Red Bull Racing appeal verdict due on Tuesday
Red Bull Racing
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 Red Bull Racing
Share This:
Posted by:

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!
kenneth chapman

@ 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.


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


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

kenneth chapman

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.


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…


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.


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


Breaking News -Red Bull- LLLOOOSE!

kenneth chapman

hahaha, breaking old news elie.


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.

GP Back To Adelaide

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


The verdict is here.

FIA wins.

RBR now know rule bending has its limits.


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

kenneth chapman

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

end of.



Common sense prevailed!

kenneth chapman

@ 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.


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.


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.


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

Matthew Cheshire

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?


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?


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.


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.


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.


Wonder what odds the boys down at Ladbrokes are giving?


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?


Selective memory i see


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.


…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”.


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


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.


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


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?


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


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.


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


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.

KING Arthur 2 U

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

Top Tags
SEARCH Red Bull Racing