Red Bull RB9 Renault

[Nomore]

Yes in Melburne, where else..?
what was i writing before ?...answer : They just got out-developed by Ferrari and Lotus during the winter session.
In the end of the last year RB was faster than Ferrari and Lotus, now in the first race they are slower--> i personally call this"outdeveloped"
If in malaysia they are faster in the race than congratulation to them... they have done a better job this week and out develop everyone.
Its all about a developing race and we have 19 races to see who wins. For now Ferrari and Lotus are the best.

That's not how it works. If RB are faster in Malaysia then it doesn't mean they've out developed everyone else in the last week. They could bring zero updates and still be quicker - it's going to be more about the car suiting the track and conditions and them getting the setup right. If they bring a new component to the car and that is the sole reason they're quicker in a weeks time, which is highly unlikely, then you can say they're out developing the competition. But even then that part would have been in development for many weeks, maybe even months, so it's not a sudden thing where they're making a step forward due to work done in the next few days.

We dont know if they bring new components or how they update the car. We simply don't know, Unless someone here work for them and brings the objectionable info for us...
The parts may been in deveopment for months and can be placed in Malaysia...what's wrong?
If the parts are in Malaysia and not Australia this means that they need it more days to work on...so this days are important.

Personally i don't believe that is something to do with tyres or setup...i respect your opinion but i think it's a wrong opinion..every hour is important in developing not to mention days...

[munudeges]

They still have the fastest car, but that might not be enough. You have to get whatever performance you have working with tyre longevity and I'm not sure that can be solved with some setup changes as Christian Horner says:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/106131

There's no way this car could have stopped twice and I think it's a little more fundamental than that.

[henra]

They still have the fastest car, but that might not be enough. You have to get whatever performance you have working with tyre longevity and I'm not sure that can be solved with some setup changes as Christian Horner says:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/106131

There's no way this car could have stopped twice and I think it's a little more fundamental than that.

Even though I think Horner's explanation might be a bit simplistic, RB seems to have a certain history of not liking cold weather. Even last year the races they struggled the most were often those with colder temperatures.
It seems they tend to set the car up for fast temperature build up in these conditions to counter graining of cold tyres and then end up in excessive tyre deg.

[dxpetrov]

They still have the fastest car, but that might not be enough. You have to get whatever performance you have working with tyre longevity and I'm not sure that can be solved with some setup changes as Christian Horner says:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/106131

There's no way this car could have stopped twice and I think it's a little more fundamental than that.

Even though I think Horner's explanation might be a bit simplistic, RB seems to have a certain history of not liking cold weather. Even last year the races they struggled the most were often those with colder temperatures.
It seems they tend to set the car up for fast temperature build up in these conditions to counter graining of cold tyres and then end up in excessive tyre deg.

Agree. Even in so ''dominant'' 2011, they struggled in Nurburgring due to the lower than expected temperatures.
This is good for the sport, as the supremacy they've got over one lap was threatening to produce uninteresting season.

[munudeges]

Even though I think Horner's explanation might be a bit simplistic, RB seems to have a certain history of not liking cold weather. Even last year the races they struggled the most were often those with colder temperatures.

I didn't see it. They've always been very good at getting immediate tyre performance in colder conditions, especially when they get back to Europe.

[raymondu999]

The race Showed that ferrari and Lotus were faster than red bull

No, it didn't. The race showed that in the Albert park circuit layout, with 17 ambient and 22 track, the Lotus and Ferrari kept their tyres in better nick than the RBR. There's a very big difference between this and "the lotus and ferrari were faster." I honestly don't believe those two cars were quicker today - but that the RBR was ending the stints on significantly worse rubber, thanks to a higher rate of tyre deg.

Just because Car A is quicker one weekend and Car B quicker the next weekend, it doesn't mean that Car B out developed Car A. Sometimes that's the way it happens even though Car B didn't bring any updates and Car A did.

[henra]

I didn't see it. They've always been very good at getting immediate tyre performance in colder conditions, especially when they get back to Europe.

Yes, they got temp in the tyres quickly but that seemed to mess up the tyre life over longer stints. Exactly what I wrote. The final results of those races were often less than stellar wrt what to expect from RB.
For instance Silverstone, Hockenheim, Spa did not exactly see RB's strongest performances last year speedwise.

[Raptor22]

This weekends race was a bit of a set up lottery and think RB got it slightly wrong hence the drop of in performance after about 6-7 laps on the medium tyre. The probably run a bit too much wing and conservative wet weather castor and camber

[Nomore]

The race Showed that ferrari and Lotus were faster than red bull

No, it didn't. The race showed that in the Albert park circuit layout, with 17 ambient and 22 track, the Lotus and Ferrari kept their tyres in better nick than the RBR. There's a very big difference between this and "the lotus and ferrari were faster." I honestly don't believe those two cars were quicker today - but that the RBR was ending the stints on significantly worse rubber, thanks to a higher rate of tyre deg.

Just because Car A is quicker one weekend and Car B quicker the next weekend, it doesn't mean that Car B out developed Car A. Sometimes that's the way it happens even though Car B didn't bring any updates and Car A did.

A big disagree here. Yes it did. Ferrari and Lotus were faster than Red Bull (everyone knows that: "who manage the tyres better"= "is faster"), 100% guaranteed mate. I think that most of the people didn't expect this, that's why some are shocked (Pat Fry already says it in barcelona tests....).

if i use your logic, I can say that Ferrari was the fastest car in the end of the last year just the temperature were against them... if it was 58 degrees they would have blown everyone...it's all justification (i.e Christian Horner).
We will see in the next 4-5 races how the race development will go.

I personally don't believe that Red Bull had colder tyre problems (because in the quali was very hot.....)...neither setup problem(all the teams prepare their cars for race).

Ferrari last year had problems in middle and low downforce corners and traction too...all this factors very important for Melbourne. So a big well done to: Tomabzis, Fry, Bigois, Bester, Resta and so on...and also to Lotus engineers...

I don't really understand why when red bull is faster, everyone congratulate Newey...when the others are faster is due to temperature, air pressure, position of the sun, planet rotation...it's just ridiculous

[Joie de vivre]

I don't know why RedBull seems to the only one with slim bodywork at the rear and cooling outlet a little bit above beamwing. This helps them to get more air flow beneath beamwing. Mercedes, Ferrari are very fat in this area since they have their cooling outlets below beamwing. What do you guys think?

[wesley123]

I dont really see the point of the discussion.

Vettel was clear on pole by .4 seconds, I do call that a quicker car. However, in a race, the quickest car doesnt mean anything, as you also need such things as pit stops and tire degradation. And Lotus and Ferrari simply outperformed them based on that.

Seriously, you guys need to stop rating cars just because they were quickest once. The last 2 days of winter testing "the Merc was looking great", wanna know why? Because it had the fastest times on the last 2 days, well guess what, Merc were pretty much nowhere this weekend.

Oh and earlier today, Vettel clocked a dominating pole time, and suddenly "the season was over", wanna know why? Because Vettel clocked the fastest time.

And now today suddenly "Lotus has the quickest car", wanna know why? Because it was quickest in the race and won.

Seriously stop this bullshit, rating cars just because they were fastest once, I have never seen views switch so quickly just because of someone else being fastest, it is just stupid.

[raymondu999]

"who manage the tyres better"= "is faster"

Faster through chassis design and faster through tyre management are two VERY different things. Over a stint - better tyre management means faster. But when you get down to the fundamentals of what is happening, they are very different.

if i use your logic, I can say that Ferrari was the fastest car in the end of the last year just the temperature were against them... if it was 58 degrees they would have blown everyone...

Yep. That is indeed a possibility - though I'm quite sure in such hot temperatures the 2012 Lotus would've blown the 2012 Ferrari off its socks.

I personally don't believe that Red Bull had colder tyre problems (because in the quali was very hot.....)

I believe that in fact it could be it. The Red Bulls might not be so good in the colder temperatures, leaning them towards a set-up that was more aggressive in terms of energising the tyres - sadly they went over aggressive and it burnt the tyres in the race.

all the teams prepare their cars for race).

Do they? How are you so sure of this?

My point was; if you gave the Red Bull, the Ferrari, the Lotus the exact same compound of tyres int he exact same condition, with the same exact fuel load - then the Red Bull could match it tenth for tenth (or even be faster) for at least 1 or 2 laps. After that point it would burn the tyres.

If you plot the laptimes of each frontrunner in a graph (as I always do) you could see that there clearly was a slower downwards progression for the Ferrari and Lotus. The Red Bull was in fact matching them pace for pace in the first 2 laps of each stint - but sadly fell away afterwards.

[Hail22]

What are they attempting to cover?

[stefan_]

It's kind of obvious. The guys in the back the diffuser and the sidepod outlets area, and the guy on the side the exhaust. It's a common practice for the RB guys on the grid.

[shamikaze]

It's kind of obvious. The guys in the back the diffuser and the sidepod outlets area, and the guy on the side the exhaust. It's a common practice for the RB guys on the grid.

If they are serious about this "hiding diffusor - exhaust - ...", they should recruit pitt-ladies with kankles. Surely, that would cover all bases, including the rake. And if RedBull really makes them "Fly", that would be a bold statement