Red Bull RB8 Renault

[Neno]

Horner admitting that it was possible to make adjustments manually, also means he admits they broke the rules. Which takes me back to my original question: why was no penalty handed out, even if "only" a quiet, out of the limelights monetary one.

It is strange that there isn't even a hint of any penalties, especially after all the little controversies in the Red Bull garage this year. Just wondering is there actually any outlines in the rules for the kind of punishment which could have been given to Red Bull or even a precedent for a similar situation?

i think FIA wont punish them, because this could make more bad images in F1. Last few years you had Mclaren-Ferrari scandal, then Renault - Singapore 2009. now you Red Bull (and they champions in last two years). Bad reputation for F1, especially when champion cheated will make bigger scandal from this two.

[thearmofbarlow]

because this could make more bad images in F1.

Or maybe because it just doesn't matter that much.

[Cam]

or maybe, just maybe, there was no breach?

16.1 "Incident" means any occurrence or series of occurrences involving one or more drivers, or any action by any driver, which is reported to the stewards by the race director (or noted by the stewards and subsequently investigated) which :
a) Necessitated the suspension of a race under Article 41.
b) Constituted a breach of these Sporting Regulations or the Code.
c) Caused a false start by one or more cars.
d) Caused a collision.
e) Forced a driver off the track.
f) Illegitimately prevented a legitimate overtaking manoeuvre by a driver.
g) Illegitimately impeded another driver during overtaking.

There's been no penalty handed down, so no breach. Innocent until proven guilty. This isn't a (insert dictatorship here) country. Calling people cheaters without evidence is defamation..... Chillax, enjoy the to and fro of arbitrage and await an actual published breach - then go nuts.

[Neno]

because this could make more bad images in F1.

Or maybe because it just doesn't matter that much.

Say's who? Do you think rest of FOTA teams will just stand and applause Red Bull, if whole story is true? But back on topic, RB8 is great car, even if you cheat, you can't cheat good enough without good car.

[Ral]

or maybe, just maybe, there was no breach?

But there was.

Article 34.5 of the Sporting Regulations
In order that the scrutineers may be completely satisfied that no alterations have been made to the suspension systems or aerodynamic configuration of the car (with the exception of the front wing) whilst in post qualifying parc ferme, it must be clear from physical inspection that changes cannot be made without the use of tools.

"It was something that could either be changed by hand or by tool, but the FIA said they preferred it was a tool that was used," Horner told AUTOSPORT.

Horner, in every single interview on this topic has deflected the question like a true politician and tried to change the issue into whether or not manual adjustments were made. That is irrelevant. Completely besides the point. In itself, nothing to do with the rule in question. Which he admits was broken, even if he doesn't use these exact words.

I'm not arguing that they should be punished, that argument has lost its relevance because they weren't even though they should have been. I'm asking why weren't they? Why is it that all the FIA did, was reiterate what was already stated in the rules? No, they didn't even do that if Horner's quote is accurate; if it is, then all they did was ask them to please not use the option to make the manual adjustments, if it please the good sirs. Why?

Also, I'm not calling them cheats. They would have been cheating if they had made the adjustments manually, which is what the rule was drawn up to prevent from happening, and there is simply no way to be sure whether they did or not. I am saying they broke the rules. I am saying this, and will keep on saying this, because Horner and Marko and anyone at RBR who has been questioned about this has admitted that it was possible to make manual adjustments even though the rule states it should not be. That they broke this particular rule is not in question. If they cheated, that's up for debate I guess, but it's not a debate I care to get into.

[Cam]

I thought the FIA guy from Canada said 'he wasn't sure' if it was adjustable by hand.

No penalty. No breach.

[CHT]

or maybe, just maybe, there was no breach?

But there was.

Article 34.5 of the Sporting Regulations
In order that the scrutineers may be completely satisfied that no alterations have been made to the suspension systems or aerodynamic configuration of the car (with the exception of the front wing) whilst in post qualifying parc ferme, it must be clear from physical inspection that changes cannot be made without the use of tools.

"It was something that could either be changed by hand or by tool, but the FIA said they preferred it was a tool that was used," Horner told AUTOSPORT.

Horner, in every single interview on this topic has deflected the question like a true politician and tried to change the issue into whether or not manual adjustments were made. That is irrelevant. Completely besides the point. In itself, nothing to do with the rule in question. Which he admits was broken, even if he doesn't use these exact words.

I'm not arguing that they should be punished, that argument has lost its relevance because they weren't even though they should have been. I'm asking why weren't they? Why is it that all the FIA did, was reiterate what was already stated in the rules? No, they didn't even do that if Horner's quote is accurate; if it is, then all they did was ask them to please not use the option to make the manual adjustments, if it please the good sirs. Why?

Also, I'm not calling them cheats. They would have been cheating if they had made the adjustments manually, which is what the rule was drawn up to prevent from happening, and there is simply no way to be sure whether they did or not. I am saying they broke the rules. I am saying this, and will keep on saying this, because Horner and Marko and anyone at RBR who has been questioned about this has admitted that it was possible to make manual adjustments even though the rule states it should not be. That they broke this particular rule is not in question. If they cheated, that's up for debate I guess, but it's not a debate I care to get into.

Such exploitation is expected when there is too much stability in the technical regulation. F1 team will always try to exploit every little loop hole of the wording on the FIA technical regulation. This is just part and parcel of F1 and perhaps the foundation and motivation for innovation in F1.

[Ral]

I thought the FIA guy from Canada said 'he wasn't sure' if it was adjustable by hand.

No penalty. No breach.

"He wasn't sure" means "it wasn't clear" to him, which already means the rule was broken, but all he did was ask RBR to change the part.

It was later confirmed that it was definitely possible, which put the breach beyond any doubt.

No penalty doesn't mean there wasn't a breach. You've got that the wrong way around.

[Just_a_fan]

There's been no penalty handed down, so no breach.

Not really. A simple analogy for you: if you exceed the speed limit on the roads then you have broken the law. Just because a policeman didn't catch you doesn't make it any less illegal. You have broken the law.

The idea that it's ok to cheat until you get caught is a very bad principle and certainly one that a global-reach sport such as F1 should not be promoting. Look at the effort that other sports, e.g. athletics, go to in order to stop people using performance enhancing drugs. If you use a drug then you're a cheat from the moment the first molecule goes in to your system. You're not Johnny Innocent just because the doping guys haven't yet tested you. You're a cheat pure and simple.

Going back to the car, if the rules say that an adjustment must only be made using a tool and you design something which can be adjusted with or without a tool then your car is in breach of the rules. If you knowingly have that system on your car and no one picks it up that doesn't stop you being a cheat. It just means that the design is well hidden or the scrutineers are negligent. Either way, you're still cheating.

It is the duty of all competitors to abide by the rules at all times. There is a name for a competitor who tries to hide rule breaking from the scrutineers/stewards in the hope that an advantage will accrue: cheat.

[Cam]

It's only illegal if you get caught.

I understand what you're saying, but again, unless the FIA rule there was a breach and hand down a penalty, then I don't see how anyone else can say otherwise. The FIA are the adjudicators. If any team has broken the rules, then a penalty must follow. Nothing has been handed down in this instance, so ergo - no rules broken.

If the RB8 had been deemed illegal and the FIA publicly ruled as such, then go hard. All the while the judge says 'no crime' the public can't lynch, no matter what you think or think you know. Welcome the grey area.

[gato azul]

The FIA are the adjudicators. If any team has broken the rules, then a penalty must follow.
Nothing has been handed down in this instance, so ergo - no rules broken.
All the while the judge says 'no crime' the public can't lynch, no matter what you think or think you know.
Welcome the grey area.

Sorry Cam - no offense, but what you write in this context is funny to read.
You say rule broken --> penalty must follow, but there is no universal natural law that state, that this is always the case, sure one would hope so, but surely that is not a fact.
Welcome to the grey area, or better to the real world.
Not proven guilty, does not mean necessary innocent.

So while, the fact is (the only one so far) that the FIA did not handed down any penalty/ruling whatever, saying ergo no rule broken, is just your opinion, to which you are perfectly entitled, but it is not a fact, and it is not the only possible scenario.

It's the difference between
12+12=24 and 24=12+12

[Cam]

yeah sorry, I didn't really mean it to be so black and white (here's me loving the grey area). You're right of course, the FIA have discretion - even when a rule is broken, they can decide to punish or not and to what degree. I guess I was trying to point out that the FIA, even with discretion, haven't stated that any rules were broken, so there's no way anyone else can.

Edit: I suppose the FIA could state "rule broken - remedy offending component - no penalty", but that hasn't occurred either.

[.poz]

Horner, in every single interview on this topic has deflected the question like a true politician and tried to change the issue into whether or not manual adjustments were made.

Marko said: "We have never adjusted anything by hand."

To me looks like an answer suggested by a lawyer. If they used a small screwdriver they never adjusted anything by hand.

[turbof1]

Horner, in every single interview on this topic has deflected the question like a true politician and tried to change the issue into whether or not manual adjustments were made.

Marko said: "We have never adjusted anything by hand."

To me looks like an answer suggested by a lawyer. If they used a small screwdriver they never adjusted anything by hand.

Maybe they adjusted it with a finger. That's not a hand either.

[Dragonfly]

Or by jacking the car up to a certain height and then lowering it. So many variations and so little actual information.