planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:53 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
 Post subject: Red Bull Secret....2013?
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:26 am
Posts: 14
Red Bull’s Secret….2013
Firstly, I would just like to say, I am a serial reader but never really posted on this forum before today…as such please don’t shoot me down on my first post! Also, I wouldn’t normally post but there is something that has been bugging me about this season and I have tried to put the pieces together and provide a suitable explanation.

Well, I have been reading with great interest the information over the internet in regards to how Red Bull are producing a car which is so much quicker than everyone else. So let us start with the early part of the season, where Red Bull were quite harsh on their tyres and claimed the tyre construction itself was not durable enough. The season looked more competitive here between a few teams, nevertheless RB were very fast but wanted a more durable tyre. So, why was the RB so harsh on its tyres compared to others? Even though they were still very quick – but seemed to have tyre management issues…

Since the Pirelli change of tyre construction - We know, that the RB car in the hands of SB is treating it’s tyres pretty kindly too. This is obviously directly related to the changes Pirelli made to the tyres. So earlier in the season RB were having tyre issues, and now that the tyre construction is said to be more durable – they are managing them very well.

Let us rewind back to Canada 2013 – Mark Webber leaves the hairpin and leaves a trail of marks which many said to be ‘traction control’. Hmmm, well obviously this is banned so this cannot be it..so what do the marks left by MW’s tyres actually tell us – the wheels have spun, then gained traction, then spun then gained traction etc…so, a difference in torque applied to the rear wheels when accelerating – keep in mind, this happened off the racing line, had he been on the racing line we probably would never have seen such markings...

Now let us look into the theory of former F1 team owner Giancarlo Minardi in regards to the sound difference of SV’s car compared to the rest of the grid. From my perspective, an ex team owner’s ears are going to be very in-tune to the difference in car sounds as well as seeing/noticing more than the average f1 enthusiast. Therefore, his comments from my perspective are valid – i.e. SB engine sounding very coarse at slow speed, and SB is getting on the power before any other car, with what seems to be more ease and less fighting with the car.

Conclude Findings:
1. RB having tyre issues earlier in the season – and pushing Pirelli to relook at construction and make it more durable.
2. Pirelli make the tyre more durable – RB managing the tyres superbly well.
3. Mark Webber ‘traction control esque’ marks left in Canada.
4. The sound of SV car in slower corners very akin to traction control sound.
5. SV able to get on the power before anyone else.
6. SV fighting the car less, ease of drive.

So all points to traction control right?

• A more durable tyre to withstand the instantaneous on-off power of traction control no doubt causing more ‘wear’ in the tyre due to power delivery
• MW’s wheel spin marks in canada
• SV able to get onto the power before everyone else.

But traction control is banned, through mapping and any other automated way, so how about if the driver could moderate the traction control himself? Sounds impossible, but how about if it’s done manually by the driver, through ‘mechanical’ means of the car.

Remember SB’s car sounding similar to that of cars traction control, or what almost sounds like a miss-fire, or an imbalance within the engine…sounds like the engine isn’t running 100% correctly and sounds very coarse indeed…almost like the engine is mistimed – but it is against regulation for variable timing of the engine. However, is it against the regulations to make 1 or more cylinders of the engine ‘out of use’ at specified corners?

Well, this is where we go into the realms of the big-bang engine / motorbike world. By having an engine which produces a difference in torque to the rear wheels (uneven power) - this in turn provides a power delivery differential which can cause the rear tyres to skid, but the instantaneous loss of power through the stroke of the engine makes it simpler to control, catch and manage.

Now take into account the sound of SV’s car as noted by Mr Minardi, the skid marks left by MW’s car in Canada, the apparent need for a more durable tyre (which I would have thought was more apparent due to the instantaneous power on/off nature of running the engine), the ability to get onto the power earlier in a corner, the manual control by the driver as opposed to automatic traction control, the engine map which does not change and no traction control is evident – all points to a feasible explanation that Red Bull have the ability to halt the use of certain cylinders at slow corners causing an imbalance in the cars power delivery thus giving a form of traction control be it controlled by the driver as opposed to automatically or through a map.

I wonder how viable this theory is, as it does all seem legitimate and the pieces of the puzzle do fit together but that’s not to say there isn’t another explanation (based on aero). Would love to hear the opinion’s of others, as well as hoping that my understanding of all items is correct.

Thanks, Jav.

Sources:
http://www.auto123.com/en/racing-news/f ... tid=160582
http://jalopnik.com/red-bull-may-have-i ... 1442585020
http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules ... gulations/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22290968
http://jalopnik.com/has-red-bull-figure ... -514107361
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big-bang_firing_order


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 4:08 am
Posts: 511
Doesn´t sound that unreal, but IMO still don´t explain the marks on Webber´s car, I mean it´s impossible that some driver activated feature make so many changes in fractions of a second.
But agree with you that if there´s some way to turn off some cylinders and back on selectively, it might help gain traction on the corners, let´s say, he comes out of the corner on 4cyl and turn one at a time maybe every tenth of a second or so, It might help the car to get to traction faster and even slightly lower the fuel usage over a race lenght, but I really have no clue if it´s allowed by the rules


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4507
Flawed premise. A car with traction control is easier on the rear tires so if they had TC that would not be the reason for them clamoring for more durable rubber.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2538
Location: UK
Red Bull don't have traction control, at least not in the traditional sense. It would not be possible to programme it into the standardised ECU (introduced to prevent exactly this sort of thing). However I think there is some sort of wheelspin-controlling system in there, but one that is legal and innovative rather than anything suspicious. It is noticeable that the Red Bull makes a different sound to the others through the corners (and I noticed an odd 'blipping' sound on Vettel's start in Brazil, which you could hear from the onboard footage), but it is just not possible to cheat in this way. You can't hide things in the engine management software any more.

However if they do have this sort of system I don't think it's the primary reason for their pace advantage. If you look at the amount of rake they have been running all year (way more than anyone else), it's fairly obvious that they have just mastered the current aero rules better than anyone else. In order to keep the diffuser working efficiently with the rear ride height that high there must be a significant stream of air being routed to the sides of the diffuser (to act as a 'seal'). Sky Sports did a great feature using the footage from practice in Austin where the ambient conditions made the air flow around the car visible, and you could see how efficiently the car was directing the air into the channels beneath the side pods and then onto the diffuser.

The Red Bull car was not illegal. The team have a done brilliant job at mastering the current set of regulations and should be applauded for creating one of the best cars in F1 history.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6722
Deep_blue wrote:
Doesn´t sound that unreal, but IMO still don´t explain the marks on Webber´s car, I mean it´s impossible that some driver activated feature make so many changes in fractions of a second.
But agree with you that if there´s some way to turn off some cylinders and back on selectively, it might help gain traction on the corners, let´s say, he comes out of the corner on 4cyl and turn one at a time maybe every tenth of a second or so, It might help the car to get to traction faster and even slightly lower the fuel usage over a race lenght, but I really have no clue if it´s allowed by the rules

I thought it was covered at the time that Renault do exactly this & have done for a few years. The engine cuts to 4 Cylinders to aid traction out of slow corners, at least that's what they reported on Sky.

Its a method of torque control, other engine manufacturers have other methods for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:22 am 
I am not sure what Red Bull have.

But I can tell you with absolute certainty that the Red Bull can be told apart from all other cars in turns 12-15 at Austin, with your eyes closed. I sat in turn 12 and was stunned at the pop-pop-pop sound of the Red Bull vs. other cars.

Paul Stoddard is no fool.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 1:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8719
Its a good detailed read, thanks. A lot of it feasible, although I think the bit about Red Bull needed more durable tyres is due to high speed corners and downforce and probably not related to any traction management system.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 1:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 6:20 pm
Posts: 51
silkjet wrote:
I am not sure what Red Bull have.

But I can tell you with absolute certainty that the Red Bull can be told apart from all other cars in turns 12-15 at Austin, with your eyes closed. I sat in turn 12 and was stunned at the pop-pop-pop sound of the Red Bull vs. other cars.

Paul Stoddard is no fool.



It was the same at turn 1 in Austin. POP POP POP!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 1:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 8767
Location: London
Red Bull's secret? They are just better than everyone else. The use the resources they have more efficiently, harder and intelligently. Their computers in Milton Keynes are so good they can produce twice as many computer models as any of the other teams in the same space of time as them.

That's the secret. They just do everything better.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 4:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:35 am
Posts: 842
silkjet wrote:
I am not sure what Red Bull have.

But I can tell you with absolute certainty that the Red Bull can be told apart from all other cars in turns 12-15 at Austin, with your eyes closed. I sat in turn 12 and was stunned at the pop-pop-pop sound of the Red Bull vs. other cars.

Paul Stoddard is no fool.


Can you tell us more about this pop pop pop sound. Was it heard during acceleration only?
Was the sound exactly the same on both Webber's and Vettel's car?

_________________
"Talented drivers adapt, the mediocre ones complain."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 6:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:32 am
Posts: 132
OK, so I'm jealous I didn't think of the big-bang possibility since I've been looking into implementing it for a team I do design and consulting for. Very interesting possibility!

From the sound of the engines though I can nearly rule out the big-bang theory (heh) here. Also there is no practical way to run an engine as big-bang and then switch to even-fire while using mechanical cam shafts (something like VTEC is a very long shot at achieving this). Very cool though that big-bang would completely explain Webbers tire marks.

(Also for those unfamiliar, the big-bang firing order does actually work as a form of traction control because the lull time between power pulses allows the tires to grip up momentarily. It has been proven to drop lap times in low grip situations and also make the vehicle more tractable)

I think what RedBull are doing is somehow blowing the diffuser more than usual during low-speed acceleration situations. It cuould be via alternating firing of cylinders, but if that't banned in the programming it qould be VERY simple to have two trigger wheels for the ignition and when a button is pressed the ignition sensor could be switched over to a trigger wheel with 1/2 as many teeth. Upon releasing the button the engine would revert back to the full firing order.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 8:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 76
Although Redbull have the 'works renault' engine deal, creating a bign bang engine would cause vsastly different engine characteristics especially in such a uniform engine regulation series that F1 in 2013 was. You coul potentially create holes in the power band that would be instantly highlighted by 6 other cars running renault engines - unless they had it too and then a lot of people would be asking the question: Why the hell is Caterham doing so well??

I'm much more of a believer in the pitch-controlling KERS Torque damping theory - especially given the intereference that comes across on Seb's camera and why we hardly ever go on board with him (although it would be as boring a stone if we did) and why redbull have had the most unreliable KERS and alternator system in F1 for the past few years. How many times have you heard Caterham or williams or Caterham say "sorry Guido, we need you to do a KERS reset" or "Pastor, KERS is dead, but it wouldn't get you out the gravel anyway".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 8:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 8863
bertisport wrote:
Although Redbull have the 'works renault' engine deal, creating a bign bang engine would cause vsastly different engine characteristics especially in such a uniform engine regulation series that F1 in 2013 was. You coul potentially create holes in the power band that would be instantly highlighted by 6 other cars running renault engines - unless they had it too and then a lot of people would be asking the question: Why the hell is Caterham doing so well??

I'm much more of a believer in the pitch-controlling KERS Torque damping theory - especially given the intereference that comes across on Seb's camera and why we hardly ever go on board with him (although it would be as boring a stone if we did) and why redbull have had the most unreliable KERS and alternator system in F1 for the past few years. How many times have you heard Caterham or williams or Caterham say "sorry Guido, we need you to do a KERS reset" or "Pastor, KERS is dead, but it wouldn't get you out the gravel anyway".

Interesting theory, but about your last sentence, how much times have you heard any Caterham team message, full stop?

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 8:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:01 am
Posts: 22
1. RB having tyre issues earlier in the season – and pushing Pirelli to relook at construction and make it more durable. - RBR wasnt the only ones whining about the tyres.
2. Pirelli make the tyre more durable – RB managing the tyres superbly well. - So did Lotus, maybe even better than RBR
3. Mark Webber ‘traction control esque’ marks left in Canada. - Has been explained below.
4. The sound of SV car in slower corners very akin to traction control sound. - Mclaren used this last year, where they were cutting cylinders.
5. SV able to get on the power before anyone else. - Mark has stated that SV is the best on slow corners and this is where SV get his time
6. SV fighting the car less, ease of drive. - When in front, you dont get disturbances in the air, which would lead to a "ease of drive"

1. All ecus are sealed units from McLaren and closely monitored because of fuel mapping etc
2. Red bull bends rules not breaks. Traction control be specifically banned and no team is that stupid
3. The change in tyre pattern in Canada starts immediately at a change of surface which may have a rise or fall and likely has a different composition and hence different adhesion levels.
4. Green side of the track so could be dust/gravel and all sorts.
5. The most advanced traction control systems ( f1!) Control wheel spin by cutting ignition to a single cylinder in a cycle to finely control the power and therefore large jumps don’t really happen.
6. Engines and gearboxes are sealed and heavily controlled at this point of the season so it can’t be some trick non McLaren ecu trick by a mechanical means.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 8:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
I read the article on PF1, which I assume triggered this o/p, and the thing that came to my mind was....Do Red Bull Racing ever sell any of their old cars?

See what I'm getting at :)

We wait with anticipation



Also, reducing engine power to stop the wheels spinning can be done many ways.
Cut the spark
Cut the fuel (or reduce it)
Feed burned gasses back into the cylinder (which would 'pop' in the pipe when it met oxygen)
Apply a load to the engine, or partly apply the brake on that wheel.


I'm sure there are other ways, and all depend on sensing the wheel slip. This can be done many ways, not all of them banned by F1,

As suggested here a while back, a system similar to a limited slip dif could detect when there was more torque available than needed and shunt it to the kers collector, or apply pressure to the brake hydrolics .

None of these expressly banned.

I suspect this will be a favourite topic in the off season


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9685
Location: Ireland
silkjet wrote:
I am not sure what Red Bull have.

But I can tell you with absolute certainty that the Red Bull can be told apart from all other cars in turns 12-15 at Austin, with your eyes closed. I sat in turn 12 and was stunned at the pop-pop-pop sound of the Red Bull vs. other cars.

Paul Stoddard is no fool.

Paul Stoddart is no fool but I'm not sure what he brings to the conversation!

Interesting to hear first-hand accounts of the notable differences between the cars, thanks.

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1666
I thought it was common knowledge what Red Bull have? The fantastic exhaust system which pushes the tyres in to the ground (layman's) when Vettel slams on the gas which stops the 'slide' that other drivers such as Alonso suffer when they attempt the same thing.

Other teams have tried to replicate it to an extent but haven't been able to incorporate it as as good a benefit in their overall car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4212
RBR came out of nowhere and took over F1 from traditional forces such as Ferrari and Mclaren. It just shows how these are presently not so great as they are regarded to be, with incompetent stuff unable to find answer to RBR dominance. They could be what RBR was, but they were not. It's their own incompetence, and nothing else. RBR just does what is possible.

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:49 am
Posts: 811
Adrian Newey, two good drivers and lots of development dollars perhaps?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7774
Thinking on the above, what is the rule about having driver adjustable control for where he is on track?

I mean, say there are 20 turns on a track. Could the driver have a rotary switch by his thumb which he indexes at each corner , to give a different map?

This is driver controlled, and if there was an over ride of some sort, also driver controlled, the engine could produce only enough power to drag away and not enough to spin the wheels?

Is this why they lobbied for the tyre change, not the fact that they degraded, but that they were not constant?

I know the track is going to change as the race progresses, but this can partly be over come with 'indexing' each time say the dial reaches 1 again.

I know its unfounded, and it could only explain the judder marks if a switch was bouncing, but it is the closed season and we need something to talk about


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:42 pm
Posts: 1279
Ennis wrote:
I thought it was common knowledge what Red Bull have? The fantastic exhaust system which pushes the tyres in to the ground (layman's) when Vettel slams on the gas which stops the 'slide' that other drivers such as Alonso suffer when they attempt the same thing.

Other teams have tried to replicate it to an extent but haven't been able to incorporate it as as good a benefit in their overall car.

that is one aspect of their success, I've no doubt - but getting good traction on acceleration out of the corners is another IMHO.
How they achieve the good traction is debateable - but controlling/using the Kers harvesting regime is a definite possibility.
I was wondering if there was any merit in them using some deliberate clutch slip too? We know they have to adjust bite points for starts - can they adjust bite points through the race? Atter all, I presume these clutches are electronically controlled? Fine adjustment so that high torque causes 'slip' may be feasible - but would probably need fairly thick/durable clutches?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 7702
When Pirelli switched back to 2012 spec tire, Red Bull also brought back some parts from 2012 car. At the end of 2012 season the best cars were Red Bull and McLaren. McLaren couldn't benefit from new tyre because their 2013 car was nothing like 2012 one. Lotus was kind on 2012 and 2013 three, so nothing changed there. Lotus like Red Bull used their 2012 experience. This may explain recent Sauber and Force India form too. Ferrari on the other hand was more or less like last year. Their final 2012 package wasn't that good, so when Pirelli revised tyres to 2012 spec Ferrari again was forced to catch up Red Bull.

_________________
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Mark Twain


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:26 pm
Posts: 1000
Location: Earth since 1984
Secret advantages?

Red-Bull team has the most combined EQ and IQ of any team in Formula 1 right now.

Ross Brawn and Jenson Button are not enough for Mercedes and McLaren teams. Teams need more than one genius to succeed at current era.

_________________
109_6 For you is your faith, and for me, my faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 3:45 pm
Posts: 77
I can't tell you which race in the past it was, but Schumacher was using his pit-lane speed limiter on track to limit wheelspin coming out of one particular corner during a damp race. If it is legal for a driver to adjust this, it could somehow be used at multiple corners if necessary.

they are extremely good at what they do.
In a recent interview Adrian Newey essentially quoted I was told by an old Renault Engineer. "The very first rule of racing is to read your rules very very carefully".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2538
Location: UK
donr wrote:
I can't tell you which race in the past it was, but Schumacher was using his pit-lane speed limiter on track to limit wheelspin coming out of one particular corner during a damp race. If it is legal for a driver to adjust this, it could somehow be used at multiple corners if necessary.

they are extremely good at what they do.
In a recent interview Adrian Newey essentially quoted I was told by an old Renault Engineer. "The very first rule of racing is to read your rules very very carefully".

Reminds me of when Ross Brawn was asked what subject aspiring F1 engineers should study at university. His reply was "Law".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:23 pm
Posts: 47
traction control of course ! this would explain Webber's incredibly fast starts off the starting grid .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 7:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:26 am
Posts: 1768
Location: UK
Work hard, drive fast?

Kinda worked for them!

_________________
Night is a very dark time for me


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 8:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:39 am
Posts: 1300
Now I can't remember who said it, but someone posted about a month ago from some reporter/''F1-analystic'' who had a theory to what Red Bull might be doing to Vettels car.

The theory he had was that RB could raise the scratchplate with the help of heat and shrinking metal so they could be able to run the car lower without getting caught, since it would never show as soon the car cooled down again. He came up with the theory after it had been viewed on the thermalcamera a piece getting warm on Vettels car that he hadn't seen anywhere else.

Anyone remember this article and what happend to it?

_________________
Winner of the [Charging Hamilton Trophy] !
Winner of the [Dominant Hamilton Trophy] !

Lewis Hamilton 4 x WDC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 8:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:26 am
Posts: 1768
Location: UK
Warheart01 wrote:
Now I can't remember who said it, but someone posted about a month ago from some reporter/''F1-analystic'' who had a theory to what Red Bull might be doing to Vettels car.

The theory he had was that RB could raise the scratchplate with the help of heat and shrinking metal so they could be able to run the car lower without getting caught, since it would never show as soon the car cooled down again. He came up with the theory after it had been viewed on the thermalcamera a piece getting warm on Vettels car that he hadn't seen anywhere else.

Anyone remember this article and what happend to it?


Proven to be incorrect.

_________________
Night is a very dark time for me


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9685
Location: Ireland
Warheart01 wrote:
Now I can't remember who said it, but someone posted about a month ago from some reporter/''F1-analystic'' who had a theory to what Red Bull might be doing to Vettels car.

The theory he had was that RB could raise the scratchplate with the help of heat and shrinking metal so they could be able to run the car lower without getting caught, since it would never show as soon the car cooled down again. He came up with the theory after it had been viewed on the thermalcamera a piece getting warm on Vettels car that he hadn't seen anywhere else.

Anyone remember this article and what happend to it?

I think it was just a theory by Gary Anderson - that another piece of clever engineering could be at work underneath the car.

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:39 am
Posts: 1300
Okey, cheers guys! :thumbup:

_________________
Winner of the [Charging Hamilton Trophy] !
Winner of the [Dominant Hamilton Trophy] !

Lewis Hamilton 4 x WDC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 1:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:40 am
Posts: 185
This makes for some great and fascinating reading.

Clearly they have some thing(s) in several areas that all work. I remember something Martin Brundle said last year when all the 'flexi-wing' debate was going on, that RedBull had recruited someone from Nasa and they were using 'exotic' materials in the construction of their car. Maybe just another guess, but it did make sense at the time.

I think everyone following the technical side of F1 has been wondering what they have under the cover that gives them such an advantage. Seeing the airflow moving round the side-pods in the US was remarkable, but I'm sure it's only part of the puzzle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:02 pm 
Peter77 wrote:
silkjet wrote:
I am not sure what Red Bull have.

But I can tell you with absolute certainty that the Red Bull can be told apart from all other cars in turns 12-15 at Austin, with your eyes closed. I sat in turn 12 and was stunned at the pop-pop-pop sound of the Red Bull vs. other cars.

Paul Stoddard is no fool.


Can you tell us more about this pop pop pop sound. Was it heard during acceleration only?
Was the sound exactly the same on both Webber's and Vettel's car?


Webber's car sounded the same as Vettel. To me, the popping occurred half way through the turn. Whatever Red Bull are doing must be difficult to replicate, or everyone would be doing it. So in this respect, Laura is right-- Red Bull is better than the other teams.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 11:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 6:41 pm
Posts: 587
Im thinking if ECU's are set so maps cannot be changed what of the sensors that are rooted to them ? the throttle is fly by wire and I believe they have G meters too what if under the right conditions the throttle signal is sent to the ECU like it is being bliped at a rapid rate would the timing and injectors operate in a more stuttering fashion reducing power?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 2:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4507
chaz986 wrote:
Im thinking if ECU's are set so maps cannot be changed what of the sensors that are rooted to them ? the throttle is fly by wire and I believe they have G meters too what if under the right conditions the throttle signal is sent to the ECU like it is being bliped at a rapid rate would the timing and injectors operate in a more stuttering fashion reducing power?

One of the ways they eliminated the off-throttle blowing was by requiring the ECU throttle map and the throttle position sensor to bear a certain relationship to one another so I don't think that would work.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 3:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:26 am
Posts: 14
silkjet wrote:
Peter77 wrote:
silkjet wrote:
I am not sure what Red Bull have.

But I can tell you with absolute certainty that the Red Bull can be told apart from all other cars in turns 12-15 at Austin, with your eyes closed. I sat in turn 12 and was stunned at the pop-pop-pop sound of the Red Bull vs. other cars.

Paul Stoddard is no fool.


Can you tell us more about this pop pop pop sound. Was it heard during acceleration only?
Was the sound exactly the same on both Webber's and Vettel's car?


Webber's car sounded the same as Vettel. To me, the popping occurred half way through the turn. Whatever Red Bull are doing must be difficult to replicate, or everyone would be doing it. So in this respect, Laura is right-- Red Bull is better than the other teams.


Hmmm, very interesting as G.Minardi stated a difference between MW's car and SV's car.

Red Bull aren't better than everyone else - if they were they would have dominated on the 2013 specification tyre early on in the season in the same fashion they did the end. They didn't get their car design as good as others based on the new tyre as others managed them better.

An old specification tyre (albeit modified variant from what I have read) was brought back into play, and no doubt safety can be used as an excuse to change a tyre, but for me personally it was more the possibility of a majority uproar, and commercial damage the sport could face, that led to the tyres being changed backwards. Some teams had no safety issues with the 2013 specification of tyre, other who weren't better, did :D . If safety was of the only concern, cars not managing the tyres as well should just pit more...but wait that would make them uncompetitive and therefore there would be no point in racing...well they could do the parade lap (under their obligations) and go into the pits...(USA 2005)

No doubt the powers that Be(rnie) must have had an input into how things panned out.

Surely no-one would want to watch a repeat of USA 2005 which no doubt had a negative affect, commercially on the sport. FIA didn't want a chicane instead of the high speed banked turn which was needed to accommodate Michelin users, as it was unfair to Bridgestone Tyre users. Look how well received that race was. On the same note, this year, the reverting specification of tyre was unfair to some teams, although I doubt they objected publicly as the 'good of the sport' is key to all.

Good of the sport? is it needed? Yeah sure it is - if not the brabham Fancar would have won a fair few more races...again the 'good of the sport' and 'majority uproar' had enough influence to cause the change despite the car being legal (i.e. the Brabham designers read the rules/regulations very well indeed).

So there have been cases (historically in F1), where cars designed well had to be changed to ensure the majority were happy and it was for the good of the sport. And there have been cases where the majority were ignored and the effect on the sport was no doubt negative. Therefore, for me personally, the decision for Pirelli to change tyre mid-season was absolutely due to commercial reasons.

Now we have discussed who the 'better' team is, lets get back to what Red Bull have in their car/s that gave them such an advantage - The car's positive rake is also said to be substantially more compared to other teams - does this somehow implement itself together with one of the other theories above to give them the advantage they had over others?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 3:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:26 am
Posts: 14
Blackcat75 wrote:
This makes for some great and fascinating reading.

Clearly they have some thing(s) in several areas that all work. I remember something Martin Brundle said last year when all the 'flexi-wing' debate was going on, that RedBull had recruited someone from Nasa and they were using 'exotic' materials in the construction of their car. Maybe just another guess, but it did make sense at the time.

I think everyone following the technical side of F1 has been wondering what they have under the cover that gives them such an advantage. Seeing the airflow moving round the side-pods in the US was remarkable, but I'm sure it's only part of the puzzle.


Very interesting point, as I believe the tests on flex is carried out by point loading by FIA, whereby the forces exerted during a race are dynamic...and far from me being a material-lurgist but I am sure the construction of such materials can ensure that a material is specifically more rigid in one plane/direction compared to another, Hmmmm....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 3:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:26 am
Posts: 14
RaggedMan wrote:
Flawed premise. A car with traction control is easier on the rear tires so if they had TC that would not be the reason for them clamoring for more durable rubber.


Well I was probably not clear in my original post. I am not stating they are using traction control as such, more so possibly using an engine characteristic (such as the big bang engine) which aids traction. There is a difference as traction control avoids slip by limiting torque to the wheels, whereby the 'big-bang engine esque power delivery' provides traction through varying torque to wheels at various points in time. Traction control is a more laminar control on torque applied in comparison. Therefore, I would have thought such a power delivery to require a more durable tyre.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 3:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:26 am
Posts: 14
MacKinnon wrote:
OK, so I'm jealous I didn't think of the big-bang possibility since I've been looking into implementing it for a team I do design and consulting for. Very interesting possibility!

From the sound of the engines though I can nearly rule out the big-bang theory (heh) here. Also there is no practical way to run an engine as big-bang and then switch to even-fire while using mechanical cam shafts (something like VTEC is a very long shot at achieving this). Very cool though that big-bang would completely explain Webbers tire marks.

(Also for those unfamiliar, the big-bang firing order does actually work as a form of traction control because the lull time between power pulses allows the tires to grip up momentarily. It has been proven to drop lap times in low grip situations and also make the vehicle more tractable)

I think what RedBull are doing is somehow blowing the diffuser more than usual during low-speed acceleration situations. It cuould be via alternating firing of cylinders, but if that't banned in the programming it qould be VERY simple to have two trigger wheels for the ignition and when a button is pressed the ignition sensor could be switched over to a trigger wheel with 1/2 as many teeth. Upon releasing the button the engine would revert back to the full firing order.


Again my original post may have been unclear :blush: , rather than looking at the engine as 'big bang' I was more getting at something to replicate the characteristics of the big bag engine in the sense that it provides max torque at one point in its cycle, then substantially less at another. A misfiring engine can produce similar characteristics albeit in a very crude way. And as crazy as it sounds, it reminds me of 'Supermaneuverability' in the aircraft world :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1602
eternalife wrote:
silkjet wrote:
Peter77 wrote:
silkjet wrote:
I am not sure what Red Bull have.

But I can tell you with absolute certainty that the Red Bull can be told apart from all other cars in turns 12-15 at Austin, with your eyes closed. I sat in turn 12 and was stunned at the pop-pop-pop sound of the Red Bull vs. other cars.

Paul Stoddard is no fool.


Can you tell us more about this pop pop pop sound. Was it heard during acceleration only?
Was the sound exactly the same on both Webber's and Vettel's car?


Webber's car sounded the same as Vettel. To me, the popping occurred half way through the turn. Whatever Red Bull are doing must be difficult to replicate, or everyone would be doing it. So in this respect, Laura is right-- Red Bull is better than the other teams.


Hmmm, very interesting as G.Minardi stated a difference between MW's car and SV's car.



But wasn't Minardi's statement before Webber's car burnt and he got a new one while Austin was already with the new one? And didn't Webber were much closer to Vettel after the forced change of cars?
:?:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group