if the forces applied to the brake pads are of the same magnitude, by definition the braking torques can not be asymmetrical .. if the Red Bull sheet car was producing asymmetrical braking torques, of course the forces applied to the brake pads are NOT of the same magnitude .. and therefore it is an infringement of the rules
This is what I thought as well. Here’s a comment I left in another channel that could explain how they circumvented the language. I wonder if it’s the word magnitude if you look at the definition of magnitude it says the size or quantity or extent. So if they’re braking asymmetrically maybe the amplitude of braking for one wheel is higher but the duration of the braking of the other wheel is longer in time. then maybe they can argue the magnitude is the same in terms of quantity. And maybe that’s why maxs brakes stuck cause they are somehow making the brake pad with less amplitude brake for longer and it got stuck. Idk.
@@tgc281 I guess anyone can Red Bull sheet an explanation by playing with words .. like when Maximus Decimus Miridius Hamilton was robbed of his 8th title .. in my mind it is clear that Verstappen is a cheater
@@salsanista My suspicion is a loophole created by "on any given brake disc" which might imply that forces needed to be equal on any given disc but not any axle/circuit in spite of the first sentence.
I’m not sure how you can say it would have been legal. The rules say equal pressures on the brake pads. This would reduce pressure on the outside brake pads. If it was clearly legal, why would they hide it from the fia?
What if the asymmetrical force is not applied to the brake pads? The original wording of specifically says the brake pads but a force could be applied to a different component.
But regulations state equal pressure within each circuit. And each circuit consists of two braking calipers, left and right. And then within the car you have two circuits, front and rear. So inertial valve would cause unequal pressure between left and right side brakes making it illegal.
@@blazkobal2317 really depends how red bull split their brake circuits, they probably split rear left and rear right to get round the wording of the rule
He means that prior to the additional language in the regulations, this 'trick' was legal. It was a loophole, now it's closed and illegal, whereas up until recently, it was 'legal'.
Probably because the fia are hand in tail with redbull so probably trying to brush it under the rug to avoid controversy u said redbull was doing something tricky with there car and everything they seem to have lost over the last couple months seems to be linked with this system extra tyre life corners stability and so on
So they discovered this after the australian gp, when they had that brake problem, but how long have they been using this system. Has this been on the car since 2022?? Can Red Bull actually win anything without cheating.
They been doing this since 2021. Everyone knew that they need cheats to win. Even max was on it to he knew. But ofc max does anything to win as you can when he race.
The statement at 1:23 that it was "perfectly legal" before the update is simply incorrect. Look at your graphic from the rules at 0:06 in the video. Rule 11.1.2 already said, "The brake system must be designed so that within each circuit, the forces applied to the brake pads are the same magnitude ..." The part after that is irrelevant in this case. As you describe the system later in the video, the system at least modified the rear brake circuit so that "the forces applied to the brake pads are [NOT] the same magnitude." That was already violating the existing rule. Asymmetrical brakes like the one described with the inertial valve violate that part of the rules and were therefore illegal even before the rule update.
The forces would be the same magnatude, however a reduction in fluid volume to one side of the circuit would delay the actuation of that side of the circuit providing the same pressure, but the actuation of the application of braking would happen slower on that side. Perfectly legal under the old wording.
@@stephensegal5187 Agreed .. absolutely not legal under any wording .. if the forces applied to the brake pads are of the same magnitude, by definition the braking torques can not be asymmetrical, no matter how stupid Red Bull cheaters believe we all are to swallow their Red Bull cheat hypocrisy
@@stephensegal5187 Verstappen cried and called Ferrari cheaters for being "legal" with their fuel system under the "old" wording in 2019 .. do you remember or are you a selective amnesic like Verstappen and the rest of that mafia team ?
For those not understanding or just stappen people it was and is illegal. No matter if it is mechanically or electromechanically! The thing is you need same brake pressure to both brake caliphers and pads on the same axel at the same time/brake pedal pressure!
If it was illegal, the FIA wouldn't have rewritten the regulation article. Not even a technical directive, an entirely new article. Obviously there was a loophole in the wording. The original regulation article didn't state explicitly that you need the same brake pressure on both calipers/pads on the same axel. It said: "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." You can play with some of the words and definitions here. All we know is there was a loophole. We don't know if anyone used such a system and who. No team has issued a protest and all teams voted unanimously to change the regulation article.
I remember, and I said it would be a shuttle valve set up as that's what we call them in the aviation world, was just logical, very basic type of yaw control like the old mitsubishi yaw control of slowing the interior wheel, boy was it fun driving with that
BAR Honda and the tank in a tank, Ferrari and the fuel flow/hole in the rad , Mc Laren and their "passive software " on board for starts. The list goes on of Teams are always looking for that gain and many are found in that grey area. Just like Ferrari ,the RB performance seems to have suddenly disappeared .Maybe the leaders moved back towards the pack as much as they moved closer. It also shows that even with a technical "aide" Checo still couldn't stay relevant.
It would be breaking the rules even before the rule update in technical regulations it said in each ciruit the forces applied to the brake pads has to be equal and since a f1 car has 2 brake circuits front and rear if this valve change the pressure going to left and right brake pads would be different. Also in a diffrent rule any changes to the breaking system while car is on track has to be done by physical touch like change front to rear brake bias has a switch on steering wheel as its a change in breaking system while car is on track so a valve that changes the bias of breaks from left to right would be against the rules as no physical touch so no grey area it was illegal so if was on car schould be disqualified for them races and if can prove running it in 22 and 23 schould be disqualified from them years aswell
I luv your perspective on this one suggestion is move your notes monitor to above your recording device , it will just bring your eyes forward for more connection to your fan base , but keep up,the great work you earned my sub
IF RBR did do this then i would say it needs to be investigated bc the car was definitely illegal. lets look at it from a logical stand point the teams know they are not allowed to make their cars or make a system that gives their cars asymmetrical breaking. we know this since the 3rd petal was made illegal. if we look at the original rules it says: the break system MUST BE designed so that within each circuit, the forces applied to the BREAK PADS are the SAME magnitude and ACT AS OPPOSING PAIRS on a given break disk. Must be mean no if and's and buts, the next part is that it must be designed so the same force of pressure in applied each opposing pads we can see this when we look at "act as OPPOSING PAIRS on a given break disk" what this is saying that the pads on the same axle must act as must act as OPPOSING PAIRS on a given break disk.
Ultimately you cannot exert different pressure from either side of the disc anyway. The pressure will equalise on each piston, even if only one was pushing. But you're right in that the talk of braking circuits means this cannot be in any way legal if this is actually what they were doing. I'm sure they were up to something, but I'm starting to wonder if they managed asymmetrical braking another way. Maybe with clever engine braking or differential. Only because that would certainly account for the need for the amendment to the rules
It would possibly improve the ERS as well as tyre life and rotation, assuming that they are braking and still have some rotation whilst braking the inside tyre, then I think it would be charging the ERS. It may be a limited benefit or I could be wrong about that aspect. If others are usually braking, and then turning, they don't get that extra a system like this would, as this brake ms as it turns. We do know the Red Bull Honda is probably the best PU, especially electrical energy wise/ deployment. It clipped noticeably less than the Merc PU's did for example. I havent noticed as bad clipping or derates for Merc recently so maybe they changed aome software/ reliability (and thus "snuck" an upgrade through that way). That would be legal as it can be a side effect of reliability still allowed (I think anyway).
Isn't the inside tire more prone to locking up as it is carrying less weight? Haven't there been many times VER has commented on team radio that he couldn't get the car to turn. Without going back again I know I have heard him makes such comments the last 2 races, perhaps they removed the system when they sensed the heat was on. Not unlike Ferrari a few years back.
This braking system could explain why Red Bull usually has the stiffest suspension. They would want to minimize body roll to reduce tyre lock ups when this assymetric braking is applied
The benefits of it are that it enabled them to beat every other team and it was illegal. Quite simple. Had it not been legal, it would still be allowed.
I'm not sure I understand the full physics here. Braking is yet another maximum performance function to slow the car the fastest so the car can go deeper into a corner. Braking already requires each corner be equal downforce on the wheel else one tire (with equal pressure) smokes (the inside wheel) while the car is turning. The V corners already exist because the cars don't brake and turn well at the same time. The only way this is useful is when the car brakes, slows, brakes release, car turns, then in the turn the drive applies the brakes while power is added in a turn together (light braking). This would put engine torque to the higher loaded outside wheels while the inner ones get less creating a rotating couple. Honestly, I think (ignorantly to be honest) this is a red "herring" to the real RB issues at hand, and clever engineers will find ways to do the same thing, but more work for the driver. After all this is a SYSTEM, and power, braking suspension loading all work together to achieve the same result.
Whether it complied with 11.1.2 wording or not is irrelevant really. What however not be ignored is that 11.1.4 which states that any change to brakes must be undertaken by the driver. If this was an automated device then by definition it wasn’t controlled by the driver.
If it wasn't on red bulls car by now I'm sure they'd of come out and said it's not us ..stay quite for them is much louder than shouting... legal or not they like to shout about other teams bending the rules
Your logic is flawed: Your 4: 53 schematics lets us believe the inner wheel gets a higher braking force, but @ 5:08 you say the inner tire locks up less. Also, on track the braking starts full force when the car is still going rather straight. and decreases on turn in, because the driver reduces the brake pedal force. It is possible to make a valve that retards the bleed off of brake pressure but the difference in pressure versus the sensitivity to G-forces would mean it would have to be a rather heavy device, or something that balances out the brake pressure forces. In any case, that would mean a bulky component, which would cause suspicions faster than an F1 emergency stop.
If they were illegal before the update then why the update it had to have been a gray area at the very least or legal way around the the rule which is fair play if you can design something that works around the ruling the rule should not be changed or reworded until the end of rhat season if the design of the car DID NOT BREAK the stated rules then it is fair play all the teams are trying to work around the wording of these rules red bull is punished while merc and McLaren are allowed to continue to use their flexi wings
But the new amendment says the same thing as the rules. They have been caught cheating. Look who owns 1/3 of the team and you’ll see why and how they have cheated for the past few years.
Quit slithering and prove how the rule was nOt misinterpreted by all the other teams per its original text . If you take the side of "prove that I knew I was cheating" ; I would refer to when the devise was first used on a car (rb17-20?) and what areas of the vehicle were known not to be inspected . The design and technical functionality directives on these ground-effect cars had to be signed off by someone on the governing side . Where there is commonality , there is proof , and where there is proof , there is denial . Hammed got some splainin' to do .
Your video is based on an incorrect statement, how is it possible that you are a F1 fan and don’t understand the rules… very disappointed. Please read the F1 technical rules.
there's no proof that Red bull have done this... if they did they would have been in violation of the rules in place already. it was probably being considered for an upgrade and a FIA overseer in the development process caught it and realized it circumvented a rule. Redbull's dominance over the last few years was related to their front wing/rear wing aerodynamics and Max's ability to drive cars that other drivers find uncomfortable. his setup from what I've learned is very aggressive and hard to handle where Checo's preferences are much more soft. to this point even with new upgrades further tailored to Max's preferences Checo wants to use older parts that are not like driving on a knife edge.
I stopped the video right after hearing "perfectly legal. Not only legal, but p-e-r-f-e-c-t-l-y legal. It like someone working slimy and hard trying to see a load of bs.
Many teams/drivers like to do this things that benefit them in the competition.playing in those grey areas cause the rules are not clear. its probably 'cHeaTing' to the victims but its really called a loophole. Its such a typical FIA's flaws.someone will study the rule and try to find something like thats not in the rule or limits is not beimg stated clear or anything to benefit them. illegal or not , thats up to FIA to find out within their rules. However i find FIA is really suck nowadays. They made this sport turn into entertainment for their own benefit. Its so predictable for me since 2016. like how the stage is set for lewis to equalize schumi 7th WDC. same goes verstappen in 2021. young gun going against a mighty champion. rb domination again after almost 10 years. Im not suprise if mclaren and williams will back to winning ways (domination) in the future. cause its so predictable. I still enjoy this sport because some of drivers are actually driving with their own pure talent. like outperforming the car.
You can call it what ever you want but, the rules clearly state under article 11.1.2. You are on drugs if you don’t think it’s CHEATING. No need for clarification just a driving aid . It’s clear as day, you’re taking shit buddy, points need to be removed from RBR for constructors championship and drivers, tell the truth it’s cheating
Others have done it before. That is why it was already against the rules (as shown in the first half of rule 11.1.2 (see 0:06 in the video). It wasn't genius, it was just cheating. And it looks like it was discovered around the China GP, which is when Adrian Newey announced he was leaving Red Bull. That's an interesting coincidence, no?
Cheating is cheating and the car has been illegal for the past 4-5 years. You this think this just happened. You are fooling yourself and not being genuine with your viewers. You know they would have had an illegal car…therefore your statement is falsely based.
The FIA updated their regulations, which means that maybe Red Bull found a legal lop hole! You hit the nail on the head they were not cheating. You are well ahead of the media pack, thank you. Very good program!
Bro stop the lies if they had it on the car they were cheating. Stop trying to cover over there wrong doing. If it wasn’t illegal it would still be on there car.
![Kodak Black - Catch Fire [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A4ch-olIuZo/mqdefault.jpg)
if the forces applied to the brake pads are of the same magnitude, by definition the braking torques can not be asymmetrical .. if the Red Bull sheet car was producing asymmetrical braking torques, of course the forces applied to the brake pads are NOT of the same magnitude .. and therefore it is an infringement of the rules
This is what I thought as well. Here’s a comment I left in another channel that could explain how they circumvented the language.
I wonder if it’s the word magnitude if you look at the definition of magnitude it says the size or quantity or extent.
So if they’re braking asymmetrically maybe the amplitude of braking for one wheel is higher but the duration of the braking of the other wheel is longer in time. then maybe they can argue the magnitude is the same in terms of quantity.
And maybe that’s why maxs brakes stuck cause they are somehow making the brake pad with less amplitude brake for longer and it got stuck. Idk.
@@tgc281 I guess anyone can Red Bull sheet an explanation by playing with words .. like when Maximus Decimus Miridius Hamilton was robbed of his 8th title .. in my mind it is clear that Verstappen is a cheater
@@salsanista yea I agree if it’s some type of play on words it’s not in the spirit of racing and they should get penalized in my opinion
@@tgc281 agreed
@@salsanista My suspicion is a loophole created by "on any given brake disc" which might imply that forces needed to be equal on any given disc but not any axle/circuit in spite of the first sentence.
I’m not sure how you can say it would have been legal. The rules say equal pressures on the brake pads. This would reduce pressure on the outside brake pads. If it was clearly legal, why would they hide it from the fia?
This.
I would also add, IF such a device would be legal prior to the regulations update, why would they remove it way earlier (like Miami)
What if the asymmetrical force is not applied to the brake pads? The original wording of specifically says the brake pads but a force could be applied to a different component.
2 pads per hub, you can read it to mean that both pads on each hub pressure were equal, makes it legal
But regulations state equal pressure within each circuit. And each circuit consists of two braking calipers, left and right. And then within the car you have two circuits, front and rear. So inertial valve would cause unequal pressure between left and right side brakes making it illegal.
@@blazkobal2317 really depends how red bull split their brake circuits, they probably split rear left and rear right to get round the wording of the rule
Aysemtric breaking is illegal ….why do you say it’s ‘ perfectly legal ‘ ?
He means that prior to the additional language in the regulations, this 'trick' was legal. It was a loophole, now it's closed and illegal, whereas up until recently, it was 'legal'.
@@43ten43 yes, exactly.
Probably because the fia are hand in tail with redbull so probably trying to brush it under the rug to avoid controversy u said redbull was doing something tricky with there car and everything they seem to have lost over the last couple months seems to be linked with this system extra tyre life corners stability and so on
So they discovered this after the australian gp, when they had that brake problem, but how long have they been using this system. Has this been on the car since 2022?? Can Red Bull actually win anything without cheating.
They been doing this since 2021. Everyone knew that they need cheats to win. Even max was on it to he knew. But ofc max does anything to win as you can when he race.
@@TheDilan123yeah cause you know max, the whole Red Bull team and what’s going on behind the scenes. Are you like a super spy or something?
If you want to believe this unsubstantiated rumor, it was likely introduced in 2023. Yes the RB18 was fast, but the RB19 was completely dominant.
The statement at 1:23 that it was "perfectly legal" before the update is simply incorrect. Look at your graphic from the rules at 0:06 in the video. Rule 11.1.2 already said, "The brake system must be designed so that within each circuit, the forces applied to the brake pads are the same magnitude ..." The part after that is irrelevant in this case. As you describe the system later in the video, the system at least modified the rear brake circuit so that "the forces applied to the brake pads are [NOT] the same magnitude." That was already violating the existing rule. Asymmetrical brakes like the one described with the inertial valve violate that part of the rules and were therefore illegal even before the rule update.
agreed .. they were cheating
The forces would be the same magnatude, however a reduction in fluid volume to one side of the circuit would delay the actuation of that side of the circuit providing the same pressure, but the actuation of the application of braking would happen slower on that side. Perfectly legal under the old wording.
@@salsanista Absolutely not.
@@stephensegal5187 Agreed .. absolutely not legal under any wording .. if the forces applied to the brake pads are of the same magnitude, by definition the braking torques can not be asymmetrical, no matter how stupid Red Bull cheaters believe we all are to swallow their Red Bull cheat hypocrisy
@@stephensegal5187 Verstappen cried and called Ferrari cheaters for being "legal" with their fuel system under the "old" wording in 2019 .. do you remember or are you a selective amnesic like Verstappen and the rest of that mafia team ?
For those not understanding or just stappen people it was and is illegal. No matter if it is mechanically or electromechanically! The thing is you need same brake pressure to both brake caliphers and pads on the same axel at the same time/brake pedal pressure!
If it was illegal, the FIA wouldn't have rewritten the regulation article. Not even a technical directive, an entirely new article. Obviously there was a loophole in the wording. The original regulation article didn't state explicitly that you need the same brake pressure on both calipers/pads on the same axel. It said: "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." You can play with some of the words and definitions here.
All we know is there was a loophole. We don't know if anyone used such a system and who. No team has issued a protest and all teams voted unanimously to change the regulation article.
If this was a static setting or adjustment legal yes. If instead it was a dynamic device in function, then that is a driver's aid which is not legal.
From 6:10 to 6:43 you are silent.
these internet grifters can't even be bothered to watch their own content 😂
Sounds so false, I think you should republish your content and remove the FIA boot from your a##.
"perfectly legal" my arse!
When the preface it with "perfectly" you can know they a talking out of theirs.
I remember, and I said it would be a shuttle valve set up as that's what we call them in the aviation world, was just logical, very basic type of yaw control like the old mitsubishi yaw control of slowing the interior wheel, boy was it fun driving with that
BAR Honda and the tank in a tank, Ferrari and the fuel flow/hole in the rad , Mc Laren and their "passive software " on board for starts. The list goes on of Teams are always looking for that gain and many are found in that grey area. Just like Ferrari ,the RB performance seems to have suddenly disappeared .Maybe the leaders moved back towards the pack as much as they moved closer. It also shows that even with a technical "aide" Checo still couldn't stay relevant.
It would be breaking the rules even before the rule update in technical regulations it said in each ciruit the forces applied to the brake pads has to be equal and since a f1 car has 2 brake circuits front and rear if this valve change the pressure going to left and right brake pads would be different. Also in a diffrent rule any changes to the breaking system while car is on track has to be done by physical touch like change front to rear brake bias has a switch on steering wheel as its a change in breaking system while car is on track so a valve that changes the bias of breaks from left to right would be against the rules as no physical touch so no grey area it was illegal so if was on car schould be disqualified for them races and if can prove running it in 22 and 23 schould be disqualified from them years aswell
Grab these points using this system and when you have enough we'll introduce the rest of the rules.
I luv your perspective on this one suggestion is move your notes monitor to above your recording device , it will just bring your eyes forward for more connection to your fan base , but keep up,the great work you earned my sub
IF RBR did do this then i would say it needs to be investigated bc the car was definitely illegal.
lets look at it from a logical stand point the teams know they are not allowed to make their cars or make a system that gives their cars asymmetrical breaking. we know this since the 3rd petal was made illegal. if we look at the original rules it says: the break system MUST BE designed so that within each circuit, the forces applied to the BREAK PADS are the SAME magnitude and ACT AS OPPOSING PAIRS on a given break disk.
Must be mean no if and's and buts, the next part is that it must be designed so the same force of pressure in applied each opposing pads
we can see this when we look at "act as OPPOSING PAIRS on a given break disk" what this is saying that the pads on the same axle must act as must act as OPPOSING PAIRS on a given break disk.
Ultimately you cannot exert different pressure from either side of the disc anyway. The pressure will equalise on each piston, even if only one was pushing. But you're right in that the talk of braking circuits means this cannot be in any way legal if this is actually what they were doing.
I'm sure they were up to something, but I'm starting to wonder if they managed asymmetrical braking another way. Maybe with clever engine braking or differential. Only because that would certainly account for the need for the amendment to the rules
The explanation of the System is wrong: The inner tyre is being decelarated more to give the car support on turn in
It would possibly improve the ERS as well as tyre life and rotation, assuming that they are braking and still have some rotation whilst braking the inside tyre, then I think it would be charging the ERS. It may be a limited benefit or I could be wrong about that aspect.
If others are usually braking, and then turning, they don't get that extra a system like this would, as this brake ms as it turns.
We do know the Red Bull Honda is probably the best PU, especially electrical energy wise/ deployment. It clipped noticeably less than the Merc PU's did for example. I havent noticed as bad clipping or derates for Merc recently so maybe they changed aome software/ reliability (and thus "snuck" an upgrade through that way). That would be legal as it can be a side effect of reliability still allowed (I think anyway).
Isn't the inside tire more prone to locking up as it is carrying less weight? Haven't there been many times VER has commented on team radio that he couldn't get the car to turn. Without going back again I know I have heard him makes such comments the last 2 races, perhaps they removed the system when they sensed the heat was on. Not unlike Ferrari a few years back.
This braking system could explain why Red Bull usually has the stiffest suspension. They would want to minimize body roll to reduce tyre lock ups when this assymetric braking is applied
@@AbcdEfgh-sq2tf Cool
So... still no proof that redbull- or any other team for that matter- even used such a hypotheical device. Cool...
The benefits of it are that it enabled them to beat every other team and it was illegal. Quite simple.
Had it not been legal, it would still be allowed.
Those west mclarens were beautiful
Was it just me or does the sound cut out momentarily part way through this video?
Oooo f me,I thought my speakers died 😂😂
@ 6:09 right
@@innocenttroll0 Yup 😁
I'm not sure I understand the full physics here. Braking is yet another maximum performance function to slow the car the fastest so the car can go deeper into a corner. Braking already requires each corner be equal downforce on the wheel else one tire (with equal pressure) smokes (the inside wheel) while the car is turning. The V corners already exist because the cars don't brake and turn well at the same time. The only way this is useful is when the car brakes, slows, brakes release, car turns, then in the turn the drive applies the brakes while power is added in a turn together (light braking). This would put engine torque to the higher loaded outside wheels while the inner ones get less creating a rotating couple. Honestly, I think (ignorantly to be honest) this is a red "herring" to the real RB issues at hand, and clever engineers will find ways to do the same thing, but more work for the driver. After all this is a SYSTEM, and power, braking suspension loading all work together to achieve the same result.
This could work, well done RB, i bet lewus might get interested in this
Gatekeeper. 🤘
Whether it complied with 11.1.2 wording or not is irrelevant really. What however not be ignored is that 11.1.4 which states that any change to brakes must be undertaken by the driver. If this was an automated device then by definition it wasn’t controlled by the driver.
Sound gone from 6:10 to 6:44😢
I thi k you got your explanation backwards after the t valve diagram. The inside, not the outside, receives more pressure
If it wasn't on red bulls car by now I'm sure they'd of come out and said it's not us ..stay quite for them is much louder than shouting... legal or not they like to shout about other teams bending the rules
I'd not thought of this. If it were another team suspected of doing this we would have already heard about it. From Horner!
they cheated wirh only one RB 20, Verstappen. The real question is, for how many years this have been happening ? FIA needs to check all the data.
This trick has cost the other teams millions.
What the hell are you talking about they created @!!!!!end of story
Idk if it’s only me but the Audio disappears around 6:09 - 6:43
yep! upload issues mate.
What about Mercedes with the moving steering column
What about it? It was legal!
Your logic is flawed: Your 4: 53 schematics lets us believe the inner wheel gets a higher braking force, but @ 5:08 you say the inner tire locks up less.
Also, on track the braking starts full force when the car is still going rather straight. and decreases on turn in, because the driver reduces the brake pedal force. It is possible to make a valve that retards the bleed off of brake pressure but the difference in pressure versus the sensitivity to G-forces would mean it would have to be a rather heavy device, or something that balances out the brake pressure forces. In any case, that would mean a bulky component, which would cause suspicions faster than an F1 emergency stop.
Was it used for rear brake steer to induce oversteer?
If they were illegal before the update then why the update it had to have been a gray area at the very least or legal way around the the rule which is fair play if you can design something that works around the ruling the rule should not be changed or reworded until the end of rhat season if the design of the car DID NOT BREAK the stated rules then it is fair play all the teams are trying to work around the wording of these rules red bull is punished while merc and McLaren are allowed to continue to use their flexi wings
"Perfectly legal" 😂😂😂😂😂😂
but rb never cheats,only the other teams do according to christian horner
please re upload check the audio its a great report
Those break got removed at miami
What exactly are you smoking?
It’s not if it’s not legal simple as that
So verstapen is done ?
Is he going to flee to another team and blame the new team performance? Because he lost all his performance....
Asymmetrical Braking is a violation of the rules, ex. McLaren 4/12 1997, so this is cheating.
rip audio
But the new amendment says the same thing as the rules. They have been caught cheating. Look who owns 1/3 of the team and you’ll see why and how they have cheated for the past few years.
Quit slithering and prove how the rule was nOt misinterpreted by all the other teams per its original text .
If you take the side of "prove that I knew I was cheating" ; I would refer to when the devise was first used on a car (rb17-20?) and what areas of the vehicle were known not to be inspected . The design and technical functionality directives on these ground-effect cars had to be signed off by someone on the governing side .
Where there is commonality , there is proof , and where there is proof , there is denial .
Hammed got some splainin' to do .
Other youtubers have uploaded this news 3 days ago already.
So late. lol
Your video is based on an incorrect statement, how is it possible that you are a F1 fan and don’t understand the rules… very disappointed. Please read the F1 technical rules.
there's no proof that Red bull have done this... if they did they would have been in violation of the rules in place already. it was probably being considered for an upgrade and a FIA overseer in the development process caught it and realized it circumvented a rule. Redbull's dominance over the last few years was related to their front wing/rear wing aerodynamics and Max's ability to drive cars that other drivers find uncomfortable. his setup from what I've learned is very aggressive and hard to handle where Checo's preferences are much more soft. to this point even with new upgrades further tailored to Max's preferences Checo wants to use older parts that are not like driving on a knife edge.
Nothing but cheats. Ban them, and take last year's championship of mad max and the team.
U r saying it was legal
I stopped the video right after hearing "perfectly legal. Not only legal, but p-e-r-f-e-c-t-l-y legal. It like someone working slimy and hard trying to see a load of bs.
Fix your microphone
Many teams/drivers like to do this things that benefit them in the competition.playing in those grey areas cause the rules are not clear. its probably 'cHeaTing' to the victims but its really called a loophole. Its such a typical FIA's flaws.someone will study the rule and try to find something like thats not in the rule or limits is not beimg stated clear or anything to benefit them. illegal or not , thats up to FIA to find out within their rules.
However i find FIA is really suck nowadays. They made this sport turn into entertainment for their own benefit. Its so predictable for me since 2016. like how the stage is set for lewis to equalize schumi 7th WDC. same goes verstappen in 2021. young gun going against a mighty champion. rb domination again after almost 10 years. Im not suprise if mclaren and williams will back to winning ways (domination) in the future. cause its so predictable.
I still enjoy this sport because some of drivers are actually driving with their own pure talent. like outperforming the car.
You can call it what ever you want but, the rules clearly state under article 11.1.2. You are on drugs if you don’t think it’s CHEATING. No need for clarification just a driving aid . It’s clear as day, you’re taking shit buddy, points need to be removed from RBR for constructors championship and drivers, tell the truth it’s cheating
Being says it for years they been cheating since 2021 its sad all this stupid max hype ofc he wins when he has a car alot oc cheats on it.
So is this how Red Bull win everything, CHEATERS 😮😮
Hidden= Cheating
If that's a genuine invention by red bull, GENIUS!
Others have done it before. That is why it was already against the rules (as shown in the first half of rule 11.1.2 (see 0:06 in the video). It wasn't genius, it was just cheating. And it looks like it was discovered around the China GP, which is when Adrian Newey announced he was leaving Red Bull. That's an interesting coincidence, no?
Gotta clean that nostril brother
Just rehashing content brough by Scarbs and Peter Windsor
Cheating is cheating and the car has been illegal for the past 4-5 years. You this think this just happened. You are fooling yourself and not being genuine with your viewers. You know they would have had an illegal car…therefore your statement is falsely based.
The FIA updated their regulations, which means that maybe Red Bull found a legal lop hole! You hit the nail on the head they were not cheating. You are well ahead of the media pack, thank you. Very good program!
what has Max been complaining about during their loss of form? " the brakes are sh!t mate"
the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence...
A clever system? How about call it as it is, illegal. The rule is clear that brakes force act as opposing PAIR and not individually. Please WTF
Bro stop the lies if they had it on the car they were cheating. Stop trying to cover over there wrong doing. If it wasn’t illegal it would still be on there car.