Infiniti Red Bull Racing 2015

[GPR-A duplicate2]

In a blink of an eye...

Your reaction to my absurd claim that Renault deserves all the credit for Red Bull's former success is exactly like my reaction to claims that Renault is totally responsible for Red Bull's current struggles. It defies credibility, right?

However, if we must accept that Red Bull is undeserving of "any blame" here because it's "a complete outsider...who is absolutely ignorant" to matters that fall within "[Renault's] field of expertise," then how can we possibly give the team credit for Championships won on the strength of solutions that were also from "[Renault's] field of expertise"?

I'm pretty good with mental gymnastics. But that's some next-level, Olympic-style ---.

As we know, this is the state of PUs.


So Red Bull believes that they are doing this, with Renault PU.


And they believe, they can do this, if they get an even PU. There is reason to believe they can, because they have in the past.


Now it is up to Renault to provide them with "EQUAL PLATFORM" and then see if Red Bull can actually do what they claim they can. Until then, Red Bull has the right to cry foul. Like I mentioned above, when RENAULT provided equal footing in the past, Red Bull did better than the rest.

[Jef Patat]

Oh, I'd love to see where would you place the Honda PU in your comparison?

[henry]

Like I mentioned above, when RENAULT provided equal footing in the past, Red Bull did better than the rest.

I think it depends on what you think of as EQUAL.

My recollection is that in the V8 era Renault had:

lower fuel consumption - allowing Red Bull to start races lighter than their competitors.

lower heat rejection to the cooling system - allowing Red Bull to have smaller radiators and potentially better aerodynamics

designed in off throttle blowing - allowing Red Bull to exploit a blown diffuser (this was possibly originally designed in to lower heat rejection)

Initially Renault were down on power, but after successful intervention by Red Bull management this disadvantage was tackled.

[Thunder]

Oh, I'd love to see where would you place the Honda PU in your comparison?

Probably something like that....

[Jef Patat]

Sry for the off topic, some mod should better move this to the caption competition thread:

I was thinking of the MCL-Honda analogy more like this:
very boldly going for the 'super engine' (highest plank)
then being scared to screw up and trying to minimize the risc by turning the engine down (hanging off the plank)
and in the end they still blow up (loose their pants)

[bhall II]

As we know, this is the state of PUs...

I do not now, nor have I ever, questioned Renault's culpability. My only objection is the degree to which they've been blamed for Red Bull's current struggles, and I've laid out a pretty exhaustive list of the reasons why.

If Red Bull is waiting for Renault to deliver competitiveness upon a golden platter, they're in for a loooooooooooooong wait, because it's just not going to happen. Performance is a package deal.

But, I'm convinced Red Bull knows that, and it's what makes their extended, yet poorly calibrated, PR campaign so disingenuous. It was clear to them last year that they themselves were also behind...

"What stopped us at Jerez [during the 2014 preseason test], on our side as opposed to Renault's side, was a problem where the bodywork local to the exhaust was catching fire," Newey told AUTOSPORT at the Annual Motoring Dinner at the RAC.

"It's a problem which hopefully we can get on top of ready for Bahrain.

"It was really a lack of time [that caused the problem]. It was something that we could have proved out on the dyno if we had managed to get everything together earlier.

"But Renault have been up against it in terms of their use of the dyno, we have been up against it making the parts in time.

"So I think had we been a couple of weeks further ahead then that could all have been done in private on the dyno. But unfortunately it was done in public."

I think years of power train stability have made folks forget why Newey has a well-earned reputation for "fast, but fragile" cars. This thing isn't necessarily Red Bull's fault; it's not necessarily Renault's fault; it's not really even Newey's fault. It's the inevitable consequence of pushing boundaries in Formula One, and it should be accepted as such by all parties.

It's not possible to get things right every time.

[turbof1]

I agree you can't get all things right every time. I also believe Red Bull and Renault both have worked against eachother to have the PU integrated well enough into a F1 chassis to work reliable enough.

However, I think nobody can just wash off the issues they have this year. They are running less reliable then last year, and we all know last year they weren't that reliable all together either.

It's not possible to get things right every time, but Renault cannot hide 2 years in a row behind that salving. We all know Ferrari did not get it right last year either, and they have learned. They have learned from it people.

Again, I agree you can't things right every time. I would not accept and do not accept however you aren't getting it right the first time and make it worse the second time.

Adam Cooper made a very good article which reveals quite a few interesting details:
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/analy ... -f1-season

The first signs of trouble were just before the season, in stripping down the engines post-Barcelona [the February test]. The trouble was clearly in the area of the piston.

"We did a fix which turned out to be insufficient, and the worst of it played out over the weekends of China and Bahrain.

If you replay what happened in Australia, we had an incident on Ricciardo's car which was a relatively minor reliability issue, but which nevertheless wrote-off an IC engine, an IC engine that was in our preferred spec – that was our start-of-the-year best spec.
We then put a spec in that had the same performance, but which didn't have the reliability fix in it. We knew that had a short life, so we burned two engines and we knew that the second engine wasn't great.

Bhall, I really am not trying to use your phrase against you. I am fully agreeing with you can get things wrong from time to time. But I do have to make difference here with making that mistake, and failing to correct that mistake which infact is a much bigger mistake.

What happened here? Renault had a failing piston in the first test. They introduced a solution which failed too, but they only got to find that out in Australia. By then it was too late to make any near inmediate interventions due the way PU allocations and updating works. When you are into that situation it becomes very difficult.
Where I frown my head on is this: How is it possible that Renault failed the solution on the problem that became apparent from the first test in February the 1st to 4th, while the first session in Australia happened in March the 13th. In that month, they were not bound by the system of the PU allocation. That whole month they were free to update reliability, with only either having to use tokens they probably used anyway in the ones they used before the season started, or make a report to the fia "this is going wrong, this is our fix". They perfectly knew when they were confronted with the issue, that if it did not got solved they would be faced with being locked into the system of PU allocations, which again makes life very difficult. They knew this, yet still failed to correct the issue before being locked in.

In any business, such a critical mistake will not only cost you your job, it will cost you your career. Everybody makes mistakes from time to time, and what matters then is correcting the mistake. I deeply feel Renault failing at that, is the real mistake. Ferrari was in the same boat last year, and they have learned from it. Why yes, I'll accept in a pre-emptive move they are better placed to do so since they their departments sharing any and all information of chassis and PU. That's a big deal if you want to move forward. Still does not explain how Renault move backwards instead. Pushing boundaries and going beyond these boundaries is ok; just back some off when you see you got too far with it. Renault clearly did not.

Not to say that Red Bull have not made mistakes. Christian Horner is still stubbornly denying those, claiming the chassis is not working due being pushed out of its working range by the PU. Newey on the other hand does tell us the chassis is behind with Ferrari and Mercedes have. That's Red Bull's fault.

But again I really don't want to make this something like "part of the blame is to Renault, part of the blame is to Red Bull". All the blame is Renault, and all the blame is Red Bull is a better discription.

[lio007]

How is it possible that Renault failed the solution on the problem that became apparent from the first test in February the 1st to 4th, while the first session in Australia happened in March the 13th.

As Rob White explained in the article...the lead times I think is the big problem

"The big problem is the lead time required for any changes to the power unit. Even when the engineers know what to do, races inexorably slip by before any updates can be implemented on track.

"The management of the development cycle is extremely delicate. The real lead time of diagnosing, understanding, designing and making the new bit is part of it, but it's not the whole thing. It then becomes a cycle of approving and introducing.

"The real life cycle is months, rather than days or even weeks. We now know that we've got to bring the performance to the car, get it into the car asap. In real life asap is after the summer break, and the extent of the change now has a kind of tactical/sporting dimension associated with penalties."

[bhall II]

Bhall, I really am not trying to use your phrase against you. I am fully agreeing with you can get things wrong from time to time. But I do have to make difference here with making that mistake, and failing to correct that mistake which infact is a much bigger mistake.

No one denies that Renault's PU is problematic. That's as plain as day for everyone to see. The issue here is that even if it was perfectly formed by the Hands of God, it's far from guaranteed that it would transform the RB11 into a legitimate contender.

Red Bull had its entire aerodynamic philosophy stripped away by regulation changes, and it takes time to recover. I know you see it.

I think in fairness this year hasn’t been as strong as Mercedes and Ferrari. But there’s been various regulation changes which have happened over the last 12 months which have meant the aerodynamic route we have taken prior to that we’ve had to revise and look at a different direction, which obviously takes time.

And this is a good indication of the progress they've made thus far on that front...

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.

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...

Hence, me being a bit miffed by Horner/Marko Bitchfest '15.

If I'm expected to wholly blame Renault for Red Bull's current struggles, then I'm going to give 100% of the credit for the team's success to Renault as well, because that which has the power to completely debilitate also has the power to completely facilitate.

[turbof1]

How is it possible that Renault failed the solution on the problem that became apparent from the first test in February the 1st to 4th, while the first session in Australia happened in March the 13th.

As Rob White explained in the article...the lead times I think is the big problem

"The big problem is the lead time required for any changes to the power unit. Even when the engineers know what to do, races inexorably slip by before any updates can be implemented on track.

"The management of the development cycle is extremely delicate. The real lead time of diagnosing, understanding, designing and making the new bit is part of it, but it's not the whole thing. It then becomes a cycle of approving and introducing.

"The real life cycle is months, rather than days or even weeks. We now know that we've got to bring the performance to the car, get it into the car asap. In real life asap is after the summer break, and the extent of the change now has a kind of tactical/sporting dimension associated with penalties."

Between the first test and the first race, in which the freedom was there to make the appropiate change, there was one month to correct a mistake they introduced on updating the 2014 PU to the 2015 spec.

Mind what he is saying:

The real lead time of diagnosing, understanding, designing and making the new bit is part of it, but it's not the whole thing. It then becomes a cycle of approving and introducing.

The approving refers to how reliability updates have to be presented to the FIA for approval. This takes some time indeed since this information has to shared with the other manufacturers, who have a veto if it is a hidden performance enhancer.

The introducing of the update is then a matter of timing: either when the PU component fails, reaches its expected mileage or at a strategic point in the season. Either way, when it is done the changes have to be applied on a new PU component allocation. This is not allowed on a current or used one.

However, these 2 things did not matter. The issue surfaced on the first test, a whole month before the season started. This is very crucial. The issue got there through performance updates for which the manufacturers have to use tokens. However, no tokens are officially used until they are used during a race weekend, and the first race weekend was in... Australia. Until then Renault had the freedom to make changes on the parts they used tokens on. Using tokens does not need to be checked and approved by the other manufacturers, only by the fia, which again was done in Australia!

In other words, Renault had one month time of freedom from the cycle approving and introducing cycle. In that period they only had to worry about understanding, designing and manufacturing. That's ample time if the issue is so concentrated to a part like the piston.

Red Bull had its entire aerodynamic philosophy stripped away by regulation changes, and it takes time to recover. I know you see it.

I see it. You are even referring to the article I referred to (thanks for that). I think we have somewhere discordance on how we approach blame. Hence why I prefer "All the blame is Renault, and all the blame is Red Bull" as a better approach. Maybe for the 2010-2013 you can say "All the success is Renault, and all the success is Red Bull". Although I still rather feel Red Bull more or less lucked out with how Renault seemingly had to approach its reliability back then, which had in my eyes a lucky correlation towards cold blowing, it in fact does not really matter. Success is success.

(I do want to make one last note on that subject: while Red Bull indeed got demoted from dominant to just good, Mclaren actually received that very same demotion. You can read further into the subject here: http://www.redbull.com/cs/Satellite/en_ ... 3048098088)

[Phil]

How can you attribute any blame to a complete outsider, customer or otherwise who is absolutely ignorant and can only trust in ones ability, competence and know-how?

Fair enough. But, if you accept that, you must also accept that Red Bull deserves very little credit for its World Championships, given that the 2011 British GP clearly illustrated the team's heavy reliance upon Renault's outstanding implementation of off-throttle overrun and other engine maps. Without a blown diffuser, the RB7 went from being dominant to being merely good, and it happened in the blink of an eye.

Your reaction to my absurd claim that Renault deserves all the credit for Red Bull's former success is exactly like my reaction to claims that Renault is totally responsible for Red Bull's current struggles. It defies credibility, right?

However, if we must accept that Red Bull is undeserving of "any blame" here because it's "a complete outsider...who is absolutely ignorant" to matters that fall within "[Renault's] field of expertise," then how can we possibly give the team credit for Championships won on the strength of solutions that were also from "[Renault's] field of expertise"?

Sorry for the late reply; I've been pretty busy lately, but wanted to clarify my thoughts on these raised points (since they are directed to my post).

I'm all for giving credit where credit is due - even to Renault and their undisputed part in winning RedBull the 4 consecutive world-championships in dominating fashion. In regards to off-throttle-overrun maps I see this as to how it unfolded:

Renault supplied RedBull with a V8, that had certain characteristics, aka strengths and weaknesses. Somewhere down the road, my guess is in RedBull camp, someone had the brilliant idea to start using exhaust energy for aerodynamic gains. If this was due to how the Renault engine worked, or simply the work of a brilliant engineer is hard to judge. Who was first? The chicken or the egg? Redbull or Renault?

I do see RedBull as the 'creative mind' here, because they are the ones that built the car with the clear purpose of increasing aerodynamic efficiency (essentially, the key in being quick with give or take equal engines across the grid), so IMO it's quite probable that RedBull perhaps went to Renault (their engine supplier and partner) and asked something along the lines of "we may have found a way to use exhaust energy for aero gains, is there something you can do to make the exhaust gases more consistent, even in off-throttle situations?" - to which Renault might have gone to work and come up with possible solutions. I find it rather hard to believe that Renault went to RedBull with aerodynamic specific ideas. One way or the other; Renault deserves full credit for enabling the off-throttle blowing in the first place. IMO it doesn't matter if this direction unfolded in a simple domino-like effect whereas in, a certain characteristic of the engine lead to the overall idea and later concept of blowing a diffuser with it. To control the exhaust energy even in off-throttle situations was one of the key elements and that falls right into Renaults hands as the engine designer and manufacturer, even if they were 'merely an engine supplier'.

2014 comes along and with it, huge regulation changes that suddenly require engine manufacturers to become creative minds themselves - the focus now on them to create essentially what is, or will be, a central part of new cars, a performance differentiator. Not all engine manufacturers probably took this new challenge as seriously. As I pointed out earlier; I see these new PU (the unit being the sum of all power components, from the ICE to the ERS, even cooling too) as crucial to how well they operate from a performance stand point, but also in regards to reliability too. Work-teams, like Ferrari and Mercedes had the huge advantage that they could plan the PU together with the chassis/aero design team - effectively building both around each other to create essentially the perfect balance/trade-off between optimal cooling requirements and tight packaging - the perfect mix between aero vs. cooling, packaging vs. performance. On one hand, you have the potential of the PU, then the potential of the chassis/aero (dictated by the design philosophy of the team; their talent) and the third pillar being how well these two areas harmonize with one another. Basically, it's not only important to have a great PU, but also to be able to use the full potential of said PU by having adequate cooling without compromising aero too much - and of course having a great working aero efficient chassis. This is where Mercedes has a very good overall package, where i.e. Williams does not (or McLaren last year) despite the same identical potent PU.

For a team like RedBull, achieving this is very difficult. Their car wasn't designed around the PU, nor was the PU around the car. I put this down to a simple client-based partnership, where one doesn't want to share too much internal intel with each other. This is perfectly normal, even if RedBull is their main partner. One way or the other, even if RedBull essentially create and shape the perfect aero/chassis with 'the hands of god', if it doesn't suit the PU perfectly, it's absolutely irrelevant, because the PU will never be able to exploit its full potential. The problem is exaggerated even more if the PU itself isn't working properly or is down on power. RedBull-Renaults problem therefore, I conclude, are two fold; The PU isn't operating at its potential because the packaging isn't right (therefore exaggerating reliability issues), and if it were, they are probably still down on power because they [Renault] simply didn't do a good enough job [again, relative to the others]. So Renault is hard at work, doing what they should and can, but finding the right balance together with the chassis is making it a harder challenge because they are not working as one entity, as one unit. It's not difficult to see why Renault is contemplating buying a team they can mold into a works-team; By doing so, they can increase their exposure (which they missed out on a bit during the RedBull dominance years), but more importantly, they have full control over their PU and how it integrates into the chassis - effectively the advantage Mercedes has perfected and the one Ferrari is improving on.

Now back to Renault; As Turbo highlighted - and I agree - that mistakes are made and learned the hard way in their first year is absolutely to be expected. For 2015, I would have expected a much better working 'package' because irregardless how good these two are working together, 2014 has shown them what the chassis-team has built, and what the engine-team has built. They both have reasonable figures and know-how, 'experience' in regards to cooling requirements etc. Improving that should have been a straightforward process, unless one of the teams do a 180° turn and start from blank. Assuming the 2015 RedBull is an evolution, I can understand the frustration the team will have if the PU, which should work better as a means of being better integrated (you know, it being now a better known-quantity), but has instead seemingly gone entirely backwards. It is baffling. I'm not going to point my finger entirely on Renault here, the situation is difficult, especially for a non-works-team-partnership, which is why in all this Mateschitz/Horner PR mudslinging etc, their criticism isn't only directed at Renault for their problems, they are also directed at the sport as a whole in pointing out the risks of making the PU the dominant performance differentiator - it bears the risk of rendering customer-teams irrelevant (irrelevant == not WDC/WCC material). Williams, Force-India, Sauber, Torro-Rosso - the other customer teams might not be too hung up about that just yet, because they've never (or haven't fora long time) faced the prospect of fighting for championships, or been there and now being reduced to midfield teams. Their predominant priority at the moment is 'survival', lowering their costs so that they can pay their bills and survive to face another day.

McLaren is the only other team, propelled from being a WDC contender to the back of the grid, and them partnering up with Honda is IMO because they too see the certain risks of not being a full works-team, or a dedicated partner behind them. Hence the partnership with Honda who for now is exclusive to them as a team and can focus more energy, resources and a closer-partnership into their reunited venture. At least that is the thought behind it; but they are slowly finding out the hard way the cons of competing with well oiled works-teams in Mercedes and Ferrari. They have a long way to go.

If the engines were equal and not a 'moving target' - it would make life easier for the chassis teams, because they can focus more on optimizing the package. With an engine as a moving target, it becomes more difficult. An engine might not work properly, have reliability problems, which then makes it harder for the chassis team to influence (if they are in fact also relevant to the problem) etc. It would be good for the sport if the engines get closer to the maximum potential dictated by the regulations - that would mean that the PUs will no longer be the 'grand performance differentiator' and the teams will be back in focus of success or failure. As long as there is engine development and no parity, the teams will be limited to a degree, either profiting on the premise of perfectly combining your two separate entities (PU + chassis) or struggling because of it.

[FoxHound]

For a team like RedBull, achieving this is very difficult. Their car wasn't designed around the PU, nor was the PU around the car. I put this down to a simple client-based partnership, where one doesn't want to share too much internal intel with each other. This is perfectly normal, even if RedBull is their main partner. One way or the other, even if RedBull essentially create and shape the perfect aero/chassis with 'the hands of god', if it doesn't suit the PU perfectly, it's absolutely irrelevant, because the PU will never be able to exploit its full potential.

Why should Red Bull be worried about sharing intel that would make them more competitive? Renault will not be a threat for a few years at least, and in 2012(PU specs finalised) they were in no mood to enter.
So we have 2 full years that partner's did not go to every length possible to ensure the integration of the 2014 turbo was optimal.

If this is the case, the problem lies not with F1, the manufacturer opposition or necessarily the rules. It lies in untapped potential within the Red Bull Renault partnership that was willfully ignored due to paranoia.
Would you agree?

McLaren is the only other team, propelled from being a WDC contender to the back of the grid, and them partnering up with Honda is IMO because they too see the certain risks of not being a full works-team, or a dedicated partner behind them. Hence the partnership with Honda who for now is exclusive to them as a team and can focus more energy, resources and a closer-partnership into their reunited venture.

The problem with using McLaren as a yardstick is that it's plain wrong. Excuse my bluntness mate.
In 2013, they fell way behind Mercedes using the 7 year old V8. 244 points behind. And the Force India team was a mere 45 points off "WDC contender's" McLaren.
This with the ageing V8 outlines their plight unequivocally. Heading into 2014, McLaren saw themselves leapfrogged by another Mercedes powered team(Williams), and saw the gap to Force India shrink to 26 points...with Force india suffering 6 retirements to McLaren's 2, and 4 of those retirements in points paying positions.
Basically further dispelling the notion that McLaren were contenders at anytime since 2012.

If one take's a pragmatic(if controversial) view, it could be reasoned that McLaren jumped ship to mask their decline.

[Phil]

Fox, with all due respect mate, I'm just looking at the 'effect' and am piecing together what to me seems like a logical probable 'cause'. I don't see Renault and RedBull putting up camp and designing a car together. Neither do I see Mercedes doing that with any of their own [engine] customers. Nor Ferrari. I think this has at least some baring on the overall quality of the end product, the package, for the reasons I named (it's all there in my last post). I invite you to find reasons for yourself [why perhaps a customer-based-partnership may not be as potent as a works-team] if you don't like the ones I pointed out.

For what it's worth, and irregardless how McLaren got to wherever they are, I think the McLaren / Honda is showing signs of similar problems; namely different approach philosophies and/or culture (it's being actively discussed in the McLaren-Honda topic). Honda has issues to overcome, so does McLaren. RedBull and Renault, main partner or not, with whatever is going on, I don't see them being more than being a simple customer; no different than Williams, Torro-Rosso, F-I or Sauber in this context.

[FoxHound]

Fox, with all due respect mate, I'm just looking at the 'effect' and am piecing together what to me seems like a logical probable 'cause'. I don't see Renault and RedBull putting up camp and designing a car together. Neither do I see Mercedes doing that with any of their own [engine] customers. Nor Ferrari. I think this has at least some baring on the overall quality of the end product, the package, for the reasons I named (it's all there in my last post). I invite you to find reasons for yourself [why perhaps a customer-based-partnership may not be as strong as a works-team] if you don't like the ones I pointed out.

I've looked.
Horner: Red Bull Racing now the 'factory' Renault team
http://www.crash.net/f1/news/173061/1/r ... orner.html

Red Bull become the ‘factory’ team for Renault.
http://formulaspy.com/formula-1/formula ... nship-5390

Red Bull now Renault's works team - Horner
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-re ... am-horner/

And also tellingly...
WHY RED BULL AND RENAULT ARE GETTING CLOSER
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2011/09/w ... ng-closer/

This is emphasised by statements from Renault about how they see the importance of the integration of the engine and the chassis aerodynamics, especially post 2014.

written in 2011.

And it's important to note, that even when the titles were flowing...

Despite occasional grumbles from Red Bull senior management about a lack of power over the last five seasons, the partnership with Renault has been very successful.

There was a near inevitability that the 2014 rule change would bring Renault into the firing line.
But I digress, if the effects are what we see today, then the cause is equally attributable to both Red Bull and Renault given that they are a "works" team with factory support.
Would you agree?

[bhall II]

I do see RedBull as the 'creative mind' here, because they are the ones that built the car with the clear purpose of increasing aerodynamic efficiency...

Remember, Renault was also team at this point, and they had the same idea. They just did it differently...

Aside from the implications to engine maps, will you physically redesign the car as a result of these regulation changes?
I think our car and the Renault – which has gone down a very different route – are the only two designed to have their exhaust in the position it is. All the other cars have moved their exhausts in response to what we’ve done.

[...]

It looks like FoxJET took care of the rest.

I can appreciate that it appears Renault is completely to blame, and the brass at Red Bull have certainly done their part to reinforce that view. But, nothing in F1 is ever that simple. If it was, we wouldn't have anything to talk about, yanno?