Infiniti Red Bull Racing 2015

[GPR-A duplicate2]

The question Bhall is and I know this is very hypothetical; If Red Bull gets a PU, that perfectly matches the Mercedes PU, do you still think that Red Bull can't have a great car, because all the aero restrictions of the past have crippled their advantage?
If you know there is this game of Cricket, where, when a batsman gets into bad form and performance is fading, he tries too many things to get back to form and that is a very desperate situation. Once the bad time is over and the batsman finds form, he starts performing again. Almost all long standing batsmen go through that phase. It is my feeling that, it is the same with RB and they are trying too many things to somehow get better performance and the result is a mess, because they have a PU that is not corresponding to their best possible chassis design, which might just be true.

Best of the implemented philosophies on their car today might be a problem, may be because of the lack of PU power and if there is more power, the same philosophies might give domino effect on all areas. More like, let's say a PIRELLI compound tyre; If the temperature goes below optimum of design, it performs poorly and if the temperature raises to the optimum, they deliver the best performance. A Car which is aggressive on the tyres gets benefited from lower temperatures and a car designed for optimum tyre temperature conditions, suffers. More often than not, the car designed for optimum performs better. I still believe, if RB gets an even standard PU, they are in the game. But that might not just happen, not any sooner.

[FoxHound]

@GPR-A

I won't answer for Ben, as we see he is more than capable of reply...

But, understand what Red bull were doing and what Ben(Bhall) was explaining.
This is not a case(and I'll use cricket as you preferred) of a batsmen losing form and trying variations to improve his game.
This is a case of a Batsmen using an illegal bat, and not getting caught due to inadequate enforcement of the rules.

Red Bull got away with the flexing T-tray for years. Your advantage being the front wing and floor are as as close to the ground as possible.
With the introduction of the titanium skid blocks, the FIA inadvertently clipped RB's wings.

Here's how.
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/analy ... -red-bull/

For 2015, teams have had to replace this heavy metal with titanium – which rubs away much easier to help produce sparks.
The ease with which the titanium rubs away means that there is now a risk of it not protecting the plank – and if the plank wears away too much, a car could be disqualified.
The knock-on effect is that indirectly those teams that were running very close the floor – like Red Bull – have had to be more conservative with the ride height to ensure the titanium blocks do not wear away too much.
That has compromised its whole aero concept, which has been further hampered by the new nose regulations that have changed how airflow is directed around the front of the car.

The deflection was controlled by a stay.



This prevented a complete marriage of floor and ground at high speed,and is a big reason for Red Bull's outrageous rake.
SomersF1 et al, all speculated in Nov 2013 that it acted as a mass damper.
http://somersf1.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/ ... rstay.html

In 2013, Vettel won 8 of the last 9 races...the exception was Hungary. Here's an gif of the stay(broken) in Hungary 2013,


Coincidence?

[bhall II]

The question Bhall is and I know this is very hypothetical; If Red Bull gets a PU, that perfectly matches the Mercedes PU, do you still think that Red Bull can't have a great car, because all the aero restrictions of the past have crippled their advantage?

Everybody knows where our major deficit is, but frankly, why we're being outperformed is irrelevant.

We have it in our power, in the aerodynamics department, to do something about it.

"The modified car is arguably an RB11 'B'," declared Spain's El Mundo Deportivo.

The former world champions, who have struggled so far in 2015 with both the car and its Renault 'power unit', made multiple attempts to pass the mandatory FIA crash tests with the very short nose that is now expected to debut in Barcelona.

Speed Week claims Red Bull in fact failed the tests "several dozen" times.

El Mundo said the modified Red Bull will be shorter even than other short-nosed designs on the grid like the Mercedes and Williams, making it "very difficult to copy".

Speed Week continued: "Red Bull is hoping for an improvement that brings it in line with Ferrari."

You can see by the aggressively short nature of it that it's been quite a technical challenge. It's a great credit to the guys that actually did it to get it through [the crash test].

It's not a negative at all - it's an engineering masterpiece that they've managed to achieve.

We came here [to Barcelona] with upgrades this weekend but they didn’t give us what we were expecting, so that’s something we’ll keep working on. We’re still a fair bit behind Williams...

[Phil]

Ben & Fox,

I'm not going to quote much here, but rather just going to attempt to clarify the points I'm making. Truthfully, I don't think we're disagreeing with the overall picture of what RedBull is doing right and isn't. I'm also not going to argue against the notion that 'cheating' (or less bluntly put, taking advantage of the limitation of certain tests, or the interpretation of certain regulations) helped them to be as dominating as they were. As a McLaren supporter at the time, I too was getting tired of the RedBull dominance, especially with screen grabs showing to what degree those wings were flexing under load. On the other hand though; they did get away with it and it wasn't simply a single feature or component that made the RedBull cars that strong; it was a brilliant package. Which is why they kept their dominance over 4.5 years, despite the FIA closing in on them with tighter regulations and tests.

One of the advantages were certainly some of the unique characteristics of that Renault engine. We've talked much about the cold and hot blowing of the EBD in those years. Despite all that, with the exception of 2011 and 2013, we've had close championships. 2012 should have been won by McLaren. Period. But they shot themselves on the reliability front. 2010 was extremely close.
And in 2013, the quote you made about RedBull blaming Pirelli for their performance due to the tire not being able to handle their downforce? It wasn't that far from the truth. Lets not forget what happened in Silverstone when tires started disintegrating that then forced Pirelli to rethink it's tire construction (on the premise of safety), that then of course changed the outcome of the championship entirely. Lets also not forget why Pirelli was asked to produce such tires in the first place; Not because the racing was already fantastic and close; no they were asked to produce fragile tires to enhance the spectacle of the sport, add some unpredictability by forcing teams to make more pitstops, bring quicker cars back into traffic as a means to increase the chance of overtakes - the thing that makes motorsport exciting. This and more was done because we had a team dominating the sport and the FIA (and the other teams) showed an inability to stop that dominance by either finding the loop-holes RedBull exploited and ban them by tightening regulations or to copy them to reach parity. Unpredictable tires were brought in and that nearly worked brilliantly in stopping that dominance for 2012, even though the first 8 races seemed more like a lottery than a legitimate genuine race. In 2013, Pirelli went over the limit when tires were created that were potentially unsafe - hence why they reverted back to a stronger construction/tire. Had those disintegrating tires not happened, well, we might have had a much closer championship in 2013 - despite RedBull still having the best chassis.

The rise of Mercedes had a lot to do with understanding tires - yes. Absolutely. But I'd argue they never quite got there. In 2013, the year that marked their jump to becoming a front-running team, they had a genuine quick car but the car was flawed by too heavy tire degradation. The result being they might have had a quick car over one lap, but come sunday, they were held back by excessive tire wear. In 2014, those issues are gone, but the point is rather moot: 2014 is an entirely different year, slightly different tires again (more or on the conservative side again) and Mercedes is benefiting from the fact it holds the strongest PU at the back of the car and can therefore run much more downforce without compromising straight line performance like the other teams. The result being that they have the best grip on tire degradation most of the time, vs other teams who need to run compromised setups to aid lack of power and suffer the consequence of higher tire deg. If it weren't for that PU advantage, who knows how good the Mercedes would be [relative to the rest] on the topic of tire degradation. I for one am not convinced. No, Mercedes is as strong as they are precisely because of that PU, the package and the team building that car around it to exploit every single advantage they can from it.

As for the quotes Ben you just posted; About Redbull supposedly admitting that it's "within their [aero] power to do something about it" ... no one ever argued that aero wasn't important. It is. The major issue is that its effect is limited if the PU isn't performing or putting you at a bigger disadvantage. If we take a simple route, from A to B - a stretch of tarmac with a few corners and a long straight, the quickest way from start to finish depends on the car. There is an optimal configuration for everything. If you have X power, you set up the gearbox to play to the exact strengths on that given road and you chose the aero accordingly to find the best compromise between straight line top speed and acceleration and cornering performance. Hence why a track like Monza has very different requirements to a track like Monaco. Now if your car had X-20% (hypothetically) the power, the setup requirement of that same car changes. You may compromise cornering speed to achieve a higher topspeed precisely because that particular stretch of road has a long straight, hence the advantage you gain in topspeed and acceleration outweighs the disadvantage of the lower cornering speed over the entire distance.

In F1, this is all part of the things teams need to consider. If you are dealing with a PU that has less power, you are compromising. And RedBulls strength has always been aero and downforce. Right now, they are having to think outside the box, outside their comfort zone to extract the maximum potential from their package. And by doing that, their only hope is to challenge... Williams? A team though running a Mercedes PU, but not the most impressive package (chassis wise).

Also as for Redbull helping out Renault on engine development; I still fail to see how that could work. It's not as if Redbull is known for their craft and know-how in engine development. Renault is anything but a small engine manufacturer. Up until 2014, how were they to know that Renault was struggling? That only became apparent once the season started and the pecking order was painfully apparent. Then we had a more or less development freeze, only loosed now through the token system. But now, that partnership has already turned toxid, perhaps because of their lack of competitiveness in 2014, or because Renault is already considering re-entering as their own de facto works-team. And I still fail to see how RedBull could aid Renault on such matters if we consider a perfectly harmonic partnership. Opening a factory together and let the design team of the car plan at the same table like the engine guys? I don't see this happening considering these are two different companies, that while being partners, are probably not too keen on sharing intel, research and development on that level. Besides, it's a little late for that...

[djos]

I just love how several folk here think rbr are somehow evil because they've exploited the rules to the fullest extent.

This is really imo willful blindness as every team at the top of the order has been caught bending or breaking the rules

e.g. Ferrari when Shuey was there got caught with dipping / flexing front wings and self buckling tea trays.

Traction control was un-banned until the control ECU was brought in because the team's where sneaking it and other banned aids into their code in such a way that the fia couldn't prove they had it etc etc

The teams with the most money spend every cent they can to find the unfair advantage and this has always been the case in F1!

[bhall II]

And in 2013, the quote you made about RedBull blaming Pirelli for their performance due to the tire not being able to handle their downforce? It wasn't that far from the truth.

I'll go one better: it was wholly the truth. But, it's also completely irrelevant.

If tires are the same for everyone and you design a car that can't make best use of them, you have designed a flawed car. It's no different than what caused the discrepancy between Mercedes' PU and Renault's PU.

Guided by the same rules, one got it right, and the other one got it wrong. The only difference is that the Horner/Marko Bitchfest no longer has a problem assigning blame to the responsible party. (If only they'd hold themselves to the same standard...)

Besides, it's not like the tires were a complete mystery...

McLaren sporting director Sam Michael believes that Pirelli's scheduled test of 2013 tyres at the Brazilian Grand Prix will be 'critical' for teams in their planning for next year.

Pirelli is going to provide teams with two sets of 2013-specification rubber for first practice in Interlagos to allow some early data gathering of the redesigned products.

With tyres having played such a critical role in the outcome of this year's world championship, Michael is under no illusions about how vital it is teams make the most of the chance to get as much early data of the new products.

When asked by AUTOSPORT about how important the test was for teams, Michael said: "Extremely. It is very important because that is the only opportunity before February [to test them].

(For anyone who might wish to invoke safety in regard to Pirelli's 2013 tires, I think it's probably a good idea to look into the details of the 2011 Belgian Grand Prix. Safety tends to take a backseat to victory.)

Again, I don't doubt Renault's culpability; I'm not dismissive of Red Bull's design history; and I don't discredit the magnitude of their many successes. Where I take issue is the one-sided narrative the team uses to explain current struggles. It's total bullshit, because there's no objective evidence to support the claims.

That's all.

I just love how several folk here think rbr are somehow evil because they've exploited the rules to the fullest extent.

This is really imo willful blindness as every team at the top of the order has been caught bending or breaking the rules

My favorite part when folks blithely ignore what I've said and then either derisively repeat it back to me as if I never said it or completely misrepresent it with unfair summations. That it happens all the --- time must mean I'm the luckiest S.O.B. in the whoooooole wiiiiiiiiiide world.

[FoxHound]

Ben & Fox,

RedBull cars that strong; it was a brilliant package. Which is why they kept their dominance over 4.5 years, despite the FIA closing in on them with tighter regulations and tests.

Some things make packages stronger than others. Look at the outlandish McLaren concepts we've seen in their attempts at reigning in Red Bull. Yet they still couldn't perform the plank trick that had people scratching their heads for 4 years.
This was the silver bullet. As I and others have shown, the FIA was pretty feeble at doing anything to counter it.

If it weren't for that PU advantage, who knows how good the Mercedes would be [relative to the rest] on the topic of tire degradation. I for one am not convinced. No, Mercedes is as strong as they are precisely because of that PU, the package and the team building that car around it to exploit every single advantage they can from it.

To a certain point, half true.
The exploitation of the engine into the chassis is inherent to a manufacturer team, always has been. But you are ignoring the aero, chassis and tyre progress Mercedes have made. If it was all down to the PU, there would be more Williams and Force India victories, as yet we have none. In house design will give you some advantage, but in year 2 Williams and Force India will have 18 months of data to build upon. Rendering any hypothetical advantage marginal.

Also as for Redbull helping out Renault on engine development; I still fail to see how that could work. It's not as if Redbull is known for their craft and know-how in engine development. Renault is anything but a small engine manufacturer.

Red Bull are primarily renowned for energy drinks. Didn't stop Mateshitz from going the whole hog and buying not one, but two F1 teams! The easy option would've been to paint the cars in Red Bull livery and let others handle/own the team.
Why is purchasing engine facilities a problem for Moneybags Mateshitz?
Toyota have a one gathering dust in Cologne, BMW would be more than happy to cut a deal, and Renault remains a possibility.
Renault are anything but a small engine manufacturer, but Ghosn is not the sort to turn down millions on investments that start turning sour. Just have a look at the mans record.

And I still fail to see how RedBull could aid Renault on such matters if we consider a perfectly harmonic partnership. Opening a factory together and let the design team of the car plan at the same table like the engine guys? I don't see this happening considering these are two different companies, that while being partners, are probably not too keen on sharing intel, research and development on that level. Besides, it's a little late for that...

For how Red Bull could aid Renault...let's replace the names with how Brackley could help Brixworth.
Simply, if they did not cooperate to the fullest degree possible, then that is a mistake of their own doing. It cannot be held that this is advantageous to competitors, but not to themselves when the opportunities arose.
If Red Bull had fears of any IP going to Renault, and vice versa, these are the catalysts for Mateshitz to have acted in 2013 or even sooner.

Right now, they are having to think outside the box, outside their comfort zone to extract the maximum potential from their package. And by doing that, their only hope is to challenge... Williams? A team though running a Mercedes PU, but not the most impressive package (chassis wise).

How do we quantify the "not the most mpressive package", Phil? (forgive the obvious.. )
Look at the fright Williams gave Mercedes at Silverstone. I think you are being overly harsh on them, even though they clearly do have the best PU on the grid.

[Phil]

If tires are the same for everyone and you design a car that can't make best use of them, you have designed a flawed car. It's no different than what caused the discrepancy between Mercedes' PU and Renault's PU.

Guided by the same rules, one got it right, and the other one got it wrong. The only difference is that the Horner/Marko Bitchfest no longer has a problem assigning blame to the responsible party. (If only they'd hold themselves to the same standard...)

That's a little like saying; Lets tell all the teams we're having a race at Monza, then surprise everyone a day before and change it to Monaco. Same track for everyone right? Of course, it's not THAT simple, but [Pirelli] tires are obviously not that simple to understand when constructed to the extreme to enhance the show, because it's not only the tire construction & compound that makes or brakes the car/tire... differing track conditions (temperature/weather/altitude~pressure) multiply the varying degrees of state into probably millions of possibilities. Come on Ben, work with me here. If it was that simple, how could we even have... *wait for it*, 8 different race winners in the first 8 GPs in 2012? Or were there 9? But no, of course, all the teams failed because they all designed a flawed car... whuat?

To a certain point, half true.
The exploitation of the engine into the chassis is inherent to a manufacturer team, always has been. But you are ignoring the aero, chassis and tyre progress Mercedes have made. If it was all down to the PU, there would be more Williams and Force India victories, as yet we have none. In house design will give you some advantage, but in year 2 Williams and Force India will have 18 months of data to build upon. Rendering any hypothetical advantage marginal.

How do we quantify the "impressive package", Phil? (forgive the obvious.. )
Look at the fright Williams gave Mercedes at Silverstone. I think you are being overly harsh on them, even though they clearly do have the best PU on the grid.

Wait, now we are comparing Mercedes to their customer teams - essentially struggling midfield teams since the past 5 years? Force India can barely keep itself afloat, and Williams, was what 9th in 2013, propelled itself into the top 3 precisely because of the PU, despite a subpar chassis. I'm too lazy to look for the link, but I actually dug out the data in two recent topics on the relative performance of all teams since in 2010. So in other words, the PU is the predominant factor in todays engine formula, however that does not mean that chassis and aero is irrelevant. In fact 2014 has shown that RedBull with a subpar engine was able to outperform Williams on the basis of much better chassis/aero - however Mercedes obviously has both, a good chassis/aero as well as engine as 2013 already demonstrated their impressive progress. That however doesn't mean that Mercedes aero/chassis is better than RedBull. As a package (with PU) yes, just the aero/chassis? Who knows.

As for being harsh on them; No I don't think I am. They've had a lucky punch thanks to the engine last year which propelled them past every single other midfield team and back into contention for serious sponsors. Winning attracts money, money and winning attracts good engineers. The best if you will. If you lack both, you may find yourself in a downward spiral. Williams got themselves out of trouble... they finished 9nth on the grid 2013. Progress takes time. And no, I don't think they have a very good chassis [compared to Mercedes, RedBull or Ferrari] - just look at what happened at Silverstone. In a low drag/downforce setting on a good day, they are mighty impressive [due to dry conditions and track layout masking their shortcomings] - come the rain when downforce becomes an important element, they were nowhere.

Red Bull are primarily renowned for energy drinks. Didn't stop Mateshitz from going the whole hog and buying not one, but two F1 teams! The easy option would've been to paint the cars in Red Bull livery and let others handle/own the team.
Why is purchasing engine facilities a problem for Moneybags Mateshitz?
Toyota have a one gathering dust in Cologne, BMW would be more than happy to cut a deal, and Renault remains a possibility.
Renault are anything but a small engine manufacturer, but Ghosn is not the sort to turn down millions on investments that start turning sour. Just have a look at the mans record.

Oh I'm confident, if that much was going to be apparent in 2013, they would have (or at least contemplated potential risk/investment/gain). The thing is though, no one was expecting an "engine formula" to dominate the sport for multiple years, because it's essentially bad for the sport because engine development is expensive. So rules were made to make everyone happy and restrictions added to create what everyone hoped would 'level the playing field' somewhat. Or at least limit the advantage one team might have over another. That's the thought behind adding a fuel-flow limit. To limit the power you can make, so the logic was that give or take, most would be in the same ballpark (assuming efficiency is similar) and that the smaller gaps between engines could be then nullified by aero/chassis strength. Didn't quite work out. Mercedes did a brilliant job, not just on the engine side, but as a team as well. And it has created the situation that even with tokens, it is taking the competition much too long to close that gap - and it isn't stopping Mercedes of improving their design either.

If it had been clear that an engine would dominate the formula (an engine formula if you like), then yes, perhaps RedBull as a serious player would have considered the importance of putting more weight on that specific part. But that wasn't that clear - we only just figured that out when 2014 came and it became apparent that these engines are not at all equal and that the package / placement is as essential to how the engine performs as the engine itself.

I still also think it's a pipe dream that a player can just come in, get the best partnership that money can buy and immediately wipe the floor with anyone. Mercedes did precisely that, but how do we explain that Renault as a big player struggled, even Ferrari? And lets not also forget that Redbull is under contract with Renault; they can't just switch to any other engine manufacturers, they are bound by agreement. Their situation is limited because they are not working closely with their engine partner (who may be no longer interesting in that partnership anymore due to their own changing interests) and the engine is still a big and major factor that the 500+ employees have absolutely no influence or control over. Again, same applies to McLaren-Honda. It's awesome when things go according to plan, but inherently difficult to solve if it is not.

An engine frozen formula was good, because the engines were all within the same ballpark, so aero/chassis was key. That isn't the case now (though again, that does not make aero/chassis entirely irrelevant).

[bhall II]

That's a little like saying; Lets tell all the teams we're having a race at Monza, then surprise everyone a day before and change it to Monaco. Same track for everyone right?

If by "a day later," you mean "four months in advance," then I completely agree with you.

What part of the following eluded you? (And what else have you missed?)

Besides, it's not like the tires were a complete mystery...

McLaren sporting director Sam Michael believes that Pirelli's scheduled test of 2013 tyres at the Brazilian Grand Prix will be 'critical' for teams in their planning for next year.

Pirelli is going to provide teams with two sets of 2013-specification rubber for first practice in Interlagos to allow some early data gathering of the redesigned products.

With tyres having played such a critical role in the outcome of this year's world championship, Michael is under no illusions about how vital it is teams make the most of the chance to get as much early data of the new products.

When asked by AUTOSPORT about how important the test was for teams, Michael said: "Extremely. It is very important because that is the only opportunity before February [to test them].

When folks start just skimming through the things I've said, I've found it's a good indication that a conversation has probably run its course.

Cheers.

[Phil]

That's a little like saying; Lets tell all the teams we're having a race at Monza, then surprise everyone a day before and change it to Monaco. Same track for everyone right?

If by "a day later," you mean "four months in advance," then I completely agree with you.

So you're telling me that teams had a crystal ball to predict track conditions 4 months in advance - factors that influence heavily in how a certain tire acts and performs AND had loads of testing days to test and simulate their new cars on said compounds?

What part of the following eluded you? (And what else have you missed?)

Of course, it's not THAT simple, but [Pirelli] tires are obviously not that simple to understand when constructed to the extreme to enhance the show, because it's not only the tire construction & compound that makes or brakes the car/tire... differing track conditions (temperature/weather/altitude~pressure) multiply the varying degrees of state into probably millions of possibilities. Come on Ben, work with me here. If it was that simple, how could we even have... *wait for it*, 8 different race winners in the first 8 GPs in 2012? Or were there 9? But no, of course, all the teams failed because they all designed a flawed car... whuat?

When folks start just skimming through the things I've said, I've found it's a good indication that a conversation has probably run its course.

Ditto.

Although I must add, I find that to be a rather easy way of avoiding replying to relevant arguments, that at least made an effort to go into the points you've raised (well, err, the *links* you simply re-posted that are not even in context of the much bigger situation), but as you wish...

Cheers.

[FoxHound]

Wait, now we are comparing Mercedes to their customer teams - essentially struggling midfield teams since the past 5 years? Force India can barely keep itself afloat, and Williams, was what 9th in 2013, propelled itself into the top 3 precisely because of the PU, despite a subpar chassis.

You brought Williams into the equation, stating the PU is the reason for their improvement. I won't contest that it hasn't improved them, but it's not the only reason.
And if we look in 2009, 2010, 2011,2012,2013 and 2014.... Williams had no less than 4 engine suppliers. Toyota, Cosworth, Renault and Mercedes.

Your assessment is Red Bull have an excuse because they aren't fully integrated within the Renault engine programme, but Williams can be judged as a "struggling midfield team", in spite of the fact they didn't know which engine they would run for the vast majority of their cars development cycle?
C'mon Phil, whats it gonna be?

That however doesn't mean that Mercedes aero/chassis is better than RedBull. As a package (with PU) yes, just the aero/chassis? Who knows

Actually, Red Bull admit Mercedes are 3 tenths clear on the chassis side.
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 14323.html

It's in German, but the gist is Horner reckons Red Bull are 2nd best behind Mercedes. Obviously this may also include Horner's speculative guess that the Mercedes is at least 100bhp up on the Renault.
It's Red Bull PR in action...what can I say.

Oh I'm confident.........it's a pipe dream that......Redbull is under contract with Renault; they can't just switch to any other engine manufacturers, they are bound by agreement

Edited wall of text...But you really think Red Bull would quit F1 over breaking a contract with Renault?
What's to say Renault don't want out of the RB frying pan?
Engine proposals were made up precisely to put more emphasis on engines as a differentiator. So why would Red Bull not want to be in control of this facet? As I said, they knew what was coming.

An engine frozen formula was good, because the engines were all within the same ballpark, so aero/chassis was key. That isn't the case now (though again, that does not make aero/chassis entirely irrelevant).

Bye bye Mercedes, No Honda, Ferrari too would question their involvement if they couldn't use one of the 3 pillars of F1....engines to overcome the deficits they had to the non RRA bound Red Bull.
What's the point?

A frozen engine formula was ---. No developments, at least today we have some form of development. Besides, why should chassis and aero hold sway over engines? Surely they should all have an equal part to play.
Is the current balance correct, no. But it sure as hell doesn't need another frozen formula, it needs a slight opening of the rules if anything.

[bhall II]

What part of the following eluded you? (And what else have you missed?)

Of course, it's not THAT simple, but [Pirelli] tires are obviously not that simple to understand when constructed to the extreme to enhance the show, because it's not only the tire construction & compound that makes or brakes the car/tire... differing track conditions (temperature/weather/altitude~pressure) multiply the varying degrees of state into probably millions of possibilities. Come on Ben, work with me here. If it was that simple, how could we even have... *wait for it*, 8 different race winners in the first 8 GPs in 2012? Or were there 9? But no, of course, all the teams failed because they all designed a flawed car... whuat?

[...]

Although I must add, I find that to be a rather easy way of avoiding replying to relevant arguments, that at least made an effort to go into the points you've raised (well, err, the *links* you simply re-posted that are not even in context of the much bigger situation), but as you wish...

Because I recognize I have a tendency to put up voluminous posts, I make sure to read what others have said, as I'd be a hypocrite to demand something that I'm not willing to give of myself. So, I did read your post. I just don't know how to reconcile it with this:

The rise of Mercedes had a lot to do with understanding tires - yes. Absolutely. But I'd argue they never quite got there. In 2013, the year that marked their jump to becoming a front-running team, they had a genuine quick car but the car was flawed by too heavy tire degradation. The result being they might have had a quick car over one lap, but come sunday, they were held back by excessive tire wear. In 2014, those issues are gone, but the point is rather moot: 2014 is an entirely different year, slightly different tires again

On one hand, you've made an assertion about the 2013 tires based upon events that occurred in 2012.

If it was that simple, how could we even have... *wait for it*, 8 different race winners in the first 8 GPs in 2012?

Yet, you've dismissed the idea that Mercedes made progress with wear/degradation from 2013 to 2014, because the tires weren't the same.

In 2014, those issues are gone, but the point is rather moot: 2014 is an entirely different year, slightly different tires again...

Is continuity possible or not? If it's not, someone needs to call James Allison immediately and tell him to stop looking for a structural solution to Ferrari's perpetual inability to quickly warm up the tires. Apparently, he'd be better off consulting a Ouija board instead.



And I might need to get my eyes/hearing/memory checked, because I seem to recall Red Bull winning the last nine races in 2013 on the exact same tires that produced eight different winners through the first eight races in 2012. So, either people learn and move forward, or F1 is waaaaaaaaaaay --- weirder than I thought!

I apologize for getting frustrated earlier; a relatively short fuse has always been my Achilles' heel. But, there's a fundamental misunderstanding here, and I can't seem to find a way to bridge the gap and make it go away.

I blame the "journalists"!

SomersF1 et al, all speculated in Nov 2013 that it acted as a mass damper.
http://somersf1.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/ ... rstay.html

A flexible t-tray is probably more analogous to FRIC than it is to a mass damper. Mass dampers were more about trying to mitigate the deleterious effects of tire oscillation for a more consistent contact patch, while FRIC was more about reducing pitch sensitivity, an important factor to control if you're stalling wings and can't afford inconsistent underbody downforce at the same time.


Nose as mass damper


T-tray as FRIC

Contrary to how it may seem, I've enjoyed watching Red Bull develop over the years. I think they've been far and away the most interesting team since 2009.

[Phil]

I brought them [Williams] into the equation because you made the point "If it was all down to the PU, there would be more Williams and Force India victories, as yet we have none." An often heard argument. Essentially arguing that since none of those teams [with the almighty Mercedes PU] scored a win, it impossibly could be due to the PU. So again, yes, I fully agree that the PU is not the only relevant component - chassis and aero is important too - but the PU is still the most dominant component at the moment (or was in 2014).

BTW; Just to make the point clear(er), in regards to the other posts I made in two recent topics... that same data I gathered from the past 5 seasons, also shows that going from 2013 into 2014, every Mercedes engined team either kept its previous year standing or improved (in the case of Williams, substantially). Every Renault and Ferrari engined team practically went backwards or barely held on to its position of the previous year. That in itself underlines what a massive impact the engine has currently. I'd argue that RedBull barely hung on to 2nd last year precisely because they still have a very very good chassis and aero, even if they are compromising it to limit the shortcoming of the PU.

As for the link to AM&S / Horner thinking they are 3 tenths behind; It's hard to gauge in what context they mean that. Is that before or after they've compromised their setups to not be too vulnerable on the straights?

Edited wall of text...But you really think Red Bull would quit F1 over breaking a contract with Renault?
What's to say Renault don't want out of the RB frying pan?
Engine proposals were made up precisely to put more emphasis on engines as a differentiator. So why would Red Bull not want to be in control of this facet? As I said, they knew what was coming.

I don't think anything [in regards to them breaking any contract]. I'm just going to assume that breaking an engine contract is something quite serious and involves lots of money and if you do, you'd better have a second engine in the loop. Realistically, building your own engine is a massive undertaking - and it gets more complex if you add the whole ERS aspect. And most manufacturers who are currently inside F1 and actually doing that, have customer teams to help them invest into that area and spread the costs. Honda is the big exception, but how their future involvement will unfold is anyones guess - perhaps they hope that this one partnership with McLaren will be hugely successful and allow them to run closest to what is could be a works-team equivalent (without the full bang commitment that had them leave the sport in 2008) or they might power multiple teams in the future depending on who enters and who ends up with who.

Think about it. RedBull might have massive spending power, but the gains need to be there. Getting into engine business is too much to ask for and even if they use their money to get another manufacturer into F1, it isn't easy, as said manufacturer wants to limit their risk too. And if we rewind back to 2013 - they had a very successful past seasons with Renault. How were they to know the engine would be that far behind? I think some of the issues that came about were not that obvious. Sure, packaging. But it was perhaps a learning process for both, especially now that everyone has seen what Mercedes could do, and what Ferrari is doing now. The question is; can they still change that? And again - who knew that these engines would be such huge performance differentiators, despite the fuel flow limit? The V6T was always going to be a new game for everyone... lots of unknowns. That's what made speculating so exciting back in 2013.

Also, didn't Mercedes just turn down RedBull to supply it with engines? If their chassis is so good and ahead of the field, why not supply RedBull? I think I know the answer to that question...

Bye bye Mercedes, No Honda, Ferrari too would question their involvement if they couldn't use one of the 3 pillars of F1....engines to overcome the deficits they had to the non RRA bound Red Bull.
What's the point?

A frozen engine formula was ---. No developments, at least today we have some form of development. Besides, why should chassis and aero hold sway over engines? Surely they should all have an equal part to play.
Is the current balance correct, no. But it sure as hell doesn't need another frozen formula, it needs a slight opening of the rules if anything.

No one wanted an engine formula. Well, except perhaps the two works-teams, because they knew they could turn the whole field upside down. But an engine formula costs money. And the FIA was smart enough to limit the rate of development and putting restrictors (like the fuel flow limit) so that you don't end up with one team being 10 seconds a lap quicker. For a sport to work, you need most of your competitors to be within the same ballpark. Can't have half the field running around the track like backmarkers. So regulations are made to keep things in check.

An engine formula makes sense, if we have more works-teams. Essentially different car/engine manufacturers competing. Then, instead of having a 500+ strong race team focused on aerodynamic gains, you may cut back on them and require more engineers to build stronger and better engines. It all depends on the regulations you put forward, what kind of formula you are shaping. Right now, most teams have know-how focused on building chassis and aero. The only exceptions are perhaps Mercedes and Ferrari that can combine both their engine and aero/chassis teams. All the customer teams, get what they get and make due - e.g. build the car around the engine, where as the works-teams perhaps have an engine that is built around the car in a more balanced act.

Is one better than the other? I'm all for an 'engine formula' - a formula wherein engine development is key and the biggest performance differentiator - but then we need more engine manufacturers. I don't want 2 works-team fighting for championships and 8 customer teams who can't because they are a step behind or because the engine manufacturer that is supplying them made a grave error and can't progress due to a token system in place limiting that development. Isn't that a farce? I understand why it's there (the tokens), but at the same time, you have certain teams struggling.

Compare this to perhaps a single engine (one for all) by an outsider and you have 10 teams specialized in building chassis/aero and everyone has an equal chance to influence how far up the order they finish. We more or less had this, when we had 3 frozen engines that offered more or less the same performance, so the focus was on aero/chassis and exploiting those rules to the fullest...

We need the gap between engines to narrow. If they don't and the rate of development [in that area] is limited, how are certain teams ever going to compete? And I could care less about just the struggling big teams like RedBull. I am thinking about Sauber here too [among others].

[Phil]

Because I recognize I have a tendency to put up voluminous posts, I make sure to read what others have said, as I'd be a hypocrite to demand something that I'm not willing to give of myself. So, I did read your post. I just don't know how to reconcile it with this:

The rise of Mercedes had a lot to do with understanding tires - yes. Absolutely. But I'd argue they never quite got there. In 2013, the year that marked their jump to becoming a front-running team, they had a genuine quick car but the car was flawed by too heavy tire degradation. The result being they might have had a quick car over one lap, but come sunday, they were held back by excessive tire wear. In 2014, those issues are gone, but the point is rather moot: 2014 is an entirely different year, slightly different tires again

On one hand, you've made an assertion about the 2013 tires based upon events that occurred in 2012.

If it was that simple, how could we even have... *wait for it*, 8 different race winners in the first 8 GPs in 2012?

Yet, you've dismissed the idea that Mercedes made progress with wear/degradation from 2013 to 2014, because the tires weren't the same.

In 2014, those issues are gone, but the point is rather moot: 2014 is an entirely different year, slightly different tires again...

Is continuity possible or not? If it's not, someone needs to call James Allison immediately and tell him to stop looking for a structural solution to Ferrari's perpetual inability to quickly warm up the tires. Apparently, he'd be better off consulting a Ouija board instead.



And I might need to get my eyes/hearing/memory checked, because I seem to recall Red Bull winning the last nine races in 2013 on the exact same tires that produced eight different winners through the first eight races in 2012. So, either people learn and move forward, or F1 is waaaaaaaaaaay --- weirder than I thought!

Good points Ben. Let me clarify; Mercedes certainly did make progress. They all did, even in 2012, hence why the 'lottery' stopped - but they needed 8 races to get there and understand the tires. But Mercedes car still had difficulties keeping their tires alive *points to 2013*. At some point, the tires reverted back to the 2012 construction (but not compounds?!), and that was that, RedBull blizzed off to yet another dominating WDC & WCC.

Anyway, 2014 comes and suddenly the tire woes of 2013 and all previous years disappeared. I'm sure Mercedes got better, especially with FRIC (until it was banned), but I still think one of the biggest reasons why they have a grip on tires are 1.) the tires are rather conservative and a 'known / better understood quantity' and 2.) they have by far the most powerful PU so can run the car with more downforce which is key in getting the most from these tires.

If we packed the same engine into all cars, so that everyone would run the best downforce levels they can and not worry about being down on power relative to anyone else, I'm not sure the Mercedes would still be the best of the lot where tire wear is concerned (though they wouldn't be far from the top either I guess - they did improve massively from in aero too). I believe, that PU is masking (and has solved) some of the tire issues they had in the past. It's also one of the reasons why i.e. Williams is substantially worse in tire degradation; They don't have as much downforce.

[Juzh]

Also, keep in mind that Red Bull didn't exactly embrace KERS. They never ran it in 2009, and they only used it for starts after the FOTA moratorium ended in 2011.

Are you saying RB never used KERS during qually or races in 2011? Because that's just flat out incorrect, sorry. They didn't use it in australia, but from malaysia onwards it was on the car every race, and certainly not just for the starts. Not sure where you got this from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5nmfh4boUA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gHhSGE7y8Q