This forum contains threads to discuss teams themselves. Anything not technical about the cars, including restructuring, performances etc belongs here.
They're not shedding 30kgs by end of the year. This is peak incompetence. Williams level incompetence.
Also this doesn't explain why the car is generally --- at everything lol. The 2022 car had very clear strengths even while being so heavy. There's nothing on this car.
Vowles said that in this ruleset, excess weight matters roughly twice as much as it did under the previous regulations, because it negatively affects energy management, particularly when charging the battery in the corners. The 2022 car became dominant once they fixed its weight. This car likely won’t become dominant, but it should be much more competitive than it is now.
30kg used to account for 9 tenths. If it's worth twice as much now...
Vowles didn't say it was worth twice as much, he just said it was worth more than it used to be. So the old 10 kg = 3 tenths is no longer true, it's more now.
So McLaren, Ferrari, and Alpine are pretty much on the weight limit, could vary slightly depending on how you estimate the driver weight and how much fuel is left in the car. RB is around 15 kg above the limit, maybe a tiny bit less once you account for fuel.
+15kg in qualy trim. +17kg in race trim. Min weight has 2kg difference between qualy and race. Not sure why but those are the regs.
Last edited by AR3-GP on 17 Mar 2026, 14:57, edited 2 times in total.
So McLaren, Ferrari, and Alpine are pretty much on the weight limit, could vary slightly depending on how you estimate the driver weight and how much fuel is left in the car. RB is around 15 kg above the limit, maybe a tiny bit less once you account for fuel.
+15kg in qualy trim. +17kg in race trim. Min weight has 2kg difference between qualy and race. Not sure why but those are the regs.
Yup, those other cars are likely running 2 kg of ballast to get to that quali weight limit.
+17kg in race trim. Min weight has 2kg difference between qualy and race. Not sure why but those are the regs.
I should add that I estimated that they would need to carry another 1-2kg of fuel in the race, because of the extra weight. So the starting weight in race trim is closer to 18-19kg over.
Could be as much as a second per lap in race trim once you account for increased deg and energy use. Provided it's possible to get rid of that weight it's good news really, it means the aero isn't totally ---, and the engine is even more impressive than we thought.
Could be as much as a second per lap in race trim once you account for increased deg and energy use. Provided it's possible to get rid of that weight it's good news really, it means the aero isn't totally ---, and the engine is even more impressive than we thought.
I think we can now say that there is too much left on the table to judge the car at face value. It's not a bad project, it's just a very immature one. I also agree that the PU is somehow even more impressive, they've show good performance on that side while carrying a weight penalty which meant the car had to use more energy to reach the same speeds as the others.
Of course, it's not good to be so far away from a car's potential and the championships are gone, but having potential and confirming that the team still knows what they are doing in a new regulation set is the more important thing.
I think we have a better explanation for why the gap was so much larger in China than Australia. Verstappen was complaining about high tire degradation, but the laptimes don't show that. He goes faster and faster during the hard tire stint. Everyone went faster and faster on old tires here (unlike Australia).
What it means is that fuel burn (weight) has an above average impact on lap time in China. It is an effect that outweighs the loss of grip in the tires. Every car was getting faster and faster towards the end on older tires. China is a stop and go circuit with lots of low speed corners, traction zones, and braking zones to low speeds. The average apex speed is 80 km/h. In Australia the average apex speed was 150km/h. Top speeds are the same at both tracks. So when they have to accelerate the car from a lower speed, and brake to a lower speed in China, the extra weight has a "longer" effect in each of these phases.
Last edited by AR3-GP on 17 Mar 2026, 20:02, edited 1 time in total.
It is hinting at the potential in the PU which the Racing Bull shows even more than the RB22. This "mystery" that the writer picks up on is probably linked to the weight of the car. They built a great PU. Red Bull will be able to show its potential more at the correct weight.
I think we have a better explanation for why the gap was so much larger in China than Australia. Verstappen was complaining about high tire degradation, but the laptimes don't show that. He goes faster and faster during the hard tire stint. Everyone went faster and faster on old tires here (unlike Australia).
What it means is that fuel burn (weight) has an above average impact on lap time in China. It is an effect that outweighs the loss of grip in the tires. Every car was getting faster and faster towards the end on older tires. China is a stop and go circuit with lots of low speed corners, traction zones, and braking zones to low speeds. The average apex speed is 80 km/h. In Australia the average apex speed was 150km/h. Top speeds are the same at both tracks. So when they have to accelerate the car from a lower speed, and brake to a lower speed in China, the extra weight has a "longer" effect in each of these phases.
Did you see that Max had been lifting at turn 6 for 38 laps because he thought he had to lift there and it wasn't until lap 38 that GP told him not to? Someone on twitter said it cost him 0.380 per lap...
A lift at T6 wouldn't cost you that much time. Whoever analysed it is likely referring to the high speed T7 where RB used a lower deployment compared to Merc. That did cost a lot of time but was likely necessitated by the weight/graining situation.
As for the retirement it looked like a cooling issue to me, Max got a warning on the dash. Maybe a leak given it was so late in the race.
As for the retirement it looked like a cooling issue to me, Max got a warning on the dash. Maybe a leak given it was so late in the race.
It seemed like the same hybrid system water leak that Hadjar had during the 2nd test. Red Bull previously ran the hybrid cooler above the engine (Honda days), but now it is at the left-hand side of the car. Unlikely to affect the PU allocation.
Also, this guy is saying Max needs to take a tight line approach to corners to conserve tyres and help with energy with these low downforce cars, especially in China in corner 1.He says Max puts more load into the tyres than the car can take due to the lack of downforce.
So, does he need to adapt to this, for these types of cars?
If he hasn't done it yet, is it just a frustration thing with these new cars as Martin says, taking a tight line doesn't feel like your "on the limit...it doesn't feel natural or by feel"
A lift at T6 wouldn't cost you that much time. Whoever analysed it is likely referring to the high speed T7 where RB used a lower deployment compared to Merc. That did cost a lot of time but was likely necessitated by the weight/graining situation.
As for the retirement it looked like a cooling issue to me, Max got a warning on the dash. Maybe a leak given it was so late in the race.
Just for curiosity sake, could someone look at the data and see/work out/educated guess how much he was giving up there per lap when he lifted?
A lift at T6 wouldn't cost you that much time. Whoever analysed it is likely referring to the high speed T7 where RB used a lower deployment compared to Merc. That did cost a lot of time but was likely necessitated by the weight/graining situation.
As for the retirement it looked like a cooling issue to me, Max got a warning on the dash. Maybe a leak given it was so late in the race.
Just for curiosity sake, could someone look at the data and see/work out/educated guess how much he was giving up there per lap when he lifted?
Less than a tenth.
Here you see the different deployment in T7. And I can only reiterate again looking at this data, RB doesn’t have an engine issue.
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
