Are Red bull cheating?
Discussion
marine boy said:
A F1 technical director once said to me,
'If there is a loophole in the rules big enough to drive a truck through it, I want to be driving the truck'
Redbull are not cheating, they've just got the keys to a big truck and they knew where to drive it
F1 rules car design rules are so tightly controlled these days as everyone involved in setting the technical rules within the FIA are now 'poachers turned game keepers'
I've done a lots of poaching with many of them and they're working for the FIA as they really know their stuff, know how F1 race team technical bods think and know how to block 'working around but within the rules' approach to car design
Car design isnt that tightly controlled when one team can create a car with almost zero side pod coverage, although it didn’t work, it showed plenty of scope in the rules.'If there is a loophole in the rules big enough to drive a truck through it, I want to be driving the truck'
Redbull are not cheating, they've just got the keys to a big truck and they knew where to drive it
F1 rules car design rules are so tightly controlled these days as everyone involved in setting the technical rules within the FIA are now 'poachers turned game keepers'
I've done a lots of poaching with many of them and they're working for the FIA as they really know their stuff, know how F1 race team technical bods think and know how to block 'working around but within the rules' approach to car design
Personally I do think RB are cheating, there may be a loophole they have exploited and overstepped the mark but it will be a calculated risk based on likely penalties vs getting caught. I have no idea what the loophole may be but based on how RB have been treated over the last two seasons, I’d have given it a try.
It will be interesting to see how close the rest are at the next two GPs, if they turn everything down a bit, they’ll just say the rest have caught up and the advantage is hidden. I think the pace of the 2023 RB should have surprised even RB, but it didn’t. In testing Max was very casual “yeah the car is good” etc and not “f
k a duck this thing is a beast!” It was all to subtle and low key imho.It happens, Chapman tried it all the time but the sport was far more “mechanical” in those days, aero was being exploited bit in full view of everyone and wind tunnels barely existed etc you had a DFV and whatever your designer could create. Now there is more scope for foul play across all parts of the car
Newey deserves a lot of credit but it takes more than one man to design a modern F1 car, there is a whole team behind him, all bright people with a very specific area of expertise, Newey is good (I can’t fault a guy who races a GT40 in his spare time) but I’m sure even he would say the whole RB engineering team deserves greater recognition.
Diderot said:
hunter 66 said:
Can having Max as a driver be considered cheating ?
Only for the usual haters. And I hate the term haters, it’s hatefully hateful, used by haters hating for hatefully hateful reasons. But notwithstanding, haters will find something irrational to hate. It’s astonishingly naive/myopic/conveniently forgetful ( no offence other than being irrationally a hater) that no other team in the history of F1 has ever supervened in one or more consecutive seasons (do catch up). The hate for Red Bull on here is, therefore, astonishing; is it personnel related? Sure, kick Horner, but don’t kick the drivers who risk their lives week in week out for the team. Kick the Bondian villain, Helmut, if it makes you feel better about yourselves. But is anyone really going to suggest that a paltry 1.6% overspend in the first year of the Budget Cap is the reason why they are dominant this year? No, the truth is, once again Adrian and his team got their design right, as they have done in their past. How much has Merc spent on their design (I would aver hugely more than 1.6% of their overall budget just trying to rectify their approach, which they are now trying to address). They got I wrong. They got it right for so many years when they were outspending every other team.
F1 isn’t a level playing field. Whether a Knight of the Realm locks up using ‘Brake Magic’ (that no other team is using to their advantage) or he uses ‘DAS’ (which was then outlawed the next season) to his advantage, is obviously long gone in the hater’s memories.
Merc needs to catch up, pure and simple. As does Ferrari. Aston is currently showing them both the way.
Long May the realignment continue.
Yes Merc and Ferrari need to catch up but that’s like saying the cyclists chasing Lance Armstrong just needed to train harder and pedal faster. When you’re up against a team who have found a loophole, legal or undetected, exploited it and reap the rewards, you can’t just “catch up” when you are on limited reserves
Diderot said:
pablo said:
Diderot said:
hunter 66 said:
Can having Max as a driver be considered cheating ?
Only for the usual haters. And I hate the term haters, it’s hatefully hateful, used by haters hating for hatefully hateful reasons. But notwithstanding, haters will find something irrational to hate. It’s astonishingly naive/myopic/conveniently forgetful ( no offence other than being irrationally a hater) that no other team in the history of F1 has ever supervened in one or more consecutive seasons (do catch up). The hate for Red Bull on here is, therefore, astonishing; is it personnel related? Sure, kick Horner, but don’t kick the drivers who risk their lives week in week out for the team. Kick the Bondian villain, Helmut, if it makes you feel better about yourselves. But is anyone really going to suggest that a paltry 1.6% overspend in the first year of the Budget Cap is the reason why they are dominant this year? No, the truth is, once again Adrian and his team got their design right, as they have done in their past. How much has Merc spent on their design (I would aver hugely more than 1.6% of their overall budget just trying to rectify their approach, which they are now trying to address). They got I wrong. They got it right for so many years when they were outspending every other team.
F1 isn’t a level playing field. Whether a Knight of the Realm locks up using ‘Brake Magic’ (that no other team is using to their advantage) or he uses ‘DAS’ (which was then outlawed the next season) to his advantage, is obviously long gone in the hater’s memories.
Merc needs to catch up, pure and simple. As does Ferrari. Aston is currently showing them both the way.
Long May the realignment continue.
Yes Merc and Ferrari need to catch up but that’s like saying the cyclists chasing Lance Armstrong just needed to train harder and pedal faster. When you’re up against a team who have found a loophole, legal or undetected, exploited it and reap the rewards, you can’t just “catch up” when you are on limited reserves
Let me guess that you have selective amnesia, or are perhaps new to F1; if the former then you seem to me to be one of those irrational haters because Red Bull/Max/Horner/Bond Villain, when the reality of F1 is that in the past 30 years at least there have always been dominant teams, though none so dominant as Merc. Because loopholes/cheating/overspends obviously.
F1 isn’t football, thankfully.
Second para marks you as another RB/Max fan still haunted by the tainted championships, lashing out at any one who posts a reasonable argument…. Go back and read all my replies on this thread, particularly the one where I refer to Chapman as the master rule bender FFS…
This is you right?
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 9th April 16:29
Muzzer79 said:
The upgrades that RBR have brought this year have made the car worse.
In tandem, McLaren and Mercedes have caught up.
It’s a simple as that.
https://www.planetf1.com/news/max-verstappen-red-b...
Nonsense. In China Verstappen won by 13 seconds or so not long after a safety car. In tandem, McLaren and Mercedes have caught up.
It’s a simple as that.
https://www.planetf1.com/news/max-verstappen-red-b...
Up until China the average gap to 2nd place when Verstappen won in 2023 was matched in 2024 (around 19 seconds).
By the next race in Miami the Red Bull had turned into a relative disaster zone- over stiff, no front end, poor tyre management.
You can either believe all the others teams suddenly found a solution at the same time, or that Red Bull had to stop doing something fundamental to their car concept.
Isn't it more likely than not that Red Bull had to change something on their car from Miami and at the same time the other top 3 teams have developed at a faster rate than RB (as they had more ground to make up and their gains would be 'easier')? As in both things can be true.
If the current RB car was designed around having a certain device and it no longer employed it, you'd expect the car to change behaviour, which is what we've seen since Miami. If other parts of the car were designed to compromise or take advantage around that device, when you take it away it's almost starting from scratch to replace the performance. Hence messing about and scratching heads, but they probably know the concept is limited this year and it's damage limitation mode for the rest of the season.
If the current RB car was designed around having a certain device and it no longer employed it, you'd expect the car to change behaviour, which is what we've seen since Miami. If other parts of the car were designed to compromise or take advantage around that device, when you take it away it's almost starting from scratch to replace the performance. Hence messing about and scratching heads, but they probably know the concept is limited this year and it's damage limitation mode for the rest of the season.
Not sure they've cheated in the way Ferrari did. I think they perhaps took advantage of rules lacking in clarity but the mid-season change has hurt them in a similar way. With Ferrari it was baked in for the following season as that car was designed around having more power than it eventually did. RB will probably recover next season but I can't see them having the dominant car as they did the past couple of seasons.
Flexi wings and some other things are about pragmatism.
The regulator has a wide rule (no flexing of wings) measured by a narrow test (weight on a wing). Manufacturers build the car to pass the tests because the regulator doesn't say "if we see it flex on track more than 'x' we'll sanction you". I imagine because it's difficult to police- using cameras to measure precise levels of deflection on all wings will be impractical and fraught with "yes it is no it isn't" kind of conversations.
In which case teams with bendy wings are contravening the rules. The regulator knows they're contravening the rules. Nothing is done right now because it's not such a big problem that it warrants the level of intervention required.
There is no 'spirit of the rules', it doesn't exist, it's a fallacy. It's either within the rules or not. The question is when do you intervene? It's a bit like doing 75mph on the motorway. You're breaking the law but the authorities don't collar you because if they did it systematically it'd likely cause disproportionate workload on the justice system.
The regulator has a wide rule (no flexing of wings) measured by a narrow test (weight on a wing). Manufacturers build the car to pass the tests because the regulator doesn't say "if we see it flex on track more than 'x' we'll sanction you". I imagine because it's difficult to police- using cameras to measure precise levels of deflection on all wings will be impractical and fraught with "yes it is no it isn't" kind of conversations.
In which case teams with bendy wings are contravening the rules. The regulator knows they're contravening the rules. Nothing is done right now because it's not such a big problem that it warrants the level of intervention required.
There is no 'spirit of the rules', it doesn't exist, it's a fallacy. It's either within the rules or not. The question is when do you intervene? It's a bit like doing 75mph on the motorway. You're breaking the law but the authorities don't collar you because if they did it systematically it'd likely cause disproportionate workload on the justice system.
p1stonhead said:
It’s honestly astonishing the level it’s dropped off.
Has it ever happened so badly/fast before?
Im thinking Brawn in 2009 but this seems worse even than that.
Brawn was different. It started out with a really effective specific advantage (double diffuser). They aced the design. Toyota and Williams also had them but not as effective.Has it ever happened so badly/fast before?
Im thinking Brawn in 2009 but this seems worse even than that.
The teams without challenged legality and failed, so raced to add it to their cars.
Brawn had no money. They couldn't develop the car as the season went on to the same degree as the others. Eventually the others caught up and passed them.
This year is like the opposite effect. Imagine Red Bull won their 2009 challenge against the double diffuser and Brawn had to take it off. That's what we're seeing this year with Red Bull.
Nothing's going to outwardly happen to any team who cheats. It would devalue the sport as a whole and the teams themselves. Nobody who owns F1 or a team will want to diminish their balance sheet value. That's why Mercedes dropped the '21 complaint.
It's why Ferrari got away with it and red bull will continue to do.
Either accept you're watching a manipulated entertainment show with limited sporting integrity or ditch it and do something else.
It's why Ferrari got away with it and red bull will continue to do.
Either accept you're watching a manipulated entertainment show with limited sporting integrity or ditch it and do something else.
You accept it because you don't have a choice. The owners and the corporates now own F1. It's an entertainment business with cars. It's theirs, not ours.
It was bent in the old days, too. Mustn't forget that. If you weren't flavour of the month with Balestre or Max/Bernie you were at risk. Remember back then, though, these things would rumble on and even end up in the courts because the people founded and owned teams to win on the track. They spent every penny they could get their grubby hands on in that pursuit and had nothing left at the end. F1 was about being the fastest race driver and team in the fastest race series.
I'm afraid now it's about building the highest value asset you can whilst profiting from a marketing machine. The model is totally different. It ultimately leads to spec cars racing around spec locations.
Look at the price cap, for example. How was that
justified? It was on the basis teams were spending an unustainable amount on development of new things. The regs were increasingly restricted on the basis it prevented spending wars. We were told if the spending wasn't halted the teams could no longer continue.
A spending cap was introduced. The top teams lost 2/3s or so of their budget. Were the regs then opened up? Surely they no longer need to be as tight because the cap prevents runaway spending. True innovation can than flourish. Of course they weren't.
They continue to be tightened. Why? The budget cap wasn't to prevent runaway spending. It was to make F1 even cheaper for incumbents and especially incoming investors, sorry, team owners. The budget cap gives an immediate and sustained boost to the balance sheet value of every team. You're no longer buying an asset with an open ended cost base. It's fixed by regulation. Liberty then control the market value of the teams and wider sport by limiting availability on the grid. Hence Andretti can't get on it.
The pitch to the corporate world is an F1 team offers a marketing machine generating more in exposure and sales than it costs in operation (see Mercedes in the Wolff era). Unheard of. Access to the opportunity is restricted to buying an incumbent, and there are only 10 of them in the world. This massively increases the value of each team. For example Red Bull have probably got £4bn worth of teams on the grid. It cost them an absolute fraction of that to create and look at the marketing exposure from it, when all their other marketing activities actually cost them money rather than make it.
All which is why nobody- Liberty, the FIA, the teams or the people employed by or sponsoring them and especially the team owners, are really going to do anything that jeopardises the value of those assets. There is a huge financial shock to ANY business where an asset on your balance sheet goes from being worth £1bn to half that because it's tainted. The boards at Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault, Red Bull, Dorilton, VAG, Mumtalakat, Gene Haas or Lawrence Stroll are not going to take a multi billion dollar balance sheet hit to give some ungrateful driver they have to pay $30m a year another tick in their stats. So bloody what! They're in it to make money not win at sport.
It was bent in the old days, too. Mustn't forget that. If you weren't flavour of the month with Balestre or Max/Bernie you were at risk. Remember back then, though, these things would rumble on and even end up in the courts because the people founded and owned teams to win on the track. They spent every penny they could get their grubby hands on in that pursuit and had nothing left at the end. F1 was about being the fastest race driver and team in the fastest race series.
I'm afraid now it's about building the highest value asset you can whilst profiting from a marketing machine. The model is totally different. It ultimately leads to spec cars racing around spec locations.
Look at the price cap, for example. How was that
justified? It was on the basis teams were spending an unustainable amount on development of new things. The regs were increasingly restricted on the basis it prevented spending wars. We were told if the spending wasn't halted the teams could no longer continue.
A spending cap was introduced. The top teams lost 2/3s or so of their budget. Were the regs then opened up? Surely they no longer need to be as tight because the cap prevents runaway spending. True innovation can than flourish. Of course they weren't.
They continue to be tightened. Why? The budget cap wasn't to prevent runaway spending. It was to make F1 even cheaper for incumbents and especially incoming investors, sorry, team owners. The budget cap gives an immediate and sustained boost to the balance sheet value of every team. You're no longer buying an asset with an open ended cost base. It's fixed by regulation. Liberty then control the market value of the teams and wider sport by limiting availability on the grid. Hence Andretti can't get on it.
The pitch to the corporate world is an F1 team offers a marketing machine generating more in exposure and sales than it costs in operation (see Mercedes in the Wolff era). Unheard of. Access to the opportunity is restricted to buying an incumbent, and there are only 10 of them in the world. This massively increases the value of each team. For example Red Bull have probably got £4bn worth of teams on the grid. It cost them an absolute fraction of that to create and look at the marketing exposure from it, when all their other marketing activities actually cost them money rather than make it.
All which is why nobody- Liberty, the FIA, the teams or the people employed by or sponsoring them and especially the team owners, are really going to do anything that jeopardises the value of those assets. There is a huge financial shock to ANY business where an asset on your balance sheet goes from being worth £1bn to half that because it's tainted. The boards at Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault, Red Bull, Dorilton, VAG, Mumtalakat, Gene Haas or Lawrence Stroll are not going to take a multi billion dollar balance sheet hit to give some ungrateful driver they have to pay $30m a year another tick in their stats. So bloody what! They're in it to make money not win at sport.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff