Daniel Ricciardo, Red Bull, Albert Park, 2014

Ricciardo stripped of second place – Red Bull to appeal

2014 Australian Grand PrixPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Daniel Ricciardo, Red Bull, Albert Park, 2014Daniel Ricciardo has been stripped of his second place in the Australian Grand Prix after his car failed a technical inspection.

Ricciardo’s Red Bull was found to have “exceeded consistently” the limit on peak fuel consumption of 100kg per hour, a new rule introduced for the 2014 season.

His exclusion from the race results after more than five hours of deliberation by the FIA stewards. Ricciardo’s car was found to be in violation of Article 3.2 of the sporting regulations and article 5.1.4 of the technical regulations.

The stewards issued a ten-point explanation for their decision, claiming Red Bull had failed to use a fuel flow model the FIA recommended for the racing, following problems with their fuel flow sensor during practice. The sensor had been changed on Ricciardo’s car prior to the race.

They also claimed Red Bull were told during the race their fuel flow rate was too high and were advised to make adjustments to reduce it, which they did not do.

According to the stewards, Red Bull chose not to use the recommended model because the sensor was faulty. However they noted that “regardless of the team’s assertion that the sensor was fault, it is not within their discretion to run a different fuel flow measurement method without the permission of the FIA”.

Red Bull immediately announced their attention to appeal and released the following statement:

“Following the decision of the FIA that Infiniti Red Bull Racing is in breach of Article 3.2 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations and Article 5.1.4 of the FIA Formula One Technical Regulations with car three, the team has notified the FIA of its intention to appeal with immediate effect.

“Inconsistencies with the FIA fuel flow meter have been prevalent all weekend up and down the pit lane. The team and Renault are confident the fuel supplied to the engine is in full compliance with the regulations.”

During the race weekend the teams were advised by race director Charlie Whiting of a change to the fuel flow filter frequency. The teams were given the following notification:

“Following a review of the fuel flow data from the practice sessions the following change will be applied for qualifying and the race.

“The maximum fuel flow limit mFFMIllegal will be checked using a fuel flow filter frequency (parameter fdmFFMFuelFilter) of 5Hz instead of the 10Hz currently configured in the FIA data version.

“Due to time constraints before the qualifying session the FIA data versions will not be changed. The revised monitoring will be processed by the FIA off­-car.”

Ricciardo’s exclusion means Kevin Magnussen is promoted to second place and the other McLaren of Jenson Button takes third. Sergio Perez’s Force India moves up to tenth place for the final championship point.

See the revised race results and updated drivers and constructors’ championship points standings.

This article will be updated.

2014 Australian Grand Prix

Browse all 2014 Australian Grand Prix articles

Image © Red Bull/Getty

220 comments on “Ricciardo stripped of second place – Red Bull to appeal”

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4
  1. FIA being……..themselves

    1. At least they are consistent. I guess…

        1. knoxploration
          16th March 2014, 13:24

          Nutshell: The FIA required the team to use a known-faulty fuel flow sensor (but one that wasn’t as badly faulty as the alternate), and the team refused to abide by that because it would mean they had a lower peak fuel flow than all their rivals. The FIA doesn’t like to be ignored, so now Red Bull pays the price.

          The FIA needs to provide a way to verify the calibration of (and recalibrate) fuel flow sensors at the circuit. It’s ludicrous to insist a team continue to use a sensor that is known to have suddenly changed its calibration.

          1. Also: Now we all know what Montezemolo was referring to:

            Montezemolo urges FIA to prevent rules “trickery”

          2. “… it would mean they had a lower peak fuel flow than all their rivals.”

            Are you sure it is not that ” it would mean they had the same peak fuel flow than all their rivals.”?
            My personal feeling given Redbulls history, is that they more often than not, do not like competing using the same rules as majority of the other teams. Besides, are not all the teams using the same type of sensor?

          3. knoxploration
            16th March 2014, 13:47

            quads: Read the stewards’ decision. It’s right there, clear as day. The sensor was calibrated, homologated, and the FIA agreed that it then started to read high.

            The other teams (at least, every single front-running team) have not just been rumored to have broken the rules, but have either been proven to have broken the rules repeatedly, or have hired proven cheats off other teams. Nobody has yet proven Red Bull to have cheated, and while I don’t doubt they have, name a team that *hasn’t*.

            Your post reads like sour grapes — you say Red Bull “do not like competing using the same rules”, so show a single instance where Red Bull have been proven to have cheated. And name which teams you support that don’t cheat.

            And note, it’s not the *type* of sensor, but the fact that the sensor changed its calibration *after* it was homologated. Had McLaren’s sensor changed calibration against the team’s favor, you can be damned skippy they’d have complained and likely refused to just live with it, as well.

          4. @keithcollantine indeed, and it also shows that the policing of this rule is all but fool proof.
            Which is extremely annoying from a fan perspective if rule compliance comes down to a sensor that may or may not be working properly.

          5. The FIA needs to provide a way to verify the calibration of (and recalibrate) fuel flow sensors at the circuit. It’s ludicrous to insist a team continue to use a sensor that is known to have suddenly changed its calibration.


          6. The fuel sensors are owned and operated by the team. This smells like they’re buying/making a large number of sensors to the FIA homologated spec and then shopping for the best worst one so they can justify ignoring it.

          7. @keithcollantine – when was the last time that the team appeal worked, or in fact, did that ever happen?

          8. Oh indeed, well spotted.

          9. @knoxploration
            You are probably right – I hate cheats especially in sports, hence I may become kind of sour when I come by one!

            Yes, they have cheated before AND they were caught. A couple of examples. They were found to have been racing with holes in the floor of their cars, even though NOT allowed – It was “ruled” that they should modify the design (and keep the points they earned using that thing).
            The same happened when they were caught using engine maps that (again after have taken part in race) were deemed NOT within the regulations and had to be removed. (again points keps). Those points counted, believe it or not in winning championships.

            Which teams does not cheat? All teams that were not caught with a design that they had being racing (and have earned points), that they later had to remove/modify due to it being illegal or not within the spirit of the regulations. You search, there are plenty of them!


          10. @dujedcv I recall Ferrari successfully appealing the exclusion of both of their cars from the 1999 Malaysian GP, after scrutineers found the dimensions of their barge boards to be outside FIA tolerances. It may have happened again since then but I can’t remember it at this time.

          11. Wait a minute……so in reality…… exactly what mpg am I getting from my ford cmax?

    2. at least they mount now enough pressure on themselves to get that strangely implemented fuel flow thing fixed.

    3. 9) The FIA technical representative observed thought the telemetry during the race that the fuel flow was too high and contacted the team, giving them the opportunity to follow his previous instruction, and reduce the fuel flow such that it was within the limit, as measured by the homologated sensor – and thus gave the team the opportunity to be within compliance. The team chose not to make this correction.

      I have a feeling it was RedBull’s plan all along. Now they will fight FIA and they are sure they’ll win. If they win, they will do it every race from now on. Tested this on Ricciardo, when found not quilty start using this on Vettel also.

      1. Bingo ! Nicely put !

      2. Still, limiting fuel usage per hour is one of stupidest limitation ever made in F1. That should be like before – just a common weight limit per race.

        1. It’s for engine reasons, not for motorsport reasons. Limiting the fuel flow rate limits power. Limiting power limits engine strength, cost, etc……

          1. You still won’t get anywhere if you are limited to 140 kg of fuel. Race goes 1,4-1,5 hours in average. It will be much simpler for everyone.

      3. This is ridiculous. I suppose he couldn’t have had more than 100kg fuel in his car but then again, do they measure the amount of fuel put into the car prior to the race start?

        This sounds like something RB would think of, and the FIA’s concern seems legitimate, then again we have accusations and no numbers, so this could and may as well simply be the FIA flexing their muscles because …reasons!

        However, the logic in my mind says “Why does it matter how much the maximum flow rate is when the car itself uses less than 100kg for the entire race distance?”

        Perhaps there’s no way that renault engine was ever going to make sufficient power without ‘bending’ that rule a little bit and all teams seemed to be able to manage their fuel just fine.

        Obviously this sensor and the rule making the sensor a mandatory part of the race (max 100kg/hr) has the responsibility of telling the FIA the total of the fuel consumption, which is the most reliable way to measure how much fuel is being consumed for the total distance.

        Therefore … the RB10 had more than 100kg on board and they tried to pull a fast one.

        All I know is … Poor Daniel! That guy was absolutely ecstatic! “I’m Tripping Balls, man!” – and thanks to this rubbish many might consider him and/or his team cheaters. I wonder what the home crowd thinks of that?

        1. The max flow rate is 100kg per hour… races last longer than an hour.

          100kg of fuel at the start used at the maximum allowed rate means you’ll run out of fuel with about a third of the race to go.

          In short, 100kg per hour and 100kg fuel tank are two different things. They’ve really confused most people with the naming though. Why not just say 166ml per minute or something along those lines.

          1. @textuality I think this is the heart of the discrepancy and the confusion surrounding this rule. Racing fuel is a volatile liquid: its volume is variable dependent on ambient temperature. This is why a weight of fuel is specified. Similarly, the FIA mandated a peak fuel flow rate in terms of weight per unit time. The mandated Gill Sensors ultrasonic fuel flow meter homologated with the FIA measures flow in terms of mL/unit time. There could easily arise a discrepancy between what the fuel flow meter is reporting in terms of volume units vs. what Red Bull’s systems are calculating in terms of weight. The fuel density could be altered by ambient power unit temperatures. Don’t forget that we now have a significant turbo intercooler in the system. This could also be used to cool fuel, increasing both its volumetric density and its energy density, yielding higher performance but still within the permissible flow rate in terms of unit mass per unit time. The FIA have really opened themselves up to this sort of war between the legislative part and the technical groups within the teams. I am (as an engineer) more likely to believe Red Bull’s determination of fuel flow rather than a standard part that has been shown to have significant variation in its output, and which, to my mind, isn’t even measuring the correct data.

          2. @mortyvicar Interesting post, thanks.

          3. @mortyvicar, I came to say the same thing, but you’ve explained it much better than I could.

            The FIA should not be measuring flow rates as mass per unit of time, as the sensors cannot measure that, and therefore some conversion factor is required, which introduces a possibility for inaccurate results.

          4. The purpose of my post was to highlight that the rule could be implemented effectively by simply limiting the race fuel load itself. If a team wants to use 200kg/hr for a lap, and they can still finish the race and not require more than 100kg total fuel, then good on them.

            The idea of the formula is to be “green” and they’ve achieved that by at least a 30% reduction in fuel consumption.

            Perhaps the FIA figure (and perhaps correctly so) that if they relied on simple weight measurement of the car that the teams would surely sneak in a few extra liters. That’s the only reason I can even imagine there being a fuel flow meter, and the only way to reasonably mandate such a thing is by implementing a flow-rate limitation.

            Could have been more straightforward though.

            In addition, the flow rate of the injectors combined with the duty cycle of the injectors @ a given rpm can be used to calculate how much fuel is being used.

            It would seem that formula would be no less reliable than the FIA mandated sensors themselves! :)

          5. @formulales, thanks for that. This is why I think that technically, the preponderance of the evidence is likely with Red Bull. Unfortunately I think they’re still going to be disqualified for using their own flow rate methodology, in contravention of Technical Directive 01614 which basically states that if there’s a disagreement then the FIA will determine the course of action and the team(s) must comply with that. My reading of it is that the wording leaves some wiggle room so it’s definitely one for the lawyers (as always) hence the appeal. I would like Red Bull to prevail, if only for Ricciardo, but if they do then it creates a big headache for the FIA and their chosen method of fuel flow rate compliance enforcement and measurement.

          6. @neuralfraud, I don’t fully understand the requirement for a metered flow given a fixed amount of fuel per car either. Also, the mandate and the choice of meter came in very late in my opinion (January this year IIRC).

            The fact is that the FIA writes the rules and they decided to include this one. The teams have to abide by it. Red Bull are interpreting the rules from the technical aspect and are certain they are within the letter of the law. The FIA are interpreting the rules from the aspect of the rulesmakers and they don’t want to see anyone challenging their authority or flouting the rules (which I doubt Red Bull are doing). The FIA have basically come up with an algorithm which determines what to do in the event of a disagreement. Red Bull came up with their own algorithm. Now we have to wait to see who is right. I think Red Bull will be shown to be technically within the regulations but I think it won’t matter because they didn’t follow the rules for dispute resolution within the running of a race. Who knows how these things are ultimately decided, probably at some star chamber in Paris.

    4. …rather Redbull being themselfs. They were warned during the race, and given an option to correct. I suppose they are looking for another “hole” in the regulations…only maybe this time FIA asks them to stop see what they like to see…and start competing using the same rules as all the others.

      1. Well there they go again…trying to cheat again.i think they know from the start that they’ll be nowhere in the first race so they tried to look for a way that they might get through it and show others that they made a miracle after their faults in testing and they are still fast and flying,they’re still the BOSS! but they failed…caught…hmmmm.not fair for others so well deserved DQ! lesson learned!

    5. The farce is continuing…IT IS CRAZY to not let the drivers race the given the car and its fuel.
      I do expect many in this forum to point out that the rules are the same for everyone yadayada….THE RULES ARE STUPID and the FIA HEADS should get the SACK. The F1 version 2014 is a farce. I feel sorry for drivers, teams and us fans – especially the Aussie guy’s this race.
      Sad times.

      1. So YES the rules are the same for everybody and if everyone complied and did fine…I do not see why blaming the rules is going to make anything better… Red Bull did not comply so end off..

    6. exactly. FIA and FOM are only killing F1. there should never be standardized electronics in F1 in the first place. better still why in the world would anyone try and regulate fuel flow in a non-endurance racing series – much less the self-proported “pinnacle of motorsport”????

      F1 is rapidly becoming the saddest joke in racing. On the other hand, the nearly dead Indycar series will be thrilled to get all the desenchanted f1 fans.

    7. You know what FIA stands for right? Fools In Action. Coming to an F1 track near you. I am sick and tired of the rules makers at this circus contriving the finishes fo races. If they get 100kg of fuel. Thats all they get. If you run out then you obviously got the flow wrong. Nuff said!

  2. Sad for Dan but relieved in proper application of the rules. F1 is all about the rules, always has been, always should be. Hence the Formula.

    1. knoxploration
      16th March 2014, 12:57

      Apart from all the many times when it wasn’t about proper application of the rules. I mean, is there anybody still left out there who thinks the FIA are fair, truthfully speaking?

      1. Technical infringements have been part of F1 since day one. As for sometimes controversial steward’s decisions during a race, well they too have been part of F1 since the start.

        Agreed that some decisions have been inconsistent. Maybe this decision is evidence of a properly applied zero tolerance approach. I sincerely hope so…

        1. knoxploration
          16th March 2014, 13:08

          I hope so too, but I sincerely doubt it. The FIA likes to meddle with race results; I’ve seen them do it far too many times to think they’ll suddenly straighten up and fly right.

          1. Meddle what, my friend ? It’s just the 1st race of the season, nobody has any ideea for sure who’s the driver with most chances to win the champ, there’s no Ferrari driver implied in this story (this goes to haters), no real gain for a Ferrari driver from this story (this goes to haters)… so it’s pretty ridiculous what you want to say. This started to smell like a case where to a team – RBR – is trying to elude the regulations to gain some advantage, with some help from FIA by not having everything put in place perfectly. But, even with all these FIA issues, RBR should play it fair. Instead, they to gain some undeserved advantage, especially that the car it’s not what it used to be anymore and the season might be a pain for them.

        2. knoxploration
          16th March 2014, 13:30

          And it’s already come to light that (surprise, surprise) the FIA *aren’t* being consistent — they acknowledge that the fuel flow sensor lost its calibration during the race, and that the change adversely affected Red Bull — but that the FIA’s response was to try another sensor, decide it was even worse, and then say “Tough luck, you get to race with a lower fuel flow rate than your rivals.”

          So you could say it’s about the rules, but it’s certainly not about being sporting or fair.

          1. I suppose the remaining question is who was responsible for the fault in the first place, RBR (inc. associations) or FIA?

          2. Where did the fia state that red bull had been adversely affected? It looks to me like the sensor was reading too low and therefore when it showed 100kgph the fuel flow was actually higher than that. The team was told to apply an offset so that they remained in the rules and refused to do so while other teams experiencing similar issues applied the offset. This means that while running at full power the red bull was gaining an advantage.

          3. How were red bull adversely affected?

          4. Yes but its not about the sensor in the end. It is about Red Bull ignoring the FIA’s request for them to adjust the fuel rate as the sensor indicated that it was running at a higher rate of fuel flow. If you read the FIA’s case carefully, the FIA can give permission for the team to switch to another measurement mode if they suspect the sensor is faulty. Red Bull refused to take this directtion and it was at this point they contravened the Technical Regulations as they ran with an FIA legal fuel flow sensor.

            So whether the sensor was faulty or not, it was Red Bulls decision to ignore the regulations. Game over.

            However, if they has trimmed the flow by a small amount to satisfy the FIA, what is the worst that could have happened? I doubt if he’d have fallen out of the points, and the issue could have been taken up after the race. Red Bull have been here before.

  3. Heartbreaking but completely righteous decision.

  4. Ricciardo’s Red Bull was found to have “exceeded consistently” the limit on peak fuel consumption of 100kg per hour, a new rule introduced for the 2014 season.

    This sounds more like cheating !

    1. My aussie wife has just gone mad….ooppss !

      1. Sorry ! :)
        Thank God it’s not my wife (I don’t have one yet), so I still can say what I think/believe.

        1. jose kowalsky
          16th March 2014, 15:37

          Sorry you are not getting any thanks to the fia. You must love them now.

          1. I don’t thank/support FIA or anything, but I don’t believe the teams play it fair 100% either when there’s a chance to elude regulations and gain something from that, of course. Let’s be honest, the power, fame and sums of money around F1 these days may push even the honest person to breaking rules. I feel sorry for Ricciardo, some drivers maybe don’t even know what they’re driving, but I’m not for unfair winnings of any kind.

    2. On the other hand, Red Bull says: Inconsistencies with the FIA fuel flow meter have been prevalent all weekend

      Sounds like it isn’t over just yet.

      1. Cool. How come RBR is the only team having this problem over a long and consistent run, like the race itself ? Just me, but I suspect some teams (still) try to cheat somehow…. or diplomatic/nicely put…. elude the regulations, in this case RBR. This seems to be a little thing for a big, great, reigning team like RBR, yet they failed to do a proper job.

      2. Their strategy:
        – create a scenario when you can somehow show inconsistency of fuel flow sensor (teams are good at doing things like that)
        – use the FIA sensor and say that it is measuring wrong, “we know better”
        – fight in courts for couple of months
        – Ricciardo gets the trickery treatment, they play it safe with Vettel until they get positive result for the trickery

        1. get over yourself

          1. Useful response! Thank you for your insightful input.

            In fact, others in this very thread has posited the exact same scenario as f1lauri, and knowing Red Bull’s history, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least to hear that this is exactly what they had planned… except for the whole “getting caught at it” part.

      3. Well, yeah, but most teams suffered from it. And others DID heed the instruction to run a tad lower fuel consumption (see this tweet from Adam Cooper) going about 6% below maximum.

        Meaning that RBR willingly, and despite having repeatedly been warned not to, used an unfair advantage @jcost

        1. The mention of Rosberg saying he was over the fuel limit in FP2 might indeed also relate to this issue @bascb; If so, Mercedes apparently changed their practice to comply; seems to me indications are that Red Bull indeed had trouble with using the same, lower, fuel flow for this race as the others had to.

          It is sad for Ricciardo, after a great first weekend, but had the FIA not acted, it would have become a mess of teams trying to duck this limit.

          1. hm, this article, posted earlier today: motorsport.com – Merc breached fuel flow rules has a bit more about that; seems indeed Merc. was a team that reduced fuel flow to be certain, already on Saturday (but they probably were over what sensor says was limit on Friday, as was Red Bull).

            Interestingly according to the article Ferrari was already told in testing of being in trouble with this, so they knew coming here they’d have to be conservative with fuel; maybe that is where the ‘Ferrari is too thirsty’ rumours originate? It also explains why Ferrari then was adamant no one else would skirt this issue.

  5. That’s unfortunate, but rules are rules.

  6. There goes those tripping balls :(

  7. Devastated for him.

  8. I don’t want another Red Bull fest this year but that is a real bummer for Ricciardo. Perhaps he should talk to Webber before the next race.

  9. Question now is, do Red Bull appeal? The fact that the FIA took something like 5 hours to resolve this means they may not have been totally sure with how they got to their findings.

    1. They are going to appeal , they have confirmed

      1. They have no case to make. As we now know, there is a clearly defined procedure to follow, even if the sensors are broken (which isnt even the case here, maybe, possibly, they were a bit inaccurate).
        They did not comply with the procedure, thats that, even if the sensor can be proven to be faulty, it does not matter, they ignored the secondary procedures.
        I would understand if they would be making noises for the sensors to be sorted. But this ridiculous appeal (and ignoring the instructions to begin with) just seems like they feel they are somehow above the law. I thought they were better than that, seems not.

    2. It all still sounds a bit suss. Red Bull sound incredibly confident.

    3. Who knows, they might have just started on the other side of the field of finished cars. Or they waited for someone to pull the data about the exact readings from that sensor out of the computers.

      Whatever, they might even have waited for safety reasons @journeyer. Now almost everyone in the crowd was long gone, but just imagine what an uproar could have commenced with the fans still in the grandstands when this was announced! ;-)

    4. I was very confused by this comment and some of the others. Took me a while to realise that the article, including the title, has been updated.

  10. Didn’t take long for the first big controversy of the year, the ‘fuel gate’.

    Seems harsh but thats the rules and everyone else played by them so thats that. Feel sorry for Daniel though.

  11. so… double podium by Mclaren? uhu go JB!, sad for ricciardo, but i guess the rules are the rules.

  12. Conspiracy alert.

    Wonder if RB could have done this on purpose, knowing full well their ERS are not up to par then just turn up the ICE to get the exposure and good will of an Aussie podium. They must know they were above the limit.

    …fruitless speculation of course…

    1. no, because they would have ran out of fuel.

      1. But they did not run out of fuel……

      2. The rule doesn’t say you must carry exactly 100kg of fuel, you are just not allowed to consume more that that quantity.

        1. The flowrate limit is probably the peak rate, not the average per hour.

          A boosted motor lis very dependent on good fuel pressure regulation. Extra flow is going to give you extra oomph just like ERS or DRS. So RB don’t get a pass.

          I sell sensors for a living, there are tolerances on everything. Doesn’t mean they are broken. So some will read high and some low. Obviously teams like to cherry pick the sensors.

    2. Yeah seems fishy to me too, looks like they were trying to get away with something

  13. A dream start to his Red Bull career has just turned into a nightmare. I’m incredibly disappointed, especial since the car was finally showing some genuine promise.

    1. *especially – I really need to begin proof reading for typos!

      1. @vettel1

        especial since the car was finally showing some genuine promise.

        I’m not so sure about that. This illegal fuel system might have definitely flattered Red Bull. Ricciardo was likely gaining a significant advantage by running over flow limit starting the straights and then as car is already up to speed go to more lean maps – this is faster than constant max flow every time you go full throttle.

    2. Shame on you (again) Red Bull.

      We cannot ignore that Ricciardo was brilliant and consistent thru all weekend. Just remember the fantastic qualifying using intermediate tires. It was an amazing driving.

  14. Explains why Magnussen pulled into the P2 spot after the race!

    1. Wasn’t that Rosberg?

      1. No, checked replay. They moved the P2 sign to RIC’s car as he pulled in.

        1. Aaron (@tripperhead)
          16th March 2014, 13:48

          It was Rosberg.

        2. It was Rosberg. pulled up to P2, not P1.

          Less of your conspiracies please!

    2. actually rosberg pulled into p2, kev into p3 and dan into p1

  15. Shame for Daniel, but unfair on the rest if that (and it presumably did) gave him a performance advantage, so can’t really quibble with the decision. Quietly pleased that means a podium finish for Jenson too, although it never really looks good to have these things decided after the race, especially when it’s a high-profile home podium in the first race of the year.

  16. Deeply disappointed but he will bounce back and surprise us more!

  17. Chris (@tophercheese21)
    16th March 2014, 12:59

    I’m still going to consider him the second placed driver, even if the points table doesn’t show it.

    1. Totally ignoring the fact that if McLaren had done like Red Bull then Magnussen would have passed Riccardo?

      1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
        16th March 2014, 13:05

        No, just considering the fact that Daniel drove a great race, and it wasn’t his fault.

        1. true that, fair is fair.

        2. It wasn’t his fault but it’s very possible that had he used the correct amount of fuel, he wouldn’t have finished on the podium

          1. He had no ‘choice’ about using the correct amount of fuel – the flow rate is set from the pit wall and the engine management system will adjust to match, delivering power as required.

        3. Well, since he would have been quite a bit slower, he’d probably been far lower in the standings.

          While it is both true that he drove a great race, and it wasn’t his fault doesn’t change the fact that his car was much faster than it would have been.

  18. It’s harsh on Dan but rules are rules

  19. What a shame, I can imagine this hurts more than the car breaking down mid-race.

    RBR needs to fix their electronics, the car seems quick and otherwise reliable enough.

    I hope DR has better luck next time.

    1. didn’t Vettel retire fairly early on?

      1. knoxploration
        16th March 2014, 13:34

        The car’s reliable. The engine, not so much.

        1. To be honest I think, in a way, that this actually shows that the renault engine has come on even more than we realised. It’s gone from being unable to manage a race distance at reduced power at the start of the Bahrain test, to doing a complete one at a “consistently higher” fuel rate to what it’s even designed for! Can’t really complain about that!

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.