2023 Oracle Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[hybridf1]

Redbull is a very efficient car regardless whether the DRS is open or not, its is still the quickest on the straight. credit should also be given to Honda, since i believe their reliability and ERS systems are top notch compared to other manufacturers.

[AR3-GP]

RB-Ford latest update: https://racingnews365.com/exclusive-hor ... owertrains

- Priority is RB and AT supply for 2026, no customers.
- Plan is 450-475 staff
- A 4 cylinder engine was proposed...but abandoned.


Summary of the 2023-2025 PU:

"Initially we were going to have a licencing deal with Honda to build their engines under licence," Horner explained.

"The more you dug into it, their IP, trying to work with Japanese suppliers, it would have been impossible.

"So in the end, thankfully – due to the good relationship we have with Honda – we contracted their services to the end of 2025, whilst focusing on the new set-up for 2026.

[vorticism]

- A 4 cylinder engine was proposed...but abandoned.

Proposed to the FIA?

I get a bad feeling about them switching from Honda to Ford.

[Wouter]

15 - 5 - 2016. Barcelona GP. Max his first victory!

[Sieper]

Great memories. I thought it was going to be impossible and certainly another pit stop was due? Boy was I wrong.

Of course Max got lucky with the Merc boys tangling but man, this was something special, suits him very well.

[AR3-GP]

The amount of rake on the RB in those days is just absurd.

[vorticism]

The amount of rake on the RB in those days is just absurd.

Yes. Now you know why Newey wanted pullrod rear suspension in 2009.

[Farnborough]

I feel that era built considerable store of expertise/experience in being able to more fully control many aspect of movement, needing to work the geometry over such a range in heights.

Just taking one element, camber on rear wheels, ideal to have camber in coping with roll and full lateral load to still present the tyre to track as optimum. This over many years has been traditionally (and crudely) done with static negative camber geometry, but this takes a toll on inner tyre shoulder during initial traction, heating that part specifically to such an extent that Pirelli forced maximum figures on the teams to prevent failure there on previous tyre size.
That also, through wear, removes gauge more on the inner edge, changing the tyre as it does this such that more advanced laps and much of the chassis camber set has disappeared through wearing the tyre into a cone shape. Then relying more on the outer shoulder under high lateral loading, when the driver starts complaining of loss in rear grip !
If the geometry can be such that static camber is more neutral for lower speed traction, then accumulate significantly more under full compression and lateral loading, more use can be made of presenting the tyre surface optimally to track over a longer usage period (sound familiar ? ) and without unduly heating locally either edge, then warmup may be more gentle, but longevity even at higher pace can be extended significantly.

All the predictions were that the 18 inch tyres may approach the 13 for outright grip, but with the need for much more detailed control of factors like this.

Without such concise understanding of this and very detailed and accurate intentions, then some chassis are not going to manage this very well. Gives classic choice of one lap pace vs long run time advantage. Now I wonder where we've seen that

[AR3-GP]

The amount of rake on the RB in those days is just absurd.

Yes. Now you know why Newey wanted pullrod rear suspension in 2009.

Is that because they hiked the back of the car up so much, that they were paying a center of gravity penalty? Is the thinking that they tried to "compensate" by putting the bulky suspension bits down at the bottom?

[vorticism]

The amount of rake on the RB in those days is just absurd.

Yes. Now you know why Newey wanted pullrod rear suspension in 2009.

Is that because they hiked the back of the car up so much, that they were paying a center of gravity penalty? Is the thinking that they tried to "compensate" by putting the bulky suspension bits down at the bottom?

That's my best guess. There are other reasons to be made for it but I'd say that was the primary one.

Rake lifted everything up, trans and engine included. Now this is interesting because currently there's near zero rake. Low CoG again. This must have been a fairly major change for their car design philosophy after twelve years. It shows in their new suspension arrangement among other things.

[AR3-GP]

Monaco will be the real test as I expect that track layout to be a bit of an equalizer.

[dren]

Monaco will be the real test as I expect that track layout to be a bit of an equalizer.

We'll see what kind of one lap pace they can pull out of the car since starting position there is king.

[Gillian]

Let's hope for no late qualifying "crashes" and/or other shenanigans.

[AR3-GP]

The power unit in the RB19 is being flattered by the RB19 chassis and it's aero. Compare the same power unit with its claimed longest deployment of them all when used in the RB19 sister team car.

claimed longest deployment is based on data not opinion .the performance difference in f1 is measured in tenth of second so you cant expert dramatic difference from engines alone.if rebull was competiting againt cars with equal level of perfomance then having a honda pu will be an advantage eg in 2021 in a champ fight with merc the hondas lost about 7hp over a course of six to seven races ,merc lost about 50hp which forced them to use more pu. these is knowhow gained over many years in motorsport.

the idea that the rb19 chassis flatters the honda pu is silly because the shape ,dimension and characteristic of pu dictates what chassis redbull built.if they were using a different pu then they will bulid a different car and no quarantee it will be competitive.the honda is small and compact which help with channelling air to back of car which help in generating downforce.they also found novel ways to harvest with mguh without compromising combution efficiency.the result of all that is they dont lean too much on mguk harvesting therefore help with laptimes.alpha tauri is a small team with a budget to match ,but they maybe backmarkers but in the race they fight for points which show a pu working well

- A 4 cylinder engine was proposed...but abandoned.

Proposed to the FIA?

I get a bad feeling about them switching from Honda to Ford.

This is a point that is worrying regarding the new RB-Ford PU collaboration.

Honda developed a cylinder coating technology that is unrivaled currently. As a result, their ICE power doesn't degrade appreciably over time. Merc was losing 3-4 tenths of performance over 7 race weekends. Honda was losing a tenth at most.


Maybe I will be proven wrong about this, but it seems like RB should stick to what they do best, and Honda stick to what they do best. I struggle to imagine that Rb won't have reliability issues in 2026.

[organic]

The power unit in the RB19 is being flattered by the RB19 chassis and it's aero. Compare the same power unit with its claimed longest deployment of them all when used in the RB19 sister team car.

claimed longest deployment is based on data not opinion .the performance difference in f1 is measured in tenth of second so you cant expert dramatic difference from engines alone.if rebull was competiting againt cars with equal level of perfomance then having a honda pu will be an advantage eg in 2021 in a champ fight with merc the hondas lost about 7hp over a course of six to seven races ,merc lost about 50hp which forced them to use more pu. these is knowhow gained over many years in motorsport.

the idea that the rb19 chassis flatters the honda pu is silly because the shape ,dimension and characteristic of pu dictates what chassis redbull built.if they were using a different pu then they will bulid a different car and no quarantee it will be competitive.the honda is small and compact which help with channelling air to back of car which help in generating downforce.they also found novel ways to harvest with mguh without compromising combution efficiency.the result of all that is they dont lean too much on mguk harvesting therefore help with laptimes.alpha tauri is a small team with a budget to match ,but they maybe backmarkers but in the race they fight for points which show a pu working well

- A 4 cylinder engine was proposed...but abandoned.

Proposed to the FIA?

I get a bad feeling about them switching from Honda to Ford.

This is a point that is worrying regarding the new RB-Ford PU collaboration.

Honda developed a cylinder coating technology that is unrivaled currently. As a result, their ICE power doesn't degrade appreciably over time. Merc was losing 3-4 tenths of performance over 7 race weekends. Honda was losing a tenth at most.


Maybe I will be proven wrong about this, but it seems like RB should stick to what they do best, and Honda stick to what they do best. I struggle to imagine that Rb won't have reliability issues in 2026.

Even if RB have reliability issues for a few years beginning in 2026, over the long term developing their own engine manufacturing facilities, connections, expertise is the right move if they want to be a championship contending team consistently over the decades.

Honda returning to the sport and going from being fairly uncompetitive to having the best engine within a few years was not really foreseeable and RB were incredibly fortunate this happened. Honda are unpredictable in terms of their motorsport commitment having withdrawn multiple times.. how can RB rely on them to stay committed? They could be left high & dry and stuck with Renault engines at any time if Honda brass change their mind for the umpteenth time

Honda are particularly appealing as an engine manufacturer for the 2026 rules as their electrical technology (battery, harvesting, software) all seems exemplary. However we do not know what the future of F1 will be powertrains-wise: Honda as a brand may fully electrify whilst F1 may opt towards more combustion down the line when biofuels are more available and beneficial for racing series, at which point Honda's perceived advantage would not really exist

There are other benefits as well. Developing your own engine allows certain advantages with chassis integration & doing it on the same site allows close partnership of the chassis and engine development. Minor benefit but the team also will have to expand certain on-site operations which can save costs even for the F1 team proper ( through economies of scale) eg catering costs.

There will be problems perhaps even catastrophic but the long-term benefits of being a complete manufacturer are undeniable for a team like RB