[Team] Red Bull: Unbullievable

[Gerard C]

Is this accurate? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw56mgPK43s
Seems that Alpine didn't go well through the same crash test.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

It is being reported that the 24 RBR had failed FIA crash tests.

It seems the same happened previously, but never this late in the development schedule.

Could they start 24 on the back foot?

The RB18 failed the same test prior to the 2022 season.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The RB18 failed the same test prior to the 2022 season.

IIRC, that failure was much earlier before the season start date?

[chillibowl]

how much of this would be down to their comparatively limited use of their wind tunnel and CFD hours given their finishing position and cap violation from a couple of seasons back? or more specifically, how will this this hinder their recovery?

fingers crossed that any set back RBR suffers offers the other teams more of a chance to catch up...with the hope of delivering a more competitive 2024 season!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

IIRC, that failure was much earlier before the season start date?

This article from RacingNews365, about the RB18 crash test failure, was published on 29 January 2022.

https://racingnews365.com/no-concern...rumours-emerge


Wasn't the test for the RB20 before Christmas?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

This article from RacingNews365, about the RB18 crash test failure, was published on 29 January 2022.

https://racingnews365.com/no-concern...rumours-emerge


Wasn't the test for the RB20 before Christmas?

The report on the RB18 came out then, I'm not sure what date the RB18 was tested.

It was 'thejudge' that reported:

"Whilst not a disaster, this is a setback for the world champions who suffered a similar fate with their 2022 car. That test was much earlier in the car’s development cycle so there will be concerns amongst the technical team in Milton Keynes."

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The report on the RB18 came out then, I'm not sure what date the RB18 was tested.

It was 'thejudge' that reported:

"Whilst not a disaster, this is a setback for the world champions who suffered a similar fate with their 2022 car. That test was much earlier in the car’s development cycle so there will be concerns amongst the technical team in Milton Keynes."

According to Total Motorsport the failure of frontal crash test in 2022 happened a month before pre-season testing.

https://www.total-motorsport.com/f1-...ar-fails-test/


The crash test for 2024 took place prior to Christmas Day. Pre-season testing for this year is from February 21-23, that gives RBR the best part of two months to rectify things.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I'm sure that I'm not mistaken that I read an online article from one of the reputable motor sport magazines fairly recently that the crash testing is now done in a computer generated virtual scenario rather that using actual racing cars. If this is actually correct, I wouldn't think that it would take too much time to correct the computer generated car to meet the required criteria.

I honestly would be very shocked if they have done away with the physical testing. I absolutely believe that the F1 teams are performing virtual modeling of crash tests, but in the design phase to validate prior to construction. They may also do some destructive tests of what I might call "test coupons" to validate correlation on the properties of construction techniques.

I think simulated crash test has been done for probably close to a decade for production cars (in the design phase). But the correlation between simulation and reality would have be very close and repeatable to trust the virtual results. This would require extremely accurate model of your test subject (including properties of construction process) and a correct simulation. For example if your carbon construction process has a flaw that is not represented in your model, or there is a unknown flaw in how the simulation is run, the simulation might pass, but the real test may fail.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

It was 'thejudge' that reported:

I was just slagging that site in the Audi thread. They posted their article on Jan 3rd, but I think maybe the first (that I can find) article is from Dec 28th by the Italian Motorsport.com site. I think TheJudge13 is just parroting other sources for advertisement revenue purposes.

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1...rb20/10561063/

The basics of the English translation of the article is that the nose failed and caused damage to the chassis. And it was all about weight reduction. That the real issue is that the factory was closed during the holiday and that they can't really address the issue until everyone is back (now). That the answer is likely to just add some additional reinforcement and retest. And if this will delay their launch in February or not. I can't imagine this is going to be a critical stumble for RBR.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

how much of this would be down to their comparatively limited use of their wind tunnel and CFD hours given their finishing position and cap violation from a couple of seasons back? or more specifically, how will this this hinder their recovery?

I suspect it is not due to their prior tunnel and CFD penalty? I think those penalties are more about aero design and testing vs. what I would call as "mechanical" simulations (FEA - finite element analysis vs. CFD) which I "think" would not have been impacted by the tunnel/CFD restrictions.

Assuming this is all true, it is likely nothing more than they are trying to make the crash structure as light as possible and it may have not passed the test. No doubt they can fix it, but will it meet their weight target? Will the distraction delay something else? How tight is their timeline for 2024?

Richard

[peebee2]

Top teams always fail the frontal test. You add carbon one layer at a time until it passes. Minimum weight.

[chillibowl]

that makes sense of course. start from an extreme and then work it back.

genuine question tho...why dont all the teams approach the first test the same way then? surely there are both pros and cons for such an incremental process so just curious what those would be.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

that makes sense of course. start from an extreme and then work it back.

genuine question tho...why dont all the teams approach the first test the same way then? surely there are both pros and cons for such an incremental process so just curious what those would be.

To be fair, maybe they do now, but you’d probably be surprised how badly some teams are led and operate.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by peebee2

...but you’d probably be surprised how badly some teams are led and operate.

more of those stories please!

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

more of those stories please!

What, like always bringing out five year plans every year and a half?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Top teams always fail the frontal test. You add carbon one layer at a time until it passes. Minimum weight.

That strategy makes sense in some ways. But I personally see problems with the approach.

* Scheduling and impacts to timeline. I don't know if there are multiple labs that are certified by FIA to do these tests or if it is just one location that all teams must use. If there is one (or limited) then if everyone is failing tests as they creep up toward passing, I can imagine this might create scheduling problems. I can image it might take at least a day to setup, perform and certify (or fail) each test.

* As to the first test... I see little benefit of bringing an article to test that you know will fail. I mean if the nose structure is destroyed and fails, you can look at the deceleration data to see how close it came to fully passing, but I think it still is mostly a wasted test and probably something you could have already validated inhouse. So I think teams will bring something they think will work, but might be on the edge of failing. And inline with that, your design is something that meets a specific weight goal. So if it fails, you can reinforce it, but that is a patch or "fix" for a failed design. It may be a less optimal solution than one that does pass and doesn't need to be "fixed".

* The cost of doing multiple tests would have to add up. Not just in performing the test, but also the revisions of your design and construction of each item.

While we know teams must pass the crash tests, and I expect the results (of passed or failed tests) are between the lab and the team and not public, is each of the top teams (Ferrari, Mercedes, etc.) really failing on the first of each crash test? I think testing involves the nose, rear and sides? And I think each involve a representative monocoque from the team and not a generic one. In that they are also not making "borderline safe" monocoques or other crash structures that may or may not fail during the tests or are they? While getting the weight down is important, are teams really trying to provide bare minimum safety?

In the end, expecting to fail your first test and then slapping on some extra carbon fiber for your next test sounds a bit "bush league" (sorry for the American slang, but I couldn't think of a more global version).

Richard

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Richard C

In the end, expecting to fail your first test and then slapping on some extra carbon fiber for your next test sounds a bit "bush league" (sorry for the American slang, but I couldn't think of a more global version).

Richard

I don't think it is possible to predict the failure that accurately in simulation.

If it wasn't a racing car chasing maximum performance, you'd have a higher safety factor like 1.5x or 2.0x the minimum requirement instead of 1.0x the requirement, so a 5% error bar in your simulation wouldn't matter. But it is and therefore it does matter.

Originally Posted by Richard C

While getting the weight down is important, are teams really trying to provide bare minimum safety?

I can't speak for all of the teams, but that is certainly the historical Team Lotus approach and the approach of Red Bull Racing who are trying to win.

Winning >> more safety than necessary.

It is alleged that Colin Chapman once provided a "firewall" made of cardboard painted silver and insisted to the scrutineers that it was fire-proof as required...

Besides, given the choice of halo or no halo, I suspect no team would run it. That's why safety stuff has rules!

While only tangentially related to safety, recall that Adrian Newey designed the Leyton House CG901, a car so cramped the drivers could barely move their arms. (That's why there are minimum cockpit dimensions now...)

Maybe a team that isn't trying to win wouldn't push everything to the limit (or beyond), but that would explain why they don't win anything...

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Richard C

While getting the weight down is important, are teams really trying to provide bare minimum safety?

No, they're maximising performance while meeting the stringent safety standards.

Originally Posted by Richard C

I can image it might take at least a day to setup, perform and certify (or fail) each test.

It is literally an engineer chucking noses in the boot of his car and driving to Cranfield etc.

Originally Posted by Richard C

In the end, expecting to fail your first test and then slapping on some extra carbon fiber for your next test sounds a bit "bush league" (sorry for the American slang, but I couldn't think of a more global version).

Again, they're maximising performance while meeting the stringent safety standards.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by peebee2

It is literally an engineer chucking noses in the boot of his car and driving to Cranfield etc.

He must have a big car!!



"The nose section reportedly did not adequately absorb the impact energy, resulting in damage to the chassis as well."

[Adam43]

You could argue that, in the days of cost cap, being able to pass first time helps maximize performance as it allows resources to be spent on other performance elements. Or a nice lunch for everyone. Efficiency in everything you do is really important.

Still Red Bull will be OK.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Richard C

In the end, expecting to fail your first test and then slapping on some extra carbon fiber for your next test sounds a bit "bush league" (sorry for the American slang, but I couldn't think of a more global version).

Richard

The people at Cranfield who do the tests say that exactly the opposite happens, and explain why the 'failures' are not really newsworthy. (Except in this case where it seems RBR may have pushed it too far and damaged a chassis?)

https://youtu.be/Yw56mgPK43s?si=fCzOCPrMfHfnnmQA

From 2:08....

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Or a nice lunch for everyone.

[Adam43]

Shout out to Cranfield. It’s a great place. Good facilities like this, a University, a manufacturer research center, and lots of lovely little tech places. Some directly linked, some not, but a great little community.

Only a few miles from Millbrook proving ground too.

Nice little airport that occasionally does air shows too.

OT. Three pubs, they’ve all gone through phases over the years, but one of them is normally decent. Edit: down to two pubs

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Shout out to Cranfield. It’s a great place. Good facilities like this, a University, a manufacturer research center, and lots of lovely little tech places. Some directly linked, some not, but a great little community.

Only a few miles from Millbrook proving ground too.

Nice little airport that occasionally does air shows too.

OT. Three pubs, they’ve all gone through phases over the years, but one of them is normally decent. Edit: down to two pubs

Is the other one now known as "The Bowl", a Caffiene and Machine location.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

He must have a big car!!



"The nose section reportedly did not adequately absorb the impact energy, resulting in damage to the chassis as well."

Why would he need a big car? Noses are about 2 feet long and you can get from MK to Cranfield in under 15 minutes?

Or are you showing lack of knowledge making assumptions about the chassis it’s bolted to?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Why would he need a big car? Noses are about 2 feet long and you can get from MK to Cranfield in under 15 minutes?

Or are you showing lack of knowledge making assumptions about the chassis it’s bolted to?

So you are saying that they have a bunch of noses already built, and someone drives back and forth between MK and Cranfield until they find one that passes?

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

So you are saying that they have a bunch of noses already built, and someone drives back and forth between MK and Cranfield until they find one that passes?

Pretty much. They’re the same basic design just not finished off.

Or they’ll take more than one thickness to test at the same time. It’s really not a big deal or cost.