Red Bull remains baffled by the balance problems that left it struggling in qualifying for the Italian Grand Prix but one thing it knows it got wrong was wing levels.
While the rear wing concept that it has used at Monza looks intriguing – with its wavy top flap quite extreme – it is not actually the kind of bespoke concept needed for Monza’s demands.
Perhaps nothing proves that more than the speed trap figures from qualifying which Max Verstappen and Sergio Perez were left right at the bottom.
They were 347.2km/h and 346.8km/h respectively – which is well down on Fernando Alonso, who was fastest overall and tagged 353.5km/h. As a comparison of where its main title rival McLaren was, Lando Norris logged 349km/h.
These figures are ultimately easily explained by Red Bull because, unlike its rivals, it elected not to bring a bespoke Monza wing to F1’s temple of speed.
Everyone else has had a made-for-Monza rear wing fitted, which is specifically designed and constructed with the circuit’s characteristics in mind. This means dumping as much drag as possible in order to improve straightline speed.
Red Bull did not do that as it stuck with a trimmed-down version of what is currently its lowest downforce choice, which is still above what is needed for Monza.
According to Max Verstappen, the reason for it electing not to bring a Monza-specific wing comes down to the cost cap, with it deciding that the expense of creating a wing just for one track was not worth it.
“You make certain choices under the budget cap,” said the Dutchman. “Instead of a special Monza wing, we spend the money on something else. But when you already have problems, then this makes it even worse, of course.”
It is certainly true that designing a bespoke option is resource-heavy, with the team not only having to design a new assembly in CFD, produce scale parts for the wind tunnel and then manufacture the real-world components, but there is also the factor that it may not even use the wing again for the rest of the season.
The arrival of Las Vegas has somewhat softened the blow in the last respect, as many teams used their Monza specification wings there last year.
But even so, there’s still a price to pay, both financially and from a simulation point of view in building a very low-downforce wing.
The latter of these two is also an issue for Red Bull, as it has the least amount of CFD and wind tunnel runs at its disposal due to its position in the championship.
So rather than creating a Monza wing, Red Bull opted to trim the upper flap from the lowest downforce rear wing already in its offering, with two quite extreme crescent-shaped cutouts found either side of the centreline.
Whilst it was the only team taking this approach, with the concept grabbing attention because it looks so different, it is not the first time we’ve seen the wing in question.
It was tested during FP2 in Belgium on Max Verstappen’s RB20 (above), albeit with a Gurney flap attached to the trailing edge to help balance the wing (main image).
Furthermore, it’s really no different from the approach it took last season, albeit the team used more of an angular cutout as can be seen below.
This is similar to what we’ve seen from other teams in the past and even what some of its rivals are doing this time out at Monza.
To help balance out the aero front-to-rear, Red Bull has taken a similar approach with its front wing too, with sections of the upper flap’s trailing edge removed, in order to reduce downforce and the drag being generated.
It also moved the adjuster to the outboard position once more, which is something it has been testing over the last few races.
It has switched back and forth between old and new specification parts to try and unlock further performance from the RB20.
While Red Bull’s focus is - for now - on wider aero problems, one conclusion it must take from Monza is that next year it will probably need to have a different approach for the Italian Grand Prix.
As Verstappen added: “We have never had a special Monza wing or a special Monza package in recent years.
“But, in the last couple of years, our car was still good enough to compensate for that. But this might be something that we have to do differently for next year.”
Additional reporting by Ronald Vording
