Red Bull Lose DSQ Appeal

[TenEightyOne]

UPDATE: Infiniti Red Bull Racing lose their appeal against the disqualification. BBC




Inevitably this topic was first discussed at in the 2014 Rolex Australian Grand Prix thread (from this post onwards)

The appeal isn't due to be heard until April 14th which will be after both the Malaysian and Bahraini Grand Prix.

The full text of the Stewards' decision at the event can be read here, all the Event Documentation is filed here.

Red Bull say;

Inconsistencies with the FIA fuel flow meter have been prevalent all weekend up and down the pit lane...the team and Renault are confident the fuel supplied to the engine is in full compliance with the regulations.

 

[Lizard]

I think you got your races mixed up. It is before China but after Bahrain.

 

[Furinkazen]

Red Bulls fault. They were warned and continued onwards. No one else fell foul. Be wrong of them to get off with it, much as a I feel for Riccardio.

 

[Grayfox]

Did Vettel get a DSQ as well even though he had a DNF.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Did Vettel get a DSQ as well even though he had a DNF.

Why would he? I hope this isn't the nationalism card in motion from you.

 

[Furinkazen]

Did Vettel get a DSQ as well even though he had a DNF.

No because he wasn't exceeding fuel flow limits. He might have but he was out before we would have had a chance to ever tell.

 

[Grayfox]

Why would he? I hope this isn't the nationalism card in motion from you.

No it isn't.

Just cause you retired does not mean you can break the "rules" set down by the FIA.
All cars should be tested regardless if they finished the race or not.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

They can't really disqualify a driver who did not finish. But they should look carefully at Vettel's car - if they were using their own method of measurement there as well, it might affect any further action against the team.

 

[Dustone]

Red Bulls fault. They were warned and continued onwards. No one else fell foul. Be wrong of them to get off with it, much as a I feel for Riccardio.

If they were warned, why were they allowed the opportunity to rectify it? If they broke the rule in the first place, they would have been DSQ straight away and not continued to be warned.

 

[niky]

Since it is a new rule, and the FIA don't want people blowing up motors, they've had to give allowances.

Apparently, everyone exceeds the 100 kg/hr limit... albeit ocassionally and very momentarily. But those spikes are not really under anyone's control. If you're doing it consistently, then you're doing it on purpose.

Red Bull's argument will hinge upon whether the rules are clear enough as to how many spikes are allowed, how often they are allowed and whether the sensor is accurate enough to be relied upon for something this important. If the variation in sensors is big enough, then that's an unfair advantage for those who have the good ones.

The Stewards' argument, if they're smart about it, comes basically down to Word-of-God. Red Bull were given several options and they chose to ignore the rule completley.

I think this one will go in the Stewards' favor. Maybe. But if new evidence comes out about sensor variation and unreliability, Red Bull will have gotten what they wanted, freedom to do the fuel maps the way they want. And that's even if they lose the case.

 

[gtpcaine]

I might be being stupid here, but I don't really understand the issue here. Surely they can use whatever flow rate they like, as long as their is enough fuel left in the tank at the end for the tests. They are limited on how much fuel they have, so why control the rate of it as well... seems stupid and pointless to me.

I do agree though, Red Bull were told not to do something, and they did it anyway. They should be penalised for that. Feel so sorry for DR though, but he has the ability to do it again, and I really hope he takes the fight to SV this season!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

They are limited on how much fuel they have, so why control the rate of it as well... seems stupid and pointless to me.

It's to stop teams from using throttle maps that would rely on ERS at lower revs, allowing the team to dump as much fuel as possible into the engine at higher revs, thereby giving better performance. The FIA want to guide engine development towards road car relevance, rather than have teams pursue expensive and impractical solutions, like off-throttle blown diffusers. The hundred kilograms of fuel is there as a limit on how much can physically be used; the 100kg/he restriction is there to force the teams to use that fuel efficiently.

 

[Dustone]

Since it is a new rule, and the FIA don't want people blowing up motors, they've had to give allowances.

Apparently, everyone exceeds the 100 kg/hr limit... albeit ocassionally and very momentarily. But those spikes are not really under anyone's control. If you're doing it consistently, then you're doing it on purpose.

Red Bull's argument will hinge upon whether the rules are clear enough as to how many spikes are allowed, how often they are allowed and whether the sensor is accurate enough to be relied upon for something this important. If the variation in sensors is big enough, then that's an unfair advantage for those who have the good ones.

The Stewards' argument, if they're smart about it, comes basically down to Word-of-God. Red Bull were given several options and they chose to ignore the rule completley.

I think this one will go in the Stewards' favor. Maybe. But if new evidence comes out about sensor variation and unreliability, Red Bull will have gotten what they wanted, freedom to do the fuel maps the way they want. And that's even if they lose the case.

Based on this, Red Bull should win the appeal. If everyone does 'spike' as you say, and there is no definition of how much they can do this, Red Bull and Ricciardo should be reinstated the second place.

We dont have all the information though and at the moment its pretty much a guessing game unless we are given the full details

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Based on this, Red Bull should win the appeal. If everyone does 'spike' as you say, and there is no definition of how much they can do this, Red Bull and Ricciardo should be reinstated the second place.

Red Bull's problem was that Ricciardo was doing it regularly and consistently. There comes a point where anomalous fluctuations become a pattern. If the FIA allows a tolerance of 1% and Red Bull exceed the parameter by 2% for a sustained period at a regular interval, then it's difficult to write that off as an anomaly.

Even if Red Bull could demonstrate that Ricciardo's fuel consumption was within the acceptable limits, they will still have a hard time avoiding a penalty for knowingly and deliberately ignoring the FIA's instructions.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

No it isn't.

Just cause you retired does not mean you can break the "rules" set down by the FIA.
All cars should be tested regardless if they finished the race or not.

Unless you have some sort of proof that Vettel did this then show us. However, his engine map failed in the race just like quali and FP and thus if it wasn't working properly then fuel flow wasn't working properly. On the off chance the computer some how screwed everything else but fuel flow, while increasing it above peak level it still wouldn't have given him an advantage that the FIA would deem against the rules because it could be chalked up to a bad map all around.

If Vettel were fighting for podium I could understand you asking but I feel it's just asking because it is Vettel not being in the hot seat.

 

[daan]

they will still have a hard time avoiding a penalty for knowingly and deliberately ignoring the FIA's instructions.

There are 2 offenses here, and that one is the worse of the 2 in my book.

To paraphrase a point made in a column in Autosport, what if a team decided to ignore the FIA's scales and ran the cars lighter than they should saying that the team's own scales measured it correctly?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

There are 2 offenses here, and that one is the worse of the 2 in my book.

To paraphrase a point made in a column in Autosport, what if a team decided to ignore the FIA's scales and ran the cars lighter than they should saying that the team's own scales measured it correctly?

Yeah and they'd be stupid to do so just like RBR are currently. They're basically having this ego trip that in no possible way the FIA could have fixed their system. Also the problem they'll have is this, MGP had to turn their stuff down and did and IRBR just said "yeah right, you have no idea what you're talking about we're going to keep doing our race". My issue is the ego portion of all this I guess, that some how RBR's team of engineers are better than the FIA's by a mile.

I think the only argument people are going to use is "well the FIA was having issues, so if they had issues measuring weight then I can understand a team claiming your analogy situation"

In reality it is just a convenience factor to allow a situation to bend the rules

 

[prisonermonkeys]

There are 2 offenses here, and that one is the worse of the 2 in my book.

Exactly. I'm convinced that they are trying to get rid of a rule that they don't like - I'm sure they think that if they can prove the sensor was faulty, the FIA will forgive them for ignoring the directive. It's pretty damming that Nico Rosberg had the same issue, but Mercedes complied where Red Bull did not. The FIA has displayed an extraordinary degree of latitude here, and a very un-FIA willingness to work with the teams. Ironically, I think we are in a *very* FIA-esque situation where the outcome of the appeal has to stand before the appeal is heard. If Red Bull win, it sets a poor precedent - it gives the teams the freedom to ignore rules they dislike.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Just cause you retired does not mean you can break the "rules" set down by the FIA.
All cars should be tested regardless if they finished the race or not.

Yes it does, you don't fail until your car is scrutineered, it only need to to be scrutineered if it completes the race or is specifically protested... but in a specific protest it may not be tested until after the next race it completes the distance in.

Overall, as @prisonermonkeys says, there's more than one rule issue here and the FIA need to be very firm or we could have a precedent that leads to a season full of doubt, argument and fudge.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Which would suit Red Bull and their "a win is a win no matter how you get it" mentality quite nicely.

I wonder if their pre-season issues were somehow related to fuel consumption. Their least-competitive times came when they were working with the FIA's sensors, and they somehow managed to magically turn things around in less than two weeks ...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Quite possibly, and the question they'd be asking themselves is "how likely would it be that we'd get away with it"... not in a dishonest sense but because that's how every team tries to find the best advantage from the rules.

If that's true in this case then imo they've gone too far, this issue seems to be more about avoiding a rule than testing a wording/formula to its regulatory limit in your design.

 

[Squach240]

RBR/Renault might be on to something here. Because even Porsche has even questioned the FIA fuel flow meter as well for their LMP1 car. And has caused issues.

 

[Famine]

Mateschitz pulls out the big guns.

No, not big guns. No, what's the phrase I mean? Oh, that's right, "has a whiny, spoiled toddler tantrum".

 

[SilverArrow]

Is he only making threats because they have no case?

 

[TheBook]

I've never seen a team owner throw his/her toys out of the pram so hard. I can't even recall a time where Ferrari have threatened to quit over so minor an issue, but I've only been following the sport for a few years.

 

[carracerptp]

Mateschitz pulls out the big guns.

No, not big guns. No, what's the phrase I mean? Oh, that's right, "has a whiny, spoiled toddler tantrum".

When I read the article, all I found was a sensationalist title. He just sounds tired of F1 being "F1".

 

[prisonermonkeys]

He just sounds tired of F1 being "F1".

Some of his comments suggest he wants the team to have more influence over the sport.

In other words, he wants Red Bull to maintain their position by having more control over the rules.

 

[DG_Silva]

Am I right in believing that it was only Ricciardo's fuel flow meter that was replaced, not Vettel's?

Citation: here

Under FIA rules, teams cannot replace approved FIA equipment with their own, which is what Red Bull did. So while 21 cars, including Ricciardo's team-mate Sebastain Vettel, worked with the FIA system, Red Bull chose to use their own monitoring on Ricciardo.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Am I right in believing that it was only Ricciardo's fuel flow meter that was replaced, not Vettel's?

Citation: here

I think the term "replace" means "use instead of" rather than "physically swap for". As I understand it IRBR have their own system in place as they're entitled to do. Obviously they can't use that for the FIA-mandated fuel limiting, only as part of their own car management.

IRBR chose to go with their own data rather than apply the instructed settings based on the FIA reading, that's what this boils down to. I don't think the implication is that they physically replaced the FIA device with their own.

 

[DG_Silva]

Ok, replace was the wrong word, but instead they used a system that was not calibrated to the FIA's specification, against the rulings and specific instructions of the governing body, and relied on the data coming from that instrument, rather than the official FIA data.

He is guilty of breaching the rules, particularly this one:

2014 F1 Sporting regulations:

3.2 Competitors must ensure that their cars comply with the conditions of eligibility and safety
throughout practice and the race.