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

Advert | Go Ad-free


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

  1. Javier said on 15th April 2014, 10:23

    I think that it is not a fair verdict. I think they should be punished more. We all have the sense that RedBull is always in the borderline of legality and that they always try to find a way to “cheat”. As Mercedes said, we must be sure they will never try again, they should be excluded of the Aus GP results and one additional one at least!

    • GeordiePorker (@geordieporker) said on 15th April 2014, 21:24

      I disagree, and you are also misquoting Mercedes. Mercedes made the point that they should have a suspended ban as a warning, but this was gamesmanship and nothing more.

      This is exactly the correct result. FIA says “do this” and you do it, otherwise you will lose that result. An additional ban would be unfair to RBR…from which race? If they have a double retirement can they elect to be excluded from that race?! Or do the FIA wait and ban them from their best race of the season?!

      No, there is no need for an additional race ban or a suspended sentence. What has happened here is the FIA has made the point that they have the power to DSQ *if required* – there is the threat to RBR. And repeated transgressions would allow the FIA the chance to up the ante.

  2. WilliamB (@william-brierty) said on 15th April 2014, 10:24

    An utterly inevitable, yet valid decision. The FIA simply could not afford to lose this appeal, it would have opened a Pandora’s box of directive disobedience…

    • WilliamB (@william-brierty) said on 15th April 2014, 10:38

      I would refine that opening comment by saying that despite the fact that Red Bull had a decent(ish) case, they were never going to win the appeal. The FIA’s case was all too fundamental, arguing, I think correctly, that directives are mechanisms under which the regulations are applied, and that, in a manner similar to how a driver is only deemed to have gained a “lasting” advantage by going off track if other drivers don’t take a similar line, because other teams, such as Force India, obeyed the directive, Red Bull received a lasting advantage over the rest of the field. This made Red Bull’s position essentially indefensible.

      • Robbie (@robbie) said on 15th April 2014, 12:47

        After reading an article linked from one of yesterday’s topics with quotes from Horner, I was more convinced than ever that the term directive has been used in a bit of a manipulative way. The article states that the directive came before the season began. Whiting has also stated that it is in the rules that the sensors sanctioned by FIA and homologated shall be the method of measurement.

        So I think that it has been a bit manipulative to try to claim that directives are not enforceable, when in fact it was not directives RBR was being given in Australia, along with other teams…it was warnings…that they were breaking the rules. The initial articles announcing DR’s dsq talked of the teams being warned about exceeding the flow rate…warnings…not suggestions, directives, opinions, nor any other term that sounds more like guidance and hand-holding.

        So since the technical directive, and the written rule too, were in place before the season began, RBR knew full well the intention from the FIA that the fuel flow sensors would be the method of measurement, and RBR knew they were being given a chance to heed the warnings during the Australian weekend but ignored them anyway. And their case did not just depend on some claim that a directive is not an enforceable reg…they were also going to claim better accuracy with their measurement and some proof that they never exceeded the proper flow rate, which was never the point since said claims came from measurements not done at the Gill sensor.

        • WilliamB (@william-brierty) said on 15th April 2014, 15:13

          @robbie – In the case that the directive was in place before the season began, something I did not know (so thank you), Red Bull’s case was more than indefensible, it was impossible.

          And even if we put to one side the real nature of the FIA’s instructions, whether they were opinion-based directives or concrete warnings, something we will not know until the full case is published, a key part of the FIA’s case is breaking this assumption that because directives are opinion-based, they have little real gravity, because, to quote the FIA’s representative “it is only by adhering to the technical directive that teams can prove compliance with the technical regulation”, or in other words, directives are mechanisms by which the regulations are applied.

          And it is because the technical directive was in place prior to the race, and that other competitors, such as Force India, adhered to the FIA’s recommendations, that the FIA had no case to answer to. Personally, I think Red Bull is set to be penalized further…

          • Robbie (@robbie) said on 15th April 2014, 15:50

            @william-brierty See from April 13th’s article by Keith “Quieter engines ‘better for F1′-Mosely” the link to “Red Bull appeal is first test of F1’s new era (Reuters)” and you will find the words under the heading Technical Directives regarding the directive being pre-season.

            As to RBR being punished further, I’m not sure they will be or that it is necessary, but I do feel that RBR was being treated more than fairly during the Australian weekend by being given a chance to comply and preventing this all from happening. So in that sense maybe you are right and the fact that the FIA tried to help them, and instead got ignored and basically were told they (RBR) knew better, perhaps should mean they’re ‘on parole’ for the rest of the season, or something like Mercedes is pushing for.

            Perhaps some are right who have suggested since Australia that Horner knew he was playing with fire but figured a) if they obeyed the warnings they would have scored less points anyway, and b) this brought the issue to the forefront, and also c) he might not have been immediately defaulting in his own mind that the consequence might be a dsq, but rather that he could argue his way down to something far less severe like a grid drop for the next race, or a fine, because of his proof of them never breaching 100kg/hr.

          • bull mello (@bullmello) said on 15th April 2014, 16:50

            @william-brierty , @robbie – Good discussion. When RBR started using the argument that directives are not regulations and they need not comply, it was akin to admitting they didn’t have much else to go on. Either the FIA is in charge of regulation compliance and enforcement, or not. As we can see, they are in charge.

            I also think the FIA was very fair in this case, especially giving RBR the chance to comply during the race. Also glad the call from Mercedes to penalize RBR further was ignored. The penalties incurred already were already severe enough and RBR has been in compliance since Australia as far as we know.

          • WilliamB (@william-brierty) said on 15th April 2014, 18:11

            @robbie – Thanks for the link, I probably should have read that at the time!

            Regarding further punishment, whilst I don’t think it is necessary in that Red Bull were merely staying true to form in sailing close to wind, and they genuinely had no intention to break the regulation because of their faith in the fuel rail sensor, I do think something like a suspended race ban is heading their way.

            I think that because the directives, as you say, were the FIA trying to aid Red Bull in sticking to the regulations, but more broadly the fact that Red Bull ignored the directive whilst others didn’t arguably shows a near cultural disdain for higher authority. Whilst you could validly argue that that’s what won Red Bull eight world titles, from the FIA’s perspective, such a flagrant and aloof disregard of the directive will surely warrant further sanctions.

            @bullmello – Whilst I agree that the penalties already imposed are harsh enough, I don’t think Mercedes’ call to impose further sanctions, which was unsurprisingly reciprocated by all other rival teams in attendance, has been ignored. I’m not entirely sure about this, but from what I understand the hearing is not yet over. All that has been established is Red Bull’s “guilt”, and tomorrow the subsequent course of action will be discussed, with it being certain that Ricciardo’s disqualification will be upheld, however I believe there is the option to impose further penalties.

          • Robbie (@robbie) said on 15th April 2014, 18:36

            @william-brierty Fair comment regarding further sanctions but I wonder if that would only be to formally put ‘on paper’ something akin to ‘do it again and here’s what will happen’ whereas I’m inclined to think that message is now obvious as to what the consequence is of doing again what they did in Australia. Is that what you mean by a suspended race ban?

            It’s just a small point on my part but I thought what we were waiting for from FIA was further detail on why they declined RBR’s appeal, not on what further punishment they will impose…other than to my thinking RBR has to pay the ‘court costs’ as they were the one’s to prolong the decision by appealing and hauling everyone together in Paris.

            We’ll see though, and you could very well be right that there needs to be a formal reprimand/warning for them for the rest of the season. That would not be a surprise or unreasonable, along with paying court costs imho, but to me anything further that would literally take more points away from them or in any other way harm their Championship run should not be necessary.

          • WilliamB (@william-brierty) said on 15th April 2014, 19:13

            @robbie – Yes, by “suspended” I meant it in the that, as you say, “do it again and here’s what will happen”, and, as you also say, a penalty that takes championship points from Red Bull would be unnecessary and therefore highly unlikely. That said, the FIA are not unknown for flashes of savagery, with the disqualification of McLaren from the WCC in 2007, and that of Schumacher from the 1997 WDC as examples.

            The full report of the hearing is set to be published on Thursday, but tomorrow, although I’m not sure about this, the hearing will rule on whether further sanctions are justified and the FIA subsequently has the option to implement them (although, as I say, I’m not sure – I skim read something on Autosport about the Court of Appeal process weeks ago but I’m not sure if it’s applicable given the fact Ricciardo’s already been disqualified). Personally, I will maintain that I am expecting some form of formal reprimand or suspended penalty as a further illustration of the FIA’s authority.

          • Robbie (@robbie) said on 15th April 2014, 22:47

            @william-brierty Makes sense that as you imply there should be a formal conclusion to the issue, as well as an adjustment if deemed necessary to the decision of the stewards of the day in Australia.

            Just for fun I must have you on a bit regarding your MS 97 reference. Imho MS got off lightly. Mosely had threatened the grid that any ‘funny business’ in terms of interference with the two protagonists vying for the WDC would result in a 3-race ban at the start of the 98 season. MS himself did just that, but no ban, merely lost his standing in the Championship which he had already lost for himself anyway, and got to keep his wins and poles. ie. a slap on the wrist. Still trying to figure out how you lose your standing ie. your points, but keep wins, but anyway that’s what it is.

          • WilliamB (@william-brierty) said on 16th April 2014, 14:49

            @robbie – I actually wrote several articles about Schumacher’s ’97 disqualification, as it was so significant at the time. If we’re being honest it had no effect on the overall character of Schumacher’s career, but at the time it was important, with Schumacher having just proved to world that he was by far and away the best racing driver in the world by taking a Ferrari substantially slower than the Williams to championship contention at the final race. It was an achievement deleted from the history books by the FIA for a move that was at best clumsy and at worse malicious, but in no way dangerous. Yes it was a formal “slap on the wrist” accounting to nothing, but as formal penalties go, it is by far the most significant example and opened a can of worms of question regarding whether championship ranking even mattered when the championship wasn’t won, or whether Schumacher’s win still counted and whether the FIA were wrong to threaten disproportionate on those that interfered with the championship contenders. Ah controversy, I really truly loved being a journalist in F1 in the mid-nineties…

          • Robbie (@robbie) said on 16th April 2014, 15:26

            @william-brierty So interesting that you were a journalist in F1. I am not a journalist but wouldn’t have worded it that the FIA deleted from the history books a season that saw MS take his car to Championship contention in the last race…it was MS’s whack on JV that did that, no matter the consequent penalty, and brought to the fore his whack on DH in 94 and the suspicions that it was intentional back then too, and not merely a situation where MS couldn’t control the car as was claimed.

            Among my ongoing thoughts about that season and others surrounding it are to remind people that MS didn’t do what he did single-handedly. I believe no driver has ever had more money, time, and resources put into winning WDC(s), including the extra veto power and money with which Ferrari was plied, not to mention a guaranteed non-competing teammate. Sure many have argued MS earned that kind of treatment on a team, but whether or not that is the case is moot…he had more advantages hand over fist to get cars into Championship contention than any driver ever has. So every coin having two sides, for me he may have smashed the records, but I have to look at how that was done. For sure there was never any shortage of controversy when it came to MS.

          • WilliamB (@william-brierty) said on 16th April 2014, 17:36

            @robbie – And yet the advantage he had over Irvine, which was MAHAHOOOSIVE, and that over Barrichello when he wasn’t getting brow-beaten by the team, was all Schumacher. For me, and for many others at the time, 1997 saw Schumacher climb the ladder of greatness, with many, including me, thinking Jerez was overplayed, and that it was simply the dark side of ambition. The fact that Senna took Prost out in ’90, that Prost turned in on Senna in ’89 and that Vettel disobeyed team orders last year doesn’t change the fact that they are some of the greatest racing drivers of all time. Schumacher was simply a competitive animal, and as someone who met Michael, has spoken to him, and has someone who has stood beside the racetrack as he danced the car past, I can’t help but roll my eyes when anyone tries to portray him as anything other than what he is: a true sporting legend. Hang in there Michael, this is the most crucial stint of your life…

            One point: I was not a journalist in that that was how I made money, I was more of a “hooray-Henry” following the F1 circus around and voluntarily submitting the occasional opinion article when something juicy came up…

          • Robbie (@robbie) said on 16th April 2014, 17:56

            @william-brierty Fair comment. Lol on the MAHAHOOOSIVE. Can’t say I agree with everything you have said…eg. ‘sporting’ legend, or ‘competitive’ animal without a competing teammate, but who am I to argue against your opinion based on your experience. As much as I disagreed with the MS/Ferrari way, and the driving tactics, and my opinion also coming from being a massive JV fan, I certainly share the sentiments of only wishing the best for MS and his family in his incredibly difficult struggle.

  3. Keith Campbell (@keithedin) said on 15th April 2014, 10:27

    Shock horror! Not a surprising result, always looked like it was heading this way. Unlucky for Dan, but innaccurate sensor or not, all the other drivers were running to the readings so it’s possible some of them were disadvantaged too. But for God’s sake can the FIA please sort out the issue with the sensors and have an accurate and reliable method of calculating fuel flow which is the same for everyone, if they haven’t already done so.

    I don’t want to hear any more about fuel sensors until the inevitable end of season position debates (“But Daniel only finished 15 points behind Seb so should actually be 3 points ahead!”, etc) ;)

  4. Slr (@slr) said on 15th April 2014, 10:28

    I’m very happy with this decision, if Red Bull won it would have caused chaos for the sport.

  5. Patrick (@paeschli) said on 15th April 2014, 10:31

    I feel sad for Ricciardo. Especially when it is mostly Renault and Total’s fault the sensors were faulty.

  6. 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.

  7. 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

      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?

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

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

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

  11. 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?

  12. 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!

  13. 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.

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


    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.

  15. 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.

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.