Albon hasn't had the same parts as Max
Discussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igY1vm6mtGc
Helmut Marko “In this short period of time, in which the races were ticked off, it was not possible to have identical parts for both cars. This means that in most races Albon did not start with the same parts”
Really interesting development...could explain some of the delta
Helmut Marko “In this short period of time, in which the races were ticked off, it was not possible to have identical parts for both cars. This means that in most races Albon did not start with the same parts”
Really interesting development...could explain some of the delta
Mr. White said:
I've been watching series 2 of Drive to Survive recently, anyone who can make a decent fist of things in the RB #2 car must be a brilliant driver, never has the phrase "second class citizen" been more apt.
I loved it when Webber beat Vettel in Silverstone back in the day with "inferior parts" and he goes on the radio afterwards and says something like "not bad for a no.2 driver!"Mr Pointy said:
An some people wonder why Daniel Ricciardo refused to stay at Red Bull & cleared off to Renault to fill his pockets.
I did think it odd that so many were surprised that he left, and assumed it was purely for financial reasons. Although he's never said it directly (although he has alluded to it several times), it was pretty obvious that you're never going to get anywhere as a #2 at Red Bull.There is talk of Gasly going back in the RB on the back of his strong performances recently, but I'd argue he's doing well because he's not in the Red Bull #2 environment, which seems to be about as toxic a seat as it's possible to have in F1.
leef44 said:
I loved it when Webber beat Vettel in Silverstone back in the day with "inferior parts" and he goes on the radio afterwards and says something like "not bad for a no.2 driver!"
2010, I was there that weekend, Vettel had the updated front wing, and I think Webber only found out very late in the day and was royally pissed off about it 
Mansell said that he was getting a less powerful engine than Piquet. This was obviously ludicrous, and to support it, the majority of the media, even the informed section, ridiculed him. Then I met a chap who was something in the organisation of the F1 Paddock Club and I asked him if there was any substance to it and he said, without any hesitation, "Yes. Of course. Nelson's their boy." He brought up a couple of instances to support his contention.
I didn't believe it even then. After all, scribes and TV presenters were saying the exact opposite and, if it was true, they'd have known.
Then Honda put all suspicion to bed and reckoned that the drivers had their choice of engine. That sounded a bit suspect as it was obvious that if there was any difference it'd be in engine management. Then they had to cough, and suggested that the engine management was 'tuned' to the requirements of the particular driver. This would explain why, when Mansell drove the spare car, set up and engined for Piquet, it was more powerful.
My apologies to my informant.
I didn't believe it even then. After all, scribes and TV presenters were saying the exact opposite and, if it was true, they'd have known.
Then Honda put all suspicion to bed and reckoned that the drivers had their choice of engine. That sounded a bit suspect as it was obvious that if there was any difference it'd be in engine management. Then they had to cough, and suggested that the engine management was 'tuned' to the requirements of the particular driver. This would explain why, when Mansell drove the spare car, set up and engined for Piquet, it was more powerful.
My apologies to my informant.
sgtBerbatov said:
I've said it on here before, this Red Bull is far too similar to the Benetton of 1994.
Plus, even with all of the resources they have, are Red Bull even capable of supporting two drivers properly?
you would hope with their resources that Red Bull would be able to supply the same parts to both drivers. Plus, even with all of the resources they have, are Red Bull even capable of supporting two drivers properly?
Unfortunately they have had a track record of having a number 1 and 2 in terms of drivers and preferential parts.
Thats fair enough, but tough on the number 2 trying to make his mark on the team...and does rather inflate the speed of the number 1 by comparison.
Lets hope they can get Albon the same equipment soon so we can see how fast he really is in reality to Max.....lets not forget he was pretty close to max at the end of last season
Derek Smith said:
Mansell said that he was getting a less powerful engine than Piquet. This was obviously ludicrous, and to support it, the majority of the media, even the informed section, ridiculed him. Then I met a chap who was something in the organisation of the F1 Paddock Club and I asked him if there was any substance to it and he said, without any hesitation, "Yes. Of course. Nelson's their boy." He brought up a couple of instances to support his contention.
I didn't believe it even then. After all, scribes and TV presenters were saying the exact opposite and, if it was true, they'd have known.
Then Honda put all suspicion to bed and reckoned that the drivers had their choice of engine. That sounded a bit suspect as it was obvious that if there was any difference it'd be in engine management. Then they had to cough, and suggested that the engine management was 'tuned' to the requirements of the particular driver. This would explain why, when Mansell drove the spare car, set up and engined for Piquet, it was more powerful.
My apologies to my informant.
It was much more obvious with Schumacher and Irvine. Eddie would jump in the spare car after a crash and perform better. All credit to him, he did do well to adapt to Ferrari because Schuey was renowned for his go-karty set up which was quite a handful for some drivers.I didn't believe it even then. After all, scribes and TV presenters were saying the exact opposite and, if it was true, they'd have known.
Then Honda put all suspicion to bed and reckoned that the drivers had their choice of engine. That sounded a bit suspect as it was obvious that if there was any difference it'd be in engine management. Then they had to cough, and suggested that the engine management was 'tuned' to the requirements of the particular driver. This would explain why, when Mansell drove the spare car, set up and engined for Piquet, it was more powerful.
My apologies to my informant.
Sandpit Steve said:
As Lewis mentioned last weekend, in how many races have Mercedes had the strategy advantage over Red Bull, becuase they can team up two cars against one?
RB should have prioritised getting Albon up to pace, to be Max’s wingman during the race.
Potentially it was more valuable to see whether the parts meant that Max could win a race.RB should have prioritised getting Albon up to pace, to be Max’s wingman during the race.
leef44 said:
Potentially it was more valuable to see whether the parts meant that Max could win a race.
Potentially, but they had more chance of getting a win for Max if Mercedes couldn’t double-team them on the strategy. We saw that last weekend, when if Albon had been right behind Max, they could have bounced him onto the softs with eight laps left and forced Mercedes to think.
Mr Pointy said:
An some people wonder why Daniel Ricciardo refused to stay at Red Bull & cleared off to Renault to fill his pockets.
Max and Dan were more or less equal. In terms of new parts they were being as fair as possible, get turns on new parts and whether they wanted it for the whole weekend or not.If you've come across interviews with Daniel during the time he left and joined Renault he has admitted that the crash with Max in Azerbaijan helped him make up his mind because he felt (rightly) that Max should have taken the blame as well. RBR have never handled these incidents well just as Webber and Vettel crashed in Turkey in 2010 and Mark bore more of the brunt.
Saying that I won't deny that there's at least an unconscious bias of being drawn towards a certain driver
Derek Smith said:
Mansell said that he was getting a less powerful engine than Piquet. This was obviously ludicrous, and to support it, the majority of the media, even the informed section, ridiculed him. Then I met a chap who was something in the organisation of the F1 Paddock Club and I asked him if there was any substance to it and he said, without any hesitation, "Yes. Of course. Nelson's their boy." He brought up a couple of instances to support his contention.
I didn't believe it even then. After all, scribes and TV presenters were saying the exact opposite and, if it was true, they'd have known.
Then Honda put all suspicion to bed and reckoned that the drivers had their choice of engine. That sounded a bit suspect as it was obvious that if there was any difference it'd be in engine management. Then they had to cough, and suggested that the engine management was 'tuned' to the requirements of the particular driver. This would explain why, when Mansell drove the spare car, set up and engined for Piquet, it was more powerful.
My apologies to my informant.
Same with Senna & Prost. Honda admitted that they gave Senna better upgrades because they liked his fighting spirit.I didn't believe it even then. After all, scribes and TV presenters were saying the exact opposite and, if it was true, they'd have known.
Then Honda put all suspicion to bed and reckoned that the drivers had their choice of engine. That sounded a bit suspect as it was obvious that if there was any difference it'd be in engine management. Then they had to cough, and suggested that the engine management was 'tuned' to the requirements of the particular driver. This would explain why, when Mansell drove the spare car, set up and engined for Piquet, it was more powerful.
My apologies to my informant.
sgtBerbatov said:
I've said it on here before, this Red Bull is far too similar to the Benetton of 1994.
Plus, even with all of the resources they have, are Red Bull even capable of supporting two drivers properly?
It happens in every other team when there is one driver clearly better than the other.Plus, even with all of the resources they have, are Red Bull even capable of supporting two drivers properly?
When driver B struggles badly with the car and driver A is able to extract performance then does it not make sense to give new parts to the quickest driver to get the best possible result?
Heikki Kovalianen has said he didn't like being team mate to Hamilton because Lewis was constantly getting the new part yet he was a crap number 2 driver whereas Lewis was able to win races and WDC.
On the other hand BMW supported Nick Heidfeld after Kubica won his first race in Canada 2008. Kubica felt he could have fought for the WDC if he was given more support.
mattikake said:
Kind of justified George Russell's comments, that he got ostracized for about RB making Albon look crap... I guess drivers know a bit more about the workings of other teams than we know.
Wasn't that when Albon said he didn't want to be sent out when there was traffic in quali and they did it again "I told told you... doin't put me in that position..."
"Err OK Alex, we'll talk later"
Nor does it help when RBR continually treat Alex like a canary by putting him on alternate/bats
t crazy strategies.Gary29 said:
leef44 said:
I loved it when Webber beat Vettel in Silverstone back in the day with "inferior parts" and he goes on the radio afterwards and says something like "not bad for a no.2 driver!"
2010, I was there that weekend, Vettel had the updated front wing, and I think Webber only found out very late in the day and was royally pissed off about it thegreenhell said:
Gary29 said:
leef44 said:
I loved it when Webber beat Vettel in Silverstone back in the day with "inferior parts" and he goes on the radio afterwards and says something like "not bad for a no.2 driver!"
2010, I was there that weekend, Vettel had the updated front wing, and I think Webber only found out very late in the day and was royally pissed off about it Thank you very much.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff