Welcome to Formula1 @ Lemmy.world Lemmy's largest community for Formula 1 and related racing series
| Location | Date |
|---|---|
| πΊπΈ United States | 18-20 Oct |
| π²π½ Mexico | 25-27 Oct |
| π§π· Brazil | 01-03 Nov |
| πΊπΈ United States | 21-23 Nov |
| πΆπ¦ Qatar | 29 Nov-01 Dec |
| π¦πͺ Abu Dhabi | 06-08 Dec |
Original Title: [Peter Windsor] Looks as though RBR might have been running a clever rear cross-brake inertia valve before they were obliged to remove it before Miami. This could explain Max's RR brake drama in MEL and his turn-in grief since China.
Craig Scarborough has also chimed in on the subject:
This makes sense and underlined by the tech reg change. A return of the Newey fiddle brake, but automatic & creating a turning moment with the rear brakes. A simple weighted valve in the rear brake splitter could do this. Altering the effort between the calipers as the car turns
Someone explains what this means to me, a dumbass.
Short version that doesn't require technical knowledge is Red Bull Racing (RBR) were using a system on their brakes that wasn't allowed but it was suspected that teams were using anyway. The rules were publicly clarified before the Miami GP. Ever since then Max Verstappen and Red Bull in general have started to lose pace compared to other teams, breaking Max's long run of victories. The tweet is suggesting that Max's break issues that caused him to DNF in the Australian GP were due to a fault in this system and the loss of pace is due to it's removal.
Edit to correct detail that I mis-remembered. Max did not DNF in Miami, in fact he finished 2nd. It was Australia that he retired from.
Are you saying that the rules did not strictly forbid this system prior to Miami and the underlined text was added to the regulations to eliminate the loophole RBR was using to help win?
By my understanding, it was more of a grey area. It seemed like the system was technically allowed according to the wording of the rule but clearly against the spirit of the rule. Prior to Miami, the FIA made it clear that they would interpret things like this as a breach of the rules, effectively allowing teams to remove them without punishment before they were caught.
By my understanding, it was more of a grey area. It seemed like the system was technically allowed according to the wording of the rule but clearly against the spirit of the rule.
The FIA is so full of shit sometimes. When Mercedes did the same with DAS, it was outlawed only for the next season, meaning Mercedes could keep its competitive advantage because nobody else was incentivized to develop the same.
Sauber (then confirmed by Vasseur) and maybe RBR had a rear wing that passed all load tests and then the FIA suddenly changed the load numbers the wings had to pass mid-season. Same with the flexing floor: It passed all the tests, everybody confirmed that a slightly flexing design (and everything flexes, otherwise it would be brittle) that such a design would be healthier for the drivers because the floor doesn't crash unto the ground all the time but still outlawed mid-season.
That seems to be the case. They did add that text to the regulations at that time, which led to public speculations even back then on why that weirdly specific text was added.
The inside rear wheel is braked harder, which pulls the car into the curve, helping it rotate better while braking.
I have no idea what an inertia valve could be, but I'm guessing it might be similar to McLarens second brake pedal they had in the MP4/12. Applying more brake pressure to the inner rear wheel allows easier rotation at low speeds.
I've always wondered what would be uncovered about RBRs cars from last year that allowed them to be so dominant. I wonder if it was something like this.
This isnβt really a surprise. Something had to be taken off the RB car to bring them back that far into the pack. A new application of Neweys βfiddle brakeβ makes a ton of sense and would explain why their tyre wear has been so good all year.