The end of domination: Is Red Bull becoming desperate?

[Mr Alcatraz]

The only racing series that I have seen that doesn't overtly smack you in the face with RED Bull is American Supercross;
They pitch Monster energy drink

[bhall]

interesting article:
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 30438.html

[...]

The first Red Bull exhaust (launch spec) was illegal because there was to much heat shielding on the wishbones...

Another source says Red Bull wanted to play the exhaust game fair, but then had to react on the McLaren pod-exhausts. So McLaren/Ferrari would be to blame for the exhaust wars (and the exhaust is only barely legal, and Brawn will maybe protest).

What is Auto Motor und Sport's reputation? Accurate? Biased? Prone to Sensationalism? (I have no idea one way or the other.)

I ask because I proposed (way back on February 9) the idea that RB8's launch-spec rear suspension was illegal due to the following regulation...

10.3.4 Non-structural parts of suspension members are considered bodywork.

... combined with the commonly-known ban on moveable bodywork and the fact that it looked like Red Bull was directing the exhaust with the upper A-arm of the rear suspension. I only proposed the idea to irritate the Red Bullistas who, at the time, had become rabidly bullish on a dream that 2012 would see a repeat of the team's 2011 dominance.

At any rate, there's no other reason why the RB8's original exhaust would be deemed illegal. And even then the ridiculously easy and obvious way to work around that regulation is to simply make the heat shielding somehow a component of the A-arm's structure. (I think the use of glue rather than hose clamps to attach them would have done just the trick.)

All of this is to say that I don't think Red Bull ever had any intention of running that launch-spec exhaust. It was just there to take up space until the team was ready to unveil the real solution. So, I think it's disingenuous at best to say that Red Bull "wanted to play the exhaust game fair."

The whole thing smells like someone is trying to make excuses for why the RB8 exhaust isn't brilliantly effective and for why the car hasn't already won the title.

[Jersey Tom]

Red Bull is second in the constructors' standings are they not? I don't think they're in desperation mode, eh?

Are they flat out crushing everyone as in years previous? No, but they're still competitive.

Really too early to say much. What would be an interesting study would be to look back at the points the past decade or so, and see of those who have won a championship, what's the furthest back in the points they've been after Week 2 or 3? In other words, how many points back can you be now and still have a legit title shot?

[bhall]

Well, JT, it just so happens that I did a bit of that research when the doom and gloom of the F2012 started to sink in.

Since 1990, only on four occasions has a driver gone on to win the Championship when trailing a rival from another team after the first three races (Schumacher in 1995 and 2003; Häkkinen in 1999; Hamilton in 2008). That number rises to a whopping five when you include drivers who trailed and then defeated their teammate to win the Championship (Prost defeated Senna in 1993). In all other cases, the driver who topped the standings after three races never looked back.

[Jersey Tom]

That's quite interesting! China will be one to watch then.

[raymondu999]

And like I said before - the car that is fastest on season average rarely wins in China. (the car might be quickest on that particular weekend, but if it was quickest on the whole year as a balance - it usually won't win China)

[FrukostScones]

....

What is Auto Motor und Sport's reputation? Accurate? Biased? Prone to Sensationalism?
.....

Pretty accurate and impartial, sometimes detailed insider knowledge (In the end of 2008 they had an info snipped that said that Max Mosley couldn't believe the high downforce level of the 2009 Honda which Brawn had told him...).

[bhall]

It doesn't seem so in this case.

[WhiteBlue]

Red Bull is second in the constructors' standings are they not? I don't think they're in desperation mode, eh?

Are they flat out crushing everyone as in years previous? No, but they're still competitive.

+1

The general expectation is that we will have a very tight fight this season between McLaren and Red Bull. Ferrari, Mercedes and Lotus should all be able to win races. To think that Red Bull is desperate sounds very unrealistic to me.

I rather think they did not have the car setup sorted in Australia due to the reliability problems in Barcelona and they were a bit unlucky in the Malaysian lottery. They will be working flat out to bring F-duct wings and more improvements to the exhaust solution asap.

[Pup]

Funny, I thought that the general expectation was that when McLaren hit their stride, they'll wipe the tracks with those other guys.

[Lycoming]

With the field as tight as it is, I'm not sure that will be true, especially if they keep screwing up their strategy.

[NathanOlder]

I think Dry races with no safety car will suit Mclarens pace. Qualifying at the front and running into the distance as the Red Bull scrap their way past Mercedes & Lotus.

The last 2 races have been a real leveller. (the races that is)

[raymondu999]

Leveller in what way? Rain obviously is a good aero leveller as aero advantages are diminished then. But why was Australia a "leveller?"

[NathanOlder]

The safety car. Vettel finished 2nd and stopped what would have been a Mclaren 1-2. Plus Vettel would have been nowhere near Jenson. Finishing 2 seconds behind Jenson & Infront of Lewis was all because of the safety car, which is why it was a leveller.

No safety car would have meant, Mclaren had a 1-2 and were 20+ seconds infront of the chasing pack it would have been "Mclaren dominate in Oz"

Safety car involved "Jenson wins, in tense battle down-under"

The playing field was levelled. aka a "leveller"

[Pup]

Absolutely. If both races had been event-free, then we'd have had two very convincing McLaren 1-2's.