RB20 speculation

[Chuckjr]

I’d have to agree if they don’t fail the first test, they are not trying hard enough. It’s like a driver who never crashes…you never really know if he is pushing to the limit. Often failure reveals a lot more than success.

[Sieper]

Yes and no right. The moments I crashed I knew I was closing in on the limit, but I didn’t knew I passed it already. And consequently I still didn’t know exactly. And stayed farther away from it.

Have they passed in the meantime? Marko didn’t seem to worry much about it.

[DoctorRadio]

I don’t understand Dr. Marko, how a crash test failure in a cost cap formula can be considered a good thing.
I read all the teams are pushing the boundaries to make the chassis as light as they can, not only Red Bull, but still a cracked chassis can’t help from a financial perspective.

[Vanja #66]

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)

Everything is always pre-approved. Going off-script is not allowed and I'm sure all of those interviews were approved fully before being published. That's why only senior management is allowed to speak "freely" live during the weekend, they are fully trained in PR and how and when to hold back on crucial info.

That said, I'm sure RB20 is at least 9 months in the making alread, as are a few other cars on the grid. RB has a big advantage in understanding their concept 110%, development time advantage alone is not as important.

[chrisc90]

I don’t understand Dr. Marko, how a crash test failure in a cost cap formula can be considered a good thing.
I read all the teams are pushing the boundaries to make the chassis as light as they can, not only Red Bull, but still a cracked chassis can’t help from a financial perspective.

Weight saving, pushing design limits. If you passed straight away, you left plenty of margin on the table and built into the design.

[lio007]

I don’t understand Dr. Marko, how a crash test failure in a cost cap formula can be considered a good thing.
I read all the teams are pushing the boundaries to make the chassis as light as they can, not only Red Bull, but still a cracked chassis can’t help from a financial perspective.

As I understand it's not the chassis, that failed the test. It's "just" the nose.

I think any team, even Red Bull, won't risk to fail in a chassis crash test.
It's much more expensive and in my opinion takes more time to re-evaluate, rebuild and retest.
A nose on the other hand is quite easy.

[mwillems]

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.

How close is the RB19 and RB20 and can the development of the RB20 be shared with the 19? it is possible that some of the work they did to the 19 was a result of what was discovered in the development of the 20. In order to shortcut the development they would certainly be helped by keeping as much overlap between cares as possible whilst still finding time they need.

Technically this would mean they are really looking at many cars at once with some of their learning from the newest iteration backwards compatible with and applied to the car currently on track. Since it seems RB have nailed the direction of the formula this seems very possible.

[Stu]

This would seem to be a sensible course of action bearing in mind the main change between the RB18 & 19 were reduced mass (is the 19 based around the architecture of the never raced lightweight RB18 chassis?).
Only RB know how close to regulation box limits they are in each area, and the Newey-method for iteration does get to a GOOD outcome quicker than the ‘baby-steps’ method (which is great if you are use limited on modelling tools). This is not to say that there isn’t a better solution to any individual item featured on the car.
There can be no doubt that there is still performance to be found (the last big step was the sidepod inlet & we have no idea whether that was architecture limited - as good as it could be, or the best solution possible).
This change will have signed off very early in the season, leaving a lot of time to work on fresh ideas for the RB20 before having to sign off on a new chassis (a luxury that few (no?) other team had.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see a smaller upper engine cover (no centreline cooling) and some variation of the Ferrari S-duct to supply a cooling inlet.
Suspension will be a further evolution of the original concept, an evolution of the gearbox and who could guess at what reliability improvements have been found with the ICE.
I have no doubt that the RB20 will be a multiple race-winner even if the rest of the grid continues to close (and surpass) on single-lap pace.

[OnEcRiTiCaL]

This would seem to be a sensible course of action bearing in mind the main change between the RB18 & 19 were reduced mass (is the 19 based around the architecture of the never raced lightweight RB18 chassis?).
Only RB know how close to regulation box limits they are in each area, and the Newey-method for iteration does get to a GOOD outcome quicker than the ‘baby-steps’ method (which is great if you are use limited on modelling tools). This is not to say that there isn’t a better solution to any individual item featured on the car.
There can be no doubt that there is still performance to be found (the last big step was the sidepod inlet & we have no idea whether that was architecture limited - as good as it could be, or the best solution possible).
This change will have signed off very early in the season, leaving a lot of time to work on fresh ideas for the RB20 before having to sign off on a new chassis (a luxury that few (no?) other team had.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see a smaller upper engine cover (no centreline cooling) and some variation of the Ferrari S-duct to supply a cooling inlet.
Suspension will be a further evolution of the original concept, an evolution of the gearbox and who could guess at what reliability improvements have been found with the ICE.
I have no doubt that the RB20 will be a multiple race-winner even if the rest of the grid continues to close (and surpass) on single-lap pace.

I think Redbull don't wand S-duct ,because the open engine cover at suspension is designed to blow warm air at beam wing to help stall the duffuser and feed the rear wing.
With engine cover they can't really play if they want to keep the really long radiator and any significant shape change will require redesign everything and is really could mess up the car balance. I think Redbull will go safe and just basically trying to make better mechanics grip and fine tuning it.

[organic]

RB Head of Performance Engineering, Ben Waterhouse:







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.

How close is the RB19 and RB20 and can the development of the RB20 be shared with the 19? it is possible that some of the work they did to the 19 was a result of what was discovered in the development of the 20. In order to shortcut the development they would certainly be helped by keeping as much overlap between cares as possible whilst still finding time they need.

Technically this would mean they are really looking at many cars at once with some of their learning from the newest iteration backwards compatible with and applied to the car currently on track. Since it seems RB have nailed the direction of the formula this seems very possible.

Based on what Vasseur, Allison and the RB team members have said so far, it sounds like most teams developed their cars with 2 year cycles ie SF-23/W14/Rb19 all had significant carryover from their predecessors and I expect each of their next cars to have very little carryover

[mwillems]

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.

How close is the RB19 and RB20 and can the development of the RB20 be shared with the 19? it is possible that some of the work they did to the 19 was a result of what was discovered in the development of the 20. In order to shortcut the development they would certainly be helped by keeping as much overlap between cares as possible whilst still finding time they need.

Technically this would mean they are really looking at many cars at once with some of their learning from the newest iteration backwards compatible with and applied to the car currently on track. Since it seems RB have nailed the direction of the formula this seems very possible.

Based on what Vasseur, Allison and the RB team members have said so far, it sounds like most teams developed their cars with 2 year cycles ie SF-23/W14/Rb19 all had significant carryover from their predecessors and I expect each of their next cars to have very little carryover

Interesting thanks, I hadn't seen that before.

[Sieper]

That would also fit the “already working on RB21” comment.

[Wouter]

Red Bull: the presentation of the RB20 set for February 8th

Red Bull Racing will present the RB20 on February 8, the day after Alpine. Will it be a fictitious presentation like the last ones?
The answer could be yes, considering the recently failed crash test.
---------------------------------
As for the event, the presentation, once again several doubts arise related to its nature.
Over the past seasons, the Milton Keynes-based team has used the presentation of the car not to show it to the world,
but to give visibility to sponsors and new technical partners.

Author Giacomo Rauli
Motorsport Italy

.
https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-re ... /10564505/

[organic]

Probably just a livery launch as the last two years

[chrisc90]

Should knock the RB19 up with some zeropods and launch that