The comparison of the Red Bull RB20 with last year’s RB19 demonstrates how this year’s car has not been dominant, with the competitors reeling it in.
It is 132 points lower than this time last year, demonstrating the average competitiveness level during the 14 races held thus far, with the car also becoming more track-dependent, particularly after the Miami Grand Prix.
The RB20’s increased track sensitivity is startling, with Max Verstappen winning four of the first five races in a variety of track layouts and conditions.
The only exception was the Australian Grand Prix, where he retired owing to an unexpected failure in the right rear brake, which caused a fire. That problem could now be interpreted as a clue to Red Bull’s current difficulties.
Technical regulations change.
The FIA changed article 11.2.1 of the technical regulations at the end of July, following a majority vote by the teams. The old version read: “Any system or mechanism that can systematically or intentionally produce asymmetric braking torques on a given axis is prohibited.”
It’s interesting that the post was rewritten and the issue wasn’t just handled with a technical directive, which is typically utilized when a technical question is clarified in response to a team request.
It is possible to conclude that the alteration of the article occurred when there was concern that a loophole in the guidelines had already been exploited.
In actuality, the most recent edition of article 11.2.1 (below) indicates that a team considered asymmetric braking at the beginning of the year, contravening the spirit of the rules but not infringing any.
The most recent version states: “The braking system must be designed so that, within each braking circuit, the forces applied to the brake pads are of the same magnitude and act as opposite pairs on a specific brake disc.” Any method or technique that can generate unequal braking torques on a certain axis is banned.”
But how does any of this relate to Red Bull? The previously noted fault in Australia provided a clue for the FIA technicians to investigate further.
According to RacingNews365 sources, the RB20 had an inertial valve fitted on the braking system part at the rear downstream of the brake-by-wire system up until the Chinese Grand Prix.
In actuality, a valve with a T connection received a single hydraulic pressure applied to the rear axle by the brake-by-wire, but this pressure could be precisely directed to the left or right of the rear axle, depending on which way the automobile was turning into a corner.
Impact of the system
It is correct to note out that the inertial valve is not one of the components supplied to the team by the brake system’s manufacturer, Brembo, and does not change the system’s fundamental safety characteristics.
Furthermore, the inertial valve only serves a purpose when the car approaches the corner entrance phase, because in a straight line, at the start of the braking action, the pressure between the right and left remains constant, with the sphere situated exactly in the center of the T.
However, it should be noted that the benefits of such a system are mostly focused on the car’s handling. Cornering precision is absolute, and understeer disappears.
These are attributes that the RB20 has gradually lost since Miami, which no later improvements have been able to restore. Given the FIA’s evident and diligent confidentiality, there is no established evidence that this is what transpired.
In any case, if Red Bull had used such a system before the start of the season, it would have been perfectly lawful within the wording of the technical regulations at the time, and there would be no basis for an FIA fine.
In short, the RB20’s reduction in relative competitiveness is not due to aerodynamic issues or extreme settings, but rather to a gradual increase in the important nature of vehicle dynamics.
It’s tough to conceive what the corrective actions could be, but our sources indicate to a different management of the setup and the interaction between how the front and back end ‘speak’ to each other after the summer vacation.
It is a conundrum for the engineers led by Pierre Waché since it is extremely difficult to reproduce the operation of a system after it has been removed from a vehicle, if it was ever there in the first place.
Leave a Reply