Red Bull deliberately under-performing?
Discussion
EmailAddress said:
Red Bull literally pay in Red Bull.
We used to get crates of the stuff.
Nobody ever wanted it.
I remember working for a team who signed a big beer co as a sponser, and they said they would send a truckload of beer to us.We all got quite exited. Turned out they were promoting the new 0% beer, so thats what they sent, took up half the workshop for 6 months before we binned it.We used to get crates of the stuff.
Nobody ever wanted it.
PhilAsia said:
Well, one MB driver will want less wind tunnel time for the Mercs and more for Ferrari!
I may be wrong but I seem to recall reading somewhere that the need and use of wind tunnel time is lessening as a result of more accurate CFD programming and the rise of Ai. The context being that restrictions on their use is less of an issue than it would have been a few years ago. StevieBee said:
PhilAsia said:
Well, one MB driver will want less wind tunnel time for the Mercs and more for Ferrari!
I may be wrong but I seem to recall reading somewhere that the need and use of wind tunnel time is lessening as a result of more accurate CFD programming and the rise of Ai. The context being that restrictions on their use is less of an issue than it would have been a few years ago. PhilAsia said:
StevieBee said:
PhilAsia said:
Well, one MB driver will want less wind tunnel time for the Mercs and more for Ferrari!
I may be wrong but I seem to recall reading somewhere that the need and use of wind tunnel time is lessening as a result of more accurate CFD programming and the rise of Ai. The context being that restrictions on their use is less of an issue than it would have been a few years ago. Muzzer79 said:
You simply can't run a top-tier racing team, or any top-tier sports enterprise for that matter, with a mentality that any part of it under-performing is OK..
Yes, you can. RB secured the WDC. They are #1. The WCC is not as important.Muzzer79 said:
This is a team looking for milliseconds and we're supposed to buy the theory that they've just shrugged their shoulders and said that Perez finishing nowhere is OK?.
They found milliseconds with Max. They got the WDC. Where Perez finished is neither here nor there because..Muzzer79 said:
If they are doing this (and I can't believe they'd be that stupid) then a long period in the doldrums beckons.
....because, they are not that stupid and realise that more wind tunnel time will give RB more opportunity to create a better car, to give Max a better chance to win another WDC and keep RB in the public eye.Budget cap era is the same as the team having no money era in the past.
Brawn F1 was a shoestring effort. Bernie Eccles is on record as saying they only really put an effort in to one of the brawn cars due to no money.
So Barrachello had no or little development and support put into his car.
Does anyone think the same resources are put into the Perez season as there are for a generously funded Max title efforts?
Brawn F1 was a shoestring effort. Bernie Eccles is on record as saying they only really put an effort in to one of the brawn cars due to no money.
So Barrachello had no or little development and support put into his car.
Does anyone think the same resources are put into the Perez season as there are for a generously funded Max title efforts?
I have been making the point about additional CFD and windtunnel time for a while. They are essential resources that no amount of money can buy.
Red Bull were penalised for exceeding the cost cap in 21 and then had another two WCCs in a row. The cumulative effect is big. If this year’s car was really only a 5, then Perez is capable of producing a 3, or 4, while Max can regularly pull 7s and 8s to win the WDC where all the big publicity is.
The team exists to promote the drink. On the basis that there is no such thing as bad publicity, the crap generated by SKY that Perez is a liability, only creates even more publicity for the team.
Red Bull need all the CFD and windtunnel time they can get for 2026. The cost cap means that they do not need the cash. They need to deliver a decent motor and hopefully their improved aero can make-up for any deficiencies. They have the driver that can regularly make a difference.
Since entering F1, Red Bull have tended to be smarter at thinking outside the box. This is just one more example. The dumbest thing they ever did was remaining loyal to Renault when they had clearly produced a dud PU concept.
We make not like the team, but they are undoubtedly very smart.
Red Bull were penalised for exceeding the cost cap in 21 and then had another two WCCs in a row. The cumulative effect is big. If this year’s car was really only a 5, then Perez is capable of producing a 3, or 4, while Max can regularly pull 7s and 8s to win the WDC where all the big publicity is.
The team exists to promote the drink. On the basis that there is no such thing as bad publicity, the crap generated by SKY that Perez is a liability, only creates even more publicity for the team.
Red Bull need all the CFD and windtunnel time they can get for 2026. The cost cap means that they do not need the cash. They need to deliver a decent motor and hopefully their improved aero can make-up for any deficiencies. They have the driver that can regularly make a difference.
Since entering F1, Red Bull have tended to be smarter at thinking outside the box. This is just one more example. The dumbest thing they ever did was remaining loyal to Renault when they had clearly produced a dud PU concept.
We make not like the team, but they are undoubtedly very smart.
Muzzer79 said:
StevieBee said:
I do not believe for one minute that Red Bull are deliberately seeking a lower position to benefit from additional development capacity. For all their faults and regardless of anything else, they are a racing team. Those that run it are themselves racers, driven to succeed. Deliberate underperformance creates a race to the bottom, not to the top.
This. You simply can't run a top-tier racing team, or any top-tier sports enterprise for that matter, with a mentality that any part of it under-performing is OK.
This is a team looking for milliseconds and we're supposed to buy the theory that they've just shrugged their shoulders and said that Perez finishing nowhere is OK?
If they are doing this (and I can't believe they'd be that stupid) then a long period in the doldrums beckons.
entropy said:
Muzzer79 said:
StevieBee said:
I do not believe for one minute that Red Bull are deliberately seeking a lower position to benefit from additional development capacity. For all their faults and regardless of anything else, they are a racing team. Those that run it are themselves racers, driven to succeed. Deliberate underperformance creates a race to the bottom, not to the top.
This. You simply can't run a top-tier racing team, or any top-tier sports enterprise for that matter, with a mentality that any part of it under-performing is OK.
This is a team looking for milliseconds and we're supposed to buy the theory that they've just shrugged their shoulders and said that Perez finishing nowhere is OK?
If they are doing this (and I can't believe they'd be that stupid) then a long period in the doldrums beckons.
PhilAsia said:
Muzzer79 said:
You simply can't run a top-tier racing team, or any top-tier sports enterprise for that matter, with a mentality that any part of it under-performing is OK..
Yes, you can. RB secured the WDC. They are #1. The WCC is not as important.Max is #1.
Red Bull aren't and are unlikely to be.
Teams earn no income from the WDC. They do from the WCC.
The Constructor's Championship is what keeps teams in business, pays a lot of the bills and, critically, is the recognition of sporting and technical excellence delivered by the teams.
The salaries of the entire Red Bull F1 team - including the cleaners - is linked to the prize money they get which is linked to the standing in the WCC.
Put it like this.... There are many people on so-so basic wages at Red Bull that won't be having such an abundant Christmas, as nice a holiday next year or even having to put off a house purchase as a direct result of Perez's performance this year.
So, the WCC may not matter to you but is most certainly as important, if not more so, to the teams.
Edited by StevieBee on Tuesday 26th November 21:57
StevieBee said:
PhilAsia said:
Muzzer79 said:
You simply can't run a top-tier racing team, or any top-tier sports enterprise for that matter, with a mentality that any part of it under-performing is OK..
Yes, you can. RB secured the WDC. They are #1. The WCC is not as important.The Constructor's Championship is what keeps teams in business, pays a lot of the bills and, critically, is the recognition of sporting and technical excellence delivered by the teams.
The salaries of the entire Red Bull F1 team - including the cleaners - is linked to the prize money they get which is linked to the standing in the WCC.
Put it like this. There are people on so-so basic wages at Red Bull that won't be having such an abundant Christmas, as nice a holiday next year or even having to put off a house purchase as a direct result of Perez's performance this year.
So, the WCC may not matter to you but is most certainly as important, if not more so, to the teams.
Red Bull is the first really successful brand only.
They don't need Formula One to do anything other than be cost effective in terms of operating cost.
It's much much bigger than that.
They're dominating traditional, and extreme sport news and articles day in, day out 24/7 across all media. They're ranked highly even within the 'historic' sport space too. Where the likes of Nike and Adidas have had the run for decades.
F1 is another outlet for exposure. ROI and click-through.
What you're saying regarding the actual Team is true. But they aren't funneling funds.
StevieBee said:
PhilAsia said:
Muzzer79 said:
You simply can't run a top-tier racing team, or any top-tier sports enterprise for that matter, with a mentality that any part of it under-performing is OK..
Yes, you can. RB secured the WDC. They are #1. The WCC is not as important.The Constructor's Championship is what keeps teams in business, pays a lot of the bills and, critically, is the recognition of sporting and technical excellence delivered by the teams.
The salaries of the entire Red Bull F1 team - including the cleaners - is linked to the prize money they get which is linked to the standing in the WCC.
Put it like this. There are people on so-so basic wages at Red Bull that won't be having such an abundant Christmas, as nice a holiday next year or even having to put off a house purchase as a direct result of Perez's performance this year.
So, the WCC may not matter to you but is most certainly as important, if not more so, to the teams.
But I still don’t buy a concept that revolves around
“Here’s our elite racing team and we’re chasing the last 0.00001% of performance…….but don’t worry if we don’t win the team title, because we don’t give a s
t about that, it’s all about this one driver for us so we’ll just give you the WCC bonus money anyway.”I don't think it's really deliberately getting lower in the constructors championship, but it might be the sort of thing where if they win the drivers championship, 2nd in the constructors might not be quite as important for them in particular.
Ferrari, Mercedes, Mclaren etc, being manufacturers outside of F1, the WCC may well have more "value" to them, whereas for red bull, it's possibly more useful overall for advertising, sponsors etc to have a world champion driver they can put all over their adverts.
Ferrari, Mercedes, Mclaren etc, being manufacturers outside of F1, the WCC may well have more "value" to them, whereas for red bull, it's possibly more useful overall for advertising, sponsors etc to have a world champion driver they can put all over their adverts.
ThingsBehindTheSun said:
If I was McDonalds, KitKat or Telmex who are all sponsoring Perez why would I continue to pay millions to Red Bull to have them deliberately nobble his car and make him look like a joke?
Or are they all in on it too?
Why did Microsoft pay millions to Alpine at the beginning?Or are they all in on it too?
Sponsors aren't involved with weekly team management.
tele_lover said:
ThingsBehindTheSun said:
If I was McDonalds, KitKat or Telmex who are all sponsoring Perez why would I continue to pay millions to Red Bull to have them deliberately nobble his car and make him look like a joke?
Or are they all in on it too?
Why did Microsoft pay millions to Alpine at the beginning?Or are they all in on it too?
Sponsors aren't involved with weekly team management.
If you're an F1 follower you are exposed to every car on the grid and there isn't really any negative value associated with a lesser position in branding terms. There is a nominal halo factor but for the most part it's a generic airtime slot you'd be basing your numbers on.
If you are NOT an F1 fan then you barely give a crap where on the grid a car sits each week. The points on the .PPTX are 'Pinacle of Motorsport', 'Fastest', ',Global reach' etc.
Again, based on visibility either way. Hence a premium for back pagers.
For drivers like Perez, Yuki, Zhou... their value is a little different. They bring a more partisan following that are likely to engage and have eyes on regardless of performance. They also come from parts of the world without such stringent anti-competition rules, where there may be only a smattering of options in any given service. Therefore continuing to wallpaper a known international entity in a key provider, during a global sport, can have psychological value.
Despite what the Tifosi, Brits, and Orange army may suggest, they are actually quite open to switch support and the brand value in targeting them specifically plays a lot more into characters than national identity. In this regard the sponsorship leans towards Team a lot more.
Let's put it another way, a really crude way that isn't synonymous but may explain advertising to some degree;
Sponsor Nigel Farage - You have haters, detractors, but your brand hits the headlines regularly. You have a devoted following seeing your brand regularly.
Sponsor Starmer - Some might argue a higher quality of eyes on, or a more affluent affected, but how long will that last.
If you're into politics you see the brand, if you're not into politics you see the brand.
geeks said:
PhilAsia said:
StevieBee said:
PhilAsia said:
Well, one MB driver will want less wind tunnel time for the Mercs and more for Ferrari!
I may be wrong but I seem to recall reading somewhere that the need and use of wind tunnel time is lessening as a result of more accurate CFD programming and the rise of Ai. The context being that restrictions on their use is less of an issue than it would have been a few years ago. https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/how-f1s...
RB will quite happily take 3rd in the Championship as it gets them more aero dev time next year.
Whether the staff bonuses still get paid out for the Drivers’ Championship is a different question, I would suspect that they probably do, even though most teams pay bonuses on the Constructors’ Championship position that translates directly into prize money.
StevieBee said:
But the BoP (Balance of Power for those that don't know) is aligned to engine performance not on-track performance. I can't see how deliberately racing poorly would benefit any one team as the restrictions apply whether they come last or first.
There's also weight ballast.
Le Mans is the biggest race on the calendar and the manufacturers want to do well there. Years ago Ford were blatantly sandbagging all the way up to the race and they suddenly win.
entropy said:
StevieBee said:
But the BoP (Balance of Power for those that don't know) is aligned to engine performance not on-track performance. I can't see how deliberately racing poorly would benefit any one team as the restrictions apply whether they come last or first.
There's also weight ballast.
Le Mans is the biggest race on the calendar and the manufacturers want to do well there. Years ago Ford were blatantly sandbagging all the way up to the race and they suddenly win.
There's been some good arguments to suggest this is that case but I still don't buy into the theory. If there's any benevolence to the suggestion, one might say that a lower ranking impacts slightly less on Red Bull than it might on Williams or Hass and that the trade-off is more testing capacity for the team but as a deliberate strategy, I think the risk way too high to warrant any serious suggestion.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff