2024 Oracle Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[hollus]

Why are we all trying to pick fights?

If you want to say the MV is god, it is fine, you can say it. Please, once or twice will be enough, don't spam.
If someone wants to say the MV is very good but not god... please go ahead! Once or twice will be enough, don't spam.

Similarly, if you feel like the RD technical team, hence the car, is god, go ahead, vent your mind. Once or twice, don't spam it.
And if you feel that the car is very good but not out of this world, please say so! Explain why, and don't spam.

And yes, we all know that those two issues are interlinked and that basically only one of MV and AN can be the real god. Or none. And guess what? It is OK.

Please share your opinion either way, and don't pick fights, fights die with a slow and almost silent wimp when not fed any fuel.

A gentle reminder: Just because this is the "XXX" team thread, it does not mean that negative opinions on XXX cannot be posted there. But please, not as spam and not just for fandom reasons. Focus on the technical aspects, as always.

Might I remind you all that you came to F1T to discuss ideas and data, not posters. Please do so.

I kindly ask everyone to stop looking for fights, feeding fights and creating enemies. The rest of the people, who might feel like they are drowning, would like to read an informative discussion.
It is OK to read different opinions, and no, they do not always need to be fought into submission.

[Paa]

McLaren already seem to closed the gap, and Ferrari will be probably thereabout with their next upgrade.

So it seems Red Bull will need that aggressive in-season development, in which they are traditionally good at. But they haven't been forced to do that during past 1-2 years, so they might be a bit unprepared/surprised?

Any info on their next planned packages?

[AR3-GP]

So it seems Red Bull will need that aggressive in-season development, in which they are traditionally good at. But they haven't been forced to do that during past 1-2 years, so they might be a bit unprepared/surprised?

Any info on their next planned packages?

It will take miracle work to out develop Mclaren. They have more windtunnel and cfd hours. The ATR system was not thought out fully. What does Mclaren still need extra allocation for?



An "ATR" period is roughly 8-9 weeks (~2 months each). There are 6 of them in a year. That is 144 additional windtunnel runs and ~1000 additional CFD items in a 6-month period. It's absurd to keep such an advantage now that there is hardly any margin between the two teams. The sliding scale should push teams to close up (even if it is artificial and BOP at heart) and then cease to exist as soon as they have caught up. The cost cap was put in place to balance resources. The current situation is paradoxical.

In any case, I would expect the next upgrade of any significance near the British GP. That is based on historical precedent.

[Dunlay]

So it seems Red Bull will need that aggressive in-season development, in which they are traditionally good at. But they haven't been forced to do that during past 1-2 years, so they might be a bit unprepared/surprised?

Any info on their next planned packages?

It will take miracle work to out develop Mclaren. They have more windtunnel and cfd hours. The ATR system was not thought out fully. What does Mclaren still need extra allocation for?

https://i.postimg.cc/zXpdKHhf/image.png

An "ATR" period is roughly 8-9 weeks (~2 months each). There are 6 of them in a year. That is 144 additional windtunnel runs and ~1000 additional CFD items in a 6-month period. It's absurd to keep such an advantage now that there is hardly any margin between the two teams. The sliding scale should push teams to close up (even if it is artificial and BOP at heart) and then cease to exist as soon as they have caught up. The cost cap was put in place to balance resources. The current situation is paradoxical.

In any case, I would expect the next upgrade of any significance near the British GP. That is based on historical precedent.

The sliding scale would be a continous sorting process. No point in fiddling it because a team has closed the gap. The intent was to keep the teams bunched closer in competition. Only because Red Bull had such a massive advantage these past couple of years, that process seemed like it wasn't working. The success of that process would inevitably dethrone one team from the top, only to be dethroned by another or by the one that got dethroned. Unfortunately, Red Bull has a big gap to McLaren which shows the duration for which Red Bull enjoyed their advantage. So until Red Bull stays on top of the constructors' ranking, they would have to feel the pain of others getting larger ATR time.

More than the 2024 situation, I think start of 2025 would be a much bigger hit to Red Bull as McLaren would have had larger chunk of development time for the second half of 2024 too, that should in theory, make their car faster than Red Bull in 2025, who would still be getting lesser ATR time due to remaining ahead in 2024 WCC. But that's the objective of sliding scale! Rotating the teams at the top. Unless RBR has much better ideas than McLaren to develop their car with lesser ATR, they would start 2nd of 3rd best car in 2025. I have a feeling that 2025, the last year of the regulations, might just be another 2021. If Mercedes can sort themselves out through this year, they would have the largest ATR time of anyone and if miraculously come with a car that can fight amongst the top, we have a 4 way battle.

[PlatinumZealot]

Perez messed up his car balance. Perez does not do well when the car doesn't suit him. He is not a good barometer for other drivers that are more adaptable to sharp handling.

When Perez likes the car he's normally within a tenth or two of Max, which isn't very often.

Max is not out of reach for the other young guns that's for sure. The McLaren is coming from behind remember. It's not like it leapfrogged the RedBull. It never did. There is data showing the RB is able to pull highest peak G-force in the corners. With the Mclaren having better traction out of corners. So McLaren is not better in the corners and it's also slower on the straights... And yet still Lando is showing quite well against Max.

Guys remember too that Max was within the atmosphere fo Daniel Ricciardo and Carlos Sainze. No need for the hyperbole people.

The Redbull is not this massive astral span in frong of the rest, and Max is not an alien people. It's finer details than that.

[organic]

It's not like it leapfrogged the RedBull. It never did. There is data showing the RB is able to pull highest peak G-force in the corners.

Norris said McLaren probably had the best car at Imola and Stella suggested similar.and it certainly had the quickest car at Miami. They also seem to have a car that arrives with a good setup each weekend

As for the data about peak gs in corners. Please provide it

[Sergej]

Teams that are bringing upgrades as big and separated packages are targeting Silverstone as next round for upgrades, I think RB is following a different strategy bringing smaller and more frequent pieces to the races, so maybe in Barcelona there will be some more things, or at the latest in Silverstone.

Anyway, I am not 100% convinced that the problem is upgrade lacking at the moment, I think that what is most lacking is correct preparation to the weekend and hit the track with a good setup out of the box, avoiding to spend all Friday playing with the car to find the sweet spot (I think this hurt RB in Imola more than McLaren's and Ferrari's upgrades); of course they have to keep up with rivals in the development war or they will fall behind, but it's important to note that adding more and more upgrades without fully understand how to setup the car can be even dangerous.

Next two rounds in Monaco and Montreal will be crucial to arrive at the track with a good base setup.

[Vanja #66]

It will take miracle work to out develop Mclaren. They have more windtunnel and cfd hours. The ATR system was not thought out fully. What does Mclaren still need extra allocation for?

So why is Alpine not doing what McLaren and Ferrari are doing? Why is AMR again searching for performance and are all but clueless lost? Is it down to ATR, which hadn't hurt RB entire 2023 even if they had even less time available? Or is it down to McLaren understanding their car better and picking up some details from Rob Marshal?

[Curbstone]

It will take miracle work to out develop Mclaren. They have more windtunnel and cfd hours. The ATR system was not thought out fully. What does Mclaren still need extra allocation for?

So why is Alpine not doing what McLaren and Ferrari are doing? Why is AMR again searching for performance and are all but clueless lost? Is it down to ATR, which hadn't hurt RB entire 2023 even if they had even less time available? Or is it down to McLaren understanding their car better and picking up some details from Rob Marshal?

Not sure why you're bringing Apline into the equation..? You saying Mclaren have a good understanding of their car, which basically makes the windtunnel and cfd hours very productive towards improving your car.
So every hour spend more than RBR immediatly results in a gain in laptime compared to RBR.

[FittingMechanics]

If anything, domination Red Bull had proves the system is not punitive enough. There should be cumulative effects to your allocation if you are dominant year after year like Red Bull or Mercedes were.

McLaren and their rise is an exception. We don't see massive swings by the back marker teams that would happen if the effect of ATR were that powerful. But - if the swings become too strong maybe they could make the "calculation" periods shorter.

[Cs98]

It will take miracle work to out develop Mclaren. They have more windtunnel and cfd hours. The ATR system was not thought out fully. What does Mclaren still need extra allocation for?

So why is Alpine not doing what McLaren and Ferrari are doing? Why is AMR again searching for performance and are all but clueless lost? Is it down to ATR, which hadn't hurt RB entire 2023 even if they had even less time available? Or is it down to McLaren understanding their car better and picking up some details from Rob Marshal?

You answer your own question, because they are clueless and lost. Teams that have a solid understanding and a real developmental direction (McLaren, Ferrari) can use the extra time to catch up. For teams that don't have a direction the extra development time is welcome but not used efficiently. Finding that direction has always been the job of the teams, the FIA can't design your car for you.

[Vanja #66]

Not sure why you're bringing Apline into the equation..? You saying Mclaren have a good understanding of their car, which basically makes the windtunnel and cfd hours very productive towards improving your car.
So every hour spend more than RBR immediatly results in a gain in laptime compared to RBR.

If ATR was the biggest development driver, it would stand to reason Alpine would now fly off having the most time available of factory teams. Or am I missing something? I'm not sure if people are aware, but all teams are using ML/AI tools for the very first steps in aero development for a few years already, reducing CFD and WT almost to confirmation tools rather than dev tools. As last year showed, Red Bull kept up with their near-usual aero dev rate even with less time than now and the gap was only occasionally reduced at certain types of tracks.

The problem of Red Bull right now, if there's any problem at all, should be looked for in their simulator or procedures or input concerning driver simulator in bumpy tracks with quicker corners. They have some issues getting the right setup from the first practice and this leaves them with less time to optimise it. Their biggest advantage was proper suspension/aero integration and now others have gotten to a high level of integration as well. Ferrari is doing a particularly good job getting up to a very high level from FP1, which is why they were comfortable going into Saturday and missed the "trick" that McLaren used right away and Red Bull used from FP3

[Curbstone]

Not sure why you're bringing Apline into the equation..? You saying Mclaren have a good understanding of their car, which basically makes the windtunnel and cfd hours very productive towards improving your car.
So every hour spend more than RBR immediatly results in a gain in laptime compared to RBR.

If ATR was the biggest development driver, it would stand to reason Alpine would now fly off having the most time available of factory teams. Or am I missing something? I'm not sure if people are aware, but all teams are using ML/AI tools for the very first steps in aero development for a few years already, reducing CFD and WT almost to confirmation tools rather than dev tools. As last year showed, Red Bull kept up with their near-usual aero dev rate even with less time than now and the gap was only occasionally reduced at certain types of tracks.

The problem of Red Bull right now, if there's any problem at all, should be looked for in their simulator or procedures or input concerning driver simulator in bumpy tracks with quicker corners. They have some issues getting the right setup from the first practice and this leaves them with less time to optimise it. Their biggest advantage was proper suspension/aero integration and now others have gotten to a high level of integration as well. Ferrari is doing a particularly good job getting up to a very high level from FP1, which is why they were comfortable going into Saturday and missed the "trick" that McLaren used right away and Red Bull used from FP3

Well, it's not and nobody said is was. You need talented people first and it wouldn't be a surprise that Mclaren would score higher than Alpine.
But still, more CFD and WT is an advantage, an advantage Mclaren has over Red Bull which should not be trivalized.

And yes, there is a problem for Red Bull. Either their car has become more difficult to setup, or the competition is starting to catch up at a fast pace. EIther way, it's a bit early in the season to not be concerned about that. It should be resolved, if not the championships for this and next year are at risk.

[Juzh]

Max is not out of reach for the other young guns that's for sure. The McLaren is coming from behind remember. It's not like it leapfrogged the RedBull. It never did. There is data showing the RB is able to pull highest peak G-force in the corners. With the Mclaren having better traction out of corners. So McLaren is not better in the corners and it's also slower on the straights... And yet still Lando is showing quite well against Max.

what a load of bull
Mclaren was faster or at the very least equal-fast than RB on straights in quali and race - fact. Saying it wasnt is ignorant. f1tempo and mini-sectors from the race confirm this.
Mclaren was a better car on hard tyres and worse on meds - fact. Hard tyre was used for 2/3 the race.
As I already said in race thread, just because a car can pull a few kmh on another car in one corner doesnt make it automatically better. Leclerc had even higher mid-speed in T9, yet i dont see anyone saying ferrari was the best car in imola.

I'm sure you'll comfortably ignore these arguments and manufacture some bonkers theory how Verstappen barely won in a car seconds faster than opposition.

[Vanja #66]

But still, more CFD and WT is an advantage, an advantage Mclaren has over Red Bull which should not be trivalized.

And yes, there is a problem for Red Bull. Either their car has become more difficult to setup, or the competition is starting to catch up at a fast pace. EIther way, it's a bit early in the season to not be concerned about that. It should be resolved, if not the championships for this and next year are at risk.

Pinning everything on ATR and saying it has a small, but non-critical effect are two different things Every weekend teams are chasing 5-6 tenths with optimal setup, while biggest upgrades alone bring 3-4 tenths at best (among best teams). At the top right now, in my view, teams are chasing such fine margins that being on a slightly off setup path can mean losing half a second compared to competition.

Just as I have no doubt RB20 could have been set up a bit better in Australia and won (without Max' brake issue, of course) I have no doubt a bigger margin was there to find for Red Bull in Q and on Hards in Imola. Norris was better than Max on Hards because Max' car dropped those tyres bellow the window and started understeering, according to the team. Let's not forget how big of a margin they had in China, where Max also wasn't quite happy with the car, that was just 2 races ago