2022 Oracle | Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[JordanMugen]

You do know it will be against the rules to have duplicate car and also shared development

B-teams would have to have manufacturing facilities to build their own chassis and do their own development of course, as AlphaTauri do (aside sharing gearboxes and listed parts). I am not advocating year-old cars or cars built out of the same factory, as that would be against the Constructor requirement of F1.

For reference, AlphaTauri having seen a back-of-the-envelope sketch of sidepod airflows or deducing a sidepod layout based on the exhaust manifold shape and gearbox & rocker shape and then designing a car based on those thoughts is very, very different to receiving blueprints or reverse-engineering a rival team's design.

Anyway, I welcome a "Dacia F1" B-team, "AMG-Line F1" B-team and "Maserati F1" B-team as 26 cars would be good for the sport, and certainly better than going down to 18 cars by removing AlphaTauri.

[f1jcw]

You do know it will be against the rules to have duplicate car and also shared development

B-teams would have to have manufacturing facilities to build their own chassis and do their own development of course, as AlphaTauri do (aside sharing gearboxes and listed parts). I am not advocating year-old cars or cars built out of the same factory, as that would be against the Constructor requirement of F1.

For reference, AlphaTauri having seen a back-of-the-envelope sketch of sidepod airflows or deducing a sidepod layout based on the exhaust manifold shape and gearbox & rocker shape and then designing a car based on those thoughts is very, very different to receiving blueprints or reverse-engineering a rival team's design.

Anyway, I welcome a "Dacia F1" B-team, "AMG-Line F1" B-team and "Maserati F1" B-team as 26 cars would be good for the sport, and certainly better than going down to 18 cars by removing AlphaTauri.

You do know development time is restricted by the budget cap, if they was found to be sharing developments so as to increase the spread of their work it’d be illegal

I’m in favour of customer cars to get more teams on grid but for so,E reason it’s ruled against

[JordanMugen]

I’m in favour of customer cars to get more teams on grid but for so,E reason it’s ruled against

I'm in favour of B-teams that develop and manufacture their own cars, i.e., constructors like AlphaTauri with their own factories, not customer cars.

[Curbstone]

Point me at the the one's where Red Bull were succesful.
I'll point you at Silverstone, where Red Bull were unsuccessful.

Hmm, yes I agree they were very unsuccessful outside of the race in lobbying the stewards directly for a more severe punishment. For many, the racing incident was.. a racing incident. It was penalised. So, one could argue it was successful? Severe enough is too subjective. I would also like to note to you, that the FIA found RBR had inferred some very distasteful things to them. They probably overplayed their position.

If Mercedes is the best at lobbying outside of the race.. I would point to Brazil and suggest that being disqualified for the most marginal infringement from a damage wing, does not support your theory. That is the biggest occasion outside of the race, where they did not succeed and it could've cost them a crucial weekend result. It certainly cost them favourites for 3 points in the sprint which could've been critical in how Max's rival would race him wheel to wheel in the finale.

in comparison, outside of the race, Red Bull were very successful with persuading Masi to bring Sergio Perez back into the race in Belgium.

In Brazil, (and in general since 2019) 'Let them race' has been a philosophy campaigned by Red Bull heavily and was recycled in Brazil by Jonathan "That's all about letting them race" Michael did not refer it to the stewards.

Abu Dhabi goes without saying.

Really, you want to argue Silverstone was in fact successful? You want to leave out lobbying outside the races/sessions, but you bring up the wing infringement which was decided after the session, which is also something Red Bull has nothing to do with? I'm lost in this discussion, and it's better to end it here.

[AeroDynamic]

Point me at the the one's where Red Bull were succesful.
I'll point you at Silverstone, where Red Bull were unsuccessful.

Hmm, yes I agree they were very unsuccessful outside of the race in lobbying the stewards directly for a more severe punishment. For many, the racing incident was.. a racing incident. It was penalised. So, one could argue it was successful? Severe enough is too subjective. I would also like to note to you, that the FIA found RBR had inferred some very distasteful things to them. They probably overplayed their position.

If Mercedes is the best at lobbying outside of the race.. I would point to Brazil and suggest that being disqualified for the most marginal infringement from a damage wing, does not support your theory. That is the biggest occasion outside of the race, where they did not succeed and it could've cost them a crucial weekend result. It certainly cost them favourites for 3 points in the sprint which could've been critical in how Max's rival would race him wheel to wheel in the finale.

in comparison, outside of the race, Red Bull were very successful with persuading Masi to bring Sergio Perez back into the race in Belgium.

In Brazil, (and in general since 2019) 'Let them race' has been a philosophy campaigned by Red Bull heavily and was recycled in Brazil by Jonathan "That's all about letting them race" Michael did not refer it to the stewards.

Abu Dhabi goes without saying.

Really, you want to argue Silverstone was in fact successful? You want to leave out lobbying outside the races/sessions, but you bring up the wing infringement which was decided after the session, which is also something Red Bull has nothing to do with? I'm lost in this discussion, and it's better to end it here.

I told you, Silverstone, a penalty was handed out. That’s a success for what many thought was a racing incident. Max admitted he didn’t see it as intentional.

It’s not about me ‘wanting to leave out lobbying outside of the races’ its about a change the FiA announced yesterday that impacts the teams: no longer being able to lobby in-race. that’s what we are talking about.

It’s y’all that is stuck on ‘out side of race lobbying’ despite the fact no change in that area has been announced. So why would we talk about the impact of a change that hasn’t been made? Explain how the change of no longer being able to lobby a race director in-race would impact the results of races last season for RBR?

It won them a championship last season in Abu Dhabi alone by successfully pressuring the RD into a mistake that won them the title (deciding race)

Like I said, RBR were very skilled in doing this in-race and JW especially, his persuasive talking was an asset for that.

[Curbstone]

Hmm, yes I agree they were very unsuccessful outside of the race in lobbying the stewards directly for a more severe punishment. For many, the racing incident was.. a racing incident. It was penalised. So, one could argue it was successful? Severe enough is too subjective. I would also like to note to you, that the FIA found RBR had inferred some very distasteful things to them. They probably overplayed their position.

If Mercedes is the best at lobbying outside of the race.. I would point to Brazil and suggest that being disqualified for the most marginal infringement from a damage wing, does not support your theory. That is the biggest occasion outside of the race, where they did not succeed and it could've cost them a crucial weekend result. It certainly cost them favourites for 3 points in the sprint which could've been critical in how Max's rival would race him wheel to wheel in the finale.

in comparison, outside of the race, Red Bull were very successful with persuading Masi to bring Sergio Perez back into the race in Belgium.

In Brazil, (and in general since 2019) 'Let them race' has been a philosophy campaigned by Red Bull heavily and was recycled in Brazil by Jonathan "That's all about letting them race" Michael did not refer it to the stewards.

Abu Dhabi goes without saying.

Really, you want to argue Silverstone was in fact successful? You want to leave out lobbying outside the races/sessions, but you bring up the wing infringement which was decided after the session, which is also something Red Bull has nothing to do with? I'm lost in this discussion, and it's better to end it here.

I told you, Silverstone, a penalty was handed out. That’s a success for what many thought was a racing incident, including Max.

It’s not about me ‘wanting to leave out lobbying outside of the races’ it’s about Me talking about a change the FiA announced that impacts the teams: no longer being able to lobby in-race

It’s y’all that is stuck on ‘out side of race lobbying’ despite the fact no change in that area has been announced. So why would we talk about the impact of a change that hasn’t been made? Explain how the change of no longer being able to lobby a race director in-race would impact the results of races last season for RBR?

It won them a championship last season in Abu Dhabi alone by successfully pressuring the RD into a mistake that won them the title.

Like I said, RBR were very skilled in doing this in-race and JW especially, his persuasive talking was an asset for that.

The Silverstone penalty was not a succes, no matter how you twist is. Lewis was given a minor penalty for what Red Bull seemed to adress as an assassination attempt.
Max didn't 'agree' on the 'label' racing incident, you are just making that up.

When I give examples of failed lobbying you dismiss them because they are not during the race. But then you start an argument about how Mercedes was unsuccessful in lobbying outside the race (wing infringement).

I agree Red Bull was skilled, but so was Mercedes, and probably other teams aswell. It's hard to judge because the FOM decides what we hear. So saying Red Bull has lost a clear advantage at this point is just stretching and reaching.

[AeroDynamic]

Really, you want to argue Silverstone was in fact successful? You want to leave out lobbying outside the races/sessions, but you bring up the wing infringement which was decided after the session, which is also something Red Bull has nothing to do with? I'm lost in this discussion, and it's better to end it here.

I told you, Silverstone, a penalty was handed out. That’s a success for what many thought was a racing incident, including Max.

It’s not about me ‘wanting to leave out lobbying outside of the races’ it’s about Me talking about a change the FiA announced that impacts the teams: no longer being able to lobby in-race

It’s y’all that is stuck on ‘out side of race lobbying’ despite the fact no change in that area has been announced. So why would we talk about the impact of a change that hasn’t been made? Explain how the change of no longer being able to lobby a race director in-race would impact the results of races last season for RBR?

It won them a championship last season in Abu Dhabi alone by successfully pressuring the RD into a mistake that won them the title.

Like I said, RBR were very skilled in doing this in-race and JW especially, his persuasive talking was an asset for that.

The Silverstone penalty was not a succes, no matter how you twist is. Lewis was given a minor penalty for what Red Bull seemed to adress as an assassination attempt.
Max didn't 'agree' on the 'label' racing incident, you are just making that up.

When I give examples of failed lobbying you dismiss them because they are not during the race. But then you start an argument about how Mercedes was unsuccessful in lobbying outside the race (wing infringement).

I agree Red Bull was skilled, but so was Mercedes, and probably other teams aswell. It's hard to judge because the FOM decides what we hear. So saying Red Bull has lost a clear advantage at this point is just stretching and reaching.

I corrected the part about racing incident. My point still stands.

You said: RBR saw it as an assassination attempt… a large exaggeration but I’ll take your point and agree with you that they started out with lobbying it as intentional to take max out in an effort to maximise penalty severity as much as they can.

But max later said he didn’t think lewis meant to crash him. So, I’m sorry, but Silverstone was not an assassination attempt and Red Bull changed their stance when they realised their lobbying would only succeed what the stewards felt was a proportionate penalty because both drivers shared blame.

No, again, I didn’t “start an argument” about outside race lobbying. The RBR advocates did.. I made a point that Mercedes’ did not succeed at lobbying a crucial outcome to 3 sprint points in Brazil outside of the race. to satisfy some of the members in the thread who want to talk about lobbying in an area that has seen no changes announced.. I wonder why.

[Morteza]

[Curbstone]

I told you, Silverstone, a penalty was handed out. That’s a success for what many thought was a racing incident, including Max.

It’s not about me ‘wanting to leave out lobbying outside of the races’ it’s about Me talking about a change the FiA announced that impacts the teams: no longer being able to lobby in-race

It’s y’all that is stuck on ‘out side of race lobbying’ despite the fact no change in that area has been announced. So why would we talk about the impact of a change that hasn’t been made? Explain how the change of no longer being able to lobby a race director in-race would impact the results of races last season for RBR?

It won them a championship last season in Abu Dhabi alone by successfully pressuring the RD into a mistake that won them the title.

Like I said, RBR were very skilled in doing this in-race and JW especially, his persuasive talking was an asset for that.

The Silverstone penalty was not a succes, no matter how you twist is. Lewis was given a minor penalty for what Red Bull seemed to adress as an assassination attempt.
Max didn't 'agree' on the 'label' racing incident, you are just making that up.

When I give examples of failed lobbying you dismiss them because they are not during the race. But then you start an argument about how Mercedes was unsuccessful in lobbying outside the race (wing infringement).

I agree Red Bull was skilled, but so was Mercedes, and probably other teams aswell. It's hard to judge because the FOM decides what we hear. So saying Red Bull has lost a clear advantage at this point is just stretching and reaching.

I corrected the part about racing incident. My point still stands.

You said: RBR saw it as an assassination attempt… a large exaggeration but I’ll take your point and agree with you that they started out with lobbying it as intentional to take max out in an effort to maximise penalty severity as much as they can.

But max later said he didn’t think lewis meant to crash him. So, I’m sorry, but Silverstone was not an assassination attempt and Red Bull changed their stance when they realised their lobbying would only succeed what the stewards felt was a proportionate penalty because both drivers shared blame.

No, again, I didn’t “start an argument” about outside race lobbying. The RBR advocates did.. I made a point that Mercedes’ did not succeed at lobbying a crucial outcome to 3 sprint points in Brazil outside of the race. to satisfy some of the members in the thread who want to talk about lobbying in an area that has seen no changes announced.. I wonder why.

Silverstone resulted in a penalty which had zero effect on the outcome of the race. That is not a succes.

You are bringing up Brazil lobbying after you dismissed the apparent sidestep of lobbying outside the race. Nobody asked fot that, and you are not satisfing anyone with that. It's confusing and you are only clouding this non-discussion with that.

[AeroDynamic]

The Silverstone penalty was not a succes, no matter how you twist is. Lewis was given a minor penalty for what Red Bull seemed to adress as an assassination attempt.
Max didn't 'agree' on the 'label' racing incident, you are just making that up.

When I give examples of failed lobbying you dismiss them because they are not during the race. But then you start an argument about how Mercedes was unsuccessful in lobbying outside the race (wing infringement).

I agree Red Bull was skilled, but so was Mercedes, and probably other teams aswell. It's hard to judge because the FOM decides what we hear. So saying Red Bull has lost a clear advantage at this point is just stretching and reaching.

I corrected the part about racing incident. My point still stands.

You said: RBR saw it as an assassination attempt… a large exaggeration but I’ll take your point and agree with you that they started out with lobbying it as intentional to take max out in an effort to maximise penalty severity as much as they can.

But max later said he didn’t think lewis meant to crash him. So, I’m sorry, but Silverstone was not an assassination attempt and Red Bull changed their stance when they realised their lobbying would only succeed what the stewards felt was a proportionate penalty because both drivers shared blame.

No, again, I didn’t “start an argument” about outside race lobbying. The RBR advocates did.. I made a point that Mercedes’ did not succeed at lobbying a crucial outcome to 3 sprint points in Brazil outside of the race. to satisfy some of the members in the thread who want to talk about lobbying in an area that has seen no changes announced.. I wonder why.

Silverstone resulted in a penalty which had zero effect on the outcome of the race. That is not a succes.

You are bringing up Brazil lobbying after you dismissed the apparent sidestep of lobbying outside the race. Nobody asked fot that, and you are not satisfing anyone with that. It's confusing and you are only clouding this non-discussion with that.

Okay lets go in circles then.

others brought up outside race lobbying. I was challenged to bring up an example of outside race lobbying and inside race lobbying. I gave the example of Brazil (outside race lobbying) and dismissed it at the sometime because we are talking about what is relevant to the changes for this season and into the future....


Silverstone wasn't a 'success' because of the effect on the outcome of the race? I guess you haven't heard that the stewards don't make decisions based on the outcome for the competitor. And like I said, it was a racing incident where both drivers had blame, one more than the other after RBR lobbied hard for a penalty.

[PowerandtheGlory]

Redbull completed a shakedown yesterday.. but behind closed doors… do the real car will stay hidden till testing…. Very mysterious….

[ispano6]

“Direct radio communications during the race, currently broadcast live by all TVs, will be removed in order to protect the race director from any pressure and allow him to take decisions peacefully. It will still be possible to ask questions to the race director, according to a well-defined and non-intrusive process.”

for me, this means one of the teams strengths in lobbying the race director for decision outcomes in their favour, is about to evaporate. Jonathan Wheatley was absolutely an Asset in this area, as is Christian Horner.

but with this change, seemingly, one of RBR's strengths has been lost in the blink of an eye.

Championships should be won on track anyway, but still, this strength of the team has proven to be a real asset and I question how much this will impact their weekends without being able to persuade and manipulate the RD.

This is going to put more pressure on Max to defend his title on track.

But you can still send emails.

[morefirejules08]

“Direct radio communications during the race, currently broadcast live by all TVs, will be removed in order to protect the race director from any pressure and allow him to take decisions peacefully. It will still be possible to ask questions to the race director, according to a well-defined and non-intrusive process.”

for me, this means one of the teams strengths in lobbying the race director for decision outcomes in their favour, is about to evaporate. Jonathan Wheatley was absolutely an Asset in this area, as is Christian Horner.

but with this change, seemingly, one of RBR's strengths has been lost in the blink of an eye.

Championships should be won on track anyway, but still, this strength of the team has proven to be a real asset and I question how much this will impact their weekends without being able to persuade and manipulate the RD.

This is going to put more pressure on Max to defend his title on track.

But you can still send emails.

Didn’t Masi say at silverstone he didn’t have access to emails during the race?

[Wouter]

for me, this means one of the teams strengths in lobbying the race director for decision outcomes in their favour, is about to evaporate. Jonathan Wheatley was absolutely an Asset in this area, as is Christian Horner.

but with this change, seemingly, one of RBR's strengths has been lost in the blink of an eye.

Championships should be won on track anyway, but still, this strength of the team has proven to be a real asset and I question how much this will impact their weekends without being able to persuade and manipulate the RD.

This is going to put more pressure on Max to defend his title on track.

.
But you can still send emails.

.
Didn’t Masi say at silverstone he didn’t have access to emails during the race?

.
This is what Masi said to Toto, when Toto said that he send him an email: "I don't access my emails during a race deliberately,
because I am concentrated on the race."
Toto: "Yeah, but maybe you should look at this, I'm coming up."

[morefirejules08]

.
But you can still send emails.

.
Didn’t Masi say at silverstone he didn’t have access to emails during the race?

.
This is what Masi said to Toto, when Toto said that he send him an email: "I don't access my emails during a race deliberately,
because I am concentrated on the race."
Toto: "Yeah, but maybe you should look at this, I'm coming up."

So he didn’t have access to emails then