Is the RB19 Dominant?

[ValeVida46]

Yes, but that stat can also be easily muddied by mitigating circumstances. The 3 races that Mercedes failed to win in 2014 were due to mechanical issues (Canada) or two drivers coming together (Spa) or a combination of the two (Hungary). So it doent mean that their competitors were any loser to them on performance. Mercs routinely pulled out 1+secs/lap, sometime even 2, on race starts and restarts. On pure performance they were definitely higher than RB19. The tires of the mid 2010s also degraded more quickly and had a more dramatic cliff, leading to more varied strategies which meant more likelihood of out of sequence cars leading a GP. If RB has flawless reliability throughout the season then we can recalibrate the argument to include that.

Merc engine was 50-70HP up on everyone. There is no way any aero advantage can ever make that much of a difference in today's regulations. Then the engine token system baked in that advantage for 3 years meaning it was impossible to catch them. The longevity of the dominance also should matter here.

Reliability is a prerequisite of winning. As Ron Dennis said, to finish first, first you have to finish.
And, as CheeRS said , squeezing in a metric/stat/incident to curve fit isn't going to lead to a conclusive outcome.

As for engines, they were meant to be frozen but due to the Merc advantage were opened up at the end of the 2014 season(1st season). Ferrari managed to jump leaps and bounds into 2015 (2nd season)with Vettel taking 3 wins and 11 podiums finishing 100 points behind Hamilton. After less than half the season Verstappen is already 71 points ahead of the next non-RB car after 7 races. Giving a far greater points-to-race ratio gap than we have ever seen after 7 races.

If you compare it further, I could throw in some very valid curveballs.
Primarily budget caps. How do teams close a gap of a second in race trim? Surely this is a baked in advantage in a far more restrictive fashion than the engine token system which allowed manufactures to change over 75% of the engine at any point, and without budgetary restriction. You could even change the other 25% of the engine if you could prove it economically beneficial, or more reliable to make the change.
Mercedes and Ferrari can change their pods but they're restricted to the chassis they use which comes with a host of issues. They also cannot throw updates at the car constantly as this will risk the budget cap restriction.

By exaggerating the previous era's limitation, and not addressing the current era's limitations, it leads to a skewing of the outcome.
After 7 races:
2014: Mercedes were 61 points ahead of next non Merc driver.
2015: Mercedes were 43 points ahead of next non Merc driver.
2016: Mercedes were 38 points ahead of next non Merc driver.
2017: Mercedes were 12 points behind Ferrari
2018: Mercedes were 1 point behind Ferrari

You can see that by the second season the trend of dominance started to come down, led by the changes to the PU regs. This is simply not happening now and has the potential to be the case until 2025, given the 71 point gap in the second season of these regs.

[Sieper]

There is still opportunity for drastic change as can be seen by the current Ferrari performance. Last season they were a force at the beginning of the season, now they are not.

[bluechris]

I have mixed feelings of what FIA must do or if it is logical to do something.
We have seen in the F1 history teams to dominate for years like MB the previous years, or RB now or Ferrari many years before etc. This happens because someone did a better job when the rule changes and has an advantage.

If we dont want a spec series F1 then the only solution is NOT to change rules every some years. For me this is the only way were eventually the back teams will catch up.

[Just_a_fan]

The cost cap bakes in an advantage much more than any previous regs did.

True, there is a variable WT/CFD resource allocation, which hypothetically helps the trailing teams. However, the cost cap means that teams might be able to design improvements but not be allowed to spend the money necessary to implement them.

Seems to me that the cost cap should also be varied in parallel with WT/CFD use variations.

That way, trailing teams can both design and implement changes.

The current system means that any team that starts the season with a healthy advantage is effectively guaranteed to have that advantage at the end of the season. And, of course, will likely take that benefit forward in to the next season.

[napoleon1981]

Yes, but that stat can also be easily muddied by mitigating circumstances. The 3 races that Mercedes failed to win in 2014 were due to mechanical issues (Canada) or two drivers coming together (Spa) or a combination of the two (Hungary). So it doent mean that their competitors were any loser to them on performance. Mercs routinely pulled out 1+secs/lap, sometime even 2, on race starts and restarts. On pure performance they were definitely higher than RB19. The tires of the mid 2010s also degraded more quickly and had a more dramatic cliff, leading to more varied strategies which meant more likelihood of out of sequence cars leading a GP. If RB has flawless reliability throughout the season then we can recalibrate the argument to include that.

Merc engine was 50-70HP up on everyone. There is no way any aero advantage can ever make that much of a difference in today's regulations. Then the engine token system baked in that advantage for 3 years meaning it was impossible to catch them. The longevity of the dominance also should matter here.

Reliability is a prerequisite of winning. As Ron Dennis said, to finish first, first you have to finish.
And, as CheeRS said , squeezing in a metric/stat/incident to curve fit isn't going to lead to a conclusive outcome.

As for engines, they were meant to be frozen but due to the Merc advantage were opened up at the end of the 2014 season(1st season). Ferrari managed to jump leaps and bounds into 2015 (2nd season)with Vettel taking 3 wins and 11 podiums finishing 100 points behind Hamilton. After less than half the season Verstappen is already 71 points ahead of the next non-RB car after 7 races. Giving a far greater points-to-race ratio gap than we have ever seen after 7 races.

If you compare it further, I could throw in some very valid curveballs.
Primarily budget caps. How do teams close a gap of a second in race trim? Surely this is a baked in advantage in a far more restrictive fashion than the engine token system which allowed manufactures to change over 75% of the engine at any point, and without budgetary restriction. You could even change the other 25% of the engine if you could prove it economically beneficial, or more reliable to make the change.
Mercedes and Ferrari can change their pods but they're restricted to the chassis they use which comes with a host of issues. They also cannot throw updates at the car constantly as this will risk the budget cap restriction.

By exaggerating the previous era's limitation, and not addressing the current era's limitations, it leads to a skewing of the outcome.
After 7 races:
2014: Mercedes were 61 points ahead of next non Merc driver.
2015: Mercedes were 43 points ahead of next non Merc driver.
2016: Mercedes were 38 points ahead of next non Merc driver.
2017: Mercedes were 12 points behind Ferrari
2018: Mercedes were 1 point behind Ferrari

You can see that by the second season the trend of dominance started to come down, led by the changes to the PU regs. This is simply not happening now and has the potential to be the case until 2025, given the 71 point gap in the second season of these regs.

Did they have sprint races in 2014? Did they give out points for fastest laps? Without all of that merc was already 61 points ahead after 6 races. Which is better that 71 points after 7. We have seen better points to race ratio gaps.

[ValeVida46]

Did they have sprint races in 2014? Did they give out points for fastest laps? Without all of that merc was already 61 points ahead after 6 races. Which is better that 71 points after 7. We have seen better points to race ratio gaps.

True, I didnt account for that.
3 fastest laps = -3 from 71 =68

Beat Alonso in Baku sprint(best non RB runner in standings) by 3 points in Baku so -3 from 68 = 65.
Or we can just deduct 6 for Max And 3 for Alonso. Gap remains 65.

So 65 points after 7 venues excluding fastest laps and sprint races.
Which compared 2nd season new regs to the 2nd season of Mercedes dominance, is still 23 points ahead (43 vs 65) of 2015.

So 2023 thus far after 7 races is still far more dominant than any Merc year 2014-2018 with over 30% more points difference to the next non RB runner.

Have we seen bigger points to ratio gaps after 7 races in the Merc era?

[Andi76]

After winning 7/7 races you can say that the RB19 is very dominant! However, I must also say that this is logical in retrospect. The TD039 broke Ferrari's concept of the F1-75. That was based on an extremely low ground clearance, as was that of the other teams. Red Bull's concept, on the other hand, suddenly became the only correct one. So while Red Bull could simply evolve, everyone else had to either change their concept (which would have inevitably set them back many, many months) or try to adapt that concept and fix the problems (which might result in a smaller loss). Either way, this gave Red Bull a big head start in development. This is not to diminish their achievement, but I think it is a fact that this TD gave Red Bull extreme advantages.

[PlatinumZealot]

In 2014 the engines were so new that there was always the threat of one blowing up at any second. So going into the races it just wasn't a given that Mercedes would win. There was always that slither of hope that the midfield could sneak a win.

[napoleon1981]

In 2014 the engines were so new that there was always the threat of one blowing up at any second. So going into the races it just wasn't a given that Mercedes would win. There was always that slither of hope that the midfield could sneak a win.

Correct, reliability was much more of a wildcard than it is now. That being said, in 2014, it was a crapshoot behind the mercs. Now Alonso is nicely scooping up the points. Anyway the comparison is not a very good one, also because Verstappen Perez is much more scewed in favor of verstappen compared to Rosberg Hamilton.

[peewon]

Mercedes was spending just as much as the other top teams, if not more, pre cost cap. It's not like they were being out spent.

[Henri]

Did they have sprint races in 2014? Did they give out points for fastest laps? Without all of that merc was already 61 points ahead after 6 races. Which is better that 71 points after 7. We have seen better points to race ratio gaps.

True, I didnt account for that.
3 fastest laps = -3 from 71 =68

Beat Alonso in Baku sprint(best non RB runner in standings) by 3 points in Baku so -3 from 68 = 65.
Or we can just deduct 6 for Max And 3 for Alonso. Gap remains 65.

So 65 points after 7 venues excluding fastest laps and sprint races.
Which compared 2nd season new regs to the 2nd season of Mercedes dominance, is still 23 points ahead (43 vs 65) of 2015.

So 2023 thus far after 7 races is still far more dominant than any Merc year 2014-2018 with over 30% more points difference to the next non RB runner.

Have we seen bigger points to ratio gaps after 7 races in the Merc era?

Crazy stats.. redbull fastest car in d1 history rocket ship

[Stu]

This is all just a big pointless circle-jerk of a thread.


So I’m going to lock it.