Red Bull Unhappy

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Disappointed for Daniel, but not in the least for Red Bull.....

You may be disappointed for Ricciardo, but if it were not for Red Bull "cheating", or some may prefer to just say ignoring the FIA's rules and directions, then he would have probably not been able to hold second place.

This fact is not an assumption on my part, it actually forms part of the pre-appeal PR that Red Bull were issuing. So in that respect, he shouldn't feel too sorry for himself, because he shouldn't have been in that position anyway. And my guess is that in years to come, people will remember him standing on the second step of the podium but will have forgotten that he was disqualified.

[Aysedasi]

True. I'd just like to see the guy do well.

[321Go]

Red Bull Racing statement.

"We are sorry for Daniel that he will not be awarded the 18 points from the event, which we think he deserved."

[wnut]

Originally Posted by speedreader

Does anyone else find it a little ironic that of all the other teams represented in the F1 championship, the most vocal of them trying to ensure the appeal is not upheld is the very same team that caused the last big scandal with legal / illegal tyre testing...

Tis a bit!

Thanks Mike, strange system for an appeal!

[pauln]

I am disappointed for Ricciardo in that the team's actions have prevented him clocking up a decent finish. Turning the flow down as instructed would still have netted him, what 4th? Outside chance of 3rd?

[321Go]

Riccardo statement.


"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."

[Aysedasi]

Good answer.

[Lancsbreaker]

I note that it was the Austrian equivalent of the RAC MSA that actually made the appeal - not Red Bull, although obviously "on their behalf". Is this just a technicality, in that only an national body can raise such an appeal?

Either way, I couldn't see the judgement going any other way - FIA had to establish that it was they who determined the rules, not Red Bull. Irrespective of the accuracy of the fuel flow meter, Red Bull had to get agreement from the FIA reps to disregard the readings - they repeatedly failed to do so, and specifically failed to follow FIA directives........and admitted so doing. Case closed.

At least the lawyers will be happy......

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by wnut

Thanks Mike, strange system for an appeal

Think of it as more of an appeal process rather than a court of appeal. A similar system is used in planning appeals, where all who may be affected are allowed to be represented and may make statements.

I believe that the FIA appeal "court" may even allow "cross eximination" by affected parties; just something that sticks in my mind from the McLaren/Ferrari spygate affair.

[321Go]

Interesting article by Ed Straw for autosport.com.

"This was not a case of cheating, because it was done in plain sight. But it was a clear challenge to the policing of the regulations."

RBR apparently provided evidence during the court hearing that they in fact did not exceed the fuel-flow limit. So there's more to it. The full statement might shed more light on this later this week.

[Lancsbreaker]

But the point wasn't whether or not they did exceed the fuel flow limit, it was whether they followed the process of the rules, or chose to ignore the FIA and make up their own rules.......arrogance lost.

[wnut]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report...ce=mostpopular

No verifiable reason was given for why the fuel-flow meter it used during the race in Australia had started reading higher than before after the first three runs of free practice two.
And as Red Bull's legal team pointed out, the sensor in question was in the possession of the FIA but without any subsequent testing to understand exactly why there was this difference.
All of this points to more analysis and development being necessary because there are question marks about just how level this playing field is and whether race results will be distorted by the accuracy of any given sensor.
For now, while the sensors are not perfect, they are necessary. It's not ideal, but self-policing is even more dangerous.
This is why the verdict was probably the best one for F1.

[b1ackcr0w]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Good answer.

I thought that. In fact he's impressed me a lot this season. If RB are going to have a 'character building' year this season, I think his positive attitude and perma-smile are going to be crucial to morale in their garage.

[nobster]

Originally Posted by b1ackcr0w

I thought that. In fact he's impressed me a lot this season. If RB are going to have a 'character building' year this season, I think his positive attitude and perma-smile are going to be crucial to morale in their garage.

I prefer seeing his smile, we have seen more enough of his team mates finger over the years...

[Derwent Motorsp]

Is it possible that Horner has taken his eye off the ball since he has been "Spiced" up I wonder?

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by 321Go

Interesting article by Ed Straw for autosport.com.

"This was not a case of cheating, because it was done in plain sight. But it was a clear challenge to the policing of the regulations."

RBR apparently provided evidence during the court hearing that they in fact did not exceed the fuel-flow limit. So there's more to it. The full statement might shed more light on this later this week.

Yes, it was a challenge to the regulations.

I had wondered what happened to the 'proof we did not break the fuel flow regulation' but there has been little reported.
I'll look forward to the full statement.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

But the point wasn't whether or not they did exceed the fuel flow limit, it was whether they followed the process of the rules, or chose to ignore the FIA and make up their own rules.......arrogance lost.

Arrogance, or just wanting to be able to compete on a level playing field, which is what the sensor is supposed to ensure, but clearly doesn't.

I in fact agree that they broke the rules, just seems unfair that the rule they broke had nothing to do with their performance - their car was entirely legal in that it did not exceed the fuel flow limitation, and yet they were told by the FIA during the race it wasn't.

I do wonder what will happen if a sensor fails in the race itself...because by this rule they will have to withdraw from the race as I see it.

[MGDavid]

All the teams have to use the same FIA-approved sensor, therfefore it IS a level playing field. If RBR are finding the sensors fail on their cars more than other teams then they need to look elsewhere in their car for the reason.
I suspect they have done this, know the reason and cannot see an easy fix therefore are whining and procrastinating and trying every which way they can to circumvent the issue. Where is the proof of your assertion their fuel rate is legal? If said sensor fails in the race it would be the same as any other component failure governed by the regs, either carry on and risk being pulled up for contravention, or box the car and spend the extra time working on a fix.

[Clive Brown]

It is clearly not a level playing field, though, when the FIA-supplied fuel flow sensors perform radically differently as Red Bull have claimed.

To raise a wider point, if there is a maximum quantity of fuel available to complete the race distance, why is a maximum fuel flow rate also required?

[Adam43]

To limit the power available at any given time.

[miatanut]

Has Red Bull provided details on what the FIA sensor was indicating and what they thought the real flow was? They've said it is inaccurate, but I haven't bumped into anything where they said HOW inaccurate.

Maybe it's 1/4% off and they haven't come out and said this because they knew they would lose in the court of public opinion?

There is no perfection on this earth, and the Red Bull data isn't going to be perfect either. It's really an issue of what is or is not acceptable accuracy.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by JamesH

I in fact agree that they broke the rules, just seems unfair that the rule they broke had nothing to do with their performance - their car was entirely legal in that it did not exceed the fuel flow limitation, and yet they were told by the FIA during the race it wasn't.

I do wonder what will happen if a sensor fails in the race itself...because by this rule they will have to withdraw from the race as I see it.

Two points as the risk of rehashing weeks of arguments on this topic.

They may or may not have exceeded the actual fuel flow target, but again per the rules, it is the flow as measured by the sensor that counts. So when you look at the entire set of rule, the car was not legal.

There are provisions for sensor failure during a race that does not require the car to be withdrawn. I believe this scenario has already played out as well.

Richard

[MCWB]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Has Red Bull provided details on what the FIA sensor was indicating and what they thought the real flow was? They've said it is inaccurate, but I haven't bumped into anything where they said HOW inaccurate.

IIRC Adrian Newey was quoted earlier in the week as testifying that it was 1.3% out, rising to 1.8% out later in the race.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by MCWB

IIRC Adrian Newey was quoted earlier in the week as testifying that it was 1.3% out, rising to 1.8% out later in the race.

Thanks!

That is pretty significant.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

There are provisions for sensor failure during a race that does not require the car to be withdrawn. I believe this scenario has already played out as well.

Richard

AFIK this is exactly the position that RBR adopted!

So a sensor that has already been deemed faulty, then substituted back for another more faulty substitute, then showing a reading that is 1.3% beneath the 100 kg/h limit and gradually drifting to 1.8% below, is deemed not faulty by the officials!

When is the unit faulty?