2019 Aston Martin Red Bull Racing - Honda F1 Team

[godlameroso]

Snip

I don't agree and I'll expalin why.

who know the package better ? you or Helmut Marko? who is closer to the facts? you or Helmut Marko?
i don't say i believe all Helmut Marko or Horner is telling, but keep saying it is all a lie... someday you can say "see i was right" and you can applaud yourself for it.

and still you didn't gave any prove of the opposite so pls ....

You cannot have a first rate team with Newey, and probably the biggest aero budget in F1 and tell me they missed their DF target because....."Renault".
The engine data will have been corroborated via sister team Torro Rosso. A SEASON's worth of data to sift through, and Honda focusing pretty much solely on the Red Bull project for 2019.
Can we all agree the above to be accurate?

Then we can move onto the comments from insiders and stipulated milestones....

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13965 ... an-renault

Toro Rosso believes that Honda's newly upgraded engine is already more powerful than Renault's current engine
When asked about that situation, and what that therefore meant for Red Bull's prospects in 2019, Horner said: "Month by month they are getting stronger and stronger, and the engines that they are bringing to the circuit now are getting closer and closer to the front of the field.

So for more than 6 months Red Bull were aware of Honda's rate of progress, and even knew that the engine was already more powerful than the Renault.
Not only that, but they even said the level of integration was a step beyond Renault, call it a "thing of Beauty" with cooperation on a "different level" to Renault.

Fast forward 6 months, and RB nail the speed traps compared to Ferrari and Mercedes in Oz, something they have pointedly and ironically used to show how inferior the Renault is.
Marko then suggests they didn't have enough Downforce, making a mockery of a seasons worth of data to go on, a more powerful engine, and better integration of team and engine(all sourced by Red Bull themselves). So either Marko is lying, or Red Bull are telling fibs. I'll go with Marko telling porky pies.

I don't need to prove anything. Red Bull themselves have shown that Marko's comments are BS.
I don't require applause, polite discussion would be welcome however

Red Bull has been following an efficient downforce philosophy for a long time. Last year, they had a fast car, but it didn't have piles of downforce, I say this because they struggled in the wet. Performance in the wet is entirely determined by the downforce inherent in the chassis. If the Red Bull was in fact packing more downforce than Mercedes they would have been able to keep up in the wet, the fact they struggled so much shows they've been biasing the setup for low drag since 2018 at least.

McLaren had some success with high downforce high drag setup, but couldn't exploit it because the Honda just didn't have the grunt or ERS endurance to take advantage. Mercedes still has more power than Honda, so they can bake more downforce into the chassis, because the extra drag can be countered by the extra power. Honda delivered more power, and Red Bull built their chassis thinking they could get away with their efficient downforce philosophy.

Now they know that they have to turn the bias more towards downforce and increased drag, and Honda has to keep developing the engine so that drag doesn't affect the car as much on non-DRS straights. Probably another tenth hiding in the chassis with a higher downforce setup, with the engine as is. With a modest power bump to keep speeds as they are but with more downforce it could be a .3 second gain, which would be enough to take the fight to the very end.

[pipex]

The target L/D ratio together with the engine target power output seems to be the key in this formula. Get it wrong and you get last year's McLaren, get it right and you get a Mercedes. From the speedtraps it is fair to say that RB have played it safe with the Honda engine. Now, they can afford to modify the target and maybe this opens up new avenues for development. I think we will see more from them in the next races...

[Capharol]

Red Bull has been following an efficient downforce philosophy for a long time. Last year, they had a fast car, but it didn't have piles of downforce, I say this because they struggled in the wet. Performance in the wet is entirely determined by the downforce inherent in the chassis. If the Red Bull was in fact packing more downforce than Mercedes they would have been able to keep up in the wet, the fact they struggled so much shows they've been biasing the setup for low drag since 2018 at least.

McLaren had some success with high downforce high drag setup, but couldn't exploit it because the Honda just didn't have the grunt or ERS endurance to take advantage. Mercedes still has more power than Honda, so they can bake more downforce into the chassis, because the extra drag can be countered by the extra power. Honda delivered more power, and Red Bull built their chassis thinking they could get away with their efficient downforce philosophy.

Now they know that they have to turn the bias more towards downforce and increased drag, and Honda has to keep developing the engine so that drag doesn't affect the car as much on non-DRS straights. Probably another tenth hiding in the chassis with a higher downforce setup, with the engine as is. With a modest power bump to keep speeds as they are but with more downforce it could be a .3 second gain, which would be enough to take the fight to the very end.

thank you for the more detailed explanation (i coudn't be so detailed) but this is exactly what i mean, but some ppl has more knowledge then the poeple that work there apparently

[godlameroso]

The target L/D ratio together with the engine target power output seems to be the key in this formula. Get it wrong and you get last year's McLaren, get it right and you get a Mercedes. From the speedtraps it is fair to say that RB have played it safe with the Honda engine. Now, they can afford to modify the target and maybe this opens up new avenues for development. I think we will see more from them in the next races...

That's what I'm thinking.

http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... i%20Bottas

Bottas finished 22 seconds ahead of Verstappen, 22.520 divided by 58 laps gives .388 seconds, which is the average gap between Bottas and Verstappen on this track. I think that is the true gap, and closing that will give them parity in the race.

[Phil]

That is a good assessment godlameroso. Bottas probably could have driven faster but didnt need to, while Max was evidently held up by traffic at various parts in the race. In the end, it probably equals out. But i think the 0.3s will be tough to close (also because it’s a moving target) and i am still yet to see how efficient the Honda can retain it’s pace on a track where the cars are longer at full throttle as well as if they could maintain the same performance relative to both Ferrari and Mercedes with the 7 race weekends these engines must last.

[Quantum]

Red Bull has been following an efficient downforce philosophy for a long time. Last year, they had a fast car, but it didn't have piles of downforce, I say this because they struggled in the wet. Performance in the wet is entirely determined by the downforce inherent in the chassis. If the Red Bull was in fact packing more downforce than Mercedes they would have been able to keep up in the wet, the fact they struggled so much shows they've been biasing the setup for low drag since 2018 at least.

McLaren had some success with high downforce high drag setup, but couldn't exploit it because the Honda just didn't have the grunt or ERS endurance to take advantage. Mercedes still has more power than Honda, so they can bake more downforce into the chassis, because the extra drag can be countered by the extra power. Honda delivered more power, and Red Bull built their chassis thinking they could get away with their efficient downforce philosophy.

Now they know that they have to turn the bias more towards downforce and increased drag, and Honda has to keep developing the engine so that drag doesn't affect the car as much on non-DRS straights. Probably another tenth hiding in the chassis with a higher downforce setup, with the engine as is. With a modest power bump to keep speeds as they are but with more downforce it could be a .3 second gain, which would be enough to take the fight to the very end.

Contrary to the "efficient DF" philosophy you speak of, Red bull try to attain maximum DF, whilst trying to cut drag.
We have seen them do it countless times, cutting wing at monza to silly levels with people saying they have no idea how it hangs onto corners with such a small wing. Simply, this is where rake comes into play.

Red Bull get their DF through the floor more than most, due to the rake of the car. Sealing the floor at speed has always been their ethos to attain as much downforce from the floor as possible.
Your example of being wet and unable to hang onto Mercedes is relevant, but not for the reason you have given.
High rake and wet tread tyres do not go well....as wet tyre increase the ride height of the car.
This has an adverse reaction in RB trying to seal the floor, as the height difference makes the effect far weaker than when it's at optimal.
There are plusses and minusses for low rake and high rake. But ultimately Mercedes do not generate as much from their low rake concept because they chase a different ethos, stability over outright maximum.

These are 2 contrasting styles, and each has their own reason. Ultimately both are 2 different ways to get as much out of the tyre as possible. Both are to extract as much from the tyre for as long as possible.

This does not explain Marko's nonsense. In FP1 a team would know they're running to little DF for a set venue.
It's not a moving target, and any top 5 team should be able to reconfigure wing to be able to attain the optimal and required DF.
This was a politically motivated comment aimed squarely at Renault, to rub their noses into what is undoubtedly a progressive looking year for Red Bull.

[Sieper]

I think it is even less. Max had to closely follow Hamilton (and was stuck behind him as was evidenced by him easily coming back again after the turn1 excursion) and had to do the same and overtake Vettel. This is more costly on your tires then running in clean air so that could have been invested in running quicker would he have had clean air himselve.

[ME4ME]

Red Bull has been following an efficient downforce philosophy for a long time. Last year, they had a fast car, but it didn't have piles of downforce, I say this because they struggled in the wet. Performance in the wet is entirely determined by the downforce inherent in the chassis. If the Red Bull was in fact packing more downforce than Mercedes they would have been able to keep up in the wet, the fact they struggled so much shows they've been biasing the setup for low drag since 2018 at least.

..

Nothing against the point you're trying to make, but I do struggle with the argument for it.

Wet weather performance can just as well result from a cars tyre-handling characteristics. I think it's more reasonable to take the limited number of wet weather samples and explain them by Mercedes being more able to get heat into the tyres in 2018, than disregarding all the corners in a large set of samples where Red Bull equalled or surpassed Mercedes in minimum apex speed.

I think that at occations Red Bull had more downforce in 2018, depending upon the setup they choose to use, as well as being more aero efficient when they did not bolted on all they had. Regardless, Mercedes had the overall better engine and thus better car, and energized their tyres more with that being either an advantage or disadvantage depending on the race conditions. Allison noted, as you will know, that they aimed to improve tyre durability this year. Most likely meaning that they'll take a step back in energizing the tyres, and optimizing towards the larger number of races.

[Quantum]

That's what I'm thinking.

http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... i%20Bottas

Bottas finished 22 seconds ahead of Verstappen, 22.520 divided by 58 laps gives .388 seconds, which is the average gap between Bottas and Verstappen on this track. I think that is the true gap, and closing that will give them parity in the race.

I dont think that's representative at all.

Bottas was 16 seconds clear of Verstappen after 24 laps!

[Quantum]

Not only that but Mercedes best lap was 0.7 quicker than RB's.

This a gap borne out in Qualifying too.

https://www.racefans.net/2019/03/17/201 ... and-tyres/

[etusch]

That's what I'm thinking.

http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... i%20Bottas

Bottas finished 22 seconds ahead of Verstappen, 22.520 divided by 58 laps gives .388 seconds, which is the average gap between Bottas and Verstappen on this track. I think that is the true gap, and closing that will give them parity in the race.

Can we say that Bottas could push more ? Maybe a bit more in his pocket but not much. He pushed almost all of race. I think if Verstappen was behind him from start of race there would be lesser gap.

[PhillipM]

I bet it's even more if Bottas wasn't sat in clear air singing to himself with the engine turned down.
Even Hamilton nursing the car home had enough in hand to gap Max every time he got to DRS range.

[dxpetrov]

That's what I'm thinking.

http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... i%20Bottas

Bottas finished 22 seconds ahead of Verstappen, 22.520 divided by 58 laps gives .388 seconds, which is the average gap between Bottas and Verstappen on this track. I think that is the true gap, and closing that will give them parity in the race.

I dont think that's representative at all.

Bottas was 16 seconds clear of Verstappen after 24 laps!

Verstappen was stuck behind Vettel for majority of those ''24 laps'', losing tyres at same time...

[Quantum]

That's what I'm thinking.

http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... i%20Bottas

Bottas finished 22 seconds ahead of Verstappen, 22.520 divided by 58 laps gives .388 seconds, which is the average gap between Bottas and Verstappen on this track. I think that is the true gap, and closing that will give them parity in the race.

I dont think that's representative at all.

Bottas was 16 seconds clear of Verstappen after 24 laps!

Verstappen was stuck behind Vettel for majority of those ''24 laps'', losing tyres at same time...

He was nowhere near the Mercedes. Not in Quali, and not in the race. Couldn't overtake a Merc with a broken floor (Despite having a higher top speed), and couldn't get closer than 0.7 to the fastest time Bottas was did.

What's your point?

[dxpetrov]

Read it again, veeeeryy slooowlyyy... You might understand this time...