Red Bull under investigation for illegal engine maps

[schead]

Looks like Adrian and co have been naughty boys with regards to engine maps to enable blown diffusers. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101403

So, what will happen, DQ, back of grid start, or just a slap on the wrist?

[ljakse]

Since it's not Macs, it will be just a slap

[schead]

It seems Andrew Benson reckons they will be DQ'd from quali, and start from the back, but they could appeal and start in their original places. This could mean we don't know the outcome of the German, (and presumably the Hungarian) GP's till the summer break.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/18943608

[Peat]

haha, Ted Kravitz asked Horner about it, his answer: 'I'm not sure that you guys (press) are allowed here (pitlane) while there's a race (GP2) on.'

Classy.

[ASCII Man]

Do they have someone from the old Benetton team designing the electronics or something?

[frostie]

Ian Parkes is saying on Twitter that "no further action will be taken against Red Bull." It's pretty clear though that this hasn't run its course yet

[Mr V]

From what i gather, the rules are so grey that they allow for mis interpretation, well thats a surprise !

[bella]

presumably action on naughty stuff works the same as it does in other non-f1 series - we'll let it slide for now but you'd better fix it before hungary otherwise we'll throw you out and that'll make everyone look bad.

[Born Racer]

Christian Horner taking the moral high ground on Lewis's pass on Vettel.

The technical regs are either written well or craply depending on your perspective. They're ambiguous so should be open but are in fact very restrictive and inclined to not generating technical freedom. If they are designed for ambiguity they should expect teams to push the envelope- part and parcel of the sport.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Mr V

From what i gather, the rules are so grey that they allow for mis interpretation, well thats a surprise !

They can't be that 'grey', otherwise there would be things to discuss* other than engine mapping.

*moan about.

[stripedcat]

Hmm, reminds me of 1994 and the 'extra button' on Schumi's old Benetton. Anyway, I don't think it will come to anything.

The Red Bull is probably level pegged with the Ferrari at the moment, on their performance.

[alfettafan]

Listen carefully and you can already hear the sweeping of the brush as the carpet gets lifted....

[Adam43]

Technically legal. Not what was meant. Giddiness. Clarification. Par for the course.

[stripedcat]

It is much like the 'diffuser ban' for Silverstone last year, it won't come to anything.

Much like Red Bull tried to have Mercedes done for the double DRS system on their car.

[Greem]

Their mucking about must stop:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101476

There's a simple way to solve this for 2013 and on: make exhausts exit a minimum distance behind the rear axle, so all aero parts are in front of it. I hope the cheque's in the post

[JeremySmith]

Red Bull are cheating, why is it so difficult to say this ?

[AussieTimmeh]

Cheating would be a breach of the written rules and the cars would have been excluded. Were the cars excluded? No.

Lots of people are pointing the finger at Red Bull, no-one is pointing their finger at poorly written regulations.

If a policeman tried to book you for a traffic offence and said 'oh but it is the intent of the rules to slow you down, even if you didn't actually break a written rule' and fined you anyway, you would consider it unfair and want it the rules to be better specified.

So in my opinion, people are just as inconsistent as they claim the stewards to be.

[ljakse]

Originally Posted by AussieTimmeh

Cheating would be a breach of the written rules and the cars would have been excluded. Were the cars excluded? No.

Lots of people are pointing the finger at Red Bull, no-one is pointing their finger at poorly written regulations.

If a policeman tried to book you for a traffic offence and said 'oh but it is the intent of the rules to slow you down, even if you didn't actually break a written rule' and fined you anyway, you would consider it unfair and want it the rules to be better specified.

So in my opinion, people are just as inconsistent as they claim the stewards to be.

In these situations I allways think of Benetton in '94, or Ferrari in '99 (not sure about the year, but many here sure remember plates being wider than allowed) - they were cheating! and not excluded!
It has nothing to do with wether they broke the rules or not - it's about viewing figures.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by AussieTimmeh

Cheating would be a breach of the written rules and the cars would have been excluded. Were the cars excluded? No.

Lots of people are pointing the finger at Red Bull, no-one is pointing their finger at poorly written regulations.

If a policeman tried to book you for a traffic offence and said 'oh but it is the intent of the rules to slow you down, even if you didn't actually break a written rule' and fined you anyway, you would consider it unfair and want it the rules to be better specified.

So in my opinion, people are just as inconsistent as they claim the stewards to be.

Agreed.

Somebody once said "The racing begins when the rule book is published."

The FIA should not be allowed to alter or clarify the rules without consensus. The intent is irrelevant if you can't write the rules clearly! This is also why you need a precedence system with written reasons for stewards decisions and judgements to ensure consistency, not just off the cuff decisions!

[garcon]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Red Bull are cheating, why is it so difficult to say this ?

Because they're not Ferrari?

[nicanary]

My posts are regularly (and probably rightly) ignored by members who know far more than I about the sport today.

However, my two-pennorth

Cheating; a)running an oversized engine
b)using doped fuel
c)running an underweight car

Not Cheating:
reading the regulations and realising that the brilliant idea you had is not actually against the rules.

We've had a few in recent years - double diffusers, exhaust-blown diffusers, the Mercedes rear-wing ducts etc. The fuss is all about the other teams who didn't think of it first. Sour grapes.

Surely F1 is all about technical excellence, not "Spec Cars", and engineers and designers who come up with an innovation should be applauded. It's not cheating, it's circumnavigating a problem. Too many Elizabeth Botts in the paddock.

As usual, it's all about the money - nobody can have a better car than me.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by nicanary

Not Cheating:
reading the regulations and realising that the brilliant idea you had is not actually against the rules.

There is, sadly, the grey area between the two:

reading the regulations and working out which specific regulations are written in an ambiguous way which leads development of a system or component to take advantage of that fact

This isn't the same as coming up with a whizzo idea and then holding it up to the rulebook to see if it fits, it's actively exploiting loopholes in the regulations.

Until the loopholes are identified, it isn't against the regulations (or cheating). And remember that there is no "spirit of the regulations". Devices, ideas, designs are either clearly permissible or clearly not permissible *but* the regulator can move the goalposts or modify/clarify regulations in order that the word "clearly" is more applicable.

What I find interesting is Horner's spin on the stewards' decision. They said (paraphprased) "We do not accept the explanation given by the team but the rule does not disallow this system's use"; his reply (paraphrased) "The stewards of the meeting were fully behind us".

No they weren't, Christian, and they made that abundantly clear.

[wnut]

"The stewards of the meeting were fully behind us".

"No they weren't, Christian, and they made that abundantly clear." [Greem]

Hi Greem, can you give us this because it is not what I recall at all, and it would be out of character for Horner.

[pauln]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

Red Bull are cheating, why is it so difficult to say this ?

Because they are not cheating. What they have done is not against the rules as they are written - and in the end that is the litmus test.

It may well breach what was intended by the rules, but that means that the rules need to be tightened or added to. Avoiding comparisons with the Red Peril for once, it's more like the Renault sprung nose ballast of a few years ago than the Benneton "we didn't use them, honest" traction control devices.

Alternatively, Adrian Newey and Red Bull are following the Colin Chapman model of going over the rules very very carefully indeed and seeking to find his "unfair advantage". In my view the "unfair advantage" is that this team is currently better at spotting what can be done within the rules than most others.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by wnut

Hi Greem, can you give us this because it is not what I recall at all, and it would be out of character for Horner.

I was paraphrasing

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101408

"While the stewards do not accept all the arguments of the team, they however conclude that as the regulation is written, the map presented does not breach the text of Art 5.5.3 of the Formula 1 Technical Regulations and therefore decided to take no action." (my emphasis)

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101476

"The rules are pretty black and white and having looked at the evidence, the data, they [the stewards] were fully satisfied."

That's a little disingenuous - the stewards made it clear in their quote above that they were not fully satisfied, but agreed that there was no breach of the way the reg is currently worded.

There is no black and white here, only grey, and IMO Horner's quote there is a little bit of smoke-and-mirrors. Grey smoke, at that