Braking regulation change - "asymmetric braking torques for a given axle is forbidden"

[AR3-GP]

To me that's still sounds like torque vectoring, but maybe that is my lack of understanding showing.

Anyway, sending more braking force to the inside wheel to induce rotation seems really hard to do. The inner wheel will always be completely unloaded, meaning lock-ups become a big problem. For it to work as intended, you'd probably require ABS.

Coulthard pointed out the same thing about the Mclaren from 1997 and you could hear it in onboards like the 1997 Suzuka qualy lap.

“We had to learn how to work with it, because you had to accelerate while you braked, otherwise you just locked the wheel.

https://www.mclaren.com/racing/latest-n ... l-3153421/

There's no evidence of this in the telemetry of the Red Bull.

A car with this kind of system would also need to have larger brakes, more brake cooling, and more fuel to account for all of the losses associated with deliberately dragging brakes and blending throttle and brakes.

I'm finding it difficult to see a clear picture. I'm eager to see the discussion in Zandvoort.

[Seanspeed]

There’s more facts than just that to be fair.

RedBull went from winning 7 of 8 at the start, with 8 poles, to not having won much since.

RedBull is also the only car with serious braking issues this season and developed into very understeery given driver feedback.

The Red Bull has leant towards understeer for a few years now. That's nothing new.

As for Red Bull's performance, they haven't slowed down, Mclaren simply took a huge leap. How can we say that for sure, instead of it simply being Red Bull falling back? Because Ferrari's position versus Red Bull has remained reasonably consistent all season. Mclaren used to be slower than Ferrari, and then took an obvious and very large leap forward. So unless Ferrari got the exact same amount slower as Red Bull did at the exact same time, it is pretty obvious Red Bull simply got overtaken, rather than anything with the car having ruined its performance.

Verstappen did well to maximize results and win races even without the fastest car, but a number of these situations also clearly came on the back of mistakes from the likes of Mclaren(or Mercedes). This was unlikely to continue on forever, so now Verstappen is struggling to win in a slower car with opponents that are getting their act together. No conspiracy is necessary to explain any of this.

[dialtone]

There’s more facts than just that to be fair.

RedBull went from winning 7 of 8 at the start, with 8 poles, to not having won much since.

RedBull is also the only car with serious braking issues this season and developed into very understeery given driver feedback.

The Red Bull has leant towards understeer for a few years now. That's nothing new.

As for Red Bull's performance, they haven't slowed down, Mclaren simply took a huge leap. How can we say that for sure, instead of it simply being Red Bull falling back? Because Ferrari's position versus Red Bull has remained reasonably consistent all season. Mclaren used to be slower than Ferrari, and then took an obvious and very large leap forward. So unless Ferrari got the exact same amount slower as Red Bull did at the exact same time, it is pretty obvious Red Bull simply got overtaken, rather than anything with the car having ruined its performance.

Verstappen did well to maximize results and win races even without the fastest car, but a number of these situations also clearly came on the back of mistakes from the likes of Mclaren(or Mercedes). This was unlikely to continue on forever, so now Verstappen is struggling to win in a slower car with opponents that are getting their act together. No conspiracy is necessary to explain any of this.

Ferrari won 2 races this year, the gap isn’t the same. The fact you needed a bad update from Ferrari to have similar gap to red bull is alone proof of the change in performance.

It’s also not just MCL but Mercs as well.

And for AR that keeps saying it doesn’t show up in telemetry… what do you expect to see from a jittered and downsampled dataset? You can see they were dominant in slow speed corners.

[basti313]

To me that's still sounds like torque vectoring, but maybe that is my lack of understanding showing.

Well, this type of torque vectoring is allowed, that is just a locked diff under acceleration.
By the way: That is basically my assumption, doing the opposite of a locked diff which would make the car turn less. They are not only opening the diff to allow the car to turn, but making the car turn with a brake force inside.

Anyway, sending more braking force to the inside wheel to induce rotation seems really hard to do. The inner wheel will always be completely unloaded, meaning lock-ups become a big problem. For it to work as intended, you'd probably require ABS.

I do not think lock-ups are the biggest issue, but surely super hard to dial in. In my assumption the constant downshift issues were exactly this.
And yes, I think it is hard to do or replicate, I fear they need special hardware in the diff.

[Watto]

There’s more facts than just that to be fair.

RedBull went from winning 7 of 8 at the start, with 8 poles, to not having won much since.

RedBull is also the only car with serious braking issues this season and developed into very understeery given driver feedback.

The Red Bull has leant towards understeer for a few years now. That's nothing new.

As for Red Bull's performance, they haven't slowed down, Mclaren simply took a huge leap. How can we say that for sure, instead of it simply being Red Bull falling back? Because Ferrari's position versus Red Bull has remained reasonably consistent all season. Mclaren used to be slower than Ferrari, and then took an obvious and very large leap forward. So unless Ferrari got the exact same amount slower as Red Bull did at the exact same time, it is pretty obvious Red Bull simply got overtaken, rather than anything with the car having ruined its performance.

Verstappen did well to maximize results and win races even without the fastest car, but a number of these situations also clearly came on the back of mistakes from the likes of Mclaren(or Mercedes). This was unlikely to continue on forever, so now Verstappen is struggling to win in a slower car with opponents that are getting their act together. No conspiracy is necessary to explain any of this.

Ferrari won 2 races this year, the gap isn’t the same. The fact you needed a bad update from Ferrari to have similar gap to red bull is alone proof of the change in performance.

It’s also not just MCL but Mercs as well.

And for AR that keeps saying it doesn’t show up in telemetry… what do you expect to see from a jittered and downsampled dataset? You can see they were dominant in slow speed corners.

If the rule has been in for a while and only now published you I would strongly suspect the RBR car(s) but there is a ot of assumptions in that I think it was Mark Hughs that had an article that made the point of 3 different things though the 1st half of the season that could be interpenetrated as being the guilty party, RBR< Mercs and MCL, The McLaren one was from Oscar locking up losing a bit of time his engineer over the radio asking something like 'Was that ......' Oscar 'Yep' a cryptic question and answer.


Could it be Red Bulls struggles since being forced to remove it or, has someone made a heap of ground on them and not they are really being forced to nail a setup on a car I think even RBR have sad has a narrower window than last year. Before they might have been able to compromise the setup knowing the clear advantage in pace they had now they don't have that luxury

[Seanspeed]

Ferrari won 2 races this year, the gap isn’t the same. The fact you needed a bad update from Ferrari to have similar gap to red bull is alone proof of the change in performance.

It’s also not just MCL but Mercs as well.

And for AR that keeps saying it doesn’t show up in telemetry… what do you expect to see from a jittered and downsampled dataset? You can see they were dominant in slow speed corners.

One Ferrari win came when Verstappen retired and Sainz inherited the lead. Ferrari did look quite competitive with Red Bull there at that track, but this also kind of goes against your argument that anything more recent would have hurt Red Bull's pace.

The other win came at Monaco, which is basically the biggest outlier of a track on the whole calendar. Means basically nothing. And yes, Ferrari similarly have lost opportunities to win races because they were leapt over by Mclaren. I even brought up this similar point months ago decrying Mclaren's surge forward given that places Ferrari might have contested a win were now likely going to be out of reach.

Looking at the overall trend over the course of the season, the gap between Ferrari and Red Bull has remained fairly consistent. And yes, Mercedes also took a big leap forward as well, as they've recognized themselves. They went from being clearly behind Ferrari and Mclaren to being in front of Ferrari, and clearly with some very obvious strengths that have led them to have race winning pace at certain tracks.

It's also literally something you can see from onboards - the Mclaren and Mercedes both took massive leaps forward in driveability, especially in lower speed corners. Like, it's almost a night and day difference from watching the onboards.

Again, there's no conspiracy needed to explain anything. Ignoring obvious explanations is usually not the best way to arrive at the right answer.

[zioture]

very interesting article, based on a YouTube video from Race Tech, analyzes the possible functionality of what's being described as 'Assisted Steering,' comparing it to McLaren's three-pedal system from 1997/1998.



Read ALL !!!
https://www.newsf1.it/f1-red-bull-unvei ... ng-system/

[basti313]

Read ALL !!!

No need. This is technical nonsense and clearly forbidden by two rules.

There is most probably some system around. Still we are completely lacking a proper technical explanation/idea. See the correct thread for this.

This is definitely not what was on the car, so wrong thread? <Mod edit: right thread now after it got moved>

[SiLo]

People saying it's forbidden by the rules seem to miss that the rules only speak about a single brake disc, and the pads on it. Not a pair of discs and having asymmetric forces applied across them. Hence the addition to the technical regs to close that loophole.

Personally I think RB were doing something, I just don't know how. It seems the complains of understeer did grow throughout the year.

[FDD]

I am invoking the Forbidden Website because occasionally there's a guy on there who does know what he's talking about, and u/GaryGiesel actually works in the sport.

https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/co ... s/lidrnd8/

re. Scarbs' proposed system:

Even if this thing were real, the system Scarbs has shown literally wouldn’t work. The pressure everywhere in the rear hydraulic circuit will equalise so the valve doesn’t do anything unless it’s fully blocking off one side of the brakes (which it won’t be because you’d end up doubling the caliper pressure on the inside wheel or locking the pressure on in the outside one… not at all doing what you’d want)

As simple as that
Scarbs is just another BSer as many journalist "experts" and many people are buying their BS stories, unfortunately.
Also people do not want to understand that there is no silver bullet which can gain 0,5 sec alone, it is the symbiosis of the whole package.

[214270]

People saying it's forbidden by the rules seem to miss that the rules only speak about a single brake disc, and the pads on it. Not a pair of discs and having asymmetric forces applied across them.

…rules apply to the same circuit.

Due to recuperation, the circuits in F1 are twofold - front and rear. It should therefore be read as across the rear.

EDIT: I wonder whether that’s the simpler answer, Rb have 2 rear circuits (I’ve no idea whether that’s permitted in the rules or not).

[SiLo]

People saying it's forbidden by the rules seem to miss that the rules only speak about a single brake disc, and the pads on it. Not a pair of discs and having asymmetric forces applied across them.

…rules apply to the same circuit.

Due to recuperation, the circuits in F1 are twofold - front and rear. It should therefore be read as across the rear.

EDIT: I wonder whether that’s the simpler answer, Rb have 2 rear circuits (I’ve no idea whether that’s permitted in the rules or not).

Potentially? I guess that's why there has been an update to the rules.

There are two options:

1) Red Bull has some fancy braking system that helped brake the inside rear, aiding corner rotation and meaning they could run a more understeer focused and stable aero platform at higher speeds. Then the FIA has told them to take it off at some point, and eventually updated the rules.

2) A team on the grid has asked about whether they could design and implement something like this, and the FIA have realised there is a hole in the technical regs, and updated them accordingly.

The RB20 does appear to be quite an understeery car, but it's not enough of a smoking gun for anyone to be certain.

Have there been any suspension updates on the car since Miami?

[SiLo]

I am invoking the Forbidden Website because occasionally there's a guy on there who does know what he's talking about, and u/GaryGiesel actually works in the sport.

https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/co ... s/lidrnd8/

re. Scarbs' proposed system:

Even if this thing were real, the system Scarbs has shown literally wouldn’t work. The pressure everywhere in the rear hydraulic circuit will equalise so the valve doesn’t do anything unless it’s fully blocking off one side of the brakes (which it won’t be because you’d end up doubling the caliper pressure on the inside wheel or locking the pressure on in the outside one… not at all doing what you’d want)

As simple as that
Scarbs is just another BSer as many journalist "experts" and many people are buying their BS stories, unfortunately.
Also people do not want to understand that there is no silver bullet which can gain 0,5 sec alone, it is the symbiosis of the whole package.

Surely you could have the pressure bleed off the brakes unevenly with the valve Scarbs mentions? If one side is blocked and the driver lets off the pedal, the open side can bleed pressure whereas the closed side remains constant?

Or maybe my understanding of hydrodynamics is patchy...

[FDD]

I am invoking the Forbidden Website because occasionally there's a guy on there who does know what he's talking about, and u/GaryGiesel actually works in the sport.

https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/co ... s/lidrnd8/

re. Scarbs' proposed system:

As simple as that
Scarbs is just another BSer as many journalist "experts" and many people are buying their BS stories, unfortunately.
Also people do not want to understand that there is no silver bullet which can gain 0,5 sec alone, it is the symbiosis of the whole package.

Surely you could have the pressure bleed off the brakes unevenly with the valve Scarbs mentions? If one side is blocked and the driver lets off the pedal, the open side can bleed pressure whereas the closed side remains constant?

Or maybe my understanding of hydrodynamics is patchy...

Pressure is eq in the system.
If braking torque modulation is needed then caliper's piston cross section must be changed.

[basti313]

I am invoking the Forbidden Website because occasionally there's a guy on there who does know what he's talking about, and u/GaryGiesel actually works in the sport.

https://www.reddit.com/r/F1Technical/co ... s/lidrnd8/

re. Scarbs' proposed system:

As simple as that
Scarbs is just another BSer as many journalist "experts" and many people are buying their BS stories, unfortunately.
Also people do not want to understand that there is no silver bullet which can gain 0,5 sec alone, it is the symbiosis of the whole package.

Surely you could have the pressure bleed off the brakes unevenly with the valve Scarbs mentions? If one side is blocked and the driver lets off the pedal, the open side can bleed pressure whereas the closed side remains constant?

Or maybe my understanding of hydrodynamics is patchy...

This would be at least a thinkable approach, that there is a delay valve avoiding the drain. Something that happens even on road cars if the rubber in the brake hose expands, you can still brake by pushing the brake fluid through it, but the pads stay pressed to the disc and overheat.
Still, I see no control method to separate fast corners from slow corners which would have catastrophic result on the idea. And I do not really see how it delays in a on/off way that you would need to get a substantial effect from a F1 brake.

Still any valve would fall foul under the "old" brake and with inertia mass damper rules. Supposing it was on the RB and they would have found this valve in Canada, that would have been slam dunk DSQ to Perez and both RB cars in later races. No grey area possible as a valve changing the left right force on the brake was always and clearly forbidden.

But at least this idea would work with the brake fire theory...but not sure if it makes sense to work backwards from a possibly normal failure...