2025 Oracle Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[ringo]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GnrBVPaWIAA ... =4096x4096

All of a sudden Yuki has a PhD in racing.
What a difference a few months make.

Newey's presence is missing. This team has had slumps in the past but Newey was always able to dig them out of a hole.

I do feel simplifying the internals would improve the car greatly. Underneath the Mclaren hood is very neat and clean. Likewise Mercedes. Redbull need to go back there.

[Paa]

The simulator must rely on the aerodynamic predictions from CFD and the windtunnel. So, if there is a discrepancy between the wind tunnel/CFD and the real world, it will also disrupt the simulator reliability. There may also be errors in the simulation of the mechanical behaviors (errors in mass distribution, suspension modeling, etc compared to real world). There are many ways to add up to an unreliable simulator. They likely suffer from some combination of these errors. Not good in short term or long term.

The "miracle" package that they hope to bring in 5 races will likely turn out to behave differently when it hits the track unless they understand where the correlation issues come from.

I understand that these are complex systems, but the proof is out there that there is room for improvement.
And what shocked me, that Marko was kind of lamenting about that "maybe they should look into our sim processes" after years of struggling with correlation issues. WTF. This really baffles me as I think it should be the norm to have an automatic review after the first, but latest the second instance it happens.

[ispano6]

Yuki's first timed lap in FP2 on softs was a 1:29.378 but was posted right after the RED FLAG and thus wasn't counted as a timed lap. Not bad considering in that first run he was faster than Russell by -0.288.

With that time it places him 14th between Bortoletto and Ocon.

Russell did that lap on hard tires. The car is simply slow.

True but it shows that he still had pace in hand going yellow in the third sector. The colder temperatures was likely the reason why Russell was hustling his car on the outlap to bring them up to temp. The RB21 seems pretty sensitive to the gusting winds which throws in another dynamic that the simulator likely can't factor in with predictable accuracy, particularly in the last chicane.

[AR3-GP]

The simulator must rely on the aerodynamic predictions from CFD and the windtunnel. So, if there is a discrepancy between the wind tunnel/CFD and the real world, it will also disrupt the simulator reliability. There may also be errors in the simulation of the mechanical behaviors (errors in mass distribution, suspension modeling, etc compared to real world). There are many ways to add up to an unreliable simulator. They likely suffer from some combination of these errors. Not good in short term or long term.

The "miracle" package that they hope to bring in 5 races will likely turn out to behave differently when it hits the track unless they understand where the correlation issues come from.

I understand that these are complex systems, but the proof is out there that there is room for improvement.
And what shocked me, that Marko was kind of lamenting about that "maybe they should look into our sim processes" after years of struggling with correlation issues. WTF. This really baffles me as I think it should be the norm to have an automatic review after the first, but latest the second instance it happens.

I'm not defending them. I agree that it is disturbing that Marko would make such a remark

[Sergej]

The simulator must rely on the aerodynamic predictions from CFD and the windtunnel. So, if there is a discrepancy between the wind tunnel/CFD and the real world, it will also disrupt the simulator reliability. There may also be errors in the simulation of the mechanical behaviors (errors in mass distribution, suspension modeling, etc compared to real world). There are many ways to add up to an unreliable simulator. They likely suffer from some combination of these errors. Not good in short term or long term.

The "miracle" package that they hope to bring in 5 races will likely turn out to behave differently when it hits the track unless they understand where the correlation issues come from.

I understand that these are complex systems, but the proof is out there that there is room for improvement.
And what shocked me, that Marko was kind of lamenting about that "maybe they should look into our sim processes" after years of struggling with correlation issues. WTF. This really baffles me as I think it should be the norm to have an automatic review after the first, but latest the second instance it happens.

it's not very different from "we will have an emergency meeting" one month after car hit the ground and proved to be under expectations.

[CMC]

If this stuff continues I wouldn't be surprised if Max wants to switch to VCARB for one race weekend to see how fast he can be in that car.

The drama that would ensue!

We must be in the Upside Down for switching seats to a VCARB to be Max's best shot of winning a 5th straight WDC.

[AR3-GP]

The simulator must rely on the aerodynamic predictions from CFD and the windtunnel. So, if there is a discrepancy between the wind tunnel/CFD and the real world, it will also disrupt the simulator reliability. There may also be errors in the simulation of the mechanical behaviors (errors in mass distribution, suspension modeling, etc compared to real world). There are many ways to add up to an unreliable simulator. They likely suffer from some combination of these errors. Not good in short term or long term.

The "miracle" package that they hope to bring in 5 races will likely turn out to behave differently when it hits the track unless they understand where the correlation issues come from.

I understand that these are complex systems, but the proof is out there that there is room for improvement.
And what shocked me, that Marko was kind of lamenting about that "maybe they should look into our sim processes" after years of struggling with correlation issues. WTF. This really baffles me as I think it should be the norm to have an automatic review after the first, but latest the second instance it happens.

it's not very different from "we will have an emergency meeting" one month after car hit the ground and proved to be under expectations.

Another good point. The crisis meeting should have been on the Friday evening after the Bahrain test, not 4 weeks laters after 2 GPs whose purpose was only to tell us what we already knew.

The team seems slow to react to the situation. The windtunnel is years too late. The reaction to the lack of correlation is too late. The reaction to the deficit with the Mclaren is too slow. The car is too slow. There is nothing fast moving about this organization at the moment…I will refrain from making jokes about the swiftness of replacing Lawson, as that would not be productive

While the team has been overall the best team in the last 4-5 years, I feel as though 2025 is worse than it should have been for some reason. Do you think it’s possible that the RBPT endeavor has sucked up a lot of the attention within the team? It was a massive effort to organize this and I’m sure other areas of the organization had to be neglected as a result. If it were possible, they really ought to just can it and go back to Honda.

Red Bull should stick to what they do best, and Honda should stick to what they do best. Honda has always been stronger as an engine manufacturer. Red Bull always stronger as a constructor. It is when they deviate that problems arise.

[Seanspeed]

I'm not defending them. I agree that it is disturbing that Marko would make such a remark

It's bewildering how much people still seem to treat comments from Marko as anything to take seriously. He's a complete loose cannon who often doesn't really understand what he's saying himself. But he definitely loves hearing his own voice and talking to reporters.

[AR3-GP]

I'm not defending them. I agree that it is disturbing that Marko would make such a remark

It's bewildering how much people still seem to treat comments from Marko as anything to take seriously. He's a complete loose cannon who often doesn't really understand what he's saying himself. But he definitely loves hearing his own voice and talking to reporters.

Whether Marko said it or not, the evidence speaks for itself. Tsunoda says the simulator car is different to the real thing. Marko says the simulator setups didn’t work on the real car. Max is nowhere on Friday. This has been a recurring issue for over a year. It does not appear that there is enough attention towards resolving the issue. This is more fundamental and more important than worrying about performance. Everything you do is an illusion when there is no correlation.

[Seanspeed]

I'm not defending them. I agree that it is disturbing that Marko would make such a remark

It's bewildering how much people still seem to treat comments from Marko as anything to take seriously. He's a complete loose cannon who often doesn't really understand what he's saying himself. But he definitely loves hearing his own voice and talking to reporters.

Whether Marko said it or not, when Tsunoda says the simulator car is different to the real thing, and this has been an ongoing issue, you have to ask questions. How can a team go for over a year without correlation?

These modern cars are super sensitive. Even like 5 degrees of track temperature difference can seemingly throw off teams entirely. Outside of Mclaren, and perhaps Mercedes this year so far, every team is constantly chasing setup issues to adapt to the differing conditions from day to day, and with quite mixed success and pretty significant implications for performance and results.

Being able to have a good car with a wide working window is the holy grail for this current formula. When Newey was still involved, Red Bull were pretty good at this, but he's left and it seems like Mclaren are now the team that has figured this all out best. It's clearly easier said than done and Red Bull no longer have 'the guru' to sit there and analyze things and filter through computational data to give direction that isn't entirely reliant on what some computer is saying.

Basically, it's not some unique Red Bull problem. And I also dont think it's something they can simply fix by trying to 'better' their simulator software. I'd be surprised if Mclaren's sim software is any better than Red Bull's. It's a car problem, not a sim problem.