Red Bull RB22

[AR3-GP]

[AR3-GP]

[Badger]

[AR3-GP]

Sidepod reminds me a genie lamp...

[lio007]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HBb_kQPXwAA ... =4096x4096

It's not dramatically different.

[lio007]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HBczKQXWMAA ... =4096x4096

So they used the new FW later in the day again?

[AR3-GP]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HBczKQXWMAA ... =4096x4096

So they used the new FW later in the day again?

Yes. I think just comparison stuff.

[Badger]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HBb_kQPXwAA ... =4096x4096

It's not dramatically different.

Not sure I agree with you there. There was zero undercut before and now it has quite a significant undercut, more than I expected it to have. It doesn't look as dramatic as some of the other undercuts, but that's mostly because of RB's narrower sidepods. This change will make a big difference to how the air travels towards the rear of the car.

[Paa]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HBb_kQPXwAA ... =4096x4096

What is the point of running the 1st week solution? I find it difficult to justify if it is only for deception.
But also I'm having hard time to understand why else it is beneficial for them? IS there something to learn from the first version? Or just simply logistic reasons to give themselves 1 more week to refine the final package? Anybody has an insight on this

[AR3-GP]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HBb_kQPXwAA ... =4096x4096

What is the point of running the 1st week solution? I find it difficult to justify if it is only for deception.
But also I'm having hard time to understand why else it is beneficial for them? IS there something to learn from the first version? Or just simply logistic reasons to give themselves 1 more week to refine the final package? Anybody has an insight on this

The melbourne spec was originally planned for Melbourne. So it's ahead of schedule.

[aberracus]

In Aerodynamics there’s always a lot to learn, they are trying to deflect the air from the rear tires with the sidepods. So they have solid data of how much they are really gaining with the undercut and losing with the rear tire deflection. Maybe they think the deflection could be more important ?

[marcel171281]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HBb_kQPXwAA ... =4096x4096

What is the point of running the 1st week solution? I find it difficult to justify if it is only for deception.
But also I'm having hard time to understand why else it is beneficial for them? IS there something to learn from the first version? Or just simply logistic reasons to give themselves 1 more week to refine the final package? Anybody has an insight on this

Between cfd, windtunnel and producing parts is a significant time span, so just might be as simple as this update wasn't ready before test 1. Keep in mind that even the car in test one wasn't the first version of it, it was already the result of a full year of evolutions and even before the first phisical parts are produced there have been (many) upgrades of parts that never made it into production phase. Given that everything is new, you just test with what you have at that point in time.

[lio007]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HBb_kQPXwAA ... =4096x4096

It's not dramatically different.

Not sure I agree with you there. There was zero undercut before and now it has quite a significant undercut, more than I expected it to have. It doesn't look as dramatic as some of the other undercuts, but that's mostly because of RB's narrower sidepods. This change will make a big difference to how the air travels towards the rear of the car.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HBcHNVwW0AI ... name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HBcHNUlW8AA ... me=900x900

I personally judge an undercut by the G-line or how much floor is visible. And based on that criteria it's not that different. For sure the flow architecture has changed...but I'm sure a real F1-engineer might judge it differently.

[lio007]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HBb_kQPXwAA ... =4096x4096

What is the point of running the 1st week solution? I find it difficult to justify if it is only for deception.
But also I'm having hard time to understand why else it is beneficial for them? IS there something to learn from the first version? Or just simply logistic reasons to give themselves 1 more week to refine the final package? Anybody has an insight on this

Between cfd, windtunnel and producing parts is a significant time span, so just might be as simple as this update wasn't ready before test 1. Keep in mind that even the car in test one wasn't the first version of it, it was already the result of a full year of evolutions and even before the first phisical parts are produced there have been (many) upgrades of parts that never made it into production phase. Given that everything is new, you just test with what you have at that point in time.

Could be the first iteration was the WT-version of October and today's new iteration is WT-version early December.

[Rikhart]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HBb_kQPXwAA ... =4096x4096

What is the point of running the 1st week solution? I find it difficult to justify if it is only for deception.
But also I'm having hard time to understand why else it is beneficial for them? IS there something to learn from the first version? Or just simply logistic reasons to give themselves 1 more week to refine the final package? Anybody has an insight on this

It is possible the latest version wasn't even made/finalized yet, and they put in a simple thing just to make the car run. It could also be a way to understand the aerodynamics of the new car, start with a primitive, easy to read bodywork, then start adding complexity.