Technical review: British Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Looking back on the technical developments from Silverstone, here’s John Beamer.

Silverstone was always pegged as a Red Bull track and a 0.7s qualifying gap confirmed it as such.

To see the RB6’s superiority one need look no further than Abbey where it had an astonishing 10mph exit speed advantage. That is why the rest of the paddock is scurrying around introducing exhaust blown diffusers (EBD).

And, as explained here two weeks ago, McLaren proved implementing EBD successfully is at least as challenging as getting the F-duct to work.

The ‘new’ McLaren

McLaren's low-cut sidepods

McLaren’s EBD resulted in a radically revised car. Most noticeable were the new super-low sidepods that ultimately housed the new floor-based exhaust exits. With its original periscope exhausts the McLaren always had a rather bulbous rear end. Although the sidepods where heavily undercut to allow air to flow over the coke-bottle zone, the engine cooling was integrated into the exhaust openings, which impinged rear wing efficiency.

The new EBD has allow McLaren to lose these original cooling slots and carve louvres in their place. Although the rules forbid multiple bodywork slots McLaren has got round the regulations by bisecting a slit through the middle of all the openings so ensuring they are technically only one opening. This was a solution Ferrari pioneered at the opening race in Bahrain and shows how canny F1 teams push rule interpretation to the very limit.

As a result the rear of the car drops off quite precipitously allowing much cleaner airflow over the rear wing – this in itself will be worth a couple of tenths.

In addition to the engine cover revamp the exhausts exit just aft of the sidepod below the forward lower rear suspension wishbone. It’s unclear if McLaren has moved it suspension pick-ups to optimise the flow of exhaust gasses as Ferrari did. The lower wishbones have always been close to the floor but McLaren seems to have created enough space for the gasses to flow.

The bodywork appears to cover the exhaust exit to better direct the hot gasses under the wishbone. A close look at the wishbone shows the inboard part is covered with heat resistant material to protect it from the hot exhaust gasses.

To complement the lower exhausts McLaren installed a revised diffuser to improve the downforce. The diffuser was reinforced with heat proof materials and the fins in the outer channel were reduced in size. The McLaren EBD solution is similar to Ferrari’s in that the gasses blow over the top of the diffuser and effectively reduce the pressure gradient the diffuser has to work against – this secures more downforce.

No one has been able to adopt the Red Bull solution, which is to feed some of the exhaust gasses directly into the outer channel of the diffuser.

McLaren: what went wrong?

McLaren's low-cut sidepods

Before we answer the question its important to understand some of the handling characteristics of the MP4-25. The oversize diffuser means that the car is more sensitive than most to ride height changes. This presents particular problems over bumps where the change in ride height causes airflow under the car to detach. Going down a straight this isn’t a problem but can result in awkward handling through high-speed corners.

This ride height issue means that the car has to be sprung very stiffly. All F1 cars have limited suspension travel (about two-thirds of total suspension travel actually comes from the tyre side walls) but the MP4-25 takes it to a new level.

It just so happened that the new complex at Silverstone was exceptionally bumpy, particularly in the quick Abbey right hander (where the new and old tarmac join) and up to the Village loop. As a result the McLaren had numerous offs during Friday practice.

The EBD makes the car more sensitive to throttle use as drivers lift approaching a corner downforce causing the exhaust gasses over the diffuser to decay. This proved too much for the stiffly sprung McLaren to cope with and the car started porpoising through the Abbey section.

The decision to remove the EBD was marginal – Hamilton wanted to race it. The problem came down to set-up. Because of the pitch-sensitive nature of the car the MP4-25 is much harder to set-up than its predecessors. McLaren engineers claim the MP4-23, for instance, had a wide set-up sweet spot, which allowed it to the fast out of the box. Not so with the latest McLaren – failure to find a good set-up resulted in the Woking-based outfit removing the EBD.

Set-up wasn’t the only problem, however. McLaren’s difficulties with the EBD were similar to Mercedes’ in Valencia. The floor wasn’t insulated enough, which meant that it slightly warped under the intense heat of the exhausts, which also damaged performance.

It’s back to the workshop to get the new floor fixed for the German Grand Prix this weekend. McLaren remains confident that its EBD package, when working, will be worth over half a second, so it should be able to challenge the RB6 more consistently.

Other teams’ EBDs

Ferrari exhaust arrangement

Despite McLaren’s trouble there is little doubt that the EBD works. Sure teams won’t be able to extract Red Bull levels of downforce but that will always be the case when you’re retrofitting major upgrades. By all accounts Ferrari’s and Renault’s versions are both working well and judging by Nico Rosberg’s pace, Mercedes has its device working far better than at Valencia.

Williams also introduced the system for Silverstone, although unlike some of the leading teams the EBD has been part of its development cycle since October last year. Had it stayed with the Toyota power plant Williams would probably have run it at the start of the year but the move to Cosworth engines led to a postponement.

Since Valencia more information has emerged about how Red Bull manages to eke out a few extra tenths in qualifying. In effect there is a setting on the engine control unit that for a couple of laps retards the ignition. What this does is keep some throttle open but later in the engine cycle.

This draws in fuel that is then ignited as the exhaust valve is open. Obviously the exhaust exit and cylinder tops aren’t designed to handle repeated combustion so its not a setting that can be applied all race. This results in a more constant flow of exhaust gasses over the diffuser and hence greater downforce and is the primary reason why Red Bull have such hot qualifying pace (this is probably worth half a second a lap or so). The process is similar to that used in the old F1 turbos to keep the turbo jacked up.

Red Bull front wing

Red Bull's new front wing

Thanks to Red Bull’s much-publicised brouhaha a lot of time and effort was spent dissecting the difference between the Milton Keynes-based outfit’s new and old front wing.

The changes are subtle and Red Bull publicly stated were worth about a tenth per lap. The most radical change is the front camera housing which has been moved to the central section of the wing as opposed to being outboard of the nose. This isn’t a new invention – Force India pioneered it a few races back.

During the design of the revamped 2009 regulations the Overtaking Working Group, commissioned by the FIA to look at how to reduce downforce to improve overtaking, mandated a standard central section to the front wing. This section actually produces a touch of lift to help cars follow each other more closely.

The re-housed cameras mean that this zone now generates some downforce. Two effects are going on here. First the housing is mounted as an aerofoil so generates suction. Second the gap between the underside of the wing and ground creates a mini-venturi, which further amplifies grip.

The two major changes to the Red Bull wing was the addition of a second inlet slot in the endplate and revised main profile. The endplate slot allows air outboard of the endplate to energise air working hard under the wing to produce downforce. This has the effect of increasing downforce (and drag – not that that is a problem at Silverstone). It shows how quickly Red Bull is pushing development given the team did not expect to have updates for this race.

Given the high-quality of the pictures we have this month (thanks Keith!) it is worth a closer look at Red Bull’s nose section.

The raised shoulders of the V-nose are doing two things. First they help prevent airflow spill off the top of the car, which may interfere with that below the car. And second it allows the designers to optimise the shape of the underside of the nose (and still keep within the minimum cross-section rules). If you look at the lower suspension pick-ups there is additional space, which allows more air to pass between the underside of the nose and the tyres (see picture).

McLaren front wing

McLaren front wing

McLaren introduced a unique front wing solution for Silverstone that featured a double endplate. Originally introduced to help better balance the front of the car after the addition of the EBD, it was eventually run with the old floor.

If you look carefully you’ll see what looks like a second endplate 20cm or so inboard of the outer endplate. This is to try to separate the air going around, to, and inside of the tyre.

This allows the zone between the two endplates to be worked harder and tuned specifically to interact with and reduce tyre drag while protecting airflow over the rest of the wing, allowing more consistent downforce, particularly as air leaves the wing and feeds the sidepods, bargeboards and floor.

Notice the three curve sections towards the front-bottom of the main plane. These help generate vortices which act to extend the endplate so sealing each section – in effect acting like skirts.

Ferrari and Renault front wings

Ferrari front wing

After its new EBD and floor in Valencia, Ferrari finally introduced an updated front wing. Scuderia-watchers have been complaining for some time that the team’s development, particularly of the front wing, had fallen behind Red Bull and Renault, which was part of the reason for the inconsistent showing.

For Silverstone Ferrari introduced a new, three-piece front wing. Although not as radical as some hoped, it does show that Ferrari is being thoughtful about this area. Expect more refinements in the next few races as this is one area where the F10 lags its competitors.

In complete contrast to Ferrari, Renault’s front wing evolution has been nothing short of astonishing. It came to Silverstone with yet another wing with an impressively complex endplate arrangement.

Renault front wing iterations

The upper cascade has been discarded in place of two horizontal splitters, one in place of the outermost part of the cascade and one aft at the back of the endplate just in front of the tyre.

The reason for this supreme complexity is to manage airflow around the tyres and try to control wheel drag. Studies show that the right combination of wheel and front wing design can have a massive effect of net drag.

Williams front wing

Counter-intuitively adding lift in front of the tyre can sometimes result increase in aero efficiency (although that doesn’t appear to be happening here). Unfortunately for Renault this front wing appeared not to work and the team elected to revert to its old wing.

It’s worth comparing the Renault and McLaren front wings to Williams’ (see picture). You can quickly see how developed the Renault endplate is in particular.

Virgin and Lotus

Virgin's new aero package

Virgin suffered problems at the start of the season what with unreliable hydraulics and an embarrassing mistake with its fuel tank. Since then the team always planned to introduce a substantial upgrade at Silverstone and it did.

The team introduced a B-spec car almost with new front and rear wings, new brake ducts, a revised diffuser and lots of new detailed around the side of the car e.g., bargeboards and pod vanes.

The car is starting to lose its boxy, amateurish feel and performance (relatively) improved. The team was only four-tenths behind the fastest Lotus in qualifying, which ignoring the first race of the season, Malaysia (which was wet) and Monaco (which is a short track where performance bunches) was by far the closest Virgin has ever got to Lotus on a Saturday.

Lotus isn’t standing still and bought what it claims is its last major upgrade of the season to the British Grand Prix before it turns its attention to the 2011 car. The biggest change was the introduction of a new floor to try to improve underbody downforce.

Many of the other changes were to help reduce the weight from some of the parts to allow better weight distribution through ballast. What Lotus has done under Mike Gascoyne is impressive. The team was the last to get its 2010 race license and has clearly established itself as the best new team. With the backing of Tony Fernandes and the ingenuity of Mike Gascoyne expect Lotus to swiftly close the gap to the midfield next year.

On to Germany

The Hockenheimring is more point-and-squirt than Silverstone and doesn’t make the same extreme downforce demands. The tighter corners demand good traction out of the corner, but there are a couple of high-speed straights where an F-duct will come in use for those that have one.

The technical story of the weekend will be whether McLaren can get its EBD to work. The odds are they will – Friday running at Silverstone should have given the Woking-based outfit some good data. The nature of the circuit should also mean that Red Bull’s advantage will not be as great as it was at Silverstone.

One other thing to watch is the battle between Red Bull and Ferrari. This will be the third race that the Scuderia has run its EBD – it should now understand the intricacies of the system and we should see refinements to the diffuser in particular as the team ekes out further performance. A good job too – for if Ferrari is to win the championship it needs a sterling result at Hockenheim.

F1 technology

Browse all F1 technology articles

51 comments on “Technical review: British Grand Prix”

  1. drool drool ..

    Great write up Keith – you simply pull up aces out your sleeve every time

    1. As with most of the technical articles written this season, it was written my John Beamer. But yes, brilliant article, very comprehensive and fascinating info. Whats the story with williams and renault engines for next year, is that going to happen or is it rumor?

  2. some grammatical errors Keith. Ex. The new EBD has allow McLaren – should be has “allowed”

    so ensuring they are technically only one opening – should be there “is”

    1. the author of the article is John Beamer

    2. quite a few grammar errors here, but great article anyway.

  3. Thank you Mr Beamer. The very best reporting!! Kieth you sure have an ace writer there. Keep up the good work

    1. Ron in Michigan
      20th July 2010, 7:17

      My God. As if i was not excited enough already about the upcoming German GP. Now the Beamer guy comes along and writes these fantastic technical mumbo jumbo analyses and now my appetite for more F1 is even more whetted. Pure erudition you are John.

      We humbly await your next analysis.

  4. Great article as usual keith…bohot acha hai!!

    1. It’s The Beamer!!….. arrggghh! $:)

  5. Wow! So many details my head is spinning.

    1. Love this article! Would be great to have this as an ongoing feature.

      On the closeup of the mclaren front wing I noticed a strip of tape effectively blocking the brake cooling duct a bit, which I also noticed from the onboards of Jenson car during the race. Would be interesting to know why they chose this (quick fix?) option over just picking a different sized duct as they typically do.

      Also, if you go back to the Australia GP this year, there is a section in q3 where Sebastian Vettel zips through a very fast left right chicane. If you listen to the engine, you see that he just keeps his foot in it. There is no hint of a lift. As we know more about the EBD and the RedBull Quali setting on their engine, this makes more and more sense. He’s getting even more downforce by pushing harder.

      I suspect the full RedBull advantage will be hard to replicate.

      It is interesting to note though that the quali setting is a really dangerous one for engine life. An analysis of engine miles near the end of the season would be telling. And let’s see how their engines survive around Monza & Spa.

      1. The tape is for qualy only I think. Red bull is flat through a lot of the turns just because of pure downforce — very hard to replicate

        1. I thought I heard on one of the broadcasts that the tape was for quali only, but I distinctly remember seeing them on one of Jenson’s onboards during the race.

  6. MikeSRandall
    19th July 2010, 7:58

    Re the Red Bull front wing and the camera housing that has moved – presumably all cars have cameras in these positions but has anyone ever seen pictures from one?

    1. You see them fairly regularly, I don’t recall what the pictures from the Red Bull look like, but the Mclaren one is always notable for being very low down (duh) and having a curved, red and silver wing element in the frame at all times. I also remember seeing that camera used on Massa’s car after he slightly damaged the endplate trying to pass an HRT in Barcelona.

      1. Yeah, I mainly remember seeing that shot from Hamilton’s car, and it really makes that upper element of the McLaren front wing look very elegant.

  7. Thanks very much John. I think the McLaren should profit a lot from the new exhaust arrangement, as you said. The difference in the sidepods is just enormous.

    And those Renault front wings are really extreme, i suppose even Red Bull is looking at Renault for front wing ideas.

    1. With regards to the front wing, yes I agree renault have really aced the front wing development his year, as have McLaren – to some extent I agree with Red Bull using hem for inspiration, but of course the major importance of front wing design is that it shapes the air around the car and under it, so it is vital that it works perfectly with the rest of the aero parts – what i’m trying to say is that it is very complicated to copy anything but a general concept, as it all depends on how the front wing interacts with the rest of the car.

  8. Thanks a lot John, great article. I’m a bit lost though, can we say that McLaren’s failure to implement the blown exhaust is partly due to the nature of Silverstone’s track? So can we expect something better from them performance wise in Germany, even if we don’t account any evolution in the design?

  9. I note there is no comment or evaluation of the Red Bull F-duct. While it’s been commented on superficially from time to time, no recent thorough evaluation seems to have been of the Red Bull version compared to other teams.

  10. Love your work John – great writeup.
    Awesome work spotting such detail, i never notice these seemingly minor changes that have such a profound effect !

  11. Great information. Fantastic with the nitty gritty. The inner dork thanks you.

  12. thank you mr.beamer, as usual =)
    your reports has been impressive, and it always amazes me how you can describe and explain complex engineering works in such plain language that we could understand

  13. Thank-you for all the kind comments. As much always appreciated.

    1. David Johnson
      19th July 2010, 20:55

      Super thumbs up, fantastic work John !!!

  14. spanky the wonder monkey
    19th July 2010, 12:21

    great work john! can’t remember what your background was, but i think a few teams would benefit from your experience ;-)

  15. Maverick_232
    19th July 2010, 12:33

    These tech reviews are just brilliant.
    Very informative and highlights the incredible intelligence of the teams and attention to detail.
    Thank you Mr Beamer. Huge respect.

  16. Very cool article.
    I do hope McLaren gets its blown diffuser working so it can challenge in qualy aswell.

    1. …. and retain reliability and race pace I would add to that SoLiDG…. ;-)

  17. You have to hope for he sake of the championship run in that Mclaren get the EBD to work and Ferrari get sone luck!!

  18. With EBD and without the RBR engine setting, does the car produce more downforce with full throttle than with lifting? So Webber had to drive flat-out through Abbey in the race – had he lifted a little bit he wouldn’t have enough downforce to go through the corner?

    1. No Enigma, he would still have enough downforce even when he lifts.

      From my understanding as a layman, I came to understanding what they mean by “retarding” after this piece from Mr. Beamer of which I am very thankful :-)

      Now Enigma, when they say “retard”, it means that when Webber lifts, a mechanism works on the accelerator to “delay” it going back to position which means that combustion still continues and hot air is blown to the diffusers thereby creating more and/or retaining (the same) downforce through the corners and when he hits the accelerator once more the normal engine work begins again at the apex. This is how I understand it. I am still confused about the front plate functionalities tho.. :-(

      1. I understand the working of the engine setting for qualy, I’m just wondering how it is in a race, when that setting isn’t used. So if a driver lifts in a corner, there won’t be much air from the exhaust, so EBD won’t be working so well. So I’m wondering if it’s better to stay full throttle through a corner, would it produce more downforce? (that’s all meant without the engine setting.)

      2. Thanks for the explaining effort though :)

  19. Thanks John,
    Great work.
    Keep em’ coming!

  20. Thanks John. Superb work as ever. I never leave long comments on your articles but it’s not because I don’t love them (because I do and they are fascinating) but because it takes me a few readings at least to try to process everything

    1. And I thought it was just me :-)

  21. Brilliant stuff again, John.

    The fact that RBR is the only team successfully to pump exhaust gas both through and over the diffuser is telling. I really doubt that McLaren’s or anyones kit will ever have the same ultimate effect without this characteristic. If we look back to what Newey was up to with the MP4-18, this element appears essential to the gains.

    One question remaining about RBR’s EBD is how they manage the heat—this is the main problem of their imitators. This is especially important since RBR allegedly blasts still-burning fuel over their diffuser! Has Newey invented a new material or discovered a new element? “Newtonium” should work.

    1. I think that’s been covered somewhere, possibly in an Allen or Kravitz article – they can only run the full system in qualifying because of the heat it generates, which explains the massive gap they have on Saturdays which is always closed down on race day.

      Also, lol @ Newtonium.

  22. dyslexicbunny
    19th July 2010, 16:53

    Great writeup John and awesome pictures Keith.

  23. I enjoy your pieces John but…. (there’s always a but) you can’t beat a good diagram. I think your pieces would be even better if you included some diagrams pointing out where the features of this wing and that bargeboard etc. actually are on the car. Maybe not a diagram, there may be legal implications, but annotated pictures instead.
    Btw. porpoising? Too jargony for me. Could you explain?

    1. I agree with MudShark. Diagrams will do better. Perhaps too much work for you, but it will do the readers a world of good.

      Porpoise: move up and down

  24. John, perhaps you could compile your articles at the end of the season in one easily managable bitesized package?

    It would make a great record of the development race for each season.

  25. Let me join the chorus by thanking you again John for another great article. I’ve one question though, over on in their brief technical review of the Williams EBD, they mention that its similar to Ferarri’s and “therefore less complicated than the ones used by RBR and McLaren”… Have you any idea why they’d describe Ferrari’s system as being less complicated than McLaren’s? Your review seems to paint them both as being less complicated/effective than the RBR version because of the use of the exhaust into the diffuser’s outer channels.


    Renaults front wing in Bahrain practice. Its come on a hell of a long way looking at the GB pictures. Renaults development atm seems to be rivaling Mclaren last year in terms of the speed and turn around of the team and developments. I thought with the partial take over and top top management changing they would lurk around the back of the midpack if im honest.

    1. its even funnier if you look at the front wing from brazil last year.

  27. Great article as always John, loving the info on the front wings in particular.

    Getting down to brass tacks, if you were to take a stab as to how the teams ‘should’ rank in terms of speed going into Germany, would you say:

    1. Red Bull
    2. Ferrari
    3. McLaren
    4. Mercedes
    5. Renault

    if not, what are your thoughts?……

    p.s. or anyone else for that matter!

  28. Somewhat related to the technical review…

    Bloodhound Supersonic – the (hopefully) 1000mph land speed smasher.

    Have they been following Red Bulls updates and got some ideas from the nose cone as well…

  29. Great article dude, gave me a bit to think about.

  30. spanky the wonder monkey
    20th July 2010, 10:42

    re red bulls EBD…..

    how have they managed to retard the ignition if the ECU’s are supposed to be standard / sealed units?

    i’m assuming that the ignition retardation occurs on throttle lift off? if it were a ‘constant’ setting, then a lot of power should be wasted through incomplete combustion as a consequence of retarding the ignition (exhaust valve opens before the fuel/air mixture has fully combusted) and of the increased heat through the poor combustion / combustion of unburned fuel within the exhaust.

  31. In the article it says “This draws in fuel that is then ignited as the exhaust valve is open”

    To me that sounds like an afterburner like they use in jetfighter, am i right?

Comments are closed.