A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
Why change something that has given them 3 x WDC and 3 x WCC in row? Sure, this year was tighter (thanks to mechanical and team error), but the same plan worked. The RB8 was okay at the start and a great car at the end of the year. At the start they didn't have it sussed - now they do - now they can build on that and I believe they have far greater scope of performance gains to be had than say, Ferrari. We've seen them already playing with DDRS (or whatever the new legal term is - the passive one) and we can all be sure they're looking at the nose now that the regs will be tightened.
The RB9 won't change dramatically at all, it'll be a refined versions with passive blowing and it'll be hard to see 4 x on the horizon.
Cam wrote:Why change something that has given them 3 x WDC and 3 x WCC in row?
Because Red Bull is not a team that sits still and just goes along with status quo. They're always looking ahead and trying to find an advantage. There is nothing that says the old strategy is better than the new(AD) one. They haven't really tried it before, so they never knew. But now that they do know, question is do they change.
Bottom line is this team doesn't sit still and they may very well go a different direction because they see it works. The AD race showed them that other strategies work and they're not so self absorbed to think there is not a better way than what they've been used to. It's that kind of thinking that gets you beat in F1. Just ask Ferrari if you don't believe me.
I can't see the AD race affecting their thought process. It was a one off and of course they were going to adjust the car to get better performce. Any other top 3 cars in the same situation would have had a similar result. If they qualified with that car in 5th and won the race - okay, I can see the direction change possibilities - but not when he starts from the back - he had nothing to loose.
To change a proven strategy with a year to go is inconceivable. Newey in every interview has always stated evolution is key, so we have no reason to think the RB9 will be any different.
The RB10 - okay, I'll go with you on that one as yes, maybe it is time to re-think things as the game has changed, but not 2013.
Had the Abu Dhabi race altered their ideology, I'd have thought they would have done it for Brazil already. Gary Anderson is one of the ones who keeps on harping that Red Bull has to change their philosophy, and start setting up for an overtake-friendly car, because they had the Abu Dhabi fastest lap. What he of course forgot, is that Vettel was only 1 tenth faster than Alonso, despite having soft tyres 7 laps younger than Alonso's medium tyres. I'd have expected that a Red Bull, under normal conditions, would have had more spare pace than that - correcting for option tyres, and correcting for 7 laps age difference, I'd have to say that the Ferrari did a faster fastest lap.
IMO the RB8 as we know it is very picky in terms of sweetspot - by which I mean, it produces max laptime only at peak DF setup. I think that with the RB8 base design - because of the drag cost efficiency at which they generate setup, then obviously the reverse is also true - If they reduce the rear wing by a single click, the drag efficiency of that rear wing means that they only lose a bit of drag anyway, and lose a lot of downforce.
I think save for a fundamental redesign, the RB9 will maintain this trait.
Whatever way you cut it - setting up for pole & cruise is the safest, easiest and most efficient way to chase victory.
What will be interesting is how the new DRS-in-quali rules affect them. Red Bull have always set up their cars to underutilise their DRS in qualifying - they're always setting up their cars for best DRS-closed terminal v, it seems - and so they only gain acceleration (and negligible top speed) from the DRS. I think next year's DRS-in-quali regs could mean that they have less of a disadvantage by doing this (because obviously they're rev-limited for less of the lap)
raymondu999 wrote:Had the Abu Dhabi race altered their ideology, I'd have thought they would have done it for Brazil already.
I don't really disagree with anything you posted, honestly. But when the Championship is on the line in F1, you go with what you know. Do you disagree?
I'm not saying RB will change their methodology, but to do so at the end of such a close season would be crazy IMO. We won't know until next year whether they do or not, but I definitely think its possible. But at the end of such a closely contested season isn't the time.
I think the ban on free use of DRS in Quali may change their view on how to set the car up may change a bit since they will not have the same benefits that they're used to. Only time will tell.
Crucial_Xtreme wrote:I think the ban on free use of DRS in Quali may change their view on how to set the car up may change a bit since they will not have the same benefits that they're used to. Only time will tell.
How they approach this will be interesting. The RB8 definitely needed the DDRS to be on pole or near it. With Newey the way he is, I would bet money (cold hard cash) that he already has a solution. It more than likely has a passive element and probably won't work as well in the first couple of races. They'll also get that diffuser working a lot better. It's these couple of areas that have huge scope and are right up Newey's alley. He'll love solving that problem and love being the only guy to solve it the best.
Remember, Red Bull are the masters of regulation skating. They do it better than anyone else and as the regulations are fairly stable, I daresay there's a joker in the sleeve no-one has picked yet - except him and I would speculate that internal would get a few tweaks as well.
When they won in 2010 most of their victories also came from pole/first row. So it's not like DRS was essential for their grab pole and run strategy. It just put bigger emphasis on it.
timbo wrote:When they won in 2010 most of their victories also came from pole/first row. So it's not like DRS was essential for their grab pole and run strategy. It just put bigger emphasis on it.
In 2012 that might have been, but 2012 without DDRS, the RB8 was in trouble. Bolt it on and they were 1, 2 or 3 without fail (almost). Red Bull actually needed the DDRS for their strategy to work, as others were qualifying faster more often.
2013 will be no different. With DRS gone, the Red Bull will be exposed again, so something needs to happen here if their winning strategy is to continue.
I'm not sure that logic works Cam. In 2012, a non-DDRS RB8 certainly wasn't quite the match of a DRS-activated MP4-27. RBR will lose the DDRS and DRS next year, but the other cars will also lose DRS next year. It remains to be seen whether RBR will lose more from the loss of DRS+DDRS, or the other cars from DRS.
It could be that they needed the DDRS specifically BECAUSE their DRS alone was rubbish. Not saying it was - but it's a logical possibility.
The strategy of leading from the front throughout the race will be continued because, well, it's the best that any team can possibly hope for. P1 and P2, lights to flag. Clean air, rear-gunner, DRS free.
Looking into any other strategy would mean that there's a shred of doubt into the abilities of the car/driver/team to lead from the front. It would be understandable for a team like Sauber to not bank on such a plan, as they do not have the resources to make such a car/driver pairing consistent. They will have to focus on strong tire performance and overtaking abilities against the mid-field and some of the top teams.
Red Bull, though, have demonstrated, time and time again, that they not only have the resources to make a good car, but they also have driver(s) that can put that car on pole and win. It has worked for them before because they can and it is the pinnacle of what a team can - or wants - to do.
As I mentioned earlier, Newey and the gang may focus on a passive aero-measure to boost straight-line speed (DRD) that will be of the most use in a DRS-limited qualifying.
raymondu999 wrote:It could be that they needed the DDRS specifically BECAUSE their DRS alone was rubbish. Not saying it was - but it's a logical possibility.
RB7ate9 wrote:As I mentioned earlier, Newey and the gang may focus on a passive aero-measure to boost straight-line speed (DRD) that will be of the most use in a DRS-limited qualifying.
Ahhh, DRD, that's what I was looking for. Is this the agreed new term for a passive drag reduction device?
I have to say though - I don't think it will ultimately change. Newey has maintained this philosophy for 20+ years. I don't think 1 race was enough to change it. Even when RBR was a midfield team, it shone when they raced at circuits such as Silverstone, Suzuka etc. It was clear from Newey's entrance that the cars' natural habitat were the fast slaloms.
RB7ate9 wrote:The strategy of leading from the front throughout the race will be continued because, well, it's the best that any team can possibly hope for. P1 and P2, lights to flag. Clean air, rear-gunner, DRS free.
And yet during 2004 Schumacher had 8 poles to 13 victories. Of course that was a year when qualifying was on race fuel, but my point is -- the tactics depends greatly on circumstances. However, unless Pirelli produces tyres that would require 3 to 4 stops per race, grab pole and run still seems best.
