2023 Oracle Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[dialtone]

The TD is focused around aero and singapore is one of the least aero dependant tracks. Its heavily suspension focused. The directives had nothing to do with redbull's poor performance, they themselves expected to be bad here.

big over simplification. One piece of it had to do with floors dampening impact via use of rubber/plastic materials in the right places.

Also being good/bad at a track is very different than being out in q2 for a car that won hungary and baku by ridiculous margins. They'll be back ahead next race but the gap is heavily reduced.

It's also an oversimplification to say, "use of rubber/plastic materials in the right places" without suggesting how such a mechanism would function.

How can anyone here possibly know how that worked for RBR when FIA allowed secrecy?

[pantherxxx]

I wouldn't worry about Red Bull too much. This must be a track specific issue. In Japan Max will win as usual, and tomorrow I expect a podium at least, because Red Bull's race pace is significantly better than their qualy pace.

[dans79]

@AR3-GP

The floor updates are mentioned in here.
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... nterboden/

On August 22nd, the teams received mail from Formula 1 Technical Director Tim Goss. The former McLaren engineer sent out two technical directives that have existed for a long time, but have to be modified again and again because teams keep finding new ways to outsmart the regulations.

The TD018 deals with the flexibility of fairing parts on three sides. It comes into force in Singapore. TD039 defines the rules for the floor panel fastenings and the aerodynamically generated rocking of the cars.

For example, with an insulating material between the chassis and the base plate that softens the shocks. Or fastening screws that protrude slightly and disappear into the plank when they come into contact with the road, thus also having a dampening effect.

The TD039 put an end to that. A year has now passed and the teams have already discovered new loopholes. The newly added paragraph 1.3 is now intended to fill this in as well.

The text reads in official English: "We have noticed design details in the intended holes in the underbody skid area that are designed to maximize the allowable stiffness in these areas. While these designs may meet the deflection requirements, we would like the teams to do so Remember that designs must still conform to the dimensional constraints of the corresponding trim parts, which state that there must be a continuous surface on the reference plane. Designs must not use breaks in this surface to allow for differences in vertical stiffness at these break points ."

[vorticism]

big over simplification. One piece of it had to do with floors dampening impact via use of rubber/plastic materials in the right places.

Also being good/bad at a track is very different than being out in q2 for a car that won hungary and baku by ridiculous margins. They'll be back ahead next race but the gap is heavily reduced.

It's also an oversimplification to say, "use of rubber/plastic materials in the right places" without suggesting how such a mechanism would function.

How can anyone here possibly know how that worked for RBR when FIA allowed secrecy?

So you admit it was an oversimplification and you are engaging in speculation. You offered it as a rebuttal to the following claim (below) yet now step away from defending it.

The TD is focused around aero and singapore is one of the least aero dependant tracks. Its heavily suspension focused. The directives had nothing to do with redbull's poor performance, they themselves expected to be bad here.

[AR3-GP]

The drivers would need to recalibrate what they expect under braking and turning so i think they did what they could. The car went from dominant and telepathic to unpredictable. It's shocking as Max said. The drivers would have zero confidence. Puts perspective on those other guys driving the dogs.

Do you think the other teams have made a mistake trying to copy the RB?

That's a huge problem. Copying a car that needs flexing to work.
Mclaren seem to hav found a nice middle ground. Ferrari will need to scrap the 2024 redbull copy.

Do you think the others will regret all of the time they spent dissecting the Perez files?

I wonder if RB have a completely different car planned for next season.

oh come on Ringo, you know I'm talking nonsense

[dialtone]

It's also an oversimplification to say, "use of rubber/plastic materials in the right places" without suggesting how such a mechanism would function.

How can anyone here possibly know how that worked for RBR when FIA allowed secrecy?

So you admit it was an oversimplification and you are engaging in speculation. You offered it as a rebuttal to the following claim (below) yet now step away from defending it.

The TD is focused around aero and singapore is one of the least aero dependant tracks. Its heavily suspension focused. The directives had nothing to do with redbull's poor performance, they themselves expected to be bad here.

Not at all... OP says the only effect was aero. TD39 specifically references too much dampening coming from floors. You somehow think I need to have the exact design from RedBull to know that having extra dampening on the floor is likely to help the car when it bottoms out under heavy braking (what Max said).

My statement doesn't require the same precision as one that says for sure neither TD18 nor TD39 impacted behavior of the car under braking.

I stand by my statement. TD18 and TD39 did a number on RBR, also as I wrote, they'll be back in front next race because their race pace is still the best one, but the gap is heavily reduced.

[vorticism]

dialtone, how would such a device work? I want to hear what the underpinnings of muh rubber hypothesis are.

[dialtone]

dialtone, how would such a device work? I want to hear what the underpinnings of muh rubber hypothesis are.

Ask FIA, they know and allowed the teams not to reveal what they were doing.

[vorticism]

So, just like oil burning, then. And fuel flow and battery tricks. And last years floor rule change. And many others I'm sure.

All told, still no attempt to describe muh rubber hypothesis.

[dialtone]

So, just like oil burning, then.

Or Ferrari's fuel system.

They mentioned what they did in the TD39 update, some teams have floors made of multiple pieces that have relative movement and aren't a solid piece but have holes that allow for vertical compliance.

That's pretty much all the TD says. Now we can talk about whether this applied or not to RBR, but the performance and the bottoming out issues under braking cannot possibly rule out impact.

Then add the top speed (with DRS in particular) performance post TD18 and even there it's hard to rule out.

It's clear RBR is still the better car, just look at the last corner in singapore, they'll be back on top next race, but it's also very very likely to me that they were impacted by these TDs.

[ME4ME]

I wouldn't be all too surpised if Red Bull put both Max and Checo on Max's FP3 setup and start them from the pitlane. Currently they don't have a car to go forward in the pecking order, they can't overtake with a bottoming-out car and they're at risk of outbraking or crashing themselves.

Add Max his potential penalties and its a done deal. Gamble on starting on the softs and try to pass the slow cars, then hope for a SC and go onto the mediums which seem the optimal tire for the RB19.

[chrisc90]

So, just like oil burning, then.

Or Ferrari's fuel system.

They mentioned what they did in the TD39 update, some teams have floors made of multiple pieces that have relative movement and aren't a solid piece but have holes that allow for vertical compliance.

That's pretty much all the TD says. Now we can talk about whether this applied or not to RBR, but the performance and the bottoming out issues under braking cannot possibly rule out impact.

Then add the top speed (with DRS in particular) performance post TD18 and even there it's hard to rule out.

It's clear RBR is still the better car, just look at the last corner in singapore, they'll be back on top next race, but it's also very very likely to me that they were impacted by these TDs.

RB were running a single panel plank in Monza when we got to see 'la derriere' of Perez car when he went on in FP.

Therefore, I can see no 'foul play' in having a plank of 2 or 3 pieces moving independently.



https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https% ... yhplb1.jpg

(click link and you can zoom in nicely)

[Juzh]

Ver interview
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/vide ... 19316.html

Went too aggressive from fp3 -> Q and made a mess of it so couldn't brake hard into braking zones. Any clue what he means by overly aggressive? Too low ground clearance?
Plays down race pace as well.

Pitlane start makes a lot of sense all things considered. Pile up components and change setup.

In other news Perez' spin was down to a strange engine lag that suddenly came back and he wasn't ready for it.

[chrisc90]

P11 tomorrow so I guess it doesnt make much sense to start from the pits or take extra components.

[Wouter]