Jump to content


Photo

[split] Red Bull ride height adjustment mechanism - Canada


  • Please log in to reply
521 replies to this topic

#1 fololo

fololo
  • Member

  • 960 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 26 July 2012 - 15:29

http://www.auto-moto...on-5305748.html


It is revealed that RBR changed their car between qualy and Race at Canada.


The FIA was ready to DQ but they didnt do anything...

Advertisement

#2 puxanando

puxanando
  • Member

  • 3,538 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 26 July 2012 - 15:39

The FIA was ready to DQ but they didnt do anything...


You think if it had been Ferrari or McLaren the FIA would have reactiond the same way?? :rolleyes:


#3 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,307 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 July 2012 - 15:50

You think if it had been Ferrari or McLaren the FIA would have reactiond the same way?? :rolleyes:

In the middle of a thread about the FIA clamping down on Red Bull, you're really going to act like the FIA are favoring Red Bull?

I dont think there's been a team on this grid thats had more rule and regulation changes directed at them than Red Bull the past few years.

Edited by Seanspeed, 26 July 2012 - 15:51.


#4 Treads

Treads
  • Member

  • 741 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 15:51

You think if it had been Ferrari or McLaren the FIA would have reactiond the same way?? :rolleyes:


A few years ago McLaren would have been crushed for something like this. Crushed like a bug. Not sure about now.

#5 Treads

Treads
  • Member

  • 741 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 15:56

http://www.auto-moto...on-5305748.html


It is revealed that RBR changed their car between qualy and Race at Canada.


The FIA was ready to DQ but they didnt do anything...


My google translated reading of the article is a bit confused - does this say
1. that Red Bull made changes to the ride height between quali and race in Canada?
or
2. is it merely saying that is was possible to do this by hand when the FIA mandated it had to be done using a specific, controlled tool?
or
3. something else?

Because if it's 1. then it's absolutely scandalous cheating.
If it's 2., I I still appalled.
If 3 then please explain what or I am never going to buy a can of Red Bull again...

#6 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,750 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:00

I copied the following from my post in the Ferrari thread - it might get deleted b/c OT there:

http://www.auto-moto...on-5305748.html


according to this RBR cheated at Valencia, they changed the car between Qualy and Race.


The FIA was near to DQ them but they didnt...


That's not what the article says.

Der dritte Fall sickerte erst am Rande des GP Ungarns durch. In Montreal entdeckten die Regelhüter am dritten Dämpfer der Vorderachse im Red Bull RB8 einen unerlaubten Verstellmechanismus. Von der Einstellung des Dämpfers hängt die Bodenfreiheit an der Vorderachse ab. Diese darf sich zwischen Qualifikation und Rennen nicht ändern. Weil Verstellungen von Hand für die Aufpasser in den Boxen schwer zu erkennen wären, hat die FIA die Regel erlassen, dass sämtliche Fahrwerksverstellungen mit einem Werkzeug zu betätigen sind.

Im Fall Red Bull war das aber kinderleicht mit der bloßen Hand möglich. Wer Böses denkt, könnte unterstellen, dass in den Rennen zuvor zwischen Training und Rennen der Bodenabstand verstellt wurde, ohne dass es der Kommissar in den Boxen merkte. Die FIA wies Red Bull an, das umgehend abzustellen, ohne es an die große Glocke zu hängen. Regelexperten meinen: "Man hätte Red Bull in Kanada locker disqualifizieren können."


"The third case became known on the brink of the Hungary GP. In Montreal the FIA inspectors found an illegal mechanism to change the third damper on the front axle. The damper setting affects the front axle ride height, which must not change between quali and race. Because manual changes are difficult to detect for FIA inspectors, the FIA came up with the rule that all suspension changes must require tools. [It's the first time I heard of such a rule - is it written somewhere or is it one of the seemingly endless supply of regulations the FIA never bothered to make public?]

In the case of Red Bull however changing the setting was child's play with the bare hand. If someone wanted to think evil he could insinuate that RBR changed the ride height between quali and race in the preceding races. The FIA told RBR to cease using this mechanism without making noises. Rules experts say that it would have been easy to DQ RBR over this in Montreal"

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 26 July 2012 - 16:11.


#7 RockyRaccoon68

RockyRaccoon68
  • Member

  • 1,430 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:01

If that's true about Canada, and that's a big if, then surely that means they broke parc ferme and got away with it? I don't think the FIA would ignore that.

Edit: Just saw the better translation. So they had an illegal system that provided the possibility to adjust the suspension? That still sounds like a blatant rule break to me.

Edited by RockyRaccoon68, 26 July 2012 - 16:06.


#8 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,323 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:09

[It's the first time I heard of such a rule - is it written somewhere or is it one of the seemingly endless supplies of regulations the FIA never bothered to make public?]


It's in the sporting regulations, I've seen it before. It's article 34.5 of the Sporting Regulations.

34.5 If a competitor modifies any part on the car or makes changes to the set‐up of the suspension
whilst the car is being held under parc fermé conditions the relevant driver must start the race
from the pit lane and follow the procedures laid out in Article 38.2.

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 fermé, it must be clear from physical inspection that
changes cannot be made without the use of tools.


#9 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:11

In the middle of a thread about the FIA clamping down on Red Bull, you're really going to act like the FIA are favoring Red Bull?

I dont think there's been a team on this grid thats had more rule and regulation changes directed at them than Red Bull the past few years.

That's because they're constantly trying to cheat.

And the FIA never penalise them, but let it pay off: there's a delay of some races, and they keep the points. Worst case is they're not allowed to run it after all. Most often they have an unfair advantage for some races, by which time they have some other thing going. It's hard to keep up with it all: hinged floor, aerofoil suspension, aero brakes, free engine maps, now tool-free front heave spring adjustment.

What it needs is a penalty. A reason not to keep running an illegal car. At the moment they've learned pretty much anything is worth a punt.

#10 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,750 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:13

It's in the sporting regulations, I've seen it before. It's article 34.5 of the Sporting Regulations.


Thanks! :up:

#11 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 2,354 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:14

How could they prove the system has been used? I think this will go the same way as Benettons TC in 94.

#12 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,476 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:15

The OP (which comes from a split) is highly misleading because it's a bad translation. The system was there, it wasn't implied or said that it was used.

The OP should be changed.


Still a bunch of cheaters, though. :rotfl:

Edited by Diablobb81, 26 July 2012 - 16:16.


#13 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,750 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:16

How could they prove the system has been used? I think this will go the same way as Benettons TC in 94.


They could not prove it, which is probably why there was no penalty. At the same time the FIA does not need to prove it was used, because having such a mechanism is illegal to have on the car, whether you use it or not (see rule quote by Scheivlak above).

#14 sock22

sock22
  • Member

  • 403 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:19

The OP (which comes from a split) is highly misleading because it's a bad translation. The system was there, it wasn't implied or said that it was used.

The OP should be changed.


Still a bunch of cheaters, though. :rotfl:

It doesn't matter if it is being used or not, if it can be operated by hand then it is breaking rule 34.5 which was posted above.

#15 Coops3

Coops3
  • Member

  • 1,578 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:19

That's because they're constantly trying to cheat.

And the FIA never penalise them, but let it pay off: there's a delay of some races, and they keep the points. Worst case is they're not allowed to run it after all. Most often they have an unfair advantage for some races, by which time they have some other thing going. It's hard to keep up with it all: hinged floor, aerofoil suspension, aero brakes, free engine maps, now tool-free front heave spring adjustment.

What it needs is a penalty. A reason not to keep running an illegal car. At the moment they've learned pretty much anything is worth a punt.


I understand where you're coming from, and sort of feel the same way, but the problem is RBR aren't blatantly breaking any rules (this one excluded - IF it's true). They're pushing the boundaries and forcing rule clarifications.

However, I fully imagine the FIA's patience is wearing thin, so if they cross the line, they're gonna have the book thrown at them. I mean ffs, it's getting beyond a joke.

Edited by Coops3, 26 July 2012 - 16:21.


#16 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,476 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:20

It doesn't matter if it is being used or not, if it can be operated by hand then it is breaking rule 34.5 which was posted above.


It doesn't matter to the point i made. The thread should start with accurate info, especially since the article is in another language.

Of course RB cheated. I can't wait to hear from apologists about "innovation" though (like in the thread about engine maps) and how FIA stifles it. Engine maps and innovation...

Edited by Diablobb81, 26 July 2012 - 16:23.


#17 wacktifosi

wacktifosi
  • Member

  • 113 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:21

How could they prove the system has been used? I think this will go the same way as Benettons TC in 94.


This. They even say in the article that the FIA has directed them to make tools required because it's hard for them to tell a difference in ride heights.

Of course 'We had it installed but did not use it' is one of the funniest things I've ever heard out of an F1 team member regarding performance upgrades but you can't just start issuing penalties for perceived infractions (although I suppose they could have for the having the tool-less damper being equipped if such a rule exists).

#18 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:22

In the case of Red Bull however changing the setting was child's play with the bare hand. If someone wanted to think evil he could insinuate that RBR changed the ride height between quali and race in the preceding races. The FIA told RBR to cease using this mechanism without making noises. Rules experts say that it would have been easy to DQ RBR over this in Montreal"

So FIA did it on the quiet :down:

And when did they last inspect the damper, i.e. how many races was it on the car for? We don't know.

#19 sock22

sock22
  • Member

  • 403 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:23

It doesn't matter to the point i made. The thread should start with accurate info, especially since the article is in another language.

Of course RB cheated. I can't wait to hear from apologists about "innovation" though (like in the thread about engine maps) and how FIA stifles it. Engine maps and innovation...

Sorry, quoted the wrong post :p

Advertisement

#20 puxanando

puxanando
  • Member

  • 3,538 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:26

So FIA did it on the quiet :down:

And when did they last inspect the damper, i.e. how many races was it on the car for? We don't know.


I can imagine they are playing this game now the 3.season.......and probably we never will know all the things RBR was trying for cheating.
They must have a powerful lobby there in FIA!

#21 kosmos

kosmos
  • Member

  • 6,621 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:26

I wonder how many rules they broke in the last years without being caught.

#22 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,409 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:26

However, I fully imagine the FIA's patience is wearing thin, so if they cross the line, they're gonna have the book thrown at them. I mean ffs, it's getting beyond a joke.


The FIA will no precisely nothing about anything less that flagrant rule breaking by RBR. IMO, they are never going to penalise a reigning double champion team and driver; it would bring too many questions about what they got away with in the past and devalue the flagship WDC. Probably.

Edit: we have seen in the past that teams have been "persuaded" to drop various claims for the good of the championship's reputation, and it is upon that which I base my opinion.

Edited by smitten, 26 July 2012 - 16:27.


#23 puxanando

puxanando
  • Member

  • 3,538 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:27

I wonder how many rules they broke in the last years without being caught.


I thougt the same!


#24 jrg19

jrg19
  • Member

  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:27

So they have had something on the car since Canada allows them to change the car between qualifying and the race?

#25 Kvothe

Kvothe
  • Member

  • 6,814 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:27

So they have had something on the car since Canada allows them to change the car between qualifying and the race?


Discovered at Canada who knows how long they've had it.

#26 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,476 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:28

So they have had something on the car since Canada allows them to change the car between qualifying and the race?


Only in Canada was it found. It is not known if RB had it before.

#27 jrg19

jrg19
  • Member

  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:31

I wonder if Webber once his F1 career is finished will expose all the tricks RB have been doing over the years.

#28 Obi Offiah

Obi Offiah
  • Member

  • 8,350 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:34

How could they prove the system has been used? I think this will go the same way as Benettons TC in 94.

34.5 If a competitor modifies any part on the car or makes changes to the set‐up of the suspension
whilst the car is being held under parc fermé conditions the relevant driver must start the race
from the pit lane and follow the procedures laid out in Article 38.2.

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 fermé, it must be clear from physical inspection that
changes cannot be made without the use of tools.

Edited by Obi Offiah, 26 July 2012 - 16:38.


#29 wacktifosi

wacktifosi
  • Member

  • 113 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:36

I wonder if Webber once his F1 career is finished will expose all the tricks RB have been doing over the years.


I was wondering today actually if we would ever get a book or anything in the future about all of this (only way we'll know anything for sure). Newey wouldn't because he doesn't seem like that kind of guy, Horner I don't think would ever admit it, Helmut...well, it would be interesting, but I forgot about Mark! That would be a good one!

EDIT: Is the penalty for changes in parc ferme really only that you start from the pits? I'm surprised we don't see more takers on these monsoon days.

Edited by wacktifosi, 26 July 2012 - 16:40.


#30 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,307 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:36

That's because they're constantly trying to cheat.

And the FIA never penalise them, but let it pay off: there's a delay of some races, and they keep the points. Worst case is they're not allowed to run it after all. Most often they have an unfair advantage for some races, by which time they have some other thing going. It's hard to keep up with it all: hinged floor, aerofoil suspension, aero brakes, free engine maps, now tool-free front heave spring adjustment.

What it needs is a penalty. A reason not to keep running an illegal car. At the moment they've learned pretty much anything is worth a punt.

Trying to find loopholes is not the same thing as trying to cheat. Which is probably why they aren't getting penalized for it! :eek:

The point is that its really asinine to throw around accusations of favoritism by the FIA in a time when they, on their own accord and not a result of other teams complaining, are making a clarification to stop Red Bull from doing something.

As for this specific instance, I'd like to hear the information verified somewhere else(or a source would be nice) before I get riled up over it.

#31 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,164 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:41

Trying to find loopholes is not the same thing as trying to cheat. Which is probably why they aren't getting penalized for it! :eek:

The point is that its really asinine to throw around accusations of favoritism by the FIA in a time when they, on their own accord and not a result of other teams complaining, are making a clarification to stop Red Bull from doing something.

As for this specific instance, I'd like to hear the information verified somewhere else(or a source would be nice) before I get riled up over it.


Agreed, but I also think there should be a limit to the amount of times a team can be told "That's naughty, we'll let you off this time but don't do it again."

#32 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,419 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:44

Looks like the FIA are revoking their season pass to take the piss.

Quite ironic given that the RRA discussions are allegedly being hindered by said team.


Oh to be fly on the wall......

#33 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 8,890 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:46

Nothing new here. This has always been the way Newey operates. Byrne too as a matter of fact.

What they do is, they don't go to FIA and seek clarification for a borderline piece. They bolt it on and gain as many points as possible from it until they're caught.

Sneaky but effective.

#34 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:47

I'm ashamed to follow this sport sometimes. This is ridiculous.

#35 wacktifosi

wacktifosi
  • Member

  • 113 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:48

Nothing new here. This has always been the way Newey operates. Byrne too as a matter of fact.

What they do is, they don't go to FIA and seek clarification for a borderline piece. They bolt it on and gain as many points as possible from it until they're caught.

Sneaky but effective.


Also a handy way to look persecuted. (if you're the cynical type, of course ;) )

#36 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,307 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:48

Agreed, but I also think there should be a limit to the amount of times a team can be told "That's naughty, we'll let you off this time but don't do it again."

I dont. Its the nature of F1.

#37 wacktifosi

wacktifosi
  • Member

  • 113 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:52

I dont. Its the nature of F1.


That's fine, but then the team has to expect and accept penalties and technical directives sent its way. There is always going to be a penalty for crossing the line, and if you do it frequently and egregiously then you will find yourself in some bad positions.

It's the nature of F1.

#38 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,307 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:53

There is always going to be a penalty for crossing the line

Yup, which is why Red Bull conveniently draw a nice big fat grey line that they can stand on rather than cross over it.

#39 wacktifosi

wacktifosi
  • Member

  • 113 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:54

Yup, which is why Red Bull conveniently draw a nice big fat grey line that they can stand on rather than cross over it.


Nothing grey about this one. Dampers most be tool adjustable only, Red Bull had a hand adjustable damper. Case closed.

Advertisement

#40 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,307 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:54

Nothing grey about this one. Dampers most be tool adjustable only, Red Bull had a hand adjustable damper. Case closed.

According to this one source....

#41 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 8,890 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:55

Also a handy way to look persecuted. (if you're the cynical type, of course ;) )

I think this is all about winning. They don't give 2 ticks about what the next man thinks.

I'm actually surprised about the outrage here and on the torque map thread... This is just the way this sport, if can be called that, works.

#42 wacktifosi

wacktifosi
  • Member

  • 113 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 16:56

According to this one source....


Fair enough, we shall see.

And for the record, I am a fan of Red Bulls grey area exploits (even if it's painful as a Ferrari fan), but this (if true, of course) is just dirty and I'm sad to see them do something like it.

F2183, I agree, I don't think that is their motivation, it's just a convenient angle for Christian to take as he sees fit.

Edited by wacktifosi, 26 July 2012 - 16:56.


#43 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 1,717 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 17:01

I think this is all about winning. They don't give 2 ticks about what the next man thinks.

I'm actually surprised about the outrage here and on the torque map thread... This is just the way this sport, if can be called that, works.


A Fair amount of mock outrage appears with regards to anything Red Bull (guilty or not)

#44 RockyRaccoon68

RockyRaccoon68
  • Member

  • 1,430 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 26 July 2012 - 17:02

Weren't the other teams very suspicious of Red Bull ride height back in 2010?

#45 wacktifosi

wacktifosi
  • Member

  • 113 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 17:06

Weren't the other teams very suspicious of Red Bull ride height back in 2010?


Yes, but I'd hope the FIA got wind and had a look.

If not that would make them massively incompetent, and mean that RB won its titles with illegal cars, and if the FIA did find out eventually they would try to sweep it under the rug, and...oh dear. (WARNING, JOKE)

#46 Roonaldo

Roonaldo
  • Member

  • 68 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 26 July 2012 - 17:09

At some point I hope Redbull get what they deserve, cheats should never prosper.

#47 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 1,717 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 17:13

At some point I hope Redbull get what they deserve, cheats should never prosper.


Well firstly you need to be certain that they are in fact cheating, which nobody is. On this thread and another, I've read how disgraceful, disgusting etc RBR are with some rather hysterical reactions (some who support a team with a less than clean recent history I should add)

If RBR have knowingly cheated and this is proven beyond doubt, fire away but as it stands right now, they have yet to, at any time over the past few years of success and despite one team constantly banging the FIA's door, be found guilty of anything.

#48 Menace

Menace
  • Member

  • 12,287 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 26 July 2012 - 17:14

In the middle of a thread about the FIA clamping down on Red Bull, you're really going to act like the FIA are favoring Red Bull?

I dont think there's been a team on this grid thats had more rule and regulation changes directed at them than Red Bull the past few years.


Quoted for truth. :up:

#49 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,772 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 26 July 2012 - 17:43

The level of hysterical incompetence is rising with frightening rates on this BB.
Actually I've seen discussion about this at another place. If a team can make a system fast enough to be within the time limits of a bit prolonged pitstop, which can alter suspension characteristics, they can use it. During the race it is not prohibited, only the required time prevents them from doing it.

#50 BigWicks

BigWicks
  • Member

  • 750 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 26 July 2012 - 17:53

Weren't the other teams very suspicious of Red Bull ride height back in 2010?


yes, even more so in 2011. vettel's ability to suddenly find massive amounts of time in q3 and in the early stages of the race was... odd. i'm not saying there was anything illegal going on but it just looked strange.