That was as much a reflection of the NEED to overcome a strategic design decision in the car (driven by the regulation set at the time). It was also nothing new (as anyone that ever tried to pedal a classic Mini will attest to!).
What do you mean by operational superiority?
Indeed which is why I sought clarification on what you meant by "The grid is closer together than at any time in history".
The RB19 would still be head and shoulders the best car on the grid. I think adding non car performance metrics to compliment actual car performance metrics will lead this down a rabbit hole. Over the last 3 races out of 165 laps Red Bull has led 151 of those or 92% of all races this season. Planning, strategy and pitstops are great for getting ahead or staying ahead of a rival car, but not when you're leading 92% of race laps ....you simply do not have a rival.
The quali gap in jeddah was 0.150 which over 50 laps translates into 7.5 seconds but they won by over 20 seconds at a canter.
I have no doubt that RB are going for race setups, but so is everyone else.ValeVida46 wrote: ↑20 Apr 2023, 15:27
Perhaps this would be a phenomena explained by the tyre and set up, with Red Bull intentionally going for the race pace advantage which has seen them dominate races this year.
Not according to Vassuer.AR3-GP wrote: ↑20 Apr 2023, 16:08I have no doubt that RB are going for race setups, but so is everyone else.ValeVida46 wrote: ↑20 Apr 2023, 15:27
Perhaps this would be a phenomena explained by the tyre and set up, with Red Bull intentionally going for the race pace advantage which has seen them dominate races this year.
I never saw a car to match the pace of another one in quali and not to able to race. [So] then it's a matter of set-up and some choices on the car.
I think you might be misinterpreting either my post or the Vasseur comment.ValeVida46 wrote: ↑20 Apr 2023, 16:36Not according to Vassuer.AR3-GP wrote: ↑20 Apr 2023, 16:08I have no doubt that RB are going for race setups, but so is everyone else.ValeVida46 wrote: ↑20 Apr 2023, 15:27
Perhaps this would be a phenomena explained by the tyre and set up, with Red Bull intentionally going for the race pace advantage which has seen them dominate races this year.
I never saw a car to match the pace of another one in quali and not to able to race. [So] then it's a matter of set-up and some choices on the car.
Not at all misinterpreting Vassuer's quote.AR3-GP wrote: ↑20 Apr 2023, 17:00I think you might be misinterpreting either my post or the Vasseur comment.
My point is that everyone is tuning their car for the race. Vasseur is jsut saying, if they can extract that much pace in qualifying, then they need to figure out how to keep it in the race. That doesn't mean the car is tuned for qualifying. It just means the race setup only produces one good lap.
The problem isn't set up bias relative to Red Bull. It's intrinsic to the SF23 not being good enough to challenge the RB19.New team principal Fred Vasseur was initially at odds with his drivers, saying more straightforward set-up tweaks were required rather than car upgrades to be competitive. The party line on that has since changed. While a full ‘B-spec’ machine has been ruled out, Vasseur now says a stream of developments will arrive at each of the Miami, Imola and Barcelona weekends to arrest the poor form.
But as I mentioned before, I still don't think the RB19 is operating to anything like what it's fully capable of doing.The GPS data reveals the strength of the RB19, but also its changeable behaviour. It responds to set-up changes to be quick through the corners at one venue before being fettled to set the standard in a straight line. It seems to enjoy wide operating window
Yes I understand your point now. I also never thought Ferrari was just going to "iron out" their issues with some trivial setups tweaks, considering they had 3 days in Bahrain and the car still didn't work in Bahrain in the race. It was always going to require aero changes which I do not classify as "setup" work.ValeVida46 wrote: ↑20 Apr 2023, 17:25Not at all misinterpreting Vassuer's quote.AR3-GP wrote: ↑20 Apr 2023, 17:00I think you might be misinterpreting either my post or the Vasseur comment.
My point is that everyone is tuning their car for the race. Vasseur is jsut saying, if they can extract that much pace in qualifying, then they need to figure out how to keep it in the race. That doesn't mean the car is tuned for qualifying. It just means the race setup only produces one good lap.
I'm not saying the Ferrari is set up for qualifying, perhaps you misunderstand my point. Ferrari can set up a car to do a lap time, which may be optimum for their race pace AND be able to be around 0.2 behind Red Bull.
However that optimum race pace is not even remotely competitive relative to Red Bull.
That's precisely what Vassuer was getting at. Even if Ferrari were max quali set up, they couldn't beat Red Bull.
Even if Max Race set up, they couldn't get close to Red Bull. There is a pitfall for either option and both lead to being beaten.
Since those quotes it appear the writing is on the wall.The problem isn't set up bias relative to Red Bull. It's intrinsic to the SF23 not being good enough to challenge the RB19.New team principal Fred Vasseur was initially at odds with his drivers, saying more straightforward set-up tweaks were required rather than car upgrades to be competitive. The party line on that has since changed. While a full ‘B-spec’ machine has been ruled out, Vasseur now says a stream of developments will arrive at each of the Miami, Imola and Barcelona weekends to arrest the poor form.
As Autosport rightly say:But as I mentioned before, I still don't think the RB19 is operating to anything like what it's fully capable of doing.The GPS data reveals the strength of the RB19, but also its changeable behaviour. It responds to set-up changes to be quick through the corners at one venue before being fettled to set the standard in a straight line. It seems to enjoy wide operating window
And rightly so, pointless risking well documented reliability issues/mistakes when there are no challengers just to make a statement coming off the back of last years controversies.
He's being far from honest there.ValeVida46 wrote: ↑20 Apr 2023, 16:36Not according to Vassuer.AR3-GP wrote: ↑20 Apr 2023, 16:08I have no doubt that RB are going for race setups, but so is everyone else.ValeVida46 wrote: ↑20 Apr 2023, 15:27
Perhaps this would be a phenomena explained by the tyre and set up, with Red Bull intentionally going for the race pace advantage which has seen them dominate races this year.
I never saw a car to match the pace of another one in quali and not to able to race. [So] then it's a matter of set-up and some choices on the car.
I agree, I don't think being done by a few tenths in a quali is matching and nor are they behind due to set ups.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑21 Apr 2023, 04:11He's being far from honest there.ValeVida46 wrote: ↑20 Apr 2023, 16:36Not according to Vassuer.
I never saw a car to match the pace of another one in quali and not to able to race. [So] then it's a matter of set-up and some choices on the car.
A 0.3 second advantage relative to a 90 second lap is 0.333%, not 0.00333%.Stu wrote: ↑20 Apr 2023, 14:221st to last (it has never been closer) field spread can mean nothing else, surely?
Operational superiority is team-work, planning, strategy, pit-stops and it is eminently possible to have a car that is off the ultimate pace and make up some of the deficit with all of that.
0.3 seconds is a very small (but seemingly consistent car advantage) - 0.00333% of a 90 second lap.