David vs. Goliath(Red Bull vs. Ferrari), myth or truth?

[segedunum]

Yes, back on topic I think a link-up with VW from 2013 is pretty much inevitable. It seemed that we would get the status quo maintained for a while but a way for VW to enter the sport and give Newey the loophole central that he'd like has been created.

So, are Red Bull a small team? Well, they were. Certainly, their budget over the past few years has been far smaller than McLaren's, Ferrari's or manufacturer teams like Toyota or Honda so the fact that they engineered their way to the top in 2009 was impressive. This team was Jaguar remember, and had been in a succession of big messes. You need some serious organisation to sort that out and when they were in the middle of nowhere they certainly didn't have the budget of the then established teams.

As an aside, remember when Jaguar said they'd signed Newey? I wonder whether Red Bull 'acquired' him in some way.

Are Red Bull a small team now? No. They are more than just a race team and have contacts the length and breadth of motorsport. They are also in the enviable position of being a part of an organisation who is the major sponsor in a way that I don't think Benetton ever grasped. With their Red Bull Technology company they're also in a good position to use their Formula One know-how and transfer it to other activities. Sugar water might just end up doing the marketing for the other things they do as an umbrella organisation.

[xpensive]

I have this strange notion that Adrian Newey is much more than a pencil to paper designer, why Patrick Head had such a problem of naming him "Technical Director", an engineer who's taken he's technical skills to an administrative level.

I'm thinking outloud as an engineer here, everytime I watch the BBC world news, I say to myself, "why don't they leave this --- to us engineers, we sort it out before lunch". What if Mateschitz did just that?

Perhaps Matechitz simply asked Newey "How Much?", Newey says "As much as I need, not a penny more", Matechitz goes "You're shitting me right?", where Newey replies "I'm an engineer, I cannot lie, just watch me go"

And there he goes, finally an engineer finds an open checkbook and free hands to do things right for once, without the constraints of political crap, HR, unions, Patrick Head, Ron Dennis and gawd knows what. And whatta ya know, he comes good.

[marcush.]

a liitle bit of insight about Newey vs Brawn ...

http://tvnz.co.nz/content/2737895/2422034/article.html

My idea is Newey is more the genius then the structured organiser..he is unquestionably a source of new ideas and his main strength is lateral thinking ..as can be seen in regulation changes when he always seems to come up with something no one else has at least in that context.
Has he really invented something in F1? I´m not quite sure ...but he uses available knowledge and applies it.
He seems to be the one guy who thinks in the system ..coincidently he´s the Non CAD guy..and finds it impossible to design the car on the screen.(As he has his vision in his head and his hand is the elongation of his brains..no screen no mouse will offer this direct conection).

[xpensive]

"Thinks in the system..", right, while RB has had friends through his career who actually made the system, imagine that?

Until now that is.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

All the harping of lack if power comes from Red Bull's Newey and Horner. Why have Renault themselves kept schtum this year?
Because there is no tangible difference between the top power units is why. Renault have made 2 officially sanctioned mods to there engine compared to Ferraris 1 and Mercedes 0. The red bulls are lighter on fuel than their direct rivals and any difference in power is made up by that fact. So to end this "rubbish" as haug and whitmarsh rightly say, red bull are talking out their rectums once more to gain easy tenths on their rivals.

(cheaper than wha they're doing at the moment anyway, clearly! )

If they continue with their line in PR they could end up losing fans.

[segedunum]

We've been through this before I think, and the last time the conversation thread stopped abruptly.

At the risk of repeating myself, if you have a dominant car that turns up at Monza and is fifth at best then the problem is pretty obvious. Renault fell away at Monza as well. How many modifications Renault have made over the years won't change that fact. It's called homologation for a reason.

Effectively admitting that there is a discrepancy in power by using that daft 'fuel efficiency' argument is again, I'm sorry to say, crap. As I've pointed out many times before you take the power when it's on offer and turn the engine down when you don't need it. It's just not a factor. Homologation existed for a reason. If we don't have it then the FIA just needs to admit it.

Haug and Whitmarsh haven't really said anything. All they've done is really said nothing at all in order to ensure that Red Bull never gets Mercedes engines and no equalisation ever occurs. The only thing that is keeping McLaren's head above water and, as one person said, stopping Mercedes fighting with Torro Rosso is the engine.

Equalisation would not gain Red Bull any time either. All that happens is that the engines are dyno tested to ensure they're giving out the same amount of power. If people are then saying that Red Bull are doing this to gain a few tenths then you're actually confirming what we all suspect to be true. Equalisation should merely confirm that the Renault is not down on power and no changes would be made.

If there was no evidence for what they're saying then they would just come off as damn annoying, but in the races that we've seen we can see that both Red Bull and Renault have fallen away at any circuit where horsepower is an overriding factor. I hardly think they'll lose fans when they've struggled at exactly the races they said they were going to struggle at.

[Giblet]

There was a great read on Pitpass with someone from Cosworth and he talks a lot about engine parity, and how close they really are.

Would be well worth a read.

[timbo]

At the risk of repeating myself, if you have a dominant car that turns up at Monza and is fifth at best then the problem is pretty obvious. Renault fell away at Monza as well. How many modifications Renault have made over the years won't change that fact. It's called homologation for a reason.

It is a single track.
However, Abu Dhabi showed that Renault has a great acceleration out of slow corners.

[noname]

I'm thinking outloud as an engineer here, everytime I watch the BBC world news, I say to myself, "why don't they leave this --- to us engineers, we sort it out before lunch".

sorry for off topic... but I am just so glad I am not alone.

[segedunum]

And there he goes, finally an engineer finds an open checkbook and free hands to do things right for once, without the constraints of political crap, HR, unions, Patrick Head, Ron Dennis and gawd knows what. And whatta ya know, he comes good.

I don't think it will have been as expensive as some people think:

"Good design adds value faster than it adds cost." - Thomas C. Gale

Newey is obviously a more hands-on engineer but there was a lot of good organisation needed to get that pile of crap ex-Jaguar team into shape than many might think. He's now got that team organised in a way that he wants and for what it's doing I bet it doesn't have as big a budget as many would imagine. It certainly didn't prior to 2009 when they began winning.

[segedunum]

There was a great read on Pitpass with someone from Cosworth and he talks a lot about engine parity, and how close they really are.

Yes. I can't find it now but the difference was something like three percent and three tenths per lap on average, which is what Renault and Red Bull believe they're missing. I think it was originally figures from German Autosport.

Renault's Rob White goes into some detail about the situation as Renault sees it here and why things like fuel efficiency just don't add up and how power ends up being an overriding factor:

http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews ... 11079.html

Yes, I know he's from Renault but he at least goes into some reasonable detail as to how variances can occur.

It is a single track.

Yes it is, but it's a track that tells you whether an engine has the power or not and where it isn't being masked by other factors as at other tracks. Unfortunately, we just don't have the data the teams do to judge just where a car is gaining or losing time.

However, Abu Dhabi showed that Renault has a great acceleration out of slow corners.

That doesn't make up for a horsepower deficiency, which is the one thing that is supposed to be equalised.

I don't know why people admit that there's a problem after telling us otherwise by saying stuff like this and then come up with some other way in which they think the Renault engine somehow 'makes up for it'.

[timbo]

Yes it is, but it's a track that tells you whether an engine has the power or not and where it isn't being masked by other factors as at other tracks.

It is one and only "power" track in calendar.

[segedunum]

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean to be honest. It's the one track, apart from maybe Spa, where you can say that if a car doesn't have the horsepower it's not going to do well. Either you're trying to say that power isn't important anywhere else, which is obviously wrong, or you're just missing the point.

Most tracks these days, especially those ridiculous ones designed by Tilke, have long straights where power is important. The problem with ascertaining whether one car or engine is doing better over another is all we have are lap times and speed trap figures to look at. The problem with lap times is that one car's chassis might be better than another and make up time that way. The problem with speed trap figures is that they don't tell us how fast a car has got to a top speed or how long it has maintained it, and this year teams have managed to mitigate deficiencies via the F-duct.

That's the logic of looking at Monza and then applying that to other tracks with respect to looking at whether there is a power deficiency.

[timbo]

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean to be honest. It's the one track, apart from maybe Spa, where you can say that if a car doesn't have the horsepower it's not going to do well. Either you're trying to say that power isn't important anywhere else, which is obviously wrong, or you're just missing the point.

You know, this year we have heard many times that Renault have best driveability. But does it really?
IMO there's two races where it could be seen. First one is Monaco where we've seen 3 Renault cars on top-3 places of the grid.
But the most startling one was Abu-Dhabi race where both Renault cars managed to defend their positions easily on the long straights with little to no top-speed advantage.
If you can watch replay of the race do it! Note how Kubica and Hamilton overtook Kobayashi (Kubica catch up with him in the middle of the long straigh, Hamilton much closer to the end), and how Petrov was able to drive away from Alonso in the beginning of the straight.
So IMO it is very likely that Renault has advantage at accelerating from low-revs.
Obviously whether they are able to realize this (probable) advantage is dependent on track. So you may have a disadvantage on pure power (high-revs) but higher torque on low-revs.
It should also be noted that RBR's apparent weakness on high-speed circuits (Monza and Motreal) may stem from their aero configuration, as it is high downforce car — it might be just draggier than Ferrari or McLaren.

[SiLo]

When people mention monza, is it possible the RB isn't that efficient with their downforce? Whereas the Mclaren always has been?