RB20 speculation

[Vanja #66]

Didn't think about internal losses, even knowing about such vorticity.

Nevertheless, I don't know anything about CFD and what is easy to replicate / model and what not.

In my view, final sidepod inlet spec on RB19 is very, very close to optimal. Maybe they can move it further 10-15mm up, but the gains would be minimal. I don't think they could run the lower lip completely flat with the top one and literally create a top opening only, the angle of the internal ducting would be too aggressive in my opinion.

They made a big improvement in that area last year, so to make another step they will have to invent something unseen so far. I'm sad that the rules don't allow for a few more elements to be put in there, otherwise with 2017 Ferrari vanes we could be seeing almost fully top inlet. Wouldn't that be something...

[AR3-GP]

AMUS claims that Newey will work full time on the RB17 in the short term. This suggest that RB20/21 is in good shape for the foreseeable future or that Newey is not essential to its development. Either scenario is a silver lining. I suspect that Newey will only return again for the RB22.


https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... et-deckel/

[Cassius]

AMUS claims that Newey will work full time on the RB17 in the short term. This suggest that RB20/21 is in good shape for the foreseeable future or that Newey is not essential to its development. Either scenario is a silver lining. I suspect that Newey will only return again for the RB22.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... et-deckel/

I agree. By parking Newey this year a bit on the RB17 they will be able to spend as much as possible on first upgrades and parts of the RB21 so they have the time and resources to start immediately with the 2026 car on Jan 1 2025.

[marcel171281]

AMUS claims that Newey will work full time on the RB17 in the short term. This suggest that RB20/21 is in good shape for the foreseeable future or that Newey is not essential to its development. Either scenario is a silver lining. I suspect that Newey will only return again for the RB22.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... et-deckel/

I agree. By parking Newey this year a bit on the RB17 they will be able to spend as much as possible on first upgrades and parts of the RB21 so they have the time and resources to start immediately with the 2026 car on Jan 1 2025.

I you mean spend as in financial terms, this won't be the case. Newey is of the of people not included in the budget cap. There is no financial gain from putting Newey on the RB17.

[Cassius]

AMUS claims that Newey will work full time on the RB17 in the short term. This suggest that RB20/21 is in good shape for the foreseeable future or that Newey is not essential to its development. Either scenario is a silver lining. I suspect that Newey will only return again for the RB22.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... et-deckel/

I agree. By parking Newey this year a bit on the RB17 they will be able to spend as much as possible on first upgrades and parts of the RB21 so they have the time and resources to start immediately with the 2026 car on Jan 1 2025.

I you mean spend as in financial terms, this won't be the case. Newey is of the of people not included in the budget cap. There is no financial gain from putting Newey on the RB17.

If he was exempt (one of 3) and now he isn't there is a benefit as you can put someone else on the exempt list. If he was not exempt and he is working on the rb17 it is also a benefit.

[AR3-GP]

AMUS claims that Newey will work full time on the RB17 in the short term. This suggest that RB20/21 is in good shape for the foreseeable future or that Newey is not essential to its development. Either scenario is a silver lining. I suspect that Newey will only return again for the RB22.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... et-deckel/

I agree. By parking Newey this year a bit on the RB17 they will be able to spend as much as possible on first upgrades and parts of the RB21 so they have the time and resources to start immediately with the 2026 car on Jan 1 2025.

I you mean spend as in financial terms, this won't be the case. Newey is of the of people not included in the budget cap. There is no financial gain from putting Newey on the RB17.

As said above, I think Newey was an exemption. The Amus article explained that it allowed RB to pay someone else more (but under exemption).

Also, I think what RB are doing is quite clever. If you are under salary exemption in 2024, then you could inflate the 2024 salary as an "advancement" on 2025 salary. In 2025, this employee returns to non-exempt status with a salary reduction, but his effective 2 year average salary was inflated by way of an advancement paid in 2024 when this employee was exempted. Something like this could be done on a rolling basis to give each senior staff member a salary that they deserve and to quell the temptation to chase salaries at other teams.

[marcel171281]

Sounds nice, but wouldn't that require either Newey to not work for the racing team at all in 2024, or put the part he does work for the racing team under non-exemption, to let someone else be under exemption? Paying half a Newey is probabaly more than the benefit from putting someone else under exemption.

[Cs98]

Sounds nice, but wouldn't that require either Newey to not work for the racing team at all in 2024, or put the part he does work for the racing team under non-exemption, to let someone else be under exemption? Paying half a Newey is probabaly more than the benefit from putting someone else under exemption.

I don't think Newey is that essential to the kind of development work that is now going on with RB20 and RB21, this kind of tedious iterative development. Newey did his bit with conceptual design on RB18, 19 and probably 20. To get his salary off the books for 2024, he can focus on RB17, and then you put him back at the start of 2025 working full time on RB22, which is the next car that will require huge conceptual and innovative changes due to the regs.

[stonehenge]

https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/red-b ... /10572857/

"Last year's car was an evolution of '22 in its main points being of course, the normal winter development in terms of aerodynamics, some understanding on what we needed to do with suspension to try to improve the car as well, and getting weight out of it, because we never got down to the weight limit in '22.

"This year's car is the third evolution of that original RB18. What we don't know, of course, is the third evolution too conservative, while others have done something different? You just don't know.

"There is that [question], should we have a group that goes out and looks at completely left-field ideas, or do we keep developing the route we've taken?" he asked. "We're resource-limited.

"So we can't do everything and we can't look at every avenue. So we've taken the approach of developing what we've got. Hopefully, that will be the prudent and correct decision."

[deadhead]

[Holm86]

Interesting, good find

[venkyhere]

I don't think this was a 'secret' , ever since Monaco 2023, where the crane mechanic ensured that the RB19 floor wasn't missed by anyone within 1 sq.km radius of the track, by lifting it up as high as 10-storey building. The entire world saw how the RB floor venturi is :
(i) not a neat, smooth venturi as seen in textbooks, but has a lot of projections and kicks to energize vortices, much more than the projections and kicks in the other cars.
(ii) if a fly passes through this venturi, it will see a tunnel that has sharper bends than other cars, and taller roof than other cars, even if the tunnel is shrinking and enlarging both longitudinally and laterally.

I believe (ii) (the height of the tunnel being higher compared to competition) is the reason RB didn't experience much porpoising because the 'pinching effect' of a rapidly narrowing venturi throat as the speeds climb during long straights is dulled. That is, RB's car concept itself is based on intentionally not wanting the 'max downforce possible' from the floor, and keeping the entire venturi 'larger in size' than others.

While I am able to perceive how the lateral floor edges by the two sides and the "tea-tray"/"boat-bow" in the front, that sit at a height similar to the other 9 teams, would, in this case, offer much better 'sealing of the floor' (naturally, since the caves are taller and the air is doing it's magic at 'more height' relative to the others) ; what I am unable to decipher is - how did RB manage to 'recover' this sacrificed downforce ?

That, I think, is still 'secret'.

[AR3-GP]

Imagine a world where Sergio Perez did not crash in Monaco.

[Zynerji]

Imagine a world where Sergio Perez did not crash in Monaco.

May be the most underrated event of the current formula.

[Vanja #66]

Not sure why people are still obssessing with boat section width, it's been much wider than the tub on every car since 2022, it's how you introduce lateral curvature to the floor and maximise the suction on the floor roof. Cockpit (and roll hoop) being fore or aft does not influence this, but if I recall it does influence the leading edge of the floor and Mercedes wanted to maximise floor length by pushing the cockpit forward