Jump to content


Photo

Red Bull 2010 (merged)


  • Please log in to reply
3430 replies to this topic

#1 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,464 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 05 November 2009 - 04:23

For '10 they state they will be dropping the pull-rod rear suspension and going to a normal one for DDD advantages.

Will the rear of the RBR still be as low and will they be able to make it any lower?

It will put them in a 'straight fight' with the other bigger spending teams, without any technical differences on the RBR. Obviously they know what they are going, but the big money teams have no doubt looked closely at how the RBR is configured...

Advertisement

#2 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants
  • Member

  • 8,012 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 05 November 2009 - 05:11

Aren't double-diffusers being banned for 2010?

Martin Brundle mentioned during the coverage of the race in Abu Dhabi that he had spoken with Ross Brawn and Brawn had said his team's 2010 challenger will look more like the Red Bull than the current Brawn, so the other teams are keeping an eye on them.

#3 Spa One

Spa One
  • Member

  • 344 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 05 November 2009 - 05:20

Aren't double-diffusers being banned for 2010?

Martin Brundle mentioned during the coverage of the race in Abu Dhabi that he had spoken with Ross Brawn and Brawn had said his team's 2010 challenger will look more like the Red Bull than the current Brawn, so the other teams are keeping an eye on them.


Yeah I also read that the Brawn are heading more towards a Redbull. Its interesting that they have decided to drop it. I thought it was working for them.

About the DDD for 2010, they are not banned, but I can not for the life of me understand why. I started a thread about it on another forum but it didnt attract much attention; and I still dont have an answer.

#4 PassWind

PassWind
  • Member

  • 4,842 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 05 November 2009 - 05:33

Not sure how they will keep the rear as low or if its a viable option with regards to the need for a huge fuel tank.

I think Renault and McLaren may have an advantage as they both worked and aero package that made space for KERS and was quite bulky around the girth. Ferrari was able to make it all fit very neatly but the car was really junk.

Some of the shapes I have seen in some of the SpeedTV articles really remind me of early 90's cars



#5 WebBerK

WebBerK
  • Member

  • 831 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 05 November 2009 - 05:47

It seems that 2010 will be the war of RedBull clones. :well:

I just wonder if Newey will take another route in 2010 and leave a troublesome 2009 concept for the others. :p

I believe the RB 2009 aero concept wont fit for all driving styles, specially the ones thta likes a grippy front end.
When I saw the RB in car footage, Vettel and webber seemed to handle the front with care and smooth, bcs there is not much weight there, unlike the Brawns.

Alonso, Kimi and Kubica will suffer.
Massa, Rosberg, Rubens will benefit.

#6 slideways

slideways
  • Member

  • 3,268 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 05 November 2009 - 07:52

They won't be clones but most teams will raise the nose up again like RBR did, and steal the nifty ridges for the top suspension mounts, and we've already seen others incorporate the cams into the nose design. Also the smooth, low rear bodywork will probably see a couple of big shrink wrapped style lumps if they go back to a push rod setup, I guess they'll try to do something fancy with that and the exhaust, maybe some kind of active diffuser with the exhaust output?

#7 FormerF1Driver

FormerF1Driver
  • Member

  • 169 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 05 November 2009 - 07:57

They need to improve on twisty tight circuits with slow corners if they are going to be competitive next year. They looked ok after singapore but they still were not the best team on these type of circuits as some liked to claim as it suited their agenda.

#8 Simon Says

Simon Says
  • Member

  • 2,163 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 05 November 2009 - 08:00

How is this not stealing of IP if everybody will come up with Brawn and Red Bull clones? :confused:

Everybody has always been stealing the works of Andrain Newey also when he was working at Mclaren. When he introduced viking wings, all of a sudden all other teams started testing it too :eek:

But it's funny if Newey will come up with a whole new concept for 2010 :p

#9 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 840 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 05 November 2009 - 15:18

But it's funny if Newey will come up with a whole new concept for 2010 :p


A whole new concept would be unlikely, unless needing twice as much fuel next year and the size requirements that puts on the sidepods and bodywork really has a massive effect. If you look back on Newey's 2005 concept, McLaren used that in a basic form right until this year, and most other teams attempted to copy it with varying success. The RB5 could be like the MP4/20 was, but we cant predict future development rates and how much remains to be unlocked from the new regulations.

#10 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,523 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 05 November 2009 - 15:26

A whole new concept would be unlikely, unless needing twice as much fuel next year and the size requirements that puts on the sidepods and bodywork really has a massive effect. If you look back on Newey's 2005 concept, McLaren used that in a basic form right until this year, and most other teams attempted to copy it with varying success. The RB5 could be like the MP4/20 was, but we cant predict future development rates and how much remains to be unlocked from the new regulations.


Someone posted a link to a recent Newey interview in the now defunct MP4-24 thread. He said that the RB6 will be "evolution rather than revolution" as the basic aero regs are the same.

#11 Alfisti

Alfisti
  • Member

  • 26,570 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 05 November 2009 - 15:54

I have posted this in other threads but the car desperately needs to be less reliant on aero for lap times. This years car reminds me of the 2007/08 Ferrari, on it's own it laps very well but in a race it struggles. It's sluggish in a straight line, doesn't like to be off line or asked to work outside of it's comfort zone ..... it just seems to be very, very fast in medium/fast corners. i.e. it generates a great lap time but is difficult to race with.

Look at the Brawn and mcLaren this year, they seemed far more nimble and willing to be thrown about a bit.

Edited by Alfisti, 05 November 2009 - 15:56.


#12 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 840 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 06 November 2009 - 04:53

That could be a wheelbase issue, it could just be an issue with the suspension and how its setup for kinematics versus the aero effect of where the wishbones sit.

I think the tyre wear will be more important next year because if they dont try and get the car to use them lighter, the rear tyres are going to get burnt up with a full races worth of fuel onboard.

#13 Gecko

Gecko
  • Member

  • 800 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 06 November 2009 - 05:06

That could be a wheelbase issue, it could just be an issue with the suspension and how its setup for kinematics versus the aero effect of where the wishbones sit.


You just listed almost all the reason why a car can be compromised mechanically ;).

#14 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,739 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 November 2009 - 05:24

nick worth said the rear bridgestone tyres are quite fragile, think thats on a interview radiolemans did :)

#15 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 06 November 2009 - 05:31

It seems that 2010 will be the war of RedBull clones. :well:

If true, then this would be good for RB, but not for the clones, because no one understands data and their intricacies better than RB. If you think that you can just copy something from a photograph, you set yourself for a nose dive.

#16 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,464 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 06 November 2009 - 06:07

If true, then this would be good for RB, but not for the clones, because no one understands data and their intricacies better than RB. If you think that you can just copy something from a photograph, you set yourself for a nose dive.


Obviously they take the ideas and test them in their own wind tunnels to see what they do? :confused:

#17 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 06 November 2009 - 07:34

Obviously they take the ideas and test them in their own wind tunnels to see what they do? :confused:

RB is ahead. They have data off the track, not merely from wind tunnel. Aero is important, but there is more to learn what works, and what not, especially under testing restrictions. If you take what you think, they all would have figgured out soon in 2009 season what needs to be fixed (but many they didn't).

#18 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 840 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 06 November 2009 - 15:53

I think the only thing we'll see next year so blatantly ripped from the RB5 will be the nose and the treatment around the suspension mounts. Theres been more talk of copying Brawns sidepods than there has of RBR's, and whilst a few teams will have room to move with how they package their rear crash structure, if those teams also wanted to take the Red Bull's approach to how extremely shrink wrapped the rear end was, they wouldve done it this year. The shark fin as well couldve been easily adopted by a few teams already if that was one thing they felt valuable, but judging from the take-up rate it must be less successful with the rear wing now the height of the engine cover.

#19 BullHead

BullHead
  • Member

  • 6,719 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 06 November 2009 - 18:04

RB6 - Slightly shorter wheelbase? Lower rear structure maximising diffuser? Further nose sculpting? How would you improve the RB5?

Advertisement

#20 Alfisti

Alfisti
  • Member

  • 26,570 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 06 November 2009 - 19:28

RB6 - Slightly shorter wheelbase? Lower rear structure maximising diffuser? Further nose sculpting? How would you improve the RB5?


In theory the shorter wheel base mnakes the car a little more nimble and chuckable, basically what I think they need.

#21 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 840 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 07 November 2009 - 03:45

How can you make the wheelbase shorter, keep the sidepods slim and hold twice as much fuel though? I dont think you can, so its inevitable the wheelbase will have to grow.

#22 BullHead

BullHead
  • Member

  • 6,719 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 07 November 2009 - 04:39

a little give on the sidepods maybe ala brawn.. fuel tank shouldn't be a problem, always seem to be over allocated space wise anyway IMO. Tanks have always been a flexible design area.

#23 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 778 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 07 November 2009 - 07:06

I think that tyres will be the key next year.

Sure, you want a fast car, but if it can't be fast without destroying tyres then nothing has been gained.

I believe BS will be producing tyres with a greater gap in between that was the case this year. Seems that you will run hards first stint, maybe as long as possible before changing to the softer ones when the car is as light as possible?

#24 maccaFTW

maccaFTW
  • Member

  • 704 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 07 November 2009 - 07:24

I think the only thing we'll see next year so blatantly ripped from the RB5 will be the nose and the treatment around the suspension mounts. Theres been more talk of copying Brawns sidepods than there has of RBR's, and whilst a few teams will have room to move with how they package their rear crash structure, if those teams also wanted to take the Red Bull's approach to how extremely shrink wrapped the rear end was, they wouldve done it this year. The shark fin as well couldve been easily adopted by a few teams already if that was one thing they felt valuable, but judging from the take-up rate it must be less successful with the rear wing now the height of the engine cover.


Exactly on the sharkfin. Brawn tried it at Spa and said it gave them nothing.

The latest rumblings I've heard are that Brawn are going to copy the RB5 nose, while McLaren and Ferrari are going to copy the BGP 001 nose.

The design challenge for next year will be interesting. The refueling ban and skinny front tires are going to be a major departure. I could see any one of five teams coming out with the top car, including:

* McLaren- Developed very well this year and seem to know the new aero regulations well, plus they've already worked around a bulky rear to incorporate KERS.

* Ferrari- Quit development on this year's car at Hungary, so they've gotten a head start on design now.

* Brawn- Did the best job of managing tires this year, which will be hugely important over race runs this year with tire wear being a relatively more important factor in performance.

* Red Bull- Clearly had the best aerodynamic package this year.

* Williams- Cosworth engine is major unknown variable. Could be next year's DDD.

#25 maccaFTW

maccaFTW
  • Member

  • 704 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 07 November 2009 - 07:33

I think that tyres will be the key next year.

Sure, you want a fast car, but if it can't be fast without destroying tyres then nothing has been gained.

I believe BS will be producing tyres with a greater gap in between that was the case this year. Seems that you will run hards first stint, maybe as long as possible before changing to the softer ones when the car is as light as possible?


Yup.

There's no way the options will make it through a long run on heavy fuel.

One of the major keys will be figuring just how much to punish the tires. You could conceivably go with a design that's very easy on the tires, possibly allowing for a one-stopper with an extremely long first stint on the primes, and then go with a short final stint on the options. Or, one could go with an aggressive design that's brutally fast and harder on the tires, requiring a two-stop strategy. Then again, if you run with a two-stop strategy, you'll have fresher rubber for a longer period of the race. But if the primes are difficult to bring up to temperature, then the one-stoppers would have the advantage of running with optimal temperature for a longer time. Then again, the one-stoppers will spend a lot less time on pit road; the 45-50 seconds that would be sacrificed on pit road by two-stoppers would be massive, and one should question whether or not that would be made up by pace.

Lots and lots of fun things for the engineers to consider.

#26 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 840 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 07 November 2009 - 14:06

I could see any one of five teams coming out with the top car, including:

* McLaren- Developed very well this year and seem to know the new aero regulations well, plus they've already worked around a bulky rear to incorporate KERS.


McLaren also have the highly rated tyre modelling software which will give them a good chance with predicting the narrower tyres in the wind tunnel and CFD.

* Ferrari- Quit development on this year's car at Hungary, so they've gotten a head start on design now.


I dont think the head start is all its cracked up to be. If you look at 3 teams - Brawn, RBR and Brawn - and analyse how they did this year, its not everything. Brawn, with a headstart AND the DDD, started out mega but were reigned in. RBR probably wouldve won both titles had the DDD been ruled illegal, and definately wouldve had Brawn not gotten on the grid, and according to RBR they didnt exactly make an early start on their car, perhaps the contrary. BMW also like Honda last year abandoned everything early to concentrate on '09, but a poor aero concept and too much concentration on KERS left them nowhere. I dont think Ferrari will make the same mistakes BMW did, but i also dont think its a gurantee for success, especially with such a lack of testing which is one reason McLaren chose to continue development.

* Brawn- Did the best job of managing tires this year, which will be hugely important over race runs this year with tire wear being a relatively more important factor in performance.


Before all the talk of Mercedes buying into the team and there still being a threat of them having no backing for next year, i thought they'd probably start sliding down the grid. If they've got the funding though there should still be the depth of talent to keep them at the front whilst they tweak their aero and others have to make fullscale changes. I'm also doubtful with the aero regs remaining the same and the unlikely chance of another DDD scenario that they will keep up on the development pace. Tyre management wise, them being easy on the tyres should work well next year but Ferrari and McLaren also looked easy on the tyres this year and didnt have as high profile a struggle when they couldnt get them up to temperature.

* Red Bull- Clearly had the best aerodynamic package this year.


Upper body aero i'd agree was the best, but Brawn still had better underbody aero with the fully integrated DDD. Next year they'll get their chance at that but i think their main concern must be getting the car to be easier on the tyres for next year. They need to sort their low speed grip as well as they started the year with a car too biased for high speed corners IMO.

* Williams- Cosworth engine is major unknown variable. Could be next year's DDD.


I'm not convinced even if the Cosworth has the rumoured 15hp more than the Merc, bullet proof reliability and the fuel consumption competitive that Williams can fight it out. If they'd had a year like Brawn then definately, but they started in a similar situation (maybe better considering the lack of preparation for Brawn) yet after the flyaway rounds they were swamped by the recovering Ferrari and McLaren. Williams really shouldve been fighting for 3rd in the WCC (so should Toyota for that matter) and maybe if there'd been anyone other than Nakajima in the 2nd seat they wouldve been, but next year they'll probably secure themselves back into the midfield unless the Cosworth does prove to be a firecracker and they emulate Force India in designing their car for the lower drag tracks.

#27 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,888 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 07 November 2009 - 14:13

In theory the shorter wheel base mnakes the car a little more nimble and chuckable, basically what I think they need.


What about the much bigger fuel tank? How will they find any room to shorten the wheelbase and still carry twice as much fuel?
The way they won these last 3 races doesn't it make it seem as they were particularly sluggish on any type of corner anymore.

#28 BullHead

BullHead
  • Member

  • 6,719 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 07 November 2009 - 14:50

As I said earlier, fuel tanks are very flexible in design terms, no matter their capacity. Not a problem, can be worked around anything. It's the weight difference that needs factoring.

#29 femi

femi
  • Member

  • 6,203 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 07 November 2009 - 21:46

There is one unknown though, Bridgestone. They may appear next year with tyres of such characteristics that may produce results that may once again shake up the grid.
They are leaving anyway so they may not care too much about tyre quality.

#30 BullHead

BullHead
  • Member

  • 6,719 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 07 November 2009 - 21:49

You can bet every designer from every team is on to them now for samples, etc.

#31 Redback

Redback
  • Member

  • 719 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 08 November 2009 - 03:10

I recall reading an article on the engineering challenges of pull-rod suspension and its advantages/disadvantages.

Basically, it allows for a very compact design and therefore provides more scope for aero optimisation. Obviously that was the reason Newey adopted it. (As has been stated by others,- if not for the DDD being declared legal, the RB5 would have been the stand-out design this year and would probably have romped away into the distance.)

Unfortunately, pull-rod suspension doesn't control wheel movement as well as push-rod designs and this can lead to reduced contact patch stability. In clean air, with low to medium down-force, this issue can be (mostly) overcome. In dirty air, slow corners, or over bumps however, traction and stability can be significantly affected.

This seems to pretty much correlate with the RB5's performance characteristics this year. (Very good in clean air on fast circuits, but not so good following other cars or on bumpy high down-force tracks.)

With a clean-sheet DDD option available now, I understand that A.N. intends to go back to push-rods for the RB6. If that's the case, it may very well rectify the RB5's issues at slow and/or bumpy circuits and reduce its performance degradation in dirty air.

If anyone can retain most of the RB5's aero and packaging advantages, while addressing the obvious shortcomings, it's Newey.

Here's hoping...!

Edited by Redback, 09 November 2009 - 00:18.


#32 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,138 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 08 November 2009 - 05:28

Exactly on the sharkfin. Brawn tried it at Spa and said it gave them nothing.

The latest rumblings I've heard are that Brawn are going to copy the RB5 nose, while McLaren and Ferrari are going to copy the BGP 001 nose.

The design challenge for next year will be interesting. The refueling ban and skinny front tires are going to be a major departure. I could see any one of five teams coming out with the top car, including:

* McLaren- Developed very well this year and seem to know the new aero regulations well, plus they've already worked around a bulky rear to incorporate KERS.

* Ferrari- Quit development on this year's car at Hungary, so they've gotten a head start on design now.

* Brawn- Did the best job of managing tires this year, which will be hugely important over race runs this year with tire wear being a relatively more important factor in performance.

* Red Bull- Clearly had the best aerodynamic package this year.

* Williams- Cosworth engine is major unknown variable. Could be next year's DDD.

:clap:

I'd also add:

The tyre balance will return to previous year's grooved tyre balance, with the narrower fronts, hence wheels should shift back.

And no KERS which might effect some team's weight balance, although the extra fuel will have an effect too.

I'd love Williams to use their KERS, its still legal - but I think they've said they won't be using it. Shame IMO ...

Oh ... where has Willis gone to? I imagine he has a suitcase about the RBR's technology ...

Edited by Melbourne Park, 08 November 2009 - 05:30.


#33 newbie

newbie
  • Member

  • 89 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 08 November 2009 - 18:22

For '10 they state they will be dropping the pull-rod rear suspension


where have you heard this? source?

#34 Lukin83

Lukin83
  • Member

  • 753 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 08 November 2009 - 20:15

I believe the RB 2009 aero concept wont fit for all driving styles, specially the ones thta likes a grippy front end.
When I saw the RB in car footage, Vettel and webber seemed to handle the front with care and smooth, bcs there is not much weight there, unlike the Brawns.

Alonso, Kimi and Kubica will suffer.
Massa, Rosberg, Rubens will benefit.


Interesting. I recall reading that Vettel is one of the guys who wants the weight balance to be as much in front as possible, and that Webbo had to adapt to it last year.


#35 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,464 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 08 November 2009 - 23:20

where have you heard this? source?

Any interviews with Newey or Horner etc will state this. :)

#36 WebBerK

WebBerK
  • Member

  • 831 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 09 November 2009 - 00:28

Interesting. I recall reading that Vettel is one of the guys who wants the weight balance to be as much in front as possible, and that Webbo had to adapt to it last year.

:blush: Well...

I just read that the Brawns had more weight in front than the RBs, specially at the begin of season, when RB used the needled nose.
When RB came with the wider nose, it had more weight in front too.

#37 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,138 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 09 November 2009 - 01:54

:blush: Well...

I just read that the Brawns had more weight in front than the RBs, specially at the begin of season, when RB used the needled nose.
When RB came with the wider nose, it had more weight in front too.


I think the biggest change in weight balance was with the Mk2 car this year, which had the wheels shifted backwards relative to the chassis. That car thereby made it much easier to shift the weight forward.

I think that the RBR5 had the DDD introduced at Monaco, which was a big change to the car. The Mk2 car came a few GPs later, where at the British GP, the front and rears were different, and the wheels were moved backwards relative to the chassis. I think the different front and rears were to make up for the changed aero when both front and rear tyres backwards. Hence from the British GP onwards, the RBR could have its weight easily shifted forward, even one could presume for the heavy Mark Webber.

Other cars shifted their weights forward this season too. For instance the McLaren moved just its front wheels backwards by 3 inches (at the Euro GP in Spain) which shifted its weight forward by 1%, or 6kg.

Edited by Melbourne Park, 09 November 2009 - 01:56.


#38 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 840 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 09 November 2009 - 02:54

where have you heard this? source?


Newey basically said they wouldnt have used the pullrod suspension if they'd known the DDD would be legal.

#39 Supersleeper

Supersleeper
  • Member

  • 1,441 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 09 November 2009 - 03:06

Interesting. I recall reading that Vettel is one of the guys who wants the weight balance to be as much in front as possible, and that Webbo had to adapt to it last year.

Marko actually made those comments about Vettels driving style in comparsion to Webber. Marko basically stated that Webber was going to have to get used to it, because it was the faster way to get around the track....although things changed slightly throughout the season..... and Red Bull appeared to have put a sock in it for Helmut, so we never got to hear any more of his pearls of wisdom.

The RB5 was comparitively heavy to other cars and was described as a "pavaroti" to me....and about 50 others.... on the Thursday night before this years OZ GP - by a certain F1 driver who will remain nameless. :lol:

Advertisement

#40 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,138 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 09 November 2009 - 05:29

appeared to have put a sock in it for Helmut, so we never got to hear any more of his pearls of wisdom.

The RB5 was comparitively heavy to other cars and was described as a "pavaroti" to me....and about 50 others.... on the Thursday night before this years OZ GP - by a certain F1 driver who will remain nameless. :lol:


That's interesting ... I recall when Newey went into some very light chassis engineering at McLaren (for Centre of Gravity benefits), that car became very troublesome. I've always thought of Newey cars as being weight efficient - but then the RBR3 was very unreliable. I also reckon that there is likely a correlation between light weight and less reliability. So I guess if the RBR6 is light, then perhaps its reliability will be challenged again? Recall how the RBR 5 kept stopping when it first appeared? Many thought for some time, that reliability would be a huge issue for the team.






#41 Supersleeper

Supersleeper
  • Member

  • 1,441 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 09 November 2009 - 05:40

I also reckon that there is likely a correlation between light weight and less reliability. So I guess if the RBR6 is light, then perhaps its reliability will be challenged again? Recall how the RBR 5 kept stopping when it first appeared? Many thought for some time, that reliability would be a huge issue for the team.

Might be. I remember thinking "we're screwed" when I heard that the car was heavy, it would definitley not run KERS in the 2009 season with MW, and that the front wing wasn't going to be adjustable.......looks like the weight went into structural integrity. If the front wing can be sorted for next season - we might be the goods.

...and if you'd like to come along this year MP, drop me a line - there's just one catch..... ;)

#42 dank

dank
  • Member

  • 5,191 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 13 November 2009 - 18:17

Tenuous link ahoy!

Red Bull Racing are running their very first 'Fan Awards' this year and have a load of prizes on offer if you're willing to spend two minutes voting: http://www.redbullra...ourself-Prizes/

#43 Hippo

Hippo
  • Member

  • 2,378 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 13 November 2009 - 20:45

The changing aero and weight balances will take off the penalty of bigger driver weight for some people. Will be easier for Mark to set up the correct balance then without having any negative on Seb.

About driving styles, I wouldn't give too much about the theories being spread. Those guys have been driving various kinds of cars before and have always been fast. that's how they got into F1 after all. I don't think we'll see many of them struggling.

#44 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,464 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 14 November 2009 - 13:12

Those guys have been driving various kinds of cars before and have always been fast. that's how they got into F1 after all.


I wouldn't go that far. Mark Webber got beat by some supertaxi drivers in F Ford, and was quite close to some IRL bound F1 "rejects" in F3000 etc. Without Stoddart there would not have been a progression from the Benetton test role and into a F1 race seat, career was pretty much stalled then wasn't it and he had to drop his (naff!) policy of intending to debut in F1 for a higher order team only? Only when he started to be 1 second faster than Pizzonia at Jaguar, did we start to think he might be a top-line F1 driver or as we now know there-abouts of being a top driver and more along the lines of the Frentzens etc. :)

If Jaguar had wanted to spend more than $500,000 each on their driver line-up, they might have signed Panis etc instead of the Webber/Pizzonia duo. Without that Webber would not have got that drive either. It's the equivalent of a Kobayashi/Grosjean line-up being annouced if a cut-price Toyota team was continuing and was obviously a very bold cost cutting move at the time so somewhat lucky to get the drive!

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 14 November 2009 - 13:17.


#45 BullHead

BullHead
  • Member

  • 6,719 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 14 November 2009 - 19:49

They should have kept Irvine to partner Webber. 2003 might have been different then

#46 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,464 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 15 November 2009 - 04:11

They should have kept Irvine to partner Webber. 2003 might have been different then


It would be most amusing to see a $500,000 driver matching a $18,000,000 one! :)

Although whats to say Webber did not slow Jaguar down with inconsistency. The Red Bull/Toro teams that Vettel has joined have been much better financed in comparison to some of the cut-cost cars produced by Red Bull Technologies under the old Jaguar name in the last seasons.

Re: The heavy car. The RB1 was a basic car, just a Jag with all the bugs ironed out, and it was their best car prior to the RB5! A simple car that works is better than one with all the bells and whistles that doesn't work properly. :)

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 15 November 2009 - 04:18.


#47 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 840 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 15 November 2009 - 13:37

The RB1 was also a car Webber wouldve contributed heavily on the initial development for, so i dont quite understand your line of thinking.

#48 GhostR

GhostR
  • Member

  • 2,631 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 15 November 2009 - 16:06

I wouldn't go that far. Mark Webber got beat by some supertaxi drivers in F Ford, and was quite close to some IRL bound F1 "rejects" in F3000 etc. Without Stoddart there would not have been a progression from the Benetton test role and into a F1 race seat, career was pretty much stalled then wasn't it and he had to drop his (naff!) policy of intending to debut in F1 for a higher order team only? Only when he started to be 1 second faster than Pizzonia at Jaguar, did we start to think he might be a top-line F1 driver or as we now know there-abouts of being a top driver and more along the lines of the Frentzens etc. :)


That version of history conveniently forgets that Mark's early career in Europe was plagued by budget problems. He had opportunities with Merc (until the break up over flipping cars), had agreements with Arrows until they folded, and then was picked up by Benetton. All that with no budget to speak of is very impressive. He might not have won any titles, but he did get the best out of the cars he drove all the way through given the opportunity he had.

#49 LukeM

LukeM
  • Member

  • 966 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 16 November 2009 - 05:52

I think Kobayashi could be another Webber. Struggled somewhat in the lower classes and than found himself in F1. F1 is alot different with the pressures and the big jump in speed. Some drivers handle it better than others(ie. Magnussen looked like another Senna in F3) and we know what happened to him.

#50 DFV

DFV
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 16 November 2009 - 12:34

I wonder if todays news about McLaren, Brawn and Mercedes changes the engine situation for Red Bull?

Now that McLaren is just a customer I would suspect they will not have any veto rights over engine supplies for 2010. Or have Red Bull definitely stated that the Merc is out of the question?

Maybe this is what they have been waiting for and that's why there have been no announcement? Or is it only between Renault and Cosworth now?