2024 Oracle Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[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.

[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

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.

Thanks for your input.

[Bill]

People keep repeating that red bull bought 150 so engineers from honda but that just wrong .which engineers because as far as i know Honda engineers are at sakura japan and many departments that make the honda company.they is also language barrier.honda had a base in the uk doing some testing and battery work the 150 were supposed to come from mercedes but in truth its about 20.redbull should hire from renault since they are shelving their program.