Are Red bull cheating?

[MarkwG]

Niponeoff said:

simon_harris said:

Siao said:

Sure, deduction was in the cards, as well as exclusion from stages (not races). Max finished 150 points ahead of Leclerc last year, not sure how a deduction would have flipped the WDC. That would be taking away 6 wins from Max, it would never happen. The identical line to the AM statement could be because both teams cooperated?

As I mentioned before, I am not sure how much was deliberate and how much was a mistake (most likely a combination of both), but for me one thing is for sure; by not doing the test run, they didn't iron out these things, they tried to be smart and they were found wanting. Paid the price

I don't get this line of thinking that red bull exceeded the cost cap "by mistake" they knew exactly what they were doing and how much they were spending. At my most charitable I could think about accepting that they though they were being clever with their interpretation of the rules, but in reality I think they tactically gamed the system and banked on the fact that the punishment would be worth the infringement.

They knew how much Liberty wanted to see a new team at the top and knew the uproar that would ensue if a championship were taken away from them.

At my most deeply cynical then I would say liberty, the FIA and Red Bull were all in cahoots to enable a change at the top of the F1 tree to make it more palatable for new "fans" coming into the sport.

I would say all the top teams are maximizing their budget potential and employing very clever accountants on par with the best engineers to maximise this rule change.

Its more likely, the other teams used better accountants.

You really think it's that? If that were the case, one would expect they'd be fired after such an embarrassing debacle, whereas their Director of Finance, for example, has been with them since the team was Stewart Racing, as have a number of other notable finance positions. If someone screws up, they usually get fired...not rewarded with continued employment.

[simon_harris]

Niponeoff said:

simon_harris said:

Siao said:

Sure, deduction was in the cards, as well as exclusion from stages (not races). Max finished 150 points ahead of Leclerc last year, not sure how a deduction would have flipped the WDC. That would be taking away 6 wins from Max, it would never happen. The identical line to the AM statement could be because both teams cooperated?

As I mentioned before, I am not sure how much was deliberate and how much was a mistake (most likely a combination of both), but for me one thing is for sure; by not doing the test run, they didn't iron out these things, they tried to be smart and they were found wanting. Paid the price

I don't get this line of thinking that red bull exceeded the cost cap "by mistake" they knew exactly what they were doing and how much they were spending. At my most charitable I could think about accepting that they though they were being clever with their interpretation of the rules, but in reality I think they tactically gamed the system and banked on the fact that the punishment would be worth the infringement.

They knew how much Liberty wanted to see a new team at the top and knew the uproar that would ensue if a championship were taken away from them.

At my most deeply cynical then I would say liberty, the FIA and Red Bull were all in cahoots to enable a change at the top of the F1 tree to make it more palatable for new "fans" coming into the sport.

I would say all the top teams are maximizing their budget potential and employing very clever accountants on par with the best engineers to maximise this rule change.

Its more likely, the other teams used better accountants.

I disagree, as is their raison d'etre I expect red bull pushed the limits harder than everyone else in the expectation of getting away with it.

[PhilAsia]

Hey!! Guys! Guys! Guys! It's a new set of rules *throws hands in the air*. Come on, who was to know...give us a break...!! (simplified slightly)

Aw, thanks........ *snigger*

[gt_12345]

Jasandjules said:

gt_12345 said:

So Red Bull's performance has nothing to do with the overspend. Thanks for clearing that up.

That is not what was being answered, taking a single word out of a sentence and contending it is a context it is not is rather odd but does make you look foolish. Do you do the accounts for Red Bull?

You implied this year's Red Bull performance is due to overspending.

I asked if the other teams spent the same additional amount, would they have this year's RB performance?

You said no (and the rest of your post had nothing to do with the point at hand).

So, you agreed with my point.

[gt_12345]

PhilAsia said:

gt_12345 said:

Jasandjules said:

gt_12345 said:

And whatever amount it was, you are implying that overspend is the cause for their performance.

So, if the other teams had spent the same amount, you are implying they would have the same performance.

No I am saying they cheated and have been allowed to get away with it and that they would not have spent the money had it not resulted in better performance. But a cheat is a cheat is a cheat and they should have been removed from the WCC and WDC for it.

Let me ask you this, when an athlete - say Lance Armstrong, is found to have cheated, do they check what level of performance was gained? Do they enquire as to whether he would have won if the others took the same amount of drugs? Nope. Because it is not relevant. A cheat is a cheat is a cheat and they should be banned.

Yet in F1 we allow cheats to continue to profit from their cheating. IT is not a sport but a TV show now.

So Red Bull's performance has nothing to do with the overspend. Thanks for clearing that up.

3 + 3 = 6

I have an unsettling suspicion that your ''comprehension'' of this is that the answer is 3, right?

Using your analogy he said:

3 + I've admitted RB aren't so fast due to the overspend but I'm crying because RB "cheated"

hence you cannot add two such terms and it was okay for me to ignore the rest of his message.

[PhilAsia]

gt_12345 said:

PhilAsia said:

gt_12345 said:

Jasandjules said:

gt_12345 said:

And whatever amount it was, you are implying that overspend is the cause for their performance.

So, if the other teams had spent the same amount, you are implying they would have the same performance.

No I am saying they cheated and have been allowed to get away with it and that they would not have spent the money had it not resulted in better performance. But a cheat is a cheat is a cheat and they should have been removed from the WCC and WDC for it.

Let me ask you this, when an athlete - say Lance Armstrong, is found to have cheated, do they check what level of performance was gained? Do they enquire as to whether he would have won if the others took the same amount of drugs? Nope. Because it is not relevant. A cheat is a cheat is a cheat and they should be banned.

Yet in F1 we allow cheats to continue to profit from their cheating. IT is not a sport but a TV show now.

So Red Bull's performance has nothing to do with the overspend. Thanks for clearing that up.

3 + 3 = 6

I have an unsettling suspicion that your ''comprehension'' of this is that the answer is 3, right?

Using your analogy he said:

3 + I've admitted RB aren't so fast due to the overspend but I'm crying because RB "cheated"

hence you cannot add two such terms and it was okay for me to ignore the rest of his message.

6 sans bullst...

[MustangGT]

Niponeoff said:

MustangGT said:

gt_12345 said:

Jasandjules said:

gt_12345 said:

And whatever amount it was, you are implying that overspend is the cause for their performance.

So, if the other teams had spent the same amount, you are implying they would have the same performance.

No I am saying they cheated and have been allowed to get away with it and that they would not have spent the money had it not resulted in better performance. But a cheat is a cheat is a cheat and they should have been removed from the WCC and WDC for it.

Let me ask you this, when an athlete - say Lance Armstrong, is found to have cheated, do they check what level of performance was gained? Do they enquire as to whether he would have won if the others took the same amount of drugs? Nope. Because it is not relevant. A cheat is a cheat is a cheat and they should be banned.

Yet in F1 we allow cheats to continue to profit from their cheating. IT is not a sport but a TV show now.

So Red Bull's performance has nothing to do with the overspend. Thanks for clearing that up.

GT, are you being deliberately obtuse?

Of course the RB performance was improved by overspending the budget, they would not have done so otherwise.

I assume that's a joke as we don't even know where the overspend was, well we do but no one believes them that its catering. If it is, then buying curly chips instead of straight ones won't amount to much performance.

Not a joke at all. Any overspend would be towards improving the car performance. Items included in the budget cap were defined. You spend more on 'catering' then it leaves less for R&D. Therefore every single penny overspent is actually spent on car performance improvement.

[MustangGT]

MarkwG said:

You really think it's that? If that were the case, one would expect they'd be fired after such an embarrassing debacle, whereas their Director of Finance, for example, has been with them since the team was Stewart Racing, as have a number of other notable finance positions. If someone screws up, they usually get fired...not rewarded with continued employment.

He could well have been a key figure involved in the negotiation which resulted in the minor punishment.

[Niponeoff]

MustangGT said:

Not a joke at all. Any overspend would be towards improving the car performance. Items included in the budget cap were defined. You spend more on 'catering' then it leaves less for R&D. Therefore every single penny overspent is actually spent on car performance improvement.

No it isn't.

Two teams can spend identically on everything, except catering. Which was where the overspend was recorded.

An overspend on catering doesn't mean they spent more on something else.

[MarkwG]

MustangGT said:

MarkwG said:

You really think it's that? If that were the case, one would expect they'd be fired after such an embarrassing debacle, whereas their Director of Finance, for example, has been with them since the team was Stewart Racing, as have a number of other notable finance positions. If someone screws up, they usually get fired...not rewarded with continued employment.

He could well have been a key figure involved in the negotiation which resulted in the minor punishment.

Quite possibly; & also likely to be a key figure involved in the calculation that an overspend was worth the risk. If he or his team were just "not as good at being accountants" as others suggest, I doubt they'd still be at Red Bull.

[The Moose]

Niponeoff said:

No it isn't.

Two teams can spend identically on everything, except catering. Which was where the overspend was recorded.

An overspend on catering doesn't mean they spent more on something else.

I don't really follow your logic there?

[llewop]

The Moose said:

Niponeoff said:

No it isn't.

Two teams can spend identically on everything, except catering. Which was where the overspend was recorded.

An overspend on catering doesn't mean they spent more on something else.

I don't really follow your logic there?

Because there isn't any to understand!

It wasn't an 'overspend on catering' - that is parroting one version of the smoke and mirrors from RB.

It was 13 different incorrect exclusions or adjustments:
1. Overstated excluded costs pursuant to Article 3.1(a) of the Financial Regulations (concerning
catering services);
2. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(w) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and
associated employer’s social security contributions);
3. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(i) of the Financial Regulations (in respect of Non-F1 Activities), as
those costs had already been offset within Total Costs of the Reporting Group;
4. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(k) of the Financial Regulations (in respect of bonus and associated
employer’s social security contributions);
5. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of a gain on disposal of fixed assets by failing to make
the necessary upwards adjustment;
6. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(q) of the Financial Regulations (concerning apprenticeship levies);
7. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(ii)(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and
associated employer’s social security contributions);
8. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provisions set forth by Article 4.1(a)(i) of the
Financial Regulations (concerning the cost of use of Power Units);
9. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h) (i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and
associated employer’s social security contributions);
10. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provisions set forth by Article 4.1(f)(i)(B) of the
Financial Regulations (concerning use of inventories);
11. Clerical error in respect of RBR’s calculation of certain costs re-charged to it by Red Bull Power Trains
Limited;
12. Certain travel costs pursuant to Article 3.1(r) of the Financial Regulations;
13. Costs of maintenance pursuant to Article 3.1(i) of the Financial Regulations.

taken from the FIA statement.

And that was the version 'agreed' after 'cooperation'.

Much as I dislike most of what RB does it can't be denied that they are generally extremely competent and precise; so this level of incompetence can't be accidental in that environment: there almost certainly was wilful gaming of the cost cap code.

But to get back on topic of what are they up to this year: other than profiting from their over-spend gains in previous year(s) it wouldn't surprise me if they were (again) playing with variable flexing of components to pass the static test but have characteristics that are against the rules when they can't be checked.

[WestyCarl]

llewop said:

Much as I dislike most of what RB does it can't be denied that they are generally extremely competent and precise; so this level of incompetence can't be accidental in that environment: there almost certainly was wilful gaming of the cost cap code.

Historically teams have "wilful gamed" all F1 regs, fuel sensors, barge board tollerances, plank wear, etc to gain an advantage. It's just that the cost cap is the latest regulation.

[PhilAsia]

WestyCarl said:

llewop said:

Much as I dislike most of what RB does it can't be denied that they are generally extremely competent and precise; so this level of incompetence can't be accidental in that environment: there almost certainly was wilful gaming of the cost cap code.

Historically teams have "wilful gamed" all F1 regs, fuel sensors, barge board tollerances, plank wear, etc to gain an advantage. It's just that the cost cap is the latest regulation.

Oh, that's ok then, and soooo 2022...!

[mat205125]

PhilAsia said:

WestyCarl said:

llewop said:

Much as I dislike most of what RB does it can't be denied that they are generally extremely competent and precise; so this level of incompetence can't be accidental in that environment: there almost certainly was wilful gaming of the cost cap code.

Historically teams have "wilful gamed" all F1 regs, fuel sensors, barge board tollerances, plank wear, etc to gain an advantage. It's just that the cost cap is the latest regulation.

Oh, that's ok then, and soooo 2022...!

Lol ..... what about 2022??

As described above, a non-compliance was identified and punished within the framework of the regulations that all teams had bought into.

You might not like that, but it's as simple as that.

[llewop]

WestyCarl said:

llewop said:

Much as I dislike most of what RB does it can't be denied that they are generally extremely competent and precise; so this level of incompetence can't be accidental in that environment: there almost certainly was wilful gaming of the cost cap code.

Historically teams have "wilful gamed" all F1 regs, fuel sensors, barge board tollerances, plank wear, etc to gain an advantage. It's just that the cost cap is the latest regulation.

True to a point, all will push boundaries and then whinge about others that did a better job of it than they did.

But 9 out 10 teams managed to get it right and submit accounts that complied.

One team didn't: that team has since 'won' three championships.

[alisdairm]

llewop said:

True to a point, all will push boundaries and then whinge about others that did a better job of it than they did.

But 9 out 10 teams managed to get it right and submit accounts that complied.

One team didn't: that team has since 'won' three championships.

I thought Aston Martin breached the cost cap also?

[llewop]

alisdairm said:

I thought Aston Martin breached the cost cap also?

procedural breach - messed up their sums but didn't exceed the bottom line.

Must confess, I had forgotten their list of errors was nearly as long as RBs, but they had at least left sufficient margin to remain within the cap.

[Siao]

llewop said:

WestyCarl said:

llewop said:

Much as I dislike most of what RB does it can't be denied that they are generally extremely competent and precise; so this level of incompetence can't be accidental in that environment: there almost certainly was wilful gaming of the cost cap code.

Historically teams have "wilful gamed" all F1 regs, fuel sensors, barge board tollerances, plank wear, etc to gain an advantage. It's just that the cost cap is the latest regulation.

True to a point, all will push boundaries and then whinge about others that did a better job of it than they did.

But 9 out 10 teams managed to get it right and submit accounts that complied.

One team didn't: that team has since 'won' three championships.

3 WDCs???

[MarkwG]

Siao said:

llewop said:

WestyCarl said:

llewop said:

Much as I dislike most of what RB does it can't be denied that they are generally extremely competent and precise; so this level of incompetence can't be accidental in that environment: there almost certainly was wilful gaming of the cost cap code.

Historically teams have "wilful gamed" all F1 regs, fuel sensors, barge board tollerances, plank wear, etc to gain an advantage. It's just that the cost cap is the latest regulation.

True to a point, all will push boundaries and then whinge about others that did a better job of it than they did.

But 9 out 10 teams managed to get it right and submit accounts that complied.

One team didn't: that team has since 'won' three championships.

3 WDCs???

2 drivers 2021, 2022; 1 constructors, 2022.