Red Bull RB17

Breaking news, useful data or technical highlights or vehicles that are not meant to race. You can post commercial vehicle news or developments here.
Please post topics on racing variants in "other racing categories".
User avatar
TFSA
2
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2023 5:06 am

Re: Red Bull RB17

Post

wesley123 wrote:
napoleon1981 wrote:
Sun Aug 06, 2023 6:45 pm
Also, the whole cost cap discussion and agreement between teams didnt happen until 2020. So the argument that the Valkyrie was to circumvent the cost cap is crazy.
I'll raise you a different one; It circumvents limits on windtunnel/CFD time as well as a variety of other limits set on aerodynamic testing.

There are a variety of issues with defending the Valkyrie(or the RB17 for that matter). A first that people like to jump to is that the cars are vastly different, and therefore won't share any relevance. This is only partially true; physics do not change. However, what does change are aerodynamic requirements. So for example the kicks that is shared with the RB18/19 and the Valkyrie will have a very similar effect.
And since I mentioned requirements; There is literally no reason at all for a road car to have a step plane, yet, the Valkyrie -which has absolutely no relation to the Red Bull F1 car and will serve in no way as a way to gather knowledge- has one, just like the F1 car has from the same designer.

Another thing here is that Red Bull was an absolute landslide ahead of the rest of the field, featuring a floor that is significantly more detailed than even the second car on the grid, while having the second least wind tunnel time of the grid. You might defend this by arguing it sacrificed detailing on the upper side of the car; not the case either. However, what they did have and the rest of the field did not have was a car on which they could apply literally every single detail of their floor to test.
There's not any problem with this. Since you can't bring any outside designs into F1, it's all about the knowledge and ekspertise of your staff - which F1 (or any sport for that matter) is supposed to be about.

The cost cap was never supposed to combat that in the first place. And beyond that, the cost cap is a long term plan - it's not meant to solve everything in 2-3 years. And neither is it meant to make everyone a winner. F1 isn't gonna be everyone taking turns being champions. It's just meant to level the playing field reasonably and make the sport more easily profitable.

The rest is just speculation about what Red Bull have or haven't done in regards to how they came up with their floor. Personally I believe people overstate how advanced it is. The reason for this is that at the time the photographs appeared it was compared to the Williams floor, which is very basic. But looking at photographs from 2022, where several teams had their floors revealed, I don't see it being anything special in regards to how it looks. It's a great floor of course, but people make it out like every other team is sailing with a flat bottom.
Last edited by TFSA on Sun Aug 06, 2023 10:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
chrisc90
38
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:22 pm

Re: Red Bull RB17

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
Sun Aug 06, 2023 10:35 pm
chrisc90 wrote:
Sun Aug 06, 2023 10:20 pm
Newey's experience with ground effect dates back to his university studies. He was brought up around ground effect. There is probably very very few others that have done theory and papers as part of studies on ground effect.
Every designer has experience with ground effects - F1 has been a ground effect series since the 1970s.

It's tunnel floors that are "new", and exactly the design issue that Valkyrie and now RB17 major on.

Not really the same though. A lot of F1 cars were flat bottomed and offered very little in the terms of ground effect. Take the RB for example with mega rake at the rear. Can’t say the floor was ground effect.

Newey’s expertise on ground effect is a degree or many honours above all the young guns in teams who have worked on F1 cars for the last 5-10 years.

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
592
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: Red Bull RB17

Post

chrisc90 wrote:
Sun Aug 06, 2023 11:03 pm
Just_a_fan wrote:
Sun Aug 06, 2023 10:35 pm
chrisc90 wrote:
Sun Aug 06, 2023 10:20 pm
Newey's experience with ground effect dates back to his university studies. He was brought up around ground effect. There is probably very very few others that have done theory and papers as part of studies on ground effect.
Every designer has experience with ground effects - F1 has been a ground effect series since the 1970s.

It's tunnel floors that are "new", and exactly the design issue that Valkyrie and now RB17 major on.

Not really the same though. A lot of F1 cars were flat bottomed and offered very little in the terms of ground effect. Take the RB for example with mega rake at the rear. Can’t say the floor was ground effect.

Newey’s expertise on ground effect is a degree or many honours above all the young guns in teams who have worked on F1 cars for the last 5-10 years.
"Ground effect" doesn't mean "tunnels". The flat bottom cars were still using ground effect, as were the raked RBs.

"Ground effect" is just short hand for beneficial flow properties due to the close proximity of the ground to the device.

Here is a classic plot showing the effect of varying ride height for a bluff body with a flat floor and rear diffuser. You can see that downforce increases with reducing ride height to a certain point. Ground effect.

Image

Where RB appear to have succeeded is in making the peak a little lower but a lot wider.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

User avatar
TFSA
2
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2023 5:06 am

Re: Red Bull RB17

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
chrisc90 wrote:
Sun Aug 06, 2023 11:03 pm
Just_a_fan wrote:
Sun Aug 06, 2023 10:35 pm

Every designer has experience with ground effects - F1 has been a ground effect series since the 1970s.

It's tunnel floors that are "new", and exactly the design issue that Valkyrie and now RB17 major on.

Not really the same though. A lot of F1 cars were flat bottomed and offered very little in the terms of ground effect. Take the RB for example with mega rake at the rear. Can’t say the floor was ground effect.

Newey’s expertise on ground effect is a degree or many honours above all the young guns in teams who have worked on F1 cars for the last 5-10 years.
"Ground effect" doesn't mean "tunnels". The flat bottom cars were still using ground effect, as were the raked RBs.

"Ground effect" is just short hand for beneficial flow properties due to the close proximity of the ground to the device.

Here is a classic plot showing the effect of varying ride height for a bluff body with a flat floor and rear diffuser. You can see that downforce increases with reducing ride height to a certain point. Ground effect.

Image

Where RB appear to have succeeded is in making the peak a little lower but a lot wider.
He means designing ground effects floors. Of course the cars have ground effect. But the teams couldn't design around it
They had to have a flat floor with no venturi tunnels, and the only thing they could pretty much do with it is small tweaks to the diffuser and the skirts.

As such, he's right when he says that Newey is pretty much the only engineer on grid which has previous experience with designing a Formula 1 ground effect floor.

Last edited by TFSA on Mon Aug 07, 2023 12:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

napoleon1981
napoleon1981
3
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:19 pm

Re: Red Bull RB17

Post

wesley123 wrote:
Sun Aug 06, 2023 8:56 pm
napoleon1981 wrote:
Sun Aug 06, 2023 6:45 pm
Also, the whole cost cap discussion and agreement between teams didnt happen until 2020. So the argument that the Valkyrie was to circumvent the cost cap is crazy.
I'll raise you a different one; It circumvents limits on windtunnel/CFD time as well as a variety of other limits set on aerodynamic testing.
Except for the Valkyrie alot of that design happened before the establishment of CFD time/windtunnel limits. So even if redbull learned those lessons on the Valkyrie, they did so legally.

Do we know if the kicks were on the launch RB18? I remember this discussion taking off this year, after the Monaco crash. If the Valkyrie was the source should we have expected those details in the RB18 already?

User avatar
Stu
Moderator
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:05 am
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: Red Bull RB17

Post

can we keep this thread for the RB17 please, folks?
The Valkyrie has its own thread, TD045 now has its own thread. This is not the place to be discussing IP transfer (& it seems that some do not know what that means), data transfer, ‘other branch’ projects or staff transfer.
This is a technical forum, not WWE.
Perspective - Understanding that sometimes the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

Cold Fussion
Cold Fussion
93
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:51 am

Re: Red Bull RB17

Post

napoleon1981 wrote:
Mon Aug 07, 2023 2:54 am
Except for the Valkyrie alot of that design happened before the establishment of CFD time/windtunnel limits. So even if redbull learned those lessons on the Valkyrie, they did so legally.
F1 has had CFD and wind tunnel limits for a long time.

User avatar
carisi2k
28
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 10:26 pm

Re: Red Bull RB17

Post

LM10 wrote:
Sat Aug 05, 2023 1:36 pm
carisi2k wrote:
Fri Jul 07, 2023 12:57 pm
My feeling on this car is that Red Bull should have just made it a WEC Hypercar project instead of some production car like the Valkyrie.
A WEC Hypercar needs to be built around regulations while a production car doesn’t. The engineers can build the production car completely to their liking and then share their knowledge and experience with the F1 engineers. The FIA can tackle this problem as much as they wish, they will never be able to entirely stop knowledge share. The engineers can meet up in a bar and talk about the advantages/disadvantages of certain parts/developments while sipping on their brandy.
Yes but this was nothing more then a means to move staff to a new project to get them off the salary cap but not in to the hands of other teams. Ferrari did this with there hypercar and Mercedes did it with the AMG 1 and America's cup project.

User avatar
AMG.Tzan
38
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:35 am
Location: Greece

Re: Red Bull RB17

Post

Red Bull should think about turning this thing into a Le Mans Hypercar too I think!

This is the perfect opportunity considering the LMH regulations right now! And it would also make for a nice addition to the already incredible Le Mans roster! Also with FORD joining forces by 2026 that’s also a perfect opportunity for them to get back into the top class at Le Mans even with just branding deal like with the 26 engine…
"The only rule is there are no rules" - Aristotle Onassis

BlueCheetah66
BlueCheetah66
32
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2021 7:23 pm

Re: Red Bull RB17

Post

AMG.Tzan wrote:
Thu Aug 24, 2023 11:03 am
Red Bull should think about turning this thing into a Le Mans Hypercar too I think!

This is the perfect opportunity considering the LMH regulations right now! And it would also make for a nice addition to the already incredible Le Mans roster! Also with FORD joining forces by 2026 that’s also a perfect opportunity for them to get back into the top class at Le Mans even with just branding deal like with the 26 engine…
Without making this too much about politics of Red Bull, It might be harder to convince the Red Bull higher ups to approve a LMH program now that Dietrich is gone

User avatar
TEHNOS
8
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:02 pm

Re: Red Bull RB17

Post


Fluido
Fluido
1
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2022 4:17 pm

Re: Red Bull RB17

Post


Yuven
Yuven
0
Joined: Fri May 17, 2024 7:23 am

Re: Red Bull RB17

Post

BlueCheetah66 wrote:
Thu Aug 24, 2023 5:28 pm
AMG.Tzan wrote:
Thu Aug 24, 2023 11:03 am
Red Bull should think about turning this thing into a Le Mans Hypercar too I think!

This is the perfect opportunity considering the LMH regulations right now! And it would also make for a nice addition to the already incredible Le Mans roster! Also with FORD joining forces by 2026 that’s also a perfect opportunity for them to get back into the top class at Le Mans even with just branding deal like with the 26 engine…
Without making this too much about politics of Red Bull, It might be harder to convince the Red Bull higher ups to approve a LMH program now that Dietrich is gone
Convincing Red Bull's higher-ups to approve an LMH program might be challenging without Dietrich's influence, as his absence could impact decision-making within the company's leadership.