Are Red bull cheating?

[angrymoby]

mat205125 said:

The angry mob are quick to call "cheat"

i think you'll find i've kept relatively quiet on this

[mat205125]

angrymoby said:

mat205125 said:

The angry mob are quick to call "cheat"

i think you'll find i've kept relatively quiet on this

[Niponeoff]

I think we're getting side tracked with the cost cap stuff, I really don't think it applies.

I used cheating on the title in the loosest sense because it's F1 and all teams are looking at ways to exploit the rules. Only the best at it can achieve the lofty status of cheat.

[MarkwG]

Siao said:

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"

I get that and I agree to call them cheats if they cooked the numbers to get something out of it. But that's that, they got the penalty that was agreed by everyone. And I believe the rules mandate that if they get into an "ABA" then the proceedings and all numbers/findings become public. There is little room to wiggle there, this is why I find it hard to believe they got an extra special treatment from the FIA. Unless I got something wrong obviously!

The breach was not "in the rules"! The objective, which the other teams seemed by & large to manage, was to stay within the cap. The rule wasn't "stay within the cap, unless you don't feel it applies to you". The penalties for breaching were in the rules & quite clear - Red Bull chose to take the risk they could talk their way around it if they needed to, & the FIA chose not to apply all the sanctions they could, perhaps because they felt they looked stupid enough already, who knows. Red Bull gambled on cheating, getting a benefit, & being able to handle any downsides, & they won.

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 suggest you have a re-read of both what I wrote and what you replied. No one claimed half the things you mention. No one said that the breach is in the rules, no one said that the deal is "stay within the cap unless".

I have replied above to some of your points.

It may not have been you, but that's exactly what some have claimed - answers below:

"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" - my bold, seems quite clear.

"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." Any evidence of that? Every team was required to submit their detailed accounts to the FIA for forensic analysis: the other teams chose to use the previous season as the test, yet Red Bull didn't - why, unless they wanted to creatively account then protest ignorance? There was no cost involved in doing so. No need for anyone else to cook the books, as they'd already established what would be acceptable, & what wouldn't. If it was a "who's got the best accountant?" game, are we supposed to feel sorry for Red Bull because they lost that one..? I think that's called gaslighting...

"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." - Mat205125 made that point.
"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." Try again - I didn't blame Red Bull for there being no appeals mechanism, I was replying to the comment that implied the other teams raised no appeal or objection - a) they can't appeal, as to be expected, & b) they did object most vociferously.

"There was clearly a deal done Any proof of that?" There are more than enough smoking guns - the FIA themselves said they'd "agreed terms with Red Bull over the over spend. Red Bull said they were "in discussions with the FIA". The initial FIA calculation was significantly higher, & would have made Red Bulls over spend a material breach, not a minor one. That's a deal being done, not a cosy fireside chat choosing curtains. https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/red-bull-in-disc...

"...& are still benefitting Still benefitting? 2 years later?" Naturally: the overspend last season means development this year takes place from a higher plane. This years car was either developed with money, & is at the front by a considerable margin. QED.

I appreciate you may not be a dyed in the wool RB fan, but this thread is about whether Red Bull are cheating & many seem to want to believe otherwise. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't - but their history follows them...

[PhilAsia]

MarkwG said:

Siao said:

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"

I get that and I agree to call them cheats if they cooked the numbers to get something out of it. But that's that, they got the penalty that was agreed by everyone. And I believe the rules mandate that if they get into an "ABA" then the proceedings and all numbers/findings become public. There is little room to wiggle there, this is why I find it hard to believe they got an extra special treatment from the FIA. Unless I got something wrong obviously!

The breach was not "in the rules"! The objective, which the other teams seemed by & large to manage, was to stay within the cap. The rule wasn't "stay within the cap, unless you don't feel it applies to you". The penalties for breaching were in the rules & quite clear - Red Bull chose to take the risk they could talk their way around it if they needed to, & the FIA chose not to apply all the sanctions they could, perhaps because they felt they looked stupid enough already, who knows. Red Bull gambled on cheating, getting a benefit, & being able to handle any downsides, & they won.

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 suggest you have a re-read of both what I wrote and what you replied. No one claimed half the things you mention. No one said that the breach is in the rules, no one said that the deal is "stay within the cap unless".

I have replied above to some of your points.

It may not have been you, but that's exactly what some have claimed - answers below:

"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" - my bold, seems quite clear.

"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." Any evidence of that? Every team was required to submit their detailed accounts to the FIA for forensic analysis: the other teams chose to use the previous season as the test, yet Red Bull didn't - why, unless they wanted to creatively account then protest ignorance? There was no cost involved in doing so. No need for anyone else to cook the books, as they'd already established what would be acceptable, & what wouldn't. If it was a "who's got the best accountant?" game, are we supposed to feel sorry for Red Bull because they lost that one..? I think that's called gaslighting...

"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." - Mat205125 made that point.
"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." Try again - I didn't blame Red Bull for there being no appeals mechanism, I was replying to the comment that implied the other teams raised no appeal or objection - a) they can't appeal, as to be expected, & b) they did object most vociferously.

"There was clearly a deal done Any proof of that?" There are more than enough smoking guns - the FIA themselves said they'd "agreed terms with Red Bull over the over spend. Red Bull said they were "in discussions with the FIA". The initial FIA calculation was significantly higher, & would have made Red Bulls over spend a material breach, not a minor one. That's a deal being done, not a cosy fireside chat choosing curtains. https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/red-bull-in-disc...

"...& are still benefitting Still benefitting? 2 years later?" Naturally: the overspend last season means development this year takes place from a higher plane. This years car was either developed with money, & is at the front by a considerable margin. QED.

I appreciate you may not be a dyed in the wool RB fan, but this thread is about whether Red Bull are cheating & many seem to want to believe otherwise. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't - but their history follows them...

...not choosing curtains btw. More blind orientated...

[tight fart]

The bit I find odd (and correct me if I’m wrong) the fine doesn’t come out of the budget.

[Siao]

MarkwG said:

It may not have been you, but that's exactly what some have claimed - answers below:

"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" - my bold, seems quite clear.

"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." Any evidence of that? Every team was required to submit their detailed accounts to the FIA for forensic analysis: the other teams chose to use the previous season as the test, yet Red Bull didn't - why, unless they wanted to creatively account then protest ignorance? There was no cost involved in doing so. No need for anyone else to cook the books, as they'd already established what would be acceptable, & what wouldn't. If it was a "who's got the best accountant?" game, are we supposed to feel sorry for Red Bull because they lost that one..? I think that's called gaslighting...

"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." - Mat205125 made that point.
"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." Try again - I didn't blame Red Bull for there being no appeals mechanism, I was replying to the comment that implied the other teams raised no appeal or objection - a) they can't appeal, as to be expected, & b) they did object most vociferously.

"There was clearly a deal done Any proof of that?" There are more than enough smoking guns - the FIA themselves said they'd "agreed terms with Red Bull over the over spend. Red Bull said they were "in discussions with the FIA". The initial FIA calculation was significantly higher, & would have made Red Bulls over spend a material breach, not a minor one. That's a deal being done, not a cosy fireside chat choosing curtains. https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/red-bull-in-disc...

"...& are still benefitting Still benefitting? 2 years later?" Naturally: the overspend last season means development this year takes place from a higher plane. This years car was either developed with money, & is at the front by a considerable margin. QED.

I appreciate you may not be a dyed in the wool RB fan, but this thread is about whether Red Bull are cheating & many seem to want to believe otherwise. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't - but their history follows them...

So you answer to my post about what other people have claimed? That explains a lot of the confusion then, fair enough.

Yes, every company in the world are hiring accountants to do their books, find any way possible to pay less tax, unless you want to believe that companies and people do not want to save money if they can. If Ferrari could find £x from subsistence expenses for example, they would do it and divert those funds somewhere else.

I don't feel sorry for RB's or Williams's breaches, they all knew the rules. Not sure what gaslighting you want to refer to and I don't care frankly. All in all, RB didn't want to participate in the cost cap test run and that decision came back to bite them. Their fault, they paid for it. Williams were late in their submission, let down by their accountants. Not their fault directly, but still, the regs said they had to be fined.

The advantage RB have 2 years later is down to their engineering. They overspent 2 years ago, but they had other penalties like less aero time. They just did a better job and nailed it, case in point Aston Martin who copied their philosophy and they have found more than 2 sec advantage from last year. I am not sure we can quantify how much those £400k or whatever contributed to the development, so it is a moot point really.

As for your last sentence, it is about RB cheating now, not in the past. We have no indication that they do, only suspicions because they are fast. Sometimes those suspicions are correct, sometimes not. But I'm not going to condemn them just yet, maybe I'm an optimist!

[Siao]

tight fart said:

The bit I find odd (and correct me if I’m wrong) the fine doesn’t come out of the budget.

The cost cap regs do include an "and/or reduction from the cost cap" term in their sanctions for both minor and major breaches indeed.

[gt_12345]

Jasandjules said:

gt_12345 said:

And whatever amount it was, you are implying that overspend is the cause for their performance.

So, if the other teams had spent the same amount, you are implying they would have the same performance.

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.

So Red Bull's performance has nothing to do with the overspend. Thanks for clearing that up.

[gt_12345]

Jasandjules said:

gt_12345 said:

And whatever amount it was, you are implying that overspend is the cause for their performance.

So, if the other teams had spent the same amount, you are implying they would have the same performance.

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.

"Cheated".... because they disobeyed the rules?

Edited by gt_12345 on Tuesday 18th April 15:28

[Siao]

gt_12345 said:

Jasandjules said:

gt_12345 said:

And whatever amount it was, you are implying that overspend is the cause for their performance.

So, if the other teams had spent the same amount, you are implying they would have the same performance.

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 "cheated" because they disobeyed the rules?

I guess this is the definition of cheating, with the difference being if they did it on purpose or not.

I find the post you responded to a bit harsh, asking for an exclusion from the WCC and WDC completely (which is not included in the minor breach sanctions). Having said that, the cost cap sanctions are as vague as they get, in true F1 fashion; for the minor breach, they vary from a public reprimand (I kid you not!) to exclusion from races and reduction of the cost cap for the following year. Quite the range!

There are also mitigating and aggravating factors included in article 8, which RB have demonstrated (they cooperated fully with the investigations, etc.) and I suspect it is why they got a financial punishment (relatively lenient when talking about that wide range of sanctions described above). I think that we are lucky that RB didn't get away with a reprimand if I'm honest, imagine the nuclear fallout if that had happened...

[llewop]

Siao said:

I guess this is the definition of cheating, with the difference being if they did it on purpose or not.

I find the post you responded to a bit harsh, asking for an exclusion from the WCC and WDC completely (which is not included in the minor breach sanctions). Having said that, the cost cap sanctions are as vague as they get, in true F1 fashion; for the minor breach, they vary from a public reprimand (I kid you not!) to exclusion from races and reduction of the cost cap for the following year. Quite the range!

There are also mitigating and aggravating factors included in article 8, which RB have demonstrated (they cooperated fully with the investigations, etc.) and I suspect it is why they got a financial punishment (relatively lenient when talking about that wide range of sanctions described above). I think that we are lucky that RB didn't get away with a reprimand if I'm honest, imagine the nuclear fallout if that had happened...

exclusion from WCC and WDC were not in play for the agreed breach, but deduction of points was, so could have flipped the WDC.

I'm not sure they did fully cooperate with the investigation, that was an identical line to the AM statement, so stock phrasing to hide any behind the scenes trading. They were trying to use a complicated corporate structure to game the cost cap, but missed the target in about 14 different ways almost certainly on purpose (or at least hoping to obscure things enough), so they cheated and got caught. They then got away with it with a slap on the wrist: right now the cheats have prospered.

[MustangGT]

gt_12345 said:

Jasandjules said:

gt_12345 said:

And whatever amount it was, you are implying that overspend is the cause for their performance.

So, if the other teams had spent the same amount, you are implying they would have the same performance.

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.

So Red Bull's performance has nothing to do with the overspend. Thanks for clearing that up.

GT, are you being deliberately obtuse?

Of course the RB performance was improved by overspending the budget, they would not have done so otherwise.

[Niponeoff]

MustangGT said:

gt_12345 said:

Jasandjules said:

gt_12345 said:

And whatever amount it was, you are implying that overspend is the cause for their performance.

So, if the other teams had spent the same amount, you are implying they would have the same performance.

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.

So Red Bull's performance has nothing to do with the overspend. Thanks for clearing that up.

GT, are you being deliberately obtuse?

Of course the RB performance was improved by overspending the budget, they would not have done so otherwise.

I assume that's a joke as we don't even know where the overspend was, well we do but no one believes them that its catering. If it is, then buying curly chips instead of straight ones won't amount to much performance.

[Jasandjules]

gt_12345 said:

So Red Bull's performance has nothing to do with the overspend. Thanks for clearing that up.

That is not what was being answered, taking a single word out of a sentence and contending it is a context it is not is rather odd but does make you look foolish. Do you do the accounts for Red Bull?

[PhilAsia]

gt_12345 said:

Jasandjules said:

gt_12345 said:

And whatever amount it was, you are implying that overspend is the cause for their performance.

So, if the other teams had spent the same amount, you are implying they would have the same performance.

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.

So Red Bull's performance has nothing to do with the overspend. Thanks for clearing that up.

3 + 3 = 6

I have an unsettling suspicion that your ''comprehension'' of this is that the answer is 3, right?

[Siao]

llewop said:

Siao said:

I guess this is the definition of cheating, with the difference being if they did it on purpose or not.

I find the post you responded to a bit harsh, asking for an exclusion from the WCC and WDC completely (which is not included in the minor breach sanctions). Having said that, the cost cap sanctions are as vague as they get, in true F1 fashion; for the minor breach, they vary from a public reprimand (I kid you not!) to exclusion from races and reduction of the cost cap for the following year. Quite the range!

There are also mitigating and aggravating factors included in article 8, which RB have demonstrated (they cooperated fully with the investigations, etc.) and I suspect it is why they got a financial punishment (relatively lenient when talking about that wide range of sanctions described above). I think that we are lucky that RB didn't get away with a reprimand if I'm honest, imagine the nuclear fallout if that had happened...

exclusion from WCC and WDC were not in play for the agreed breach, but deduction of points was, so could have flipped the WDC.

I'm not sure they did fully cooperate with the investigation, that was an identical line to the AM statement, so stock phrasing to hide any behind the scenes trading. They were trying to use a complicated corporate structure to game the cost cap, but missed the target in about 14 different ways almost certainly on purpose (or at least hoping to obscure things enough), so they cheated and got caught. They then got away with it with a slap on the wrist: right now the cheats have prospered.

Sure, deduction was in the cards, as well as exclusion from stages (not races). Max finished 150 points ahead of Leclerc last year, not sure how a deduction would have flipped the WDC. That would be taking away 6 wins from Max, it would never happen. The identical line to the AM statement could be because both teams cooperated?

As I mentioned before, I am not sure how much was deliberate and how much was a mistake (most likely a combination of both), but for me one thing is for sure; by not doing the test run, they didn't iron out these things, they tried to be smart and they were found wanting. Paid the price

[simon_harris]

Siao said:

Sure, deduction was in the cards, as well as exclusion from stages (not races). Max finished 150 points ahead of Leclerc last year, not sure how a deduction would have flipped the WDC. That would be taking away 6 wins from Max, it would never happen. The identical line to the AM statement could be because both teams cooperated?

As I mentioned before, I am not sure how much was deliberate and how much was a mistake (most likely a combination of both), but for me one thing is for sure; by not doing the test run, they didn't iron out these things, they tried to be smart and they were found wanting. Paid the price

I don't get this line of thinking that red bull exceeded the cost cap "by mistake" they knew exactly what they were doing and how much they were spending. At my most charitable I could think about accepting that they though they were being clever with their interpretation of the rules, but in reality I think they tactically gamed the system and banked on the fact that the punishment would be worth the infringement.

They knew how much Liberty wanted to see a new team at the top and knew the uproar that would ensue if a championship were taken away from them.

At my most deeply cynical then I would say liberty, the FIA and Red Bull were all in cahoots to enable a change at the top of the F1 tree to make it more palatable for new "fans" coming into the sport.

[Niponeoff]

simon_harris said:

Siao said:

Sure, deduction was in the cards, as well as exclusion from stages (not races). Max finished 150 points ahead of Leclerc last year, not sure how a deduction would have flipped the WDC. That would be taking away 6 wins from Max, it would never happen. The identical line to the AM statement could be because both teams cooperated?

As I mentioned before, I am not sure how much was deliberate and how much was a mistake (most likely a combination of both), but for me one thing is for sure; by not doing the test run, they didn't iron out these things, they tried to be smart and they were found wanting. Paid the price

I don't get this line of thinking that red bull exceeded the cost cap "by mistake" they knew exactly what they were doing and how much they were spending. At my most charitable I could think about accepting that they though they were being clever with their interpretation of the rules, but in reality I think they tactically gamed the system and banked on the fact that the punishment would be worth the infringement.

They knew how much Liberty wanted to see a new team at the top and knew the uproar that would ensue if a championship were taken away from them.

At my most deeply cynical then I would say liberty, the FIA and Red Bull were all in cahoots to enable a change at the top of the F1 tree to make it more palatable for new "fans" coming into the sport.

I would say all the top teams are maximizing their budget potential and employing very clever accountants on par with the best engineers to maximise this rule change.

Its more likely, the other teams used better accountants.

[Siao]

simon_harris said:

Siao said:

Sure, deduction was in the cards, as well as exclusion from stages (not races). Max finished 150 points ahead of Leclerc last year, not sure how a deduction would have flipped the WDC. That would be taking away 6 wins from Max, it would never happen. The identical line to the AM statement could be because both teams cooperated?

As I mentioned before, I am not sure how much was deliberate and how much was a mistake (most likely a combination of both), but for me one thing is for sure; by not doing the test run, they didn't iron out these things, they tried to be smart and they were found wanting. Paid the price

I don't get this line of thinking that red bull exceeded the cost cap "by mistake" they knew exactly what they were doing and how much they were spending. At my most charitable I could think about accepting that they though they were being clever with their interpretation of the rules, but in reality I think they tactically gamed the system and banked on the fact that the punishment would be worth the infringement.

They knew how much Liberty wanted to see a new team at the top and knew the uproar that would ensue if a championship were taken away from them.

At my most deeply cynical then I would say liberty, the FIA and Red Bull were all in cahoots to enable a change at the top of the F1 tree to make it more palatable for new "fans" coming into the sport.

No one claimed that it was all a big mistake.

Liberty did get a new team at the top other than Mercedes already in 2021.