Red Bull RB18

[ryaan2904]

https://www.racefans.net/wp-content/upl ... -29-12.jpg
I'd like to highlight what in my opinion is the worst problem of the RB18 right now: the front pull rod.
Obviously it allowed the engineers to reduce the weight of the suspension arms and lower the CoG of the whole front corner of the car, however, I believe it is not suitable to generate enough heat on the front tires. This shows at turn 1-2 when Max had massive understeer and could barely stay near the apex. On top of that, I remember that back in 2015 Ferrari had similar problems with that same philosophy (just look at Monaco GP after the SC, when Seb lost about 5 seconds because of low temperature on front tires). What do you think of this? Every comment is well accepted.

I'm not sure .. I think it's more of an aero problem than a chassis -> pullrod problem. I think so because ferrari's main problems when they went for pullrods were because of the small angle of their pullrod. They couldn't introduce more angle to it due to regulations. That isn't the case now, RBR pullrod looks like its got more angle than some of the push rods on the field. It looks like a good design.
Also, there was talk in the paddock of how RB have got a good rear, but they haven't got enough front to balance it. It's front aero performance they always had to find since testing and they did it. I'm guessing they'll balance it out with future upgrades. More worrying for you should be the Honda engine/fuel problem.

[loekf2]

https://www.racefans.net/wp-content/upl ... -29-12.jpg
I'd like to highlight what in my opinion is the worst problem of the RB18 right now: the front pull rod.
Obviously it allowed the engineers to reduce the weight of the suspension arms and lower the CoG of the whole front corner of the car, however, I believe it is not suitable to generate enough heat on the front tires. This shows at turn 1-2 when Max had massive understeer and could barely stay near the apex. On top of that, I remember that back in 2015 Ferrari had similar problems with that same philosophy (just look at Monaco GP after the SC, when Seb lost about 5 seconds because of low temperature on front tires). What do you think of this? Every comment is well accepted.

I'm not sure .. I think it's more of an aero problem than a chassis -> pullrod problem. I think so because ferrari's main problems when they went for pullrods were because of the small angle of their pullrod. They couldn't introduce more angle to it due to regulations. That isn't the case now, RBR pullrod looks like its got more angle than some of the push rods on the field. It looks like a good design.
Also, there was talk in the paddock of how RB have got a good rear, but they haven't got enough front to balance it. It's front aero performance they always had to find since testing and they did it. I'm guessing they'll balance it out with future upgrades. More worrying for you should be the Honda engine/fuel problem.

There's no Honda engine/fuel problem, that's ouside Honda's (or HRC now) scope. The fuel line + pumps are the design of RBR with some mandatory components (like 2 of the 3 pumps).

I'm more worried about what happened yesterday. Appearently Perez (and Ferrari ?) drove in Q3 on used softs, while Verstappen opted for brand new softs with more warm up and understeer issues. Do the teams of both drivers not talk to each other ?

[JPower]

https://www.racefans.net/wp-content/upl ... -29-12.jpg
I'd like to highlight what in my opinion is the worst problem of the RB18 right now: the front pull rod.
Obviously it allowed the engineers to reduce the weight of the suspension arms and lower the CoG of the whole front corner of the car, however, I believe it is not suitable to generate enough heat on the front tires. This shows at turn 1-2 when Max had massive understeer and could barely stay near the apex. On top of that, I remember that back in 2015 Ferrari had similar problems with that same philosophy (just look at Monaco GP after the SC, when Seb lost about 5 seconds because of low temperature on front tires). What do you think of this? Every comment is well accepted.

I'm not sure .. I think it's more of an aero problem than a chassis -> pullrod problem. I think so because ferrari's main problems when they went for pullrods were because of the small angle of their pullrod. They couldn't introduce more angle to it due to regulations. That isn't the case now, RBR pullrod looks like its got more angle than some of the push rods on the field. It looks like a good design.
Also, there was talk in the paddock of how RB have got a good rear, but they haven't got enough front to balance it. It's front aero performance they always had to find since testing and they did it. I'm guessing they'll balance it out with future upgrades. More worrying for you should be the Honda engine/fuel problem.

There's no Honda engine/fuel problem, that's ouside Honda's (or HRC now) scope. The fuel line + pumps are the design of RBR with some mandatory components (like 2 of the 3 pumps).

I'm more worried about what happened yesterday. Appearently Perez (and Ferrari ?) drove in Q3 on used softs, while Verstappen opted for brand new softs with more warm up and understeer issues. Do the teams of both drivers not talk to each other ?

Both Ferraris were on new softs for the last Q3 run.

[vorticism]

RB18 also has a fuel tank undercut. In fact there's a structural member hung off of it to receive the engine. So great is the depth of it.

[johndoucakis]

Hi guys
Great content here.

Here is a 3D representation of the RB18

Source:
TheoDev
Sketschfab
https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/red-bul ... fa2305368c











hope you enjoy it.

[Curbstone]

Red Bull have found some possibilities for weight reduction.


He also states the Red Bull is about 810 kg, and the Ferrari 800 kg.
I don't know how reliable this is.

[Emag]

I know there is a lot of questions in regards to the choice of sidepod concept from McLaren, but from this view I really like how it looks… Hope they get the concept to work

https://i.imgur.com/61U5Ybd.jpg

Vía XPB NextGen-Auto

How is that RedBull tunnel entrance cutout allowed?

If you look at the diagonal line for the opening cut in the RedBull, the angle is much bigger than on the other teams.

Is that a clever interpreation of the rules for that area? Because they definitely seem to have a bigger tunnel entrance than the others.

[gandharva]

[Vanja #66]

Look at those raising tunnel leading edges! RB putting so much air in floor vortices, no wonder their floor aero is so good with that much sealing...

[Big Tea]

Does the surface texture of the floor and the direction of the groves make any difference to how it acts?

[AR3-GP]

Does the surface texture of the floor and the direction of the groves make any difference to how it acts?

All of those surfaces are smooth to touch. They only have the appearance of texture due to the carbon layup and the translucent resin/epoxy that is used.

[Big Tea]

Does the surface texture of the floor and the direction of the groves make any difference to how it acts?

All of those surfaces are smooth to touch. They only have the appearance of texture due to the carbon layup and the translucent resin/epoxy that is used.

Thanks. Is that a rule or it just happens that they are flat?

[chrisc90]

Look at those raising tunnel leading edges! RB putting so much air in floor vortices, no wonder their floor aero is so good with that much sealing...

Which bit are we look at there? Im a total noob.

[AR3-GP]

Look at those raising tunnel leading edges! RB putting so much air in floor vortices, no wonder their floor aero is so good with that much sealing...

Which bit are we look at there? Im a total noob.

The area where the vertical strakes attach to floor. It's lifted high up to capture more air.

[Vanja #66]

Exactly. Leading edge treatment is also very telling, bigger radii next to chassis to avoid any separation and turbulence.