- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
One thing about this reg set is that just adding on components that will theoretically gain you more downforce isn't a viable solution. McLaren have been very careful to not upset the balance of the car at all with their upgrades, only bringing some small parts that are circuit specific or they are sure will help without wrecking the balance. Maybe Red Bull, in a chase for more downforce, have complicated the car and changed the balance too much, somewhat like what Ferrari did.DDopey wrote: ↑01 Sep 2024, 19:44Horner on a Dutch news Site (nu.nl):
"If you look at the McLaren, it seems very much an evolution of their car from last year," Horner said of Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri's car. "It is a much simpler car than ours. Perhaps our car has become too complex and we also need to simplify a few things."
and what Mercedes and Aston Martin have done.SoulPancake13 wrote: ↑01 Sep 2024, 20:08
One thing about this reg set is that just adding on components that will theoretically gain you more downforce isn't a viable solution. McLaren have been very careful to not upset the balance of the car at all with their upgrades, only bringing some small parts that are circuit specific or they are sure will help without wrecking the balance. Maybe Red Bull, in a chase for more downforce, have complicated the car and changed the balance too much, somewhat like what Ferrari did.
A bit of nothing really. Max was marginally later on the brakes into the turn 4 chicane and looked like was very close to Lewis' rear wheel whilst Max had to run onto the white line.
Not going to dwell on it, but Hamilton moved in the brake zone and you can see there's contact with verstappen's front wing because Hamilton drifted to the right.
Red Bull doesn't have time or budget to invest in a wing that works for 1 or 2 races when there are bigger questions about the car concept that need to be solved. Is this not obvious?
I understand the reasoning, but I disagree with its premise. Vegas will be the same thing, meaning they compromise two races knowingly. A Monza wing could have been done with 1 iteration, just copy Ferrari's wing and adapt the wing tips to existing endplates etc. They had to go through the trouble of designing a set of flaps for front wing in any case, so a few cases of CFD runs and maybe even a few WT runs had to be done for this spec. There is absolutely no performance engineering logic in their decision not to make a new wing and use it in at least 4 races, Monza and Vegas 24 and 25. Costs for a rear wing are quite low and they are by far the lowest for this spec, as tools are the smallest, machining time is shortest and loads are smallest so you need the least amount of materials too
How I see it as well. Thanks to chrisc90 for the videoAR3-GP wrote: ↑01 Sep 2024, 21:08Not going to dwell on it, but Hamilton moved in the brake zone and you can see there's contact with verstappen's front wing because Hamilton drifted to the right.
I think you'd have to be insane to not consider this as a likely huge factor. Newey hasn't been involved with this car's development and direction for quite a while now. People have been trying to downplay his role and importance, but I think that's just insanely naive.JordanMugen wrote: ↑31 Aug 2024, 17:17Is it possible that Red Bull are struggling without Newey's input into development direction at the factory and car setup at the track, or is it unrelated to that?
https://www.planetf1.com/news/adrian-ne ... 20-feature“The fundamental architecture of the car has remained the same, but I mean, for instance, there’s one feature on the car that I’m not terribly happy with this year, and that’s something which will either change later in the year, or probably more likely, will be re-altered for next year.”
https://x.com/ErikvHarenAfter a long meeting, it was Max Verstappen who tracked down the big problem of the RB20 in the data itself. But there doesn't seem to be a quick solution.