Red Bull - Active Ride-height Yes or No
Discussion
During the race yesterday there was a good shot from the side of a Red Bull going round a corner where the car looked relatively high off the ground. This was Weber (I think) and was late on in the race. The key benefit of the variable ride height theory was that the car would be low in Q3 (low fuel), low at the start of the race (full fuel) BUT then also low at the end of the race (Low fuel). We saw the Redbulls 1st and 2nd on the grid, but race pace wasn't there, certainly when compared with previous races.
Now, was this because it was wet, or was it because the car was slowly rising up (like everyone elses) throughout the race? Or were there other reasons.
Hopefully this thread will distract a few of the "Button this, Hamilton that" people on the other threads!
Now, was this because it was wet, or was it because the car was slowly rising up (like everyone elses) throughout the race? Or were there other reasons.
Hopefully this thread will distract a few of the "Button this, Hamilton that" people on the other threads!
Edited by paulrockliffe on Monday 19th April 16:38
paulrockliffe said:
During the race yesterday there was a good shot from the side of a Red Bull going round a corner where the car looked relatively high off the ground. This was Weber (I think) and was late on in the race. The key benefit of the variable ride height theory was that the car would be low in Q3 (full fuel), low at the start of the race (full fuel) BUT then also low at the end of the race (Low fuel). We saw the Redbulls 1st and 2nd on the grid, but race pace wasn't there, certainly when compared with previous races.
Now, was this because it was wet, or was it because the car was slowly rising up (like everyone elses) throughout the race? Or were there other reasons.
Hopefully this thread will distract a few of the "Button this, Hamilton that" people on the other threads!
Interesting point and Webber kind of hinted at there car not being as quick in the wet for whatever reason. He said that they know what the problem is and are working on it. It did seem strange how normal they looked compared to there Qualifying pace. Now, was this because it was wet, or was it because the car was slowly rising up (like everyone elses) throughout the race? Or were there other reasons.
Hopefully this thread will distract a few of the "Button this, Hamilton that" people on the other threads!
The ride height is changing but obviouslsy legally, the difference is blatant when you look at the footage.
I've been thinking this myself. There was a radio transmission broadcast at the end of quali when Seb got his pole, Horner made a comment along the lines of "who needs ride height adjustment eh"!! Then come the race they were nowhere really, I expected Vettel to put up much more of a fight against Hamilton but he couldn't stay with him.
I suppose we'll have to see at the next races when the weather doesn't have as much of an influence on the results.
I suppose we'll have to see at the next races when the weather doesn't have as much of an influence on the results.
Maty said:
I've been thinking this myself. There was a radio transmission broadcast at the end of quali when Seb got his pole, Horner made a comment along the lines of "who needs ride height adjustment eh"!! Then come the race they were nowhere really, I expected Vettel to put up much more of a fight against Hamilton but he couldn't stay with him.
I suppose we'll have to see at the next races when the weather doesn't have as much of an influence on the results.
The lack of pace did seem strange, as the extra aero they have should have been a decent advantage. The fact they're supposedly heavy on tyres might have meant they destroyed their inters much more quickly than the other teams (who destroyed them quite quickly themselves), but still you'd expect them to have done some flying laps when the tyres were still fresh.I suppose we'll have to see at the next races when the weather doesn't have as much of an influence on the results.
paulrockliffe said:
During the race yesterday there was a good shot from the side of a Red Bull going round a corner where the car looked relatively high off the ground. This was Weber (I think) and was late on in the race. The key benefit of the variable ride height theory was that the car would be low in Q3 (full fuel), low at the start of the race (full fuel) BUT then also low at the end of the race (Low fuel). We saw the Redbulls 1st and 2nd on the grid, but race pace wasn't there, certainly when compared with previous races.
Now, was this because it was wet, or was it because the car was slowly rising up (like everyone elses) throughout the race? Or were there other reasons.
Hopefully this thread will distract a few of the "Button this, Hamilton that" people on the other threads!
They don't run full fuel in Q3. Now, was this because it was wet, or was it because the car was slowly rising up (like everyone elses) throughout the race? Or were there other reasons.
Hopefully this thread will distract a few of the "Button this, Hamilton that" people on the other threads!
The theory is that they would be high and slow in Q3, then low at the start of the race, getting higher as the race progressed.
Yesterday LH was complaining of bottoming out during Q3. How does that work if they then add 130Kg or so of fuel?
It actually seems that the fuel load does not significantly affect ride height, or that ride height is not affecting speed, certainly not as much as fuel load, so why did Mclaren make all the fuss?
Instead of a system or devices which alter the system to modify the ride height, would a passive system still be allowed which levelled the car depending on the weight?
What I am thinking is the lower wishbones on the RBR could have a linkage to a separate passive spring and damper system which expands/compresses based on the cars weight altering the effective ride height. I can visualise the system working but hard to explain.
What I am thinking is the lower wishbones on the RBR could have a linkage to a separate passive spring and damper system which expands/compresses based on the cars weight altering the effective ride height. I can visualise the system working but hard to explain.
I dont think Mclaren would of made such a fuss if they didn't genuinely believe that RedBull had something to make a fuss about. I understand that some teams have microphones around the circuits which can tell them the gear ratios of the other cars, if this is the case I'm sure they must of had some photographers analysing the different ride heights.
They must of had a reason or evidence to suggest RedBull had something, perhaps we will never know. Its just good to see both teams doing so well.
They must of had a reason or evidence to suggest RedBull had something, perhaps we will never know. Its just good to see both teams doing so well.
sirtyro said:
I dont think Mclaren would of made such a fuss if they didn't genuinely believe that RedBull had something to make a fuss about. I understand that some teams have microphones around the circuits which can tell them the gear ratios of the other cars, if this is the case I'm sure they must of had some photographers analysing the different ride heights.
They must of had a reason or evidence to suggest RedBull had something, perhaps we will never know. Its just good to see both teams doing so well.
I'm sure they would, especially as their long time secret weapon designed the car that is in question.They must of had a reason or evidence to suggest RedBull had something, perhaps we will never know. Its just good to see both teams doing so well.
d3dna said:
Instead of a system or devices which alter the system to modify the ride height, would a passive system still be allowed which levelled the car depending on the weight?
What I am thinking is the lower wishbones on the RBR could have a linkage to a separate passive spring and damper system which expands/compresses based on the cars weight altering the effective ride height. I can visualise the system working but hard to explain.
I think you'd find that would bind the rear suspension over bumps...What I am thinking is the lower wishbones on the RBR could have a linkage to a separate passive spring and damper system which expands/compresses based on the cars weight altering the effective ride height. I can visualise the system working but hard to explain.
Read an interesting suggestion in one of the red tops at the weekend.
Frozen wax.
Frozen to massive subzero temperatures and packed in on top of the springs to keep them compressed for qualifying while fuel levels are low.
Over night the wax melts and allows the springs to return to a more normal position so when they are refueld the cars are not too low. Which woudl still mean the car raises up through the race as fuel is depleted.
Frozen wax.
Frozen to massive subzero temperatures and packed in on top of the springs to keep them compressed for qualifying while fuel levels are low.
Over night the wax melts and allows the springs to return to a more normal position so when they are refueld the cars are not too low. Which woudl still mean the car raises up through the race as fuel is depleted.
Dan_1981 said:
Read an interesting suggestion in one of the red tops at the weekend.
Frozen wax.
Frozen to massive subzero temperatures and packed in on top of the springs to keep them compressed for qualifying while fuel levels are low.
Over night the wax melts and allows the springs to return to a more normal position so when they are refueld the cars are not too low. Which woudl still mean the car raises up through the race as fuel is depleted.
Great idea, except compressing the springs would surely increase the ride height? Frozen wax.
Frozen to massive subzero temperatures and packed in on top of the springs to keep them compressed for qualifying while fuel levels are low.
Over night the wax melts and allows the springs to return to a more normal position so when they are refueld the cars are not too low. Which woudl still mean the car raises up through the race as fuel is depleted.
paulrockliffe said:
During the race yesterday there was a good shot from the side of a Red Bull going round a corner where the car looked relatively high off the ground. This was Weber (I think) and was late on in the race. The key benefit of the variable ride height theory was that the car would be low in Q3 (low fuel), low at the start of the race (full fuel) BUT then also low at the end of the race (Low fuel). We saw the Redbulls 1st and 2nd on the grid, but race pace wasn't there, certainly when compared with previous races.
Now, was this because it was wet, or was it because the car was slowly rising up (like everyone elses) throughout the race? Or were there other reasons.
You're looking for something that isn't there. Red Bull's ride height during the race was never a point of suspicion. It was qualifying that people were suspicious about, because of Vettel or Webber bottoming out during Q3 in one of the weekends (Bahrain or Australia). The only problem of course, is that McLaren did the same in China. Does McLaren have active ride-height suspension?Now, was this because it was wet, or was it because the car was slowly rising up (like everyone elses) throughout the race? Or were there other reasons.
It's interesting to note that only McLaren has been shouting about Red Bull's suspension, while others have kept relatively quiet about it. Ross Brawn even said he didn't think RBR were doing anything illegal.
Non-topic, IMHO.
Their bad result was a combination of many factors, including bad team work between drivers, bad tyre management, and the general shuffle caused by mass pistops and safety cars.
Edited by Jungles on Tuesday 20th April 01:41
TheArchitect said:
jaf01uk said:
I thought they said during the coverage on Sunday that the Red Bulls had been examined by the FIA and declared compliant hence Christian Horners reference on the radio?
Gary
because its legal doesnt mean they don't have a form of it that works around the rulesGary
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff