2021 Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[bonjon1979]

Question: should red bull / Honda take a risk on their engine with either a fresh one, or a new one with a higher power mapping like the mercedes? I mean max could just win one more without this risk. But it’s tough one to call. When you’re in the lead in pts, like on the race track, risky decisions are harder to take.

Honda could try to do what MCS are doing but that sort of high power / party mode is an unproven area of reliability for them, an area they didn’t quite match in the past. The penalt would potentially surrender an easy win to MCS and it comes with the risk of the engine not liking it and failing. I don’t know what hand Honda has got, but MCS is pulling their card right now with these engine shenanigans. The rules need to be rewrote: a new engine should incur the same penalty as the first one.

Do Red Bull have the same straightline speed philosophy to make the most of it and carve through the field? I'm not sure. It's a big risk. But one they should've probably have taken at Brazil as the next track isn't going to be as good for overtaking and they're not going to leave it until the second to last race as they'll only have the benefit of the engine for a short amount of time. I'm not quite sure that it can be described as 'shenanigans'. Any teams are free to replace power unit elements as they see fit and all are subject to the same penalties. Don't really understand the point of view that this is some how underhand.

I don’t think it’s underhand, it’s above board. I’m just saying the rules shouldn’t reward what they’re doing.

That's what I mean, they don't reward them. They were put 5 places back. It's a penalty.

[AeroDynamic]

Do Red Bull have the same straightline speed philosophy to make the most of it and carve through the field? I'm not sure. It's a big risk. But one they should've probably have taken at Brazil as the next track isn't going to be as good for overtaking and they're not going to leave it until the second to last race as they'll only have the benefit of the engine for a short amount of time. I'm not quite sure that it can be described as 'shenanigans'. Any teams are free to replace power unit elements as they see fit and all are subject to the same penalties. Don't really understand the point of view that this is some how underhand.

I don’t think it’s underhand, it’s above board. I’m just saying the rules shouldn’t reward what they’re doing.

That's what I mean, they don't reward them. They were put 5 places back. It's a penalty.

5 places is not enough, is the point sir

If you’re Mercedes, you have incentive to take a new engine at any track you can overtake.the performance gain is worth it. The whole point of the 3 engine a season rule was it discourage teams from using a new engine every race and throwing away millions on engines. Mercedes have made it worthwhile to take new engines more than they need to because 5 places can be made up.

[bonjon1979]

I don’t think it’s underhand, it’s above board. I’m just saying the rules shouldn’t reward what they’re doing.

That's what I mean, they don't reward them. They were put 5 places back. It's a penalty.

5 places is not enough, is the point sir

If you’re Mercedes, you have incentive to take a new engine at any track you can overtake.the performance gain is worth it. The whole point of the 3 engine a season rule was it discourage teams from using a new engine every race and throwing away millions on engines. Mercedes have made it worthwhile to take new engines more than they need to because 5 places can be made up.

Why was 5 places enough before this race? I didn't see a single complaint about the rule. And if the performance gain is worth doing it, other teams have that choice as well. Everyone has the same opportunity. There's a budget cap in place, that all teams have to adhere to, should teams choose to spend that on engines rather than aero then that's up to them.

[AeroDynamic]

That's what I mean, they don't reward them. They were put 5 places back. It's a penalty.

5 places is not enough, is the point sir

If you’re Mercedes, you have incentive to take a new engine at any track you can overtake.the performance gain is worth it. The whole point of the 3 engine a season rule was it discourage teams from using a new engine every race and throwing away millions on engines. Mercedes have made it worthwhile to take new engines more than they need to because 5 places can be made up.

Why was 5 places enough before this race? I didn't see a single complaint about the rule. And if the performance gain is worth doing it, other teams have that choice as well. Everyone has the same opportunity. There's a budget cap in place, that all teams have to adhere to, should teams choose to spend that on engines rather than aero then that's up to them.

Because teams could use qualifying modes, engine modes more creatively before. Now that there is a championship on the line, one team is opting to run the engine at that peak power for Grand Prix distances with no intent to try and make it on 3 engines in a season. The reliability story is probably true but it’s also been used to deceive the intent behind multiple engines Now it seems?

[SiLo]

Mercedes always had an advantage in tracks that put more emphasis on the rear axle.

Surely

Baku, Monaco, Austria are rear limited, its all about getting the power down on corner exit to make good laptime. RedBull destroyed Mercedes there.

Silverstone, Barcelona, Portimao, Turkey, Spa (when dry), Sao Paulo all front limited, carrying high corner speeds are crucial . Mercedes were on top there.

I would say Mercedes have had more advantage on tracks that put more emphasis on the front axle.

Mercedes prefer front limited circuits and Red Bull prefer rear limited circuits. I think Mexico was an outlier because of qualifying, but the race pace was pretty much what I expected between the two.

Losail looks front limited more than rear limited, there is only one slow corner really, although I wouldn't want to be putting money on who is faster there.

[basti313]

Why was 5 places enough before this race? I didn't see a single complaint about the rule.

The rule was never challenged. Now that it is challenged it is an obvious loophole. Well spotted and exploited by Merc, there is nothing wrong with this. But it is a bit odd to still follow the "Merc is strongly punished by everything" narrative.

And if the performance gain is worth doing it, other teams have that choice as well. Everyone has the same opportunity.

Rrrrrreeally? I have my doubts that McLaren can go to HPP and tell them "here is the rest of engine 2 and 3, please produce engine 4 with a new ICE out of it, we pay you the ICE...and please of course full testing we want to be sure it is reliable and you pump it up to max power for 4 races".

I fear there are only three teams that can do this...Merc, Bull and Ferrari. Oh wait...it is only Merc, the other ones are not ahead of the R&D in a way that they could even try this.

There's a budget cap in place, that all teams have to adhere to, should teams choose to spend that on engines rather than aero then that's up to them.

Engine cost is a fixed value within the cap. Extra engines are not deducted from the cap. So also here: There are only three teams that can throw in engines at like.

Coming back to my point before:
How the two competitors and their fans are whining about rules and stewarding is just ridiculous. Bulls and Merc got away over consecutive years with an incredible advantage over the competition by the incompetent ruling bodies and now they can not just go away smiling after winning...

[bonjon1979]

5 places is not enough, is the point sir

If you’re Mercedes, you have incentive to take a new engine at any track you can overtake.the performance gain is worth it. The whole point of the 3 engine a season rule was it discourage teams from using a new engine every race and throwing away millions on engines. Mercedes have made it worthwhile to take new engines more than they need to because 5 places can be made up.

Why was 5 places enough before this race? I didn't see a single complaint about the rule. And if the performance gain is worth doing it, other teams have that choice as well. Everyone has the same opportunity. There's a budget cap in place, that all teams have to adhere to, should teams choose to spend that on engines rather than aero then that's up to them.

Because teams could use qualifying modes, engine modes more creatively before. Now that there is a championship on the line, one team is opting to run the engine at that peak power for Grand Prix distances with no intent to try and make it on 3 engines in a season. The reliability story is probably true but it’s also been used to deceive the intent behind multiple engines Now it seems?

This is such a bizarre way to look at the situation. There's nothing in the rules to say what the reason has to be for wanting to introduce a new engine and teams are free to run the cars as marginally as they want with regards to reliability.

[NathanOlder]

Mercedes always had an advantage in tracks that put more emphasis on the rear axle.

Surely

Baku, Monaco, Austria are rear limited, its all about getting the power down on corner exit to make good laptime. RedBull destroyed Mercedes there.

Silverstone, Barcelona, Portimao, Turkey, Spa (when dry), Sao Paulo all front limited, carrying high corner speeds are crucial . Mercedes were on top there.

I would say Mercedes have had more advantage on tracks that put more emphasis on the front axle.

Mercedes prefer front limited circuits and Red Bull prefer rear limited circuits. I think Mexico was an outlier because of qualifying, but the race pace was pretty much what I expected between the two.

Losail looks front limited more than rear limited, there is only one slow corner really, although I wouldn't want to be putting money on who is faster there.

Exactly, I was pointing out to Godlameroso that "Mercedes always had an advantage in tracks that put more emphasis on the rear axle." as he put it was wrong in my opinion. And that Losail is looking more front limited than rear , so potentially should/could be better for Mercedes.

[Big Tea]

5 places is not enough, is the point sir

If you’re Mercedes, you have incentive to take a new engine at any track you can overtake.the performance gain is worth it. The whole point of the 3 engine a season rule was it discourage teams from using a new engine every race and throwing away millions on engines. Mercedes have made it worthwhile to take new engines more than they need to because 5 places can be made up.

Why was 5 places enough before this race? I didn't see a single complaint about the rule. And if the performance gain is worth doing it, other teams have that choice as well. Everyone has the same opportunity. There's a budget cap in place, that all teams have to adhere to, should teams choose to spend that on engines rather than aero then that's up to them.

Because teams could use qualifying modes, engine modes more creatively before. Now that there is a championship on the line, one team is opting to run the engine at that peak power for Grand Prix distances with no intent to try and make it on 3 engines in a season. The reliability story is probably true but it’s also been used to deceive the intent behind multiple engines Now it seems?

Is this really any different to tyres? one change or two if its faster. Wings? Some change the wing set for slow or fast tracks.
It is not 'free' as changing settings would be as it involves a risk or series of risks as the car is in amongst the 'squabbles' and could easily be put out.
There is also the spending limit to consider, is an engine now worth more than the costs going to development?

I quite like the idea, and as pointed out above, there is no reason anyone can not do it, as long as they take the same penalty.

[AeroDynamic]

I don’t think we want to encourage teams to use more engines in a season. It makes the sport more expensive for teams. That was the whole point of the engine rule. Penalties were too undesirable before. Teams will start designing engines to only last a few races to get more power. It’s going backwards.

[Big Tea]

I don’t think we want to encourage teams to use more engines in a season. It makes the sport more expensive for teams.

But only the teams that can afford it, and then it comes out of the cap. It is not compulsory, and I have little doubt that if positions were swapped Red Bull would do the same, also Ferrari, Renault or anyone else.

The engines limit was brought in to stop run away spending, which the cost cap should now do.

[AeroDynamic]

I don’t think we want to encourage teams to use more engines in a season. It makes the sport more expensive for teams.

But only the teams that can afford it, and then it comes out of the cap. It is not compulsory, and I have little doubt that if positions were swapped Red Bull would do the same, also Ferrari, Renault or anyone else.

The engines limit was brought in to stop run away spending, which the cost cap should now do.

I thought engines were outside of the cap

[Big Tea]

I don’t think we want to encourage teams to use more engines in a season. It makes the sport more expensive for teams.

But only the teams that can afford it, and then it comes out of the cap. It is not compulsory, and I have little doubt that if positions were swapped Red Bull would do the same, also Ferrari, Renault or anyone else.

The engines limit was brought in to stop run away spending, which the cost cap should now do.

I thought engines were outside of the cap

Are they? In that case i need a rethink

[dans79]

I thought engines were outside of the cap

I don't think anyone would know for sure, but you would hope that a proper contract allowed for N additional units without additional costs, of replacement of defective units without charge!

[Juzh]

Engines are outside the cap and engine manufacturers don't have any caps currently imposed on them in terms of R&D (that's going to change apparently in next years, but not this year). PU manufacturers are capped only in how much they can charge a customer at 12 mil per year, though I highly doubt red bull for example pays anything to honda. Mercedes, ferrari or red bull/honda can throw as many engines in their cars as they want and it wont affect their bottom line in terms of cost control.

2021 financial regs:
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... 5-27_0.pdf

article 3.1 (EXCLUSIONS) section (S)

All costs incurred with a Power Unit supplier that are Directly Attributable to the
development, testing and validation of an Alternative Fuel and Oil for use with the
Power Unit in F1 Cars of the F1 Team;