Here is the link to the details of the appeal (with link to English and French PDF copies) ...
http://www.fia.com/international-cou...-14-april-2014
I personally think it should be read in its entirety by anyone who has strong opinions one way or another. It has some interesting information. My take away...
* Many pre appeal facts (such as those documented in the original stewards decision) seem to be true or at least not challenged. For example, that RBR never applied the offset as required.
* Part of the RBR strategy was that the technical directives are not legal (as they are not technical regulations) and can't be enforced.
* I wasn't aware that RBR did in fact turn down the engine after the race was under way to try to comply with the stewards requests, but then decided to abandon that approach. While it is not discussed in the appeal, I have to wonder if the adjustment that Ricciardo made in the car was the 1.5% offset as originally requested by the stewards, or maybe some other type of normal engine management adjustment available on the steering wheel (which maybe had a larger impact than the FIA requested offset). I could be wrong, but I don't see RBR having something pre-programmed in the wheel to allow Ricciardo to turn on/off the FIA offset. But who knows.
* RBR appears to have only had three sensors on hand. They appeal mentions two were available for Ricciardo's car. An unmentioned third would have been in Vettels car.
* The second sensor tried in Ricciardo's car just outright didn't work. Previously it had been hinted at that it was significantly less accurate (I guess that is a true statement, but it is less about accuracy than about reliability).
* There is an automatic method for adjusting for sensor failure. So given RBR used a failed sensor in FP3 and Qual, they would have been using their fuel flow model for those sessions. But, given that the sensor had failed, the FIA didn't want them to purposefully use a failed sensor for the race. I assume that the FIA let them use the failed sensor for Qualification as they may not have had time to swap it out between FP3 and Qualification (speculation on my part)
* While a number of teams were present as third parties or observers, Mercedes did provide information that was hostile to the information that RBR presented (no surprise here).
* RBR presented a particularly flimsy case. Especially around the validity of the numbers produced by their fuel flow model. As much as I have my own doubts about the accuracy of the flow model it sounds like they likely could have presented a better case toward the validity of that concept.
* The amount of difference between the flow model and sensor during FP1 and FP2 were not as great as many speculated. It sounds like about a 1% overage (101 kg/hr vs 100 kg/hr) at the high end of what was measured.
* While the sensor values was trending toward indicating a higher flow rate (i.e. creep), RBRs own data showed that they were also adjusting various flow parameters during that same time period. So it may be difficult or impossible to say that any trend existed. There is the potential that these adjustments might even explain much of the measured variability.
I am sure many will continue to see those in dark cloaks hiding in the shadows. But overall, I think RBR rolled the dice on this and lost. As Mercedes mentioned, given RBRs arguments, if the appeal was turned over, it would mean that all sorts of things could be effectively ignored by the teams. Including pre and post race inspections, etc.
Richard