It seems that way! I wonder why the lack of creativity and risk taking?
The rules, especially for over-body body work, allow for far more variation than the teams seem interested in pursuing.
- Adrian NeweyThis year's car is the third evolution of that original RB18. What we don't know, of course, is the third evolution too conservative, while others have done something different? You just don't know.
- Adrian NeweyI suspect there'll be quite a few cars that look very similar to our car.
It does look very good, and appears to zone into current accepted contemporary design.F1maniac^2 wrote: ↑06 Feb 2024, 23:36In my opinion, the Stake F1 car seems impressive. Although a launch event, we did see some extreme solutions in different areas of the car. I wouldnt be surprised if they became regular q3 contenders.
I dont think they knew which pieces to believe in the end there. Seemed to degenerate into face saving, marketing puff, embarrassment and ultimately to LH leaving there. I'm expecting something of a clean sheet reset there to get back on track, whatever it looks like. The whole zero situation became untenable in reality.JordanMugen wrote: ↑06 Feb 2024, 17:06Newey is concerned that RBR may have been too conservative:
- Adrian NeweyThis year's car is the third evolution of that original RB18. What we don't know, of course, is the third evolution too conservative, while others have done something different? You just don't know.
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/red-b ... /10572857/
Worrying stuff for RBR.
Although he also says:- Adrian NeweyI suspect there'll be quite a few cars that look very similar to our car.
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/red-b ... /10572857/
Hmm. Will there be radical designs from other teams that leapfrog to the status of pace setters?
I wonder why Mike Elliot and Mercedes GP did not stay the course with their zero-pod design, or others stick with their various alternative 2022 launch concepts? Where Red Bull continued to evolve their original 2022 design, it seems strange -- if not bizarre -- to see many other entrants abandon development of their original 2022 design and change course?!
Remember the week the RB18 was introduced? Newey told us they started way too late due to the in season development for the championship. They told us they were not expecting to compete as they just slapped together a car in whatever time they had left. I know we like to think they hit the bullseye because of the Newey messiah, but might it be they have been going nuclear in their development when there was still room to do so the year before? Newey is no stranger to playing the crowd.Farnborough wrote: ↑07 Feb 2024, 09:52I dont think they knew which pieces to believe in the end there. Seemed to degenerate into face saving, marketing puff, embarrassment and ultimately to LH leaving there. I'm expecting something of a clean sheet reset there to get back on track, whatever it looks like. The whole zero situation became untenable in reality.JordanMugen wrote: ↑06 Feb 2024, 17:06Newey is concerned that RBR may have been too conservative:
- Adrian NeweyThis year's car is the third evolution of that original RB18. What we don't know, of course, is the third evolution too conservative, while others have done something different? You just don't know.
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/red-b ... /10572857/
Worrying stuff for RBR.
Although he also says:- Adrian NeweyI suspect there'll be quite a few cars that look very similar to our car.
https://us.motorsport.com/f1/news/red-b ... /10572857/
Hmm. Will there be radical designs from other teams that leapfrog to the status of pace setters?
I wonder why Mike Elliot and Mercedes GP did not stay the course with their zero-pod design, or others stick with their various alternative 2022 launch concepts? Where Red Bull continued to evolve their original 2022 design, it seems strange -- if not bizarre -- to see many other entrants abandon development of their original 2022 design and change course?!
Yet with the new found trend for "floating" sidepods, it seems the AMR22 was perhaps not so "wrong" after all even though that team was quick to change course.
True, the Aston Martin & Merc have these deep undercuts but in side view they're both RB18. The undercuts or floating-pods we'll have to wait to observe the performance of. Narrowing the sidepods in that area seems antithetical to this formula's rewarding of wide sidepods.JordanMugen wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 14:24Yet with the new found trend for "floating" sidepods, it seems the AMR22 was perhaps not so "wrong" after all even though that team was quick to change course.
The complaints about lack of diversity in design are valid, but this also doesn't necessitate that the field 'has' to get closer to RB. 2023 saw much of this convergence happening and it didn't create a closer championship as we all saw.vorticism wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 11:21So far it’s looking like 2024 with be eighteen RB19s vs two RB20s. Convergence is common in the sport, but it is being exaggerated by very restrictive regulations. This would seemingly have to erode RB's lead, so perhaps this convergence to a joint FIA-Red Bull designed spec series will take the sport to the Liberty™ El Dorado of constant passing and crashing. With fewer and fewer areas of the car to tweak there are fewer avenues to differentiate, hence more follow the leader. The front wing and nosecone regs f.e. produce very similar front ends even in the absence of a pace-setting example. F1's been in an odd state since the hybrid turbo regs change, and it seems to be getting worse. More and more prescriptive. Not all in motorsport is grim, though. That's where the RB17 comes in...
People always seem to forget that tyres are even more important than aerodynamics! As Frank Dernie says, you have to have the right tyre temperature -- if you don't have that, nothing else matters, you'll be in "no grip" central!Seanspeed wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 15:10Maybe this year the more solidified convergence does create a closer field, but I'll bet that like every year, there's going to be plenty of gaps between the haves and have nots, and plenty of competitive divergence in actual real world results. And it will become even harder for the armchair analysts here to be able to point to any feature and go, "That right there is what is making the difference"