Oracle Red Bull Racing RB19 Speculation Thread

[Cassius]

https://racingnews365.com/the-developme ... e-lap-time

Wache says RB19 has much weight improvement to come. End of season RB18 was substantially too heavy.

I think most of the teams will find big weight savings across the winter. Hopefully it helps make them a little more nimble with better weight distribution.

Yes, but that's not the interesting part. The fact they were so much better in AD despite use of heavier parts again, and the rumors from AMuS they were increasing ride height as a test for 2023, shows they have plenty of potential left in this car vs others.

Also, they haven't changed the rear wings all year. I think they can still improve drag/df ratio on these with some cfd/wind tunnel work.

[SiLo]

https://racingnews365.com/the-developme ... e-lap-time

Wache says RB19 has much weight improvement to come. End of season RB18 was substantially too heavy.

I think most of the teams will find big weight savings across the winter. Hopefully it helps make them a little more nimble with better weight distribution.

Yes, but that's not the interesting part. The fact they were so much better in AD despite use of heavier parts again, and the rumors from AMuS they were increasing ride height as a test for 2023, shows they have plenty of potential left in this car vs others.

Also, they haven't changed the rear wings all year. I think they can still improve drag/df ratio on these with some cfd/wind tunnel work.

Yes it will be interesting to see how much the rear wing changes. I'm not sure the shape will change much as the regs don't allow huge freedom there, but I assume they will be similar to Ferrari with various downforce level versions.

[Henk_v]

AR showed up with a very elaborate front wing, AM had a well developed wing and Mercedes devote a substantial part of their development on a front wing.

Sure all is interrelated, but a well developed front wing can make your concept dependent on it, or it is used to fix otherwise unchangable flaws in the aero concept.

Its been assumed the MB is draggy due to lack of outwash making the rear wheels draggy. So it seems they tried to fix it somewhat with an extreme outwashing front wing.

If your aero concept works well without a special wing, I could imagine you'd want to optimise the body and floor aero to keep your data clean. If all is well and settled, you can dot the i's using a specific FW.

Another theory is that the several cooling outlet options would mean a too specific FW could make the result unpredictable.

[MIKEY_!]

According to RacingNews365, the RB19 will be an evolution of the RB18 (no surprises there). Apparently the key changes will be:
- weight-saving throughout the car to "immediately reach the minimum regulatory weight"
- the monocoque will be 3kg lighter than in 2022, this will be partly achieved by a different carbon weave (pic for you composite nerds below)
- an undercut running the full length of the sidepod, aka a "double floor"
- narrower gearbox carrier
- changes to the floor to meet the new regulations in that area

EDIT: the double floor thing looks bogus and the same 'journalist' has been recycling this BS in stories about other teams too. Don't give them a 'click' on the link below, they don't deserve it.

I'm skeptical about double floor theory. At least 2 teams started 2022 with a double floor and quickly moved to a more RB18-like shape with the undercut ending towards the rear of the sidepod and creating some outwash, so it seems the double floor is not optimal. My only suggestion is that RB could have found a way to generate enough outwash via vorticies, and the new floor regulations could have reduced downforce so much that the floor doesn't need to be braced from above, so a double floor might work. But I doubt it.

Monocoque weave


double floor

https://racingnews365.com/first-details ... r-unveiled

[AR3-GP]

RB16B already had the narrowest gearbox casing i'd ever seen. To hear them going smaller is frightening

[AR3-GP]

I'm skeptical about double floor theory. At least 2 teams started 2022 with a double floor and quickly moved to a more RB18-like shape with the undercut ending towards the rear of the sidepod and creating some outwash, so it seems the double floor is not optimal. My only suggestion is that RB could have found a way to generate enough outwash via vorticies, and the new floor regulations could have reduced downforce so much that the floor doesn't need to be braced from above, so a double floor might work. But I doubt it.

The success of any concept is going to depend on the implementation. Maybe small teams like Alfa Romeo and Aston Martin were ill equipped to attempt such a complex design (i.e they just weren't very good at what they tried to do).

Even after some teams copied the RB18 in '22, they still weren't very good.


However, perhaps this is all a bit of misdirection.

[gandharva]

I'm skeptical about double floor theory.

This is just the typical pre season speculation stuff. That dude (Paolo Filisetti) wrote a similar article about the new Ferrari with the exact same "predictions". Those juornos, just like us, know nothing about the new cars. It's all about clickbait.

[Cs98]

According to RacingNews365, the RB19 will be an evolution of the RB18 (no surprises there). Apparently the key changes will be:
- weight-saving throughout the car to "immediately reach the minimum regulatory weight"
- the monocoque will be 3kg lighter than in 2022, this will be partly achieved by a different carbon weave (pic for you composite nerds below)
- an undercut running the full length of the sidepod, aka a "double floor"
- narrower gearbox carrier
- changes to the floor to meet the new regulations in that area

The weight saving is very likely since RB said as much during 2022 and in interviews after the season. The chassi we know of already. The floor changes are obvious. The predictions about aero I suspect are just totally made up.

[MIKEY_!]

This is just the typical pre season speculation stuff. That dude (Paolo Filisetti) wrote a similar article about the new Ferrari with the exact same "predictions". Those juornos, just like us, know nothing about the new cars. It's all about clickbait.

That's dirty even by journo standards lol, I guess I was right to be skeptical.

[BlueCheetah66]

This is just the typical pre season speculation stuff. That dude (Paolo Filisetti) wrote a similar article about the new Ferrari with the exact same "predictions". Those juornos, just like us, know nothing about the new cars. It's all about clickbait.

That's dirty even by journo standards lol, I guess I was right to be skeptical.

I guess though to speculate is their only real job during the off season . I mean we are in a speculation thread for a reason

[MIKEY_!]

I guess though to speculate is their only real job during the off season . I mean we are in a speculation thread for a reason

Yes, but only up to a point. Speculation can be a good thing. It can be fun and informative - that's really why people come to these threads isn't it? On the other hand, misleading people by making --- up and recycling that nonsense across multiple teams is never good journalism - even if it might be good for 'clicks'.

[Vanja #66]

Those undercut speculations make sense for Ferrari completely and are aligned with rumors from other sources. For RB it makes less sense based on season 2022, but we don't know what the actual development direction will be. Wide sidepods and deep undercut aren't mutually exclusive.

[gandharva]

Therein lies the rub, more weight.
If it was possible to include the charge-cooler mass within the overs mass of the ICE then it would be a no-brainer; however the charge-cooler needs a water air cooler itself along with pump, hoses, header-tank and all of the other control gubbins.

Do you know rough figures about the weight difference?

The top goal for 23 was/is definitely weight reduction. Going below the minimum weight to unlock specifically placed ballast could not only free up a lot of pace, but also help drivers set up the car to their liking.

[Stu]

Therein lies the rub, more weight.
If it was possible to include the charge-cooler mass within the overs mass of the ICE then it would be a no-brainer; however the charge-cooler needs a water air cooler itself along with pump, hoses, header-tank and all of the other control gubbins.

Do you know rough figures about the weight difference?

The top goal for 23 was/is definitely weight reduction. Going below the minimum weight to unlock specifically placed ballast could not only free up a lot of pace, but also help drivers set up the car to their liking.

I don’t have absolute numbers, but if air/air inter-cooling (including pipe work) is 7kg, but is not included within ICE mass; for the same cooling effect charge-cooling system will require it’s own water system (including pump & reservoir), pipe work, air/water heat exchanger and then a water/air heat exchanger in the airflow.

(Separate water system would be necessary as engine coolant temperature would result in a heating effect on the inlet air)

If the water system for the charge- cooling was only 5 litres you have a minimum of a 5kg increase in mass from that, so likely twice the total mass of air/air intercooling.
If you could incorporate the air/water heat exchanger, water pump and reservoir within the ICE mass you could effect no (or near zero) increase in mass. Alternatively, although it would be less effective you could use ICE oil in the charge cooler system, creating a double duty system for oil cooling & air cooling. You may not achieve the same cooling effect, but would achieve a consistent air temperature. This would get a net reduction in mass.

[1158]

Could hydraulic fluid be used instead of oil for charge cooling? I have no idea if that would work, how hot the hydraulic fluid gets or how good it would be at pulling heat from the charge air.

Just trying to think outside the box.