2023 Oracle Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[dialtone]

So, just like oil burning, then.

Or Ferrari's fuel system.

They mentioned what they did in the TD39 update, some teams have floors made of multiple pieces that have relative movement and aren't a solid piece but have holes that allow for vertical compliance.

That's pretty much all the TD says. Now we can talk about whether this applied or not to RBR, but the performance and the bottoming out issues under braking cannot possibly rule out impact.

Then add the top speed (with DRS in particular) performance post TD18 and even there it's hard to rule out.

It's clear RBR is still the better car, just look at the last corner in singapore, they'll be back on top next race, but it's also very very likely to me that they were impacted by these TDs.

RB were running a single panel plank in Monza when we got to see 'la derriere' of Perez car when he went on in FP.

Therefore, I can see no 'foul play' in having a plank of 2 or 3 pieces moving independently.



https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https% ... yhplb1.jpg

(click link and you can zoom in nicely)

Given how FIA worded the TD you wouldn’t see anything from this view I think. Need the other side.

[chrisc90]

When TD39 initially come out, it was shown that RB and Ferrari had a 2 piece plank - last year.

Although in Monaco - it still did look to be 2 pieces


viewtopic.php?p=1136163#p1136163

[CjC]

What a joke

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/verst ... /10521267/

[dialtone]

When TD39 initially come out, it was shown that RB and Ferrari had a 2 piece plank - last year.

Although in Monaco - it still did look to be 2 pieces

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxKKX7FWwAA ... ame=medium
viewtopic.php?p=1136163#p1136163

Right the new rule should read something like:

We have noticed design details in the designated holes in the floor skid area that are designed to maximize the allowable stiffness in these areas. While these designs may meet the deflection requirements, we would like the teams to do so Remember that designs must still conform to the dimensional constraints of the corresponding trim parts, which state that there must be a continuous surface on the reference plane. Designs must not use breaks in this surface to allow for differences in vertical stiffness at these break points

So, what this means is practically that some teams are running hollow planks or planks that present discontinuous surface on the reference plane. There's already rules about the plank being flat under the car so just looking at there isn't going to uncover what they are doing. This can only be noticed before assembly of the plank.

[Silent Storm]

Jonathan Wheatley is the boss
Pulled Max out of 3 incidents, 1 of which was clear penalty. Really the most underrated employee of redbull.
If I ever end up in court I need this guy as my lawyer.

[chrisc90]

Jonathan Wheatley is the boss
Pulled Max out of 3 incidents, 1 of which was clear penalty. Really the most underrated employee of redbull.
If I ever end up in court I need this guy as my lawyer.

He is damn good!

WONder if he was responsible for the "Any, not all" in 2021.

[trinidefender]

Jonathan Wheatley is the boss
Pulled Max out of 3 incidents, 1 of which was clear penalty. Really the most underrated employee of redbull.
If I ever end up in court I need this guy as my lawyer.

Yea mean the incident with another driver of the same, sorry I mean different, team?

I think it's time that the stewards stop looking at which teams the impeding or at fault driver drives for and give them a penalty regardless if the team doesn't want to. That policy will stop this nonsense of essentially having an advantage by having a team with 4 cars on the track.

[ringo]

When TD39 initially come out, it was shown that RB and Ferrari had a 2 piece plank - last year.

Although in Monaco - it still did look to be 2 pieces

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxKKX7FWwAA ... ame=medium
viewtopic.php?p=1136163#p1136163

Also remember Redbull has a kind of strut above the plank to absorb shock. I don't know the regs in detail, but that part could also be part of the clarifications.

[chrisc90]

When TD39 initially come out, it was shown that RB and Ferrari had a 2 piece plank - last year.

Although in Monaco - it still did look to be 2 pieces

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxKKX7FWwAA ... ame=medium
viewtopic.php?p=1136163#p1136163

Also remember Redbull has a kind of strut above the plank to absorb shock. I don't know the regs in detail, but that part could also be part of the clarifications.

You mean the T-tray? A lot of teams have dampers there.

[AR3-GP]

It seems very out of protocol to make untested ride height changes between FP3 and qualifying. How does this get approved?

[ringo]

When TD39 initially come out, it was shown that RB and Ferrari had a 2 piece plank - last year.

Although in Monaco - it still did look to be 2 pieces

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxKKX7FWwAA ... ame=medium
viewtopic.php?p=1136163#p1136163

Also remember Redbull has a kind of strut above the plank to absorb shock. I don't know the regs in detail, but that part could also be part of the clarifications.

You mean the T-tray? A lot of teams have dampers there.

Yes. True. But if you have a sectioned plank, that damper can have more travel without risk of breaking the plank. The car can come down lower to the ground with that type of "joint" in the belly of the car.
If you also look on the keel above the T tray.. look where it's sealed the underside of the cockpit. There is a fillet that looks like rubber there. So the T tray will compress and go up into the chassis, but the rubber shroud ensures no gap between the body work as it flexes upwards as well. Just my unproven theory.

[AR3-GP]

More reality. A fantastic article by Mark Hughes.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/mark-hug ... driveable/

Maybe they didn’t find the ultimate set-up for the unusual demands of this place, but even if they had, this was always set to be a tough challenge for the traits of the car. “It already felt like that on the simulator,” said Verstappen afterwards, “that this was a difficult set-up window for the car. Then we went to Suzuka [on the sim] and it just felt amazing again – like most of the races”.

but I like to imagine differently for a few more days.

[Farnborough]

We'll have to wait for Japan to fully quantify pace now.

This RB chassis series just doesn't have absolute pace in quali lap at fully high downforce circuits as I view it.

This year, beaten in Hungary, skin of teeth in Monaco, it's latent advantage is just not here generally.

That Ferrari motor is fantastic for (within it's operational range) low to mid torque delivery and standout in this aspect. Shown by Haas too, but don't know what AR are doing with theirs.

RB worse than expected. I doubted it was going to be like other circuits given the relative performance last year too.

[AR3-GP]

historically Singapore has always been a bogey track for the dominant team. There's a reason for that. It means you are doing something right when you are horrible in Singapore but unbeatable everywhere else.

[Farnborough]

historically Singapore has always been a bogey track for the dominant team. There's a reason for that. It means you are doing something right when you are horrible in Singapore but unbeatable everywhere else.

Yes, notably MB when with very comfortable performance over season had a few trip up here for pure quali pace , didn't they.

It seems to favour early onset torque curve, and or maybe slightly shorter gearing overall that makes very effective corner exit pace.