Street Fight
Monte Carlo 2018
Monaco Grand Prix
Red Bull Racing lose Daniel Ricciardo disqualification appeal
News
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
Editor's Picks
Share This:
Posted by:
Category:
Tags:

Add comment

E-mail is already registered on the site. Please use the Login form or enter another.

You entered an incorrect username or password

Sorry that something went wrong, repeat again!
1
Bill. Geoff. Lomas

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.

2

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.

3

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.

4

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.

5
Clarks4WheelDrift

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?

6

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.

7

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.

8

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.

9

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.

10

Bad for Dan but good for the sport.

11

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.

12

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.

14

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

15
kenneth chapman

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.

16

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.

17

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.

18

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.

19

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!

20

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.

21

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

22

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.

23

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

24

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.

25
Craig in Manila

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.

26
David in Sydney

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

27
Tony Hetherington

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

28
4 German Fingers

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.

29
Clarks4WheelDrift

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.

30

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.

31

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.

32

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 😛

33

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

34

Hahahahahahahaha!!!!

Well done FIA.

Top Tags
SEARCH News