Red Bull RB18

[jjn9128]

There will be (as there will for all cars); feel free to start a ‘RB19 speculation thread’, there is one for the W14.

To be honest, unless there are any leaks, it will be pure ‘this is what I want to see’ speculation at this stage.

It's gonna have 6 wheels and a V12 as Red Bull accidentally fail to confrom to the tech regs

[Sasha]

As-web stated that RB will use a upgrade RB18 next year.

My guess that is why they didn't use the new lightweight chassis, saving it for the 23 season.

That is one way to get around the cap penalty and gives you cap space to do late season upgrades in 23.

Your design team can take longer to design the 24 season car.

[AR3-GP]

When asked how much Red Bull are over the weight limit, he revealed: "It was close to 20 kilos at the beginning of the season."

Wache confirms the car is still overweight and when asked if they are over by a ballpark figure of three kilos he responded: "No, more!"

RacingNews365.com queries: "Twelve?"

"Could be," responded Wache.

"In any case, the car is still substantially too heavy. We can still improve on that next year. The other teams are much closer to the limit, so that's a lot of 'free lap time' as we would call it."

Pierre Wache - RB TD



https://racingnews365.com/the-developme ... e-lap-time


He says the end of season RB18 was "substantially" too heavy.

[Stu]

Substantial could be 1% in F1 terms.

[AR3-GP]

Substantial could be 1% in F1 terms.

I agree but teams will bite your arm and leg off to get that 1%.

They were somewhere between 5-10kg overweight at the end of the season, reading between all the lines due to having to use old parts again.

[marcel171281]

Substantial could be 1% in F1 terms.

I agree but teams will bite your arm and leg off to get that 1%.

They were somewhere between 5-10kg overweight at the end of the season, reading between all the lines due to having to use old parts again.

1% is 8 kg. Pretty substantial.

[Stu]

Substantial could be 1% in F1 terms.

I agree but teams will bite your arm and leg off to get that 1%.

They were somewhere between 5-10kg overweight at the end of the season, reading between all the lines due to having to use old parts again.

1% is 8 kg. Pretty substantial.

That was my point, use the word substantial in reference to F1 and 1% is considered substantial.
Use the same word in reference to regular automobiles and 1% is insignificant, but 10% is considered substantial.

[LM10]

Isn't it a give and take? Why would they build their car with overweight, if it was not for performance reasons?

[organic]

Isn't it a give and take? Why would they build their car with overweight, if it was not for performance reasons?

I'd imagine that newer spec components reached end of their lifespan and they bad to revert to older, less ideal specifications?

Doubt RB were wanting to produce anything to do with 2022 towards the end of the season given how much of a margin they already had in both championships.

Could be some of their lighter components expired/wore out quicker than expected, or more likely the introduction of some of the newer spec components earlier in the season, when the competition had not yet faded, was expedited

[dans79]

Isn't it a give and take? Why would they build their car with overweight, if it was not for performance reasons?

Cost!

for example Cf can be purchased in a wide range of Modulus,weaves, and tows. Depending on what you are using and how you are laying it up you can basically get an inverse relationship between weight/strength and cost.

This is a marketing page, but it shows you the range that's available on the market!
https://www.toraycma.com/products/carbon-fiber/

[AR3-GP]

Isn't it a give and take? Why would they build their car with overweight, if it was not for performance reasons?

You're thinking far too deterministically.

Teams never intended to build overweight cars. It's always a bit of a guessing game as to where you will end up. The car is going to need X amount of parts on board and even when you are designing to the best of your ability at the time, it doesn't mean in a deterministic way that every car can be built to that min weight. As it would turn out, 9 out of 10 teams showed up with overweight cars. It was not intentional. They were caught off guard with how difficult it was to hit the weight target.

It wasn't a matter of "oh we'll make this engine cover a little bit wider and take the weight penalty because the aero gain is worth it". It was more a case of, the only way we are hitting this weight limit right now is if we remove the gearbox....

The RB18 has several failed attempts at a lighter DRS actuator. They were on the limit of design and had failures. Removing the DRS actuator in it's entirety would have brought them closer, but that's not practical...

[Wouter]

Farewell RB18

Everyone has played their part in our most successful season in Formula 1 and we speak to a few
that got to know the RB18 very well over the course of 2022.

Geoff Ayton, Controls engineer
Rob Dowe, Systems Design engineer
Ana Groom, Aerodynamics engineer
Matt Semple, Electrical Systems engineer

[carisi2k]

The problem with that farewell to RB18 is that they don't actually have an RB18 in that video. That is the FIA showcar.

[lio007]

The problem with that farewell to RB18 is that they don't actually have an RB18 in that video. That is the FIA showcar.

I didn't get it either why they used the showcar.

[Henk_v]

Isn't it a give and take? Why would they build their car with overweight, if it was not for performance reasons?

You're thinking far too deterministically.

Teams never intended to build overweight cars. It's always a bit of a guessing game as to where you will end up. The car is going to need X amount of parts on board and even when you are designing to the best of your ability at the time, it doesn't mean in a deterministic way that every car can be built to that min weight. As it would turn out, 9 out of 10 teams showed up with overweight cars. It was not intentional. They were caught off guard with how difficult it was to hit the weight target.

It wasn't a matter of "oh we'll make this engine cover a little bit wider and take the weight penalty because the aero gain is worth it". It was more a case of, the only way we are hitting this weight limit right now is if we remove the gearbox....

The RB18 has several failed attempts at a lighter DRS actuator. They were on the limit of design and had failures. Removing the DRS actuator in it's entirety would have brought them closer, but that's not practical...

Good post!

One has to remember nobody knew the exact loads on the car. The 22 cars are bound to have some safety margins built in. And not all can just be upgraded out. Either because they are homologated or because the implications are too big on adjacent parts.
For instance; if you understand the load on the rear suspension better, making it lighter might mean a redesign of the gearbox shell, bodywork, floor, and brakes and linkages.
That would mean New crash tests for the rear crash structure and possibly reworking all rear wings and exhaust.

That might not only be too big for an upgrade -especially the cost-, also the timeline may be such that you can just have it for the last few races. Also, mitigating collateral on other parts means a suboptimal solution. Better to design completely new for the next year.