Not even 24 hours have passed since the discovery of the case of the alleged violation of parc fermé rules, and we already have the name of the perpetrator and a confession on the table. It doesn’t seem that long ago that Red Bull was convicted of violating the budget ceiling in 2022, and two years later, this team has another “butter” on its head. The Austin case culminates in Red Bull’s admission that it will reach into the design of its single-seater.
Even before the start of Thursday’s press, the Dutch journalist Erik van Haren – known for his ties to the Verstappen family – came with the information that his compatriot’s team is the perpetrator in the latest parc fermé violation case. There’s usually a very fine line between exploring the gray areas of the rules and openly breaking them – as well as between knowingly and negligently breaking the rules – but in this case the rule breaking seems absolutely clear.
We reported on everything already on Thursday morning, when information appeared in the media that the FIA is changing the parc fermé control processes due to the suspicions of other teams that an unknown perpetrator is changing the ground clearance setting in the front part of the floor between qualifying and the race.
It didn’t take long and a Dutch journalist reported in less than 24 hours Erik van Harenthat the suspect is Red Bull. However, according to his article, this team denies doing anything nefarious. Well, he wasn’t very precise about this. Only shortly after the publication of the Dutch article, new information came to light.
“Red Bull has admitted it has made changes to the single-seater following discussions with governing body the FIA,” reports a British BBC article. The television contacted the spokesperson of the team and he confirmed that the whole case is based on true information. However, there is one “but”.
“Yes, this device exists,” admitted the spokesperson of Red Bull for BBC. “However, it is not accessible when the car is assembled and ready to drive. In our feverish correspondence with the FIA, it was brought up and we agreed on the next steps.”
So the explanation is clear, Red Bull had the device, but did not use it. It was apparently intended only for mechanics when assembling a single-seater. How much you choose to believe this explanation is up to each of you.
However, it reminded us of the case from 1994, when the Benetton team was caught still having launch control installed in the car’s software. The engineers hid it behind a series of steps, but the system could still be activated from the cockpit. How did Benetton explain it then? He admitted that he had the software from the previous season, and since uninstalling it would supposedly damage other systems, they decided to disable it by hiding it behind a series of steps so it couldn’t be accidentally activated from the cockpit.
Basically, no one believed this story at the time, but be amazed, Benetton got away without punishment. Basically, the Red Bull case will end the same way. The FIA did not catch this team in the act, it has no evidence of the use of the system, and therefore the maximum prestige of the stable from Milton Keynes will suffer as a result.
