2021 Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[yener]

How many laps or kilometers can they make on a "film" day?

[Manoah2u]

100 km

[Racer X]

How do you guys think the RedBull drivers will do in the Austin Grand Prix?

[Alexf1]

How do you guys think the RedBull drivers will do in the Austin Grand Prix?

I have great expectations, RB have always been competitive in Austin in the past so set up wise they should be fine and Honda has been rumoured to have 10kW in hand which they could use when needed as engine nr 3 and 4 only have to last 6 instead of 8 races.

[Zynerji]

Mercs front wing was much more bendy than the RBR in the Turkey onboards.

I think RBR need an "update" to the layup orientation pattern for their flaps for the rest of the season.

And? Please continue. Because if you are saying that part a front wing flexing is just as much as a whole rear wing flexing I welcome you to confirm you think that.

Chill. My man.

I'm saying that it's worth investigating the drag reduction inherent in such a layup choice. Your immediate jump to defensiveness speaks of an entirely different disability however...

[Zynerji]

Mercs front wing was much more bendy than the RBR in the Turkey onboards.

I think RBR need an "update" to the layup orientation pattern for their flaps for the rest of the season.

You do realize that's a horrendously bad idea right?

Structural design and aerodynamic design have to work together.

You can't change one and not the other, unless you wanna throw chunks of performance out the window.

It's pure drag reduction. I think you're scared of the possible positive outcome of such a technology upgrade at RBR.

[dans79]

It's pure drag reduction. I think you're scared of the possible positive outcome of such a technology upgrade at RBR.

lol, If it was thats simple they would have done it by now.

when the wing flexes you lose more than drag, you lose downforce as well. If you don't have enough downforce at the front of the car at the right time, you will understeer through mid speed corners and loose more time than you will ever gain back on the straits.

And that's just a simple example. Think about what happens when the vortices generated by the front wing move around, because the wing flexes...

[Zynerji]

It's pure drag reduction. I think you're scared of the possible positive outcome of such a technology upgrade at RBR.

lol, If it was thats simple they would have done it by now.

when the wing flexes you lose more than drag, you lose downforce as well. If you don't have enough downforce at the front of the car at the right time, you will understeer through mid speed corners and loose more time than you will ever gain back on the straits.

And that's just a simple example. Think about what happens when the vortices generated by the front wing move around, because the wing flexes...

So, you're saying Merc did it on purpose that way? As it drives all of the aero philosophy of the front end?

I wonder why they chose to let it flex so much if it's so terribly destructive to the wing performance...

[dans79]

I wonder why they chose to let it flex so much if it's so terribly destructive to the wing performance...

Merc and RBR have different aero philosophies, hence why copying one concept from an opposing car rarely works.

You must integrate that concept into your overall aero philosophy. Making changes at the front of a car is more work than further back, because what you do upfront effects everything behind!

[Zynerji]

I wonder why they chose to let it flex so much if it's so terribly destructive to the wing performance...

Merc and RBR have different aero philosophies, hence why copying one concept from an opposing car rarely works.

You must integrate that concept into your overall aero philosophy. Making changes at the front of a car is more work than further back, because what you do upfront effects everything behind!

So, it's smart for Merc. But dumb for RBR?

How do you know that implementing the bendy wing wouldn't solve some of RBR's issues?

[zibby43]

I wonder why they chose to let it flex so much if it's so terribly destructive to the wing performance...

Merc and RBR have different aero philosophies, hence why copying one concept from an opposing car rarely works.

You must integrate that concept into your overall aero philosophy. Making changes at the front of a car is more work than further back, because what you do upfront effects everything behind!

So, it's smart for Merc. But dumb for RBR?

How do you know that implementing the bendy wing wouldn't solve some of RBR's issues?

What dans79 is saying is correct.

The FW serves 2 main purposes: 1) a flow conditioner/vortex orchestrator for everything downstream (plus directing outwash from downstream components); 2) a downforce-generating aero surface.

When you start to change how that wing operates, you change the car’s operating window fairly significantly.

That’s why you’ve seen Mercedes trial their new FW for 2 race weekends now without actually running it. Part of the reason is because the new design is a bit of a philosophy change from their current design (and a step toward the RB design with respect to the uppermost elements that have been reshaped).

I think RBR’s current FW spec is excellent, and the sophistication level of the upper flap contouring is very well done. As Merc are continuing to raise their car’s ride height, they’ve now introduced a RB-inspired FW to match that choice. But they haven’t raced it yet, as I’ve mentioned.

I anticipate you would get more drag reduction from how/where you connect the flaps to the end plate (closer to the foot plate or running the full span of the end plate) than trying to chase some kind of bendy motion that’s likely wholly incidental to the design of the wing.

[Manoah2u]

How do you guys think the RedBull drivers will do in the Austin Grand Prix?

all depends on the weather.

Dry conditions, Hamilton will Ace this one, Bottas might even make P2, and Max will finish atleast P3.
Hamilton will grab the lead back by 1 point.

But if it gets wet, Max guaranteed P2 and could make things difficult for Ham even for P1.

[NathanOlder]

How do you guys think the RedBull drivers will do in the Austin Grand Prix?

all depends on the weather.

Dry conditions, Hamilton will Ace this one, Bottas might even make P2, and Max will finish atleast P3.
Hamilton will grab the lead back by 1 point.

But if it gets wet, Max guaranteed P2 and could make things difficult for Ham even for P1.

Would Max not have won Turkey if that was the case ? When the RB was nowhere near the Merc in wet conditions.

[etusch]

Would Max not have won Turkey if that was the case ? When the RB was nowhere near the Merc in wet conditions.

It is also questionable. Mercedes pace was a bit better but with high df and they have better tyre life compared to RB. ( in the same time race was between dry and inter conditions, not completely wet )
Max could keep same speed with Bottas but he should race risk free and Max says, with second set of tyre, they decided to finish at p2. This means they could push to Bottas if it were beneficial. But it was risky and because of bottas speed it was not guarantee to overtake so it was wise decision. Ham can not overtake Perez and stuck 10 laps behind Yuki.
As a conclusion Mercedes were faster at Turkey but thinking they were far ahead is not true.

[Curbstone]

I wonder why they chose to let it flex so much if it's so terribly destructive to the wing performance...

Merc and RBR have different aero philosophies, hence why copying one concept from an opposing car rarely works.

You must integrate that concept into your overall aero philosophy. Making changes at the front of a car is more work than further back, because what you do upfront effects everything behind!

So, it's smart for Merc. But dumb for RBR?

How do you know that implementing the bendy wing wouldn't solve some of RBR's issues?

How do you know implementing the bendy wing would solve RBR's issues?
We simply don't. But we do know RBR has seen and investigated the bendy front wing of Mercedes, they know it's something the FIA doesn't have a problem with so they are aware of the concept and that they are allowed to implement is. They also have a team of aero specialist, and have made a lot of changes to the front wing so we know RBR does have a strong focus in the front wing.
Therefore it's more logical to assume that the concept has been investigated and found inefficient in RBR total concept, than to assume they never considered it and are therefore leaving a lot of performance on the tabel. That last assumption is a quite an insult to the RBR aero department.