2023 Oracle Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[Bill]

they is no such thing as Newey car you guys make up nonsense.cars changed from regulation to regulation ,the blown diffuser cars of 09 are completely different from today hybrid ground effect cars .quite frankly the car became a little different everytime a team put in a new update.

Newey cars all have prodigious rear downforce. There was never one without. Check back his leyton house rear from late eighties:

https://www.silverstoneauctions.com/ass ... 35-2_7.jpg

Good picture there....look at rear details, shelf coming off engine cover, not too large diffuser exit (exhaust blown I think) also fairly important clearance of tire squirt through half tunnels between wheel and diffuser wall !!!

This here illustrates what's important about current RB, there's a lot of air volume on both that's coming direct from outside wall of sidepod area to make virtual tunnel between wheel and diffuser, all of this while working the floor in a consistent state to give platform linearity to drivers.

There's so much experience over so many years in vehicle aero embedded in these car. AN said himself that the Williams was effectively this car with development (held in his head) after the failure of Leyton House team.

And journalists currently wonder why he comes up with these things, very long term and deep experience will drive that.

Newey has his success and failures in f1 prodigious downforce is not what make an f1 car fast unless you are in monaco ,efficient downforce is the holygrail on f1 success

[Big Tea]

I think Newey also wins out by being a 'dictator in the design office'. I have read several reports of designers claiming they were told they can not do 'that' as it interferes with his design, and I seriously doubt this would be the case in any other team (of today), and even if it is not a benefit of its self it at least simplifies things if one person has control over the whole package rather than design by committee which takes longer to sort out the conflicts than it does to produce.

[Just_a_fan]

Newey cars all have prodigious rear downforce. There was never one without. Check back his leyton house rear from late eighties:

https://www.silverstoneauctions.com/ass ... 35-2_7.jpg

Good picture there....look at rear details, shelf coming off engine cover, not too large diffuser exit (exhaust blown I think) also fairly important clearance of tire squirt through half tunnels between wheel and diffuser wall !!!

This here illustrates what's important about current RB, there's a lot of air volume on both that's coming direct from outside wall of sidepod area to make virtual tunnel between wheel and diffuser, all of this while working the floor in a consistent state to give platform linearity to drivers.

There's so much experience over so many years in vehicle aero embedded in these car. AN said himself that the Williams was effectively this car with development (held in his head) after the failure of Leyton House team.

And journalists currently wonder why he comes up with these things, very long term and deep experience will drive that.

Newey has his success and failures in f1 prodigious downforce is not what make an f1 car fast unless you are in monaco ,efficient downforce is the holygrail on f1 success

And indeed whilst the March 881 (the car pictured) was reasonably successful, the following year's car - the March CG891 - wasn't. It was unreliable and not that competitive. So Newey's first car (the 881) was good, the next one wasn't. He was fired by March and ended up working with Head at Williams. That was the move that cemented his reputation. Patrick Head was a great TD and led a great team that included Newey, Lowe, Hamidy and others.

[Bill]

I think Newey also wins out by being a 'dictator in the design office'. I have read several reports of designers claiming they were told they can not do 'that' as it interferes with his design, and I seriously doubt this would be the case in any other team (of today), and even if it is not a benefit of its self it at least simplifies things if one person has control over the whole package rather than design by committee which takes longer to sort out the conflicts than it does to produce.

these is what a technical director does. they is always an infinity of ideas but limited budget and time so you need someone with the right instincts experience and authority to lead the pack to the right direction.these is what yasuaki did for the Honda pu project ,he canned some pie in the sky ideas and just focused the team

[mendis]

I think Newey also wins out by being a 'dictator in the design office'. I have read several reports of designers claiming they were told they can not do 'that' as it interferes with his design, and I seriously doubt this would be the case in any other team (of today), and even if it is not a benefit of its self it at least simplifies things if one person has control over the whole package rather than design by committee which takes longer to sort out the conflicts than it does to produce.

When making such statements, corroborate with some source. Here's what is completely opposite of what you are claiming. This is Dan Fallows.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fallo ... /10434755/

Fallows reckons it was Newey’s mindset in not believing that he had the answers to everything that was central to him adapting so well to the changing nature of F1.

"He’s very open to being told about things that he’s stipulated or things that he’s suggested that then haven't worked or there are better ideas out there. And that’s almost irrespective of where those comments come from."

Fallow said the trait of listening to others for input was something that he has tried to instil in both himself and those he has worked with.

"I think that’s something I definitely try to bring into my own work," he said.

"What I very much encourage a lot of the technical team to do is to be open-minded, even if you have very clear visions about how you want to develop things or very clear ideas about the car.

"Make sure you’re not technically arrogant about it. If somebody does suggest something better, be open-minded, irrespective of who they are. I think that’s one of his [Newey’s] great strengths, and hopefully I’ve sort of carried that on."

It is very unfortunate when people propagate falsehood under the garb of "reports" and "sources" without actually quoting anything, from the last few pages on this thread. If it's just personal opinion, then one can get away but.

[Bill]

I think Newey also wins out by being a 'dictator in the design office'. I have read several reports of designers claiming they were told they can not do 'that' as it interferes with his design, and I seriously doubt this would be the case in any other team (of today), and even if it is not a benefit of its self it at least simplifies things if one person has control over the whole package rather than design by committee which takes longer to sort out the conflicts than it does to produce.

When making such statements, corroborate with some source. Here's what is completely opposite of what you are claiming. This is Dan Fallows.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fallo ... /10434755/

Fallows reckons it was Newey’s mindset in not believing that he had the answers to everything that was central to him adapting so well to the changing nature of F1.

"He’s very open to being told about things that he’s stipulated or things that he’s suggested that then haven't worked or there are better ideas out there. And that’s almost irrespective of where those comments come from."

Fallow said the trait of listening to others for input was something that he has tried to instil in both himself and those he has worked with.

"I think that’s something I definitely try to bring into my own work," he said.

"What I very much encourage a lot of the technical team to do is to be open-minded, even if you have very clear visions about how you want to develop things or very clear ideas about the car.

"Make sure you’re not technically arrogant about it. If somebody does suggest something better, be open-minded, irrespective of who they are. I think that’s one of his [Newey’s] great strengths, and hopefully I’ve sort of carried that on."

It is very unfortunate when people propagate falsehood under the garb of "reports" and "sources" without actually quoting anything, from the last few pages on this thread. If it's just personal opinion, then one can get away but.

an interview of Newey was posted here recently and he gave insight into his work methodology .you should not take the word dictator literally i just think it meant he is the boss and have final say

[Bill]

I think Newey also wins out by being a 'dictator in the design office'. I have read several reports of designers claiming they were told they can not do 'that' as it interferes with his design, and I seriously doubt this would be the case in any other team (of today), and even if it is not a benefit of its self it at least simplifies things if one person has control over the whole package rather than design by committee which takes longer to sort out the conflicts than it does to produce.

When making such statements, corroborate with some source. Here's what is completely opposite of what you are claiming. This is Dan Fallows.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fallo ... /10434755/

Fallows reckons it was Newey’s mindset in not believing that he had the answers to everything that was central to him adapting so well to the changing nature of F1.

"He’s very open to being told about things that he’s stipulated or things that he’s suggested that then haven't worked or there are better ideas out there. And that’s almost irrespective of where those comments come from."

Fallow said the trait of listening to others for input was something that he has tried to instil in both himself and those he has worked with.

"I think that’s something I definitely try to bring into my own work," he said.

"What I very much encourage a lot of the technical team to do is to be open-minded, even if you have very clear visions about how you want to develop things or very clear ideas about the car.

"Make sure you’re not technically arrogant about it. If somebody does suggest something better, be open-minded, irrespective of who they are. I think that’s one of his [Newey’s] great strengths, and hopefully I’ve sort of carried that on."

It is very unfortunate when people propagate falsehood under the garb of "reports" and "sources" without actually quoting anything, from the last few pages on this thread. If it's just personal opinion, then one can get away but.

an interview of Newey was posted here recently and he gave insight into his work methodology .you should not take the word dictator literally i just think it meant he is the boss and have final say

[Big Tea]

I think Newey also wins out by being a 'dictator in the design office'. I have read several reports of designers claiming they were told they can not do 'that' as it interferes with his design, and I seriously doubt this would be the case in any other team (of today), and even if it is not a benefit of its self it at least simplifies things if one person has control over the whole package rather than design by committee which takes longer to sort out the conflicts than it does to produce.

When making such statements, corroborate with some source. Here's what is completely opposite of what you are claiming. This is Dan Fallows.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fallo ... /10434755/

Fallows reckons it was Newey’s mindset in not believing that he had the answers to everything that was central to him adapting so well to the changing nature of F1.

"He’s very open to being told about things that he’s stipulated or things that he’s suggested that then haven't worked or there are better ideas out there. And that’s almost irrespective of where those comments come from."

Fallow said the trait of listening to others for input was something that he has tried to instil in both himself and those he has worked with.

"I think that’s something I definitely try to bring into my own work," he said.

"What I very much encourage a lot of the technical team to do is to be open-minded, even if you have very clear visions about how you want to develop things or very clear ideas about the car.

"Make sure you’re not technically arrogant about it. If somebody does suggest something better, be open-minded, irrespective of who they are. I think that’s one of his [Newey’s] great strengths, and hopefully I’ve sort of carried that on."

It is very unfortunate when people propagate falsehood under the garb of "reports" and "sources" without actually quoting anything, from the last few pages on this thread. If it's just personal opinion, then one can get away but.

I began with the words 'I THINK', if you disagree that's fine its my view not a court case.

[mendis]

I think Newey also wins out by being a 'dictator in the design office'. I have read several reports of designers claiming they were told they can not do 'that' as it interferes with his design, and I seriously doubt this would be the case in any other team (of today), and even if it is not a benefit of its self it at least simplifies things if one person has control over the whole package rather than design by committee which takes longer to sort out the conflicts than it does to produce.

When making such statements, corroborate with some source. Here's what is completely opposite of what you are claiming. This is Dan Fallows.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fallo ... /10434755/

Fallows reckons it was Newey’s mindset in not believing that he had the answers to everything that was central to him adapting so well to the changing nature of F1.

"He’s very open to being told about things that he’s stipulated or things that he’s suggested that then haven't worked or there are better ideas out there. And that’s almost irrespective of where those comments come from."

Fallow said the trait of listening to others for input was something that he has tried to instil in both himself and those he has worked with.

"I think that’s something I definitely try to bring into my own work," he said.

"What I very much encourage a lot of the technical team to do is to be open-minded, even if you have very clear visions about how you want to develop things or very clear ideas about the car.

"Make sure you’re not technically arrogant about it. If somebody does suggest something better, be open-minded, irrespective of who they are. I think that’s one of his [Newey’s] great strengths, and hopefully I’ve sort of carried that on."

It is very unfortunate when people propagate falsehood under the garb of "reports" and "sources" without actually quoting anything, from the last few pages on this thread. If it's just personal opinion, then one can get away but.

I began with the words 'I THINK', if you disagree that's fine its my view not a court case.

Fair enough. I was referring to the part where it said "several reports" of designers claiming they had a overriding experiences.

[Big Tea]

When making such statements, corroborate with some source. Here's what is completely opposite of what you are claiming. This is Dan Fallows.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fallo ... /10434755/



It is very unfortunate when people propagate falsehood under the garb of "reports" and "sources" without actually quoting anything, from the last few pages on this thread. If it's just personal opinion, then one can get away but.

I began with the words 'I THINK', if you disagree that's fine its my view not a court case.

Fair enough. I was referring to the part where it said "several reports" of designers claiming they had a overriding experiences.

I have heard them, but can not recall where, so will not push it. I think (again I think) it was Williams where he insisted they move the gearbox location as it interfered with his design. Not slagging him, his job is to make it the best he can and it things get in the way, he should look at either an alternative to his part or tat of the 'other' part, and on past results it seems to be beneficial to follow his plan.

[organic]

Looks like checo and max may have different wing levels on the cars for fp1 again after it previously happened in canada. Medium df for Checo and high df for Max I believe

[AR3-GP]

Looks like checo and max may have different wing levels on the cars for fp1 again. Medium for checo and high for max I think

Interesting. It sounds like the simulator predictions are too close. I think it would be logical to go with the high downforce spec. There are 3 DRS zones here and a threat of rain.

[organic]

Looks like checo and max may have different wing levels on the cars for fp1 again. Medium for checo and high for max I think

Interesting. It sounds like the simulator predictions are too close. I think it would be logical to go with the high downforce spec. There are 3 DRS zones here and a threat of rain.

Yep when RB are in situation with large margin to field you can give up some pure performance to make car better in rain or to protect from certain SC/VSC situations.

The 1-stopper was also marginal here last year (Leclerc managed it whilst others two stopped). May be advantageous to have greater rear df to protect tyres and have the option of a 1-stop.

Even if on paper slower than medium df the high df seems like a good option to me.

So far compared to rb18, the rb19 is way happier with the higher downforce setups. I remember even at zandvoort last year the car still was not good with the high df wing and the medium wing was chosen whilst everyone else was running high df.

[mzso]

And indeed whilst the March 881 (the car pictured) was reasonably successful, the following year's car - the March CG891 - wasn't. It was unreliable and not that competitive. So Newey's first car (the 881) was good, the next one wasn't. He was fired by March and ended up working with Head at Williams. That was the move that cemented his reputation. Patrick Head was a great TD and led a great team that included Newey, Lowe, Hamidy and others.

Ummm. Leyton-House is written on the car.

[Just_a_fan]

And indeed whilst the March 881 (the car pictured) was reasonably successful, the following year's car - the March CG891 - wasn't. It was unreliable and not that competitive. So Newey's first car (the 881) was good, the next one wasn't. He was fired by March and ended up working with Head at Williams. That was the move that cemented his reputation. Patrick Head was a great TD and led a great team that included Newey, Lowe, Hamidy and others.

Ummm. Leyton-House is written on the car.

Leyton House was the sponsor. The car's manufacturer was March. So called because the principles were Max Mosely, Alan Rees, Graham Croaker, Robin Herd.
Sorry if that is a surprise to you. But the name on the side doesn't mean much, historically.

Mod edit - unnecessary jibe removed