2018 Aston Martin Red Bull Racing - Tag Heuer (Renault)

[Javert]

0,7s down on Mercedes. Is this only powerunit, or is maybe Mercedes’ aero slightly more efficiënt at high speeds?

They go generally better in rear-limited tracks

Silvestone from what I know is a front limited tracks

I suppose their front wing is good for airflow management but less good for downforce production

Or the problem on this kind of tracks May be front suspension

[Ozan]

0,7s down on Mercedes. Is this only powerunit, or is maybe Mercedes’ aero slightly more efficiënt at high speeds?

https://youtu.be/WFfWGe1on8o?t=81
answer to your question by Max

[GPR-A duplicate2]

0,7s down on Mercedes. Is this only powerunit, or is maybe Mercedes’ aero slightly more efficiënt at high speeds?

https://youtu.be/WFfWGe1on8o?t=81
https://youtu.be/WFfWGe1on8o?t=81
answer to your question by Max

People need to understand that one single aerodynamic philosophy doesn't work for every circuit. While longer wheel base is a liability on some circuits, its a huge advantage on others. That is why Ferrari went with longer wheel base this year and the result is on display. Red Bull can't expext to keep pace with Merc and Ferrari on fast cornered circuits while having an aero philosophy best suited to Monaco and Singapore. That gap would return in Suzuka and Austin too. It's not just the PU.

[ThumbsUp]

Bear in mind that these are the web colors, and not the cool car colors with the iced/matt finish on it.

[NL_Fer]

Mercedes seem to have an edge on those ultrafast corners like Copse en Stowe, also pretty good in Maggots. Looks like a touch more of frontwing downforce. Ferrari and Redbull are better in slow corner exits, more (mechnical) rear traction.

[Ground Effect]

Red Bull say they're loosing nine tenths on the straights, Toro Rosso say they're loosing nine tenths on the straights. Horner says they have a lot of belief in what they (Honda) have in the pipeline. Remi Taffin says Renault want to catch Mercedes and Ferrari completely next year... This should be fun to watch.

[jz11]

in the post race interview Kimi specifically noted that it was very difficult to follow RB cars, much more difficult that Mercedes

I was wondering if that is a new trend (I don't recall anyone pointing out it specifically recently) is due to their skinny rear wing at Silverstone, which normally would direct a lot of "dirty" air upwards sucking in somewhat more "cleaner" air after/below the wake, but this time not so much, and this turbulent air relatively low to the ground made following them so difficult

[Dipesh1995]

in the post race interview Kimi specifically noted that it was very difficult to follow RB cars, much more difficult that Mercedes

I was wondering if that is a new trend (I don't recall anyone pointing out it specifically recently) is due to their skinny rear wing at Silverstone, which normally would direct a lot of "dirty" air upwards sucking in somewhat more "cleaner" air after/below the wake, but this time not so much, and this turbulent air relatively low to the ground made following them so difficult

I think its due to the large rake angle that RBR runs meaning that magnitude of the turbulence within wake from the underbody of their car is greater than the Mercedes which runs a much lower rake angle. Since RBR tend to work the underbody of their car harder than any other top team, I think it also results in the energy of the flow exhausted from the diffuser to be lower than the other cars as more energy has already been extracted from the flow to create downforce. So IMO, both of these things make their car more difficult to follow than the Mercedes.

[Gustavo. Lirio]

I saw the comments by Cristian Horner regarding the Renault power deficit compared to Ferrari and Mercedes but I don't fully agree with him. He said:
"If you look at the rear wings on the cars, we're running Spa levels of downforce [at Silverstone] and everybody else is running that bit more.
"In qualifying I think every single corner we were quicker than Sebastian, but we just hose time down the straights."

Isn't it strange that you have less downforce and still can be faster on the turns? I think it's looking like McLaren last year. They were thinking they had the best car and a --- engine but it was not true in the end.

Ok, the Red Bulls might be using a small rear wing, but the fact they are so fast turning says to me that, somehow they must have more downforce, and consequently more drag.

I would put it to the aggressive rake they use.

[TzeiTzei]

I saw the comments by Cristian Horner regarding the Renault power deficit compared to Ferrari and Mercedes but I don't fully agree with him. He said:
"If you look at the rear wings on the cars, we're running Spa levels of downforce [at Silverstone] and everybody else is running that bit more.
"In qualifying I think every single corner we were quicker than Sebastian, but we just hose time down the straights."

Isn't it strange that you have less downforce and still can be faster on the turns? I think it's looking like McLaren last year. They were thinking they had the best car and a --- engine but it was not true in the end.

Ok, the Red Bulls might be using a small rear wing, but the fact they are so fast turning says to me that, somehow they must have more downforce, and consequently more drag.

I would put it to the aggressive rake they use.

Well they are usually the quickest Renault powered cars on the straights.

[Juzh]

I saw the comments by Cristian Horner regarding the Renault power deficit compared to Ferrari and Mercedes but I don't fully agree with him. He said:
"If you look at the rear wings on the cars, we're running Spa levels of downforce [at Silverstone] and everybody else is running that bit more.
"In qualifying I think every single corner we were quicker than Sebastian, but we just hose time down the straights."

Isn't it strange that you have less downforce and still can be faster on the turns? I think it's looking like McLaren last year. They were thinking they had the best car and a --- engine but it was not true in the end.

Ok, the Red Bulls might be using a small rear wing, but the fact they are so fast turning says to me that, somehow they must have more downforce, and consequently more drag.

I would put it to the aggressive rake they use.

RB ran like half the wing level compared to merc and ferrari, which more than makes up for any supposedly draggy elements they might carry. Ferrari is also running tons of rake, yet it also ran massive amounts of wing in silverstone (double whammy in terms of drag), yet was still able to top speed traps.

Silverstone exposed renault and honda for what they trully are, that is nowhere against ferrari and merc. Doubtful they will ever be able to catch them. We've been waiting for years on a meaningful convergence, but in my opinion the difference is as big as it has ever been.

On corners which are not power limited (so not T1 abbey and not T9 copse) they have indeed been faster. Not by much, but they also weren't carrying much DF on the car.

[Manfer]

I saw the comments by Cristian Horner regarding the Renault power deficit compared to Ferrari and Mercedes but I don't fully agree with him. He said:
"If you look at the rear wings on the cars, we're running Spa levels of downforce [at Silverstone] and everybody else is running that bit more.
"In qualifying I think every single corner we were quicker than Sebastian, but we just hose time down the straights."

Isn't it strange that you have less downforce and still can be faster on the turns? I think it's looking like McLaren last year. They were thinking they had the best car and a --- engine but it was not true in the end.

Ok, the Red Bulls might be using a small rear wing, but the fact they are so fast turning says to me that, somehow they must have more downforce, and consequently more drag.

I would put it to the aggressive rake they use.

RB ran like half the wing level compared to merc and ferrari, which more than makes up for any supposedly draggy elements they might carry. Ferrari is also running tons of rake, yet it also ran massive amounts of wing in silverstone (double whammy in terms of drag), yet was still able to top speed traps.

Silverstone exposed renault and honda for what they trully are, that is nowhere against ferrari and merc. Doubtful they will ever be able to catch them. We've been waiting for years on a meaningful convergence, but in my opinion the difference is as big as it has ever been.

On corners which are not power limited (so not T1 abbey and not T9 copse) they have indeed been faster. Not by much, but they also weren't carrying much DF on the car.

Rake on the Ferrari "looks" less than that of Red Bull. But i will concede that it "looks" more than what Mercedes carries. If the car carries X degrees of rake & Y degrees of angle of attack on the wing, the total angle of incidence that the freestream air "sees" when it hits the rear wing is X+Y degrees. If your rake is significantly higher to make your aero work, trimming the wings a little will not help your cause a lot.
There is no way of knowing how efficient the flow through the radiators and the internals is.
You can also see the way the bargeboards are placed on the Ferrari and the Red Bull, with the latter being a lot more curved compared to the Ferrari's. I am not for a second denying that Renault is underpowered, i am implying that Red bull's aero philosophy is just as draggy. Combine these two and you end up with an unholy compromise on all the power sensitive tracks. Red Bull should start quoting their drag coefficients if they make up power deficit numbers to their competitors.
Ferrari's aero philosophy has changed significantly from last year and you could see from the beginning of the year that their low drag philosophy was paying off even when their engine was clearly #2.
Horner's whining does absolutely nothing other than fill columns on websites.

[godlameroso]

The RB14 has more downforce than either of the two top cars, easily faster in the corners, but you can't do anything about the huge power deficit. That the RB14 is still fast enough to challenge them on most circuits should speak volumes about the chassis performance. In any case RB14 will be a lot closer in Germany, which is very rear limited, and obviously Hungary is their next best chance at getting a win on merit.

[RonDennis]

I saw the comments by Cristian Horner regarding the Renault power deficit compared to Ferrari and Mercedes but I don't fully agree with him. He said:
"If you look at the rear wings on the cars, we're running Spa levels of downforce [at Silverstone] and everybody else is running that bit more.
"In qualifying I think every single corner we were quicker than Sebastian, but we just hose time down the straights."

Isn't it strange that you have less downforce and still can be faster on the turns? I think it's looking like McLaren last year. They were thinking they had the best car and a --- engine but it was not true in the end.

Ok, the Red Bulls might be using a small rear wing, but the fact they are so fast turning says to me that, somehow they must have more downforce, and consequently more drag.

I would put it to the aggressive rake they use.

RB ran like half the wing level compared to merc and ferrari, which more than makes up for any supposedly draggy elements they might carry. Ferrari is also running tons of rake, yet it also ran massive amounts of wing in silverstone (double whammy in terms of drag), yet was still able to top speed traps.

Silverstone exposed renault and honda for what they trully are, that is nowhere against ferrari and merc. Doubtful they will ever be able to catch them. We've been waiting for years on a meaningful convergence, but in my opinion the difference is as big as it has ever been.

On corners which are not power limited (so not T1 abbey and not T9 copse) they have indeed been faster. Not by much, but they also weren't carrying much DF on the car.

Rake on the Ferrari "looks" less than that of Red Bull. But i will concede that it "looks" more than what Mercedes carries. If the car carries X degrees of rake & Y degrees of angle of attack on the wing, the total angle of incidence that the freestream air "sees" when it hits the rear wing is X+Y degrees. If your rake is significantly higher to make your aero work, trimming the wings a little will not help your cause a lot.
There is no way of knowing how efficient the flow through the radiators and the internals is.
You can also see the way the bargeboards are placed on the Ferrari and the Red Bull, with the latter being a lot more curved compared to the Ferrari's. I am not for a second denying that Renault is underpowered, i am implying that Red bull's aero philosophy is just as draggy. Combine these two and you end up with an unholy compromise on all the power sensitive tracks. Red Bull should start quoting their drag coefficients if they make up power deficit numbers to their competitors.
Ferrari's aero philosophy has changed significantly from last year and you could see from the beginning of the year that their low drag philosophy was paying off even when their engine was clearly #2.
Horner's whining does absolutely nothing other than fill columns on websites.

You're completely right, just look at their pace at Barcelona. The chassis is good, but the claims that they would dominate every race with a Mercedes/Ferrari engine are simply laughable. Wing levels also don't tell the whole story, even with low wing levels the car can be draggy. It's just the Red Bull propaganda machine at it again.

[M840TR]

Redbull was also slow off low speed corners which indicates bad drivability and hence lesser speed on the straights. It might just be the engine because Mclaren suffer similarly but I'm not counting aero out.