2016 Red Bull Racing team - TAG Heuer

[FoxHound]

Lowe wades in....

Silverstone is a circuit which is undoubtedly a real test of a car, power and aerodynamics.
It’s interesting that Red Bull are constantly peddling a story about the low power they’ve got, but just to set the record straight at this event as they often do, they chose to run a higher level of wing than we did. Therefore they look like they have less power and they’re quicker in the corners, because that’s the choice they make.
The reality is there’s not a huge difference between the engines these days, but there are still differences between the downforce you can run."

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merce ... er-798050/

[Jolle]

Lowe wades in....

Silverstone is a circuit which is undoubtedly a real test of a car, power and aerodynamics.
It’s interesting that Red Bull are constantly peddling a story about the low power they’ve got, but just to set the record straight at this event as they often do, they chose to run a higher level of wing than we did. Therefore they look like they have less power and they’re quicker in the corners, because that’s the choice they make.
The reality is there’s not a huge difference between the engines these days, but there are still differences between the downforce you can run."

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/merce ... er-798050/

Always hide the real source of your power and speed.. from both sides

[Juzh]

"Red Bull pace not limited by engine power"

That'a bold one. By definition one of your pace limitations is engine power.

Interesting how lowe wasn't so vocal after baku when everyone bar mercedes powered cars ran toothpick wings and were still nowhere compared to them.

[graham.reeds]

Besides that, isn't their current engine lineup not heavily "inspired " by old ford and jaguar engines and isn't their next source for power the AMG 4.0V8? Looks like AM is outsourcing their engine department.

Said that, they could order a V6 at Cosworth and put some electronics and turbos on it.

Mercedes own 10% of AM and have been the engine in majority of their cars for 5 years, if not longer, so it makes perfect sense to buy in the top Merc engine.

[Jolle]

"Red Bull pace not limited by engine power"

That'a bold one. By definition one of your pace limitations is engine power.

Interesting how lowe wasn't so vocal after baku when everyone bar mercedes powered cars ran toothpick wings and were still nowhere compared to them.

What else it he going to say? "We had a pretty easy afternoon, after a big gap at Q Lewis could switch to a cruising power mode after the opening lap because RedBull isn't really challenging us for the lead"?

[FoxHound]

"Red Bull pace not limited by engine power"

That'a bold one. By definition one of your pace limitations is engine power.

Interesting how lowe wasn't so vocal after baku when everyone bar mercedes powered cars ran toothpick wings and were still nowhere compared to them.

I think you'll find at Baku, Red Bull had other issues to worry about than the Renault V6.
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/163 ... yre-issues
And Lowe's statement was relative, no universal.

[FoxHound]

Always hide the real source of your power and speed.. from both sides

Well, Lowe has a point when you see that barn door style rear wing Red Bull used at Silverstone, with Rosberg struggling to overtake even with DRS.
The Mercs were quicker in the twistier sectors too.

This is massive progress by Renault, which hasn't quite fully been acknowledged by Red Bull yet.

[gandharva]

And Lowe's statement was relative, no universal.

Paddys statement was bullshit. Smoke and mirrors. End of story.

Btw. we already had this topic days ago in the car thread...

[FoxHound]

And Lowe's statement was relative, no universal.

Paddys statement was bullshit. Smoke and mirrors. End of story.

Btw. we already had this topic days ago in the car thread...

How was it BS?

Did you actually see the size of RB's rear wing? It was massive!
How long did it take a DRS assisted pass for a Mercedes powered Rosberg?

The premise of Lowe's statement, was that at Silverstone at least, Red Bull were not hampered by their engine.
If you have any data to suggest otherwise, please bring it to the table so we can all have a look.

Edit....Wing comparison.

[gandharva]

"...constantly peddling..."
"...they often do, they chose..."

So more than once, eh? And now please show us pics of all the other tracks (preferable engine tracks) Paddy is undoubtedly talking about, because until then I'll stick to my "it's bullshit" statement.

[FoxHound]

"...constantly peddling..."
"...they often do, they chose..."

So more than once, eh? And now please show us pics of all the other tracks (preferable engine tracks) Paddy is undoubtedly talking about, because until then I'll stick to my "it's bullshit" statement.

So you see the fact as daylight, but dismiss it on a detail in Lowe's statement("they often do")?

I see in another thread you pointed to Baku as evidence that the margin is still as high as it ever was....BUT, you make no mention of the fact Red Bull messed up their aero balance which led to them having tyre issues.
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/163 ... yre-issues

They screwed up, and you are pointing to this as evidence without giving the full picture. Baku is a point and squirt track, where engine power, and traction in and out of corners is pivotal.
Red Bull where braking relative earlier in and accelerating relative later out of corners than they would otherwise normally do.

Both will have serious implications on top speed.

While I agree the Mercedes PU is superior, the gap has shrunk considerably, and at most venues on the F1 calendar I'd say there are now other factors which will have precedence than outright power.
Namely tyre usage and aero set up.

Toward the end of the season we could even see reliability make a massive difference, with Hamilton suffering more than most.

[Juzh]

Red Bull where braking relative earlier in and accelerating relative later out of corners than they would otherwise normally do

Both will have serious implications on top speed.

It matters VERY little and a car called manor proves this.

I see in another thread you pointed to Baku as evidence that the margin is still as high as it ever was....

No, the advantage probably isn't AS HIGH as it EVER was, because it's hard not to improve on a bunch of crap that was last year's renault PU. It's still big enough though. And that much is clear to see.

In austria merc had a BIG advantage over renaults
http://www.fia.com/file/44406/download?token=ImP_m8UI

Just look at the pathetic sector 1 and 3 speeds of the renaults compared to mercs.

[FoxHound]

Red Bull where braking relative earlier in and accelerating relative later out of corners than they would otherwise normally do

Both will have serious implications on top speed.

It matters VERY little and a car called manor proves this.

That's simply laughable Juzh.

It's physics, and to compare X with Y when X is itself not the complete picture is redundant.
Manor prove nothing. Red Bull proved to have tyre issues from their own data.

In austria merc had a BIG advantage over renaults
http://www.fia.com/file/44406/download?token=ImP_m8UI

Just look at the pathetic sector 1 and 3 speeds of the renaults compared to mercs.

I mean, it's REDONKULOUS! All taken from Austria. And, you are complaining that the top speed isn't the same????
If Red Bull want top speed, they'd reduce their rake and wing to that of cars around them. Simples.
Also interesting, that Bottas in the Williams Mercedes had a comparable top speed to the Red Bull's and was actually just outdone on top speed by K-Mags Renault!
Nothing to do with Aero, Juzh?

[FoxHound]

I often wonder Foxhound, what's your agenda? Is it to promote Renault, or to bash Red Bull? Either way I applaud your consistency over the years. But maybe it's time to quit.

The same could be said for yourself and Juzh. Every GP weekend is a Renault bashing weekend.
This very page sums up the amount of abuse, and that's what it amounts to, abuse, that Renault receive.
We have seen, without question that Renault have made big gains on last year. Yet we still see the abuse....

We see false flags raised with charts of speed as supposed evidence of a "crap" engine. But, we also see the car running more rake than any other, and more wing than their competitors. Oddly, this is left out in the "analysis".

At an engine track, Canada, we saw a Red Bull qualify 0.020 seconds off a Ferrari. And this was done with a compareable wing, with more rake than a Ferrari.


We also saw Red Bull out-qualify every Mercedes customer.

At Baku Red Bull were out of sorts with set up, they even admit it, but all blame is apportioned to the engine.
And my consistency is relevant, because the abuse is maintained, in spite of the clear progress.
Nobody is saying Renault are better or on a par with Mercedes, but you cannot say hand on heart that Red Bull are 140* points behind Mercedes because of the engine. Silverstone, Barcelona, and Monaco are clear examples of this.

*this with the Merc drivers crashing into each other, and Red Bull benefiting.

[ME4ME]

Where is the bashing of Renault? Most people are pretty positive towards the progress they're making, but there is still ground to make up. What do you want people to do, get delusional?

but you cannot say hand on heart that Red Bull are 140* points behind Mercedes because of the engine.

Personally thats exactly what i'm saying. All other performance aspects of the team, drivers and car are accounted for. I think Red Bull and Mercedes would be equal, with equal power. I say that without critiziting Renault. They show clear progress, which is all that matters at this point.