Paa wrote: ↑03 Dec 2024, 23:10
This was pretty much observed/confirmed since the beginning of the season.
What I would like to understand is why Red Bull expected the RB20 to be better with kerbs than RB19?
This is what they expected/promised and they were surprised it was not the case, but I don't get why? This is expected with the design they chose.
Isn't it explained by the Marko quote? They made design decisions that when applied in the simulator gave good behaviour. Then they put that design on track and it behaves another way. Simulator correlation issues
“Our basic problem is not track-specific. The correlation between the simulator and the track does not work,”
“On the simulator, we drive over the curbs without any problems, and here, the car jumps like a kangaroo. That is where we have to start.
Much of the discussion early in 2024 about rb20 performance wasn't about any aero weakness, but about the vehicle dynamics being much worse than expected and was highlighted a lot in the miami/Monaco/Imola/Canada period. I think we had concrete statements that the simulator was the issue as early as Monaco
Think we only started talking about aero issues from Silverstone onwards
At Canada Marko claimed the team had identified the issue with the car which I interpret to mean the mechanical issues with the car and on the same weekend tracking stickers appear on the pullrod - perhaps their simulation wasn't modelling the dynamics of the pullrod flexing during kerbstrikes which resulted in the correlation issues
To me it seems plausible that they got to the bottom of the simulator-real world kerbstriking difference towards the early part of the season (of course can't actually solve the front suspension problem mid season) and possibly only then realized it wasn't the big performance limitation they thought it was.. having to then go down the aero rabbit hole after the summer break culminating in the cota upgrades
I really don't expect the same kerbing issues next time around (fingers crossed!)
