Infiniti Red Bull Racing 2015

[Kingshark]

Also, just so that people stop throwing the same nonsense around: Sainz finished ~1 minute behind ricciardo in melbourne this year.

His pit stop, which was 35 seconds longer than normal might have something to do with that. He finished 58 seconds behind at the end, so pit-stop adjusted he was about 23 seconds slower across the race distance.

23 seconds really is not all that much. In the past, RBR could lap STR whenever they turned the wick up.

In contrast, Nasr finished 60 seconds behind Vettel on merit, without a slow pit stop. Now that tells us something about the Ferrari chassis.

[thedutchguy]

I've lost all respect for Red Bull Racing during this latest whining-episode. Red Bull is not the only team to only care about their own interest, but they are taking it to a whole new level.

Christian Horner told Autosport "At any point in time that we did show a bit of form, the rules changed and we had to adapt to that. We had to adapt from fuelling to no fuelling, bodywork changes, double diffuser, no double diffuser, blown diffuser, engine mapping changes mid-season... you name it." (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118138)

I'm quite sure that Red Bull did not invent or benefit most from the double diffuser (Brawn did), and the ban on refueling was made for cost reasons, not to slow Red Bull downs. Red Bull's bending (pun intended) of the rules relating to movable bodywork did indeed cause a clamp down in that area, but only because they intentionally made a car did not adhere tot the spirit of the regulations. And inventions / benefits by other teams such as the F-Duct and FRICS which were also banned over the last few years are obviously not mentioned by Horner.

But the most hypocritical thing is the cost aspect. Dr Marko said that the cost/benefit ratio of F1 might not be interesting enough for Red Bull to stay in F1. And that comes from a team which has fought tooth and nail against any form of cost cap over the last few years and which has made the second-best deal after Ferrari with Ecclestone to get huge sums of money just for turning up...

[Juzh]

Also, just so that people stop throwing the same nonsense around: Sainz finished ~1 minute behind ricciardo in melbourne this year.

His pit stop, which was 35 seconds longer than normal might have something to do with that. He finished 58 seconds behind at the end, so pit-stop adjusted he was about 23 seconds slower across the race distance.

23 seconds really is not all that much. In the past, RBR could lap STR whenever they turned the wick up.

In contrast, Nasr finished 60 seconds behind Vettel on merit, without a slow pit stop. Now that tells us something about the Ferrari chassis.

23s is still quite significant after a close qually. I ain't saying anywhere RB's chassis alone is as superior (compared to top teams) as it used to be, just that renault PU is making it look much worse than it actually is.
Sauber runs basically last year's car. Can't really be compared to ferrari.

[Phil]

This is a joke, right? Lotus and TR had maybe double the amount of failures last year compared to RB. TR was genuinely faster than RB only once (russia Q), but then got beat badly in the race, so their slick "williams like" car design approach didn't really work, did it?
Also, just so that people stop throwing the same nonsense around: Sainz finished ~1 minute behind ricciardo in melbourne this year.

Appologies, I should have worded my post more carefully. When I said they worked better, I was exclusively refering to reliability, not performance or speed or anythig else. When considering failures, I wasn't only thinking about straight DNFs either - RB had quite a few races (especially on Sebs car) where they had problems but still finished. I didn't keep count though, so you might be right that even in the less tightly packaged TorroRosso or Lotus they had a similar amount of failures. I do however remember RedBull and Renault blaming eachother for quite a few of their issues, that made me believe that the Renault unit could have worked better, if perhaps the packaging wasn't quite as much on the limit as it was. Funnily enough, that was exactly what RedBull then did to get some mileage in pre-season testing; they improved cooling.

I wasn't taking part of which unit was "better". Better reliability? More power? If it's about performance (power), I think the Renault and Ferrari were quite similar as per explained in my last post (the bits you left out when quoting me).

[turbof1]

Concerning the Renault PU vs Ferrari PU: it's difficult to tell which one was better concerning pure performance. If we go from the lowest downforce circuit, Monza, and calculate the average top speed for both PU's,
we get for qualifying:
Renault 342,5
Ferrari: 343,25

and for the race:
Renault: 344,9
Ferrari: 337,7

Before you ask: yes, for the average race top speed, I included ricciardo's double tow. However, the impact of his top speed is less then you might believe since it's an average of 8 cars, which limits the impact. It would certainly not pull the average 7km above ferrari's on its own.

Still, too close to call. It's not a long league to just claim that they were equal concerning top speed. I think the difference in the race comes from the harvesting, where ferrari definitely lacked in.
However, this of course does not include driveability. Ferrari's PU was known to be a handfull. During Abu Dhabi I saw the otherwise oh so steady Fernando Alonso sliding and gliding as if he was ice skating. Renault didn't have that to that extend. Again, Ferrari improved massively on that.

If we assume that last year Ferrari was slightly behind renault, and now a long way in front of them, one has to put huge question marks at the "efforts" renault made in developing their PU. That has nothing to do with the regulations, and everything with, as these-days-not-so-horny Horner tells us, "making a mess".

[Juzh]

Concerning the Renault PU vs Ferrari PU: it's difficult to tell which one was better concerning pure performance. If we go from the lowest downforce circuit, Monza, and calculate the average top speed for both PU's,
we get for qualifying:
Renault 342,5
Ferrari: 343,25

and for the race:
Renault: 344,9
Ferrari: 337,7

Before you ask: yes, for the average race top speed, I included ricciardo's double tow. However, the impact of his top speed is less then you might believe since it's an average of 8 cars, which limits the impact. It would certainly not pull the average 7km above ferrari's on its own.

Still, too close to call. It's not a long league to just claim that they were equal concerning top speed. I think the difference in the race comes from the harvesting, where ferrari definitely lacked in.
However, this of course does not include driveability. Ferrari's PU was known to be a handfull. During Abu Dhabi I saw the otherwise oh so steady Fernando Alonso sliding and gliding as if he was ice skating. Renault didn't have that to that extend. Again, Ferrari improved massively on that.

Ok, I am inclined to agree with sensible argument. However, there are few issues with comparing top speeds at monza in particular.
Most obvious one (RW aoe, cascadeless fw on RB10):


2nd one is vettel and ric spent significant amount of race in drs + slipstream trains.

If we assume that last year Ferrari was slightly behind renault, and now a long way in front of them, one has to put huge question marks at the "efforts" renault made in developing their PU. That has nothing to do with the regulations, and everything with, as these-days-not-so-horny Horner tells us, "making a mess".

I'd +1, but what's the point, right?

I wasn't taking part of which unit was "better". Better reliability? More power? If it's about performance (power), I think the Renault and Ferrari were quite similar as per explained in my last post (the bits you left out when quoting me).

Ferrari was undeniably more powerful on full pelt.

[turbof1]

Ok, I am inclined to agree with sensible argument. However, there are few issues with comparing top speeds at monza in particular.
Most obvious one (RW aoe, cascadeless fw on RB10):

That's why I took the average of all renault and ferrari teams. It atleast diminishes the effects of different aero approaches.

Btw, a very minor point, but Ferrari ran close to a cascadeless FW too; they removed their normal cascade and replaced it by 2 turning vanes, which will have produced a lot less drag. Again, minor point and you are correct to state that red bull removed everything in the cascade area.

[Juzh]

Ok, I am inclined to agree with sensible argument. However, there are few issues with comparing top speeds at monza in particular.
Most obvious one (RW aoe, cascadeless fw on RB10):

That's why I took the average of all renault and ferrari teams. It atleast diminishes the effects of different aero approaches.

Can you do it for all merc powered as well?

[turbof1]

Ok, I am inclined to agree with sensible argument. However, there are few issues with comparing top speeds at monza in particular.
Most obvious one (RW aoe, cascadeless fw on RB10):

That's why I took the average of all renault and ferrari teams. It atleast diminishes the effects of different aero approaches.

Can you do it for all merc powered as well?

Yeah I can. For the record, I'm getting the data out of this: http://www.fia.com/championship/fia-for ... qualifying (qualifying) and this http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... edtrap.pdf (race).

Average speed for merc:
Q. 349.9
R. 350.9 (could have been quite a bit higher if not for Nico Rosberg only achieving 331 as highest top speed.)

Just because I know you guys are lazy to scroll up and down, I put all the data together:
Qualifying:
Renault 342,5
Ferrari: 343,25
Mercedes: 349.9

Race:
Renault: 344,9
Ferrari: 337,7
Mercedes 350.9

For the record, take a look at the time of the top speeds too during the race. Interesting to note is that Bottas, Massa and Hamilton did their highest speeds in the early part of the race when the tanks were still quite full. They probably turned the engine down when everything settled in, but as it looks they probably could have gone quite a bit faster if they tried.

[Kingshark]

I wasn't taking part of which unit was "better". Better reliability? More power? If it's about performance (power), I think the Renault and Ferrari were quite similar as per explained in my last post (the bits you left out when quoting me).

Ferrari was undeniably more powerful on full pelt.

Ferrari had horrible drivability though, easily the worst out of the 3 (just look at Alonso drifting every time he'd touch the throttle in Abu Dhabi FP2). Ferrari also had the worst fuel consumption.

Whether Red Bull's demise is because of Renault's laziness or their own narrow window chassis is up for debate (I'd be willing to lay the vast majority of the blame on Renault), but one thing that is for certain in my mind, is that the Red Bull era is probably over.

Newey is a great designer, but even he cannot overcome a massive engine disadvantage (2014-15) or tyre disadvantage (2002 & 2004).

[raymondu999]

you not agreeing with me doesn't mean my opinion is invalid.

And vice versa. It still doesn't change the fact that Renault outdid Ferrari as engine suppliers in every metric last year. Whether that was car or engine, we'll never know.

True enuf, but not by much.

3 victories vs 2 podiums is not by much?

[Richard]

IMHO Comparing engines is a bit like comparing drivers. We know that some engines are better than others but trying to prove the HP of one engine over another is frankly a waste of time because there are so many other factors involved in the team-car-driver combination.

At the end of the day it's the points that count and last year Renault managed to be more successful than Ferrari. End of story.

[Cold Fussion]

IMHO Comparing engines is a bit like comparing drivers. We know that some engines are better than others but trying to prove the HP of one engine over another is frankly a waste of time because there are so many other factors involved in the team-car-driver combination.

At the end of the day it's the points that count and last year Renault managed to be more successful than Ferrari. End of story.

If you have the GPS trace then you could fairly accurately estimate the engine power but trying to determine via top speed or worse, fanboyism then it's a waste of time.

[Phil]

Average speed for merc:
Q. 349.9
R. 350.9 (could have been quite a bit higher if not for Nico Rosberg only achieving 331 as highest top speed.)

Just because I know you guys are lazy to scroll up and down, I put all the data together:
Qualifying:
Renault 342,5
Ferrari: 343,25
Mercedes: 349.9

Race:
Renault: 344,9
Ferrari: 337,7
Mercedes 350.9

Interesting numbers. Interesting because top-speed is a great indicator of top-speed, if we assume somewhat comparable drag / downforce levels since Monza is very much a power circuit. I'm not that sure about the averaging however (though I get why you do wanted to average them). If we look at the high speed traps from qualifying, we see that all engine teams at their peak (Mercedes, Ferrari, Torro Rosso) achieved speeds between 353 and 348kmh. That's a 5kmh difference between the fastest Mercedes and the fastest Renault, with Ferrari in between at 350. The slowest cars (Lotus and Caterham) had times of around 334-338kmh, so anyway you look at it, the slowest cars are seriouly pulling down the averages. Looking at the best performers, we can see that all 3 engines in one car or another were actually quite close - so I do wonder how much these speed trap numbers are a good indicator of engine performance. But qualifying also fitches the numbers a bit, because the cars are in perfect shape to be at their fastest - open DRS wing, full KERS available, highest engine modes. Race performance is probably quite a bit different, but those numbers are then influenced by possible slipstream...

[turbof1]

Average speed for merc:
Q. 349.9
R. 350.9 (could have been quite a bit higher if not for Nico Rosberg only achieving 331 as highest top speed.)

Just because I know you guys are lazy to scroll up and down, I put all the data together:
Qualifying:
Renault 342,5
Ferrari: 343,25
Mercedes: 349.9

Race:
Renault: 344,9
Ferrari: 337,7
Mercedes 350.9

Interesting numbers. Interesting because top-speed is a great indicator of top-speed, if we assume somewhat comparable drag / downforce levels since Monza is very much a power circuit. I'm not that sure about the averaging however (though I get why you do wanted to average them). If we look at the high speed traps from qualifying, we see that all engine teams at their peak (Mercedes, Ferrari, Torro Rosso) achieved speeds between 353 and 348kmh. That's a 5kmh difference between the fastest Mercedes and the fastest Renault, with Ferrari in between at 350. The slowest cars (Lotus and Caterham) had times of around 334-338kmh, so anyway you look at it, the slowest cars are seriouly pulling down the averages. Looking at the best performers, we can see that all 3 engines in one car or another were actually quite close - so I do wonder how much these speed trap numbers are a good indicator of engine performance. But qualifying also fitches the numbers a bit, because the cars are in perfect shape to be at their fastest - open DRS wing, full KERS available, highest engine modes. Race performance is probably quite a bit different, but those numbers are then influenced by possible slipstream...

Slipstreaming at Monza brings much more benefit then DRS and low fuel. DRS on Monza has a limited effect due the small wings shedding less drag. Having a car in front of you pushing the air away from your complete car has bigger benefits, hence why top speed in the race are higher.

I'd guess that every driver got onto the slipstream of another at one point or another. Interestingly, Hamilton did his highest speed when I believe he was still chasing Rosberg, who I believe was quite a bit ahead before running wide into the chicane. The tow picked up has to be assumed to be limited. I definitely think Mercedes could beaten Ricciardo's top speed if they ever were interested in that.

However, this is not about Mercedes. The point all along was that Renault and Ferrari had a similar performance, with Renault assumingly having better driveability at that point. Red Bull is complaining that it's not possible under current rule set to catch Mercedes, yet Ferrari did reeled in a chunk of that advantage, even though they were in a slightly worse position. It shows 3 things:

-That it is infact possible to catch up Mercedes. It'll however take a few seasons.
-Sufficient development is allowed to do so.
-Renault made a mess and Red Bull are blaming the regulations, which of course is entirely incorrect.