Infiniti Red Bull Racing 2015

[FoxHound]

Are you working on the assumption that Red Bull still have "the best chassis and aero"?

Again Fox, how can one judge the ability of the chassis and aero when the car is clearly compromised because of the PU?

Phil,

How is it we can judge the ability of the engine but not the aero or chassis? Are you giving the chassis and aero guys a pass because Renault are 6km/h down on Mercedes, therefore any comparison is in highspeed corners(aero), and low speed corners(chassis) are to be rendered obsolete?

[Cold Fussion]

How about in future people make an attempt at providing some actual technical analysis and put this endless, vacuous circle jerk to rest? It has been 40 pages of near constant merry-go-round featuring the same protagonists saying the same thing.

[Phil]

Let me illustrate it:

Track from A to B, the track being a long straight and two corners at the end that favour high downforce, followed by a short straight to the finish line. You have two identical cars, car X and Y - though Y has 20% less power than X. Chassis and aero assuming identical set-ups is identical. Both cars are free to find the optimal set-up to achieve the quickest from A to B given their car.

Set-up difference might (will) include either adding downforce (more drag) to be quick on the two corners at the expense of a lower Vmax (ultimate acceleration will be lower) or the opposite.

Run this through a computer simulation and basically the optimum set-up for both will differ.

The straight, being a substantial part of A to B, will mean that Vmax will be an important factor, but due to both corners, downforce will be also important to a degree. Which is more important depends on how much time will be lost in each segment. My point being, Car Y with 20% less power, will probably sacrifice more downforce (relative to Car X) in order to achieve a higher Vmax, but will then lose out in downforce corners. How much it will need to sacrifice depends on how much the 20% deficit ends up being (which is dependent on how long the straight is).

If both cars run the same set-up (identical downforce), Car X will be faster, because it has more power, will achieve a higher Vmax, but they will be more or less identical through the corners.


Every F1 track is different. Some have characteristics where the straights are longer, therefore a more important factor. Some have more corners. Some are bumpy. Some, like Monaco, are very twisty, feature bumpy surface where mechanical grip is important. On every track, the optimal setup is different because it may feature longer straights, more corners or a combination of both. Every F1 car will have a different optimum that changes from track to track. On some tracks, thanks to DRS, teams might go for a slightly compromised set-up (if they know they are lacking top-speed) in order to not be vulnerable to overtakes on the straights by similar cars that have a higher Vmax.

A simple practical example: The RedBull in the EBD days was the quickest car - but never top-speed wise. They ran the strategy of qualifying on pole, but their car was always set-up closest to the optimum; quickest time lap time wise. In the hands of Vettel, it worked brilliantly 80% of the time because he was on pole and drove off. Webber, with usually a bad start, would get in traffic and despite having a quicker car; could rarely overtake the cars around him. When Vettel at one time started from the pitlane, they changed his set-up for a higher Vmax because they knew he would have to pass cars.

Therefore we can establish that set-up is a crucial part of performing well during the race. If the PU in the back of your car is underperforming, you will be forced to compromise your set-up to a degree. That may mean decreasing ultimate downforce in order not to lose out too much on the crucial straights where most of the overtaking takes place. We also don't know to what degree RedBull needed to compromise their chassis/aero in order to meet the cooling requirements of a rather erratic and issue plagued Renault engine.

I therefore conclude that any argument where one looks and judges the RedBulls aero/chassis ability/potential (especially to cars with more power) to be rather too simplistic - just as simplistic as judging that McLaren-Honda, because they are far from showing the potential of that car and as long as various parts are operating under what they are supposed to, the whole car is essentially compromised.


DISCLAIMER: I am not saying that there is a 20% deficit. It is only an example to illustrate how a power deficit has a relevancy on set-up and downforce and therefore makes it difficult to judge how good a car is chassis/aero wise. I am also not saying it is all Renaults fault, or that RedBull have built the chassis bar none. My point is rather that judging them is difficult with the power deficit (and the erratic engine) they have.

[FW17]

Red Bull considering Mercedes and Honda power for 2016

Red Bull is not expecting its surge in form to stay on track beyond the Hungarian grand prix, and are apparently studying alternative options to Renault power – with Mercedes and Honda on their radar.

Amid an uncompetitive season so far for the former champions, both Daniil Kvyat and Daniel Ricciardo were on the podium at the twisty Hungaroring track.

But Helmut Marko said: “Sadly it will not be the same at Spa and Monza, unless it rains.”

Red Bull has made it abundantly clear in 2015 that the biggest problem with its 2015 package is the underpowered Renault engine.

“When the corners predominate over the straights, then we have a chance,” Marko told Germany’s Sky. “Since we had the short nose, the development of our car is progressing and the car is more predictable.

“We have some more updates for Spa but unfortunately we can’t get anything for the engine until Sochi,” he added.

By then, Renault and Red Bull may already have announced their F1 divorce, with Renault set to buy the Lotus team and Red Bull reportedly in talks with Mercedes.

A contract exists for 2016, but it is rumoured Red Bull will find an exit due to the unfulfilled “promises” about performance made by Renault this year.

And “We were promised a lot,” Marko is quoted by Auto Motor und Sport.

The German magazine said Red Bull is aiming now for a customer deal with Mercedes for 2016, while junior team Toro Rosso eyes a supply of Honda power.

To some, the prospect of a Red Bull-Mercedes alliance seems unthinkable, but boss Toto Wolff said: “‘Never say never’ applies even in this industry.

“There is a contract between Red Bull and Renault that we respect, but we also know that this is formula one.”

Maybe already posted

[ME4ME]

I bet Ecclestone would like to see Red Bull getting Mercedes power as well. Should spice up the fight at the front.

Mercedes as well could profit: Their wins would seem more hard earned by having a tougher competition. Also when Red Bull wins, there would be Mercedes on the side of the car, or even in the team name (Red Bull Mercedes).

OK guys, I must admit .. i'm massivly exited for this to happen

[motobaleno]

Ron Dennis said that Mclaren had no chance to win a championship with a mercedes engine. This should mean something

[FoxHound]

Phil,

I think there's some smoke and mirrors going on here. Let's not beat about the bush obfuscating matters further, or we shall risk further ire from ColdFussion...Woe betide us.

Pictures from this weekends GP.

VS Mercedes





VS Ferrari





That rear wing looks at least as fat as Ferrari's and Mercedes. I'd say, Red Bull' have the biggest of the lot.
Now then, where does this fit in with your post? Weak PU, Add more DF? This directly contradicts you.

Furthermore, lets have a look at the track layout.


I will point to the final sector of the track, coloured blue. This has the 2 slowest corners on the track which will benefit teams who have a good chassis and good aero.

Ricciardo was 0.750 seconds behind Hamilton, and lost almost half this time in the final sector alone.
23.016 for Hamilton and 23.356 for Ricciardo.
Ironically, Red Bull lost less on the first sector than it did on the last...Marginally, but every little counts.

This with a fat wing, which I reiterate...looks at least as big as Merc and Ferrari's.

I accept with similar wings (though i feel Red Bull are running larger rear wings)there should be a 3 or 4 tenth disadvantage on the sector utilising the PU most(1st sector, straight).
This is ably demonstrated. Be in no doubt, I agree Renault are currently lacking here.
But, if they are taking that fat rear wing hit....where is the payback on that last sector? We just don't see it.

Which is the crux of my problem with Red Bull. You cannot hang Renault out to dry, when clearly the Red Bull chassis and aero is not up to the standard of the class leaders.
It's bovine hypocricy!

[FoxHound]

Ron Dennis said that Mclaren had no chance to win a championship with a mercedes engine. This should mean something

Ron Dennis saying something, does not necessarily mean something.

[FW17]

Ron Dennis said that Mclaren had no chance to win a championship with a mercedes engine. This should mean something

Ron Dennis saying something, does not necessarily mean something.

Well with a customer deal you will not be getting free engines and $50 million budget from your engine supplier

[FoxHound]

Ron Dennis said that Mclaren had no chance to win a championship with a mercedes engine. This should mean something

Ron Dennis saying something, does not necessarily mean something.

Well with a customer deal you will not be getting free engines and $50 million budget from your engine supplier

Quite!

[djos]

Fox, you are ignoring the cars in their ultimate speed configuration, q3.

Dan was within 1/10th of a second of Hamilton's pole time in sector 3.

Fact: the RedBull chassis is fast, maybe even on par with the Merc chassis.

[Phil]

I think there's some smoke and mirrors going on here.

Indeed. That includes comparing front angled pictures of cars, judging the size of their wing (without baring the actual angles of flaps) as if it was the sole element there that creates downforce and drag, comparing the performance of two completely different drivers (Hamilton vs Ricciardo) and assuming both delivered a identically representative laptime relative to the strengths of their car. Hamilton is a Hungary expert. If you are taking his lap as the perfect "representative" one - who is to say that Ricciardo also delivered the perfect one to get a feel for how good his car was?

I will say this in regards to Hungary though: S2 is the downforce bit - essentially where they were pretty close to Mercedes. S3 one could argue is more down to mechanical grip (the two slowest corners). Maybe the RedBull is excellent in downforce (when set up to take advantage of it), but has it's flaws in mechanical grip situations? I'll also point out that at the beginning of S3, there is a longish straight - who is to say some of that 3 tenths isn't lost there? Then there are also the ERS components which have a direct link to braking ability. Who is to say some of the PU (remember; PU = Power-Unit = all components including the ERS) doesn't also have a bearing on braking ability?

If anything the above paragraph and Hungary demonstrates why using tracks and its drivers to be difficult in assessing the strengths of a car. Which is why I point back to my very simplistic A to B stretch of road to highlight in what way a performance deficit requires a team to make changes to their set-up to compromise between top-speed and downforce/corner performance. I'll be the first to admit I don't know where RedBull is losing out the most, but to simply ignore the blatant performance deficit while assessing chassis/aero strength on a complex track with varying straights and corners is all a bit too simple. Especially if very basic logic dictates that there is always some sort of compromise between drag/downforce/Vmax in set-up to achieve the best possible lap-time. And that again is influenced by the teams assessment of where they will qualify and who they are battling, how easy it is to overtake etc.

[FoxHound]

I think there's some smoke and mirrors going on here.

If you are taking his lap as the perfect "representative" one - who is to say that Ricciardo also delivered the perfect one to get a feel for how good his car was?...................Who is to say some of the PU (remember; PU = Power-Unit = all components including the ERS) doesn't also have a bearing on braking ability?....................there is always some sort of compromise between drag/downforce/Vmax in set-up to achieve the best possible lap-time. And that again is influenced by the teams assessment of where they will qualify and who they are battling, how easy it is to overtake etc.

This is obfuscating the issue, I'm sorry to say Phil.

Q3 is the outright performance of the car. If we start to make excuses for the driver, the braking, set up compromises, the wind, the temprature ad nauseum, then we may as well let Renault off the hook too as perhaps the gluten laden baguettes at Viry-Chatillon compromised some engineers mental capacity post 1pm.

I have provided you with clear facts, even painted a few pictures. Yet I'm presented with nothing more than...

That includes comparing front angled pictures of cars, judging the size of their wing (without baring the actual angles of flaps) as if it was the sole element there that creates downforce and drag,

Why would Red Bull make it's profile so large if they weren't gunning for a higher configuration of DF throughout the car?
Unless your suggesting is that the angle is shallower yet the profile retains that of a barn door? Or perhaps they bolted on tons of rear DF totally forgoing the front end?
Is this Red Bull efficency at work?

Hamilton is a Hungary expert.

I simply don't care. Hamilton cannot physically outdo his car, he can only go to within the limits of it. This same rule applies to Ricciardo, and anything with a pulse or a current for that matter.

I'll also point out that at the beginning of S3, there is a longish straight

"longish"??? its total length is 220 meters. If we take the braking zone into a 90 degree right hander into account...this straight is actually a very short 160/70 meters maximum. Should I also forget the S2 speed you are alluding to heading into S3?
Look for yourself.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Hun ... 97bf01f56f

[Phil]

Q3 is the outright performance of the car.

Err... No. It is only the outright performance of a given set-up. You know, parc ferme? So if the car is set-up with the race in mind (which they are!), it is always running certain compromises, even in Q3.

If you want to ignore how much the ability of a driver and what he can get out of a given car/set-up and simply assume the best driver of each car has done the best possible achievable, fair enough, but then lets also ignore that Rosberg in the same Mercedes was nowhere (relatively speaking). Thank god for Hamilton to widen our perspective.

Why would Red Bull make it's profile so large if they weren't gunning for a higher configuration of DF throughout the car?

Admittedly, I have no idea and no idea how much of an impact that has on either a.) the performance and - b.) downforce etc.

What I am assuming however is that RedBull are well educated enough to figure out what is the best compromise for their car/drivers to perform well within the boundaries of the car as a whole. Look, I'll make it very easy for you:


You further up noted that... "I agree Renault are currently lacking here.", essentially agreeing that there is a performance deficit.

How big that performance deficit is, is anyone's guess, but it is there. If we reduce the sample to a very simplistic track like I illustrated further up that includes a long straight and a few downforce corners - two identical cars with one running normally (X) and the other with a performance deficit (Y), the optimal set-up for both to achieve the best possible time will differ. Agree?

Then we also agree that running both cars with identical set-ups will see the car with the performance deficit (Y) be slower (because it'll be losing out on the straights where performance is key). This setup will achieve a time of N.

Trading off downforce for more straight line speed (less drag) will result in a slightly quicker time because the straight is a crucial part of A to B. This particular setup will achieve a time of N-x

What I feel you are doing is then looking at that car with that set-up, which is identical to car X in every way except for the power deficit, narrowly looking at the two downforce corners and concluding that the chassis and aero of car X must be better than car Y on the premise because it is quicker through those downforce specific corners. However, X and Y are identical, just with different setups to achieve the best possible time given their setup.

In reality, I think RedBull and Mercedes aren't that far apart (if they'd be running equal PUs and therefore similar setups), but because of the PU deficit, it is exaggerating the effect we are seeing. In other words, you are only looking at the 'effect' without bearing the influence of the 'cause'. How big that 'cause' is (the PU deficit), again, is anyones guess, but it'd be immature to ignore it or think it has absolutely no effect on the chassis and aero of the car.

This leads to what we are seeing: on downforce circuits; RedBull is closer. On power focused circuits, they are farther. Make no mistake however; Even if Hungary is a downforce circuit doesn't mean RedBull can run their car without any compromises or trade-offs vs a car with more power! There is always a trade-off of some sort, for all cars (because we don't have movable/active aero that can change the characteristic of a car between sessions or for particular areas of the track!).

[FoxHound]

Err... No. It is only the outright performance of a given set-up. You know, parc ferme? So if the car is set-up with the race in mind (which they are!), it is always running certain compromises, even in Q3.

Ye Gods man, this is befuddling! It's not even written in jest....
Are all cars subject to parc ferme? Yes.
Are all cars subject to running certain compromises? Yes.
Is Q3 the fastest guise of the car for the weekend? Yes.

Why is this a valid excuse only for Red Bull? Are you suggesting Red Bull compromised their qualifying to have better race pace?
If so, what is to say no other competition did the same or to a higher extent? This is the Hungaroring, chassis/aero are brought to the fore. Unless this now too is up for discussion?
Face it, you are biasing this toward Red Bull's chassis/aero with not so much as a shred of evidence. Historically, Red Bull ace qualifying...explain that one...

but then lets also ignore that Rosberg in the same Mercedes was nowhere (relatively speaking). Thank god for Hamilton to widen our perspective.

You are better than this mate, at least I hope so. Saving Hamilton literally getting out the car to push that W06 faster, it's always the bloody car that does the job. You really need to get this before we can continue further.
As for more obfuscation....I have mentioned at least 20 times Renault are behind. I have yet to see much in the way of acknowledging Red Bull's aero/chassis has a deficit to the top teams.

One 90 degree corner, and 2 long hairpins with what must be a maximum of 50% throttle and one straight of 160 meters they lose 0.340 seconds.
If they are losing that in 160 meters of straight, the first sector with around 1000 meter's of straight line full throttle would work out to a deficit of 2.1 seconds.

Did you stop to think of that?