May the best man win
Title Showdown 2014
Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
Red Bull Racing lose Daniel Ricciardo disqualification appeal
News
Screen Shot 2014-04-15 at 13.01.49
Posted By: Justin Hynes  |  15 Apr 2014   |  1:08 pm GMT  |  341 comments

Red Bull Racing have failed in their appeal against Daniel Ricciardo’s exclusion from the race result of the Australian Grand Prix.

The Australian driver was disqualified after finishing in second place at the season-opening event when stewards found the Red Bull driver’s car had “consistently” exceeded fuel flow regulations.

The team appealed the disqualification claiming that the FIA-homologated sensors used to monitor fuel flow were faulty and that it was correct to apply it’s own fuel flow model.

However, following yesterday’s six-hour hearing at the FIA’s Paris headquarters, the five-man panel of judges upheld the decision to exclude Ricciardo from the race result.

A statement released by the ICA said: “The Court, after having heard the parties and examined their submissions, decided to uphold the Decision N°56 of the Stewards by which they decided to exclude Infiniti Red Bull Racing’s car N°3 from the results of the 2014 Australian Grand Prix.”

Following the ruling Red Bull Racing responded by saying: “Infiniti Red Bull Racing accepts the ruling of the International Court of Appeal today. We are of course disappointed by the outcome and would not have appealed if we didn’t think we had a very strong case. We always believed we adhered to the technical regulations throughout the 2014 Australian Grand Prix. We are sorry for Daniel (Ricciardo) that he will not be awarded the 18 points from the event, which we think he deserved. We will continue to work very hard to amass as many points as possible for the team, Daniel and Sebastian (Vettel) throughout the season.

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

A full explanation of the grounds for the court’s dismissal of Red Bull’s appeal is due to be published later this week.

 

 

 

Featured News
MORE FROM JA ON F1...
Share This:
Posted by:
Category:
Tags:
341 Comments
  1. Jota180 says:

    Common sense decision
    We all know the FIA can be incompetent at times, thankfully this wasn’t one of those times.

    1. Folkdisco says:

      Agree with Jota. The FIA have form, so you’re never quite sure what’s going to come out of the various convoluted decision making processes, but this appeal always looked like internal Red Bull politics, rather than anything they had a hope of actually winning. Horner must have known this, but he also knows who pays his wages.

      1. KRB says:

        I’m sure he’s crushed. :-D

      2. James Clayton says:

        I don’t think Lewis will be too worried. The results since haven’t been as convincing, and it’s unlikely Magnussen will be winning a Grand Prix this year

      3. forestial says:

        I doubt Lewis will be losing much sleep about that

      4. J.Danek says:

        d’urr…hardly imagine Lewis is worried about such a tiny little achievement in comparison to pursuing multiple WDCs.

        Just saying, what might be a big deal for Magnussen (is it? idk) is from a wholly different perspective than what LH is concerned about now (ideally).

      5. Andrew M says:

        I suspect that Lewis will mind that a lot less with a dominant car in his hands.

    2. David says:

      Ditto. If teams make up their own rules … mayhem.

      This one would be worth a “readers poll”, wouldn’t it, James? From the few comments posted as I add this one, it seems opinion is fairly polarized.

    3. Rene says:

      the exception that proves the rule, perhaps?

    4. Michael Powell says:

      Quite right. This is the only sensible result. I’m sorry for Daniel, but cheating cannot be allowed.

    5. Quade says:

      It might be the first signal of a strong power shift away from the Bernie-Red Bull corner.

      Who’s to gain? Merc? I wonder, but with Red Bulls threats to quit the sport, there would have been lots of backroom and alleyway politicking.

      1. KRB says:

        Reading too much into it. It was just a common sense application of the regulations. I find it hard to believe that RBR ever thought they had a chance, but if further clarification can come out of this, all the better. And seeing as RBR will be paying for all of it, it’s no skin off anyone else’s nose.

      2. Quade says:

        I’m only speculating, seeing as how in the past teams like Red Bull, Merc and Ferrari have gotten away with blue murder and now Red Bull can’t. F1 never really followed rules in a logical way.

        I believe Red Bull actually thought they could “impose” a chance. That’s likely why they dragged matters so far and it all seemed to tail in with Bernie’s weird anti-F1 campaign.

      3. mbraz says:

        Merc also threatened to leave the sport over power units, so they are no better

      4. chris says:

        thats a completely different matter, and not breaking any rules. I thought it was Renault who did that anyhow, or maybe it was both of them

      5. PxB says:

        My understanding is that only Renault made this threat. Merc have recently said that they might eventually have left if F1 had stuck with the V8s, but AFAIK they made no threat.

  2. Bernt Rubha says:

    A sad day for the ‘sport’ . . .

    Technological rigour abandoned and arbitrary monitoring held up to be representative of the so-called ‘pinnacle’ of motorsport.

    It’s all mightily entertaining though – and if that’s what it takes to keep an anachronistic enterprise in the limelight then so be it.

    I’ll just laugh off all references to ‘cutting-edge’ and ‘pinnacle’ in regard to F1 in the future.

    1. Yago says:

      What?? Red Bull fan I guess?

      1. Timmay says:

        I feel the same and am not a RB fan

      2. Yago says:

        Then you are a bit uninformed I believe.

        Very good news for the sport. Referees mantain their status, they are still above players and teams. Had Red Bull won the appeal, this would be anarchy.

    2. Wayne says:

      There was nothing arbitrary about what the FIA asked RBR to do. They asked them to revert to PRE-AGREED processes and RBR refused. The only arbitrary process in place is what RBR decided to do instead of following the PRE-AGREED back-up. None of which suggests in anyway that F1 is not the pinnacle of motorsport in reality does it?

      1. Pete says:

        He’s right. Pinnacle of Motorsport cannot contract a competent company to measure flow. Imagine if you were incompetent at your job but instead of firing you and getting replacement your boss orders complex compromises to the rest of the company for your incompetency. Don’t know about you but I’d be fired.

        Issue is that rbr didn’t do proper testing so could not come to a consensus as to the flow rate. Rbrs was more accurate so they used theirs. Practical but unlawful. But to say this was rbrs fault would be ignoring the FIA incompetence.

      2. chris says:

        There are some many assumptions being made here, and lets not forget the hostile environment these sensors work in, and the lack of running these units have had.

        I work in the telecoms environment, and when I talk to the transmission guys its amazing on what their kit has to deal with in terms of noise. Particularly in the area of copper based broadband (adsl, vdsl). If the kit (both ends) didnt have the sophisticated error correction and transmission techniques then you wouldnt all be getting multiple megs/s in bandwidth. This noise problem is common place in many other areas of technology as well, and has to be dealt with in order for things to work properly. This is exactly what will happen with these sensors, its just at the moment this specific application is new, and is not mature yet. If F1 is to be the cutting edge, then you cant legitimately throw your toys out of the pram with things are not 100% spot on, its unrealistic and naive.

        Finally I have heard rumors that the problems are generally experienced by the Renault teams. If that is true, then it points towards installation issues maybe

      3. Ian says:

        Measuring fuel mass flow to 0.25% accuracy without interfering with the flow and all inside an F1 car IS the pinnacle of engineering. I have a PhD in fluid flow, gained for conducting intricate and detailed non-invasive flow measurements. I am amazed how accurate the FIA sensor is given the number of variables it has to contend with. I doubt Red Bull’s measurements are actually any more accurate, but their methodology is simpler, effectively a “bucket on a scale”. There are fewer variables so their result should be more accurate, but you can’t build an independent, non-invasive sensor on that basis. And do fans want race results to be determined by detailed FIA measurements of injector internal volumes in post-race scrutineering? The RBR post-race disqualification had nothing to do with the fuel sensor and everything to do with a leading team’s arrogance in ignoring FIA directives.

      4. Wayne says:

        Thing is it does not matter what we think the FIA should or should not do. They are the governing body, they asked RBR to revert to a pre-agreed back-up and RBR refused.

        Taking your scenario, if your boss did indeed chose to implement a process of complex compromises you are required to go along with it until such a time as you can help the company find a better solution. You cannot simply ignore the instructions you have been given and make things up as you go along.

      5. MISTER says:

        Do you think every single pit stop lolipop guy which released a car without all 4 wheels securely attached was fired? Or front jack guys?

        Or those guys from RBR and Mercedes which made the front wings which broke on Vettel’s car or Lewis’s got fired for not doing a perfect job?

        Nothing and nobody is perfect. No component is perfect, no engine, no tyre, no brake disc. They all fail from time to time, and those items had years and years of research put into them. These sensors are new to F1, give them time to make them better.

    3. Misty A says:

      I disagree.

      The sport is upheld through the regulations that all must abide by. Red Bull tried to say that their un-homolgated software model was more accurate than the official measurement.

    4. Sebee says:

      Why do you feel so strongly about it?

      I agree that the sensors are an issue and I thought RBR had a good case here. I still don’t like a device that is this significant to performance being inaccurate in a sport we measure down to 0.001s.

      Interestingly enough in none of the reports did we see the mention of detailed evidence presented by RBR that they complied with the 100kg/hr or from FIA to show that they did not. I would think this would be central to proving if the rule was broken. But in the end I guess it came down to power of directives.

      I do think there are politics in this decision. You can’t render Steward impotent, directives irrelevant, which would have been the result. Also, you can’t render these sensors unreliable because FIA dosen’t have another answer to police the 100kg/hr. rule. And so to rule for RBR would have been too disruptive in the end.

      That said, I still don’t like these sensors and for the life of me can’t understand why FIA refuses to put 2 or 3 and average out. After the billion spend on these engines, what’s the big deal to spend $26K on a few dozen sensors? I think it would go a long way to prove FIA is pushing for accuracy on this issue. Who would object to such a directive from the FIA?

      1. C63 says:

        Sebee,
        Stop trying to pretend otherwise. Red Bull have been caught cheating and their appeal was to no avail. End of!

      2. Sebee says:

        Cheating? Not sure it is so definitive. Did the sensor fail or not? Exactly!

        But what does it matter, they make sugar water, and just beat car manufacturers to a pulp 4 years straight. I can understand people enjoying breath of fresh AMG exhaust. To be honest, after past 4 years you guys have earned it. Inhale! :-)

      3. ManOnWheels says:

        http://bensweeneysf1blog.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/the-red-bull-appeal-what-happened-today/

        “Sebastian Bernard, a lawyer for the FIA, responded to this by saying that there can only be one official measurement. “If each one measures at will, because he is of the opinion that the official measurement is wrong, we have anarchy,” Bernard said. He then pointed out that the faulty readings from the FIA sensor was during the first two practice sessions on the Friday. After the faulty readings, the team knew what margin of error the equipment had. So, when the sensor failed on the Sunday they should have calculated the margin of error and used this as the true flow rate, rather than reverting to their own measurement.”

        [..]

        “The FIA asked Monaghan if his team directly measured the flow rate. He said that Red Bull do not directly measure the flow, but use the opening time of the injectors, injection quantity, fuel density and fuel temperature to calculate the flow, which Monaghan says leaves a margin for error of one percent.”

        “Renault’s David Mart is called to give evidence. He said that Renault thrice calculated the margin for error, using different temperatures each time, and the margin for error was 0.4%. However, he did follow this up by saying that in extreme conditions, the margin for error could have reached 1.5%.
        Mercedes’ Paul Harris reminded Mart that the FIA told teams to use a correction factor of 1.015% and that doing so would get rid of any incorrect readings.”

        [Lots of arguments to follow, sure worth a read]

      4. C63 says:

        @sebee
        Definition of cheating;
        act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage.

        RBR deliberately ignored the instruction from the FIA to reduce their fuel flow. By their own admission it would have slowed them down. Their actions were contrary to the agreed procedure – the procedure, incidentally, which all of the other teams followed.
        Any of the above that you would disagree with?

        Now, please be so kind as to explain how they didn’t cheat.

      5. Sebee says:

        Here is the thing C63. Show me an team which didn’t bend the rules and I will show you a loser. This goes for MB too. Don’t think they are this good because they didn’t find some trickery.

      6. Sebee says:

        C63, you bleed silver?

        Let’s call it opportunistic. I’ll agree with that easily. Then they may have pushed it too far to illustrate the point.

      7. Bernt Rubha says:

        Strength of feeling due to the ‘pinnacle’ being compromised by second-rate technology and as you rightly point out – politics.

        Thanks for the considered reply – refreshing compared to those which idiotically assume I’m an RB fan – I have nothing against that team but I would have said the same regardless which marque had tested the directive.

        If rules need to be broken in order to highlight fundamental inefficiencies then so be it.

      8. Ahmad says:

        There was and have been many stupid rules in the past. But this is not for the hearing to decide if the rules are good or bad.

        As for a rule or technology being a true representative of “pinnacle”, this is all relative to your beliefs as to what that “pinnacle” is. You could easily argue that there should be no aerodynamic restriction on the cars, exhaust blown diffusers, flexi wings, construction materials, size of engines, car weight, and so on. That simply, there should be no restriction whatsoever, but such an “arms” race would lead to a very expensive F1 which would only be run with 2 or 3 teams.

        So you have to set the limit somewhere to give teams an almost equal chance. And as far as I know, the big teams had a say in those rules that two of them are now rubbishing. Very unsportsmanlike attitude.

      9. j says:

        Renault teams modified the sensors where they mounted to the fuel line. That’s why other teams didn’t have the same problems.

        Also Red Bull forgot to remove the sensor they had an issue with from the chassis and shipped it back to their factory instead of giving it back to the FIA for further investigation.

      10. Alec Tronnick says:

        Yeah, I agree with your comments totally.
        The sad thing about this it that the FIA is likely to ditch these flow meters and rely on the teams telemetry to determine fuel rates.
        Which will make Dan a victim of F1 politics.

      11. Sebee says:

        Where did you hear this? This is huge news.

      12. chris says:

        oh my god!!!!!!!!!!!

        Yes these sensors have accuracy issues, but that doesnt mean you cant reliably use them. Its all about error correction and noise cancellation. Until someone can post the detailed process the FIA use to dampen down these issues and we all understand it, then all this talk is just hot air. Bad readings dont mean sensors are not unusable, it just means the data output needs some post processing, to make it usable.

        These sensors are just fairly dumb so this post processing has to be done externally. It could well be done in the unit itself, and thus shield the outside world from the noise in the data. However that would make the unit more expensive and prone to failure, plus make the car heavier.

        I would far prefer the situation as it is now, where there are humans applying predefined methodologies and techniques to this data to keep things fair, rather than some arbitrary closed black box system, that may or may now be fair.

      13. Kevin says:

        This is the best comment I have read on this matter, very well put

      14. kenneth chapman says:

        @ sebee… some true perspective there. i am very interested in seeing what the full text of the judgement says the i will have a better understanding.

      15. Kenneth M'Boy says:

        I like the idea of 2 or 3 sensors. What happens if the one sensor completely fails mid race and all data is wiped? If a team then has to rely on its own methods of recording fuel flow will they later be disqualified?

    5. DMyers says:

      Sports have rules, yes? RBR were found to have broken the rules and their disqualification was upheld. What’s your problem?

    6. MrNed says:

      Clearly, accurately measuring the flow of a fluid whose density and volume fluctuates wildly with temperature and pressure is more difficult than you assume. Those sensors do represent cutting edge technology, albeit in its infancy. 10 teams accepted the need to work within the regs and in tandem with the FIA in order to help this technology mature. One team didn’t – perhaps they felt too entitled to do well.

      1. Joe B says:

        This is the correct perspective on the whole issue MrNed, well clarified.

    7. Mike Martin says:

      What concerns me the most is that the teams with the largest budgets intentionally or unintentionally are cheaters/cheating. Ferrari, Mercedes, Red Bull and McLaren have all been slammed with cheating allegations and some of them even have been caught. I can compare this with using doping at the Tour the France(cycling sport). Cheating is bad for the sport and in the spirit of sportsmanship very bad. I am gutted for team like Williams, Marussia and Force India. They have with their small budgets and fair play absolutely no chance in winning the WDC :(
      Just a case of people that play fair are the stupid and naive ones…sad :(

      Oh and the Red Bull Fanboys who will probably come to RB aid and try to Jedi trick us in believing we are all wrong; This is not the first case RB looks suspicious. Suspected from using traction control, changeable ride height and the devious engine mapping just to name a few.
      Today they finally got busted.

    8. Joost says:

      If you have problems you should visit the doctor.

      1. kenneth chapman says:

        that should read ‘the head doctor’

    9. chris says:

      So you want one team to play by different rules than the rest then?

    10. femi-Akins says:

      Hi Bernt,

      I don’t think the technology was on trial as even the FIA admitted as much hence the offset given to teams to come to some sort of way forward.

      What was on trial was the process and RedBull challenging it and there was only ever going to be one winner.

      Be interested to know what everyone thinks on this one.

      Femi

    11. Jean-Christophe says:

      Come on. You can’t be serious. Red Bull used their own calculation which was not a direct measurement of the fuel flow but an estimation drown from their own software.
      Red Bull tweaked the fuel sensor to fit it into their car.
      98% of the issues with the sensors were with Renault powered cars. They are the only one tempering with the sensors and it’s now been declared illegal.
      You should read the full appeal transcript before coming up with such comments

      1. Tickety-boo says:

        100% spot on. I was going to reply but you’ve saved me the trouble.

      2. David in Sydney says:

        Wow, if it is true that the fuel sensors were tweaked and errors are almost all in Renault powered cars then RBR deserved everything it got.

        Was RBR simply trying to be too clever?

      3. Alec Tronnick says:

        Tampering with the sensors is news to me.
        Where did you find the full transcript – I thought it wasn’t being released for a couple of days

      4. J.Danek says:

        Check the Judge13F1 site (URL omitted out of respect for @JamesAllen, Alec) – they have not the full verbatim transcript, but useful excerpts that discuss these issues like the tampering.

      5. kenneth chapman says:

        @ jean-christophe…. could you possibly post the full transcript so that we can all read it. obviously you have so, c’mon, share it with us.

      6. kenneth chapman says:

        @ jean-christophe… that is not the ICA judgment summary. that is simply one report of the proceedings on the day by a website that has, AFAIK, no accreditation. to suggest otherwise is pure speculation. the full transcript is not due to be handed down until friday i believe. your rush to judgement based on tampering with the fuel flow meters has no substance.

    12. TimW says:

      more a victory for the authority of the governing body and one in the eye for certain teams who think they are above the rules if you ask me, but each to their own.

    13. TJ says:

      And another even more welcome spectacle to be acted out in Munich within a fortnight as another ego is pricked and pickled…

    14. Richard says:

      This is not the case. The FIA have upheld their own rules, I think RBR were really pushing and trying it on with this appeal – and furthermore with their approach to the Aus GP in general, with DR’s car at least. They were given ample opportunity to make alternative choices but instead chose to race with a car that did not run FIA-mandated equipment perfoming a key role in the first race of the season.

      If they were found to be allowed to do that, how could any other race be verified if all teams manage their own fuel flow when fuel flow is a key new regulation? Common sense prevailed here, as was always going to be the case, but RBR did work their substantial PR machine quite tirelessly to suggest otherwise.

      I think we’ve got a respite from a lot of other rubbish post-race appeals following this decision.

      1. Tickety-boo says:

        Agreed.

      2. mhilgtx says:

        I think you are misinformed.

        1) at no time did RBR not run the required sensor. They just chose to ignore it due to faulty readings that all parties agree plague the sensors. This is like the FIA showing up with a scale that read 1 kilo when the actual weight of the item was 1.05 kgs for only one car. Thus making the car need to weigh 5% more than the RULES require. If this was Lewis or Alonso car I think there would be much complaining about the FIA.

        2) The stewards in Melbourne really backed the court into a corner by going with a DQ. They should have applied some other penalty or black flagged the car. This would have been less embarrassing and risky.

        3). The court found itself in a risky position of upsetting its masters apple cart by ruling on the facts or as they chose to rule in favor of the authority of the FIA. To have overturned the DQ would have brought the FIA in line to actually having some accountability.

        No RBR Did not cheat in fact they were treated pretty badly.

      3. Roberto says:

        Daniel Ricciardo’s Dad………. Is that you?

      4. Richard says:

        No, this is not correct. RBR did indeed run their own, non-FIA mandated fuel flow sensor during the race, without authorisation from the FIA and contrary to the regulations and all the other teams. You can read about this more at the link and this quote from Autosport:

        “Whether or not technical directive TD/016-14, issued on March 1, which made provision for relying on a team’s own fuel flow model only with the FIA’s permission and an FIA-issued correction factor, was binding was central to Red Bull’s case.

        It argued that the sensor, which offered different readings with identical engine settings during the first three runs in free practice three and the rest of Friday in Australia, was unreliable and therefore it could switch to the backup based on that without the FIA’s say-so, contrary to what the technical directive said.”

      5. Tim says:

        Indeed RIC should’ve been black flagged if his car was “evidently” and “consistently” out of compliance with the rules during the race. Although that would probably have caused a riot at Albert Park…

        I also echo your opinion that RBR most probably didn’t exceed the “absolute” fuel flow limit and tried to “get around” the system – which they reckoned to be not working. And as with most cases in real life if you get caught doing that you pay for the consequences.

      6. Garry says:

        I don’t think black flag would have been correct. The car would have needed to be scrutinized after race so that stewards could be 100 % happy that rules breached. If they black flagged the car and issue was not a rule breach stewards would have prevented a legitimate result. By not black flagging and giving a dsq it keeps door open for result to be reinstated if needed. If black flagged correct result would never be known

    15. zx6dude says:

      LOL – I can only laugh at the comment

    16. Kevin Shiel says:

      RB didnt follow the directives when the race was on, thats why they got punished.
      They should have followed the rules then brought this sensor issue into light after the race. All other teams who suffered the same issue would have teamd up RB in order to push for a change.
      Instead RB chose to dictate the rules and got isolated further from the rest of the grid. No other teams would like to voice for RB simply bcoz RB chose to be on their own.

      It was definitely a management failure and poor Daniel had to suffer from such a mistake at preschool level.

      Hope RB really learns from this and fall back at the same level as the rest of the grid. Otherwiz they better quit then poluting F1 further.

    17. Elie says:

      Its a sad, sad day when so called fans of the sport accept that its alright for a team to disregard the regulations and the sporting codes, foolishly suggesting they did it to better technology. I’m not sure who I believe less- Red Bull- or the jokers in this stack of cards..Either way Im glad sanity prevailed on this subject & Im curious to see what the rulings look like given my disection of the regs two weeks ago.

  3. Brian Hinder says:

    Politics. Isn’t it wonderful?

    1. Sebee says:

      At least the court didn’t do what Mercedes AMG asked they do.

      Honestly, the bitterness in that statement was really repulsive. Makes me wonder how a fight doesn’t break out in the back of the garage between the silver shirts and the purple shirts!

      If anyone wishes to make me feel better about the Mercedes “demands” of this court, please tell me if RBR asked for Mercedes to be treated likewise after the Not-So-Secret Test?

      1. Gazza says:

        Mercedes asked for a suspended penalty this seems to be conveniently forgotten by some commentators.

        Red Bull ( and Ferrari ) instigated the hearing against Mercedes over Tyregate and we’re calling for immediate penalties not suspended ones.

        I also remember Horner ludicrously turning up at the hearing even though his presence was not required. Never understood what that was all about.

      2. j says:

        Yes. Christian Horner attended the Mercedes secret test hearing. He is the one who lodged the complaint.

        Although Christian Horner has specifically cited Mercedes as being primarily at fault, declaring “it’s a team’s responsibility to comply with the regulations so the issue isn’t so much with Pirelli”.

        “Usually if you commit a sporting offence there’s a sporting penalty that goes with it,” team principal Christian Horner said after the hearing.

      3. Wayne says:

        Sebee, this is revenge, pure and simple, brought on by RBR themselves.

        During the test-gate scandal, RBR were indeed the ONLY team who turned up to argue that strong action be taken against Mercedes.

        What goes around comes around and all that.

      4. Sebee says:

        I withdraw my complaint on this point. What’s good for the goose…

      5. Robin says:

        From http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/us-motor-racing-tribunal-idUSBRE95K0JL20130621:

        Champions Red Bull, who had protested to the FIA at last month’s Monaco Grand Prix when they found out Mercedes had used their current car in the test, had indicated they wanted to see a tough response.

        “Usually if you commit a sporting offence there’s a sporting penalty that goes with it,” team principal Christian Horner said after the hearing.

      6. Doug says:

        I’d say that their request was the equivalent of a very low offer on a house…they didn’t expect to get what they were requesting but the compromise was what they were after…they didn’t want Red Bull getting off.

        Good call by the court..things would have got very messy this season if Technical Dirrectives had become hot air.

      7. StevenM says:

        The purple shirts have to catch the silver shirts first, lol

      8. Sebee says:

        Good one. But Purple shirts did “lap” silver shirts four times already.

      9. StevenM says:

        Formula 1 has never been “I beat you last year”,its “what have you done for me lately”. But good point

      10. TimW says:

        Yes they did, remember it was the bumbling Horner who was shouting loudest about the Barcelona test.

      11. C63 says:

        @Sebee

        Not so much bitterness in their statement. I think it’s more the boot being on the other foot! Red Bull were gunning for Mercedes over the Pirelli tyre test (admit it you know they were) and when the tables were turned Mercedes took their opportunity. Sensible, logical business decisions by both sides if you try and take the emotion out of it. Last season Red Bull were well aware of the threat Mercedes would pose, likewise Mercedes know the Bulls will be back. If you can put a spanner in your oppositions spokes, well why not. :-)

      12. Sebee says:

        C63,

        I don’t want to sound defensive, but in all honesty in testgate there was a real advantage gained by MB having track time with current car and drivers. As such other teams had something to argue for because punishment in that case also meant some type of benefit over MB to all the teams, which as you recall occurred with MB excluded from YDT.

      13. C63 says:

        @sebee
        testgate there was a real advantage gained by MB ….

        And I suppose there was no advantage to RBR, when they ignored the FIA instruction to reduce fuel flow? What did Newey say in Paris, something like 0.4 seconds/lap wasn’t it? Or were RBR practicing civil disobedience ( as suggested by you), in a selfless display of generosity towards all the other teams in a vain bid to expose the incompetence of the FIA – with fuel flow meters? Or was your latest theory, the actual reason RBR disobeyed the instruction – some kind of Machiavellian marketing scam?
        Personally, I think RBR had already decided before the race they would ignore the FIA, as they would prefer F1 with no fuel flow restriction as it offers the quickest solution to their performance woes . They thought they could blag this , as they have done before. Problem is, Bernie [their minder] is no longer as powerful – with Munich beckoning – and they have come unstuck.
        What goes around, comes around :-)

      14. NickH says:

        Well said C63

    2. pargo says:

      I wonder if, had it been Merc rather than RBR, it would’ve been an FIA “nothing to see here…”

  4. Nic Maennling says:

    Another black eye for F1.

    1. Sebee says:

      In just a few days, there is no trace of the black eye.

    2. MrNed says:

      How so? The stewards decision was upheld. Possibly a black eye for RB though.

    3. Gaz Boy says:

      Could have been worse…………such as F1 being smashed in the face by a cricket bat!

    4. Phil J says:

      I think F1 got the black eye when the appeal was lodged.

      Mind, if it had been successful the subsequent races would have been interesting with each team running to their own set of rules!

    5. Richard says:

      Why is this? RBR use any old equipment and tell you (and the FIA) it’s correct and gather loads of points, while everyone else uses FIA equipment and sticks to the regulations?

      1. Tickety-boo says:

        It’s the RBR way, and with illegal floors etc in the past with no tangible penalty, they most likely assumed it would go their way – hurrah it didn’t, for the very point that you made.

    6. Jonathan says:

      not.

      If RBR had won the appeal it would have meant the sport was entirely incapable of being regulated.

      Some think that is the case anyway but at least they are trying. Not often I agree with the FIA though!

      It would be like a football match without a ref!

      F1 regulatory control needs to move forward rapidly – even the FA are trying goal line technology – Tennis have had Hawkeye for years.

      1. mhilgtx says:

        I have watched your World Cup soccer and think you might want reconsider the quality of your so called refs. Seems to me. They are much akin to the Russian judge in figure skating

      2. Jonathan says:

        I wouldn’t know! I heard they were trying new technology.

        Personally I loathe football and wish my TV had a button I could use to prevent it insulting me with anything to do with a “sport” that makes F1 look well run!

      3. KimiFTW says:

        Look up when that company was founded: 2013 ;)
        It was founded just for this purpose, this tells me there is something going on .
        How can u let an startup make a device that isn’t accurate (around 50% of the sensors are accurate within 0.4%). That is alot considering we do timing to 0.001 precise.

        Who says any of the other teams didn’t gain an advantage by having a sensor that showed they used 98kg/hour when they actually used 102kg/hour?

      4. David Howard says:

        You make it sound like a sensor that 99.6 percent accurate is somehow akin to a blind man throwing darts with is bad hand in a gale force storm at a target the size of a needle. At peak fuel flow a sensor with that degree of accuracy would, at a maximum, be off by .4 kg/hour on the fuel flow rate at that instant in time. If the sensor is known to have that level of variability an offset is then applied to “zero” out the reading as it were. On most tech sites I’ve consulted the average fuel flow rate over the course of the race is between 60 and 70 kg/h meaning the most inaccurate sensor applied would be off by .28 kg/h at an average of 70 kg/h fuel flow rate before an offset was applied.

        The stewards found that RBR were over the fuel flow limit, even with the offset as I understand it, and asked them to turn it down multiple times. RBR refused for whatever reason.

      5. David Howard says:

        Last calc…at max fuel flow rate an engine with the least accurate sensor would (without an offset) have plus or minus 1.1 grams of fuel per second. What that means for performance I would need someone else to help with.

      6. David Howard says:

        Quick correction..not 1.1 grams, 0.11 grams.

      7. David Howard says:

        Christ I shouldn’t have done it in my head…11.1 grams per second. And no..I’m not a Ferrari engineer. ;)

      8. NemesisFC says:

        1.1 grams per second. You must have been of by a factor 10 somewhere in one of your divisors.

      9. ExPatBrit says:

        Some help with your math.

        +/- 0.4% of 100kg/ hour is 99.6 to 100.4 Kg/ hour.

        That’s pretty accurate for any sensor for that environment (humidity and temperature extremes) , I sell this stuff for a living (not these specific units) . That’s military grade stuff .

        Comparing timing to that is BS, we have been measuring time for how many years exactly?

      10. JohnBt says:

        [Who says any of the other teams didn’t gain an advantage by having a sensor that showed they used 98kg/hour when they actually used 102kg/hour?]

        That’s the point we will never know and how comes the other teams have not even complained at all, that’s what I’m not totally convinced and I ain’t no Red Bull fan at all.
        I’ve listened to the post race and it was mentioned some teams sensor didn’t work so it’s going to be difficult for us to know the truth.

      11. Baron says:

        If you are talking about Gill Sensors they have been established for many years and supply cutting edge sensors for many applications including wind speed detection on critical structures such as suspension bridges and oil rigs. They are a world leading company in this field. It is quite possible they set up a new company specifically for fuel flow technology as many other motor sports disciplines also use their equipment.

    7. Elie says:

      No just a smack in the mouth for people who talk rubbish..

    8. NickH says:

      A nice big black eye for Red Bull

  5. Spinodontosaurus says:

    I will be interested in the explanation once it is published, given that information available to the public suggested, to me, that Red Bull would win this easily.

    Oh well, I’ve been wrong before.

    1. Kyle says:

      Flip! Not sure about that. It seemed to me that redbull mounted the sensor in a manor that would allow it to vibrate more than the rest of the teams. Why would they do that?? Hmmmm…..I wonder. They gambled that the fia wouldn’t want a whole fight over it at the start of the season and hope they wouldn’t throw out the blue eyed boy at him home race. Ha ha they were wrong. They have manufactured the whole thing to try and gain an advantage. Slap it up them. I hope the finger doesn’t see the light of day all year.

      1. Tickety-boo says:

        ;)

      2. Doug says:

        Bang on Kyle! I think that was the truth behind this fiasco..”Oz driver..Oz GP..yep..we’ll get away with this!”

    2. C63 says:

      It’s odd you should say that. The information which I read suggested to me there was no way Red Bull would win ;-)

    3. Flying_Scotsman says:

      They ignored a direct instruction from the FIA tech delegate,even using RBR’s own calculations they were over the fuel flow limit….how could they possibly have won?
      Hopefully there will be extra sanctions handed out for abusing the appeals process.

      1. Tickety-boo says:

        I’d like to see the Mercedes request implemented – I wouldn’t put anything past RBR, and after their noise re the tyre test last season…

    4. Bob says:

      How so. Information I saw said Red Bull ignored a directive in order to do their own thing using their fuel rail data rather than the offset the they were asked to.
      Whatever the technical arguments were Red Bull ignored the Referees decision gaining an unfair advantage over those other teams who had similar issues and did as asked by the race director.

    5. MrNed says:

      Funny , I thought the exact opposite – couldn’t see how RB even thought there were grounds for appeal given the wording of the stewards’ ruling and it appeared to me as though RB felt too entitled to do well. So from my POV this was the correct outcome.

    6. Sebee says:

      That is the one interesting detail, that no explanations ever was published from either party, that is RBR’s proof they complied with the rule, or FIA’s proof they did not.

      I guess in the end it came down to FIA not being satisfied with their control not if RBR actually broke the rule. But what is interesting still is that an FIA installed a sensor can fail like this, and really what happens is that the competitor gets blamed for it and loses the result. It’s quite interesting.

      Anyhow, RBR is one of the smartest teams and understands that F1 is a marketing effort, and they just want the front cover on this month’s issue. They got plenty out of this. The GP ended with Daniel broadcast to the world with a P2 trophy and spraying Mums on the podium. Bet you 80% of F1 viewers don’t even know about this “sensorgate” <- yeah, I said it!

      1. jT says:

        Absolutely BRILLIANT reply. ‘Sensorgate’ will always be remembered as as the day the ‘Smiling A[u]ssassin’ greeted the world stage in front of his home crowd. A moment no one will ever b able to take away from him. A feat, I’m certain he will exceed, with Seb right on his tail. I’m glad the sport flexed some muscle here. I’m more shocked about Ferrari, they really need to step it up. Both Kimi and ALO both deserve at least one win per season in F1. Massa might get one before them,ironically. Seriously hoping Nico finds that little bit extra to take it to Lewis who is driving supremely. Really enjoying the season and love the sounds. The complexity of the power units is awesome. Bring on China!

      2. C63 says:

        @Sebee
        Bet you 80% of F1 viewers don’t even know about this “sensorgate”….

        If that assumption is correct, I would imagine Red Bull will be very disappointed. Their PR machine has been running flat out these last few weeks to ensure that didn’t happen !

      3. Sebee says:

        Let’s say they did this on purpose. Which part is better, this lawyering or Daniel on the podium for P2 for the whole world to see?

    7. Bob Jackson says:

      Your mistake was the same as Red Bull’s; believing the outcome of this tribunal would have any relation to the facts of the case. Technical Directives almost universally had been being accorded the same authority as a regulation, which had made life for the FIA and the stewards far easier. This was a challenge, not of the facts, but to Charlie Whiting’s right to unilaterally rule by decree (or directive); a turf war, plain and simple. The only fact that mattered was that the FIA were not willing to bear the consequences of Red Bull winning their appeal.

      1. kenneth chapman says:

        that certainly makes a lot of sense to me and i fully concur.

    8. chris says:

      the sensors inaccuracy i a totally different matter, what was at stake here was a governance and compliance issue. RedBull put a lot of spin on it, but the crux of the matter is they defied the FIA instructions and were therefore outside the rules of the sport.

    9. nvHerman says:

      What information would that be then?

      RBR were informed by the FIA (via Charlie Whiting) during the race that the fuel flow rate was too high and to reduce this.

      They chose not to do this due to believing that this would hamper their chances, even though all other teams complied.

      End result, car no. 3 disqualified.

      Where RBR fell down was not using the approved back up measurement, instead choosing to use their own estimate without prior authorisation from the FIA.

    10. Nick says:

      How would they have won it easily? My understanding of the information in the public forum is: The FIA sensors are individually calibrated to the cars. The one on Ricciardo’s was giving them dodgy readings that weekend (I think I read the readings were drifting a bit). They changed it. That was worse. They changed it back. Then in the race they ignored the FIA sensor and used their own. Not against the rules if they had calibrated their sensor to the FIA sensor….which they hadn’t. On top of that they ignored repeated messages in the race to turn the flow down. So it seems more strange that they felt they could win this appeal against breaking the rules!

      There’s clearly a problem with the sensors and Red Bull were probably using an accurate measurement and not cheating. But rules are rules. Until they probably get changed.

    11. iceman says:

      Most of the public statements on the issue were made by Red Bull, so it’s hardly surprising that the information available supported their case.

    12. Michael says:

      @ Spinodontosaurus There’s really no explanation needed. Redbull was never going to win this. All u need to know is the FIA is the boss.

    13. fff says:

      doesn’t matter whether redbull has the correct flow or not. teams cannot be allowed to decide how they take measurements or you’ll end up with 11 different methods. furthermore, teams cannot be trusted. we all know how teams will do anything to negate the advantages others have enjoyed, like the tyres of last year. can’t do well according to the rules? kill the rules by taking them beyond the limit and blame the rules.

    14. Richard says:

      From the Red Bull PR team? What PR did the FIA publish ahead of the result?

    15. super seven says:

      Yes, but most of the information ‘available to the public’ came directly from RBR’s press office.

      RBR will now have to install the fuel sensor in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions instead of modifying it, and the problem will go away.

      This was the correct decision, and RBR deserved their punishment.

    16. Carl Sheen says:

      All the information pointed to an FIA win before the case. The problem was they broke rules and used an unofficial measure, Red Bulls case hinged on the FIA sensor being wrong, but the rules were very clear that they couldn’t use their own measure and other teams adhered to FIA rules during the race.

      Any other decision would have shocked me.

      The Sky broadcast did a great job of explaining it by likening it to red bull deciding the FIA scales are wrong and using their own scales to weigh the car and expecting the FIA to take their word for it. Arrogance at its best

      1. Tickety-boo says:

        Arrogance describes RBR pretty well, it used to be the mantle of Ferrari but they probably envy RBR now in having something to be arrogant about…

    17. NickH says:

      Zero case, it is beyond me how they actually went through with the appeal

  6. NickH says:

    As expected. What a waste of time

    1. muatasim says:

      well said

  7. Alexander Supertramp says:

    This was never a case..

    1. Chromatic says:

      There should be a penalty [on team not driver] for wasting FIA time. Setting in concrete too harsh maybe?

    2. Clarks4WheelDrift says:

      Agree, never a case.

      A better case, for Red Bull Renault and Ferrari, would be focusing on rule bending to allow engine improvement mods this year.

      Moving on would be best, seeing as everyone has to catch up 2+ seconds per lap to the Merc boys.

      That is 2+ secs per lap even when the Merc boys are losing time battling each other.

      (Oh, and that 2+ seconds gap per lap isn’t valid for Ferrari as they are even further back, especially when you need top speed and traction.)

      1. C63 says:

        A better case, for Red Bull Renault and Ferrari, would be focusing on rule bending to allow engine improvement mods this year….

        Isn’t that what this appeal was about?

    3. MrNed says:

      I agree.

    4. Christos Pallis says:

      Your absolutely right.

      FIA said “you have to all do this”
      Redbull said “we disagreed so we did this other thing”
      FIA said “that’s not allowed so you are disqualified”
      Redbull said ” we disagree with that too so we are taking you to court”
      Court said “grow up Redbull”
      Redbull said “we disagree with the decision so will make all our sensors fail all the time and do what we want anyway”
      Mercedes said “why didn’t we give them a suspended ban”
      Jean Todd said “I’ll pack my bags”

  8. JSHT says:

    The right outcome was reached. I’m not sure why some people are unhappy with this decision. The original ruling came down to RBR not following FIA directives/guidelines/whatever. If RBR succeeded in their appeal, the flood gates would have opened. Can you imagine an appeal based on the FIA scrutineering deeming a car is underweight but the team’s scales says otherwise…… someone needs to enforce the rules fairly. That is the job of the FIA

  9. C63 says:

    In the past, whenever there has been a suggestion that Red Bull were, how shall I put it, sailing close to the wind or in plain language – CHEATING . The Red Bull fans have always said ‘ ah but where is your evidence, what proof have you got’? Well, now they can never say that again.
    Red Bull have been caught !

    1. Tickety-boo says:

      Hurrah, hurrah.

    2. Gaz Boy says:

      Indeed.
      If Christian and Adrian had just put their hands up after Melbourne and said “we got it wrong”, then that would have been fine; we all make mistakes. Yet they chose to drag this issue on and on…………yes, they do have the right of Appeal, but an Appeal only works if you have a solid case. Red Bull didn’t.

  10. Yohann says:

    This is the correct verdict. Red Bull and Riccardo would have some points if they followed the stewards warnings.

  11. Giles says:

    Seems fine to me, Ref said you foots in touch so no try, 5m scrum to the opposition.

    Later footage shows the foot “might” not be in touch, sorry boys the games over move on.

    Principle is in my view, no matter if the ref (FIA) is wrong or not, his word is law. If they say your using too much fuel, you are using too much fuel!

    That is what is fundamentally wrong with Football, the ref is no longer all powerful. The ref (FIA) should be beyond question. IMHO of course.

  12. Phillip H says:

    Surprised by some of the comments here. I don’t know why fans are surprised – Red Bull flagrantly broke the regulations.

    Regardless of the fuel sensor being “faulty,” they were given ample opportunities to remedy the situation to the FIA’s approval. RBR did not choose to do so, preferring their own measurements.

    Is it right that the fuel sensor was “faulty?” No, but in much the same way as a football team might score a clear goal, but the ref doesn’t see it and says: “Play on;” stuff happens in sport and it isn’t always fair, but you can’t have F1 teams make up their own rules.

    RBR knew that they were going to be excluded, but their arrogance wouldn’t let them back down. By their own admissions, Ricciardo was going to finish 5th if they stuck to the FIA readings.

    Isn’t that 5th better than disqualification?

    1. Jonathan says:

      precisely. I couldn’t believe that Newey admitted that Ricciardo would have finished 5th if they had complied during the race. That statement alone meant that the appeal had to be rejected!

      1. kenneth chapman says:

        @ jonathan… why would you say that? newey may well have based his statement on the fact that if they reduced the fuel flow to the levels indicated by the FIA that they would then be too far below the 100kh/hr allowable and hence they would have lost time.

        a perfectly balanced and honest statement by newey. IMO that is.

      2. Jonathan says:

        because, with everyone else complying with orders from the ref, having been the only team to ignore them they admitted they had deliberately manipulated the race result.

        If they had won the appeal it would have meant there was no reason why everyone below 2nd who had complied with race control rulings to reduce fuel flow would have had every right to expect to challenge the result and win the argument.

        When a ruling is issued and only one team ignores them they MUST be penalised as having been in the wrong to avoid complete anarchy.

  13. Jonathan C says:

    I still feel bad for Daniel, but it was the correct outcome.

  14. JB says:

    They need to ensure FIA authority remained intact. That’s the explanation. Someone had to be made an example, someone must be blamed, in this case Red Bull and Daniel Ricciardo.

    It’s not the end of the world I guess.

  15. JB says:

    This year every penalty is so heavy handed. Last year Mercedes was found guilty of illegal tyre testing. Yet they were not punished.

    1. kenneth chapman says:

      i am interested to know what the FIA penalty is for outfitting your drivers in plain matt black helmets to avoid recognition from fence lines occupied by heavily armed security personnel?

      1. C63 says:

        Heavily armed security personnel !
        I have told you ten million times not to exaggerate ;-)

      2. C63 says:

        Ps
        I don’t believe outfitting your drivers in plain black helmets for whatever reason is in breach of either, the technical, or sporting regulations. Accordingly there is no penalty.

      3. kenneth chapman says:

        joke alice.

    2. KRB says:

      Don’t believe they were found guilty. They were told by an agent of the FIA (Charlie) that they were good to go with their tire test with Pirelli. At no time did Mercedes hide their intention to test tires with their current car from the FIA. That one was the fault of the FIA in not having rigorous and defined procedures for setting up an authorized tire testing session.

      Anyone remotely familiar with legal tradition would recognize these two cases as totally different, in terms of fault, intent, etc.

      1. JB says:

        You’ve just proven a point I’ve been making.
        If Charlie says OK, its OK. If Charlie says no, its not.
        Red Bull thought they can challenge Charlie because the written rule said they didn’t do anything wrong. Red Bull ends up punished.
        Mercedes got the blessings of Charlie before the testing eventhough in season testing with a current car is clearly against the regulation. Mercedes was not guilty. As the season progressed, it is clear that Mercedes tyre grelims are gone since the testing. Didn’t gain advantage? BS!!!

        Anyway, I think Red Bull should have known better. They should never have challenge Charlie.

  16. Clive says:

    There’s no conceivable way RB could win, politically it would have wrecked the business (sport).

  17. Nick says:

    Eh, Doesnt matter.

    Red Bull will finish 2nd in the championship anyway, higher if Merc have troubles mid/late season….

    They’ll do better than Ferrari anyway; and thats the most important thing.

    1. Galapago555 says:

      “They’ll do better than Ferrari anyway; and thats the most important thing.”

      LOL

    2. Ferrari is over says:

      Beating Ferrari and Alonso isn’t an achievement anymore.

  18. Elie says:

    Common Sense Prevails

  19. Paul Beadle says:

    Didn’t think it would be overruled. Red bull now should realise there not above the laws of f1 and there arrogance cost daniel 3rd, maybe 4th or 5th, keep going dan,definite future champ.
    Massive mark webber fan and now cheering for dan,just prefer in different team.

  20. LeeF1Nut says:

    Whether the sensors work correctly or not is irrelevant. Red Bull chose to ignore an instruction from the FIA because they thought they knew better. That is just pure arrogance.

  21. Red Bull should just go on to concentrate on developing their car and closing the gap to mercedes. They should stop wasting every body’s time. Must they win every time?

  22. powersteer says:

    Great to know that common sense and justice prevails!

    Funny how RBR can become so arrogant! Even at grassroots level, we will setup our kart base on the trackside weighing bench used by the officials. Who cares whether that weighing bench is under reading by 5kg?

  23. DC says:

    The detail of the decision will be interesting – does this set a precedent that Charlie’s bits of paper are now the law?

    1. Me says:

      Only if you want to conduct an illegal tyre test.

  24. mark dobson says:

    James, do you think there is a chance of a further penalty for Red Bull such as Mercedes were seeking or would that have to have been disclosed in the present press release?

  25. AlexD says:

    A new era of Mercedes. I do not like Mercedes already…..last year they were lucky to stay in the sport while breaching no in season testing secrete tests. Now they want Red Bulls to be banned?
    To be clear…a Ferrari fan….actually…hard to support the Ferrari now with the direction that LDM is taking.

    1. j says:

      The Mercedes lawyer was just some payback on RBR. It’s fair play as far as I am concerned.

      Horner and Red Bull were the team that were pushing for Mercedes to get a penalty for the “secret test” and he attended the hearing.

      His words about Mercedes, “Usually if you commit a sporting offence there’s a sporting penalty that goes with it”.

      1. KRB says:

        It’s a suspended penalty that they were after (i.e. of no effect unless there are further transgressions), whereas Red Bull wanted an actual penalty applied to Mercedes.

        Thing is, Mercedes had a decent and valid defence, whereas RBR’s arguments amounted to a whole lotta nothing.

      2. Sebee says:

        RBR didn’t have a valid defence? Sensor failed, and for some reason in the most expensive motor sport on the planet we can’t afford a second backup sensor on board, or third for that matter.

      3. KRB says:

        RBR never followed the defined backup procedure! They just said “screw this, we’re using our own method”.

        RBR’s defence was total amateur hour. I can’t imagine their lawyers advised them that they had even a snowball’s chance in hell of prevailing. If they did, RBR would do well to dump them asap.

    2. Asayew says:

      Alex D, it is not a secrete test it is PRIVATE TEST. That is your problem.

  26. AaronBrooks says:

    In the water balloon fight of F-F-Ms, one player brought eggs to the party because they couldn’t throw the balloons as well as the other kids.

  27. Bob says:

    James,

    Was the verdict that the FIA sensor was accurate or that Red Bull were wrong to ignore it even if it wasn’t.

    1. James Allen says:

      Details to follow in statement

      1. marc says:

        James, you will probably do a piece on the site when the full ruling is published. If it isn’t in the ruling could you confirm whether or not rbr and some others? Don’t fit there fuel sensors as per manufacturers instructions and therefore are liable to failure. Can you confirm this as I see a number of people stating this but I haven’t seen it published anywhere? Thanks

  28. deancassady says:

    People, even here, don;t seem to understand what it is that has been going on with the fuel flow sensor issue.

    1. All of the teams (including Red Bull), agreed to the rules: if the fuel flow sensor does this, then the fall back process/procedures is this.
    2. Red Bull admitted a problem with their fuel flow sensor, then DID NOT follow the agreed to fall back process/procedure (because they didn’t think it was right.)
    3. Instead, Red Bull followed their own (possibly better, but who really knows, and is nonetheless IRRELEVANT!), approach to publishing their fuel flow rate (not, incidentally, agreed to by anybody formally, including Red Bull).
    4. So car #3 was disqualified for the breach in rules.

    End of story (or should have been)

    Red Bull, using up the last of their venerable four year supremacy, challenge, with little or no downside, why not?!?

    Thus the Mercedes push for MORE punishment.

    This time, no, but next, yes.

    Let’s move on folks.

    1. Asayew says:

      Bang! Spot on dean.
      Where is Sebee? Read this one and stop your nonsense.

  29. Gaz Boy says:

    Well done FIA. Common sense prevailed – for once!
    If Adrian and Christian had just put their hands up, said sorry guvnor, we got it wrong, then that would have been fine. First race, new rules, fair enough. We got it wrong, take a slap on the wrist, move on.
    However, the fact remains of the 13 classified finishers, Red Bull – and only Red Bull – were declared to have illegal fuel flow. It’s a simple case of if everyone else had obeyed the rules, why couldn’t you Mr Newey and Mr Horner?
    I do feel sorry for Daniel…………..but at the end of the day Daniel is a contracted salaried employee of Red Bull. OK, his salary has a few more 0′s at the end of his pay cheque then the vast majority of those at the Milton Keynes factory, but he’s still technically an employee of a team that was found to use illegal practices. So it is right and proper that both car and driver were disqualified from the results.
    I still have admiration and respect for Adrian and Christian for their technical and organisational abilities, but on a common sense level they have gone down a notch or two in my opinion. If the Milton Keynes mob believed they could win this appeal they are either arrogant, myopic or a combination of both.
    Come to think of it, when does myopia become arrogance, or vice versa?
    If anything, Daniel, Sebastian, Christian and Adrian are extremely fortunate that the FIA didn’t ban the Milton Keynes mob for a couple of races, a la BAR/Jenson/Sato circa 2005. Perhaps the FIA have given Red Bull the benefit of the doubt in terms of, OK lads, this time we’ll just keep it at disqualification, next time it will be a couple of races banned, got it?
    Look, common sense was the order of the day. The FIA are judge, jury and the big grunty security blokes who take you to your cell. The teams must understand they cannot take the law into their own hands.
    Lets hope this doesn’t happen again!

    1. Gaz Boy says:

      I’ll just add that F1 is a confluence of engineering technology, driving technique and a team’s operational efficiency. Get one of those elements wrong and you will cannot win.
      At least Red Bull have 2 out 3 elements working………Ferrari can only manage 1 at the minute.

      1. Tickety-boo says:

        Can they Gaz? Which one is that then, it’s escaped me…

      2. Gaz Boy says:

        Yes you’re right – technically, when it comes to driving technique Ferrari have half the element working properly………….
        Be careful who you recruit on your driver line up and all that eh……….

      3. Cutu says:

        If you fail to recognize KR’s and FA’s driving competence, then you are having a hard time understanding F1…

    2. deancassady says:

      Red Bull are going to be there, challenging every race, but it is a matter of if they can get to that level and still be in shooting distance of Mercedes for the championship?!?

      There RB is the only car that comes close to Mercedes, and I believe already an even match, maybe better.

      When they get their engine function smoothed out, they are going to be very close; no one reasonably expects Renault to catch Mercedes in power, this year, but Red Bull have supposedly won every one of their championships on less power to the Mercedes, non?

    3. deancassady says:

      But that should be Red Bull’s last freebie, challenging the rules (without good cause within the framework of the regulations and administration), and not getting an additional penalty for wasting everybody’s time.

  30. Richard says:

    I don’t know why they bothered. The FIA are always right even if one disagrees.

  31. Stuart Harrison says:

    Who did Red Bull think they were? Ferrari?

    1. Galapago555 says:

      Yeah, as when last year after Silverstone, Ferrari decided to change the tyres for new specs that suited their car.. oh, wait!

      1. Andre says:

        Pff all those who still think the tyres were changed because RB wanted them … OMG

        You need to come back to reality.

  32. Racecarmike says:

    How can Red Bull or any of their supporters think that they are exempt from the clealy written rules. All other teams cars complied with the regs even if they disagreed.
    To have ignored the FIA warnings throughout the race was even more arrogant.

  33. Racer Rob says:

    This was never about the accuracy of the fuel flow meters. Red Bull ignored instructions from the race director. They broke the rules. The disqualification was justified.

    All the teams were having issues with the fuel flow meter. Red Bull decided they were above the law. Their whining and arrogance and attempt (clearly successful with some people) to hide behind the flow meter accuracy, only serves to emphasize what spoiled children they have become.

  34. Richard says:

    Always was going to happen. Sadly, it struck Daniel.

  35. Steve Zodiac says:

    Their case failed mainly because RB were seemingly the only ones that had a problem with these sensors so it was up to them to make it work.

    1. Steve Zodiac says:

      After all if they can say “we only lost because the fuel sensor is crap” then they could go on to say that if the Renault engine wasn’t crap they would be world champions and appeal to the FIA!

    2. Rich C says:

      No, *everybody had the same issues with them, but everybody *else followed the Referee’s instructions on how to handle it.
      RBR were trying to get away with making up their *own rules.

      Perhaps it was even a deliberate attempt to sabotage the other teams’ finishing positions so Seb could score better??

  36. Jon says:

    RB tried to manipulate the Sensors and got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
    Maybe Marussia could be a mid pack runner with those sensors.
    In the end pushing the envelope is what F1 and Racing is all about.

  37. Rajoo says:

    Sensible decision

  38. tara_185 says:

    Oh mixed bag in the comments! Shows how diverse we are.
    I too thought they would win regardless of whether they were ‘fair sports’ or not.

    Im not fussed either way about the ruling but I agree that it was a known issue with the technology and so naive of the fia to think someone wouldn’t exploit the angle with that much money at stake.

    The report should be quite interesting and I hope James or someone can show the arguments and findings without all the legal jargon. Look forward to it!

  39. Kevin Thorne says:

    So has red bulls arrogance finally caught up with them ?just fell sorry for ricciaddo

  40. Horoldo says:

    Am disappointed for Dan, but is a fair decision.
    Hope he can gain the points in the next few races and get back to third in DC.

    I understand both sides of the argument, but surely if the the teams feels they can better measure fuel flow, (and have demonstrated this)shouldn’t the FIA have adopted a similar system.
    They didn’t say that Red Bull’s measurements were wrong, but have admitted the FIA-homologated sensors used to monitor fuel flow were faulty and will require offsets from time to time.

    Can you imagine what would happen if Alonso was leading the Italian GP (or Hamilton was leading the GB GP), then told to turn down their fuel flow, and then lost the win. And after the race then found the offset’s applied or FIA fuel sensors were wrong.

    Again I hope Dan makes up the points. He has been mega so far this season.

    On a different note, James do you feel what Mercedes did in trying to have sanctions added by their lawyer as fair game? Is this standard practice? and is this how the other teams behaved when Merc had the Pirelli test episode last year?

    1. Rich C says:

      RB was NOT measuring the fuel flow some other way!
      They were saying their software *model showed their fuel pump was not exceeding the limit.

      1. mbraz says:

        isn’t that measuring the fuel

      2. Robert says:

        NO – as someone who has built software simulations professionally, I can say with confidence that the model is _not_ reality…and needs to be highly calibrated and verified under similar conditions repeatedly before it can be trusted. And as was seen in the court transcripts, it appears that RB’s model IS flawed, due to their Malaysian readings correlation. That is to be expected due to so little running of these engines.

        So what RB have is a software model that is not entirely calibrated and tested, has not been verified by the FIA, and has no equivalent in operation with the other teams. How the hell they expected to win on such SCANT evidence is beyond me…except by being Red Bull and being “too big to fail”.

      3. Harry says:

        No it isn’t. The FIA sensor directly measures the fuel flow. Red Bull used software algorithums in a computer model based on other empirical measurements to determine a fuel rate. This is like the Ferrai modelling and wind tunnel, dosn’t correlate to real life.
        I am not debating there were issues with the fuel sensor, but other teams had issues just as Red Bull did and applied the offset before and during the race.
        The transcript of the meeting will be interesting and what I have read in summary suggests Red Bull tried it on as is always the way in F1 for all the teams and this time it didn’t work.

      4. Harry says:

        1. No it isn’t. The FIA sensor directly measures the fuel flow. Red Bull used software algorithms in a computer model based on other empirical measurements to determine a fuel rate. This is like the Ferrari modelling and wind tunnel doesn’t correlate to real life.
        I am not debating there were issues with the fuel sensor, but other teams had issues just as Red Bull did and applied the offset before and during the race.
        The transcript of the meeting will be interesting and what I have read in summary suggests Red Bull tried it on as is always the way in F1 for all the teams and this time it didn’t work.

      5. Rich C says:

        Nope, that’s just a “prognostication,” a swag from a computer, with no basis in reality.

        My friend, El Predicto the Psychic Armadillo, could do as well.

      6. jake says:

        Not an expert but I believe their measurement is based on the time the injector is open. If the fuel is at a known pressure and temperature then by knowing how long the injectors are open you can calculate the amount of fuel injected.
        So not a direct measurement for sure but still a measurement.

      7. Rich C says:

        Nope, just a Scientific Wild Ass Guess.

  41. Kingszito says:

    I believe Red Bull intentionally dragged this case to this extent just to save face, because everyone (unbiased) knows that they cannot win the case.

  42. David hatton says:

    Am I the only thing that think sits the correct decision.
    This case was never about wheat her the car was legal it was about not following the correct procedures.
    All other teams that had issues with the sensor followed the FIA procedure and adjusted there fuel flow readings with an agreed offset from the FIA. Only red bull decided that this offset would make the car slower so decided to use there own calculations instead. Arrogance which has cost them18 points. Slowing the car down might have lost a podium but still got points for 6th or 7th place.
    Why should the teams which did follow procedure be penalised against a car that wasn’t running legally.

  43. hippyneil says:

    So, does this now set a precedent that means Technical Directives are the same as Technical Regulations? Or is it proven that RB actually broke the rules? Looks like we’ll have to see the full adjudication from the FIA to see.

    1. KRB says:

      Don’t think so. But a TD that discusses a certain subject will be the “law of the land” on that subject up until a regulation that touches on that subject is passed.

      Just as judgements in common-law countries (caselaw) are the law on a subject up until a statute on the subject is passed, and the earlier caselaw is superseded.

      The hierarchy there would be Caselaw < Regulation < Statute < Constitutional Article.

  44. William says:

    I’m far from a RBR, but this is a genuine pity, Red Bull should have hired the tire-gate lawyers from Mercedes to handle this one. Looks like we get another year with an asterisk by the championship.

    That would be an interesting article. How do the FIA and teams ensure that companies that supply Homologated parts can’t interfere with championships in a targeted fashion?

    1. StevenM says:

      How does add an asterisk? It was only the first race. Vettel should have asterisks on all his WDCs then, RBR for away with something on last 4 seasons. This time they pushed it to far and the FIA handled it correctly

    2. Tim says:

      That’s rubbish. They broke the rules, were advised during the race but chose to ignore it. It’s the correct decision

    3. Robert says:

      One company supplies the sensors, an entirely different company does the testing and calibration of offsets.

      But put that in perspective – EVERY team runs an Engine Control Unit that is entirely built and sold by McLaren to a homologated design. And every team can test and verify their own sensor’s performance, both via the ECU data, and by putting it up against another sensor from their other car.

  45. vic nsi says:

    It would have been bad for F1 for Red Bull disqualification to have been over-ruled, because quite simply, it would have propagated the notion that the team are a law unto themselves in F1, seemingly sweeping aside the FIA’s authority at will when all other teams obediently complied.

    I hurt for Ricciardo and feel his pain, but I think Red Bull where a little bit too cavalier in the way the approached the whole incident.

  46. Rich C says:

    You can’t just ‘do your own thing’ when you disagree with the referee.

  47. Neil says:

    It’s about time somebody stood up to the arrogance and rule bending of Red Bull, Well Done FIA just save us the Red Bull propaganda next time and use the Black Flag… if you still have it rolling around

  48. tim says:

    And again, the FIA remind me to choose another interest. F1 has become even more stupid and irrelevant.

  49. Witan says:

    If the verdict of this independent appeal body had been any different then F1 would have been thrown into chaos with every team deciding their own interpretations of the rules.

    As another poster so aptly put it the referee would have been taken off the field so all the players would referee themselves deciding what the rules really meant.

  50. aveli says:

    redbull thought they had a better ruler forgetting that the fia are the standard setters against which they must calibrate their ruler. even ricciardo said they had nothing to lose. he knew they had no chance of a victory and yet they went and used up a tiny fraction of their legal budget.

  51. Stephen L says:

    The only sensible outcome, surely. Technical Regulations, as clarified and expanded upon from time to time by Technical Directives, has been the status quo for some time. If any one team can take it upon itself to ignore FIA’s instructions, no matter how strongly they feel justified in doing so, then technical anarchy would reign.

    In that case the FIA might as well stipulate the basic formula only and let the engineers get on with it in a technical free for all. Come to think of it, perhaps that’s not such a bad idea….:)).

  52. Roger W says:

    Good result – RB just trying it on

  53. Gary Naylor says:

    This was more a case of who “manages” an event, as opposed to the rights and wrongs of a particular component. In that regard, this is a good ruling as it prevents any team from being able to going against the race organisers if they feel that their rules are not working for them.

    As to whether the fuel flow sensor is up to the task – that is a whole different discussion, which should be addressed, but not by going against the directives of the organisers.

    Not a black day for the sport, but a good day for “fair play – and by the rules as in place at that time”.

  54. Kimo says:

    That’s what you get for trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes. They have been weighed in the balance and have been found wanting!

  55. Random 79 says:

    At least it’s sorted now.

    On to China…

    1. Gaz Boy says:

      Assuming Adrian and Christian left today (15/04) from Paris or Blighty, it doesn’t give them a lot of time to fly to Shanghai and get over the jet leg, does it?

      1. Random 79 says:

        Jet leg Gaz?

      2. Gaz Boy says:

        That’s an F1 euphemism for what happens when F1 personnel spend a great deal of time on a product made by Boeing or Airbus!

      3. Tim says:

        I get jet leg on easyjet but that’s because I’m 6ft1 and space isn’t exactly generous!

      4. Random 79 says:

        @Tim

        I can’t say I’ve been on too many planes in my life (three to be exact, which is two more than I would have liked ;) ), but being an inch or two taller than you I know exactly what you mean :)

        @Gaz

        Nice save :)

  56. Looking forward to the publication. I can not see RedBull going to court with this unless they thought they would win and they are not stupid.

    At the end, its good that this is now closed so we can move forward with the season and see if anyone can chase down Mercedes or not.
    Start of the Europe part, will be interesting. China, most likely not.

  57. saffa says:

    hopefully this brings da air heads back down to earth and see that they cant do their own thing any time.

  58. Michael says:

    This was predictable. I can’t believe Redbull actually thought they had a chance of winning this appeal.

  59. Galapago555 says:

    Funnily enough, I can read people are already criticising the decision before reading its grounds.

    May I suggest that we should read the full decision before criticising or praising it…

  60. Rich B says:

    no shock there

  61. bubney72 says:

    Shame, it would’ve made the championship more competetive. But then again, rules are rules.

  62. Anyone know what the real motivation behind RBR’s tilting at the windmill may have been?

  63. vic nsi says:

    It would have been bad for F1 for Red Bull disqualification to have been over-ruled, because quite simply, it would have propagated the notion that the team are a law unto themselves in F1, seemingly sweeping aside the FIA’s authority at will when all the other teams obediently complied.

    I hurt for Daniel Ricciardo and feel his pain, but I think Red Bull were a little bit too cavalier in the way they approached the whole incident.

  64. Oliver says:

    I cannot see how this is any thing but a GOOD thing for F1?

    Rules are rules and if broken you should be punished for breaking them and not go off and do what you think is correct!

    Yes the fuel sensor may be at fault but other teams had the same problems yet the listened to what they were instructed to do & they didnt have any trouble yet Red Bull once again seem to think they know best, its about time they were knocked down a peg or two!

    1. zx6dude says:

      totally agree. the rules are: you use FIA’s sensor. RBR didn’t. End of story. Can you imagine if every team was allowed to disregard directives and use their own sensors??? What a mess it would be.
      To me RBR were very arrogant, they should have obeyed the directive and later on contest the reliability of the sensor (if it is that bad why aren’t other teams complaining?), this way instead of good points in Australia they get nothing.

  65. TJ says:

    You really have to question the judgement calls made by RB in pursuing this appeal.

    I’d imagine some of recommendations by Mercedes may find their way into the judgement if only to puncture the arrogance Horner has exhibited throughout and the embarrassment this verdict has rightly been heaped on DM.

    1. Rich C says:

      This actually supports the idea that Horner is the rightful heir to Bernie’s throne.

      1. TJ says:

        How, by making RB a laughing stock.

        If anything Horner will be more cognisant of the transitory nature of F1 especially in the light of Domenicali’s recent exit.

  66. KARTRACE says:

    That case was closed there and then in Melbourne. RBR made fools of themselves by appealing stewards decision

  67. Peter says:

    Unlike many F1 fans, I think other of the top teams would under different circumstances have acted in the same way as Red Bull, including filing this appeal.

    I suspect that all of the teams would have considered ignoring Charlie Whiting in Melbourne over the fuel sensor depending on (a) how faulty they believed the FIA reading of their sensor to be, and (b) how many places they’d lose by turning down the wick. Thus at the first race both Mercedes and Marussia, to take two examples, could happily afford to comply with Charlie’s wishes – for opposing reasons.

    Looking at this another way, if you were in charge of a RACING team and you believed your equipment was accurate, just how many places would you drop before you thought about ignoring the referee? Will any reader claim that they’d never dream of ignoring the ref?

    1. StevenM says:

      Yeah, except all the teams didn’t, only RedBull…

    2. NJ says:

      In 1993, when McLaren was running Active Suspension and the FIA was making noises about banning it, McLaren lodged an appeal.

      However, in the run up to the appeal, McLaren was already developing a version of its car without Active Suspension that was actually quicker than the car with Active ride.

      THAT is how a top team reacts.

    3. Robert says:

      Mercedes DID have issues with their readings, and the FIA told them to turn turn down the fuel flow. They told the FIA they would lose tenths of a second per lap if they did that…and then complied without another word.

  68. Pkara says:

    Well done to F.I.A .
    A good result for F1 .
    Red Bull should be penalised for bringing their
    own agenda to the sport.
    Rules are rules.
    Red Bull in the past have bent the regulations (which is all part of F1 development…to a point) &
    got away with it ( flexing front wings which if seen in slow motion show hyper flexing in comparison to any other teams front wings in 2012/2011 & so on)
    Now they want the rules to fit around their woes & lack of development.
    So time for Red Bull to clench buttocks, eat humble pie & get on with looking like surprised lemmings in 2014:-D

    1. Mike Martin says:

      +1 Spot on

    2. mbraz says:

      the wings were tested all the time and past the tests every time. it is about time people get over this ancient news

  69. Vlad says:

    So what happens now? They keep using the faulty flow rate sensors?

    1. super seven says:

      From what I’ve read in other news, they will be required to install them correctly after China, after which they will be much less likely to be faulty.

  70. Cal says:

    “Apparently” new info was presented that proved Red Bull orchestrated the failures in order to apply their own measurement system that gave them significant performance increase thus allowing that podium to occur in the first place -something about a near half a second per lap gain.
    Rumor has it Mercedes will be pushing for a more severe punishment for RB since what happened was not just an accidental occurrence.
    Don’t quote me, it’s on one of the major F1 websites out there.

    1. super seven says:

      James,

      I’ve heard lots of comments regarding Red Bull’s incorrect installation of the fuel sensor, contributing to its alleged reliability issues.

      Do you have any information on what aspects of the installation didn’t meet manufacturer’s requirements. My guess would be lack of vibration mitigation, but I’d love to know the real reason.

      Can you enlighten us?

      1. James Allen says:

        Not heard that, but I have heard that there were some issues with the fuel itself

  71. Mike says:

    I guess they’ve just found out that they don’t have as much weight to throw around as they thought they had!

  72. Simon says:

    No idea why people are thinking this is “bad for the sport”. The McClaren “spygate” scandal, bad for McClaren and tarnished the image of motoring teams. But why is the decision made by a team, against the advice of the sport governing body and their regualtions a bad day for the sport. The full judgement will be interesting reading but ultimately I think RB would have done themselves more favour by not appealing in the first place. I don’t think it is possible for certain persons within the team to admit they were wrong to ignore the advice and guidance of the FiA and “go it alone” since, they had 4 titles under their belts and quite fancy a 5th. From what has been reported previously Red Bull reported errors on the sensors they had and voiced they were unhappy with the sensors, the FiA delegates offered a solution by adding an error correction factor to the figures which RB chose to ignore. They raised an issue which was entirely appropriate but then chose to ignore the solution they (and other teams) were offered and use their own data. They were then told several times that this wasn’t working by the FiA’s rules, they ignored that as well. The rules are there for all the teams to see, use and abide by, not “flex” and ignore when it doesn’t suit the results of testing which may have highlighted deficiencies in your package.

  73. Paul Chapman says:

    I think it’s a shame that Red Bull’s number one driver has lost points over this…but in all seriousness, what were they thinking?

    1. zx6dude says:

      love it! :)

  74. Curro says:

    Has someone ever won a ICA case? Ferrari Sepang 1999… can’t think of any other.

  75. RobP says:

    I am sorry for Ricciardo, but a good decision for the sake of the sport.

    1. zx6dude says:

      ditto

  76. David Howard says:

    I know that this does comment may not fit here per se but I hope you will hear me out. As you go about your day if you could please take a moment and remember the victims of Boston Marathon bombing one year ago today. The marathon was run today with no problems showing that all sport is a way for us to be united as one people against ignorance and aggression. My prayers that the F1 community will never have to suffer from the spectre of terrorism and my thoughts and prayers to those victims and families still suffering in Boston and around the world.

    1. David Howard says:

      Sorry for the grammar errors above. I am disabled now myself and sometimes find the happy pills I’m on inhibit my abilities. Peace out.

  77. Lee says:

    RBR we’re never going to win this because it’s based upon whether they breached the sporting regs not whether they were right. If an FIA specified standard sensor says it’s Christmas in July you better start buying presents.

  78. Max says:

    It’s been said before that Red Bull seem to have the view that it’s better to get points on the board and worry about the rules later…. flexi front wings/nose, engine mapping etc. Is this the first time they’ve had any questionably gained points removed?

  79. Allan B says:

    Are there no further ramifications for Red Bull?

    There should be.

  80. Phil W says:

    It seems Brutally harsh that Dan is stripped of ALL his points. So if they complied with using the FIA sensor would he have finished outside the top 10? Absolutely not.

    A more suitable punishment would be to hand a big fine to RB team for ignoring FIA orders and then add some time to Ricciardo’s race. At least then he would have something to show for his great drive.

    1. Alexander Supertramp says:

      “Add some time to Ricciardo’s race”
      That would be way to arbitrary! It’s difficult enough to judge what kind of advantage, if any, Ricciardo had by having a higher fluel flow rate.

    2. NickH says:

      I’m sure all off the other teams that legally finished in the points would love that outcome as well…

    3. Mike84 says:

      Understand the sentiment because it was his first race, his home race, he drove well, seems like a good guy, and probably had no say in this. But seriously, if an Olympic team’s coach poured an illegal performance enhancer into the drinking water of an athlete without his knowledge, and he took the silver medal, then he fails the doping test… what should they do? Not count his medal in his country’s overall medal count, but let him keep his own personal medal at someone else’s expense?

      Bumping him down a few places does not solve it either, because it leaves doubt as to whether that’s fair to the competitors who are still below him, and also it would encourage cheating because if you get caught you still get points that could win you the championship later.

      We’re not talking about an infraction like cutting a corner where it’s a single event and then it’s over, so you can just impose a time penalty or drive-through. This was a race-long illegal advantage very comparable to an athlete running with blood doping for more energy. It’s hard to tell what would have been different, maybe he would have had a worse start and been way down the order or been the one punted out by Kobayashi rather than Massa.

      Disqualification makes the most sense. If Red Bull feel DQ is so unfair, they should not have risked Ricciardo’s first and home race by IGNORING the officials who keep warning them that their car is in an illegal state.

    4. Sujith says:

      I feel for Riciardo too. But the truth is simple, you can’t separate the driver from the team.

      As much as I am a fan of Riciardo’s driving, the team made a fundamental mistake and has to pay the price. If they got away with it, Formula 1 would just be a scene of anarchy!!

      And Honestly, do you believe this has any implication on Daniel’s reputation other than championship points??? Not at all!!

  81. Dave H says:

    A relief this result has been reached, and a good day for F1.
    We can’t have teams making their own rules when they’re dissatisfied with the mandatory equipment they’re given.
    Yes it’s unfortunate for Ricciardo, but the innards of the car were out of his control. We needed a clear ruling that teams are to abide by the rules or get thrown out.
    Whew!

  82. Dmitry says:

    I don’t understand those unhappy – today is a bright day for F1!

    It was no politics – but the ruling which confirms FIA as authority, and restrains teams from rule bending or even following own rules.

    I am happy.

    1. mhilgtx says:

      So facts be damned who cares about the rules as long as the extremely inconsistent FIA has authority?

      1. super seven says:

        I suspect you’ll find when you read the full decision that facts were far from ignored, and the rules were upheld.

        Red Bull tried to break the rules. They tried to gain an unfair advantage while all the other teams followed the rules. They were disqualified because of it.

        Justice was served. To have applied the rules any other way would have been inconsistent in favour of Red Bull, to the detriment of the other teams that followed those same rules.

      2. KRB says:

        The facts were all on the FIA’s side. RBR had no case. They just constantly said they did. RBR should fire their lawyers, though I suspect they were pushed into this by either Horner, Marko, or Mateschitz. Whoever pushed it this far should feel a little sheepish right about now, ‘cos they’ve been made to look silly.

    2. Rene says:

      no politics, just rules made by an incompetent dictator… great success!

    3. zx6dude says:

      me too!

  83. Jonathan S says:

    Right result for F1.

    Can you imagine the repercussions if they sided with redbull?

    This is the pinnacle of motorsport but we all know new technology isn’t bullet proof, just look at pre season reliability. They all just need to get on and work with the new rules and stop moaning just because it isn’t going their way.

    It’s redbull’s blatant disregard for the fia which angers a lot of people. They chose to ignore them which makes the outcome pretty obvious.

  84. Matt W says:

    So what data did the FIA use to verify the actual fuel flow? What was the actual reading?

  85. Ace says:

    There are both sides to the story

    1) RBR may have a genuine case that they are being disadvantaged by a fuel flow sensor that’s being inaccurate, so they decided to rely on the fuel rail, which is not homologated. That isn’t a big deal for the general public, but to the FIA they have to consider the possibility that RBR (or any team for that matter) could deliberately sabotage the fuel sensor. Yes it’s a conspiracy theory but then this is F1 and there have been a few, proven (Benetton fuel flow filter removal) and unproven (Benetton traction control). To get a competitive edge, these people have to go as far as legally and morally possible.

    2) FIA have made the rules, teams agreed to the rules to enter the championship…including the fact that the only homologated sensor is the one provided by Gill Sensors via the FIA. No ifs or buts otherwise it’d just descend into anarchy.

    I think FIA made the right call, important message to the team and for the sport that has it’s members abiding by the rules or swift punishment.

    The subject of Mercedes calling for tougher sanctions is all part of F1 politics. Read Adam Parr’s art of war :P

  86. Flyboy says:

    RANT ALERT!
    I dislike almost everything about this needlessly complicated “Green” engine formula. It is a racing series! Not a technology demonstration. If the Reggie wants to leave, fine, don’t let the door hit you in the ass. There would be plenty of engine manufactures willing to make REASONABLE turbocharged racing engines of 1.6l. Over 25 years ago BMW took a production block and made a powerful racing engine and literally dozens of engine shops could make something similar, given freedom from the stupid current rules. Get rid of the rest of the energy crap that does NOTHING for the racing and just adds cost. Give them a reasonable amount of fuel, but more than the ridiculous 100 liters and let them use it as they will.
    End of rant…

    1. Robert says:

      The current engines are fantastically reasonable. They are capable of supplying a lot more power than they currently do in race trim. That power is limited only by the peak fuel flow meter. It is not done to be green, it is done because too many tracks are unsafe with a higher power level, and there is a desire to limit the speed differential between cars on the track. But be aware that this is intentional to gain safety, not to be “Green”.

  87. Richard says:

    As I have said before did Horner really believe that they were going to win? If he really did then he is deluded?!!? I constantly read about the speed camera scenario If I asked the copper writing out my ticket “i think that camera is faulty, do you?” Do you honestly believe he would say yes on your way son??!!! This is by far the most outrageous case of “we,ve got the biggest budget so we can” I have ever heard of. RB are jeered and SV is booed, what a great team they are. Hope they don,t win another point.

  88. Timmay says:

    Everyone remember how boring that race and Malaysia was?

    1. PeterG says:

      No, Think all the races so far this year have been pretty good & I’ve enjoyed all 3 of them.

      Close racing, Good level of overtaking & the brilliant spectacle of drivers fighting the cars, How can that be considered ‘boring’?

      1. TJ says:

        Please provide evidence of close racing and a good level of overtaking in Malaysia. I remember vettel overtaking ricciardo on the front straight and alonso passing hulk, that is all I can recall. It was merely a procession. Lets hope the rest of the season is like bahrain.

      2. PeterG says:

        Im not going to provide examples of every overtake but the overtaking stats from clip the apex & Mercedes shows a total of 31 on-track overtakes during the Malaysian Gp.

        There was 29 at Melbourne.

        So both races clearly did feature a good level of overtaking & I found both to be very entertaining & enjoyable races.

  89. zx6dude says:

    Rubbish for Daniel, he deserved better but in the end absolutely the right decision.

  90. Mike84 says:

    No matter what the verdict was, many comments would be posted condemning the decision. We haven’t even heard the court’s reasoning yet, so how about waiting before judging the judgment? Maybe there’s something we don’t know about yet.

  91. Sujith says:

    Hahahahahahahaha!!!!

    Well done FIA.

  92. bmg says:

    It will be interesting to read the complete statment when it’s released.

  93. Sujith says:

    Fuel-flow rows in WEC too :)
    It seems the new regulations are gonna be favoring the petrol powered Porsche and Toyota LMP1 cars. That leaves Audi frustrated :P

  94. Matt says:

    So Red Bull has now discovered that the rules do indeed apply to them as well as all of the other teams. Good decision based on the behavior of Red Bull.

  95. 4 German Fingers says:

    James,

    An off topic question, but one i’ve been meaning to ask nonetheless. When will “1″ the somewhat new F1 documentary release in the US?

    Thanks and sorry for the random question.

    1. super seven says:

      A friend of mine loaned me his DVD of it about 3 weeks ago. Since it was a US format DVD, it seems it is already available here.

      It’s very good, by the way.

    2. Clarks4WheelDrift says:

      It’s out on DVD etc, search for ’1 Life on the Limit’ or ’1 The Movie’.

      Personally, it was fairly good though most people will have seen the footage or stories elsewhere before. I particularly liked some of the footage, some of which I hadn’t really seen before such as Scheckters scary spin and resulting multi-car shunt etc.

      Though overall it was a bit lacking, it focuses so much on specific drivers deaths. It seems to cover a lot of F1 innovations and history then has an obvious massive gap between about 82 to 94.

  96. Tony Hetherington says:

    FIA/CW… Parc Ferme… your wing is too high, so you are disqualified.

    RB… no it’s not, we are using a different tape measure to you and everyone else !

    This was the right result from the FIA or chaos would have ensued

  97. David in Sydney says:

    I’m a little surprised RIC wasn’t reinstated but rules are rules – it’s all over red rover so move onwards and upwards!

  98. Craig in Manila says:

    This was always a joke of an appeal. Clearly,RBR only appealed the decision to cause some friction and get additional media exposure.

    I think the more important point is that someone in the stewards room has to explain why they knowingly allowed an illegal car to drive around and around and around for lap after lap after lap giving RBR a HEAP of screentime that they did not deserve.

    If that (known to be illegal) car had’ve crashed and killed/injured someone, the lawyers would be most interested.

  99. JohnBt says:

    Not a fan of Red Bull but I’m sure there’s a grey area which we fans will never know.

    Move on and look forward to China.

  100. ferggsa says:

    As usual in this type of situations, half in favour, half against
    I still think it is a follow the rules issue, rather then a tech precision issue

    What if RBR had followed the rules, bring Daniel in 6th and then lodge a protest on the faulty sensor
    We would all be cheering for RBR

    They chose to disobey the referee, it seems repeatedly so, and instead of just a penalty they got a red card

  101. NJ says:

    A great day for all sport!

    That is not to say that incompetent officiating cannot be put on trial. But it wasn’t the FIA on trial to day… it was one of F1′s competitors.

    Natural Law dictates that bad officials won’t retain their roles over time.

    Maybe the day will come when F1′s Competitors decide to put Charlie Whiting and others on trial.

    But that day hasn’t come.
    And that matter will be for another time.

    For now, as demonstrated by Merc… teams still back the rulemakers.

    Red Bull cannot go against the rulemakers.

  102. Richard C says:

    I wonder why a simple solution like an orifice can’t be implemented in the fuel system delivery pipework. Apart from erosion (careful material selection would take care of this), it would be impossible to flow greater than the correctly sized orifice would allow, accounting for the supply pressure. Fluid dynamics 101.

    1. Kbdavies says:

      Really??? An erosion resistant orifice?? So how do you measure the mass then? And what about the pressure of the flow? How do you measure that too? I really hope you don’t work in Fluid Dynamics!

      1. Richard C says:

        No one works in fluid dynamics. That is merely the study of…; only a suggestion buddy, calm down Mr Bernoulli. I believe this is a comments section, not “the answer to F1′s problems” forum.

      2. Kbdavies says:

        I do apologize if this came across the wrong way buddy. It was all tongue in cheek.

  103. dufus says:

    If the sensor imposed does not work…well it does not work. F1 is about the best of the best. Top Gun if you will.
    What would have happened to Maverick if whilst dog fighting the enemy he was told to turn down his engine because he needed to conserve fuel ?
    Better yet, how can you request a tower “fly by” if you dont have the fuel to do it ?

    Its all ridiculous really. Let the pilots fly and let the engineers innovate.

  104. Torchwood Five says:

    Thank Heaven. Common sense prevailed.

    Even if the FIA rules were BS in Australia, everyone one of the other teams who reached the chequered flag, did it adhering to them, so it would be unfair in the extreme to give those points back.

    Not fair to Daniel that his team did this to him.

  105. kenneth chapman says:

    i am a little surprised at some of the venom aimed at red bull here. yes, they have at times been seen to be stretching the rules but that is what entrepeneurs do. take on the impossible, sometimes they win sometimes they lose.

    until we see the final text of the judgement no one really knows exactly how the decision to uphold the DQ was arrived at but if it was, as a lot of posters seem think, simply a protection of the FIA then that will be a very sad day for F1.

    i have said this before but it needs expressing again. a bad law[rule] no matter what surrounds its usage is still a bad law. the sensors were flawed.

    others have made the case for the FIA being the final arbiter, no matter what. if the ICA appeal was thrown out simply to protect the FIA then that is bad law. some have said that if not chaos would have been the rule of the day. so what? it may have forced the FIA to do something different instead of being sheltered from the storm by maintaining a bad law.for the FIA to individually arrive at different sensor settings for different teams during a race is,IMO,wrong wrong and wrong again.

    i just happen to see this whole mess as one that does nothing for the racing and the fraternity of followers.

  106. Denny Rowland says:

    I find it so interesting that the Poison Dwarf finds F1 now unacceptable. His friends at Milton Keynes get what they deserve and a black guys is winning races. His mind gets easier to read the older he gets. Isn’t it time for him to go before he corrupts the sport totally.

    1. jake says:

      Before?

      1. Denny says:

        I have known Bernie for 40 years and to me nothing has changed, he just finds it harder to remember what he has said.

  107. Jim says:

    I feel sorry for Daniel as he drove a great race & has proven in the last 2 races that he is the real deal. He has totally proved he is not intimidated by the more experience drivers & is not scared to attack anyone in front regardless. He is quickly becoming the smiley face assassin, lol. In saying that, giving him a ten place penalty for unsafe release & giving Maldonado a five place penalty for almost killing Gutierrez has proved the FIA is an embarrassment.

  108. TGS says:

    Bad for Dan but good for the sport.

  109. Alexis says:

    Unsurprising after hearing the report from court. RB couldn’t even explain how their own fuel reading system worked. Interesting that it was Adrian Newey that made the call in the first place in Australia.

    1. Robert says:

      Agreed – read the court transcript on The Judge, and not only could they not explain it (except to confirm it was a software model and not an actual measurement), they also could not explain the next set of readings from the Malaysian GP, which seemed to indicate that their model was not calibrated correctly, or perhaps inconsistent at different temperatures. All in all, a farcical way to claim that they “knew” better than the FIA how much fuel was being used in Danny’s car.

    2. jake says:

      He never made that call on his own, it had to be sanctioned by CH. You do not ignore a direct instruction from the race officials without running it by the team principle first.

  110. Sergio says:

    Mercedes & Red Bull are the strongest boys in the political arena. One are able to infringe the rules testing and obtaining clear benefits without serius penalty, and the others are so confident that they can disobey stewarts and then appeal without big consequences. What they have in common? Both threatened to leave F1 and sounded credible.

  111. Clarks4WheelDrift says:

    I wonder if Gill sensors made more cash than expected with teams buying up a lot more sensors to average out the ‘ropey’ ones?

    Surely not, as there is little business sense for them to completely resolve the issue then… ;)

    Or is it more of a Red Bull car specific issue?

  112. sunny stivala says:

    There was more at stake for RB then just the 18points for Ricciardo and the team, RB were waging a battle to have the FFM (sensor) removed from the 2014 regulations, it was a fight RB could never win, regularly scorn was poured on RB in court, they were accused of arrogance, insular thinking and provoking a course of action which if adopted by all the competitors would lead to law of the wild west and anarchy. As I said on here before, RBR never had a leg to stand on.

  113. Denny says:

    Too many times it has been said that cheating is a part of motor racing. Getting caught is the only disgrace. Remember when a leading team offered a 100 pound reward for the return of a fire ext. that fell off a car and ended up in the Silverstone crowd. You could have bought a new one for half that price at the time. They wanted it back because it was full of Nitrous Oxide…..

    Red Bull are testing the water to find out what they can get away with.

  114. Bobster says:

    I think there’s a message in all of this: Yes, problems do occur, but when they occur engage with us in a constructive fashion rather than get on a public soapbox. That’s the message from FIA to RBR.

  115. Bill. Geoff. Lomas says:

    A long time ago when I first raced against Max Moseley and Bernie our egos were obstructed by
    the egos of the officials. I solved the problem by calling the first ever racing drivers strike. After all these years the problem is far worse, what a farce, the idea that the rate of flow of petrol is part of any racing formula is beyond all reason.
    Cheating was always the major ingredient in motor racing success. It took me nine years without cheating to create a car that could beat cars that were cheating. When cheating I made a point of not finishing in first place, even if I knew the winner was cheating.
    It follows that Red Bull may have been cheating and therefore settled for second place. This begs the question. Was the winning car using a superior form of cheating? After all Red Bull were the looser’s. If I’d stayed with Max and Bernie I would have called a strike of drivers until Danny got what he richly deserved.
    What’s the answer for the future of F.1. before it dies the death at the hands of Motogp?
    The sop to my colleagues at the F.A.O. of the United Nations is an insult. Clean up the regulations and make F.1….Formula Libre.

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