been added to the end of a diffuser to aid the low-pressure region above and behind the diffuser. This practice has been increasingly important with the limit on diffuser height and other rules banning supplementary channels such as the double diffuser. As far back as the late nineties teams replaced this gurney with an aerofoil section flap. Notably Arrows and latterly Super Aguri used flaps placed above the diffusers trailing edge.

    The need for this sort of treatment at the back of the diffuser might at first be confusing. A diffuser is a part of the underfloor, by accelerating air under the floor lo pressure is created and thus downforce is generated. With so many restrictions on the geometry of the floor and diffuser, teams cannot simply enlarge the diffuser for more performance. So they are forced into working in different areas of the device harder for the same effect. One area is maximise pressure ahead of the floors leading edge, the other is the lower the pressure behind the trailing edge. This helps flow out of the diffuser, to maintain mass flow under the floor. Although the rules limit the height of the diffuser, this is only the height below the tunnels to the reference plane. Teams have a small amount of space above the diffuser for bodywork and the common gurney fits into the area. Gurneys work by creating a contra rotating flow behind the upright section, this creates low pressure and helps pull airflow from beneath the wing. On a diffuser this has the same effect as a slightly higher diffuser exit.

    The gurney can work above the diffuser, as teams have been paying so much attention to getting high pressure air over the top of the diffuser. This airflow is used to drive the vortices spiralling behind the gurney flap. The better the airflow over the diffuser to the gurney the more effective it can be. However Gurneys cannot be infinitely increased in size and still maintain their effect. As the gurney gets too large the dual vortices break up and the low pressure effect is lost. Many teams have found this limit this year and have moved to the next solution which is a perforated gurney.
    This is a similar vertical device fitted to the diffusers trailing edge, but there is a gap between the bottom of the gurney and the diffuser. Airflows through this gap to create the distinctive contra rotating airflow behind the gurney. Again this has the same effect as creating a larger diffuser exit and hence creates more downforce.

    While the gurney is a relatively blunt solution, Such is the quality of the airflow over the diffuser now that teams are able to fit a more conventional aerofoil shaped flap above the diffuser for a similar effect. Without the contra rotating flow of the gurney this solution can be scaled up, as long as the flow to the flap is maintained. Many teams have this solution fitted along the top edge of the diffuser. Although Red Bull are the only teams to have fitted to the side of the diffusers trailing edge. Increasingly teams are seeing the diffuser exit as a 3D shape, the diffuser not only diverges vertically at the exit , but also laterally. No doubt exhaust blowing does allow some of these devices to be effective.

    We can expect its use to be expanded for next year with larger flaps above the diffuser and flaps around the entire periphery of the diffuser. A long with Rake this will be a critical design feature for 2012, as a result sidepod design will become one of the critical factors in aero design, making sure the top of the diffuser is fed with good airflow. As so few other areas provide potential gains for improving aero efficiency.
    http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/0...user-analysis/
    Mods delite it if you think it is too long or to big...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    3,475
    Quote Originally Posted by kazi View Post
    The floor and diffuser is perfectly legal. And there is no FIA conspiracy towards Red Bull or against Ferrari.

    Move along.
    And this statement is based on what evidence?
    Rest in Peace Leza, you were a true warrior...

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Riga/Aberdeen
    Posts
    867
    It seems to me that now day's if you want be dominant in F1 you need hole in your car....we need a lot of holes in next years car.
    Meanwhile, it either says something or just nothing that Alonso, Schumacher and Raikkonen have reputedly spared a F1 podium on five occasions and Fernando has stood on the top step on every occasion. He's F1's first among equals. (PG)

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Derbyshire England
    Posts
    904
    Hopefully this is there one trick pony. If we can improve on it, I doubt RB will have any other tricks. AKA Brawn GP who are now Mercedes!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by Tifoso View Post
    McLaren should have been penalized 2 years for SpyGate. Can't recall when we did anything deserving major punishment...
    Yes that would have been a proper punishment for them. But i still must say i'm glad they didn't get a 2 year ban. I want to beat McLaren on track and i believe there presence is good for the sport. Call me crazy.

    I can't recall Ferrari doing anything remotely as bad as that. But the occasional small things like the '98 illegal barge board incident comes to mind as times when the FIA helped us out. We ran parts that were not inside of the regulations and got away with it. Sure, it wasn't by much and hardly did anything performance wise, but still, if it wasn't for the FIA lifting the DSQ the stewards gave us the WDC chance would have been over.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hornet View Post
    I'm not doubting you as I know very little of the technical rules myself

    But I'd be glad if someone could help us understand what are the current rules surrounding the floor, are they still allow any opening like what we're seeing?
    The only opening in the floor (except for in the 50mm outer edges of it) that is allowed is the hole for the starter motor. Ferrari used this hole to feed the diffuser with exhaust earlier this year before going the Red Bull route with the first big update. Every team except maybe HRT and Virgin are using this hole to try and create more downforce. Red bull uses two ducts low down on the top of the floor to feed this hole. It's perfectly legal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony View Post
    And this statement is based on what evidence?
    The statement is based on the absence of an illegal floor or diffuser. On top of that, no one has accused Red Bull of running anything illegal regarding the diffuser this year. Except for those "internet rumours" mentioned in the article, which i for one has never heard of before. Evidence of there not being a conspiracy? I think the fact that we have Veto power of the regulations is enough evidence.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    UK/FR
    Posts
    632
    Red Bull!!!!!! whatever people say, money wise RB are fishy and one day the penny will drop!

    "I cannot judge what he did in his time at Renault and McLaren but I have worked with World Champions Schumacher, Villeneuve and Raikkonen and Fernando is the one who impresses me the most," said Gene.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    2,608
    I find it interesting that the gurney added to the RB7 diffuser is accepted and not measured as part of the diffuser, yet when we turned up at Barcelona (I think) this year with our rear wing with a gurney on the DRS actuator is was instantly declared illegal because the size limit was exceeded when the gurney (this time) was included in the measurement.

    If I've got it right, Ferrari creatively uses a gurney on the rear wing. The FiA includes our creative gurney when measuring the device. Red Bull add a gurney to their diffuser but the FiA do not include their creative gurney when measuring their diffuser.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    33,633
    has the gurney made their diffuser over the max size allowed?

    But nevermind you won't have an answer to that I guess
    Forza Ferrari

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by M.K View Post
    It seems to me that now day's if you want be dominant in F1 you need hole in your car....we need a lot of holes in next years car.
    I can't say I fully understand your theory but it has the elegance of simplicity, is based on close observation and probably quite cheap, so I'll buy it

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    4,931
    the way i see it, this isnt a DDD, but i think it does break the rules that the DDD was breaking, and kind of is against the point of the 2009 aero change. but i can see how it can be said to be legal. i guess it is on the edge. kudos to the bulls, they have done it again.

    but the FIA really have seemed to make a mess of those reg change. it hasnt been properly implemented 2 years after it was introduced.

    here is another pic. you can see it clearly on the far right here.



    In Stefano Domenicali, we have a team boss who has proved to be a leader. - Luca diMontezemelo

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    2,608
    Quote Originally Posted by scuderiafan View Post
    the way i see it, this isnt a DDD, but i think it does break the rules that the DDD was breaking, and kind of is against the point of the 2009 aero change. but i can see how it can be said to be legal. i guess it is on the edge. kudos to the bulls, they have done it again.

    but the FIA really have seemed to make a mess of those reg change. it hasnt been properly implemented 2 years after it was introduced.

    here is another pic. you can see it clearly on the far right here.
    I see what you say about whether it is seen as a DDD or not. However, my point wasn't whether it was a DDD, my point was that the gurney is not being included in the measurement of the diffuser. I'm saying that because of Scarb's description where he says "This flap have been used above the diffuser since the start of the season"

    So we can give RB kudos for creatively adding a gurney to the diffuser, and it is accepted by the FiA as "above" the diffuser and therefore it is not forming part of the measurement of the diffuser.

    But, when we went to Barcelona with gurney above the actuator flap of our DRS the FiA immediately ruled it illegal because they measured that assembly "including" the gurney. That seems very inconsistent to me. I think Charlie even described it as creative but, for us he called it illegal.

    Now we are perhaps rightfully calling for our team to push the boundaries in interpreting the rules and regulations, but I can see a major problem if there are inconsistent interpretations and variable times for the FiA to react.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    33,633
    ignore me all you like, but post up the rules about the diffuser size allowed and why this exceeds it, otherwise stop posting unfounded bitter rubbish, it's embarrassing for real Ferrari fans and this forum with your constant allegations about others
    Forza Ferrari

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •