2024 Oracle Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[Alexf1]

redbull front wing look simply it lacks sophistication compared to mercedes ,how did they miss the flexy wings for which they were the pioneer. The focused more on floor for downforce but made car more difficult to drive .the is were newey leadership direction would have been important.

I was just thinking about this. Red Bull completely ignored the wings during recent years, focusing almost entirely on the floor and to some extent to the sidepods. The saying was that there are much more to be gained from floor, which was probably true for the first 1-2 years. However, I think they got the the point where only marginal gains can be made with the floor or only at the cost of stability/driveability.

And now it seems obvious that their wing game is very basic compared to other teams. All other top teams have more variants suiting different track types and they also have more sophisticated solutions both front and rear.

Maybe Red Bull should look into that. It is possible that they beyond the direct gains of wing development, they could unlock extra potential on top by finding synergies.

Well, looking at the race by race pace statistics from the previous page one would think they would have started that development in Miami or at the latest after Imola where the update failed miserably and it was clear they needed a different direction..

[AR3-GP]

redbull front wing look simply it lacks sophistication compared to mercedes ,how did they miss the flexy wings for which they were the pioneer. The focused more on floor for downforce but made car more difficult to drive .the is were newey leadership direction would have been important.

I was just thinking about this. Red Bull completely ignored the wings during recent years, focusing almost entirely on the floor and to some extent to the sidepods. The saying was that there are much more to be gained from floor, which was probably true for the first 1-2 years. However, I think they got the the point where only marginal gains can be made with the floor or only at the cost of stability/driveability.

And now it seems obvious that their wing game is very basic compared to other teams. All other top teams have more variants suiting different track types and they also have more sophisticated solutions both front and rear.

Maybe Red Bull should look into that. It is possible that they beyond the direct gains of wing development, they could unlock extra potential on top by finding synergies.

Well, looking at the race by race pace statistics from the previous page one would think they would have started that development in Miami or at the latest after Imola where the update failed miserably and it was clear they needed a different direction..

By the time that the Imola update arrives physically, they are 1-2 months ahead in the windtunnel. As Verstappen said, they didn't believe him when he said there are issues. That is the explanation for why they did not react right away. It's difficult to apportion blame once the updates stopped working because for a short while, you need to hope it's a fluke and that further progression will iron out the kinks. You wasted too much resource to turn back. Then they reached the breaking point in Hungary. Of course, they should not have gone down the bad update route in the first place, but at least they decided to turn back now and not only after 2 years like Mercedes. Perhaps the season can be saved.

[organic]

I was just thinking about this. Red Bull completely ignored the wings during recent years, focusing almost entirely on the floor and to some extent to the sidepods. The saying was that there are much more to be gained from floor, which was probably true for the first 1-2 years. However, I think they got the the point where only marginal gains can be made with the floor or only at the cost of stability/driveability.

And now it seems obvious that their wing game is very basic compared to other teams. All other top teams have more variants suiting different track types and they also have more sophisticated solutions both front and rear.

Maybe Red Bull should look into that. It is possible that they beyond the direct gains of wing development, they could unlock extra potential on top by finding synergies.

Well, looking at the race by race pace statistics from the previous page one would think they would have started that development in Miami or at the latest after Imola where the update failed miserably and it was clear they needed a different direction..

By the time that the Imola update arrives physically, they are 1-2 months ahead in the windtunnel. As Verstappen said, they didn't believe him when he said there are issues. That is the explanation for why they did not react right away. It's difficult to apportion blame once the updates stopped working because for a short while, you need to hope it's a fluke and that further progression will iron out the kinks. You wasted too much resource to turn back. Then they reached the breaking point in Hungary. Of course, they should not have gone down the bad update route in the first place, but at least they decided to turn back now and not only after 2 years like Mercedes. Perhaps the season can be saved.

Also after they put the upgrades on the car they are actually measuring increased load. So it's difficult for the team to weigh up what the driver is saying to what the data shows. But in hindsight, they really should've prioritised driver feedback..

[Paa]

It is also not that easy, as they said that there were hints of this behavior even last year, and it got worse gradually, step by step. Imola upgrade might have been the tipping point, but it doesn't mean that it is all where it got bad at once.
Going back to Japan spec maybe good for quick solution, as it was the last spec before it tipped over to undriveable. But might not be good for long-term as even Japan spec has that wrong characteristic. Maybe any development from there will bring the issue back so they might have to go back even more or start from a clean sheet to get rid of the characteristic.

[Sergej]

I think for us it's better to go to the seaside next 2 weekends

[Waz]

It's weird how often driver feedback correlates directly to race results, and engineers prefer to trust the almighty data from sensors.

[AR3-GP]

But might not be good for long-term as even Japan spec has that wrong characteristic. Maybe any development from there will bring the issue back so they might have to go back even more or start from a clean sheet to get rid of the characteristic.

The RB20 in general has the wrong characteristic .

The suspension and the way that it uses the tires is completely different to last season, for the worse. Tires get hotter. This was clear since Bahrain. Car is no longer good in wet conditions either (China sprint qualifying).

Last year GP and Max always used to talk about waiting for the tires to be ready. This year Max always says the tires are too hot on the outlap.

[Paa]

Newey talking about the RB18, 19 and to some extent 20 from around 17:40 onwards

I find it quite telling that he emphasizes to not blindly believe in tools and simulations and also to prioritize driver feedback above cold measurements. I feel he might have experienced this in Red Bull recently.

[organic]

Newey talking about the RB18, 19 and to some extent 20 from around 17:40 onwards

I find it quite telling that he emphasizes to not blindly believe in tools and simulations and also to prioritize driver feedback above cold measurements. I feel he might have experienced this in Red Bull recently.

Hmm quite possibly

[Sergej]

that interview is a pure gem, Newey has to be a very inspirational guy to work with, Red Bull are gonna miss him (they already are), kudos to Aston Martin for signing him, and also for building a super team.

[AR3-GP]

I find it quite telling that he emphasizes to not blindly believe in tools and simulations and also to prioritize driver feedback above cold measurements. I feel he might have experienced this in Red Bull recently.

It's how Mercedes failed with the W13.

In my opinion, this was the difference between Newey and Wache leadership. Wache must have thought everything is so simple and that he could replace Newey with a systematic simulation led approach. Put all the ideas into the blender and let the simulations and tools decide for you...The tools and simulations told them to do shark mouths and concepts inspired by other cars (W13), but these concepts already failed on other cars (stiff suspension, low ground clearance, shrunken side pods, canon rear engine cover, were all failures of the W13). They must have thought their simulations and tools would lead them away from the mistakes that Mercedes made with these concepts, but it turns out to not be too different to how the W13 turned out. Peaky car with tiny operating window that was struck once in a blue moon.

You need more than tools and simulations. Simulations can make you think something is a good idea, but intuition can make you think twice. Newey had intuition which they lack now. Mclaren shows that it is possible to work without Newey, so Red Bull will have to find their own way.

[Paa]

I find it quite telling that he emphasizes to not blindly believe in tools and simulations and also to prioritize driver feedback above cold measurements. I feel he might have experienced this in Red Bull recently.

It's how Mercedes failed with the W13.

In my opinion, this was the difference between Newey and Wache leadership. Wache must have thought everything is so simple and that he could replace Newey with a systematic simulation led approach. Put all the ideas into the blender and let the simulations and tools decide for you...The tools and simulations told them to do shark mouths and concepts inspired by other cars (W13), but these concepts already failed on other cars (stiff suspension, low ground clearance, shrunken side pods, canon rear engine cover, were all failures of the W13). They must have thought their simulations and tools would lead them away from the mistakes that Mercedes made with these concepts, but it turns out to not be too different to how the W13 turned out. Peaky car with tiny operating window that was struck once in a blue moon.

You need more than tools and simulations. Simulations can make you think something is a good idea, but intuition can make you think twice. Newey had intuition which they lack now. Mclaren shows that it is possible to work without Newey, so Red Bull will have to find their own way.

Yes, the situation is indeed very similar to the Merc fiasco. It must be difficult to abandon a concept, while you see the big gains and sexy numbers in the tools. Possibly you even need to be a Newey caliber to be able to afford to do that.
I mean, if a not so well-established TD abandons a concept with very nice numbers based on a "hunch" and his alternative is not a big success, then it is carrier suicide for him. Even if the simulated concept would have been a bigger failure in reality. In situations like this, it is much safer to just go with the simulations and if it doesn't deliver on track, they can always blame the tools and correlation. It is safe.
One has to be absolutely sure in himself to abandon a concept like that for an intuition, because from that point, the designer bears all responsibility.

Considering all this, I think it is actually nice from Red Bull that they reacted so quickly. And also makes Merc's years long struggle somehow more understandable.

[KimiRai]

Newey talking about the RB18, 19 and to some extent 20 from around 17:40 onwards

He didn't want to speak on some bits of the RB19 because he believes some teams still haven't fully understood them today. And that's last years car already, when we are close to 2025 at this point. Truly one of the best cars in history

[Sergej]

I find it quite telling that he emphasizes to not blindly believe in tools and simulations and also to prioritize driver feedback above cold measurements. I feel he might have experienced this in Red Bull recently.

It's how Mercedes failed with the W13.

In my opinion, this was the difference between Newey and Wache leadership. Wache must have thought everything is so simple and that he could replace Newey with a systematic simulation led approach. Put all the ideas into the blender and let the simulations and tools decide for you...The tools and simulations told them to do shark mouths and concepts inspired by other cars (W13), but these concepts already failed on other cars (stiff suspension, low ground clearance, shrunken side pods, canon rear engine cover, were all failures of the W13). They must have thought their simulations and tools would lead them away from the mistakes that Mercedes made with these concepts, but it turns out to not be too different to how the W13 turned out. Peaky car with tiny operating window that was struck once in a blue moon.

You need more than tools and simulations. Simulations can make you think something is a good idea, but intuition can make you think twice. Newey had intuition which they lack now. Mclaren shows that it is possible to work without Newey, so Red Bull will have to find their own way.

Yes, the situation is indeed very similar to the Merc fiasco. It must be difficult to abandon a concept, while you see the big gains and sexy numbers in the tools. Possibly you even need to be a Newey caliber to be able to afford to do that.
I mean, if a not so well-established TD abandons a concept with very nice numbers based on a "hunch" and his alternative is not a big success, then it is carrier suicide for him. Even if the simulated concept would have been a bigger failure in reality. In situations like this, it is much safer to just go with the simulations and if it doesn't deliver on track, they can always blame the tools and correlation. It is safe.
One has to be absolutely sure in himself to abandon a concept like that for an intuition, because from that point, the designer bears all responsibility.

Considering all this, I think it is actually nice from Red Bull that they reacted so quickly. And also makes Merc's years long struggle somehow more understandable.

I agree, plus Newey has a LOT of experience and he has already done this kind of mistakes in the past (he literally said it in that interview), and not being anymore responsible for the car design he was in the perfect position to say "trust me bro, the tools are wrong", Waché not so much; but I'm sure this year will be a great lesson for him and his team

that's why I'm not angry at the technical team for having screwed the RB20 development, somehow this happened to all teams with these rules which are extremely difficult to understand

I am much more angry for the presumption errors the trackside team made, thinking that you can overtake easily in Budapest, that you can afford an engine penalty in the possibly only track left where win is achievable, not to mention the clown shows with the brakes in Melbourne and the engine in Montreal, which costed a ton of points.

[lio007]

I somehow think it would be better to be not WCC this year. More WT-time may be really helpful in 2025.
It's not for granted a team builds a more competitive car, if more WT-time is available, but you can try more ideas.

Also with their new WT, which will be finished somewhen in 2025.