Red Bull Red Bull Advanced Technologies RB17

[klier]

Is this basically Adrian Newey doing what he wanted to do with the Valkyrie before the accountants stood on his tail?

I hope it wasn't his idea to put cameras instead of mirrors and then have two fugly TomTom screens inside. Same for Gordon's T50 btw. Sad.

There is also no way a screen, wiring, a camera and camera housing is more ligthtweight than an actual mirror. Or is it the "aero improvements"?

 

[Moctecus]

Adrian Newey talked about the RB17 during the most recent Talking Bull podcast:

• less than 900 kg
• 1000 hp NA V10 with 15,000 rpm redline
• 200 hp electric motor
• active suspension for a stable aero platform and reasonable spring rates
• blown diffuser
• produces its own weight in downforce at 120 mph
• peak downforce capped at 1.7 t due to tyre loads, reached from around 150 mph
• "unheard of" lift-to-drag-ratio for a car
• bespoke Michelin tyres
• had to be beautiful and be emotive
• capable of F1 lap times if driven by a professional racing driver
• despite its performance-capabilities, user-friendly and not intimidating to drive
• more interior space and legroom than on the Valkyrie
• full-scale model has been built and will be revealed in the summer
• parts manufacturing has begun in preparation for rig-testing
• on-track testing will take place in 2025

 

[WBarnes]

900kg huh? I'll believe that when a magazine weighs it.

 

[Bridster]

900kg huh? I'll believe that when a magazine weighs it.

Why wouldn't you believe it? That's roughly what most prototypes weigh, LMP1 was just about 900kg.

No magazine will ever do an instrumented test of the car, if they ever get to drive it at all. So we will never know the true weight. That's the sad reality.

1000 hp NA V10 with 15,000 rpm redline

Well, that's interesting. The only advantage these hypercar derived track cars have over actual racing cars is that their engines (and gearboxes and other parts) are often derived from their road versions, so the service intervals are longer and the support you need to run it is less. But, if it's an engine that revs to 15k, then that's firmly in the "rebuild every couple of track sessions" category. Very exciting from the technical side, but even more hopeless than the rest when it comes to actually ever being driven.

 

[Revvd]

Very cool! I have to watch this later.
Did he say who makes that V10? Is it Red Bull (Ford) Powertrains?

 

[Revvd]

Here's how RB17 stacks up against Valkyrie, Bohema and 992 RS in terms of downforce.
It's pretty brutal. But, unlike Rodin FZero, this won't be able to hang with a Formula 1 in corners. It will have to make up for it with straight line speed.

 

[Tourbillon]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

+

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/supercars/adrian-newey-rb17-will-get-a-naturally-aspirated-v10-15000rpm-redline-and-weigh

"It’s already at a ‘reasonable’ state of advancement, and will begin track testing in 2025 ahead of production in 2026."

 

[WBarnes]

Why wouldn't you believe it? That's roughly what most prototypes weigh, LMP1 was just about 900kg.

No magazine will ever do an instrumented test of the car, if they ever get to drive it at all. So we will never know the true weight. That's the sad reality.

Isn't this going to be a road car though?

 

[Tourbillon]

Isn't this going to be a road car though?

Red Bull Advanced Technologies Announces The RB17 - Red Bull Advanced Technologies

A NEW ERA OF PERFORMANCE CARS HAS ARRIVED Red Bull Advanced Technologies, the high-performance engineering arm of Red Bull Racing Group, today announced details of its first hypercar project designed, developed, and manufactured entirely in-house. Created by Adrian Newey, Chief Technical Officer...

www.redbulladvancedtechnologies.com

"the RB17 is a two-seat hypercar optimized for the ultimate on-track driving experience. Just 50 RB17s will be made at the Red Bull Technology Campus in Milton Keynes, with production scheduled to commence in 2025."

Unfortunately not, it's a track only racer. So no homologation.

 

[Revvd]

RB17 related AMuS article from last week

 

[Bridster]

Isn't this going to be a road car though?

Not at all. They have mentioned some nonsense in the past that it will be possible to do a road conversion after the fact, but that's never gonna happen, especially with the new engine.

 

[Mistral]

Although the Topgear article said that Newey claimed that the lap time capability of the RB17 is close to that of F1, I think most people should not believe it, including me, so I went to listen to such a podcast, and suddenly Newey really emphasized this statement. The weight and horsepower of the RB17 are basically the same as the Porsche 919EVO, but as a two-seater supercar, there is a certain gap in aerodynamics. Why can it reach the level of F1?

 

[Chimaera]

I'm also very curious if someone who is knowledgeable in engineering/areodynamics can explain why it would be possible (or the opposite).

I don't know enough about engineering/areodynamics but it seems impossible with the specifications or is that too simple minded?

 

[Revvd]

I'm also very curious if someone who is knowledgeable in engineering/areodynamics can explain why it would be possible (or the opposite).

I don't know enough about engineering/areodynamics but it seems impossible with the specifications or is that too simple minded?

I'm not an expert, but I'll react. Because it's what I'm wondering also.
When Newey says that it's capable of F1 lap times with F1 driver behind the steering wheel, I doubt he is comparing it to current cars. I think the most likely scenario is that he is thinking of F1 cars for the year of production of RB17, which according to him is 2026. The same year when a major F1 regulation change is set to be introduced.
People say that 2026 lap times will be comparable with current cars, but IDK... I'd be surprised if that was the case. Maybe in subsequent seasons they could improve and get on that level. But for 2026, I expect them to be slower. And maybe Newey knows this too and that's why he feels confident enough to make that claim.

Let's first look at the 2026 F1 rule change:

• MGU-H is removed and MGU-K is beefed up from 120 kW (163 PS) to 350 kW (476 PS).
• Total power output remains at about 1,000 PS. Originally the ICE was supposed to be 420 kW (571 PS) only, but there's been a lot of changes to the regulations and this might have been revised also. I also have hard time believing they would nerf the ICE so much, considering the minimum weight limit of this unit got increased for 2026! More on that later.
• Fuel limit per race is 100 kg (down from 110 kg), with considerable amount allocated solely for generating energy for MGU-K.
• The battery capacity will increase (min. weight limit goes from 20 kg to 35 kg). But it remains to be seen how will fuel/energy management change and if lifting & coasting becomes more prevalent.
• The power unit is projected to get about 30 kg heavier despite the loss of MGU-H (uprated components + increased min. weight limit for certain ICE components).
• FIA wants to encourage teams to produce lighter cars by slashing 40 or 50 kg from the current minimum weight of 798 kg (incl. 80 kg driver). I think many teams won't be able to get close.
• The new cars will be 10 cm narrower with about 20 cm shorter wheelbase and will use 16" wheels instead of 18". That means less drag but possibly also less downforce.

Although the Topgear article said that Newey claimed that the lap time capability of the RB17 is close to that of F1, I think most people should not believe it, including me, so I went to listen to such a podcast, and suddenly Newey really emphasized this statement. The weight and horsepower of the RB17 are basically the same as the Porsche 919EVO, but as a two-seater supercar, there is a certain gap in aerodynamics. Why can it reach the level of F1?

First of all, 919 did reach the level of F1 that one time while being (kind of) a two seater itself... Or rather it has evolved from rules which mandated two seats. The driver sits very much offset to the left with the space next to him being occupied by the battery.
For all we know, RB17 could use the staggered seating concept to make the cockpit as narrow as possible (think Caparo T1 or Praga Bohema to lesser extent). I get your sentiment, but there's not doubt the RB17, with enclosed wheels and active aero, will be way less draggy than any modern F1 car.

I happen to think the 919 Evo has just slightly more downforce than RB17. But Red Bull may be able to use its downforce more effectively with the active suspension. And it might have the edge in low speed corners due to its blown diffuser.
The question is, what tires will have Michelin cooked up for RB17. We know they made soft compound for the Porsche, but that's a race car. Often time you see these track day specials compromise outright grip in favor of consistent behavior and being able to quickly get up to optimal temperature (499P Modificata). IDK if RBR will go the same route.

On power unit alone, I think RB17 is very comparable. But just like the 919 Evo, it doesn't need to abide by set DRS zones and can cheat their way through the lap by continually adjusting its aero and ride height to get the best possible mix of downforce and drag. The downforce cap will limit it somewhat in the fast corners, though.
Also, keep in mind that we don't yet how much it will weigh. It could be close to 900 kg or it could get much lighter than that. I bet Newey has learned his lesson with announcing the 1,000 kg weight target for Valkyrie and then blowing by it with more than 350 kg over. The 900 kg could just be very comfortable goal for them with some margin.

But yeah, it's a very intriguing comparison, these three cars. I can't wait to see them put it to test.

F1 2026
weight: 678 kg (best case scenario within min. weight limit)
energy recovery: 9 MJ/lap
ICE: 571 PS??? (2023: ~850 PS)
MGU-K: 476 PS
total: ~1,000 PS

919 Evo
weight: 849 kg
energy recovery: 8.5 MJ/lap (Spa)
ICE: 720 PS
MGU-K: 440 PS
total: 1,160 PS
downforce: ~1,750 kg at 240 kph (my uneducated estimate)

RB17
weight <900 kg
ICE: 1,000 PS
MGU-K: 200 PS
total: 1,200 PS
downforce: 1,700 kg at 240 kph

 

[Bridster]

Theoretically, since there are no regs to follow, there is nothing stopping them from developing the car until it is as fast or faster.

HOWEVER...

There are several issues that will make this pretty hard.

- They are only allocating 1 year for testing. Most of it is gonna be spent simply making sure the car works as it's supposed to, so there will be little time left to make it faster. As we can see, F1 cars, even with the same rule-set, get faster every year, but it takes years of development to make them substantially faster. When Porsche did the 919 EVO, the conversion to the EVO spec was done relatively quickly, but that was on the back of having spent many years developing the 919.
- One big problem is that to make the car actually usable, it will have to be much more robust than normal racing cars, which can be rebuilt after every race. The RB17 will have to go without rebuilds for, I don't know, at least a year or something? That's the only way to not make it an absolutely useless ornament. With the blown diffusers in F1, for example, the CF parts of the diffuser that were exposed to the exhaust had to have been thrown away after every race because the resin couldn't handle the heat. So if they are gonna do that on the RB17, they will have to figure out something else, which is probably gonna be heavier. And that is the story for the whole car, really. Everything will have to be sturdier, more reliable, last longer - which will inevitably make it heavier.
- Making it more user friendly also basically means making it slower. In racing it's always a trade off between a faster, but more tricky car, and a slower, but more user friendly one. If, for example, you design the optimal tire slip angle to be really wide, it then takes longer for the tire to reach that angle, meaning the corner turn in is slower. If you make the tire reach the slip angle faster, the range gets narrower and if you overdo it, it's much easier to spin. Same with aero, you have to balance having the highest possible downforce, but also downforce that won't suddenly completely disappear if the ride height changes because of a bump, or because of the angle of attack in the corner, or because there is wind, or something.

It's possible that they have already accounted for all these problems and they are all already included in their weight and downforce specs, but, after so many lies and missed predictions of the Valkyrie, I personally don't have a great faith in any of their claims. As I mention now with almost any car, these are all just targets or numbers they pulled off simulators, without them having built a single prototype yet. They are a very experienced team that has built actual F1 cars, so for sure they know how to make a car of that level, but if the Valkyrie is anything to go by, they have also shown that as soon as the project moves away from the F1 even slightly and they have to incorporate other considerations like durability or user friendliness, they are absolutely hopeless at making their estimates accurate.

Well, who knows, I am not gonna rule out it completely. And this all might be academic anyway if they never actually put the car to the test and show its ultimate pace around some tracks - which is the rule, rather than the exception, for most of these multimillion track cars.

 

[Revvd]

Here's how you turn that very real problem into an asset. You take a page out of Ferrari's book and set up an FXX program alternative to run the cars within a pre-selected track day calendar. That way the cars stay with the team and get regular maintenance.
You tell customers that they are now the development team with the goal of getting close to F1 lap times - screw the durability, we go for maximum attack, here.
During the track days, you collect data, step-by-step you work on optimization of all the systems and parts, and if two years down the road the car still is far off the target, the blame is partly on the owners. That way they can't be mad at you

It's a win-win. You get to speed up the vehicle development by combining it with customers enjoying their cars and the owners will get to socialize in their super exclusive club without having to worry about single thing. I wouldn't expect any less for my $6.4M.
If an owner wants to take a car and park it inside their mansion, you let them. They wouldn't be able to drive the car without a team of mechanics anyway, let alone fire it up without the external water pre-heater. At least that last part AFAIK is how it works with McLaren Solus GT, so that wouldn't even be unprecedented in this segment.

Oh, and if the car ends up heavier than advertised, you just say it was dry weight all along (thank you for the idea, Mr. Murray).

 

[Mistral]

I'm not an expert, but I'll react. Because it's what I'm wondering also.
When Newey says that it's capable of F1 lap times with F1 driver behind the steering wheel, I doubt he is comparing it to current cars. I think the most likely scenario is that he is thinking of F1 cars for the year of production of RB17, which according to him is 2026. The same year when a major F1 regulation change is set to be introduced.
People say that 2026 lap times will be comparable with current cars, but IDK... I'd be surprised if that was the case. Maybe in subsequent seasons they could improve and get on that level. But for 2026, I expect them to be slower. And maybe Newey knows this too and that's why he feels confident enough to make that claim.

Let's first look at the 2026 F1 rule change:

• MGU-H is removed and MGU-K is beefed up from 120 kW (163 PS) to 350 kW (476 PS).
• Total power output remains at about 1,000 PS. Originally the ICE was supposed to be 420 kW (571 PS) only, but there's been a lot of changes to the regulations and this might have been revised also. I also have hard time believing they would nerf the ICE so much, considering the minimum weight limit of this unit got increased for 2026! More on that later.
• Fuel limit per race is 100 kg (down from 110 kg), with considerable amount allocated solely for generating energy for MGU-K.
• The battery capacity will increase (min. weight limit goes from 20 kg to 35 kg). But it remains to be seen how will fuel/energy management change and if lifting & coasting becomes more prevalent.
• The power unit is projected to get about 30 kg heavier despite the loss of MGU-H (uprated components + increased min. weight limit for certain ICE components).
• FIA wants to encourage teams to produce lighter cars by slashing 40 or 50 kg from the current minimum weight of 798 kg (incl. 80 kg driver). I think many teams won't be able to get close.
• The new cars will be 10 cm narrower with about 20 cm shorter wheelbase and will use 16" wheels instead of 18". That means less drag but possibly also less downforce.

First of all, 919 did reach the level of F1 that one time while being (kind of) a two seater itself... Or rather it has evolved from rules which mandated two seats. The driver sits very much offset to the left with the space next to him being occupied by the battery.
For all we know, RB17 could use the staggered seating concept to make the cockpit as narrow as possible (think Caparo T1 or Praga Bohema to lesser extent). I get your sentiment, but there's not doubt the RB17, with enclosed wheels and active aero, will be way less draggy than any modern F1 car.

I happen to think the 919 Evo has just slightly more downforce than RB17. But Red Bull may be able to use its downforce more effectively with the active suspension. And it might have the edge in low speed corners due to its blown diffuser.
The question is, what tires will have Michelin cooked up for RB17. We know they made soft compound for the Porsche, but that's a race car. Often time you see these track day specials compromise outright grip in favor of consistent behavior and being able to quickly get up to optimal temperature (499P Modificata). IDK if RBR will go the same route.

On power unit alone, I think RB17 is very comparable. But just like the 919 Evo, it doesn't need to abide by set DRS zones and can cheat their way through the lap by continually adjusting its aero and ride height to get the best possible mix of downforce and drag. The downforce cap will limit it somewhat in the fast corners, though.
Also, keep in mind that we don't yet how much it will weigh. It could be close to 900 kg or it could get much lighter than that. I bet Newey has learned his lesson with announcing the 1,000 kg weight target for Valkyrie and then blowing by it with more than 350 kg over. The 900 kg could just be very comfortable goal for them with some margin.

But yeah, it's a very intriguing comparison, these three cars. I can't wait to see them put it to test.

F1 2026
weight: 678 kg (best case scenario within min. weight limit)
energy recovery: 9 MJ/lap
ICE: 571 PS??? (2023: ~850 PS)
MGU-K: 476 PS
total: ~1,000 PS

919 Evo
weight: 849 kg
energy recovery: 8.5 MJ/lap (Spa)
ICE: 720 PS
MGU-K: 440 PS
total: 1,160 PS
downforce: ~1,750 kg at 240 kph (my uneducated estimate)

RB17
weight <900 kg
ICE: 1,000 PS
MGU-K: 200 PS
total: 1,200 PS
downforce: 1,700 kg at 240 kph

Thank you for such a detailed analysis. I think even if RB17 can be close to F1, it should be F1 more than ten years ago. It's also much better than the Aston Martin Valkyrie AMR Pro, which only has LMH levels. What I don't understand is that the Valkyrie road version has a downforce limit of 1100kg due to tire restrictions, but the Valkyrie AMR Pro has a downforce of up to 2700kg due to the use of slick tires. As a track-specific supercar, the RB17 should also use slick tires, which should produce greater downforce. But Newey claims that the RB17 has 1,700kg of downforce, which is more like being restricted by the tires.

 

[Revvd]

When Porsche was developing 919 Evo, they had to uprate many components due to the added ~25% downforce over the WEC Sprint version. They had to get new wishbones, reconfigure the whole suspension system to get more roll stiffness, run the tyres at higher pressure and even add a second power steering pump in tandem to get 40% more assist, otherwise it'd be hard to steer the damned thing.
And that was going from 1,400 kg at 240 kph to ~1,750 kg, so imagine how much tougher the car would have to be to withstand the kind of forces RB17 would be subject to if it wasn't capped.
Say the Vmax is 330 kph. That's 3,200 kg uncapped. Of course there's not that many extreme high speed corners in the world where you could put it to use, but that's besides the point.

The cap doesn't necessarily mean that the limiting factor is the tires. Yeah, perhaps there are benefits to not needing as stiff tires and running less tire pressure. But my guess would be that Newey simply settled at a sweet spot of the right compromise between weight, complexity and downforce.

 

[hoffmeister_fan]

Is Cosworth supplying the engine?

 

[Revvd]

Is Cosworth supplying the engine?

We don't know yet.

I wonder what displacement it is. Could it be 3.5 L?
The whole RB17 line bellow is theory-crafting. I don't have more info than you do. And it's sorted by power per liter of a hypothetical one cylinder version of those engines.