Infiniti Red Bull Racing 2015

[bhall II]

Again, I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that it's inherently difficult to know how much is and can be attributed to the tires when there is a rather big discrepancy between power unit performance. If we had identical engines with give or take similar performance, like we did before 2014, then yes, it's easier to pin-point the cause.

I don't attribute anything to anything when it comes to the current car. My sole point here has been to say that, despite many assertions to the contrary, there's not necessarily any reason to believe a perfect power unit would immediately transform the RB11 into a winner. It would most certainly help, but chinks in Red Bull's armor began to show in 2013 when the power plant wasn't an issue, and the rules have since moved even further from what have historically been the team's strengths.

[lio007]

http://www.speedweek.com/formel1/news/7 ... lohnt.html

Oft liegen die Toro-Rosso-Fahrer im Training auf verblüffenden Plätzen, aber im Rennen scheint dieser Speed nicht umzusetzen zu sein. Wie kommt das?
Da wir zwei Neulinge im Team haben, steht am Freitag ein umfangreiches Programm an, das heisst, unsere Fahrer drehen sehr viele Runden. Wir wollen, dass sie mit dem Kurs vertraut werden. Natürlich kann man nicht mit vollen Tanks rausfahren, dann wären die Reifen sofort verbraucht. In anderen Teams wird zumindest das erste Training nicht so wichtig genommen wie bei Toro Rosso. Wenn eine Fahrerpaarung bereits mehre Jahre Rennerfahrung hat, ist es nicht notwendig, im ersten Training auf der noch schlechten Piste viel zu fahren. Man wartet, bis die Strecke schneller wird. Zudem pushen unsere Fahrer von Anfang an. Durch all diese Umstände sehen wir freitags besser aus als wir sind.

More or less, that's the translation:
Asked for the reason, why Toro Rosso is so fast on Fridays but can't show the same speed in the race, Franz Tost answered:
- because of the two rookies, they have an enormous program on Fridays. So both do a lot of laps to get used to the track
- because of the high number of laps, they can't go out with full tanks to get through the weekend with the available sets of tyres
- these and other circumstances are the reason, why they look better on Fridays than their real pace is

Maybe an explanation why TR is better than RB on Fridays.

[ME4ME]

Going by Red Bulls pace at Silverstone and their recent upgrades and fix for the ride-height issues caused this year by the change of skid blocks, how do you guys expect the team to fare in Hungary?

The track certainly should suit them reasonably well. I expect them to be right up there with Williams and possibly even Ferrari. Should be an interesting race. To me it seems they have made steps forward and are now faster then Toro Rosso.

[djos]

I already covered this in another thread - namely the one where I gathered all the data of all the teams since 2010 and analyzed who made progress going from 2013 to 2014 and who didn't. Williams should have been 2nd, but again, they made stupid strategic errors and RedBull was able to benefit from 3 Mercedes technical issues (DNF, safety car chaos and collision in Spa): http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 15#p570015

That Red Bull benefited from those events suggests to me they were the second best team in 2014. If your analysis doesn't show this, could I suggest it as flawed?

Actually I think Phil is correct, the Renault while down on power compared to the Mercedes was very drivable, the Ferrari in 2014 had similar power to the Renault but was a dog to drive.

[FoxHound]

That Red Bull benefited from those events suggests to me they were the second best team in 2014. If your analysis doesn't show this, could I suggest it as flawed?

Actually I think Phil is correct, the Renault while down on power compared to the Mercedes was very drivable, the Ferrari in 2014 had similar power to the Renault but was a dog to drive.

Does this correlate to the backwards step RBR have taken from 2014 to 2015?

[djos]

Yes, the Renault clearly went backwards and the Ferrari went forwards. Even the Ferrari customer teams showed this.

You don't go through 20 pu's in half a season on 4 cars when you get it right do you?

[FoxHound]

Yes, the Renault clearly went backwards and the Ferrari went forwards. Even the Ferrari customer teams showed this.

You don't go through 20 pu's in half a season on 4 cars when you get it right do you?

So you apportion all the blame on Renault?

[turbof1]

He does not, but the blame for going through 5 PUs for each car in half a season is to be apportioned completely to Renault.

That's not to say Red Bull did not made mistakes on their behalf. Even Adrian Newey acknowledges both Ferrari's and Mercedes' their chassis are simply better then what Red Bull has.

I do not and will not agree with a "we split the responsibility among us"-like approach however. You can't finish with a horrid engine, and you can't finish into decent points with a horrid chassis. Red Bull's case is a simply "I'm f*cked" one: either the engine blows up during practice which will make sure the car starts, due the penalty, at the back denying any chance on decent points, either it blows up during the race which ensures a penalty for the next race and no points for the current one, or either it does not blow up and the car cannot match the ferrari cars, mercedes cars, the williams cars and is fighting for the remaining points with its sister team.

[Phil]

I'll just add something small to what Turbo just said:

If I am an engine manufacturer and I let myself be pressured by a customer to the point that I rush things that then has a negative impact on all engines supplied to my customers, is it right to point to others and blame them? As an engine manufacturer, one can expect them to know best what they are doing, how far to push because it is their field of expertise. How can you attribute any blame to a complete outsider, customer or otherwise who is absolutely ignorant and can only trust in ones ability, competence and know-how?

It's entirely up to the competence of a vendor to determine what is within their ability and what not.

I'll concede that these PUs are very complex - and can not be looked at as a singular entity or component. They are a chain of components - if one fails, it will impact the other. Given that these engines are also new, the packaging around the PU is critical in how well and reliable it performs (hence why I concluded that RedBulls aggressive packaging could also be highly relevant in its higher failure rate last year). Despite these points however, and the fact that the reliability is not exclusive to RedBull cars, it is within Renaults responsibility and competence to understand what the problem is and what needs to be done to solve it (or direct the teams accordingly if some of the issues are down to packaging). Given this is already the 2nd year of these new engines, it is clear that there must be a better understanding of what is required of these engines as a package and how the teams have built the car around it.

[bhall II]

How can you attribute any blame to a complete outsider, customer or otherwise who is absolutely ignorant and can only trust in ones ability, competence and know-how?

Fair enough. But, if you accept that, you must also accept that Red Bull deserves very little credit for its World Championships, given that the 2011 British GP clearly illustrated the team's heavy reliance upon Renault's outstanding implementation of off-throttle overrun and other engine maps. Without a blown diffuser, the RB7 went from being dominant to being merely good, and it happened in the blink of an eye.

Consistency dictates that you can't have one without the other.

[turbof1]

If we go down that road (which I don't necessarily have anything against), neither would Renault have deserved credit for it. As I remember, Renault built in that feature to keep the engine from damage. It turned out to be a happy coincidence it could be used for the later concept of EBD.

Remember, by then the engines were long froozen in development. Renault was allowed to make performance gains as an exception, but long before we got to EBD.

[bhall II]

Engine maps were more or less free back in 2011. So, off-throttle overrun didn't require hardware development (which is why Renault claimed a need for cold-blowing).

That which deserves blame also deserves credit. It's only fair.

[ME4ME]

Fair enough. Without a blown diffuser, the RB7 went from being dominant to being merely good, and it happened in the blink of an eye.

In a blink of an eye - just like that regulation change for that weekend. No team can sufficienty respond to that, the car was fully design around the blown defuser. The fact they didn't have time to respond and therefor the performance wasn't there anymore doesnt mean their previous performance was all down to Renault.

Fair enough. But, if you accept that, you must also accept that Red Bull deserves very little credit for its World Championships,

It would be ignorant to not give credit for the world championships they earned. The team was by far the best over that period of time. Car upgrades came rapidly. Upgrades actually worked (unlike Ferrari who blamed their wind tunnel). Team performance was great (unlike Mclaren) .. pit stops were the best.

Honestly over the last couple of months, Red Bull and Renault have behaved themselves and gone back to work. Personally I think the discusion is getting tiresome, so why not talk about the race weekend to come? That should raise the spirit in here somewhat, now that the team finally is improving. Pretty please

[FoxHound]

He does not, but the blame for going through 5 PUs for each car in half a season is to be apportioned completely to Renault.

Of course, but it's always a bonus to nail ones colours to the flag.
And this is the problem.

What is the problem.

that's not to say Red Bull did not made mistakes on their behalf. Even Adrian Newey acknowledges both Ferrari's and Mercedes' their chassis are simply better then what Red Bull.

We know. Red Bull's PR machine testifies that much at least.
However, do we totally ignore the quite exemplary analysis Ben has provided, simply to come to the conclusion that Red Bull are ignoramus?

The floor ruling ruined Red Bull royally.

If you contest it, respectfully (Phil, you're included mate), I'd love to see analysis showing performance sans and inclusive of it.

This will reveal the story unequivocally, even though this really should be buried given the scientific, exploratory and unabated explanations given by Ben thus far.

[bhall II]

In a blink of an eye...

Your reaction to my absurd claim that Renault deserves all the credit for Red Bull's former success is exactly like my reaction to claims that Renault is totally responsible for Red Bull's current struggles. It defies credibility, right?

However, if we must accept that Red Bull is undeserving of "any blame" here because it's "a complete outsider...who is absolutely ignorant" to matters that fall within "[Renault's] field of expertise," then how can we possibly give the team credit for Championships won on the strength of solutions that were also from "[Renault's] field of expertise"?

I'm pretty good with mental gymnastics. But that's some next-level, Olympic-style ---.