Red Bull RB21

[AR3-GP]

If it was coming from the wings, Red Bull should have been able to reproduce it by now. Just make bigger wings, they have drag to spare. Where Red Bull suffers is in the longer radius medium speed corners. This also requires floor downforce but the air speeds are lower. Maybe the steering of the wheels off center at higher angles sends tire wake towards the car and Red Bull's current solutions do not mitigate this effect (floor downforce loss) as well as Mclaren.

[f1isgood]

If it was coming from the wings, Red Bull should have been able to reproduce it by now. Just make bigger wings, they have drag to spare. Where Red Bull suffers is in the longer radius medium speed corners. This also requires floor downforce but the air speeds are lower. Maybe the steering of the wheels off center at higher angles sends tire wake towards the car and Red Bull's current solutions do not mitigate this effect (floor downforce loss) as well as Mclaren.

Yeah that seems plausible. Tire wake being managed poorly causing bad airflows under the floor eventually causing floor downforce loss at the medium speed corners where the car turns a lot.

[ispano6]

Most of the downforce in every generation of F1 cars comes from the floor — it's not specific to the ground effect era. As you rightly said, that's where most of the efficient downforce is, but it’s still unclear to me why there's this belief that Red Bull's floor isn't doing its job. Ground effect becomes far more pronounced at high speeds, and from what we’ve seen, Red Bull is still right there with the best teams in that area. They’re also more efficient than McLaren, which makes me think McLaren are gaining more through their wings, and that would naturally make them more draggy — which isn’t insignificant. So I’m not convinced McLaren are producing more floor downforce at all. If anything, corner performance seems to show this: in floor-dominated, high-speed sections, Red Bull are still right there, but in other corners, not so much.

I shouldn't say more DF, I should have said more consistent DF from the floor through all corners. To tame the car's tendencies, they add wing DF. Like some have mentioned, seeking ultimate down force can be a case of fool's gold. Perhaps there is a tendency to solve balance with wing down force but this generation car has such a particular philosophy that conventional wing DF can have drawbacks. It's a case of diminishing returns and not overdoing it. Drivers will always say they want more DF, but they won't ever ask for more drag will they. Max has been saying that they in general have been lacking grip.

Horner:

“It’s the entry phase to the mid-corner that needs addressing and giving him the ability and grip and confidence that takes carrying speed into entry corners.

“Now that’s fundamentally an aero issue that we need to be able to give him that grip.”

https://www.motorsportweek.com/2025/04/ ... more-time/

Marko has also recently said the root of their issues is an aerodynamics problem. But that's really only half the story. Everyone keeps saying McLaren is kinder on their tyres. Mclaren's aero platform appears to be that they have enough DF to help limit the tyres from sliding, overheating and graining. Conventionally the more wing downforce you have the less sliding and better tyre life. Like you mentioned, McLaren may have more wing downforce and are exploiting morphing wing philosophy for the straights and highspeed corners.

If it was coming from the wings, Red Bull should have been able to reproduce it by now. Just make bigger wings, they have drag to spare. Where Red Bull suffers is in the longer radius medium speed corners. This also requires floor downforce but the air speeds are lower. Maybe the steering of the wheels off center at higher angles sends tire wake towards the car and Red Bull's current solutions do not mitigate this effect (floor downforce loss) as well as Mclaren.

Yeah that seems plausible. Tire wake being managed poorly causing bad airflows under the floor eventually causing floor downforce loss at the medium speed corners where the car turns a lot.

I do think that shortening the nose was necessary for a number of reasons: reducing peak downforce that couldn't be balanced with the rear, increasing mass flow to the front floor fences, increasing the slot gap between the nose and mainplane affecting the flow to the floor, and perhaps compliance over kerbs.

Steering/attack angle is a credible theory. Driver61 Scott Mansell has an insightful observation on his Youtube channel regarding the driving style of Max Verstappen and Liam Lawson and the markedly different turn in styles between the two. It's been noted that Max more gradually steers while Liam's was later and more abrupt. Piastri has also been observed to be more gradual and smooth (Lando has complained about the car not suiting his driving style). This style upsets the aero platform less and helps to retain stability mid corner. The narrow window the drivers speak of is the manner in which the car can be driven in such a way that doesn't upset the aero platform. Once you encroach into the sensitivities of the balance, the platform is susceptible to yaw moment which can lead to a snap or sliding depending on the condition of the tyre. From my limited experience opinion (based on trying to solve a flight simulator yaw moment issue developing a forward swept winged aircraft), the angle that you can take appears to be a combination of forward CoG, nose/fuselage shape and contours of the components(airplane canards vs lower tyre fin squirt capturers, suspension fairings) affecting the inboard mass flow reaching the leading floor edge volume. This all greatly affects the venturi effect in addition to the vortices that are generated to seal the floor edge being stable. If the ideal mass flow changes due to wheel turn in angle via tyre squirt and capturers, this can affect floor performance. This is why I believe there are gains(or perhaps corrections) to be had in the leading floor edge volume. It's where Laurent Mekies said VCARB concentrated on the most and it looks to have made a difference.

Going off on a bit of a tangent, Scott Mansell noted in one of his early ground effects videos 3 years ago that the FIA data showed that a front wing could be omitted and that the ultimate ground effects floor wouldn't necessarily need to rely on rear wing downforce (Look up the Arrows A2 or Lotus 88 from the old ground effects era). That an annular rear wing was stipulated to reduce dirty air for following cars was especially intriguing to me having taken part in a NASA JPL lesson that studied flight characteristics in which students made paper airplanes with closed loop wings. Looking back on this lesson actually reinforces my belief that stingray hydrodynamics, which I mentioned on this forum before, as being increasingly relevant to aerodynamic understanding and advancement. I first recognized a hint of this in F1 when Mercedes unveiled their zero pod concept that blended the body to the floor. The Ring Wing NASA JPL lesson is based on a blended wing body (BWB) philosophy that explores next generation aircraft that resembles stingray physiology and morphology. The lesson explores curved wing designs but ultimately instructs students to assemble an annular winged paper plane that when flown is shown to be stable against crosswinds. Students are then asked to make changes to the design to observe what effects it has. I immediately thought of the annular wing designs when seeing the FIA 2022 car.
While examining the front flexi-wing motion of the current F1 cars it reminded me of the kinematics and shape of stingrays in how they generate vortices from their curled tip wings and from the undulations of their blended wing body. I can't help but think that these cars are exhibiting characteristics that natural selection deemed an ideal morphology that engineers now understand and can apply. Endplate/wing tip vortices have been well understood and used for some time but the evolution of the floors are now taking ground effects to the next level. There's really a lot going on in what affects the total aero platform and I see a fascinating correlation with hydrodynamics in relation to ground effects flow fields as well as intentionally heated leading aerofoil edges affecting the boundary layer. In many ways I feel for Mercedes former aerodynamicist Mike Elliot. I think he was onto something but didn't have the mechanical equivalent that could solve their problems.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/resources/ ... ng-glider/
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Exchanger

[Silent Storm]

Excellent analysis from Vanja as always. (This picture was taken from Japan GP)

These mini diffusers generate a secondary low pressure cavity that works in concert with the main floor fences, sharpening fence generated vortices and further mitigating high pressure air intrusion under the floor edges. (Basically, helping sealing against pressure bleed)

Additionally, they improve diffuser pressure recovery by inducing a stronger localized low pressure region under the forward floor. This pre loads the central floor and diffuser throat with lower static pressure, enabling the main diffuser to operate across a steeper pressure gradient, thus increasing its mass flow capacity and downforce generation. As a result, the main diffuser doesn’t have to work as aggressively to achieve its intended performance.

Small structures like these can also serve as micro stability anchors for the floor airflow. If properly balanced, they help dampen floor pressure oscillations at very high speeds, allowing the RB21 to maintain low ride height efficiency without the need to excessively stiffen the rear suspension. (Basically, damping oscillations without needing super stiff suspension)

By preserving suction across a broader ride height window, the car can be run a few millimeters higher without a significant loss in aerodynamic grip. This not only improves mechanical compliance but also reduces overall setup sensitivity. (Basically, setup becomes more forgiving and car becomes more consistent lap to lap)

[AR3-GP]

Marko has also recently said the root of their issues is an aerodynamics problem. But that's really only half the story. Everyone keeps saying McLaren is kinder on their tyres. Mclaren's aero platform appears to be that they have enough DF to help limit the tyres from sliding, overheating and graining. Conventionally the more wing downforce you have the less sliding and better tyre life. Like you mentioned, McLaren may have more wing downforce and are exploiting morphing wing philosophy for the straights and highspeed corners.

This is something that I also thought about. Developing an active (or passive) mechanism for cooling the tires does not eliminate an inherent problem you may have with aerodynamic instabilities causing tire slip in the different phases of the corner.

[venkyhere]

Marko has also recently said the root of their issues is an aerodynamics problem. But that's really only half the story. Everyone keeps saying McLaren is kinder on their tyres. Mclaren's aero platform appears to be that they have enough DF to help limit the tyres from sliding, overheating and graining. Conventionally the more wing downforce you have the less sliding and better tyre life. Like you mentioned, McLaren may have more wing downforce and are exploiting morphing wing philosophy for the straights and highspeed corners.

This is something that I also thought about. Developing an active (or passive) mechanism for cooling the tires does not eliminate an inherent problem you may have with aerodynamic instabilities causing tire slip in the different phases of the corner.

sticking to the same 'rear wing DF' topic, here's a thought :
we have often seen videos of how the RW 'bends down' (overall flex) at high speeds in the straights , thereby providing a drag advantage. What about high speed cornering (250+ speeds) with such a flexing RW ? some of the DF will be 'used up' by the flex and only the remaining will go and press down the chassis (ie act on the rear tyres), in which case rear grip is reduced.
So the tradeoff is 'higher speed' v/s 'less rear tyre wear' in high speed corners.
Perhaps it will even be 'higher speed' v/s 'less rear tyre wear + faster direction change + no need to lift throttle in the snake section of suzuka/austin/jeddah'.

Would like to hear more thoughts on this flexi v/s non-flexi RW tradeoff.

[Farnborough]

Marko has also recently said the root of their issues is an aerodynamics problem. But that's really only half the story. Everyone keeps saying McLaren is kinder on their tyres. Mclaren's aero platform appears to be that they have enough DF to help limit the tyres from sliding, overheating and graining. Conventionally the more wing downforce you have the less sliding and better tyre life. Like you mentioned, McLaren may have more wing downforce and are exploiting morphing wing philosophy for the straights and highspeed corners.

This is something that I also thought about. Developing an active (or passive) mechanism for cooling the tires does not eliminate an inherent problem you may have with aerodynamic instabilities causing tire slip in the different phases of the corner.

sticking to the same 'rear wing DF' topic, here's a thought :
we have often seen videos of how the RW 'bends down' (overall flex) at high speeds in the straights , thereby providing a drag advantage. What about high speed cornering (250+ speeds) with such a flexing RW ? some of the DF will be 'used up' by the flex and only the remaining will go and press down the chassis (ie act on the rear tyres), in which case rear grip is reduced.
So the tradeoff is 'higher speed' v/s 'less rear tyre wear' in high speed corners.
Perhaps it will even be 'higher speed' v/s 'less rear tyre wear + faster direction change + no need to lift throttle in the snake section of suzuka/austin/jeddah'.

Would like to hear more thoughts on this flexi v/s non-flexi RW tradeoff.

Really this should be over in "flexi-wing" thread as I don't want to offer here.

But, I interpret the similar view to that I think you are leaning at.

This RB SEEMS to enact downforce at higher level at highest speed in comparison to other arrangement. The wing downforce being less sensitive to ground effect oscillation /transition too in it's sphere of operation. Those long fast corner being tangible evidence of effectiveness, possibly leading to bringing "par" performance to the McL in that aspect.

Interesting effect during Saudi GP (this is part of what I think should be in other thread) the MB with, apparently, most shift in wing position from static to v-max, appeared tomdo what you suggest, bleed off downforce at those far reaches and take a toll on tyre wear through that effect. Perhaps offering view of a compromise too far.

It's possible to believe the words of various people that the more flexing example will take a a toll on competitors more than on this RB current status. That's if they need to make reasonable shift in structure for those.

[f1isgood]

Most of the downforce in every generation of F1 cars comes from the floor — it's not specific to the ground effect era. As you rightly said, that's where most of the efficient downforce is, but it’s still unclear to me why there's this belief that Red Bull's floor isn't doing its job. Ground effect becomes far more pronounced at high speeds, and from what we’ve seen, Red Bull is still right there with the best teams in that area. They’re also more efficient than McLaren, which makes me think McLaren are gaining more through their wings, and that would naturally make them more draggy — which isn’t insignificant. So I’m not convinced McLaren are producing more floor downforce at all. If anything, corner performance seems to show this: in floor-dominated, high-speed sections, Red Bull are still right there, but in other corners, not so much.

I shouldn't say more DF, I should have said more consistent DF from the floor through all corners. To tame the car's tendencies, they add wing DF. Like some have mentioned, seeking ultimate down force can be a case of fool's gold. Perhaps there is a tendency to solve balance with wing down force but this generation car has such a particular philosophy that conventional wing DF can have drawbacks. It's a case of diminishing returns and not overdoing it. Drivers will always say they want more DF, but they won't ever ask for more drag will they. Max has been saying that they in general have been lacking grip.

Horner:

“It’s the entry phase to the mid-corner that needs addressing and giving him the ability and grip and confidence that takes carrying speed into entry corners.

“Now that’s fundamentally an aero issue that we need to be able to give him that grip.”

https://www.motorsportweek.com/2025/04/ ... more-time/

Marko has also recently said the root of their issues is an aerodynamics problem. But that's really only half the story. Everyone keeps saying McLaren is kinder on their tyres. Mclaren's aero platform appears to be that they have enough DF to help limit the tyres from sliding, overheating and graining. Conventionally the more wing downforce you have the less sliding and better tyre life. Like you mentioned, McLaren may have more wing downforce and are exploiting morphing wing philosophy for the straights and highspeed corners.

If it was coming from the wings, Red Bull should have been able to reproduce it by now. Just make bigger wings, they have drag to spare. Where Red Bull suffers is in the longer radius medium speed corners. This also requires floor downforce but the air speeds are lower. Maybe the steering of the wheels off center at higher angles sends tire wake towards the car and Red Bull's current solutions do not mitigate this effect (floor downforce loss) as well as Mclaren.

Yeah that seems plausible. Tire wake being managed poorly causing bad airflows under the floor eventually causing floor downforce loss at the medium speed corners where the car turns a lot.

I do think that shortening the nose was necessary for a number of reasons: reducing peak downforce that couldn't be balanced with the rear, increasing mass flow to the front floor fences, increasing the slot gap between the nose and mainplane affecting the flow to the floor, and perhaps compliance over kerbs.

Steering/attack angle is a credible theory. Driver61 Scott Mansell has an insightful observation on his Youtube channel regarding the driving style of Max Verstappen and Liam Lawson and the markedly different turn in styles between the two. It's been noted that Max more gradually steers while Liam's was later and more abrupt. Piastri has also been observed to be more gradual and smooth (Lando has complained about the car not suiting his driving style). This style upsets the aero platform less and helps to retain stability mid corner. The narrow window the drivers speak of is the manner in which the car can be driven in such a way that doesn't upset the aero platform. Once you encroach into the sensitivities of the balance, the platform is susceptible to yaw moment which can lead to a snap or sliding depending on the condition of the tyre. From my limited experience opinion (based on trying to solve a flight simulator yaw moment issue developing a forward swept winged aircraft), the angle that you can take appears to be a combination of forward CoG, nose/fuselage shape and contours of the components(airplane canards vs lower tyre fin squirt capturers, suspension fairings) affecting the inboard mass flow reaching the leading floor edge volume. This all greatly affects the venturi effect in addition to the vortices that are generated to seal the floor edge being stable. If the ideal mass flow changes due to wheel turn in angle via tyre squirt and capturers, this can affect floor performance. This is why I believe there are gains(or perhaps corrections) to be had in the leading floor edge volume. It's where Laurent Mekies said VCARB concentrated on the most and it looks to have made a difference.

Going off on a bit of a tangent, Scott Mansell noted in one of his early ground effects videos 3 years ago that the FIA data showed that a front wing could be omitted and that the ultimate ground effects floor wouldn't necessarily need to rely on rear wing downforce (Look up the Arrows A2 or Lotus 88 from the old ground effects era). That an annular rear wing was stipulated to reduce dirty air for following cars was especially intriguing to me having taken part in a NASA JPL lesson that studied flight characteristics in which students made paper airplanes with closed loop wings. Looking back on this lesson actually reinforces my belief that stingray hydrodynamics, which I mentioned on this forum before, as being increasingly relevant to aerodynamic understanding and advancement. I first recognized a hint of this in F1 when Mercedes unveiled their zero pod concept that blended the body to the floor. The Ring Wing NASA JPL lesson is based on a blended wing body (BWB) philosophy that explores next generation aircraft that resembles stingray physiology and morphology. The lesson explores curved wing designs but ultimately instructs students to assemble an annular winged paper plane that when flown is shown to be stable against crosswinds. Students are then asked to make changes to the design to observe what effects it has. I immediately thought of the annular wing designs when seeing the FIA 2022 car.
While examining the front flexi-wing motion of the current F1 cars it reminded me of the kinematics and shape of stingrays in how they generate vortices from their curled tip wings and from the undulations of their blended wing body. I can't help but think that these cars are exhibiting characteristics that natural selection deemed an ideal morphology that engineers now understand and can apply. Endplate/wing tip vortices have been well understood and used for some time but the evolution of the floors are now taking ground effects to the next level. There's really a lot going on in what affects the total aero platform and I see a fascinating correlation with hydrodynamics in relation to ground effects flow fields as well as intentionally heated leading aerofoil edges affecting the boundary layer. In many ways I feel for Mercedes former aerodynamicist Mike Elliot. I think he was onto something but didn't have the mechanical equivalent that could solve their problems.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/resources/ ... ng-glider/
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Exchanger

Thanks for the post!

[Waz]

Most of the downforce in every generation of F1 cars comes from the floor — it's not specific to the ground effect era. As you rightly said, that's where most of the efficient downforce is, but it’s still unclear to me why there's this belief that Red Bull's floor isn't doing its job. Ground effect becomes far more pronounced at high speeds, and from what we’ve seen, Red Bull is still right there with the best teams in that area. They’re also more efficient than McLaren, which makes me think McLaren are gaining more through their wings, and that would naturally make them more draggy — which isn’t insignificant. So I’m not convinced McLaren are producing more floor downforce at all. If anything, corner performance seems to show this: in floor-dominated, high-speed sections, Red Bull are still right there, but in other corners, not so much.

I shouldn't say more DF, I should have said more consistent DF from the floor through all corners. To tame the car's tendencies, they add wing DF. Like some have mentioned, seeking ultimate down force can be a case of fool's gold. Perhaps there is a tendency to solve balance with wing down force but this generation car has such a particular philosophy that conventional wing DF can have drawbacks. It's a case of diminishing returns and not overdoing it. Drivers will always say they want more DF, but they won't ever ask for more drag will they. Max has been saying that they in general have been lacking grip.

Horner:

“It’s the entry phase to the mid-corner that needs addressing and giving him the ability and grip and confidence that takes carrying speed into entry corners.

“Now that’s fundamentally an aero issue that we need to be able to give him that grip.”

https://www.motorsportweek.com/2025/04/ ... more-time/

Marko has also recently said the root of their issues is an aerodynamics problem. But that's really only half the story. Everyone keeps saying McLaren is kinder on their tyres. Mclaren's aero platform appears to be that they have enough DF to help limit the tyres from sliding, overheating and graining. Conventionally the more wing downforce you have the less sliding and better tyre life. Like you mentioned, McLaren may have more wing downforce and are exploiting morphing wing philosophy for the straights and highspeed corners.

Yeah that seems plausible. Tire wake being managed poorly causing bad airflows under the floor eventually causing floor downforce loss at the medium speed corners where the car turns a lot.

I do think that shortening the nose was necessary for a number of reasons: reducing peak downforce that couldn't be balanced with the rear, increasing mass flow to the front floor fences, increasing the slot gap between the nose and mainplane affecting the flow to the floor, and perhaps compliance over kerbs.

Steering/attack angle is a credible theory. Driver61 Scott Mansell has an insightful observation on his Youtube channel regarding the driving style of Max Verstappen and Liam Lawson and the markedly different turn in styles between the two. It's been noted that Max more gradually steers while Liam's was later and more abrupt. Piastri has also been observed to be more gradual and smooth (Lando has complained about the car not suiting his driving style). This style upsets the aero platform less and helps to retain stability mid corner. The narrow window the drivers speak of is the manner in which the car can be driven in such a way that doesn't upset the aero platform. Once you encroach into the sensitivities of the balance, the platform is susceptible to yaw moment which can lead to a snap or sliding depending on the condition of the tyre. From my limited experience opinion (based on trying to solve a flight simulator yaw moment issue developing a forward swept winged aircraft), the angle that you can take appears to be a combination of forward CoG, nose/fuselage shape and contours of the components(airplane canards vs lower tyre fin squirt capturers, suspension fairings) affecting the inboard mass flow reaching the leading floor edge volume. This all greatly affects the venturi effect in addition to the vortices that are generated to seal the floor edge being stable. If the ideal mass flow changes due to wheel turn in angle via tyre squirt and capturers, this can affect floor performance. This is why I believe there are gains(or perhaps corrections) to be had in the leading floor edge volume. It's where Laurent Mekies said VCARB concentrated on the most and it looks to have made a difference.

Going off on a bit of a tangent, Scott Mansell noted in one of his early ground effects videos 3 years ago that the FIA data showed that a front wing could be omitted and that the ultimate ground effects floor wouldn't necessarily need to rely on rear wing downforce (Look up the Arrows A2 or Lotus 88 from the old ground effects era). That an annular rear wing was stipulated to reduce dirty air for following cars was especially intriguing to me having taken part in a NASA JPL lesson that studied flight characteristics in which students made paper airplanes with closed loop wings. Looking back on this lesson actually reinforces my belief that stingray hydrodynamics, which I mentioned on this forum before, as being increasingly relevant to aerodynamic understanding and advancement. I first recognized a hint of this in F1 when Mercedes unveiled their zero pod concept that blended the body to the floor. The Ring Wing NASA JPL lesson is based on a blended wing body (BWB) philosophy that explores next generation aircraft that resembles stingray physiology and morphology. The lesson explores curved wing designs but ultimately instructs students to assemble an annular winged paper plane that when flown is shown to be stable against crosswinds. Students are then asked to make changes to the design to observe what effects it has. I immediately thought of the annular wing designs when seeing the FIA 2022 car.
While examining the front flexi-wing motion of the current F1 cars it reminded me of the kinematics and shape of stingrays in how they generate vortices from their curled tip wings and from the undulations of their blended wing body. I can't help but think that these cars are exhibiting characteristics that natural selection deemed an ideal morphology that engineers now understand and can apply. Endplate/wing tip vortices have been well understood and used for some time but the evolution of the floors are now taking ground effects to the next level. There's really a lot going on in what affects the total aero platform and I see a fascinating correlation with hydrodynamics in relation to ground effects flow fields as well as intentionally heated leading aerofoil edges affecting the boundary layer. In many ways I feel for Mercedes former aerodynamicist Mike Elliot. I think he was onto something but didn't have the mechanical equivalent that could solve their problems.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/resources/ ... ng-glider/
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Exchanger

Thanks for the post!

Very interesting post