DC: RBR and STR had the same car in '07

[Erki]

http://www.crash.net/motorsport/f1/news/157606-0/no_more_bull_says_dc_as_teams_lock_horns.html



“STR had the same car as us this year but nowhere near the same performance, so shouldn't he be concentrating on his own business rather than ours?

Wasn't it illegal to share cars...? :s tareup:

[ioan]

How can the same car have such different performances?! :rolleyes:
Is he trying to say that he is so much better driver than Vettel? Oh wait, Vettel did better than DC in the few races he had! :D

On a serious note the cars were however different because they used a different engine and that means that the chassis has to be adapted to fit the engine.

[Jimmy Magnusson]

First off, technically they're not the same. Both cars (STR2/RB3) were designed by Red Bull Technologies, a completly seperate entity from the Red Bull teams. What differs is certainly the engine mountings (Renault in the back of the Red Bull, Ferrari in the STR = engines are not exactly alike and requires different things from the chassis), and probably some minor details. But yes, they're very similiar.

Secondly, Red Bull seems to be a much better run team than STR; just look at how Berger handled his drivers this year! And DC is quite right in saying that it isn't Tost's job to spread rumors about Alonso and another team...

[Garry Walker]

How can the same car have such different performances?! :rolleyes:
Is he trying to say that he is so much better driver than Vettel? Oh wait, Vettel did better than DC in the few races he had! :D

On a serious note the cars were however different because they used a different engine and that means that the chassis has to be adapted to fit the engine.

Vettel is a wet-weather specialist, always has been. But his performances in dry were nothing special at all. Unfortunately for him, most races in F1 are in dry.

Go DC, at least he has the guts to speak out his mind. I hope Red Bull gives him and Webbo an awesome and reliable car for next year!

[Malbec]

How can the same car have such different performances?! :rolleyes:

STR is still largely Minardi, RBR an enhanced version of Jaguar.

STR set a pattern up of being relatively quick in practice then fading away as the weekend progressed until the last few races. That suggests that they weren't as good at perfecting setup through the race weekend as RBR which isn't surprising given how limited the setup settings were on the Minardis. The STR race engineers simply weren't as experienced or well qualified as those working on the RBRs.

[Valve Bounce]

I think DC is somewhat confused. Maybe Big Al is setting in.

[GP-M3]

Vettel is a wet-weather specialist, always has been.

I'm not sure how you come up with that... the guy is 19, how the "always has been" comes into play with a kid like that seems pushing it. And that he's a specialist at 19? Come on, he's just good.

[Sleeper]

I'm not sure how you come up with that... the guy is 19, how the "always has been" comes into play with a kid like that seems pushing it. And that he's a specialist at 19? Come on, he's just good.
He's 20, and he's shown very well in wet weather races throughout his junior career.

[ioan]

Well if he is good in wet that means that he is a good driver and that he will do well in the non-TC era. That's good news for us all, let's just hope that a front running team signs him up in the very near future! Maybe BMW again?

[GP-M3]

He's 20, and he's shown very well in wet weather races throughout his junior career.

Yes, he recently turned 20. I agree he is great in the wet and dry. I just don't see how a 19 / 20 year old gets tagged with the title "??? specialist". He's all around good, but certainly not limited to being a specialist at this point in time.

[truefan72]

Well if he is good in wet that means that he is a good driver and that he will do well in the non-TC era. That's good news for us all, let's just hope that a front running team signs him up in the very near future! Maybe BMW again?

agreed


Yes, he recently turned 20. I agree he is great in the wet and dry. I just don't see how a 19 / 20 year old gets tagged with the title "??? specialist". He's all around good, but certainly not limited to being a specialist at this point in time.

DC is once again trying to hype his own performances, by saying that the cars are equal, it makes him look like a better driver trhan he is.

Why all this talk, just like his comments about KN
he really needs to be muffled

[ShiftingGears]

The chassis is the same, but the best staff (eg engineers) in the team would go to the RBR division(as Toro Rosso is the B team), and I'm guessing that the Renault engine is less unwieldy than the Ferrari engine. Newey wanted Renault engines, and I think the consensus from the RBR engineers was that the Ferrari engine was cumbersome to work with.

[wmcot]

It isn't exactly earth-shattering news that RBR & STR share the same basic chassis. If you don't believe that, I've got some prime, ocean-front property in the middle of the Arizona desert I'll gladly sell you! :)

[leopard]

First off, technically they're not the same. Both cars (STR2/RB3) were designed by Red Bull Technologies, a completly seperate entity from the Red Bull teams. What differs is certainly the engine mountings (Renault in the back of the Red Bull, Ferrari in the STR = engines are not exactly alike and requires different things from the chassis), and probably some minor details. But yes, they're very similiar.

Secondly, Red Bull seems to be a much better run team than STR; just look at how Berger handled his drivers this year! And DC is quite right in saying that it isn't Tost's job to spread rumors about Alonso and another team...

I think what made Red Bull looks much better than STR is the engine supplier professionalism the difference of which Renault supplies their customer an adequate engine, while STR uses ferrari engine from nowhere quality. Perhaps it didn't even have better work than a crane ..

[Osella]

And the counterpoint from Vitantonio Liuzzi...

"We suffered a lot from the fact we received the car so late. We struggled to close the gap because we had no testing in the winter, so it was like a blind start to the season. We were paying for lack of time, development. That was upsetting because we expected to have a much faster car at the beginning and wanted to fight for points in every race.

We always got technology really late. Red Bull technology gave us a lot of opportunities to move forward, but we always struggled to make everything in time - we were always two or three races late, or let's say one month late, compared to where we should have been....

...We lost a lot of results because of reliability problems as well, especially with the gearbox. The first five races we didn't have the e-shift (seamless-shift gearbox) and we couldn't get into Q3 without the e-shift everybody else was using."

Also..."Monaco qualifying was really great, and we could have had a great race if David had not hit me at the first corner!" (Causing diffuser damage)

So yeah...same car, sure... :rolleyes:

[wmcot]

So yeah...same car, sure... :rolleyes:

Same car, different engine and gearbox! (If it looks like a Red Bull and quacks like a Red Bull...)

[Osella]

Same chassis, different engine/gearbox, wings, mechanics, pit crew, experience, setups etc..

In addition; (from Autosport) "This team numbers around 250 people compared to Red Bull's 540...Some parts developed at Milton Keynes did eventually make their way to Faenza, but often weeks later, and sometimes not at all."

Coulthard saying they had the same car is like suggesting Ligier should have won the 1995 world championship just because Benetton did...

[Garry Walker]

I'm not sure how you come up with that... the guy is 19, how the "always has been" comes into play with a kid like that seems pushing it. And that he's a specialist at 19? Come on, he's just good.

In lower classes he has always shone more in the rain, than in the dry.
His performances in dry this year were not special at all, whereas in rain the weight distribution of Toro Rosso helped them a lot.



Well if he is good in wet that means that he is a good driverNo. Some drivers are naturally better in rain than when its dry and Vettel seems one of those. The saying that wet weather shows real talent is not true, some drivers are just naturally better in one condition than the other. As I have said many times already, his performances in dry were average. His performance against Heidfeld at an easy circuit like Indy was very dissapointing too.



and that he will do well in the non-TC era. That's good news for us all, let's just hope that a front running team signs him up in the very near future! Exactly how has he deserved a top team seat?


Maybe BMW again? Why would BMW want him? They have 2 much better drivers already.

[ioan]

I think what made Red Bull looks much better than STR is the engine supplier professionalism the difference of which Renault supplies their customer an adequate engine, while STR uses ferrari engine from nowhere quality. Perhaps it didn't even have better work than a crane ..

I hope you don't mean that Renault builds better F1 engines than Ferrari. :rolleyes:

[truefan72]

I hope you don't mean that Renault builds better F1 engines than Ferrari. :rolleyes:

They are about the same, with a slight edge on reliability.
The big difference is in the service and quality of their customer engines compared to Ferrari. Ferrari may provide you with an engine, but vastly inferior to their factory engine. Toyota, Renault, and Honda, all provide a quality engine totheir customers.

I would love to know the $ values of these customer engines too,

Whose is the most/least expensive

[Sleeper]

I hope you don't mean that Renault builds better F1 engines than Ferrari. :rolleyes:
Well Newey clearly thinks so or he wouldnt have done away with it in favour of the Renault engine.

And as to the cars being the same, they shared the same basic chassis, aero package and eventually gearbox. The biggest difference between the two was the engines and paint scheme.

[SGWilko]

Well, I can't say how good/bad the customer Ferrari motors are, but I can say with some degree of accuracy that Ferrari would NOT allow a customer team to beat them.

So perhaps that adds fuel ('scuse the pun) to the two posts above.....

[ioan]

Well Newey clearly thinks so or he wouldnt have done away with it in favour of the Renault engine.

Yeah but Newey is an aerodynamics specialist not an engine specialist. :\

[ioan]

Well, I can't say how good/bad the customer Ferrari motors are, but I can say with some degree of accuracy that Ferrari would NOT allow a customer team to beat them.

So perhaps that adds fuel ('scuse the pun) to the two posts above.....

Remember that there is an engine freeze and every manufacturer has presented their engine for homologation last year at the Chinese GP week end.
The conclusion is that Ferrari delivers to STR and Spyker/FI the same engine they use.
Why is that? Because they are smart enough to know that if the customers are not happy they will go away.
Interesting enough Ferrari have had customer teams for a long period already! :rolleyes:

[truefan72]

Remember that there is an engine freeze and every manufacturer has presented their engine for homologation last year at the Chinese GP week end.
The conclusion is that Ferrari delivers to STR and Spyker/FI the same engine they use.
Why is that? Because they are smart enough to know that if the customers are not happy they will go away.
Interesting enough Ferrari have had customer teams for a long period already! :rolleyes:

I suspect that price has an influencing factor in the decisions made by STR and Force India. Both teams can ned their relationships if they see fit to choose a differen supplier.
The engine that Ferrari provide these teams with is nowhere close to being an identical piece of machinery that they themsleves use. This is well known up and down the paddock for years. There was a well known story of Sauber complaining back in the day that the engine he received ( under the guise of Sauber Petronas Engineering) were not reving anywhere near the Ferrari engine and were lacking in performance and reliability; this despite licensinc an almost identical Ferrari chasis and employing several Ferrari engineers on his staff ( how ironic, and topical).b

[Malbec]

The engine that Ferrari provide these teams with is nowhere close to being an identical piece of machinery that they themsleves use. This is well known up and down the paddock for years. There was a well known story of Sauber complaining back in the day that the engine he received ( under the guise of Sauber Petronas Engineering) were not reving anywhere near the Ferrari engine and were lacking in performance and reliability; this despite licensinc an almost identical Ferrari chasis and employing several Ferrari engineers on his staff ( how ironic, and topical).b

I disagree with that analysis. I'm not disputing that Ferrari supplied Sauber with engines that were several development steps behind, more that under the current regulations its quite hard if not impossible to have engines from the same manufacturer of different specs. In fact I'd go so far as to say all the engines regardless of manufacturer are nearly identical in performance given how restrictive the rules are.

[ClarkFan]

It isn't exactly earth-shattering news that RBR & STR share the same basic chassis. If you don't believe that, I've got some prime, ocean-front property in the middle of the Arizona desert I'll gladly sell you! :)

Well, give it a few million years. Since Southern California is moving north on the Pacific plate, Arizona can hold out hope.

And on the Ferrari-Renault engine debate (or is it Renault-Ferrari?), I believe that the Red Bull car was designed for the Renault engine. Jamming in a Ferrari engine, which probably has different requirements for many elements like cooling airflow, will tend to yield compromises that diminish the performance of the car.

In the 1.5 liter formula of 1961-1965, it was widely conceded that BRM engines made more power than Coventry Climax engines. Yet privateer Lotus-BRMs consistently were beaten by privateer Lotus-Climaxes; the works Lotuses were designed to use the Climax engine. Perhaps the same issues are at work with RB teams 1 and 2.

ClarkFan

[ioan]

Well, give it a few million years. Since Southern California is moving north on the Pacific plate, Arizona can hold out hope.

And on the Ferrari-Renault engine debate (or is it Renault-Ferrari?), I believe that the Red Bull car was designed for the Renault engine.

Not really, until 1 year ago RB ran Ferrari engines and STR ran Cosworth.
Newey simply wasn't able to deal properly with the Ferrari engine, interesting enough the Ferrari designer, who was a no name till 2 years ago managed to build a good chassis around that same engine.

IMO Newey is way overrated in the paddock. The McLaren's he designed were no where as good as superior as the Ferraris of the same era. His last world beating machine must have been with Williams more than 10 year ago, at a moment when Ferrari were starting to put together their dream team.

[Azumanga Davo]

Hardly overrated. Maybe not the dominant force of the past, but definitely still up the order on the day.

[ArrowsFA1]

Newey simply wasn't able to deal properly with the Ferrari engine...
I've no idea what reasons there were for Red Bull switching from Ferrari to Renault power, but Newey would have had an input into the decision.

Obviously Renault were WCC's so that may have helped, but rather than not being "able to deal properly with the Ferrari engine", perhaps Newey felt that the 'packaging' of the Renault engine was better for the car he was designing. Given that the Ferrari engine was designed by and for Ferrari it is not too surprising how well they did with it!!

Years ago, when John Barnard was working with Porsche on their unit that was to prove so successful, he was very specific on the detail of the engine design because it was so important to the overall packaging of the car as a whole. Barnard had the opportunity to have an engine built largely to his specifications. Newey did not have that luxury at Red Bull.

[wmcot]

Well, give it a few million years. Since Southern California is moving north on the Pacific plate, Arizona can hold out hope.



So can I send you a brochure? Prices are currently quite reasonable! ;)

[ClarkFan]

So can I send you a brochure? Prices are currently quite reasonable! ;)

Sure. When would payment be due? The year 10,002,007?

:D

ClarkFan

[wmcot]

Sure. When would payment be due? The year 10,002,007?

:D

ClarkFan

To keep the payments low, we could start...say...next month! :)

[Osella]

I think the main reasons were two-fold, one is that, fairly obviously, RBR had huge problems with the Ferrari and Cosworth heat rejection, as seen by the fact they had to cut holes all over the car to keep it cool last year.. A Newey car would a) fall apart of you did that and b) would screw up the airflow. Ironically enough, that was largely solved by the 19,000rpm limit this year.. However, I suspect that the fact that Renault was a potential championship winning car 2 years running was probably the biggest factor..