Are Red bull cheating?
Discussion
Megaflow said:
Apart from Ferrari’s fuel flow truck, which was cheating, and potentially, something on the Red Bull, which has yet to be confirmed. I don’t recall any other team being told to remove anything in the last 10 years. So yes, I would say the others, with the exception of the Ferrari fuel flow and if this Red Bull situation is correct, your statement is true.
what is it RedBull have been told to remove? A something? 
vaud said:
Bright Halo said:
Conspiracy theory!
The special bits/sauce was only fitted to MV's car.
Now it has been removed the performance dif between MV and Perez has evaporated.
Perez knew of this, that is why the team kept him on.
Why on earth would they want to hobble one car and cost WCC points?The special bits/sauce was only fitted to MV's car.
Now it has been removed the performance dif between MV and Perez has evaporated.
Perez knew of this, that is why the team kept him on.
Would explain the 'keep MV happy' by having a second car not quite competitive enough to pose a risk.
deadslow said:
Megaflow said:
I don’t recall any other team being told to remove anything in the last 10 years.
that aged well
MustangGT said:
Bo_apex said:
Totally agree. If only the FIA had intervened during the Mercedes dominance era.
Where is your smiley for sarcasm?The FIA did everything possible to rein back Mercedes, party mode was banned, DAS ended up banned even though legal under the rules etc.
Bo_apex said:
Siao said:
In fairness, party mode was banned in 2020 or something, they left it on for ages.
Was that 6 years or 7 years ?Either way the FIA was far too sleepy
Bo_apex said:
Siao said:
In fairness, party mode was banned in 2020 or something, they left it on for ages.
Was that 6 years or 7 years ?Either way the FIA was far too sleepy
in the first few years of the regulations they totally watered down all of the homologation and in-season development restrictions that were put into the rules so that the other manufactures could develop at a rate where they would actually catch up. they also changed the rules to restrict oil burning. there were a number of other changes I think but I do not recall them right now.
But anyway. I don't think it's correct to say that FIA were asleep, in fact the started loosening the regulations almost as soon as they'd been introduced to try to allow others to catch up.
PlywoodPascal said:
Bo_apex said:
Siao said:
In fairness, party mode was banned in 2020 or something, they left it on for ages.
Was that 6 years or 7 years ?Either way the FIA was far too sleepy
in the first few years of the regulations they totally watered down all of the homologation and in-season development restrictions that were put into the rules so that the other manufactures could develop at a rate where they would actually catch up. they also changed the rules to restrict oil burning. there were a number of other changes I think but I do not recall them right now.
But anyway. I don't think it's correct to say that FIA were asleep, in fact the started loosening the regulations almost as soon as they'd been introduced to try to allow others to catch up.
"As is currently the case, there will be a 'freeze' with power units homologated by the FIA between 2014 and 2020."
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/22058/9077826/ge...
Leithen said:
Megaflow said:
Apart from Ferrari’s fuel flow truck, which was cheating, and potentially, something on the Red Bull, which has yet to be confirmed. I don’t recall any other team being told to remove anything in the last 10 years. So yes, I would say the others, with the exception of the Ferrari fuel flow and if this Red Bull situation is correct, your statement is true.
The truck was far too obvious. They needed to be much more subtle. If you find a way to get extra fuel past the sensor, then do 1% extra not 10% extra. Everyone notices 10% extra, almost immediately.
Bo_apex said:
Hmmm...
"As is currently the case, there will be a 'freeze' with power units homologated by the FIA between 2014 and 2020."
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/22058/9077826/ge...
Wasn’t the get-out clause changes “necessary for reliability reasons?”"As is currently the case, there will be a 'freeze' with power units homologated by the FIA between 2014 and 2020."
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/22058/9077826/ge...
Bo_apex said:
Hmmm...
"As is currently the case, there will be a 'freeze' with power units homologated by the FIA between 2014 and 2020."
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/22058/9077826/ge...
Yeah, and that article was written at the start of 2014 before those homologation requirements were relaxed m… "As is currently the case, there will be a 'freeze' with power units homologated by the FIA between 2014 and 2020."
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/22058/9077826/ge...
skwdenyer said:
Bo_apex said:
Hmmm...
"As is currently the case, there will be a 'freeze' with power units homologated by the FIA between 2014 and 2020."
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/22058/9077826/ge...
Wasn’t the get-out clause changes “necessary for reliability reasons?”"As is currently the case, there will be a 'freeze' with power units homologated by the FIA between 2014 and 2020."
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/22058/9077826/ge...
In season development allowed for 2016
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1-engine-manufa...
PlywoodPascal said:
skwdenyer said:
Bo_apex said:
Hmmm...
"As is currently the case, there will be a 'freeze' with power units homologated by the FIA between 2014 and 2020."
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/22058/9077826/ge...
Wasn’t the get-out clause changes “necessary for reliability reasons?”"As is currently the case, there will be a 'freeze' with power units homologated by the FIA between 2014 and 2020."
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/22058/9077826/ge...
In season development allowed for 2016
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1-engine-manufa...
but Tokens Schmokens didn't have the desired effect from 2016
WCC 2016: Mercedes
WCC 2017: Mercedes
WCC 2018: Mercedes
WCC 2019: Mercedes
WCC 2020: Mercedes
The situation is better now with greater unpredictability
Bo_apex said:
PlywoodPascal said:
skwdenyer said:
Bo_apex said:
Hmmm...
"As is currently the case, there will be a 'freeze' with power units homologated by the FIA between 2014 and 2020."
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/22058/9077826/ge...
Wasn’t the get-out clause changes “necessary for reliability reasons?”"As is currently the case, there will be a 'freeze' with power units homologated by the FIA between 2014 and 2020."
https://www.skysports.com/f1/news/22058/9077826/ge...
In season development allowed for 2016
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1-engine-manufa...
but Tokens Schmokens didn't have the desired effect from 2016
WCC 2016: Mercedes
WCC 2017: Mercedes
WCC 2018: Mercedes
WCC 2019: Mercedes
WCC 2020: Mercedes
The situation is better now with greater unpredictability
Predictably:
2021: FIA condoned cheating/RBR/Max
2022: FIA condoned cheating/RBR/Max
2023: FIA condoned cheating/RBR/Max
2024: FIA condoned cheating/RBR/Max
Bo_apex said:
Sure
but Tokens Schmokens didn't have the desired effect from 2016
WCC 2016: Mercedes
WCC 2017: Mercedes
WCC 2018: Mercedes
WCC 2019: Mercedes
WCC 2020: Mercedes
The situation is better now with greater unpredictability
but you weren't arguing that the FIA didn't effectively 'hobble' Mercedes, you were arguing that they didn't even try. but Tokens Schmokens didn't have the desired effect from 2016
WCC 2016: Mercedes
WCC 2017: Mercedes
WCC 2018: Mercedes
WCC 2019: Mercedes
WCC 2020: Mercedes
The situation is better now with greater unpredictability
Bo_apex said:
Totally agree. If only the FIA had intervened during the Mercedes dominance era.
And it is not true that they didn't try to allow other teams to catch up faster, there were rule changes to benefit slower constructors or remove or limit perceived advantages of Mercedes all the way through their period of domination. I guess your 'sure' is an acknowledgement of your initial statement being mistaken and/or untrue. So far you have:
- said FIA didn't try to hobble mercedes
- posted an irrelevant article from before the 2014 season even started (i.e. before Mercedes won anything at all) to try to show that rules to allow in season development were not made after Mercedes proved to be dominant.
- admitted that rules were changed by FIA to try to allow other competitors to compete better
- then shifted your point to accept the changes to rules were made but then argue that they didn't help competitors.
The only conclusion I can make is you're arguing from a position of ideology, without any reference at all to the evidence and history here.
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Saturday 21st September 13:14
Blink982 said:
The FIA were trying to hobble Merc all the way through their period of dominance. I love how some (Max) fans drag up absolute s
te about them having a headstart on the PU. They didn’t. They just nailed it.
They removed FRiC, DAS, Third element dampers and the PU token system.
We’ve yet to discover if they actually did anything to hobble red Bull but the RB has went from an ‘on rails’ cornering machine to a hard to control near midfield car in the space of a season
DAS and FRiC, for instance, were treated the same way many other innovations (such as double diffusers) have been: allow the innovative team to benefit from their legal innovation for a while (at least a season) then ban it to prevent it becoming just another technical “must-have” for every team. There was nothing anti-Mercedes about that.te about them having a headstart on the PU. They didn’t. They just nailed it.They removed FRiC, DAS, Third element dampers and the PU token system.
We’ve yet to discover if they actually did anything to hobble red Bull but the RB has went from an ‘on rails’ cornering machine to a hard to control near midfield car in the space of a season
Even the most dominant team tends to recognise that unending dominance isn’t healthy for the sport: fans turn off, sponsors become a little harder to find, and so on.
I don’t like DRS, for instance. I think it artificial and tending to favour one type of performance over another (in the past, a fast car in the corners could race on equal terms with a fast car along the straights - it was a choice - but DRS has altered that equation. I don’t like the idea that the fastest car ought not to be “held up.” But I recognise that an overtake-free race isn’t good for the sport, either. The current aero rules have done a reasonable job of rebalancing that equation, but there’s more to do.
What we’re talking about with RBR isn’t a DAS or a FRiC scenario; we’re talking about the FIA potentially turning a blind eye to (or simply not finding) out-and-out cheating parts, seemingly applying no sanction, and doing it all in the dark of the back room. If true, that’s neither healthy nor desirable nor even good for the spectacle of the sport.
PlywoodPascal said:
And it is not true that they didn't try to allow other teams to catch up faster, there were rule changes to benefit slower constructors or remove or limit perceived advantages of Mercedes all the way through their period of domination. I guess your 'sure' is an acknowledgement of your initial statement being mistaken and/or untrue.
So far you have:
- said FIA didn't try to hobble mercedes
- posted an irrelevant article from before the 2014 season even started (i.e. before Mercedes won anything at all) to try to show that rules to allow in season development were not made after Mercedes proved to be dominant.
- admitted that rules were changed by FIA to try to allow other competitors to compete better
- then shifted your point to accept the changes to rules were made but then argue that they didn't help competitors.
The only conclusion I can make is you're arguing from a position of ideology, without any reference at all to the evidence and history here.
Oh look at you, with your logic, evidence & facts - we'll have none of that here, thank you very much! So far you have:
- said FIA didn't try to hobble mercedes
- posted an irrelevant article from before the 2014 season even started (i.e. before Mercedes won anything at all) to try to show that rules to allow in season development were not made after Mercedes proved to be dominant.
- admitted that rules were changed by FIA to try to allow other competitors to compete better
- then shifted your point to accept the changes to rules were made but then argue that they didn't help competitors.
The only conclusion I can make is you're arguing from a position of ideology, without any reference at all to the evidence and history here.
Edited by PlywoodPascal on Saturday 21st September 13:14
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff