Is the RB19 Dominant?

[Bill]

most drivers prefer a neutral balanced car.Alonso was pretty quick in his days with understeering car or injured understeer.

[Stu]

most drivers prefer a neutral balanced car.Alonso was pretty quick in his days with understeering car or injured understeer.

That was as much a reflection of the NEED to overcome a strategic design decision in the car (driven by the regulation set at the time). It was also nothing new (as anyone that ever tried to pedal a classic Mini will attest to!).

Anyway, this is way off topic!

Getting back to the point of the thread…

Three races in is too soon to judge, but currently the RB19 has a small qualifying pace advantage and a slightly bigger race pace advantage, which is being amplified by an operational superiority.
In itself this is not uncommon in F1 (it has ALWAYS been the norm), the big difference now is the audience and their expectations.
The grid is now closer together (on both qualifying and race pace) than at any time in its history; mostly due to the tools available and (I think mostly due to) the budget restrictions. However there will always be a team that builds a 0.5% better car or operate at a 0.5% better level; if that is two different teams (as in 2021) you get a ‘killer’ season, if it is the same team you get ‘dominance’ (hate the use of it in such an exaggerated manner though!)

[ValeVida46]

Three races in is too soon to judge, but currently the RB19 has a small qualifying pace advantage and a slightly bigger race pace advantage, which is being amplified by an operational superiority.

What do you mean by operational superiority?
In Bahrain they had some reliability concerns surrounding the gearbox(and the next 2 races) and still ran:
0.3 faster in quali and won by 40 seconds.
In Jeddah they were 0.2 faster with Max surrendering to driveshaft/gearbox issues, and generally carries around a 0.2-3+ speed advantage to Checo in qualifying. Oh ....max started 15th and finished 2nd with a 20 second advantage 1st to 3rd.
Australia is an outlier because it's a front limited street circuit that messes with field spreads(historically) but also in no small part due to 18 inch tyres. Mercedes for example looked far racier because the track doesn't expose as many flaws as a built for purpose track would and getting through the field is far more difficult due to DRS trains.

Far from operational superiority, I'd say this was demonstrable total superiority. Albeit being controlled for reliability(insert opinion) reasons. It's early days yet agreed, 3 races in and 3 very easy RB poles and wins.
Frankly the oppositions only hope is reliability failure for Red Bull, surely then this qualifies as dominant?

The grid is now closer together (on both qualifying and race pace) than at any time in its history; mostly due to the tools available and (I think mostly due to) the budget restrictions.

I don't think this is true.

There have been closer field spreads but it does depend entirely on what Metric you are judging by. Perhaps a defined range such as gap to 1st and 2nd or gap to 1st to 5th or 1st to last?

[Stu]

1st to last (it has never been closer) field spread can mean nothing else, surely?

Operational superiority is team-work, planning, strategy, pit-stops and it is eminently possible to have a car that is off the ultimate pace and make up some of the deficit with all of that.

0.3 seconds is a very small (but seemingly consistent car advantage) - 0.00333% of a 90 second lap.

[ValeVida46]

1st to last (it has never been closer) field spread can mean nothing else, surely?

Indeed which is why I sought clarification on what you meant by "The grid is closer together than at any time in history".
Only as it's not really backed up by any data even if we compare it to a single year(2021).




Haas are outliers as they abandoned development of their car by choice and shouldn't be included on a fair basis, given they saw it as a "waste of time"
https://www.crash.net/f1/feature/971621 ... 021-f1-car

Operational superiority is team-work, planning, strategy, pit-stops and it is eminently possible to have a car that is off the ultimate pace and make up some of the deficit with all of that.

The RB19 would still be head and shoulders the best car on the grid. I think adding non car performance metrics to compliment actual car performance metrics will lead this down a rabbit hole. Over the last 3 races out of 165 laps Red Bull has led 151 of those or 92% of all races this season. Planning, strategy and pitstops are great for getting ahead or staying ahead of a rival car, but not when you're leading 92% of race laps ....you simply do not have a rival.
Not to be obtuse but I think it's stretching it a bit to attribute RB strategies etc as that much better so as to get these numbers.

0.3 seconds is a very small (but seemingly consistent car advantage) - 0.00333% of a 90 second lap.

The quali gap in jeddah was 0.150 which over 50 laps translates into 7.5 seconds but they won by over 20 seconds at a canter.
The gap in Bahrain was 0.3 which over 57 laps translates in 17 seconds but they won by 38 seconds in holiday mode.
Set ups for race pace can have an impact on single lap speed, particularly if the team know they have a faster car, which they do. So for each gap we have in qualifying we have a larger gap in the race.
Perhaps this would be a phenomena explained by the tyre and set up, with Red Bull intentionally going for the race pace advantage which has seen them dominate races this year.

[AR3-GP]

Perhaps this would be a phenomena explained by the tyre and set up, with Red Bull intentionally going for the race pace advantage which has seen them dominate races this year.

I have no doubt that RB are going for race setups, but so is everyone else.

[ValeVida46]

Perhaps this would be a phenomena explained by the tyre and set up, with Red Bull intentionally going for the race pace advantage which has seen them dominate races this year.

I have no doubt that RB are going for race setups, but so is everyone else.

Not according to Vassuer.

I never saw a car to match the pace of another one in quali and not to able to race. [So] then it's a matter of set-up and some choices on the car.

[AR3-GP]

Perhaps this would be a phenomena explained by the tyre and set up, with Red Bull intentionally going for the race pace advantage which has seen them dominate races this year.

I have no doubt that RB are going for race setups, but so is everyone else.

Not according to Vassuer.

I never saw a car to match the pace of another one in quali and not to able to race. [So] then it's a matter of set-up and some choices on the car.

I think you might be misinterpreting either my post or the Vasseur comment.

My point is that everyone is tuning their car for the race. Vasseur is jsut saying, if they can extract that much pace in qualifying, then they need to figure out how to keep it in the race. That doesn't mean the car is tuned for qualifying. It just means the race setup only produces one good lap.

[ValeVida46]

I think you might be misinterpreting either my post or the Vasseur comment.

My point is that everyone is tuning their car for the race. Vasseur is jsut saying, if they can extract that much pace in qualifying, then they need to figure out how to keep it in the race. That doesn't mean the car is tuned for qualifying. It just means the race setup only produces one good lap.

Not at all misinterpreting Vassuer's quote.

I'm not saying the Ferrari is set up for qualifying, perhaps you misunderstand my point. Ferrari can set up a car to do a lap time, which may be optimum for their race pace AND be able to be around 0.2 behind Red Bull.
However that optimum race pace is not even remotely competitive relative to Red Bull.
That's precisely what Vassuer was getting at. Even if Ferrari were max quali set up, they couldn't beat Red Bull.
Even if Max Race set up, they couldn't get close to Red Bull. There is a pitfall for either option and both lead to being beaten.

Since those quotes it appear the writing is on the wall.

New team principal Fred Vasseur was initially at odds with his drivers, saying more straightforward set-up tweaks were required rather than car upgrades to be competitive. The party line on that has since changed. While a full ‘B-spec’ machine has been ruled out, Vasseur now says a stream of developments will arrive at each of the Miami, Imola and Barcelona weekends to arrest the poor form.

The problem isn't set up bias relative to Red Bull. It's intrinsic to the SF23 not being good enough to challenge the RB19.

As Autosport rightly say:

The GPS data reveals the strength of the RB19, but also its changeable behaviour. It responds to set-up changes to be quick through the corners at one venue before being fettled to set the standard in a straight line. It seems to enjoy wide operating window

But as I mentioned before, I still don't think the RB19 is operating to anything like what it's fully capable of doing.
And rightly so, pointless risking well documented reliability issues/mistakes when there are no challengers just to make a statement coming off the back of last years controversies.

[organic]

Nobody who watched races like spa, Monza, Hungary etc believes tuning for qualifying is worthwhile anymore

[AR3-GP]

I think you might be misinterpreting either my post or the Vasseur comment.

My point is that everyone is tuning their car for the race. Vasseur is jsut saying, if they can extract that much pace in qualifying, then they need to figure out how to keep it in the race. That doesn't mean the car is tuned for qualifying. It just means the race setup only produces one good lap.

Not at all misinterpreting Vassuer's quote.

I'm not saying the Ferrari is set up for qualifying, perhaps you misunderstand my point. Ferrari can set up a car to do a lap time, which may be optimum for their race pace AND be able to be around 0.2 behind Red Bull.
However that optimum race pace is not even remotely competitive relative to Red Bull.
That's precisely what Vassuer was getting at. Even if Ferrari were max quali set up, they couldn't beat Red Bull.
Even if Max Race set up, they couldn't get close to Red Bull. There is a pitfall for either option and both lead to being beaten.

Since those quotes it appear the writing is on the wall.

New team principal Fred Vasseur was initially at odds with his drivers, saying more straightforward set-up tweaks were required rather than car upgrades to be competitive. The party line on that has since changed. While a full ‘B-spec’ machine has been ruled out, Vasseur now says a stream of developments will arrive at each of the Miami, Imola and Barcelona weekends to arrest the poor form.

The problem isn't set up bias relative to Red Bull. It's intrinsic to the SF23 not being good enough to challenge the RB19.

As Autosport rightly say:

The GPS data reveals the strength of the RB19, but also its changeable behaviour. It responds to set-up changes to be quick through the corners at one venue before being fettled to set the standard in a straight line. It seems to enjoy wide operating window

But as I mentioned before, I still don't think the RB19 is operating to anything like what it's fully capable of doing.
And rightly so, pointless risking well documented reliability issues/mistakes when there are no challengers just to make a statement coming off the back of last years controversies.

Yes I understand your point now. I also never thought Ferrari was just going to "iron out" their issues with some trivial setups tweaks, considering they had 3 days in Bahrain and the car still didn't work in Bahrain in the race. It was always going to require aero changes which I do not classify as "setup" work.

"setup work" is what RB have been doing. Just dialing in something that was already very good.

[PlatinumZealot]

Perhaps this would be a phenomena explained by the tyre and set up, with Red Bull intentionally going for the race pace advantage which has seen them dominate races this year.

I have no doubt that RB are going for race setups, but so is everyone else.

Not according to Vassuer.

I never saw a car to match the pace of another one in quali and not to able to race. [So] then it's a matter of set-up and some choices on the car.

He's being far from honest there.

[ValeVida46]

I have no doubt that RB are going for race setups, but so is everyone else.

Not according to Vassuer.

I never saw a car to match the pace of another one in quali and not to able to race. [So] then it's a matter of set-up and some choices on the car.

He's being far from honest there.

I agree, I don't think being done by a few tenths in a quali is matching and nor are they behind due to set ups.
As mentioned in an earlier post, I believe this intrinsic. 3 very different tracks, 3 near identical results.
If set ups and "operational superiority" really make the difference between winning cars and the rest you'd see some variation.
We haven't.

[Fulcrum]

1st to last (it has never been closer) field spread can mean nothing else, surely?

Operational superiority is team-work, planning, strategy, pit-stops and it is eminently possible to have a car that is off the ultimate pace and make up some of the deficit with all of that.

0.3 seconds is a very small (but seemingly consistent car advantage) - 0.00333% of a 90 second lap.

A 0.3 second advantage relative to a 90 second lap is 0.333%, not 0.00333%.

[dren]

The math is strong with Fulcrum.

We'll see how dominant the RB is over the next sevaral races as teams play update catch-up.