RB20 speculation

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
AR3-GP
AR3-GP
365
Joined: 06 Jul 2021, 01:22

Re: RB20 speculation

Post

From Cardile interview:
"Some Teams Allegedly Reduced the Size of Brake Calipers During the Season. Ferrari Took a More Conservative Approach. Does This Have to Do with Reliability?"

Cardile: I don't believe the other teams have smaller brake calipers. This is a so-called open-source component. If a team changes something, it must share the CAD construction plans with all others. We can view them. We also study photos. As far as I can tell, the size of the brake calipers of all teams is almost the same. Red Bull introduced a new technology this year, different from what Mercedes and we have been using for several years. It may be that these new brake calipers bring a weight advantage. That needs to be looked at. Whether the part is a millimeter larger or smaller makes no difference.
https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... t/kf9wvzm/
A lion must kill its prey.

marcel171281
marcel171281
27
Joined: 22 Feb 2020, 12:08

Re: RB20 speculation

Post

If you don't fail your first crashtest, you designed a too heavy car!

You are, for certain, above what is necessary, but not exactly on what is necessary.
Fail and reverse engineer to what is the bear minimum required.

Henk_v
Henk_v
86
Joined: 24 Feb 2022, 13:41

Re: RB20 speculation

Post

Nonsense. Any good designer knows what its design can handle before they submit it.

Crash tests are validation tests, not design iterations. That's done in-house.

If a design fails the test, engineers first look how it is possible their tools did not predict it. If the tools are off, you are sailing blind.

User avatar
Zynerji
110
Joined: 27 Jan 2016, 16:14

Re: RB20 speculation

Post

AR3-GP wrote:
28 Dec 2023, 23:42
From Cardile interview:
"Some Teams Allegedly Reduced the Size of Brake Calipers During the Season. Ferrari Took a More Conservative Approach. Does This Have to Do with Reliability?"

Cardile: I don't believe the other teams have smaller brake calipers. This is a so-called open-source component. If a team changes something, it must share the CAD construction plans with all others. We can view them. We also study photos. As far as I can tell, the size of the brake calipers of all teams is almost the same. Red Bull introduced a new technology this year, different from what Mercedes and we have been using for several years. It may be that these new brake calipers bring a weight advantage. That needs to be looked at. Whether the part is a millimeter larger or smaller makes no difference.
https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... t/kf9wvzm/
Now just do this with all components, and watch the need for a budget cap evaporate.

User avatar
ME4ME
79
Joined: 19 Dec 2014, 16:37

Re: RB20 speculation

Post

Henk_v wrote:
03 Jan 2024, 22:17
Nonsense. Any good designer knows what its design can handle before they submit it.

Crash tests are validation tests, not design iterations. That's done in-house.

If a design fails the test, engineers first look how it is possible their tools did not predict it. If the tools are off, you are sailing blind.
Generally, yes.
But as a design engineer i'd like to argue that its much less clear cut than that.

Confidence in the design depends to a large extent on the margin you're allowed to keep against a given load. Often its fully acceptable and sometimes even desirable to add a small but effective amount of mass, which also from a cost perspective might not even be that significant. It can be like a drop in the ocean, from a project perspective. With mass being so critical in F1 and the margin required to be as little as possible, I can see why the engineers designing the impact structures might be less than fully confident.

In addiction there is the complexity of simulating and approximating these kind of impact structures. It's not like a fully homogeneous steel rod in a tensile test machine generating a stress-strain curve. One has to appreciate the difficulty in simulating not only fracture mechanics, but with composite material with anisotropic properties.

Also from a material perspective, the less margin the higher the requirements on predictable defined and consistent material and structural properties. Properties such as friction and adhesion within the fabric and adhesive might vary slightly throughout the entire structure, or from one item to the next.

This leads of course to manufacturing. On-the-limit design will require extreme meticulousness and care in all the phases of production. And while the final product might be scanned, machined and polished repeatedly I doubt that all surfaces will be as perfect as said tensile test specimen with almost perfect diameter and run-out. The crash structure might for example have inner cavities that are hard to reach.

Finally one has to consider repeatability. How many front impact structures can the organization realistically test in-house to aid development and to come to a final specification?

And then, once that final specification is locked in, what is the probability of the end product failing of succeeding the validation test, given the variances and tolerances of the design? Welded structures, just as a reference, can be engineered entirely to welding standards such as IIW or Eurocode, using state of the art methodology. Yet those standards recognize variance and tolerance, and as such still state a probability of one out of many structures failing. Not per million but per hundred.

As far as I'm aware the FIA requires only one item to pass the validation test for homologation. Then, further produced items have to be according to the homologated specification - but aren't tested (obviously, since its a destructive test). So depending on the margin in the entire chain from design to manufacturing, there is still room for an "unlucky" scenario where lets say 1 bad structure was tested while 9 good one's weren't.

So with all this in mind F1 engineers should be either humble about the fact that there is a chance that their design fails the validation test, or risk being arrogant and in denial, or know that they left some margin which there might be good reason for.

User avatar
Sieper
73
Joined: 14 Mar 2017, 15:19

Re: RB20 speculation

Post

Good post.

User avatar
organic
1055
Joined: 08 Jan 2022, 02:24
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: RB20 speculation

Post

RB Head of Performance Engineering, Ben Waterhouse:
"We were aware that the RB19 had considerable limitations. If we look back at Singapore, there were definitely weaknesses. There are areas we want to improve, whether it's high-speed or low-speed performance. At the same time, [the car] had clear strengths, which we want to build on while at the same time trying to address the weaknesses."
The less competitive areas [of the RB19] mentioned by Ben Waterhouse were mainly performance in maximum load configuration, traction coming out of slow corners and a tendency to understeer at low speeds. The car also lost more competitiveness than its rivals when the unevenness of the road surface required it to raise its ground clearance, a condition that occurred mainly on city circuits. "Because of this, we set clear targets quite far back during the RB19 development process for the RB20," explains Waterhouse. "In general, we managed to hit most of them. I wouldn't say everyone is satisfied though, as there is still work to be done to try and improve upon the RB19."
On the strength of its performance and ranking advantage, Red Bull has stopped development of the RB19 early in 2023, diverting all resources to the 2024 car. Explains Waterhouse: "The RB20 is at least six months old and we are already starting to shift our attention to the RB21, even though the season hasn't started yet."
https://www.formulapassion.it/motorspor ... verstappen

OnEcRiTiCaL
OnEcRiTiCaL
0
Joined: 01 Aug 2023, 09:55

Re: RB20 speculation

Post

organic wrote:
05 Jan 2024, 16:11
RB Head of Performance Engineering, Ben Waterhouse:
"We were aware that the RB19 had considerable limitations. If we look back at Singapore, there were definitely weaknesses. There are areas we want to improve, whether it's high-speed or low-speed performance. At the same time, [the car] had clear strengths, which we want to build on while at the same time trying to address the weaknesses."
The less competitive areas [of the RB19] mentioned by Ben Waterhouse were mainly performance in maximum load configuration, traction coming out of slow corners and a tendency to understeer at low speeds. The car also lost more competitiveness than its rivals when the unevenness of the road surface required it to raise its ground clearance, a condition that occurred mainly on city circuits. "Because of this, we set clear targets quite far back during the RB19 development process for the RB20," explains Waterhouse. "In general, we managed to hit most of them. I wouldn't say everyone is satisfied though, as there is still work to be done to try and improve upon the RB19."
On the strength of its performance and ranking advantage, Red Bull has stopped development of the RB19 early in 2023, diverting all resources to the 2024 car. Explains Waterhouse: "The RB20 is at least six months old and we are already starting to shift our attention to the RB21, even though the season hasn't started yet."
https://www.formulapassion.it/motorspor ... verstappen
They definitely didn't stopped develop the RB19 Early at season. They made many sidepods, floor,wings,different rear suspension low arms,brake ducts and warm air outlet for sidepods,engine covers. Since Augustus they had only Track specific, but before they was pushing till had wind tunnel time and capacity. Augusztus definitely not early of the season.

User avatar
organic
1055
Joined: 08 Jan 2022, 02:24
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: RB20 speculation

Post

OnEcRiTiCaL wrote:
05 Jan 2024, 16:25
organic wrote:
05 Jan 2024, 16:11
[...]
They definitely didn't stopped develop the RB19 Early at season. They made many sidepods, floor,wings,different rear suspension low arms,brake ducts and warm air outlet for sidepods,engine covers. Since Augustus they had only Track specific, but before they was pushing till had wind tunnel time and capacity. Augusztus definitely not early of the season.
You have to consider that these things are planned well ahead of time. For instance, when were the Baku/Hungary updates for the Rb19 finalized? It is possible that these parts had reached the end of the pipeline already at the beginning of 2023 and RB were simply waiting to deploy them based on component life and when it was needed (considering how other teams were closing in). That is however something we can't ultimately determine

As a result, when RB switched focus completely to the RB20 cannot fully be known. But listening to what a team member says in small interviews like this is a good way to go IMO (rather than for instance listening to Horner). Additionally notable team members from rivals have remarked upon RB's ability to switch focus to 2024 earlier than others such as Stella, Allison ... and they likely have a decent picture of what others are doing given how leaky the paddock is

matteosc
matteosc
30
Joined: 11 Sep 2012, 17:07

Re: RB20 speculation

Post

ME4ME wrote:
04 Jan 2024, 13:27
Henk_v wrote:
03 Jan 2024, 22:17
Nonsense. Any good designer knows what its design can handle before they submit it.

Crash tests are validation tests, not design iterations. That's done in-house.

If a design fails the test, engineers first look how it is possible their tools did not predict it. If the tools are off, you are sailing blind.
Generally, yes.
But as a design engineer i'd like to argue that its much less clear cut than that.

Confidence in the design depends to a large extent on the margin you're allowed to keep against a given load. Often its fully acceptable and sometimes even desirable to add a small but effective amount of mass, which also from a cost perspective might not even be that significant. It can be like a drop in the ocean, from a project perspective. With mass being so critical in F1 and the margin required to be as little as possible, I can see why the engineers designing the impact structures might be less than fully confident.

In addiction there is the complexity of simulating and approximating these kind of impact structures. It's not like a fully homogeneous steel rod in a tensile test machine generating a stress-strain curve. One has to appreciate the difficulty in simulating not only fracture mechanics, but with composite material with anisotropic properties.

Also from a material perspective, the less margin the higher the requirements on predictable defined and consistent material and structural properties. Properties such as friction and adhesion within the fabric and adhesive might vary slightly throughout the entire structure, or from one item to the next.

This leads of course to manufacturing. On-the-limit design will require extreme meticulousness and care in all the phases of production. And while the final product might be scanned, machined and polished repeatedly I doubt that all surfaces will be as perfect as said tensile test specimen with almost perfect diameter and run-out. The crash structure might for example have inner cavities that are hard to reach.

Finally one has to consider repeatability. How many front impact structures can the organization realistically test in-house to aid development and to come to a final specification?

And then, once that final specification is locked in, what is the probability of the end product failing of succeeding the validation test, given the variances and tolerances of the design? Welded structures, just as a reference, can be engineered entirely to welding standards such as IIW or Eurocode, using state of the art methodology. Yet those standards recognize variance and tolerance, and as such still state a probability of one out of many structures failing. Not per million but per hundred.

As far as I'm aware the FIA requires only one item to pass the validation test for homologation. Then, further produced items have to be according to the homologated specification - but aren't tested (obviously, since its a destructive test). So depending on the margin in the entire chain from design to manufacturing, there is still room for an "unlucky" scenario where lets say 1 bad structure was tested while 9 good one's weren't.

So with all this in mind F1 engineers should be either humble about the fact that there is a chance that their design fails the validation test, or risk being arrogant and in denial, or know that they left some margin which there might be good reason for.
I completely agree with everything you said and yet I think it is best to pass the crash test at the first attempt. The reason is simply that there is a cost cap and having to repeat a crash test is expensive and reduces the amount of resources that you can use for car development.

User avatar
Paa
6
Joined: 26 Aug 2022, 13:43

Re: RB20 speculation

Post

matteosc wrote:
05 Jan 2024, 16:42
I completely agree with everything you said and yet I think it is best to pass the crash test at the first attempt. The reason is simply that there is a cost cap and having to repeat a crash test is expensive and reduces the amount of resources that you can use for car development.
Just look at it as cost for weight-reduction/optimization.
Or from the opposite direction: passing the test at first attempt might cost you 0.5kg extra weight at the front or something like that.
So failing the crash test can be valid development spending.

AR3-GP
AR3-GP
365
Joined: 06 Jul 2021, 01:22

Re: RB20 speculation

Post

Paa wrote:
05 Jan 2024, 18:00
matteosc wrote:
05 Jan 2024, 16:42
I completely agree with everything you said and yet I think it is best to pass the crash test at the first attempt. The reason is simply that there is a cost cap and having to repeat a crash test is expensive and reduces the amount of resources that you can use for car development.
Just look at it as cost for weight-reduction/optimization.
Or from the opposite direction: passing the test at first attempt might cost you 0.5kg extra weight at the front or something like that.
So failing the crash test can be valid development spending.
agree
A lion must kill its prey.

McMika98
McMika98
-24
Joined: 18 Feb 2017, 22:40

Re: RB20 speculation

Post

Paa wrote:
05 Jan 2024, 18:00
matteosc wrote:
05 Jan 2024, 16:42
I completely agree with everything you said and yet I think it is best to pass the crash test at the first attempt. The reason is simply that there is a cost cap and having to repeat a crash test is expensive and reduces the amount of resources that you can use for car development.
Just look at it as cost for weight-reduction/optimization.
Or from the opposite direction: passing the test at first attempt might cost you 0.5kg extra weight at the front or something like that.
So failing the crash test can be valid development spending.
Nah, if the simulation and FEA tools are on point then there will be some safety margin with minimal weight. We are talking a single ply of carbon fibre which is sub millimetre and only would weigh few grams but contribute to passing the test comfortably. It's not worth the wasted resource or time. They will further be implications on the quality control and assurance of their composite material and fabrication process.

Henk_v
Henk_v
86
Joined: 24 Feb 2022, 13:41

Re: RB20 speculation

Post

ME4ME wrote:
04 Jan 2024, 13:27
Henk_v wrote:
03 Jan 2024, 22:17
Nonsense. Any good designer knows what its design can handle before they submit it.

Crash tests are validation tests, not design iterations. That's done in-house.

If a design fails the test, engineers first look how it is possible their tools did not predict it. If the tools are off, you are sailing blind.
Generally, yes.
But as a design engineer i'd like to argue that its much less clear cut than that.

Confidence in the design depends to a large extent on the margin you're allowed to keep against a given load. Often its fully acceptable and sometimes even desirable to add a small but effective amount of mass, which also from a cost perspective might not even be that significant. It can be like a drop in the ocean, from a project perspective. With mass being so critical in F1 and the margin required to be as little as possible, I can see why the engineers designing the impact structures might be less than fully confident.

In addiction there is the complexity of simulating and approximating these kind of impact structures. It's not like a fully homogeneous steel rod in a tensile test machine generating a stress-strain curve. One has to appreciate the difficulty in simulating not only fracture mechanics, but with composite material with anisotropic properties.

Also from a material perspective, the less margin the higher the requirements on predictable defined and consistent material and structural properties. Properties such as friction and adhesion within the fabric and adhesive might vary slightly throughout the entire structure, or from one item to the next.

This leads of course to manufacturing. On-the-limit design will require extreme meticulousness and care in all the phases of production. And while the final product might be scanned, machined and polished repeatedly I doubt that all surfaces will be as perfect as said tensile test specimen with almost perfect diameter and run-out. The crash structure might for example have inner cavities that are hard to reach.

Finally one has to consider repeatability. How many front impact structures can the organization realistically test in-house to aid development and to come to a final specification?

And then, once that final specification is locked in, what is the probability of the end product failing of succeeding the validation test, given the variances and tolerances of the design? Welded structures, just as a reference, can be engineered entirely to welding standards such as IIW or Eurocode, using state of the art methodology. Yet those standards recognize variance and tolerance, and as such still state a probability of one out of many structures failing. Not per million but per hundred.

As far as I'm aware the FIA requires only one item to pass the validation test for homologation. Then, further produced items have to be according to the homologated specification - but aren't tested (obviously, since its a destructive test). So depending on the margin in the entire chain from design to manufacturing, there is still room for an "unlucky" scenario where lets say 1 bad structure was tested while 9 good one's weren't.

So with all this in mind F1 engineers should be either humble about the fact that there is a chance that their design fails the validation test, or risk being arrogant and in denial, or know that they left some margin which there might be good reason for.
I was a design engineer in the past too. You are (also) right, especially on the repeatability.

But that is something else than saying a first-time pass means you are too heavy. I think even the opposite is true, if you fail a test, your predictions were off an likely your past successes were because stuff was too heavy.

I have homologated much more complex things. When you submit something, you are confident it 'll pass.

Working on the edge with razor thin margins surely increases the odds of failing, but that is not a design fail, but a design tool fail. You learn and make sure that it won't happen again as a design tool fail can also mean you are too heavy.

User avatar
organic
1055
Joined: 08 Jan 2022, 02:24
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: RB20 speculation

Post

Marko responded to the Italian Motorsport claims directly
F1-Insider.com reached Red Bull chief advisor Helmut Marko on the phone about the topic. The man from Graz can only smile wearily at the rumors. The doctor of law doesn't even deny that Verstappen's new racer failed the crash test, but emphasizes: “Ridiculous. If we had passed the first crash test, there would be a problem. Then we would have done a bad job.”