The development in modern Formula 1 is similar to the slow composition of a puzzle. Just as the tiles taken individually fail to restore the overall image before the work is completed, in the same way the wings, flaps and aerodynamic surfaces alone appear of little importance. Only when the individual updates begin to accumulate on each other is it possible to identify the common thread, the strategy that has guided the work of the team for months and months.
The Monza stage in this sense was enlightening. Historically, on the Brianza track, teams use specific aerodynamic configurations to reduce drag on the endless straights of the Autodrome. If in a sense this was the case for Ferrari, which used a beam-wing and rear-wing configuration unique to the Prancing Horse season, the same cannot be said for Red Bull, which surprisingly re-proposed the Paul Ricard wing. certainly not a track close to the Brianza one in terms of characteristics. The apparent anomaly, however, presents itself as part of a very specific plan for the Milton Keynes stable. Going to reconstruct the seasonal development of the two rival single-seaters, in fact, different strategies emerge, the children of contrasting needs.
Since its debut in Bahrain, Ferrari has suffered an obvious speed disadvantage on the straight, deriving in part from the aerodynamic concept and at the same time from a power unit forced to close the hybrid delivery prematurely. The goal in Maranello was therefore to close the gap in terms of top speed by developing ever more efficient wing appendages. During the F1-75 championship there were numerous rear ailerons, developed with the aim not only of increasing its efficiency, but also the “power” of the DRS and the speed gain given by its activation. Observing the latest wings introduced by the Prancing Horse, we see how Ferrari has increasingly widened the surface of the mobile flap in relation to the lower one, so that its opening guarantees an increasing speed gain. The work on the ailerons of the F1-75 was crucial to contain the speed gap from the RB18, which however never closed completely.
Red Bull, on the other hand, has never had the priority to further optimize performance on the straight. The energy abundance of the power unit, with an uninterrupted supply of electrical power up to the braking point, combined with an efficient aerodynamics that in all probability manages to send several components into stall, are qualities more than sufficient to ensure the RB18 the supremacy on the obverse. Milton Keynes’s car was lacking in terms of absolute downforce, denoting cornering speeds lower than Ferrari. The development at Red Bull has therefore concentrated mainly on the bottom and bodywork in search of cargo, without going to enrich the wing fleet as instead done by the rivals.
But there is more to the low number of rear wings used by the team throughout the season. The Anglo-Austrian team has set the design of the RB18 in such a way as to not be forced to rely on a large number of ailerons for load adjustment and aerodynamic balance, instead relying more on the underlying beam wing. The double airfoil placed above the outlet section of the diffuser is in fact able to indirectly influence the behavior of the bottom, proving to be another important load adjustment tool. Everything was summarized by the Technical Director Pierre Wachewho explained how Red Bull has so far managed to adapt to the various circuits without constantly replacing the wing: “We divide the season into three parts and manage them with as many rear wings. Sure the beam wing is part of this, as other teams do, but we developed the car around thatfor various reasons: for efficiency in terms of downforce, but also in terms of budget “. All this also denotes an excellent ability of the team in controlling the level and distribution of the load across the bottom, acting on heights from the ground and suspension stiffnesses.
Daughters of different scenarios, the two teams have thus carried out different development programs. Focusing on the rear wings alone, it emerges how much Ferrari has invested in the refinement of its ailerons. Taking into consideration the races from Barcelona onwards, the stage in which the most substantial part of the development of Maranello began, we count the use of five different wings:
-high load, used in Barcelona, Munich and Budapest;
– medium-high load, used in Canada with Sainz only and in Zandvoort;
– medium load, used in Canada with the Leclerc only, in France and in Silverstone;
– medium-low load, used in Baku and Spa;
– low load, used in Monza.
Red Bull for its part stops at only two aileronsless than half of those of the direct competitor:
-high load, used in Barcelona, Munich, Silverstone, Montreal, Zeltweg, Budapest and Zandvoort;
-low load, used in Baku, Le Castellet and Monza.
To these two is then added a third specification even more discharged, characterized by the upper flap carved and tested on Friday in Monza, but then remained unused due to the desire to maintain a higher load level.
The words of Pierre Wache, who underlines how much Red Bull relies more on other tools for load correction, are reflected in the count of the beam-wing specifications. Ferrari stops in fact at three different configurations:
– high load, used in Barcelona, Munich, Baku, Budapest. Zandvoort and in Canada with only Sainz;
– medium load, used in England, France, Belgium and Canada with Leclerc only;
– single profile, used only in Monza.
Red Bull, on the other hand, boasts a larger beam wing park, with ben four configurations available:
-high load, used in Barcelona and Monaco;
– medium-high load, used in Budapest and Zandvoort;
– medium-low load, used in France;
-single profile, used in Baku, Montreal, Silverstone, Zeltweg, Spa and Monza.
The finding of two different development strategies does not necessarily imply that there is a better one of the two. Ferrari managed to improve its performance on the straight, containing a speed gap that otherwise could have been even wider. The high number of ailerons also gives the Scuderia important tools to correct the balance of the single-seater, a more than current practice with the critical issues of the F1-75 recently emerged. More important, however, for the Prancing Horse is that it has ensured a better adaptability of the single-seater, an advantage that emerges even more on tracks with extreme configurations. At Monza, for example, the F1-75 was faster in extension than the RB18 and although this can be recognized as contributing to the engine mapping and the higher load level chosen by the rivals, the availability of a “specific” wing of which instead was off guard Red Bull was a factor in favor. Another track on which Ferrari could benefit from this development strategy is Mexicowhere the rarefaction of the air imposes the search for the maximum possible load.
Red Bull, on the other hand, has staked everything on aerodynamic efficiency, adopting modest ailerons even on high-load tracks, while maintaining low drag. Having limited the development of rear wings has also resulted in a saving of resources, not only economic. It could be argued that the budget cap still fails to keep track of the various jobs that the top teams commission from local companies, undermining the effective control of expenses. However, it should be considered that a greater economic saving still makes it possible to limit the delegation of work to the outside, never optimal for waiting times and for communication, but above all it allows to direct internal efforts towards the development of other areas of the car.
The various resources invested on the rear wings have in fact affected the evolution of the rest of the car, with Red Bull which has been able to bring multiple upgrades to the body, bottom and diffuser:
-Bahrain: sides;
-Barcelona: bottom;
-Baku: bottom;
-Silverstone: engine hood; bottom; Venturi channel grille;
-Austria: Venturi channel grid;
-France: Venturi channels grid;
-Spa: hood and sides.
In reverse, Ferrari has been more sparing in updating the F1-75’s skin and underbody:
-Bahrain: progressive evolution of the fund through successive modifications during the tests;
-Barcelona: bottom and diffuser;
-Silverstone: hood and sides;
-France: Venturi canal.
In summary, Red Bull conceived the RB18 with the intent of detach the load adjustment from the rear wing as much as possible, allowing you to invest more time and resources on other areas of the car. Ferrari for its part, also forced by an excessive delay accumulated on the straight, could only optimize the design of its ailerons to seek efficiency and stem the main limitation of the F1-75. From this point of view, it will be interesting to observe if in the years to come the two teams will move towards a convergence not only in terms of design, but also methodological in development planning.
#Development #Red #Bull #Ferrari #invested #differently #FormulaPassion.it