Red Bull Red Bull Advanced Technologies RB17

[Bucketslash11]

So far, I've come across two lightweight options in the articles that I've read. One's AC (predictably) and the other one being the acrylic windscreen option (vs. glass). I'm guessing the 875 kg quote is a car with all the lightest options checked. Not sure about the weight standard, tho. I would hope he means wet without fuel, but you never know.

In my eyes it will be a huge success if it's as fast as 919 Evo.

it just so happens that 875kg was the minimum weight for the LMP1-H class cars

 

[Revvd]

I maybe took it too literary because of the word contemporary (currently/now).

That's not the meaning of the word, tho. It's at the same time as some other thing, but it doesn't necessarily mean present time.

BTW, looking at Newey's claim of 5 g braking and cornering, unless he's working with different stats than what was presented to us, this means the coefficient of friction of the tires is 1.8 (because remember, the downforce is capped to 1,7 tons at 240 kph) !
That's higher than expected. Although not quite as high as calculations from Polyphony Digital on Red Bull X2010. Those were working with 1.97 friction and g forces of up to 8.25 at 300 kph.

 

[Bridster]

That's not the meaning of the word, tho. It's at the same time as some other thing, but it doesn't necessarily mean present time.

BTW, looking at Newey's claim of 5 g braking and cornering, unless he's working with different stats than what was presented to us, this means the coefficient of friction of the tires is 1.8 (because remember, the downforce is capped to 1,7 tons at 240 kph) !
That's higher than expected. Although not quite as high as calculations from Polyphony Digital on Red Bull X2010. Those were working with 1.97 friction and g forces of up to 8.25 at 300 kph.

This is why I always warn against manufacturers making claims only supported by simulated data.

It's quite possible that the Michelin slicks have a 1.8 friction coefficient... but only with no aero load. If you then put 1700kg of downforce on it, it will drop to something like 1.3-1.4. This also depends on the tire size, but I highly doubt that there are any that maintain 1.8 at such high loads. If they did, that would make them much better than any F1 tire.

So who knows how they are counting stuff, or how they are simulating it. They just put in the perfect weather, some idealized tires with idealized behaviors, their target weight numbers, their target downforce - and voila, the simulation spits out some amazing numbers! That's how we got the Valkyrie claims, where they put in 1000kg weight, 1800kg downforce, some road tires that don't exist - but which can take that 1800kg and maintain the perfect friction coefficient - and wow, it shows it being faster than an LMP car!

I am not gonna say that the car can't be as fast as they claim - after all, it's a team that has a lot of experience designing cars that already are as fast, and they have no regulations to hold them back - but I am only gonna be convinced that is so fast when they actually do some laps. Definitely not by any claims.

It's really quite unsettling to go over articles about the car, and in every one of them read that the car already IS this fast - as if it's already been designed, manufactured, delivered and tested. Phrases like "is targeted to be", or is "designed to be" are being totally omitted. It just IS, CAN and WILL.

Evo on 5 July 2016:

I had to use wayback machine because Evo deleted the initial article. I would like to say out of shame, but, 8 years later, the language gets even worse:

 

[Revvd]

It's quite possible that the Michelin slicks have a 1.8 friction coefficient... but only with no aero load. If you then put 1700kg of downforce on it, it will drop to something like 1.3-1.4.

That seems counter to what I would expect a tire to do under load - more friction, not less. Well, up to a point, I guess... Before you overload them. But since they are bespoke, that moment is outside of the operating window of the car.

While 1.8 does seem too high, I don't dare say Newey is bullshitting. The guy is a genius.
I thought modern F1 tires were around 1.5. But maybe he means some other kind of friction... dynamic coefficient, IDK how it really works. My knowledge is very surface level.

I agree with the magazine reporting grievances.
I like this one from Top Gear (2017) quoting Newey talking about Valkyrie:

Newey’s original weight target for the car was 1,000kg; he admits they’ve slipped over that a bit but will still “comfortably eclipse” a one-to-one power-to-weight ratio.

Production Valkyrie power per kg: 0.85 PS w/ ERS

and this from the same article:

He hints that setting a time around a modern F1 circuit like Silverstone holds more appeal.

Never happened, of course.

Almost as good as Gordon Murray's T.50 quote:

"This was always gonna be under a 1,000 kg. Come hell or high water."

 

[Bridster]

That seems counter to what I would expect a tire to do under load - more friction, not less. Well, up to a point, I guess... Before you overload them. But since they are bespoke, that moment is outside of the operating window of the car.

While 1.8 does seem too high, I don't dare say Newey is bullshitting. The guy is a genius.
I thought modern F1 tires were around 1.5. But maybe he means some other kind of friction... dynamic coefficient, IDK how it really works. My knowledge is very surface level.

The more vertical force on the tire there is, the more lateral force you'll be able to generate, but the worse the friction coefficient will be. In other words, the lateral force increase would be directly proportional to the vertical force increase, if not for the tire friction coefficient getting ever slightly worse at the same time. This is called tire load sensitivity - and you can get the curves for it for any tire (if you are a manufacturer).

This is exactly why wider tires generate more grip (as, otherwise, solid objects don't get any benefit from more surface area!), why lighter cars will have more grip with same sized tires, and why you want to minimize weight transfer in a car (if the friction coefficient stayed the same no matter the load, then the loaded tire would just generate proportionally more lateral force, and it would make no difference to grip).

F1 tires might very well be 1.5... with a typical aero load applied. With no aero load they are probably closer to 2.

Anyway, for a guy that wouldn't want to accuse Newey of BSing... you certainly link a lot of quotes where he is doing just that! Or, he wasn't purposefully misleading, and was just naive and ignorant instead.

Interestingly, there was a short interview with him in one of the Autocar articles... some stuff that he says is quite revealing:

Valkyrie was the first project Red Bull Advanced Technologies undertook in 2014. It was a very young and inexperienced team that had never done a project like that before. That team has stayed together ever since, and has grown, both in experience and numbers significantly. That, combined with taking much more time in the research stage, has meant that we've done a lot more homework and we had the opportunity to do the foundry.

Oh, so the RB17 will actually be done by people that have some experience and have done their homework - that's nice to hear!

On the engine:

That meant going to pneumatic valves instead of valve springs. We’re continuing to do durability work to get a normally aspirated V10 that weighs 150kg, revs to 15,000rpm and has 1000hp.

So, contrary to many reports that this is all basically a done thing (including the claims of service life and durability), Newey actually says that they are currently in the process of just trying to hit those targets (which I am not quite sure how they are even doing, considering Newey has also said that Cosworth had just started doing first castings, so they don't even have a prototype engine on the test stand yet).

Other than that, pneumatic springs confirmed!

 

[Bridster]

Actual load sensitivity curves are not easy to come by, but here is one for Avon slicks used in F3000:

This starts at 300kg and it's per tire, so with 300kg added to each, 1200kg in total, we have a friction coefficient drop of roughly 0.4 on the front tire, and about 0.3 on the rear (which is wider).

I am not sure from what year this is, but I think it's either late 90s or early 2000s. Not sure what exactly this curve would look like for a modern slick... but apart from perhaps a higher starting point, it would probably be fairly similar.

 

[tristatez28lt1]

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

 

[RacingLover]

Summing up all of the above - now the most productive and fastest on the track among private racing cars not intended for competition is the Ferrari 499p modificata, but the fastest of those that only businessmen can afford to buy and (almost) drive on the race tracks themselves is used Formula 1 cars, in this case, it is obvious that this car has absolutely no meaning, except perhaps for its high engine speeds, which by the way we will not be able to hear any time soon

 

[Revvd]

Newey has also said that Cosworth had just started doing first castings, so they don't even have a prototype engine on the test stand yet).

Perhaps that means the running prototypes they already have were based on components machined from billet.

Other than that, pneumatic springs confirmed!

OK, the cool factor just got buffed. Nobody else has got that.

Also, you just gave me a headache even thinking about how I could incorporate some sort of simplified general tire sensitivity formula to my spreadsheet model. Thanks for that

Oh, I also spotted this RB17 talk on instagram that specifies that F1 comparison. They really do aim for a 2023 F1 quali session lap time. The downforce bleeding is also something I haven't seen before and which is different to the official claim of 240 kph cap. And it looks like there will be an ultimate track mode which unlocks the full potential.
The guy seems to be in the know too...

 

[Moctecus]

OK, the cool factor just got buffed. Nobody else has got that.

The AMG One has pneumatic valve springs.

 

[Chimaera]

Does someone know if all 50 are already sold? 5.75m pounds excluding taxes is a very big amount even for track only hypercar standards. Only one that is more expensive is the Dallara 777 I believe at 7m euros.

Even though I was a bit underwhelmed at the reveal I'm still very excited. If skier33 (person in IG picture in Revvds #101 post) is actually getting one I hope he posts some on board footage to his YouTube like he sometimes does. And let's hope Red Bull actually does some laps with footage at different circuits as well.

 

[Moctecus]

Does someone know if all 50 are already sold? 5.75m pounds excluding taxes is a very big amount even for track only hypercar standards.

Already sold out according to AMuS. Apparently, Newey personally visited prospective buyers all around the world.
The price is simply what they needed to charge for the no-compromises car they wanted to create. They learned from their experiences with the Valkyrie:

“With Valkyrie, working with a manufacturer, there was constant compromise and constant talk of budget,” he told The Athletic. “Whereas (RB17) was, ‘Let’s do the job properly and then work out how we’re going to pay for it.’”
[source]

The low production of just 50 units allows them to produce the car in-house together with their familiar suppliers from F1 rather than relying on a third party like Multimatic as with the Valkyrie. For better or for worse, it's all in RBAT's hands this time.

 

[Revvd]

Least delusional Tesla fanboy:

 

[Bucketslash11]

Already sold out according to AMuS. Apparently, Newey personally visited prospective buyers all around the world.
The price is simply what they needed to charge for the no-compromises car they wanted to create. They learned from their experiences with the Valkyrie:



The low production of just 50 units allows them to produce the car in-house together with their familiar suppliers from F1 rather than relying on a third party like Multimatic as with the Valkyrie. For better or for worse, it's all in RBAT's hands this time.

i find it funny how Lawrence Stroll didn't learn anything from Piech's money-no-object approach to the Veyron, they successfully hit their targeted goals even though they weren't profitable, but a halo doesn't have to be profitable

 

[Chimaera]

The Red Bull RB17: How iconic F1 architect Adrian Newey built his 'utopia' car

Hypercars exist at the upper limit of automotive performance, a level the RB17 sought to reach by harnessing F1 technology.

www.nytimes.com

Some things I found interesting:

“Our forecast is that it would have been on pole at Silverstone by a small amount, a second or so,” Newey said. “Obviously, it’s a simulation. But generally speaking, driver-in-the-loop simulations are now pretty good. So it certainly should be in that ballpark.”

He is now fully dedicated to the RB17 ahead of his departure and said he is determined to remain involved in the project even after that point.

“When we start track testing next summer, then I’ll be attending the track tests,” Newey said. “So I’ll be able to see it through and make sure it’s seen to completion.”

 

[Jonathan19]

Lanzante has confirmed to TopGear.com that it intends on making Adrian Newey’s RB17 hypercar road-legal.

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/supercars/holy-heck-lanzante-will-make-adrian-neweys-1200bhp-rb17-road-legal

 

[Bridster]

I am very impressed that Lanzante not only already know that they can do it, but even know how much exactly it's gonna cost - all while looking at a car that only exists as a computer model.

But, joking aside, I really don't see this happening. While Lanazante might be very experienced with converting track cars into road cars, almost all of those track cars are based on road cars to begin with. So they have road car suspension pick up points, engine bays sized for catalysts and mufflers, engines, clutches and gearboxes that suit road operation, normal road brakes, already have lights and indicators, etc, etc.

Above all, we are dealing with a pure race engine with pneumatic valves and no variable valve timing, that revs to 15k. How exactly are they gonna make that road legal? MB only managed that with their F1 engine after endless years of trying and untold millions spent - and that's with the car being heavily hybridized, and it had to feature an exhaust system with 6 different preheated catalysts that weighs 100kg. Are Lanzante gonna put that into the back of the RB17 somehow?

I assume that if Lanazante were to do this conversion, it would be to comply with the UK's IVA - Individual Vehicle Approval - which is very lax compared to Whole Vehicle Type Approval (the standard). Even still, just looking at the form (and only the first page of it), a lot of requirements have to be met:

(there is 2 more pages after this one)

So, in addition to raising the car (which in itself will be difficult because of the race car suspension mounting points and the height at which the halfshafts exist the gearbox), somehow getting a full F1 style sequential gearbox behave on the road, making the engine emission compliant and somehow fitting enlarged exhaust with cats and mufflers into a tightly packaged engine bay, changing brakes from carbon-carbon to carbon-ceramic or steel, changing the downforce generating bodywork so that the road tires don't get overloaded at high speeds, they will also have to install all the things mentioned on the list.

Which they have done with all their other conversions, but that was on cars that were designed to have all that from the get go. So that's certainly gonna be interesting. And if the RB17 is designed with the consideration of later getting road converted, then matching F1 laps is gonna be all the harder. But regardless, you are trying to convert what's basically supposed to be an F1 car. And Lanzante think that's gonna cost between 250-500k like all their other track car projects that are based on road cars?

Am I completely wrong on this, or is everyone totally losing their mind and getting transported to a parallel universe the second Newey's name gets mentioned?

 

[Revvd]

Yeah, seems unlikely. Unless Newey genuinely designed this with road conversion in mind, where he left enough space in the engine bay for cats and designed the suspension for ~10 cm ride height.
This would mean that he again compromised the car against its mission statement. I refuse to believe this is true.

Also, even if the road conversion was possible... How deranged do you have to be to want to shackle this exceptional, unlimited marvel of engineering with dumb regulations, in order to comply with road worthiness. Why? Just to show off your wealth?
Driving RB17 on public roads would be like plowing a potato field using a thoroughbred race horse.

 

[Bridster]

I have been re-reading/re-watching some of the early Valkyrie articles/videos, and it's uncanny how similar the hype for that was to the hype of this thing. Just complete, uncritical acceptance of all and any claims. I am not sure people would even believe it now, but the initial numbers for the road Valkyrie they claimed were 4.5G cornering (so only 0.5G less than this track only thing - I guess we are lucky they are not claiming 10G). The final car does something like 1.5G if we are generous, so you know, their PRO F1 SIMULATIONS*TM were only wrong by about 200%.

And with this road conversion talk it really completes the package. Again people are losing their minds that you'll have an F1 performance on the road - even though they bloody well know that no road cars ever got within 1000 miles of that. Just for anyone who is curious, today's fastest road cars about about as fast an an F1 from 1965-1970. After 1970 there has been too much aero, so we are not matching those times any time soon.

And yeah, even if the RB17 could be converted, it would be gimped in every way, from higher CoG, to road tires, to less downforce, to being heavier, having less power etc. And it would be even more compromised than the Valkyire. So again, I am not sure what the people who requested this conversion actually want to do with it. Have something that looks wild, I guess.

 

[Moctecus]

Yeah, seems unlikely. Unless Newey genuinely designed this with road conversion in mind, where he left enough space in the engine bay for cats and designed the suspension for ~10 cm ride height.
This would mean that he again compromised the car against its mission statement. I refuse to believe this is true.

Ride height shouldn't be an issue thanks to its active suspension.
The standard ride height of the Valkyrie is 68 mm, in lift mode it's 93 mm (up to 15 km/h), and it can lower itself by 16 mm without and 55/64 mm (F/R) with the track pack clamshell.
The RB17's suspension should be capable of the Valkyrie's standard ride height to handle circuits with bumps and high kerbs, and it also has a lift mode. It probably uses an evolution of the same suspension rather than something completely new.

About emissions, here's a quote from Cosworth (source):

In parallel with advances in engine design, Cosworth has also been continually evolving its emissions compliance development throughout the years, ensuring the RB17 engine, like the rest of Cosworth’s hypercar powertrains, meets the stringent requirements of Euro 6 legislation.

Is the engine as fitted in the RB17 actually Euro-6-compliant, though? Because that would necessitate catalytic converters, which would very much go against what this car is about. Why did they even consider emissions at all for a track-only car?
Cosworth also say the engine life span requirement from Red Bull is 24,000 km. Not sure if that's the interval between full rebuilds, which would be incredibly good, or when the engine becomes scrap. RB themselves only mentioned the car having 8,000 km intervals for major services, but didn't specify further.

It's beginning to look like the RB17 might indeed have been developed with road conversion in mind. The semi-stressed engine, the luggage space, a Euro-6-compliant engine. Actually not a bad idea to do it this way, because the requirements for individual vehicle approval are quite lax compared to proper road homologation. Which doesn't mean making this car road legal is a good idea...

Also, even if the road conversion was possible... How deranged do you have to be to want to shackle this exceptional, unlimited marvel of engineering with dumb regulations, in order to comply with road worthiness. Why? Just to show off your wealth?
Driving RB17 on public roads would be like plowing a potato field using a thoroughbred race horse.

I could imagine Adrian Newey himself might fancy taking this car on the road. He's regularly seen driving his Valkyrie with the usually track-only track pack front clamshell installed.
I fully agree, this thing does not belong on a public road. Not just because the conversion would compromise this "no compromises" car, but because it's simply too damn quick and extreme. Where's the fun in driving a car capable of F1-like lap times at anywhere near road legal speeds? The only limits you'd be pushing are those of the hopelessly inadequate road-legal tyres. As a road car, reliability and servicing also won't be pretty, even if they learned some lessons from the Valkyrie.