F1 Fanatic

@freelittlebirds

And obviously to achieve such performance, the designers must have been more creative in their interpretation of the rules

Red Bull may claim that they have not violated any particular rule but collectively they have otherwise their dominance would not exist.

Sometimes the car is just a very good car – with a good philosophy, and a refined design. It’s not a “must be” thing. I’m not saying the Red Bull is completely legal – but your blanket statement is untrue.

It’s like you’re saying, “The valedictorian must have cheated, otherwise she wouldn’t have a 4.0 GPA”

I for one personally don’t like this type of racing where the designers can dictate the outcome of the championship more than the driver or the engine manufacturers

When has F1 not been about chassis? (Pre-aero years notwithstanding)

Would it be incorrect to say that Red Bull and its drivers have been penalized the least given the number of incidents and loopholes they have exploited over the past 2 years?

penalised over what though? Red Bull have used loopholes. Loopholes are 100% legal.

It’s like your teacher sets you a rule “Don’t use Google.” Well – you used Yahoo. That doesn’t go against your teacher’s rule, and you’ve complied 100% to what the teacher said. That’s a loophole. Or should you be penalised for using Yahoo?

@raymondu

Sometimes the car is just a very good car – with a good philosophy, and a refined design. It’s not a “must be” thing. I’m not saying the Red Bull is completely legal – but your blanket statement is untrue.

When has a chassis ever been such a good chassis in the face of so many changes?

For one, I find it hard to believe that the RB7 is faster with EBD and then the RB8 is also faster without EBD and with a stepped nose. In fact if I recall correctly they made some changes mid-season in 2011 and I recall Vettel saying those changes won’t affect the car and guess what “they did not”

Now the car is doing great with DDRS.

Statistically speaking, even Newey should have gotten some things wrong in applying all those updates. Nope, the car is glued down. Oversteer – zero. Underster – zero. Corrections needed while driving – zero. Likelihood RB7 and RB8 are within F1 regulations – (you answer that)?

@freelittlebirds

then the RB8 is also faster without EBD and with a stepped nose

But the RB8 does have an EBD. And to be honest – even a homebrew CFD solution will tell you that the stepped nose is a nothing. Try it (if you have home CFD software) – you’ll find it does nothing but create a little bit of local high pressure, but that’s it.

In fact if I recall correctly they made some changes mid-season in 2011 and I recall Vettel saying those changes won’t affect the car and guess what “they did not”

I don’t follow. Which changes are you talking about? Was it supposed to be a negative or a positive change?

Now the car is doing great with DDRS.

To be honest – a large part of it has been because of DDRS. Some people would go and say “hey, DDRS is only available in qualifying – so how’d they improve the race pace?” The thing is – they’ve been able to produce further rear bodywork changes thanks to the DDRS itself, and the way it interacts with the airflow from the bodywork and the diffuser. In essence, the DDRS has helped Red Bull upgrade their car.

Statistically speaking, even Newey should have gotten some things wrong in applying all those updates

Doesn’t mean it will happen. Try flipping a coin 50 times. I’m willing to bet you won’t get 25 heads and 25 tails.

When has a chassis ever been such a good chassis in the face of so many changes?

When has a basic Newey chassis ever been bad, changes or no changes? Look at 2009 – Red Bull were the fastest car even early in the season, if you take the Brawn away from the results – fastest in Melbourne, fastest in Malaysia – fastest in China, and so on. Without a double diffuser, without any fancy exhausts. Nada.

Look at Barcelona 2009 qualifying – on the most representative of test tracks, that car was beating the nadgers off the Brawn, and only lost out due to a bad start. In Barcelona 2009, without a double diffuser, was quicker than the Brawn with the double diffuser through the quick corners.

Going back to my valedictorian analogy – just because the teacher gives you a surprise test, and changes the test format as a surprise, and they still get 100% – that doesn’t mean they were cheating. It’s certainly possible they were. But it doesn’t mean they were.

Even if you were to look back – say 2008. The car just came alive at the high speed circuits.

You know – Newey actually IS smart. He’s not just king of the loophole.

@freelittlebirds EBDs were ruled out in 2012, in their 2011 form. You couldn’t plant the exhausts on the floor like you could in 2011.

But McLaren, Ferrari, Lotus, Red Bull, Mercedes, Sauber, STR, Force India, Marussia, Caterham are all sending their exhaust gases to the diffuser (Williams tried, but can’t get it to work satisfactorily; HRT didn’t bother)

@freelittlebirds the exhausts were massive on that design. It wasn’t the exhausts they were hiding, it was the tunnels.

And like I’ve said previously. Not losing control is a sign that the driver is driving well – just below the car’s limits, and not above it. It’s simple physics and vehicle dynamics – just below the limit is quicker than even a teensy bit over the limit.

@raymondu999
What are the chances that Vettel and Webber are the only 2 drivers in the field who can drive their cars within its limits in practice, qualifying and the race?

Do they have a record of constantly underdriving their cars at other constructors?

If we look at Alonso, Hamilton and Raikonnen we see numerous occasions where they lose control of the car or catch it before that happens.

We have essentially a 100% record of successful updates from Newey (while the regs are changing against RB’s favor) and 100% driving record to the absolute corner literally from the drivers. That’s without taking into account all the records the RB has shattered. If we were flipping coins, I’d be reaching to see if the coin actually has 2 different sides… If so, I would check it for weight distribution, then for metal composition, then for magnetic fields and so on and so forth before I concede that heads is the only plausible outcome.

I dont like RBRs advantage, and this is an understement, BUT it is not like they can exploit loopholes, while others cant. They did the best job with the avaible resources, and the current set of rules. If they dont mind spending money and introducing upgrades that will be banned from the next race, it is their buisness. Every other team is allowed to do it, and should be. I think the problem is that the other teams are not brave enough, or dont have enough resources to do it.

About the spirit… It is obvious that the technical regulations exist to direct the engineers. If a new rule is introduced, it has is an intention to allow, or ban something. The wording cannot be precise, but I think at this level you shouldnt be able to say: “Oh, so you meant that, Im really sorry, we wont do it from the next race”. If you cant understand a rule AND its intention you shouldnt be in F1. If you pioneer something that has nothing to do with the regulations and their intentions, you let the FIA scratch their heads. It should work like this, but I know it cant. So while the FIA cant find a solution to force the intention of the rules on the teams, they should do everything to be the fastest, including this so called “cheating”.

So the main question is not how RBR can get away, but why the other teams dont try?