2021 Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[Tommy Cookers]

.... x29 wings. Torsional stiffness was different depending on the the direction of applied torque.

IMO that sentence isn't true - if it implies discontinuous response to a continuous variation of stimulus
(I was once shown a part for which a similar claim was made - and found the cause to be an internal discontinuity)
ok X-29 wing top panels preloaded against lowers would give stiffness discontinuity (not strain/strength discontinuity)
but they're imo not preloaded

yes the X-29 wing gave (in part) an unusual and useful torsional response to bending load
strong bending:torsional coupling was used in the 1930s so that propellers would have variable pitch by passive means
from anisotropic orientation of fibres or wood laminates or structural design features in isotropic material (metal)

yes such strong bending:torsional coupling could be very useful in F1 - and very hard to detect and police
this has been mentioned before

[godlameroso]

Good start.

[flmkane]

.... x29 wings. Torsional stiffness was different depending on the the direction of applied torque.

IMO that sentence isn't true - if it implies discontinuous response to a continuous variation of stimulus
(I was once shown a part for which a similar claim was made - and found the cause to be an internal discontinuity)
ok X-29 wing top panels preloaded against lowers would give stiffness discontinuity (not strain/strength discontinuity)
but they're imo not preloaded

yes the X-29 wing gave (in part) an unusual and useful torsional response to bending load
strong bending:torsional coupling was used in the 1930s so that propellers would have variable pitch by passive means
from anisotropic orientation of fibres or wood laminates or structural design features in isotropic material (metal)

yes such strong bending:torsional coupling could be very useful in F1 - and very hard to detect and police
this has been mentioned before

I can try to do a basic sandwich panel analysis if you have the patience to read it. Investigate torsional stiffness if top and bottom have fiber layup such that you might have varying torsional stiffness for the panel.

[etusch]

Good start.

It is too early but if AT's keep performing like this session we can say that Honda PU works better (+ Redbull aero structure off course ) here too, like mexico

[Curbstone]

Mercedes request to the right of review has been denied
That's good news

[godlameroso]

It was the only logical outcome. The difference between Norris and Perez's shunts in Austria were the respective drivers CAUSED a collision while keeping and/or gaining a lasting advantage on track, there was no collision in Brazil, and both drivers went off track. I think the stewards looked at the individual circumstances behind what happened and agreed it was a racing incident. Had Verstappen punted Hamilton off track, and Hamilton ended in the kitty litter while Verstappen kept going, that would have been viewed differently by the stewards. That's why the stewards handed Hamilton a 10 second time penalty in Silverstone.

[Curbstone]

It's a different topic, but whether or not an action causes a collision shouldn't be a part of the assessment. I reckon a minor penalty or the call to give the position to Lewis was well deserved. I reckon Max dodged a (small) bullet there.
The outcome is logical, the assessment was made during the race. It may have been the wrong one, but there is no new 'real' evidence. Also, the way the race played out there is no way a 'correct' penalty can be given afterwards.

[SiLo]

It's a different topic, but whether or not an action causes a collision shouldn't be a part of the assessment. I reckon a minor penalty or the call to give the position to Lewis was well deserved. I reckon Max dodged a (small) bullet there.
The outcome is logical, the assessment was made during the race. It may have been the wrong one, but there is no new 'real' evidence. Also, the way the race played out there is no way a 'correct' penalty can be given afterwards.

A great summary of it really. Really what they need now is for the Stewards to come out and clarify pushing someone off track like that. At least set the record straight for everyone.

[RZS10]

They will clarify it soon enough the moment someone not involved in the WDC does it in any upcoming race

[Juzh]

They reverted to spoon wing for FP2, so taking downforce off the car. Car looked good in fp1 but apparently just too slow on straights. Problem is now the car understeers, and it wasn't doing that in fp1. Counter-intuitive but that's what I observed from verstappen's best fp2 and fp1 laps. They were sandbagging a bit on straights in S1, so more time is available there.

[politburo]

They reverted to spoon wing for FP2, so taking downforce off the car. Car looked good in fp1 but apparently just too slow on straights. Problem is now the car understeers, and it wasn't doing that in fp1. Counter-intuitive but that's what I observed from verstappen's best fp2 and fp1 laps. They were sandbagging a bit on straights in S1, so more time is available there.

I was expecting the straight-line speed to be a factor but it doesn't seem so, despite the straight being a 1+ km long, many of the cars weren't even getting into 8th gear on race simulation runs, literally a Hungaroring clone. Perhaps going for a lower drag profile can help them with overtakes if they qualify behind Mercedes.

[Gillian]

They reverted to spoon wing for FP2, so taking downforce off the car. Car looked good in fp1 but apparently just too slow on straights. Problem is now the car understeers, and it wasn't doing that in fp1. Counter-intuitive but that's what I observed from verstappen's best fp2 and fp1 laps. They were sandbagging a bit on straights in S1, so more time is available there.

Thank you, I was wondering what happened between FP1 and FP2. Verstappen did not look comfortable in FP2 at all, understeering like you said. FP1 looked pretty good. Overtaking will be difficult and a bit risky so I feel like the race will be decided with strategy again. Might be better to go with the setup of FP1.

[ringo]

It was the only logical outcome. The difference between Norris and Perez's shunts in Austria were the respective drivers CAUSED a collision while keeping and/or gaining a lasting advantage on track, there was no collision in Brazil, and both drivers went off track. I think the stewards looked at the individual circumstances behind what happened and agreed it was a racing incident. Had Verstappen punted Hamilton off track, and Hamilton ended in the kitty litter while Verstappen kept going, that would have been viewed differently by the stewards. That's why the stewards handed Hamilton a 10 second time penalty in Silverstone.

They did not look at anything. No sense in trying to make sense of stewards incompetence. It's best to just move on. I think they know they messed up. Because what you are saying is the only way for the rules to be applied is that cheating has to have the intended impact by the perpetrator; which sets a dangerous precedent. If we do things that way, then the perpetrator will always ensure the reward of cheating outweighs the punishment, ie crash out a rival and keep your championship lead and only get a 10s penalty. And if you try to cheat and it doesn't work out, you can make many attempts to cheat shamelessly and only be punished when the damage is done.

[politburo]

They reverted to spoon wing for FP2, so taking downforce off the car. Car looked good in fp1 but apparently just too slow on straights. Problem is now the car understeers, and it wasn't doing that in fp1. Counter-intuitive but that's what I observed from verstappen's best fp2 and fp1 laps. They were sandbagging a bit on straights in S1, so more time is available there.

Thank you, I was wondering what happened between FP1 and FP2. Verstappen did not look comfortable in FP2 at all, understeering like you said. FP1 looked pretty good. Overtaking will be difficult and a bit risky so I feel like the race will be decided with strategy again. Might be better to go with the setup of FP1.

Even if the FP2 setup gives an extra 4-5 km/hr on the straight it is worth it. The DRS could powerful once more, 20+ km/hr overspeed I saw on Sainz onboard, 311 km/hr w/ drs vs 290 km/hr w/out drs. You would rather have more top speed in the race. As we see in races, the cars go through corners slower, and it is mostly corner exits that matter more than mid-corner speed especially for a track with many medium speed corners.

[Gillian]

They reverted to spoon wing for FP2, so taking downforce off the car. Car looked good in fp1 but apparently just too slow on straights. Problem is now the car understeers, and it wasn't doing that in fp1. Counter-intuitive but that's what I observed from verstappen's best fp2 and fp1 laps. They were sandbagging a bit on straights in S1, so more time is available there.

Thank you, I was wondering what happened between FP1 and FP2. Verstappen did not look comfortable in FP2 at all, understeering like you said. FP1 looked pretty good. Overtaking will be difficult and a bit risky so I feel like the race will be decided with strategy again. Might be better to go with the setup of FP1.

Even if the FP2 setup gives an extra 4-5 km/hr on the straight it is worth it. The DRS could powerful once more, 20+ km/hr overspeed I saw on Sainz onboard, 311 km/hr w/ drs vs 290 km/hr w/out drs. You would rather have more top speed in the race. As we see in races, the cars go through corners slower, and it is mostly corner exits that matter more than mid-corner speed especially for a track with many medium speed corners.

You could be right but I'm not so sure yet. There's only a single DRS zone, not two like in the last race. Faster in the twisty bits can get you out of DRS zone. Not to mention it's better on the tires. We'll see what RB and Mercedes will do in FP3.