Hacker News Reader

Comment by TillE | Hacker News Reader

The smeary tone of this article is really quite obvious and unpleasant, and I don't think qualifying it as a "conspiracy theory" makes up for that.

For example the claim that "Christian Horner isn’t saying much", when in fact he's flatly denied any kind of rule breaking.

View on HN

Indeed, not to mention the very title of the Wired Article. I'm guessing the author has not recently checked into the concessions given to say, Ferrari [1][2].

That all said, to some extent controversies like these are what make F1 what it is...at least since I've been watching. Remember Jenson Button's secret fuel compartment? [3] Crashgate at Singapore? [4] Schumacher....everything? [5]

[1] http://en.espnf1.com/ferrari/motorsport/story/104589.html

[2] http://www.autocar.co.uk/blogs/motorsport/bernie-blasts-ferr...

[3] http://www.thefreelibrary.com/MOTOR+RACING%3A+BAR+face+fuel+...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Formula_One_crash_contr...

[5] Honestly, just google "Schumacher controversies"

edit: formatting

If we're going to pick up on BAR's fuel tank problems from 2005 (and calling it a 'secret fuel tank' as the article does is rather disingenuous), then it's worth also pointing out that the tank manufacturer said that BAR's design wasn't unusual; they were merely the scapegoat picked on by the FIA during a period when it was noticeably pro-Ferrari and BAR were for a period their leading challenger.

Or we could point out that McLaren specifically asked about running a hydraulic-based hybrid system in the late 90s and it was initially approved then rejected on pressure from Ferrari, or about their (entirely driver controlled) fiddle brakes system being ruled an illegal driver aid and banned while Ferrari were allowed to decouple the throttle pedal from the engine throttle, or Ferrari getting higher spec tyres from Bridgestone than the other teams, or.....

I have got to say that I don't tend to place a lot of faith in an article that cites The Daily Mail as a source and I'm inclined to agree with you about the tone. Even the Mail article referenced paints a much more balanced story and the headline is ironically "Vettel did not cheat! Horner defiant..."

As a non-F1 fan though it certainly made for interesting reading.

If Red Bull is indeed cheating, Christian Horner would be a fool to come out and admit it.

Cheating with traction control has been a problem in multiple forms of motorsport for a long time. It's difficult to prove, so by and large, teams that were cheating with it have just denied it flat out.

Red Bull is definitely violating the spirit of the rules, it's just a question of will the FIA come down on them or clarify the rules. In Formula 1 the difference between getting punished for cheating and getting away with it is often political.

They would be stupid to do anything that was flat outside the rules, they just don't need to to get wins.

When one guy leads by 30+ seconds, while everyone else fights for fractions of a second, either there's a major breakthrough or somebody is cheating.

Or somebody like ROS had problems in his front wing and they didn't had the pace, and not counting that VET was on clean air.

No cheating involved

Vettel has won races by large margins before, without any accusations of cheating. The time difference of ONE LAP is under a second, but that adds up over the course of an entire race.

Red Bull have the best car, Vettel is the best driver, they do the fastest pit stops, and with a little luck this creates big wins.

A 30s gap over an entire race isn't that big of a deal, Hamilton won the 2008 British GP by over a minute but that was changeable conditions. Watch the first lap of any race and see the gap Vettel builds in a single gap, it has hovered around 2 seconds for many races...

I think it was Singapore where a safety car blew out Vettel's advantage and the pack caught up. Obviously tyre wear was very low in that period, so the team told him to put his foot down, at which point he again managed to increase the gap by about 2s per lap to the point where he had gained back an entire pit stop. Even with a favourable track, I'm sure those in the paddock can't help thinking of the similarities with the 1994 season. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Formula_One_cheating_contr...

Yeah, huge gaps aren't evidence of cheating. There was once race in 2003 or 4 when Schumi lapped the entire field up to 3rd place. He technically came in 1st and 4th place. :)

Vettel was cruising most of the race. That's what he has been doing during all the seasons. He opens a gap in few laps and takes care of tyres and engine for the rest of the race. If needed(as after a Safety Car), he does it again.

He's a great driver, no doubt about it, but he isn't head and shoulders over ALO, HAM or RAI.

Negative. After the yellow flag erased his lead between laps 25-30, he was able to get ahead by 3.2 seconds in one lap after the restart. After that he gains about 2 seconds per lap. They are definitely using something, especially with that engine audio signature.

Personally, I wouldn't outright call it cheating, since it's within the rules, which is what F1 presumably wants, but it is against the spirit of anti-traction control rules.

In Hamilton's last season at Maclaren (when there car was very competitive), he said more than once "they're definitely doing something with that car".

It's been stated more than once by more than one person that Alonso is "the best driver in F1 at the moment, pound for pound". In addition to that, Vettel doesn't have the fastest time on the Top Gear Track (not that it's the ultimate test of a great driver) - but to say that Vettel is the best driver in F1 right now is mis-guided. He most certainly isn't. What would be correct to say is that he has the best car. Now whether that is because of some sort of traction control or not; I don't know. But needless to say, he's not winning races based on pure talent alone.

best driver != fastest driver

Vettel also is very consistent, hard working, excellent under pressure and generally pretty faultless. Top gear times dont say much, but he was on the top there for quite some time, so if Lewis gets a 2nd chance, Vettel should be given one too.

I also think that Alonso is the best overall driver, but i think Hamilton is the fastest in terms of lap-time.

There are several other drivers who're as fast or faster than Vettel. I think he's comparable to Nigel Mansell in the 1992 season: a very good driver in a far, far superior car.

That statement in the article is quite disingenuous. 30 seconds is a comfortable win but not something to get excited about. The front runners routinely lap the poorer teams, so it's hardly "fractions of a second".

That's 30 seconds accumulated over many rounds. You should compare 1-2 seconds per round to your fractions of a second and that's not as uncommon as you suggest. For example, look at the Singapore Grand Prix 2011, except for #2 there are similar margins between the top racers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Singapore_Grand_Prix Or Australia 2011, Vettel won with 22 seconds ahead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Australian_Grand_Prix

I'm sure there are enough examples to be found. Very often you have can find a margin of around 20-30 seconds between position 1 and 3 and sometimes large margins between 1 and 2.

The problem is not only the +30 second lead. It's the time the 30 second lead was achieved in. After the second safety car, Vettel was just driving away from Rosberg with 2+ seconds a lap. That's an unbelievable difference, with Rosberg also racing for a top team (namely Mercedes, same team as Hamilton). There are also speculations Rosberg was on old tires and held the rest of the pack up, but still, 2+ seconds a lap is incredible.

It's also worth remembering that once Vettel builds up enough of a lead, he's likely to ease off a bit. If he kept pushing, his lead at the end of the race would likely be far bigger than 30 seconds.

> There are also speculations Rosberg was on old tires and held the rest of the pack up, but still, 2+ seconds a lap is incredible.

Not just old tyres, but a problem with his front wing after collecting rubber

It can't be cheating if they pass inspections. Developing an advantage is not something to be punished for. This is racing after all.

"It can't be cheating if they pass inspections."

Same goes for Lance Armstrong, right?

Yes? I'm not a cycling fan, but I consider doping and attempts to evade detection fundamental to the sport. _Every rider is doping_, some are just better at it.

That's an interesting angle.

I've heard the argument for allowing athletes to take and do whatever they want to improve their physical performance. The best argument against that approach that I've heard is that if you allow a virtual free-for-all in terms of performance-enhancing drugs, then you're essentially requiring every participant to assume the risks associated with taking those drugs. Not doing so means they'll be unlikely to compete, which has all sorts of negative implications on their careers.

Obviously, the consequences of tweaking a car are different that tweaking the human body, and there's certainly banned performance-enhancing methods in sports that aren't currently thought to be damaging to the human body, but I think my point is clear.

You don't think everyone is doping to some degree as it is? I find that hard to believe. I think everyone at high level competition is enhancing.

So I support the notion that high level performance sports should allow performance enhancing drugs. That's what everyone is doing anyway. The way it is right now you not only have to enhance, and be great, but you also have to be a great cheater (i.e. not get caught doping). I don't like systems that give advantages to the best cheater.

Even if they are, they are bound to use it in ways, or during times that allow them to pass checks. If everything was flat out allowed they would use stuff that would never pass those tests in far higher concentrations.

While the deaths due to complications seem to be overblown in bodybuilding circles and the overall safety of performance enhancing drugs seems to be rather high it leaves to wonder if that would still be true if athletes would just use everything there is out there. Seeing that bodybuilders probably don't care about endurance, power, nutrient retention and the thousand ways the whole oxygen and glycogen supply chain can be screwed with.

Everybody's playing the same game. Some just don't know it.

Schrödinger's cat comes into mind. They looked at the cat, and it was healthy and alive. If later on, they check again and find it dead, then they can action. Otherwise, if it passes regulation, its not cheating. You can't really accuse anyone of cheating until you actually catch them cheating.

Another angle to consider is that by creating gossip and rumors, the other teams might be creating a competitive advantage. By getting the officials to stress Red Bull and throw them off their game. Its not cheating, because it is allowed by the rules. When they ban gossip and rumors then you can take action against them. Otherwise, the cat is still dead and alive.

Nonsense. Not getting caught doesn't mean cheating didn't happen, it just means cheating wasn't detected.

Your statement is like saying that if we don't detect intrusion into our computers, that no one intruded.

When 2 and 3 are battling for position 1 can just drive, using clean air, to build their advantage. Red Bull have particularly good pit crew, and that also helps their drivers.

Rosberg was losing 1.7 seconds a lap because of rubber in his front wing, and he started the race on tyres that has done two runs in qualifying. It is the general consensus that Red Bull do have a performance advantage, but it's nowhere near 2 seconds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com