Red Bull RB19

[AR3-GP]

If anyone's interested, here's my article about RB19 top speed performance. Nothing that wasn't already mentioned here (yet) but it is wrapped up nicely

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uncovere ... novi%C4%87

https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/D4D12 ... Q8cVzvcpXw

and right as you published this, Paolo Filisetti published another stalling piece
https://racingnews365.com/behind-the-se ... ectiveness

[Vanja #66]

and right as you published this, Paolo Filisetti published another stalling piece
https://racingnews365.com/behind-the-se ... ectiveness

I think I've seen AMR achieve same top speed boost with DRS this weekend, with double element beam wing...

[Just_a_fan]

Noticed this small initial acceleration advantage on aston as well. I feel we can rule out traction advantage as Ver was on mediums. Dare I say Merc PU with more power?

I don't think merc holds any advantage on deployment even with strat 2, maybe a very tiny bit at the end of long straight in S2, but could also be just higher speed slowing down RB more than merc after mgu-k clipping. Turn 4 entry we can see really obvious clipping on merc.

The Merc PU isn't more powerful, no. If anything, the Honda is. It's more likely that the Honda PU deploys a bit less early on and then has more to deploy later on. Together with the ICE, that gives a better top speed. Indeed, if I had a car with more downforce, I'd keep the electrical energy for the straights because the aero is making up the time in the lower bits of the track, meaning I don't need to punch out of corners quite so much in order to keep lap time - my aero is doing that in the slow bits, leaving the PU to do the high speed gains. I think that's why the RB19 is so fast - it's keeping the battery for the straights because it can.

It's always far more valuable in terms of laptime to deploy more at the start of the straight than at the end. Same reason lift and coast is done at the end of the straight not the beginning. No team would willingly deploy less at the start of the straight to save for the end of straight lap upon lap.. maybe it could be done with a deployment setting for an on-track battle such as to complete an overtake

That rather depends on the corner leading on to the straight, frankly.

But the point is to look at the lap as a whole (holistic approach, as they like to discuss these days). If I can leave the corner with similar performance to you (thanks to downforce giving me a similar or even greater speed) but save "horse power" for the high speed sections, then I win. Why? Because power absorbed by drag is a cube relationship to velocity. So If I lose a few km/h for a few metres early on, but gain 20km/h for 300m later on, that's what I'm going to take. Look at the traces - the Red Bull is gaining lap time in the corners, the Merc gains it back for a tiny % of the lap in traction, but then the RB gains for much more of the lap.

In simple terms, if you leave the corner at a similar speed to the slower car, you can gain more by holding on to horsepower (ES discharge) for later in the straight than the car that has to discharge straight away.

Downforce wins in the corners, horsepower wins on the straights. If you have both then you use them where they gain most.

It's area under the curve that matters here, nothing else.

[organic]

That rather depends on the corner leading on to the straight, frankly.

But the point is to look at the lap as a whole (holistic approach, as they like to discuss these days). If I can leave the corner with similar performance to you (thanks to downforce giving me a similar or even greater speed) but save "horse power" for the high speed sections, then I win. Why? Because power absorbed by drag is a cube relationship to velocity. So If I lose a few km/h for a few metres early on, but gain 20km/h for 300m later on, that's what I'm going to take. Look at the traces - the Red Bull is gaining lap time in the corners, the Merc gains it back for a tiny % of the lap in traction, but then the RB gains for much more of the lap.

In simple terms, if you leave the corner at a similar speed to the slower car, you can gain more by holding on to horsepower (ES discharge) for later in the straight than the car that has to discharge straight away.

Downforce wins in the corners, horsepower wins on the straights. If you have both then you use them where they gain most.

It's area under the curve that matters here, nothing else.

It does not depend on the corner. You will always gain the most laptimes by deploying maximum energy at the beginning of the straight and there is plenty of evidence this is exactly what is done.

It comes out mathematically from area under the curve - we agree. You want to get the car velocity up as quickly as possible resulting in a velocity curve that's as close to a rectangle as possible. Of course you will not achieve that; it is the 'ideal', maximum area under the curve case.

Lift and coast is an analogous situation: treat the time on throttle as time using maximum electrical deployment. Kyle explains why lifts should only be done at the end of the straight: this is why cars only ever recharge at the end of the straight and why drivers aren't lifting off throttle at start of straights "because their car makes it up through the corner and exits faster"



Here's some analysis done by various YouTube accounts showing the areas where maximum deployment is currently used by formula 1 teams - note it is always immediately at a corner exit regardless of the corner preceding it. More deployment is used where the straight is longer; you benefit more in terms of laptimes from deployment as you move down the straight so more straight means more gains.











It's absolutely true however that in traction zones they are not deploying energy .. in fact it is advantageous for teams to harvest with the K in these regimes by leveraging more Ice power than the driver requests and taking away some power with harvest.

There's a video/detailed post somewhere made by a current engineer of an F1 team that details the principles we're discussing and outlines roughly what I've said. But I can't find it should it even exist anymore.

Finally.. here's Andy Cowell:



It is never going to be advantageous to fight against drag at 280km/h for extra velocity than it is to deploy a bit of energy at the start of the straight and gain not only at the start of the straight but all the way down it

[Airshifter]

Great points on the advantages of deployment in relation to lap times and why earlier is better.

But at the same time, you don't make passes based on lap times, and other than in qualification the lowest possible lap times don't count for much.

In a car such as the RB19 that is already quicker, it might well be possible to use energy deployment where its' to the bigger on track advantage, that being defending or overtaking. And in this day and age of racing often those long straights are where winners and followers are decided. Similar to the years of trains of cars being stuck behind a slower car, we are getting the same now with DRS and the hybrid era. But it's really rare to see RB stuck anywhere, they manage to get by fairly quickly in most cases.

If a car can "hold it's own" on the merit of superior aero, ICE grunt, gearing, etc (pick any combination) for even a fraction of time then it also gains deployment for that fraction of time, or greater deployment for equal time. While I fully agree that for lap times earlier is always better, it's possible to run quicker laps times while still stuck behind another car. With the benefits of DRS and being in the slip stream the acceleration and later deployment could make a pass easier or more decisive, even at the expense of lap times.

[organic]

Great points on the advantages of deployment in relation to lap times and why earlier is better.

But at the same time, you don't make passes based on lap times, and other than in qualification the lowest possible lap times don't count for much.

In a car such as the RB19 that is already quicker, it might well be possible to use energy deployment where its' to the bigger on track advantage, that being defending or overtaking. And in this day and age of racing often those long straights are where winners and followers are decided. Similar to the years of trains of cars being stuck behind a slower car, we are getting the same now with DRS and the hybrid era. But it's really rare to see RB stuck anywhere, they manage to get by fairly quickly in most cases.

If a car can "hold it's own" on the merit of superior aero, ICE grunt, gearing, etc (pick any combination) for even a fraction of time then it also gains deployment for that fraction of time, or greater deployment for equal time. While I fully agree that for lap times earlier is always better, it's possible to run quicker laps times while still stuck behind another car. With the benefits of DRS and being in the slip stream the acceleration and later deployment could make a pass easier or more decisive, even at the expense of lap times.

Teams are often offering drivers different deployment maps, sometimes sacrificing laptimes by using less deployment elsewhere to prevent overtakes into particular corners that's correct - in many cases this is done by saving extra energy for the main straight.

However the specific case being referred to is one where s RB had no need to do this sort of adjustment to the deployment. They were in a part of the race where they'd be preventing too much engine wear whilst optimizing laptimes - he was trying to fight verstappen but weren't duelling on track.

Additionally, there'd be no logical reason as a defending car with an overtaking car behind to hold back on deploying energy at the start of the straight to save energy in order to "defend harder at the end of the straight" - again in such a scenario you should deploy maximally from the beginning of the straight.

[Chuckjr]

Maybe this explains why at times in races we see a following car gain quite a bit in the twisty bits, only to not catch up down the long straight as the leading car deploys a slower overall lap strategy that offers a faster to top speed option for the longest straight. Not sure if this is the case, but it certainly makes sense by what I’ve read here.

Tbh, I really miss the cars that didn’t have batteries. I think force fit changes (like a heavy battery and ancillary motors/electronics/etc) have really cost F1 a lot of authenticity and in turn made it far too complex/synthetic.

[deadhead]

Red Bull's diffuser is the smallest, creates less turbulence and less drag



The center kick point created by the small bottom of the gearbox creates a gentle curve to prevent stalling

It is clear that it is to make use of the center flat floor where the central volume of the diffuser is made large

RB's rear downforce often relies on a rear wing with a large flap area (large DRS delta)

The downforce of the rear wing is not affected by the vehicle height, so it is easy to set up

A year would not be enough to imitate this.

[vorticism]

Not wrong... Their diffuser exit area is the smallest (measured at a most rearward vertical plane) by nature of the rounded corners. Total diffuser volume however might not be much different from other cars. That photo reminds: they used single element beam wing at Miami.

[deadhead]

Does Honda make the gearbox?

[Farnborough]

Gearbox is RB for 19 and AT cars.

[Farnborough]

The RB 19 in that photo above does have something in the diffuser wall.

I know it's been debated before, was there conclusive opinion on this ? And I can see the origin of many of these views by assessing a shadow line down from brake duct often, but this has moulded detail right at the foot of the diffuser onto that little kick out horizontal plane coming back from the floor on the outside of the diffuser wall.

[chrisc90]

The RB 19 in that photo above does have something in the diffuser wall.

I know it's been debated before, was there conclusive opinion on this ? And I can see the origin of many of these views by assessing a shadow line down from brake duct often, but this has moulded detail right at the foot of the diffuser onto that little kick out horizontal plane coming back from the floor on the outside of the diffuser wall.

I think that conclusion was it was the lighting.

But to me, that definitely looks a little step outwards by say 10-20mm or so.

Can tell with the lighting around the lower section of the bulge. A shadow wouldn’t create the lighter section around the lower section.

[AR3-GP]

The RB 19 in that photo above does have something in the diffuser wall.

I know it's been debated before, was there conclusive opinion on this ? And I can see the origin of many of these views by assessing a shadow line down from brake duct often, but this has moulded detail right at the foot of the diffuser onto that little kick out horizontal plane coming back from the floor on the outside of the diffuser wall.

I agree. I think the previous discussion was whether or not it was a slot and most concluded that it's not a slot, and that a slot would be illegal.

It's not a slot, but it looks like a bump. It's possible that it's designed to squeeze the air between the cake tin device and the diffuser sidewall. It could also be a structural reinforcement rib or it could be something related to a "boss" for pressure taps and the associated tubulations running inside the diffuser sidewall.

[lio007]

Does Honda make the gearbox?

RedBull Technology provides the gearboxes for both RedBull teams.