2024 Oracle Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[organic]

That test proved useful.

How so?

In the 2 race weekends, they tested parts of the Bahrain spec, the Hungary spec, and the Japan spec over race distances. They decided on the Japan spec. They were even able to compare the aero balance and balance migration of the Japan spec to the latest spec on the same circuit (Monza race vs Monza test). All of this data would have been useful for understanding why they should go back to Japan spec. I think it's clear that the bad updates started with the Imola floor. I pointed this out a long time ago. This is the first race that the gap between Perez and Verstappen became unmanageable.

James Allison also said the Imola upgrade was a downgrade shortly after that weekend. Maybe RB should've listened to their rivals

[Emag]

How so?

In the 2 race weekends, they tested parts of the Bahrain spec, the Hungary spec, and the Japan spec over race distances. They decided on the Japan spec. They were even able to compare the aero balance and balance migration of the Japan spec to the latest spec on the same circuit (Monza race vs Monza test). All of this data would have been useful for understanding why they should go back to Japan spec. I think it's clear that the bad updates started with the Imola floor. I pointed this out a long time ago. This is the first race that the gap between Perez and Verstappen became unmanageable.

James Allison also said the Imola upgrade was a downgrade shortly after that weekend. Maybe RB should've listened to their rivals

It’s because RedBull lost way too much ground suddenly. They gave RedBull the benefit of the doubt in Miami because of the “damage”, but realistically nobody expected anyone to be on par with RedBull that quickly when they were so dominant for the first 4 races of the season.

[AR3-GP]

James Allison also said the Imola upgrade was a downgrade shortly after that weekend. Maybe RB should've listened to their rivals

With hindsight, it's quite rare for James Allison to make a comment like that, so it's telling that he said it. It would have been informed by data.

[AR3-GP]

It’s because RedBull lost way too much ground suddenly. They gave RedBull the benefit of the doubt in Miami because of the “damage”, but realistically nobody expected anyone to be on par with RedBull that quickly when they were so dominant for the first 4 races of the season.

Things were still acceptable in Miami. Perez qualified 2 tenths behind Max and had a solid race. This is a clue. Mclaren simply out developed Red Bull when they reached Miami. The damage probably did cost Verstappen some, but Miami was probably a track where Ferrari and Mclaren would be closer. Ferrari because it was hot (unlike China), and Mclaren because of a huge update. Notably, Mercedes was 7 tenths off Red Bull in qualy in Miami and nowhere near Red Bull in the race. Merc's resurgence didn't start until their front wing update in Monaco (it was a profound change of concept). People rewrite history to create fiction that suits narratives. Everyone didn't catch Red Bull all at once. It's more to do with Red Bull standing still after the Imola update didn't work. Mclaren was the first to strike. A few races later, Mercedes also capitalized on Red Bull standing still.

[Emag]

You compare RedBull with everyone, but if you remove RedBull from the picture, there are no outliers. McLaren gained some on Ferrari (quite reasonable considering the huge update). Ferrari got closer again with the Imola package.

Mercedes was a bit lost after Saudi and they were nowhere for a while, but their gap to Ferrari and McLaren was stable. In fact by Imola they had improved quite a bit (check quali gaps and racepace gaps), but the front wing gave them another 1.5 tenths that put them a bit closer. Then they were flattered a bit by colder weekends which their car loves, but still, the gap to McLaren / Ferrari remains reasonable.

The only outlier here is RedBull …

They were 0.4 ahead of Ferrari (in average) for the first 4 races of the season and double that to McLaren.

Then comes Miami and McLaren somehow is ahead and they have no tangible pace over Ferrari at all.

[AR3-GP]

You compare RedBull with everyone, but if you remove RedBull from the picture, there are no outliers. McLaren gained some on Ferrari (quite reasonable considering the huge update). Ferrari got closer again with the Imola package.

Mercedes was a bit lost after Saudi and they were nowhere for a while, but their gap to Ferrari and McLaren was stable. In fact by Imola they had improved quite a bit (check quali gaps and racepace gaps), but the front wing gave them another 1.5 tenths that put them a bit closer. Then they were flattered a bit by colder weekends which their car loves, but still, the gap to McLaren / Ferrari remains reasonable.

I didn't compare to everyone. I only compared to Mercedes, Ferrari, and Mclaren. Mclaren was behind Mercedes at the start of the season. You say it's just Ferrari that Mclaren "gained some" on but it isn't. Mclaren went from behind Mercedes to 35 seconds in front by the end of the race in Imola.

Mercedes was a bit lost after Saudi and they were nowhere for a while, but their gap to Ferrari and McLaren was stable.

As I said before. Mercedes was ahead of Mclaren at the start of the year, and finished 35 seconds behind them in Imola. You claim this was a stable gap and claim this change is not an outlier. Your entire argument is based on something that isn't true.

Ferrari already rivaled Red Bull in Australia so why couldn't they rival them in Miami which was hot and suited their car. You say the cold races flatter Mercedes, but hot races also helped Ferrari.

[Vanja #66]

They were 0.4 ahead of Ferrari (in average) for the first 4 races of the season and double that to McLaren.

Then comes Miami and McLaren somehow is ahead and they have no tangible pace over Ferrari at all.

I think McLaren was around 5-6 tenths down on Red Bull if we remove Bahrain as a true outlier for them. Ferrari about 4 tenths basically every race (roughly 20s overall per race) and we'll agree McLaren wasn't that far off Ferrari. I made a more detailed analysis a few weeks ago viewtopic.php?p=1238407#p1238407

[AR3-GP]

They were 0.4 ahead of Ferrari (in average) for the first 4 races of the season and double that to McLaren.

Then comes Miami and McLaren somehow is ahead and they have no tangible pace over Ferrari at all.

I think McLaren was around 5-6 tenths down on Red Bull if we remove Bahrain as a true outlier for them. Ferrari about 4 tenths basically every race (roughly 20s overall per race) and we'll agree McLaren wasn't that far off Ferrari. I made a more detailed analysis a few weeks ago viewtopic.php?p=1238407#p1238407

In that analysis you wrote that Red Bull had good tire degradation in Miami. You even said Max's pace was metronomic. Along with the gap with Perez and Max being reasonable, it suggest that Red Bull is not the one who changed in Miami. It is the others. Red Bull definitely changed in Imola. That's when they mounted the new floor that plunged Perez into the wilderness and they were chewing through tires even more relative to the competition.

---* 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

[Emag]

You compare RedBull with everyone, but if you remove RedBull from the picture, there are no outliers. McLaren gained some on Ferrari (quite reasonable considering the huge update). Ferrari got closer again with the Imola package.

Mercedes was a bit lost after Saudi and they were nowhere for a while, but their gap to Ferrari and McLaren was stable. In fact by Imola they had improved quite a bit (check quali gaps and racepace gaps), but the front wing gave them another 1.5 tenths that put them a bit closer. Then they were flattered a bit by colder weekends which their car loves, but still, the gap to McLaren / Ferrari remains reasonable.

I didn't compare to everyone. I only compared to Mercedes, Ferrari, and Mclaren. Mclaren was behind Mercedes at the start of the season. You say it's just Ferrari that Mclaren "gained some" on but it isn't. Mclaren went from behind Mercedes to 35 seconds in front by the end of the race in Imola.

Mercedes was a bit lost after Saudi and they were nowhere for a while, but their gap to Ferrari and McLaren was stable.

As I said before. Mercedes was ahead of Mclaren at the start of the year, and finished 35 seconds behind them in Imola. You claim this was a stable gap and claim this change is not an outlier. Your entire argument is based on something that isn't true.

Ferrari already rivaled Red Bull in Australia so why couldn't they rival them in Miami which was hot and suited their car. You say the cold races flatter Mercedes, but hot races also helped Ferrari.

What exactly makes you say this?

In Bahrain McLaren was struggling with a bad setup and dropping almost 0.2s every lap in the last corner, yet they had better race-pace overall compared to both Mercs even if they had worse track-position.

After Bahrain, you have to jump to Canada to get a Mercedes that is anywhere near McLaren's level.

You say that my entire argument is based on something that isn't true, when in fact what I say is entirely based on what actually has happened and on the data that we have.

Discounting Australia since we don't know what pace Max would have had, you have Bahrain, Saudi, Japan and China where RedBull literally had no competition with the closest competitor being at least 0.4s behind (with China being the only exception where they were so far ahead everyone, people were getting ready to throw this season into the bin as well).

Then comes Miami and RedBull has no advantage whatsoever.

But the most interesting thing to note is the gap McLaren has to Ferrari. They're ~0.2-0.3s behind for Bahrain, Saudi and Japan. Only ~0.1s behind in Australia. And they're ahead in China because of the cooler temps (Mercedes still struggling with their car even though Hamilton had a great lap in the Sprint Quali).

But from Miami onwards, McLaren maintains a comfortable ~0.1-0.2s gap to Ferrari, which is a reasonable amount to gain on them considering how big their Miami upgrade package is.

As I said, the only outlier is RedBull.

[AR3-GP]

In Bahrain McLaren was struggling with a bad setup and dropping almost 0.2s every lap in the last corner, yet they had better race-pace overall compared to both Mercs even if they had worse track-position.

After Bahrain, you have to jump to Canada to get a Mercedes that is anywhere near McLaren's level.

As long as you continue to make stuff up, I won't continue this discussion. There's no point. You only have to go to the second race in Saudi Arabia to debunk your claim.

[Emag]

They were 0.4 ahead of Ferrari (in average) for the first 4 races of the season and double that to McLaren.

Then comes Miami and McLaren somehow is ahead and they have no tangible pace over Ferrari at all.

I think McLaren was around 5-6 tenths down on Red Bull if we remove Bahrain as a true outlier for them. Ferrari about 4 tenths basically every race (roughly 20s overall per race) and we'll agree McLaren wasn't that far off Ferrari. I made a more detailed analysis a few weeks ago viewtopic.php?p=1238407#p1238407

Which is inline with my view of the pecking order in early season as well. In Bahrain McLaren was struggling. In average they were around 0.1-0.2s behind Ferrari until their Miami package, and 0.6-0.7s behind RedBull.

Somehow people feel more prone to believing that McLaren has hired Jesus to bless their upgrades and gained 0.8s on them, than RedBull actually losing ground (and I am not saying anything else here, since it would just be speculation unless completely proven).

Removing RedBull, McLaren gained 0.4s with the Miami upgrade. Suddenly the world makes sense again. Although still huge, it makes sense considering that the upgrade actually delivered more than they expected and it made the car better in low-speed which opened up setup opportunities which weren't possible before.

[Emag]

In Bahrain McLaren was struggling with a bad setup and dropping almost 0.2s every lap in the last corner, yet they had better race-pace overall compared to both Mercs even if they had worse track-position.

After Bahrain, you have to jump to Canada to get a Mercedes that is anywhere near McLaren's level.

As long as you continue to make stuff up, I won't continue this discussion. There's no point. You only have to go to the second race in Saudi Arabia to debunk your claim.

Man, what exactly do you mean? How was Mercedes anywhere near McLaren's pace in Saudi? Did you even open the links I put on the comment. You're just saying things without any data to back it up and calling me out for it.

Oscar was stuck behind Lewis cause they had sh!t straight line speed. Other than that, he was comfortably the fastest car behind RedBulls and Leclerc.



Look at the jump in laptimes for Oscar after finally getting some free air when Lewis pit. Pretty much on Leclerc's pace immediately.

If you don't want to have a proper discussion then sure, just say so. But don't call me out on making things up when everything you're saying is based on "Trust me bro" sources instead of real data.

[Vanja #66]

In that analysis you wrote that Red Bull had good tire degradation in Miami. You even said Max's pace was metronomic. Along with the gap with Perez and Max being reasonable, it suggest that Red Bull is not the one who changed in Miami. It is the others. Red Bull definitely changed in Imola. That's when they mounted the new floor that plunged Perez into the wilderness and they were chewing through tires even more relative to the competition.

Perez was definitely slower than he was in earlier rounds compared to Max, gap in Bahrain was 22s, Jeddah and Japan it was 13s over entire races without SC. Then in Miami Checo had a 9.5s gap in 16 laps already, which would have been 33s over entire race. This pace gap continued after SC too, even though Checo had fresh Mediums and Max was on a bit used Hards

Ferrari practically deleted the pace gap in Miami without any upgrade, they literally even used the same rear wing every race. At the time, I believed this was the more real gap, as it was the first clean race for Leclerc. A few races later I understood I was wrong and then this info on what may have happend comes and fits like a puzzle to complete the picture

[Emag]

In that analysis you wrote that Red Bull had good tire degradation in Miami. You even said Max's pace was metronomic. Along with the gap with Perez and Max being reasonable, it suggest that Red Bull is not the one who changed in Miami. It is the others. Red Bull definitely changed in Imola. That's when they mounted the new floor that plunged Perez into the wilderness and they were chewing through tires even more relative to the competition.

Perez was definitely slower than he was in earlier rounds compared to Max, gap in Bahrain was 22s, Jeddah and Japan it was 13s over entire races without SC. Then in Miami Checo had a 9.5s gap in 16 laps already, which would have been 33s over entire race. This pace gap continued after SC too, even though Checo had fresh Mediums and Max was on a bit used Hards

Ferrari practically deleted the pace gap in Miami without any upgrade, they literally even used the same rear wing every race. At the time, I believed this was the more real gap, as it was the first clean race for Leclerc. A few races later I understood I was wrong and then this info on what may have happend comes and fits like a puzzle to complete the picture

Agreed.

It's just impossible for McLaren to have overcome (what was) such a huge deficit in just one upgrade. It's obviously to be expected that the competition would have eventually caught up to RedBull, but after Miami it seemed more like someone had flipped a switch and cut RedBull's advantage in half more so than competitors catching up.

[organic]

In that analysis you wrote that Red Bull had good tire degradation in Miami. You even said Max's pace was metronomic. Along with the gap with Perez and Max being reasonable, it suggest that Red Bull is not the one who changed in Miami. It is the others. Red Bull definitely changed in Imola. That's when they mounted the new floor that plunged Perez into the wilderness and they were chewing through tires even more relative to the competition.

Perez was definitely slower than he was in earlier rounds compared to Max, gap in Bahrain was 22s, Jeddah and Japan it was 13s over entire races without SC. Then in Miami Checo had a 9.5s gap in 16 laps already, which would have been 33s over entire race. This pace gap continued after SC too, even though Checo had fresh Mediums and Max was on a bit used Hards

Ferrari practically deleted the pace gap in Miami without any upgrade, they literally even used the same rear wing every race. At the time, I believed this was the more real gap, as it was the first clean race for Leclerc. A few races later I understood I was wrong and then this info on what may have happend comes and fits like a puzzle to complete the picture

Agreed.

It's just impossible for McLaren to have overcome (what was) such a huge deficit in just one upgrade. It's obviously to be expected that the competition would have eventually caught up to RedBull, but after Miami it seemed more like someone had flipped a switch and cut RedBull's advantage in half more so than competitors catching up.

Yes it just seems far more plausible. RB losing a couple of tenths and McLaren finding 3-4 tenths is far more plausible and fits the data far better than McLaren gaining 6-7 tenths in one upgrade