RB20 speculation

[Stu]

please, please, please…

Keep it topical to RB20 speculation, rather than arguing the toss around cooling ducting on previous sundry cars.

[Zynerji]

My real speculation on the RB20 is that is will be mechanical grip and drag reduction that is the focus. Slow speed cornering, and top end power limiters were their only real weakness in 2023.

So, I believe the aero direction will focus more on a super stable, but only like 95% of MAX downforce type coupled with shapes that are more focused on drag shedding/downstream maintenance. That leads my speculation into things like internal ducting with placed outlets for jetting, front brake duct revolutions for wake shaping, and yaw-compensated surfaces to maintain the high-speed corner dominance.

Now, just add a driver that runs 50hrs a week in the Sim tweaking his setup with his engineer, and he can do instant hot-laps at any circuit...

[scuderiabrandon]

My real speculation on the RB20 is that is will be mechanical grip and drag reduction that is the focus. Slow speed cornering, and top end power limiters were their only real weakness in 2023.

So, I believe the aero direction will focus more on a super stable, but only like 95% of MAX downforce type coupled with shapes that are more focused on drag shedding/downstream maintenance. That leads my speculation into things like internal ducting with placed outlets for jetting, front brake duct revolutions for wake shaping, and yaw-compensated surfaces to maintain the high-speed corner dominance.

Now, just add a driver that runs 50hrs a week in the Sim tweaking his setup with his engineer, and he can do instant hot-laps at any circuit...

Their drag was very far from being a weakness. They pretty much ran a step higher downforce levels at every circuit and was comfortably top 3 on the speed traps.

Low speed cornering was competitive enough. They clearly have the right compromise. Bump/kerb compliance was the biggest issue for them.

In my opinion, visually and in terms of strength/weaknesses the RB20 will pretty much resemble the RB19, with small evolutionary changes.

[AR3-GP]

Low speed cornering was competitive enough. They clearly have the right compromise. Bump/kerb compliance was the biggest issue for them.

"Competitive enough". lol. They were a decent bit away from Ferrari in terms of traction and braking. This was quite evident in Monza and Las Vegas. They had the ride quality of a skateboard and Sergio Perez's braking points were very early. I suspect it was too much of a compromise because the team said they would fix those things in the RB20.

[scuderiabrandon]

Low speed cornering was competitive enough. They clearly have the right compromise. Bump/kerb compliance was the biggest issue for them.

"Competitive enough". lol. They were a decent bit away from Ferrari in terms of traction and braking. This was quite evident in Monza and Las Vegas. They had the ride quality of a skateboard and Sergio Perez's braking points were very early. I suspect it was too much of a compromise because the team said they would fix those things in the RB20.

Yes competitive enough "lol". Last time I remember they won both those races, including Monaco, Bahrain, Montreal with an asterisk on the Las Vegas race. Have a look at the telemetry and tell me Ferrari were light years ahead in the braking/traction zones.

The calendar does not favor cars with low speed strengths, so yes I believe they have the right compromise. Currently they are set up to win the majority of races if the strengths/weaknesses were the only factor.

In fact I believe other teams will get weaker in braking/traction zones to try and match RB in the high/medium speed stuff.

[Henk_v]

RB is about the only team that did not switch concept since the ground effect. It is difficult to judge how much the weight loss cost in development terms, but it looks to me they have been saving up for something big.

[dren]

I'm expecting a slight visually different aero evolution continuing in the direction they moved through during the 2023 season. The main changes will be mechanical stuff we cannot see.

[organic]

RB is about the only team that did not switch concept since the ground effect. It is difficult to judge how much the weight loss cost in development terms, but it looks to me they have been saving up for something big.

I also expect a revolution in all areas

[scuderiabrandon]

RB is about the only team that did not switch concept since the ground effect. It is difficult to judge how much the weight loss cost in development terms, but it looks to me they have been saving up for something big.

I also expect a revolution in all areas

[Henk_v]

I'm expecting a slight visually different aero evolution continuing in the direction they moved through during the 2023 season. The main changes will be mechanical stuff we cannot see.

Well, I assume with the cost cap gives every team about the same development power. Some slight differences in facilities, some may be abit more effective, but ballpark equal.

Then one option is RB spend all on stuff we don't see and wasn't reported. Their visual stuff was all minor increments. Maybe the new floor wing was the biggest visual update. The difference between the first RB18 and the last RB19 is subtle. Nowhere near the major stuff other teams brought over the past two years. Many developed two distinct cars and grossly updated it over the season. So they must have spent it on something else.

That is either stuff we didn't see or an RB20.

[BassVirolla]

Given that Red Bull has been sliming down the frontal area of the sidepod inlets, are there any chance to see something similar to a NACA duct? Do the rules allow that, as long as you keep the inlet in the allowed volume?

[Vanja #66]

Given that Red Bull has been sliming down the frontal area of the sidepod inlets, are there any chance to see something similar to a NACA duct? Do the rules allow that, as long as you keep the inlet in the allowed volume?

It's allowed, but using NACA ducts for radiator cooling is far from ideal. NACA ducts introduce two strong vortices which draw the air inside the duct. This entire flow is then largely vortical and this means cooling losses, ie bigger radiators and bigger duct inlet are required.



As you can see, its flow characteristics also largely depend on both upstream and downstream conditions. When you have some spillage in your typical inlet, you know what to expect and how to handle it, while NACA ducts are more complex.

[FW17]

2017 Ferrari had a top opening sidepod for one of the coolers. Not sure how good it was.

[Vanja #66]

2017 Ferrari had a top opening sidepod for one of the coolers. Not sure how good it was.

https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/C4D12 ... QfebXDYpOI

That's actually an illustration from my article Made with exceptional MS Paint skills

It was working well, but you can't look at that top opening in isolation, those were just profiles acting as turning vanes to draw the air in. SF-71 was much more dramatic with this cooling solution (frontal opening basically 50% smaller), suggesting SF-70 was quite conservative.

[BassVirolla]

Given that Red Bull has been sliming down the frontal area of the sidepod inlets, are there any chance to see something similar to a NACA duct? Do the rules allow that, as long as you keep the inlet in the allowed volume?

It's allowed, but using NACA ducts for radiator cooling is far from ideal. NACA ducts introduce two strong vortices which draw the air inside the duct. This entire flow is then largely vortical and this means cooling losses, ie bigger radiators and bigger duct inlet are required.

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1 ... X-gr15.jpg

As you can see, its flow characteristics also largely depend on both upstream and downstream conditions. When you have some spillage in your typical inlet, you know what to expect and how to handle it, while NACA ducts are more complex.

Didn't think about internal losses, even knowing about such vorticity.

Nevertheless, I don't know anything about CFD and what is easy to replicate / model and what not.