RB VCARB 01

A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
CjC
CjC
11
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:13 pm

Re: RB VCARB 01

Post

ME4ME wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 5:12 pm
CjC wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 5:03 pm
So it’s a massive advantage to buy the proven Red Bull front suspension and no doubt walk onto the podium?

Then all the money and allocation saved from not designing your own suspension can be pumped into pure aerodynamic performance resulting in a laptime gain….
Come on…. how can this be fair to the others
Walk onto a podium .. jeez.They are a year old suspension parts.
Haas are buying Ferrari's 2024 parts.

I have very little time for these unfair complains, including the stuff coming from Brown. These are old parts. Rivals should be up to the job to compete with that.
We shall see.

Why aren’t the teams who take the parts up to it as well??

Not read much about this car, I know Alpha Tauri took the 2023 suspension from Red Bull towards the end of last season. Has it been confirmed that it’s the RB 2023 suspension on the RB2 car or the 2024 system?
Just a fan's point of view

CjC
CjC
11
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:13 pm

Re: RB VCARB 01

Post

organic wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 5:08 pm
CjC wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 5:03 pm
SiLo wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 4:46 pm
Regarding the front suspension they are getting from Red Bull, James Key said this:



Source: https://www.racefans.net/2024/02/09/a-h ... uspension/
So it’s a massive advantage to buy the proven Red Bull front suspension and no doubt walk onto the podium?

Then all the money and allocation saved front not designing your own suspension can be pumped into pure aerodynamic performance resulting in a laptime gain….
Come on…. how can this be fair to the others
The option is available to customer teams and many choose not to take it eg AMR, Williams, Alfa Romeo.. so it isn't pure advantage or an absolute no-brainer like you're suggesting.

Having autonomy over the design is extremely valuable; designing around decisions made for another car layout is generally not going to be optimal. Additionally, with Toro Rosso they're always a year behind RB's design with their 2024 car running 2023 parts. Haas on the other hand takes up-to-date components as Ferrari releases the designs early enough in the process for them to incorporate. So I would say Haas stand to gain even more in this region, but as we see it has not helped much, right?
But my point about freeing up resources from not designing their own suspension stands surely?

Say for example taking the RB 2023 suspension looses them 5% of performance because it’s not optimal but because they haven’t designed it to begin with, they have extra resources available for aerodynamics which gain them 10% say- then its an unfair advantage
Just a fan's point of view

User avatar
LeveragedTiger
1
Joined: Thu May 25, 2023 8:52 pm

Re: RB VCARB 01

Post

Interesting sidepod philosophy.

Looks like it combines the Red Bull approach of maximizing airflow above the floor entrance and under the sidepod inlet while also introducing a Ferrari-esque outwash kick further back.

AR3-GP
AR3-GP
308
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:22 am

Re: RB VCARB 01

Post

CjC wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 6:03 pm

But my point about freeing up resources from not designing their own suspension stands surely?

Say for example taking the RB 2023 suspension looses them 5% of performance because it’s not optimal but because they haven’t designed it to begin with, they have extra resources available for aerodynamics which gain them 10% say- then its an unfair advantage
Aston Martin and Williams buy Mercedes suspension. Haas buys Ferrari suspension. The teams agreed to this.

If it was so effective, then the factory teams would buy parts from others. The reality is that it's not that simple. It is only a model which works for smaller teams who don't have the know, infrastructure, or resources to do component design in certain areas. Any big team will make their own parts and it is to their advantage being able to design components to suit their own design philosophies.

It's no more strange that customer engines. Teams like Mclaren, Williams, Aston don't have to worry about engine design and it frees up funding and people to spend on the chassis/aero.

zioture
zioture
496
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:46 am
Location: Italy

Re: RB VCARB 01

Post


mendis
mendis
19
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:12 pm

Re: RB VCARB 01

Post

CjC wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 6:03 pm
organic wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 5:08 pm
CjC wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 5:03 pm


So it’s a massive advantage to buy the proven Red Bull front suspension and no doubt walk onto the podium?

Then all the money and allocation saved front not designing your own suspension can be pumped into pure aerodynamic performance resulting in a laptime gain….
Come on…. how can this be fair to the others
The option is available to customer teams and many choose not to take it eg AMR, Williams, Alfa Romeo.. so it isn't pure advantage or an absolute no-brainer like you're suggesting.

Having autonomy over the design is extremely valuable; designing around decisions made for another car layout is generally not going to be optimal. Additionally, with Toro Rosso they're always a year behind RB's design with their 2024 car running 2023 parts. Haas on the other hand takes up-to-date components as Ferrari releases the designs early enough in the process for them to incorporate. So I would say Haas stand to gain even more in this region, but as we see it has not helped much, right?
But my point about freeing up resources from not designing their own suspension stands surely?

Say for example taking the RB 2023 suspension looses them 5% of performance because it’s not optimal but because they haven’t designed it to begin with, they have extra resources available for aerodynamics which gain them 10% say- then its an unfair advantage
As per FIA cost cap regulations, parts that a team buys from a supplier team, have a notional cost of developing it. Let's say, Mercedes gives suspension at $1, FIA cost cap regulations have the cost marked at $6. A buying team might not have paid $6, but will be accounted for $6. Whereas the cost of designing and manufacturing may be $4 for the supplier team like Mercedes. FIA would account for actual cost of $4 for them as they designed and developed it! So there is actually a handicap for teams that buy parts.

viewtopic.php?p=1125302&hilit=notional+cost#p1125302

CjC
CjC
11
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:13 pm

Re: RB VCARB 01

Post

mendis wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:53 am
CjC wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 6:03 pm
organic wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 5:08 pm


The option is available to customer teams and many choose not to take it eg AMR, Williams, Alfa Romeo.. so it isn't pure advantage or an absolute no-brainer like you're suggesting.

Having autonomy over the design is extremely valuable; designing around decisions made for another car layout is generally not going to be optimal. Additionally, with Toro Rosso they're always a year behind RB's design with their 2024 car running 2023 parts. Haas on the other hand takes up-to-date components as Ferrari releases the designs early enough in the process for them to incorporate. So I would say Haas stand to gain even more in this region, but as we see it has not helped much, right?
But my point about freeing up resources from not designing their own suspension stands surely?

Say for example taking the RB 2023 suspension looses them 5% of performance because it’s not optimal but because they haven’t designed it to begin with, they have extra resources available for aerodynamics which gain them 10% say- then its an unfair advantage
As per FIA cost cap regulations, parts that a team buys from a supplier team, have a notional cost of developing it. Let's say, Mercedes gives suspension at $1, FIA cost cap regulations have the cost marked at $6. A buying team might not have paid $6, but will be accounted for $6. Whereas the cost of designing and manufacturing may be $4 for the supplier team like Mercedes. FIA would account for actual cost of $4 for them as they designed and developed it! So there is actually a handicap for teams that buy parts.

viewtopic.php?p=1125302&hilit=notional+cost#p1125302
Thanks for the link.
I wasn’t aware about the notional values for the cost cap.
Just a fan's point of view

User avatar
organic
920
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:24 am
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: RB VCARB 01

Post

The real car will not look like these renders

mzso
mzso
59
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: RB VCARB 01

Post

mendis wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:53 am
CjC wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 6:03 pm
organic wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 5:08 pm


The option is available to customer teams and many choose not to take it eg AMR, Williams, Alfa Romeo.. so it isn't pure advantage or an absolute no-brainer like you're suggesting.

Having autonomy over the design is extremely valuable; designing around decisions made for another car layout is generally not going to be optimal. Additionally, with Toro Rosso they're always a year behind RB's design with their 2024 car running 2023 parts. Haas on the other hand takes up-to-date components as Ferrari releases the designs early enough in the process for them to incorporate. So I would say Haas stand to gain even more in this region, but as we see it has not helped much, right?
But my point about freeing up resources from not designing their own suspension stands surely?

Say for example taking the RB 2023 suspension looses them 5% of performance because it’s not optimal but because they haven’t designed it to begin with, they have extra resources available for aerodynamics which gain them 10% say- then its an unfair advantage
As per FIA cost cap regulations, parts that a team buys from a supplier team, have a notional cost of developing it. Let's say, Mercedes gives suspension at $1, FIA cost cap regulations have the cost marked at $6. A buying team might not have paid $6, but will be accounted for $6. Whereas the cost of designing and manufacturing may be $4 for the supplier team like Mercedes. FIA would account for actual cost of $4 for them as they designed and developed it! So there is actually a handicap for teams that buy parts.

viewtopic.php?p=1125302&hilit=notional+cost#p1125302
Interesting, but I doubt it's the case for most of the components, because then no-one would buy anything.

Cs98
Cs98
30
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2022 10:37 am

Re: RB VCARB 01

Post

mzso wrote:
Sun Feb 11, 2024 10:13 pm
mendis wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:53 am
CjC wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 6:03 pm


But my point about freeing up resources from not designing their own suspension stands surely?

Say for example taking the RB 2023 suspension looses them 5% of performance because it’s not optimal but because they haven’t designed it to begin with, they have extra resources available for aerodynamics which gain them 10% say- then its an unfair advantage
As per FIA cost cap regulations, parts that a team buys from a supplier team, have a notional cost of developing it. Let's say, Mercedes gives suspension at $1, FIA cost cap regulations have the cost marked at $6. A buying team might not have paid $6, but will be accounted for $6. Whereas the cost of designing and manufacturing may be $4 for the supplier team like Mercedes. FIA would account for actual cost of $4 for them as they designed and developed it! So there is actually a handicap for teams that buy parts.

viewtopic.php?p=1125302&hilit=notional+cost#p1125302
Interesting, but I doubt it's the case for most of the components, because then no-one would buy anything.
That is assuming everyone has the infrastructure to build all parts of their car, which is obviously not true. Some teams skimp massively on capital expenditure and then spend at the cap on the operational side. But they hardly get the same bang for their buck on the operational spending, because they effectively have to lease manufacturing equipment and third party labour.

User avatar
Blackout
1550
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:12 am

Re: RB VCARB 01

Post

mendis wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:53 am
CjC wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 6:03 pm
organic wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 5:08 pm


The option is available to customer teams and many choose not to take it eg AMR, Williams, Alfa Romeo.. so it isn't pure advantage or an absolute no-brainer like you're suggesting.

Having autonomy over the design is extremely valuable; designing around decisions made for another car layout is generally not going to be optimal. Additionally, with Toro Rosso they're always a year behind RB's design with their 2024 car running 2023 parts. Haas on the other hand takes up-to-date components as Ferrari releases the designs early enough in the process for them to incorporate. So I would say Haas stand to gain even more in this region, but as we see it has not helped much, right?
But my point about freeing up resources from not designing their own suspension stands surely?

Say for example taking the RB 2023 suspension looses them 5% of performance because it’s not optimal but because they haven’t designed it to begin with, they have extra resources available for aerodynamics which gain them 10% say- then its an unfair advantage
As per FIA cost cap regulations, parts that a team buys from a supplier team, have a notional cost of developing it. Let's say, Mercedes gives suspension at $1, FIA cost cap regulations have the cost marked at $6. A buying team might not have paid $6, but will be accounted for $6. Whereas the cost of designing and manufacturing may be $4 for the supplier team like Mercedes. FIA would account for actual cost of $4 for them as they designed and developed it! So there is actually a handicap for teams that buy parts.

viewtopic.php?p=1125302&hilit=notional+cost#p1125302
That's the theory, but in practice it's different.
FIA themselves said in their reports that buying things instead of building them still advantages customers, and according to other teams too (Steiner said Haas saves like 18% of the costs by buying the Ferrari parts...)
Not to mention that constructors need to pay the salaries of the people who build their suspensions, gbox, hydraulics all year long...
So yes, being a customer with these sporting rules that FIA didnt reform and adapt to the new budget cap context can give a big advantage in aero, and on top of this they got additional 'ATR' windtunnel time...

Luscion
Luscion
34
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2023 12:37 am

Re: RB VCARB 01

Post

Source - https://formu1a.uno/visa-cash-app-rb-in ... ogni-gara/


Speaking more about the team's sporting goals, Visa Cash App RB Technical Director Jody Eggington took the floor: "We expect to be in contention for the midfield and to be able to do it a little earlier, to be more consistent and to be present in all races, fighting hard in the fight for points and trying to get the most out of the car and ourselves." On the technical side, Eggington was clear about the goals the team plans to achieve with the VCARB01: "We want to be able to take advantage of all the performance the car has available, and then develop it from that point."

Shakedown Visa Cash App RB, Tsunoda: "Much better feelings than 12 months ago here."
First to speak was Daniel Ricciardo, an official driver again at the start of the season after missing 2023 following his split with McLaren: "For the new car every year we get excited, it brings new opportunities. It's hard to know exactly where we will be, but as far as I'm concerned it was good to be back behind the wheel again." The Australian had lost his best form in his two-year stint in Woking, especially in 2022, but in the second half of last season he showed some flashes of the old Daniel: "Being back in the Red Bull family was something that made me feel like myself again." Winter testing week has been referred to as one of the crucial times of the season when the team must work as one: "Testing is an opportunity to set the tone and define the direction we want to go as a team because there will always be areas to improve in different ways."
Yuki Tsunoda begins his fourth season in Formula 1 at Faenza with the team that saw him grow up, his first as a Visa Cash App RB driver; on the other hand, the Japanese driver can testify to the car's growth over the past year: "The first few laps on the VCARB01 went well, I've already felt some steps of improvement compared to last year, and in particular compared to 12 months ago I felt a big step.", later stating that "it's an easier car to control, and I didn't feel any major problems or changes in main characteristics." Expectations for this year are high, particularly for the team's two home Grands Prix: "At one of the tracks, be it Imola or Monza, of our home Grand Prix, it would be great if we could score important points or even get a podium."

User avatar
ispano6
143
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:56 pm
Location: my playseat

Re: RB VCARB 01

Post


User avatar
organic
920
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:24 am
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: RB VCARB 01

Post



Image

Image

Image

User avatar
Blackout
1550
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:12 am

Re: RB VCARB 01

Post

So they went back to the streamlined big undercut they started 22 and 23 with?