UPDATE: Motorsport.com just published an article giving more context to the change. In short, "the real motivation in changing the rules instead (of somebody using the system) came from efforts to tidy up the regulations for 2026, and make it clearer in the next rules era what was and was not allowed." www.motorsport.com/f1/news/what-was-really-behind-the-fias-f1-asymmetric-brake-rule-change/10645992/
The FIA have no credibility that permits anything they say or do without substantial documentation to be accepted as truth. They changed "...any lapped car" to "...all lapped cars" when those clauses are ALREADY logically equivalent. Facts on the ground that the RB's have lost their 'dominance' once this started being watched more closely is a red flag. Not proof...just an awful lot of smoke. What prompted the new wording in July?
If you really want to be a conspiracy theorist then you could say it was Mercedes as Johnathan Noble has rushed to say it's just to tidy up the rules. He's their spokesman on that site. 😂😂
Let me say this as a long RB spectator: If you no longer find something that you could use to accuse other teams of "cheating" and cry to daddy FIA to investigate about it further, you're no longer a Formula 1 constructor.
@@aaronyoghurt9210 wouldn't that also be Mercedes during their dominance and Ferrari during theirs? (remember the Ferrari international assistance). lol
There is always one other explanation on why it was added: Some made a inquiry to the FIA and asked if such a system is legal before spending time and money developing it.
Or saw the loophole and made the enquiry to make sure nobody would do it. Or made such an enquiry because they suspected another team might have been using it
I doubt that, F1 engineers work on the principle that it’s better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission. They always “colour outside the lines” when it comes to the rules and then eventually the FIA tell them what they’ve done isn’t “in the spirit of the regulations” and they have to change it. They NEVER ask permission, look at Mercedes with the DAS system, Brawn’s Double Diffuser and whatever Ferrari were doing with the fuel flow of their engines a couple of years ago
That is not the way winners operate. If you find a loophole that offers an advantage, you exploit it as long as you can get away with it. That is the game in all motorsports.
@@NJTRAFlol those are bad examples. Mercedes (in both cases) went to the fia and asked about the systems legality. In the case of DAS, the fia rejected mercedes' first iteration and told them they would have to change the actuation method and they did before debuting it. With the double diffuser ross brawn has said he told the FIA they should close the loophole before the start of the regs and they ignored him. I could easily see a team like williams not wanting to spend the money on such a system so they can focus their funding on their fundamentals and making an inquiry.
"more transparency is always a good thing" I wish a team would run a imac/gameboy color y2k type livery that with that purply transparent look over the engine.
Man, feels like a lot of peoples first time watching F1. If you are NOT finding gray areas in the rules to exploit, you are not going to be fast. since the beginning of time, anything competitive will have people abusing rule sets. If its a clear breach, theyll be hit for it. If its a gray area, then theyll get away with it. EDIT: Reading the original rules, it is NOT clear enough. It doesnt say which pads must have equal magnitude and the only really specific part is that they must work as opposing pairs, which just means both must press together at the same rate. Which, you can apply 50kg of force to one pair of pads and 45kgnof force to the other pads and: Within each circuit: They are acting as opposing pairs The forces on each _pair_ are the same So if they were doing this, totally legal, rules are not specific enough. Either it started to cause issues and they stopped using it or the FIA said "dont bring that back" and then the new rule was drafted and litigated into place. Which is actually fairly common over F1 history.
Exactly its been like this since 1950. Big wings on sidepods 2nd brake pedal F duct Auto brake balance Fuel flow Das Its just part of the sport and you cant change that
This is exactly what it is. That stupid Netflix show has brought a bunch of people to the sport who know nothing but have no problem running their mouth. Growth is great for the sport for sure so this is a people issue. They don't understand racing, most will have never even been to a race in person and the anonymity the Internet provides gives they the courage to talk utter shit. The media is just utter garbage so it is no surprise coming from such lowlives.
@@TommoOnTH-cam it's freaking clever, and I love it. Even as a McLaren fan, I respect this stuff even when it hurts my team. We say it each time, why can't they just write the rules better but this is the nature of the beast. Why do teams of lawyers find loopholes for clients? Because the rules aren't created by thousands of people trying to break them. Same principal applies to how speed runners find all these glitches in video games. The ones writing the rules are completely outnumbered by the players and could not possibly think of everything. Same for all these engineers vs the rules makers.
Who would have guessed that a bunch of people using F1 as a personality trait for their social media profiles wouldn't have any understanding of motorsports history lol... Being a fan of this sport the last few years has been utterly painful as it gets more popular in North America.
The biggest issue with this accusation is that the issue 7 changes don't at all mean that someone was using it, teams will often submit inquiries about the legality of certain systems BEFORE they start using them, which can prompt the FIA to change the rules to clarify it
Not saying there isn't something here, but Peter Windsor isn't the most reliable source. He says some questionable things and even said earlier this season that Red Bull offered Albon a three year contract starting in 2025.
Perhaps not, but we can use his and Scarbs words alongside the Tech reg change and Red Bull's performance to make educated guesses. Antonio Lobato is another high profile name who has suggested RB have had to make changes.
I seem to remember RBR lodging a protest/complaint against McLaren after Silverstone this year, that never ended up going anywhere in my understanding, but it just seems like brakes are gonna be the part of the regs that end up being a warzone. Also, obviously take it with a grain of salt, but I’m pretty sure RBR said the issue Max had in AUS was because the duct itself was manufactured improperly. Edit: 22:30 you said something interesting there Tommo, “spirit of the regulation” I don’t think that exists in f1. The technical regs at this point are 4 brick walls that make a box. We can peek over the walls, but can’t step past them. Thats demonstrated when an engineer/team of engineers does just that, then the wall is built higher to ensure that sight can’t be seen again.
It’s kind of hilarious how Merc has flapping wings and a retractable steeringwheel and it’s called a “loophole” but when Redbull does it they call it cheating🤣
Mercedes fanboys are outright delusional and have a legitimate cult mentality. I'm not a RB fan (Williams as a team, Leclerc as a driver) but their fanbase is significantly less unhinged.
Merc took their idea to the FIA first before implementing it and it was deemed LEGAL within the rules as they were written at that time and the only flappable wing that got banned was RedBulls who were forced to change theirs..... but you carry on.
I appreciate you presenting this as an alleged possibility instead of using a clickbait title and devicive language that would put your credibility at risk. Presenting it with a degree of journalistic integrity matters. Some of your contemporaries are failing to understand how that may deligitimize their future opportunities to cross over to other platforms as you have.
article 11 already did not allow asymmetric braking before the "Clarification". "brake forces applied to the brake pads must be of the same magnitude and act as opposing pairs".
The rule clarification is ridiculous. It already states that asymmetrical braking is illegal. I think them "clarifying" the rule let's them not be forced to vacate wins of Red Bull for last couple years. Though I agree that every team is trying to bend the rules.
Agreed on all counts. But there is the good kind of bending the rules are things like the DAS or F-duct where the rules clearly didn't intend for such a thing, but it is clearly within the regulations, and done out in the open enough so everyone can applaud the cunning and debate if the rules should be ammened while starting a development race. Unlike the BS around the Ferrari the engines and the many RB dubious behaviours of recent years - all since Liberty media, which may be co-incidental, as there are other changes of personal at the top, but still it is just bad for the 'sport'...
8:42 lmao that reply tweet by TooRealToHandle, "Your boss is ok with you coming under posts confirming or denying stuff on their behalf? They don't have a communications team?" This guy has big "Teacher, you forgot to assign homework" energy.
The thing is, the regulations already said no systems that move brake bias between sides of the car. The added bit only affirms that a specific way of doing this is definitely illegal
Their mechanism was likely causing the brake pads to have force of different magnitudes applied to them. e.g. cheating. Maybe that was spotted in scrutineering and the rule was hightlighed to them. They then added the line subsequently because Red Bull were trying to challenge it.
I'm sorry to say but yeah this whole break thing goes beyond pushing the regs, after all its stated in the rules you can't have different breaking on the same axel. Nothing wrong in pushing rules but to play word games to this extreme ain't gonna fly. The true big question is how long has this thing been used for.
No, they modified the rules so it now says unequivocally you can’t have a system producing unequal braking forces on a given axle, before the rule change it said braking forces on a given disc, which would imply the forces of the brake pad on a disc would be equal. The “idea of uneven braking forces” has been illegal, yes. That much is clear sense they banned the McLaren third brake pedal achieving the exact same thing almost 30 years ago, but they never really put it into black and white as clearly as possible.
I think they wrote the original rules wrong... should have said opposing pairs on a give axle, not disc. This is clear because there is no advantage to applying a greater pressure to one side of a disc, as much as anything because the pressure on the faces of the disc would equalise.
Focus on the section of the rules that says the driver must operate the brake bias directly. I feel unless a driver is directly altering the lateral brake bias, there is an argument to call it cheating
In fact, focus on the line of the rules before the amendment. The front and rear are 2 seperate circuits (hydraulic wise) and therefore the pressure on all pads within a given circuit must me equal. The rules state only 2 circuits (front and rear) are allowed. So this is a slamdunk cheating case if there was an inertial valve, or any other form of altering the lateral brake bias in use
@@Mohawk_Racing I disagree with your interpretation of the rules. I don't think it says that the pressure must be equal on all pads in a system, only around a given brake disc. Also, as the system is only influenced by natural forces experienced by the car, and that this influence would be linear at a given brake bias setting, the only way to change its behaviour would be through driver inputs, aka brake bias. As far as the regulations go, it was a grey zone until the most recent revision. Most likely, they either decided to ban it on safety ground because of Melbourne, or teams started inquiring and the FIA chose to limit development costs by banning the system. In both cases, it's likely they warned teams that they would outlaw it as of the summer break in order to give time to any team that had implemented it to work on removing it (and especially make the car work properly without it).
@@charles-antoinemartel-roy it does say, the pressure on all pads within each circuit must be equal. It's just a matter of fact. But it is also a matter of fact that the driver must be in direct control of any braking modulation. So a g sensitive device acting as a driver aid is illegal on those grounds at the very least
@Mohawk_Racing alright Trumpo, how about you learn to show some receipts and quote the part where it says the pressure must be equal on all pads within a given circuit, if you're going to call it a "matter of fact." Because it doesn't specify that in any part I've seen. As far as your explaination goes, you said "the front and rear are 2 separate circuits, and therefore, the pressure on all pads within a given circuit must be equal." Except that's not what it says at all. As for the modulation, it does come from driver input, just not on the braking pedal, but on the steering wheel. Again, it is a grey zone at best in the April revision because it doesn't specify that the modulation must come from within the braking system itself. So how about you get off your high horse and show some receipts before calling things "matter of fact."
17:01 it is also possible that a team incorrectly suspected another team of doing this and requested a clarification from the FIA. So it is possible no one was doing this and the FIA wanted to close a loophole before it propagated through the field.
Given the Australian GP right brake fire, then thereafter Verstappen complaining his car was not turning i.e. no oversteer, Red Bull was blatantly cheating but the issue 7’s addition only serves the FIA to “seal the past” thus avoiding a scandal with disqualifications, etc…
Issue 6 was perfectly clear that the pressure on each disc had to be identical which necessarily signifies no bias. Testing the brakes with a simple T piece would produce equal pressure on both discs. Testing the brakes with an intertia valve equipped T piece would produce a difference in pressure. One of the paragraph below also states that the action of braking / braking modulation must be solely powered by the pilot foot at the exclusion of anything else whereas fitting an inertia valve becomes a breach of this statutory requirement given that the brakes pressure would be the result of 1) the pilot pressure on the pedal but 2) compounded with the car’s attitude and therefore lateral g forces… The above can be easily demonstrated by braking in a straight line which leads to no lateral g forces in the inertia valve thus no braking sides bias. Braking in a curve would lead to the inertia valve piston displacing due to lateral g leading to a sides braking bias. So the FIA incorrectly amended their regulations with issue 7 and whoever cheated could still be caught under the “g forces affected braking sides bias modulation”.
Really love the innovation, but I’m not sure I can see this being a grey area… as per article 11.1.2: “The brake system must be designed so that within each circuit, the forces applied to the brake pads are the same magnitude and act as opposing pairs on a given brake disc.” They cannot be opposing pairs if one of the left or right has a greater magnitude applied to it? Or am I missing something? If it is cheating then we’ve been robbed of a banger of a season
I suspect we have been robbed or way more than one - RB where probably doing this last year too, and last year every other car near the top was competitive with each other and probably close enough to the now nerfed RB that Max might not have walked every race so trivially...
@@foldionepapyrus3441 1: That's assuming a team did do it, and didn't just query 2: That's assuming that team is Red Bull (any proof as to why it would be?) 3: They said different forces on a disc. Not different forces on different discs on the same axle. That's an important distinction. Otherwise you might as well say that adjusting brake balance is illegal per the F1 rules as well.
If I understand this correctly. The definition of asymmetric braking was only referring to the APPLICATION pressure of the brakes, not the release of said brakes. If the system retarded just a fraction of the braking on the rear inside wheel, this wouldn't qualify as asymmetric braking according to the book itself. I won't be debating whether this is clever or shady. My point would be this : "The SPIRIT of the rules" does not exist. Rules are as they are written. The spirit of the rules is a loose term used by people who are in charge of regulating that do a bad job at clarifying the rules. If you get thrown in jail because you did something that is legal in the books but illegal in the heart of the juge, it'd be unfair and incompetent behaviour of the judge. Same here. And to me that's why the rules have been changed and nobody got punished. The brakes were legal. Period. They just changed the definition of what is legal.
Chances are it's like with the ferrari engine in 2019. Team A suspects Team B of doing something so Team A asks the FIA if they can do that thing they are suspecting Team B does. And if it's not allowed the rules are clarified and if Team B was doing something that's now illegal they have to stop.
I'm guessing the thing Tommo claimed at the end about FIA telling RB they can have it until the summer break before it being outlawed might actually be true. Imagine that in the grand scheme of the season, if you will: Red Bull being dominant, or at the very least, in the mix at the front, but then in the second half of the season, other teams (McL, Merc, Ferrari) catching up/dethroning them and creating one heck of a close title fight. I'm already seeing the dollar signs in the eyes of LM and FIA there.
Having a look at the regulations, the loophole that lets whatever team get away with that braking system is inspired. I'd be skeptical that Red Bull were doing it as I can't see them just taking the system off if it isn't in the regs, and given all Red Bull's cars in these regs have incredibly stiff suspension that definitely fits their drop off more. The real tell will be if another team has a big drop off in pace or tire deg at Zandvoort.
@Tommo Torque vectoring IS illegal. Anything that induces Torque vectoring is illegal... and has been since late 2ks. RB knew that, therefore it would be cheating.
@@jasper7126 I don't know the exact wording of which kind of torque vectoring is banned, but brake can definitely be used to do torque vectoring, and is actually a very common system on road cars, like many of the FWD hot hatches of the modern era.
Feels more like the Ferrari situation. They also never said anything. Their car was just slower. Kind of similar to redbull now. So maybe Peter Windsor actually isn’t brambling this time and there is some truth to it actually being illegal. idk. Would just be my interpretation of the actions and accusations shown by all parties. It reflects the Ferrari one, even down to the driver whining about lacking performance in that specific area. And I don’t think the fact that the fia is just now adding this rule specification has to mean that Red Bull were not doing something illegal. The situation sounds, to me, like „hey put that off the car it’s illegal“, „but it doesn’t specifically say so in the rules“, „we will add it and if you don’t remove it by blah blah next race you will get disqualified“. Now you can speculate on why it took them longer to add the rule than redbulls drop in performance. Solutions for example: rb wanted to adjust as early as possible, since they will have to earlier or later and can learn more this way. Or rb was like „if you don’t add the rule now, we will actually go back to using it“. Idk there is possibilities maybe beyond what you would think at first glance
I disagree, because with regards to the fia, merc was transparent about DAS. It was already approved. Asymmetric braking has already been well anticipated, its already been done. It's just the fia made a balls up of writing the rules
@@Mohawk_RacingAre they obliged by the regs to clear it up in advance? If not then it's perfectly legal. I don't think teams have to explain everything on their car to the FIA. They build the car and the FIA checks if it's legal or not.
@@cyan_oxy6734 I don't have the answer to that. But it still stands as a fact as to why you cannot compare the 2. The rules about the brakes were written to prohibit asymmetrical braking systems. It just wasn't written very well. However there is still a part of the rules that people aren't focusing on which would prove cheating if the intertial valve was being used
on your take with ferrari and it being clear, I wouldnt be so sure. I don't know the exact ruling but if it would state something like "the fuel flow at this point has to be X then it wouldn't be clear cheating if you are able to meet that requirement while having a higher flow at other points. what I want to say with that, determining if something is clear cheating can't be done without looking at the exact rules around the situation
@@Alumnikiid you clearly don’t know how to read. I’m saying they also got attacked for the 2022 cost cap. Not 2021 but maybe you need some reading lessons
Do you remember the Ferrari engine issue where they just tried to say “yea nothing is different” and then proceeded to lose around 15kph on the straights
@@Lanse1984 yeah, I am talking about 2024, I am not saying that’s the reason, but I just don’t understand how with such bad performances he so confidently scoffs when asked about driving for Redbull in 2025, he just scoffs and says “I’ll be here next year” he does it in ClaroSportsTV a lot. Like there is something hidden that Redbull keeps signing him
@@jgee9160 my theory is that the FiA came to Redbull saying they need to correct this issue by X date, as Tommo said maybe summer, they changed the set up for Checo to try to resolve the issue as soon as possible, on the mean time Max would keep the cheating set up to gain as much points as possible and front run the season ala Jenson Button style. I dislike Checo's underperformance just like anybody else, but him being overperformed by backmarkes makes zero sense.
@@ChuyR. the question is did he know and downgraded from cheat mode or was rb gaslighting him/us into thinking it’s all him and the “old car will come to him”spin?? take your pick
To be fair rules kinda made that system illegal as of issue 6 (and previous one aswell) as it surely resulted in a different pressure on brake pads on each side, I would say it's the same thing as flexible wings back in the day. Rules specifically do not allow such thing (be it fliexible wing or a valve that changes the pressure in brake system), but teams found a loophole by saying "it is faulty and it was not intentional" (applies to both cases). For me that's the reason behind pink text being added afterwards, just to clarify the rules, especially given the words used "SYSTEMATICALLY OR INTENTIONALLY" so if it "fails" systematically (when g-force is applied) then it is still illigal. And I can see FIA banning it back in April claiming "it is agains the spirit of the rule". Alleged team (whichever it was) technically was not in the breach of rules (as at the time of measurement the car is static and level thus pressure is equal on both sides) but FIA did the right thing in, allegedly, banning it. Difference to DAS could be due to the fact that a) Merc developed and manufactred a complex system, that would require time to redisign and put Merc at disadvantage for (at this point in time) technically NOT breaking rules; b) no other team could produce system similar to DAS in a short time so there was no risk of it spreading into others' team designs and in case of this valve it is replicated in so little time that if they didn't outlaw it straight out (in April) then by the time it is in the rules it would be in every car OR other teams could reasonably ask FIA why they allowed that team to run it for 8 more races and only then (July) ban it (assuming FIA knew of it back in April). Anyways I see it as a great engineering within the words of the rule, but completely against the infamous "spirit of the rule", thus for me noone is in the wrong, not a team, not the FIA, noone. Just a great development of my favorite motorsport!
The issue 6 regulations were well written and even with the issue 7 blabla, a breach of regulations can still easily be challenged because of the paragraphs below.
At a certain point have a cost cap, make sure the cars are safe, (and maybe sustainable - although fix the calendar first!!) and then just screw all other regulations and let the teams make the fastest car they can. I loved the idea of das, and this also seems really innovative. Let the teams create things!
I don't think this would be against the rules of the braking system because of the wording in the rules. But let's remember the Mclaren fiddle brake case where it was outlawed as a form of four wheel steering and NOT as a breach of a braking system article. So my point is that how was this not breaking the four wheel steering rules and I'd have a look at those also if they could be found "cheating" breaking those articles of the regulation. Personally it's hard to see how this is that much different to the Mclaren case and the regulations used to outlaw it then.
I am not saying it wasn't RedBull (probably was lol) or try to point fingers but in the spirit of adding to the conversation I feel like the chance of it being the cause of RedBull performance drop is about the same as it being the cause of performance upgrade we seen in Mclaren/Mercedes lately. I personally don't see it as cheating regardless of which team used it, just because we uneducated general public don't see it or don't understand it fully doesn't make it cheating. And to people saying that why the team using it doesn't confess to it, well firstly they still might as this rule change takes affect at Zandvoort and secondly why would they? It's not something we can see and I don't see the bragging right that yeah it was us and we forced this rule change.
I would add one more thing to it. If it really was Redbull and they did take it out before Miami (makes zero sense to me as it is banned now from Zandvoort not since Miami) then there will be no further performance drop from RedBull at Zandvoort (sure they can fuck up million other things to make them slower but this is just for the sake of the point), however if it was some other team that NOW has to get rid of it, we may see that team struggle more on breaking/turn in/balance etc.
If any team finds a loophole in the rules within the framing of the rules, then good for them. It is also up to the FIA to close that loophole once they find out and evaluate it didn't go with the spirit of the rule. No punishment should be given to the team in question, of course. They should, however, conform to the new framing of the rules. The big thing here is the word "IF." We assume there was really a loophole, and the new framing has closed it. However, if the rule was already clear and the interpretation was not fair by the team in question, then it is definitely cheating. I am not an expert, but I have seen people say the new formulation of the rule that was added didn't clarify anything that wasn't already known. If this is the case, the team should definitely be punished. Now, it is up to the experts of the FIA and other teams to identify which situation is actually the reality.
Independent breaks has been forbidden since 1998. Simple. Doesn’t matter if they added this rules independent break pressures from left to right has been out lawrd for decades.
RBR could have been found in violation of 11.1.2 even without the added text, had they the setup you outlined in the beginning. Given the first line of the reg, the second is actually redundant. Line one specifies equal magnitude. Anything asymmetric would not meet that requirement.
11.1.2 specifically "the forces applied to the brake pads are the same magnitude" would clearly outlaw what Redbull are accused of. My guess is that if its true Redbull were forced to remove it, then appealed so the additional text was added to shut down an appeal. and if the above is correct that would absolutely be cheating.
1: That's assuming a team actually did this, and it wasn't a query 2: That's assuming the team in question is Red Bull 3: It really isn't. The rules specified on a single brake disc. Not across multiple brake discs. Keep in mind front/rear brake balance is something adjusted _all_ the time.
It’s cheating for two reasons. Firstly if a device is used which does not apply equal forces to both brake pads on the same axle then it would fail the original text. Also if this device is not controlled by the driver it fails the section that prohibits the use of automatic braking controls. Finally every none stock part used of the car has to be approved by the FIA. We all know that DAS was, but what about this braking device!
The premise of the braking regulations mentions multiple times to not have varying braking forces to avoid an effect similar to ABS. The added section adds no value and is repeated multiple times prior in multiple sections. A driver assist is cheating and the RB should be disqualified for having an illegal car for the first five races
What this might reflect is that they were given off the record or unofficial notice they should have it removed. Then after they did the rules were updated to smooth it over and not have to find RBR guilty of cheating. The reason being if they did it in the reverse order then they would have to take action on it. It does logically suggest it was a top team and they had to remove it. It was likely RBR and possibly Ferrari, who have also dropped off, the latter copying the former.
Whoever is using technical innovation to gain an advantage is to be applauded. DAS was spectacular and heralded as such. Blown diffuser? Brilliant. Too much being made of this brake issue I feel.
Question, could an FIA directive have been issued to the teams at Miami, prior to later clarification in the regulations? I imagine a directive would also be publicly available
i agree with Ferrari- fuel flow = cheating i agree with Aston - Pushing the boundaries I agree with Merc - Pushing the boundaries I DONT agree that Red Bull (allegedly) were not cheating, Regs clearly stated that pressure should be applied equally across the axel (or words to the effect) This device (as an example) 100% goes against that
The rules didnt state that though. They just state that pressure must be applied equally from both sides of the disk. Obviously you are allowed to run different brake pressures front to back, and the rules state nothing about different pressures side to side. This was something missed in creating the rules, the spirit is obvious but the wording doesnt mention it. Cheating is breaking the wording of the rules or circumventing their enforcement, not exploring parts that are not mentioned
@@TommoOnTH-cam The existing wording does suffice. The original rule says the forces applied to the brake pads *must* be the same magnitude. The word must doesn't leave anything to interpretation. If the left and right brake pressures are different, the forces are not the same magnitude, and the rule is broken. I don't know why the FIA felt the need to amend the rule, but it might have similar reasoning as to why Mercedes didn't pursue legal action after the 2021 season.
@@TommoOnTH-cam Easy the FIA wants to protect the sport's image and DQ'ing all the RB results beforehand, and quite possibly all of last years RB results too would be massively embarrassing... And dramatically alter the championship in a way that isn't going to popular - suddenly RB the current goldenboys of the sport are revealed to be cheaters unworthy of their position, and have no chance to win either championship now... So you issue a 'clarification' that doesn't actually change the meaning the rules at all, have no transparency on what really happened and simply let everyone pretend it was legal. Thus you avoid having one of the biggest teams in the sport from falling epically from grace finishing probably 6th in constructors (this year anyway after all their cheating points are removed), having to pay back winnings they shouldn't have had, tarnish a very popular driver even more than he always was from 2021 etc...
@@foldionepapyrus3441 1: That's assuming a team did do it, and that it wasn't just a query 2: That's assuming Red Bull was the team in question (do you have any reasonable evidence?) 3: The rules aren't specific enough. Front/rear brake balance is changed all the time by every team, for example. By your logic, that's also illegal. 4: RB definitely aren't the "golden boys". Ferrari and Mercedes both have larger fanbases 5: The FIA has definitely stripped popular teams from all race wins for cheating before. Benetton, Renault, McLaren, for example. Critical thinking skills are important
Reminds of McLaren's second brake pedal in 90ies, which was later banned. ;) But it's interesting to see what has happened since then. Red Bull let their Chief Technical Officer go (who was responsible for such shenanigans) and Max has only won in Montral (because McLaren and Mercedes bottled it) and in Imola (a race which had better not lasted a lap or two longer). 😉
I think the part Peter and Craig got wrong is what Red Bull were told by the FIA. My guess is that the issue with the brakes in Melbourne gave the FIA a reason to ban the system on safety grounds, and the decision was made somewhere between Melbourne and Miami. They probably decided to ban the system during the summer break to allow time for team(s) to remove the system from the car. If that's the case, Miami is likely just the race where Red Bull first ran their car without it, not because they were forced to, but because they needed to learn how to set-up and upgrade their car without it. And it would explain why Nicholas felt justified in calling Peter's tweet BS, not because he was wrong about the concept itself, but because he was wrong about the way the events unfolded.
Every constructer builts in Grey zones like the following: the F-duct, the W-duct, DAS, tuned Mass dampers, branham fan car, blow defusers, the double defuser and Ferraris engiens burning Oil. (If you aint “cheating” you aint trying
Would you deem flexi wings cheating too Tommo? I remember Horner always stating (paraphrased) "our car complies with the regulations, passes the load tests" etc. Designing a wing that can pass a load test yet flex in other load cases (composite structures etc.) is against the spirit of the rules but is it cheating? Its a fine line.
I think there should be designated points in a season where there can be new rules made to outrule stuff that teams come up with if its deemed to game breaking/dangerous.
Anyone going on about merc, just to say, nothing was hidden with DAS and rear suspension. Even so called “party mode”. When the party mode ban come in did anything change with the merc. Nope. They still smashed everyone.
Swear the FIA 100% knows if a team had/has this on their car, especially now that there is a cost cap as it would need to be documented on time and development etc.... and most parts needs to be sent to the FIA for legality. So its a bit weird if the FIA didn't know and if they didn't it would be illegal.
the example of DAS is super pertinent here. i really think that unless there is a significant and real safety concern or it is actually against the already written rules of F1 like ferraris engine (apparently) was, teams should be allowed to keep whatever tricks they have up their sleeve until the end of the season that theyre caught, at which point the FIA can very clearly write out what they have an issue with in next years rulebook. if redbull really did have this little trick braking system, then looking at something like DAS, it should have been allowed for the rest of the season. and i know that the reason that DAS was allowed to stay for a whole year whereas other things werent is because mercedes spoke to the FIA and explained that nothing they were doing was illegal, and seemingly red bull havent done that for this braking trick. but to me that doesnt mean that red bull should be forced to remove it mid season whereas mercedes got to keep DAS or racing point keeping the w10 clone. significant rule changes should be kept to after the season is over. and saying that “oh well it would ruin the integrity of the championship if an illegal car won” a) again, the red bull braking system wasnt illegal if it is real at all, and b) mercedes w11, brawn bgp 001, the benetton with supposed traction control, none of these cars that were illegal in the same sense that the red bull braking system is apparently illegal were stripped of the championships that they won
I think because it has been so quiet and not all over the media means it has to be Mercedes. If it were Red Bull or Ferrari, it would be all over the F1 media. Let’s see how Mercedes performs when we get back this weekend.
This is what all teams are doing, loophole. It's a part of the sport, then FIA does this to close the gap between RB and the rest. That's also a part of the sport.
Why did this come out now? If RBR had to modify something on their car at the end of April/start of May, then why do we hear about this 3 months later? Usually, teams are like white on rice when it comes to "going against the spirit of the rules". The line read "... the forces applied to the brake pads are the same magnitude .... ". So any system where the force applied isn't the same magnitude would be illegal. The thing about DAS was that Merc worked with FIA (or at least, FIA knew about what Merc was doing). If I remember correctly Merc had wanted to introduce DAS at the 2019 pre-season test, but FIA said it was 4-wheel steering. So they pushed the DAS release forward and they managed to use it during the 2020 season. So DAS and this breaking system are different in the regard that FIA knew and was part of the development loop for one and not for the other. You make an argument that it wasn't illegal because they had to change the wording of the rules but say Ferrari doing their fuel flow shenanigans was illegal. But FIA issued technical regulation changes back then as well. So was that illegal?
The law as it stood before being changed, is the opposing pairs in reference to front and back tyre or left and right? As this would make a difference as to whether a team has done something dodgy
It refers to left and right. You have to bias brakes front and back. In a standard consumer car it is something like 80% front and 20% back. Your front brakes provide almost all the stopping force. The rear brakes keep you level, stable, and under control. If you don't bias front and rear braking a car will be unstable under braking. F1 drivers have a dial on their steering wheel where they can change those percentages.
So if you compare it to the DAS situation it is 'unfair' that it had to be removed so abruptly. That that suggests it was Red Bull,, F1 wouldn't have hated getting the filed a bit closer togather.
I think you are missing the point. The way the rule was initially written made that system forbidden. What they basically did was just restate the same thing. There was nothing to misinterpret from the get-go.
If it isn’t cheating, then why hasn’t whichever team who had it on their car simply said “yeah ok guys, we had a clever innovation. But I guess we’ll have to remove it now,” like Merc with DAS, S-duct, etc. If it was RB, and they don’t think it was cheating, why don’t they say as much, instead of deny deny deny.
Have they been asked? I'm not sure there's been an opportunity yet - will be interesting to see whether it's probed this weekend now that the rules have actually changed.
@@pixelomega3042 immediately no. Banning this now instead of allowing it to continue to the end of the season itself is another point of contention. But I am merely saying that if this was just a creative interpretation of the rules, which every team does (and should do), then why would said team deny being the party in question? The only reason not to be proud of your creativity would be if you yourself knew it was beyond the pale.
If I was to cheat in exams of course I would get caught and get stricter punishments but here when loads of money are at stake cheating is allowed with just a warning.
I don't see the asymmetric braking system as cheating. If red bull have that system, they read the rules, saw it wasn't against the rules use developed it and used it. And I'd guess that system was on the 23 car aswell
Very bold to call out Callum when he’s calling out Peter. I highly doubt he would be vocal about it if it was a touchy subject within the sport given his stature.
Seeing results of the last few weeks, it does look like RedBull are the culprits. Surprising and sudden fall in performance in 2 tracks which are on opposite ends of the spectrum? Looks sus. Also, I think asymmetric braking has been illegal since forever. Be it banning FRICS in 2015, or banning McLaren 3rd Pedal in 90s/00s, or even recently, post-2021, banning some suspension trick used to assist in brake balance. Finding another way to do something that has always been illegal is still illegal IMO.
I have to disagree on your take on "Is this cheating". Even in the pre-Miami rules, the paragraph you refer to points out that "the forces applied to the brake pads must be the same magnitude" - which by the letters of the rule already prohibits the valve RB supposedly ran. So here is my take on the issue: The system had already been effectively banned from the start of the season. RB got caught before Miami and dealt with the FIA (just like Ferrari once did with its fuel pump) that the valve will be removed before Miami and no further action will be taken. In July, the FIA merely doubled down on the rules that are already in place and added the sentence referring to the asymmetrical distribution of braking forces. So if this system was run (and most likely it has been run by RB), it is already a violation of paragraph 11.1.2 even in its pre-Miami version - which I call cheating within both the spirit and the letters of the rulebook.
UPDATE: Motorsport.com just published an article giving more context to the change. In short, "the real motivation in changing the rules instead (of somebody using the system) came from efforts to tidy up the regulations for 2026, and make it clearer in the next rules era what was and was not allowed."
www.motorsport.com/f1/news/what-was-really-behind-the-fias-f1-asymmetric-brake-rule-change/10645992/
The FIA have no credibility that permits anything they say or do without substantial documentation to be accepted as truth. They changed "...any lapped car" to "...all lapped cars" when those clauses are ALREADY logically equivalent.
Facts on the ground that the RB's have lost their 'dominance' once this started being watched more closely is a red flag. Not proof...just an awful lot of smoke.
What prompted the new wording in July?
If you really want to be a conspiracy theorist then you could say it was Mercedes as Johnathan Noble has rushed to say it's just to tidy up the rules. He's their spokesman on that site. 😂😂
@@clairdillon1762 are....are you high?
Let me say this as a Brazilian: If you no longer go for a gap that exists in the regulations, you're no longer a Formula 1 constructor.
Brilliant.
Perfection.
Let me say this as a long RB spectator: If you no longer find something that you could use to accuse other teams of "cheating" and cry to daddy FIA to investigate about it further, you're no longer a Formula 1 constructor.
Its an older meme sir but it checks out.
@@aaronyoghurt9210 wouldn't that also be Mercedes during their dominance and Ferrari during theirs? (remember the Ferrari international assistance). lol
Those brakes were developed for the catering carts to stop better guys nothing to see here
It all makes sense.
😂
Yeah needed better brakes to slow down that *huge* sunday dinner in the hq
There is always one other explanation on why it was added: Some made a inquiry to the FIA and asked if such a system is legal before spending time and money developing it.
Or saw the loophole and made the enquiry to make sure nobody would do it. Or made such an enquiry because they suspected another team might have been using it
Perhaps, could well be the case. But IMO that doesn't change the systems legality prior to any inquiry.
I doubt that, F1 engineers work on the principle that it’s better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission. They always “colour outside the lines” when it comes to the rules and then eventually the FIA tell them what they’ve done isn’t “in the spirit of the regulations” and they have to change it. They NEVER ask permission, look at Mercedes with the DAS system, Brawn’s Double Diffuser and whatever Ferrari were doing with the fuel flow of their engines a couple of years ago
That is not the way winners operate. If you find a loophole that offers an advantage, you exploit it as long as you can get away with it. That is the game in all motorsports.
@@NJTRAFlol those are bad examples. Mercedes (in both cases) went to the fia and asked about the systems legality. In the case of DAS, the fia rejected mercedes' first iteration and told them they would have to change the actuation method and they did before debuting it. With the double diffuser ross brawn has said he told the FIA they should close the loophole before the start of the regs and they ignored him.
I could easily see a team like williams not wanting to spend the money on such a system so they can focus their funding on their fundamentals and making an inquiry.
"more transparency is always a good thing"
I wish a team would run a imac/gameboy color y2k type livery that with that purply transparent look over the engine.
Ok.
wtf
That would look amazing
Imagine the sauber with neon green and transparent
YES PLEASE
Kinda hate how deceptively descriptive that is. Gimme that Atomic Purple.
Don't think you can get carbon fibre transparent like that but they could do it on the livery like those phone cases that show all the innards
@@minetogiveaway There has to be some way right? 😅
Man, feels like a lot of peoples first time watching F1.
If you are NOT finding gray areas in the rules to exploit, you are not going to be fast. since the beginning of time, anything competitive will have people abusing rule sets.
If its a clear breach, theyll be hit for it. If its a gray area, then theyll get away with it.
EDIT: Reading the original rules, it is NOT clear enough. It doesnt say which pads must have equal magnitude and the only really specific part is that they must work as opposing pairs, which just means both must press together at the same rate.
Which, you can apply 50kg of force to one pair of pads and 45kgnof force to the other pads and:
Within each circuit:
They are acting as opposing pairs
The forces on each _pair_ are the same
So if they were doing this, totally legal, rules are not specific enough. Either it started to cause issues and they stopped using it or the FIA said "dont bring that back" and then the new rule was drafted and litigated into place. Which is actually fairly common over F1 history.
Exactly its been like this since 1950.
Big wings on sidepods
2nd brake pedal
F duct
Auto brake balance
Fuel flow
Das
Its just part of the sport and you cant change that
This is exactly what it is. That stupid Netflix show has brought a bunch of people to the sport who know nothing but have no problem running their mouth. Growth is great for the sport for sure so this is a people issue. They don't understand racing, most will have never even been to a race in person and the anonymity the Internet provides gives they the courage to talk utter shit. The media is just utter garbage so it is no surprise coming from such lowlives.
Spot on
@@TommoOnTH-cam it's freaking clever, and I love it. Even as a McLaren fan, I respect this stuff even when it hurts my team.
We say it each time, why can't they just write the rules better but this is the nature of the beast. Why do teams of lawyers find loopholes for clients? Because the rules aren't created by thousands of people trying to break them.
Same principal applies to how speed runners find all these glitches in video games. The ones writing the rules are completely outnumbered by the players and could not possibly think of everything.
Same for all these engineers vs the rules makers.
Who would have guessed that a bunch of people using F1 as a personality trait for their social media profiles wouldn't have any understanding of motorsports history lol... Being a fan of this sport the last few years has been utterly painful as it gets more popular in North America.
The biggest issue with this accusation is that the issue 7 changes don't at all mean that someone was using it, teams will often submit inquiries about the legality of certain systems BEFORE they start using them, which can prompt the FIA to change the rules to clarify it
Hasn’t asymmetrical braking already been banned years ago?
Not saying there isn't something here, but Peter Windsor isn't the most reliable source. He says some questionable things and even said earlier this season that Red Bull offered Albon a three year contract starting in 2025.
Source?
Doesn’t mean we have to believe anything, or reject or everything, we use critical thinking to come to a conclusion
agree, Peter is full of sheet
Video you can search you will get the clip@@Real28
Perhaps not, but we can use his and Scarbs words alongside the Tech reg change and Red Bull's performance to make educated guesses. Antonio Lobato is another high profile name who has suggested RB have had to make changes.
I seem to remember RBR lodging a protest/complaint against McLaren after Silverstone this year, that never ended up going anywhere in my understanding, but it just seems like brakes are gonna be the part of the regs that end up being a warzone. Also, obviously take it with a grain of salt, but I’m pretty sure RBR said the issue Max had in AUS was because the duct itself was manufactured improperly.
Edit: 22:30 you said something interesting there Tommo, “spirit of the regulation” I don’t think that exists in f1. The technical regs at this point are 4 brick walls that make a box. We can peek over the walls, but can’t step past them. Thats demonstrated when an engineer/team of engineers does just that, then the wall is built higher to ensure that sight can’t be seen again.
It’s kind of hilarious how Merc has flapping wings and a retractable steeringwheel and it’s called a “loophole” but when Redbull does it they call it cheating🤣
+ if the rules needed to be changed it probably means they weren’t written correctly to begin with.
Mercedes fanboys are outright delusional and have a legitimate cult mentality.
I'm not a RB fan (Williams as a team, Leclerc as a driver) but their fanbase is significantly less unhinged.
Merc took their idea to the FIA first before implementing it and it was deemed LEGAL within the rules as they were written at that time and the only flappable wing that got banned was RedBulls who were forced to change theirs..... but you carry on.
It was called cheating back then too lol. Its the same story, different team.
Where are you getting this from?
I appreciate you presenting this as an alleged possibility instead of using a clickbait title and devicive language that would put your credibility at risk. Presenting it with a degree of journalistic integrity matters. Some of your contemporaries are failing to understand how that may deligitimize their future opportunities to cross over to other platforms as you have.
article 11 already did not allow asymmetric braking before the "Clarification". "brake forces applied to the brake pads must be of the same magnitude and act as opposing pairs".
Imagine after the summer break, instead of Redbull falls back, Mclaren or Merc start to go back in pace
It's like 2022 all over again, except it was Ferrari and Merc back then
Here to defend Calibri.
Get out.
Tommo with the W as per🔥 nicely done, thanks for laying it out so clearly👌
The rule clarification is ridiculous. It already states that asymmetrical braking is illegal. I think them "clarifying" the rule let's them not be forced to vacate wins of Red Bull for last couple years. Though I agree that every team is trying to bend the rules.
Agreed on all counts. But there is the good kind of bending the rules are things like the DAS or F-duct where the rules clearly didn't intend for such a thing, but it is clearly within the regulations, and done out in the open enough so everyone can applaud the cunning and debate if the rules should be ammened while starting a development race. Unlike the BS around the Ferrari the engines and the many RB dubious behaviours of recent years - all since Liberty media, which may be co-incidental, as there are other changes of personal at the top, but still it is just bad for the 'sport'...
@@foldionepapyrus3441 totally agree!
The whole point of f1 is bending the rules lol this sport has always been mega shady that’s the fun of it
@@havenwisner6776 there are grey areas not prohibited and asymmetrical breaking which clearly wasn't allowed.
Red bull are the ones that filed a complaint about McLarens break disks. Check the Auto, Motor und Sport article
They used to file complaints against Merc and Renult every race. Stg all Horner used to do I say everyone else was cheating. 😂
The brake ducts specifically right?
8:42 lmao that reply tweet by TooRealToHandle, "Your boss is ok with you coming under posts confirming or denying stuff on their behalf? They don't have a communications team?" This guy has big "Teacher, you forgot to assign homework" energy.
Peak Merc fan energy
The thing is, the regulations already said no systems that move brake bias between sides of the car. The added bit only affirms that a specific way of doing this is definitely illegal
Their mechanism was likely causing the brake pads to have force of different magnitudes applied to them. e.g. cheating.
Maybe that was spotted in scrutineering and the rule was hightlighed to them.
They then added the line subsequently because Red Bull were trying to challenge it.
I'm sorry to say but yeah this whole break thing goes beyond pushing the regs, after all its stated in the rules you can't have different breaking on the same axel. Nothing wrong in pushing rules but to play word games to this extreme ain't gonna fly. The true big question is how long has this thing been used for.
No, they modified the rules so it now says unequivocally you can’t have a system producing unequal braking forces on a given axle, before the rule change it said braking forces on a given disc, which would imply the forces of the brake pad on a disc would be equal. The “idea of uneven braking forces” has been illegal, yes. That much is clear sense they banned the McLaren third brake pedal achieving the exact same thing almost 30 years ago, but they never really put it into black and white as clearly as possible.
I think they wrote the original rules wrong... should have said opposing pairs on a give axle, not disc.
This is clear because there is no advantage to applying a greater pressure to one side of a disc, as much as anything because the pressure on the faces of the disc would equalise.
Focus on the section of the rules that says the driver must operate the brake bias directly. I feel unless a driver is directly altering the lateral brake bias, there is an argument to call it cheating
In fact, focus on the line of the rules before the amendment. The front and rear are 2 seperate circuits (hydraulic wise) and therefore the pressure on all pads within a given circuit must me equal. The rules state only 2 circuits (front and rear) are allowed. So this is a slamdunk cheating case if there was an inertial valve, or any other form of altering the lateral brake bias in use
@@Mohawk_Racing I disagree with your interpretation of the rules. I don't think it says that the pressure must be equal on all pads in a system, only around a given brake disc. Also, as the system is only influenced by natural forces experienced by the car, and that this influence would be linear at a given brake bias setting, the only way to change its behaviour would be through driver inputs, aka brake bias.
As far as the regulations go, it was a grey zone until the most recent revision. Most likely, they either decided to ban it on safety ground because of Melbourne, or teams started inquiring and the FIA chose to limit development costs by banning the system. In both cases, it's likely they warned teams that they would outlaw it as of the summer break in order to give time to any team that had implemented it to work on removing it (and especially make the car work properly without it).
@@charles-antoinemartel-roy it does say, the pressure on all pads within each circuit must be equal. It's just a matter of fact.
But it is also a matter of fact that the driver must be in direct control of any braking modulation. So a g sensitive device acting as a driver aid is illegal on those grounds at the very least
@Mohawk_Racing alright Trumpo, how about you learn to show some receipts and quote the part where it says the pressure must be equal on all pads within a given circuit, if you're going to call it a "matter of fact." Because it doesn't specify that in any part I've seen. As far as your explaination goes, you said "the front and rear are 2 separate circuits, and therefore, the pressure on all pads within a given circuit must be equal." Except that's not what it says at all.
As for the modulation, it does come from driver input, just not on the braking pedal, but on the steering wheel. Again, it is a grey zone at best in the April revision because it doesn't specify that the modulation must come from within the braking system itself.
So how about you get off your high horse and show some receipts before calling things "matter of fact."
17:01 it is also possible that a team incorrectly suspected another team of doing this and requested a clarification from the FIA. So it is possible no one was doing this and the FIA wanted to close a loophole before it propagated through the field.
Given the Australian GP right brake fire, then thereafter Verstappen complaining his car was not turning i.e. no oversteer, Red Bull was blatantly cheating but the issue 7’s addition only serves the FIA to “seal the past” thus avoiding a scandal with disqualifications, etc…
Issue 6 was perfectly clear that the pressure on each disc had to be identical which necessarily signifies no bias.
Testing the brakes with a simple T piece would produce equal pressure on both discs.
Testing the brakes with an intertia valve equipped T piece would produce a difference in pressure.
One of the paragraph below also states that the action of braking / braking modulation must be solely powered by the pilot foot at the exclusion of anything else whereas fitting an inertia valve becomes a breach of this statutory requirement given that the brakes pressure would be the result of 1) the pilot pressure on the pedal but 2) compounded with the car’s attitude and therefore lateral g forces…
The above can be easily demonstrated by braking in a straight line which leads to no lateral g forces in the inertia valve thus no braking sides bias. Braking in a curve would lead to the inertia valve piston displacing due to lateral g leading to a sides braking bias.
So the FIA incorrectly amended their regulations with issue 7 and whoever cheated could still be caught under the “g forces affected braking sides bias modulation”.
Really love the innovation, but I’m not sure I can see this being a grey area… as per article 11.1.2: “The brake system must be designed so that within each circuit, the forces applied to the brake pads are the same magnitude and act as opposing pairs on a given brake disc.”
They cannot be opposing pairs if one of the left or right has a greater magnitude applied to it? Or am I missing something?
If it is cheating then we’ve been robbed of a banger of a season
I suspect we have been robbed or way more than one - RB where probably doing this last year too, and last year every other car near the top was competitive with each other and probably close enough to the now nerfed RB that Max might not have walked every race so trivially...
@@foldionepapyrus3441 1: That's assuming a team did do it, and didn't just query
2: That's assuming that team is Red Bull (any proof as to why it would be?)
3: They said different forces on a disc. Not different forces on different discs on the same axle. That's an important distinction. Otherwise you might as well say that adjusting brake balance is illegal per the F1 rules as well.
If I understand this correctly. The definition of asymmetric braking was only referring to the APPLICATION pressure of the brakes, not the release of said brakes. If the system retarded just a fraction of the braking on the rear inside wheel, this wouldn't qualify as asymmetric braking according to the book itself.
I won't be debating whether this is clever or shady.
My point would be this :
"The SPIRIT of the rules" does not exist.
Rules are as they are written.
The spirit of the rules is a loose term used by people who are in charge of regulating that do a bad job at clarifying the rules.
If you get thrown in jail because you did something that is legal in the books but illegal in the heart of the juge, it'd be unfair and incompetent behaviour of the judge. Same here.
And to me that's why the rules have been changed and nobody got punished. The brakes were legal. Period. They just changed the definition of what is legal.
I wouldn't think a definitely team is doing this, i'd think a Team queried doing this, The FIA rejected it and clarified the rules.
Chances are it's like with the ferrari engine in 2019. Team A suspects Team B of doing something so Team A asks the FIA if they can do that thing they are suspecting Team B does. And if it's not allowed the rules are clarified and if Team B was doing something that's now illegal they have to stop.
I'm guessing the thing Tommo claimed at the end about FIA telling RB they can have it until the summer break before it being outlawed might actually be true.
Imagine that in the grand scheme of the season, if you will:
Red Bull being dominant, or at the very least, in the mix at the front, but then in the second half of the season, other teams (McL, Merc, Ferrari) catching up/dethroning them and creating one heck of a close title fight.
I'm already seeing the dollar signs in the eyes of LM and FIA there.
Having a look at the regulations, the loophole that lets whatever team get away with that braking system is inspired. I'd be skeptical that Red Bull were doing it as I can't see them just taking the system off if it isn't in the regs, and given all Red Bull's cars in these regs have incredibly stiff suspension that definitely fits their drop off more. The real tell will be if another team has a big drop off in pace or tire deg at Zandvoort.
@Tommo Torque vectoring IS illegal. Anything that induces Torque vectoring is illegal... and has been since late 2ks. RB knew that, therefore it would be cheating.
Braking isn’t the same as torque vectoring. Torque can only be applied through the driveline.
1: That's assuming it was Red Bull
2: That's not what the rules say
@@jasper7126 I don't know the exact wording of which kind of torque vectoring is banned, but brake can definitely be used to do torque vectoring, and is actually a very common system on road cars, like many of the FWD hot hatches of the modern era.
Feels more like the Ferrari situation. They also never said anything. Their car was just slower. Kind of similar to redbull now. So maybe Peter Windsor actually isn’t brambling this time and there is some truth to it actually being illegal. idk. Would just be my interpretation of the actions and accusations shown by all parties. It reflects the Ferrari one, even down to the driver whining about lacking performance in that specific area.
And I don’t think the fact that the fia is just now adding this rule specification has to mean that Red Bull were not doing something illegal. The situation sounds, to me, like „hey put that off the car it’s illegal“, „but it doesn’t specifically say so in the rules“, „we will add it and if you don’t remove it by blah blah next race you will get disqualified“. Now you can speculate on why it took them longer to add the rule than redbulls drop in performance. Solutions for example: rb wanted to adjust as early as possible, since they will have to earlier or later and can learn more this way. Or rb was like „if you don’t add the rule now, we will actually go back to using it“. Idk there is possibilities maybe beyond what you would think at first glance
This feels like the Mercedes DAS system where it was clever engineering the FIA didn’t anticipate.
I disagree, because with regards to the fia, merc was transparent about DAS. It was already approved. Asymmetric braking has already been well anticipated, its already been done. It's just the fia made a balls up of writing the rules
@@Mohawk_RacingAre they obliged by the regs to clear it up in advance? If not then it's perfectly legal.
I don't think teams have to explain everything on their car to the FIA. They build the car and the FIA checks if it's legal or not.
@@cyan_oxy6734 I don't have the answer to that. But it still stands as a fact as to why you cannot compare the 2. The rules about the brakes were written to prohibit asymmetrical braking systems. It just wasn't written very well. However there is still a part of the rules that people aren't focusing on which would prove cheating if the intertial valve was being used
I see this exactly like I do DAS.
@@Mohawk_Racingcan you provide the article and section of the regs that would be cheating with the inertial valve?
on your take with ferrari and it being clear, I wouldnt be so sure. I don't know the exact ruling but if it would state something like "the fuel flow at this point has to be X then it wouldn't be clear cheating if you are able to meet that requirement while having a higher flow at other points. what I want to say with that, determining if something is clear cheating can't be done without looking at the exact rules around the situation
Funny how everyone always attacks Redbull bit its everyone else that is always caught cheatinf
Yup just like the cost cap.
@@Alumnikiidjust like when they attacked them for breaching the cost cap in 2022 where they didn’t do it? So your point?
@@Nowayyya Redbull went over cost cap in 2021. Also RB almost .356 slower today than Mclaren.
So who was cheating??
@@Alumnikiid you clearly don’t know how to read. I’m saying they also got attacked for the 2022 cost cap. Not 2021 but maybe you need some reading lessons
@@Nowayyya Gald you can read that I said 2021. No one went over in 2022. So whats your point. It’s like saying no one cheated.
Do you remember the Ferrari engine issue where they just tried to say “yea nothing is different” and then proceeded to lose around 15kph on the straights
Now Perez’ sudden fall of performance and Redbull’s loyalty towards him kind of sense.
Sudden? As of sudden as Monaco 2023 lol
@@Lanse1984 yeah, I am talking about 2024, I am not saying that’s the reason, but I just don’t understand how with such bad performances he so confidently scoffs when asked about driving for Redbull in 2025, he just scoffs and says “I’ll be here next year” he does it in ClaroSportsTV a lot.
Like there is something hidden that Redbull keeps signing him
Because they needed to cover them selfs ie the car isn’t really that good ala checo it’s max doing all the work 😂
@@jgee9160 my theory is that the FiA came to Redbull saying they need to correct this issue by X date, as Tommo said maybe summer, they changed the set up for Checo to try to resolve the issue as soon as possible, on the mean time Max would keep the cheating set up to gain as much points as possible and front run the season ala Jenson Button style.
I dislike Checo's underperformance just like anybody else, but him being overperformed by backmarkes makes zero sense.
@@ChuyR. the question is did he know and downgraded from cheat mode or was rb gaslighting him/us into thinking it’s all him and the “old car will come to him”spin?? take your pick
To be fair rules kinda made that system illegal as of issue 6 (and previous one aswell) as it surely resulted in a different pressure on brake pads on each side, I would say it's the same thing as flexible wings back in the day. Rules specifically do not allow such thing (be it fliexible wing or a valve that changes the pressure in brake system), but teams found a loophole by saying "it is faulty and it was not intentional" (applies to both cases). For me that's the reason behind pink text being added afterwards, just to clarify the rules, especially given the words used "SYSTEMATICALLY OR INTENTIONALLY" so if it "fails" systematically (when g-force is applied) then it is still illigal. And I can see FIA banning it back in April claiming "it is agains the spirit of the rule".
Alleged team (whichever it was) technically was not in the breach of rules (as at the time of measurement the car is static and level thus pressure is equal on both sides) but FIA did the right thing in, allegedly, banning it. Difference to DAS could be due to the fact that a) Merc developed and manufactred a complex system, that would require time to redisign and put Merc at disadvantage for (at this point in time) technically NOT breaking rules; b) no other team could produce system similar to DAS in a short time so there was no risk of it spreading into others' team designs and in case of this valve it is replicated in so little time that if they didn't outlaw it straight out (in April) then by the time it is in the rules it would be in every car OR other teams could reasonably ask FIA why they allowed that team to run it for 8 more races and only then (July) ban it (assuming FIA knew of it back in April).
Anyways I see it as a great engineering within the words of the rule, but completely against the infamous "spirit of the rule", thus for me noone is in the wrong, not a team, not the FIA, noone. Just a great development of my favorite motorsport!
The issue 6 regulations were well written and even with the issue 7 blabla, a breach of regulations can still easily be challenged because of the paragraphs below.
At a certain point have a cost cap, make sure the cars are safe, (and maybe sustainable - although fix the calendar first!!) and then just screw all other regulations and let the teams make the fastest car they can. I loved the idea of das, and this also seems really innovative. Let the teams create things!
I don't think this would be against the rules of the braking system because of the wording in the rules. But let's remember the Mclaren fiddle brake case where it was outlawed as a form of four wheel steering and NOT as a breach of a braking system article. So my point is that how was this not breaking the four wheel steering rules and I'd have a look at those also if they could be found "cheating" breaking those articles of the regulation. Personally it's hard to see how this is that much different to the Mclaren case and the regulations used to outlaw it then.
I am not saying it wasn't RedBull (probably was lol) or try to point fingers but in the spirit of adding to the conversation I feel like the chance of it being the cause of RedBull performance drop is about the same as it being the cause of performance upgrade we seen in Mclaren/Mercedes lately. I personally don't see it as cheating regardless of which team used it, just because we uneducated general public don't see it or don't understand it fully doesn't make it cheating. And to people saying that why the team using it doesn't confess to it, well firstly they still might as this rule change takes affect at Zandvoort and secondly why would they? It's not something we can see and I don't see the bragging right that yeah it was us and we forced this rule change.
I would add one more thing to it. If it really was Redbull and they did take it out before Miami (makes zero sense to me as it is banned now from Zandvoort not since Miami) then there will be no further performance drop from RedBull at Zandvoort (sure they can fuck up million other things to make them slower but this is just for the sake of the point), however if it was some other team that NOW has to get rid of it, we may see that team struggle more on breaking/turn in/balance etc.
minton is such a good name
If any team finds a loophole in the rules within the framing of the rules, then good for them. It is also up to the FIA to close that loophole once they find out and evaluate it didn't go with the spirit of the rule. No punishment should be given to the team in question, of course. They should, however, conform to the new framing of the rules.
The big thing here is the word "IF." We assume there was really a loophole, and the new framing has closed it. However, if the rule was already clear and the interpretation was not fair by the team in question, then it is definitely cheating. I am not an expert, but I have seen people say the new formulation of the rule that was added didn't clarify anything that wasn't already known. If this is the case, the team should definitely be punished. Now, it is up to the experts of the FIA and other teams to identify which situation is actually the reality.
Independent breaks has been forbidden since 1998. Simple. Doesn’t matter if they added this rules independent break pressures from left to right has been out lawrd for decades.
It dosnt matter how the independent breaking mechanisms work if your car does this it’s illegal.
I wouldn't call this as cheating. You can call this as an "Interpretation of the Rulebook" from the teams perspective.
RBR could have been found in violation of 11.1.2 even without the added text, had they the setup you outlined in the beginning. Given the first line of the reg, the second is actually redundant. Line one specifies equal magnitude. Anything asymmetric would not meet that requirement.
11.1.2 specifically "the forces applied to the brake pads are the same magnitude" would clearly outlaw what Redbull are accused of.
My guess is that if its true Redbull were forced to remove it, then appealed so the additional text was added to shut down an appeal.
and if the above is correct that would absolutely be cheating.
1: That's assuming a team actually did this, and it wasn't a query
2: That's assuming the team in question is Red Bull
3: It really isn't. The rules specified on a single brake disc. Not across multiple brake discs. Keep in mind front/rear brake balance is something adjusted _all_ the time.
It’s cheating for two reasons. Firstly if a device is used which does not apply equal forces to both brake pads on the same axle then it would fail the original text. Also if this device is not controlled by the driver it fails the section that prohibits the use of automatic braking controls.
Finally every none stock part used of the car has to be approved by the FIA. We all know that DAS was, but what about this braking device!
The premise of the braking regulations mentions multiple times to not have varying braking forces to avoid an effect similar to ABS. The added section adds no value and is repeated multiple times prior in multiple sections. A driver assist is cheating and the RB should be disqualified for having an illegal car for the first five races
there are a myriad of technical directives from the FIA that we will never see. The "rules" should be seen as a TL;DR
What this might reflect is that they were given off the record or unofficial notice they should have it removed. Then after they did the rules were updated to smooth it over and not have to find RBR guilty of cheating.
The reason being if they did it in the reverse order then they would have to take action on it.
It does logically suggest it was a top team and they had to remove it. It was likely RBR and possibly Ferrari, who have also dropped off, the latter copying the former.
Whoever is using technical innovation to gain an advantage is to be applauded. DAS was spectacular and heralded as such. Blown diffuser? Brilliant. Too much being made of this brake issue I feel.
Question, could an FIA directive have been issued to the teams at Miami, prior to later clarification in the regulations?
I imagine a directive would also be publicly available
i agree with Ferrari- fuel flow = cheating
i agree with Aston - Pushing the boundaries
I agree with Merc - Pushing the boundaries
I DONT agree that Red Bull (allegedly) were not cheating, Regs clearly stated that pressure should be applied equally across the axel (or words to the effect) This device (as an example) 100% goes against that
The rules didnt state that though. They just state that pressure must be applied equally from both sides of the disk. Obviously you are allowed to run different brake pressures front to back, and the rules state nothing about different pressures side to side. This was something missed in creating the rules, the spirit is obvious but the wording doesnt mention it. Cheating is breaking the wording of the rules or circumventing their enforcement, not exploring parts that are not mentioned
Why would the FIA feel the need to add a line in regulations though? If it was illegal, wouldn't the existing wording suffice?
@@TommoOnTH-cam The existing wording does suffice. The original rule says the forces applied to the brake pads *must* be the same magnitude. The word must doesn't leave anything to interpretation. If the left and right brake pressures are different, the forces are not the same magnitude, and the rule is broken.
I don't know why the FIA felt the need to amend the rule, but it might have similar reasoning as to why Mercedes didn't pursue legal action after the 2021 season.
@@TommoOnTH-cam Easy the FIA wants to protect the sport's image and DQ'ing all the RB results beforehand, and quite possibly all of last years RB results too would be massively embarrassing... And dramatically alter the championship in a way that isn't going to popular - suddenly RB the current goldenboys of the sport are revealed to be cheaters unworthy of their position, and have no chance to win either championship now... So you issue a 'clarification' that doesn't actually change the meaning the rules at all, have no transparency on what really happened and simply let everyone pretend it was legal. Thus you avoid having one of the biggest teams in the sport from falling epically from grace finishing probably 6th in constructors (this year anyway after all their cheating points are removed), having to pay back winnings they shouldn't have had, tarnish a very popular driver even more than he always was from 2021 etc...
@@foldionepapyrus3441 1: That's assuming a team did do it, and that it wasn't just a query
2: That's assuming Red Bull was the team in question (do you have any reasonable evidence?)
3: The rules aren't specific enough. Front/rear brake balance is changed all the time by every team, for example. By your logic, that's also illegal.
4: RB definitely aren't the "golden boys". Ferrari and Mercedes both have larger fanbases
5: The FIA has definitely stripped popular teams from all race wins for cheating before. Benetton, Renault, McLaren, for example.
Critical thinking skills are important
Reminds of McLaren's second brake pedal in 90ies, which was later banned. ;)
But it's interesting to see what has happened since then. Red Bull let their Chief Technical Officer go (who was responsible for such shenanigans) and Max has only won in Montral (because McLaren and Mercedes bottled it) and in Imola (a race which had better not lasted a lap or two longer). 😉
I think the part Peter and Craig got wrong is what Red Bull were told by the FIA. My guess is that the issue with the brakes in Melbourne gave the FIA a reason to ban the system on safety grounds, and the decision was made somewhere between Melbourne and Miami. They probably decided to ban the system during the summer break to allow time for team(s) to remove the system from the car.
If that's the case, Miami is likely just the race where Red Bull first ran their car without it, not because they were forced to, but because they needed to learn how to set-up and upgrade their car without it. And it would explain why Nicholas felt justified in calling Peter's tweet BS, not because he was wrong about the concept itself, but because he was wrong about the way the events unfolded.
Every constructer builts in Grey zones like the following: the F-duct, the W-duct, DAS, tuned Mass dampers, branham fan car, blow defusers, the double defuser and Ferraris engiens burning Oil. (If you aint “cheating” you aint trying
Would you deem flexi wings cheating too Tommo? I remember Horner always stating (paraphrased) "our car complies with the regulations, passes the load tests" etc. Designing a wing that can pass a load test yet flex in other load cases (composite structures etc.) is against the spirit of the rules but is it cheating? Its a fine line.
The only way this would have been noticed would be uneven break wear during post race inspection.
I think there should be designated points in a season where there can be new rules made to outrule stuff that teams come up with if its deemed to game breaking/dangerous.
Anyone going on about merc, just to say, nothing was hidden with DAS and rear suspension. Even so called “party mode”. When the party mode ban come in did anything change with the merc. Nope. They still smashed everyone.
Swear the FIA 100% knows if a team had/has this on their car, especially now that there is a cost cap as it would need to be documented on time and development etc.... and most parts needs to be sent to the FIA for legality.
So its a bit weird if the FIA didn't know and if they didn't it would be illegal.
Good job doing the JOURNALISTIC work of checking information instead of blabbing on Twitter like that fella Peter
the example of DAS is super pertinent here. i really think that unless there is a significant and real safety concern or it is actually against the already written rules of F1 like ferraris engine (apparently) was, teams should be allowed to keep whatever tricks they have up their sleeve until the end of the season that theyre caught, at which point the FIA can very clearly write out what they have an issue with in next years rulebook. if redbull really did have this little trick braking system, then looking at something like DAS, it should have been allowed for the rest of the season. and i know that the reason that DAS was allowed to stay for a whole year whereas other things werent is because mercedes spoke to the FIA and explained that nothing they were doing was illegal, and seemingly red bull havent done that for this braking trick. but to me that doesnt mean that red bull should be forced to remove it mid season whereas mercedes got to keep DAS or racing point keeping the w10 clone. significant rule changes should be kept to after the season is over. and saying that “oh well it would ruin the integrity of the championship if an illegal car won” a) again, the red bull braking system wasnt illegal if it is real at all, and b) mercedes w11, brawn bgp 001, the benetton with supposed traction control, none of these cars that were illegal in the same sense that the red bull braking system is apparently illegal were stripped of the championships that they won
Peter windsor was also team manager of Williams in the 80s and 90s and was in the car crash with Sir Frank Williams when he was left paralysed
I think because it has been so quiet and not all over the media means it has to be Mercedes. If it were Red Bull or Ferrari, it would be all over the F1 media. Let’s see how Mercedes performs when we get back this weekend.
This is what all teams are doing, loophole. It's a part of the sport, then FIA does this to close the gap between RB and the rest. That's also a part of the sport.
Calum is low-key a star in Drive to Survive - amazing dreads guy
This is so close to the McLaren breakpedal thing... Kinda amazed it wasn't illegal before.
F1 tacrab was on this story months ago
easy way to explain this. "TRACTION CONTROL"
Could also be that a team asked for clarification while building next years car. And the FIA realised there was a loophole
ALSO THAT CAN TELL YOU THEY VERBALLY TOLD THEM TO CHANGE IT AT FIRST , THEN LATER CHANGED IT TO HIDE RB CHEATED
But they could have told the team that's doing it before changing the document
Why did this come out now? If RBR had to modify something on their car at the end of April/start of May, then why do we hear about this 3 months later? Usually, teams are like white on rice when it comes to "going against the spirit of the rules".
The line read "... the forces applied to the brake pads are the same magnitude .... ". So any system where the force applied isn't the same magnitude would be illegal.
The thing about DAS was that Merc worked with FIA (or at least, FIA knew about what Merc was doing). If I remember correctly Merc had wanted to introduce DAS at the 2019 pre-season test, but FIA said it was 4-wheel steering. So they pushed the DAS release forward and they managed to use it during the 2020 season. So DAS and this breaking system are different in the regard that FIA knew and was part of the development loop for one and not for the other.
You make an argument that it wasn't illegal because they had to change the wording of the rules but say Ferrari doing their fuel flow shenanigans was illegal. But FIA issued technical regulation changes back then as well. So was that illegal?
If you aint cheatin, you aint trying.
Something this simple should not be illegal, any team should be able to build this.
The law as it stood before being changed, is the opposing pairs in reference to front and back tyre or left and right? As this would make a difference as to whether a team has done something dodgy
It refers to left and right. You have to bias brakes front and back. In a standard consumer car it is something like 80% front and 20% back. Your front brakes provide almost all the stopping force. The rear brakes keep you level, stable, and under control. If you don't bias front and rear braking a car will be unstable under braking. F1 drivers have a dial on their steering wheel where they can change those percentages.
Goodbye Calibri, Hello Aptos!!😊
The technology Red Bull come up with here is fascinating good job that’s what f1 is about 👍👏
They put a mass damper in the brake line.
So if you compare it to the DAS situation it is 'unfair' that it had to be removed so abruptly. That that suggests it was Red Bull,, F1 wouldn't have hated getting the filed a bit closer togather.
I think you are missing the point. The way the rule was initially written made that system forbidden. What they basically did was just restate the same thing. There was nothing to misinterpret from the get-go.
If it isn’t cheating, then why hasn’t whichever team who had it on their car simply said “yeah ok guys, we had a clever innovation. But I guess we’ll have to remove it now,” like Merc with DAS, S-duct, etc. If it was RB, and they don’t think it was cheating, why don’t they say as much, instead of deny deny deny.
DAS and the f-duct both got banned though?
Have they been asked? I'm not sure there's been an opportunity yet - will be interesting to see whether it's probed this weekend now that the rules have actually changed.
@@pixelomega3042 immediately no. Banning this now instead of allowing it to continue to the end of the season itself is another point of contention. But I am merely saying that if this was just a creative interpretation of the rules, which every team does (and should do), then why would said team deny being the party in question? The only reason not to be proud of your creativity would be if you yourself knew it was beyond the pale.
@@TommoOnTH-cam good point. Yes will be interesting!
So, something like Mclarens second brake pedal?
If I was to cheat in exams of course I would get caught and get stricter punishments but here when loads of money are at stake cheating is allowed with just a warning.
go to F1 XID ,he explains this issue in great detail .
FIA changing the rules on the fly to keep the championship “interesting”.
I don't see the asymmetric braking system as cheating. If red bull have that system, they read the rules, saw it wasn't against the rules use developed it and used it. And I'd guess that system was on the 23 car aswell
Cheating is cheating and no amount of mental gymnastics is going to justify what Redbull has done.
no cheating if not in the rulebook
start a minton cult
They aren't circumventing a fuel flow sensor or anything extra sketchy right?
Very bold to call out Callum when he’s calling out Peter. I highly doubt he would be vocal about it if it was a touchy subject within the sport given his stature.
Well, if it was RBR then they wwould only be required to take it out for Zandvoort, but Max has been having issues before these regs change.
Seeing results of the last few weeks, it does look like RedBull are the culprits. Surprising and sudden fall in performance in 2 tracks which are on opposite ends of the spectrum? Looks sus.
Also, I think asymmetric braking has been illegal since forever. Be it banning FRICS in 2015, or banning McLaren 3rd Pedal in 90s/00s, or even recently, post-2021, banning some suspension trick used to assist in brake balance. Finding another way to do something that has always been illegal is still illegal IMO.
If something is against the rules, the rules doesn't need to be changed, is that simple
Nothing is a crime until someone/a group decides it is, but you can't retroactively be charged for a crime after its first been made into law.
I have to disagree on your take on "Is this cheating". Even in the pre-Miami rules, the paragraph you refer to points out that "the forces applied to the brake pads must be the same magnitude" - which by the letters of the rule already prohibits the valve RB supposedly ran. So here is my take on the issue: The system had already been effectively banned from the start of the season. RB got caught before Miami and dealt with the FIA (just like Ferrari once did with its fuel pump) that the valve will be removed before Miami and no further action will be taken. In July, the FIA merely doubled down on the rules that are already in place and added the sentence referring to the asymmetrical distribution of braking forces. So if this system was run (and most likely it has been run by RB), it is already a violation of paragraph 11.1.2 even in its pre-Miami version - which I call cheating within both the spirit and the letters of the rulebook.