2021 Red Bull Racing F1 Team

[godlameroso]

Sorry to interject but who had a 3 year head start and when was that?

Mercedes had a 3 year head start into the hybrid era. I will say they had some good people, but Mercedes burned them out and they left as a result. Too much pressure for results. I imagine one of their lead Aero guys and Andy Cowell jumped ship because of it.

You don't see things like that in RBR, people stay if they can hack it, they give you space to spread your wings and fly so to speak, and if it works out great, if it doesn't, at least you know where you stand.

[zibby43]

.
https://www.krone.at/2466050

Translated by GT.

.
Just as a heads up, this source is considered one of the most unreliable and disreputable outlets in Europe.

It’s basically worse than tabloid journalism. And it’s pretty easy to tell that it’s likely made up, as if it were true, the lawyer’s name and firm would be listed.

The positive is, since it is likely made up, I can actually retain a modicum of respect for Marko.

.

My evidence here to you was deleted. Here is new evidence that the Krone was right.
.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7TkAqNWYAM ... ame=medium

This has nothing to do with lawyers.

This process is within the regulatory framework of the sport.

[LaplacesDemon]

Sorry to interject but who had a 3 year head start and when was that?

Mercedes had a 3 year head start into the hybrid era. I will say they had some good people, but Mercedes burned them out and they left as a result. Too much pressure for results. I imagine one of their lead Aero guys and Andy Cowell jumped ship because of it.

You don't see things like that in RBR, people stay if they can hack it, they give you space to spread your wings and fly so to speak, and if it works out great, if it doesn't, at least you know where you stand.

I don't want to debate that but I will say that just like chassis regs the PU regs were released to all parties at the same time and all manufacturers who had a stake at the time participated in shaping said regulations.

To claim anyone had such a large head start is honestly baseless speculation.

Also can I ask where your insight into the work culture at Merc and RBR comes from?
Don't you think the "burnt out" Mercedes employees and the unlimited resources+ 3year head start are at odds with each other?

[zibby43]

Since this has been accepted redbull has succeeded in doing so.

Not true… according to F1.com, Thursdays hearing is to rule on this evidence

The FIA’s International Sporting Code permits a right to review if “a significant and relevant new element is discovered which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned”.

If Red Bull do not meet that criteria - and it is unknown at this time what they intend to present - the request will be rejected. Should the stewards feel it meets the criteria, the investigation will be reopened.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... HVVo4.html

No, this actually means that the new evidence is valid and they will examine it in order to open the case.
The same was not allowed to Ferrari when they attempted the same after the famous Canadian GP.
https://twitter.com/Vetteleclerc/status ... 35907?s=19

Incorrect. The video hearing on Thursday is to consider whether the evidence RBR has is, in fact, considered new. Ferrari made it to this same step, but their evidence was rejected.

If new evidence *is* accepted on Thursday, they’ll proceed with the review, where it is unlikely anything will change. Never in the history of this process has a penalty been altered after the fact.

[godlameroso]

Sorry to interject but who had a 3 year head start and when was that?

Mercedes had a 3 year head start into the hybrid era. I will say they had some good people, but Mercedes burned them out and they left as a result. Too much pressure for results. I imagine one of their lead Aero guys and Andy Cowell jumped ship because of it.

You don't see things like that in RBR, people stay if they can hack it, they give you space to spread your wings and fly so to speak, and if it works out great, if it doesn't, at least you know where you stand.

I don't want to debate that but I will say that just like chassis regs the PU regs were released to all parties at the same time and all manufacturers who had a stake at the time participated in shaping said regulations.

To claim anyone had such a large head start is honestly baseless speculation.

Also can I ask where your insight into the work culture at Merc and RBR comes from?
Don't you think the "burnt out" Mercedes employees and the unlimited resources+ 3year head start are at odds with each other?

You hear things here and there, see some clues, and talk to people here and there, and the picture starts becoming clear. Why would Andy Cowell leave after the Mercedes engine takes a huge performance jump in one season? Why would James Allison change roles? Why would one of their best aero guys jump ship and do his own thing, claiming he left after being "burned out"? You don't just leave a championship winning team if the atmosphere at the team is great, something else caused them to leave. Just like a poster on here just suddenly stopped posting altogether, deleted all his comments, when he started speaking publicly about Mercedes financial and personnel situation.

Things like that often raise red flags in my book, but maybe I'm overanalyzing things.

[godlameroso]

So how many times have they declared RBR's wings illegal with the new checks? 0? I guess I'm wrong again, my mistake.

Jesus man it's a pretty straightforward senario. They developed a new wing to ensure they comply with the new and much tighter regulations, just like every other teams on the grid did.

Remember that teams had a few weeks to introduce their new designs. RBR was ready with a regulation friendly wing in two weeks from the decree. A new rear wing with a new structure takes a little longer than that to design and put on the car. Then you have to consider why something like this happened. Because of Mercedes demanding a new rear wing on all its competitors it bought itself more time to develop it's own updates, while seeing what their competitors were doing.

[Just_a_fan]

Why would one of their best aero guys jump ship and do his own thing, claiming he left after being "burned out"?

Things like that often raise red flags in my book, but maybe I'm overanalyzing things.

I think you're overanalysing it. He left because he was burnt out. It's a long hours, high stress job. People can only take so much of that before they have to let go. Different people have different thresholds and reasons for why they are burnt out. Maybe his family/life meant more to him than yet another team title. Work/life balance is a funny thing like that.

[dans79]

Because you weren't and you're still wrong on bendy wings being down to suspension travel, as has been proven, over, and over, and over.

The very fact that the FIA added markers to the wings to check flex with the onboard camera's accurately themselves exactly as we were all doing should tell you that, but you didn't stop to think for a second on that one.

So how many times have they declared RBR's wings illegal with the new checks? 0? I guess I'm wrong again, my mistake.

Teams including RBR introduced TD018-21 compliant wings from France onwards.
RBR have even stated it would cost them half a million GBP to develop these.

Yep, and they said it would cost that much because it had to be done quickly.

[Just_a_fan]

So how many times have they declared RBR's wings illegal with the new checks? 0? I guess I'm wrong again, my mistake.

Jesus man it's a pretty straightforward senario. They developed a new wing to ensure they comply with the new and much tighter regulations, just like every other teams on the grid did.

Remember that teams had a few weeks to introduce their new designs. RBR was ready with a regulation friendly wing in two weeks from the decree. A new rear wing with a new structure takes a little longer than that to design and put on the car. Then you have to consider why something like this happened. Because of Mercedes demanding a new rear wing on all its competitors it bought itself more time to develop it's own updates, while seeing what their competitors were doing.

If RBR brought a new wing in a quicker time than you think should have been possible, that suggests that they had one already to go - presumably because they thought that someone might flag up the rear wing. Careful planning by a team that is pushing the boundaries of the rules.

[godlameroso]

Because you weren't and you're still wrong on bendy wings being down to suspension travel, as has been proven, over, and over, and over.

The very fact that the FIA added markers to the wings to check flex with the onboard camera's accurately themselves exactly as we were all doing should tell you that, but you didn't stop to think for a second on that one.

So how many times have they declared RBR's wings illegal with the new checks? 0? I guess I'm wrong again, my mistake.

Teams including RBR introduced TD018-21 compliant wings from France onwards.
RBR have even stated it would cost them half a million GBP to develop these.

RBR's compliant wing was introduced in Baku, and the tests would become more stringent to allow teams a grace period to stiffen up their wing construction post France, final FIA requirement was introduced in Austria 2. Red Bull passed all tests.

[N21]

Can we please stop attacking each other over stretching seatbelts, 2g differences in impacts, bendy wings and what not. This is not Twitter.

Btw mature reaction from Verstappen today. Leave the fighting to the teams, which is what all teams do when the stakes are high

[Wouter]

.
Just as a heads up, this source is considered one of the most unreliable and disreputable outlets in Europe.

It’s basically worse than tabloid journalism. And it’s pretty easy to tell that it’s likely made up, as if it were true, the lawyer’s name and firm would be listed.

The positive is, since it is likely made up, I can actually retain a modicum of respect for Marko.

.

My evidence here to you was deleted. Here is new evidence that the Krone was right.
.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7TkAqNWYAM ... ame=medium

This has nothing to do with lawyers.

This process is within the regulatory framework of the sport.

.
This certainly has to do with lawyers. They have investigated whether the arguments they [RBR] have to challenge the sentence have a chance of success. The lawyers have done the preparatory work.
However, they do not go with RBR to the stewards. They have already done their job.

[toraabe]

I expect it to be dismissed. What do they want. Win the f1 with lawyers.. No it doesn't work that way

[zibby43]

.

My evidence here to you was deleted. Here is new evidence that the Krone was right.
.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7TkAqNWYAM ... ame=medium

This has nothing to do with lawyers.

This process is within the regulatory framework of the sport.

.
This certainly has to do with lawyers. They have investigated whether the arguments they [RBR] have to challenge the sentence have a chance of success. The lawyers have done the preparatory work.
However, they do not go with RBR to the stewards. They have already done their job.

So there’s a link that confirms outside counsel were retained to make the decision to proceed with the internal FIA process, as opposed to team personnel? That’s something I’d expect the Sporting Director and his team to decide.

It doesn’t make sense RBR would waste funds on outside counsel when a) they can’t be used for the review; 2) there is no risk or penalty for RBR attempting to initiate the process in the first place.

Not that it actually matters. Both Ferrari and Alfa exercised their 14-day right of review without hiring outside counsel.

[dans79]

This has nothing to do with lawyers.

This process is within the regulatory framework of the sport.

.
This certainly has to do with lawyers. They have investigated whether the arguments they [RBR] have to challenge the sentence have a chance of success. The lawyers have done the preparatory work.
However, they do not go with RBR to the stewards. They have already done their job.

So there’s a link that confirms outside counsel were retained to make the decision to proceed with the internal FIA process, as opposed to team personnel? That’s something I’d expect the Sporting Director and his team to decide.

It doesn’t make sense RBR would waste funds on outside counsel when a) they can’t be used for the review; 2) there is no risk or penalty for RBR attempting to initiate the process in the first place.

Not that it actually matters. Both Ferrari and Alfa exercised their 14-day right of review without hiring outside counsel.

The "outside counsel " is just hype to rile up fans who don't know any better. The FIA/stewards doesn't care what lawyers think, or even what 3rd party experts have to say (Karun in 2018 for example). The FIA/stewards only care about data.

First teams have to present new data. Then the stewards will decide if the new data is admissible. If and only if the data is admissible will they re-open the ruling. The final step would be examining the data and determining if it justify altering the ruling.


As was the case with Ferrari back in 2018, The FIA/stewards have access to more data than Red bull, so they will be hard pressed to get the ruling re-opened, let alone changed.