2026 Oracle Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[Emag]

I think on an actual race there will always be some sort of tire saving that you need to factor in. And that is fine, it's part of talent and racing IQ in my opinion.
But when you have to lift off mid corner to charge up the battery. Or maybe press the brakes while going full throttle on a fast corner because you think you will struggle to defend the next straight. I don't know. Things like these seem too gimmicky to me.

I don't know why these rules were approved.

[f1isgood]

Horner will be sorely missed in the drama this year with the engines and these regulations....

[f1isgood]

I think on an actual race there will always be some sort of tire saving that you need to factor in. And that is fine, it's part of talent and racing IQ in my opinion.
But when you have to lift off mid corner to charge up the battery. Or maybe press the brakes while going full throttle on a fast corner because you think you will struggle to defend the next straight. I don't know. Things like these seem too gimmicky to me.

I don't know why these rules were approved.

It got more manufacturers on board. That's their metric for success. Really all there is tbh. For manufacturers its a marketing exercise...

[Sieper]

That’s not true. Sure, manufacturers have wanted ROI, but that is not the main reason for racing to occur. There are teams in F1 that don’t even manufacture cars… I have so far only seen some images and it is not looking great.

[gearboxtrouble]

I have mixed feelings about Max' comments.
I'm a big fan of him and usually like his outspoken attitude. But in this case to heavily criticize the product that pays him dozens of millions ... I'm not sure if that's the right thing.

I feel he is being so blunt because he has been warning about this for years now, and no one cared. And what do you know, him and Horner were 100% correct.

Everyone made fun of them when these complaints first surfaced. Even I thought it was just their engine being behind talking. In retrospect them pushing for a bigger ICE split was a sign of confidence in the ICE and them complaining about the racing was a sign of how advanced their simming and development was at the time.

[Badger]

I have mixed feelings about Max' comments.
I'm a big fan of him and usually like his outspoken attitude. But in this case to heavily criticize the product that pays him dozens of millions ... I'm not sure if that's the right thing.

I feel he is being so blunt because he has been warning about this for years now, and no one cared. And what do you know, him and Horner were 100% correct.

Everyone made fun of them when these complaints first surfaced. Even I thought it was just their engine being behind talking. In retrospect them pushing for a bigger ICE split was a sign of confidence in the ICE and them complaining about the racing was a sign of how advanced their simming and development was at the time.

Don't kid yourself, the car manufacturers knew exactly how bad this power split would be and they prioritised their marketing BS over the sport. Ironically the energy drinks company has the most credibility in representing the interests of race fans, simply because they are not corrupted by the politics of the automotive industry.

[continuum16]

That’s not true. Sure, manufacturers have wanted ROI, but that is not the main reason for racing to occur. There are teams in F1 that don’t even manufacture cars… I have so far only seen some images and it is not looking great.

Ok yes not all teams manufacture cars but some manufacture other things. Like energy drinks, or CNC machines. Oh, and both of those teams are also involved with/sponsored by car manufacturers as well. Outside of Williams and (when it began at least} McLaren every team exists as a marketing exercise. You could make a chicken-and-egg argument for Ferrari maybe as well. But AT BEST it is less than 30% of teams.

The rules were, more or less, made by marketers—and at a time when it was thought that electrification was the ONLY way forward by 2030. The worldview for which teams created these new "futuristic" and "sustainable" PUs is *already* out of vogue. If anything, the 2010s era KERS hybrid systems might still be the most road-relevant formula yet.

All they had to do to prevent this possible mess was go from 50/50 to something like 60/40 split of ICE/MGU-K and things would be much simpler. Keep compression ratio at 18:1 too, if you want. Chassis regs are moving in the right direction, at least.

[f1isgood]

That’s not true. Sure, manufacturers have wanted ROI, but that is not the main reason for racing to occur. There are teams in F1 that don’t even manufacture cars… I have so far only seen some images and it is not looking great.

Ok yes not all teams manufacture cars but some manufacture other things. Like energy drinks, or CNC machines. Oh, and both of those teams are also involved with/sponsored by car manufacturers as well. Outside of Williams and (when it began at least} McLaren every team exists as a marketing exercise. You could make a chicken-and-egg argument for Ferrari maybe as well. But AT BEST it is less than 30% of teams.

The rules were, more or less, made by marketers—and at a time when it was thought that electrification was the ONLY way forward by 2030. The worldview for which teams created these new "futuristic" and "sustainable" PUs is *already* out of vogue. If anything, the 2010s era KERS hybrid systems might still be the most road-relevant formula yet.

All they had to do to prevent this possible mess was go from 50/50 to something like 60/40 split of ICE/MGU-K and things would be much simpler. Keep compression ratio at 18:1 too, if you want. Chassis regs are moving in the right direction, at least.

I think the chassis regulations moved right in 22 and moved wrong in 23. I think 60/40 or 70/30 was dismissed as off RBPT being a failure. This is what Horner and co proposed. I don't know what the deal with compression ratio is. Apparently smaller makes it easier for new engine manufacturers. So in that sense I suppose it makes sense to have reduced it.

[AR3-GP]

I have mixed feelings about Max' comments.
I'm a big fan of him and usually like his outspoken attitude. But in this case to heavily criticize the product that pays him dozens of millions ... I'm not sure if that's the right thing.

He's given an opinion that's been shared by Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton. They are the real stewards of this sport, using their legacy to nurture what's left of it while the rest are too young and inexperienced to know the magic that it once had. I don't see the connection with who pays them unless it's in the contracts not to have an opinion.

FOM are grown ups and they can take these criticisms in stride. F1 has some stuff to work on. Nevertheless, there are good parts like he said. The proportions are good and the new livery at Red Bull is also very well done.

[continuum16]

That’s not true. Sure, manufacturers have wanted ROI, but that is not the main reason for racing to occur. There are teams in F1 that don’t even manufacture cars… I have so far only seen some images and it is not looking great.

Ok yes not all teams manufacture cars but some manufacture other things. Like energy drinks, or CNC machines. Oh, and both of those teams are also involved with/sponsored by car manufacturers as well. Outside of Williams and (when it began at least} McLaren every team exists as a marketing exercise. You could make a chicken-and-egg argument for Ferrari maybe as well. But AT BEST it is less than 30% of teams.

The rules were, more or less, made by marketers—and at a time when it was thought that electrification was the ONLY way forward by 2030. The worldview for which teams created these new "futuristic" and "sustainable" PUs is *already* out of vogue. If anything, the 2010s era KERS hybrid systems might still be the most road-relevant formula yet.

All they had to do to prevent this possible mess was go from 50/50 to something like 60/40 split of ICE/MGU-K and things would be much simpler. Keep compression ratio at 18:1 too, if you want. Chassis regs are moving in the right direction, at least.

I think the chassis regulations moved right in 22 and moved wrong in 23. I think 60/40 or 70/30 was dismissed as off RBPT being a failure. This is what Horner and co proposed. I don't know what the deal with compression ratio is. Apparently smaller makes it easier for new engine manufacturers. So in that sense I suppose it makes sense to have reduced it.

By chassis regs moving in the right direction I mean smaller and lighter with less downforce. And yes I remember there were suggestions to change the 50/50. Even at the time it seemed like a rational solution but the egos of certain parties could not be overcome.

[Paa]

Is there any news about the weight of RB22? I can't remember reading anything about how it fares against the weight limit, not even a hint. But maybe I just missed it.

[AR3-GP]

Is there any news about the weight of RB22? I can't remember reading anything about how it fares against the weight limit, not even a hint. But maybe I just missed it.

There's a talking bull interview that was posted this week (but recorded in December). It suggests that the car was very overweight when it was first assembled.

Very interesting episode:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Az-lu5UqSs

43:30 onwards was discussion about the weight of RB22. It sounds like they are overweight.

The test car is probably overweight but usually the new chassis that are put into service for the season receive the first weight reductions.

[euv2]

Going from a generation of cars with the highest ever cornering speeds in med-high speed corners to lifting and coasting in corners to charge battery is going to be a shock to system for all the drivers, it's literally the opposite of what they've done all their lives.

I don't really understand why the FIA couldn't just make the CR 18:1, even RBPT was pro 18:1, Ben Hodgkinson recently complained that the FIA should've just made them 18:1, that would have left only Audi as the inexperienced PU maker, everyone else had experience building 18:1 CR engines. Should have just increased Audi's testing allowance, would have made a big difference and would've reduced the lifting and coasting. FIA and FOM were too set on their PR win of 50-50 ICE/MGU-k split, with the auto industry moving towards electric and hybrids, car manufacturers like Audi and Cadi probably demanded heavy electrification to justify entry to shareholders.

Max is right, F1 these regs are going to be less about the best driver and more about the best battery manager.

[lio007]

Is there any news about the weight of RB22? I can't remember reading anything about how it fares against the weight limit, not even a hint. But maybe I just missed it.

There's a talking bull interview that was posted this week (but recorded in December). It suggests that the car was very overweight when it was first assembled.

Very interesting episode:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Az-lu5UqSs

43:30 onwards was discussion about the weight of RB22. It sounds like they are overweight.

The test car is probably overweight but usually the new chassis that are put into service for the season receive the first weight reductions.

But they talked about the '22 car that was overweight and not the RB22, didn't they?

[AR3-GP]

But they talked about the '22 car that was overweight and not the RB22, didn't they?

On second review, I agree. That was story about the RB18. The rest was inconclusive since the interview was done at least a month before the car was first assembled.

Nevertheless, the test car itself has all sorts of additional sensors installed that won't be on the race car, so the test car itself is probably overweight, even if only slightly.

The information trickle doesn't really exist now that Marko is gone...He was the number one source of leaks.