- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I like that the FIA have gone toe-to-toe with Red Bull on the issue that Red Bull pinned their hopes on, and have made a pretty strong case of it.
Red Bull Lose DSQ Appeal
- Thread starter TenEightyOne
- 173 comments
- 6,680 views
- 2,938
- Shrewsbury
- pezzarinho17
Me too, given just what is resting on the outcome. Red Bull may be thinking about Australia, but a verdict in their favour would have a very detrimental affect on the view of the new, more fuel efficient, motors. That is something the sport does not need with all the fuss over the reduced engine noise...
- 2,938
- Shrewsbury
- pezzarinho17
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I'm getting this stuff second-hand, but apparently even Red Bull's data shows Ricciardo was over the fuel limit.
Mercedes have a representative present (not sure why), and he is arguing that this episode is on par with BAR's antics at Imola in 2005, and that a simular penalty would be justified. That sounds a little extreme, and part of it is probably payback for the way Red Bull lobbied for the maximum penalty after last year's testing controversy, but I imagine that if Red Bull got a race ban, then they would immediately try to hold the sport hostage by withdrawing Toro Rosso from the Chinese Grand Prix.
Mercedes have a representative present (not sure why), and he is arguing that this episode is on par with BAR's antics at Imola in 2005, and that a simular penalty would be justified. That sounds a little extreme, and part of it is probably payback for the way Red Bull lobbied for the maximum penalty after last year's testing controversy, but I imagine that if Red Bull got a race ban, then they would immediately try to hold the sport hostage by withdrawing Toro Rosso from the Chinese Grand Prix.
- 2,938
- Shrewsbury
- pezzarinho17
What are thoughts on that last point if truth in it? Can't see it working, the FIA would not overturn a banning because the team happened to have power over another. The race would have to proceed with or without Toro Rosso, and if they did take part in the withdrawing it would cost valuable points to them and give points to their rivals. With those 4 cars removed who should be in the points, Marussia and Caterham would be in for a winner takes all race. Both Marussia and Caterham teams currently have a 13th place finish this year and Max Chilton would have scored a point in Bahrain without the Red Bull teams ahead of them...
- 23,800
- Philippines
Given how strong the rest of the midfield is this year, I'd say the threat of withdrawing Toro Rosso from the race is pretty hollow. Whether the field is 22 or 18, the race will go on.
I'd say the hearing doesn't bode well for Red Bull Racing.
I'd say the hearing doesn't bode well for Red Bull Racing.
HKS racer
(Banned)
- 4,802
I think Mercedes should be allowed to win their title, but F1 needs more competition, what is terribly wrong in new regulation is engine development mandatory stopped after pre season test. When you enter new technology the team who made the better job can win the first 7 or 8 races, but other have a chance to catch up improving their engine effectively, because in every other sport when you want to catch up you train yourself as much as you can. In F1 you can't do this.
- 422
- Eastern MA
- Odin_Wednesday
If true, then the decision to appeal is an odd one. All along, it seemed like the crux of RB's argument was that Ricciardo really was under the limit, and they were being unjustly told to run below the limit due to a faulty sensor. If he really was over the limit, then their point is... what, exactly?
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
It seems to be a mis-translation. They were trying to argue that Ricciardo exceeded the fuel-flow limit when they used the Gill sensor both with and without the FIA's adjustments. But it seems that they have been unable to explain some of their own data, which shows Ricciardo exceeding the limit. While the FIA has been willing to accept some tolerance for going over that limit, it appears that Ricciardo did it a little too often.
Anyway, a verdict is expected tonight. Maybe later, but if there are penalties for China, it's in everyone's interests to have a verdict sooner rather than later.
Anyway, a verdict is expected tonight. Maybe later, but if there are penalties for China, it's in everyone's interests to have a verdict sooner rather than later.
- 5,196
- Kuala Lumpur
- CHVRCHES_GTP
And the decision is expected to be made by the FIA on Tuesday.
From my understanding, Red Bull is not the only one as other teams are also reporting the same issue. But while other teams can work well with the FIA despite the issue, why not Red Bull? Why instead of following the FIA, they chose to use their own? The rules clearly said you are not allowed to change FIA approved equipment to their own in which they did, then I'm not going to be surprised if the hearing didn't go too well for them. I mean, they could've get to the FIA in the first place to let them know the issue and with them, instead of what they're doing now which sounds like they're cheating... What's the point of doing this appeal anymore, dear Red Bull?
- 13,853
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Lordy, how did they get Newey to admit that? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I have no idea. The FIA hasn't posted a transcript of the hearing. But it probably helps that the guy representing them worked for Red Bull last year, so he knows the team. And I'm guessing that Newey might have been up-front about it, because if the team tried to avoid the issue, it would give the FIA a new avenue to pursue - they could easily suggest that Red Bull were trying to make an issue of the technical directives to distract everyone from the advantage they got. Like when Lotus claimed that the reactive ride height system was designed primarily for stability under braking, and that any aerodynamic advantage was nothing more than a by-product; the FIA found that it was the other way around.
Admitting that second would not have been possible with the FIA sensor is less than ideal, but if there is no way around it, then being up-front about it is better than trying to avoid it, because that implies the team knew about it, which further implies that they stopped using the sensor to get the advantage.
- 23,800
- Philippines
The regulations are the same as last year's... which is what hindered everyone else from chasing Red Bull, because only minor adjustments to the fuel maps were allowed... so no one could copy their workaround for the ban on exhaust-blown diffuser maps.
Now the shoe's on the other foot, and Red Bull can't be liking that... at all.
- 6,911
- United Kingdom
It will be interesting to see outcome of this, problem I see for Red Bull is their calculation of fuel flow is + or - 1% accurate. They would really have to show sensor FIA use drifted more than this, and how accurate the readings where using their method compared to sensor when it was working.
- 23,800
- Philippines
The problem is, the "measurement" of the drift is based on the alternative system Red Bull plans on using... ergo... their own ECU readings.
ECUs can not tell you fuel flow. They can tell you how much fuel they think they're using at a given time, based on the commands they're sending the injectors.
This article enumerates all the variables and assumptions that requires:
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/f1/databytes-why-f1-needs-fuel-flow-meters/
If you have even one sensor or assumption off (such as how hot the injector is), then the consumption data is off.
Red Bull has only demonstrated that their assumptions do not agree with the sensor. They have not proven which of the two is correct, and if I recall right, the FIA have already rechecked the calibration of the "suspect" sensor and found nothing wrong.
ECUs can not tell you fuel flow. They can tell you how much fuel they think they're using at a given time, based on the commands they're sending the injectors.
This article enumerates all the variables and assumptions that requires:
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/f1/databytes-why-f1-needs-fuel-flow-meters/
If you have even one sensor or assumption off (such as how hot the injector is), then the consumption data is off.
Red Bull has only demonstrated that their assumptions do not agree with the sensor. They have not proven which of the two is correct, and if I recall right, the FIA have already rechecked the calibration of the "suspect" sensor and found nothing wrong.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
I think it comes down to him being a supremely intelligent and able engineer... if you ask him the right questions he'll respond with the correct data or a working hypotheses, he probably can't lie effectively in that context
@niky, you're correct, Gill Sensors issued a statement in the week or so following the DSQ confirming that the sensor had been checked and conformed to its initial calibration as supplied.
HKS racer
(Banned)
- 4,802
Indeed but I think that's exactly the problem, if you free
Indeed, but these regulations, with freezed engine performance failed their main goal, cost reduction.
Last 3/4 years since engine was freezed teams spent massive amount of money on aero trying to catchup Redbull without achieveing their goal but still wasting their money.
This year, the logic is pretty much the same, if your engine is competitive from the start good for you, if not the season is gone with NO chance to catch up. Where's the sport?
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
BREAKING NEWS: the exclusion has been upheld.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
It's F1, so an eye for an eye.
Sure you can, there is an entire regulations guide that allows this to happen even.
HKS racer
(Banned)
- 4,802
What if a team fail to deliver a remotely competitive PU and they want to re-start from scratch? They can't.
- 4,487
- YorkshireLand
- SVTlover
Link to Sky Sports on the appeal with a statement from the FIA;
http://www1.skysports.com/f1/report/12475/9266769/fia-reject-red-bull-appeal
http://www1.skysports.com/f1/report/12475/9266769/fia-reject-red-bull-appeal
- 2,938
- Shrewsbury
- pezzarinho17
Disqualification upheld, though Mercedes were after a heavier sanction. Not sure whether I'd be inviting a similar philosophy to football, where unsuccessfully appealing a decision warrants an extension to the initial punishment, but I would like to see something done as a result of the meeting yesterday. A clarifying of the rules and associated punishment if / when a similar scenario occurs would stop the need to repeat this meeting.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Upholding the ban is the right decision. A further penalty - like a suspended sentence - might be justified, but Red Bull are a bunch of self-entitled children at times, and if they felt hard done-by, they're likely to make life miserable for everyone else. Maybe it's wrong for the sport to handle them like that, but as it stands, they have too much power and a hair trigger. Baby steps for now.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
The problem isn't the team since they don't build the PU first off, thus they make the switch. Also there have been other issues as well, like getting accustomed to the package that may take this entire year to do. Look at the other Merc machines for example, they weren't there during the development phase thus they can't reap all the benefits the works to can, yet that is. Same could be said for RBR once a true map is put on the car. As for Ferrari...well they're just being Ferrari as of the past 5 years.
- 13,853
- Adelaide
- Neomone
If they can't deliver a remotely competitive power unit, they probably shouldn't be in Formula 1. This isn't the place for people to just jump into designing a car, it's supposedly one of the highest levels of motorsport. By the time a team gets here they should have at least some idea what they're doing.
I think it comes down to him being a supremely intelligent and able engineer... if you ask him the right questions he'll respond with the correct data or a working hypotheses, he probably can't lie effectively in that context
There is a bit of a stereotype that engineers/scientists are incapable businessmen. Perhaps that's the case for Newey, but I doubt anyone gets that far in Formula 1 without picking up at least a bit of political acumen. At the very least, it would seem that he's pretty intelligent, and I would imagine he'd be reasonably tough to trick into admitting fault.
Without access to a transcript, I'd assume that it was a strategy on the part of Red Bull, rather than Newey being so "good" at his job that he's unable to bend the truth for the sake of getting the result he wants.
HKS racer
(Banned)
- 4,802
Ok I know it's their fault but what if one day (hopefully soon) Marchionne and LCDM decide Ferrari has to come back on top? With these rules you'll have an hard time. A possible work-around would be using Maserati name for a new PU but this would be a problem since Ferrari always built their own engines.
- 2,121
- Chicago
- mustang622006
If I recall correctly the tech directive was a clarification of the rules, RBR didn't like the rule or the clarification so they chose to ignore it.
Similar threads
