Red Bull face unprecedented “politicking” in title fight with Mercedes – Newey

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Red Bull’s chief technical officer Adrian Newey says the team’s compliance with the rules has come under unprecedented scrutiny in its title fight with Mercedes.

In brief

Red Bull under heavy scrutiny, says Newey

The “frequency and intensity” of enquiries over Red Bull’s compliance with the rules amid its championship battle with Mercedes is “quite telling”, says Newey.

Already this season the FIA has issued revised technical directives on wing flexibility and pit stop procedures. Though the latter was subsequently revised, both have concerned areas where Red Bull are believed to have enjoyed a performance advantage.

Newey pointed the finger at Mercedes over F1’s latest ‘flexi-wing’ row. “If you take the issue with the flexible rear wing, we certainly weren’t the only team to have that issue but of course, when Mercedes started making noise about it, they weren’t worried about what Alfa were doing,” he told the team’s website. “They were only worried about whether we were getting a benefit, which we really weren’t, but there was a cost implication to changing that part which obviously hurt.

“It is however a great testament to the depth of our team that we can respond to changes and is a great example of when our team is put in a corner we can come out fighting and continue to be just as competitive.”

The pressure Red Bull is facing reminds Newey of their previous championship-winning campaigns at the beginning of the last decade.

“In many ways it is a compliment to the team to find ourselves under such scrutiny from others,” he said. “We have experienced this before but I can’t remember a time when we have received the same level of behind the scenes politicking and lobbying against our car.

“Possibly if you look back to when we were exploring aeroelastics in 2010 [and] 2011 then we were under constant scrutiny and would adapt to each changing set of regulations. We’ve been here before in the last championship battles with Ferrari which involved some rows over bodywork flexibility as well.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Comment of the day

The idea of compensating teams for crash damage they weren’t responsible for is not unheard of in sport, says Gerrit:

In yacht racing we need to carry third party and public liability insurance to pay for damages to other boats and injuries to competitors/officials if in the wrong. Depending upon what class is sailed it is cover required is usually around US$2M for dinghy classes.

Remember in some countries (USA looking at you) you can be sued for damages or injuries if negligence can be proved in a sporting event. This goes for event organisers as well.

Your entry will not be accepted for racing unless you have insurance. Be you Corinthian or professional.

In the USA it would be unusual to not have third party and public liability insurance for motor racing entrants. I would suggest, like in yachting, this would be mandatory upon race entry.
Gerrit

Happy birthday!

No RaceFans birthdays today

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories RaceFans Round-upTags , , ,

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 124 comments on “Red Bull face unprecedented “politicking” in title fight with Mercedes – Newey”

    1. I wouldn’t go jumping up and down with excitement claiming sprint qualifying was a success based on that alone as you’re bound to get a lot of people curious over a highly advertised experiment. Actual opinion on the sprint qualifying has, at best, been mixed.

      1. And dont forget that Channel 4 was FTA in the UK, come the next one I expect the numbers to very low.

        1. @f1-plossi, Let’s hope for more FTA sprint race coverage. Not sure about the broadcast contracts exclusivity clauses but if Liberty can convince the contract holders that the Sprint Race is outside their contract or even convince them that it is a promotional asset that will bring more subscribers to pay TV if broadcast FTA then we may be able to watch it FTA every time, and even if that is delayed rather than live I would see it as a positive.

          1. @hohum Unlikely to happen, because Channel 4 already gets as much coverage as it’s able to get from Sky (full coverage of the British Grand Prix, highlights of Saturday qualifying and Sunday race sessions for the rest of the season). Until 2024, Sky will be the only place it’s possible to watch the full sprint – and Channel 4 viewers getting the sprint will inevitably lose qualifying (which from what I saw was a more interesting session).

            1. Also worth noting: Friday qualifying was fairly close to the total audience for Saturday qualifying last year, despite a lot of people not being able to watch Friday qualifying due to needing to return from work.

            2. Also, Channel 4 lost 400,000 viewers between last year’s race and this one, which may need to be taken into account considering how many more people watched the Friday sessions compared to previous years and that Saturday was the highest audience for two years. This tells me that some people were watching the sprint and then deciding they didn’t need to watch the race, which could be a problem.

            3. @alianora-la-canta, You’re probably right but I still believe it (FTA Sprint) would be an effective way of increasing the F1 fan base, especially in those countries that do not host races.

      2. Let’s not forget that they deliberately arranged sprint qualifying at some of their most popular venues in order to support their narrative.

        Silverstone is exactly where I’d pitch to have my first one – of course lots of people will watch it because a) it’s Silverstone and b) they’re curious for the very first one.

        I’ll bet they’d have a completely different set of numbers if they chose to hold sprint qualifying at Sochi.

        1. They still compare it to the prior year(s) results of the same event.

          Let’s see what Italy and ? brings to see if the positive impact continues.
          Race attendance (revenue) and TV viewers (revenue and sponsor exposure) are the key measures of success. More so than opinions on racefans.net.

          1. jff, even then, as others have noted, the series and the broadcasters involved also spent more time and money on promoting the event than they normally would.

            Given that there was a disproportionate investment on promoting the event, how much of the increase was due to that higher than usual advertising spend? You would need to factor in the effects of the additional promotion for the event to see how much of an impact that made as well.

            1. Of course, nobody is questioning that (except some who question the intent of the owners).

              For most of us it is a sport, almost an art.
              For the owners though it’s just a business. They are not that stupid to fool themselves by introducing items which don’t increase profit.

    2. The sprint race was heavily advertised, a part of the British GP weekend and, most importantly, free to air, hence the number of viewers. It doesn’t mean the sprint itself was good or bad

    3. Mercedes is one of the most politically savvy teams of all time.

      They put on this fake image of a friendly team that just want good racing. Anyone with an IQ above 20 can see just how fake and PR-manufactured this image truly is.

      In reality, Mercedes are a disgusting political animal that will use every cheap trick in the book to gain an advantage. From crashing into Verstappen, to abusing Bottas’ role as a second driver, to moaning about everything on the Red Bull car.

      One of the most fake and disgusting teams in all of sports.

      1. Christian, is that you?!

        1. I’d listen to this guy. He has one of those crazy walls pinned with clues plotted out and joined with arrows so he can work out his theories. Just about everyone in F1 from the teams, the officials, F1 press, Liberty are all on that wall as well. Just read the posters history. It’s all there and it’ll blow your mind.
          And look at the last crash. It wasn’t just Bottas was it? Stroll. Just happens to be a Merc customer and Ham is a longstanding family friend with both Ham and Stroll senior having big money connections with Hilfiger. And the other one who wasn’t needed but sailed past those in front with locked tyres? Gasly. Friend of Ham, and admitted last year when asked about it that ‘he was on the same team’.
          It all makes sense if you look hard enough.

          1. ian dearing, I know you’re trying to make light of the absurdity of that poster’s history, but that particular poster has been engaging in a pretty nasty harassment campaign in some quarters – for example, there were his efforts to harass and bully the writers at Motorsport Magazine into rewriting articles to promote his pro-Verstappen and anti-Hamilton agenda, and the sustained barrage of abuse he gave them when they refused to promote the sort of propaganda he wants to listen to.

            1. Not so sure if any of you two can point fingers.
              Hypocrisy rules with lewis fans.

            2. Are you so blinded by your fascination with Max that now you automatically think that anyone who doesn’t always heap praise on him must be a fan of his rival, and therefore can be freely abused?

              What separates you from any extremist when you seem to think everyone is your enemy? You really seem to need to hate someone else to justify your behaviour, and so you see the world in the toxic tribalistic mentality that is poisoning so much.

            3. No one cares, or should care, who he defends. He is a rude Dutchman who thinks it’s cool to attack me. Every time he tries to kill me, he fails.

              By the way, what happened in Silverstone was a racing incident 100%. Imola crash a racing incident 200%. Backlash bomb defused.

      2. @kingshark I agree. You’re a bit emotional about it, not like merc is the only one. Merc definitely go a couple steps farther than RB. Rb in term are step or 2 ahead of what ferrari used to do.

      3. Agree on that as well, some people here over-defend mercedes, but they’ve used questionable tactics for all the hybrid era.

      4. From crashing into Verstappen, to abusing Bottas’ role as a second driver, to moaning about everything on the Red Bull car.

        You cannot really believe that any of those crashes were deliberate (quite impressive execution and outcome if they were deliberate).
        F1 is still a team sport and the team has every right to decide how they use each of their ‘players’.

        And the moaning is a standard practise for every team and most fans.

        1. Mercedes are free to abuse their political power and use Bottas solely as a pawn if they want. That is their decision.

          The reason why I (along with many other fans) strongly dislike Mercedes is because of how fake they are.

          “We would love competition”
          “We have two equal drivers in this team”

          The moment they are faced with real competition, the PR mask goes straight out of the window.

          Mercedes are just so fake and disingenuous. Makes them very easy to hate.

          1. Jean-Christophe
            8th August 2021, 14:01

            This so hypocritical.
            You make it sound as if the other teams don’t do the same.
            Didn’t RBR lobby for Mercedes be slowed down?
            FRIC got banned mid season, they had a suspension system banned right before the start of the season among other things.
            Horner complains all the time

          2. ‘use Bottas solely as a pawn if they want’…. Iam sure RB will do the same when Perez finally starts to get to the pointy end of races.

      5. I wouldnt go this far but the spirit of your message I agree with. Very ungraceful team. They are defenitely not the image they project out there. PR machine, using everything they can find or throw to their advantage. Poor sportmanship all over.

      6. @kingshark Red Bull is one of the most politically savvy teams of all time.

        They put on this fake image of a friendly team that just want good racing. Anyone with an IQ above 20 can see just how fake and PR-manufactured this image truly is.

        In reality, Red Bull are a disgusting political animal that will use every cheap trick in the book to gain an advantage. From crashing into Hamilton, to abusing Perez’ role as a second driver, to moaning about everything on the Mercedes car.

        One of the most fake and disgusting teams in all of sports.

        1. “Dislike ……. red bull noobs this team is full of ……. Dislike mercedes noobs imola silverstone hungaroring and team feud with williams……. Dislike haas noobs they cant design a livery at all…….. easy only mclaren for win no p2 or p3…..”

          1. @scbriml
            Maybe in 2005-2009 or so Red Bull cultivated that image, but they’ve not done so since. I didn’t see Red Bull claiming falsely in 2011 or 2013 that they wanted more competition, they were at least so honest as to not lie to the media.
            I know you’re just trying to make a mockery of Kingshark’s original comment, but if you’re going to do that, at least do it right. You said Red Bull crashed into Hamilton, which is a blatant lie.

      7. CheeseBucket
        8th August 2021, 9:49

        Aww, cry some more. I didn’t know you had an account on Racefans Max.

        1. Is that you toto?

      8. @kingshark Agree. The worst is probably the team principal with wet eyes talking about the team’s ‘values’ in interviews. It’s really quite unpleasant. They were even ready to do an Austria 2002 in Austria now believe it or not, and only dropped it when someone realized they might similarly be booed for it.

    4. Just the usual FIAMG stuff :) Everyone is under heavy scrutiny and everyone gets near the Mercs gets pegged back. Ferrari got the same treatment. Also if Merc is caught with something fishy the thing is either only banned from next year (see DAS for example) basically giving them a free year to win or only when others start to exploit the loophole (see oil burning for example). Oh and the weird things like when Merc had their wheel concept only allowed to them to use, and it was explicitly said that anyone else comes with the same solution, it must pass FIA’s scrutiny :D
      The elitism towards frontrunners and the highly lenient stewarding against Hamilton just exaggerates these things.

      1. @leventebandi Yes, elitism is really what is. Only way to explain it.

      2. @leventebandi well said.
        I’m happy to read comments like these, wish more fans saw how merc got into this position. Dominance doesn’t just come out of sheer brilliance.
        What ferrari and rb used to pull, pales in comparison to what merc and Ham have been doing to get this far. The richest F1 teams are too influential, and when paired with a Brit we get 8 seasons of this.

      3. There was nothing ‘fishy’ about DAS, it was innovative engineering of the type that has been in F1 since the late fifties. No more fishy than Cooper putting engines at the back or Chapman sticking a wing on his car, or indeed an aerodynamic floor. But the other teams (particularly Red Bull) didn’t like it because they’d have to spend lots of cash to catch up so they ganged up to persuade the FIA to ban it in the next season. Extra fuel burning was different, teams knew what they weren’t supposed to do, but one found a way to do it and avoid it being detected… not the same thing at all.

        One is innovation, the other is subterfuge.

        I mean if you don’t like innovation, fine, but to me that’s what F1 should be about.

        1. The first team to stick a wing on his car was Ferrari under Forghieri during the qualifying session of Spa GP in 1968, then Brabham copyed them for the race and the rest came along. Other then agreeing regarding Mercedes disgusting practices, another annoying belief is that for someone any innovation involving F1 was brought up by a british, mainly Chapman (or Newey if we talk about present times)…far from it.

        2. There was plenty fishy about DAS. It squared the wheels to the oncoming air, improving aerodynamics, and as such was a moveable aerodynamic device, which is not allowed. The rule doesn’t differentiate if the aerodynamic effect is secondary or whatever as ruled in Renault’s mass damper system, a suspension aid. How it got away with it was always a mystery, but the real reasons are probably touched upon here.

          1. Iam pretty sure that DAS was used to change the toe in/out angles to help with tyre warming and management, your confusing when they say less drag, they mean the wheels are parallel on the straights so less scrubbing/drag, nothing to do with aerodynamics, and it was deemed legal hence they could use it till the end of the season, why it wasn’t used onwards is probably politicking by others I imagine…

            1. @f1-plossl You obviously didn’t get any of that

            2. What’s there to get? you said DAS was an aero device, when it isn’t.

            3. @f1-plossl Your basis for arguing here is actually that you don’t think we don’t know what DAS is, and that when I describe its aerodynamic effect as secondary, that it would logically necessitate its primary function to be something else. Rude and completely not getting it. You really should do better, unless it was just arguing for arguing’s sake. With you that could be possible.

            4. There’s only one person being rude here bud and its not me…

    5. Interesting question posed in the CotD. In Australia insurance is provided by Motorsport Australia, the FIA authorised body. This is paid by clubs/racing organisations and their members through their membership and entry fees.

      I wonder if it’s mandated by the FIA for its sponsored bodies to regulate insurance matters, considering all their talk about safety that would make sense.

      1. @skipgamer I can’t remember exactly who it is, but in the UK there is one company that provides insurance to most of the British drivers in motorsport, even today. They sponsored quite a big British team back in the day, I remember hearing it mentioned in one of Aidan Millward’s excellent historic team profiles I think.

    6. “It is however a great testament to the depth of our team that we can respond to changes and is a great example of when our team is put in a corner we can come out fighting and continue to be just as competitive.”

      Or is it that you are cheating you know it’s only a matter of time before you’re caught out so you have a more compliant part ready to drop onto the car.

      1. But reality shows they do not cheat but work in the grey area of the rules. As do all teams, but not always so successful.

        1. erikje No cheat is the word. They are not so stupid as to design a car that may not fit within the rules by accident. They design a car or fuel delivery system that go’s beyond the rules and wait till someone notices.

          1. Talking about the fuel you mean the oil burning Mercedes engine I suppose.

      2. @johnrkh

        That’s just silly. The implicit rules were that the wings could flex by X, then they changed so the rules could change by Y, but no one could predict in advance what Y would be.

        If they’d designed a different wing just in case, it’d almost certainly be flexier or less flexy than Y, so they would have had to redesign anyway.

        1. @aapje No Rb designed a wing that passed the static test but would flex past the allowed amount in a race, very clever. That’s why the way wings are tested has had to change.

          1. It conformed with the rules and was legal.

            1. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
              8th August 2021, 15:35

              It passed the static tests but actually fails the regulation for the unsprung part of the car won’t move.

              Now it is just about impossible to make something completely rigid so there is an allowance.

            2. @andyfromsandy

              And the allowance changed…

          2. @johnrkh

            No, as Andy notes, they changed the allowance.

    7. Newey at Red Bull often does come across as a bit bitter and angry, doesn’t make his point stronger really.

      they weren’t worried about what Alfa were doing

      So what were Alfa doing then? Exactly as an exasperated Raikkonen recently indicated, not enough to make the car faster (and I am sure Newey and all other aero people regularly look for new bits on all cars to see if they can be an improvement for them as always) .

      Now that Red Bull are with Honda, do the still care about what Renault do with their PU? Not much. Ferrari after 2019 they will look closely at next year surely, but mainly they look at the Mercedes, as they do since 2014,and talk of whether everything there is legal. No Red Bull never talk about others being suspect? Of course they do.

      1. You don’t get it, there was no real advantage in the flex as shown after they adapted the wings to the new rules.
        It did cost a lot of money. For alfa a big deal 💷

        1. So RB decided to invest, design and manufacture a flexi wing that would clearly be against what the rules intended knowing there would be no gains from doing so. No wonder they say they are running out of money throwing it away like that.

          1. They had those designs for ages and there was no need to change the approach.
            It was a completely legal part. But as always there are other avenues to reach the same goal.

            1. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
              8th August 2021, 15:44

              Article 3.9 of the 2021 FIA F1 technical regulations covers bodywork flexibility and detail the rules and allowances for bodywork flex under reasonable loads of pressure and FIA tests.

              So if you do some actual reading you will find why the flexi wing was banned. You will also find that plenty of people have come to the same conclusion that as the wing flexed down drag is reduced which will give the car a higher top speed.

        2. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
          8th August 2021, 15:19

          Says who?

          When the flexi wing was taken out of service I believe RBR came with a new floor and diffuser redesign which allowed them to use a different wing.

      2. @bosyber

        It matters naught whether violating a rule provides a significant advantage or whether the team is competitive without violating the rule. All teams have to provide a compliant car.

        1. Yes I know. I am pretty sure that Newey knows how the actual rules work too, almost certainly a lot better than either of us. What was your point?

          But if a team is not a threat at all , it is a waste of effort to look too deeply into what they are doing, unless you somehow got clear and obvious signs something is up. Has worked that way for ages in F1. Hence Newey bringing up Alfa was disingenuous as it is obvious why. Just as red bull talk about the Mercedes front wing flex, no one cares whether HAAS do.

    8. How little respect does Newey have for us that he can claim there wasn’t benefit to a flexible wing?

      I don’t think you need to be a genius aerodynamicist to call nonsense on that one

      1. Justook at the results after they had to adapt to the new rules. Zero gain or lost.

        1. Show us one comparable lap time with both designs of wings then, All I ask for is the same circuit at the same track/air temperature and similarly skilled drivers.

          I’ll wait.

          1. Do not hold your breath. Just compare the team differences before and after and notice they stayed the same.

            1. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
              8th August 2021, 16:07

              You claim nothing has changed but unable to give a single example and then tell your readers to fact check you.

        2. Other than Hamilton taking two pole positions?

          Without them going back to the same circuits and doing an apples to apples comparison the exact loss is hard to gauge, looking to the results at different tracks and when other developments have been added to the cars doesn’t give a proper benchmark

          But in all honesty did Red Bull seriously research and build something for no gain? Of course it provided an advantage

    9. Newey? Leading contender for hypocrite of the year.
      RBR’s glory years were all about their front wing’s “aeroelastics”.
      Blimey! That’s a fascinating new name for flexing & cheating front wing!!!

      1. The cheating front wing is used by Mercedes. Try to keep up.

        1. That’s gone a bit quiet. So apart from moaning about it to Sky for about a month, did RB ever go to the FIA about it? And I assume if they did the FIA had no problem with it as I’ve seen nothing.
          Although I may have missed any announcement about the illegality of the Merc front wing. Have you got a link you can give us that confirms it was illegal as you say?

        2. erikje, he is referring to the period from 2010 through to 2014, which eventually culminated in Red Bull’s disqualification from qualifying in the 2014 Abu Dhabi GP for an illegal spring mechanism within the front wing – an act that some felt was, if anything, unusually lenient considering it was a particularly blatant rule break (the component in question having previously been disguised as an adjustment mechanism for the front wing flaps, when it was nothing of the sort).

          There is also the inherent flaw in your argument that “it passed the test, so it must be legal” for the Red Bull rear wing, which is that same argument also means you should accept the Mercedes front wing is legal – that, after all, also passes the tests, so by your logic it must be OK. If you truly hold both teams up to the same standard, then either you have to say they’re both guilty, or they are both not guilty – which one are you more comfortable with?

          1. It’s not hypocritical to hold two teams to different standards when you don’t care about the sport or it’s integrity, you only care about the Dutch driver winning all the time.

          2. The Mercedes front wing is not tested the same way the rear wing loads increased.
            So, still unclear if the flex wings are a real problem or just one of the many tries by Mercedes to frustrate the opponent.

    10. “They were only worried about whether we were getting a benefit, which we really weren’t,

      Yes that’s the politicking right there. Frightening that he thinks he can fool us that they go through all that effort to built that flex into the sidewalls of the wing while still passing static tests for no benefit at all.

      And yes it was clear that there was an engine power boost after the upgrade. After Mercedes complained and Ferrari confirmed that there was a boost, but it was fair that they found extra performance. A race later the extra performance it’s gone. Apparently due to a hushed FIA directive change, but as usual they keep it all under wraps.

      Just like with the running tyre pressures in Baku being too low. They knew they were cheating without possibility of getting a penalty, but continued to do so anyway. Imagine the howling of Horner/Marko and Newey if that crash was actually solely tyre related and not something they did purposefully wrong themselves .

      Of course there is the politicking that Red Bull has been constantly engaged in since … well since 2004 really. But even just in the hybrid turbo era they were crying about the unfairness of using engine modes, about DAS, about Ferrari’s cheat engine. Plus the constant complaining for years about the engines and demanding the series be more aero dependent (and then utterly messing up the reg changes aimed at helping them twice!). It’s a never ending list of politicking to get things changed because they were poor at those.

      Also they were probably involved in banning FRIC and who knows how involved they were in making the current floor changes rake dependent. Seeing it was know upfront that the changes would hurt low rake teams like Mercedes most and alternate changes were suggested. Who would have been politicking for keeping the changes as is rather than implementing fair changes?

      Imaging keeping a straight face saying your competitors are the ones politicking after doing all that. Just because you were caught cheating on three occasions in one season. How about stop cheating for a change? Who would be politicking against you then?

      1. Yep, even when the engine is getting competitive Mercedes tries to misuse fia.
        You are completely right there.

      2. @f1osaurus

        Seeing it was know upfront that the changes would hurt low rake teams like Mercedes most and alternate changes were suggested.

        This is a clear lie.

        1. William Jones
          8th August 2021, 13:51

          Would you like to explain to us how you know what Adrian Newey knew about the aerodynamic design of low rake vs high rake cars and the proposed changes?

          This is the problem with you, kingshark and the other obvious dutch named Max shills, you’re good at hiding lies, mistruths and deliberate attempts to deceive in your insane volumes of posts that you make every day – almost as if PR for red bull is your full time job or something.

          1. The problem with Lewis fans is they have a tendency to start cursing and swearing (and moaning) when someone has a different opinion. Try to grow up!

            1. The problem with erikje is that he spends half his time taking umbrage because posters make it personal, and the other making puerile personal comments about others.
              Not that I don’t have sympathy for him with you lot asking him questions, presenting him with logic and facts and requesting evidence for his more esoteric claims.
              Poor man.

            2. The main problem with them is that they constantly go after posters and attack them personally. It’s their school yard nature. They’re basically bullies.

            3. It’s news to me that I’m a Lewis fan, mostly because I’m not.

              I’ve cross referenced reported power cuts at red bull, Milton Keynes with your post history erikje, interesting that you’ve never made a post during a power cut prior to the COVID outbreak. I wonder if your IP address correlates – care to make a post without your VPN turned on so we can see?

          2. This.
            If you’re not British, don’t post here.

      3. @f1osaurus

        And yes it was clear that there was an engine power boost after the upgrade. After Mercedes complained and Ferrari confirmed that there was a boost, but it was fair that they found extra performance

        Would you please share with us the GPS data or any other evidence that demonstrates that there was clear power boost after the introduction of the second Honda unit. I think you must have been confused with regard to the fact that Ferrari have confirmed that there was a power boost because Mattia Binotto have said the exact opposite confirming that the power levels of Honda shown after the introduction of the second power unit are the same levels shown in Bahrain and it’s not an upgrade which is not permitted in the regulations.

        We can help you if you’re lost in the translation. There are many RaceFans commenters that do understand Italian as well :

        https://autosprint.corrieredellosport.it/news/formula1/2021/06/30-4439614/binotto_honda_adesso_puo_andare_a_massima_potenza_/

        1. “Would you please share with us the GPS data or any other evidence that demonstrates that there was clear power boost after the introduction of the second Honda unit”

          Teams has that data, they don’t make up numbers out of thin air.

          Rb gained significant straight line speed suddenly, and that is a function of aero + horse power. If they re using the same aero, then power has to go up in order to balance the equation! It is simple math, go figure if it is rocket science.

          1. The same increase Mercedes suddenly found… But of course that’s normal :)
            But if you look at the drag and down force levels most people who know better understand why.

            1. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
              8th August 2021, 15:54

              But if you look at the drag and down force levels most people who know better understand why.

              Are they quoted somewhere?

              But what does that statement even mean? Can you expand for this dim wit please?

            2. @erikje…When in a hole its best to stop digging.

            3. “The same increase Mercedes suddenly found… But of course that’s normal :)”
              Mercedes changed engine, but nothing changed, genius. Only when they introduced new aero parts, they gained some grounds. Mercedes does not claim they didnt gain ground, It is RB saying their increased ground isnt related to engine, but aero which they didnt change? Red Bull actually lost ground after TDs issued, which indicates there is truth to Mercedes’ claims? is it not?

              People were praising Ferrari for their “magical” increase in performance so suddenly, but turned out there was some fish in the water :) which we will not know because of the NDAs in place… People still say there is no proof funnily enough.

          2. @mysticus

            Teams has that data, they don’t make up numbers out of thin air.

            I already know that. Apparently you haven’t read Binotto’s interview either and you have just joined the discussion for the sake of trolling. Binotto said that “Our GPS data shows that the performance of the Honda PU is at the same level they have shown in Bahrein before they faced issues”. I have been calling f1osaurus to provide his evidence to counter Binotto’s claim. Maybe he has something Binotto doesn’t have.

            The engine power haven’t increased, it’s exactly the same as shown in Bahrein. RBR have detuned their engine after that for reliability purposes, once they got on top of those issues they were able to run the PU on the same levels shown in Bahrein.

            This is the opinion of a world class engine engineer with over 25 years of experience in F1 supported by the data. I tend to believe him rather than the average internet commenter and no need to talk about rocket science if you can’t understand the equation of a moving object in a viscous fluid.

            1. “This is the opinion of a world class engine engineer with over 25 years of experience in F1 supported by the data.” Same guy said the same things about Ferrari not cheating… hmm wonders where he spent those 25 years…

              If they were innocent why they couldnt release the report results and the details of the NDA? Why hide it and rub it under the carpet?

              “The engine power haven’t increased, it’s exactly the same as shown in Bahrein” You have the show us the data (in that case, you will be sued for releasing IP stuff) or you cant because you are smoking the same stuff other armchair engineers smoking here :)

            2. @mysticus
              No need to steer the conversation into your favourite rant if you can’t cope with somebody else that don’t agree with you. You lack the maturity to debate with people and you do nothing apart from bullying and sulking. By the way, you seem to accuse everyone that doesn’t agree with you with smoking. Just to remind you that a bully normally project his own feelings of vulnerability onto the target ;)

            3. “Just to remind you that a bully normally project his own feelings of vulnerability onto the target ;)”

              Stop bullying people than ey? If you feel that insecure, don’t project go get help. I m not a shrink to help you.

              Steering the conversation? You brought Binotto into conversation as the credible source for your argument sake but the same block who denied cheating by many teams, and still to this day, aka someone outright cheated and lied about is your source and because I don’t take your BS means I m bullying funny how you project and you make me the villain of your mirror projection. Quite the joker you are

            4. @mysticus
              It’s your post, and your subsequent behaviour, comes across as an extremely bullying and harassing. I called someone to provide evidence of his claim which he didn’t by the way and then you started throwing your childish tantrum at me.

              I didn’t talk to you the first place. How you are projecting the fact that I’m bullying you is extremely funny. You can post elsewhere if you want people to tell you what you want to hear because like I said you lack the maturity to participate in civilised debate. You didn’t either answer why you seem to accuse everyone that doesn’t agree with you with smoking. Another projection I guess ? Hope you a speedy recovery anyway ;)

            5. “It’s your post, and your subsequent behaviour, comes across as an extremely bullying and harassing.” Says someone who is trying to patronize people :) very funny guy you must be at parties…

              “Would you please share with us the GPS data or any other evidence that demonstrates that there was clear power boost after the introduction of the second Honda unit” care to explain where is your data? this data is technical and private, but you are patronizingly saying Binotto is more reliable source (as i countered that he had a history lying when it comes to technical regulations) because he is in the business yet ignoring toto wolf’s claim and rubbishing a commenter

              “The engine power haven’t increased, it’s exactly the same as shown in Bahrein.” where is your data?

              “How you are projecting the fact that I’m bullying you is extremely funny.”
              “..if you can’t understand the equation of a moving object in a viscous fluid.” again very patronizing and bullish statements/arguments, yet i m the one projecting. Please visit http://www.apexgarage.com/tech/horsepower_calc.shtml this website, see and learn the very basics of what i said, not the mumbo jumbo you are spitting at me like you are some pretend grown up and take everything said personally.

              You cant take a counter argument in a mature civilized debate, dont comment mate. Unless of course if you continue to smoke whatever engineering degree you have in your armchair, you wont stop making kiddish statements when people dont agree and counter your arguments.

            6. Before you spit/project any more of your kiddish insults, check how AT suddenly running for front row… i guess they either simultaneously found magical the skinny wing formula that is increasing their both straight line and cornering speeds overall rather than the same engine shared by both… both RB and AT developed magic aero update and found increase in their performance and totally not the engine power (that toto wolf arguing: mercedes are the most closely watching eyes on them and checking the data more closely then everyone else, because they have the most to loose, so they re more reliable source in my eye than someone who caught cheating but hiding behind NDAs which is the opposite of something someone would do when they are claiming otherwise)

            7. @mysticus

              this data is technical and private, but you are patronizingly saying Binotto is more reliable source (as i countered that he had a history lying when it comes to technical regulations) because he is in the business yet ignoring toto wolf’s claim and rubbishing a commenter

              You seem to bring the Ferrari settlement into the argument to discredit Binotto as an engine engineer. You are only embarrassing yourself as you are only countering your argument. The FIA who had Ferrari PU seized for the entire winter, RBR and Mercedes couldn’t prove in any way what Ferrari were doing albeit they knew the end result (major fuel flow) but didn’t have any idea how they were achieving it and you are blatantly saying that they are cheating. So you must be an engineering maniac more reliable that all the aforementioned people :)

              “The engine power haven’t increased, it’s exactly the same as shown in Bahrein.” where is your data?

              The same data available to the FIA, Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault and Honda. Only Wolff who probably have no clue about what he is talking about is suggesting that there was a power increase. The FIA who are scrutineering RBR more than any other team are satisfied. Renault, Ferrari and Honda didn’t complain. Even Mercedes didn’t protest Honda and they have all the time in world to do it captain obvious.

              You’re just parroting Toto Wolff narrative that Honda are cheating. If you think Wolff is a more honest and reliable source than Binotto then please pass that joint when finish :) You just have to look at the history of the conversation, I’ve never attacked anyone personally it’s you that started bossing people around and projecting your vulnerabilities on them. Have look at your own comments here. You can’t post a comment without accusing people of smoking. You’re disrespectful.

              The thing is you should expect people to treat with the same disrespect you have shown to them. Being a bully, your ego and subconscious doesn’t accept it because it’s too much for them. Before searching in engineering websites. I think you should have a look at Sigmund Freud ego, psychological defense mechanism, and behaviorism and social learning theory, which are very important to understanding adolescent bullying.

              I’ve done you a favour pointing you in the right direction. Thank me later :)

            8. i made an innocuous response, didnt attack, only stated the obvious where the claims coming, and i stand by it, check how speed is gained, it is a function of aero and horse power, not rocket science. since the engine etc didnt change (as per claims, only effective use, so weight is not changing, so ignoring it)

              you dont hear/see what your fingers maybe typing, you are the one attacking on personal level, and accusing me of trolling and not reading etc..

              honda engineer stated that they only did reliability updates: and combination of effective use of parts etc
              “We have been learning gradually how to use the PU, we improve our weakness, and then we push our strengths” This does not really necessitate PU change, more of fine tuning. However engine changed and performance gained is it just paranoia or some random fluke? Thats why Toto Wolf is claiming RedBull gained performance, hence request for suspicion to get it investigated. Red Bull have been doing it every chance they could to Mercedes why is it surprising to you? Why makes you think that your Binotto is more reliable source in the matter than Toto?

              “Even Mercedes didn’t protest Honda and they have all the time in world to do it captain obvious.” Again you are projecting your own silliness and your own word “insecurities” . I never said Mercedes protested, they have obviously suspicious of it, and bringing it to the attention of FIA! Why are offended by it? If Mercedes wanted Binotto’s opinion, they would go talk to him… Mercedes would not need your referral i m sure!

              “I’ve done you a favour pointing you in the right direction. Thank me later :)”

              I guess you check yourself and talk to in the mirror a lot, and confuse reality from your imagination… Again, as i said, i m no shrink, you need to seek advice elsewhere, kiddo

    11. I am really surprised that Newey has joined in the RedBull whinge-athon.

      He knows as we do that RedBull have spent a lot of energy in the last few years to have the regulators look at other teams, to put them under the microscope. Not least Ferrari and Mercedes. Quite often RedBull team members have used the most extreme of language to do it not least accusing other teams of cheating.

      1. All teams do this. It’s part of the game. But not to the extent Mercedes does this season.

        1. If everyone does it, it matters not to what extent it is done.
          If you continuosly headbutt your opponent in a boxing match, don’t complain about recieving punches below the belt as if there’s a level of acceptable cheating.
          If everyone does it, then whoever does it better on a given scenario and gets away with it, benefits more.
          So unfortunately, they all have to such it up and get on with it.

        2. Yes, plus the fact they really didnt have to given their advantage. Maybe it is because they see Ham can not beat Max, not even with the car advantage. That must worry them

        3. @erikje – Could you, please, provide your calculations and estimations that let you determine that Mercedes does it more than Red Bull?

          1. Just look at the season and see the difference.

            1. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
              8th August 2021, 15:58

              So Mercedes does something, Ferrari does something, Red Bull does something and the other teams make a response.

              If you can’t take a joke you shouldn’t of joined!

            2. “Just look at the season and see the difference.” people cant see, so please show us what you are smoking and what that makes you see, so we can follow what you are talking about

    12. Paolo (@paulsteward40)
      8th August 2021, 12:18

      LOL, reading the numerous threads here implicating various parties being ‘cheats’ and offering numerous conspiracy theories, reminds me….have any of you come out from behind the ‘grassy knoll’ and had your COVID jabs yet 😂 😂

    13. Since we are on the topic of politicking. It seems to me, from his start in F1, Max does well with the stewards. He appeared to be the primary driver of the “let them race” attitude that has developed over the last few years. No doubt his aggressive style has benefited from it.

      I think about the pushing incident on Ocon. He got a slap on the wrist for that.

      Who you know is critical to almost any endeavor. So here is my question – how meaningful is being part of an F1 legacy? And I don’t mean in the beginning, he’s clearly has exceptional talent and has earned his place in F1 now. But on an ongoing basis, what does it mean to have that legacy behind you? Does he get breaks from the stewards?

      1. The same narrative again. Keep repeating and you will believe it.
        If you only look at “the Hamilton move” he used multiple times to break an winning opponent and only received some penalty seconds. Lenient by nature…

      2. What ocon did was very serious, verstappen’s reaction was justified.

        1. @esploratore1
          what ocon did is nothing related to what max did, ocon, was unlapping himself, max was not racing a car 1 lap behind, he didnt have a need to defend he didnt need to close the door on ocon who hit the apex (you know from RB camp, hitting apex is the key right?) did everything right but still got blocked and crashed into. max could have easily let him go and gain from it on the next straight after the chicane they were on! Max had no reason to do what he did to ocon in the race and after the race, he should have been at the least reprimanded. Instead given a comical community service… If roles were changed in the incident, 1000% guaranteed ham would get out of the way, he had nothing to gain from the move. if ham was tagged in a similar fashion, and max gained, then everyone of you here would say how stupid ham was, and that was totally unnecessary of a multi wdc guy and make fun of him until today, that this is a 100% fact!

        2. No. Never

      3. I think about the pushing incident on Ocon. He got a slap on the wrist for that.

        I’m not a Max fan, but – oh no.

    14. Over 2 million viewers watch F1’s first Sprint in UK (Motorsport Broadcasting)

      Great article, essentially people watch F1 racing, we here love to complain, but we did watch it.

      A sprint race is better than no sprint race. And qualifying on friday is better than just practice.

      More viewers more add revenue.

      If it is 10% more, than that is significant income for F1. We are kidding ourself, if we think F1 does not need format change.

      Ever since Red Bull and Mercedes dominance, transition to pay TV sport has been loosing views. Evolution is a necessity, race format, and many other things should change or die as so many forms of motorsport did already.

      1. It was the first time, so yeah I watched it to know how it would be and see whether it was all I feared (not quite) , or much better (nope too, it was a bit meh) , since we switched on before knowing the result, seems a bit odd to take that as a sign it was good. it does show FOM gave it opportunity to impress.

      2. According to one website, last year the peak British audience for the British GP was over 4 million. I wasn’t able to find what the peak British audience was for this year’s event. However, I’m left with a vague suspicion there wasn’t a dramatic improvement in audience for the actual Race.

        1. @drycrust It went down by 400,000, according to the one site I saw.

    15. Mr. Marko, Mr. Horner and Mr. Newey probably thought they were the only ones allowed to use “politickings” to work their way up the field.
      They now learned top dogs could do it better than them and guess what? They started crying already!

    16. Newey may be being slightly disingenuous here as there was some if not much benefit to the flex Red Bull had in the rear wing even if not as straight forward as everyone was saying at the time.

      The interesting thing, and what he’s actually talking about here, is this new level of politicking where as teams are now restricted by a budget cap this is proving to be an additional attack surface. We’re never going to know how the teams budget but being F1 there isn’t going to be too much margin and if an opposing team can throw a “spend 100k designing, developing and testing a new part”-sized spanner into the works who knows how that might impact a team’s ability to develop their car in-season. This is what Adrian’s worried about, even with the recent spate of crashes which they would have a contingency budget for, they might not have budgeted for opponents successfully lobbying to have crucial elements of their car redesigned.

    17. If you could put Verstappen in the Mercedes Team and Hamilton in the Red Bull Team it would be amazing as to how many Brits might feel Red Bull is suddenly in the right.

      Well written articles and Fanatic fandom is what you get from this sight.

    18. F1 teams already have to have $10m of insurance before they compete. It’s just that there’s a rule that drivers cannot be third parties in relation to one another (the insurance is for injuries to bystanders, officials or people in the pitlane). It is easy to see how much the cost of insurance for F1 teams would rise if that rule did not apply.

    Comments are closed.