101 replies to this topic

[Autumnpuma]

Jamie, on Jan 26 2007, 05:29 PM, said:

This is why Newey needed the Renault Engine, this is only possible because of the lower cooling requirements of the Renault.

[Jamie]

Autumnpuma, on Jan 27 2007, 09:34 AM, said:

Its like a lightbulb just went off in my head!  I remember a few months ago everyone was talking about whether RBR should use a Ferrari of Renault Engine and which one would be more powerful... I think newey relised that with the new 19,000 rev limit that pretty much all the engines would have the same power so whats the next most imortant thing... reliability, well neither engine was better than the other in that area.  The next most important thing would be cooling as this gives you the biggest flexabilty in body design!  The power of the engine was pretty much irrelivant.

Mark Webber will win at least one race this year, I'm going to call it right now!!!

[Autumnpuma]

Jamie, on Jan 26 2007, 05:42 PM, said:

Its like a lightbulb just went off in my head!  I remember a few months ago everyone was talking about whether RBR should use a Ferrari of Renault Engine and which one would be more powerful... I think newey relised that with the new 19,000 rev limit that pretty much all the engines would have the same power so whats the next most imortant thing... reliability, well neither engine was better than the other in that area.  The next most important thing would be cooling as this gives you the biggest flexabilty in body design!  The power of the engine was pretty much irrelivant.

I think you are right, but I've no official article to post to confirm it....it just feels right to me.

Jamie, on Jan 26 2007, 05:42 PM, said:

Mark Webber will win at least one race this year, I'm going to call it right now!!!

I would love to see Webbo hit the top step.

[ykickamoocow]

ADRIAN NEWEY Q&A

It's unlikely that a Formula 1 car has ever been as eagerly-anticipated as Adrian Newey's first Red Bull Racing challenger was prior to its launch on Friday.

But the intrigue didn't stop once the wraps came off, as the world's F1 media were, as ever, keen to know more about the processes and thinking behind the RB3's design.

Q: How much fun has it been to play with the state-of-the-art Bedford wind tunnel?

AN: It’s certainly an epic piece of engineering.

As a structure it’s from a different era – I think it was built out of concrete simply because it was post-war and there was a big steel shortage, so concrete was the material of choice.

Certainly I can’t claim any credit for the development of the wind tunnel – it’s really been Ben Agathangelou and his boys that have taken it from a disused military tunnel to a state-of-the-art Formula 1 wind tunnel.

Q: Christian Horner called this car a clean sheet of paper. How enjoyable has it been to be able to sit down and have the luxury and time to create what you wanted.

AN: Well I’m not sure about the time; it’s actually been a real time pressure.

But it’s certainly been very stimulating to work with a new and very talented group of people.

The team is obviously only two years old – some of them are from Jaguar, but equally there’s a lot of new faces all of whom have brought their own experiences.

And that melting-pot of people has been stimulating, that’s all I can say.

From my own point of view to understand how other people have worked in the past, to try and blend that with my experience, to draw out the strengths in the way we all operate together and try to eliminate the weaknesses, has been a fresh challenge.

Q: Could you talk through the key points you’ve focused on with the RB3 – where you’ve made advances or where you’re particularly pleased with the solutions on the car?

AN: Really we’ve put a lot of work into the fundamentals of the car.

The RB3 is a totally clean sheet, and that stems right from the fact that normally a team, particularly with relatively small regulation changes over the winter, would evolve the shape of its new car out of its existing wind tunnel model.

We took the decision to build a totally new wind tunnel model, and that also we would only develop the new car in the Bedford wind tunnel.

Otherwise we’d have been in the position when we’d have done only two or three weeks in the old tunnel at Bicester and then moved, with all the disruption that would have caused.

So the net result of that was that by the time we’d commissioned the new tunnel and got the new model in, it was the middle of June, which is at least one to two months later than you’d normally like – and starting from an unknown baseline as opposed to a developed baseline.

So that has put a big time pressure on the development of the car.

And what we’ve tried to do is concentrate on the fundamentals of the car, and it’s meant that some of the fashion accessories of appendages round the sidepods and so forth we haven’t had time for.

Q: Is that quite a big area to exploit before Melbourne?

AN: It’s something that we’ve obviously got work to do on, and that’s what we’ll do.

But I’m not worried about that because they are parts that I don’t believe alter the fundamentals of the car; they’re things you can bolt on and it still works perfectly happily.

Q: What do you mean by fundamentals exactly?

AN: Well, in other words, if one of those appendages like the boards that most people are now carrying on the front corner of the sidepod (which we haven’t had a chance to look at yet) fundamentally changed the aerodynamic characteristics of the car such that we had to completely change the packaging of the engine or the gearbox or the exhaust system, then it becomes quite a big job.

My belief is that it won’t do, and therefore we can simply bolt them on when we’re ready to.

Q: If the fundamentals have taken so long to get ready, does this mean that underneath the skin there are some fundamentally new concepts? Or is it just that it’s been a ground-up car that you were late getting started on?

AN: No, there are some parts of the car that are different and have perhaps not been seen before.

Q: Has the wheelbase or weight distribution changed?

AN: I think wheelbase is fairly standard in Formula 1. It slightly amused me that Ferrari have gone from a very short wheelbase to a still-short wheelbase and think it’s revolutionary! But all those things are fairly standard I believe.

I think most teams that are ex-Michelin will have tried to build some flexibility into their cars, because while we’ve had very good data from Bridgestone on the characteristics of their tyres, it’s still difficult to know actually how that affects basics like weight distribution.

Q: What did the transition to control Bridgestone tyres, which are harder and therefore presumably slower, imply in terms of suspension layout?

AN: I don’t think it has a fundamental effect, to be perfectly honest.

There’s only really two types of front suspension around: the original central keel/V-keel (it’s the same thing, one’s a refinement of the other) or the so-called zero-keel.

And whether you choose to do one or the other is mainly an aerodynamic versus a mechanical choice.

Is that going to be affected by whether you’re on Michelins in a tyre war or Bridgestones – I suspect not is the answer.

Q: And can you play around quite a bit with the current suspension layout. Is it flexible enough in terms of geometry that you can accommodate a number of camber angles etc?

AN: Camber angles, yes, that’s easy. In truth, the front suspension has so little travel that the movement kinematics – things like camber change – aren’t that important.

The rear suspension is where you might see more development by teams that have been on Michelins and are now on Bridgestones.

Q: Is there a certain amount of managing risk in creating an all-new car on all-new tyre, and then running it quite late in the day? Are you expecting to have to do a lot of problem-solving in the next few months before the car will really work properly?

AN: For us it’s a totally new car which we’ve now got to go off and understand.

But the fact is, with the position the team’s in, we’re not trying to win the world championship this year, we’re trying to have a strong season.

And that means that we can afford to be a bit later and we can afford to be a bit more aggressive, knowing that if the first couple of races don’t go as well as we might like them to, it’s not a disaster.

Q: So you think speed is more important than just reliability and consistency?

AN: With the position that we are in, I’d be prepared to sacrifice the first few races if it brings dividends in the mid-to-late season, yes.

Q: Last year Red Bull had major cooling issues due to miscalculating the heat rejection characteristics of the Ferrari engine. You pushed hard for the Renault engine deal, are you confident that there will be no repeat of the problems on what looks to be a very tightly packaged car?

AN: As far as cooling is concerned I don’t have any concerns.

As far as the choice of engine is concerned, last year Ferrari did a very good job of supplying us as a customer, and it was a fairly simple relationship: we paid them money and they gave us an engine. And that was essentially the relationship.

The great attraction to me about Renault is that it’s built on a fundamentally different cornerstone.

Renault are not supplying us engines for profit, they’re doing it – at best – at cost.

They’re doing it because they want more units out in the field so that they can learn about the performance and reliability of the engine.

And that puts a fundamentally different tone on the relationship, and one which I’m very happy with.

Having worked with the Renault engineers back in the Nineties, many of the faces are still the same.

I was very impressed then with the way that they were able to treat two different teams – Williams and either Ligier or Benetton in those days – and that philosophy has remained.

Q: Given that the engine regulations are much more restrictive now than then, how much value does that extra data add?

AN: Engine development in the hardware sense is obviously restricted with the frozen regulations, but there’s still an awful lot in the way the engine is operated that is crucially important, and that’s where I think our relationship with Renault will pay dividends.

Q: Given that there’s essentially a cap on engines and tyres this year, that puts an even bigger emphasis on aero development throughout the season. Is that something you’re looking forward to, and will we see this car very aggressively developed over the season in terms of aero refinements?

AN: As far as aero development goes, I know some people plan that in race three they’ll have such-and-such and in race 10 they’ll have something else.

How they do that is completely beyond me, because in my experience you introduce things as you find them and you deem them a big enough step to justify the manufacturing.

Obviously like all other teams we’ll be working away in our wind tunnels and on CFD [computational fluid dynamics] trying to develop the car, and as we find developments we’ll put them on the car.

Q: How similar is this car to some of the McLarens you’ve designed in the past?

AN: Over the years I’ve obviously evolved a way of working and a way of approaching the design of the car – and as I said earlier, one of the things that has been fascinating about joining Red Bull is seeing how that had been quite different there.

So we’ve tried to blend our experiences and play to each other’s strengths I think is all I can really say.

There are some elements [of carry-over] – for example, we’ve gone to the zero-keel whereas last year’s Red Bull remained faithful to the central keel.

And those sorts of things work their way through the car, so if you look at the car you will see that there are some areas which were borrowed from my previous experience, some areas which I borrowed from Red Bull’s experience and many areas which are completely new.

Q: On a completely different subject, you are a keen historic racer. Which cars are in your vintage collection right now, and what are the attractions of historic racing for you?

AN: I have a Ford GT40, a lightweight E-Type and my old faithful Jaguar SS100 that I’ve had for years and do the occasional rally in.

And the attraction is that it’s a nice relaxed hobby. It allows me to engage my sort of petrolhead bit whilst being completely divorced from Formula 1.

I’m certainly not about to go and try to put Formula 1 technology into a GT40!

Somewhere in there there’s maybe a frustrated racing driver so it allows me to indulge that a bit in a relaxed atmosphere.

http://www.itv-f1.co...amp;PO_ID=38353

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was a very interesting interview.

[Autumnpuma]

Very, very good post, ykick!. What struck me is how Newey DIDN'T answer the question about the Ferrari engine's cooling vs. the Renault.....

[ykickamoocow]

Autumnpuma, on Jan 27 2007, 05:31 PM, said:

Very, very good post, ykick!. What struck me is how Newey DIDN'T answer the question about the Ferrari engine's cooling vs. the Renault.....

It was a great interview. I also agree that he really didnt answer the question though what he did say led me to believe that Renault were going to give Red Bull the best engine available while Ferrari were more likely to give them a second rate engine. I also got the impression that Renault are more willing to work with Red Bull engineeers in getting the best out of the car and the engine while Ferrari just gave Red Bull a engine and let them do their own thing with no assitance.

[Jamie]

Autumnpuma, on Jan 27 2007, 02:31 PM, said:

Very, very good post, ykick!. What struck me is how Newey DIDN'T answer the question about the Ferrari engine's cooling vs. the Renault.....

He cant bag Ferrari too badly because STR still have to use their engines.  I thought his comments about Renault being more of a partnership were very interesting, this would indicate that RBR will get exactly the same specs at RenaultF1 as they are going to share data...  With Ferrari its more of a money making exercise.

[B.P.]

Jamie, on Jan 26 2007, 09:01 PM, said:

Webber's helmet colors even match the colors of the livery... this is going to be a good year for MW fans!  I can see DC retiring at the end of this season!

Wonder if MW will have to get a Red Bull stamp on the side of his helmet like all the other Red Bull drivers ?
Hope not, looks great just as it is.

[Loser Boy]

The RB3 looks very nice. Both in shape & livery.

[ykickamoocow]

I may be abit bias here but i think its easily the best looking 2007 car that we have seen so far when you consider both chassis and livery.

[ecapdeville]

Congrats Ykick!...a wonderful car!

the renault stick is really little...but its ok, I love to see it in other car...

Wish a great season for RBR.

[ykickamoocow]

ecapdeville, on Jan 28 2007, 01:51 AM, said:

Congrats Ykick!...a wonderful car!

I love almost everything about the car though im not sure about its funny looking nose. Ive said it beofre but i'll say it again that this car is easily the best looking 2007 spec car we have seen to date. I only hope it is fast as when it comes down to it that is the most important factor. Also the car voted the most beautiful last year on this forum didnt win a single race so that proves that the best looking car isnt always the fastest.

Edited by ykickamoocow, 28 January 2007 - 08:52 AM.

[Jamie]

ykickamoocow, on Jan 28 2007, 04:50 PM, said:

I love almost everything about the car though im not sure about its funny looking nose. Ive said it beofre but i'll say it again that this car is easily the best looking 2007 spec car we have seen to date. I only hope it is fast as when it comes down to it that is the most important factor. Also the car voted the most beautiful last year on this forum didnt win a single race so that proves that the best looking car isnt always the fastest.

The RB3 doesn't have to be the fastest... ill be happy with it being the 4th fastest behind Ferrari, Renault & Mclaren.

[ykickamoocow]

Jamie, on Jan 28 2007, 08:19 PM, said:

The RB3 doesn't have to be the fastest... ill be happy with it being the 4th fastest behind Ferrari, Renault & Mclaren.

Im actually expecting the McLaren and Red Bull cars to be very simular in terms of speed. I am hopeing that Red Bull will be the 3rd fastest team and i think this is obtainable.

[JayStorm]

Great interview with Newey but what kept coming up was:

-"We haven't had much time."
-"We have left some things out."

As he also said though, it souldn't matter as they can add things in later without affecting the car.

[ykickamoocow]

Analysis: Newey surprises with twin keel

For the first time in a decade, Adrian Newey has launched a car of his design for another team other than McLaren, and naturally, the new Red Bull Racing RB3 follows McLaren's design philosophies.

But rather surprisingly, Newey did not convert Red Bull's 2006 V-keel to a McLaren zero keel. Instead, the highly respect designer has resorted to an older and now rare solution as a method of working with the new type of Bridgestone tyre: the twin keel.

In fact, every other team that has already launched their car has opted for zero keel, while Renault continue with their V-keel. Of the rest of the teams yet to launch, all were running zero keel by the end of last season.

Newey adopted the twin keel feature in 2002 on the MP4-17. The twin-keel made its racing debut in Formula One the year before on the Sauber car, where it was introduced by designer Sergio Rinland.

The RB3, launched last Friday at Barcelona, has a somewhat different version: its lower wishbone is mounted to a keel structure that extends from the bottom of the chassis

Yet the visual similarity to the MP4-17 continues with the keel extending downwards to form a turning vane.

Twin keels went out of fashion because of their structural complexity. The demand for a stiff chassis made twin keels unduly heavy, and most teams discarded them for single, V-shaped or zero keels.  

The requirement to make the new front weight biased Bridgestones work, has seen Newey accept the weight penalty at the front of the car, while giving him more freedom with suspension geometry.  

Elsewhere around the RB3 car, similarities to his designs at McLaren are more obvious: these are seen in the shape of the sidepods, the engine cover and snorkel. Other influences are seen in the  rear wing, which follows on Renault's philosophy, and the mirrors appear to emulate Ferrari's design patterns.

Yet despite the apparent influences, the RB3 is clearly one of the neatest cars released this year and could well mark a significant step forward for Red Bull Racing. It all depends now on whether or not the car can perform as well as it looks.

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/56506

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting article. Does anyone happen to know the advantages and disadvantages of a twin keel and why Adrian Newey is doing something no competitive team has done for years.

[Autumnpuma]

Newey probably wants the greater airflow of the twin keel and the heavier weight as well to help the tyres. If he went with a zero-keel he'd get better airflow than the twin, but he's lose the added weight. If he went with a 'v' keel like Renault has used, he'd lose a bit of airflow whilst gaining the weight (longer lower wishbones). The twin keel seems to be the best of both worlds.

[ykickamoocow]

Autumnpuma, on Jan 29 2007, 03:46 PM, said:

Newey probably wants the greater airflow of the twin keel and the heavier weight as well to help the tyres. If he went with a zero-keel he'd get better airflow than the twin, but he's lose the added weight. If he went with a 'v' keel like Renault has used, he'd lose a bit of airflow whilst gaining the weight (longer lower wishbones). The twin keel seems to be the best of both worlds.

Thats for the information. Though i am wondering if the twin keel is so good why hasnt other teams adopted the twin keel?

[Autumnpuma]

ykickamoocow, on Jan 28 2007, 08:50 PM, said:

Thats for the information. Though i am wondering if the twin keel is so good why hasnt other teams adopted the twin keel?

They probably figure their keels are just fine and see no reason to change. We're just thinking the twin keel is good because Newey is using it, but it could turn out he's all wrong about it. There are too many variables that go into it to just say 'this is correct' or 'that is correct'. Basically, what keel you go with is determined by the airflow you want under the nose and the suspension geometry you want to run...each team has different requirements for those, so this is a hard question to answer without breaking down each car....

I suspect that after the first three races, we'll start to see who got it right, zero, twin or 'v'.....(does anyone know if Renault are still using the 'v'?)

[ykickamoocow]

For people who dont know what we are talking about i found some photo's on another website of the differences between the various keels.

SINGLE KEEL




TWIN KEEL




V KEEL




NO KEEL

[toyotaf1]

hey 'ykickamoocow' you example for the no keel wasnt a very good one. yes its a 'no keel' but at the same time it still has the 'keel' if you got a picture of the Tf106B rather than the TF106, then the that would have been a true no keel design....

[ykickamoocow]

toyotaf1, on Jan 29 2007, 08:23 PM, said:

hey 'ykickamoocow' you example for the no keel wasnt a very good one. yes its a 'no keel' but at the same time it still has the 'keel' if you got a picture of the Tf106B rather than the TF106, then the that would have been a true no keel design....

I suppose if you want to be techniqual then its true. Ive had a quick search for a true No Keel design but i came up empty.

[Autumnpuma]

toyotaf1, on Jan 29 2007, 01:23 AM, said:

hey 'ykickamoocow' you example for the no keel wasnt a very good one. yes its a 'no keel' but at the same time it still has the 'keel' if you got a picture of the Tf106B rather than the TF106, then the that would have been a true no keel design....

You're splitting hairs. As long as the lower wishbone is attached to the bottom of the chassis instead of a vertical plane, it's a zero-keel for all intents and purposes. The two important items are airflow and suspension geometry. The Toyota ykick presented demonstrates the application of a 'zero-keel' nicely. We can argue about how short a keel is before it becomes the chassis, but the idea is plain to see in the pics. In the Toyota pic, the lower wishbone is at a greater angle than the 'keel' pics and there clearly isn't a vertical plane for that wishbone to attach to (that would be sitting in the airflow).

[boftolod]

Actually, there does seem to be a keel there, just the wishbones don't attach to it. Also does it look to any one else that the front of the car is floating, if the car is that light, there must be some sort of new wundermaterial involved, maybe the tub is filled with helium ( I know there is stands under the rear of the car, but normally there is something under the front as well)

Edited by boftolod, 29 January 2007 - 12:38 PM.

[duest]

Well in the ITV-F1 story above Adrian is quoted as saying:

ykickamoocow, on Jan 27 2007, 01:33 PM, said:

There’s only really two types of front suspension around: the original central keel/V-keel (it’s the same thing, one’s a refinement of the other) or the so-called zero-keel.

.....

There are some elements [of carry-over] – for example, we’ve gone to the zero-keel whereas last year’s Red Bull remained faithful to the central keel.

The next story contains no quotes that are claimed to be from the man himself, so for now my bet is that the car is a zero-keel design and not a twin-keel one.

[JayStorm]

I know, pretty much nothing about all this keel stuff and i'm not going to try.

I would say that the Renaults't looks to be the most impressive looking, just hope Newey's ok with everything.

[Krasch]

Hi all.. the 'zero keel' vs 'single keel' vs 'twin keel'debate amazes me ,as each design has produced fast cars. I just read the Newey's RB3 has a twin keel design. I have a pretty basic understanding of F1 cars, but at a glance, twin keel would offer a lower center of gravity for the front susp assy and maybe a little more chassis rigidity in comparison to the Zero keel design. The benefit of a Zero keel design may be the reduction of the frontal area of the car, improving aero and allowing better manipulation of airflow to undertray/sidepods etc..

[c21]

boftolod, on Jan 29 2007, 01:37 PM, said:

Actually, there does seem to be a keel there, just the wishbones don't attach to it. Also does it look to any one else that the front of the car is floating, if the car is that light, there must be some sort of new wundermaterial involved, maybe the tub is filled with helium ( I know there is stands under the rear of the car, but normally there is something under the front as well)

Dont worry, the first stand is just under the c#ckpit and the rear stand is under the engine. In this state the weight is very much to the rear.

With the Toyota pic, Toyota F1 was right, it is just a Tf106 adapted to take the revised suspension while still using the original monocoque moulds. Puma said "We can argue about how short a keel is before it becomes the chassis" but in reality this keel will be a structural part of the chassis.

Still a single keel car no matter where the wishbones are.

[c21]

Krasch, on Jan 29 2007, 03:39 PM, said:

Hi all.. the 'zero keel' vs 'single keel' vs 'twin keel'debate amazes me ,as each design has produced fast cars. I just read the Newey's RB3 has a twin keel design. I have a pretty basic understanding of F1 cars, but at a glance, twin keel would offer a lower center of gravity for the front susp assy and maybe a little more chassis rigidity in comparison to the Zero keel design. The benefit of a Zero keel design may be the reduction of the frontal area of the car, improving aero and allowing better manipulation of airflow to undertray/sidepods etc..

The twin keel design requires a lot of strengthening to stop the keels flexing inboard. Jordan for example adopted this for 2002 and had a lot of problems with this, the end result was that they had to put a strut between the keels.

The twin keel is the half brother of the zero keel in that you almost have the airflow of the zero keel but a more conventional suspension layout.

With the zero keel, it has better airflow, but you have to sacrifice some of the range in suspension set up.

[Autumnpuma]

c21, on Jan 29 2007, 10:37 AM, said:

Dont worry, the first stand is just under the c#ckpit and the rear stand is under the engine. In this state the weight is very much to the rear.

With the Toyota pic, Toyota F1 was right, it is just a Tf106 adapted to take the revised suspension while still using the original monocoque moulds. Puma said "We can argue about how short a keel is before it becomes the chassis" but in reality this keel will be a structural part of the chassis.

Still a single keel car no matter where the wishbones are.

You know what, you are correct!! I was looking at where the lower wishbones were mounted and ignoring the old chassis with the single keel in the middle! That keel would still be in the airflow so it would still be considered a single keel. I now have egg on my face...