Not really enlightening, but...
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
I doubt that. Last year the B19 already had problems with curbs and bumps. The told they knew what the issue was and that one of the main targets for the RB20 was to solve that problem. And to me it seems that the problems have only gotten worse...hardingfv32 wrote: ↑26 May 2024, 19:41Newey was the team leader of the group that designed the RB20. This is a car designed by committee as are all modern cars. If anything these designs are data driven.
The RB20 is a compromise. They knew exactly what to expect from the stiff suspension. You do not have to win all 24 races, just have the most points at the end of the seasons. RB views the stiff suspension compromise as the best way to achieve that goal. Clearly, if they viewed their compromise as a problem they would have done something different for 2024.
Brian
They've probably improved, just not as much as they hoped. Combine that with the other teams that have caught up in development, they are forced to run the car hard, showing the weak points.Curbstone wrote: ↑27 May 2024, 09:44I doubt that. Last year the B19 already had problems with curbs and bumps. The told they knew what the issue was and that one of the main targets for the RB20 was to solve that problem. And to me it seems that the problems have only gotten worse...hardingfv32 wrote: ↑26 May 2024, 19:41Newey was the team leader of the group that designed the RB20. This is a car designed by committee as are all modern cars. If anything these designs are data driven.
The RB20 is a compromise. They knew exactly what to expect from the stiff suspension. You do not have to win all 24 races, just have the most points at the end of the seasons. RB views the stiff suspension compromise as the best way to achieve that goal. Clearly, if they viewed their compromise as a problem they would have done something different for 2024.
Brian
Yes, same as last year. There is strong interaction with multiple flow structures in that area, while peak local downforce on the lower section of the throat is positioned inward and towards the boat section - my guess to make it more "roubst" in yaw and adverse conditions, ie not too susceptible to downforce loss in those conditionsSiLo wrote: ↑28 May 2024, 11:33https://i.imgur.com/OJKU4YP.jpeg
Very interesting shape here. Higher floor on the outer part of the tunnel?
This would make sense, RedBull has been incredibly strong even in telemetry on high speed changes in direction, it was evident in Bahrein this year where Ferrari was matching them across the track except for the quick 5/6/7. And even more so at SPA where in 2022 they would gain 0.5s in a single corner between 8 and 9 where Max was even 15kph faster than LEC or anyone. Obviously Suzuka S1 is where they shine.Andi76 wrote:Max Verstappen reports that the Red Bull cars have had a suspension since 2022 with which the car can be driven like a go-kart... Newey, as we know, designed the suspension, which is obviously, like a cart-suspension, meaning that its extremely stiff
Regarding roll-stiffness (because, as we know, it is vertical stiffness is softer than others). Of course, the RBs since 2022 don't have a real "cart suspension", because carts don't have a real suspension system and every bump or jolt is felt directly by the frame. However, the suspension designed by Newey seems to behave in a similar way, under certain loads and conditions which according to Verstappen is due to its design and what has to do with kinematics and geometry and the compromisse you want/have to make.
The main tasks of a suspension system are to control the attitude of the tire relative to the road surface, to control the vertical force between the tire and the road, and to transfer all the forces generated by the tire to the chassis. While doing the latter, the suspension determines the attitude the chassis takes up while subjected to these forces. As everyone knows with a car that generates downforce with ground effect, the attitude of the aerodynamic surfaces relative to the ground is of particular importance and the requirements to optimize this attitude may conflict with the goal of controlling the vertical forces of the tire, especially on an uneven road surface. It's a compromise like everything else in F1.
Newey seems to have designed the suspension in a way that has completely focused on keeping the attitude of the aerodynamic surfaces stable relative to the ground. Geometrical characteristics of the pullrod and rockers mounted to the shaft, for example, allow the designer to build in non-linear characteristics, usually rising-rate (the wheel-rate increases with compression of the suspension, achieved through linkage geometry), which will be in addition to any rising-rate characteristics of the springs themselves. The suspension geometry determines how the tire is presented to the road under any set of conditions, influencing the shape of the tire's contact patch and the way the tire is deflected and hence the forces it generates and the critical temperature distribution in the tread area. The geometry also affects the direction of the forces that are fed into the chassis via the links and, hence, the attitude that the chassis take up which in turn affects the way the tire is presented to the road. The spring stiffness of the front and rear suspensions is determined by the desired compromise between chassis attitude control under aerodynamic and inertia loads as the speed and horizontal accelerations may vary and the need for dampers to move to absorb the energy put into the car by traversing the bumps in the track.
Verstappen's statements suggest that Newey focused entirely on keeping the aerodynamic surfaces stable to the ground and that the compromise that one actually has to make in this respect with a suspension has hardly or only partially taken place. This explains why Red Bull always had the porpoising relatively well under control as well as the good aerodynamic behavior of the car, but also the problems on certain courses where the suspension was "overwhelmed". It also partly explains the good behavior in terms of tire temperature, as the tires "only" had to be made to work in a very small window (what definetely was a hard task to achieve) which could be achieved through spring and damper settings, and with consistent aerodynamic load. Very clever and smart, however, the limitations of this strategy were encountered on certain circuits, just as the boomerang effect which brought advantages for two years, is now being encountered. Where others have struggled with the problem of the much greater variation in aerodynamic surfaces to the ground, as well as the greater variation in tire surface temperatures, they have certainly gained a lot of knowledge in both respects that Red Bull could now be missing. While Red Bull was not confronted with these problems in the first place, as the stability of the aerodynamic parts to the ground "simplified" many things. The same applies to the concept - while Red Bull was successful with their concept over two years, other teams have been able to gain experience with other concepts, which always involves a learning process, just as it brings opportunities and perspectives and possible combinations in terms of further development where others reach their limits.
I'm not saying that Red Bull's dominance is certainly over, but they may well have reached an impasse from which they now have to find a way out. The "problems" regarding the suspension are built in, and it's nothing new that Newey's suspensions have very high stiffness in roll with simultaneously high compliance vertically.
Anyway- it requires a new suspension as well as a new monocoque, which would mean a lot of work and resources for 2025 that others can save and use for 2026. In itself, however, this is the natural course of events and how dominances come to an end. The problems of others and your own success eventually lead to a point where your opponent benefits and has the advantage and you find yourself in a bad position, which ends your dominance and brings someone else to the top. Here it is necessary to react immediately and make the right decisions. Unfortunately, it may already be too late for that, because according to Verstappen, these limitations have been known for a long time. But they have not been addressed properly. And this despite knowing that too much development for the 2025 car will damage the 2026 car at the same time. Therefore, this should have already been addressed for the 2024 car.
Of course, this is just one scenario that Red Bull COULD now be facing. I don't know exactly why the suspension behaves this way (but if you look at the problems and known Neweys suspensions for over 30 years, there are many indications that the problem lies in a specific area of the suspension and has something to do with its roll stiffness)but it is very likely and Verstappen confirms this in his statements that this is due to the design, construction and geometry, which cannot be changed in 2024 and makes 2025 very important for Red Bull, because there it can be decided whether they will face aerodynamic problems in 2025 (what is likely as they loose a lot of downforce at ride height necessary for tracks like Singapur) that others have already left behind. If this is the case, they have a problem. If this is not the case or if it can be solved in the development phase of the car, everything should be fine. But anyway it will be exciting to see what happens here technically.
Could be the front arm acting as a leaf spring that's too stiff for curbs and bumps in a specific, low-stiffness damper and spring range. I don't think it's a major issue, but it will take some time to find the issue, solve it and make new parts available. And, obviously, there's not a lot of circuits remaining that will be affected by this.
