I've laid out number of clear examples of favouritism. All of them cannot be simply a product of chance. And Like I said, they can't have them winning every year. And even in the new regs, the ride height directive is as clear an example of favouritism as there can be. Only one team on the grid wanted it.RacePaceDemon wrote: ↑19 Jul 2024, 14:27Well a lot of your examples were based on post 22 regs so I don't see the winning for 8 years relevance here. And remember, after Ferrari were busted with their illegal engine, it was all dealt with behind closed doors. A bit more suspicious if you ask me. And it's red bull who have likely instigated this investigation into flexi wings.peewon wrote: ↑19 Jul 2024, 14:00They won for 8 years in a row, 2nd or 3rd best for 3 seasons now and more or less back to race winning pace again. If their lack of success is your argument against the theory, then thats more baseless than all those things I listed as being purely coincidental. Even pro wrestling doesn't have the good guy winning all the time.RacePaceDemon wrote: ↑19 Jul 2024, 11:30
I think if any of this had any weight Mercedes would have started winning a lot earlier. Let's not fill this site up with baseless conspiracies
I'm happy to listen to theories on this but I don't think you really have any solid evidence to back your claims. Only a whistleblower would have any validity.
I think most people are uncomfortable with corruption and therefore conspiracies because it's easier to digest the world as fair and merit based.