Are Red bull cheating?
Discussion
The RB team, that had a proven cost cap breach, (a cheat), now have a performance advantage, could this advantage have been gained because of the overspend, possibly, probably, maybe not, the fact remains that they did it, so they have cheated, this fact seem to escape some of the posters on the thread.
We know that the other teams all push the boundaries of design, this is also a fact, so it will take longer to catch RB up, I’m sorry to bring it up again, but personally, after what happened all through 2021’s season, F1 has become a show not a sport.
We know that the other teams all push the boundaries of design, this is also a fact, so it will take longer to catch RB up, I’m sorry to bring it up again, but personally, after what happened all through 2021’s season, F1 has become a show not a sport.
isaldiri said:
StevieBee said:
I agree with the sentiment. However, in 2014 the technical regulations for both Aero and PU, allowed for a wider scope of 'legal' interpretation which in turn lead to a wider spread across the field. The current rules reverse this and are specifically designed to close the field together. The suspicions about Red Bull stem from the fact that these rules have worked, very well, with the exception of Red Bull who've found not just a slight advantage but a huge one which shouldn't be possible within the rules that exist.
Good on them if they have but such is their advantage I think it natural that some raised eyebrow scrutiny prevails.
The intention of a large rule change doesn't always result in what actually happens does it? Big changes it regs has usually meant someone somewhere has been able to spot something and until everyone else catches up, they have an advantage. Good on them if they have but such is their advantage I think it natural that some raised eyebrow scrutiny prevails.
Budget caps were also non existent in the past. The wealthy teams could throw as much as they needed at a design which had the effect of spreading the field.
The current gen' F1 cars have been designed to a much tighter set of regulations designed specifically to narrow the field spread. It's still a long way from being a spec' series but current regs are by far the tightest they've ever been. As I said previously, it's worked. In Saudi, 800th of a second existed between third and 16th. You don't have to go too far back to find near double-digit differences across the grid.
Jasandjules said:
No I am saying they cheated and have been allowed to get away with it and that they would not have spent the money had it not resulted in better performance. But a cheat is a cheat is a cheat and they should have been removed from the WCC and WDC for it.
Let me ask you this, when an athlete - say Lance Armstrong, is found to have cheated, do they check what level of performance was gained? Do they enquire as to whether he would have won if the others took the same amount of drugs? Nope. Because it is not relevant. A cheat is a cheat is a cheat and they should be banned.
Yet in F1 we allow cheats to continue to profit from their cheating. IT is not a sport but a TV show now.
They haven't gotten away with it. They've been punished as per the rules for what was a minor overspend. They won't take any pain at the start of the season but the reduced wind tunnel/CFD time should hopefully affect them later.Let me ask you this, when an athlete - say Lance Armstrong, is found to have cheated, do they check what level of performance was gained? Do they enquire as to whether he would have won if the others took the same amount of drugs? Nope. Because it is not relevant. A cheat is a cheat is a cheat and they should be banned.
Yet in F1 we allow cheats to continue to profit from their cheating. IT is not a sport but a TV show now.
Ferrari weren't excluded from the championship by rigging their fuel flow sensors, but they took some pain from the FIA in a secret deal.
llewop said:
Leithen said:
Red Bull do have an advantage, but it is one they have been mastering for years. They, led by Newey, have been the best at understanding how to seal the floor through aerodynamics. Their high rake concepts of the last decade were the opposite of Mercedes flat rake.
For me, that always felt a bit like cheating, or at least, as it was clearly interpreted: creatively bending the rules. Having a reference plane for the car makes sense, having that reference plane clearly so far from parallel to the ground feels somewhat disingenuous. Obviously, as it wasn't pinged, considered within the rules and many teams followed them But it is one of the RB tricks that builds a feeling that they are looking for ways to push boundaries that can't be checked in scrutineering - at least twice they have indulged in bendy wings that pass static tests, so they have form and possibly a more developed understanding of variable load behaviour than other teams (or F1/FIA).
If there is a specification that a part may only deflect, deform, move by x, and the method of assessing that performance is to use calibrated piece of equipment y, and apply a force of z, then that's all there is to it.
I personally love the current interpretation that many teams are working on for ensuring that the floor edges are the correct dimensions, by having a piece of supported wire out at that location, and then the "true floor" (if we wanted to call it that) being somewhere else.
100% legit, and few are moaning as so many teams (Merc included) are doing it .............. but if it were just Red Bull taking this interpretation, the pitch forks would be out, and Toto would be frothing with his lawyers.
mw88 said:
Jasandjules said:
No I am saying they cheated and have been allowed to get away with it and that they would not have spent the money had it not resulted in better performance. But a cheat is a cheat is a cheat and they should have been removed from the WCC and WDC for it.
Let me ask you this, when an athlete - say Lance Armstrong, is found to have cheated, do they check what level of performance was gained? Do they enquire as to whether he would have won if the others took the same amount of drugs? Nope. Because it is not relevant. A cheat is a cheat is a cheat and they should be banned.
Yet in F1 we allow cheats to continue to profit from their cheating. IT is not a sport but a TV show now.
They haven't gotten away with it. They've been punished as per the rules for what was a minor overspend. They won't take any pain at the start of the season but the reduced wind tunnel/CFD time should hopefully affect them later.Let me ask you this, when an athlete - say Lance Armstrong, is found to have cheated, do they check what level of performance was gained? Do they enquire as to whether he would have won if the others took the same amount of drugs? Nope. Because it is not relevant. A cheat is a cheat is a cheat and they should be banned.
Yet in F1 we allow cheats to continue to profit from their cheating. IT is not a sport but a TV show now.
Ferrari weren't excluded from the championship by rigging their fuel flow sensors, but they took some pain from the FIA in a secret deal.
MarkwG said:
They weren't punished "within the rules" - they were allowed to negotiate a deal to avoid even more embarrassment for the FIA. The rules gave the option to remove constructor & driver points, which they negotiated away. They therefore held onto championships they won through the overspend, so by cheating. Compared to the McLaren penalty in 2008 it was peanuts, when even the FIA admitted McLaren gained no advantage - McLaren weren't allowed to negotiate anything; Lance Armstrong wasn't allowed to negotiate a deal; neither was Ron Dennis. The whole point of the cost cap was to bring parity & level the playing field, yet Red Bull were allowed to drive a coach & horses through the rules, & the FIA let them: now they're demonstrating why the other teams were so angry about it. As others have said, if that's the level playing field, it's no longer a sport, it's just entertainment, sadly.
Not really - They would have to have spent $7.5m over for it to be a major breach which would have allowed for exclusion.I'm not a Red Bull fan but whether it was $400k or $1.8 million it's still a minor breach so their punishment is what was written in the regulations.
StevieBee said:
Historically, that is true. But what allowed for those teams to find an edge was the wider scope within the engine regs. With aero, a good design can find a few tenths. With a good engine, a car can find whole seconds. Mercedes nailed the Hybrid era from the off by drawing from their experience in trucks rather than road cars which led to an optimal configuration between the compressor and turbine. This advantage was then baked-in for many years because the engine regs were locked in.
Budget caps were also non existent in the past. The wealthy teams could throw as much as they needed at a design which had the effect of spreading the field.
The current gen' F1 cars have been designed to a much tighter set of regulations designed specifically to narrow the field spread. It's still a long way from being a spec' series but current regs are by far the tightest they've ever been. As I said previously, it's worked. In Saudi, 800th of a second existed between third and 16th. You don't have to go too far back to find near double-digit differences across the grid.
With a significant change of aero regs, I'd say a good design as compared to another will likely gain more than a few tenths especially given the amount of downforce the cars are producing these days. Evolution of designs year on year gains a few tenths whether engine or aero. Major rules changes would means larger gains on either are quite possible and perhaps probable.Budget caps were also non existent in the past. The wealthy teams could throw as much as they needed at a design which had the effect of spreading the field.
The current gen' F1 cars have been designed to a much tighter set of regulations designed specifically to narrow the field spread. It's still a long way from being a spec' series but current regs are by far the tightest they've ever been. As I said previously, it's worked. In Saudi, 800th of a second existed between third and 16th. You don't have to go too far back to find near double-digit differences across the grid.
Budget caps also ensure that performance differentials get locked in because wealthy teams couldn't just throw money in to copy a certain advantage if they didn't have it so that cuts both ways.
If I could be pedantic, it's 8 tenths of a second was the gap in qualifying between 3 and 16th rather than '800th of a second'....and you do find 1+ or even 2 second differentials across the grid. You've simply selected 3-16th to be within your required band rather than pole to last.....
mw88 said:
MarkwG said:
They weren't punished "within the rules" - they were allowed to negotiate a deal to avoid even more embarrassment for the FIA. The rules gave the option to remove constructor & driver points, which they negotiated away. They therefore held onto championships they won through the overspend, so by cheating. Compared to the McLaren penalty in 2008 it was peanuts, when even the FIA admitted McLaren gained no advantage - McLaren weren't allowed to negotiate anything; Lance Armstrong wasn't allowed to negotiate a deal; neither was Ron Dennis. The whole point of the cost cap was to bring parity & level the playing field, yet Red Bull were allowed to drive a coach & horses through the rules, & the FIA let them: now they're demonstrating why the other teams were so angry about it. As others have said, if that's the level playing field, it's no longer a sport, it's just entertainment, sadly.
Not really - They would have to have spent $7.5m over for it to be a major breach which would have allowed for exclusion.I'm not a Red Bull fan but whether it was $400k or $1.8 million it's still a minor breach so their punishment is what was written in the regulations.
One of the punishments available to the FIA for even a 'minor breach' was under section 9.1 (b) A 'Minor Sporting Penalty' which can included deduction of points from WDC and/or WCC, or even suspension from a stage of the competition.
Given this is in the rules, they could have deducted 10 points from each championship, or DQ'd them from the final race. This would have been wholly equitable as a punishment given the stewards failed to DQ Max for the safety car infringement which should have been an automatic DQ. This would have also 'corrected' the massive injustice of the final race.
It is obvious the FIA and Liberty are now focussed on the show and not the sport.
mw88 said:
Not really - They would have to have spent $7.5m over for it to be a major breach which would have allowed for exclusion.
I'm not a Red Bull fan but whether it was $400k or $1.8 million it's still a minor breach so their punishment is what was written in the regulations.
It’s a bizarre way to punish them though. Imagine if you did it in cycling or athletics - you punish them in future races after the cheating is discovered. If you did that with Lance he’d only have a punishment applied in his retirement, and all his records would stand. I'm not a Red Bull fan but whether it was $400k or $1.8 million it's still a minor breach so their punishment is what was written in the regulations.
Even then the punishment is pretty useless - it just means they had to move some spending from CFD or wind tunnel time to elsewhere.
mw88 said:
MarkwG said:
They weren't punished "within the rules" - they were allowed to negotiate a deal to avoid even more embarrassment for the FIA. The rules gave the option to remove constructor & driver points, which they negotiated away. They therefore held onto championships they won through the overspend, so by cheating. Compared to the McLaren penalty in 2008 it was peanuts, when even the FIA admitted McLaren gained no advantage - McLaren weren't allowed to negotiate anything; Lance Armstrong wasn't allowed to negotiate a deal; neither was Ron Dennis. The whole point of the cost cap was to bring parity & level the playing field, yet Red Bull were allowed to drive a coach & horses through the rules, & the FIA let them: now they're demonstrating why the other teams were so angry about it. As others have said, if that's the level playing field, it's no longer a sport, it's just entertainment, sadly.
Not really - They would have to have spent $7.5m over for it to be a major breach which would have allowed for exclusion.I'm not a Red Bull fan but whether it was $400k or $1.8 million it's still a minor breach so their punishment is what was written in the regulations.
"A minor breach, which means that a team has spent 5% or less additionally over the cost cap, can be dealt with by way of public reprimand, a points deduction in both the constructors' or drivers' championship, suspension from races, a limit on future aerodynamic testing or a reduction in the cost cap for the following year.
A 'material' breach carries the same potential punishments plus the potential exclusion of teams from the sport for that season. "
https://www.sportingnews.com/uk/motorsport/news/f1...
MustangGT said:
mw88 said:
MarkwG said:
They weren't punished "within the rules" - they were allowed to negotiate a deal to avoid even more embarrassment for the FIA. The rules gave the option to remove constructor & driver points, which they negotiated away. They therefore held onto championships they won through the overspend, so by cheating. Compared to the McLaren penalty in 2008 it was peanuts, when even the FIA admitted McLaren gained no advantage - McLaren weren't allowed to negotiate anything; Lance Armstrong wasn't allowed to negotiate a deal; neither was Ron Dennis. The whole point of the cost cap was to bring parity & level the playing field, yet Red Bull were allowed to drive a coach & horses through the rules, & the FIA let them: now they're demonstrating why the other teams were so angry about it. As others have said, if that's the level playing field, it's no longer a sport, it's just entertainment, sadly.
Not really - They would have to have spent $7.5m over for it to be a major breach which would have allowed for exclusion.I'm not a Red Bull fan but whether it was $400k or $1.8 million it's still a minor breach so their punishment is what was written in the regulations.
One of the punishments available to the FIA for even a 'minor breach' was under section 9.1 (b) A 'Minor Sporting Penalty' which can included deduction of points from WDC and/or WCC, or even suspension from a stage of the competition.
Given this is in the rules, they could have deducted 10 points from each championship, or DQ'd them from the final race. This would have been wholly equitable as a punishment given the stewards failed to DQ Max for the safety car infringement which should have been an automatic DQ. This would have also 'corrected' the massive injustice of the final race.
It is obvious the FIA and Liberty are now focussed on the show and not the sport.
See the whole thing about James Vowels last week and the whole thing about Toto making it clear he was ‘working on the Americas Cup project’. I’m sure he is, but anyone naive enough to think that isn’t also a clever way of avoiding having him on the top salary’s exclusion needs to have a look at themselves.
All of the top teams are, in real terms, spending more than the cost cap given that there are huge exclusions. So the cost cap, isn’t the cost cap. It’s a soft limit that means the bigger teams still get to have the best people and pay them the most. I highly doubt Haas could afford a Newey or Vowels for example…
MarkwG said:
mw88 said:
Jasandjules said:
No I am saying they cheated and have been allowed to get away with it and that they would not have spent the money had it not resulted in better performance. But a cheat is a cheat is a cheat and they should have been removed from the WCC and WDC for it.
Let me ask you this, when an athlete - say Lance Armstrong, is found to have cheated, do they check what level of performance was gained? Do they enquire as to whether he would have won if the others took the same amount of drugs? Nope. Because it is not relevant. A cheat is a cheat is a cheat and they should be banned.
Yet in F1 we allow cheats to continue to profit from their cheating. IT is not a sport but a TV show now.
They haven't gotten away with it. They've been punished as per the rules for what was a minor overspend. They won't take any pain at the start of the season but the reduced wind tunnel/CFD time should hopefully affect them later.Let me ask you this, when an athlete - say Lance Armstrong, is found to have cheated, do they check what level of performance was gained? Do they enquire as to whether he would have won if the others took the same amount of drugs? Nope. Because it is not relevant. A cheat is a cheat is a cheat and they should be banned.
Yet in F1 we allow cheats to continue to profit from their cheating. IT is not a sport but a TV show now.
Ferrari weren't excluded from the championship by rigging their fuel flow sensors, but they took some pain from the FIA in a secret deal.
Armstrong didn't just cheat by doping, he was running a whole doping ring, distributing, blackmailing his team mates, etc. I do not think he could cut a deal, he actually refused to get one (apparently someone was trying to reduce his sentence from lifetime ban to 1 year, but Armstrong refused that).
As for Red Bull, I believe that by agreeing to the "accepted breach agreement" (or ABA), they get leniency in their penalty, all laid out within the rules all teams agreed and signed together. I do not think they got a further reduction as a special treatment from the FIA (I could be wrong of course). Is that what you meant by negotiating it?
Siao said:
As for Red Bull, I believe that by agreeing to the "accepted breach agreement" (or ABA), they get leniency in their penalty, all laid out within the rules all teams agreed and signed together. I do not think they got a further reduction as a special treatment from the FIA (I could be wrong of course). Is that what you meant by negotiating it?
People seem to find it impossible to comprehend that the breach, and all of the associated deliberations and rulings were completely in line with the rules that all teams had bought into and agreed, and there were no formal objections or appeals against any of the decision making.The angry mob are quick to call "cheat" as their definition of the punished non-compliance to a rule, which is their prerogative, however the same term could also be applied to any infraction:
Speeding in the pit lane, punished with a penalty? ....... "cheat"
DRS gap too wide, punished with a penalty? ..... "cheat"
mat205125 said:
Siao said:
As for Red Bull, I believe that by agreeing to the "accepted breach agreement" (or ABA), they get leniency in their penalty, all laid out within the rules all teams agreed and signed together. I do not think they got a further reduction as a special treatment from the FIA (I could be wrong of course). Is that what you meant by negotiating it?
People seem to find it impossible to comprehend that the breach, and all of the associated deliberations and rulings were completely in line with the rules that all teams had bought into and agreed, and there were no formal objections or appeals against any of the decision making.The angry mob are quick to call "cheat" as their definition of the punished non-compliance to a rule, which is their prerogative, however the same term could also be applied to any infraction:
Speeding in the pit lane, punished with a penalty? ....... "cheat"
DRS gap too wide, punished with a penalty? ..... "cheat"
Siao said:
mat205125 said:
Siao said:
As for Red Bull, I believe that by agreeing to the "accepted breach agreement" (or ABA), they get leniency in their penalty, all laid out within the rules all teams agreed and signed together. I do not think they got a further reduction as a special treatment from the FIA (I could be wrong of course). Is that what you meant by negotiating it?
People seem to find it impossible to comprehend that the breach, and all of the associated deliberations and rulings were completely in line with the rules that all teams had bought into and agreed, and there were no formal objections or appeals against any of the decision making.The angry mob are quick to call "cheat" as their definition of the punished non-compliance to a rule, which is their prerogative, however the same term could also be applied to any infraction:
Speeding in the pit lane, punished with a penalty? ....... "cheat"
DRS gap too wide, punished with a penalty? ..... "cheat"
Of course they cooked the books to get something out of it - why else would they? We're not talking about a corner shop losing a couple of quid down the back of the till; Red Bull are a multi national, billion dollar company; they have more than enough accountancy resources to comply with a financial cost cap they signed up & agreed to. They chose to non comply; that's not bending the rules, it's breaking them. They chose to opt out of the test run, the season before - the only team that did so, why would they do that?
No-one agreed the penalty except Red Bull & the FIA - the other teams were furious about the leniency they were shown - there's no mechanism for anyone else to appeal that decision. There was clearly a deal done to work the original number down from a major to a minor breach, the FIA didn't work that out on their own - and no one else needed special treatment, because they didn't cheat...
There's a clear difference between an unforced error, & non compliance - Red Bulls financial irregularities are worlds away from being a split second late pressing a speed limiter button or picking up accident damage that puts the car out of spec. The twists & turns some of you go to to let them off the hook are incredible: they cheated, they were caught - in spite of their initial denials; they benefitted by getting off lightly, & are still benefitting. Yes, a lot of people are still angry, as they would be in the cycling world, if Armstrong had not been held to account properly. In Red Bulls case, the phrase, "you won, get over it..." springs to mind...
MarkwG said:
No-one agreed the penalty except Red Bull & the FIA - the other teams were furious about the leniency they were shown - there's no mechanism for anyone else to appeal that decision. There was clearly a deal done to work the original number down from a major to a minor breach , the FIA didn't work that out on their own - and no one else needed special treatment, because they didn't cheat...
..
Where’s your evidence? ..
MarkwG said:
Siao said:
mat205125 said:
Siao said:
As for Red Bull, I believe that by agreeing to the "accepted breach agreement" (or ABA), they get leniency in their penalty, all laid out within the rules all teams agreed and signed together. I do not think they got a further reduction as a special treatment from the FIA (I could be wrong of course). Is that what you meant by negotiating it?
People seem to find it impossible to comprehend that the breach, and all of the associated deliberations and rulings were completely in line with the rules that all teams had bought into and agreed, and there were no formal objections or appeals against any of the decision making.The angry mob are quick to call "cheat" as their definition of the punished non-compliance to a rule, which is their prerogative, however the same term could also be applied to any infraction:
Speeding in the pit lane, punished with a penalty? ....... "cheat"
DRS gap too wide, punished with a penalty? ..... "cheat"
Of course they cooked the books to get something out of it - why else would they? It would be daft to believe that the other teams didn't cook the books. This was pretty much a "who's got a better accountant" game, nothing more, nothing less. We're not talking about a corner shop losing a couple of quid down the back of the till; Red Bull are a multi national, billion dollar company; they have more than enough accountancy resources to comply with a financial cost cap they signed up & agreed to. They chose to non comply; that's not bending the rules, it's breaking them. They chose to opt out of the test run, the season before - the only team that did so, why would they do that?
No-one agreed the penalty except Red Bull & the FIA - the other teams were furious about the leniency they were shown - there's no mechanism for anyone else to appeal that decision (Why would anyone else get to agree to what penalty another team is getting? It is absurd. The penalties are laid out in the cost cap rules, they all agreed to that. You are blaming RB for the rules having no appeal mechanism, as if RB signed these rules themselves and the other teams had nothing to do with them. Unreal. There was clearly a deal done Any proof of that? to work the original number down from a major to a minor breach, the FIA didn't work that out on their own - and no one else needed special treatment, because they didn't cheat...
There's a clear difference between an unforced error, & non compliance - Red Bulls financial irregularities are worlds away from being a split second late pressing a speed limiter button or picking up accident damage that puts the car out of spec Irrelevant comparison, so I'm with you, worlds apart, there is literally no comparison there. The twists & turns some of you go to to let them off the hook are incredible Some of us? Nice. That works both ways you know, I could not care less about RB, Ferrari is the team I always supported, I just raised a few points: they cheated, they were caught - in spite of their initial denials; they benefitted by getting off lightly, & are still benefitting Still benefitting? 2 years later?. Yes, a lot of people are still angry, as they would be in the cycling world, if Armstrong had not been held to account properly. In Red Bulls case, the phrase, "you won, get over it..." springs to mind...
I have replied above to some of your points.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff