2023 Oracle Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[organic]

Pierre Waché on the DRS:

Basically: there's no trick, nobody understands it yet, and we are surprised that it is taking others this long

Rival teams have begun trying to develop their single-seaters in the direction taken by Red Bull, but they accept that reducing beam wings is complicated because of the amount of downforce they provide to help stabilize the rear end.

Red Bull's technical director, Pierre Wache, says there is no deep secret in what his team has done, and that it is surprising that rivals have taken so long to figure out something that, instead, his team has been doing since the start of the current ground-effect era.

"The crazy thing is that people are talking about it two years after we introduced it," Wache told Motorsport.com. "We had hundreds of tests by the FIA to see if we had used a trick or whatever, and people [even recently] don't understand why on high downforce tracks the advantage disappears. Okay, that means they haven't been able to figure it out yet. And that surprises us a lot."

Speaking about this advantage realized and maintained by Red Bull was, in an accomplished manner, Andrea Stella. The McLaren team principal pointed out that, in high probability, this advantage of the Milton Keynes team will remain for some time to come.

"They seem to have been pursuing their concept for quite some time. I think they are taking advantage of the experience they have gained in developing this configuration, and I think that has become evident as time has gone on."

"I think all the teams are now trying to understand what can be exploited by developing the same style, the same kind of direction introduced [by Red Bull]."

[dans79]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F3GuD4vXoAQ ... name=small
Red Bull Showrun will happen in front of the United Center. Madison Street and the surrounding parking lots will be transformed into a closed circuit spanning over 2,000 ft. Reference the map for more details.

Just don't go wondering off, as areas around the United Center aren't overly safe, specially at night!

[AR3-GP]

We've had hundreds of tests by the FIA ​​to see if we've used a trick or something

I have no doubt...

[AR3-GP]

edit: the technical thread is locked

and people [even recently] don't understand why on high-downforce tracks the advantage disappears."

My guess is the high downforce wings (beam wing and rear wing) likely are not able to shed enough of the low pressure at the back of the car when DRS is opened, to enable the floor to stall. With the medium and low downforce wings, there's less low pressure at the back of the car, meaning that the actuation of the DRS flap passes over the critical point after which the floor begins to stall.


This is a simplified depiction of that model and why the advantage goes away in high downforce trim. Assume you have a high, medium, and low downforce package. The DRS in the high downforce package is not able to reduce the DF coming from the beam wing and the rear wing sufficiently enough to cause the floor to stall.





Ferrari seems to have imitated this to a certain extent. They can miss between 1-5km/h from track to track with their various rear downforce configurations but we saw in Spa that the Ferrari was only missing about 1-2km/h in DRS on-off comparisons.

[organic]

IIRC RB ran a low BW with high DF RW at Mexico in 2022 so that might be an interesting data point @AR3

[AR3-GP]

IIRC RB ran a low BW with high DF RW at Mexico in 2022 so that might be an interesting data point @AR3

I could be more thorough eventually, but I did a quick skim through f1-tempo. Rb was gaining +27kmh w/ the DRS in Mexico City last year compared to +23 km/h for the Mercedes in it's high downforce trim.

In the '23 Hungarian GP high downforce trims, RB gained only +15km/h and Mercedes also gained +15km/h from DRS. As Hamilton pointed out, the advantage really didn't exist at all that weekend.

There is a potentially outlying factor in that the lower air density in Mexico. 25% less air density translates to 25% less downforce from the same wings. This factor in addition to the low-load beam wing for Mexico could have pushed the load (and pressure) at the back of the car down into the range where DRS was capable of causing the floor to stall.

Just a theory. It would make sense with the way that Wache has been describing the effectiveness of their DRS, saying it's linked to the floor and why it wouldn't work in the max downforce rear setting.

[Big Tea]

When the reason for disallowing some paths is said to be to prevent an 'arms race', should this still be valid with the cost cap?
Surely it should be up to the teams themselves to decide if they wish to pursue that line or use the money somewhere else?
We could well see a development that makes such a huge difference that 'everyone has to have it', then thats fine, they all work with the same cap.
It could even be beneficial for the smaller teams to go this path anyway as they would know that they would have a year before the big teams can develop the 'thing', and then it would be a choice of follow on or look else where.

We could even maybe see differences in the cars and performance.

[AR3-GP]

When the reason for disallowing some paths is said to be to prevent an 'arms race', should this still be valid with the cost cap?
Surely it should be up to the teams themselves to decide if they wish to pursue that line or use the money somewhere else?

It could lead to too much divergence in design, which could lead to even bigger divergence in performance.

[Zynerji]

When the reason for disallowing some paths is said to be to prevent an 'arms race', should this still be valid with the cost cap?
Surely it should be up to the teams themselves to decide if they wish to pursue that line or use the money somewhere else?

It could lead to too much divergence in design, which could lead to even bigger divergence in performance.

I'm sick of F1 "trying" to do anything.

Set self-balancing rules, and simply OBSERVE!

[Big Tea]

When the reason for disallowing some paths is said to be to prevent an 'arms race', should this still be valid with the cost cap?
Surely it should be up to the teams themselves to decide if they wish to pursue that line or use the money somewhere else?

It could lead to too much divergence in design, which could lead to even bigger divergence in performance.

Any divergence would have to be the spending power of a year or probably not more than two, so it would not be like it was at one time where just throwing money at several things and picking the one that works was viable.

They would all have to fit within the current rule set so they could not really be THAT far apart, however, if some cars did run under a completely different ethos to others, I for one would find it very interesting.
For instance a car with super high speed in corners and drag or power limited in high speed line or super accelerate and retard ( not likely as there would be a human on board ) would be really interesting, as would a car that was not as good on new tyres as others but with very small degradation and getting to the front in the last lap would keep the interest.

As I say though, all under the same rule set. Not SO many years ago there was an option of a normally asperated engine or a turbo of half the capacity. It took a real outlier from Renault to make the jump, but look where we are today from that.

[Wouter]

A very long interview with Raymond Vermeulen, the manager of Max.

Dutch version: https://www.formule1.nl/nieuws/mannen-a ... vermeulen/

English version by GT: https://www-formule1-nl.translate.goog/ ... r_pto=wapp

[Wouter]

Dr. Helmut Marko im Interview

"What actually makes RBR so strong?"

"Have you had any feedback regarding the budget cap?

One can choose subtitles in one's own language.

[Juzh]

Dr. Helmut Marko im Interview

"What actually makes RBR so strong?"

"Have you had any feedback regarding the budget cap?

One can choose subtitles in one's own language.

auto translation is terrible, any native speaker who can summarise it real quick if there's anything of interest in there?

[Wouter]

Dr. Helmut Marko im Interview

"What actually makes RBR so strong?"

"Have you had any feedback regarding the budget cap?

One can choose subtitles in one's own language.

.
auto translation is terrible, any native speaker who can summarise it real quick if there's anything of interest in there?

.
There are several interesting things in it but to summarise that briefly, I have to go and watch it again for half an hour
and also write down the necessary things, while the English translation is reasonably easy to follow.
At least good enough to read the important stuff. I will see, maybe tomorrow.

[Wouter]

Marko: Red Bull's engine for 2026 "miles ahead" for Ferrari and Audi

Helmut Marko assures that Red Bull has no problems with its own engine program and that that is therefore
not the reason that there is much resistance to the new regulations.

Mercedes team boss Toto Wolff even expressed suspicion that Red Bull was publicly opposed to the regulations because they were behind with their own engine range. From 2026, the bulls will compete with their own motorcycle for the first time.

In an exclusive interview with 'Motorsport-Total.com', Helmut Marko now makes it clear that this claim is nonsense. "I don't think we are technically behind. We have people from Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault and Cosworth [for the engine department]," emphasizes the Austrian.

Regarding the current development status of the 2026 engine, he also reveals: “Another complete combustion engine with MGU-K and battery will be running in August. We are miles ahead of Audi, we are miles ahead of Ferrari and Mercedes is almost on top of it. "

The criticism of the regulations has nothing to do with their own problems. On the contrary, Marko explains: "Formula 1 is ultimately a show. We have to offer something to the public. It cannot be that we have to switch back on the straights in Monza. There is a certain discrepancy."

Here too, however, opinions differ. While Toto Wolff believes there is "not really any fear" that the drivers will really have to downshift on the straights in 2026 as their hybrid power runs out, Marko apparently has other information.

"According to the current state of the art, it is," he claims, explaining: "Every car manufacturer says that in three years the battery will be half the weight and double the range. But that's not a fact." That is why we need to rethink the separation between combustion engine and electric motor.

It is currently planned that both will each contribute 50 percent of the total production. But Makro emphasizes: "You would compensate for that with seven or ten percent less electrical system performance. We have e-fuels. We could switch the internal combustion engine to 60:40."

And the Austrian sees another problem if so much power has to come out of the electrical part of the drive unit: "The weight is a safety risk. The accident in Silverstone that Max [Verstappen] had in 2021 could end very differently with such a heavy battery." ."

"A battery always carries certain risks. We already have cars that are close to sports car level in terms of weight and dimensions. But the circuits remain the same. We should make them all one meter wider to allow the development of the cars." , he emphasizes.

"We have to start there. The cars have to become lighter and smaller again," says Marko. But that is not possible with the planned regulations. "If you then need 30 liters of fuel just to charge the battery, then something is wrong in terms of approach," says Marko.

"The fact that you then have to slim down the car aerodynamically so that it no longer has air resistance means that the effect of the slipstream is lost," he fears and interestingly reveals: "There are brands that have the same concerns."

The whole German interview from this morning on MST.