Infiniti Red Bull Racing 2015

[FoxHound]

Looking over the last 20 years, have we ever had a single tier championship? I mean engines are getting singled out here, but was aero singled out between 2009 and 2013? Or Unlimited testing from the early days to the McLaren Ferrari days?

That it does not favour Red Bull currently, should not mean that we forget F1 has never been fair.

[turbof1]

Looking over the last 20 years, have we ever had a single tier championship? I mean engines are getting singled out here, but was aero singled out between 2009 and 2013? Or Unlimited testing from the early days to the McLaren Ferrari days?

That it does not favour Red Bull currently, should not mean that we forget F1 has never been fair.

No, but there were more instances and possibilities for a team to raise out of the lower tier to the higher one. For instance in the late 70's until the early 80's, the manufacturers ran turbo engines which were not given to customer-teams. The customer-teams subsequently ran ground effect cars to compensate.

In the present, there's little for Red Bull to compensate a weaker engine. I have to note however again that in 2017/2018 that might change again, depending on what gets decided (wasn't there a deadline on october the 2d?). Maybe Red Bull will leave the sport for one or two years to prepare for that oppertunity?

[Phil]

The definition of 2 or multiple tiers has IMO nothing to do with larger differences in budget or performance, but more the ability of a team to actually compete on the same level.

[turbof1]

The definition of 2 or multiple tiers has IMO nothing to do with larger differences in budget or performance, but more the ability of a team to actually compete on the same level.

Exactly Phil. differences in budget can be overcome by flashes of genius, if the freedom is given for that.

I'm currently reading through an article of Jon Noble. Fascinating stuff: http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/analy ... a-failure/

I'd like to make a special note to quote from Francois Castaing:

Hybrid technology has been in development for passenger car production as far back as the 1990's, especially at Toyota, GM, Chrysler, Daimler/Mercedes, BMW and VAG. Only Mercedes, among the initial three power unit suppliers for F1, has been intensively developing hybrid technologies in anticipation of worldwide CO2 regulations. In 2012, Mercedes was in the position to assign hundreds of hybrid technology engineers to help design the new F1 power unit, while Renault Nissan provided none and FIAT very few.

[Facts Only]

The definition of 2 or multiple tiers has IMO nothing to do with larger differences in budget or performance, but more the ability of a team to actually compete on the same level.

Exactly Phil. differences in budget can be overcome by flashes of genius, if the freedom is given for that.

I'm currently reading through an article of Jon Noble. Fascinating stuff: http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/analy ... a-failure/

I'd like to make a special note to quote from Francois Castaing:

Hybrid technology has been in development for passenger car production as far back as the 1990's, especially at Toyota, GM, Chrysler, Daimler/Mercedes, BMW and VAG. Only Mercedes, among the initial three power unit suppliers for F1, has been intensively developing hybrid technologies in anticipation of worldwide CO2 regulations. In 2012, Mercedes was in the position to assign hundreds of hybrid technology engineers to help design the new F1 power unit, while Renault Nissan provided none and FIAT very few.

Well Francois Castaing doesnt know what he's talking about then, I know for an absolute FACT that hundreds of Mercedes hybrid engineers werent sent from the Daimler mothership to HPP to work on the F1 powerunit... in fact I dont think there was even 1 person sent from Daimler specifically to do hybrid work and neither did HPP send work off to be done at Daimler. The only daimler resources HPP were using was the money and the gas stand.

I'm sure that someone will downvote this and point out that Mr Castaing knows more than me because he ran Renault F1 in the 70/80's but he is definitely wrong on this one and his comments are just a downright insult to the people at HPP who worked their fingers to the bone for 12+ hours a day, 7 days a week for years to be in the position they are. Its easy to try to take away from the achievements of winners but the men and women at HPP shouldnt have people like this who clearly dont know what they are talking about but in respected positions running them down.

[turbof1]

Thanks Facts Only, for correcting that. I don't really believe Castaing intended on insulting Mercedes, although I can definitely see that it can taken like that given the ignorance.

(I feel kind of bad now for quoting that piece, although you correcting on that does give us the correct reliable information).

[FoxHound]

The definition of 2 or multiple tiers has IMO nothing to do with larger differences in budget or performance, but more the ability of a team to actually compete on the same level.

Can someone please point to me where this was the case in the last 30 odd years?

[FoxHound]

My case in point?

1. McLaren had Honda power which decimated the grid for a few years. between 1988 through to 1991.(massive discrepancy between front, midfield and backmarkers and far larger than today)

2. Williams via a certain Newey and to a lesser extent Benneton(Brawn, Byrne, Tombazis and of course Schumi) got all high tech on our asses until 1994, and also heralded an aerodynamic era allied to Renault V10 power and active suspension.(massive discrepancy between front, midfield and backmarkers and far larger than today)

3. McLaren and it's free Mercedes engines and sponsorship ramped up their own programme and acquired Newey to dominate the 1998 championship, While Ferrari spent millions acquiring the Benneton dream team.
(massive discrepancy between front, midfield and backmarkers and far larger than today)

4. Ferrari investments come good and they win 5 titles on the trot. (massive discrepancy between front, midfield and backmarkers and far larger than today)

5. Renault power Alonso to 2 world titles and seem to be the exception to the rule between 2005 and 2006 In amongst these wins, Red Bull invest massively in CFD and aerodynamics, employing Newey and preparing for a possible testing ban. Worth noting Minardi Cosworths were only a mere 3.5(2 occasions) to 5.5 seconds off the pace...
(massive discrepancy between front, midfield and backmarkers and far larger than today)

6. McLaren and Ferrari exchange blows in the V8 era. Back markers around 3.5 to 4.5 seconds of the pace.
(notable that midfield pack closed up to the front due to Toyota, BMW and Honda pumping teams full of cash)

7.Brawn unleash the BGP001 aka the Honda RA109, which was rumoured to have an investment of around 300 to 400 million dollars...possibly the single most of any F1 car. It also heralded the engine Freeze, and the emergence of Red Bull as contenders. One season where backmarkers make massive strides....(Torro Rosso...no collusion at all :-" )

8. 2010 and 3 new teams enter the fray as well as Mercedes return. Red Bull win 4 consecutive double titles.
And the 3 teams that entered suffer massively. Manor survive...but the gap from the front to the rear was as big as it has been previously...all within an engine freeze. 4.5 to 5.5 seconds.

And if we look at the gaps today, are we seriously going to ask the question if a b-spec engine is suddenly going to create a 2 tier formula?
I would argue a 3 tier Formula has been in operation for years. The have's the have not's and the hopeless..

If you don't have the cash to buy the resources, you simply ain't going to win. Thereby creating a tiered system.
Apart from Renault winning in 2005/6, I see no evidence to the contrary.

[Phil]

I actually didn't want to respond, since I knew exactly where this topic was going, so I'll just keep it short;

Most examples you use, are not what I refer to as a multiple tier championship. Again, it's not about some teams being off by 1 or 4 seconds, it's about the ability for a team to compete. Some do, because they either copy the innovation of others, or are more efficient in regards to their own investment. The point being, they can and if they don't, they are purely limited by their own ability, not by regulations.

So as the most classical example, that being RedBull during their 8 titles, other teams were free to copy what RedBull were doing better than others. That includes flexi-wings, double diffusors, exhaust-blowing for aero purposes, but also innovation by others, like the F-Duct etc. I'll give you the point that the cold-engine-blowing helped by engine-maps unique to the Renault helped them, but how much this made the difference is let to be seen. On most other fronts, like the flexi-wing, RedBull simply had most teams guessing on how exactly they pulled it off. And with the money and the engineering ingenuity they invested, they had the means to pioneer such innovations. Smaller teams didn't have the money to, but they sure had the ability to copy them and were never limited by regulations that made it an impossibility. Redbull was largely as good as they were because they kept most of their competitors guessing as to where all that pace advantage came from. And lets be honest; They might have won 4 WDC championships, but 2 of them could have / should have gone to others; i.e. Alonso who was close on two occasions and Hamilton in 2012 if he had not been limited by the awful reliability. It wasn't utter dominance unless we're talking 2011 or 2013 - and in those years, the other teams could have copied 99% of things. If they didn't, it's because some changes were too complex, would take too long, too expensive or they just didn't understand them.

See the difference?

[alexx_88]

Excellent point Phil. Right now, Honda could put a trillion dollars into their PU development and still not be able to match Mercedes until next year. That's wrong.

I'd also like to add that people start moaning when the first tier of the championship contains only one team. If Mercedes would've had at least another team close in performance, then the entertainment value of the whole championship would've been much higher.

[FoxHound]

If they didn't, it's because some changes were too complex, would take too long, too expensive or they just didn't understand them.

See the difference?

And this is where the issue of hypocrisy comes in.

If its "too complex, would take too long, too expensive or they just did't understand", why should this be held at every other competitor to Red Bull, who themselves invested more than Ferrari and McLaren et al, in CFD and recruitment of aero guru's to be able to take advantage of the testing ban over teams set up to do actual testing?

Instantly that becomes an unfair advantage.

But, you are ok with it because 2 years out of 4 the championship was close?

What if I address your assessment of it being a (non)tiered championship by suggesting Red Bull building their engines as "too complex, would take too long, too expensive or they just did't understand".
You'd have to accept it or be a hypocrite. Ferrari, McLaren etc had to accept it back then...But not Red Bull today...hmmm

If we cannot aim the same criticisms, equally, amongst the disciplines, then it is just simple hypocrisy.

And I don't know why you think copying ideas from Red Bull means you are going to beat Red Bull. You are holding this up as a defence for a non tiered championship makes no sense when the effectiveness of the copy is directly related to the amount of money you can spend exploring it.

[Phil]

No, because I'm not viewing it from a spectators view, but from the view of a competitor. If a competitor does better because they pioneered certain advantages I didn't think of, I can only applaud them for doing so. Copying has been part of the game since as long as competition is around. It's how smaller teams with less resources don't end up being lapped 3 laps into the race. It's also why teams with bigger financial muscle and resources can (and do!) spend more on R&D to pioneer certain concepts and despite the likelihood that those will be copied, like the double diffuser or f-duct, they can ride out the advantage for a few races, possibly the whole season and not be caught. That's the price of relatively open-regulations vs a spec-series. Open means they are different areas where teams can find performance. Not all options are equally good, some make better choices than others. Some require more money to find these solutions, some find it through luck or better efficiency/ingenuity.

Again; this is not the same as being limited by regulation, irrespective how much money or resources you could spend.

It's also not the same to having a dominant engine supplier (or two) cherry picking who they want to give their A-spec engine and who they give a weaker B-spec one to limit how much competition they can be (in regards to what is happening to RedBull in regards to 2016).

[FoxHound]

And you forgo the copying of Mercedes split turbo by Honda?
Or the fact Ferrari have closed up to Mercedes this year from last?
Or the fact Renault have every available chance to copy Mercedes layout but choose to go their own path?

Again you are displaying favouritism towards aero by suggesting it being copyable, but engines are not.

And again with what I can only describe as hypocrisy.

[FoxHound]

Furthermore you are imposing a limitation on the manufacturers of the engines by suggesting they supply a direct rival with their hard earned investments, not only must it be the the latest spec but you are liable to torrents of abusive criticism when it goes wrong.
Why should they supply? And on what planet is this deemed fair?

If it's such an issue, perhaps F1 will resort to spec engines to well and truly be fair, and to well and truly set its own death in motion.

But hey, engines won't make the difference... so Red Bull will be happy.

[alexx_88]

Fox, it's much, much more to the Mercedes PU than this simple architecture choice. I'm pretty sure everyone thought of it, but discarded because they weren't able to do it or because the risks of not being able to implement it properly outweighed the potential benefits. Also, this only concerns PU manufacturers, teams who don't produce their own engines literally have to go begging for a good one. It's not in the power of a team, as it's defined in F1, to evade that situation, no matter how much money they put in. See Red Bull.

If tomorrow a 100 HP advantage comes from fuel, with all PUs being hypothetically the same, would you advise the teams who don't get that fuel to build their own refineries and research centers? No. PUs manufacturers need to be regarded as external suppliers, with strict obligations that, if they come into the sport, to be willing to supply identical PUs to all their customers and not be able to refuse a new customer if they're notified a year in advance. It's ridiculous to think that the +20m RB would pay for Merc PUs isn't more than enough to pay for simply multiplying an existing design and assigning new engineers to run it.