Red Bull Lose DSQ Appeal

[MustangManiac]

Well yeah isn't it obvious from Christian's pre-race comments on the matter.

They could solve a lot of these issues by taking them over themselves, the way NASCAR does the restrictor pates. They could also do like the aircraft industry does and use three sensors and averaging the readings, if on is way out it is discounted and they use the other two. I am not sure how much these things cost, but given what is spent in F1 I can't imagine it being too much of a burden on them.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

They could solve a lot of these issues by taking them over themselves, the way NASCAR does the restrictor pates. They could also do like the aircraft industry does and use three sensors and averaging the readings, if on is way out it is discounted and they use the other two. I am not sure how much these things cost, but given what is spent in F1 I can't imagine it being too much of a burden on them.

I agree and considering how WEC have theres which the big teams run 3, I don't see why F1 isn't doing it that way.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I agree and considering how WEC have theres which the big teams run 3, I don't see why F1 isn't doing it that way.

That would be roughly an additional 0.5 kilos including additions to the loom or extra seals. That's a significant margin to an engineer.

I'm not saying that's a definitive reason but it was the first that sprang to mind.

(Source: datasheet gives sensor dry mass as 240g)

 

[prisonermonkeys]

They could solve a lot of these issues by taking them over themselves, the way NASCAR does the restrictor pates.

The problem is that this gives the teams the opportunity to manipulate the data. Red Bull would do it in a heartbeat.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

That would be roughly an additional 0.5 kilos including additions to the loom or extra seals. That's a significant margin to an engineer.

I'm not saying that's a definitive reason but it was the first that sprang to mind.

(Source: datasheet gives sensor dry mass as 240g)

Trust me I know it is enough of a ordeal for an engineer too go oh no, but it is an efficient way of doing so and something an engineer also would like to see. Being the most efficient while still maximizing every portion is ideal, this isn't the most efficient way and thus the ideal option would be to take that weight since everyone would have to if a three system were mandated.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Seeing the latest round of comments from Red Bull, I think the FIA should put in place a media embargo starring twenty-four hours after an appeal is lodged. As it stands, Red Bull have been talking constantly about the issue, and as we have seen, they have the ability to skew perceptions. Look at last year, where they exaggerated the tyre issue to get changes that suited them. Here, they can get the public on-side, so even if they lose the appeal - and even if they lose it for perfectly-legitimate reasons - they can trigger a backlash.

The media cannot comment on ongoing court cases, and while a sporting appeal is hardly the same as a criminal case, I think there is a really unfair situation here where a team is free to essentially convince the public that they have done nothing wrong without producing a shred of evidence. So give them twenty-four hours to discuss the case after filing an appeal, at which point they are not permitted to discuss it with the media until the case is resolved.

 

[MustangManiac]

@prisonermonkeys That is a good idea and makes sense, we can't have any of that now can we. While most RBR fans will see things their way and opposing team fans see it another, I think most F1 fans are savvy enough to know how things work in this sport. Especially when it comes to RBR and FIA regs.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Christian Horner says that "technical directives are not rules":

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/...redbull-idUKBREA3B06220140412?type=formulaOne

Firstly, as far as I am aware, teams have never ignored a technical directive before. So why start now?

Secondly, when the word "directive" is used as a noun - as it is here - it means "an authoritative command".

 

[MustangManiac]

Christian Horner says that "technical directives are not rules":

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/...redbull-idUKBREA3B06220140412?type=formulaOne

Firstly, as far as I am aware, teams have never ignored a technical directive before. So why start now?

Secondly, when the word "directive" is used as a noun - as it is here - it means "an authoritative command".

But wasn't the technical directive issued as a response to the teams questions, therefore clarifying the rule? Christian wouldn't happen to be a lawyer would he? Just a thought

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It doesn't matter when the directive was issued - Red Bull have clearly chosen to ignore it because it was more convenient or more advantageous for them to do so. Now they are arguing that they were never obligated to follow it simply because it is not stated in the rules. The problem is that other teams received similar, if not identical, instructions - which they followed without hesitation or ill effect.

A clarification of the rules is when the stewards make a ruling on a particular article for the sake of making it easier for teams to comply with that article. It is *not* a case of the stewards giving a team one or more options on what to do. If Red Bull asked for a clarification, it doesn't give them the right to disregard it if it is inconvenient or not the answer they were looking for.

 

[niky]

The content of the directive hardly matters.

It is understood that the FIA are the ones doing the measuring of the fuel flow, and the measurement of this flow can be dictated by them. Teams are not allowed to self-report on any other part of the scrutineering requirements, why should fuel flow be any different?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Because that might give everybody else an advantage. Never mind that it is a fair advantage - Red Bull want us to believe that all advantages are bad. Unless they are the ones getting it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Firstly, as far as I am aware, teams have never ignored a technical directive before. So why start now?

That's the central part of IRBR's argument, they dispute other parts of the FIA's assertions in part but overall they claim they weren't bound by any Directive as there is a precedent for non-mandatory directives in 2013 (tyre directives, I'm not sure which in particular).

That's why I think they'll win this one on the letter of the law and we'll see some kludged system in place for the remainder of 2014 to ratify the Technical Delegate's "advice" into regulation. Which still stinks. IRBR have definitely (imo) had this kind of trick up their sleeves since last year.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

That's the central part of IRBR's argument, they dispute other parts of the FIA's assertions in part but overall they claim they weren't bound by any Directive as there is a precedent for non-mandatory directives in 2013 (tyre directives, I'm not sure which in particular).

If there are mandatory and optional directives, then surely the FIA would make it clear as to whether this particular directive was mandatory or optional at the time it was issued.

In the case of the tyres, the only case I can think of is Pirelli offering recommendations that the teams had the option of taking up, which the FIA made compulsory after Silverstone.

 

[TenEightyOne]

@prisonermonkeys, I'm trying to find a source (or the source) where I saw the particular tyre directive described. For now there's a Sky F1 news overview that gives a fairly interesting perspective. I'll keep looking for the source, maybe IRBR will remind us of it first

EDIT: Ah, is it the one referred to in this article? I don't know the details of the "max-laps-on-tyres" Directive.

If it was of the same nature as the flowgate-gate Directive an teams ignored it without penalty then we're about to see a big change in the way regulations are handed down to the teams.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

EDIT: Ah, is it the one referred to in this article? I don't know the details of the "max-laps-on-tyres" Directive.

I have no idea. All I know is that last year, the teams were swapping the tyres about; left on the right and right on the left. Pirelli recommended that the teams stop doing it, but they were under no obligation to observe those recommendations, so they didn't. Then we had all of those blow-outs in Silverstone, and the FIA made following Pirelli's recommendations mandatory.

 

[Grayfox]

Wouldn't have thought swapping tires from left to right would cause that since the slicks don't have a direction tread.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If those Directives do form part of IRBR's argument (and I've yet to find an even-reasonably-definitive source to link them) then the particular wording of each Directive will be key. The FIA have to say that all Directives are mandatory or that all are not. Without a system to indicate which are mandatory then the regulatory value has to be absolute.

That's why I (with much grinding of teeth) think that IRBR will take this one. Following their completely nauseating victory I expect the remainder of 2014 to be a regulatory nightmare and that IRBR's lack of respect for the sport will ultimately cause it a net amount of damage. My opinion only, naturally.

@Grayfox, it has to do with the composition, the tyres differ across their width, as far as I recall. For each track the tyres were specified as "inside" or "outside" dependent on the majority direction of the track. It's late here in the UK. And beer.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

But even if they successfully argue that the directive was optional, it doesn't change the fact that they still broke the rules. The directive is simply a clarification of the rule, and nothing within it contradicted the original rule. All they will have successfully done is argue themselves into a grey area. And the rules clearly say that the stewards are the only ones who can authorise a change in the measurement method.

 

[TenEightyOne]

True, but what the rules don't say is which device is the primary flow monitor. The Directive is the one that mandates the FIA sensor, it seems that the FIA accept the Directive was required to clarify this. IRBR argue that this Directive is not mandatory or binding and therefore the FIA was incorrect to disqualify them from Melbourne for using the data from their own sensor.

 

[niky]

The question is: What will RBR claim as their method of measuring fuel flow? Since the regulations themselves mention that only one (homologated) measuring device can be installed, it's either RBR takes the reading from that measuring device, or infers the measurement from the pulse-width of the fuel injectors.

If they have another measuring device in the system, that's in breach of the rules.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Actually the rules say that the team can have any method that they choose, that's perfectly sensible of course. The rules only say where in the system the FIA sensor should be placed in regard to any similar devices that the team fit. They don't say which is the mandatory source of data for the FIA, that's clarified in the Directive. All the other teams took that Directive to be a 'ruling' whereas IRBR are doing a bit of nifty footwork and killing any remnants of sporting conduct that may have been left in F1. Imo, natch.

EDIT: Said, I see the rules were changed on the 12th of March... no loophole there any more. I'll see if I kept the last set...

Nope, I'll keep looking... but if you look at the rules on the FIA site (link) the last-modified sections are highlighted. The point IRBR are quibbling over is that the previous version didn't mandate the FIA sensor as the primary sensor. It was obvious to presume that it should be but it wasn't stated until the Directive. They're normally considered regulatory but aren't actually regulatory, or so say IRBR, the shifty buggers.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

EDIT: Said, I see the rules were changed on the 12th of March... no loophole there any more. I'll see if I kept the last set...

Nope, I'll keep looking... but if you look at the rules on the FIA site (link) the last-modified sections are highlighted. The point IRBR are quibbling over is that the previous version didn't mandate the FIA sensor as the primary sensor. It was obvious to presume that it should be but it wasn't stated until the Directive. They're normally considered regulatory but aren't actually regulatory, or so say IRBR, the shifty buggers.

Not really sure what tree Red Bull are barking up - the rules might have been updated on the 12th, but the race was on the 16th.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

AMuS have been doing a live commentary from the hearing, and from the sounds of things, the FIA have managed to score two major goals, first questioning why Red Bull did not use the sensor in the spare car (which Red Bull set back to Milton Keynes for an unrelated repair issue), and then getting Adrian Newey to admit that if Ricciardo's car had been using fuel at the proper rate, he would not have finished second.

 

[niky]

AMuS have been doing a live commentary from the hearing, and from the sounds of things, the FIA have managed to score two major goals, first questioning why Red Bull did not use the sensor in the spare car (which Red Bull set back to Milton Keynes for an unrelated repair issue), and then getting Adrian Newey to admit that if Ricciardo's car had been using fuel at the proper rate, he would not have finished second.

Well... duh. Red Bull went back to the original "defective" sensor to try and force the case, but admitting they had a third option kind of undermines that whole line of argument.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

From the sounds of things, they didn't want to admit it - the FIA lawyer put them in a position where they had to address it.

It probably helps that the guy representing the FIA worked for Red Bull last year. I'm told he collected the constructors' trophy at Suzuka last year.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Not really sure what tree Red Bull are barking up - the rules might have been updated on the 12th, but the race was on the 16th.

Quite right, it didn't even occur to me as I quoted the date. Clearly there have been some changes since that time, changes that clearly address the 'loophole' being tested by the Bullsters. Non-too-successfully, I hope

 

[niky]

Following the live logs, seems like the engines were supposedly running 20 degrees hotter in Malaysia. There goes the "heat" theory, I guess.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

From the sounds of things - and maybe this is just me being hopeful - it's all one-way traffic in the hearing.

 

[niky]

Fairly damning final argument from the FIA:

(translated) You can not cherry-pick. If you specify certain technical directives as relevant, then it must apply to all.

Probably the final nail in the coffin for this case.