The One and Only
Spa Francorchamps 2014
Belgian Grand Prix
Crucial test case looms for FIA and Red Bull
News
Screen Shot 2014-04-13 at 19.55.19
Posted By: James Allen  |  13 Apr 2014   |  8:00 pm GMT  |  270 comments

Tomorrow (Monday) the appeal against Daniel Ricciardo’s disqualification from second place in the Australian Grand Prix will be heard.

The Court of Appeal, an independent body, tasked with resolving issues like this by the FIA, will be the centre of a lot of attention as this case will be important for the governing body to assert its authority, which has been challenged by Red Bull’s approach in Melbourne to the technical and sporting regulations.

Depending on who wins, it could affect the way that the technical side of the sport is administered as, if the FIA loses, the use of Technical Directives (memos from the FIA Technical Delegate to all teams with updates and methodologies) could be changed.

There is also the wider question of the use of fuel flow meters in F1, with some teams keen to get rid of them or modify their use.

With the Mercedes chassis and power unit package so far ahead in the new technology race, all the teams chasing them are looking for any angle to gain ground.


With the sensor on Ricciardo’s car “drifting” in its readings during the race in Melbourne, and the FIA judging that the fuel use was above the maximum permitted rate, the team was instructed by the FIA to follow a back up procedure during the race, but instead chose to use its own measurement system.

Prior to the start of the season, the FIA had issued a technical directive which explained the methodology for use of the sensors and the required procedure in the event of problems. Red Bull ignored this, arguing that a technical directive is an opinion, not a binding regulation.

Assessing this will be central to the outcome, as will the FIA’s argument that it is not at the team’s discretion to run a different fuel flow measurement method.

Red Bull will seek to prove that at no time did they exceed the maximum fuel flow rate, but the FIA’s argument is that as Red Bull’s alternative measurement system had not been calibrated against a known FIA sensor, by an FIA supplier, then it is not within the technical regulations.

The FIA stewards excluded the car because it did not comply with the technical regulations during the race, due to Red Bull’s choice of back up methodology and because it is the competitor’s duty to ensure that the car complies at all times.

The suggestion was that this was Red Bull challenging the authority of the FIA, part of an ongoing friction, which is also tied up with criticism of the general direction of these hybrid turbo regulations, which was articulated in detail by it’s design guru Adrian Newey in Bahrain.

Red Bull boss Christian Horner believes that his team has a very strong case and that as the two following races have unfolded, events have demonstrated more information about the use of the fuel flow sensors which helps their case.

“As more races have progressed, issues have become more evident, new evidence has come to light and new understandings have come to light,” he said. “Hopefully we can present our case fairly and get the second place Daniel deserves from Melbourne.”

Featured News
MORE FROM JA ON F1...
Share This:
Posted by:
Category:
270 Comments
  1. Spinodontosaurus says:

    If Red Bull can prove they did not exceed the specified fuel flow rate I imagine they will be let off the hook, as they will have followed every written rule regarding fuel flow.

    1. C63 says:

      as they will have followed every written rule regarding fuel flow….

      If Red Bull win this case the sport will become ungovernable. Every team will, effectively, have a licence to do what ever they want and then argue about it later. They have also breached a common understanding and working practice within F1 – technical directives have been used/accepted for a long time. It’s a bit too convenient for Red Bull to decide, all of a sudden, that they won’t follow them.

    2. Jack78 says:

      But didn’t they ignore the FIA during the race after multiple warnings?

      1. Box Box Box says:

        They Ignored it and we’re punished, now they are making there case and if they have one they will be reinstated. I don’t see a problem with that although I suspect they won’t be reinstated. Either way I’ll leave it up to the people who hear all the evidence to decide.

    3. Wayne says:

      Yet when the team receives a technical directive that benefits them or that they agree with the follow it and call it a ‘rule’. It’s grand hypocrisy. RBR have been in F1 for five minutes and have bought themselves a seat at the top table of F1 teams based on success over just five years. They have no history in F1, they have no long-term ties to F1, no emotional investment in F1′s future and will walk the minute they begin to lose consistently, as they have recently threatened to do.

      In the absence of a written rule, sporting teams MUST comply with directives provided by the sport’s governing body rather than make it up as they go along, until such a time as any issue with he ‘rules’ is mitigated.

      RBR always act out of a sense of entitlement that their short history in F1 does not support.

      1. Spinodontosaurus says:

        Where do the rules stipulate that Technical Directives must be followed and adhered too? Nowhere, and in a recent article on this site Mark Gillan alluded to the fact that the directives themselves even state this.

        Like it or not, all the teams have to do is abide by the regulations as they are written.

      2. Wayne says:

        You are deliberately over-simplifying the matter. The teams do and always have followed the technical directives. There cannot be a rule written for every eventuality and in the absence of a rule there is a requirement to follow the directives of the ‘referee’.

        There is no rule that says you can’t use matter transportation or power the car with marmalade but you can’t do either of these none the less.

    4. franed says:

      Wrong, they broke another rule in deviating from the procedure, using their own unauthorised fuel flow calculation instead of the FIA approved method. Also wrong, they refused to comply with a direct instruction from the FIA.

      This is not about flow meters, it is about deliberately flouting the sport’s governing body and authority.
      ld to put
      Ok the fuel flow meter may have been the cause of this to kick off but they then should have done as told and then entered a protest afterward.

      It’s a bit like a robber being caught shoplifting and being told by the store security man to put the stuff back and it’ll be ok, but deciding to walk out with it anyway. Then in court protesting that the stuff was begging to be nicked.

      1. Rudy says:

        Funny comparison and agree with you. This only proves how selfish F1teams are. Always trying to get the max out for them no matter how. Sometimes, like the FFM, in really ridiculous ways.

      2. Doug says:

        Not really a good analogy. A better one would be being accused of shoplifting the shoes you were wearing:
        a) Being told to take them off and put them back.
        b) Refusing to and telling the store security man no these are my shoes.
        c) Being arrested for not following the direction.
        d) Turning up with the receipt proving they were your shoes.
        e) Still going to jail because you didn’t follow the direction to “return” your own shoes.

  2. SteveS says:

    “With the sensor on Ricciardo’s car “drifting” in its readings during the race in Melbourne, and the FIA judging that the fuel use was above the maximum permitted rate, the team was instructed by the FIA to follow a back up procedure during the race, but instead chose to use its own measurement system.”

    That’s not quite correct. The so-called “back up procedure” was to run the (known faulty) fuel flow sensor with an “offset” applied. The sensor was known to have issues in FP1 and FP2 (which is why it was swapped out for FP3 and qualifying) so when it was put back in the car (why?) before the race, DR began the race under orders to use the “back up procedure”.

    It’s not the case that the sensor was observed to have problems during the race and that this led to FIA instructions to go to the back up.

    http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112966

    There’s a lot of answered questions here. Regrettably, there’s a lot of questions which have yet to even be asked.

    1. Bobdredds says:

      This is what is being said at the tribunal and it endorses my own view of the matter.

      “Red Bull’s lawyer argued that the Gill-supplied sensor was “faulty” and that is why it fell back on its own measurements, but the legal representative for Mercedes hit back that what occurred in Melbourne was a “flagrant breach” of the regulations.

      “Red Bull thinks it is entitled to pick and choose between the measurements,” the Mercedes lawyer was quoted by the Associated Press as telling the court.

      Using near-identical words, the FIA lawyer agreed: “A team cannot pick and choose.”

      He added: “The essence of sport is the contest on a level playing field and you can’t have that unless everyone abide by the rules.”

    2. Hasn’t Horner been quoted something to the effect of: ‘…if we had followed the FIA instructions during the race we’d have finished 5th or 6th…’? Seems that if that is the case, those points woulda been preferable to the DQ. Wonder what else is in the pot for this kerfuffle.

  3. SteveS says:

    The current system of Technical Directives, which amounts to saying “the rules of F1 are whatever Charlie Whiting says they are”, is long overdue for a change and some sunlight. There’s nothing in the sporting or technical regs which gives Whiting the power he’s taken for himself to unilaterally alter the rules at any time.

    1. NJ says:

      The Technical Directive is the equivalent of a referee blowing his whistle.

      There is no appeal. And even if the referee has vision problems. There’s nothing you can do.

      1. JB says:

        I can not accept a sport as high pedigree as F1 to have a system that depends on a ‘referee’.

        It should be more rational logic driven, and more accountable than that.

        Red Bull has already proven that they have not exceeded the 100kg/hr fuel flow limit. Rationally, they have not done anything wrong.

        The only thing they have done ‘wrong’ is to be courageous enough to challenge the FIA. If FIA wins this, it goes to show that teams have no rights even if they are correct, and FIA is a dictator that states they can do whatever they want (i.e. they are subjected to corruption).

        I don’t see that Red Bull is undermining FIA’s authority here. Red Bull simply pointed out the need for a better regulation system which is fair for the teams rather than dictated by one source of power. Rather than fighting like kids, I suggest work on redefining the problem to make sure this does not occur again.

      2. C63 says:

        @JB
        Red Bull has already proven that they have not exceeded the 100kg/hr fuel flow limit…

        I am not saying you are wrong, but please provide a link to back up this statement.
        Thanks

      3. em comments says:

        “I can not accept a sport as high pedigree as F1 to have a system that depends on a ‘referee’.”

        If the “referee’s decision” is to be ignored when convenient, then the result will never be known as the cars cross the finish line. Some team or other will come up with a reason to dispute things and it will all descend into farce. Casual fans will be dissatisfied and stop watching. If that happens (and it already is for other reasons) then the TV companies will stop paying and we can all go back to watching BTCC from Thruxton or Brands if we are lucky.

      4. NJ says:

        Wrong again. Every sport has a referee. The only kind of motorsport without officiating of any kind are the sort of racing classes depicted in films such as DEATH RACE.

      5. Box Box Box says:

        You can appeal a red card and have the punishment rescinded can’t you? Same here

    2. C63 says:

      @SteveS
      There’s nothing in the sporting or technical regs which gives Whiting the power he’s taken for himself to unilaterally alter the rules at any time….

      When a technical directive is issued by CW, the intention is to provide clarity for the teams, regarding FIA interpretation of a particular rule. It is to assist the teams and help them avoid running foul of the regulations, not a power trip for CW. All of the top teams were asked to reduce fuel flow during the race. All of the top teams have confirmed their own readings showed they were within rule – nevertheless they complied with the FIA (despite the disadvantage this meant for them).
      Trying to argue that Red Bull were some how justified in pleasing themselves rather than following the FIA instruction (remember, ALL of the other teams followed the FIA request)is ridiculous.

    3. Wayne says:

      The teams are all too happy to have Charlie in this position when his directives and opinions agree with their own or validate some form of advantage they have garnered.

      There has to be a referee in any sporting event, the stewards cannot be expected to know the ins and outs of ever possible technical rule in the F1 book. The people that make these decisions on the sport sometimes get it wrong (not saying that is the case here and I have no idea who is ‘right’) but that is better than teams doing what RBR did and just making it up as they go along out of sheer arrogance and hypocrisy.

  4. AlexD says:

    So why was Red Bull disqualified?
    1. Because the few flow exceeded 100 kg per hr?
    2. Because it was not measured by FIA sensor?

    I am really lost…

    Technical directive…was it not the same case with Mercedes and Pirelli test last year when it was sad that the opinion of Charlie (technical directive) is not an official rule and it is an opinion instead?

    1. Random 79 says:

      I think (2) which led the FIA to believe (1).

      If you’re still lost though don’t worry – The FIA offers an excellent GPS system that will get you where you’re going every time while maintaining a reasonable margin of error that can be corrected by intentionally going in slightly the wrong direction :)

      1. Sebee says:

        Let’s save ourselves for tomorrow. I have a feeling it’s going to be good.

      2. Chris says:

        Known as a ‘techniguess’.

      3. paul.r says:

        haaahaaa good one

      4. AlexD says:

        What I read is this: “”consistently” exceeding the maximum permitted fuel-flow rate of 100kg/h on his way to second place in Melbourne.”

    2. David in Sydney says:

      I think the arguments are:

      FIA: the fuel flow exceeded 100kg/hr; RBR ignored their technical directive; and RBR ignored a mid-race instruction.

      RBR: the fuel flow didn’t exceed 100kg/hr; the technical directive is not a rule; and the mid race FIA instruction would have resulted in no complying with the rules.

      I *still* think RIC will be reinstated and RBR’s loss of points will stand.

    3. MrNed says:

      1) The FIA-mandated sensor (with an offset applied) was regularly showing higher than 100kg/h fuel flow rate and so the stewards of the race disqualified Ricciardo.

      2) Red Bull did not accept the FIA’s solution of using the mandated sensor with an offset applied, and chose to use a different method of measuring Ricciardo’s fuel flow rate. They presented this defence to the stewards (including their own measurements that showed the fuel-flow to be within the limit) but the stewards did not accept this defence because RB’s readings were not from the mandated sensor and RB had no right to decide to use their own reading without agreement from the FIA (that they did not have).

      1. OppositeLock says:

        The FIA had not calibrated the RB method. So they have no way of knowing if it was more accurate than their malfunctioning sensor. Or if RB’s method had a slightly larger margin of error say +1 percent or +10 percent. I mean, RB wouldn’t skew the data to show in their favor now would they?

      2. UAN says:

        That’s the strongest part of the FIA case – that the RB method was calibrated.

        However, RB did quarantine the fuel rail they used to measure the flow, took it to Paris (Renault?) to have it validated with FIA representatives present.

        I believe because the validation showed it to be calibrated correctly, RB decided to move forward with the appeal.

    4. Yak says:

      The FIA sensor said they were over the 100kg/h flow rate. Red Bull’s own measurements said otherwise. The rules state you cannot exceed the 100kg/h flow rate. The directives issued in Melbourne stated the additional stuff about the sensor being the only valid form of measurement and backup plans to be applied at the FIA’s discretion and whatnot. Red Bull are arguing that directives are not regulations and they (like any other team) aren’t bound by them. The relevant regulations are basically, 1) have an FIA approved sensor installed (which they did), and 2) don’t exceed 100kg/h (which they believe they can prove they never did).

    5. PxB says:

      I think RBR’s reference to the Merc/Pirelli case is adding confusion.

      RBR say that case means Technical Directives are just Charlie’s opinion and not enforceable. IIRC the ruling wasn’t about a Technical Directive, just Charlie’s answer to a question.

      So it’s probably irrelevant to today’s case.

  5. Joshua says:

    I hope the court throws the book at them. …sending a strong message to all the teams!

    If red bull win this season will be chaos with all teams making up their own procedures.

    1. Kevin says:

      How do you come to that conclusion? Only good things will happen after this case, wait and see……

      1. jake says:

        Technical directives are an essential part of the governance of the sport. If they are made null and void there will be anarchy. Each team will interpret the rules to suit themselves and argue their case in “court”. All future races to be decided by the tribunal, that will be great for the sport.

      2. Kevin says:

        Technical directives were described very clearly by the Fia themselves in the Mercedes test case. In this case the Fia should have followed their own technical directive and allowed red bull to use there own data when it was apparent that the sensor readings were inconsistent and a fixed offset was putting the car in question at a disadvantage. The disqualification was simply the Fia saying “do as we say even if it is wrong” which is ridiculous, there is clearly a problem with these sensors that needs to be addressed at once. As I said in my previous comment, only good things will come from this case, whoever wins

    2. Bobdredds says:

      I agree, Red Bull are trying to write their own rules and their campaign in the media is nothing short of disgraceful. They think they are bigger than the sport and will stop at nothing to get their own way regardless of the damage that they cause. I am coming to despise them more and more. They are bad losers and bullys. I hope the court of appeal makes them pay dearly. They should be sanctioned for bringing the sport into disrepute. If they win my interest in the rest of the season will be casual at best.

      1. Mr F1 says:

        The fuel flow monitored via the fuel rail on the red bull did NOT exceed the specified limit. This is fact. So RB have every right to protest. Its worth 18points to the team. That could be a big differences this season.
        If your interest becomes casual, I will truly miss your informative aproach to the sport. .

      2. OppositeLock says:

        Says who? Red Bull. Who calibrated the fuel rail and can show to what degree of accuracy it reports an accurate flow? Prove it. Oh, the equipment has been replaced and the system torn down and reassembled? Gee, what a shame.

        NO fuel flow measurement is 100% accurate. There will always be a fluctuation and a margin of error in the readings. The FIA is saying they only have RBs word that their readings fall within the required ranges of accuracy and that the alternative reading they were reporting were correct. The FIA had not calibrated the fuel rail, they have no baseline and no data to prove the readings were correct. That is why they use standardized parts. RB is obviously doing something different with their fuel system to cause so many of these sensors to fail.
        No different than the standard CPUs supplied to all teams to ensure compliance with the regs. If this appeal is upheld, all bets are off as far as regulated parts and software are concerned. Every team can claim their system is better that the mandated ones.

      3. Doug says:

        I understand what you are saying but surely if everybody else is following the FIA calibrated sensors limit (even though their own fuel rail readings say it’s only 98% of the allowed figure) what gives Red Bull the right to choose their own (non FIA calibrated sensors)?

        If the penalty is over turned I foresee carnage for the rest of the season.
        Can you imagine if teams start using their own scales, wing flex testing machines etc.?

        Everyone has to play to the same rules…that after all, is what makes it a sport.

      4. Doug says:

        Sorry..I meant non FIA calibrated readings…not sensors.

      5. Bobdredds says:

        First of all we need to wait before declaring whether or not it is a fact. According to responses from other sources I have read the results differ depending on the system and the way it is installed. This is why a single system with a backup controlled by a regulatury body is the way to ensure fairness. Also there are issues on how RB fitted and used the sensor in the first place. Anyway the issue for the tribunal is not about the fuel flow sensor but the way that RB chose to ignore the FIA and make up their own rules. Whether we like it or not the stewards are the rule reference during a race and when you ignore them you are basically running your own game. Even if the fuel sensor is removed for future races the actions of Red Bull are not acceptable and should not be tolerated. You cannot have participants rewriting the rules during an event. That is a fact.

      6. devilsadvocate says:

        Thats preposterous… put yourself in their shoes. They already are starting the season on their back foot due to problems with the Renault PU. Adding on to their problems is this mickey mouse fuel flow rate sensor that they cant get to work properly. So sometime in the middle of the race they notice that yet again the sensor is giving bad data. The solution you ask? “Oh hey guys please just turn the power down to make sure you arent exceeding 100kg/hr… cheers!” Bull… you keep running the race you have been running because unlike all this garbage the FIA is heaping on the teams, their engineers still know how to write solid programs and are confident of their own fuel flow calcs. I challenge anyone to actually say they would follow a procedure that would guarantee you would drift down the ranks and out of the points when you know that you are within the regs. Anyone who would willingly turn down the power to some arbitrary set point is either A) lying B) has no business in racing.

      7. Bobdredds says:

        Your blustering is noted but it doesn’t change the facts of the case. With new technologies there will always be teething problems and the other teams have accepted and worked with and support the FIA in this instance. The sensors and their use has been demonised by Red Bull to create the impression that they are a piece of crap but that is not the case. If Red Bull want to run races to their own rules then they should set up their own series but until then they should respect the current situation. AS a long time fan of F1 I take exception at your claims of “garbage being heaped on teams by the FIA” even if I understand it’s just nonsense to add weight to a weak argument to condone breaking the rules by RB. While the FIA may not get it right always neither do the teams. RB have made a right mess of the start of the season partly because they ignored Renault when it came to packaging the powerplant in the first place. Now they are trying to buy time and justify the unjustifiable. I hope the tribunal throws the book at them.

      8. Kevin Shiel says:

        Did RB get a different sensor from rest of the grid? No

        Did the same inaccuricy happen to other teams? Yes

        Did other teams follow the directives during the race? Yes

        Did RB follow the directives during the race? No

        Why didnt RB follow? Bcoz they can prove that they did not exceed the limit

        Why didnt other teams choose not to follow the directives? Bcoz directives are the rules to follow in any given sport.

        In a soccer game, if a player can prove that he did not make that fault he was punished for by reviewing a slow motion replay, is he able to revert the decision the referee made? No. Why not? Bcoz referee makes the decision on court for the length of the game. Everyone just has to follow.

      9. Yak says:

        What rules did they make up? The regulations only say the car has to have an FIA approved sensor installed in the appropriate place and that it’s trasmitting data, and that the 100kg/h maximum flow rate isn’t exceeded. Red Bull are claiming they haven’t broken any of those rules.

      10. Bobdredds says:

        Red Bull are claiming a lot of things but to ignore the stewards during a race is effectively racing to your own rules. Now you can be petty about how I presented this but I will make it simple for you. IMHO RB cheated when they ignored the stewards and this appeal has brought the sport into disrepute. Their campaign attacking the FIA and the sensors is disgarceful and is clearly biased. I hope they get their just desserts. Just to be clear, by that I mean a heavy fine, sanctions or both.

      11. Box Box Box says:

        They were punished Bobdredds, and if there appeal is unfounded the punishment will be upheld (and I hope it will be) but you can’t go having RBR shot out of a cannon into the sun just because you don’t like them

      12. Timmay says:

        Oh Honey, I disagree with you baby. Red Bull are contesting a stupid rule on behalf of All True F1 Fans, go Red Bull. If they lose the case then it just proves that Mercedes own the FIA after the Pirelli shenanigans last year and now this one

      13. Doug says:

        Red Bull protesting was one of the chief reasons that Pirelli changed their tyres last season…and they benefitted massively from that change!

        I don’t understand your assertion that the limit on fuel flow is a stupid rule. It’s there for a good reason (all true F1 fans can understand). I’m no Mercedes fan but I won’t allow the fact that they’re beating my team allow bias to blind me.

      14. Gudien says:

        Yes, Mercedes ‘own’ the FIA. Remember last year and the un-authorized, in season testing where the Merc drivers Hamilton and Rosberg were wearing black coloured helmets?

        Disgraceful.

      15. Bobdredds says:

        So those who dissagree with you are not true F1 fans. What a pathetic and Red Bull type of comment to make. No respect or acknowlegement for another point of view. Your comment about Mercedes owning the FIA proves you are neither a true F1 fan or even an informed follower of the sport. The fuel sensors are there for several reasons and just because you cannot accept or understand those reasons doesn’t make them stupid.

      16. aezy_doc says:

        Yes, Merc own the FIA, when last year the tyre construction was altered to their detriment.

      17. Mike84 says:

        Think what’s happened is since they’ve been winning like Ferrari used to, they’ve now confused themselves with Ferrari. **BUZZ** you’re wrong RB. You are a drinks company, Ferrari is a racing legend. F1 needs the Ferrari name, but does not need Red Bull. If you pull out, someone else will buy your two teams and that will be more interesting.

        In fact, if you want, there’s this guy from NASCAR who might be interested, and maybe Ferrari would like to take over Toro Rosso.

        Hopefully they’re in for a real reality check.

      18. kenneth chapman says:

        just read your post mike84. had a great laugh. red bull are just s drinks company…so what? williams are a company who is being kept afloat by a ‘ hey, what’s this?’ a drinks company and an an alcoholic one to boot.

        now just wait a minute longer, whats this whisky company sponsoring Force india. oh that’s all right just another drinks company but anyway let’s just concentrate on ‘burn’ and ‘monster’ as they are just drinks companies.

        talk about ROFL.

      19. Bobdredds says:

        Exactly, RB would be forgotten witin a short space of time if they left the sport. They do not have the kudos of other teams in F1 and if they keep going the way they are, they never will. F1 doesn’t need Red Bull and if they cant play by the rules then they should go elsewhere.
        F1 is a difficult sport to monitor and control and there will always be differences of opinion regarding different aspects and innovations. Changing the technologies and rules ensures the challenge is maintained and those who fail at any given time will whine and complain. We should be celebrating the excellent job done by Mercedes but instead we are listening to whining from Red Bull who didn’t. I really hate bad losers.

      20. Box Box Box says:

        They are not just a drinks company if you have been watching f1 recently they are also an f1 team. They have been successful and I know that can breed jealousy but in f1 teams dominate for a while and then someone else comes along. Merc are looking top now and maybe in a few years Ferrari will again. Redbull have made a good contribution to the sport supplying 2 teams about 20 graduate non pay drivers through the junior program and what I love them for most …….. Bucking the trend and bringing back a classic European gp from a country with f1 heritage that has provided many drivers and a few WDCs too. Don’t worry they are struggling now and maybe they can rise again this year or they might take a few years to rebuild.

    3. J Hancock says:

      We’ll see.
      .
      If the court goes with the FIA, then Red Bull were making it up as they went along to try and compensate for a lack of power on tap. They have a history of sailing close to the wind and this time they got caught out.
      .
      If it goes to Red Bull, then the fuel flow sensor really is inadequate and FIA Stewards have no actual say over technical matters with teams during the race anymore.
      .
      Either way we’ll see.

    4. Alec Tronnick says:

      That’s not Red Bulls fault ( or even their intention) … They just want as many points as they can get.
      If the fall out is as you say, it’s the FIA ‘s fault for having such ambiguous rules & directives.

  6. Mike84 says:

    They keep trying to change the subject, it’s not about what the fuel flow was, it’s about the method for measuring the flow, and they clearly breached the FIA’s orders, which is like ignoring the ref’s call in football because you think his interpretation of the rules is just his opinion. Yes it’s his opinion, and the court is probably going to come to the same opinion as the official.

    1. NickH says:

      I agree I can’t see how they can possibly overturn it.

    2. Quercus says:

      Spot on.

    3. Bobdredds says:

      Exactly and hopefully the court of appeal will take a dim view of the way they are trying to put pressure on via the media. It is appalling and disgraceful behavour. At least the majority of fans can see them for what they are.

    4. Rich C says:

      Exactly.

    5. luqa says:

      F1 is not football where 22 players kick around a piece of leather containing air, and where none of the equipment has really changed since 1888. The technical issues in F1 are far more complex. You are dealing with instrumentation at the leading edge of technology that is unable to perform consistently to the standards required by the FIA. Applying moving inconsistent fudge factors is a joke.

      The argument of ‘rules are rules’, is lame and passive. Using that argument, slavery would still be acceptable, and social services of any kind non existent- those were the rules remember! Just because a rule or directive exists does not make it just and fair. The FIA itself (Mercedes/ Pirelli test) had indicated a directive was nothing more than an opinion. You can’t have it both ways! To now backtrack on that stance shows the FIA up to be incompetent and incapable of running a juice stand.

      The FIA and Charlie have talked themselves into a corner with faulty sensors and they are now trying desperately to extract themselves from their own mess by pointing fingers at others. Own up FIA, you made a mistake with your sensors and methodologies. To maintain any credibility, RedBull should prevail.

      1. James Allen says:

        The Mercedes/Pirelli affair wasn’t based on a Technical Directive, but on an email exchange.

        TDs are there because the technical regulations are complex and clarifications and best practice instructions etc need to be issued without rewriting the Regs each time. It’s become a central part of the way the sport is governed on a technical level and all teams have worked to it for a number of years now.

        Teams I have spoken to say that it’s understood that you abide by Technical Directives, but this case threatens to change the system if FIA lose

      2. Adrian says:

        “….this case threatens to change the system if FAI lose.” With respect this statement seems to suggest that the FAI is beyond reproach and can’t be challenged. A successful appeal should not be considered to be threat or an undermining of the FAI but rather that its methods and processes can be refined or improved. RB are merely exercising their right to appeal what they consider to be a wrongful DQ of one of their drivers.

      3. Dai Dactic says:

        If the FIA prevails in this case then F1’s claim to be the ‘pinnacle of motorsport’ will have zero credibility in my eyes.

        Who knows what other second-rate components have been ‘swept under the carpet’ by the teams’ mutual agreement for the ‘benefit’ of the sport? Ironically, a ‘drinks company’ appears to be more concerned with scientific accuracy than the ‘legitimate’ contestants.

        I guess the FIA’s stance is perfectly acceptable for all those who state that ‘F1 would be nothing without Ferrari’ – no matter how badly they are performing.

      4. GP Back To Adelaide says:

        According to Horner:

        “It is even stated on the bottom of the directives now, that these do not have regulatory value.”

        If this is true then Red Bull have a case and the FIA has dug itself into this hole all by itself. Regardless, it appears to me that the current “system” requires a bit of a shake-up, or clarification at the very least.

        If Red Bull can demonstrate that the 100kg/hr limit was never exceeded (which they could possibly do using several means) then I can’t see how they can lose the appeal, save for some underhandedness, corruption of the courts etc.

        The only thing that is being argued is TR 5.1.4. The Technical Regulations do not mention “unfair advantages” or “what other teams do or don’t do”. At least not the version that I have read.

      5. Dave Emberton says:

        If Technical Directives are not actually regulations, then how can anyone be punished for not following them? The teams are only obliged to follow the regulations, and having an “understanding” doesn’t mean anything once you get down to detailed technical and legal arguments.

        It all seems a bit incompetent of the rule makers. 60-odd years of F1, and nobody’s quite clear what’s a rule and what isn’t.

      6. KRB says:

        Akin to statute vs. regulatory law in common-law countries. The legislative body allows the executive body to make regulatory law, that has the full force of any law, so that it can react swiftly to unforeseen circumstances and situations. A certain level of nimbleness is necessary in the modern context.

    6. Proesterchen says:

      If Charlie’s a ref, he’s making up “rules” as he goes along, which I would say is a untenable position for any ref to be in.

      1. Mike84 says:

        Really, which rule did he “make up”?

    7. Doug says:

      +1 Exactly!

    8. kenneth chapman says:

      obviously you don’t follow cricket or tennis. they all have other decision making options. live eye for tennis and the ‘third umpire in cricket and that’s just for starters.

  7. Thompson says:

    Give DR back his points but not RB – the team clearly went against the spirit of the sport. If they are not reprimanded it opens the door for other’s to do similar.

    1. Lindsay says:

      Since when did the spirit of the rules count for anything in this sport?

    2. PeterG says:

      If the car was been run illegally then why should Ricciardo be allowed to have his points back?

      According to Red Bull themselfs had they followed the FIA’s instructions Ricciardo would have finished 5th rather than 2nd, Why shoudl he be allowed to benefit from Red Bull ignoring the FIA & potentially running outside of the regulations.

      Also the driver is a part of the team, The team are penalized by driver errors (Teams even pay pit speeding fines) so its correct that drivers are penalized as part of the team in cases like this.

    3. MrNed says:

      I feel sorry for Ricciardo too, but can’t agree with this notion of giving him the driver’s points but not giving the team the constructor’s points. After all, the drivers – Ricciardo included – ARE part of the team. If the driver crashes out of a sure-fire win the FIA won’t say “OK, the team can have the constructors points, but the driver can’t have the drivers points”. Or if a mechanic messes-up a pitstop, putting the driver out of the points, the FIA don’t say “OK, give him the drivers points but no the constructors”. Why should this instance be any different? If one member of a team messes-up then the whole team messes up.

    4. Roberto says:

      Forgive me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t DR drive for TEAM Red Bull? Based on your logic, the WDC could be a guy with maximum drivers points because he won every race while his team cheated eight ways from Sunday all year long and his car was disqualified after each race, just as long as the cheating was done by someone other than the driver. Oh PLEASE! F-1 is a TEAM sport.

      1. Thompson says:

        Yes, it is a team but DR was ignorant he basically drove/risked his life for that position. Who is to say he would not of come home in the same position. That I think is RB’s excuse the margins Im sure were marginal

        The team on the pitwall on the other hand had been warned and chose not to comply. It’s unsporting and could open up a minefield.

        If radio evidence prove DR was aware then fair enough but If he was kept in the dark then let him keep his point’s

      2. PeterG says:

        “Who is to say he would not of come home in the same position.”

        Red Bull, They admit Daniel gained a significant performance advantage of over half a second a lap.

        Newey said at Malaysia that he woudl have finished 5th had they followed the FIA’s instructions.

    5. Lew says:

      Ah! The wisdom of Solomon.

    6. Dr T says:

      Excellent call

  8. Bryce says:

    Torn. I would be happy for RIC to get the points and trophy back, but do not want the lunatics having even more control over the asylum.

  9. goferet says:

    I would have thought teams would know by now that of all laws of court, the FIA is the only one were appeals are never successful.

    I think it would be better if teams invested the solicitor dosh on other things instead of wasting it on court cases for I suspect the FIA do not like to contradict themselves and hence no change in verdict.

    1. Gaz Boy says:

      Well said.
      The FIA are judge, jury and the security guards who take you to your cell. Maybe its not democratic – it isn’t actually – but if you sign up to the F1 “show”, then that how it is.
      Or Red Bull could just obey rules!

      1. Proesterchen says:

        Can you show me the rule that would allow for race control to come up with and require on-the-fly changes to the fuel flow sensor’s measurements during a race?

      2. AuraF1 says:

        Have Red Bull followed any technical directives before? Yes? Then they obviously thought they counted before!

      3. aezy_doc says:

        To me that just shows the FIA were trying to be lenient. More fool them – I don’t think RBR can expect any favours in the future.

      4. goferet says:

        @ Gaz Boy

        Yes and I recall how much fun the FIA was under Max Mosley

    2. MrNed says:

      “I think it would be better if teams invested the solicitor dosh on other things instead of wasting it on court cases”

      So they blow £50,000 on lawyers – if they win then it’ll be the cheapest 13 points ever earned in F1! If they lose the spent cash is no more than the cost of a couple of front wings, and they get smashed and thrown-away all the time.

      In F1 terms the financial cost of this to RB will be negligible (although the cost to their brand image is probably less good).

      1. goferet says:

        @ MrNed

        I believe front wings are in the range of £100,000.

      2. Gaz Boy says:

        They are – and it takes around 3 weeks to make just one!
        That’s the real elephant in the corner of the F1 house – the astronomically expensive, time consuming and labour intensive business of actually constructing an F1 car……….but that’s a debate for another time!

      3. C63 says:

        @MrNed
        I believe it is 18 points that are at stake, not 13 :-)

    3. Andrew M says:

      To be fair, things are a lot different now than under Mosely.

  10. matt says:

    Precedent was set back when the court ruled for the allowance of the Mercedes Tyre test showing technical directives are not regulation. FIA shot themselves in the foot long ago.

    1. James Allen says:

      That wasn’t a Tech Directive, it was an email ..

      1. bmg says:

        Isn’t that the same thing?

      2. James Clayton says:

        Only if the email has “Technical Directive” in the subject, I guess…

      3. Yak says:

        Correct, but AFAIK, the teams go racing under the sporting code, sporting regs and technical regs. That’s what they agree to when they sign up. Unless the technical directives issued are acting as amendments to the regulations, is it not the case that they’re not obligated to follow them?

      4. Dave says:

        I’m with you Yak.

        The Technical Regs only state that fuel flow must be less than 100kg/hr…NOT how it is to be measured. Technical Directives are not Regulations…and aren’t mentioned in the Technical Regulations. As already discussed, they are an opinion to help teams follow the Regs.

        IMO, Red Bull have the calculations to show their fuel flow was less than 100kg/hr. Case closed. Points will be reinstated from Melbourne.

        My $0.02.

  11. Dmitry says:

    Never thought I would say something like that, but – I hope FIA wins.

    1. pargo says:

      I don’t. I hope Ricciardo gets his points back. With the Merc team running away with it this year, would be nice to at least maintain some close battles within Redbull and other teams.

      1. James Clayton says:

        That’s a very short-term view!

    2. KRB says:

      I think it’s fairly certain that the FIA will win this one. How long did it take for the verdict after the Mercedes’ case last year? 1 day sounds like a 10 min jury deliberation.

      *update* I forget about the time difference, figuring it wouldn’t be out yet. But I just checked Autosport, and see that the FIA’s decision has been upheld. No suspended race bans though, although full decision will be out later. Obviously RBR will get saddled with the costs for all parties, and perhaps a penalty fine for wasting everyone’s time.

  12. JF says:

    Even if Redbull has a perfect case– I would pretty surprised if they win. FIA has to keep the upper hand even if they (hypothetically) know their sensors are crap. They won’t let themselves lose face and control. Since the FIA is effectively both the judge and the defendent, the prosecution (RBR) has no real chance whether they are right or wrong.

    1. Random 79 says:

      The Court of Appeal is an independent body, at least in theory…

      1. Gaz Boy says:

        In theory, yes.
        In the same way in theory that a presidential system is supposed to be less corrupt than a system with a royal family as the head of state……….doesn’t quite work out that way!
        PS That’s the problem with the FIA – they need to bin the presidential system in favour of parliamentary democracy.

      2. Random 79 says:

        Democracy is an okay way to run a country, but in this case it would present it own problems.

        At least with a presidential system there’s one guy running the show with one vision and one direction, and however right or wrong you think he might be it’s still better than having a bunch of people all pulling in different directions and ultimately tearing the sport apart.

        Actually come to think of it, that is a little like what we have now anyway ;)

    2. luqa says:

      FIA has ALREADY lost face. If anything they are in obfuscation and deflection mode, and much of the public from the comments here, are buying it hook line and sinker.

      They expect, make that INSIST the teams use equipment they know to be faulty and drifting all over the place.

      Instead of trying to refine their incomplete and inaccurate processes by keeping up with the times, the FIA deflect valid criticism and put on a pretence of rationality, when in reality they are proving to be banana republic dictators who live by the principle “my way, or the firing squad”.

  13. kenneth chapman says:

    whilst i have no love for redbull whatsoever i certainly hope they win. so long as they can prove without doubt that they didn’t exceed the mandated fuel flow then they are well within their rights.

    charlie whiting needs to be pulled back into check. yes he can give an opinion, so what? too many faults with too many sensors and individual ‘offsets’ applied mean that at any time the race can be manipulated. not on, IMO.

    1. Bobdredds says:

      They can only prove that they didn’t excede the flow rate based on their own method and thats not acceptable. As far as the issues with the flow meters are concerned, the problems seem to have been created by the way they are fitted and utilised. None of the other teams are making a big deal of what is primarily teething issues with new technologies. Because Red Bull haven’t done a good job they are throwing their toys out of the pram. I also believe the flow meters are a safety implimentation to control agressive fuel flow arrangements that could be very dangerous. Red Bull should be sanctioned for bringing the sport into disrepute.

      1. Adrian says:

        Bobdredds – Why should RB’s data not be acceptable. If it can be tested and shown to be accurate beyond a reasonable doubt it would be perfectly acceptable. That’s just a principle of law. And you’re statement that they should be “sanctioned for bringing the sport into disrepute” is over the top! How, where? There are merely exercising their right under FAI rules to appeal the matter. The real injustice would be if DR was improperly denied having his 2nd place finish reinstated.

      2. Bobdredds says:

        It’s not about RB’s data, it’s about their behavour in the race. I wish you RB fans could understand that. My comment about sanctions is only a reflection of my disapointment and anger over their behavour in the race and subsuquent behavour in the media in recent weeks. They are trying to force their view on everyone and I am not buying it. Claiming the real injustice is denying DR his place in the race is an opinion I cannot support. I take the view that he got that position through Red Bull ignoring the FIA and gaining an advantage from it. Therefore it’s only right he should be excluded as F1 is a team sport and he is part of the team. That is not to say I blame him for the fiasco. That lies clearly with RB’s pitwall. I am merely excercising my opinion based on my own view of F1 which is backed up by my own research into the matter by reading the many views from different sources. The majority agree that RB are wrong and are compounding that wrong by appealing. Many believe that RB should get increased punishment because of this and I support and echo that view.

      3. kenneth chapman says:

        well bobdredds that is your opinion but unlike you i don’t pretend to know the intimate details of the installation. i will leave the finer details to the experts to explain.

        this so called ‘disrepute’ clause is nothing more than a thinly disguised method of trying to censor opinion and open discussion. i also don’t believe that the FIA should have the power to alter the settings on an ‘ad hoc’ basis to an homologated component.

      4. Bobdredds says:

        Unlike me you dont seem to bother reading the views of various sources around the net. I never write anything without at least doing some research. My view regarding the case for disrepute was reiterated by Mercede’s barrister at the hearing today and has been repeated many times by different sources prior to this in the lead up to the case. You are entitled to believe what you like and dismiss my comments to your hearts content just as I will dismiss your comments as Red Bulls$%t. :) The reality is that there are 2 clear differences of opinion here and that will be settled by the tribunal. My opinion is never given without researching the issue as much as possible, especially from experts. The points I make are there for anyone who is interested in the truth and the facts. However if you only read the Red Bull press releases I can understand how you come to your conclusion.

      5. kenneth chapman says:

        @ bobdredds…you do me an injustice there. i also read extensively to arm myself with the best possible data upon which to form an opinion.

        i do try to stick to the facts but obviously you do not read and digest my posts. i have stated many times that i do not support red bull as a team, in fact, i despise them for their blatant intra team politics which is on the public record. that said, i do understand where they are coming from in this issue and i support the action that they are taking.

        i think that if you were to canvas the collective opinions of all on the net you would find that it would average out around 50/50.

        IMO you should try and exercise some rational and lateral thinking and not become just one of the herd when allowing your anti red bull bias to colour your judgement.

        either way the ICA will bring down a decision and no matter what that is it will not be enough for those who cannot rise above the collective trough.

        if the ICA find against red bull, which is a distinct possibility, i will be disatisfied as i fear that the ‘issues’ deep down will not have been successfully addressed. that said, i will have to grin and bear it. my problem. i just hope that DR is absolved and that he gets his points back, the FIA have already stated that he was not in any way at fault.

        a decision is at hand. i will refrain from any further comment pending that decision.

      6. Box Box Box says:

        Various sources, can’t argue with that

      7. Adrian says:

        Well Bobdredds you pride yourself on reading the “various views” around the net but your bias is showing because everything you regurgitate from your “research” is anti Red Bull. Open your other eye buddy and you might just see that they at least have an argument to make.

    2. Chris says:

      All teams were asked to apply an offset I believe and all but redbull did, if they win this then the other teams were all disadvantaged to Redbulls gain and they don’t even install the flow devices as intended in the first place!, unlike other teams. This may well be the cause of the issues in the first place and smacks of nothing more than poor losers and bad sportmanship.

      1. Elie says:

        Spot on Chris.. Exactly what the Merc QC just finished saying in court!

      2. kenneth chapman says:

        hahaha, well he would say that wouldn’t he. mercedes will dredge the bottom of the barrel in order to maintain their current stranglehold on the series. that’s fair enough. fire with fire. makes for interesting times don’t you think?

      3. Elie says:

        ” Remember the days of the private tyre test.. We used to laugh alot..oh, dont you remember the days of the old secret test.. When we had imaginings, and we had all kinds of things and we laughed and we did lust – yes I do…”

        Song went something like that didnt it… :)

    3. Random 79 says:

      Agreed, but mostly I’d just like to see Ricciardo get the points he earned back because I still believe he did nothing wrong.

      1. aezy_doc says:

        if rbr lose the case, then ricciardo did do something wrong – he drove a car that was illegal according to the regulations.

      2. Random 79 says:

        That was the result of Red Bull’s actions.

        I don’t judge people by the result, I judge people by their intentions: If someone was intending to cheat then fine, throw the book at them, but if someone like Ricciardo is just doing their job and gets caught in the crossfire then I don’t think they should cop it.

        I realise that not everyone agrees with that, it’s just a difference of opinion.

      3. Gaz Boy says:

        Hmm……..could that not send a dangerous precedent though?
        Daniel was operationally excellent at Melbourne, but unfortunately his team were not. So they have to pay the penalty – disqualification for both team and driver.
        If other cars had exceeded the fuel flow limit, then Red Bull would have a case. However, of the 13 classified finishers, only Daniel’s cars was in breach of the rules. No one else, just Red Bull.
        As I much as I like the wooly haired lad from Perth, I believe a team and driver win together and loose together. On this occasion, they have to loose their points together I’m afraid.
        What cannot speak cannot lie is an old British cliche. Another is one, if you don’t want to do the time, don’t do the crime. Red Bull should know those cliches and learn from them.

      4. Random 79 says:

        I can’t agree with your conclusion concerning Red Bull and your assumption that they did cheat (though I could be wrong, we’ll find out soon enough), but there’s nothing wrong with the basic thrust of your argument :)

    4. NJ says:

      A Technical Directive is higher than the Sporting Regulations for that weekend.

      If Red Bull win.. ALL the other teams will lodge a case for “Disadvantaged Competition” at Melbourne.

      1. kenneth chapman says:

        @NJ and chris….. why would you state that all other teams were ‘disadvantaged’? if all other teams accepted the FIA’s directive [read opinion] and reduced their fuel flow then surely that is their individual problem is it not? those other teams always had the option to do what red bull did so how can they be disadvantaged, providing at all times that red bull can prove beyond doubt that they did not exceed the 100KG/hr limit.

        @ NJ.. could you please also point me to the evidence to support your claim that the TD superceded the sporting regulations? whiting has already expressed in writing that the TD’s are simply an opinion and if that is the case then i doubt very much if they would stand the test of a serious legal challenge. this is just my opinion and obviously i may well be totally wrong and if so i will raise my hand and say so.

        i don’t believe that any of the other teams would have a case given that they always had the opportunity to take a similar action. i do look forward to hearing the result.

      2. Chris says:

        They were disadvantaged because they followed the guidance given whereas Red Bull did not, come on now Kenneth I am pretty sure you understand this.

        Let me break it down a little for you…

        All 12 teams were asked to adjust the fuel flow, 11 did and 1 didn’t.

        Indeed, we now have more information via the opening statement today from Red Bull’s own lawyer. It now seems that Red Bull DID apply the adjustment factor. Their own lawyer states that they (Red Bull) initially applied the adjustment as per the FIA request and then due to a drop off Ricciardo’s pace opted to resort to their own devices. Now Red Bull clearly admit there was a performance gain to be had by using their own methods (fuel rail) which quite clearly means they gained an advantage that the other teams didn’t by playing by the rules. If they can admit in court that the gained an advantage by using their own measures maybe you can now too.

        Go have a read here:
        http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113447

      3. Satish says:

        This.

        Can’t understand why the teamS which turned the wick down FOLLOWING the technical directive should suffer.

        As for the popular compromise solution of reinstating RIC’s points but docking RB’s, how can that be when RIC came 2nd only because of the highER fuel flow (compared to other teams), even if it never exceeded 100?

      4. kenneth chapman says:

        interesting comments there however there is no clarity at all. the fuel rail was sealed and tested the following day with the FIA there as witness and it has been stated that the results were not in excess of the mandated value of 100kg/hr.

        rather than take a singular POV from one site i would prefer to wait for the ITA to hand down their verdict.

  14. Rich C says:

    “…new evidence has come to light and new understandings have come to light…”

    Horner still trying to change the subject.
    You can “understand” things but when you ignore the proper procedures for a remedy and just do “your own thing” you clearly should be DQ.

    RB are in essence saying “our fuel system delivers up to exactly the limit so we don’ need no steeking sensors.”

    That’s just total rubbish.

    1. kenneth chapman says:

      sorry Rich C… i don’t quite get your point. if red bull can prove that they didn’t exceed the mandated fuel flow why is there any need for a remedy? what is there to remedy apart from conforming to the sporting regulation, which is not to exceed the mandated fuel flow.

      i am sure that red bull would have started the race knowing what was a possible eventuality should they decide to take the pathway that they did. now if they are wrong they will lose their appeal and the circus will roll on.

      by my own observation and a mere laymans appreciation of the complexity of the matter given i was faced with the same set of circumstances i would also do what they did.

      where there is ambiguity then not to challenge the status quo is the greater mistake.

      1. jake says:

        There is a reason the FIA do not rely on the fuel flow calculations from the teams. The fuel systems on each car are not the same, there is no uniformity in the measurement. The team have considerable control over how the fuel flow rate is calculated, leaving this system open to abuse. It would be extremely difficult/impossible for the scrutineers to verify the readings. That is why there is an independent measurement device, the same device for all teams.

      2. kenneth chapman says:

        @ jake… have you taken into account that there is ‘no uniformity in the FIA homologated sensors either hence the need for individual ‘offsets’. by applying individual ‘offsets’ this also leaves the FIA system open to abuse!!!

        something about about ‘goose and ganders’?

      3. NickH says:

        RB were asked to apply an offset to the fuel flow, as were all of the other teams. All of the the either teams carried out this instruction, undoubtedly losing them performance even though they also may have thought they were within the fuel flow rate. RB chose to ignore this instruction so they gained an advantage.

      4. NickH says:

        *other

      5. kenneth chapman says:

        @nick h….you state that all the other teams, ‘undoubtedly lost performance etc etc etc’. that implies a high degree of certainty on your behalf. if all other teams in compliance with the FIA lost performance then by extrapolation you think that this is acceptable in an ultra competetive racing environment? sorry, but that doesn’t make sense.

      6. NickH says:

        I don’t think that’s the point Kenneth, sound a bit like Red Bull. We’ll find out soon enough anyway

  15. Lindsay says:

    The only thing I can say for certain, based on observing this saga, is that there’s a lot of ignorance and misinformation being spread on the internet forums by supporters of both sides. If nothing else, at least the case going to the court of appeal should shed some light on what really happened.

  16. Bullish says:

    James,

    What is the success rate for appeals at the FIA’s Court of Appeals?

    Thanks

    1. James Allen says:

      In F1, not great, in other areas of motorsport (as it’s not just for F1) I’m not sure

      1. NJ says:

        In the Ultimate Fighting Championship, the appeal success rate is zero.

  17. luqa says:

    Is the FIA trying to be a serious, fair and democratic authority, or just another tin-pot third world dictator?

    I can already see the verdict: “Yes you didn’t use more than 100 ltr/hour at any time during the race, but we have to exert our authority and remind you who’s boss. Guilty as charged! Next.”

    Yup, I knew it, third world tin-pot Dictator.

    1. Satish says:

      Red Bull didn’t exceed 100, but some of the other teams didn’t exceed 95 lph to follow the TD.

      1. kenneth chapman says:

        more fool they.

    2. GP Back To Adelaide says:

      Yes, I have a feeling this is what will happen.

      I fear that the ghost of JMB is alive and well in F1…

    3. NickH says:

      Red Bull and all the teams were asked to apply an off set to the fuel flow meter. All the teams apart from Red Bull wisely chose to follow this command. The teams that chose to do this will all have been at a performance disadvantage to Red Bull/Ric. Riccardio shouldn’t keep his points either as no one can prove if he would have finished 2nd if Red Bull hadn’t applied their favourite philosophy of ‘we know best’

      1. Mako says:

        Wasn’t it only those teams where FIA telemtry reported a discrepancy and an offset was then required?

      2. Elie says:

        Well said..

    4. peruvian says:

      But it is not just the 100 lph, it is also where it is measured… lets say, FIA says to measure the flow after the fuel tank before the injectors… and Red Bull, measures it from the fuel tank to another fuel tank…. and then use as much flow as they want before the injectors.

      I am not an expert on this, but it has happened already in USA during the Indy car championship, every body had a pop-off valve, when too much turbo pressure was achieved it would pop… but Honda engines cheated this ruling, by moving the pop-off valve to a different place an a clever use of pipes with different diameters to lower the turbo pressure at the pop-off valve, allowing them to use more turbo boost all the time.
      So RB can proof they did not go past the 100/lph but needs to be the FIA way to everybody, can’t be exceptions.

  18. Jake says:

    I love controversy in F1, so I really hope Red Bull have a win. The whole show is becoming a bit of a joke so I don’t really care who wins the Championships any more.

    1. Chris says:

      I personally love wheel to wheel racing and I watch F1 and other motor sport for that reason. Last time out in Bahrain was a stellar race, exciting and the best racing I have seen for many years in F1 anyway. It reminded me more of some of the kart races I often and I didn’t see any joke elements other than the fact the maldonado is still given a drive and the comments from LDM. Each to their own I guess Jake.

      1. Jake says:

        Well, we all love racing, that is why we are commenting on an F1 blog. And the Bahrain race was indeed great.
        But the offtrack nonsense is quite comical you must admit.

      2. Chris says:

        I was just implying I prefer racing to controversy was all Jake.

        Almost every year there is something like this, it is not new for F1 to end up in the courts but it is all rather sad I agree. As far as I am concerned, Red Bull had the chance to avoid this by doing what was asked, like the other teams did and apply the adjustment offset; they didn’t so here we are.

        I agree it will be comical if they get away with this and get their points back.

        Roll on China.

  19. Matthew Cheshire says:

    The real problem is that if the FIA directives become part of the menu for teams to attack and gain advantage, we’ll end every race with a court case, Americas Cup style.

    No one with any control in F1 will allow that. Red Bull will be slapped on the wrist and told to play nicely in future.

  20. Brendan says:

    James, which way do you think it will go? Willing to make a call or too hard to tell?

    1. James Allen says:

      It will come down to legalese and wording of regulations

      On that basis very hard to say

  21. Proesterchen says:

    I really hope this puts an end to the current use of technical directives as blanket CYAs.

    If they are ruled enforceable, the FIA should be taking responsibility and also acknowledge them to be dependable, official interpretations of the rules, and none of this funny ‘just some dude’s opinion’ business they’ve been trying to hide behind.

    1. GP Back To Adelaide says:

      +1

      Could not agree more. Plus, if they are enforceable then the general public should be privy to the documents in whole.

  22. Ill Admitt It - without a Name! says:

    Please give Daniels points back. Im not going to rattle on about a series of events, emails, regulations or anything. Im just going to say this…

    Im Australian. And for the last 10 years I have watched my hereo come close….. be it only once… in 2010. I then watched him, quietly loose all his pace and then exit.

    Melbourne 2014 rolled on and i caught myself (every session) saying “pfffttt… his KERS will break”, “They will change his front wing”, “they will ask him to pitt the car”…”There will be a clutch issue on the start” something will happen. But… they didnt. And ill admitt something. I was sitting on the couch with my two daughters, 4 and 1, at the end of the race – over the moon. For the first time in however many years, an Aussie on the Australian podium.

    My wife walked in and said… “is that a tear in your eye Darling”? And you know what…. it was. It was hope for Aussies, it was some form of belief (reinstated), it was something saying “My name is Daniel, I can race and im here to show you. It gave me as a supporter a glimmer of hope…

    1. paul.r says:

      +1 it was just fantastic, and then this face slap to all true Australian fans.
      dan is showing his worth already, and the season has only just started,
      hopefully red bull will figure out how to best use these new systems like merc have and then they will be eating dan’s dust

    2. JohnBt says:

      I’m not an Aussie but I truly understand your feelings. Webber will be winning many races for the WEC and I hope he wins the championship too as I’m a Webber supporter.

    3. aezy_doc says:

      And that hope has been cruelly dashed upon the rocks of an illegal car. Sorry mate, no room for sentiment here, this is f1, not my little pony!

      1. kenneth chapman says:

        ‘que?’

      2. aezy_doc says:

        I went a bit OTT on the metaphor front. Basically saying that the FIA weren’t gonna give the result back to Ricciardo because people were upset he’d been disqualified.

    4. TBP says:

      Same feelings when I watched the race. That’s why I was so gutted to find out he was disqualified later on. Hope he gets the points back too.

    5. Chris says:

      While I hope Red Bull lose this one (sorry) I 100% understand where you are at matey. I was big Webber fan from way back in his Jag days and Dan has already won me over with his mega skills, that massive smile and the way he is making Vettel look average now those magic maps and blown diffusers are gone..

      I have a feeling we will be seeing Dan on those three steps plenty over the coming years.

  23. Random 79 says:

    It’s a bit late in the day to be sharing opinions as this should be sorted soon enough, but can we have a competition James?

    I reckon we should all say what we think the verdict is going to be and the winner (chosen at random from those who got it right) gets an official dodgy FIA fuel flow meter.

    What do you think? :)

    1. kenneth chapman says:

      hahaha i like it. put me down for a starter.

    2. TO says:

      way too expensive a paper weight…

      1. Random 79 says:

        It’s okay, Red Bull have a bunch they’re not using ;)

  24. deancassady says:

    these rules that the FIA are enforcing, were agreed to by the teams! Red Bull is one of the teams!! Now Red Bull is saying that they did not follow those rules that they agreed to, because now they are not okay!!!
    Adrian Newey/Christian Horner/Red Bull have followed a development system using the requirements to pass the tests which are used to enforce the rules to establish the design parameters; the rules themselves being effectively meaningless in a design project.
    Okay… I get that… you got to have requirements, and the more measureable the better; I’m totally there with the Red Bull approach, when they are doing that.
    But now, they are saying:
    no let’s change those rules, by changing the way we (all) agreed to measure it, (because that way on measuring it, that we agreed to, and everyone else is following, now) is not good enough for us, we want it changed, retro-actively, to accommodate us.

    Let us even go so far as to, just for arguments sake, accept all of Red Bull’s bull on why the rules are wrong in this case; even if you can totally prove it to be so, there was the agreed to approach, and even if all of the teams got together, right away, and agreed to everything Red Bull said, then they would be the rules beginning with the NEXT RACE!

    No way should Red Bull win; the FIA must stand their ground on this one, if they have any hope at all, of following through on this necessary transition the sport must make, ultimately to survive.

    1. kenneth chapman says:

      @ deancassady…… without getting into a convoluted discourse i do have one query with your opinion.

      you state that’the rules themselves being effectively meaningless in a design project’?

      in my experience the rules set the primary guidelines for the design route which is then progressed accordingly.

      it is my understanding [possibly incorrect] that all the teams accepted that a performance defining component would be developed and homologated by the FIA. when tested many many times this component failed the agreed tolerances and agreed to by the FIA [i am presuming this to be the case as outlined in the appeal] so to do nothing was not an option.

      regardless of the team, whether it is red bull or mercedes or whoever, the same logic applies. to diss on red bull is to lose sight of the original problem. that red bull chose to run with it gets my approval. the same as i would support any one else with the intestinal fortitude to take on the FIA.

      1. deancassady says:

        Kenny: this is Red Bull taking on what all of the teams agreed to, including Red Bull!
        I don’t care if the system that they agreed to is junk; they agreed, and the FIA was calling on Red Bull to follow the agreed to approach (crap or not).

        It seems quite a few people commenting have unabashed subjective positions, wanting Daniel to get his points back.

        No.

        I don;t care if the rules or the formula is crap, that is what was agreed to, and they’ll have to make it work until the end of the season, or all of the teams agree to change it, FROM THE NEXT RACE ONWARD.

      2. kenneth chapman says:

        deany…. i think all the teams agreed to the use of an homologated fuel sensor that was ACCURATE. the teams also agreed to abide by the mass flow rates as well.

        if the sensor breaks down and the rate of fuel flow is deemed to be wrong then what other action would any responsible team director take?

        it doesn’t really matter which team seeks redress if in their ‘opinion’ to follow the FIA ‘opinion’ means taking a performance hit does it. just for sake of the debate try to look outside the anti red bull bias and see the issue as one trying to achieve certainty. that is my ‘opinion’ hahaha

    2. Balsac says:

      So if u got pulled up for speeding on the way home from work and the police man said his radar gun was faulty but even if he took a few mph off you would still be over you would cop it sweet huh

      1. jake says:

        On the other hand the same policeman catches you speeding using his own super accurate radar gun, when he gives you the ticket you can tear it up because his gun is not approved. It’s accuracy is completely irrelevant.
        The RB fuel flow calculation was not the approved method for measuring fuel flow regardless of it’s accuracy.

      2. kenneth chapman says:

        just a minor point here. on numerous occasions in the past various people have taken action in the courts to challenge speeding tickets and won their case. if i recall correctly in most of these cases they have been able to prove that the radar guns were not correctly calibrated and gave false readings. subsequently they have had the charges dropped.

      3. Rockie says:

        Best analogy so far!

  25. onekerato says:

    A verdict in favor of Red Bull will probably push Charlie Whiting into retirement. Two bad calls in two years that put FIA & F1 on the back foot in high-profile court cases.

  26. Matt says:

    With all of the coin at play I can understand why RB are challenging this. The FIA admitted the units were faulty themselves. I think RB’s case has gotten stronger for the subsequent rounds.

  27. Ian James says:

    Well, as in all appeals such as this, the court will simply look at the facts and substance of the case as presented by the 2 sides and, after listening to a wide range of experts (who will be subject to cross-examination), will decide what a ‘reasonable person’ would decide.

    I don’t think the appeal court will simply toe the line of the FIA. Looking at the bios of the current 24 members of the court, and the court’s recent judgements, I can’t see any particular bias against appellants. So, I suspect the process will be about as fair as it can be. And remember, ‘the whole world’s watching’!

    But, no matter which way this appeal goes, I do hope the FIA now dumps these dopey fuel flow meters once and for all and simply leaves it to the teams to decide how hard to run their engines on any particular lap. After all, they all start with just 130 litres of fuel these days, with no re-fuelling, so they are all under a heap of pressure to use the stuff wisely if they want to get to the chequered flag. Obviously, running out is not an option!

    To me, it’s just like tyres. The FIA allows a car to have so many tyres available per weekend but, aside from mandating the types of tyres to use in the race, they then leave it to the teams to decide how many laps to run a particular tyre. If the tyres are left on for too long they will lose performance and will ultimately blow….as they sometimes do.

    Similarly, fuel should be limited to the current 130 litres but then let the teams decide how to use it. I think fuel flow meters are a classic case of over regulation.

    Cheers,
    Ian

    1. James Clayton says:

      “But, no matter which way this appeal goes, I do hope the FIA now dumps these dopey fuel flow meters once and for all and simply leaves it to the teams to decide how hard to run their engines on any particular lap”

      I agree. Would be interesting I recon to see drivers taking a gigantic gulp out of the tank to try and beat a tyre-based undercut from a challenger, then have to manage the rest of the stint defensively due to fuel concerns. Shouldn’t be a problem if the lead car is clearly quicker, but if there’s not much in it could be pretty good to watch.

      1. kenneth chapman says:

        a sensible approach and i fully concur. i think that we saw a glimpse of this in bahrein where the teams realised that they had enough fuel to see some spirited laps to the flag.

        the problem with your proposal has been voiced many times by those who are against any possible errant behaviour resulting in vastly variable speeds at various times on track. i don’t subscribe to this at all. these drivers are the best in the world and it would be up to them to successfully navigate their way during their during a race.

        we see this now between the mercedes and the marrussia/caterhams. motor racing is a dangerous form of employment. that is what racing is all about, best practice and risk management.

    2. kenneth chapman says:

      i wholly agree with your post. at this level [pinnacle] ‘opinions’ of an individual are without merit.

    3. lethalnz says:

      they have to have a limit on fuel flow, otherwise the cars will end up going even faster down the straight,
      be very careful what you wish for,
      as you have no idea what this will end up like,
      Merc will blow the rest out the door if you open this fuel flow thing up.

  28. kfzmeister says:

    A directive is an instruction/ order, not an opinion and is therefore binding indeed.

    They will lose their case based upon this.

    1. Proesterchen says:

      Unless you’re talking about FIA, which very much desires not to be held to these directives, and has hence added that they merely represent the opinion of the person sending them out.

    2. kenneth chapman says:

      have you read charlie whitings own explanation? i think not.

    3. GP Back To Adelaide says:

      Not according to Horner:

      “It is even stated on the bottom of the directives now, that these do not have regulatory value.”

      1. Bobdredds says:

        So what! Horner is not the reference for F1. He only says and does things to favour Red Bull and no one else.

  29. Mako says:

    If the sensor drift was limiting RBR fuel they would understandably be miffed and rely on their own measurements which they are prepared to justify in court. If the drift allowed extra fuel which would be exposed by their own ECU data surely they could have complied?. I think RBR needed to test this for all of the teams.
    If another team found that their FIA flow was withing FIA monitored limits but their ECU reported extra flow, they would keep it very quiet.
    If the discrepacy can be in one direction it’s plausible that it can be in the other direction too.

    1. Rich C says:

      But RB did not say their flow sensors were better (they don’t apparently have any), they claim their “model” is.
      So how are they monitoring the flow? “By guess and by gosh!”

      1. Mako says:

        Not by gosh, but by the length of time the injectors are open along with other parameters such as orifice flow rates and fuel pressure. Almost every car sold today has this technology and it displays in real time on the dash. In F1 it would be finely calibrated and far more sophisticated.

  30. Micke says:

    When is the verdict expected?

    1. James Allen says:

      Usually late afternoon

  31. Torchwood Five says:

    I have no idea why Christian Horner keeps bring “Charlie Whiting’s” name into this affair.

    From the incident reports and FIA list of events, I see mentions of Technical Delegate, Technical Delegate’s representative, and Stewards, and where these worthies are named, none of them is Charlie Whiting.

    1. kenneth chapman says:

      why was whiting called to give evidence at the ‘secret pirelli tyre test’ hearings where he was responsible for giving the all clear to ross brawn et al if he wasn’t the FIA’s go to guy?

      1. Torchwood Five says:

        As you say, Charlie Whiting gave the all clear for a tyre test, so he WAS involved in THAT case, and therefore there was a causal reason why he was called to give evidence.

        In THIS Red Bull fuel flow case, I have seen no sign of him being involved, hence my query as to why Horner kept referring to him during interviews.
        Could have been mis-direction.

    2. Rich C says:

      Because its all political.
      It has nothing to do with actual “racing”, its part of the “show!”

  32. j says:

    It’s not mentioned in the article, or in many of these comments but the fuel flow sensors in the Red Bull were modified by Red Bull. This explains why they more than any other team had so many problems.

  33. Richard says:

    I think Red Bull will lose the case for not complying with the FIA method of measurement. It may well be the case that Red Bull did not exceed the fuel flow rate, but the FIA will say that no team has discretion to change the method of measurement unless advised to do so by them. Mercedes were told the same thing and turned their engine down, but of course they could in that race afford to do so with out ill effect, Red Bull on the other hand would have lost a position to McLaren. Personally I think the sensors need improvement, but I doubt the FIA will lose the case.

  34. marc says:

    Names ate any of the other teams going to be there to offer mitigating evidence?

    1. Bobdredds says:

      There are several team representatives attending and the Mercedes barrister has asked for an increased penalty to be given to RB to prevent them doing something simular in the future. All of the teams seem to support the FIA in this, apart from the obivious 2 of course.

  35. Andrew H says:

    Anyone know what time (Paris time) the court case begins?

    I want to hear the results as early as possible.

    I’m really hoping Ricciardo gets his points back.

  36. Matt W says:

    The case should hinge on solely whether the fuel flow limit was actually exceeded. FIA instructions mid-race are not enforceable as we have seen many times in the past.

    1. Bobdredds says:

      Incorrect, the case should soley hinge on the fact that Red Bull ignored the FIA representative in order to gain .4 secs a lap. It’s called cheating.

  37. oddball says:

    Mmm..my two pennies worth, if a piece of equipment has fia stamped on it then its legal,if you choose to use another piece,even though its better and has greater accuracy but has not been stamped then you are in the wrong. Its how our sport works and always has. Red bull got their fingers stuck in the jar ..again, own up to it boys and girls, you tried to get an advantage but this time it didnt work.it happens when you try to eek out every scrap of performance from your car,every team has done this so dont despair. Rules are rules, the fia knew there was a problem,it gave you instructions to solve this,you need to comply.every team has the same fuel sensor,every team knows they have a margin of error,the fia are aware of this and have calibrated a solution for each one.if the team chose to use their own unstamped method of measurement there would be cries of foul.. Think of weights and measures here in the uk,if the goverment says something is 1kg,it is, even if your scales say its 1.03 kg,your scales need to be calibrated to this measure. Its not ideal..but its fair

    1. Bobdredds says:

      The only claims that their way is more accurate is coming from Red Bull. The claim has been challenged and refuted in the tribunal. :)
      It was simply a piece of Red Bulls$%! propoganda prior to the tribunal and can be safely ignored.

  38. JohnBt says:

    James, if I’m not wrong in the post race there was mention that Ricciardo fuel sensor did not work during the race in Malaysia and also there were other teams sensor also not working in Melbourne. But the other teams have not complained or voiced out at all, a bit confusing.

  39. AuraF1 says:

    Horner has happily agreed that technical directives are enforceable before – here’s some of his quotes from 2011 and 2012 – sounds as if he thinks the FIA is doing a fair and equitable job to me…

    “I think the regulation is quite a grey area,” Red Bull’s Christian Horner acknowledged to Sky Sports, “and I think a clarification will come out before Montreal that will tidy it up through a technical directive.”

    Horner: I mean Martin’s interpretation is interesting. My understanding is that Mercedes are firing on over-run. There has been a series of technical directives that have happened since Valencia and the latest technical directive is quite clear in that engines that have been run in previous configurations the FIA would take into account on an equitable basis. Mercedes argued that they’re over-running that they currently do was permitted, which was granted….I think the FIA have responded in a right and correct and equitable manner as all the engines aren’t the same. They operate in different ways. They have different control codes. They are the only ones that are privy to all that information.

    If he’s happily accepted FIA technical directives when they allow the Renault engine to alter performance or when the car keeps it’s points (he also kicked off about technical directives during the f-duct saga) it’s a bit rich to say they suddenly don’t apply when it is against him.

    1. Chris says:

      Good Point AuraF1 +1.

  40. Tickety-boo says:

    Nicely and succinctly put James. TD’s prevail throughout regulated industry for those very reasons and you ignore them at your peril. I believe RB have to be mindful of the ‘double whammy’ effect in the unlikely event that they win, in other words it becomes ‘fair game’ for their competitors as well who are already ahead of them. Let’s not forget that there were other runners in the exact same position as RB during the race and that they listened and responded respectful of the instruction – so they are likely to not be impressed if it comes out in RB’s favour, and perhaps they’d then be entitled to appeal or challenge an unfavourable outcome?

  41. Msta says:

    What I don’t understand is how the offsets were determined. There must be some ‘B’ method the FIA stewards used to come up with what were supposed to be reliable offsets. What was the ‘B’ method based on, team data?

  42. Rich C says:

    James, why did none of this controversy come up during subsequent races?

  43. Fireman says:

    Honest question. Why so biased against Red Bull, James?

    1. James Allen says:

      Not biased against anyone.

      Where do you see bias in the post here?

      1. Fireman says:

        It’s worded like Red Bull is the bad guy here. Like Red Bull isn’t just proving that they didn’t break the rules, they’re challenging the authority of FIA to gain any advantage over Mercedes.

        Or are you just worried that what will the sport be if technical directives become what Kimi uses before the race?

      2. James Allen says:

        No, they feel they have a case and that they can prove they didn’t use more fuel than permissible

        The way they have challenged the FIA’s authority here is interesting, though. Don’t forget I talk to everyone: all the teams, the FIA, FOM etc. So I’m not sitting in a study coming up with weird angles!

      3. Fireman says:

        @James

        “Don’t forget I talk to everyone: all the teams, the FIA, FOM etc. So I’m not sitting in a study coming up with weird angles!”

        Fair enough.

        Sometimes it’s not perfectly clear what’s speculation and what isn’t.

        Thanks for the honest answer.

  44. Ashboy says:

    This is like a policeman stopping me for speeding and i say no officer i was doing 60 all the way. Would it stand up in court even if i had filmed my speedo? No because the officers speed gun would be the all they care about, as i could of “alterd” my speedo. How can the court take Red Bulls figures, because they can make them, whatever they want them to be.

    I now Mr Loophole got celebs of speeding by saying the speed gun wasnt calebrated properly etc. But the differnce is that when said celb was stoped he didnt say sorry officer your gun is wrong and carry on at the same speed, sticking a finger up. What Red bull should of done is complied at the race then make a complaint about the quilty of the sensors after the race. They didnt choose this path (in my view) to gain a advantage, thats why i think they will loose.

    But this is F1 so who knows.

  45. Craig in Manila says:

    I think that it’s brilliant that, even when their cars are not competitive, Red Bull can get their name mentioned over and over and over again in the media.

    I sortof feel sorry for Petronas as they’re no-doubt paying a fortune to have their name on the side of those Mercs but, even when the car is dominant, it’s “Red Bull” that is constantly being talked about.

  46. stevo says:

    My understanding of the regs are;

    1. You must have an FIA fuel meter installed. They did.
    2. You must not have more flow than the mandated limit. RBR claim they did not.

    Didn’t see anything else but the above

  47. Elie says:

    I think the court of appeal will agree with red bull on the fuel flow sensor – given that Red Bull will have plenty of technical evidence since then.But Red Bull will fail on the Sporting Regs and the FIA being the only mandated body to specify the methodology in the technical regs-this aspect is in both sporting & technical regs-No where does it say a team can adopt its own methodology when racing… This issue is far more than a “fuel flow sensor”..issue I wish people could understand that.. Lets see…

  48. Jon says:

    RB has been modifying the sensors to fit their cars and seem to be the only ones having problems.
    The FIA stated last month, that beginning with the May race no modifications will be allowed to the sensors.

    1. Chris says:

      This is true, they have been drilling/tapping them and installing differently to as was intended and I believe fuel has been entering the electronic part of the sensor.

  49. Colin says:

    And how did RB calibrate its own rail sensor(s) independently??

  50. Nigel (USA) says:

    RB are struggling technically, so why assume that their sensors/measurements are correct while the FIA specified ones are wrong?

    1. Scott says:

      The FIA asked for an “offset” to be applied to the readings from their sensor: that proves their sensor was inaccurate.

      1. Nigel (USA) says:

        It proves that one of the sensors was inaccurate….

  51. kenneth chapman says:

    well elie the entire issue has come about precisely due to faulty fuel flow meters. without this faulty component there would be nothing to argue about.

    most often bad laws get repealed after community dissent. truth in sentencing is one excellent analogy.

    what we are witnessing here is a disagreement between a competitor and a ruling body. if the rules are wrong then they are there to be tested. quite clearly one party says that the rules are wrong as they believe that in order to conform they would be unduly penalised. the other side says never mind whether we are wrong we are running the show and you will do what you are told.

    i tend to always take the view that if there is any ambiguity then by all means put the issue to test. only then will there be any clarity.

    either way there should be some resolution that will be carried forward for the benefit of all. red bull are apparently the only ones to carry the weight of their own convictions. given the fact that other teams have benefited by the DQ it is unlikely that they will lend any support. c’est la vie.

    1. luqa says:

      Well explained! Agree 100%

    2. Elie says:

      I take no issue what so ever that Any team argue the rules especially if they are ambiguous as often they can be & I welcome a resolution that clarifies it equitably and reasonably for all.

      I cannot. Will not, will never accept a team that makes its own rules during the course of an event when every other team it is racing – Abided and adhered by those rules with the same tolerances. When all parties acknowledge ( I might add signed to in a concorde) that the governing body is the FIA and only they can issue a directive during a race.
      Otherwise whats to stop any team saying ..”well I dont agree with kerbs so I will just cut around them where I can gain an advantage but the others can do it if they like..”

      Any team has every right to question-dispute- challenge-the rule makers – before the season starts, before a race, after a race-BUT NOT DURING A RACE & not before every other respondent to those rules has had an input into any changes- DUE PROCESS- they are all signatories to those rules. I cannot believe people can just disregard this completely- its astonishing actually -and part of the regulations.

      I can run through every regulation again and highlight exactly how i think it applies but I have a feeling we will get just that shortly..

      1. luqa says:

        Elie:
        It was the FIA who wanted to change things DURING the race.

        By the FIA’s own admission their mandated equipment was faulty, not by a contestant amount, but drifting back and forth. The fudge factor FIA wanted applied wasn’t good enough and detrimental to the competitor in the opinion of RB. In fact FIA even claimed the 100ltr/hr flow rate was exceeded during the SAFETY CAR phase, which is absolutely ridiculous. Sorry, to many inconsistencies and attempts to manipulate the results by the ruling body.

        Due process would mean NOT interfering during the race, but resolving the issue afterwards- which is exactly what RB did. I don’t understand your issue

      2. kenneth chapman says:

        just so as i see your point elie with more clarity…you agree that the FIA can, at will, tell a team to adjust there performance parameters during a race when their own FIA homologated fuel sensor shows an aberrant reading?

        is this not an attempt to influence the race outcome? i do agree that this issue is full of unanswered questions and hopefully some clarity will result from the appeal.

        just to shore up your opinion and offer me some enlightenment could you possibly point me to the written statement that the FIA can issue a directive during a race and that directive cannot be challenged.

        i guess that we will soon know what the result of the tribunal is and we can all move on to the next controversy.

      3. Elie says:

        Luqa & Kenneth – there was a defined tolerance for the sensors and they were applicable to each and every team. It is factored in allowing for the manufacturers stipulated variation. Why is it up to Red Bull to define that variation.

        Lets go one step further and ask what is Red Bulls measurement- their fuel rail rail sensor- is it a homolgated measuring device ? Do all the teams know its specification?? Who the hell are Red Bull are they the governing body??.. Who authorised them to change te rules??. If the FIA “fixed” the result ad you ridculously suggest- they did so with known and agreed parameters of racing

  52. Arion says:

    James, how else might cars differ in forthcoming races if RB successfully argue that a technical directive is not a binding regulation?

    Will teams no longer constrained by those directives be able to take advantage of that even as soon as the next race and how?

    Could such changes be enough to alter the teams current race pace and reshuffle the pack?

    Thanks

    1. Grant says:

      Good Point.

      A can of worms will be opened if RBR wins this case.

      1. kenneth chapman says:

        looking forward to the opening of the can. bring it on ASAP

      2. Chris says:

        Why are you so keen on this Kenneth?

        Red Bull have used technical directive to their advantage in the past to assist in their mighty 4 doubles on the bounce and only now when things are not going so well do they question them.

        Anyway, why are you so keen to see the things go pear shaped for F1, if all the teams start picking and choosing which TD’s they follow and which they ignore the “sport” will become even more of a joke then it is already, why would a fan of the “sport” want this?

      3. kenneth chapman says:

        @ chris…. time to lighten up a little. my comment was supposed to be taken as TIC. obviously i missed out there eh?

        i do agree in principle that F1 can be somewhat of a joke at times but despite all of that i am still an avid follower. 60+ years of motorsport for me and i’m not about to give up now.

        what is unique about F1 is the ability of the contestants to be continually testing the ‘waters’ over a very broad spectrum and the intrigue that accompanies that is quite fascinating, to me that is. off track and on track, combined, make for great entertainment.

        as for the RB comment i will await the release of the final report of the ICA before commenting. i am somewhat disappointed but fully expected this outcome. funny that.

    2. Ashboy says:

      That’s the problem for me, a couple of examples Of what will happen if RB win this.

      Massa in Brazil last year, got a drive through penalty for going over the pit lane line. Charlie gave the penalty because in his opinion he did it to often (every one was doing it a bit).
      Perez got a penalty for passing of the track (can remember which race). Another Charlie opinion.

      If RB win this case and the above happens this year you will not take the drive through because the race stewards have no authority. Keep your advantage on track and hope to keep your points on appeal. Because you might be able to prove a millimetre of tyre for one milli sec was ok!

  53. Jon says:

    If there isn’t a problem with the modifications made by RB to the Sensors, why did the number 2 car finish five and a half seconds ahead of the four time World Champion. Vettel’s car was stuck down in sixth place with no sensor problems.
    RB needs to install the sensors exactly as they come out of the box. Not change, modify or alter them as they wish.
    In the last race Daniel’s car stopped sending data from the sensor before the end of the race.

  54. Craig Baker says:

    Why is there a vocal lawyer representing Mercedes in a FIA hearing concerning Red Bull?

    Mercedes said that what occurred in Melbourne was a “flagrant breach” of the regulations.
    “Red Bull thinks it is entitled to pick and choose between the measurements” they say.

  55. Neil Jenney says:

    F1 isn’t Red Bull’s business. If they burn the house down it won’t matter to them. Flexing their muscles and breaking the rule making process, or turning off the public through Newey and Vettel’s comments on the new formula won’t matter to Dietrich Mateschitz. Worst case scenario he loses some money on his F1 investment.

  56. AuraF1 says:

    Reading the reports it now seems Red Bull had the option of using the 3rd chassis sensor but chose not to and can’t prove that their own measurements are any more than a different form of ‘estimate’. How is this even in doubt now? They dug themselves a bigger hole with those admissions…

    Hilarious to hear Mercedes lawyer use the exact same phrase about permanent exclusion that Red Bull demanded after the Merc tyre test. Bet even Horner had to smirk at that reversal of fortunes…;)

  57. Bobdredds says:

    It seems my view of events is supported by others in the tribunal. Also it seems that in spite of RB’s claim, their method of measuring fuel flow is not quite as accurate as they have been saying in the media. That makes their media claims even more outragous in my view and a blatant attempt to affect the outcome of the tribunal. They are also trying to pull the wool over the eyes of F1 fans but thankfully it’s mainly only RB fans who are falling for it. The result of their ignoring the FIA directive was to gain .4 secs per lap. Therefore DR gained his position on the podium by cheating and therefore his points cannot be allowed to stand even if was not a party to the decision to cheat. The verdict should be given tomorrow.

    1. kenneth chapman says:

      heavy stuff there dredds. have you considered what position you will take should the result be found in favour of the dissenting party? i should think that there will be no place to hide.

      i personally think that there is a great deal of ambiguity in the case as presented by the FIA but if the tribunal find against the dissenting party then so be it.

      1. Bobdredds says:

        Thats Mr Dredds to you. :) Only joking. Today all is well in the world and the tribunal has delivered what I think is the correct decision. It shows the Red Bull claims had no substance as I expected. I can understand why some are not happy for DR because he is an innocent victim in this for sure. RB on the other hand are to blame for him not scoring significient points on his debut. They are the culprits in this. They have accepted the decision and I think thats the best way forward. I’m sure there are some who still aren’t happy with it but the topic is now closed as far as I’m concerned.

      2. kenneth chapman says:

        @ the dreddster…. very disappointed at the result, obviously, but without knowing what the collective reasoning for the decision was i will keep my powder dry.

        as i said earlier, time to move on to the next controversy and maybe some racing in between

      3. Bobdredds says:

        Well Kenneth I would have been surprised at any other outcome. RB’s transgression was not about DR or the fuel sensor but the way they challenged the authority of the stewards. RB then coumpounded the issue with a media campaign to try to sway the result of the tribunal and some of what they said was misleading. I am not anti RB but in this case I was anti their approach and methods. However in the past I have praised both them and their drivers. When Seb was in Torro Rosso I predicted in a post somehwere when he would dominate the sport. The following week he won at Monza. Anyway you wont find me criticising teams or drivers except when they do things I dissagree with. There are still plenty of people maintaining that the tribunal was biased, the sensor is the problem etc but for me the issue is finished.

  58. Scott says:

    The fact that Red Bull were asked to apply an “offset” to the reading from the FIA sensor proves that the sensor was inaccurate. If such sensors cannot be relied upon to produce accurate and precise readings then they should not be used. Acknowledging that it’s inaccurate and applying some kind of adjustment factor to its readings is NOT the right thing to do. If the ruling is in favour of the FIA, then it is saying that the truth and the facts don’t matter, that the only thing that matters is what the FIA arbitrarily decide. Hopefully that won’t be the case.

  59. Agent Orange says:

    A couple of weeks ago the German press (Auto Motor Und Sport) were reporting that Red Bull and Torro Rosso were modifying the sensors before sending for calibration. In addition the cars with the highest drift and failure rate were Red Bull and Torro Rosso.

    Doesn’t appear to have been picked up by the English speaking press.

    How come?

  60. Carlos Marques says:

    “Officer, honestly, I wasn’t going over 60 Km/h. Seriously. Your radar must be broken. Here, let me show you my reading from my home-made speedometer.”

    Seriously, RB didn’t follow a directive from the FIA. Other teams followed the directive and their performance took a hit. Red Bull didn’t follow the directive; therefore they gained an advantage. Even if they were within the flow limits (as they say they were) they gained an advantage (because others may have been within the flow limits as well but were forced to lower their consumption). In my view they deserve to remain disqualified.

    1. Grant says:

      If it turns out that your speedometer was right after all, you still shouldn’t win the case because then everyone else will want to use their own.

      1. Random 79 says:

        And?

        If your hypothetical home made speedo is more accurate than the police radar why shouldn’t you use your own?

    2. kenneth chapman says:

      the key phrase here in your post carlos is ‘they were forced to lower their consumtion’. do you mean lower than the mandated allowance or do you mean the actual current rate of usage which would’ve been the calbrated FIA offset rate?.

      if the former then that would be a disadvantage and a rule reversal and if the second then that would mean that the offset was wrong? can’t have it both ways.

    3. Jimmyboy says:

      Who said the other teams followed the FIA directive to apply an offset? Where did that information come from?

  61. Alexander Supertramp says:

    I can’t believe some people expect/want RB to get away with this. That would be a total farce!

    Btw, loved the fact that other teams can have a say in the trial, especially with Mercedes trying to push RB’s head under water. It’s not as if Horner had any clemence when Mercedes where in trouble last year!

  62. NickH says:

    He got the 18 points in an illegal car so I’m afraid that’s cheating, even through no fault of Daniels.

  63. Jimmyboy says:

    If the Gill sensor was continually drifting off zero then applying an offset is not going to work as the offset would need to be in perfect sync with the sensors drift pattern. Its no wonder RB reverted to their own sensor. They are in the game to win races to do that they need reliable datat. If RB were absolutely sure they stayed within 100kg/h limit and can prove it in court then the decision should be overturned. Ric should get his points back. On the question of RB ignoring a directive from CW then maybe the FIA should take action against RB management, a fine perhaps. This solution would keep RB happy, and allow the FIA to save face. Problem solved. So the big question is did RB exceed the max allowable fuel flow rate? If they didn’t then they did not gain an advantage, no advantage the case should be thrown out. What also should be thrown out are the Gill sensors, its clear they are problematic.

    1. kenneth chapman says:

      a good viewpoint there jimmyboy. i fully agree. that said i do fear the worst as the undercurrents tell me that the FIA cannot afford to be found delinquent and that will be a point of discussion between the judges. it shouldn’t be but i think that it will at least be foremost in some minds.

      1. kenneth chapman says:

        was that a prescient comment or was that a prescient comment? hahaha

LEAVE A COMMENT

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Top Tags
SEARCH News
JA ON F1 In association with...
Download the chequered flag podcast today
Download the chequered flag podcast today
Multi award winning Formula One photographer
Multi award winning Formula One photographer