Red Bull RB19

[Sevach]

[organic]

Comparison created by Diego Mejia [@diegofmejia on Twitter]

[CriXus]

F1 Aero Analysis : Red Bull Racing RB19 Floor Analysis | LATERAL DOUBLE DIFFUSER ??

[BlueCheetah66]

I feel like the analysis of Red Bulls strakes at 6:40 is incorrect. The inboard strake on the RB19 is definitely more straight up until the final kick, as apposed to the double kick nature outlined in the video

[vorticism]

No louvers for Canada.

racefans.net:

[Just_a_fan]

No louvers for Canada.

racefans.net:
https://i.postimg.cc/BQK6Nsch/Screen-Sh ... -50-AM.png

In wet conditions, probably not needed.

Are the teams allowed to change cool gills in parc ferme?

[AR3-GP]

No louvers for Canada.

racefans.net:
https://i.postimg.cc/BQK6Nsch/Screen-Sh ... -50-AM.png

In wet conditions, probably not needed.

Are the teams allowed to change cool gills in parc ferme?

They were closed for the race. It was very cold today. The car struggled to keep tire temperature.

[Just_a_fan]

No louvers for Canada.

racefans.net:
https://i.postimg.cc/BQK6Nsch/Screen-Sh ... -50-AM.png

In wet conditions, probably not needed.

Are the teams allowed to change cool gills in parc ferme?

They were closed for the race. It was very cold today. The car struggled to keep tire temperature.

Thanks.

Are they allowed to open them in PF if conditions change?

[vorticism]

Given that we've seen the letterbox sidepod inlets used at both low and high downforce circuits, safe to say it's a permanent change this season.

[AR3-GP]

This may be a bit subjective, but when I look at the contouring of the RB floor, there are some areas where it doesn't look like something that a human could draw. Some of the height variation and seemingly random scalloping (like a potato) almost looks like it's been generated using an adjoint method or some other optimization algorithm.

[Zynerji]

This may be a bit subjective, but when I look at the contouring of the RB floor, there are some areas where it doesn't look like something that a human could draw. Some of the height variation and seemingly random scalloping (like a potato) almost looks like it's been generated using an adjoint method or some other optimization algorithm.

I'm sure there is a GPT for that somewhere.

[Farnborough]

This may be a bit subjective, but when I look at the contouring of the RB floor, there are some areas where it doesn't look like something that a human could draw. Some of the height variation and seemingly random scalloping (like a potato) almost looks like it's been generated using an adjoint method or some other optimization algorithm.

Clearly it's of a different level in detail than the competitors, that's obvious to even the most casual observers.

But origins.....if the design team intent was calling for maximum volume in that space above the reference plane, then it just looks like a scan of the bottom of the car, sans floor. If those dimension were aggregated with conditional radius etc, then that would be a close assimilation of the floor we see now.

In essence, rather than approaching with the design direction of producing a inverted wing form, as the more simple floor example displays, create the component set to give the volume space asked for to maximise the volume in that area, then effectively "shrink wrap" it to produce the surface.

It's not as simple as that, I know that. But of very different intentions between the two design aims.

[Bill]

This may be a bit subjective, but when I look at the contouring of the RB floor, there are some areas where it doesn't look like something that a human could draw. Some of the height variation and seemingly random scalloping (like a potato) almost looks like it's been generated using an adjoint method or some other optimization algorithm.

Clearly it's of a different level in detail than the competitors, that's obvious to even the most casual observers.

But origins.....if the design team intent was calling for maximum volume in that space above the reference plane, then it just looks like a scan of the bottom of the car, sans floor. If those dimension were aggregated with conditional radius etc, then that would be a close assimilation of the floor we see now.

In essence, rather than approaching with the design direction of producing a inverted wing form, as the more simple floor example displays, create the component set to give the volume space asked for to maximise the volume in that area, then effectively "shrink wrap" it to produce the surface.

It's not as simple as that, I know that. But of very different intentions between the two design aims.

they are using technology from oracle yacht racing but all team use cfd to some degree

[Cassius]

It seems most of the aero work by RB is done on the floor. The overall concept of the sidepods haven't been changed since the 2nd week of Bahrain testing in 2022, bar some small changes and the update in Baku.
The next upgrade will be a new floor, likely appearing in Silverstone.

Do you think there is still anything to gain from improving the sidepods, for example by adding a waterslide such as the AMR23 has?

If so, you think the aero penalty is the reason we haven't seen any changes to the sidepod concept and RB just focuses on the area where they think they can gain the most. And we just have to wait for the RB20 when they have a bit more aero time to see whether they also move to a waterslide sidepod?

[joeyg02]

Long time member, rarely ever post comments. I'm more of an observer.
But anyway... I was looking online at some pictures and came across this one of the Red Bull (Monaco 2023) without the engine cover. Can anyone tell me what the square thing above the engine is (one of it's supports is bolted on to the left of the watermark)? Doesn't look like it's something that stays on the car when the covers are placed back on it. My best guess would be some sort of stand or object to help the mechanics in some way, but like I said i'm clueless. I'm just curious and I knew if anyone could answer this question it would be you all.




Thanks in advance,
Joey