357
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Nov 2018
- Messages
- 1,400
I agree regarding breaking the rules, however at the time I think the behavior of the other teams wasn't exactly the best. Instead of waiting until the results were finalized there were public statements and open letters that were premature to say the least.I have to say my view of Red Bull has declined due to the behaviour shown over the cost cap situation. They broke the rules and then moaned like hell that they were caught even though thier punishment was, imo, light.
Horner comes over like a spoiled child in the recent drive to survive documentary.
I think the punishment fitted what they had overspent on - catering and sickness expenses. The percentage overspend was very small, and the FIA admitted there was no performance improvement from the overspend.
Other teams will always push for the maximum punishment because it will give them the best advantage, and for the people pushing - that's their job. It's the job of Christian Horner to try and minimize that punishment.
Drive to Survive always adds more drama than there actually was, it's what Netflix do. I must disagree with you use of the word "documentary", as the inaccuracies are well documented. They have invented drama between drivers that simply doesn't exist in many episodes, and are known for using radio from other incidents and races to tell their "story" for example.
However, Christian Horner's job is to defend and fight for Red Bull to the maximum extent possible in the media, with the FIA and with F1, and IMO he does this very well. He shouldn't tone down to benefit other teams because it's not his job to. This is exactly the same as Toto trying to introduce rule changes to benefit Mercedes last year because they had built a terrible car.