2023 Oracle Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[Zynerji]

And more importantly I think Verstappen will learn from this. You cannot throw big unproven setup changes on a car AFTER FP3. That’s just not on.

Incoming comments about correlation issues with Max's private simulator...

[KimiRai]

And more importantly I think Verstappen will learn from this. You cannot throw big unproven setup changes on a car AFTER FP3. That’s just not on.

How do you know it was Max's call and not the team?

As was mentioned in the report, they used precedent. Sainz and Russell have been involved in several impeding incidents with no penalty. Sainz was a menace earlier this year. Russell actually drove into the side of another car. No penalties. Rb was treated the same way.

You can love or hate that the FIA don’t take impeding seriously, but by and large there have been multiple other incidents which did not get punished.

Hungary 2007 could well be a precedent for intra team impeding

[TFSA]

That's why I think Red Bull shouldn't be allowed to have two teams. They act as road blocks in close championships and disappear around Red Bull cars. 2012 Brazil

While you may not like it, the truth is that the FIA can't do anything about it for legal reasons. They can't legally ban AT, and neither can they force Red Bull to sell the team.

[dialtone]

That's why I think Red Bull shouldn't be allowed to have two teams. They act as road blocks in close championships and disappear around Red Bull cars. 2012 Brazil

While you may not like it, the truth is that the FIA can't do anything about it for legal reasons. They can't legally ban AT, and neither can they force Red Bull to sell the team.

They certainly can make sure to apply rules consistently and ignore ownership.

[Farnborough]

You folks are talking about Mercedes starting 2nd and 5th in 2019 and finishing 4th and 5th in the same guise as missing q3.

Also talking about Max being ‘beat in hungary’ where he started 2nd by 0.003s and dominated the race…

Are we seeing the same races?

I dont feel there's any excuse given, just that this car has not shown anything like a superiority margin on qualli lap for high downforce setup. Nothing unusual about that and expected in this track. They dont seem to have responded particularly well in throwing a varied setup attempt at it for more or less each session, just increased their own variables in comparison to the competition. With very obvious resulting position now.

Something else looks to have moved it too...in comparison to last year and first half of this season...tyre change appears to have moved this chassis and AMR backwards in regard to single lap hot pace, both those two being the most gentle on their tyres in race pace for first part of season.
That shift seems to assist MB McL and FER in race tyre longevity as all relatively appear to benefit in tyre life at fast race pace.
That's consistent with what you'd expect from those changes, more durable under duress, but likely to be more difficult to pull into immediate action for those that were ok on previous iteration. Fairly subtle, but there all the same and has benefited the races overall.

There's not clear view of RB pace from this race alone, more in following GP will be needed to give a fully rounded picture of where they are and if this is truly an outlier or not.

[KimiRai]

Something else looks to have moved it too...in comparison to last year and first half of this season...tyre change appears to have moved this chassis and AMR backwards in regard to single lap hot pace, both those two being the most gentle on their tyres in race pace for first part of season.
That shift seems to assist MB McL and FER in race tyre longevity as all relatively appear to benefit in tyre life at fast race pace.
That's consistent with what you'd expect from those changes, more durable under duress, but likely to be more difficult to pull into immediate action for those that were ok on previous iteration. Fairly subtle, but there all the same and has benefited the races overall.

That's interesting. Alonso suggested something to that effect races ago but it was dismissed by the team and nearly everyone else. I have no idea, but wouldn't it be weird for tyre construction to change the way it did and performance not being affected whatsoever?

The suggestion I mentioned:
https://www.pitdebrief.com/post/alonso- ... of-nowhere

[Farnborough]

Something else looks to have moved it too...in comparison to last year and first half of this season...tyre change appears to have moved this chassis and AMR backwards in regard to single lap hot pace, both those two being the most gentle on their tyres in race pace for first part of season.
That shift seems to assist MB McL and FER in race tyre longevity as all relatively appear to benefit in tyre life at fast race pace.
That's consistent with what you'd expect from those changes, more durable under duress, but likely to be more difficult to pull into immediate action for those that were ok on previous iteration. Fairly subtle, but there all the same and has benefited the races overall.

That's interesting. Alonso suggested something to that effect races ago but it was dismissed by the team and nearly everyone else. I have no idea, but wouldn't it be weird for tyre construction to change the way it did and performance not being affected whatsoever?

The suggestion I mentioned:
https://www.pitdebrief.com/post/alonso- ... of-nowhere

Yes, the obvious "technical" qualifier (not qualifying as in F1) for me is that there's no point changing it in the first place if it didn't do anything at all
Conventionally, a shift to a more durable carcass involves incorporating less flex into it, effectively load range index. That will then support more load at same flex, or same load at reduced flex. The aim being to prevent the carcass going over temp and causing likely structural failure. Thats just conventional tyre engineering.
Anyone loading less in the extreme wouldn't heat the tyre so readily, with anyone up against the lifing limits then likely to see more clear safety margin if that load rating is raised / changed.

The upshot being a chassis that previously wore it's tyres quickly would likely see an extension of the lifing from this change.
Where as a a light user may then have difficulty in simply bringing that tyre to its optimum, hence a prolonged warming cycle.

[KimiRai]

Something else looks to have moved it too...in comparison to last year and first half of this season...tyre change appears to have moved this chassis and AMR backwards in regard to single lap hot pace, both those two being the most gentle on their tyres in race pace for first part of season.
That shift seems to assist MB McL and FER in race tyre longevity as all relatively appear to benefit in tyre life at fast race pace.
That's consistent with what you'd expect from those changes, more durable under duress, but likely to be more difficult to pull into immediate action for those that were ok on previous iteration. Fairly subtle, but there all the same and has benefited the races overall.

That's interesting. Alonso suggested something to that effect races ago but it was dismissed by the team and nearly everyone else. I have no idea, but wouldn't it be weird for tyre construction to change the way it did and performance not being affected whatsoever?

The suggestion I mentioned:
https://www.pitdebrief.com/post/alonso- ... of-nowhere

Yes, the obvious "technical" qualifier (not qualifying as in F1) for me is that there's no point changing it in the first place if it didn't do anything at all
Conventionally, a shift to a more durable carcass involves incorporating less flex into it, effectively load range index. That will then support more load at same flex, or same load at reduced flex. The aim being to prevent the carcass going over temp and causing likely structural failure. Thats just conventional tyre engineering.
Anyone loading less in the extreme wouldn't heat the tyre so readily, with anyone up against the lifing limits then likely to see more clear safety margin if that load rating is raised / changed.

The upshot being a chassis that previously wore it's tyres quickly would likely see an extension of the lifing from this change.
Where as a a light user may then have difficulty in simply bringing that tyre to its optimum, hence a prolonged warming cycle.

Thoughts?

[AR3-GP]

And more importantly I think Verstappen will learn from this. You cannot throw big unproven setup changes on a car AFTER FP3. That’s just not on.

How do you know it was Max's call and not the team?

As was mentioned in the report, they used precedent. Sainz and Russell have been involved in several impeding incidents with no penalty. Sainz was a menace earlier this year. Russell actually drove into the side of another car. No penalties. Rb was treated the same way.

You can love or hate that the FIA don’t take impeding seriously, but by and large there have been multiple other incidents which did not get punished.

Hungary 2007 could well be a precedent for intra team impeding

Regarding the first point, Well it looks even worse if it wasn’t him…

Regarding the second, stewarding decisions from 15+ years ago with flipping max Mosley at the helm are just not that relevant today!

[wickedz50]

I am still confident that Max can pull this off. 11th in a row after all the drama of qualy.

[AR3-GP]

Realistically they’ll have to go for a very long hard stint followed by the softs.

Max had a good race here in the toro Rosso many years ago.

[Farnborough]

That's interesting. Alonso suggested something to that effect races ago but it was dismissed by the team and nearly everyone else. I have no idea, but wouldn't it be weird for tyre construction to change the way it did and performance not being affected whatsoever?

The suggestion I mentioned:
https://www.pitdebrief.com/post/alonso- ... of-nowhere

Yes, the obvious "technical" qualifier (not qualifying as in F1) for me is that there's no point changing it in the first place if it didn't do anything at all
Conventionally, a shift to a more durable carcass involves incorporating less flex into it, effectively load range index. That will then support more load at same flex, or same load at reduced flex. The aim being to prevent the carcass going over temp and causing likely structural failure. Thats just conventional tyre engineering.
Anyone loading less in the extreme wouldn't heat the tyre so readily, with anyone up against the lifing limits then likely to see more clear safety margin if that load rating is raised / changed.

The upshot being a chassis that previously wore it's tyres quickly would likely see an extension of the lifing from this change.
Where as a a light user may then have difficulty in simply bringing that tyre to its optimum, hence a prolonged warming cycle.

Thoughts?

Unsure if the question was to me or general forum ?

Its possibly worth moving the topic into an existing tyre one to hold it away from current team activities on a race weekend, and as it seems to affect other competitor performance too.

There's one recently started about tyre rubber analysis that this would logically extend as discussion of just how a tyre heats etc.

I hadn't seen that link you posted, but did offer at the time similar opinion to that and now in this thread, but it didn't seem to generate much interest then.

[KimiRai]

Yes, the obvious "technical" qualifier (not qualifying as in F1) for me is that there's no point changing it in the first place if it didn't do anything at all
Conventionally, a shift to a more durable carcass involves incorporating less flex into it, effectively load range index. That will then support more load at same flex, or same load at reduced flex. The aim being to prevent the carcass going over temp and causing likely structural failure. Thats just conventional tyre engineering.
Anyone loading less in the extreme wouldn't heat the tyre so readily, with anyone up against the lifing limits then likely to see more clear safety margin if that load rating is raised / changed.

The upshot being a chassis that previously wore it's tyres quickly would likely see an extension of the lifing from this change.
Where as a a light user may then have difficulty in simply bringing that tyre to its optimum, hence a prolonged warming cycle.

Thoughts?

Unsure if the question was to me or general forum ?

Its possibly worth moving the topic into an existing tyre one to hold it away from current team activities on a race weekend, and as it seems to affect other competitor performance too.

There's one recently started about tyre rubber analysis that this would logically extend as discussion of just how a tyre heats etc.

I hadn't seen that link you posted, but did offer at the time similar opinion to that and now in this thread, but it didn't seem to generate much interest then.

Oh I meant it as an invitation for everyone to discuss. Then I'll also move it to the 2023 tyres thread

[AR3-GP]

You folks are talking about Mercedes starting 2nd and 5th in 2019 and finishing 4th and 5th in the same guise as missing q3.

Also talking about Max being ‘beat in hungary’ where he started 2nd by 0.003s and dominated the race…

Are we seeing the same races?

RB didn’t technically miss Q3 on pace. The drivers made mistakes. Verstappen made a 4 tenths mistake in the 1st turn and the rest is history. Without it, he likely scraps to a p5-p6 starting position and people would just say Checo is horrible as usual which is not true but he’s much more affected by tire issues.

[FittingMechanics]

Anyone mentioning Horners statements needs to understand that he will not come out and say TD hurt us, we had flexy wings and this is why we are slow as it would throw shade against their acomplishments so far.

I'm sure they will bounce back but take their statements in this case with a grain of salt.

Btw I think it is very likely TD was intended to hurt RB as it is better for F1 show if no one is so dominant. It is a testament to RB that it took so long for FIA to find a solution.