How fast are the Redbulls?

[mike]

how about their pace in the wet??

[raymondu999]

I don't think we've seen any clear indication of their wet-weather pace. All we've seen is China, and in China they were caught in traffic. Their car seems to be extra sensitive to traffic, unlike the McLarens, which seem to just not notice that it's in traffic.

[SoliRossi]

Mike, I also think redbulls previous wet weather pace has been a bit of an anomaly. It seems their previous wet weather pace came from massive downforce generated by a good car but more so by the profile of last years wet weather tyres. Ant talked about it last year, the RB5 and even RB4 seemed to make a huge leap in performace, and it was caused by the car 'clicking' withthe profile or dimensions of the wet tyres working with the rest of the car.
He kind of alluded that it was almost lucked into and not really understood by the team.
So perhaps this year the new dimension in wet weather rubber just does not click at well with the car and they in turn are more at a normal pace.
I suppose what im saying is the last few year performance of the redbull in the wet was not acheived by specific design and understanding but more so good fortune.

[myurr]

I think it's actually fairly easily explained by them being able to use less throttle in the wet, especially on corner exit so that their exhaust blown diffuser isn't working for them. It may even be a hindrance if they cannot use the throttle how they would like which results in the EBD unbalancing the car.

I think their wet weather pace was pretty clear in China and the team did say at the time that they had a known performance issue in the wet.

[BreezyRacer]

Here's a good study on it ..
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/07/15/m ... -analysed/

And a nice graph too ..
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/u ... sgaps1.gif

[sknguy]

Is there any info about how much of a fuel saving the stall duct provides the teams that use them?

[BreezyRacer]

Is there any info about how much of a fuel saving the stall duct provides the teams that use them?

I don't believe they are getting any fuel savings from it .. it probably uses more fuel given that speeds are higher so they end up reaching the same drag levels.

[raymondu999]

Yes but then they'll travel at those same fuel levels for less long.

[raymondu999]

There's a point I noticed, but I don't quite understand though. In Barcelona and Britain the Bulls have been most dominant, 7 or 8 tenths off any of the opposition.

In Barcelona, Lewis Hamilton on race pace could keep up with the Bulls, and even jumped 1 (Vettel) in the stops, and kept up with Mark, pretty much. In Britain though, Lewis Hamilton had to wrestle the car to just keep up with a seemingly cruising Webber, implying there was a much bigger difference in race pace here compared to Barcelona, where there was very little if any difference in race pace. I'm talking difference between the McLaren (at least of Lewis) and the bulls.

Anyone know why?

[Pierce89]

Mike, I also think redbulls previous wet weather pace has been a bit of an anomaly. It seems their previous wet weather pace came from massive downforce generated by a good car but more so by the profile of last years wet weather tyres. Ant talked about it last year, the RB5 and even RB4 seemed to make a huge leap in performace, and it was caused by the car 'clicking' withthe profile or dimensions of the wet tyres working with the rest of the car.
He kind of alluded that it was almost lucked into and not really understood by the team.
So perhaps this year the new dimension in wet weather rubber just does not click at well with the car and they in turn are more at a normal pace.
I suppose what im saying is the last few year performance of the redbull in the wet was not acheived by specific design and understanding but more so good fortune.

A team building cars that good, doesn't luck into performance. The RB4 was a good car, the team was just immature.

[myurr]

A team building cars that good, doesn't luck into performance. The RB4 was a good car, the team was just immature.

There is always a bit of luck envolved, Red Bull would not have designed the car to work well in the wet it just worked out that way. They had a lot of down force which helped, but they also worked the tyres in such a way that happened to work well with the wets.

This year we have seen the reverse. Despite having the most downforce their wet weather performance wasn't great, especially compared to the McLaren. Some of this is because they won't be getting the most out of their blown diffuser, some of it was the F-duct, but it was mostly due to the way they were working the tyres.

[autogyro]

IMO wet weather results are more a result of the drivers ability rather then the car. All F1 cars perform badly in the wet.

[aral]

IMO wet weather results are more a result of the drivers ability rather then the car. All F1 cars perform badly in the wet.

Granted, but cars with less BHP also benefit, as has been evidenced very many times in the past. Kovi in the LOtus, would be closer to the front in bad weather. Part driver, part less power!

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

IMO wet weather results are more a result of the drivers ability rather then the car. All F1 cars perform badly in the wet.

Granted, but cars with less BHP also benefit, as has been evidenced very many times in the past. Kovi in the LOtus, would be closer to the front in bad weather. Part driver, part less power!

Maybe thats why Kovi is in a Lotus! He cant drive in the wet...........?

[segedunum]

I think this 'race pace' stuff is nonsense. Red Bull basically start conserving fuel, the engine and the gearbox as soon as they start the race. The manage a gap between them and their competitors behind of a few seconds and they hold it there and do little more. They aren't going to be thirty odd seconds down the road, which is what their qualifying speed might suggest. This makes 'race pace' comparisons a bit nonsensical really because we never know what cars are going as fast as they really can at any point.