Red Bull Racing has lost whatever advantage was gained from its engine-map trick, which was revealed by FIA Technical Delegate Jo Bauer in Hockenheim. Red Bull successful argued that its interpretation of the rules was possible, even if it was not what the FIA had intended and the FIA Stewards in Germany had no real choice but to accept the argument, even though one got the impression that they were none too happy with allowing the team to get away with it. The statement they issued noted that the team has not in breach of the rules as written, but clearly said (in an unspoken fashion) that this did not mean that he team was in the right when it came to what the rules was intended to say and, indeed, to the spirit of the rules. The best description that can be used is that Red Bull found a loophole in the rules and exploited it, while the other teams read the rules as they were intended to be read.
One cannot really blame the team for doing this. If there is a hole in the rules, engineers are paid to find it and exploit it to the maximum. This is what Red Bull did. The hole, however, is now closed and it will be interesting to see what effect this has on the team’s performance in the races ahead.
joeblogsf1 
They can’t complain if the stewards applied the letter of the law to the Button incident later. From history the French stewards allowed a gearbox cog wired to the dash of a French entrant as a spare wheel, the same group DQD a lotus because the spare on the car didn’t fit both fron and rear wheels….
I can’t wait too see the effect it has on the rear tyres. Although being a webber fan i hope it doesn’t hurt him too much, if at all.
For quite a while much has been made of the RBR’s ability to launch out of corners. Vettel is often noted for using shorter gear ratios than most of the field. Last year at Monza, (albeit with blown diffuser) it was noted that he had the shortest gear ratios of the field and though being slowest in straight line, he won with this strategy. Do you think the gear ratio choices were made favoring the torque heavy engine mapping?
The reason I mention this is most things on an F1 car are made to be working together and for RBR it seems that even with the major 2012 rule change (blown Diffusers), gearing choices on the RBR has been similar to last year. It will be interesting to see what happens with RBR given one of the table legs has been removed. Gear+Maps+Aero+Driver. Could it be that tightening the TR on engine mapping may mean the end of the dreaded “Vettel Finger”?
Joe, effectively this like hiring an accountant to not pay as much tax.. nothing illegal, but something the government doesn’t like if you find ways of halving your tax bill. This is the fault of FIA, although this is a sport, it is also a business. A business of invention, innovation, research and design for car development. The regulations which should have been done properly, and it appears now are clearly not. Regulations have to be there, but they can’t be too tight or development will not happen. The last few times FIA have taken a lot of interest in Red Bull, are they worried that Red Bull will dominate F1? Is this what this is really about? I hope not, because its up to the other teams to up their game.. Rather than bring down Red Bull’s innovation. Mid-season rule changes due to regulations not written properly, and inconsistencies in penalties/punishment, the ridiculous Bahrain trip that was to see if it was safe for a race.. all look to me like FIA need an overhaul.
“The last few times FIA have taken a lot of interest in Red Bull, are they worried that Red Bull will dominate F1? Is this what this is really about?”
Nope, I wouldn’t say so. I’d say its because Red Bull sail particularly close to the wind, and every now and again something they do is considered not to be within the spirit of the regulations.
It just means they have a sharp technical team (though admittedly, the holes in the floor thing wasn’t particularly bright, as all the others with said holes realised they needed to cut one side to make it a slot, instead of a hole).
Also (someone correct me if I’m wrong) but I don’t think Adrian Newey consults Charlie Whiting or anyone else when building his cars to confirm legality, whereas McLaren and Mercedes both consulted with their F-Duct and DRS Modification respectively.
Hi Joe,
A loophole was found by clever people and now it has been closed.
This does not seem to be the same as some previous situations where the rules were interpreted to achieve two applications and both found to be within the letter and spirit of the rules.
Carry on F1.
Exactly! Such as the Double DRS system on the Mercedes. A loophole that they opted not to close. Where is the consistency?
I have no problem with both Mercedes and Red Bull (or any other team) exploiting loopholes – but I think there is a difference between these situations. The DRS rules were designed to create a device to assist with overtaking. Mercedes have found an mechanism to improve the performance of this which was not envisioned when the rules were written. The rules were not designed to forbid this – hence no closing the loophole this season. Next year might be different (like with F-duct).
On the other hand, the rules around engine maps etc were written to prevent traction control and off throttle exhaust blowing. Red Bull found a way to interpret the rules as written which allowed them to do some of this, which is certainly legitimate (I don’t think they are cheating, exploiting the rules is part of F1). But the FIA are well within their rights to say, we didn’t write the rules well enough here, so we need to tighten it. Same with flexible wings etc.
To say there is a vendetta against Red Bull is unfounded. And I don’t believe there is inconsistency in what the FIA is doing. The two situations are not equivalent.
One can be software programmed out, the other would have needed 3 teams to completely redesign the rear end of their cars.
Nyuh, I read double diffuser. Apologies.
Red Bull’s definition makes the rule useless. Mercedes’ or whoever whatever else that is allowed doesn’t.
All paraphrased and presumed:
Rule – The engine must give power according to the max it can give apportioned to the pedal
RBR’s definition – The map defines how much power it can be so the map will always give the most the map will allow it to give
Basically like being told as a child you can play games after you have had breakfest in the morning, not before. RBR then says, okay, but lets make that breakfest 300 years ago…. see now everything is fine.
One is a way of bending the rules, the other completely ignores them.
It’s the same damn thing. Red bull read it differently and so did Mercedes. Mercedes argues that it’s not driver controlled because it is linked to an existing allowed system. It is still a driver contolled aero aid and it is a loophole in the DRS regs. Same thing. You can try to boil it down and say one loophole is more childish than the other but I completely disagree.
I assumed the FIA regularly controlled these technical aspects to avoid such situation arising. What we don’t seem to know is long they have been getting away with it. If it’s been from the start of the season it’s pretty incompetent on the FIA’s part.
This is stupid. Utterly stupid and silly. If Mercedes can use their Double DRS, which is in fact a loophole that they are exploiting (it is a driver controlled aero aid tied in to a legal driver controlled aero aid)… Red Bull should be able to exploit this one. It has become increasingly clear that the FIA intends to restrict the domination of Red Bull in any way possible.
The main difference I can see, is that Mercedes/Brawn was clever or confident enough to ask for prior approval of its double DRS (as they did with the double diffuser in 2009). None of the secrety stuff, hoping FIA won’t catch on to you. If you hide something out of sight of the FIA you generally do that for a reason and at best it doesn’t show great integrity. IMHO.
+1
Still a loophole. Asked or not, there is no consistency with the FIA. I am not the only one to point this out over the decades of Formula One. Alonso’s pole lap in germany he put all four tires off the track which by regulation should have invalidated that time. But it did not. Vettel should have been on pole in Germany according to regulations. It’s all BS.
+1 for me too.
Red Bull’s use of a loophole was completely above board. Use of loopholes has tremendous precedent within the sport.
The FIA rapidly tying off the loophole was equally above board with equal precedent.
Red Bull’s Helumt Marko whingeing that this indicates a vendetta against Red Bull is completely without merit.
The teams find loopholes, the FIA close them – this is how Formula One has worked for decades. While there were occasions under the previous FIA head where politics dictated FIA technical decisions, the current FIA head has never stooped to anything so vile. There is absolutely no reason to believe he’s started now, or ever will.
Intention, spirit??? Formula One has always been about the “unfair advantage”. Red Bull has been the most technically innovative team since 2009, if they comply with the letter of the law, that’s it, end of story.
They get a lot of stick, but they didn’t have the blueprints for another team’s car, didn’t fix a race, don’t have a veto on F1 rules, just very, very clever people.
Anyway totally agree with Joe’s post, & will be interesting to see how they perform next. Oh & by the way, actually I’m a McLaren fan. P.S. Fantastic season!
I heartily agree with Echo3.
There is no such thing as spirit of the rules. Some may confuse this with intent of the rules which is quite different. It is the designer’s job to find ways around them as written.
Conversely it is the FIA and tech working party who are tasked with writing them correctly. Many tech rules have been written from the wrong end.
I would also mention for some above, that it is Marko’s job to whinge and whine about being caught, this gives a reduced expectation of subsequent performance which may be useful in certain places. Meanwhile the genius continues behind the scenes.
I agree. Red Bull do get harshly treated, the Merc Double DRS system is a good example. There are others in history too, like the Brawn diffusers and the McLaren F-Duct. I’m not sure how the Lotus Renault aero device works at present, but potentially that could fall into another grey area – and if I were a betting man I’d suggest that it won’t be expressly disallowed after this race weekend.
Much like the Ferrari years of the past, the FIA are always keen to disadvantage any team who might have engineered itself an advantage. I’m not really sure how sporting that is.
This all goes to the too tight (in my opinion) rules. Everything is so controlled and there is such little opportunity to innovate the teams have to pick away at little things like this. F1 used to be the pinnacle of exciting and innovative engineering and engine development but is so stifled by chassis and engine rules that the cars are all becoming the same (and equally ugly). It’s great that we have new engine regs coming in 2014, but the engines are still very tightly controlled; V angle, cylinder spacing, weight, boost, c.g., etc. etc. and I am sure the engines will be frozen very quickly. I know the manufacturers had some input into the rules and it will be exciting to see who does it right, but still………..
Joe,
We are only reading that this is a Red Bull issue. Do Renault share the same map?
No, just Red Bull
Any news about the allegedly illegal ride height adjustment system?
None at all
Well there should be. That’ll have a disproportionately positive effect on down-force and handling.
Of course, measuring it out on the track may be a problem. Not unlike the Brabham ‘stilts’ problem some years ago.
.
There is now! It was banned.
You are only allowed to change the ride height “with tools”. The FIA ruled it was not “tooly” enough in its requirements for operation.
Poor old Aide must be getting a complex.
How many tools does it take to change Red Bull ride height? Only one – Vettel…:)
Actually it seems that the FIA looked at the adjusters and decided that in order to prevent adjustment during parc ferme they stuck bits of sticky paper (official FIA seals) over the access holes.
As far as I can make out from the rules it is ok to change the ride height in the pits during a race whilst the car is stationary, with the use of tools. This may sound simple but unless the system is designed with this as an objective from the start, it is probably impossible without changing major components. Even the grid is still parc ferme, so it must be done during a pit stop.
I reckon Jo Bauer deserves a special trophy to be presented on the podium with sunday’s winners.
Ferrari and McLaren will happily pay for that I suspect !
Since the RB could not keep up with the Ferrari at the last race while having the “advantage”, now that it is gone, is your expectation that they are the third fastest car?
They kept up with the Ferrari quite well and were in some cases faster. Pit stops, Lewis Hamilton, Jenson Button, and the start of the race kept them from winning. I am pretty sure Seb was around two seconds behind for a majority of the race. I don’t see Ferrari being that much quicker. Had Sebastian outqualified Fernando, I think the story would have been different.
The ‘Tifosi’ insist that Alonso was under pressure the whole race, with either Vettel or Button within 1sec so able to DRS at any time.
Everyone realises that FA is at the top of his game & the Ferrari has improved immensely, but there appears to be a need to make the driver extra-superhuman.
I wonder if many people follow just one driver at the expense of a real interest in the racing throughout the field?
Fanboys, I suppose.
Actually this season the entire field is so closely matched that it really appears as though the driver is the determining variable. My personal hope is to see Mark Webber win the title and thus far he has as good a chance as anyone. It’s going to be a fascinating second half of the season.
Im not so sure. In Canada and Britain, the Ferrari lead most of the race, only to lose it in the closing laps to cars that seemingly managed their tires better, Canada especially. In Germany, i fully expected to see Vettel pass FA with 4 – 5 laps to go, but he cpuld not, even while having a so called advantage. This makes me believe the Ferrari is now the fastest car in F1.
I fully agree. They can’t be in the points position in both WDC & WCC by being the third or fourth fastest car, as is frequently claimed.
I think the difference between Red Bull engine mapping and Mercedes double-DRS is that F1 has a “standard” ECU, and there are expectations about how the software is supposed to be used. This was the solution the FIA came up with to be able to ban driver aids they don’t want. Red Bull apparently figured out a clever work-around, and now it’s been banned.
Yes, they have a standard ECU, but each team can program it as they wish, within the rules. Just think of last year’s off throttle blowing; they all had the same ECU but mapped it differently. Each engine requires a different map (ignition timing, fuel flow, etc) and that has to be programmed for each rpm and throttle position, among other things.
ECUs can be made to do anything, it’s a processor it just runs the programs it’s given. Here is a special example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18982474
I would imagine that, although it’s the same physical device, that it’s not running the officially-sanctioned FIA F1 firmware, though.
Joe – what do you think about suggestions in some quarters that some of the teams would be performing better if they had better drivers? The main teams I’m thinking of are Lotus, Sauber and Williams?
I can see how that case could be argued. The problem is that teams need money and so must take the money first and foremost. Thus the key target for all of them should be budget-capping or cost-control. The problem is that some of them use their access to money as an advantage.
What/where are these quarters? Is there some sort of consensus building up that Lotus drivers are underperforming?
Not after this weekends performance!
If the controversial map was used for one race only, and Red Bull can revert back to the same map they used at Silverstone (which they won), why all the fuss? How can people assume it will hinder them in any way?
Reminds me of the Lotus 88 controversy. The twin chassis car was banned for violating the “spirit of the rules”.
Closing a loop hole between race weekends? That’s nothing. V8 Supercars closed a loop hole overnight between their Saturday and Sunday races.
Agree with posts previous. Tighten the rules just a little more…
F1 Spec Racing Grand Prix World Championship
Ps- DEATH TO AERO (and innovations will have Real World applications, among a plethora of other bene’s!) Open your mind
F1 rule criteria for consistency – be Consistently inconsistent, now that this is cleaned up time to move on to the Interpretation of the next rule, so double diffusers and slots that aren’t but really are holes are o.k but not o.k some of the time depending on how the championship is shaping up.
Maybe the 100 meter sprint should be tweaked to a different length at the Olympics to mix up the results a bit, that should not affect the integrity of the sport in the eyes of the public. Perhaps spring the change on the competitors the day before or better yet arbitrarily at the time of the race. Other than F1 what major sport changes it’s rules week to week throughout the season without looking foolish?
The FIA say Usain Bolt is too fast – they’re planning on making him run in cloggs.
What a daft comment.
Maybe Helmut Marko can run up to a hole in the fence with a leaf blower and point it at Vettel to try to create additional ‘aerodynamic stall’ for his boy as he blasts down the straight, there isn’t a rule excluding that yet.
You win the internet.
Could a reversion to ‘regular’ engine mapping be what was behind Webber’s lack of pace last Sunday, one wonders….or was it it just Mark having an albeit unlikely off weekend?
I thought the ecu on all f1 cars were standardised and the mapping can be altered at all curcuits by + – 2 and a 1/2% maximum and not any higher like red bull. As the double drs on mercedes is a aero enhancement the red bull’s enhancment is directly to the powerplant electronics, so according to the rules they both were cheating but took no action only to close the loophole for red bull. The FIA clearly wants to keep this championship alive to the end, like they should. The only problem the rules should be the same for all the teams, if the fia really checked all the cars against the rules some more teams could be infringing the rules elsewhere…Talk about the FIA inconsistancy…………….
I would to be in the Red Bull – FIA meetings when Christian or another Red Bull honcho tell Charlie and Jo they don’t know how to write a rule!
I understand RBR have simply taken advantage of ambiguous wording, which is not new to the sport. To the fan though it does, on occasion, come across like RBR are given a little more slack than other teams
” other teams read the rules as they were intended to be read.”
Lol – I read this to mean – other teams are kicking themselves for not reading the rules as carefully as Red Bull
Bang goes…innovation / invention in F1
too much hot-air in the protagonists’ arguments –
too little in exhaust pipes
Credit to Adrian Newey and the team for trying to think outside the box, that’s what got them where they are now.
While I can understand the attitudes of the other teams regarding this matter, most are probably wondering why they didn’t think of it themselves.
Jean Todt seems to be keeping pretty much on the straight and narrow as regards the FIA and legislative matters, good to see!
(I didn’t realise he was so involved in the Groub B rally car saga until I saw the programme on BBC TV recently)
Nothing more when a bit of psychology about that RB was preaching the spirit
of the rules.On the timesheets you will not spot the difference maybe just the
car is behaving a bit different with less stability
I’ve been advocating for some time that F1 should simply get rid of the rules. It would save so much hassle and heartache, as well as tons of money. Give them a maximum engine size and a tightly controlled budget and let them get on with it. It was a lack of rules that lead to most of the great innovations we’ve had in the past from F1.
It would be a wonderful experiment for a season! And the argument that it will benefit the teams with more revenue sources – mayber, but it’s cheaper to copy a good idea than come up with one so things would reach a certain level over time. Only issue would be the essential need for testing and whether there would be any budget left for innovation?
There’s a detailed explanation by Gary Anderson the BBC web site which is informative.
The Mercedes Double DRS tweak displays technical cleverness. The designers observed that conventional DRS has incidental aerodynamic or air pressure effects around the rear wing and assembled a car that exploited those effects. Writers of the rule book cannot be expected to anticipate every consequence of DRS — it took Mercedes two years to come up with the idea — so this tweak has to be accepted as legal. Note also that it is most effective in qualifying and is incidental in a race where it can only be exploited during DRS intervals.
The Red Bull engine mapping tweak demonstrates a clever legal eye to pursue a loophole. The rule book writers had made it clear that they wished to end use of this tweak; Red Bull spotted an opportunity but, with credit to the team, have agreed to cease using it.
An important thing to consider about both these tweaks is that they don’t contribute anything to vehicle design in any meaningful sense. The engine mapping tweak only works on a few corners at a range of throttle positions; for the rest of the circuit, engine mapping of this kind probably provides a disadvantage. It worked for Red Bull because team engineers spent a lot of resources calculating where time might be gained or lost; every corner on every circuit needed to be analysed to determine the optimal engine mapping. At a time when F1 is going through one of its phases of presenting itself as a test bed for relevant technology, this was a complete dead end for real world application. It is not even a “development” that might be applied in junior racing formulae or super cars.
Hi Joe! Well… from Remi Taffin’s itw yesterday during the press conference it looks like this map was availabe to ALL Renault engined teams.
” I think we can make this simple. We’ve got our engine with this map in a certain way. We’ve got an area in which to play which we call the ballpark and each of our four teams is able to chose between these things so they are free to play with our engine as they wish”
That is also acknowedged by Toto Wolff:
“(…) the reason why we have not been taking up that solution is because we didn’t make it work as Red Bull have.”
So it looks to me like this is a Renault’s idea in the first place…. What do you think?
No, I think it was Red Bull’s idea.
Keith Gerrard I met Gary Anderson at Jordans in the early 90s to talk about auto gearboxes (the FIA closed development of this). Can you ask him if he thinks the torque curve difference on the Red Bull engines was because of the Helmholtz resonator Adria…n recently fitted? Was this to reduce back pressure by tuning the exhaust pulses, therebye letting more mass gasflow through valve overlap? The result would be a better control over mid range torque and more gas flow over the diffuser. I used this idea in 1978 on a saloon car. A change to the engine management would of course also be needed but would not be the main cause. The checks on the manual ride height adjustment by the FIA may be because I recently re-stated my belief that Red Bull have used an hydraulic ride height valve system in their suspension geometry from the first Newey cars including this year. This was an adaption of a Gordan Murray idea used on his high downforce designs in the early days of df development. The system pumped down the ride heigh when the car moves and it bled back raising the car in the paddock. If I am right they have used this for a number of years. The twin chassis car at Lotus was much better of course but both ideas were banned at the time. Seems that if you have fizzy drink money today you can use any ideas.