Like Ferrari asked to stop using the fuel flowmeter over ride partway through the 2019 season.
He sprinkled in some plausible sounding technical jargon and made up the "smoking gun" story. Then Red Bull won every single race after Singapore...The impact of TD018?
Refuting the statements of team management, nothing else but the introduction of TD018 could have upset the delicate balance of the car.
Having tried various configurations and settings with different ride heights and without arriving at as satisfactory solution to induce sufficient energy on the tyres to grip and stability that the drivers needed, unequivocally indicates the effects linked to the impossibility of managing load generated by the wings in a straight line and through the controlled deformation of the flaps has had a devastating effect on the balance of the car.
miguelalvesreis wrote: ↑29 Jun 2024, 13:04Anyone saw the article on GP confidential regarding RB suspension
Seems that they had a complex system with up to 3 reservoirs and with latency on charge and discharge cycles, with goal to keep ride height constant
FIA disassembled it circa Miami GP and ordered the latency system to be removed
It was the moment Domenicalli mentioned that RB dominance was not to last
F1 doesn't have a problem making things public.
I asked the question about differential control schemes here a long time ago, and literally got zero information from the users.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑16 Aug 2024, 16:11The device is not real.
RedBull mechanic confirmed it.
Breaking such a rule is also a slam dunk penalty and even a docking of WCc points because the wording is extremely clear. It's not even loop-hole territory in any shape or form.
You are better off having extra brake pad cylidners that open up under g-forces to stay withing the rules.
Keep in mind this sort of effect can be achieved with the differential.
Agreed, however, IF RB has won WDC's due to this, it might impact the business and frankly speaking - I don't think Liberty is in favor of discussing this publicly. We've seen how this has impacted the sport in the past.AR3-GP wrote: ↑16 Aug 2024, 15:59F1 doesn't have a problem making things public.
In 2021, there were public discussions (and credible media) about the wing flexibility of the Red Bull and they had to change it.
In 2022, it was speculated openly amongst credible media and teams that Ferrari and Red Bull were using flexible planks.
In 2023, it was openly speculated by credible media and teams that TD018 was the cause of Red Bull's loss of performance in Singapore.
FIA introduced technical directives in all 3 seasons that specifically addressed this topic.
Why would they not introduce a technical directive now? It's possible that the rules have been clarified but no team was using the system.
The more credible outlets like formula.uno (they would never miss an opportunity to shame Red Bull), AMUS, and others have not reported any of these brake steering stories in connection with Red Bull and they would be the first ones to do so if it was real.
PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑16 Aug 2024, 16:11The device is not real.
RedBull mechanic confirmed it.
Breaking such a rule is also a slam dunk penalty and even a docking of WCc points because the wording is extremely clear. It's not even loop-hole territory in any shape or form.
You are better off having extra brake pad cylidners that open up under g-forces to stay withing the rules.
Keep in mind this sort of effect can be achieved with the differential.
This is a good theory. Even in a system with a very small mass flow, you can generate an asymmetric hysteresis by simply reducing the size of the opening on one side.
Right, and maybe this caused Max’s brake issue in AUS—valve stuck so brake pressure on one rear wheel didn’t come off, so brake stayed on.
Also that could have been the clue to FIA. Maybe accidents like that are investigated, teams needing to explain what happened for safety reasons.ing. wrote: ↑16 Aug 2024, 23:02Right, and maybe this caused Max’s brake issue in AUS—valve stuck so brake pressure on one rear wheel didn’t come off, so brake stayed on.
FIA rewrite rules all the time, doesn't mean someone was caught or that there is a loop-hole.FW17 wrote: ↑16 Aug 2024, 17:35PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑16 Aug 2024, 16:11The device is not real.
RedBull mechanic confirmed it.
Breaking such a rule is also a slam dunk penalty and even a docking of WCc points because the wording is extremely clear. It's not even loop-hole territory in any shape or form.
You are better off having extra brake pad cylidners that open up under g-forces to stay withing the rules.
Keep in mind this sort of effect can be achieved with the differential.
If there was a rule for it to be slam dunk penalty why rewrite the rules midseason?