Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Autumnpuma

Red Bull Will Suffer Most In 2011

Recommended Posts

Sauber? Sauber?

Sorry, just have to pick myself up off the floor.

They have neither the money, nor the talent to do that. Brawn GP lucked into a good Honda design, but then without the money the car was caught and passed mid to late season by the other teams. The lack of funds in '09 resulted in a less developed/designed/whatever car for 2010, and hence Merc did not have a strong car to start with.

Now look at Sauber....never did better than 4th in all those years prior to BMW buying them out (I believe that was the year Kimi and Heidfeld drove for them). With Beamer money they did quite well...even won a race. Then Beamer up and quit, severely limiting development of the 2010 car. It was a struggle to have Sauber even exist in 2010...let alone have anyone actually design a car. Throughout 2010, they survived on Double Whoppers with Cheese at a few events, and had to sponsor themselves with the Sauber Club thing. Do you think much money was left over to develop a 2011 car? I highly doubt that.

Yep, and the Telmex budget (smaller than everyone wants to think it is; it's not even the title sponsor) is exclusively reserved for repairing the many, many cars Pérez is going to write off. And then Kobayashi will write off the rest, with no one to pay for that...

When you have a generic team on a small budget like Sauber, you need generic, inexpensive drivers like Nick Heidfeld and Pedro de la Rosa. Kobayashi and Pérez have pace and potential, but both are going to retire from races as frequently as Brett Favre retires from the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha. If they had that little money they wouldn't have even made it to the end of the year!

Sauber is just fine. There's reports, some of which that have been confirmed by the team, that they've signed several other big sponsors, excluding Telmex. Apparently there could be Panasonic title sponsorship.

Sauber improved a lot from start of the season to the end. They got solid results, Kobayashi scored quite a few points, and towards the end of the year they were regularly in the top 10.

Kobayashi is a brilliant overtaker and Perez is highly rated amongst many in the F1 paddock. But Eric hates every F1 driver so I'm not at all suprised to see him dismissing them so quickly.

The argument in this very topic is that the previous success over the past couple of years is no guarantee for future results, so on that basis, sure, whilst Sauber's never won many races, there's no evidence to say they WON'T be up there either.

As I said. They are my dark horses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Eric hates every F1 driver so I'm not at all suprised to see him dismissing them so quickly.

:rolleyes: Yes, of course, that's it! You caught me. I'm just a biased, angry moron and all my opinions are automatically dead wrong because I don't have a favorite driver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes: Yes, of course, that's it! You caught me. I'm just a biased, angry moron and all my opinions are automatically dead wrong because I don't have a favorite driver.

You don't need to have a favourite driver to hold an opinion, Eric. I have friends who support ice hockey in Connecticut too. I sympathise with youtongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even have a favourite either Eric...heck, I've even cheered for Jenson....damn...that slipped out....damn damn damn.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even have a favourite either Eric...heck, I've even cheered for Jenson....damn...that slipped out....damn damn damn.....

You little devil, you. Well, well Craig. What a turn up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I haven't gotten back to this thread for a while...other stuff came up. Anyway, I'm still waiting to read a somewhat technical reason to believe Newey will design a fast car when almost all the things that made the RB6 a fast car have been taken away.

I don't think the logic need to be technical. Ask yourself this; Level playing field, all technical director's together. Who's your money on to design the best car. Mine is on Newey. Isn't that all we're talking about here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the logic need to be technical. Ask yourself this; Level playing field, all technical director's together. Who's your money on to design the best car. Mine is on Newey. Isn't that all we're talking about here?

true! red bull has an advantage and all other teams are trying to get on same level, that is what they have been doing all season.

they have copied all that they could see from red bull, but most of the newey's solutions was out of their sight ( how happy where they when webber collided with kovy and flew in air showing them red bulls floor ). then they turned to develop f-duct , just to gain some advantage to red bull.

how much did they learn from red bull i don't know, but i know that red bulls new car is extension to their 2009. and 2010. technology.

other teams, mainly mclaren and ferrari,now have to adapt it in a short time because they lost time due to fact that they had to concetrate to 2010 cars until the last race.

so maybe mercedes team has advantage compared to ferrari and mclaren because they have started with car development earlier.

sauber to have a good car in 2011? not a chance! not even if oprah would drive for them and give them all of her money!

GO OPRAH!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who say that Red Bull are going to be fastest on the basis that they have been so good for the past couple of years, are probably equally as flawed in their logic as those who say they will suffer the most just because they've been fast for the last couple of years and the regulations are different now. That's because neither of those things has anything to do with Red Bull's success, or lack of, this year; their success in 2011 will simply depend on how well they interpret and adapt to the new regulations. So for me at least, Red Bull may suffer because they make some design flaws with the new regs, or they may well succeed because they do a really great job on the car and think of some all new innovations, but any speculation based on either of those schools of thought above is, well, speculative.

Ah, my good man, speculation is at the heart of what we do here. Speculation exercises the brain. We'd be nothing, as a species, without a bit of speculation. If you're not into that, I would suggest reading a news site.

Additionally, one may look at past events and form a basis for future performance. This is what we're attempting to do here. You know this, but you're too concerned with appearing to be 'neutral' or 'the calm head'. Live a little. Speculate.

I don't think the logic need to be technical. Ask yourself this; Level playing field, all technical director's together. Who's your money on to design the best car. Mine is on Newey. Isn't that all we're talking about here?

Mark Smith. Assuming they all have equal resources, Smith has demonstrated the ability to produce a solid, fast car with a fraction of the resources Newey has had available....and not all Newey's cars have been fast. Newey has three distinct tools in his toolbox, all of which have been taken away with these new rules and you can see all of them as far back the '90s. First is ride height. He's a master at getting a car to hug the ground but there exists no real way for him to do this aside from the suspension. Second is a skinny, high nose. Now gone. Third is an exhaust-blown diffuser. Gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, my good man, speculation is at the heart of what we do here. Speculation exercises the brain. We'd be nothing, as a species, without a bit of speculation. If you're not into that, I would suggest reading a news site.

Additionally, one may look at past events and form a basis for future performance. This is what we're attempting to do here. You know this, but you're too concerned with appearing to be 'neutral' or 'the calm head'. Live a little. Speculate.

I'm not concerned with appearing like anything on this forum, tbh (and I think too many people are which causes most of the problems). I just tell it how I see it, and, if you think I'm trying to be the neutral or calm headed one on the basis of my posts, I'll take that as a compliment.

As for speculation, yes it's fine and interesting to think about what might happen, but I don't see the point in trying to draw any conclusions from the fact the regulations have changed, or in arguing with someone else's pov on who is going to be at the top or whatever (unless someone has actual inside knowledge). F1 is too unpredicatble.

If I had to force a prediction out of myself it would be meaningless because I simply think that Ferrari, Mclaren and Red Bull will be the top teams again, and there might be a surprise from somebody else. Oh man, I feel so alive now, I'm living on the edge! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh.. and I thought for a meaningless prediction that was an okay one (it was even based on past performance trends like you said..). If I came up with another I would be lying to myself/you, as I am unaware of any other relevant (imho) factors/reasons to think anything else, and I refuse to lower my moral standards and lie for you AP!

To try and explain myself better, and to bore anyone who bothers to read: I just disagree with the idea that RB will suffer the most because the new regs are closing some of the loopholes they exploited last season. That's because the regulations aren't a fixed thing from season to season, they're new for everybody so it's a clean slate. If it was a fixed thing which was then changing then I'd agree; like if Newey had left at the end of last season and you'd said "Red Bull will suffer" then I'd completely agree (it's a fixed thing because Newey works there from season to season so his leaving would affect RB's performance in 2011). Or if RB were the biggest spender last season and this season there was a 50% spending reduction for all teams, and you'd said their performance would suffer the most from the new budget for everyone, then I'd say "yes, that is probably the case because they will have to make the most cuts".

So staff, money, access to technology and so on are "fixed" factors which determine general performance from season to season (regardless of regulations), whereas new regulations are obviously new and not fixed (otherwise the finishing order for each season would be fairly static due to the fixed factors). We realistically have no idea how each team will cope with the new regulations (especially adapting to the new tyres).. but.. "there is the fun in speculating" you say. Yet for me that kind of speculating, based on new, unknown regulations, is pointless because you're speculating based on a factor when you have no idea about how it will affect the thing it affects (we don't know what Red Bull or anyone else will make of the regulations). If doing that is a mental exercise then watching Deal or No Deal is a lesson on economics. The point being it is good to speculate on future events based on relevant past ones, and the current circumstances, but not to speculate on future events based on future conditions which we don't know about yet.

On the other hand and as you mentioned, speculating based on past trends is more reliable and useful, e.g. "it hardly ever rains here in June, so it probably won't tomorrow, 'cos it's June". Or "Mclaren may be fast with the new KERS device, as theirs was developed best last time it was used" but even then you cannot say anything at all firm. Speculating based on the fixed factors is even more useful still (providing they haven't changed), it is why I can predict with some confidence that Mclaren, Ferrari and Red Bull will be there or thereabouts (because they are still rich, employ the best people, and have access to better technology).

That is my disagreement with the idea, and I have given it far more thought than it really warrants but no matter. Good exercise. I didn't mean to crap on your thread, I was just posting what I think about this type of speculation (and whenever I post, crap is a guaranteed by-product). Don't take it personally, there is nothing at stake here; I am not attacking you or the thread or even the idea, nor am I telling anyone how they should think, I am just disagreeing with the idea, which is still legal.

..yeah, I got all that from "as you will" :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bravo, sir. That was the typewritten equivalent of celery. :lol:

Better than wet lettuce, I suppose. I'm just bored and putting off work, which is why my usual ability to reduce any thread to its smallest parts is even greater than usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The post that TP wrote was the equivalent of smearing crap all over a wall, then study it for patterns that might seem similar to Shakespeare's works.

Of course, George, as usual, my comment is not necessarily aimed at you.

Other than that, I get what you mean and I agree :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Smith. Assuming they all have equal resources, Smith has demonstrated the ability to produce a solid, fast car with a fraction of the resources Newey has had available....and not all Newey's cars have been fast. Newey has three distinct tools in his toolbox, all of which have been taken away with these new rules and you can see all of them as far back the '90s. First is ride height. He's a master at getting a car to hug the ground but there exists no real way for him to do this aside from the suspension. Second is a skinny, high nose. Now gone. Third is an exhaust-blown diffuser. Gone.

So you think that Smith would be more successful than Newey with the same resources? I disagree. Newey is a natural. He still designs from the drawing board. I hope I'm wrong and you can use the emoticon with the tongue that sticks out when Newey falls from grace this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how you can say one person is a 'natural' and another is not, but we're down to personal opinion here.

I see Smith's work on the Jordan 199 as sheer brilliance. Gascoyne is credited with the car, but it was Smith who designed it. Mark worked on Force India when it had it's resurgence and also at Red Bull under Newey so it's clear Newey rates him. While his design skill compared to Newey are debatable, he always provides a strong car with frequent mid-season updates that rarely go wrong. His cars are mostly bullet-proof and that wins more points than a faster but more fragile Newey car.

Truthfully, if we want to talk about 'naturals' I would place Gavin Fisher in there above anyone. In his time at Williams, he scrapped and re-designed the car each year and each year it was fabulous. His is an eccentric kind of genius. A mad-scientist aero genius and Williams has yet to recover from the loss.

On a tangent, I would think Lotus has a good chance at being the wild card in '11. You have Mark Smith, Lewis Butler and Marianne Hinson all coming together again to provide a brilliant car design and Gascoyne to oversee it all and provide his stellar managerial and scheduling prowess. If the money can be found to implement mid-season updates (Mark's strong point) then Fernandes will be a happy camper this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, my good man, speculation is at the heart of what we do here. Speculation exercises the brain. We'd be nothing, as a species, without a bit of speculation. If you're not into that, I would suggest reading a news site.

Additionally, one may look at past events and form a basis for future performance. This is what we're attempting to do here. You know this, but you're too concerned with appearing to be 'neutral' or 'the calm head'. Live a little. Speculate.

Mark Smith. Assuming they all have equal resources, Smith has demonstrated the ability to produce a solid, fast car with a fraction of the resources Newey has had available....and not all Newey's cars have been fast. Newey has three distinct tools in his toolbox, all of which have been taken away with these new rules and you can see all of them as far back the '90s. First is ride height. He's a master at getting a car to hug the ground but there exists no real way for him to do this aside from the suspension. Second is a skinny, high nose. Now gone. Third is an exhaust-blown diffuser. Gone.

So? They're also all gone for the other teams too. Except RBR still has Newey and the others don't. They also don't have Vettel. Nor Webber.

You don't need a technical answer when you look at things logically. Perhaps, Mike, you gotta prove that the other teams are going to be so much better? And not just by saying the double diffuser is gone, because that is just as technical as saying cheese goes nice melted on toast... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that called my attention (being the total ignoramus that I am when it comes to technical issues) is that most teams spoke about "radical" and "revolutionary" designs for this year (AFAIK read something like that from Lotus Renault, Ferrari, Macca, Merc, Williams and RBR). If they all really were not as conservative as they were last year at the beginning of the season (except for RBR) then we are in for some surprisng flukes and triumphs I guess. Would be interesting to see what "radical" design innovations they are actually planning. And how long it takes them to realize that they ****ed up their cars big time :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So? They're also all gone for the other teams too. Except RBR still has Newey and the others don't. They also don't have Vettel. Nor Webber.

You don't need a technical answer when you look at things logically. Perhaps, Mike, you gotta prove that the other teams are going to be so much better? And not just by saying the double diffuser is gone, because that is just as technical as saying cheese goes nice melted on toast... :P

Do you even bother to read my entire posts? Was I really saying that because of only the double diffuser being gone Red Bull will suffer? If you can't answer my posts with anything more competent than this, please don't try. I'm a bit tired of explaining my position in depth only to have it summed up wrongly, having a piece pulled out and touted as my 'argument'.

To re-state: Red Bull was so much quicker than her rivals because of a raised nose that created front-end downforce, a bendy splitter that bent the nose further to the ground to create front-end grip, and a blown diffuser (and other odd design bits) that created rear-end downforce. The other teams *did not* have this whole package to the extent that Red Bull did. With those elements gone, Red Bull will be back with the McLaren and the Ferrari. Indeed, those teams, having not relied as heavily as Red Bull did on the design elements stated above, will not need nearly the extent of chassis re-design that Red Bull will need.

Is that clear enough? I can't use smaller words, sorry. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all speculation.

Seriously you guys are this bored ?!

I must be sad; I have found it quite engaging. Please enlighten us, oh occasional one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...