2022 Oracle | Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[AeroDynamic]

Does anyone else share the same thought that, Red Bull should plan the season to use 5 sets of PU components, instead of 3 and have strategic plan to incur penalties at the right venues. As the last season showed, there will invariably be some things that would force the hand to move in that direction. Although, RB used 4 sets, Mercedes, despite using 5 sets still were there right in it. Planning this would allow them to run the PU harder from early on. It would allow the drivers to race harder and push the competitors too.

If they can then absolutely. But I don't believe the Honda ever reached the same level of efficiency-power dynamic as the Mercedes engine does, hence their disparity in qualifying modes in previous years that Mercedes could tap into last season because that ceiling of performance was there. I think last season the Honda was at its peak power capacity – or at least, peak power capacity without falling off a cliff with reliability. The Mercedes seemingly can go harder and faster without losing reliability but rather shortening its life-span.

If however, Honda come this season with an engine with that kind of parity of efficiency/power/reliability, then I expect this won't even be a consideration, it will be the thing they should and will do. The question will be reliability, as this was a hiccup in the old designs when running under the regs that allowed qualifying modes.

Sounds like a Contradiction in Terms to me... The essence of reliability is for the PU's to do the required mileage...

Thus, 3 PU's for the season... If they can't they're not reliable...

They can intertwine but isn't that the point?

if you run it harder, does it compromise the probability that a part goes wrong in a way that renders it useless, in a manner that is very unpredictable? that is the type of reliability gremlin that gives you no security about using it the way you want to.

If however, you can use it aggressively and have a very probable and predictable window of mileage that everything runs perfectly fine, then it is reliable – it doesn't go wrong – it's just not durable beyond a certain point in either performance or reliability.

I don't think the Honda could push on the metric of power, push that envelope, without inviting very probable and unpredictable failures.

Would one buy the interpretation that they were running the engine the most aggressive possible with bulletproof reliability for 7 odd races and just simply couldn't turn it up any higher?

I'm doubtful. Normally the limit is the reliability or the regs, not the power ceiling. Hence 'Reliability upgrade' = performance upgrade.

It all depends how much the field is or isn’t bunched up. Last year, with the huge gap beween the front runners and the rest, worse case would be place four after penalties, which makes it relatively painless. If there are three teams up front, it’s place six, four teams, place eight, etc etc.

that is a point. They may use it with careful discretion where it makes sense to? either way, its better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore and I'm going to put you under the ignore button from now on.

It's with regret my friend, to hear this. I think we should all be able to share neutral observations and not make it a personal matter. I do commend you for taking this road with the ignore button, it is a rational reaction if one doesn't like content from another user. I wish the others would follow your example. Good luck In the new season!

[mclaren111]

If they can then absolutely. But I don't believe the Honda ever reached the same level of efficiency-power dynamic as the Mercedes engine does, hence their disparity in qualifying modes in previous years that Mercedes could tap into last season because that ceiling of performance was there. I think last season the Honda was at its peak power capacity – or at least, peak power capacity without falling off a cliff with reliability. The Mercedes seemingly can go harder and faster without losing reliability but rather shortening its life-span.

If however, Honda come this season with an engine with that kind of parity of efficiency/power/reliability, then I expect this won't even be a consideration, it will be the thing they should and will do. The question will be reliability, as this was a hiccup in the old designs when running under the regs that allowed qualifying modes.

Sounds like a Contradiction in Terms to me... The essence of reliability is for the PU's to do the required mileage...

Thus, 3 PU's for the season... If they can't they're not reliable...

They can intertwine but isn't that the point?

if you run it harder, does it compromise the probability that a part goes wrong in a way that renders it useless, in a manner that is very unpredictable? that is the type of reliability gremlin that gives you no security about using it the way you want to.

If however, you can use it aggressively and have a very probable and predictable window of mileage that everything runs perfectly fine, then it is reliable – it doesn't go wrong – it's just not durable beyond a certain point in either performance or reliability.

I don't think the Honda could push on the metric of power, push that envelope, without inviting very probable and unpredictable failures.

Would one buy the interpretation that they were running the engine the most aggressive possible with bulletproof reliability for 7 odd races and just simply couldn't turn it up any higher?

I'm doubtful. Normally the limit is the reliability or the regs, not the power ceiling. Hence 'Reliability upgrade' = performance upgrade.

It all depends how much the field is or isn’t bunched up. Last year, with the huge gap beween the front runners and the rest, worse case would be place four after penalties, which makes it relatively painless. If there are three teams up front, it’s place six, four teams, place eight, etc etc.

that is a point. They may use it with careful discretion where it makes sense to? either way, its better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore and I'm going to put you under the ignore button from now on.

It's with regret my friend, to hear this. I think we should all be able to share neutral observations and not make it a personal matter. I do commend you for taking this road with the ignore button, it is a rational reaction if one doesn't like content from another user. I wish the others would follow your example. Good luck In the new season!

Same to you buddy... Let's hope for a great season without "Covid-19"...

[Stu]

Does anyone else share the same thought that, Red Bull should plan the season to use 5 sets of PU components, instead of 3 and have strategic plan to incur penalties at the right venues. As the last season showed, there will invariably be some things that would force the hand to move in that direction. Although, RB used 4 sets, Mercedes, despite using 5 sets still were there right in it. Planning this would allow them to run the PU harder from early on. It would allow the drivers to race harder and push the competitors too.

If they can then absolutely. But I don't believe the Honda ever reached the same level of efficiency-power dynamic as the Mercedes engine does, hence their disparity in qualifying modes in previous years that Mercedes could tap into last season because that ceiling of performance was there. I think last season the Honda was at its peak power capacity – or at least, peak power capacity without falling off a cliff with reliability. The Mercedes seemingly can go harder and faster without losing reliability but rather shortening its life-span.

If however, Honda come this season with an engine with that kind of parity of efficiency/power/reliability, then I expect this won't even be a consideration, it will be the thing they should and will do. The question will be reliability, as this was a hiccup in the old designs when running under the regs that allowed qualifying modes.

Sounds like a Contradiction in Terms to me... The essence of reliability is for the PU's to do the required mileage...

Thus, 3 PU's for the season... If they can't they're not reliable...

I think that the penalties for engine overuse (or gearbox, etc), should be significant enough that any advantage gained from the overuse should be more than covered. The component usage ‘scheme’ is part of the rules of the sport and to deliberately plan to flout those rules for performance gain SHOULD be considered a breach of AT LEAST the sporting regulations OR (worst-case) a breach of the technical regulations (to deliberately plan to contravene a rule set that you have signed up to adhere to as a competitor is, technically, cheating).

[Ryar]

If they can then absolutely. But I don't believe the Honda ever reached the same level of efficiency-power dynamic as the Mercedes engine does, hence their disparity in qualifying modes in previous years that Mercedes could tap into last season because that ceiling of performance was there. I think last season the Honda was at its peak power capacity – or at least, peak power capacity without falling off a cliff with reliability. The Mercedes seemingly can go harder and faster without losing reliability but rather shortening its life-span.

If however, Honda come this season with an engine with that kind of parity of efficiency/power/reliability, then I expect this won't even be a consideration, it will be the thing they should and will do. The question will be reliability, as this was a hiccup in the old designs when running under the regs that allowed qualifying modes.

Sounds like a Contradiction in Terms to me... The essence of reliability is for the PU's to do the required mileage...

Thus, 3 PU's for the season... If they can't they're not reliable...

I think that the penalties for engine overuse (or gearbox, etc), should be significant enough that any advantage gained from the overuse should be more than covered. The component usage ‘scheme’ is part of the rules of the sport and to deliberately plan to flout those rules for performance gain SHOULD be considered a breach of AT LEAST the sporting regulations OR (worst-case) a breach of the technical regulations (to deliberately plan to contravene a rule set that you have signed up to adhere to as a competitor is, technically, cheating).

In all honesty, they should penalize it harder. They should deduct half the points after the race, instead of grid penalties, for every new PU component beyond the allowed limit. If someone is using 5th or 6th shouldn't become a reason for lesser penalty. That would force teams to not abuse the rules. As I mentioned in the FIA thread that, if a situation like Hungary happens, then FIA should be pragmatic in allowing PU element(s) to be changed without penalty after full deliberation.

[Chuckjr]

All Verstappen's qualifying laps from 2021 season

synced audio to gear changes, added telemetry overlay, as per usual.

preview image
https://i.imgur.com/pHllmno.jpg

download here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing
All clips are in 50 fps but if you watch directly trough google drive in embedded screen you'll be limited to 25 fps. I recommend downloading clips for full quality.

hf

Holy f-ing $hit. Absolutely epic dude. Thank you so much. Wow. Fantastic. Thank you. Where can I up-vote you for goodness sakes!?

[Csmith1980]

Sounds like a Contradiction in Terms to me... The essence of reliability is for the PU's to do the required mileage...

Thus, 3 PU's for the season... If they can't they're not reliable...

I think that the penalties for engine overuse (or gearbox, etc), should be significant enough that any advantage gained from the overuse should be more than covered. The component usage ‘scheme’ is part of the rules of the sport and to deliberately plan to flout those rules for performance gain SHOULD be considered a breach of AT LEAST the sporting regulations OR (worst-case) a breach of the technical regulations (to deliberately plan to contravene a rule set that you have signed up to adhere to as a competitor is, technically, cheating).

In all honesty, they should penalize it harder. They should deduct half the points after the race, instead of grid penalties, for every new PU component beyond the allowed limit. If someone is using 5th or 6th shouldn't become a reason for lesser penalty. That would force teams to not abuse the rules. As I mentioned in the FIA thread that, if a situation like Hungary happens, then FIA should be pragmatic in allowing PU element(s) to be changed without penalty after full deliberation.

Forgive me but wasn’t the lenient regulations regarding over use of PU components bought in to appease Honda because of their high rate of failure? Seems somewhat ironic that Mercedes used those same regulations against Honda and Redbull

[SmallSoldier]

Does anyone else share the same thought that, Red Bull should plan the season to use 5 sets of PU components, instead of 3 and have strategic plan to incur penalties at the right venues. As the last season showed, there will invariably be some things that would force the hand to move in that direction. Although, RB used 4 sets, Mercedes, despite using 5 sets still were there right in it. Planning this would allow them to run the PU harder from early on. It would allow the drivers to race harder and push the competitors too.

It will depend on how much performance gap they have to the rest of the field… The reason why Mercedes was capable of taking penalties and not have a huge loss in points is because the performance gap to the rest of the field was huge… This allowed them to start mid pack (or even back of the pack) and make positions quickly.

If there isn’t a big delta in performance, that strategy won’t work as well, since you could easily stay too long fighting cars in the midfield.

[etusch]

I was think that Honda should use more engine and more power when reliability was not that good. But now it is different. They are not losing power because of reliability so it seems to me that staying in the allowed component usage is better

[PlatinumZealot]

The engine freeze was also pushed by Honda / RedBull. Granted it was sorta necessary to control costs but it is against the spirit of pushing the bpundaries of performance.

The engine builders will try now to spend in one year what they planned in three years to cover more ground before the freeze is in effect. After that it will be only reliability updates.

[Dee]

The engine freeze was also pushed by Honda / RedBull. Granted it was sorta necessary to control costs but it is against the spirit of pushing the bpundaries of performance.

The engine builders will try now to spend in one year what they planned in three years to cover more ground before the freeze is in effect. After that it will be only reliability updates.

I'm wondering if Mercedes are going for a bigger turbo because they can't get the E10 fuel performance where they need it to be, hence the big turbo which will have a negative affect aero

[Ryar]

Does anyone else share the same thought that, Red Bull should plan the season to use 5 sets of PU components, instead of 3 and have strategic plan to incur penalties at the right venues. As the last season showed, there will invariably be some things that would force the hand to move in that direction. Although, RB used 4 sets, Mercedes, despite using 5 sets still were there right in it. Planning this would allow them to run the PU harder from early on. It would allow the drivers to race harder and push the competitors too.

It will depend on how much performance gap they have to the rest of the field… The reason why Mercedes was capable of taking penalties and not have a huge loss in points is because the performance gap to the rest of the field was huge… This allowed them to start mid pack (or even back of the pack) and make positions quickly.

If there isn’t a big delta in performance, that strategy won’t work as well, since you could easily stay too long fighting cars in the midfield.

Very valid point. Jolle also made the same point and I had thought about it before writing the post. In my opinion, it's contrary to the point you guys have made, in some cases. If there are more than two teams that fight at the front, then drivers are taking points off each other.

Let's assume Charles is leading the championship before Monza with Max 2nd, Lewis 3rd, George 4th, Lando 5th, Sainz 6th and Ric 7th in standings with, let's say 20 points separating all of them. Max starts from 12th after qualifying 2nd. Ric wins Monza with Lando 2nd, Sainz 3rd, George 4th, Lewis 5th, Charles 6th and Max 8th. That finishing order keeps the difference almost similar. Unlike the previous year, the lone arch rival in the championship may not gain as much. So, in that sense it's actually not that bad. A fast mixing grid with multiple cars fighting might actually be a good thing for taking strategic engine penalties. It may be bad, like in the above case Charles finishing first and Max 8th, creating much bigger gulf. But due to the nature of competitiveness, that bigger gap can evaporate in the next race itself.

[SmallSoldier]

Does anyone else share the same thought that, Red Bull should plan the season to use 5 sets of PU components, instead of 3 and have strategic plan to incur penalties at the right venues. As the last season showed, there will invariably be some things that would force the hand to move in that direction. Although, RB used 4 sets, Mercedes, despite using 5 sets still were there right in it. Planning this would allow them to run the PU harder from early on. It would allow the drivers to race harder and push the competitors too.

It will depend on how much performance gap they have to the rest of the field… The reason why Mercedes was capable of taking penalties and not have a huge loss in points is because the performance gap to the rest of the field was huge… This allowed them to start mid pack (or even back of the pack) and make positions quickly.

If there isn’t a big delta in performance, that strategy won’t work as well, since you could easily stay too long fighting cars in the midfield.

Very valid point. Jolle also made the same point and I had thought about it before writing the post. In my opinion, it's contrary to the point you guys have made, in some cases. If there are more than two teams that fight at the front, then drivers are taking points off each other.

Let's assume Charles is leading the championship before Monza with Max 2nd, Lewis 3rd, George 4th, Lando 5th, Sainz 6th and Ric 7th in standings with, let's say 20 points separating all of them. Max starts from 12th after qualifying 2nd. Ric wins Monza with Lando 2nd, Sainz 3rd, George 4th, Lewis 5th, Charles 6th and Max 8th. That finishing order keeps the difference almost similar. Unlike the previous year, the lone arch rival in the championship may not gain as much. So, in that sense it's actually not that bad. A fast mixing grid with multiple cars fighting might actually be a good thing for taking strategic engine penalties. It may be bad, like in the above case Charles finishing first and Max 8th, creating much bigger gulf. But due to the nature of competitiveness, that bigger gap can evaporate in the next race itself.

That’s a lot of mental gymnastics… I guess that we can always come up with a potential scenario that validates any premise.

In simple and practical terms, taking engine penalties is convenient if:

It’s done at a track where it’s easy to overtake
It’s done at a track where you have a big performance delta towards the rest of the field or
It’s done at a track where you expect to actually have very low performance, therefore the loss of points isn’t as high

At the end, I don’t think that teams will be looking at doing so, RBR had opportunities to also introduce new engines if they wanted to and either they didn’t feel the additional performance was worth it or the additional performance wouldn’t have offset the potential loss of points.

If the field is close and overtaking isn’t as easy / common as we hope it will be, then I doubt that it will be an strategy teams will intend on using… Of course, in a very long season and with so many possible scenarios it could happen.

[Ryar]

In simple and practical terms, taking engine penalties is convenient if:

It’s done at a track where it’s easy to overtake
It’s done at a track where you have a big performance delta towards the rest of the field or
It’s done at a track where you expect to actually have very low performance, therefore the loss of points isn’t as high

It's conventional wisdom and a no brainer on the basis of what we have seen. Ultimately, teams have to out-think and can't simply rely on doing what is known, that would be fitting of a backmarker team. If the competition is wide and intense, that is when smart teams put the conventional wisdom aside and think out of the box. In a season of 23 races, if all are held, going with thinking that allocated units are enough and react if there is a contingency, would leave a team dead in its tracks.

[Stu]

I think that the penalties for engine overuse (or gearbox, etc), should be significant enough that any advantage gained from the overuse should be more than covered. The component usage ‘scheme’ is part of the rules of the sport and to deliberately plan to flout those rules for performance gain SHOULD be considered a breach of AT LEAST the sporting regulations OR (worst-case) a breach of the technical regulations (to deliberately plan to contravene a rule set that you have signed up to adhere to as a competitor is, technically, cheating).

In all honesty, they should penalize it harder. They should deduct half the points after the race, instead of grid penalties, for every new PU component beyond the allowed limit. If someone is using 5th or 6th shouldn't become a reason for lesser penalty. That would force teams to not abuse the rules. As I mentioned in the FIA thread that, if a situation like Hungary happens, then FIA should be pragmatic in allowing PU element(s) to be changed without penalty after full deliberation.

Forgive me but wasn’t the lenient regulations regarding over use of PU components bought in to appease Honda because of their high rate of failure? Seems somewhat ironic that Mercedes used those same regulations against Honda and Redbull

Not to appease Honda, but McLaren were getting ridiculous grid penalties (Honda were effectively pushed into starting a year earlier than they had intended - resulting in an enormous number of failures). They certainly weren’t gaming/subverting the rules/regulations.

[SmallSoldier]

In simple and practical terms, taking engine penalties is convenient if:

It’s done at a track where it’s easy to overtake
It’s done at a track where you have a big performance delta towards the rest of the field or
It’s done at a track where you expect to actually have very low performance, therefore the loss of points isn’t as high

It's conventional wisdom and a no brainer on the basis of what we have seen. Ultimately, teams have to out-think and can't simply rely on doing what is known, that would be fitting of a backmarker team. If the competition is wide and intense, that is when smart teams put the conventional wisdom aside and think out of the box. In a season of 23 races, if all are held, going with thinking that allocated units are enough and react if there is a contingency, would leave a team dead in its tracks.

Are Teams going through all potential scenarios? I’m sure they are doing a few exercises in that regard… But the reality is that without knowing how they are placed in the grid compared to the rest, not knowing what the performance gaps are between themselves and the rest of the teams, not knowing how reliable their PU’s are (and their competitors), not knowing how easy (or hard) overtaking will be and a few more factors that we may not be considering… Going through the exercise of trying to account for every scenario at this point in the “season” (which hasn’t even started yet) would be just a waste of time in a sense (considering that the time and resources used to analyze this scenarios will probably be better utilized elsewhere).

I’m not saying that Teams aren’t considering the what if’s of not been able to utilize their allocated engines all season, but going from accounting for potential reliability issues (as well as potential losses of PU’s due to on-track incidents) to planning on utilizing extra engines to get additional performance and when potential penalties would be the best bet in terms of strategy would be considered a little bit too early in my opinion