Daniel Ricciardo, Red Bull, Albert Park, 2014

Mercedes demand tough stance from FIA on Red Bull

F1 Fanatic Round-upPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

F1F CSIn the round-up: Mercedes urge the FIA at Red Bull’s appeal against their Australian Grand Prix disqualification to take a tough stance over the world champions’ actions.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Decision on Ricciardo’s DQ appeal on Tuesday (Reuters)

“Mercedes came down hard on Red Bull, with their barrister Paul Harris asking the judges to ‘impose a further sanction that is to be suspended until the end of the season’ to prevent them from breaching the rules again.”

Daniel Ricciardo, Red Bull, Albert Park, 2014Red Bull: sensor would’ve cost second (Autosport)

“Red Bull’s chief engineer for car engineering Paul Monaghan: “Without an explanation and without any characteristic changes to the engine, be they measured or inferred by performance or measured by lap time, the [fuel flow meter] [sensor] changed its reading for P1 run four.”

Michael Schumacher latest: Schumacher ‘showing small signs of progress’ as Sabine Kehm gives positive report (The Independent)

“There are moments when he is awake and moments when he is conscious. Of course I am not a doctor, but medically, there is a distinction between being awake and being conscious, the latter meaning there is an ability to interact with his surroundings.”

Bernie Ecclestone feared losing grip on F1, bribery trial to hear (FT, registration required)

“Bernie Ecclestone bribed a German banker because he feared losing his grip on Formula One motor racing, prosecutors will argue when the F1 boss’s trial opens next week in Munich.”

President of Italian Olympic Committee: “I don’t like this new F1″ (Ferrari)

“I speak on behalf of Italian sports people and fans, I don’t like this Formula 1 and in my opinion it’s delivered a product that has absolutely no sense.”

F1’s new era still has weighty issues (UBS)

“In my opinion there ought to be a set weight for ‘seat plus driver’ to which everyone adheres. Just take an accepted average and let’s get on with it. Let’s get back to racing being decided by skill rather than weight (within moderation of course).”

An evening with Mario (The Way It Is)

Mario Andretti: “I was given the notice by none other than Chris Economaki at Long Beach on the grid. ‘Mario,’ he said. ‘What do you think now that this is going to be your last race in Formula 1?” I think Parnelli forgot to tell me that they were going to pull the plug on the program.”


Comment of the day

WilliamB on what Mercedes got right and what Citroen got wrong:

I think yesterday we got a bit of a flavour of what the Bahrain Grand Prix would have been like had Mercedes not allowed Hamilton and Rosberg to race.

I refer of course to yesterday’s WTCC season opener in Morocco, where despite the fact that we had great drivers like Yvan Muller and Sebastien Loeb coupled with the new DTM-esque generation of cars, Citroen managed to manufacture a processional, over-controlled and frankly boring race by not letting the three dominant C-Elysees of Lopez, Muller and Loeb race.

My point is, the WTCC is clearly a commercial PR exercise for Citroen to boost road car sales (the huge investment Mercedes have put into their 2014 F1 programme make them guilty of this too), which is completely fine and rational, but to any intelligent team owner it is blatantly obvious that the racing culture is every as important, if not more, than the result.

The response to the Bahrain Grand Prix makes this plain to see, with Mercedes, in my book at least, getting as much kudos as Hamilton and Rosberg for letting them race, so why Citroen, why must you ruin potentially excellent races between three world class racers?
WilliamB (@William-Brierty)

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Davidnotcoulthard!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Gilles Villeneuve won the non-championship Race of Champions 35 years ago today at Brands Hatch. The Ferrari driver finished 14 seconds ahead of Nelson Piquet’s Brabham.

Mario Andretti took third for Lotus. Also in the field that day was Desire Wilson, who finished ninth ahead of her Tyrrell team mate Gordon Simley.

Here’s a video of the race:


89 comments on “Mercedes demand tough stance from FIA on Red Bull”

  1. money (@carlos-danger)
    15th April 2014, 0:15

    The fear of competition is the first symptom of impotence.

    1. @carlos-danger
      So when you demand action and justice on cheaters, you’re impotence? No, that makes you assertive. It’s about time someone stood up to Red Bull and their tactics, Ferrari have been far too laid back for the past few years in that respect.

      1. W (@yesyesyesandyesagain)
        15th April 2014, 1:30

        This sounds like payback from Mercedes for Red Bull’s critique of their secret tire test last year.

        Hard to take Mercedes’ complaints too seriously when they were just punished for cheating last year.

        1. Certainly at least a part of it, yeah. Although I guess Mercedes really would be helped for this year if RBR did get a ban because the team remains the most dangerous competitor out there.

        2. To me, if Mercedes is worried about Red Bull is because they too believe the Milton Keynes crew can catch them down teh road and for me it’s good news.

      2. Personally it reminds me of people trying to get players booked in football. It should be left to the FiA and Red Bull. Poor form by Mercedes in my opinion.

      3. Do we really want to talk about cheating??

    2. To be clear a suspened sentance would not hurt them provided they didn’t do it again.

    3. To my knowledge Red Bull are the only team to have experienced these ‘issues’, if they aren’t cheating then why has no other team been pulled up on it, or mentioned experiencing the same ‘issues’? Please correct me if I’m wrong & if another team has had the same problems, just to my knowledge there hasn’t been.

      1. @jacobf90
        I don’t think there is a team which hasn’t had problems. Even in WEC it is causing trouble, and they have two and three in each car for petrol and diesel cars respectively to ensure that they know if a sensor is giving a wrong reading. Unless they all fail simultaneously, and by a similar amount, which does seem unlikely.

        1. Wow, cheers for the info.

      2. I believe Toro Rosso have had similar issues and Sergio Perez had a FFS failure in Australia.

      3. The whole pont is that other teams did experience the issue and we’re told to do the same thing red bull were told. The other teams complied and therefore by not complying Rb gained an advantage (of apparently 0.4 secs per lap).

  2. At the end of March, Ferrari had organised a survey aimed at the fans, asking if the 2104 version of Formula 1 was a hit or not

    …ah, now that explains the result, they meant 90 years from now.

    1. Yeah, and Ferrari fans are known for their intense dislike of 2104 F1, as it marks 96 years since their last championship.

      1. +1 Laughed so hard

  3. Does Ferrari still think they’re gonna impress anyone with selective random quotes, which support their strong case of….”We don’t like this, so change it”

    1. I’m frankly baffled they are still trying this after Bahrain! Surely it’s better to wait until a dull race to bang on about how terrible F1 is?

  4. It makes sense that rival teams would send observers to Red Bull’s appeal hearing, but how is it legitimate for rival teams with their own agendas to be allowed to participate in the hearing? Arguing against Red Bull should be the job of the FIA and the FIA alone. I find it beyond hypocritical for Mercedes to be arguing for additional sanctions on Red Bull. The same Mercedes that burned through tires at an alarming rate last year until they conducted an extensive illegal tire test, after which they had a streak of impressive results, and received no penalty? Yes that Mercedes. Go home Mercedes, you’re drunk.

    1. @matresx, can you remind us what Red Bull did and said last year at Mercedes Tyre test hearing?

    2. I would be surprised if the other teams didn’t share Meecedes’ opinion. Other teams were present, but for the sake of an article. Writing about the championship leaders is more likely to carry more weight. RBR knew that they were breaking he regulation according the FIA, but chose not to comply so they wouldn’t lose positions. Dan drove a hell of a race, but ultimately it was with an illegal car.

      The bigger picture here is how the FIA polices the teams. If RBR are allowed to have their position reinstated. Then what other rules or regulations can be ignored for the sake of losing positions?

    3. They are interested parties @us_peter. RBR was also doing something like this at the testing hearing last year, pushing for a harsh penalty on Mercedes, in that sense its a bit of payback.

      I am pretty sure that McLaren would have argued the same way, if Mercedes hadn’t been there to do so, and doubt many of the other teams feel much different about this issue.

    4. Of all the teams, it does seem odd for it to be Mercedes there arguing in the court -being one of the few constructors whose Australian GP result would not change based on the result of Red Bull’s appeal (Lotus and Caterham are the other two).

      1. It seems odd that Ferrari and McLaren are keeping such a low profile in all of this.

      2. @casanova – depends how you look at it… Arguably, the only team who are going to compete with Mercedes is Red Bull (obviously depending on Renault’s progress with the PU)

        If that’s the case, Merc finished +25 points to Red Bull instead of +7…

        1. Renaults progress with the pu? Surely engine development is now frozen so how will they manage to fix all the issues? (Surely the fia are far to aware of Renaults sneaking performance changes in under the guise of reliability upgrades by now)

  5. So there you go, Ricciardo did gain a big advantage by not following the rules.

    After reading some of the reports I’m now more convinced that Red Bull should be punished even further, at first I thought that they had solid proof that they didn’t break the flow limit, but now I can see that took a slightly different reading in FP1 as an excuse to do what they pleased, this is definitely a low point in Newey’s career, whatever the outcome.

    1. indeed. Their rock solid evidence that they did in fact comply is just not there, instead they claim the FIA should bring further evidence that the sensor was not faulty compared to their software model based on a gazillion other factors @mantresx.

    2. @mantresx
      The FIA had the responsibility to deliver a rock solid solution to enforce the 100kg/hr rule and they failed to do so and even had to come up with a technical directive that works with offset values that are guessed by someone. That’s not fair competition – so I think the disqualification should remain, because it was a violation. But at the same time the FIA needs to find a better / permanent solution to this problem asap.

    3. Agree. Ricciardo gained 0.4s a lap because of that fuel flow sensor.. which is a huge amount over the entire race distance. Honestly, Red Bull should not only lose their points for Australia, but should be given a massive monetary penalty as well.

      If they get away Scot free… it will really be a slap in the face of the regulations. Didn’t expect team Newey to down right cheat like this

  6. Mercedes’ comparison to 2005 BAR is so disingenuous that they should get a race ban themselves.
    (no, I’m not serious)

  7. With regards to COTD, Something to consider with the way Citroen used team orders at the WTCC race is that its a brand new formula & there is a very limited supply of parts with only 1 week until the next race.

    The circuit this past weekend was also incredibly tight with ridiculously bumpy & very dusty braking zones & is notorious for overtaking attempts going wrong as proven again over the weekend & in the WTCC races.

    Touring Cars is also a formula where you tend to see team tactics used a lot, Especially amongst the manufacturer factory teams.

    1. Good point. The season opener is such a risky place to race and with another race just days after, it’d have made no sense at all for any of them to crash while racing and miss Paul Ricard…

      1. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
        15th April 2014, 8:40

        @fer-no65 – Paul Ricard, with arguably the largest run-off zones of any track in the world, will be the litmus test. I reserve the right to rant yet more if they impose team orders there…

    2. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
      15th April 2014, 8:35

      Yes, the track characteristics and lack of spares explain some of the rationale in neutering a race so profoundly, but it doesn’t detract from my point, even if it is a convention among manufacturer teams in WTCC, that Citroen didn’t exactly earn kudos through implementing such stringent control. And what’s more, I can’t help but think that if other teams don’t feel compelled to control the pace of their cars, and if you have a four-time WTCC famed for his wheel-to-wheel prowess, a nine-time WRC champion with probably the best car control of anyone alive, and a man that won on his debut WTCC weekend and was contracted to drive for the US F1 Team in 2010, it might just be okay to let them race.

    3. Good points..
      + it is the first race for the Citroën wtcc team, they didn’t want to risk too much I’m sure.
      So they might let them race in races to come, especially if they keep dominating.
      I can understand why they did it.

  8. That Senna statue doesn’t match with what Senna was. A statue of the guy celebrating would enlight his memory far better. Imola gives me that creepy feeling, and that statue is definitelty not helping.

    1. He was one for introversion and spirituality, so still seems fitting to me.

      1. I think so too, yeah @matt90, this gets into who Senna was instead of just celebrating his success. Bit of a shame about no plaque or something for Ratzenberger though.

        1. After those tweets, I think they order a plaque to honor Roland. It’s a shame there isn’t one already.

        2. Yeah, that’s seems like an unfair oversight. Senna himself would presumably be disappointed by that.

          1. Especially when one remembers that he had wanted to show an Austrian flag after crossing the line @matt90

  9. If Ferrari spent half as much time working on their car as they do complaining, they’d probably be beating Mercedes by now. If Ferrari are so against races dictated by fuel economy, then they shouldn’t have built a power unit which requires so much fuel saving…

  10. ‘there is a distinction between being awake and being conscious, the latter meaning there is an ability to interact with his surroundings’

    shouldn’t that say ‘former’, not ‘latter’? as awake implies consciousness and interaction/communication.

    1. @sato113
      I think it’s correct the way she said it. I’d say conscious implies being awake and conscious, being able to interact, while just awake could mean that his eyes are open and he’s awake but unable to interact, maybe unaware of his surroundings. At least that’s my interpretation but I could be wrong.

      1. yeah you’re probably right.

  11. Yes, Ferrari only fired Domenicali today because of the Red Bull hearing, Ferrari duly needs to sell their cars to the people.

    1. +1 that was a cheap dig

  12. Red Bull: We had to cheat otherwise we would not have come second!

    1. GB (@bgp001ruled)
      15th April 2014, 5:10

      “and since when is cheating illegal?”

      1. “It’s only cheating if you get caught” – B. Ecclestone

    2. I almost choked on my coffee on that one.

    3. @kelsier Yes, as defences go it’s a pretty lame one.

      “I had to steal that car. Otherwise I wouldn’t have a car.”

      1. Or maybe: “I had to steal that car. Otherwise I couldn’t have outrun the cops….”

  13. The thing is that Sergio Marchionne was officially present at the Ferrari museum in Maranello last Friday but now it’s clear that his presence has something to do with choosing alongside Luca the successor of Stefano Domenicali
    I think that naming Marco Mattiacci a manager far from the racing reality will not solve Ferrari issues in the recent years which were about capitalizing on rule changes (2009 and 2014) which is a process that demands making the right decisions in terms of allocating resources and choosing people that can manage an F1 project
    Marco Mattiacci will be probably a temporary head of racing operations until Ferrari will name a new team principle. Someone involved in the F1 business seems to be the ideal profile for Ferrari to compete against the likes of Marko/Horner,Lauda/Wolf,Dennis/Boullier, the name of Gerhard Berger is rising at the moment

    1. If you read it, Ferrari have appointed Mattiacci as ‘Gestione Sportiva’, which translates to ‘Sports Management’. This seems like more than just F1 – his appointment to the F1 Team Principal role is likely temporary.

  14. If Ferrari wanted the change, they should have been quicker and snapped Boulier while he was still at Lotus. They showed they were doing something right with the resources they had.

  15. If RBR were using 1% more fuel than allowed according to the sensor why were they told to reduce fuel flow by 4%, that is a 400% of excess correction?

    1. The number of 101 is AFTER using the correction factor @hohum.

    2. Because it’s the standard correction factor the FIA decided on. Everyone had/has to apply it if the FIA deem the fitted sensor is over-reading.

  16. I know it’s beating a dead horse, but I find it hilarious how everyone is lauding Mercedes for not using team orders, while last year people supported RBR for doing so and crucified Vettel for making Malaysia a race and not formation flying to the flag.

    1. who is this “people” you refer to there @mnm101? On here we saw a very large part of fans saying that Vettel ignoring TO was a good thing, others mentioned that they disliked how Vettel had handled the aftermath, but were fine with him ignoring it and others mentioned it had not been fair to Webber because he was open to be attacked by heeding that TO while Vettel was not.
      Not too many people thought the use of TO by RBR was fine in Malaysia. I guess the ones that did, now have to reflect why they are ok with TO being used too much, too soon and at all.

      1. Come on @bascb , Vettel got a lot of hate after Malaysia, and still does, and it’s mainly because he defied orders, some (me included) didn’t like the way he handled it post race but these aren’t the people I’m talking about.
        I’m talking about people calling him a cheat and a spoiled brat for taking matters into his own hands and actually racing for position, the media constantly bring up Malaysia as a black spot on his resume yet they don’t mention how those team orders would have ruined the race.
        The party line is that Vettel robbed Webber of a win, when in reality Vettel had better tyres, better fuel consumption and better pace, what happened was Red Bull nearly robbed Vettel of a deserved victory.
        I’m just annoyed at how people(mainly the media) paint him as a villain while others come out as heroes under the same circumstances.

        1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
          15th April 2014, 7:16

          I have no problem with Vettel defying team orders. It was the way he handled it post race and beyond that annoyed me.

          If he had just been straight about it from the moment he got out of his car in Parc Ferme, then I think he’d have gotten a lot less hate from it.

        2. What @tophercheese21 mentions – that is the case for a very big portion of the people who disliked what Vettel did that weekend @mnm101

          When you mention

          The party line is that Vettel robbed Webber of a win, when in reality Vettel had better tyres, better fuel consumption and better pace, what happened was Red Bull nearly robbed Vettel of a deserved victory.

          I would like to see your sources for that. And off course it doesn’t change in any way that RBR have “robbed” the fans of some interesting on track battles in their years of dominance by beeing too afraid to see a THAT incident again, although Turkey really started more or less as RBR orchestrating pretty much what Vettel did in Malaysia anyway (by asking only Webber turn down the engine)

    2. The main problem with Malaysia is that, similar to Massachusetts this year, Vettel was quite happy to have team orders which were in his favour, but not when they weren’t.

      1. Massachusetts = Massa, obviously.

      2. @hairs
        I agree. That is hypocritical, but why only blame Vettel for it?
        Webber is at least equally guilty. In that race he was very angry that Vettel disobeyed a team order, when he had done the same on several occasions before.

    3. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
      15th April 2014, 8:52

      @mnm101 – It’s a dead horse because they’re two completely different scenarios. In Bahrain, Mercedes had zero pressure on them from the field behind, and no fuel/tyre concerns to adhere to. In Malaysia however Red Bull had been suffering catastrophic tyre degradation all weekend, were tight on fuel and under pressure from Mercedes behind, with Hamilton managing to get the undercut on Vettel at one point, thus making the orders utterly rational. It was early in the season too, so Red Bull had not yet learnt that Mercedes’ degradation issues were even worse then theirs. As per the commands, Webber leaned out his engine, whereas Vettel did not, and therein lies the controversy. I still maintain that it was a perfectly sensible decision from Red Bull to neutralize the inter-team race, and probably the best example of a rational team order…

      1. @william-brierty All good points, personally I think Mercedes had more to worry about this year, with how fragile the new PUs are, I would have understood had they chosen to imploy team orders ( I wouldn’t agree, but understand).

        n Malaysia however Red Bull had been suffering catastrophic tyre degradation all weekend, were tight on fuel and under pressure from Mercedes behind

        Mercedes were way behind them and they weren’t pressured by them for more than a few laps in the middle stint.
        Webber was the one tight on fuel, that’s why he HAD TO lean out the engine. as explained by Horner post race.
        As for the tyre degradation I think the drivers are perfectly capable of judging their tyre behavior.
        We’ll probably never agree on this but that’s how I see it.

        1. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
          15th April 2014, 19:49

          @mnm101 – I’m sorry but I’m not willing to have this debate unless your arguments have some basis in fact. How can you say that there was a need to protect the power units without any of the pages of engine telemetry that Mercedes get? And how is that any deficit relative to the rest of the field who were all fighting tooth and nail with equally fragile powertrains?

          Regarding Malaysia, it is plain wrong to suggest that Red Bull were under no pressure from Mercedes, with Vettel passing Hamilton to reverse the undercut on lap 39 and then controversially taking the lead from Webber on lap 46, a mere seven laps later. Now with hindsight we know that Mercedes burnt a lot of fuel in pursuit of Red Bull and were in reality posing little threat, but the decision to lean out the engines (Horner later disclosed that Vettel too was tight on fuel because he’d been fighting with Hamilton) and maintain the gap to Hamilton so not gift Mercedes a victory through late race degradation was the only sensible decision with the information Red Bull had available. And I’m sorry sir, but whilst drivers can influence tyre consumption, degradation, as we saw with Mercedes last year, is generally governed by the vehicular dynamics and torque delivery of a car. And when even “twinkle-toes Vettel” is managing just a handful of laps on his rears, then I think we can safely say that a car is hard on its tyres.

          It’s not agreeance that’s important here sir, it’s making valid arguments…

    4. Last year I criticised Red Bull for issuing team order, but once they were issued Vettel should have obeyed them. I don’t like team orders, but if they’re issued a driver should have enough respect for his team to follow them. Or at the very least say in plenty of time (so it gets through to your team mate) that you’re not going to. What Vettel did was essentially dishonest.

      1. @fluxsource

        What Vettel did was essentially dishonest.

        It wasn’t. At no point did he agree to holding position. He didn’t promise anything. The team promised Webber something on Vettel’s behalf, without his consent. That isn’t terribly smart or respectful, and blaming Vettel for it seems rather excessive.

        1. @mads

          Being part of a team – specifically one with a hierarchy – means following the instructions from those higher up the hierarchy. That’s what team orders are – instructions from higher up.

          As a member of a team that means – either implicitly or explicitly – you’ve agreed to follow those instructions in return for the support the team provides. At some point, Vettel broke that agreement, without giving the team adequate notice. He is dishonest.

          While I dislike team orders, Vettel was given one. He ignored it without even giving the courtesy of saying that he was doing so (at least judging by the radio messages I’ve had access to). His behaviour, as a member of a team, was disgusting.

          1. @fluxsource
            Normally, I would agree.
            But racing drivers aren’t employees, like those who clean the toilets in the local mall.
            Racing drivers are very different animals. These guys are highly competitive and if you have an, at the time, triple world champion hired, you should know kind of guy he is.
            Expecting him to be fine with giving up a shot at a race victory is simply idiotic.
            When they aren’t able to make their older and more experienced driver hold position, how on earth could they expect to make their young hotshot of a champion to hold position?
            That is simply poor management.
            They should have known that he wouldn’t listen, and when they aren’t prepared to punish either of their drivers properly to make them listen, then giving the order would only create unnecessary tension within the team.

            Yes Red Bull had every right to use a team order, but they should have known the outcome. Creating tension and conflict within the team, while achieving nothing is incredibly poor management whichever way you look at it.

    5. @mnm101 Not to pile on, but @william-brierty well points out that the two scenarios can’t be compared.

  17. Chris (@tophercheese21)
    15th April 2014, 6:44

    That’s good news about Schumacher. Still, hearing those reports about media personnel dressing up as doctors and relatives of Michael just makes my blood boil. They really don’t help their profession’s reputation of being intrusive when they try absurd stunts like that.

    They should be charged if they haven’t been already.

  18. In my opinion, it’s a form of self-harm.

    Tell me Mr. Malagò, would it not cause the sport more harm if the most important team in the sport continued to trash it at every opportunity just because it wasn’t winning? Oh wait…

  19. Clucky (@cluckyblokebird)
    15th April 2014, 7:16

    The minimum weight should be the weight of the heaviest driver. Driver A is 70kg, driver B is 60kg. Driver B then has 10kg of ballast to place were the team want it (lower in the car than driver A carries it), thus still maintaining a tiny advantage but not enough to encourage huge weight loss.

  20. It’s kinda ironic to see Mercedes asking for a harsher penalty …

    1. +1
      Kinda rich of Merc to cry “OFF WITH THEIR HEADS” when they tested only last year and made HUGE progress on the weight of an ambiguous email….. hardly the proper process, and punishment of missing out on the YDT is hardly a punishment compared to the quality of testing that Rosberg and Hamilton did, surely having 2 race drivers test would be worth 100 times more than a few rookies driving a missile for the first time,
      RBR should have hired Ross Brawn as Council.

      1. Firstly, RBR did exactly the same thing last year regarding Pirelli’s tire test with Mercedes, in trying for harsher penalties for Merc, so fair is fair in that regard.

        Secondly, the guilt was ultimately shared equally amongst FIA (for Whiting having given permission), Pirelli, and Mercedes, with Pirelli being reprimanded, and Mercedes being given the harshest of penalties amongst the 3 ‘guilty’ parties.

        And let’s not forget this was about tires that were delaminating and exploding, not to mention were too aggressive and were ruining races. The RBR issue with sensors is not comparable to Pirelli desperately needing to get tires right for all teams with a rare and vital mid-season change in an atmosphere where they were asked to make tires a big part of the show and went too far with little testing to ensure they hadn’t gone too far, and which caught Pirelli and the teams out only once they raced in anger, with the season under way.

        Besides…Merc can ask for harsher penalties, but that doesn’t mean they are going to get them, just as the evidence surrounding Pirelli’s tire test spread the blame beyond just Mercedes and therefore further sanctions were not warranted.

        Personally I don’t think Mercedes request for a further sanction toward RBR, suspended until the season’s end is necessary, as the FIA are monitoring flow rates during quali and races anyway, so I doubt RBR needs the threat of a suspended sanction to ensure they will obey the law from now on…they’ve already for a big strike against them that they wouldn’t be able to hide from if they ignored the flow meter readings again.

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.