Groups

Red Bull, did them being so far ahead come from other teams? (9 posts)

Topic tags: Ferrari, Hamilton, high downforce, McLaren, Red Bull, Vettel

Viewing post 1 to 9 (9 total posts)

Ell said 1 year, 10 months ago:

Well, kinda self-explanitary really…
In Australia, Vettel qualifies on pole by 8 tenths and goes on to dominate the race, but, did that lead from their main rivals?
Well, Mclaren. Built a very unusual car design. Here’s my reason: “Right, Red Bull’s rear end is great, so the beat them, lest create the craziest exhaust design ever.” It failed, miserably. They were struggling to do a 20 lap stint, lagging in the midfield, which resulted in them being on the back foot. They had to change the design to a simpler one, and, as a result, didn’t test it until Melbourne.
Ferrari. A more conservative car choice, but, as with last year, was the 3rd quickest car. Despite trading fastest times with Red Bull in testing, the car was slow. At the start of 2011, it seemed that they were 4th or 5th fastest. A lower downforce car, with a rear end that doesn’t generate as much downforce as it’s counterparts. But, as with last year, they started to fight back.
It seems too late though, and despit their best efforts, both teams are still playing catch up. Vettel could stay at home for the next 3 races, and still lead the championship. It does seem too late, but can this season be a learning for them 2? Let’s hope so, post your comments…

#
PinkMaggit said 1 year, 10 months ago:

Wow, good question Ell, really had to give this one a lot of thought.
I don’t think it was Ferrari or McLarens plan to build the 2nd or 3rd fastest car.
I think both teams thought they possibly had a winning concept but knew that it would be impossible to tell until they had seen what the other teams had done.
I believe Red had the advantage in that they had a great base in the form of the RB5 and RB6 which they could evolve and further the concept. They basically had the best car in 06 and 05 (when you discount the DDD)and so they basically just built on an already winning formula and were able to apply what they learned in those 2 years to the RB7.
Ferrari and Macca weren’t as successful over the last 2 years and thus had to design a lot more from afresh. The RB7 is basically a 3 year old concept perfected and refined whereas the Macca mp4-26 does bear a lot of resemblance to the 25 but a lot of the concepts such as the sidepods are new and leave a lot of scope for more development.The evolution of a successful initial idea has always proved advantageous in F1, just look at the Ferrari F2001 through to the F2005.
Having said that the leading team generally tends to become more conservative and take less risks, allowing the other teams to come up with the more radical ideas (e.g. McLarens sidepods) until they find something that works and they are able to surpass the leaders.
This is why the balance of power in F1 tends to go around in cycles of a few years.

#
PinkMaggit said 1 year, 10 months ago:

Jeez what am I saying, I meant to say they basically had the best car in 2009 and 2010, not 05 and 06 :* – it must be getting late!

#
ob1kenobi.23 said 1 year, 10 months ago:

The RB,S always seemed to be very good cars, but was Vettel the catylist that made it happen, Do teams that build good car,s need an Alonso, Hamilton or Vettel type of individual to add the final piece to the jigsaw.

#
PinkMaggit said 1 year, 10 months ago:

To win the WDC all the pieces of the puzzle must fit. The largest piece of that puzzle is the car. Good drivers can win in a great car but it takes a great driver to win in a good or average car (Schumi in his Benetton years).
A much smaller piece of the puzzle is the drivers skill and his ability to let the team know where they need to develop the car.
Their are a lot of drivers who are perfectly capable in this area and there are a lot of good drivers. Of course the RB7 is a great car.
I don’t believe that Vettel is a vital part of the process. The credit for the car goes to Newey and the technical dept as far as I’m concerned.
I believe that a Rosberg or a Hamilton or even a Button would have been able to win the WDC if put in the same situation.Of course we don’t know how Vettel compares to Alonso or Hamilton without giving them the same machinery so it can’t really be proven and remains speculation but basically I believe that Red Bull just needed a good driver with good technical ability to win and not necessarily the best.

#
Icthyes said 1 year, 10 months ago:

I hadn’t thought about it this way before, but you’re right, a lot of the initial advantage did come down to McLaren having so little testing and Ferrari being too conservative. Nowadays we’re seeing a “truer” gap.

#
Ell said 1 year, 10 months ago:

Yeah, i have realised how the RB7 is a 3 year concept, whereas the mp4-26 and the 150 Italia are quite new, but who’s to say the RB8 won’t dominate next year? Remember from 2000-2004 how Ferrari dominated, because they had a base from the first car, and it took rule changes to dethrone them…

#
GeeMac said 1 year, 10 months ago:

I don’t know if what ob1kenobi.23 said is correct. The RB5 (the starting point of RBR’s domination) would have been developed from at least the middle of the 2008 season, which means that DC and Webber probably had more of a hand in the initial stages than Vettel would have.

#
Asanator said 1 year, 10 months ago:

There were massive fundamental rule changes for the 2009 season so I doubt, any of the drivers had much of an input into the design of the 2009 cars, once they hit the track though it would have been a different matter. I doubt DC was involved at all!

#