Are Red bull cheating?
Discussion
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
MarkwG said:
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
Hack up his posts for the 2024 season, to bring him into line...!
PhilAsia said:
MarkwG said:
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
Hack up his posts for the 2024 season, to bring him into line...!
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.
"Ineffective" is just as limp wristed as "not trying".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
It's known that Todt was cosy with Mercedes (still resentful towards Ferrari for sacking him) and JT was ineffective as gamekeeper.
Compared to the Mercedes era this current FIA has been pretty quick in stopping RB dominance and audience numbers are up as a direct result.
Long may the unpredictability continue
Bo_apex said:
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.
"Ineffective" is just as limp wristed as "not trying".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
It's known that Todt was cosy with Mercedes (still resentful towards Ferrari for sacking him) and JT was ineffective as gamekeeper.
Compared to the Mercedes era this current FIA has been pretty quick in stopping RB dominance and audience numbers are up as a direct result.
Long may the unpredictability continue
Bo_apex said:
"Ineffective" is just as limp wristed as "not trying".
It's known that Todt was cosy with Mercedes (still resentful towards Ferrari for sacking him) and JT was ineffective as gamekeeper.
Compared to the Mercedes era this current FIA has been pretty quick in stopping RB dominance and audience numbers are up as a direct result.
Long may the unpredictability continue
Since when does preventing continued use of an illegal device = being quick in stopping RBR dominance?It's known that Todt was cosy with Mercedes (still resentful towards Ferrari for sacking him) and JT was ineffective as gamekeeper.
Compared to the Mercedes era this current FIA has been pretty quick in stopping RB dominance and audience numbers are up as a direct result.
Long may the unpredictability continue
deadslow said:
MustangGT said:
Since when does preventing continued use of an illegal device = being quick in stopping RBR dominance?
to which illegal device do you refer?Mercedes were co-authors of the 2014 PU format and didn't need to get creative, they already had an unfair baked in advantage.
"Mercedes were already working on their hybrid engine since 2007 and that's why they so adamant during the negotiations to introduce V6 engines from 2014."
https://gptoday.com/details/view/593536/Montezemol...
Good for Mercedes - bad for F1. The Tokens Schmokens system was designed to fail. And it did.
deadslow said:
PlywoodPascal said:
the dodgy suspension they were using.
were they, though? The only thing removed from any car so far as I am aware is the McLaren dodgy 'mini-drs'.McLaren's 'mini-drs' was not illegal, and McLaren have volunteered not to use it again (only one race it would be useful anyway). The clever brakes have always been illegal.
MustangGT said:
deadslow said:
PlywoodPascal said:
the dodgy suspension they were using.
were they, though? The only thing removed from any car so far as I am aware is the McLaren dodgy 'mini-drs'.McLaren's 'mini-drs' was not illegal, and McLaren have volunteered not to use it again (only one race it would be useful anyway). The clever brakes have always been illegal.
I find it hilarious how SkyF1 skirt around the 'sudden' lack of Red Bull performance, or even how it no longer appears to handle the same. I assume they don't want to upset RB, or the FIA. I don't watch other channels / sources, I can't imagine F1TV do either, what about C4 or other channels less concerned about upsetting the apple cart?
MustangGT said:
deadslow said:
PlywoodPascal said:
the dodgy suspension they were using.
were they, though? The only thing removed from any car so far as I am aware is the McLaren dodgy 'mini-drs'.McLaren's 'mini-drs' was not illegal, and McLaren have volunteered not to use it again (only one race it would be useful anyway). The clever brakes have always been illegal.
In his long interview with Jake Humphries, Newey seemed to suggest Merc won the 2021 WCC with an illegal car. And he knows his stuff. What's your thoughts?
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff