Are Red bull cheating?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[MarkwG]

Niponeoff said:

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.

You really think it's that? If that were the case, one would expect they'd be fired after such an embarrassing debacle, whereas their Director of Finance, for example, has been with them since the team was Stewart Racing, as have a number of other notable finance positions. If someone screws up, they usually get fired...not rewarded with continued employment.

[simon_harris]

Niponeoff said:

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.

I disagree, as is their raison d'etre I expect red bull pushed the limits harder than everyone else in the expectation of getting away with it.

[PhilAsia]

Hey!! Guys! Guys! Guys! It's a new set of rules *throws hands in the air*. Come on, who was to know...give us a break...!! (simplified slightly)

Aw, thanks........ *snigger*

[gt_12345]

Jasandjules said:

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?

You implied this year's Red Bull performance is due to overspending.

I asked if the other teams spent the same additional amount, would they have this year's RB performance?

You said no (and the rest of your post had nothing to do with the point at hand).

So, you agreed with my point.

[gt_12345]

PhilAsia 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.

3 + 3 = 6

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

Using your analogy he said:

3 + I've admitted RB aren't so fast due to the overspend but I'm crying because RB "cheated"

hence you cannot add two such terms and it was okay for me to ignore the rest of his message.

[PhilAsia]

gt_12345 said:

PhilAsia 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.

3 + 3 = 6

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

Using your analogy he said:

3 + I've admitted RB aren't so fast due to the overspend but I'm crying because RB "cheated"

hence you cannot add two such terms and it was okay for me to ignore the rest of his message.

6 sans bullst...

[MustangGT]

Niponeoff said:

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.

Not a joke at all. Any overspend would be towards improving the car performance. Items included in the budget cap were defined. You spend more on 'catering' then it leaves less for R&D. Therefore every single penny overspent is actually spent on car performance improvement.

[MustangGT]

MarkwG said:

You really think it's that? If that were the case, one would expect they'd be fired after such an embarrassing debacle, whereas their Director of Finance, for example, has been with them since the team was Stewart Racing, as have a number of other notable finance positions. If someone screws up, they usually get fired...not rewarded with continued employment.

He could well have been a key figure involved in the negotiation which resulted in the minor punishment.

[MarkwG]

MustangGT said:

MarkwG said:

You really think it's that? If that were the case, one would expect they'd be fired after such an embarrassing debacle, whereas their Director of Finance, for example, has been with them since the team was Stewart Racing, as have a number of other notable finance positions. If someone screws up, they usually get fired...not rewarded with continued employment.

He could well have been a key figure involved in the negotiation which resulted in the minor punishment.

Quite possibly; & also likely to be a key figure involved in the calculation that an overspend was worth the risk. If he or his team were just "not as good at being accountants" as others suggest, I doubt they'd still be at Red Bull.

[The Moose]

Niponeoff said:

No it isn't.

Two teams can spend identically on everything, except catering. Which was where the overspend was recorded.

An overspend on catering doesn't mean they spent more on something else.

I don't really follow your logic there?

[llewop]

The Moose said:

Niponeoff said:

No it isn't.

Two teams can spend identically on everything, except catering. Which was where the overspend was recorded.

An overspend on catering doesn't mean they spent more on something else.

I don't really follow your logic there?

Because there isn't any to understand!

It wasn't an 'overspend on catering' - that is parroting one version of the smoke and mirrors from RB.

It was 13 different incorrect exclusions or adjustments:
1. Overstated excluded costs pursuant to Article 3.1(a) of the Financial Regulations (concerning
catering services);
2. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(w) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and
associated employer’s social security contributions);
3. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(i) of the Financial Regulations (in respect of Non-F1 Activities), as
those costs had already been offset within Total Costs of the Reporting Group;
4. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(k) of the Financial Regulations (in respect of bonus and associated
employer’s social security contributions);
5. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of a gain on disposal of fixed assets by failing to make
the necessary upwards adjustment;
6. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(q) of the Financial Regulations (concerning apprenticeship levies);
7. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(ii)(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and
associated employer’s social security contributions);
8. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provisions set forth by Article 4.1(a)(i) of the
Financial Regulations (concerning the cost of use of Power Units);
9. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h) (i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and
associated employer’s social security contributions);
10. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provisions set forth by Article 4.1(f)(i)(B) of the
Financial Regulations (concerning use of inventories);
11. Clerical error in respect of RBR’s calculation of certain costs re-charged to it by Red Bull Power Trains
Limited;
12. Certain travel costs pursuant to Article 3.1(r) of the Financial Regulations;
13. Costs of maintenance pursuant to Article 3.1(i) of the Financial Regulations.

taken from the FIA statement.

And that was the version 'agreed' after 'cooperation'.

Much as I dislike most of what RB does it can't be denied that they are generally extremely competent and precise; so this level of incompetence can't be accidental in that environment: there almost certainly was wilful gaming of the cost cap code.

But to get back on topic of what are they up to this year: other than profiting from their over-spend gains in previous year(s) it wouldn't surprise me if they were (again) playing with variable flexing of components to pass the static test but have characteristics that are against the rules when they can't be checked.