2024 Oracle Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[cheeRS]

Peter Windsor really doubled down on the fiddle break rumors on the RB20. He said as much on his weekly hit on the Cameron F1 Youtube channel. He believes it is part of the reason why Perez has been struggling under braking. Especially at Melburne in the wet

Brake. Fiddle brake.

[Sergej]

I see new Monza kerbs are very flat ! this should help RB20, shouldn't it ?

[organic]

That's a relief

[AR3-GP]

That's a relief

In addition to the entire track being repaved. They might actually be good here. Ascari and Parabolica should suit the car.

An interesting twitter thread:

AUTO MOTOR UND SPORT - The Red Bull engineers are feverishly looking for where they went wrong with RB20. Somewhere in the development program they took a wrong turn. But where? None of the upgrades at Suzuka, Imola, Barcelona and Zandvoort brought any noticeable progress.

Just more question marks, more instability, more tyre wear.

Helmut Marko is particularly concerned about the unusually high level of tyre wear.

Tyre wear used to be a strength of Red Bull. But if the car balance is not right, the tyres also suffer. That's exactly where the McLaren made its big leap.

The setup experiment makes it clear how desperately Red Bull is looking for a solution. Verstappen was ran a maximum downforce configuration and, Sergio Perez with significantly less. Different floor specificaions were used for this purpose. The top speed delta was 6 km/h.


Junaid #JB17
@JunaidSamodien_
·
1h
Technical director Pierre Waché explained: "We wanted to find out how this affects tyre wear."

The answer was that Perez caught up to his teammate by five seconds in the second stint with the hard tyres despite less downforce.

The Monaco wing helped Max onto the front row of the grid. Without it, it would have been tight.

Horner said: "The tyre wear was generally lower than expected. Fewer wings would have been better. But the data could help us get back on the right track."

I think the comment at the end about Perez catching up 5 seconds in the final stint is erroneous. Ver was managing his pace and then parked for the last 3 laps when he knew Leclerc couldn't catch him.

The real measure of the tire deg comparison would have been when the team measured the thread depth on the two cars, not the finishing deltas.

[Wouter]

Max and Rupert having a bit fun when delivering pizza's.

[Sergej]

they fitted the rear wing tested in Spa

[Vanja #66]

They absolutely cannot be serious. There's no way they could be ignorant enough not to bring a Monza specific wing after their advantage in any kind of pace and top speed is basically completely gone

[Xyz22]

They absolutely cannot be serious. There's no way they could be ignorant enough not to bring a Monza specific wing after their advantage in any kind of pace and top speed is basically completely gone

Maybe they are forced to do it due to balance reasons, like Ferrari last year which used "low" DWF rear wings even in high dwf tracks.

[Vanja #66]

Maybe they are forced to do it due to balance reasons, like Ferrari last year which used "low" rear wings even in high dwf tracks.

I really can't see how that could happen. Front wing drag is acting very close to the car CoG in Z (vertical) axis, so the "only" force component that influences front-rear balance is downforce. Meaning you can make a mistake and have too little front wing downforce and if you can't add more (without screwing up floor performance) you're front limited.

Contrary, rear wing is high up and both its downforce and drag can influence the balance and increasing both forces shifts the balance to the rear. So you can always reduce both and reduce front wing loading and you can find you balance. You can't make a fundamental issue for floor performance with rear wing, like you can with the front one, so this is not a limiting factor

If they really didn't bring a complete circuit specific rear wing, I can only see it as a cost limitation of budget (but these rear wings are not high-cost parts in any case) or having already spent too much resources for floor design investigation and they couldn't afford to run a case-study for a new wing...

[Xyz22]

Maybe they are forced to do it due to balance reasons, like Ferrari last year which used "low" rear wings even in high dwf tracks.

I really can't see how that could happen. Front wing drag is acting very close to the car CoG in Z (vertical) axis, so the "only" force component that influences front-rear balance is downforce. Meaning you can make a mistake and have too little front wing downforce and if you can't add more (without screwing up floor performance) you're front limited.

Contrary, rear wing is high up and both its downforce and drag can influence the balance and increasing both forces shifts the balance to the rear. So you can always reduce both and reduce front wing loading and you can find you balance. You can't make a fundamental issue for floor performance with rear wing, like you can with the front one, so this is not a limiting factor

If they really didn't bring a complete circuit specific rear wing, I can only see it as a cost limitation of budget (but these rear wings are not high-cost parts in any case) or having already spent too much resources for floor design investigation and they couldn't afford to run a case-study for a new wing...

Thanks for the explanation.

[AR3-GP]

They absolutely cannot be serious. There's no way they could be ignorant enough not to bring a Monza specific wing after their advantage in any kind of pace and top speed is basically completely gone

Maybe the beam wing is very small.

Also, how do you know that the top speed advantage is gone? In Zandvoort they used the higher drag engine cover and halo inlets.

DRS zone extended by 100 meters compared to last year.

[FW17]

They absolutely cannot be serious. There's no way they could be ignorant enough not to bring a Monza specific wing after their advantage in any kind of pace and top speed is basically completely gone

With that wing they would not need a floor

[Farnborough]

That's a relief

In addition to the entire track being repaved. They might actually be good here. Ascari and Parabolica should suit the car.

An interesting twitter thread:

AUTO MOTOR UND SPORT - The Red Bull engineers are feverishly looking for where they went wrong with RB20. Somewhere in the development program they took a wrong turn. But where? None of the upgrades at Suzuka, Imola, Barcelona and Zandvoort brought any noticeable progress.

Just more question marks, more instability, more tyre wear.

Helmut Marko is particularly concerned about the unusually high level of tyre wear.

Tyre wear used to be a strength of Red Bull. But if the car balance is not right, the tyres also suffer. That's exactly where the McLaren made its big leap.

The setup experiment makes it clear how desperately Red Bull is looking for a solution. Verstappen was ran a maximum downforce configuration and, Sergio Perez with significantly less. Different floor specificaions were used for this purpose. The top speed delta was 6 km/h.


Junaid #JB17
@JunaidSamodien_
·
1h
Technical director Pierre Waché explained: "We wanted to find out how this affects tyre wear."

The answer was that Perez caught up to his teammate by five seconds in the second stint with the hard tyres despite less downforce.

The Monaco wing helped Max onto the front row of the grid. Without it, it would have been tight.

Horner said: "The tyre wear was generally lower than expected. Fewer wings would have been better. But the data could help us get back on the right track."

I think the comment at the end about Perez catching up 5 seconds in the final stint is erroneous. Ver was managing his pace and then parked for the last 3 laps when he knew Leclerc couldn't catch him.

The real measure of the tire deg comparison would have been when the team measured the thread depth on the two cars, not the finishing deltas.

There could be correlation to when they flipped the sidepod intake entrances !

Perception .... ever since that fairly extensive remodeling they appear to be at something of a loss to understand what they need.

[AR3-GP]

Horner is not a technical person so when he starts talking about technical things, I always assume that it comes from a technical briefing that he has had with Wache (i.e this might be what they are looking at now):

Pressed last weekend on an explanation for Red Bull’s drop of form, he suggested that it was simply a case of his teams’ rivals having found greater gains with a different concept of front wing.

“I think the front wing is a key area where others have found some performance,” explained Horner.

“The way that the front wings are being used are quite different. If you look at the front wing angle of McLaren and Mercedes, they're very, very different. Very different to the rest of the group.”

Dutch GP test was useful:

However, it at least appears happy with the tests it conducted at the Dutch Grand Prix and how that might bear fruit in the future.

Horner added: “We have plenty of work to do but we have learnt a lot of lessons this weekend [at the Dutch GP] that can be very valuable.

“We have tried some things on the car that we have good data from to assess. We need to make sure we use that; it is time to digest what happened here and try to bounce back in Monza.”

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/coul ... /10648671/

[FNTC]