How Red Bull is still improving its RB20 despite upgrade doubts

Max Verstappen’s suspicion that something has “gone wrong” with Red Bull’s RB20 explains well why the team was experimenting with some older specification parts in Zandvoort last weekend.

In an attempt to get to the bottom of whatever it is that has made its 2024 challenger “more difficult to drive”, Verstappen and team-mate Sergio Perez split floor configurations in a bid to help the squad gather data.

But while efforts are focusing on understanding if the major floor change made at Imola was the trigger for its recent struggles against McLaren and Mercedes, that has not stopped it continuing to try to eke out gains from other areas of the car.

Red Bull arrived at Zandvoort with a number of small tweaks for the RB20, as the high downforce sidepod and engine cover arrangement introduced at the Hungarian Grand Prix returned – having been taken off for high-speed Spa.

There was a slight tweak though, with the team having modified the size of the rear cooling outlet to better serve the demands of the Zandvoort circuit [3]. 

This narrower arrangement will provide additional versatility in its cooling set-up over the coming races, with the team also able to swap the cooling panels on the side of the engine cover to better suit its requirements too. 

The new inlet is similarly sized to the one used with its other engine cover arrangement, but the change in bodywork also results in the outlets that were cut into the rear quarter panel being removed too.

In addition there were also a new set of mirror stays and fins around the cockpit on the RB20, as the team looks to make some small tweaks to the airflow’s behaviour as it tracks down the car.

This was likely in response to the arrival of the new sidepod and engine cover bodywork first seen in Hungary and used again at Zandvoort. 

There are several differences to the arrangement too, with the horizontal mirror stay no longer merged directly to the mirror housing (white arrow), which has also been modified to suit the vertical baffle that now resides between the two surfaces and likely sheds a stronger vortex downstream over the sidepod.

The outer vertical stay has also been modified (red arrow), with a shorter arrangement taking the place of the tail-like solution previously employed, which will alter how the airflow around the sidepod’s shoulder region behaves.

Meanwhile, the canard-style winglet…