76
F1 RACE TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 5 2011
F1 race A special report
RED BULL: THE ENGINEERING THAT WINS
Ian Bamsey (words) and Paolo d’Alessio (illustrations) investigate what made the Red Bull RB6 the car of 2010
investigation Special Newey’s RB6 featured a beautifully sculptured rear end (Photo: Paolo d’Alessio)
ADVANCED MANUFACTURING
F1 AERO SECRETS PLUS The comeback of KERS
F1 Wind Tunnel technology The Grand Prix paddock
USA $50, UK £20, EUROPE e35
01_F1RTv5.indd 1 12/04/2011 11:17 14 14-20_F1RTv5 (GR).indd 14-15 A
s the 2009 season wound up it seemed reasonable to assume that the Red Bull RB5 would have been unequivocally acclaimed the outstanding car of the year, had the so-called ‘double diffuser’ not been deemed legal.
A radical overhaul of the regulations governing aerodynamic design since 2008 had given Adrian Newey and his technical team the clean sheet of paper it needed to put itself on par with far longer-established rivals, as we saw in the previous issue of F1 Race Technology. Had the RB5 been designed from the outset around a double
diffuser, it is likely that Brawn would have failed to get the crucial early jump on it that decided the Drivers’ and Constructors’ championships. Had the double diffuser been declared illegal, Red Bull would have stopped the march of Brawn early in the season. Controversially, the rule makers accepted it. Given the chance to design a new car for 2010 around the double- diffuser concept, the evolutionary Red Bull RB6 swept to a convincing Constructors’ title and secured the Drivers’ crown as well. So what made it so special?
Renault engine
If there is one aspect of the Red Bull RB6 that its architect Adrian Newey doesn’t consider special it is its 2.4 litre Renault V8. In 2010, Newey once again told the author that he thinks it is down on power. “I think what happened with the engine is that the FIA announced the frozen engine regulation in early 2006, at the start of the V8s, and the original intention was for the engines to be frozen post that year’s Monaco Grand Prix. However, [the freeze] was then postponed until the end of the year and there was a development frenzy, particularly at Mercedes [Benz High Performance Engines], who hired a lot of Cosworth people as Cosworth was folding up. Mercedes developed very hard throughout that year. “The intention of the regulation was clearly to reduce the engine manufacturers’ costs. Renault tried to adhere to that so they cut their spend right back and heavily reduced the number of people working on the engine. They haven’t developed very much since Monaco 2006. I think at that point they had a very good product. But other people continued to develop very heavily through 2006 and since then as
well, with new parts going through under the guise of reliability or whatever it might be, to the point where now Renault fi nd themselves behind – perhaps in part because they took the FIA’s intention too literally.
“It seems to me that, these days, dynos are well calibrated; the
general opinion on dyno installation is that scatter is extremely small so it would seem fair to allow some sort of equalisation now. It certainly wasn’t [FIA president] Max Mosley’s intention that the regulations should provide a mechanism by which performance differences in the engines become frozen in.” Newey further suggests that the top-end power defi cit of the Renault compared to the Mercedes could be as much as 30 bhp. On the other hand, the Renault did appear to be the most fuel-effi cient engine in 2009, when starting fuel loads were published and could therefore be compared as to how far each car went before its fi rst refuelling stop. “Obviously we have got to look at fuel effi ciency versus power,” remarks Newey. “If you look at specifi c fuel consumption, then I think you will fi nd that all the engines are quite similar.”
INSIGHT : 2010 RED BULL-RENAULT
The inner workings of the 2010 Red Bull RB6 (Photo: Paolo d’Alessio)
What about driveability and heat rejection (the aero drag implication) – does Newey not fi nd they are particular strengths of the Renault?
“I think the Renault is a very well developed engine, for sure, but then the top rival engines are as well.” And how about the way power output degrades throughout the life of the engine? “They’re pretty good in that respect, yes.” So that is certainly not a weakness of the Renault? “I wouldn’t have thought so,” he says. It is worth noting, however, that there were a few problems associated with the engine that struck Red Bull in 2010. Most spectacular was the failure that befell Vettel during the race in Korea, the consequence of a con rod breaking around 400 km short of its scheduled life. That very public episode didn’t stop a jury of 50 race engine engineers around the world voting the Renault the 2010 Race Engine of the Year in the awards organised by our sister publication, Race Engine Technology. Those experts clearly felt that the Renault was an all-round excellent
package that, the odd glitch apart, provided a stable platform for the RB6 campaign. It is also worth noting that Renault cleverly assisted Red Bull’s pioneering exploitation of exhaust gas activation of the rear fl oor and diffuser, maximising the potential of the technique, as described in the Grid section of this issue.
Using the tyres Bridgestone was asked to provide a narrower front tyre for 2010. In 2009, the switch from grooved to slick tyres had put proportionally more rubber onto the front than the rear, and one upshot of this was an increased requirement for weight on the front tyres. The 2010 slicks brought the weight distribution well back from the front/rear proportions seen the year before, when some cars were approaching 50% of total weight on the front axle. Arch-rival Brawn, which became Mercedes in 2010, was caught out
by the new requirement – it couldn’t shift enough weight rearwards without a signifi cant modifi cation to its car. The RB6 was in the ballpark from the outset, making excellent use of its tyres throughout the year.
During the course of the season it was announced that, for 2011 15 18/01/2012 22:12
F1RTv5 contents
• Focus: BrAKes Ian Bamsey talks brakes with AP Racing’s Steve Bryan, who has unrivalled experience of the subject
• insigHt: 2010 reD BuLL-
renAuLt Ian Bamsey and Paolo d’Alessio investigate what made the Red Bull RB6 the car of 2010
• review: 2010
Ian Bamsey discusses key aspects of 2010 technology with half-a-dozen leading technical players
• Focus: ADvAnceD MAnuFActuring
tecHnoLogies Lawrence Butcher reports on Formula One’s adoption of new machining processes, materials and prototyping techniques
www.highpowermedia.com
• grAnD PriX PADDocK Lawrence Butcher reports from the Grand Prix paddock with a preview of the year’s technology
• Ps: soutHgAte on tHe
First wing cAr Extracts from Tony Southgate’s fascinating autobiography
• Focus: sensors Where in a Formula One car are sensors used, and what information do they give engineers? Lawrence Butcher finds out
• insigHt: toYotA’s
winD tunneL We investigate the technical factors that prompted Ferrari to turn to Toyota’s Formula One wind tunnel in developing its 2011 car
race engine TECHNOLOGY SPECIAL REPORT
F1 RACE TECHNOLOGY 2011/2012
issue
▼
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92