RB20 speculation

[OnEcRiTiCaL]

Should knock the RB19 up with some zeropods and launch that

Sidepods in Formula 1 cars play a crucial role in aerodynamics. Without sidepods no Aerodynamics.I mean
sidepods manage airflow around the car, REDUCING DRAG and improving overall downforce. They just would be slow in corners.

[organic]

Should knock the RB19 up with some zeropods and launch that

Sidepods in Formula 1 cars play a crucial role in aerodynamics. Without sidepods no Aerodynamics.I mean
sidepods manage airflow around the car, REDUCING DRAG and improving overall downforce. They just would be slow in corners.

There are obviously benefits to slimming the sidepods down in theory. RB and Ferrari have acknowledged that they considered the idea but didn't go for it. Merc saw huge gains were possible in their tunnel. Clearly for this formula it's at the very least extremely difficult to extract this theoretical performance (if not impossible) but it's not been resolutely proven to be the case that it's not accessible - only that Merc werent able to do it.

You can't simply conclude "they would be slow in the corners" because not even Merc were particularly. They had problems with consistency, car balance and drag. And how much of the 2023 car's faults can be tied to the sidepod decisions? According to Allison the zeropods were more emblematic of a team that struggled to find their feet in this regulation set not that they were their performance problems. Anytime a Merc team member has talked about the w14 it's almost entirely talked about in terms of incorrect decisions wrt ride height and operating window with which other teams were far more aggressive

Anyway to tie it back to the RB launch, I believe that what was meant is to launch the rb19 with zeropods on the 8th February as a pumpfake to bait other teams into considering it as a development path. An amusing idea

[FW17]

Should knock the RB19 up with some zeropods and launch that

Sidepods in Formula 1 cars play a crucial role in aerodynamics. Without sidepods no Aerodynamics.I mean
sidepods manage airflow around the car, REDUCING DRAG and improving overall downforce. They just would be slow in corners.

There are obviously benefits to slimming the sidepods down in theory. RB and Ferrari have acknowledged that they considered the idea but didn't go for it. Merc saw huge gains were possible in their tunnel. Clearly for this formula it's at the very least extremely difficult to extract this theoretical performance (if not impossible) but it's not been resolutely proven to be the case that it's not accessible - only that Merc werent able to do it.

You can't simply conclude "they would be slow in the corners" because not even Merc were particularly. They had problems with consistency, car balance and drag. And how much of the 2023 car's faults can be tied to the sidepod decisions? According to Allison the zeropods were more emblematic of a team that struggled to find their feet in this regulation set not that they were their performance problems. Anytime a Merc team member has talked about the w14 it's almost entirely talked about in terms of incorrect decisions wrt ride height and operating window with which other teams were far more aggressive

Anyway to tie it back to the RB launch, I believe that what was meant is to launch the rb19 with zeropods on the 8th February as a pumpfake to bait other teams into considering it as a development path. An amusing idea

If Red Bull try the zero pod it will be on the Racing Bulls whom they now share the campus with.

[OnEcRiTiCaL]

Sidepods in Formula 1 cars play a crucial role in aerodynamics. Without sidepods no Aerodynamics.I mean
sidepods manage airflow around the car, REDUCING DRAG and improving overall downforce. They just would be slow in corners.

There are obviously benefits to slimming the sidepods down in theory. RB and Ferrari have acknowledged that they considered the idea but didn't go for it. Merc saw huge gains were possible in their tunnel. Clearly for this formula it's at the very least extremely difficult to extract this theoretical performance (if not impossible) but it's not been resolutely proven to be the case that it's not accessible - only that Merc werent able to do it.

You can't simply conclude "they would be slow in the corners" because not even Merc were particularly. They had problems with consistency, car balance and drag. And how much of the 2023 car's faults can be tied to the sidepod decisions? According to Allison the zeropods were more emblematic of a team that struggled to find their feet in this regulation set not that they were their performance problems. Anytime a Merc team member has talked about the w14 it's almost entirely talked about in terms of incorrect decisions wrt ride height and operating window with which other teams were far more aggressive

Anyway to tie it back to the RB launch, I believe that what was meant is to launch the rb19 with zeropods on the 8th February as a pumpfake to bait other teams into considering it as a development path. An amusing idea

If Red Bull try the zero pod it will be on the Racing Bulls whom they now share the campus with.

Exactly,why would you take a Risk if you are at the front? Red Bull will make some fine tuning for beter cornering but nothing serious. Don't know why people think about new concept or zero sidepod.

[organic]

Nobody is suggesting that just dispelling clear inaccuracies in what you were stating

[basti313]

Should knock the RB19 up with some zeropods and launch that

Sidepods in Formula 1 cars play a crucial role in aerodynamics. Without sidepods no Aerodynamics.I mean
sidepods manage airflow around the car, REDUCING DRAG and improving overall downforce. They just would be slow in corners.

There are obviously benefits to slimming the sidepods down in theory. RB and Ferrari have acknowledged that they considered the idea but didn't go for it. Merc saw huge gains were possible in their tunnel. Clearly for this formula it's at the very least extremely difficult to extract this theoretical performance (if not impossible) but it's not been resolutely proven to be the case that it's not accessible - only that Merc werent able to do it.

You can't simply conclude "they would be slow in the corners" because not even Merc were particularly. They had problems with consistency, car balance and drag. And how much of the 2023 car's faults can be tied to the sidepod decisions? According to Allison the zeropods were more emblematic of a team that struggled to find their feet in this regulation set not that they were their performance problems. Anytime a Merc team member has talked about the w14 it's almost entirely talked about in terms of incorrect decisions wrt ride height and operating window with which other teams were far more aggressive

Anyway to tie it back to the RB launch, I believe that what was meant is to launch the rb19 with zeropods on the 8th February as a pumpfake to bait other teams into considering it as a development path. An amusing idea

I do not think anyone would send resources to a solution they did not see excelling on track. It took long until teams followed the RedBull way. So fake does not do anything.

Regarding the zero pods I also disagree:
I would also tend to say that no one in business, not only F1, would speak openly about technical issues. That the zeropod was not their problem is true...because the problem was behind the zeropod. Merc was always very honest here, but very sorted...no one ever said the zeropod did not produce a problem, they only said it is not the problem.

- One core issue was floor stiffness. They needed sidepods to cover reinforcements in the floor. That caused the (a lot of the?) inconsistency. And I think this is where we will see changes by RedBull, they will get rid of reinforcements and change the undercut of the sidepod.
- They need sidepods to get a consistent airflow inwards, creating some lower pressure in front of the rear wheels. The drag the sidepod produces needs to be subtracted of what they win at the rear by guiding the air and this seems to be a plus. So we will always see a bulky sidepod in some way interacting with the rear tire.

[organic]

[...]

Sure we can speculate. Literally all I'm saying is that one team failing to achieve something is not demonstrable proof that it is not viable, especially considering said team didn't seem to understand many facets of this regulation set well.

[chrisc90]

Ps.. my comment was massively tongue in cheek.

Although I would laugh so much if RB launched a zeropod car.

Fingers crossed it never happens. Looks wrong.

[Alexf1]

whom they now share the campus with.

Closer, not sharing..
"closer to Red Bull Racing and their campus"
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/alph ... /10563545/

[Henk_v]

As posted before, I think we are in for a major change. RB was clearly asymptotically developing against chassis constraints. They will lift these and explore a whole new pasture of opportunity.

I bet on "top inlet" sidepods.

I bet they don't go water slide.

I bet they ditch (most of) the centerline cooling

As mentioned here in the ferrari thread, teams tend to design the chassis for 2 year cycles, meaning these are the last ones before 26.

If there where rabbits left in newey's hat, now is the time to pull them out. No team will follow you if they'd be required to make a new chassis unless they would be more or less certain it will deliver them a championship. By the time you roll out the new chassis, 24 is decided and youbare behind on the learning curve. So you'd be banking on 25 with no real merit after 25....

[Henk_v]

An other thing comes to mind; when will RB find the spare time to develop some real mirrors

[organic]

I would say that domination also depends on the other teams. [...] I don't want to put pressure on others... We've done a good job, but we still have a lot of room for improvement, I'd say.

Maybe the others have made a few mistakes in the development.

When you look at MCL's development and how close they are to us, with their pretty poor start to the season, maybe those others [Ferrari and Mercedes] haven't developed properly.

Waché implying that RB aren't hitting diminishing returns yet

[organic]

This is off topic - let's leave it there

We're stick to RB speculation not Merc retrospectives.

[PhF1x]

Can anyone do a simple CFD simulation on the redbull sidepods in a high speed corner compared to the "waterslides"?


I have a nagging feeling that the reason redbull stuck with them is because the crease right behind the mirror is channelling air down and reducing drag by the interaction with the rear outside tyre. The mirror stand also seems to play a part in this.

[scuderiabrandon]

Can anyone do a simple CFD simulation on the redbull sidepods in a high speed corner compared to the "waterslides"?


I have a nagging feeling that the reason redbull stuck with them is because the crease right behind the mirror is channelling air down and reducing drag by the interaction with the rear outside tyre. The mirror stand also seems to play a part in this.

At some point at least 4 teams ran the sidepod crease. So to suggest that it was the silver bullet to their efficiency does not line up with reality. I think it is very clear that RB have built a well rounded car that does many thigns right.

My understanding is that the crease is used to outwash the upper portion of the front tyre wake (alongside the front side of the sidepod), hence why the mirror stays are usually aligned aswell. The outer floor fences, front wing and endplate diveplane deal with the lower portion.