Reasons why Red Bull are so fast....

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

Red Bull aren't really that fast though are they? In the wrong hands, the RBR is slower than the McLaren.

We haven't seen its race pace yet. I think that will give us a better idea of just how good the car is.

[ralf fan]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

Red Bull aren't really that fast though are they? In the wrong hands, the RBR is slower than the McLaren.

Or its the Mclaren that is in the right hands

[JeremySmith]

I believe there is little between these two cars in terms of sheer pace...

[HughGJohnson]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

Red Bull aren't really that fast though are they? In the wrong hands, the RBR is slower than the McLaren.

I was thinking the same thing. I think the real question is: 'how is Vettel so fast?' Webber said he was "mystified" by his pace, as I recall.

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

I believe there is little between these two cars in terms of sheer pace...

Unless Seb does have a part, that would mean he's just .8 quicker than Webber and almost .8 than Hamilton and Button. Of course, having a new part wouldn't make .8 difference.

I would suggest that the Red Bull is better than McLaren, Vettel is better than Webber and Vettel is better than everyone right now at qualifying on the new tire.

[Sodemo]

If it is being charged in the pits and not by braking, then I can't see how thats legal.

[JeremySmith]

Well then it sounds like Red Bull might be using KERS as a form of launch control?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

If it is being charged in the pits and not by braking, then I can't see how thats legal.

You can start the race with a fully charged KERS, which may be charged to a maximum that is more than can be recovered during the race.

5.2.2 With the exception of one fully charged KERS, the total amount of recoverable energy stored on the car must not exceed 300kJ. Any which may be recovered at a rate greater than 2kW must not exceed 20kJ.

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Well then it sounds like Red Bull might be using KERS as a form of launch control?

It can't be used until the car reaches 60 mph, so maybe not quite a launch control.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

Arguably 1.20 does in its definition of a KERS as "A system that is designed to recover kinetic energy from the car during braking, store that energy and make it available to propel the car".

That is what it's designed to do. What it actually does is a different matter.

[Mr V]

Well, surely the Red Bull has to charge it's system on the installation lap to use at the race start, so it's recovering energy as it's designed to do?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Mr V

Well, surely the Red Bull has to charge it's system on the installation lap to use at the race start, so it's recovering energy as it's designed to do?

AFAIK it goes to the grid with freshly charged or new batteries, so it has no need to recover any energy on the way to the grid.

In parc ferme you may do the following: - charging and / or discharging of the KERS energy storage devices

- removal of the KERS energy storage devices which, once marked by the FIA technical delegate, may
be retained overnight by the team ;

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Mr V

Well, surely the Red Bull has to charge it's system on the installation lap to use at the race start, so it's recovering energy as it's designed to do?

Well the suggestion is that the system is smaller, lighter and simpler than other teams KERS because it does not have the components and circuitry to charge the battery which therefore has to be charged before the car leaves the pits. If that is the case I'd say it's not KERS, I think the rules do allow the battery to be charged before the car leaves the pits but if it cannot be charged from the drive train it's not KERS.

[Mr V]

So, if Red Bull win the race tomorrow, we may see other teams protest the result because they can't beat it, even though they have an extra 80 BHP on tap that Red Bull don't?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

I think the rules do allow the battery to be charged before the car leaves the pits but if it cannot be charged from the drive train it's not KERS.

The regulations do not specify that the system has to be charged from the drive train. The regulations merely state what a KERS is designed to do.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Mr V

So, if Red Bull win the race tomorrow, we may see other teams protest the result because they can't beat it, even though they have an extra 80 BHP on tap that Red Bull don't?

Adrian Newey has said of the KERS that they are only of any use at the start of the race and that any advantage gained thereafter is negligible.

Today he seemed to prove that point.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

Well the suggestion is that the system is smaller, lighter and simpler than other teams KERS because it does not have the components and circuitry to charge the battery which therefore has to be charged before the car leaves the pits. If that is the case I'd say it's not KERS, I think the rules do allow the battery to be charged before the car leaves the pits but if it cannot be charged from the drive train it's not KERS.

It's a launch control, not from a standing start necessarily, but still a launch control....

[strider]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Adrian Newey has said of the KERS that they are only of any use at the start of the race and that any advantage gained thereafter is negligible.

Today he seemed to prove that point.

Exactly. I've heard him say with my own ears (so not hearsay) that he didn't like the previous system because it was unsafe. What he has done now, using that brilliant mind of his, is devise a system that uses KERS when it's most needed but not thereafter. Quite simply, another Newey coup.

[Oldtony]

If the FIA consider that interpretation of KERS is "outside the spirit of the regulations" all they have to do to change that interpretation to a disadvantage is to abolish the 6 secs per lap limit on KERS usage. Would in "the spirit of the regulations" make for a much greener image.
Meanwhile the big problem device affecting F1's chace after parity is ANII.
(Aidrian Newey Interpretive Initiative)

[Spritle]

Because Red Bull is not a manufacturer, they are a drinks company, not some pure-bred racing team building to become a bigger manufacturer, like Ferrari.

Just a bloody drinks company!!

That's why!

[Oran Park Forever]

Originally Posted by Spritle

Because Red Bull is not a manufacturer, they are a drinks company, not some pure-bred racing team building to become a bigger manufacturer, like Ferrari.

Just a bloody drinks company!!

That's why!

Word is they've been secretly developing a road car to go up against other supercars, they're calling it the "Guarana"!

Powered by six 375ml engines, apparently in testing the car seems to just keep going & going & going...... keeps idling even with the ignition switched off! Designers are mystified......


.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by Marbot

The regulations do not specify that the system has to be charged from the drive train. The regulations merely state what a KERS is designed to do.

If it can't use recovered kinetic energy then it cannot possibly be a Kinetic Energy Recovery System. But perhaps it can and they just don't use it in that way. However if the story that it has been simplified by removing the charging capability is true I don't see how anyone could claim it is KERS and I would think we are headed for another protest and appeal.

[browney]

None of us know how they are using KERS. Last year everyone claimed that they somehow had suspension that was lowering and raising the cars before and after qualifying.

The bigger point would be, if the fastest car on the grid is not using the device to get the fastest lap time then the people making the rules have really failed. Write the rules so using the thing is an actual advantage.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by browney

None of us know how they are using KERS. Last year everyone claimed that they somehow had suspension that was lowering and raising the cars before and after qualifying.

Completely agree with you I was playing the IF game I'm sure they have tried to be completely legal while taking every possible advantage as Mr Newey always does.

Originally Posted by browney

The bigger point would be, if the fastest car on the grid is not using the device to get the fastest lap time then the people making the rules have really failed. Write the rules so using the thing is an actual advantage.

Again I completely agree. In my opinion they have bottled it on KERS, either do it properly or don't do it at all, what we have is a half arsed compromise that doesn't really please anyone.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by browney

The bigger point would be, if the fastest car on the grid is not using the device to get the fastest lap time then the people making the rules have really failed. Write the rules so using the thing is an actual advantage.

Surely the people making the rules aren't to blame? It's the other teams who can't make their car fast enough dispite having 80 extra horse power on tap?

[badoer fan]

Sounds from Horner's comments to autosport.com that Red Bull have no KERS at all, since they were worried about its reliability and they took it out. Interestingly, he notes that Adrian Newey wouldn't compromise on the car design to fit it in, so it had to be fit in around that.

I wonder if other teams have done the opposite - put in KERS at the expense of weight distribution and other factors - and effectively shot themselves in the foot.

[Zico]

Im currently studying aeronautical engineering part of which covers the concept and development of morphing wings in UAV's using 'smart' materials. its still a developing concept with so many different materials, ways and variations of achieving either active or passive morphing that we really have no idea what Red Bull could be doing if it is indeed something within this area.
Unless they can use passively a pre-existing form of energy from the car be it heat or pressure (ie hydraulics) then anything else would be considered 'active' .
Im thinking a 'passive adaptive' structure is most likely what we are dealing with but I also struggle to see how other teams would find it hard to achieve similar when you consider that it should be a fairly basic thing to be able to achieve without too much difficulty, heck. even wind turbine blades are designed to passively unwind by twisting under aero pressure (gusts)

A Fluid Matrix construction composite (FMC) could also be another possibility, it consists of several braided tubes within a flexable matrix, when pressure is applied hydraulicly through the hoses the structure stiffens. A simple valve or 2 within the hydraulic braking system closed my a lockable momentary button on the wheel could allow the driver to bypass the braking system, press the brake pedal on the straights to instead stiffen the nose and reduce drag. There is an example here.. http://www.mie.utoronto.ca/undergrad...g/files/86.pdf

Here are some other examples of the possibilities within all the morphing patents here.. http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20110042524

And a range of smart materials here.. http://www.crgrp.com/technology.shtml

Worth a read Imo.