2024 Oracle Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[Wouter]

For the people who don't have acces to Twitter:

Now that the FIA has CONFIRMED that the cross brake clarification was not based on something any teams were doing, let's look at the race pace changes over the season and see if we can make sense of it all.

To help visualize the changes to the race pace differences over the first half of this season I put together this chart...With context. And context is key here. Thanks to @FDataAnalysis
and his amazing repository of data from his analysis. Be sure to subscribe to his buy me a coffee (in his bio) for access to all the data!

What you see is the race pace delta with Red Bull as the comparative baseline. If the values are positive, then Red Bull had a positive race pace delta to the next closest constructor meaning they were faster. The value bar is the average delta and the image shows who the closest constructor was. If the value is negative, then Red Bull was slower than the fastest (race pace) constructor. The average value is by how much they were slower, and the icon indicates who the fastest constructor was. Let's analyze.

At the start of the season Red Bull was the fastest. They came out of the box with an aggressive winter development, and it seemed to work. The next closest constructor was Ferrari, but they were an average of around 4 tenths/lap off the pace of the Red Bull.

In Miami during the sprint race the Red Bull of MV was the fastest, with Ferrari close behind. The gap was nearly 2 tenths, about equal to Australia (similar tracks). It wasn't until the race when MV damaged the sidewall of his diffuser that the pace fell off, and McLaren found their form. Remember that after a sprint race, McLaren was able to tune their setup for this updated car to maximize the performance. Job done. Even so, Red Bull was only 0.07s/lap off the pace of the McLaren. And as the image shows, this is exactly when McLaren released their biggest update of the year. A big change to the car that resulted in a big performance jump that saw them significantly close the gap to Red Bull. It was also Miami when Mercedes started a raft of updates that would put them on the development path they are bearing fruit from now.

Imola, and Canada were a bit of a mixed bag with MV pulling magic tricks to win those races in the second fastest car. Yes, McLaren was again marginally faster. On average 0.03s/lap difference between McLaren and Red Bull over those 3 races. That's how close the margins had become. Meanwhile Red Bull was struggling with updates that had made the car peaky and difficult to setup. During these races, Mercedes was again plotting their course and finding more and more gains.

Austria and Barcelona saw Red Bull bounce back with more close margins being just 0.045s/lap faster than the McLaren.

It wasn't until Silverstone, Hungary, and SPA that the RB20 really started to fall off the pace (as the graph shows). Over these last 3 races, the average race pace gap to the fastest constructor was nearly 2 tenths per lap! A stark contrast to how the team began the season.

So how did we get here? A sensible discussion please.

1) As the graph shows, the shift in balance of power from Red Bull to McLaren was all on the back of the Miami upgrade. A few problematic updates for the RB20 contributed as well.

2) Mercedes closing the gap has put pressure on Red Bull in single lap pace. This puts the RB20 back in the grid in dirty air, and as we have seen, clean air is king. Not something the RB19 was at all experienced with.

3) Changeable conditions over multiple races made a problematic RB20 even more problematic. What worked for one practice condition didn't work for the changeable race condition. Again, the signs of a peaky car.

4) ATR reductions for Red Bull from 2023 and 2024 would have impacted the later season development of the RB20. Since 2023 was such a dominant season, RBR was able to shift resources to work on the initial RB20 launch spec front loading the whole development process. However, where they would be harmed is on the in season development as this resource front loading wouldn't be possible. This is what we are seeing now. Teams with more ATR doing more in season development, gaining more ground on the P1 constructor.

When the first half of the season is put into context, we now can see how Red Bull has fallen back. The regulations are written to promote such a closing up of the grid via ATR. Red Bull has also contributed to this in their lack of delivery for many of their recent aero updates. Development gains for lower placed teams would be possible with even more aero development time. It really isn't a complex equation. What I can't seem to explain, however, is how Ferrari has found themselves from being the second fastest constructor at the start, to the 4th fastest now. But, there is nothing simple about F1. As @mollym_o
and I have been saying for some time now,

"It's easy to be fast, it's harder to stay fast."

Also about the brakes TD:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/what ... /10645992/

[Vanja #66]

It's always lovely to read an analysis that omits or ignores a few crucial pieces of information that have the capacity to completel change the end conclusion

[Wouter]

It's always lovely to read an analysis that omits or ignores a few crucial pieces of information

that have the capacity to completel change the end conclusion

.
I assume you have missed the end conclusion so here you go:
.

The nature of the mid-season change to the technical regulations, something which is not very common, fuelled a wave of speculation that the FIA was responding to a device that one or more teams may have been using this season.

There were even wild accusations thrown at Red Bull that its drop of form since the Miami Grand Prix was linked to a potential banning of a system it may have been using - with some even suggesting that Max Verstappen's retirement from the Australian Grand Prix could have been linked to this.

However, the reality of the situation is very different as high-level sources at the FIA have explained that the change was not prompted at all by anything teams were doing at the moment – it was more about future-proofing regulations.

An FIA spokesman told Motorsport.com: "There is no truth that any team was using such a system."

[bluechris]

It's always lovely to read an analysis that omits or ignores a few crucial pieces of information

that have the capacity to completel change the end conclusion

.
I assume you have missed the end conclusion so here you go:
.

The nature of the mid-season change to the technical regulations, something which is not very common, fuelled a wave of speculation that the FIA was responding to a device that one or more teams may have been using this season.

There were even wild accusations thrown at Red Bull that its drop of form since the Miami Grand Prix was linked to a potential banning of a system it may have been using - with some even suggesting that Max Verstappen's retirement from the Australian Grand Prix could have been linked to this.

However, the reality of the situation is very different as high-level sources at the FIA have explained that the change was not prompted at all by anything teams were doing at the moment – it was more about future-proofing regulations.

An FIA spokesman told Motorsport.com: "There is no truth that any team was using such a system."

What did you expect FIA to say even if it was true? That the last 2 times champion team and almost the current champion winner, it's doing something fishy? They will lose to much money of their inability to police and will loose face. Even in Ferrari case, we never learned anything and even then there was no direct accusations of something that Ferrari was cheating. Ferrari got an ultimatum and we all saw what happened for the next years.
The point is if the downward trend in RB continues , if yes then imo it's not only that McLaren and MB did magically a better job in aero but something extra is happening. Every time that Perez goes closer to Verstappen, the car is not ok.

[Curbstone]

It's always lovely to read an analysis that omits or ignores a few crucial pieces of information that have the capacity to completel change the end conclusion

Can you elaborate a bit more on the missing or ignored details?

At least this analysis goed a lot further than 'Since Miami Red Bull was slow, now there is regulation change and Scarbbs showed the 'principle' of the system, so Red Bull must have been cheating..."

[Curbstone]

It's always lovely to read an analysis that omits or ignores a few crucial pieces of information

that have the capacity to completel change the end conclusion

.
I assume you have missed the end conclusion so here you go:
.

The nature of the mid-season change to the technical regulations, something which is not very common, fuelled a wave of speculation that the FIA was responding to a device that one or more teams may have been using this season.

There were even wild accusations thrown at Red Bull that its drop of form since the Miami Grand Prix was linked to a potential banning of a system it may have been using - with some even suggesting that Max Verstappen's retirement from the Australian Grand Prix could have been linked to this.

However, the reality of the situation is very different as high-level sources at the FIA have explained that the change was not prompted at all by anything teams were doing at the moment – it was more about future-proofing regulations.

An FIA spokesman told Motorsport.com: "There is no truth that any team was using such a system."

What did you expect FIA to say even if it was true? That the last 2 times champion team and almost the current champion winner, it's doing something fishy? They will lose to much money of their inability to police and will loose face. Even in Ferrari case, we never learned anything and even then there was no direct accusations of something that Ferrari was cheating. Ferrari got an ultimatum and we all saw what happened for the next years.
The point is if the downward trend in RB continues , if yes then imo it's not only that McLaren and MB did magically a better job in aero but something extra is happening. Every time that Perez goes closer to Verstappen, the car is not ok.

What's so magical about that? RB personnel have switched teams, RB are handicapped by the ATR (and the costs of Perez charshes...) Newey already stated he was surprised other teams were still struggling with the aero design compared to Red Bull which means he expected teams to catch up.
Seems to me that overcoming the gap to RB wasn't that hard in the first place, and since Mclaren and MB have more recourses available, it could even be achieved without magic...

[bluechris]

What's so magical about that? RB personnel have switched teams, RB are handicapped by the ATR (and the costs of Perez charshes...) Newey already stated he was surprised other teams were still struggling with the aero design compared to Red Bull which means he expected teams to catch up.
Seems to me that overcoming the gap to RB wasn't that hard in the first place, and since Mclaren and MB have more recourses available, it could even be achieved without magic...

It's a possibility for sure and maybe it's the most plausible scenario. Either way we will see in the upcoming races. Normally in Zandvoort Max will clean sweep everything because it's a track that a driver plays a bigger role than other tracks.

[Wouter]

What's so magical about that? RB personnel have switched teams, RB are handicapped by the ATR (and the costs of Perez charshes...) Newey already stated he was surprised other teams were still struggling with the aero design compared to Red Bull which means he expected teams to catch up.
Seems to me that overcoming the gap to RB wasn't that hard in the first place, and since Mclaren and MB have more recourses available, it could even be achieved without magic...

.
It's a possibility for sure and maybe it's the most plausible scenario. Either way we will see in the upcoming races. Normally in Zandvoort Max will clean sweep everything because it's a track that a driver plays a bigger role than other tracks.

.
I agree to that but the former Zandvoort races he had a very quick car and that isn't anymore the case. He is struggeling with this car.
It doesn't want to do what Max wants. It won't listen to him anymore:)

[Vanja #66]

Can you elaborate a bit more on the missing or ignored details?

At least this analysis goed a lot further than 'Since Miami Red Bull was slow, now there is regulation change and Scarbbs showed the 'principle' of the system, so Red Bull must have been cheating..."

- RB's dramatic drop of pace compared to Ferrari in Miami was completely ignored:

---* in Bahrain, Jeddah and Japan, Ferrari was about 20s away from Max regardless of who was leading Ferrari driver
---* Australia and China were outliers for RB and Ferrari, so we can ignore those results
---* in Miami Leclerc was slowed down by Piastri a bit in the 1st stint and matched Max' pace in second stint (once out of dirty air)
---* in Miami there were still no updates for Ferrarim while RB already had a small package in Japan
---* Max damaging his car was reported by Horner as 0.25s in first corner alone, but he was actaully faster in the first corner on his following laps and was wildly metronomic on Hards after the SC, his pace was considerably more stable than Norris' or Leclerc's - so there is no tangible evidence to support the tiny diffuser damage had any impact on his pace
---* bottom line - in a weekend where RB was not compromised by poor starting position, degradation or other aspects, Ferrari cut the gap by 3-4 tenths, without any upgrades


- McLaren results before Miami are missing a few key aspects:

---* comparing their previous races to RB is relevant only in China's final stint (the gap was 0.55s a lap and fairly linear over 25 laps) since the first stint was massively affected by Alonso starting P2 and Norris subsequently getting stuck behind Perez
---* Bahrain was a complete outlier for McLaren, Jeddah saw Piastri (at the time slower driver) as leading driver due to a gamble with Norris and missing the stop under SC and Japan was also a bit of an outlier since McLaren suffered with deg more than any race before or after (they were setup for cold Q session obviously)
---* bottom line - McLaren's gap to RB was arguably 5-6 tenths a lap in the race

- McLaren results in Miami are missing a few key aspects:

---* Norris had the sole fully-updated car and his Sprint ended in T1 so Sprint pace comparison is irrelevant
---* McLaren misjudged the setup both in SQ and Q in Miami, compromising Norris' start of the race
---* since he was so far behind in 1st stint and had completely fresh tyres for 2nd stint, we can't directly compare Norris' pace to Max' but he was obviously quicker by 1-2 tenths
---* bottom line - in a weekend where RB was not compromised by poor starting position, degradation or other aspects, McLaren cut the gap by 6-8 tenths, while their upgrade was reported as worth 4 tenths a lap

There's also a few details regarding Mercedes' pace improvement over RB, but not over Ferrari and McLaren, but their pace was almost always compromised by traffic and starting position at some point (early in the season) so it's not as valid argument to be taken into account like McLaren and Ferrari pace before Miami.

[f1isgood]

What matters is Red Bull anyways go back to being the best car. It is irrelevant if they lost because of whatever.

Also using x tenths McL gained with upgrades and comparing with y tenths advantage RB had on a quirky track is such a weird comparison.

People here also like narratives and like calling everyone a cheat etc but that doesn't add much.

[Cassius]

Can you elaborate a bit more on the missing or ignored details?

At least this analysis goed a lot further than 'Since Miami Red Bull was slow, now there is regulation change and Scarbbs showed the 'principle' of the system, so Red Bull must have been cheating..."

- RB's dramatic drop of pace compared to Ferrari in Miami was completely ignored:

---* in Bahrain, Jeddah and Japan, Ferrari was about 20s away from Max regardless of who was leading Ferrari driver
---* Australia and China were outliers for RB and Ferrari, so we can ignore those results
---* in Miami Leclerc was slowed down by Piastri a bit in the 1st stint and matched Max' pace in second stint (once out of dirty air)
---* in Miami there were still no updates for Ferrarim while RB already had a small package in Japan
---* Max damaging his car was reported by Horner as 0.25s in first corner alone, but he was actaully faster in the first corner on his following laps and was wildly metronomic on Hards after the SC, his pace was considerably more stable than Norris' or Leclerc's - so there is no tangible evidence to support the tiny diffuser damage had any impact on his pace
---* bottom line - in a weekend where RB was not compromised by poor starting position, degradation or other aspects, Ferrari cut the gap by 3-4 tenths, without any upgrades


- McLaren results before Miami are missing a few key aspects:

---* comparing their previous races to RB is relevant only in China's final stint (the gap was 0.55s a lap and fairly linear over 25 laps) since the first stint was massively affected by Alonso starting P2 and Norris subsequently getting stuck behind Perez
---* Bahrain was a complete outlier for McLaren, Jeddah saw Piastri (at the time slower driver) as leading driver due to a gamble with Norris and missing the stop under SC and Japan was also a bit of an outlier since McLaren suffered with deg more than any race before or after (they were setup for cold Q session obviously)
---* bottom line - McLaren's gap to RB was arguably 5-6 tenths a lap in the race

- McLaren results in Miami are missing a few key aspects:

---* Norris had the sole fully-updated car and his Sprint ended in T1 so Sprint pace comparison is irrelevant
---* McLaren misjudged the setup both in SQ and Q in Miami, compromising Norris' start of the race
---* since he was so far behind in 1st stint and had completely fresh tyres for 2nd stint, we can't directly compare Norris' pace to Max' but he was obviously quicker by 1-2 tenths
---* bottom line - in a weekend where RB was not compromised by poor starting position, degradation or other aspects, McLaren cut the gap by 6-8 tenths, while their upgrade was reported as worth 4 tenths a lap

There's also a few details regarding Mercedes' pace improvement over RB, but not over Ferrari and McLaren, but their pace was almost always compromised by traffic and starting position at some point (early in the season) so it's not as valid argument to be taken into account like McLaren and Ferrari pace before Miami.

You know very well gaps are not static, but dependent on track, setup, damage, etc, but also differ within stints. Ferrari and Mclaren were already close in terms of pace at the end of stints early in the season (see Bahrain, Japan).

It is more likely RB made some updates to the car that made it more difficult to set up, less predictable (as confirmed by Marko), while others have finally understood these regs and updated accordingly. Also (as confirmed by Waché and Marko) they have to focus a bit more on race pace to keep track position, leading to higher deg in the race.

[Sergej]

Helmut Marko jokes about Red Bull's upgrades

"I would rather call them downgrades."

seems Allison was right after all

[KimiRai]

It is a matter of learning, since Red Bull will have to build the next power unit in-house all by itself. A project that is not going badly, but not well either. That is why the team has tried to recruit as many former Mercedes engineers as possible, to acquire the required know-how. They are a little behind at the moment, behind Ferrari and the aforementioned Mercedes, first-hand information acquired directly within the Powertrains division, where the 150 or so engineers ‘bought’ from Honda show some concern about the final outcome. A product that must take into account the regulatory upheaval.

https://www.funoanalisitecnica.com/2024 ... -bull.html

[Dunlay]

It is a matter of learning, since Red Bull will have to build the next power unit in-house all by itself. A project that is not going badly, but not well either. That is why the team has tried to recruit as many former Mercedes engineers as possible, to acquire the required know-how. They are a little behind at the moment, behind Ferrari and the aforementioned Mercedes, first-hand information acquired directly within the Powertrains division, where the 150 or so engineers ‘bought’ from Honda show some concern about the final outcome. A product that must take into account the regulatory upheaval.

https://www.funoanalisitecnica.com/2024 ... -bull.html

Is Jos the chief editor for this web site?

[Sergej]

It is a matter of learning, since Red Bull will have to build the next power unit in-house all by itself. A project that is not going badly, but not well either. That is why the team has tried to recruit as many former Mercedes engineers as possible, to acquire the required know-how. They are a little behind at the moment, behind Ferrari and the aforementioned Mercedes, first-hand information acquired directly within the Powertrains division, where the 150 or so engineers ‘bought’ from Honda show some concern about the final outcome. A product that must take into account the regulatory upheaval.

https://www.funoanalisitecnica.com/2024 ... -bull.html

not that what it's written does not make any sense, but this Zender Arcari is known for making up things and "funoanalisitecnica" has become a completely unreliable source since Donadoni and Duchessa left it.