Red Bull lose appeal against Ricciardo’s Australian Grand Prix disqualification

2014 Australian Grand Prix

Daniel Ricciardo, Red Bull, Albert Park, 2014Red Bull have lost their appeal against Daniel Ricciardo’s disqualification from the Australian Grand Prix following a hearing of the FIA Court of Appeal in Paris.

The FIA issued a statement saying: “The court, after having heard the parties and examined their submissions, decided to uphold the decision number 56 of the stewards by which they decided to exclude Infiniti Red Bull Racing’s car number three from the results of the 2014 Australian Grand Prix.

“The International Court of Appeal was presided over by Mr Harry Duijm (Netherlands), and included Mr Rui Botica Santos (Portugal), Mr Philippe Narmino (Monaco), Mr Antonio Rigozzi (Switzerland) and Mr Jan Stovicek (Czech Republic).”

An FIA Court of Appeal was convened yesterday in Paris to hear Red Bull’s appeal.

Red Bull issued a statement saying it accepts the verdict of the court:

“Infiniti Red Bull Racing accepts the ruling of the International Court of Appeal today.

“We are of course disappointed by the outcome and would not have appealed if we didn’t think we had a very strong case. We always believed we adhered to the technical regulations throughout the 2014 Australian Grand Prix.

“We are sorry for Daniel (Ricciardo) that he will not be awarded the 18 points from the event, which we think he deserved. We will continue to work very hard to amass as many points as possible for the team, Daniel and Sebastian (Vettel) throughout the season.

“We will now move on from this and concentrate on this weekend’s Chinese Grand Prix.”

Ricciardo said: “It’s disappointing not to get the 18 points from Australia, but if anything it gives me more motivation to get back on the podium as soon as possible.

“I’ve had a few setbacks in the first couple of races this year, but in Bahrain I demonstrated that, if anything, I’m stronger for it and hungrier than ever to get back on the podium. Not that I need any more motivation, I’m pumped!

“I’m still really happy with my performance in Australia and for having had the experience of being on the podium in front of the home crowd. I said that week, I’d rather have a great race, finish on the podium and then be excluded than to have had a rubbish race and then retire with a car problem halfway through.”

The FIA will publish a full reasoning for the verdict later this week.

2014 Australian Grand Prix

Browse all 2014 Australian Grand Prix articles

Image © Red Bull/Getty

Promoted content from around the web | Become an F1 Fanatic Supporter to hide this ad and others

Advert | Go Ad-free

212 comments on Red Bull lose appeal against Ricciardo’s Australian Grand Prix disqualification

  1. GeeMac (@geemac) said on 15th April 2014, 10:38

    This is the only logical decision the court could have made. Glad to see a body associated with the FIA making a sensible decision for once.

  2. andae23 (@andae23) said on 15th April 2014, 10:40

    That’s actually quite a good result for Red Bull: it was pretty arrogant for them to appeal, as it was obvious that they had no case. It was a big gamble and fortunately for Red Bull it didn’t backfire completely.

    Looking at the evidence, Red Bull ignored to use the FIA’s fuel flow measurement as they believed it was inconsistent. Instead they used their own calculation based on parameters such as the time the fuel injectors were open and the fuel temperature – coincidentally, using these measurements they were able to go 0.4s per lap quicker. Obviously there is no way of convincing the court that their model is valid and hence there is no way that the court could reinstate Ricciardo’s second place. As I said, there was no way Red Bull could win this.

    Mercedes likened Red Bull’s case to the 2005 BAR case: BAR was disqualified from one event and banned from two other events after they had consciously breached the minimum weight requirement during the race. In my opinion, it’s clear that Red Bull defied the FIA’s guidelines for a 0.4s per lap advantage, but it’s difficult to prove as they showed that ‘in their opinion’ they did not breach the rules. Also the fact that the FIA fuel flow meters are a bit dodgy helped Red Bull here.

    I think the verdict is fair. However, it feels a bit wrong because, in my opinion, Red Bull got away with things like this a bit too often. For instance in 2012, when it was discovered at the Monaco GP that there were holes in the Red Bull’s floor – clearly illegal, but since Red Bull argued it was a ‘grey area’ they got away with it. Then again, that’s not how the justice system works.

    • Sam (@) said on 15th April 2014, 11:07

      @andae23, If the FIA can only say something is illegal AFTER someone found that particular loophole in the rules, the rules are not clear. So RBR got away with nothing with those holes because the FIA had no leg to stand on.

      In this case however I too feel it was rather unnecessary to fight the DSQ as even when RBR was right, there wouldn’t be chance RIC would get his points. However, the way Mercedes reacted and demanded a full season ban is just ridiculous.

      I do feel to many people just wanted RBR to get a heavy punishment, once more because they are RBR and they’ve ‘gotten away with so much’. Their cars pass every scruteniring, at every race, every time again and still there are some simple minded fans who keep screaming it is illegal. By this of course I don’t mean you in particular.

      I also very much dislike the word ‘cheaters’. Used far to easily. In this ridiculous situation where RBR acted on a problem the way they thought was best. And that is all they did, act what they thought was best, obviously for them. I wonder how the fans would’ve responded to this if the exact same thing happend to Ferrari or Mercedes. Without a doubt the team would get a lot more support from them than RBR does now.

      On a side note, I guess with you background you know, these sensors are completely unreliable and with F1 being the top of the bill technology wise and racecraft wise it is a shame they need these faulty and terrible things to monitor such an important issue of their new rules. They should give every team 100kg fuel and end it there.

      • andae23 (@andae23) said on 15th April 2014, 11:45

        If the FIA can only say something is illegal AFTER someone found that particular loophole in the rules, the rules are not clear. So RBR got away with nothing with those holes because the FIA had no leg to stand on.

        @ardenflo Red Bull are the masters of misinterpreting the rules for their own benefit. Of course it’s not ‘cheating’, but misinterpreting the rules is not very ‘nice’ in my opinion (there are people who can appreciate it, but I’m not one of them).

        Regarding the fuel flow sensors, it’s very difficult to measure the fuel flow. In the aerospace industry, so-called turbine flow sensors are used (similar to how an anemometer measures wind speed). Sadly these can’t be used for vehicles because the fuel flow is simply too slow. The ultrasonic flow sensor F1 currently uses are apparently the only option – makes you wonder why they would base regulations on something that just isn’t accurate enough to verify whether the regulations are met.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 15th April 2014, 12:30

          In the aerospace industry, so-called turbine flow sensors are used (similar to how an anemometer measures wind speed). Sadly these can’t be used for vehicles because the fuel flow is simply too slow.

          Isn’t another issue, that by being in contact with the fuel they actually (marginally) slow down fuel flow, something the FIA/teams deemed not acceptable?

          I guess flow measurement in difficult circumstances is going to get the “F1 treatment” as well now, along with the whole hybrid optimization currently started off! Sure enough Gill will be pushed further along to improve the workings to get towards tighter measurement errors.

      • JimG (@jimg) said on 15th April 2014, 12:04

        @andae23, @ardenflo: That is exactly how the justice system works, at least here in the UK: the legislature writes the rules, someone else interprets them in a way that benefits themselves, and the justice system rules which interpretation is correct. F1 seems to follow the same model.

        I think that “cheaters” seems accurate in this instance. Not only did RBR interpret the rules to suit themselves, they also ignored warnings from the governing body.

        As for the sensors being “completely unreliable”, their accuracy (and variations in same) is well documented. No measurement is ever 100% accurate. And if the stories I’m hearing about Renault-supplied teams having the vast majority of problems are correct, this would point to operator error rather than manufacturing defect.

        I thought that the reasons for imposing a maximum flow rate were sufficiently well known, but apparently not: it is to force the teams to work on overall efficiency instead of returning to the days of massive outright power in short bursts.

        • Sam (@) said on 15th April 2014, 12:15

          “I thought that the reasons for imposing a maximum flow rate were sufficiently well known, but apparently not: it is to force the teams to work on overall efficiency instead of returning to the days of massive outright power in short bursts.”

          would be true if they had as much fuel as they wanted. If they were to be given 100kg per race it would still be equal for all as they a better saving engine could push more and a not so fuel efficient engine has to save more and go slower. What you say is true, it’s just not really working as intended, as so often is true with FIA decisions.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 15th April 2014, 12:41

            If they were to be given 100kg per race it would still be equal for all as they a better saving engine could push more and a not so fuel efficient engine has to save more and go slower

            That is not at all true@ardenflo. What that would give us is qualifying engines with max power and teams running max power for some periods of the race, evened out by extreme fuel saving in other parts of the race.
            Instead, with the fuel flow limited, we see teams actually trying to get as much power out of that limited amount of fuel that can be accessed – see the power advantage of the Merc engined cars where they use the direct transfer from one ERS part to the other to optimize this, leaving the battery untouched for those moments when its needed. This means a far bigger step towards efficiency, not just fuel efficiency but also limiting losses due to transfer into the battery (and off course in theory it should mean the battery lasts longer)

          • Sam (@) said on 15th April 2014, 13:42

            @bascb It would be exactly the same. Now we have for example 100% as normal drive, 98% as fuel saving drive and 102% as pushing. With a limit of 100kg fuel and no other nonsense we could have at some times see cars go 130% and then down it to 70%. In the end even without the fuel flow teams would go for the first model but there wouldn’t be any rubbish futile disagreements on a faulty measurement. And to be honest, I’d love to see the Q without the fuel flow restrictions.

            If the teams just had a restriction in weight rather than flow, the most efficient engine would still come out on top as he could do all race on 115% for example.

          • chris (@9chris9) said on 15th April 2014, 13:42

            in addition to @bascb reply, its the maximum mass of fuel and not the volume that needs enforcing, the volume will vary with temperature, mass is constant. The ultrasonic sensor will measure the speed of the fuel flowing through, knowing its density, temperature and size of measuring chamber, its possible to calculate the mass over time.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 16th April 2014, 16:27

            I see you really haven’t understood what the fuel flow meter nor the engine main concept is @ardenflo.

            The reason the fuel flow is there to push teams / engine manufacturers to try and then get the most out of that fuel by clever balancing between MGU-H, MGU-K, Internal Combustion Engine etc. The reason mercedes engines are ahead is a lot to do with not going much through the battery but instead use part of the energy available to let the engine supply current to the hybrid part of the powertrain to create more efficient use of the energy. If you take away the flow meter, a big part of the incentive to even work on that goes away, because you can just use up more fuel to achieve the same (with the disadvantage of having to coast and save later on/before that), which would result in creating exactly the gimmick Newey and Luca make of the new rules, instead of posing the teams a technical challenge to do more with less/fixed amount.

        • Peter (@boylep6) said on 16th April 2014, 9:21

          I think that to hit the efficiency, and make it useful for road cars,
          they’ve gone to a neat turbo. The point about turbo’s is
          to over supply the oxygen in the mix.

          They’ve been allowed to pump in loads more than an old ’80s turbo would have especially at low RPM.

          This O2 rich environment is designed to burn all the fuel they spray in, and some. I’ve read they’ve even been able to switch to denser, slower burning fuels since they claim this is more efficient. (smaller fuel tanks, perhaps some calories per kg effect?!)

          If the FIA didn’t limit the fuel flow in this mother of all turbo environments,
          they couldn’t limit the power output. That could get dangerous and also lead to engine development wars that make Mercedes current lead
          look like a minor issue.

          Given Renault are so far behind, I really don’t think it is in Red Bull’s interest to unlimit the fuel flow.

        • Sam (@) said on 17th April 2014, 11:33

          @bascb That is all very correct. But I disagree with the statement that removing the 100kg/h flow limit would remove everything you said. It would however bring the field closer to each other in certain stages of the race because those who rely more on their engine rather than the hybrid system could pump more fuel through their engine at a cost of extra fuel weight in the beginning of the race. Those cars with a effective hybrid however could start with less fuel. As I said before would a efficient engine in the end still prevail as he could’ve started with less fuel and used it better. By removing the fuel flow limit the teams with a less effective hybrid system could rely more on their engine whilst for example Mercedes can rely on both. It might even push a team to rely even more on their hybrid system.

          I do understand the concept behind it. I just don’t support it as I don’t believe in the same way you do.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 17th April 2014, 16:01

            Your proposal would be a gimmick as much as degrading tyres @ardenflo, not a way forward.

          • Sam (@) said on 18th April 2014, 11:12

            @Bascb, I dissagree because I believe it would inspire enigne manufacturers to create an engine empowering their inherited strenghts more than this formula where it is just about who spends the most money and for the longest time.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 18th April 2014, 11:25

            inspire enigne manufacturers to create an engine empowering their inherited strenghts

            What is that supposed to even mean @ardenflow??

            Like Ferrari wanting to showboat a big, heavy, fuel slurping V12, even when they know they could be faster, more reliable and far more efficient by putting in a smaller, more optimized engine? If so, you should be thrilled by Bernies idea to bring “historic F1 masters” into the program for F1. But its not something that is part of the sport, its a crowd pleasing gimmick. Can be a lovely spectacle and great part of the weekend.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 18th April 2014, 11:26

            sorry, typing/thinking error there @ardenflo

          • Sam (@) said on 18th April 2014, 11:33

            @bascb, You can also create a big heavy fuel slurping V6. In the end it bothers me that these engines never run to what they can due to restrictions in the rules. Restrictions like the RPM limit, the fuel flow, …

            And I’m really interested in the hybrid possibilities aswell. In the WEC we now have Porsche with a V4, Audi with a V6 and Toyota with a V8 all combined with different fuel and hybrid systems. Although they have admitted to also have problems with the sensors I find that far more interesting than the engine part of F1 (at the moment).

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 18th April 2014, 11:40

            soo… where is your problem with the F1 rules compared to WEC @ardenflo? You started your argument against the fuel flow meters, but surely you know (as your refer to some issues being registred in WEC as well) that WEC has the same kind of fuel flow restriction nowadays?

            I too would be happy if the rules did not mandate a V6 and only a V6 for F1, allowing some to try a V4, or an inline 4 or different configurations. But in such a case, a limit on fuel flow makes even more sense, not less.

          • Sam (@) said on 18th April 2014, 11:50

            @bascb Imagine they were to give teams a max 100kg of fuel for one race. So teams with a good working hybrid system and a good engine could go on full attack whether that is by hybrid power or engine power. By allowing a maximum fuel flow there always remains a part of performance locked away in the engine. Like having 6 gears in your car but trying to max out by only using the first 5. I don’t like they build this awesome turbo V6 engines so that they can only use 90% of them. The fuel flow and RPM limit is holding back these engines.

            If last year with the V8s there was not one track where they started with less than 100kg. And I really like the part where engines need to be efficient, I don’t like how that is done by just letting less fuel flow through it and thus going slower. Then the engine itself isn’t really saving more fuel, cars are just going slower.

            But as the season progresses and maybe next season when teams understand the new rules 100%, we’ll see cars unlock more power withing the fuel flow limit, I guess.

    • Hamilfan (@hamilfan) said on 15th April 2014, 11:43

      @andae23
      Well , the punishment is fair . I think RBR should be put in their place . But I don’t think they should be punished further . That would be unfair.

      By the way why did you change the colour in profile pic ? don’t support caterham anymore ? ;-)

    • djdaveyp85 (@djdaveyp87) said on 15th April 2014, 12:39

      Mercedes didn’t ask for a “full season ban”

      They said:

      “We respectfully submit that the most effective way to ensure that Red Bull do not flount further instructions from the FIA is for this court to recognise the severity of their infringement and to impose a further sanction upon them which is to be suspended for the rest of the season, so that they are acutely aware.”

      That means that they get a punishment which is suspended (i.e not served unless they commit a further infringement).

    • Wasn’t part of the problem RBR made “after market” changes to the sensors?

  3. Abuelo Paul (@abuello-paul) said on 15th April 2014, 10:41

    Good decision by the ruling body, RBR as a team need to step down a little and remember their short history. As for the penalty at the time… well in all races there are 2 elements: The team in the garage providing a competitive tool and the driver on the track using that tool. In an instance where the driver makes a decision and consequently nreaks rules and thereby recieves a penalty the FIA give a drive thru or stop/go or grid position etc.. because it was his fault. But, if a driver gives all he has got and uses the tool provided to best advantage without infrigingthe on track driving rules, unknown to him that the team have given him “illegal” fuel supply, then the team (constructors) points should be forfeit but not the driver. In brief penalise the team and management but give credit to the best drive of the day and let the podium stand.

    • Timothy Katz (@timothykatz) said on 15th April 2014, 11:02

      I understand your reasoning, but as the Driver’s Championship is far more prestigious than the Constructor’s, I cannot agree with you.
      Imagine the scenario-
      “You’re sure this is legal?”
      “Sure Dan. Just light the fuse when you get to the end of the pit lane.”
      “Well, if you’re sure . . .”
      “Yeah, yeah. Honest!”
      And so, confident that the driver knows nothing of what’s going on, the team send him out. The team forfeit the Constructor’s points because they knew it was illegal, but driver retains the Driver’s Championship points and becomes Champion. Can’t really work, can it?

    • Optimaximal (@optimaximal) said on 15th April 2014, 11:05

      It doesn’t work like that. Win together, lose together.

      If Ricciardo theoretically went on a massively successful run and won the WDC by any less than 18 points, his championship would be called into question because he did so with a car that was ruled illegal.

      He still got to stand on the podium and enjoy his moment…

      Personally? I’d have rathered Red Bull take the hit, run the car legally and Jenson be on the podium so he could have his emotional moment and really let his heart go about the loss of his dad. That would have meant so much more to me (and F1 as a whole, IMO) than Daniel getting his podium with an illegal car.

    • Wasn’t that long ago Sauber got disqualified after the race due to the wing radius being outside the regs, the gains were marginal (definitely less than the 0.4 RBR gained) but they still had the points taken from them. The car is either legal or not.

  4. Peter said on 15th April 2014, 10:46

    Thank you! Finally justice is served in F1. Hopefully Horner will keep his mouth shut for a while now and RBR tone down a little with their arrogance (doubt it though)

    • Todfod (@todfod) said on 16th April 2014, 7:53

      I doubt it as well. I’m surprised to see Newey become such a whiner recently, as he was always a behind the scenes, quiet guy.

      There are a lot of teams that cannot lose gracefully, and honestly, I didn’t expect Red Bull to stoop as low as cheating. Dont get me wrong, Mercedes cheated last year, but I’m more surprised that Red Bull. RB was always trying to find loopholes in the rules to exploit, but I never expected them to blatantly disregard the rules when things don’t go their way.

      I never thought I would say this, but Mclaren and Ferrari seem more gracious in defeat as compared to Red Bull and Mercedes.

  5. AbeyG (@1abe) said on 15th April 2014, 11:09

    Red Bull did a mistake. The FIA punished them. It’s time to move on.

  6. Uzair Syed (@ultimateuzair) said on 15th April 2014, 11:19

    It’s through no fault of Daniel, but the stupid RBR team which if it wasn’t for their stupid mistakes, Daniel would have been third in the driver’s standings instead of tenth, but rules are rules which RBR broke.
    I think it’s better if Daniel moves to a better team that doesn’t treat their ”number 2” drivers like rubbish because at least other teams would treat him fairly unlike RBR.

    • Dean (@skiz) said on 15th April 2014, 13:55

      Dan is good, talented, I like his attitude. But he never would have got this seat if it was all about talent. Row of better drivers suffer in weaker teams and even in weaker series.

    • Ron (@rcorporon) said on 15th April 2014, 16:38

      @ultimateuzair This makes no sense to me. How exactly did RBR treat RIC poorly? By putting him in a Torro Rosso so as to develop his skills as a driver in a F1 car or by moving him to the top team to give him a shot at a WDC? Or did I miss something?

  7. coefficient (@coefficient) said on 15th April 2014, 11:29

    This outcome was innevitable. Red Bull were just attempting to use their new found weight as multi-title winners to put pressure on the FIA to favour them but gladly to no avail.
    It is explicit in the regulations that during the race event “it is the duty of the participant to satisfy the Technical Delegate” not the other way around. As the instruction to reduce the flow (following a reading from the sanctioned device revealed an Illegal fuel flow level) was issued by the Technical Delegate Red Bull didn’t have a leg to stand on. End of story!

  8. infernojim (@infernojim) said on 15th April 2014, 11:55

    Couldn’t be happier about this. Red Bull have been massively arrogant here, and it’s good that they’ve been brought down a peg.

    You can’t just choose to what extent you comply with direct orders from the people who are regulating the sport. If you are told that you need to reduce your fuel flow or risk disqualification then you should do so.

    If the sensors are inaccurate, it’s clearly tiny fractions we’re talking about here, otherwise there would be more outrage from other teams about this, and there hasn’t been.

  9. coefficient (@coefficient) said on 15th April 2014, 12:08

    @Akshay

    When you’ve been following F1 as long as I have the last 4 years seems like recent history.

    I have to say, Red Bull are the most annoying team to me. They should sign Maldonado, they’re both prone to a vulgar sense of entitlement which is becoming of someone in such a lofty position.

  10. smudgersmith1 (@smudgersmith1) said on 15th April 2014, 12:30

    RBR really screwed this up, their issue was with the sensor and when directed by the race stewards to use it and comply, they didn’t. They then argued the sensor was unreliable, probably right.
    The correct approach, follow the directions of the race stewards, probably lose a couple of places and then argue the toss re the sensor. Instead they directly challenged the authority of the stewards, what a dangerous precedence to make if the FIA had said, ‘fine anyone can ignore the stewards and do what you think is best’ that would be a recipe for chaos. sad for Daniel as he has been the revelation of the season for me. Horner, take it on the chin, you screwed up.

  11. BlueChris (@bluechris) said on 15th April 2014, 13:14

    Decision was correct but now i have a serius question.. in the races after Melbourne what RBR was doing as matter their flue flow? i havent saw anything that has this info or i missed it.

    • Robbie (@robbie) said on 15th April 2014, 14:14

      I would assume, since we haven’t heard otherwise, that RBR have been complying, since the FIA would have continued to monitor all teams since Australia just as they were in Australia, and it would seem there have been no further issues of RBR ignoring them.

    • PeterG said on 15th April 2014, 14:59

      During the Malaysian & Bahrain weekends when/if a fuel flow sensor failed they did what they should have done in Melbourne & followed the FIA’s backup calculations.

      • Trenthamfolk (@trenthamfolk) said on 15th April 2014, 18:55

        on the uK coverage, they asked Horner if he would be using the fuel flow meter, and he replied “Yes, we have to…” (or words to that effect) which I thought was odd… he effectively shot his argument in the foot at that point.

        • Brian (@bealzbob) said on 16th April 2014, 16:48

          I heard that at the time. The context of the answer was that the contracted sensor is the only one that can be installed in the car, but the team(s) can do their own measuring via their own software/telemetry too. All he was saying was that they couldn’t go out and buy someone elses to do the job. It didn’t change or prejudice the argument they were going to put to the FIA afterwards. Although that clearly didn’t work anyhoo.

  12. Brian (@bealzbob) said on 15th April 2014, 13:56

    It’ll be interesting to read the no-doubt-very-carefully composed reasoning from the FIA on this decision. I wonder why it’s not available now.

    I still think this final judgement was reached so as not to open the floodgates, rather than to actually deliver the correct ruling. In other words, I think Red Bull didn’t really exceed the actual fuel flow limit, but that the dodgy sensor claimed that they did. The sensor which has completely failed on Ricciardo’s car in the subsequent 2 races and which has caused trouble up and down the paddock (how the hell do that company continue to have the contract???).

    But if the FIA (or the court of arbitration etc etc) had set a precedent of allowing the teams to monitor their own fuel based on the failings of the ‘immature'(sic) technology it could potentially take some of the ability to control the teams away from the FIA. Something they’re quite clearly loathe to do based on the evidence of the past 5 or 6 years (standard ECUs etc).

    So you’re faced with 2 scenarios.
    1) Do the right thing and re-instate Ricciardo but be faced with the fallout from what is a rubbish fuel sensor and all the teams measuring their own way. In the FIA’s eyes that is too close to chaos.
    Or …
    2) Keep the teams in tow with the rubbish sensor and, so as not to lose face, continue the injustice on Ricciardo.

    This would also explain why there was no follow-up punishment dished out to Red Bull. After all, it is the norm for a punishment to be either increased or decreased depending on the outcome of an appeal. Rarely does it remain completely unchanged.

    And no, I’m not a RBR fanboi at all before anyone asks :)

    Gotta say the over-riding feeling I have here is that this stinks a little bit. It is ultimately not good for Formula One when a fundamental part that determines the pace of the car (by determining the fuel delivery) is failing the teams so consistently and then gets backed by the FIA.

    • Robbie (@robbie) said on 15th April 2014, 17:23

      Except for a few things. It would seem it is not everyone up and down the paddock that has an issue with the sensors, but moreso the Renault powered teams who fiddled with them. Also, dodgy or not, at least the FIA was trying to keep everyone on the same level during Australia by having them all use the sensors for their measurements rather than their own measurements that the FIA would not be able to monitor.

      I reject your two scenarios. I don’t think it is the right thing to re-instate DR, nor am I convinced the sensor is rubbish unless altered.

      As to your last paragraph, I think what would be ultimately not good for F1 is if teams got to ignore the FIA during a race and expect and receive no consequence for doing so. I think if anything stinks it is that only RBR seems to have an issue, and they could have raised it before the season began, since the rules and the technical directives came then and should have come as no surprise during the Australian weekend. RBR tried to get away with something, and failed, and perhaps decided they didn’t have much to lose taking the whole season into account, since Horner was out there claiming Merc could lap everyone twice anyway…btw, doing so using the same flow sensor as them…albeit unaltered, and complying with the FIA.

      • Brian (@bealzbob) said on 16th April 2014, 14:40

        The rule was not to exceed the fuel flow. The guideline was on how to achieve that.

        This ruling seems to have subtly changed the definition of the word ‘guideline’ to be more similar to ‘rule’.

        As I’ve said in the following response to Cyclops_PL. Obviously if DR actually (as in really really) exceeded the flow limit then yes it would be wrong to re-instate him. We differ on whether the FIA are putting false faith on a wonky sensor and coming to a conclusion on DR’s real fuel rate. I’m somewhat sceptical and cynical as to the motives behind siding with the sensor (the technical fallout, subsequent protests, loss of face both technologically and from a beauracracy POV).

        Apropos of this. As for altering the sensor. It has failed on DR’s car since. Which I believe means they default to some FIA mandated something-or-other formula/setting. I’m not sure how exactly that works because if the FIA can be sure that the cars can operate legally with a broken sensor then it begs the question why they need the sensor in the first place?

    • Cyclops_PL (@cyclops_pl) said on 15th April 2014, 17:23

      You might not be a Red Bull fan boy, but you clearly are against the fuel flow rule or any other restrictive rule. And this appeal wasn’t about the sensor being accurate or the rule being silly or not. It was about Red Bull ignoring the rule. Which was pretty much undeniable.

      • Brian (@bealzbob) said on 16th April 2014, 14:31

        I’m not against the fuel flow rule. I’m against a component that seems flaky at measuring the rule and one that seems to have discrepancies in it, that’s all. I think it’s quite important that the ‘pinnacle of motorsport’ be seen to have accurate technology.

        If Red Bull exceeded the limit then fine. I just find it a bit hard to believe that an outfit like them would go to appeal if they couldn’t prove that the actual real-life fuel flow rate that they were providing their engine wasn’t within or on the limits allowed and that the alleged breach was solely down to a reading from a faulty component.

        My attitude towards things like DRS are completely separate to this. I re-iterate, I am not against the fuel flow limit.

  13. chris (@9chris9) said on 15th April 2014, 14:02

    Do the FIA publish fuel mass flow readings for all teams?
    I’d love to see the data for each race and compare which car/team is most efficient

  14. Kelsier (@kelsier) said on 15th April 2014, 14:16

    “I’d rather have a great race, finish on the podium and then be excluded than to have had a rubbish race and then retire with a car problem halfway through.”

    Interesting, seems to me that he’s saying that he prefers to cheat to get a good result and then be disqualified rather then complete fairly if it means the crowd won’t cheer.

    Maybe Daniel can drive a car, but he’s not the brightest.

    • Robbie (@robbie) said on 15th April 2014, 14:44

      Lol, well pointed out. I guess that feeling for DR was undoubtedly a highlight of his life, so it’s hard for him now to admit he was only there falsely. I perhaps would have understood his sentiment more if he had said that he might have still been on the podium except in third rather than in second, but for him to take the extreme alternative of having a rubbish car and dnf’ing is telling that he is trying to convince himself still that he did a righteous thing in Australia. Perhaps his strong performance since then has helped convince himself, and even the team is convinced, when Newey says they still would have gotten third in Australia. Maybe next time they consider ignoring the FIA, they’ll cut their losses, and choose to heed their warnings. That way, whatever happens DR could still reasonably hold his head high without having to sell himself on it.

    • Pink Peril said on 16th April 2014, 1:29

      The problem with your comment is that it assumes Daniel knew about the fuel issue. Nowhere have I seen a suggestion that he knew anything about it until afterward. So as far as he was concerned, yes, he was on the podium fair & square. And fuel flow aside, to gain an advantage from the increased fuel flow (if there was one) he still had to outrace 19 other cars to get that result so I think it’s a tad unfair to suggest his result was only down to that one aspect.

      It’s similar to Singapore 2008. Yes Alonso gained an advantage from the timing of the safety car but he still had to keep it on the black stuff for another 50-odd laps and keep it in front of anyone else while doing so. The whole excercise would have been a complete waste of time had he binned the car the next lap. That is why I have always maintained he should be allowed to keep the result because although it was tainted it was still mostly down to his hard work – as was the case here with Daniel.

      • lee1 said on 16th April 2014, 9:12

        So because alonso still needed to keep driving then that should absolve him of cheating in the first place? There is no way alonso did not know about the plan as he would have needed to be in on it for it to have worked so well. Ricciardo however probably had no idea about rbs fuel issue. But still should be punished as f1 is a team sport and he benefitted albeit unknowingly from rbs decision.

  15. dam00r (@dam00r) said on 15th April 2014, 14:20

    Before the Australian GP, C.Horner said that Mercedes GP will lap other teams TWICE during the race.
    This I think is because the Renault engine is less fuel efficent. Red Bull also has more downforce than other teams and that will increase the fuel consumption. To reduce the performance gap to Mercedes, the Red Bull has to use more fuel to get more power out of the engine and that will exceed the fuel limit for the race. The fuel sensor is not faulty. They are using more fuel and trying to find a gap in the regulations to have an excuse for the fuel flow so that they can be more competitive in the races.

    • BlueChris (@bluechris) said on 15th April 2014, 14:35

      +1 was my thoughts exactly in the 1st place… even though in 2nd race i saw them not too far behind. I cannot imagine a team with with RBR sasi and Merc engine… maybe Haas has to do this if they wanna have any luck in F1.

    • Cyclops_PL (@cyclops_pl) said on 15th April 2014, 17:25

      Not only less fuel efficient but also significantly underpowered.

  16. StefMeister (@stefmeister) said on 15th April 2014, 15:00

    They mentioned during one of the practice session on SSF1 that Red Bull, STR & Lotus were the only 3 team that had been modifying there fuel flow sensors for packaging reasons & that they & Caterham were the 4 teams which were having 95% of the problems with the sensors.

    Charlie Whiting has said that there will be no alterations to the fuel flow sensors allowed from the Spanish Gp.

    Ted Kravitz also said that there had been some discussion that the fuel been used by Total which all Renault teams are using was causing some problems with the sensors.

  17. CovertGiblets said on 15th April 2014, 15:12

    A great deal of time is dedicated to the subject of reducing costs in Formula 1. I couldn’t begin to guess at the total cost to RBR, the FIA and who knows who else in getting this appeal through the courts, but needless to say the only people getting rich from such actions are the lawyers. Surely it was a little foolish to spend money on something RBR knew they could not realistically win.

    Common sense costs nothing don’t you know.

  18. mdianuk said on 15th April 2014, 15:17

    I’m half expecting Red Bull to throw their toys out of the pram again and question their entry within Formula 1. A classic Ferrari approach!!!

  19. vishy (@vishy) said on 15th April 2014, 15:34

    This was a forgone conclusion. However my take on why RBR went ahead with their measurement was they wanted a podium in the first race. They might have felt that a poor finish was a going to be bad for Red Bull image, so it is better to get to a podium and get disqualified than to finish poorly.

    Everything else after that was theatrical, they can’t say they knew what they were doing was wrong, that would be foolish! I don’t think there is a conspiracy to undermine technical directives (Hopefully they were not that foolish that this would succeed) nor do i think they were trying to be arrogant.

  20. GB (@bgp001ruled) said on 15th April 2014, 16:22

    i’m kinda dissapointed. i wanted red bull and ric to have the points so the standings are more interesting. but in the end they used an illegal car so it is fair!!! hopefully the FIA keeps everybody on track, not just red bull!

Add your comment

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

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.

Skip to toolbar