This forum contains threads to discuss teams themselves. Anything not technical about the cars, including restructuring, performances etc belongs here.
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.
Austria too
0,4 advantage in Qualifying…ends up having to battle Norris!
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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 trick
My 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.
My 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.
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.
Last edited by Emag on 17 Oct 2024, 21:29, edited 1 time in total.
My 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 GP
It could explain Verstappens mega pole lap in Spa, then his very average race pace the following day?
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.
Austria too
0,4 advantage in Qualifying…ends up having to battle Norris!
It could also explain why McLaren was faster compared to Red Bull at end of thr race when you get closest to qualifying weight. For example Imola and Austria.
Red Bull was able to run low in qualy and start ahead, have good pace in early stints but lose pace at the end of the race.
Btw if this is visible in open source documents that the teams can see then they can pinpoint when that design came into effect. I am very interested whether this is something new or maybe they had it for a while (2023?).
Not sure how to treat it if it ends up being on the car longer. Hard to prove it was used but then again, if you have a "cheating device" isn't that already illegal? If Mercedes wheel could DAS today it would be illegal even if they don't use it.
Btw if this is visible in open source documents that the teams can see then they can pinpoint when that design came into effect. I am very interested whether this is something new or maybe they had it for a while (2023?).
Not sure how to treat it if it ends up being on the car longer. Hard to prove it was used but then again, if you have a "cheating device" isn't that already illegal? If Mercedes wheel could DAS today it would be illegal even if they don't use it.
Everyone has access to the spec of the bib and such, however if they saw pieces that could be used in a way as described than it would be flagged, it’s likely been seen by the teams being used during free practice and caught people’s imagination
Btw if this is visible in open source documents that the teams can see then they can pinpoint when that design came into effect. I am very interested whether this is something new or maybe they had it for a while (2023?).
Not sure how to treat it if it ends up being on the car longer. Hard to prove it was used but then again, if you have a "cheating device" isn't that already illegal? If Mercedes wheel could DAS today it would be illegal even if they don't use it.
Everyone has access to the spec of the bib and such, however if they saw pieces that could be used in a way as described than it would be flagged, it’s likely been seen by the teams being used during free practice and caught people’s imagination
You should be able to tell - this part was designed as such since XY. I want to know when they brought it.
My 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.
Are you serious? Teams are fighting for grams of weight, and Red Bull is racing with a device that doesn't work?
They robbed McLaren of valid wins because of the trick
Dude, you could say the same with their double DRS rear wing, it’s all about pushing boundaries in this sport
If ride height was changed inside parc fermé using this device then it isn't similar to the McLaren rear wing. It would be completely illegal, not just a grey area.
Spot on… This isn’t about “the spirit of the rules”… “If” (and that’s a big “If”) this was actually used to change the ride height, there is not interpretation of the rules, there is no boundaries been pushed, this is plain and simply illegal.
Btw if this is visible in open source documents that the teams can see then they can pinpoint when that design came into effect. I am very interested whether this is something new or maybe they had it for a while (2023?).
Not sure how to treat it if it ends up being on the car longer. Hard to prove it was used but then again, if you have a "cheating device" isn't that already illegal? If Mercedes wheel could DAS today it would be illegal even if they don't use it.
Everyone has access to the spec of the bib and such, however if they saw pieces that could be used in a way as described than it would be flagged, it’s likely been seen by the teams being used during free practice and caught people’s imagination
You should be able to tell - this part was designed as such since XY. I want to know when they brought it.
This is the odd thing with it however, the device itself and the bib is completely legal and within regulation, it’s what it does that can change that. Redbull was informed and monitored during the Singapore GP and kept the same design, they don’t need to change the bib, just ensure that there is no access during the stage from Quali to race.
The Bib itself I imagine will have the exact same structure this weekend but modified to remove access to its adjustment
Dude, you could say the same with their double DRS rear wing, it’s all about pushing boundaries in this sport
If ride height was changed inside parc fermé using this device then it isn't similar to the McLaren rear wing. It would be completely illegal, not just a grey area.
Spot on… This isn’t about “the spirit of the rules”… “If” (and that’s a big “If”) this was actually used to change the ride height, there is not interpretation of the rules, there is no boundaries been pushed, this is plain and simply illegal.
I agree, however mclarens rear wing wasn’t a grey area, it was obvious to the fia after Azerbaijan that it wasn’t conforming to the regulations hence its immediate change.
The regulations clearly state that you cannot have the main plane of the rear wing flex to an extent that it allows a a certain gap, the wing didn’t conform
My 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.
Are you serious? Teams are fighting for grams of weight, and Red Bull is racing with a device that doesn't work?
It does work during the legal window of car setup, but not during parc fermé, since that would violate the rules.
