The best way to stop this is that if a driver outsiide of the top ten gets fastest lap it`s deleted and nobody gets it for that race.
That's what happens now? If someone is outside top 10 then no point. It's the taking of the point away that is what red bull are happy with. They must be overjoyed with 2nd at Singapore. They probably came dreading a 9tj or 10th at best.
As a point of note RBR don’t own RB. RedBull (the fizzy drinks company) own both teams (as well as a host of other sports teams/events/locations, a clothing brand and a record company). It’s an understandable mistake to make - the English speaking media would definitely like to lead you towards the conclusion you’ve reached.
A hypothetical for you all. Let’s assume that some collusion did take place between the two RedBull owned teams. If so, has the championship been manipulated more or less than when Mercedes HPP had the only engine capable of winning (and set of rules that locked in that advantage for the long term) and the Mercedes F1 team had significant influence (if not absolute control) over who could be supplied that engine? In case you’re wondering, as far as I can tell, both are separate subsidiaries of their parent company Mercedes Benz.
There's absolutely no sporting reason why a car developer and race team has to give anyone their engine. It's not their fault they got it spot on to the regs. And neither was it red bulls fault under ground effect. Thsts the nature of f1. This discussion is about using a second team to influence racing results. The logical extreme to our conversation would be to see rb racing pull over to allow verstappen take a race win (very extreme I know)
My understanding is that both teams are to be run independently and with autonomy. Clearly they're not. I doubt the title will come dowe to one point, but if it does, McLaren will likely kick themselves for swapping Lando and Oscar rather than look at that one point, but it still irks me.
Nah. Was a screw job then and they've been already paid back by piastri and will do so all season If they want a perez second seat contributing nothing fire ahead
You’ve spectacularly missed the point there… The car developer/race team known as Mercedes AMG F1 doesn’t have an engine to give anyone. The engine you’re thinking of is designed and made by a company called Mercedes High Performance Powertrains. I’m not saying that Mercedes Benz, who own both companies or people in Mercedes AMG F1 who have significant control over Mercedes HPP did anything wrong. The rules and history of the sport have long allowed for such relationships and in fact the most historic constructor Scuderia Ferrari does actually design and make its own engines (and is the only constructor to do so). Similarly come 2026, if RedBull Powertrains/Ford have got the Powertrain rules right in a spectacular way, and RBR/RB are finishing 1/2/3/4, but McLaren have an awesome chassis and want that engine for themselves - RedBull (the parent company), Christian Horner (as someone with significant influence over both RBR and RBPT), or the management of RBPT (knowing exactly who pays the bills and what they’d like) - can all prevent that from happening and that will be totally fine. It’s a reality that some constructors have the ability to block others from competing. At times this can be a hugely significant aspect of the sport at other times less so when the elements a constructor brings largely define performance. It has always been this way and it maybe always will be. In the last era it was more significant than it has ever been and that’s motivated one business - RedBull - to start it’s own Powertrains business so that it can directly influence whether it’s two constructors are able to compete with the others. We’re all fine with that - as we should be, it’s part of the fabric of the sport - and nobody is trying to tell us it shouldn’t be. With all that context in mind: Last weekend we had a situation where Daniel Riccardo was last (he stopped the lap after Magnusson had retired). Barring some freak accident up front that caused a car ahead to lose significant time yet still be able to finish the race, he was going to finish last. He was going to need 8 cars to suffer that kind of accident to get a point and points are the only thing that’s going to change RB’s constructors finish position. So with nothing realistically to lose and nothing more than a fastest lap statistic and some in race pit stop practice to gain, RB & Daniel agree to stop, get their pitstop practice and add a fastest lap to their respective statistics - it costs them nothing. As a result, McLaren and Norris lose a point - which isn’t likely to make any difference to RB come the end of the season, but does advantage RedBull (unlikely now to beat McLaren in the constructors, but still possible) and Verstappen (possible it will be significant). The logical extension of what happened last weekend is not that RB start sacrificing themselves, because they didn’t sacrifice themselves at all yet. Before the weekend they’d never done it, after the weekend they’ve never done it, the only logical conclusion currently valid is that this means they might never do it. Nevertheless after the race McLaren blow the dog whistle, “look over here, this seems odd doesn’t it?” “We’ve been worried about this relationship for a while and look, don’t you think this looks a bit like smoke, what do you think press, maybe it’s a fire?”. Happy to oblige the English speaking media run with it questioning the integrity of RedBull/RedBull Racing/RB and Daniel. I ask, where’s the critical analysis? The discussion about how surely the point is for all drivers and teams to compete with each other and that what RB and Daniel did do is steal some statistics from McLaren and Norris. Where’s the comparison to a football team 5 nil down competing to the end of the game, even in a cup match where it will make no difference. Where’s the discussion about how come the end of the season, the tables could be turned and Mercedes AMG F1 might pit Russell who’s had an issue and is running at the back, because he can take the fastest lap from Verstappen and how that might mean that Mercedes HPP wins a championship that will otherwise go to Honda? Or the discussion about how they could conceivably do the same and whether that would be ok even if they give up points that make no difference to their finishing position? Where’s the discussion about how the complex relationships in F1 between teams and drivers and engine manufacturers means that there are always going to be common interests for some parties and how in that context even if RB/Daniel’s case their primary interest was to further the common aims of RedBull by helping RedBull Racing/Verstappen that might not be all that bad in the context of the sport as a whole, as long as it means they aren’t sacrificing themselves in any way? We don’t get that though, we get “you’re right McLaren it probably is a fire, it’ll report better if we call it an inferno though, leave it with us to stoke the flames.”
Maybe I have missed the pint but it's the same as Ferrari not wanting to supply any more engines etc. Engines supply is a vexed issue due to thr complexity and some teams get an older less powerful version and have to put up with it. It's a feature of f1. Also engines is a known event. Its baked in. Say I go bet 100 quid on a norris fastest lap. All is well and the red bulk tell rb Racing to pull in a car and take thst away It's not quite spot fixing but it is having a material impact on the outcome of the event and that's the pointless anyone could do it but generally only a car in the top 10 with a pitstop in hand pits late for tyres to go for this one point. You could argue that when barrichello made his point at the us GP those years ago and everyone went hopping mad that it was Ferrari right to set the result but that was not the outcome. In this case is just a bit shady that one team can ring a supposedly independent team and get that bonus point taken off norris but in reality it's nowhere near a spot fix. It's pretty clear thr rb Racing are under red bull racing thumb and imo they should be forced to sell up to a team that might actually want to race and develop but that would mean closing thst factory down and loss of jobs.
So the situation around engines is known, but the situation around constructors isn’t? That’s strange because the rules about constructors fielding two cars and having to be independent and own their own IP goes back to the first Concorde agreement in 1981. Before that teams could enter any number of cars and customer cars were allowed. No rules changed to enable RedBull to acquire Minardi. Whereas with engines it’s a bit more murky, but at least until 1982 you could just ring up Cosworth and buy an engine that was capable of winning half the races a season. After that the (manufacturer) turbos were needed to be competitive and by the time they were banned, Cosworth were making exclusive contracts with teams such that it was no longer really a customer engine in a true sense and nothing has replaced that since. Can you provide one shred of evidence that RedBull Racing (I think that’s what you mean, because it would be totally fine for RedBull to tell RB to do something - given they own them) told RB to do anything? Given the legal definition of spot fixing is essentially “manipulating something that doesn’t have a material effect on the outcome” - I’d guess you’re actually trying to say it’s absolutely not spot fixing or that it didn’t have a material effect? Must be one or the other? Again any evidence that anybody rang anybody? Even if not, maybe you could explain how likely it is that that RedBull Racing - in the 2 ish minutes between Magnusson retiring and Riccardo making his pit stop - concocted this plan and communicated it to RB without anyone noticing? Team Radio is all recorded remember, so they can’t use that, so we’re looking for evidence of people passing notes, on their mobile phones, waving semaphore flags or similar. What could RedBull Racing do to RB, what power do you think they have over them? You want RB to sell themselves because they don’t race or develop enough? Any issues with the ownership of Haas, Alpine, Williams or Audi/Sauber all of whom have done worse? How badly do you have to do before you should be sold? Are Aston Martin in danger of not meeting the criteria you think people should achieve to be able to keep their team? Not only have you - apparently unfairly - singled RB out for sale, but you also choose to do it following a weekend when they’ve turned finishing last into finishing last and achieving a fastest lap - a fastest lap being something they only done about five times in their history, all the way back to Minardi. Seems really harsh to me, so is that really what you believe or is just because McLaren and the media have told you that “here be dragons” and so it’s something we should attack/avoid.
If you believe it was done to give Danny ric a send off I've this bridge that is available cheap. You might want to take a look
The thing with this is, there is a very clear relationship between the two teams being that they are owned by the same conglomerate. There didn't need to be notes passed or communication between the two teams. RB could have independently made the decision to take the fastest lap to help RBR. Which to me is still wrong. RB are by all accounts about to send Ricciardo to the vast Red Bull scrapheap of drivers, yet on the way out they want to gift him the most meaningless of fastest laps? Call my cynical, but I feel that doing anything to help save the collapsing RBR team and season would take priority over sentiment right now.
Please don`t turn this forum into a place where the trolls reside.That`s the first time that I`ve read a personal insult from someone who posted an otherwise interesting article when they called the one they were debating them a monster. This is an excellent forum and should be kept where we can discuss Formula 1 in an adult and sportsman like manner.
Thanks for your feedback Push. I’ve edited the post in question, to better reflect the point I was trying to make. Rather than suggesting MITO was a monster, I was trying to indicate that by blindly following the McLaren/media narrative he’d taken a exceptionally harsh position whereby he was advocating for a team to be sold with a potential loss of jobs, just because they happened to take a fastest lap denying a point that would otherwise have gone to Norris and that also helps RedBull. If MITO, yourself or anyone else was offended by what was a not intended to be more than an attempt at injecting some humour, I apologise.
I didn’t want to hide my explanation/apology amongst a larger reply… On the subject of trolling, I do agree this is an excellent forum, except where RedBull or Verstappen are involved, when I find a subset of posters can be far less balanced and objective than their normal standards, I believe whipped up by the bias against these entities in the English speaking media, which is why I’ve been on a bit of a crusade this week. For example, look at the response from MITO to my post. Where did I say that I believed they did it for Danny? That kind of whataboutery, rather than engaging with any of the arguments you’re replying to isn’t the usual standard of discourse you get here. Honestly I don’t know what to think about that excuse really, if they’re actively planning to nobble McLaren/Norris at every opportunity it’s a terrible one, because it’s not something they are going to be able to use again. They needed to say, we got a fastest lap, it’s only our fifth (ish) ever and our first as RB, great motivation for the team and it’s not our fault the rules are such that we get the statistic, but not the point. We understand the rules are as they are to protect the teams at the back, but in this instance, obviously it’s also had an effect on the front, maybe that’s something we need to look at again as a sport. It seems to me the kind of rubbish you’d come up with if you’re shocked you’ve come under attack and are looking for a way to make it stop. In reply to Sgts. points - I agree with you that this was likely an independent action - a happy case of good for me, good for my boss, because it’s good for something else they’ve invested in. This is where the interesting debate is to be honest - is this ok? Do I think RB would do the same to RedBull Racing? - probably not. Although they fight them when they are in direct competition, I’d guess this is a step too far, the gain of a fastest lap only - probably isn’t worth the fact that you’re harming your owners overall interests and breaking the golden rule of “don’t bite the hand that feeds you”. Taking that as a statement on its own does that seem problematic, yes. If I consider the same situation but it’s Ferrari and Haas, in place of RBR and RB, would I expect a similar set of outcomes, probably yes. There’s enough shared interest between the two, that the same considerations apply even though they don’t have the same parent business. What does that tell me? That teams - that otherwise compete - sometimes have shared interests and that common ownership (allowed within the rules) is one reason those can arise, as is engine supply, other technical or staff partnerships or drivers who are contracted to one team driving for another (all allowed within the rules). We’re being told that one of these things is bad and needs investigating, my question is why? Why is the line there or why should it be there, because it’s not because there’s a rule against anything that happened last weekend, unless we can prove or at least have reasonable suspicion that RBR colluded with RB, rather than their interests just happening to align in this specific instance.
Apology accepted.We are all passionate F1 fans and I come to this forum because it`s the only one that I could find where contributors are very knowledgeable Formula 1 racing fans,many of them much more so than I am. I`ve given up at looking at any other F1 pages because they seem to be ruled by people that appear to be no more than school boy age and are obsessed with just bouncing insults back and forth after an initial topic is started and all the interest for me is lost as to what other cotributors opinions are.
Cheating is, and always has been, part of motorsport. From the lowest levels to the highest, everyone wants that unfair advantage. "If you ain't trying to cheat a little, you aren't likely to win much."
The best example of cheating that I can think of is the Brabham BT46B fan car,it won one race and was immediately banned !! Brilliant innovation but highly illegal.
