Red Bull is pretty open that it needs to quickly turn around the performance of its RB20 if it is not going to lose both Formula 1 championships this year.
But saying what it wants is one thing, doing it is another – especially because it does not yet have a clear explanation on what has gone wrong.
We can forget wild conspiracy theories about the FIA asking for devices to be removed from its car. Instead, Red Bull’s problems are all of its own making.
While not definitive yet about what has happened, there was a fascinating hint from team boss Christian Horner after the Italian GP about a potential trigger for its woes.
Speaking about the balance problems that are hurting the car, Horner said: “It's disconnected front and rear. We can see that.
“Our wind tunnel doesn't say that, but the track says that. So it's getting on top of that, because obviously when you have that, it means you can't trust your tools. Then you have to go back to track data and previous experience.”
So could a wind tunnel problem – something that may only have come to light in recent weeks – be the smoking gun behind its troubles?
In a bid to find out, let’s try and unravel where it all went wrong for the team and take a look at how it has been attempting to sort things out.
In terms of results and car behaviour, it seems that the Miami Grand Prix was the turning point. This was not only the case for Red Bull, but also those chasing it, as McLaren unveiled its first big update of the season, which catapulted it to victory and gave it a much more usable platform at each event.
Meanwhile, Mercedes joined the fray following its own larger update package that arrived in Monaco.
Ferrari was in and around the front of the pack until around this time too, before its troubles in Canada and then the difficulties caused by the return of high-speed bouncing from its Spanish GP floor. This was another example of a team finding out its simulation tools were saying one thing and the real car saying another.
Red Bull has obviously become aware of the possibility of a wind tunnel correlation issue and, over the course of the last few races, has been testing out numerous parts from its update archive in order to find a benign solution that did not sacrifice too much performance.
Allied to working through its issues, Red Bull has also been trying to improve the RB20 – which has resulted in an almost relentless development programme with updates introduced at every race apart from Austria and Belgium.
Glancing through the timeline of updates since Miami, we can see how much of the RB20 has been changed during that period, and how much of its programme has been split between its long-term goals and short-term aims.
Race
|
Reason for update
|
Part
|
Explanation
|
Miami
|
Performance
|
Edge wing support brackets
|
Removed metal support for the edge wing (weight/flex)
|
Imola
|
Performance
|
Front wing
|
Endplate shape, chord length of all flaps, inboard sections beside nose.
|
Performance
|
Nose
|
To match aforementioned front wing changes. Also renewed camera mounting positions
|
|
Performance
|
Floor and Edge wing
|
Upper floor section ahead of the edge wing optimised, whilst shedding strakes in the edge repositioned in the scrolled section
|
|
Circuit specific
|
Rear brake duct
|
Reprofiled the exit duct geometry for a given
Intake, which allied the adjacent winglets to be optimised
|
|
Monaco
|
Circuit specific
|
Front brake duct
|
Inlet enlarged to cater for the low speed conditions
|
Circuit specific
|
Top wishbone fairing
|
Notch made in fairing to allow for additional steering lock
|
|
Circuit specific
|
Beam and rear wings
|
Increased downforce configuration
|
|
Canada
|
Circuit specific
|
Front brake duct
|
Enlarged cooling exit - wider and taller
|
Circuit specific
|
Rear wing
|
New flap geometry for the given downforce level
|
Race
|
Reason for update
|
Part
|
Explanation
|
Spain
|
Performance
|
Sidepods
|
Bodywork and inlet size and shape altered to give more range for the upcoming races.
|
Performance
|
Floor
|
Geometry alongside the sidepod altered to work in unison with one another.
|
|
Performance
|
Beam and rear wing
|
Lower quarter of the endplates widened to take up more space in the allowable box region, with the beam wing widened as a consequence.
|
|
Austria
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
No updates
|
Great Britain
|
Performance
|
Floor and edge wing
|
Reprofiling of the floor around the SIS housing, with the edge wing altered to take advantage.
|
Race |
Reason for update |
Part |
Explanation |
Hungary |
Performance |
Front wing |
All four flaps reconfigured to increase load |
Performance |
Lower wishbone fairing |
In conjunction with the revised front wing, the wishbone fairing has been altered to improve flow downstream. |
|
Performance |
Engine cover and Halo |
Tighter engine cover, without the high shoulders, which also required new upper inlets beneath the airbox to accommodate for their loss between the halo and airbox. Halo fairings also adjusted to accommodate for the change in engine cover bodywork. |
|
Performance |
Rear brake duct |
Change to the end fence geometry to improve flow into and around the assembly. |
|
Belgium |
N/A |
N/A |
No updates |
Netherlands |
Performance |
Halo winglets and wing mirror stays |
The aerodynamic furniture surrounding structures is often used as a means to further influence flow downstream and thus need to be changed inline with other changes that occurred a few races earlier. |
Circuit specific |
Rear cooling outlet |
Smaller rear cooling bodywork for the tighter engine cover introduced at the Hungarian Grand Prix. |
Race |
Reason for update |
Part |
Explanation |
Italy |
Circuit specific |
Front wing |
Shorter chord flaps to reduce drag |
Circuit specific |
Rear wing |
Trimmed trailing edge of the upper flap to reduce drag |
The scale of changes makes it clear that, if it is one component that has triggered its wrong turn, it is going to be quite hard to work out what it is.
For Red Bull, this appears to be new territory too, as it has not really faced the issues that its rivals have in the past three seasons. Its development hit rate has always been relatively good, yielding approximately what was expected.
This means that now, not only does it have to learn how to deal with the current issue, but it also needs to understand why it happened, so that it doesn’t happen again in the future.
Key now is working out which of its tool is reliable and can be trusted.
As Horner said: “It's not unusual that when something's not working on the car, you end up with different readings from your simulation tools, and they don't converge. Then you get three sets of data: you get CFD, you get wind tunnel and you get track.
“Obviously the one that really counts is the track data, but to develop it, it's like telling the time with three different watches, you've got to focus on the tool that's going to give you the most valuable input, and of course the track data is the most reliable.”
The big question is how long will it take Red Bull to find the answers to its issues and how much development work that has been done, or is under way at its factory, will need to be ditched because of it.
Like others that have been in a similar situation, the consequences of spending time working through this can be severe.
If a team devotes effort to gathering data from old parts to hunt down problems, it means its focus is not on delivering improvements that make it quicker.
So, if you also have rivals who are on an upward trajectory, the performance disparity between you and them can become quick big.
This is development latency that isn’t visible, but can be altogether damaging not only for the remainder of this campaign but can also have implications going forward.
Another factor that has not gathered much attention is that F1 has been through a portion of the calendar where Pirelli has increased the minimum tyre pressures to match the load characteristics of the circuits being visited.
This can also push a car further away from its operating window, be it mechanically or aerodynamically, with both obviously also intrinsically linked with one another too.