Red Bull RB18

[organic]

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... direktive/

AMuS

F1uno



Both outlets report no new lightweight chassis for RB at spa. Perhaps not yet ready. Personally expecting it for Zandvoort

[Zynerji]

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... direktive/

AMuS

F1uno



Both outlets report no new lightweight chassis for RB at spa. Perhaps not yet ready. Personally expecting it for Zandvoort

Better to save it for 2023. They have 2022 in the bag already, with Ferrari's help..

[marcel171281]

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... direktive/

AMuS

F1uno



Both outlets report no new lightweight chassis for RB at spa. Perhaps not yet ready. Personally expecting it for Zandvoort

Better to save it for 2023. They have 2022 in the bag already, with Ferrari's help..

Why would a team postpone an update that 100% certain gives them laptime? They have a big lead at the moment, but it is only won when it's won. And in pure speed, the RB hasn't really been the fastest anyway, apart from Spa this weekend.

Plus, usually teams don't use 1 tub per driver per year anyway, so when due for change, why not for the new one?

[Alexf1]

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... direktive/

AMuS

F1uno



Both outlets report no new lightweight chassis for RB at spa. Perhaps not yet ready. Personally expecting it for Zandvoort

Better to save it for 2023. They have 2022 in the bag already, with Ferrari's help..

Why would a team postpone an update that 100% certain gives them laptime? They have a big lead at the moment, but it is only won when it's won. And in pure speed, the RB hasn't really been the fastest anyway, apart from Spa this weekend.

Plus, usually teams don't use 1 tub per driver per year anyway, so when due for change, why not for the new one?

Reliability?

[marcel171281]

Better to save it for 2023. They have 2022 in the bag already, with Ferrari's help..

Why would a team postpone an update that 100% certain gives them laptime? They have a big lead at the moment, but it is only won when it's won. And in pure speed, the RB hasn't really been the fastest anyway, apart from Spa this weekend.

Plus, usually teams don't use 1 tub per driver per year anyway, so when due for change, why not for the new one?

Reliability?

With engines or other mving part, yeah sure, but with the carbon tub? They will test it in the factory for rigidity and so on and the FIA for safety.

[Alexf1]

Why would a team postpone an update that 100% certain gives them laptime? They have a big lead at the moment, but it is only won when it's won. And in pure speed, the RB hasn't really been the fastest anyway, apart from Spa this weekend.

Plus, usually teams don't use 1 tub per driver per year anyway, so when due for change, why not for the new one?

Reliability?

With engines or other mving part, yeah sure, but with the carbon tub? They will test it in the factory for rigidity and so on and the FIA for safety.

I don't think it will be without risk to lower the tubs weight by several kg. They failed the FIA test once already pre-season. You don't want a situation like Alfa: being very proud of having achieved the min weight but a desintegrating chassis in a crash. Think RB or any other top team would get an instant penalty for that. From what I read on the Autosport forum the new tub is sitting in the factory

[Big Tea]

Reliability?

With engines or other mving part, yeah sure, but with the carbon tub? They will test it in the factory for rigidity and so on and the FIA for safety.

I don't think it will be without risk to lower the tubs weight by several kg. They failed the FIA test once already pre-season. You don't want a situation like Alfa: being very proud of having achieved the min weight but a desintegrating chassis in a crash. Think RB or any other top team would get an instant penalty for that. From what I read on the Autosport forum the new tub is sitting in the factory

They probably can not develop other things without first fitting this.

[marcel171281]

Reliability?

With engines or other mving part, yeah sure, but with the carbon tub? They will test it in the factory for rigidity and so on and the FIA for safety.

I don't think it will be without risk to lower the tubs weight by several kg. They failed the FIA test once already pre-season. You don't want a situation like Alfa: being very proud of having achieved the min weight but a desintegrating chassis in a crash. Think RB or any other top team would get an instant penalty for that. From what I read on the Autosport forum the new tub is sitting in the factory

You making it sound like Alfa (and RB soon) are delebarately making an unsafe chassis. That the rolehoop of the Alfa broke in Silverstone was due to unforeseen forces and impact direction. It was (and still is) according regulations and FIA crashtests. That the FIA crashtest didn't cover these particular forces seen in Silverstone, doesn't make Alfa doing anything wrong. Also, the rolehoop crashtest has allready been changed for next year.

This last means (it seems RB is going to use this new tub also next year) the new lighter chassis will be (at least from that direction) stronger that the old one.

Your part about a penalty doesn't make any sense. All F1 (as all singleseater FIA series) chassis' are numbered and approved by the FIA. You can't, secretly, just use a less safer one after the crashtests.

Making a lighter, but just as strong chassis is called engineering. Something a lot of people within F1 (and RB) are very, very good at.

[Alexf1]

With engines or other mving part, yeah sure, but with the carbon tub? They will test it in the factory for rigidity and so on and the FIA for safety.

I don't think it will be without risk to lower the tubs weight by several kg. They failed the FIA test once already pre-season. You don't want a situation like Alfa: being very proud of having achieved the min weight but a desintegrating chassis in a crash. Think RB or any other top team would get an instant penalty for that. From what I read on the Autosport forum the new tub is sitting in the factory

You making it sound like Alfa (and RB soon) are delebarately making an unsafe chassis. That the rolehoop of the Alfa broke in Silverstone was due to unforeseen forces and impact direction. It was (and still is) according regulations and FIA crashtests. That the FIA crashtest didn't cover these particular forces seen in Silverstone, doesn't make Alfa doing anything wrong. Also, the rolehoop crashtest has allready been changed for next year.

This last means (it seems RB is going to use this new tub also next year) the new lighter chassis will be (at least from that direction) stronger that the old one.

Your part about a penalty doesn't make any sense. All F1 (as all singleseater FIA series) chassis' are numbered and approved by the FIA. You can't, secretly, just use a less safer one after the crashtests.

Making a lighter, but just as strong chassis is called engineering. Something a lot of people within F1 (and RB) are very, very good at.

Sure, and I hope it will. However, I think it will be a very difficult job as RB is always close to the limit. As for Alfa, there's a difference between a legal and a safe chassis. I think they knew very well what they were doing, they were the only team to have reached the even lower original min weight limit. These engineers are very clever as you rightly point out.

I don't think you can make the assumption the lighter chassis is usable for next year as the step will be increased by 15 mm which impacts the chassis, see picture in following article: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/new- ... /10354916/

[organic]

Anyone got a clue? RB trying out camouflage?

An ex-F1 engineer in replies suggests:

[Cs98]

I don't think it will be without risk to lower the tubs weight by several kg. They failed the FIA test once already pre-season. You don't want a situation like Alfa: being very proud of having achieved the min weight but a desintegrating chassis in a crash. Think RB or any other top team would get an instant penalty for that. From what I read on the Autosport forum the new tub is sitting in the factory

You making it sound like Alfa (and RB soon) are delebarately making an unsafe chassis. That the rolehoop of the Alfa broke in Silverstone was due to unforeseen forces and impact direction. It was (and still is) according regulations and FIA crashtests. That the FIA crashtest didn't cover these particular forces seen in Silverstone, doesn't make Alfa doing anything wrong. Also, the rolehoop crashtest has allready been changed for next year.

This last means (it seems RB is going to use this new tub also next year) the new lighter chassis will be (at least from that direction) stronger that the old one.

Your part about a penalty doesn't make any sense. All F1 (as all singleseater FIA series) chassis' are numbered and approved by the FIA. You can't, secretly, just use a less safer one after the crashtests.

Making a lighter, but just as strong chassis is called engineering. Something a lot of people within F1 (and RB) are very, very good at.

Sure, and I hope it will. However, I think it will be a very difficult job as RB is always close to the limit. As for Alfa, there's a difference between a legal and a safe chassis. I think they knew very well what they were doing, they were the only team to have reached the even lower original min weight limit. These engineers are very clever as you rightly point out.

I don't think you can make the assumption the lighter chassis is usable for next year as the step will be increased by 15 mm which impacts the chassis, see picture in following article: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/new- ... /10354916/

Teams build to the crash tests, not over that. The roll hoop failing had nothing to do with Alfa building a uniquely light and weak hoop. They were just the only car that flipped and landed on the hoop at 200km/h. What they did skimp on was the floor rigidity at the start of the season, that however is not a safety concern.

The diffuser throat increasing by 15mm was ran by the teams and adjusted to not impact mechanical components. The new chassi should be usable next season. The entire point is synergizing the development budget for next years car into this years car.

[RZS10]

Anyone got a clue? RB trying out camouflage?

Would be terrible camo since it even accentuates the shape

[Stu]

Anyone got a clue? RB trying out camouflage?

Would be terrible camo since it even accentuates the shape

At first sight I thought temp monitoring (which has already been posted above); then I looked what it is on, it looks to be some internal shrouding from within the side-pod. Is this to control the airflow within the pod to either the louvres or ‘cannon’ exit?

[tok-tokkie]

I wonder if those coloured stripes are there to show how the carbon fibre deforms when it is moulded to shape.

[vorticism]

Correct that's the inner engine cover with thermal paint, it looks hand applied in the photos; uneven with brushstrokes visible. Would give them an idea of hot spots between this panel an the engine.

Green paint : Turns to White at 430°C.
Orange paint : Turns to Yellow at 560°C.

https://apracing.com/race-car/brake-pad ... emperature



Unrelated- it's been noted before that the tunnels on this car seem taller, more voluminous, than other teams. Is this not simply the easiest way to not be overly dependent upon ride height?

It's worth noting:

Red Bull vast experience with running the floor a long way from the ground might be beneficial with the formula being rebalanced slightly.
But that's speculation.

For many seasons it was always the RB with rake (rear floor higher from track), and the Merc with hardly any. In that sense the team which had been making best use of ground effect since 2009/10 incl. introducing the EBD were well positioned to gain from the 2022 aero regs changes which would cause the cars to be even more dependent upon ground effect.