A bit of a stretch. Qualifying was mixed-rainy conditions and Max couldn't really show his best pace on the race because of the starting position.
Austria tooEmag wrote: ↑17 Oct 2024, 21:08A bit of a stretch. Qualifying was mixed-rainy conditions and Max couldn't really show his best pace on the race because of the starting position.
A race like Singapore is actually more "telling". Max had pretty good pace in qualifying for a car that at points was losing ~1s per lap in the first stint against Lando.
It’s part of the sport dude, it isn’t pretty and nobody likes it but I guarantee every team has tricks bending the rules on their carsAMG.Tzan wrote: ↑17 Oct 2024, 21:09How many times of cheating before this team gets disqualified?
And God knows how many years they’ve been running these things like the braking system and this now! They’ve destroyed the championship and the FIA as always doesn’t care about handing them a proper penalty…
Ridiculous!
I don't think the teams are claiming RedBull "manually" was changing the ride height between sessions. That would be stupid and blatantly illegal which would just disqualify them from the session.pantherxxx wrote: ↑17 Oct 2024, 21:09"A Red Bull spokesperson told BBC Sport: "Yes, [the device] exists, although it is inaccessible once the car is fully assembled and ready to run."
Based on Red Bull's explanation, if the device was inaccessible once the car was fully assembled and ready to run, then it would not have been possible to use it to make any illegal adjustments during the critical parc fermé period. So they didn't cheat. It was just something they had to change because other teams had this suspicion.
What about Baku? They had horrible qualy pace, but Perez had very good race pace. I think it's not true what you're implying.AMG.Tzan wrote: ↑17 Oct 2024, 21:10Austria tooEmag wrote: ↑17 Oct 2024, 21:08A bit of a stretch. Qualifying was mixed-rainy conditions and Max couldn't really show his best pace on the race because of the starting position.
A race like Singapore is actually more "telling". Max had pretty good pace in qualifying for a car that at points was losing ~1s per lap in the first stint against Lando.
0,4 advantage in Qualifying…ends up having to battle Norris!
Max went the wrong way with the setup there, experimenting, whereas Perez actually had really good qualifying pace. Unusually so for him. Very close to Oscar.pantherxxx wrote: ↑17 Oct 2024, 21:18What about Baku? They had horrible qualy pace, but Perez had very good race pace. I think it's not true what you're implying.AMG.Tzan wrote: ↑17 Oct 2024, 21:10Austria tooEmag wrote: ↑17 Oct 2024, 21:08
A bit of a stretch. Qualifying was mixed-rainy conditions and Max couldn't really show his best pace on the race because of the starting position.
A race like Singapore is actually more "telling". Max had pretty good pace in qualifying for a car that at points was losing ~1s per lap in the first stint against Lando.
0,4 advantage in Qualifying…ends up having to battle Norris!
That’s how I’m reading into it, I don’t think it is designed to be ran in a race where a driver can touch his wheel and it changes, I think it’s smart tool for between FP sessions etc. given the fia are adamant no device has been used in a race I’d say that’s it, plus it would be quite obvious to most if it was employing some soft of active suspension like trickEmag wrote: ↑17 Oct 2024, 21:15I don't think the teams are claiming RedBull "manually" was changing the ride height between sessions. That would be stupid and blatantly illegal which would just disqualify them from the session.pantherxxx wrote: ↑17 Oct 2024, 21:09"A Red Bull spokesperson told BBC Sport: "Yes, [the device] exists, although it is inaccessible once the car is fully assembled and ready to run."
Based on Red Bull's explanation, if the device was inaccessible once the car was fully assembled and ready to run, then it would not have been possible to use it to make any illegal adjustments during the critical parc fermé period. So they didn't cheat. It was just something they had to change because other teams had this suspicion.
What they are claiming is that RedBull has come up with a "device" (whatever this is), that allows the ride height to be adjustable in some-way between sessions. For example, if you have a fulcrum-lever kind of device which raises the bib up as the weight of the car increases in the rear-end, "technically" nobody is touching the car, but the configuration/setup would change the moment you put fuel in the tank.
I am not claiming this is how it works btw, I am just giving an example on how you could get away with "automatic" systems while claiming the device in itself is inaccessible once the car goes in parc ferme.
Although the final result is pretty good, it's not very telling. With Ferrari out of the picture and Oscar qualifying poorly, the P2 is just a silver-lining in a race weekend which on pure pace, Max was probably as slow or slower than Lando as in Zandvoort.pantherxxx wrote: ↑17 Oct 2024, 21:26My point is that the device could have existed for a number of legal purposes, not necessarily with the intent to break the rules.
For example:
Optimization during assembly: The device could have been used to help adjust the car’s setup before the car enters parc fermé conditions (i.e., before qualifying). Teams are allowed to make various setup changes during free practice sessions, and this device might have been used to fine-tune the car’s height or floor configuration during those times.
Manufacturing flexibility: It’s possible the device was designed to help with the build process or assembly tolerances. Teams aim to make extremely precise adjustments during car construction, and the device might have helped them achieve that level of precision before the car is locked into parc fermé.
In summary, just because the device existed doesn't necessarily mean it was designed to break the rules. It likely had a legitimate purpose for car setup during legal periods, but after rival teams and the FIA raised concerns about its potential for misuse, Red Bull agreed to modify it to avoid any controversy.
In addition, they were supposedly not even allowed to use it in Singapore, even though their performance there didn't drop, as Max finished 2nd.
Exactly this, I feel this was an anticipatory rule change incase they had managed to find a way to use it during a race. I think the consequences would be much more severe had they used it that way in a past GPpantherxxx wrote: ↑17 Oct 2024, 21:26My point is that the device could have existed for a number of legal purposes, not necessarily with the intent to break the rules.
For example:
Optimization during assembly: The device could have been used to help adjust the car’s setup before the car enters parc fermé conditions (i.e., before qualifying). Teams are allowed to make various setup changes during free practice sessions, and this device might have been used to fine-tune the car’s height or floor configuration during those times.
Manufacturing flexibility: It’s possible the device was designed to help with the build process or assembly tolerances. Teams aim to make extremely precise adjustments during car construction, and the device might have helped them achieve that level of precision before the car is locked into parc fermé.
In summary, just because the device existed doesn't necessarily mean it was designed to break the rules. It likely had a legitimate purpose for car setup during legal periods, but after rival teams and the FIA raised concerns about its potential for misuse, Red Bull agreed to modify it to avoid any controversy.
In addition, they were supposedly not even allowed to use it in Singapore, even though their performance there didn't drop, as Max finished 2nd.
