Red Bull RB19

[Henk_v]

In the end, you need a pressure difference to overcome the pressure losses of the combined radiator, inlet, outlet an channels to get the desired air flow velocity through the radiator fins.

The heat exhanger-to-air heat exchange has a relationship to the flow velocity. It needs to be perfectly balanced with the medium-to-heat exchanger heat exchange.

After a season of running the car, they probably learned more about the cooling optimum and shuffled the parameters around to get smaller exchangers that are more effcient or have less headroom that they didn't use in '22.

A big inlet reduces the pressure losses a bit and gains ram pressure to push the air in. So it may be that the effeciency of the radiators and or internal ducting is improved or they achieved better suction at the outlet.

It might even be they figured out a way to run the engine a bit hotter, as hotter engines are easier to cool.

Conrary to what most report, the sidepod inlets are modified. If you look closely, they are even modified quite a bit. It could well be that the have more stagnation pressure at the inlet, which benefits both cooling and front wheel wake management. I think this is one of the great tricks of the RB. The downwashing sidepods are very good at recovering air speed (energy) from static pressure. RB can afford big stagnation pressures as their sidepods recover much of the associated losses. As someone posted before; getting that static pressure over the top of the sidepod (I imagine that's the reason behind the elongated lower lip of the sidepod inlet, actually creates both downforce as well as some thrust (which is the recovery of the stagnation energy lost)

[organic]

Conrary to what most report, the sidepod inlets are modified. If you look closely, they are even modified quite a bit.

Could you highlight where the rb19 sidepod inlets are different to the RB18? Size? Shape? I just can't see it in any comparable photos

RB19:



Rb18:



Looking at only the sidepod inlet and the mirror support ( ie the outwashing deflector), I just don't see a difference

[Henk_v]

Look at the side-by-sides from the race. The lower lip extension is different (less extended at the cockpit side), the place where the top lip of the inlet intersects with the cockpit top is different and the intersection of the vertical lip/extended mirror stay to the narrower sidepod inlet is different. Hard to see if the width has changed, and unsure if the height has been reduced a bit.

But maybe I' tricked by lighting. Just seems quite different to me.

[organic]

Look at the side-by-sides from the race. The lower lip extension is different (less extended at the cockpit side), the place where the top lip of the inlet intersects with the cockpit top is different and the intersection of the vertical lip/extended mirror stay to the narrower sidepod inlet is different. Hard to see if the width has changed, and unsure if the height has been reduced a bit.

How it connects to the chassis is of course going to be new since the chassis changes.. and they've carried over so many components it should be no surprise if they have modified one more. To me the actual sidepod scoop looks to be the same

Can you link to the race comparison and highlight what differences you're describing? Sometimes it's not clear with words

I don't know whether either of us is correct and I'm just looking forward to finding out if it IS a new spec scoop. If it is then it's unlikely we'll see a new one soon so it would be nice to know. Is good to be wrong sometimes I often am

[organic]

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... rain-2023/

RB19 low in the stern
But none of these design features aroused the suspicion of the competition as contributing significantly to Red Bull's fast lap times. They are the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle in a large package that, taken together, delivers the best aerodynamic efficiency and minimizes losses through the raised underbody edges. Adrian Newey was never bothered by this rule change, which was announced at short notice by the FIA. Ferrari tried to prevent them. That certainly had its reasons.

And yet this Red Bull carries a secret that cannot be seen with the naked eye. The opposing teams have the opportunity to uncover even the finest differences with their measuring methods. And one such is the ground clearance. "Red Bull has fallen from one extreme to the other. Last year it was the car that was highest at the back. Now it's the lowest at the rear axle," says Mercedes technical director Mike Elliott. You want to have recognized that the ground clearance is at least ten millimeters below all others.

Watching Perez's lap off-board confirms this





Car was quite happy like this, even with the bumps

Drivers who have followed the RB19 around the track reported that Verstappen and Perez were able to step on the gas much earlier than themselves. "The traction is breathtaking," confirms Wolff.

[Vanja #66]

The ability to go that low is amazing, Merc must be quite jealous. Interesting thing they chose to run different rear ride height, could the car get worse in low-speed corners than RB18?

Also completely different philosophy to combating bouncing than RB18, having no ice-skates...

Anyway, RB19 is 100% ready for the season, others have to hope to catchup soon and have more performance left to grab than RB does.

[etusch]

"Red Bull has fallen from one extreme to the other. Last year it was the car that was highest at the back. Now it's the lowest at the rear axle," says Mercedes technical director Mike Elliott. You want to have recognized that the ground clearance is at least ten millimeters below all others.

Drivers who have followed the RB19 around the track reported that Verstappen and Perez were able to step on the gas much earlier than themselves. "The traction is breathtaking," confirms Wolff.

When asked everyone says "we are concentrated ourself" but in reality everyone analise rivals.

[AR3-GP]

"Red Bull has fallen from one extreme to the other. Last year it was the car that was highest at the back. Now it's the lowest at the rear axle," says Mercedes technical director Mike Elliott. You want to have recognized that the ground clearance is at least ten millimeters below all others.

Drivers who have followed the RB19 around the track reported that Verstappen and Perez were able to step on the gas much earlier than themselves. "The traction is breathtaking," confirms Wolff.

When asked everyone says "we are concentrated ourself" but in reality everyone analise rivals.

Are you surprised

[Henk_v]

Can you link to the race comparison and highlight what differences you're describing? Sometimes it's not clear with words

Wish I could!

I thought is was quote obvious

[AR3-GP]

The ability to go that low is amazing, Merc must be quite jealous. Interesting thing they chose to run different rear ride height, could the car get worse in low-speed corners than RB18?

Judging by Toto's Wolffs "breathtaking traction" comment, I doubt it..but then again, he's always been one for political theater...

[organic]

New louvre panels on the top of the sidepod

What I am most interested in is that they experimented with asymmetrical louvre layout, with the sidepod louvres only open on one side.



Mark Sutton | Motorsport Images

Why might they do this? They want more cooling performance than if they were both closed off, but not enough that they want both open? And the cost cap era means you can't develop a middling solution?

[AR3-GP]

New louvre panels on the top of the sidepod

What I am most interested in is that they experimented with asymmetrical louvre layout, with the sidepod louvres only open on one side.

https://i.imgur.com/BvL94uA.jpeg

Mark Sutton | Motorsport Images

Why might they do this? They want more cooling performance than if they were both closed off, but not enough that they want both open? And the cost cap era means you can't develop a middling solution?

The number of radiators on each side of the car isn't necessarily the same. There is sometimes an asymmetry related to engine oiler cooler, transmission oil cooler, and I believe the MGU-K even has a liquid and/or oil cooler.

[ringo]

May well be to collect data on both solutions at the same time in the same conditions.

About the suspension and just looking at how the car squats down at the rear. Could the geometry be design in such a way that at very low ride heights the car is riding on the resistance of the control arms more than the springs?
The control arm compliance front and rear is a very sure and solid way of holding the chassis just above the road, while being able to have relatively softer springs be more prominent at higher rides as the body comes up.
Even looking at the leaf spring like design of the front suspension, looking from the front view, indicates some kind of high load resistance built into the geometry.

Redbull have been best at coupling the aero load and speed and attitude characteristics with the suspension's load, displacement and attitude characteristics.


A very impactful image!

[Cs98]

Low df RW modified from last year's Saudi/spa/Monza spec. Presumably getting it ready for Saudi. It has been strengthened at the end of the flaps and a stopper has been added to prevent over-extension of the DRS (presumably to prevent the drs problems of the past)

https://i.imgur.com/xORaMcC.jpeg

Motorsport.com

Definitely not. That is a medium downforce wing, which with a gurney flap and strong choice of beam wing operates like a medium-high DF setup. The Spa/Monza/SA wing (upper pic) had a much smaller main plane.
https://www.formula1.com/content/dam/fo ... /image.jpg

If that is a medium downforce wing, then it would seem like Red Bull have moved from 3 wings in 2022 to 4 wings in 2023.

1) Low
2) Medium-1
3) Medium-2
4) High



https://i.postimg.cc/6qphGkHb/image.png

Yes. Though the other wing they ran in Bahrain which is a true medium-high wing. Then there's the medium-low spec, and a high spec. Both of which were run last season. This season I expect them to introduce a true low DF wing, for Monza and likely Vegas.

[etusch]

New louvre panels on the top of the sidepod

What I am most interested in is that they experimented with asymmetrical louvre layout, with the sidepod louvres only open on one side.

https://i.imgur.com/BvL94uA.jpeg

Mark Sutton | Motorsport Images

Why might they do this? They want more cooling performance than if they were both closed off, but not enough that they want both open? And the cost cap era means you can't develop a middling solution?

Can it be removable and changeable parts (including up side of main cooling inlet of sidepods). Can it be changed according to cooling demand and direction of track.