2016 Red Bull Racing team - TAG Heuer

This forum contains threads to discuss teams themselves. Anything not technical about the cars, including restructuring, performances etc belongs here.
Muulka
Muulka
0
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:04 pm

Re: 2016 Red Bull Racing team - TAG Heuer

Post

Gone
Last edited by Muulka on Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
FoxHound
218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:50 pm

Re: 2016 Red Bull Racing team - TAG Heuer

Post

Muulka wrote: It would not surprise me in any way, shape or form if they were currently shopping around for a car company to make them their own works engine in the future. We know that they were right there with Audi when Dieselgate broke...
The flirtations with VW go back to 2007, but management at the very top did not want it.

The main issue is Red Bull and it's relation with engine partners. If they win, it's the glorious Adrian Newey and Red Bull prowess. If they lose, it's Cosworth, Ferrari and Renault that have all invoked some kind of negative response.
JET set

Raleigh
Raleigh
72
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 2:36 pm

Re: 2016 Red Bull Racing team - TAG Heuer

Post

When Red Bull was winning championships, Renault had the best drivability, best fuel economy and unrivaled co-operation with RB for the off- throttle blown diffuser. Arguably the best engine package of the V8 era.

So what does Red Bull do? Complain publicly about hp figures.

Red Bull moans about engines when they are winning and moans about engines when they are losing, small wonder manufacturers don't want such a toxic partner.

User avatar
Juzh
515
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:45 am

Re: 2016 Red Bull Racing team - TAG Heuer

Post

Raleigh wrote:When Red Bull was winning championships, Renault had the best drivability, best fuel economy and unrivaled co-operation with RB for the off- throttle blown diffuser. Arguably the best engine package of the V8 era.

So what does Red Bull do? Complain publicly about hp figures.

Red Bull moans about engines when they are winning and moans about engines when they are losing, small wonder manufacturers don't want such a toxic partner.
It also had by far the worst reliability and power. So much so in fact red bull wanted a mercedes engine in 2010 but got blocked by mclaren and brawn gp who knew red bull with an engine that's on equal footing would be even more unstoppable than it already was.

Renault's cold off-throttle blowing was on a lesser level compared to mercedes' hot blowing.

When red bull was winning they never criticized renault. Even vettel on the podiums was constantly singing praises to them. When renault was crap in 2014 and 15 and when it broke down again and again in the V8 times they got plastered. Which was to be expected.

Now in 2016 even though renault is still down on power, which is something even they themselves admit, but is overall a better power unit compared to previous years, you almost never hear red bull say anything about them. In fact if you go trough the season you will hear nothing but compliments about various upgrades and how they exceeded expectations.

Muulka
Muulka
0
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:04 pm

Re: 2016 Red Bull Racing team - TAG Heuer

Post

Gone
Last edited by Muulka on Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Pierce89
96
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:38 pm

Re: 2016 Red Bull Racing team - TAG Heuer

Post

Damn you're just full of facts.
“To be able to actually make something is awfully nice”
Bruce McLaren on building his first McLaren racecars, 1970

“I've got to be careful what I say, but possibly to probably Juan would have had a bigger go”
Sir Frank Williams after the 2003 Canadian GP, where Ralf hesitated to pass brother M. Schumacher

Muulka
Muulka
0
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:04 pm

Re: 2016 Red Bull Racing team - TAG Heuer

Post

Pierce89 wrote:Damn you're just full of facts.
Maybe there's a reason for that, eh?

Cold Fussion
Cold Fussion
139
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:51 am

Re: 2016 Red Bull Racing team - TAG Heuer

Post

Muulka wrote:
Pierce89 wrote:Damn you're just full of facts.
Maybe there's a reason for that, eh?
Whether you're correct or not is irrelevant because you have no established credibility on the subject. If you state something is a fact without any evidence there is no reason for anyone to believe you.

User avatar
FoxHound
218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:50 pm

Re: 2016 Red Bull Racing team - TAG Heuer

Post

Juzh wrote:It also had by far the worst reliability and power. .
I recall from previous replies(tl;dr) that long posts aren't your cup of tea, and I can only apologies for the length of this....but stick with it.

Interesting that some failures were attributed to the EBD overrun on the engine(Red Bull involved here with Renault)The spark plug was being asked to do things to an extreme level, otherwise incompatible with it's original task. When the engine inevitably went bang, due to the constraints put on the plugs, the finger was pointed to Renault. Yet the task was to operate the retardation of ignition, and Red Bull were doing this more aggressively than any team at that time.
This is the classic case of fine margins to get rewards on performance.

I took the time to research some facts, cos well facts are good, especially at disproving incorrect assumptions.

In 2010 Vettel retired 3 times.
In Oz, it was because of brakes.
In Turkey, both Red Bull drivers suffered brain fade and crashed into each other.
In Korea, his engine let him down.

So 66% of his DNF's where not attributed to Renault in 2010, and can be equally apportioned to the driver letting everyone down, the team letting everyone down, and the engine supplier letting everyone down.
Of the issues that arose in race that did not lead to a DNF, but did lead to loss of points as follows:
Due to the spark plug in Bahrain, he lost 3 positions, and finished 4th. This can be equally attributable to the Red Bull as Renault.
However in China, Vettel jumped the start and lost a win by finishing in 6th place.
In Silverstone, Vettel got a puncture due to contact and lost a pretty easy win because of this, finishing 7th.
In Spa, Vettel spear tackled Button using his RB6 while fighting for 3rd I believe. Finished out the points.

The net point loss for Renault attributed blame is 25 points.
The net loss for Red Bull and Renault was 13 points.
The loss attributed to Red Bull is 25 points.
The net loss for the driver is debatable, but around 50 points lost would be a fair figure.

So for 2010, Renault were no more to blame than Red Bull, and certainly not more than the driver(Vettel).

In 2011, Vettel retired once.
And this was due to an unexplained tyre puncture. Interesting fact, Vettel's Red Bull was the most reliable car that year.


In 2012, Vettel retired twice.
In Monza he retired due to alternator failure while in 6th position.
In Spain he suffered another alternator failure while leading.
In Malaysia Vettel got punted by Karthikeyan from 4th place he finished out the points.
In Germany he was 2nd when his KERS(Not a Renault part, although similarly specced to Red Bull requirements by Magneti Marrelli) gave up, he finished 5th.
In Abhu Dhabi Vettel was relegated to the back of the grid to the team not having enough fuel for a fuel sample. This cost him points and a probable win. Finished 3rd.

The total attributable net loss to Renault is 33 points.
Total attributable loss to driver in-race incidents was 12 points.
Total attributable loss due to team was 18 points*.

The only year Renault can say they were more responsible for reliability issues, and even then roughly equal to team and river incidents. Bearing in mind here too the next fastest car, The McLaren Mercedes of 2012, had Hamilton losing over 70 points due to reliability, and Button circa 50points. Both also lost around the same amount in driver incidents.
In fact, Only Ferrari and Caterham had better reliability than Red Bull that year.

In 2013, Vettel retired once.
Silverstone he retired due to a gearbox failure, he qualified 3rd, and Webber finished 2nd 0.7 seconds behind Winner Rosberg. I imagine Vettel would've won that race had the gearbox not packed up.
It was jointly, the most reliable car of that season along with Alonso's Ferrari.
It also allowed Vettel to equal the longest winning streak in history, that of Ascari's with 9 wins.

Renault not responsible for a single failure to Vettel.
Red Bull responsible for circa 18-25 point loss.


The net loss Vettel suffered due to mechanical issues from Renault, is 2nd lowest of all championship contenders and their engine partners over the 4 year period 2010-2013.
Only Fernando Alonso suffered less.
The verdict then, Juzh, is simply that Renault were not "by far" the worst for reliability. Vettel had the benefit of some pretty extraordinary reliability. Especially when you view it in comparison to that of his direct competitors.

The power argument I'll get to, but first I had to dispel this false assertion of yours. Have a wonderful day! :D
JET set

Webber2011
Webber2011
47
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:01 am
Location: Australia NSW

Re: 2016 Red Bull Racing team - TAG Heuer

Post

FoxHound wrote:
Juzh wrote:It also had by far the worst reliability and power. .
I recall from previous replies(tl;dr) that long posts aren't your cup of tea, and I can only apologies for the length of this....but stick with it.

Interesting that some failures were attributed to the EBD overrun on the engine(Red Bull involved here with Renault)The spark plug was being asked to do things to an extreme level, otherwise incompatible with it's original task. When the engine inevitably went bang, due to the constraints put on the plugs, the finger was pointed to Renault. Yet the task was to operate the retardation of ignition, and Red Bull were doing this more aggressively than any team at that time.
This is the classic case of fine margins to get rewards on performance.

I took the time to research some facts, cos well facts are good, especially at disproving incorrect assumptions.

In 2010 Vettel retired 3 times.
In Oz, it was because of brakes.
In Turkey, both Red Bull drivers suffered brain fade and crashed into each other.
In Korea, his engine let him down.

So 66% of his DNF's where not attributed to Renault in 2010, and can be equally apportioned to the driver letting everyone down, the team letting everyone down, and the engine supplier letting everyone down.
Of the issues that arose in race that did not lead to a DNF, but did lead to loss of points as follows:
Due to the spark plug in Bahrain, he lost 3 positions, and finished 4th. This can be equally attributable to the Red Bull as Renault.
However in China, Vettel jumped the start and lost a win by finishing in 6th place.
In Silverstone, Vettel got a puncture due to contact and lost a pretty easy win because of this, finishing 7th.
In Spa, Vettel spear tackled Button using his RB6 while fighting for 3rd I believe. Finished out the points.

The net point loss for Renault attributed blame is 25 points.
The net loss for Red Bull and Renault was 13 points.
The loss attributed to Red Bull is 25 points.
The net loss for the driver is debatable, but around 50 points lost would be a fair figure.

So for 2010, Renault were no more to blame than Red Bull, and certainly not more than the driver(Vettel).

In 2011, Vettel retired once.
And this was due to an unexplained tyre puncture. Interesting fact, Vettel's Red Bull was the most reliable car that year.


In 2012, Vettel retired twice.
In Monza he retired due to alternator failure while in 6th position.
In Spain he suffered another alternator failure while leading.
In Malaysia Vettel got punted by Karthikeyan from 4th place he finished out the points.
In Germany he was 2nd when his KERS(Not a Renault part, although similarly specced to Red Bull requirements by Magneti Marrelli) gave up, he finished 5th.
In Abhu Dhabi Vettel was relegated to the back of the grid to the team not having enough fuel for a fuel sample. This cost him points and a probable win. Finished 3rd.

The total attributable net loss to Renault is 33 points.
Total attributable loss to driver in-race incidents was 12 points.
Total attributable loss due to team was 18 points*.

The only year Renault can say they were more responsible for reliability issues, and even then roughly equal to team and river incidents. Bearing in mind here too the next fastest car, The McLaren Mercedes of 2012, had Hamilton losing over 70 points due to reliability, and Button circa 50points. Both also lost around the same amount in driver incidents.
In fact, Only Ferrari and Caterham had better reliability than Red Bull that year.

In 2013, Vettel retired once.
Silverstone he retired due to a gearbox failure, he qualified 3rd, and Webber finished 2nd 0.7 seconds behind Winner Rosberg. I imagine Vettel would've won that race had the gearbox not packed up.
It was jointly, the most reliable car of that season along with Alonso's Ferrari.
It also allowed Vettel to equal the longest winning streak in history, that of Ascari's with 9 wins.

Renault not responsible for a single failure to Vettel.
Red Bull responsible for circa 18-25 point loss.


The net loss Vettel suffered due to mechanical issues from Renault, is 2nd lowest of all championship contenders and their engine partners over the 4 year period 2010-2013.
Only Fernando Alonso suffered less.
The verdict then, Juzh, is simply that Renault were not "by far" the worst for reliability. Vettel had the benefit of some pretty extraordinary reliability. Especially when you view it in comparison to that of his direct competitors.

The power argument I'll get to, but first I had to dispel this false assertion of yours. Have a wonderful day! :D
I must say I applaud your memory, (or more to the point your painstaking research :wink: )

Being a Webber tragic myself, I look back on those years with all sorts of horrible things floating around in my head.
I honestly, and quite possibly wrongly, thought RBR suffered Renault related problems far more often.

Would your figures be different if Webber's retirements, and race ruining failures were included ?

I have no idea, and wouldn't know where to look to find accurate details ?

User avatar
Juzh
515
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:45 am

Re: 2016 Red Bull Racing team - TAG Heuer

Post

Webber2011 wrote: I must say I applaud your memory, (or more to the point your painstaking research :wink: )

Being a Webber tragic myself, I look back on those years with all sorts of horrible things floating around in my head.
I honestly, and quite possibly wrongly, thought RBR suffered Renault related problems far more often.

Would your figures be different if Webber's retirements, and race ruining failures were included ?

I have no idea, and wouldn't know where to look to find accurate details ?
Someone already did it for you:

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/groups/f1/fo ... -red-bull/

Also, the guy above you forgot to mention vettel's engine briefly died during italian gp thus giving webber a place on a silver platter.

Also, alternator was a renault supplied part (produced by magneti marelli) thus directly resulting in vettel's retirments from valencia 2012 and italy 2012, and webber's retirment from US gp in 2012. In 2013 it was replaced by mclaren designed alternator and problems were never to return again.

User avatar
Big Mangalhit
63
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 2:39 pm

Re: 2016 Red Bull Racing team - TAG Heuer

Post

And I think he counted the alternator as a Renault part that is here the "The total attributable net loss to Renault is 33 points." comes from. otherwise I guess there would be no loss of points for Vettel that season. I do recall engines blowing up way more often in Webber car, especially in 2013. But clearly they were reliable enough in Vettel's hands, to as he showed be the 2 most reliable car in those 4 season streak, they won btw.

User avatar
FoxHound
218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:50 pm

Re: 2016 Red Bull Racing team - TAG Heuer

Post

Juzh wrote:Also, alternator was a renault supplied part (produced by magneti marelli) thus directly resulting in vettel's retirments from valencia 2012 and italy 2012, and webber's retirment from US gp in 2012. In 2013 it was replaced by mclaren designed alternator and problems were never to return again.
Actually that's already accommodated in my post. It still did not prevent Vettel from having the 3rd most reliable car that year(However many times repeated).

This should help...
FoxHound wrote: In Monza he retired due to alternator failure while in 6th position.
In Spain he suffered another alternator failure while leading.

The total attributable net loss to Renault is 33 points.
Total attributable loss to driver in-race incidents was 12 points.
Total attributable loss due to team was 18 points*.
Mangalhit got it.
Big Mangalhit wrote:And I think he counted the alternator as a Renault part that is here the "The total attributable net loss to Renault is 33 points."

Juzh wrote:Also, the guy above you forgot to mention vettel's engine briefly died during italian gp thus giving webber a place on a silver platter.
I checked this, and found the following:
In 2010 Vettel beat Webber in Italy. Vettel 4th to Webbers 6th.
In 2011 Vettel beat Webber In Italy. Vettel 1st to Webbers DNF.
In 2012 Both drivers failed to complete the race.
In 2013 Vettel beat Webber In Italy. Vettel 1st to Webbers 3rd.

Whatever issue Vettel had, did not prevent him from beating Webber. It's also interesting that at Italy, a power Circuit, for the years 2010-2014, only Alonso scored more points than Vettel.

Alonso: 73
Vettel: 62
Massa: 47
Hamilton: 39
Button: 37
Webber: 23
JET set

muhammadtalha.13893
muhammadtalha.13893
0
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2015 8:12 am

Re: RE: Re: 2016 Red Bull Racing team - TAG Heuer

Post

[quote="FoxHound"][/quote]

C'mon man. You are providing too much facts, which is not a norm at F1T these days.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

User avatar
FoxHound
218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:50 pm

Re: 2016 Red Bull Racing team - TAG Heuer

Post

Webber2011 wrote:I must say I applaud your memory, (or more to the point your painstaking research :wink: )

Being a Webber tragic myself, I look back on those years with all sorts of horrible things floating around in my head.
I honestly, and quite possibly wrongly, thought RBR suffered Renault related problems far more often.

Would your figures be different if Webber's retirements, and race ruining failures were included ?

I have no idea, and wouldn't know where to look to find accurate details ?
Wikipedia is my friend, and to an extent, F1Fanatic is a valuable reference point. It's really easily collated and I type real quick... 8)

The overall reliability figures would be different as just from a general obs over the stats, Webber had more issues.
From skimming through the 2010-2014 years, Vettel had 7 DNF's to Webbers 10.
JET set