Festive Season 2014
Red Bull Racing appeal verdict due on Tuesday
News
Screen Shot 2014-04-14 at 17.55.13
Posted By: Justin Hynes  |  14 Apr 2014   |  5:57 pm GMT  |  119 comments

Red Bull Racing will have to wait until tomorrow morning to learn whether their appeal against Daniel Ricciardo’s disqualification from the result of Australian Grand Prix has been a success or a failure.

Following the end of the six-hour hearing at the FIA’s Paris headquarters on Place de la Concorde, Jean-Christophe Breillat, General Secretary of the International Court of Appeal said:  “We will announce the decision tomorrow morning at the latest.”

Red Bull Racing were represented at the hearing by Red Bull Racing Team Principal Christian Horner, Chief Technical Officer Adrian Newey, Head of Car Engineering Paul Monaghan, R&D Project Engineer Jeff Calam and David Mart, an engineer from the team’s power unit supplier Renault Sport F1.

After insisting that the homologated fuel flow sensors specified by the FIA were faulty, which caused the team to revert to its own fuel flow model, the team turned its attention to technical directives issued to the team which outlined how switching to an alternative model is handled.

The team’s lawyer Ali Malek questioned the regulatory authority of technical directives, referring to a media briefing given by FIA Race Director Charlie Whiting at the Malaysian Grand Prix in which he referred to directives as “opinions given by the technical department to teams and normally they’re happy to follow that”.

Malek added that the directives are either “instructions that we have to follow or they are not binding”.

The FIA’s legal representative Jonathan Taylor and Mercedes barrister Paul Harris, who also presented arguments at the hearing disputed this, however, saying that it was “the duty of the competitor to satisfy the technical delegate”, not the other way around.

With 18 Constructors’ and Drivers’ Championship points at stake the case also drew close attention from rival Formula One teams, with representatives of McLaren, Lotus, Williams and Force India in attendance.

Mercedes, though, chose to present arguments to the court, and Harris asked that an additional sanction to be imposed on their rival, suggesting a penalty suspended until the end of the season in order to ensure that Red Bull Racing would not repeat their action at any time during this year’s championship.

The hearing ended at just before 3.30pm CET, with the judges retiring to consider a ruling. That decision is expected tomorrow morning, with a full explanatory document to be published at the end of this week.

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

    So Charlie said the Technical Directives are just opinion.

    But RBR have already pointed out that things aren’t necessarily true just because Charlie said them. So it seems odd that their appeal relies on something that Charlie said.

    1. Matt H says:

      My brain hurts working this out : S

    2. Goob says:

      I lost all respect for Charlie Whiting and the FIA a long time ago – the FIA need to be dismantled for the betterment of F1.

      We need a new authority that earns respect amongst the team and the viewers…

      I don’t care about this case either way…

    3. Mike84 says:

      Thank you. If opinions aren’t law then neither is Charlie’s opinion about opinions.

    4. NJ says:

      This is what I’ve been saying the whole time…. A Technical Directive is the equivalent of the Referee blowing his whistle.

      Sure it’s an “opinion” when a Technical Delegate/Referee decides to do something.

      But Merc is right… as a participant in the sport… regardless of what you think of the official’s “opinion” it is your role to satisfy the Technical Delegate/Referee and not the other way around.

      It was so clear before the hearing that I don’t even know why people in general think there is an argument.

      You ever seen Real Madrid try to take FIFA to court for yellow and red cards?

      Sheesh.

    5. NJ says:

      Also note Adrian Newey’s statement:

      “No team wants to court controversy and then defend itself, so if you can comply with those wishes even if you don’t agree with them, then that’s what you do and that’s exactly what we did.

      “The fact is, it then became evident that if we continued to comply, we would lose positions.”

      tsk tsk tsk… Caught with your hand in the cookie jar, mate!

  2. Gaz Boy says:

    “So Christian, there were 13 classified finishers at the 2014 AUS GP, and only your team’s car was found to have illegal fuel flow. What is your response?”
    “Well, er, the fuel flow device must have been broken.”
    “Why didn’t you switch to the back-up device? then?”
    “Er…………”
    Let’s wait for the decision, but if Red Bull do win the appeal, is it the case that a vice has become a virtue?

    1. Chet says:

      If you knew what was going on with the case you’d know that the original gave incorrect readings, the backup failed completely in qualifying so they had to put the original (which gave false readings) back in.

      That one started giving even worse readings so RB relied on the fuel flow readings from their fuel system. You might also know that the fuel system sensor was subsequently tested by the FIA post-race and was proven to be accurate.

      The issue is that the fuel system wasn’t certified before the race started.

      1. Gaz Boy says:

        Well I’ve just heard Red Bull lost the case, so my worry of a vice (i.e ignoring FIA demands) becoming a virtue is something I don’t have to worry about – for now anyway!

    2. Alec Tronnick says:

      I think you’re forget that the “illegal fuel flow” was measured on a sensor that both sides acknowledge was faulty.

      The fact that it took 5 hours to decide to rub out Dan shows that this is not a straight forward case.

      In fact it wouldn’t surprise me if the stewards in Melbourne said “this is our decision, but protest it if you want” so that a higher power (ICA- not God) would make the final decision.

      1. Matthew Cheshire says:

        +1.

        And the angle from Red Bull is really – we’ve spent $500M getting these cars on the track in your race, and your component has buggered our chance of winning.

        Fia’s our race, our rules doesn’t quite cut it when you’ve buggered up someones half billion$ investment.

      2. Gaz Boy says:

        Red Bull have lost the appeal, I’ve just heard.
        It’s hard to defend yourself in isolation when 12 other finishers were deemed perfectly legal.

    3. Michael Powell says:

      I feel sorry for Daniel, but if RedBull get away with this, all the teams will ignore the fuel flow rules from now on whenever it suits them. It’s a complex enough formula for fans to comprehend anyway, so adding another unknown into the mix is unacceptable, especially for those people sitting on the terraces without access to streams of technical data.

  3. Sebee says:

    Can you feel the love between these team? Yikes!

    Well, let’s be honest here, it’s going to be tough one for RBR.

    I think it comes down to:
    Are Directives rules?
    I think we can agree they are not, for if they were they’d be called rules.

    And then it’s about enforcing a rule. How can FIA do that with a faulty sensor?

    So unless FIA can beyond doubt (that means with proof boys and girls) demonstrate that RBR didn’t comply with the 100kg/hr rule, RBR did not break the rule and can have 2nd back. Doesn’t sound like this was presented by the FIA.

    Now, will directives henceforth be used in the paddock WC as option to clean up after a Number 2? And can FIA enforce the flow rule with these sensors as is? Or as Horner has said, install 2 or 3 and take the average for F1 worthy accuracy? Is this rule not enforcable?

    1. Sebee says:

      Yes or no – are these Flow Sensors in the rules, or are they only in the Directive?

      1. Kingszito says:

        The bottom line is that RBR cannot “pick and chose” the directive that they would follow. How ever you see it @Sebee RBR will not get away with this one, because if they do F1 will lose more than they would gain by giving back the (Melbourne) 2nd position to RBR.

        This is a question of who is in charge than just a directive. If FIA loses, then the lose control of their sports and I don’t see that as a better option for the sports. RBR must be punished, period.

      2. Sebee says:

        Also, it would put the sensors in bad light and would not give FIA a way to police these flow rules.

        So yes, as I said, it’s going to be a tough one because a rulling for RBR would a rulling against directives, sensors, FIAs abiltiy to enforce. Too big a can of worms to open. And as we see, that’s how it went.

      3. Chet says:

        They are in the rules but the procedure for when one fails was in a directive.

      4. Spinodontosaurus says:

        I’m almost certain that the only things to do with the fuel flow sensors written in the rules is that they must A: be fitted, and B: be sending data to the FIA.
        Red Bull complied with both of these.

        The sensors being the mandatory measurement method was only specified in a Technical Directive, issued at one of the Bahrain tests, and these directives are not rules, they as much themselves.

      5. Yak says:

        Correct, they’re in the rules but only as far as you said. They need to have an FIA-approved sensor installed in the appropriate place, and that sensor needs to be transmitting data. And of course the 100kg/h fuel flow rate is specified. The rest of it, about the FIA-approved sensor being the only permitted form of measurement (for the purposes of judging the 100kg/h rate at least) unless otherwise decided by the FIA, the offsets, etc., was in technical directives.

        Red Bull certainly complied with the regulations as far as having the sensor installed and transmitting data. The FIA aren’t allowed to just go changing the rules whenever they want during the season without the teams agreeing. If technical directives had to be followed, that would effectively allow the FIA to change the rules whenever they wanted.

        So it seems to be it all just comes down to whether or not Red Bull can prove they didn’t exceed the 100kg/h flow rate.

      6. DB says:

        They must be fitted, sending data to the FIA and telling the car is always under the 100kg/h limit.
        If they thought the car had a problem and told the team to fix it and how to fix it, the stewards should have black flagged the car when the team didn’t. Now there wouldn’t be this discussion about whether or not the teams can be self regulated. As if history shows they could be trustworthy…

      7. Sebee says:

        So it could be said that the directive is about enforcement of the rule. Very much like the directives FIA gave on revised front wing flex tests, which RBR passed. :-)

        So in the end, the directive is not actually a rule, it’s a methodology to enforce a rule, and thus has a basis and a reason.

      8. Rich C says:

        In the rules.

      9. Glennb says:

        2014 F1 Tech Regs (relevant clauses)

        5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.
        5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5.
        5.10.1 The pressure of the fuel supplied to the injectors may not exceed 500bar. Only approved parts may be used and the list of parts approved by the FIA, and the approval procedure, may be found in the Appendix to the Technical Regulations.
        5.10.3 Homologated sensors must be fitted which directly measure the pressure, the temperature and the flow of the fuel supplied to the injectors, these signals must be supplied to the FIA data logger.
        5.10.4 Only one homologated FIA fuel flow sensor may be fitted to the car which must be placed wholly within the fuel tank.

        The real question is, Is a Technical Directive enforceable, or is it Advisory?

        I personally could not find a reference to a Technical Directive in either the Sporting or Technical Regulations but that doesnt mean much…

      10. NJ says:

        Maybe the technical directive isn’t in the rules, but to follow the Technical Delegate is in the rules. hehehe.

    2. Stan says:

      About the faulty sensors… I have been wondering, is it just Red Bull’s opinion that they are faulty or has the FIA confirmed this?

      For some reason I suspect Red Bull just isn’t particularly happy with the sensor’s readings. Their replacement sensor probably didn’t make them feel any better in Australia, and I think the FIA therefore suggested they’d switch back to the original sensor that they had calibrated earlier. I can’t imagine it being any different than this. It’d just be too coincidental for Red Bull to have two faulty sensors.

      Surely they won’t get away with this, many of the other teams managed to reach agreement with the FIA about offsets. Red Bull overplayed their hand.

      1. Monktonnik says:

        And more to the point; two faulty sensors on the same car.

    3. F1 Badger says:

      I suspect that the burden of proof is ‘on the balance of probabilities’ due to this being a civil action. I’m happy to be corrected as I am no expert on French law but certainly most countries save ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ for criminal matters.

      1. TameRacer says:

        This isn’t being held in a French court of law, it’s an FIA hearing.

      2. F1 Badger says:

        The FIA is a French based organisation but I have no idea if its French law. But the point remains its a civil action.

    4. NJ says:

      A referee’s call is final without appeal.
      end of story.

    5. mark says:

      Well something just occurred to me….

      Is a Directive a directive or a suggestion. Whether it’s in the rules or not, it would be called a suggestion if it was voluntary…

      If I issue a “directive” to staff etc it is an enforceable policy of my company.

      This “is it in the rules?” or not is just whitewash / sleight of hand manipulation/distraction.

      Fact is ALL the teams treat the “directives” as the law and so should redbull.

    6. Andrew M says:

      “I think it comes down to:
      Are Directives rules?
      I think we can agree they are not, for if they were they’d be called rules.”

      I think you’ll find there’s a little bit of debate on that point.

  4. Sebee says:

    I have to say, being in such a dominating position likes of which RBR has not achieved over past 4 years, is Mercedes being overly dramatic and agressive here? Let’s be honest, RBR have a case, and it should be heard in teh very least. For a competitor to suggest punishment to the court, well, WTF comes to mind. Was this Mercedes move like one of the sarcastic comments we find here once in a while?

    Can you imagine the appearance should this court actually do what Mercedes suggested? First they suggest their own punishment for Not-At-All Secret Tire Test, and get it. Should this court deliver Mercedes’ suggested punishment, how much more evidnece would you boys and girls need about who calls the shots?
    Which basically to me means Mercedes’ was acting a fool and I bet you there were plenty of chuckles in the court when Mercedes made that statement.

    1. luqa says:

      Well we already know AMG Petronas call the shots. One of the Supervisory Board Members of MB Dr. Weber has already stated publicly they would have pulled the plug on their F1 participation if the new power unit rules would not have been implemented.

      Talk about “throwing your toys out the pram” as the Brits care to say..

    2. Chris says:

      I think Red Bull called for a harder penalty against Merc after the tyre test so it not surprising they (Merc) are trying to force the same now the boot is on the other foot I guess.

      1. Sebee says:

        Can you point this out in a post? I don’t recall this. I remember RBR demanding a similar test ASAP I’m pretty sure.

        If RBR called for MB season long punishment I’ll have to take my “MB being harsh” comment back.

      2. Chris says:

        Hey Sebee, they defo called for a sporting penalty buddy which I presumed as a points hit which would have effected their season.

        I thought merc deserved more punishment back then, at the end of the day they are all as bad as each other when it comes to pushing the limits sometimes.

        http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12475/8766723/helmut-marko-warns-of-reopening-of-pandoras-box-if-mercedes-escape-testgate-sanction

    3. AuraF1 says:

      To be fair Red Bull demanded Mercedes be expelled in their petition to the court during the secret tyre test fiasco. They also pretty much suggested Pirelli were endangering their drivers by not building tyres to their exact specs. When it comes to exaggeration and emotional appeals to authority RBR have got the politics down pat.

      I think Mercedes were just enjoying being in the other side this time :)

      1. Monktonnik says:

        Here here!

      2. Sebee says:

        Well, I do not recall this, but if that is the case than fair game by MB in this case.

        You have to admit though, that MB test move stunk to high heaven!

      3. AuraF1 says:

        It did but I suppose if you had Charlie Whiting, Pirelli and Mercedes agreeing its much more a grey area than RB’s decision to just ignore everyone and do what they felt like. It wasn’t even a grey area it was just saying ‘we suddenly do not believe technical directives apply to us’ when RBR have said technical directives are important in the past. When the TD’s allowed Renault to fire on over run in braking a few years back he was adamant Charlie whiting was a great and equitable man for seeing it his way. When the stewards are against Christian Horner he suddenly started a campaign of Charlie whiting bashing in the media – when as others have pointed out the exclusion wasn’t the call of Charlie this time.

        I’m sure Mercedes play politics too but they seem to be less arrogant than RBR currently – admittedly they may end up that way if they dominate as well – I don’t know.

      4. Sebee says:

        I REMEMBER NOW!

        Ferrari and RBR protested because MB used a 2013 (Current) car. That was supposed to be not allowed. Not to mention black helmets, white overalls and extra track time for Nico and Lewis – drivers taking part in the WDC and getting extra track time other drivers did not get.

        Anyhow, MB didn’t take part in the YDT so in the end it was a reasonably fair outcome.

        I still feel this Appeal is a lost opportunity for the FIA. Going forward all teams should have 2 sensors onboard for redundancy and this should have been mandated by the court, if it is within their power.

      5. AuraF1 says:

        MB certainly didn’t act in an open fashion around test gate that’s for sure. But it’s not the same as being told by the FIA ‘don’t do that’ and then doing it anyway – which is RBRs reason they lost the appeal.

        I doubt the court can mandate new rules – it just clarified that technical directives are to be followed.

        In court it was made clear that RBR had the option to switch to their backup chassis fuel sensor but chose not to and used a software model from the fuel rail – frankly as far as ‘cheating’ goes it was incompetent! Though it does make things like the flexi wing seem less fraudulent as clearly RBR aren’t quite as good at hiding things as their rivals often claimed ;)

    4. Dave P says:

      You are kidding???

      Totally RBR should get a harsher punishment, I am pleased Mercedes stood up for fair play ( following the FIA )

      Are you telling me that if a football player got a red card, but refused to leave and played on… That would be OK. The correct process ( as happened with Arsenal) is too leave the pitch and appeal later.

      I hope they get a 3 race ban……. Do I expect it .. No.

      I predecict here and now…

      Ricciardo gets points back
      RBR loose points

      Classic appeal court compromise….

      1. Sebee says:

        RBR didn’t get a red card (or a black flag)

        FIA’s own sensor FAILED! If the FIA scale failed should a secondary method be used to weigh the car? Either we have a scale, or we don’t. The scale and the sensor are there to provide a level of accuracy. If they fail FIA surely cannot argue that same level of accuracy is to be expected.

        As such a second scale or second sensor should be in place, not a “method”.

        To rule for RBR, even though they had a case, would be too disruptive. That’s why they didn’t rule. Not that RBR’s argument is wrong.

        That’s my view.

      2. NJ says:

        There was a mandated off-set.
        RBR should have used the mandated off-set.

    5. Optimaximal says:

      Red Bull were probably the most aggressive team to lobby against the Double Diffuser in 2009 because they were the most disadvantaged by it, largely because their rear suspension meant it was harder to modify to fit the concept in a timely fashion.

      This is a taste of their own medicine…

    6. Kingszito says:

      Yes you may say that Mercedes were dramatic, but just like RBR were last season during the secret tire test. What goes around comes around.

    7. aveli says:

      mercedes are simply returning the favour. during their hearing last season redbull did call for severe penalties for mercedes, hence their contribution.

    8. Andy says:

      For some years now it appears that all of the teams have been more than happy to accept and adhere to Technical Directives. As far as I know Red Bull have always adhered to them, the difference now is they are struggling and their ego is getting the better of them.

      Don’t forget that the Court actually did what Mercedes asked for last year, so nothing new there.

    9. me says:

      Last year, Redbull was in court trying to get Mercedes more heavily penalised. It works both ways

    10. bmg says:

      Mercedes sound like BMW all over again.

      Why would Mercedes need to speak at the hearing?

      Who runs the sport, FIA or Mercedes, they need to remember its a sport and Redbull have a right to appeal if they feel they did not get a fair hearing.

      Mercedes did not even present any evidence, FIA are being bullied by the big boy (car manufacturer’s).

      I have never been a big fan of car manufacturer’s owning a team, look at the influence Ferrari has.

      They should only supply engines, leave the rest to the teams.

    11. James m says:

      It’s in Mercedes interests for the decision go against red bull, simple as that.

      1. kenneth chapman says:

        i am really curious as to how mercedes were given the chance to intervene as i was under the impression that the appeal was against the decisions of the FIA stewards? are mercedes acting as a proxy for all the other teams james?

        obviously it is in the interests of all the other competitors to see red bull lose as the current points table would then have to be adjusted.

      2. Yak says:

        Exactly. Mercedes are putting it on pole and winning races now, but with the improvements shown by Red Bull between testing and the first race, and then further in the two races since, it’s clear Red Bull are fighting back hard. And it seems the Red Bull is commonly regarded the best car out there, only held back for now by the Renault in the back of it.

        At the moment Mercedes can afford to dial it back and still win easily. We saw in the final 10 laps in Malaysia what happens when the Mercs are actually going at it. Even with the two cars fighting and defending hard against each other, they still broke away from the pack at an absurd pace. But they know it’s not necessarily going to stay that way, so they want to keep Red Bull down for as long as possible and keep themselves up the front.

        Personally I’m not even sure why other teams are allowed to present arguments. This is Red Bull vs the FIA. I could understand other teams being present out of interest, or being asked to provide factual information on certain matters, but I’m not really seeing why Mercedes are there giving opinions and suggesting punishments. Seems absurd.

      3. Michael says:

        @ James I don’t see how Redbull can win this appeal. It would set a bad precedent. U can’t have the inmates running the asylum.

    12. I agree. What is the FIA thinking in allowing Mercedes to offer such opinion? Sure, they may be an interested party but they aren’t the subject of the hearing and should keep their “opinion” to themselves. They might legitimately have been questioned on matters of fact but should leave the opinion to the legal representatives of the two directly involved parties. Then, if conjecture remains, then convene a technical working party at which all teams can express opinion. But this just smacks of the tail wagging the dog.

    13. pargo says:

      Yes, Merc looking a little sanctimonious in all of this!

    14. NJ says:

      It’s in the interest of sport that the decision go against Red Bull.

    15. StevenM says:

      Well, when a team threatens to leave the sport if they don’t get their way it doesn’t make any friends for itself, and let’s face it, RBR are not Ferrari, who do they really think they are? Plus you have to think about the fact that most of the teams have an axe to find with RBR. There have been a lot of questionable rulings go in RBRs way the last 4 years. Flexible wings that didn’t flex, ilegal cutouts on the floor, ilegal engine maps, calls for different tires that ended up suiting RBR better than the rest. The teams are licking their wounds for RBR to get punished for breaking the rules. Not only that, but the fact that they were the only ones caught breaking the fuel flow rule makes it seem like they thought they were untouchable, as if they thought they were going to let it go. Did you also noticed that of the 4 teams in attendance 3 are Mercedes customers? Seebee, admit it, the only reason you are saying this is because your favorite diver drives an RBR, if Vettel drove anther car you’d be all up in arms about it

    16. superdad27 says:

      Mercedes has become the new ferrari, one set of rules for them and another for everyone else.

      1. jake says:

        Mercedes was one of the other teams that were requested to reduce their fuel flow and complied. So explain how the rules are different for them.

      2. Superdad27 says:

        Take it that you are not questioning that there are/was different rules for ferrari.
        I was thinking of the tyre testing fiasco were Mercedes gained a significant advantage as demonstrated by their improved performance after the tyre testing. Their interpretation of the rules was novel, when questioned threatened to leve the sport and suggested their own penalty.
        Red bull interperate the rule/ directions in a novel way and Mercedes squeal like a stuck pig and to add insult to injury suggest the penalty.
        On the other hand I was impressed the attitude to the contest between Lewis and keep.

    17. PxB says:

      While I’m sure the usual team rivalry has played a part, I think Mercedes’ intervention also reflects genuine outrage at Red Bull’s behaviour.

      If Technical Directives become unenforceable through this appeal, I believe the consequences will far-reaching. So Red Bull seem to have put their own self-interest above that of the sport (and presumably above all other FIA-regulated motorsport too).

      BTW on this occasion Merc haven’t suggested a punishment, just that it should be suspended. Assuming Red Bull behave themselves from now on, it won’t be invoked and so won’t help Merc.

    18. CHIUNDA says:

      As I recall, RBR and Horner made arguements against Mercedes last year. RBR set a precedent.

  5. Sri says:

    Curiously while other teams had representatives there, Ferrari was missing and I guess for a good reason.

    1. Random 79 says:

      No, they were there.

      It’s just that by the time they got there everyone else had already left :)

    2. Optimaximal says:

      The company head is still hiding in shame following his blatant politicking and the technical staff are flailing directionlessly trying to sort an uncompetitive engine and chassis.

    3. aveli says:

      ferrari tend to side with redbull.

    4. Andy says:

      Yes, Ferrari missed it because they were too slow and still on the peripherique.

    5. Mike84 says:

      It doesn’t matter, they are 65 minutes off the pace and are busy having a termination party for SD, where in his honor everyone will remain very calm and remind themselves they were not stupid in the previous decade and will not be phenomenal in the next decade; what’s more important is they have their feet firmly planted on the ground, much to the delight of everyone passing them.

    6. Rudy says:

      Yep Mister, they were appointing New TD. You know how are Italians… make a big fuss about everything. Sorry for the inconvenience on missing a bunch of crap from RBR in Paris. There’s enough of that kind of crap down there in Italy at the moment… Priorities, you see…

      1. Geoff Norman says:

        Rudy – you may well be Italian but I think you should be more careful about insulting people with racial stereotypes.

    7. Sri says:

      I would say they did not get the taxis in airport as all the drivers are in F1 now.

  6. justin says:

    so, the crux of it is;

    yes, we have always expected everyone to adhere to the regulations and directives when we were kicking their butts for four years, during which time we were checked and always found to be within the directives and regulations which we agreed and reiterated was what everyone should be tested against; but sticking to this one makes it hard for us to keep up which isnt fair on us!

  7. Random 79 says:

    So like I said, roll on April 16th ;)

    1. Gaz Boy says:

      Red Bull lost the appeal.

  8. richardc says:

    I cannot beleive that Horner beleives he can win this case. Not only did they finally prove to the world that they win by bending rules/ words in the rule book they prove their naivity. Even if they are right (I don,t beleive they are) the FIA cannot let them win. Therefore to think the Judges will not be biased is bordering on madness. I hope they throw the book at Horner and Newey for wasting time and resources. On the subject of Horner ….his relationship with Bernis is far to cosy for my liking and the constant talking in each others ears sends out a very unpleasant message. Goodbye to Horner(sacked), goodbye to Bernie (prison) , goodbye to Newey(america,s cup).

  9. Anil Parmar says:

    2 race suspended ban..I’m calling it now.

    Although if Mosley was in charge, I think they’d be banned until Monaco.

  10. Matt says:

    James,

    Am I correct in understanding that a team can use a different measuring device if the fuel flow sensor is malfunctioning, provided that the measuring system the teams uses has been correctly approved by the FIA, and also providing that the FIA delivers approval for the team to use the secondary sensor?

    If this is correct, Red Bull did not follow the rules as I understand it because according to reports I have read Red Bull’s method of measuring fuel flow wasn’t approved by the FIA.

    Also, the FIA directed them to make adjustments to the mandated fuel flow sensor but Red Bull ignored the directive.

    How can Red Bull be given their positions back in all fairness?

    Matt

  11. KING Arthur 2 U says:

    Merc is only paying back the favour as RBR were pretty vocal regarding the tire test last year

  12. Fan says:

    I for one hope for some clarity on this. RBR is right – either Whiting has absolute authority to interpret the rules or he has no authority. You can’t have it both ways. I personally would like to see Whiting stripped of any ability to meddle. The rules are the rules. There is no “spirit” of the rules. If it is not expressly prohibited it should be allowed. I kinda like the fact that F1 is an arms race where the battle off the track for technical superiority is just as exciting as what happens on track.

  13. Mike84 says:

    Incident will be investigated after the race. Verdict will be announced tomorrow. F1 will be fixed next year. or maybe the NEXT year.

  14. Juzzy82 says:

    James, when is the media and you journo’s going to do some proper investigative journalism and look into the difference in performance these fuel flow sensors are making across the board instead of being blinded by the spot light on RBR when the real issue lies with the FIA and the sensors.

    If RBR’s claims of a difference in performance of up to 4 tenths of a second are true, isn’t this worth looking further into?

    1. James Allen says:

      Do you seriously think that if that were happening it wouldn’t be all over the websites and news outlets?

      1. Juzzy82 says:

        So why can’t anyone tell us that from the upper to the lower end of variance in these sensors there is no performance difference to the cars?

        We haven’t had anything on this of any real substance. We can only speculate in the mean time while the FIA asks the teams to keep quiet.

  15. Vincent says:

    Mercedes clearly showed everyone how low they are as a competitor – what a shame!

    1. CHIUNDA says:

      And RBR last year during the Mercedes hearing … exemplary behaviour i presume?

    2. Ross says:

      Its not low. Its great gamesmanship, taking the opportuntiy to twist the knife a little! F1 is cut-throat…that’s part of its appeal.

  16. Footleg says:

    …strikes me that RBR are NOT in breach of the “rule”, but are probably in breach of breaking code of conduct by ignoring FIA delegate.

    Solution: Give Ricciardo his drivers place and points back, strip RBR of Constructors points for being disobedient.

    Think Merc are entitled to have a pop back after the way RBR carried on at last years “test”, sorry “tyre development”.

  17. Chet says:

    Bottom line for me is that this is a complete fail for F1 – if they are going to implement such pedantic rules they have to provide monitoring equipment that actually works.

    Blame RBR for what they did after both failed sure, but if the sensor actually worked we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

  18. Nano says:

    Why can a Merc lawyer question RBR in court about about actions undertaken that are totally beyond anything Merc would have jurisdiction over?

    Why didnt Ferrari have a lawyer there questioning RBR?

    So Merc can hold illegal tests to gain advantages and then present lawyers in court to try and punish another team when they have to front the FIA. How on earth does this work?

    1. CHIUNDA says:

      Selective memory i see

  19. Rich C says:

    Wonder what odds the boys down at Ladbrokes are giving?

  20. StevenM says:

    RBR is just going to make it harder for themselves and the rest of the teams. I have a feeling, that whatever happens, it’s going to cause the FIA to make Technical Directives straight up binding rules. Plus RBR are painting a target in their back, and the stewards are going to be aiming for it.

  21. Pat Palozzi says:

    So now Mercedes wants RBR punished to no end,these people have very short memories.Illegal tire testing which turned the season around for Mercedes,thy got a slap on the hand,I would have thrown the book at them.

    1. jake says:

      What goes around comes around. RB were very vocal on the tyre test, why are you surprised Merc are vocal on this issue.
      Just wait for Ferrari to slip up, Merc will be in there stirring the pot big time.

  22. Mark Jacobsen says:

    Stewards said Red Bull were given the “opportunity to be within compliance” during qualification and five laps into the Melbourne race, but chose not to.

    If they were told 5 laps into the race why did the stewards not black flag Ricciardo during the race, why let it get to 5 hours after the race when all the Australian fans had celebrated their boy’s second place.

    All the rules trying to ensure that F1 puts on a show and then they change the result 5 hours later. Crazy.

    James – were you going to find out why there was no penalty during the race?

  23. Matthew Cheshire says:

    If the ruling goes Red Bull’s way, the FIA sensors are going to be unusable.

    If the FIA have been sold a lemon with this system, they need to use something guaranteed to work.

    Why don’t they limit the injector sizes? or the fuel pump(s) capacity? Or a flow restrictor in the fuel line?

    Surely there is a boring way to do this rather than a unique ultrasonic gizmo?

  24. superdad27 says:

    Have we all forgotten the purpose of F1, other than making Bernie rich, is entertainment and isn’t this all greatly amusing?

  25. Wildwood says:

    I can’t help this growing feel I have that Red Bull want to win at any cost and that cheating is acceptable to them.

    The appeal, combined with the implication a couple of weeks ago that they may pull out, reminds me of the kids that take their toys away if you don’t let them win.

  26. Derek Smith says:

    What we do not want is a return to the bad old days of races being decided in quasi-judicial courts long after the flag had been waved. This might be seen as a challenge to the rule-makers and Todt/FIA are hardly in a position of power. Let us hope that Merc and RB going head to head is limited to the circuit and not the courts.

    Merc’s point about precedence is a good one unfortunately, and the panel would ignore it at their peril. However, a draconian penalty is not in the interests of the sport generally.

    Let’s hope for a suspended ban or similar and a whopping fine rather than, in addition to the exclusion from the results in Oz, a further two-race ban as Merc suggested.

    Shame really. Things were going so well this season.

  27. kenneth chapman says:

    the decision has been handed down FIA 1 red bull nil.

    end of.

    1. Gaz Boy says:

      Indeed.
      Common sense prevailed!

      1. kenneth chapman says:

        @ gaz boy…well, only from whatever side of the fence that you reside.

        still somewhat disappointed but i felt all along, despite wholly supporting the fundamentals of the red bull position, that this would be the outcome. i do look forward to reading the judgement in full as only then will it become apparent as to why the decision was what it was…i think!

        time to move on to the next catastrophe and in between some more wheel to wheel racing.

  28. Graeme says:

    And they lost! Probably a good thing for the governance of the sport, but sad for Daniel who did no wrong.

  29. Dmitry says:

    The verdict is here.
    FIA wins.

    RBR now know rule bending has its limits.

  30. GP Back To Adelaide says:

    All over…RBR lost the appeal. Reasons given on Friday when the focus is back on racing.

  31. jake says:

    Here is a thought.
    The fuel flow sensor actually belongs to the team even tho’ it is mandatory, the same as other mandatory equipment such as the ECU. If the ECU fails you are out of the race. Why should the fuel sensor be different? The fuel flow sensor failed, too bad, retire the car. The FIA actually allowed them to continue with an alternative fuel flow calculation to keep them in the race. That was not good enough for RB they wanted jam on it and decided to make up their own rules. The DQ should stay.

  32. Elie says:

    Breaking News -Red Bull- LLLOOOSE!

    1. kenneth chapman says:

      hahaha, breaking old news elie.

  33. TimW says:

    As that great sage of our time Nelson Muntz would say Haa ha!

  34. Dr T says:

    Poor Dan… I hope he hasn’t inherited Mark’s bad luck and that the start of the season is just a glitch…

    DSQ in Aus
    Tire not fitted in Mal – despite the team stopping him before the thing flew off anywhere
    10 place grid penalty for Bhr
    On the flip side Maldonado can flip someone’s car over for the upteenth time in his career and only gets a 5 place drop

    1. justafan says:

      Maldonado is a different case. He brings a lot of sponsorship and is therefore vital for team to survive. The FIA is not too keen to loose Lotus so they are treating Maldonado very carefully.

    2. TimW says:

      and a 5 place grid drop from 17th is no big deal!

      1. kenneth chapman says:

        just another entry in the FIA jokebook. the comparisons between the penalty ricci got and the penalty dished out to maldonado are so wide of the mark as to be ludicrous in the extreme. is it any wonder that some people,and i’m one, think that the FIA are out of touch.

      2. TimW says:

        I guess they would say that the disrepancy is down to intent, Pastor didn’t (this time) deliberately drive into another car, while Red Bull wilfully ignore the FIA directive to lower their fuel rate. It was a real shame for Daniel to lose his podium but ultimately the disqualification was avoidable if his team had rected in the same way as the others. I think Pastor should have been given more punishment for causing the collision but maybe he will learn something this time…

  35. kenneth chapman says:

    @ tim w…..sorry but i don’t buy that as an explanation. ricci was penalised twice for the same offence which was totally out of his control.

    as for maldonado well that is just silly. i have watched the replay many times over and it is apparent that he attempted to force his way through the corner and was totally negligent. that accident could have had a tragic ending!

    maldonado is a serial pest on the track, as evidenced by his multiple accidents. the FIA should have banned him for at least a couple of races. he never learns and if he is not heavily penalised there will more of these occurrences. he is an ‘any lap nutcase’ IMO.

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