- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Team: Adrian Newey (CTO), Petr Prodromou (CA), Rob Marshall (CD), Christian Horner (TP)
Drivers: Sebastian Vettel (1), Mark Webber (2), Sebastian Buemi (reserve)
Engines aren't used sequentially.turbof1 wrote:Now those are some nice statistics. Ferrari engines look very durable! Of all drivers with a ferrari engine, only kobayashi has his fifth engine mounted. All the others even succeeded in using 1 engine for 4 consecutive races. Very impressive.
That said, I am a bit worried about the other engines. We are now at the midway point and with only 3 fresh engines remaining we have 10 races with 2 circuits, Spa and especially Monza, being extra harsh on the engine.
Hence why I am saying "fresh engines". Still though, if Sauber, Ferrari and Torro Rosso are showing the confidence of using that engine 4 times, it gives a hint that the engine is durable. Reused engine need to be brought down in performance after a few races; that's the reason why the other engines are more switched than the Ferrari. It is still guessing, but I believe the Ferrari engine can keep roughly the same performance over a longer period of time then the other engines.vinuneuro wrote:Engines aren't used sequentially. An engine from Melbourne may be used in Brazil if a team wishes.turbof1 wrote:Now those are some nice statistics. Ferrari engines look very durable! Of all drivers with a ferrari engine, only kobayashi has his fifth engine mounted. All the others even succeeded in using 1 engine for 4 consecutive races. Very impressive.
That said, I am a bit worried about the other engines. We are now at the midway point and with only 3 fresh engines remaining we have 10 races with 2 circuits, Spa and especially Monza, being extra harsh on the engine.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13209 viewtopic.php?f=15&t=12213
The relationship between Red Bull and the FIA is disturbed. The defending champions feel persecuted by the stewards. Team adviser Helmut Marko was recently clear words for the ongoing sanctions. But now comes out that the governing body would have Red Bull in the worst case, even three times to take out of the race.
Those who believe in conspiracy theories, now might be suspicious. Red Bull teams stood in comparison to other disproportionately the focus of the Sports Authority. There was the theater of the holes in the ground at the GP of Monaco. Then the ban on air tour of the front axle. Then the charges of allegedly illegal motor maps in Hockenheim.
In Monte Carlo, Hockenheim had team boss Christian Horner and technical director Adrian Newey least four hours before the race to report to the Stewards. "This is not ideal for race preparation," said Vettel.
Red Bull feels discriminated against FIA decisions
However, some decisions of race stewards at the race came the Red Bull executives to sour. For example, the drive-through penalty for Vettel in Barcelona, as he rushed past with DRS open to the yellow flags and it was even faster than in the previous round. Michael Schumacher is not the same thing happened three races later in Valencia? Schumacher was spared a prison sentence. Rightly so, because the DRS was still open, but Schumacher clearly slower.
For example, the use of safety car in Valencia because of debris on the track. In the opinion of Red Bull advisor Helmut Marko was the only Vettel's huge lead evaporate on the field. At Hockenheim, the safety car was in a similar situation in the garage. Felipe Massa had distributed the parts of his front wing on the line.
Here the objection of Red Bull is entitled, as the subsequent puncture of Lewis Hamilton shows. But then one should not complain about Valencia. And then the penalty for overtaking Sebastian Vettel off the track, what Marko rewrote the "death penalty for stealing chickens."
Conspiracy against Red Bull?
At the Red Bull camp is sometimes the word conspiracy. For two reasons one remembered when considering malicious. The FIA wants to prevent a third world title by Vettel and Red Bull? Or is the punishment that will restrict Red Bull in conjunction with Bernie Ecclestone, the FIA's role in the future to the inspector?
The world governing body, the allegations out of hand. Quite the contrary. Red Bull would have been really in sight, then it would have been three times this year given the option to disqualify the team. For example, because the holes in the base plate before the rear wheels. As the governing body did justice with mercy. Red Bull was allowed to drive. Jean Todt sat down in person to ensure that the protesting team's feet were still. After the regulations have been clarified. Slots were not allowed holes.
In Montreal, the FIA inspectors Red Bull drew attention even before the first practice that they would not tolerate the passage of the air brake ducts, by the axis of the wheel, because this is a moveable aerodynamic aids. From FIA sources said: "If we had something against Red Bull, as we are accused, we would wait until the investigation after the race and allowing them to run into the knife."
Red Bull had to modify the chassis adjustment
The third case leaked out only at the edge of the Hungarian GP. In Montreal, the governing body discovered on the third shock in front of Red Bull to unauthorized adjustment RB8. On the setting of the damper depends from the ground clearance at the front axle. This should not change between qualifying and race. Because adjustments by hand to the guard in the pits would be difficult to detect, the FIA has adopted the rule that all the suspension adjustments are to be operated with one tool.
In the case of Red Bull but it was easily possible with the bare hand. Anyone who thinks evil imply, might that was in the race previously adjusted between training and racing of ground clearance, without noticing that the Commissioner in the pits. The FIA had at Red Bull, the remedy promptly, without it hanging from the rooftops. Rule, experts say: "It would have to disqualify Red Bull loose in Canada."
Seems like they were pretty fast at Silverstone and really no faster in Germany when compared to their closest competition. If we could not discern a benefit in Germany, how can we discern a detriment in Hungry?raymondu999 wrote:With the pros and cons of the engine mapping kerfuffle - what do people think Red Bull will gain/lose? What areas? What order of magnitude?
Why would the benefit be relative to the competition, rather than relative to their own car without it?hardingfv32 wrote:Seems like they were pretty fast at Silverstone and really no faster in Germany when compared to their closest competition. If we could not discern a benefit in Germany, how can we discern a detriment in Hungry?raymondu999 wrote:With the pros and cons of the engine mapping kerfuffle - what do people think Red Bull will gain/lose? What areas? What order of magnitude?
Outright lap time? I'd expect it to be well under a tenth - it's probably one of those solutions that you know is better only from the trend lines and reasoning, rather than outright pace suddenly jumping up.raymondu999 wrote:With the pros and cons of the engine mapping kerfuffle - what do people think Red Bull will gain/lose? What areas? What order of magnitude?
Anyone care to venture a guess?
I use 'relative to the competition' as a way for us to make an evaluation. Of course the team knows exactly. They could have easily done back to back tests to compare results.beelsebob wrote:Why would the benefit be relative to the competition, rather than relative to their own car without it?