Are Red bull cheating?
Discussion
RiseUp said:
Whatever limits the FIA have imposed didn’t seem to hinder Max’s quali pace.
Sprint qualy and the sprint race you would run the car lower and closer between spec.They get to do it all again today as parc ferme ends after the sprint race, so they will potentially be more of a compromise for qualy proper and race proper.
oh, and one question I have is how red bull can justify even a device to alter the height of the "front bib".
attached to that is plank.
the lowest point of the chassis/car is defined in the regulations as being at z = 0 (dimensions/legality boxes are specified in three dimensions x, y, z. z is the vertical access). The plank is attached to the floor, and the upper surface of the plank is required to be attached to the floor.
"The upper surface of the plank assembly must lie at Z=0, so that no air can pass between it and the Floor Body or Bib lower surfaces."
now look at that rule again:
""The upper surface of the plank assembly must lie at Z=0, so that no air can pass between it and the Floor Body or Bib lower surfaces.""
If the front bib, thus also plank, height can be adjusted, but the fixing at the other end of plank is solid, the plank is no longer straight/level, it will curve.
Which means by definition that some part of the upper surface of the plank does not lie at Z = 0. If you bend the front of the front bib down compared to the rest of the car, and the bottom of it becomes the lowest point of the car, then the upper surface of the front of the plank will be at Z=0, but the rear of the plank won't be. so the car will not meet the rules.
attached to that is plank.
the lowest point of the chassis/car is defined in the regulations as being at z = 0 (dimensions/legality boxes are specified in three dimensions x, y, z. z is the vertical access). The plank is attached to the floor, and the upper surface of the plank is required to be attached to the floor.
"The upper surface of the plank assembly must lie at Z=0, so that no air can pass between it and the Floor Body or Bib lower surfaces."
now look at that rule again:
""The upper surface of the plank assembly must lie at Z=0, so that no air can pass between it and the Floor Body or Bib lower surfaces.""
If the front bib, thus also plank, height can be adjusted, but the fixing at the other end of plank is solid, the plank is no longer straight/level, it will curve.
Which means by definition that some part of the upper surface of the plank does not lie at Z = 0. If you bend the front of the front bib down compared to the rest of the car, and the bottom of it becomes the lowest point of the car, then the upper surface of the front of the plank will be at Z=0, but the rear of the plank won't be. so the car will not meet the rules.
I guess it stands to reason that Red Bull / Verstappen fans don’t mind how he wins.
They seem to be taking their lead from Horner, just generating noise and misdirection to obfuscate the topic. Pretending they don’t understand the rules and / or the allegations.
Have so many instances of cheating by an individual team over a sustained period ever gone over with quite such a lack of consequence? The whole team stinks and most of us clocked it like five years ago.
The fandom are in too deep.
They seem to be taking their lead from Horner, just generating noise and misdirection to obfuscate the topic. Pretending they don’t understand the rules and / or the allegations.
Have so many instances of cheating by an individual team over a sustained period ever gone over with quite such a lack of consequence? The whole team stinks and most of us clocked it like five years ago.
The fandom are in too deep.
Derek Smith said:
When asked how other teams might know about the adjustment in parc ferme, Brundle said in Practice 1 that there had been a lot of movement in team members from RB. Make of that what you will.
I wonder if these former RB team members told their new teams that there was a mechanism that could be used to change the height or that it had been used to change the height.Mr Pointy said:
Derek Smith said:
When asked how other teams might know about the adjustment in parc ferme, Brundle said in Practice 1 that there had been a lot of movement in team members from RB. Make of that what you will.
I wonder if these former RB team members told their new teams that there was a mechanism that could be used to change the height or that it had been used to change the height.lambosagogo said:
Jasandjules said:
Well given McLaren are it seems still making waves, that would appear to be the implication....
Yeah, unlikely to be “so let me tell you about this cool device we had at RB…don’t worry, we totes didn’t use it to cheat or anything”Although that's still better than Horny's 'just don't talk about It' defence when he accidentally lost his fingers in his PA.
PhilAsia said:
I remember the suggestion being drivers carried spanners to make it easier to extricate them in the event of a crash/fire. From what I know of Stewart, such simple safety measures would seem to be in character.
PlywoodPascal said:
oh, and one question I have is how red bull can justify even a device to alter the height of the "front bib".
attached to that is plank.
the lowest point of the chassis/car is defined in the regulations as being at z = 0 (dimensions/legality boxes are specified in three dimensions x, y, z. z is the vertical access). The plank is attached to the floor, and the upper surface of the plank is required to be attached to the floor.
"The upper surface of the plank assembly must lie at Z=0, so that no air can pass between it and the Floor Body or Bib lower surfaces."
now look at that rule again:
""The upper surface of the plank assembly must lie at Z=0, so that no air can pass between it and the Floor Body or Bib lower surfaces.""
If the front bib, thus also plank, height can be adjusted, but the fixing at the other end of plank is solid, the plank is no longer straight/level, it will curve.
Which means by definition that some part of the upper surface of the plank does not lie at Z = 0. If you bend the front of the front bib down compared to the rest of the car, and the bottom of it becomes the lowest point of the car, then the upper surface of the front of the plank will be at Z=0, but the rear of the plank won't be. so the car will not meet the rules.
The bib isn’t the same material as the plank, and is not the front of the plank. The bib is therefore higher than the top of the plank, I.e. above Z=0 and is adjustable by all teams.attached to that is plank.
the lowest point of the chassis/car is defined in the regulations as being at z = 0 (dimensions/legality boxes are specified in three dimensions x, y, z. z is the vertical access). The plank is attached to the floor, and the upper surface of the plank is required to be attached to the floor.
"The upper surface of the plank assembly must lie at Z=0, so that no air can pass between it and the Floor Body or Bib lower surfaces."
now look at that rule again:
""The upper surface of the plank assembly must lie at Z=0, so that no air can pass between it and the Floor Body or Bib lower surfaces.""
If the front bib, thus also plank, height can be adjusted, but the fixing at the other end of plank is solid, the plank is no longer straight/level, it will curve.
Which means by definition that some part of the upper surface of the plank does not lie at Z = 0. If you bend the front of the front bib down compared to the rest of the car, and the bottom of it becomes the lowest point of the car, then the upper surface of the front of the plank will be at Z=0, but the rear of the plank won't be. so the car will not meet the rules.
RB choose to put the adjustment mechanism inside the footwell, whether it was ever adjusted between sessions in parc ferme we’ll never know unless the ‘bibgrass’ now at another team admits it.
Jasandjules said:
And yet the FIA man, when directly challenged on this, said they won't be looking back over the CCTV and the one thing they can say is that going forwards it is not an issue......
ETA - and whilst I think of it, there was also a snippet of a comment that stuck in mind, about it only being able to move a tiny amount, just 2-3mm so not important. The same rule I believe was applied to a certain rear wing etc.............
Honda was just regurgitating what he heard on Sky commentary. ETA - and whilst I think of it, there was also a snippet of a comment that stuck in mind, about it only being able to move a tiny amount, just 2-3mm so not important. The same rule I believe was applied to a certain rear wing etc.............
Edited by Jasandjules on Saturday 19th October 13:54
k" 
As a strategy by Zak it's been pretty effective at deflecting from the fact that McLaren have been asked to modify all of their wings to eliminate the mini-DRS effect, not just the Baku one. This weekends rear wing has been modified.
FIA just stated that the design of the RB bib adjustment has been public to the teams and themselves for the last 3yrs.
FIA just stated that the design of the RB bib adjustment has been public to the teams and themselves for the last 3yrs.
honda_exige said:
As a strategy by Zak it's been pretty effective at deflecting from the fact that McLaren have been asked to modify all of their wings to eliminate the mini-DRS effect, not just the Baku one. This weekends rear wing has been modified.
FIA just stated that the design of the RB bib adjustment has been public to the teams and themselves for the last 3yrs.
Jesus, you dig deep!FIA just stated that the design of the RB bib adjustment has been public to the teams and themselves for the last 3yrs.
It's very unlikely it was obvious that the connection between the FIA sealed point and the lower detachable adjustment point was obvious - McLaren dug deep to figure it out, they asked the right questions and upon inspection the truth became clear.
You need to find a new god!
TheDeuce said:
honda_exige said:
As a strategy by Zak it's been pretty effective at deflecting from the fact that McLaren have been asked to modify all of their wings to eliminate the mini-DRS effect, not just the Baku one. This weekends rear wing has been modified.
FIA just stated that the design of the RB bib adjustment has been public to the teams and themselves for the last 3yrs.
Jesus, you dig deep!FIA just stated that the design of the RB bib adjustment has been public to the teams and themselves for the last 3yrs.
It's very unlikely it was obvious that the connection between the FIA sealed point and the lower detachable adjustment point was obvious - McLaren dug deep to figure it out, they asked the right questions and upon inspection the truth became clear.
You need to find a new god!
Article from Mark Hughes
The question raised by McLaren’s Zak Brown was what would there be to stop the mechanic with his head in the cockpit ‘making adjustments to the seat belts’ in front of the FIA observer to actually be changing the floor height? Well, the answer to that seems obvious. The FIA observer would surely be questioning why the other guy was standing there with his adjusting tool!
But that is it! That’s literally all there was behind wild stories of ‘Red Bull caught cheating’.
This has all the hallmarks of title-contest psychology, tit-for-tat after Red Bull pressed for changes to McLaren’s ‘Mini DRS’ wing after Baku.
The frustrating thing about such controversies is that they are meaningless from a sporting perspective, but form part of the theatre of the show. It will now be accepted as historical fact that Red Bull was caught cheating on the parc ferme regulations. It absolutely – categorically – was not. But don’t let the truth stand in the way of a good story.
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/articles/single...
I of course await being told Hughes is on the RB payroll etc
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff