Are Red bull cheating?

[Byker28i]

You can't say Perez didn't have the cheat. Red Bull went from 1 2 to 6 and 8 without, so both cars lost the same performance at the same time.

[MB140]

CanAm said:

skwdenyer said:

At times like this, always worth recalling the TWR Volvo BTCC cylinder head: http://www.supertouringregister.com/document/4/

Or for an example of a proper, outright illegal and really devious cheat, the Toyota engine in the World Rally Championship.

I always liked the Ford WRC cheat of filling the rear bumper with an air tank. When off throttle the turbo would fill the tank back up allowing more air on acceleration than could be passed through the restrictor plate without it. Allowing more fuel and air hence power to be generated. Genius lateral thinking.

[skwdenyer]

MB140 said:

CanAm said:

skwdenyer said:

At times like this, always worth recalling the TWR Volvo BTCC cylinder head: http://www.supertouringregister.com/document/4/

Or for an example of a proper, outright illegal and really devious cheat, the Toyota engine in the World Rally Championship.

I always liked the Ford WRC cheat of filling the rear bumper with an air tank. When off throttle the turbo would fill the tank back up allowing more air on acceleration than could be passed through the restrictor plate without it. Allowing more fuel and air hence power to be generated. Genius lateral thinking.

IIRC wasn’t there a rumour that one team was using the roll cage for a similar purpose?

[732NM]

MB140 said:

I always liked the Ford WRC cheat of filling the rear bumper with an air tank. When off throttle the turbo would fill the tank back up allowing more air on acceleration than could be passed through the restrictor plate without it. Allowing more fuel and air hence power to be generated. Genius lateral thinking.

The Ford tank was legal (they all had versions of it), the Toyota sprung loaded turbo restrictor was a complete cheat.

I thought the Subaru rocket was genius, fully legal too.

[friederich]

MB140 said:

I always liked the Ford WRC cheat of filling the rear bumper with an air tank. When off throttle the turbo would fill the tank back up allowing more air on acceleration than could be passed through the restrictor plate without it. Allowing more fuel and air hence power to be generated. Genius lateral thinking.

That's a good 'test case' for me.

Toyota's transgression was a very clear cheat, and punished appropriately in my view. They had engineered a way to bypass the air restricter in the installed condition, and had done it such a way that was very difficult to detect.

Ford on the other hand found an ingenious way to exploit the regs. All the air passed through the restrictor, but at part load/overrun where the air wasn't being used it was stored for subsequent deployment. If they had been more subtle with the resultant benefits they may have been able to exploit this for more than the 2 or 3 events they ran before the rules were tightened (not sure I remember how this was curtailed). Rumours were that the transient response of the car was awesome!

I think Ferraris F1 fuel flow cheat was akin to Toyota - they managed to pass additional fuel through the mandated sensor 'whilst is wasn't looking'. I can't believe they weren't penalised heavily for this, if this was indeed what they were doing.

I suspect we'll never find out what RB were up to with brake bias, but it seems it was very effective. The most plausible explanation seems to be slow release of pressure on the inside rear brake - would give clear benefit in terms of turn-in agility, whilst *perhaps* not transgressing the rules for differential brake 'application'.

[NRS]

The interesting question could then be does Newey deserve the most recent round of credit? Many have praised this car over the last few seasons, yet is it down to the brake design (if that was real)? The chassis itself doesn’t seem great now. Or is it the car was designed around this brake system and so without it then it is a lot worse?

All assuming it is the brake system that explains the recent change.

[isaldiri]

NRS said:

The interesting question could then be does Newey deserve the most recent round of credit? Many have praised this car over the last few seasons, yet is it down to the brake design (if that was real)? The chassis itself doesn’t seem great now. Or is it the car was designed around this brake system and so without it then it is a lot worse?

All assuming it is the brake system that explains the recent change.

Or perhaps it's just that with ground effects and limited wind tunnel time, it's easier to go down a 'wrong' development path than one might have thought. The brake stuff, even assuming it absolutely was Red Bull will certainly be a contributing factor to handling but it's implausible it was the main factor in the car basically being able to hand out a pasting till Miami when McLaren (and mainly Mclaren) suddenly were able to close that gap until mid summer at Silverstone when Merc got stuck in. There are some suggestions that Red Bull seemed to have tried a more peaky higher maximum downforce design this year (and one rather less aligned to what Newey had traditionally tried to achieve aero wise) - given how all at sea Merc had been for years until recently, it's not that surprising in some respects why they might be struggling I think.

[Jasandjules]

skwdenyer said:

FWIW Joe Saward doesn’t think the rule “clarification” and RBR’s loss of form are unrelated… I agree that the RBR seems to no longer be the car it was.

It is all too much of a coincidence to suggest three teams have all suddenly leapt a second a lap forward. And frankly ludicrous to think that is likely to happen in one race.. The same race where a rule "clarification" flows...

[alisdairm]

Jasandjules said:

It is all too much of a coincidence to suggest three teams have all suddenly leapt a second a lap forward. And frankly ludicrous to think that is likely to happen in one race.. The same race where a rule "clarification" flows...

J&J, Is this on a 12 hour repeat? You said exactly the same thing last night at 7:00 pm

[Jasandjules]

alisdairm said:

Jasandjules said:

It is all too much of a coincidence to suggest three teams have all suddenly leapt a second a lap forward. And frankly ludicrous to think that is likely to happen in one race.. The same race where a rule "clarification" flows...

J&J, Is this on a 12 hour repeat?

24. I am working in between

[Muzzer79]

Jasandjules said:

skwdenyer said:

FWIW Joe Saward doesn’t think the rule “clarification” and RBR’s loss of form are unrelated… I agree that the RBR seems to no longer be the car it was.

It is all too much of a coincidence to suggest three teams have all suddenly leapt a second a lap forward. And frankly ludicrous to think that is likely to happen in one race.. The same race where a rule "clarification" flows...

Is it any more of a coincidence compared to last year when McLaren went from a Q1 exit and 19th on the grid in Saudi Arabia to 7th on the grid in Baku two races later and 2nd on the grid at the British GP in the same year?

[Blib]

Muzzer79 said:

Is it any more of a coincidence compared to last year when McLaren went from a Q1 exit and 19th on the grid in Saudi Arabia to 7th on the grid in Baku two races later and 2nd on the grid at the British GP in the same year?

Maybe, a difference is that Mclaren threw a load of upgrades at the car and it improved, while in contrast, RB's upgrades have been far fewer but the car's lost a minute?

To all intents and purposes, the same car has lost an enormous amount of time.

[MarkwG]

Muzzer79 said:

Jasandjules said:

skwdenyer said:

FWIW Joe Saward doesn’t think the rule “clarification” and RBR’s loss of form are unrelated… I agree that the RBR seems to no longer be the car it was.

It is all too much of a coincidence to suggest three teams have all suddenly leapt a second a lap forward. And frankly ludicrous to think that is likely to happen in one race.. The same race where a rule "clarification" flows...

Is it any more of a coincidence compared to last year when McLaren went from a Q1 exit and 19th on the grid in Saudi Arabia to 7th on the grid in Baku two races later and 2nd on the grid at the British GP in the same year?

https://www.mclaren.com/racing/formula-1/2023/saudi-arabian-grand-prix/2023-saudi-arabian-grand-prix---qualifying/ - Norris made a mistake that cost him Q2, Piastri got to P8. In practice they were 7 & 8.

[Dashnine]

friederich said:

I suspect we'll never find out what RB were up to with brake bias, but it seems it was very effective. The most plausible explanation seems to be slow release of pressure on the inside rear brake - would give clear benefit in terms of turn-in agility, whilst *perhaps* not transgressing the rules for differential brake 'application'.

As of course, even if the line pressure is reduced on one side, there is still "brake application" on both sides of the axle. Without digging into the rules for the exact wording.

[JcakR]

TheDeuce said:

I'm also in the camp that prefers to see a team with the morals of Mercedes do well as opposed to the insidious RB outfit...

But fair is fair. They appear to have simply built the better car and to have chosen a wiser design philosophy.

If it turns out they're cheating that will be hugely disappointing - but I don't think they are.

Well done to the team. I just have to dial out the TP and the nasty one eyed monster to be happy for them..

Morals of Mercedes? What Morals?

[JcakR]

jm doc said:

Yes, quite right, case closed. Unless you believe that some boffin had been sitting back at FIA headquarters and suddenly thought, I wonder what would happen if a team suddenly came up with a way of differential brake forces across an axle? And then the FIA hastily brought out a rule clarification banning it, just in case some devious team came up with the idea and implemented it.

Strangely enough, at around this time, RB suddenly started losing races after total dominance for 2-3 years.

You are welcome to believe that's all circumstantial of course. Others might suggest it's delusional though.....

Are you unable to read?

The rules for 2026 were being written and they decided to clarify that particular rule.

Seriously it’s like you Mercedes/Hamilton fan boys will tell yourself anything to create more Redbull conspiracies.

[PhilAsia]

JcakR said:

Are you unable to read?

The rules for 2026 were being written and they decided to clarify that particular rule.

Seriously it’s like you Mercedes/Hamilton fan boys will tell yourself anything to create more Redbull conspiracies.

You've lost the argument.

It's "bois" not "boys". Up your game.

[732NM]

JcakR said:

Are you unable to read?

The rules for 2026 were being written and they decided to clarify that particular rule.

Seriously it’s like you Mercedes/Hamilton fan boys will tell yourself anything to create more Redbull conspiracies.

The 2026 rules wont be published until next year.
The 2024 rules have been updated effective immediately.
The 2025 rules are based on the 2024 rules, with changes for 2025 noted in the regulations available now.

What we normally see in current rules years is technical directives to cover any grey areas, they chose in this instance to change the current rules wording that applies immediately, That is normally done on safety grounds.

[AceRockatansky]

Blib said:

Muzzer79 said:

Is it any more of a coincidence compared to last year when McLaren went from a Q1 exit and 19th on the grid in Saudi Arabia to 7th on the grid in Baku two races later and 2nd on the grid at the British GP in the same year?

Maybe, a difference is that Mclaren threw a load of upgrades at the car and it improved, while in contrast, RB's upgrades have been far fewer but the car's lost a minute?

To all intents and purposes, the same car has lost an enormous amount of time.

If you lose a minute by fitting upgrades. You can gain a minute by taking them back off. The argument that RB's upgrades have made them slower doesn't make any sense.

[Megaflow]

732NM said:

The 2026 rules wont be published until next year.
The 2024 rules have been updated effective immediately.
The 2025 rules are based on the 2024 rules, with changes for 2025 noted in the regulations available now.

What we normally see in current rules years is technical directives to cover any grey areas, they chose in this instance to change the current rules wording that applies immediately, That is normally done on safety grounds.

2026 are published and in the FIA website now.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/fia_2026_f...