Ricciardo stripped of second place – Red Bull to appeal

2014 Australian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Daniel Ricciardo has been stripped of his second place in the Australian Grand Prix after his car failed a technical inspection.

Ricciardo’s Red Bull was found to have “exceeded consistently” the limit on peak fuel consumption of 100kg per hour, a new rule introduced for the 2014 season.

His exclusion from the race results after more than five hours of deliberation by the FIA stewards. Ricciardo’s car was found to be in violation of Article 3.2 of the sporting regulations and article 5.1.4 of the technical regulations.

The stewards issued a ten-point explanation for their decision, claiming Red Bull had failed to use a fuel flow model the FIA recommended for the racing, following problems with their fuel flow sensor during practice. The sensor had been changed on Ricciardo’s car prior to the race.

They also claimed Red Bull were told during the race their fuel flow rate was too high and were advised to make adjustments to reduce it, which they did not do.

According to the stewards, Red Bull chose not to use the recommended model because the sensor was faulty. However they noted that “regardless of the team’s assertion that the sensor was fault, it is not within their discretion to run a different fuel flow measurement method without the permission of the FIA”.

Red Bull immediately announced their attention to appeal and released the following statement:

“Following the decision of the FIA that Infiniti Red Bull Racing is in breach of Article 3.2 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations and Article 5.1.4 of the FIA Formula One Technical Regulations with car three, the team has notified the FIA of its intention to appeal with immediate effect.

“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.”

During the race weekend the teams were advised by race director Charlie Whiting of a change to the fuel flow filter frequency. The teams were given the following notification:

“Following a review of the fuel flow data from the practice sessions the following change will be applied for qualifying and the race.

“The maximum fuel flow limit mFFMIllegal will be checked using a fuel flow filter frequency (parameter fdmFFMFuelFilter) of 5Hz instead of the 10Hz currently configured in the FIA data version.

“Due to time constraints before the qualifying session the FIA data versions will not be changed. The revised monitoring will be processed by the FIA off­-car.”

Ricciardo’s exclusion means Kevin Magnussen is promoted to second place and the other McLaren of Jenson Button takes third. Sergio Perez’s Force India moves up to tenth place for the final championship point.

See the revised race results and updated drivers and constructors’ championship points standings.

This article will be updated.

2014 Australian Grand Prix

Browse all 2014 Australian Grand Prix articles

Image © Red Bull/Getty

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

220 comments on “Ricciardo stripped of second place – Red Bull to appeal”

  1. FIA being……..themselves

    1. At least they are consistent. I guess…

        1. knoxploration
          16th March 2014, 13:24

          Nutshell: The FIA required the team to use a known-faulty fuel flow sensor (but one that wasn’t as badly faulty as the alternate), and the team refused to abide by that because it would mean they had a lower peak fuel flow than all their rivals. The FIA doesn’t like to be ignored, so now Red Bull pays the price.

          The FIA needs to provide a way to verify the calibration of (and recalibrate) fuel flow sensors at the circuit. It’s ludicrous to insist a team continue to use a sensor that is known to have suddenly changed its calibration.

          1. Also: Now we all know what Montezemolo was referring to:

            Montezemolo urges FIA to prevent rules “trickery”

          2. “… it would mean they had a lower peak fuel flow than all their rivals.”

            Are you sure it is not that ” it would mean they had the same peak fuel flow than all their rivals.”?
            My personal feeling given Redbulls history, is that they more often than not, do not like competing using the same rules as majority of the other teams. Besides, are not all the teams using the same type of sensor?

          3. knoxploration
            16th March 2014, 13:47

            quads: Read the stewards’ decision. It’s right there, clear as day. The sensor was calibrated, homologated, and the FIA agreed that it then started to read high.

            The other teams (at least, every single front-running team) have not just been rumored to have broken the rules, but have either been proven to have broken the rules repeatedly, or have hired proven cheats off other teams. Nobody has yet proven Red Bull to have cheated, and while I don’t doubt they have, name a team that *hasn’t*.

            Your post reads like sour grapes — you say Red Bull “do not like competing using the same rules”, so show a single instance where Red Bull have been proven to have cheated. And name which teams you support that don’t cheat.

            And note, it’s not the *type* of sensor, but the fact that the sensor changed its calibration *after* it was homologated. Had McLaren’s sensor changed calibration against the team’s favor, you can be damned skippy they’d have complained and likely refused to just live with it, as well.

          4. @keithcollantine indeed, and it also shows that the policing of this rule is all but fool proof.
            Which is extremely annoying from a fan perspective if rule compliance comes down to a sensor that may or may not be working properly.

          5. The FIA needs to provide a way to verify the calibration of (and recalibrate) fuel flow sensors at the circuit. It’s ludicrous to insist a team continue to use a sensor that is known to have suddenly changed its calibration.


          6. The fuel sensors are owned and operated by the team. This smells like they’re buying/making a large number of sensors to the FIA homologated spec and then shopping for the best worst one so they can justify ignoring it.

          7. @keithcollantine – when was the last time that the team appeal worked, or in fact, did that ever happen?

          8. Oh indeed, well spotted.

          9. @knoxploration
            You are probably right – I hate cheats especially in sports, hence I may become kind of sour when I come by one!

            Yes, they have cheated before AND they were caught. A couple of examples. They were found to have been racing with holes in the floor of their cars, even though NOT allowed – It was “ruled” that they should modify the design (and keep the points they earned using that thing).
            The same happened when they were caught using engine maps that (again after have taken part in race) were deemed NOT within the regulations and had to be removed. (again points keps). Those points counted, believe it or not in winning championships.

            Which teams does not cheat? All teams that were not caught with a design that they had being racing (and have earned points), that they later had to remove/modify due to it being illegal or not within the spirit of the regulations. You search, there are plenty of them!


          10. @dujedcv I recall Ferrari successfully appealing the exclusion of both of their cars from the 1999 Malaysian GP, after scrutineers found the dimensions of their barge boards to be outside FIA tolerances. It may have happened again since then but I can’t remember it at this time.

          11. Wait a minute……so in reality…… exactly what mpg am I getting from my ford cmax?

    2. at least they mount now enough pressure on themselves to get that strangely implemented fuel flow thing fixed.

    3. 9) The FIA technical representative observed thought the telemetry during the race that the fuel flow was too high and contacted the team, giving them the opportunity to follow his previous instruction, and reduce the fuel flow such that it was within the limit, as measured by the homologated sensor – and thus gave the team the opportunity to be within compliance. The team chose not to make this correction.

      I have a feeling it was RedBull’s plan all along. Now they will fight FIA and they are sure they’ll win. If they win, they will do it every race from now on. Tested this on Ricciardo, when found not quilty start using this on Vettel also.

      1. Bingo ! Nicely put !

      2. Still, limiting fuel usage per hour is one of stupidest limitation ever made in F1. That should be like before – just a common weight limit per race.

        1. It’s for engine reasons, not for motorsport reasons. Limiting the fuel flow rate limits power. Limiting power limits engine strength, cost, etc……

          1. You still won’t get anywhere if you are limited to 140 kg of fuel. Race goes 1,4-1,5 hours in average. It will be much simpler for everyone.

      3. This is ridiculous. I suppose he couldn’t have had more than 100kg fuel in his car but then again, do they measure the amount of fuel put into the car prior to the race start?

        This sounds like something RB would think of, and the FIA’s concern seems legitimate, then again we have accusations and no numbers, so this could and may as well simply be the FIA flexing their muscles because …reasons!

        However, the logic in my mind says “Why does it matter how much the maximum flow rate is when the car itself uses less than 100kg for the entire race distance?”

        Perhaps there’s no way that renault engine was ever going to make sufficient power without ‘bending’ that rule a little bit and all teams seemed to be able to manage their fuel just fine.

        Obviously this sensor and the rule making the sensor a mandatory part of the race (max 100kg/hr) has the responsibility of telling the FIA the total of the fuel consumption, which is the most reliable way to measure how much fuel is being consumed for the total distance.

        Therefore … the RB10 had more than 100kg on board and they tried to pull a fast one.

        All I know is … Poor Daniel! That guy was absolutely ecstatic! “I’m Tripping Balls, man!” – and thanks to this rubbish many might consider him and/or his team cheaters. I wonder what the home crowd thinks of that?

        1. The max flow rate is 100kg per hour… races last longer than an hour.

          100kg of fuel at the start used at the maximum allowed rate means you’ll run out of fuel with about a third of the race to go.

          In short, 100kg per hour and 100kg fuel tank are two different things. They’ve really confused most people with the naming though. Why not just say 166ml per minute or something along those lines.

          1. @textuality I think this is the heart of the discrepancy and the confusion surrounding this rule. Racing fuel is a volatile liquid: its volume is variable dependent on ambient temperature. This is why a weight of fuel is specified. Similarly, the FIA mandated a peak fuel flow rate in terms of weight per unit time. The mandated Gill Sensors ultrasonic fuel flow meter homologated with the FIA measures flow in terms of mL/unit time. There could easily arise a discrepancy between what the fuel flow meter is reporting in terms of volume units vs. what Red Bull’s systems are calculating in terms of weight. The fuel density could be altered by ambient power unit temperatures. Don’t forget that we now have a significant turbo intercooler in the system. This could also be used to cool fuel, increasing both its volumetric density and its energy density, yielding higher performance but still within the permissible flow rate in terms of unit mass per unit time. The FIA have really opened themselves up to this sort of war between the legislative part and the technical groups within the teams. I am (as an engineer) more likely to believe Red Bull’s determination of fuel flow rather than a standard part that has been shown to have significant variation in its output, and which, to my mind, isn’t even measuring the correct data.

          2. @mortyvicar Interesting post, thanks.

          3. @mortyvicar, I came to say the same thing, but you’ve explained it much better than I could.

            The FIA should not be measuring flow rates as mass per unit of time, as the sensors cannot measure that, and therefore some conversion factor is required, which introduces a possibility for inaccurate results.

          4. The purpose of my post was to highlight that the rule could be implemented effectively by simply limiting the race fuel load itself. If a team wants to use 200kg/hr for a lap, and they can still finish the race and not require more than 100kg total fuel, then good on them.

            The idea of the formula is to be “green” and they’ve achieved that by at least a 30% reduction in fuel consumption.

            Perhaps the FIA figure (and perhaps correctly so) that if they relied on simple weight measurement of the car that the teams would surely sneak in a few extra liters. That’s the only reason I can even imagine there being a fuel flow meter, and the only way to reasonably mandate such a thing is by implementing a flow-rate limitation.

            Could have been more straightforward though.

            In addition, the flow rate of the injectors combined with the duty cycle of the injectors @ a given rpm can be used to calculate how much fuel is being used.

            It would seem that formula would be no less reliable than the FIA mandated sensors themselves! :)

          5. @formulales, thanks for that. This is why I think that technically, the preponderance of the evidence is likely with Red Bull. Unfortunately I think they’re still going to be disqualified for using their own flow rate methodology, in contravention of Technical Directive 01614 which basically states that if there’s a disagreement then the FIA will determine the course of action and the team(s) must comply with that. My reading of it is that the wording leaves some wiggle room so it’s definitely one for the lawyers (as always) hence the appeal. I would like Red Bull to prevail, if only for Ricciardo, but if they do then it creates a big headache for the FIA and their chosen method of fuel flow rate compliance enforcement and measurement.

          6. @neuralfraud, I don’t fully understand the requirement for a metered flow given a fixed amount of fuel per car either. Also, the mandate and the choice of meter came in very late in my opinion (January this year IIRC).

            The fact is that the FIA writes the rules and they decided to include this one. The teams have to abide by it. Red Bull are interpreting the rules from the technical aspect and are certain they are within the letter of the law. The FIA are interpreting the rules from the aspect of the rulesmakers and they don’t want to see anyone challenging their authority or flouting the rules (which I doubt Red Bull are doing). The FIA have basically come up with an algorithm which determines what to do in the event of a disagreement. Red Bull came up with their own algorithm. Now we have to wait to see who is right. I think Red Bull will be shown to be technically within the regulations but I think it won’t matter because they didn’t follow the rules for dispute resolution within the running of a race. Who knows how these things are ultimately decided, probably at some star chamber in Paris.

    4. …rather Redbull being themselfs. They were warned during the race, and given an option to correct. I suppose they are looking for another “hole” in the regulations…only maybe this time FIA asks them to stop see what they like to see…and start competing using the same rules as all the others.

      1. Well there they go again…trying to cheat again.i think they know from the start that they’ll be nowhere in the first race so they tried to look for a way that they might get through it and show others that they made a miracle after their faults in testing and they are still fast and flying,they’re still the BOSS! but they failed…caught…hmmmm.not fair for others so well deserved DQ! lesson learned!

    5. The farce is continuing…IT IS CRAZY to not let the drivers race the given the car and its fuel.
      I do expect many in this forum to point out that the rules are the same for everyone yadayada….THE RULES ARE STUPID and the FIA HEADS should get the SACK. The F1 version 2014 is a farce. I feel sorry for drivers, teams and us fans – especially the Aussie guy’s this race.
      Sad times.

      1. So YES the rules are the same for everybody and if everyone complied and did fine…I do not see why blaming the rules is going to make anything better… Red Bull did not comply so end off..

    6. exactly. FIA and FOM are only killing F1. there should never be standardized electronics in F1 in the first place. better still why in the world would anyone try and regulate fuel flow in a non-endurance racing series – much less the self-proported “pinnacle of motorsport”????

      F1 is rapidly becoming the saddest joke in racing. On the other hand, the nearly dead Indycar series will be thrilled to get all the desenchanted f1 fans.

    7. You know what FIA stands for right? Fools In Action. Coming to an F1 track near you. I am sick and tired of the rules makers at this circus contriving the finishes fo races. If they get 100kg of fuel. Thats all they get. If you run out then you obviously got the flow wrong. Nuff said!

  2. Sad for Dan but relieved in proper application of the rules. F1 is all about the rules, always has been, always should be. Hence the Formula.

    1. knoxploration
      16th March 2014, 12:57

      Apart from all the many times when it wasn’t about proper application of the rules. I mean, is there anybody still left out there who thinks the FIA are fair, truthfully speaking?

      1. Technical infringements have been part of F1 since day one. As for sometimes controversial steward’s decisions during a race, well they too have been part of F1 since the start.

        Agreed that some decisions have been inconsistent. Maybe this decision is evidence of a properly applied zero tolerance approach. I sincerely hope so…

        1. knoxploration
          16th March 2014, 13:08

          I hope so too, but I sincerely doubt it. The FIA likes to meddle with race results; I’ve seen them do it far too many times to think they’ll suddenly straighten up and fly right.

          1. Meddle what, my friend ? It’s just the 1st race of the season, nobody has any ideea for sure who’s the driver with most chances to win the champ, there’s no Ferrari driver implied in this story (this goes to haters), no real gain for a Ferrari driver from this story (this goes to haters)… so it’s pretty ridiculous what you want to say. This started to smell like a case where to a team – RBR – is trying to elude the regulations to gain some advantage, with some help from FIA by not having everything put in place perfectly. But, even with all these FIA issues, RBR should play it fair. Instead, they to gain some undeserved advantage, especially that the car it’s not what it used to be anymore and the season might be a pain for them.

        2. knoxploration
          16th March 2014, 13:30

          And it’s already come to light that (surprise, surprise) the FIA *aren’t* being consistent — they acknowledge that the fuel flow sensor lost its calibration during the race, and that the change adversely affected Red Bull — but that the FIA’s response was to try another sensor, decide it was even worse, and then say “Tough luck, you get to race with a lower fuel flow rate than your rivals.”

          So you could say it’s about the rules, but it’s certainly not about being sporting or fair.

          1. I suppose the remaining question is who was responsible for the fault in the first place, RBR (inc. associations) or FIA?

          2. Where did the fia state that red bull had been adversely affected? It looks to me like the sensor was reading too low and therefore when it showed 100kgph the fuel flow was actually higher than that. The team was told to apply an offset so that they remained in the rules and refused to do so while other teams experiencing similar issues applied the offset. This means that while running at full power the red bull was gaining an advantage.

          3. How were red bull adversely affected?

          4. Yes but its not about the sensor in the end. It is about Red Bull ignoring the FIA’s request for them to adjust the fuel rate as the sensor indicated that it was running at a higher rate of fuel flow. If you read the FIA’s case carefully, the FIA can give permission for the team to switch to another measurement mode if they suspect the sensor is faulty. Red Bull refused to take this directtion and it was at this point they contravened the Technical Regulations as they ran with an FIA legal fuel flow sensor.

            So whether the sensor was faulty or not, it was Red Bulls decision to ignore the regulations. Game over.

            However, if they has trimmed the flow by a small amount to satisfy the FIA, what is the worst that could have happened? I doubt if he’d have fallen out of the points, and the issue could have been taken up after the race. Red Bull have been here before.

  3. Heartbreaking but completely righteous decision.

  4. Ricciardo’s Red Bull was found to have “exceeded consistently” the limit on peak fuel consumption of 100kg per hour, a new rule introduced for the 2014 season.

    This sounds more like cheating !

    1. My aussie wife has just gone mad….ooppss !

      1. Sorry ! :)
        Thank God it’s not my wife (I don’t have one yet), so I still can say what I think/believe.

        1. jose kowalsky
          16th March 2014, 15:37

          Sorry you are not getting any thanks to the fia. You must love them now.

          1. I don’t thank/support FIA or anything, but I don’t believe the teams play it fair 100% either when there’s a chance to elude regulations and gain something from that, of course. Let’s be honest, the power, fame and sums of money around F1 these days may push even the honest person to breaking rules. I feel sorry for Ricciardo, some drivers maybe don’t even know what they’re driving, but I’m not for unfair winnings of any kind.

    2. On the other hand, Red Bull says: Inconsistencies with the FIA fuel flow meter have been prevalent all weekend

      Sounds like it isn’t over just yet.

      1. Cool. How come RBR is the only team having this problem over a long and consistent run, like the race itself ? Just me, but I suspect some teams (still) try to cheat somehow…. or diplomatic/nicely put…. elude the regulations, in this case RBR. This seems to be a little thing for a big, great, reigning team like RBR, yet they failed to do a proper job.

      2. Their strategy:
        – create a scenario when you can somehow show inconsistency of fuel flow sensor (teams are good at doing things like that)
        – use the FIA sensor and say that it is measuring wrong, “we know better”
        – fight in courts for couple of months
        – Ricciardo gets the trickery treatment, they play it safe with Vettel until they get positive result for the trickery

        1. get over yourself

          1. Useful response! Thank you for your insightful input.

            In fact, others in this very thread has posited the exact same scenario as f1lauri, and knowing Red Bull’s history, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least to hear that this is exactly what they had planned… except for the whole “getting caught at it” part.

      3. Well, yeah, but most teams suffered from it. And others DID heed the instruction to run a tad lower fuel consumption (see this tweet from Adam Cooper) going about 6% below maximum.

        Meaning that RBR willingly, and despite having repeatedly been warned not to, used an unfair advantage @jcost

        1. The mention of Rosberg saying he was over the fuel limit in FP2 might indeed also relate to this issue @bascb; If so, Mercedes apparently changed their practice to comply; seems to me indications are that Red Bull indeed had trouble with using the same, lower, fuel flow for this race as the others had to.

          It is sad for Ricciardo, after a great first weekend, but had the FIA not acted, it would have become a mess of teams trying to duck this limit.

          1. hm, this article, posted earlier today: motorsport.com – Merc breached fuel flow rules has a bit more about that; seems indeed Merc. was a team that reduced fuel flow to be certain, already on Saturday (but they probably were over what sensor says was limit on Friday, as was Red Bull).

            Interestingly according to the article Ferrari was already told in testing of being in trouble with this, so they knew coming here they’d have to be conservative with fuel; maybe that is where the ‘Ferrari is too thirsty’ rumours originate? It also explains why Ferrari then was adamant no one else would skirt this issue.

  5. That’s unfortunate, but rules are rules.

  6. There goes those tripping balls :(

  7. Devastated for him.

  8. I don’t want another Red Bull fest this year but that is a real bummer for Ricciardo. Perhaps he should talk to Webber before the next race.

  9. Question now is, do Red Bull appeal? The fact that the FIA took something like 5 hours to resolve this means they may not have been totally sure with how they got to their findings.

    1. They are going to appeal , they have confirmed

      1. They have no case to make. As we now know, there is a clearly defined procedure to follow, even if the sensors are broken (which isnt even the case here, maybe, possibly, they were a bit inaccurate).
        They did not comply with the procedure, thats that, even if the sensor can be proven to be faulty, it does not matter, they ignored the secondary procedures.
        I would understand if they would be making noises for the sensors to be sorted. But this ridiculous appeal (and ignoring the instructions to begin with) just seems like they feel they are somehow above the law. I thought they were better than that, seems not.

    2. It all still sounds a bit suss. Red Bull sound incredibly confident.

    3. Who knows, they might have just started on the other side of the field of finished cars. Or they waited for someone to pull the data about the exact readings from that sensor out of the computers.

      Whatever, they might even have waited for safety reasons @journeyer. Now almost everyone in the crowd was long gone, but just imagine what an uproar could have commenced with the fans still in the grandstands when this was announced! ;-)

    4. I was very confused by this comment and some of the others. Took me a while to realise that the article, including the title, has been updated.

  10. Didn’t take long for the first big controversy of the year, the ‘fuel gate’.

    Seems harsh but thats the rules and everyone else played by them so thats that. Feel sorry for Daniel though.

  11. so… double podium by Mclaren? uhu go JB!, sad for ricciardo, but i guess the rules are the rules.

  12. Conspiracy alert.

    Wonder if RB could have done this on purpose, knowing full well their ERS are not up to par then just turn up the ICE to get the exposure and good will of an Aussie podium. They must know they were above the limit.

    …fruitless speculation of course…

    1. no, because they would have ran out of fuel.

      1. But they did not run out of fuel……

      2. The rule doesn’t say you must carry exactly 100kg of fuel, you are just not allowed to consume more that that quantity.

        1. The flowrate limit is probably the peak rate, not the average per hour.

          A boosted motor lis very dependent on good fuel pressure regulation. Extra flow is going to give you extra oomph just like ERS or DRS. So RB don’t get a pass.

          I sell sensors for a living, there are tolerances on everything. Doesn’t mean they are broken. So some will read high and some low. Obviously teams like to cherry pick the sensors.

    2. Yeah seems fishy to me too, looks like they were trying to get away with something

  13. A dream start to his Red Bull career has just turned into a nightmare. I’m incredibly disappointed, especial since the car was finally showing some genuine promise.

    1. *especially – I really need to begin proof reading for typos!

      1. @vettel1

        especial since the car was finally showing some genuine promise.

        I’m not so sure about that. This illegal fuel system might have definitely flattered Red Bull. Ricciardo was likely gaining a significant advantage by running over flow limit starting the straights and then as car is already up to speed go to more lean maps – this is faster than constant max flow every time you go full throttle.

    2. Shame on you (again) Red Bull.

      We cannot ignore that Ricciardo was brilliant and consistent thru all weekend. Just remember the fantastic qualifying using intermediate tires. It was an amazing driving.

  14. Explains why Magnussen pulled into the P2 spot after the race!

    1. Wasn’t that Rosberg?

      1. No, checked replay. They moved the P2 sign to RIC’s car as he pulled in.

        1. It was Rosberg.

        2. It was Rosberg. pulled up to P2, not P1.

          Less of your conspiracies please!

    2. actually rosberg pulled into p2, kev into p3 and dan into p1

  15. Shame for Daniel, but unfair on the rest if that (and it presumably did) gave him a performance advantage, so can’t really quibble with the decision. Quietly pleased that means a podium finish for Jenson too, although it never really looks good to have these things decided after the race, especially when it’s a high-profile home podium in the first race of the year.

  16. Deeply disappointed but he will bounce back and surprise us more!

  17. Chris (@tophercheese21)
    16th March 2014, 12:59

    I’m still going to consider him the second placed driver, even if the points table doesn’t show it.

    1. Totally ignoring the fact that if McLaren had done like Red Bull then Magnussen would have passed Riccardo?

      1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
        16th March 2014, 13:05

        No, just considering the fact that Daniel drove a great race, and it wasn’t his fault.

        1. true that, fair is fair.

        2. petebaldwin (@)
          16th March 2014, 13:33

          It wasn’t his fault but it’s very possible that had he used the correct amount of fuel, he wouldn’t have finished on the podium

          1. He had no ‘choice’ about using the correct amount of fuel – the flow rate is set from the pit wall and the engine management system will adjust to match, delivering power as required.

        3. Well, since he would have been quite a bit slower, he’d probably been far lower in the standings.

          While it is both true that he drove a great race, and it wasn’t his fault doesn’t change the fact that his car was much faster than it would have been.

  18. It’s harsh on Dan but rules are rules

  19. What a shame, I can imagine this hurts more than the car breaking down mid-race.

    RBR needs to fix their electronics, the car seems quick and otherwise reliable enough.

    I hope DR has better luck next time.

    1. petebaldwin (@)
      16th March 2014, 13:33

      didn’t Vettel retire fairly early on?

      1. knoxploration
        16th March 2014, 13:34

        The car’s reliable. The engine, not so much.

        1. To be honest I think, in a way, that this actually shows that the renault engine has come on even more than we realised. It’s gone from being unable to manage a race distance at reduced power at the start of the Bahrain test, to doing a complete one at a “consistently higher” fuel rate to what it’s even designed for! Can’t really complain about that!

  20. You’ve got to feel for Daniel, he did a great job during the weekend. But rules are rules, and it would be strange if they would come away with it. At least we could wiitness the biggest smile in the world on the podium today and I’m sure he will soon be on the podium again.

  21. damn that means I get less points in the prediction championship… not that there were much to begin with, but still…

  22. Maybe Horner should be stripped of his place, also brings into question the team and how it is run. If they are willing to cheat in such a blatant manor in the first race of the season what have they done in the past?

    1. knoxploration
      16th March 2014, 13:16

      Have you ever considered that it just might not be cheating, even if it actually happened at all? Renault can barely provide them with an engine that doesn’t detonate at half race distance, I highly doubt anybody at the team has time to cheat (or would expect to be in a position to gain from doing so). Parts fail, mistakes happen. If that can be the case with everything else on the car, why not the systems related to fuel flow too? Why so quick to assume the worst?

      And more to the point, which team hasn’t been caught cheating? Ferrari: Multiple times, and currently employs a driver known to have participated in cheating. McLaren: Cheated multiple times, and one of the architects of that cheating is back at the helm. Renault: Cheated multiple times, and in the worst way possible. Williams: Knowingly hired a cheat just as soon as he was allowed back into F1. Mercedes: Hired Schumacher, who is known to have been a serial cheat.

      Have Red Bull cheated too? Probably. But let’s not throw stones here — your own favorite team are likely confirmed cheats as well, no matter which they are. Cheating is endemic in this sport, and I blame the FIA for its lack of transparency and inability to come up with proper, logical rules, let alone to enforce them fairly.

      1. I have considered that,But determine No, its fishy.Everyone cheats,But when you get caught you get punished.After a while neweys “cleverness” gets OLD.On a level playing field,red bull is in trouble.Or they wouldn’t need to cheat.

      2. McLaren: Cheated multiple times, and one of the architects of that cheating is back at the helm.

        Who? Mike Coughlan is nowhere to be seen, Pedro DeLa Rosa & Fernando Alonso are at Ferrari…

        Oh wait, you mean the guy on top who demanded an immediate internal investigation when he found out about it, delivering all evidence to the FIA and accepting the punishment without appeal?

  23. Australians and REDBULL not a lucky combination are they.. Really feel for Dan…

  24. What are the possible outcomes of the appeal? Could the 2nd place be re-awarded?
    Red Bull sound pretty confident

  25. This part was changed on Saturday after qualifying, did they have problems within all weekend? Did the FIA request a change as they were themselves getting irregular results from the testing?

  26. Bjorn Sandberg
    16th March 2014, 13:05

    Exactly what could be expected with this technical solution. If the cars had been equipped with fuel flow rate regulators, this dreadful situation would not have happened.

  27. Sad for Dan. But Kevin Magnussen coming in 2nd :o? Wow, that most definitely exceeds expectations!

  28. Another Australian..another sublime performance..and another sabotage !!
    That’s Red Bull living up to its name. !!

    1. petebaldwin (@)
      16th March 2014, 13:36

      lol. So I assume they sabotaged both cars then?

  29. Can someone confirm I’m understanding this correctly, as news sources and comments seem to suggest something completely different to my interpretation…

    As i understand it RedBull control the flow rate to the engine and either RedBull or Renault have designed all components that control this. The FIA simply issue a meter which only checks the flow rate is complying with the rules. (The meter has no direct control over the flow rate)

    The problem is the FIA issued meter suggests the flow rate has been breached, but RedBull are stating it hasn’t and arguing that the meter is faulty and giving a false positive. (rather than what many sources are suggesting which is a faulty meter caused the wrong flow rate).

    I’m I’m understanding this correctly, then the following options exist:

    1. The meter is correct and RedBull have a technical problem and are unable to accurately control the flow rate.
    2. The meter is correct and RedBull knowingly breached the flow rate, and now using “faulty meters” as a cover up.
    3. The meter is faulty and RedBull have done nothing wrong.
    4. The meter is faulty and RedBull thought they would get away with breaching the flow rate as a result.

    1. Exactly my thoughts but as I have posted after you my feeling is it’s more likley a No. 4 scenario.

      1. To me the situation also reads like scenario 4 is the likely one @gdon, MM; that tentative conclusion is partly based on this being Red Bull, they rarely make clumsy mistakes, but rather take risks that might take them too far, but scenario 2 seems too much cheating rather than taking a risk; had it been McLaren last years I’d have thought it might of well have been 1 :)

    2. petebaldwin (@)
      16th March 2014, 13:39

      I very much doubt anyone knowingly cheated. It’s something you are just never going to get away with.

      Considering the technical issues so far, I’d be very surprised if it wasn’t the 1st scenario.

    3. 1.Yes

      3. No, there are strict procedures to follow, even if a sensor is broken or suspected to be broken, which they did not follow, even when warned.


    4. It’s a combination of 2, 3 & 4.

      All sensors, in most fields, have a measure of variance – accepted positive and negative deviance from the expected value. The flow sensors have such a value, which the FIA advise on.

      Red Bull seemed to believe that the FIA’s reading was wrong, despite the FIA assuring them they believed the sensors was functioning correctly and within scope, thus they did not allow RBR to fall back to an alternative measuring method. Red Bull decided to fall back anyway, feeding RIC data from their systems rather than the FIA-mandated flow meter.

      There was unlikely to be any express malicious intent to skirt the rules, but the fact remains someone in the team made the conscious decision to publicly operate outside of the rulebook.

      The Stewards decision and their reasoning behind it is fairly clear cut and not murky at all – the flow meter said RIC was using more fuel that the rules allowed, they told RBR to cut the flow back to normalise the reading, compensate for any variance *and* dodge a penalty. They did not.

  30. . 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.”

    So if there were Inconsistencies up and down the pit lane why oh why did they get it wrong and nobody else did?
    In my mind the other teams planned and stayed well within those Inconsistencies and Red Bull decided to wing it here and blame the flow meter if anything happens. So to me it seemed more like a test session where Vettel had the right software/hardware and did not go anywhere but Ricciardo had his fuel meter changed without the same software to regulate it and got second place. Now this may be a good test result for Red Bull/ Renault because now they know the extremes and they just need to find the middle ground somewhere.
    *Takes off tin foil*

  31. We have been told that car 3 ” exceeded consistently” the max fuel flow rate but we haven’t been told by how much, it can’t have been by a great amount as that would almost certainly have resulted in an excessive total fuel use for the race, RBR are appealing on the grounds that this is a metering error outside their control, I expect that given the complexities of the system and the changes the FIA have instituted to try and overcome innaccuracies already apparent in the system that RBR will be given the benefit of the doubt, I await further details with interest.

    1. Not really… Regarding total fuel usage here’s a quote from another site regarding the same issue.

      A document issued by the FIA Formula 1 Technical Delegate Jo Bauer following post race scrutineering states that “during the race car 03 consistently exceeded the maximum allowed fuel flow rate of 100kg/h”
      In 2014 Formula 1 cars are limited to 100kg of fuel in the race and it cannot flow to the engine at a rate of more than 100kg per hour. This seems rather strange as the race lasted 93 minutes which means that with the maximum 100kg of fuel in the tank the highest average fuel flow the Red Bull could have and still finish the race is just 64.5kg/h (approximate) so ‘consistently exceeding’ must be a number of spikes on the trace rather than running regularly over 100kg/h. However this could still bring performance gains.
      Meanwhile it is worth noting that the flow meter on the car in question was changed after qualifying.

      1. knoxploration
        16th March 2014, 13:39

        It’s also worth noting (from the stewards’ decision) that the fuel flow sensor was changed because it was faulty and registered a change in its reading from lap to lap during a session, then it was replaced with another that was also faulty, and then the original known faulty sensor was put back into the car and the team told “tough luck”.

  32. This makes Kevin Magnussen’s race the joint best debut ever, along with Jacques Villeneuve (excluding Guiseppe Farina, who won the first ever grand prix).

  33. Very sorry for Ricciardo, but Red Bull had to be dealt with in proper, strict manner. They basically illegally boosted the performance of the car which never should be treated leniently.

    1. Haha, sorry mate, just had to say how much I love your avatar!

    2. @cyclops_pl I see what you did with your avatar

  34. So this means that Magnussen did better than Hamilton on his debut for McLaren

  35. DIGUSTING. stupid rule, what is this 100kg/hour rubbish? why isn’t it just 100kg for the race? what advantage is gained anyway going over? the driver is not at fault here, he should get no penalty, take the points off redbulls constructors points and get rid of this BS rule.

    1. This is my question. Why double up on a new rule? Seems ridiculous.

      1. Exactly. The teams should be allowed to use THEIR 100kg of fuel however they want. If the teams can find ways of maximizing the fuel usage without running out, then let them. It would only make for better racing.

    2. The total fuel allowance is 100kg, and the total rate at which that fuel may be used is 100kg/hr.

      Both of these rules have been published for months, and both are designed as improvements in fuel economy, not performance at any cost are required.

      Unfortunately, as Ricciardo HAS gained an advantage, even if not his fault, he cannot be allowed to keep 2nd place and 18 points.

      Ultimately, it is down to the team to ensure this does not happen, especially if as reported they were informed by the FIA but chose to ignore the warning

    3. Quoted from another forum:

      “The fuel flow as opposed to total fuel consumption limit is solely to cap the horsepower to a sensible level. The old N/A engines simply had an RPM limit which was enough to control how much air they could possibly suck in. Now that we have forced induction, the best way to do that is fuel flow limit. Air limit could work as well but I suspect fuel is more straight forward and still leaves a reward for those who manage to get the most power out of the least amount of fuel.”

      “Uncapped power is not a good idea. Most likely the teams and engine manufacturers themselves are responsible for introducing this point in the regulations anyway. Do you really want to watch a procession of fuel saving alternated by short jumps where they turn the engine up to 1500 horsepower to fly past the guy in front on a straight?

      The limit is reasonable as evidenced by the increase in straight line performance over last year. It’s clearly harder to get the power down even without allowing insane overboost scenarios which nobody is waiting for.”

      1. Exactly, people who complain about this rule either don’t understand F1, or can’t think.

        Sure, almost everybody is disappointed that Daniel is disqualified, thats does not mean that the rule is wrong or bad.

        It is very necessary rule for more performance equality, for wheel to wheel racing, for costs, for reliability etc.

        1. Sad thing is that there is no such thing as equality, especially if you have ever watched a formula 1 race. Limiting fuel just adds unnecessary costs, and unfortunately the only reason for the rules are the profit margins of the auto makers and the “green ethos”.

          The FIA cannot be taken seriously, because they are not interested in containing costs, only promoting certain agendas.

    4. It’s to level the playing field. A maximum boost pressure is not specified in the new regulations, which eliminates the need for blow-off valves that ruin the sound of American racing cars.

      By limiting the fuel flow you limit the air flow since the air/fuel ratio is constant, which limits the boost pressure.

      Note that in the days of normally-aspirated engines, boost pressure was zero for everyone, and it was accepted as fair. Now it’s [whatever] for everyone, so should also be accepted as fair.

  36. Another way for RBR to justify themselves is to show that the driver has no way to change the maximum fuel flow. It could be so, it could be done so that EVERY engine map uses the same maximum fuel flow (peaks), even if it averages lower fuel consumption. This way they could argue, that FIA warned them, but they couldn’t do anything about it. The next race the same scenario, the next race the same scenario etc…

  37. Have to take my hats off to the stewards and the FIA. Ballsy move to exclude Ricciardo but if RB was trying to be too smart than I’m happy they are paying the price.

  38. Oh well, at least it’s adding some intrigue and excitement to what was one of the dullest races i’ve seen.

  39. That’s downright heartbreaking. But it did almost seem too good to be true.

    To be honest, it’s a rule I’ve never understood. As long as the driver finishes the race within the fuel limits, does the rate at which he uses it really matter that much? That said, rules are rules. I’m very surprised that Red Bull chose to ignore the warnings from the FIA. As always, I’d be very interested to know exactly how much time Ricciardo gained by breaking these rules.

  40. This makes it the first time in which Red Bull haven’t scored since the 2012 Italian GP.

  41. It seems that the situation is much more complicated than “Red Bull cheated”. Honestly, I think both the FIA and Red Bull are at fault here. If the friday sensor gave inconsistent results in FP1, why use it for the race? It’s a bit stupid to limit the performance of a car because of a faulty sensor.
    But then, Red Bull knew this, so why did they push so much? I think that if they had listened to the FIA in the middle of the race they would have been ok.

    It’s really complicated, I think Red Bull did the right thing to appeal, just to clear everything out. Adam Cooper said that other teams ran 96 kg/h just to be sure, probably because they didn’t trust the sensor as well. So, it’s something that needs to be sorted out.

    1. I can sort it out to you and save money :)

      Just get rid of the stupid rule :) lolz.

      100kg per race, boom, … but maybe that would make too much sense, and give the rule makers less leverage in determining the outcome of the championship.

  42. Has anything happened with Red Bull’s challenge or has the bombshell detonated?

  43. Jonathan Sarginson
    16th March 2014, 14:38

    Red Bull are now going to have to reveal their secret fuel recirculation system where fuel is returned (after passing thru the fuel-flow transmitter) back to the fuel tank, having been used to cool charge air thru a heat exchanger, therefore this flow is not being used by the ICU

    1. Where did you get that info…

  44. I don’t see why the FIA gets to dictate at what fuel flow rate the teams are allowed to use. 100kg of fuel per race. That is fine, but then they should leave it to the teams to decided how much their fuel flow rate is because they all have to use the same amount of fuel anyway.

    1. Because the FIA make the rules, therefore they can dictate that the rules are followed and correctly enforced.

      Shame for Ricciardo, but he’s not the first and he won’t be the last.

      What about Hamilton being DQ’d from qualifying in Spain 2012 due to stopping on track because the team were worried there was not enough fuel left to provide a 1kg sample? Same strict interpretation of a rule, that many armchair fans seemed to struggle to understand.

      1. no that is more like ricciardo stopping 500m after finishing second because he wont have enough fuel at parc ferme. totally different, and this is a rule only first seen today, so ofcourse it is hard to understand, especially since there are claims that the system for measuring the flow rate is not consistent – redbull have appealed because they use the same ECU as everyone else and mentioned other factors like injector rates, so genuinely believe they are not at fault, and that the fia’s reading are at fault —-as other commentators have said, other teams apparently set lower fuel flow rates to avoid problems because they knew of the inconsistencies in readings. there should be no inconsistencies, and penalties should not be applied if inconsistencies are known by the fia. This Is much more complicated and totally different scenario to syphoning 1 litre of fuel out of car with its engine off.

        1. I was meaning more the fact the driver has done an apparently brilliant job, but gets excluded post-session for an infringement that was beyond their control.

          The important point to remember in today’s case is that RBR were warned by the FIA, and specifically told to do something about it, but they ultimately decided not to, instead making their own decision to use their own calculations rather than the FIA’s which is not allowed.

          This might be RBR’s fault, not Ricciardo’s, but as there is no way to tell how much of an advantage this was giving, then DQ is the only answer.

  45. Jonathan Sarginson
    16th March 2014, 15:02

    ..the above system, regularly used in generation 4/5 fighter aircraft uses a principle of sending an amount of fuel far in excess of engine requirements to the ICE; the excess is then returned via a Fuel Cooled Air Cooler (ACAC) to be used to cool engine, oil, or charge air, thereby reducing the frontal area required of Air Cooled radiators…

  46. Michael Brown (@)
    16th March 2014, 15:12

    I don’t understand the fuel flow rule. It’s unnecessarily complicated. Surely limiting the amount of fuel to 100kg is enough to promote fuel efficiency?

    1. Sure, on average. But not if you want to see wheel to wheel racing and don’t want to see push to pass 1500bhp uber engine modes.
      (Not to mention costs, reliability, etc.)

      1. uber engine modes.

        @mateus Yes yes I would love to see the uber engine modes

  47. Seems open-and-shut to me. The fact that the stewards warned them repeatedly during the race will shade any appeal attempt. Also the stewards set in a very detailed record of what they did. The purpose of an appeal is to resolve a situation in which the rules were unclear at the time, or where the regulator plainly exceeded its discretion. It is not to simply to bypass the initial application of the rule. You can’t just ignore a rule you don’t like and then appeal the punishment, not unless the stewards were plainly acting out of line.

    1. @dmw Why was there no OSD during the race as with other steward investigations / wwarnings

  48. Why does FIA have a rule that it itself cannot reliably police? Ridiculous

    1. Trenthamfolk (@)
      16th March 2014, 15:35

      Isn’t this policing it? The FIA can’t enforce compliance, so they enforce the punishment…

  49. Trenthamfolk (@)
    16th March 2014, 15:43

    “Red Bull immediately announced their attention to appeal and released the following statement”

    It’s clear to me that RB expected this action and had the statement prepared. They ignored the FIA prior to and during the race… the arrogance of the management is obscene! It’s a real shame they used Daniel as the pawn in their little game of chess… I’ll be interested in the outcome of the appeal.

    1. There can only be one outcome.

  50. So this is “trickery”. Sensor fun.

  51. Whether the FIA made poor sensors or not, sounds like RB (Ricciardo) was using up to 100Kg/hr where everyone else was using up to 96Kg/hr.
    Much as I like DR he therefore had a performance gain of up to 4% – a significant amount where even though Rosberg won by a whopping 26s seconds, this equals less than 0.5% of his time.

  52. Well, after reading the stewards findings I (begrudgingly) agree with the decision. If there is one good thing to come out of this it will be that the teams will do more than just pickup a box-o-fuelflowsensors at the local dollar store. Although the FIA’s fuel flow sensor homologation could be a farce. Nothing to prove this, just pure speculation. Although I do find it odd that Red Bull is challenging this ruling, from what I’m reading they don’t have a leg to stand on unless they have some sort of bombshell. But even if they do they would have presented it to the FIA already. Their challenge might simply be a show of moral support to their driver and nothing more. Similar to other sports teams challenges to show that they back their player.

    RBR tried to find the limit of what they could get away with and instead of gaining some sort of advantage they were bit hard by the regulatory body. On to the next race, I hope RBR will make something of it.

    God! Nothing like a conniption to wake you up in the morning.

    (By the by if anyone is going to attempt to say that I’m a Red Bull fanboy let me save you the trouble. Yes, yes I am. If sticking with your team good or bad, right or wrong makes you a fanboy, then I completely accept that moniker. At the very least give me credit that I admit it.)

  53. Being told by the stewards during the race to do something to remain within the rules, and refusing repeatedly to do it, means that Red Bull knew they were pushing up against a brick wall. Why would they do it?

    They’re obviously hoping that some behind the scenes negotiation will allow them to overturn the decision. It’s all very cynical and leaves a bad taste in the mouth. The most hated team in the pitlane continues its journey.

  54. I do not understand why the FIA send a warning to RBR to reduce fuel flow rate, when RBR had already breached the limit. This totally goes against Charlies warning about 100% compliance.

    I honestly hope RBR wins this one. It’s too big a mess for the FIA to just turn it down. Surely this will be as big as Mercedes tire-gate last year.

  55. FIA should have black flagged Ricciardo. The sentiments are high because he was on the podium after a good drive. If he was never allowed to finish perhaps people would leave their emotions before accusing the FIA.

    The fact that RB chose to ‘ignore’ their warnings sends a very wrong message to the other teams too.

    Any chance the other teams would have heard the warning to RB during the race? If they did and still ran below limits, they must be appreciated for sticking by the rules.

  56. The new fuel regulations have been called “the most important change to F1” and yet the FIA provides teams with faulty fuel sensors– unacceptable, completely unacceptable. Some people seem to think RB was trying to cheat or juts being “arrogant” (please); they were up against a rock and a hard place. It sounds like they decided to do what they knew could limit his fuel usage, otherwise they had a junk sensor that was useless. I suggest the FIA fix the most important sensor on the car, and then they can defend the regulations, that were here followed in spirit and according to RB data, in fact.

    1. @chaddy, if the sensors are all faulty why weren’t other teams found in breach of the rule? RB were warned and simply chose to ignore it because they already had their defense in place.

      If your speedometer is not accurate, would you still risk going at the limit or play it safe and be a few kmph below? Many teams seems to have done the latter while RB chose the former approach even after being warned.

      1. Not all the sensors were faulty, but some were (hence the pre-race, last minute changes from the FIA).

        As for your speedometer analogy, the FIA’s broke, and Red Bull had another one to use to stay below the limit. And the FIA is saying “you were speeding– look we have a broken sensor to tell us!”

        1. Doesn’t matter if the speedometer is broke, you are still required to stay below the limits so that the faulty speedometer shows you are legal.

          That is the rule and it was followed by all teams bar RB.

        2. The Replacement sensor was also faulty.

      2. Your speedometer is wrong more than likely. They generally read high, by up to 10%. If you are trying to legally get somewhere as fast as possible, you get a GPS speedometer app, find out how fast the spedo reads when doing the speed-limit and drive to that. This is why enforcement of speed limits is done with accurate measurements, and why you can get speeding tickets thrown out of court if the LIDAR gun is not calibrated on schedule.

        1. Exactly. They made a rule they can’t enforce because they shirked it on production. And people calling for teams to be penalized for being given crappy equipment is ludicrous, especially when there is an alternative and temporary solution at least until the FIA fixes their issue. Sorry Red Bull has been so successful, but it is due in part to not letting themselves get screwed over when they are in the right.

          Respect for rules comes not from arbitrary application of them, which any fool can do, but from protecting the integrity of the system determining their breach. This DSQ doesn’t mean the stewards aren’t allowing any teams to get unfair advantages or is making sure there is a level playing field– this is purely about power and politics, and has no foundation in supporting their own rules or implementing a straightforward limit on fuel consumption.

        2. The article posting Stewards explanation clearly explains the issue. I don’t see RB having a case here. The equipment may be faulty but that doesn’t give you the right to go by your own methods.

          That regardless of the team’s assertion that the sensor was fault, it is not within their discretion to run a different fuel flow measurement method without the permission of the FIA.

  57. Rules are rules. But these are the kind of rules that simply destroys the “racing competitiveness” that everyone is always demanding. I don’t know any more what kind of F1 FIA wants. Truly don’t know. 2014 is the year to remember 20 years since Senna died. For me, if he was alive, he would just say: “These rules are stupid! We, the racers, are human beings design to win. Whatever it takes. And if we stop fighting for the gap to win, because we’re concerned about the stupid software has to be upgraded or with the level of gasoline, bla, bla, bla, we are not racing any more. We are just simply and ordinary people from whom was taken the right to race!” I would subscribe.

    1. The people defending this DSQ fall into at least one of four camps:
      A) Hate Red Bull for dominating for 4 years
      B) Don’t like Daniel Ricciardo, I suppose
      C) Want teams to bend over for the FIA and be uncompetitive when an external factor screws things up (instead of pushing to the limit, even into the gray when they feel they are in the right)
      D) Chant rules are rules are rules are rules to protect their own biases– And they don’t even know if one was broken, but god forbid you don’t listen to the FIA’s nonsense instructions before the race so that a team wouldn’t have any chance of winning.

  58. Is there some reason there can not be a mechanical flow restriction in place? Pumps have a max pressure by regulation, a plate or fixed diameter tube could easily restrict the maximum flow. If you are using a sensor you know is not precise, you need to accept all readings within that precision.

    I don’t think RBR will win their appeal, but if they used a more precise method they are right in spirit. Spirit is ignored by the teams all the time so it’s only fair the FIA ignore it too when it suits them.

  59. So RBR knowingly decided to break the rules here, unbelievable.

    1. Like it was unbelievable what happened last year… when Mercedes had a “secret” training test with Pirelli?

  60. Why do I feel Red Bull did this on purpose and now are trying to find their way out of it. I think they were trying some loop-hole, they didn’t manage to try out during testing, and it didn’t work as they expected. I think what they did was illegal on purpose and they should be punished. But I also think that it’s a loophole that they feel will be legal once they manage to bridge the illegal part. Sort of like “don’t ask me how I made my first million”.

  61. I don’t see how Red Bull gained any advantage in this case. Rosberg still finished over 24 seconds ahead of Daniel, and Daniel finished with Mags right on his heels!
    All Red Bull did is bring to our attention even more obscene stupidity on the part of the FIA. Even if Red Bull did “cheat” in some way, that does not make the rule any less retarded. Regardless of Red Bull’s actions, we should be thanking them for bringing to our attention yet another FIA blunder.
    Yes, the rules are the rules, and Red Bull broke them, so yes, punish THEM, but not Daniel. All that Daniel did was race the car he was given.
    If the FIA had their way, the only cars to finish the race would have been Merc powered cars.

    1. The fact that magnussen was right on his heels but couldn’t pass him can be attributed to ricciardo going beyond the 100kg/hr flow rate and hence gaining a performance advantage, so yes red bull definitely gained an advantage! In a sense though I agree with you that it is the teams fault and not ricciardos, however they win and lose and a team so if they deem that Daniel gained and unfair advantage he should be punished along with the rest of the team

      1. Can you please explain how, using worked examples, RIC and Red Bull gained a material advantage from fuel flow volumes?

        1. Well, the greater the fuel consumption rate, the faster the car. Simple.

          Given that Riccardo was told from after the safety car to push without needing to worry about fuel saving, he probably also burnt off fuel faster than he otherwise would, thereby resulting in the car getting lighter more quickly.

          So it was a two-pronged advantage. Car got lighter quicker, and the car was faster due to higher fuel rate intake.

    2. My God man, you clearly are not understanding the issue here, go read the regulation. The rule is not stupid. Even if it was it is the same for everyone. All teams managed to comply but Red Bull. Go read the and make sure you understand it so you can add to the discussion instead of making uninformed comments. Jeez… @irejag

      1. My point is, why do they need to have a rule governing the fuel flow, when they have a limit on the amount of fuel that is to used? As long as they cross the line, isn’t that enough? This rule obviously did not improve the racing in any way. The FIA did their part by saying that the teams can only use 100kg of fuel, and they should have left it at that. How the fuel is used should be governed by the team and only the team. And you can’t tell me that all the other teams didn’t cheat this weekend in some way or another. Red Bull just happened to get caught. Next race it will be another team, and the race after that it will be another and another.
        Each time a debate like this comes up, it ruins that entertainment value of the race. Which is why we all watch. And this weekend the Australian’s were happy at the end and everyone else was happy for them. It was a good race and a good weekend for most people, and it should ended like that.
        All the FIA had to do was privately reprimand Red Bull and keep a closer eye on them from now on. This didn’t have to become a huge thing in the media and fan forums. It could have been a great weekend. Both the Red Bull and FIA units were faulty, Oh no, big deal. Fix it for the next race and be done with it. There is no reason to go and destroy what was a perfectly good race.
        Overall, the rule is, plain and simple, illogical in the world of racing.

        1. If there would be no flow rate rule on top of the race fuel rule, the teams would spend many tens of millions more money, developing engines for 1500bhp uber engine modes only to be used for a lap in qualifying and for push to pass mode in the races, yeah that would improve close racing……… And wouldn’t be at all stupid or wasteful and unnecessary…..

          Spend some time finding out why the rule is in the regs.

          1. “the teams would spend many tens of millions more money, developing engines for 1500bhp uber engine modes. yeah that would improve close racing……… And wouldn’t be at all stupid or wasteful and unnecessary…..”
            Calvin Johnson just signed a contract for $132,000,000 over the course of 8 years. (Wide receiver for the Detroit Lions).
            Sports teams are always spending millions to improve their teams. So if spending ridiculous amounts of money means closer and more exciting racing, then I am all for it.
            Formula One has lost its way. They no longer allow the teams any ingenuity.

  62. Alex McFarlane
    16th March 2014, 18:23

    Just a thought, but what would happen if, after a race, a car could objectively be found to have been over the fuel flow rate, but the FIA approved sensor under-read and indicated that the rate used was legal?

    1. Then we would probably never hear about it.

    2. If a car is found to be over the fuel rate (which will be found during the race itself) they are instructed to drop to the required limits. Doesn’t matter if the meter if faulty, you are expected to follow its reading like the rest of the grid.

    3. This is the issue. The FIA mandated fuel flow rate meters are not sufficiently accurate or sensitive. They measure in terms of volume per unit time when the regulation stipulates a maximum flow rate in terms of unit weight per unit time. I believe Red Bull are more than likely correct in their measurement of fuel flow rate. The problem is that the FIA has mandated this sub-optimal solution and they believe they’ve been fair in saddling every team with the same fuel flow meter (even disregarding the fact that there has been substantial variability in their measured output). In the final analysis, the figure that the FIA are getting in real time is in terms of volume when their own regulation states a peak fuel flow limit in terms of weight. In this case, the law is absolutely an ass.

      1. The questions is, are the rules to be followed according to the letter or to the measurement?
        I belive certain parts should be withing a certain size but the measurements are a little higher so some teams bullt the parts to the larger size and its ok. So you should always build your car to pass whatever the measurement is and this case RB didn’t

  63. Good Stuff. Finally the FIA develop a backbone.

    We’ve gone through 3 years of Red Bull being caught cheating and then simply being told not to do it again by the FIA. Punishment is due.

  64. It all comes down to if it’s true there have been problems with sensors, or it’s just RBR making up excuses.

    If it’s true the sensors are unreliable (and it seems they are, based on the several links posted in the first comment page), letting the FIA’s incompence handicap a whole race is absurd. Race performance stops being a competition between teams and drivers, but becomes a lottery about who gets a working sensor.

    If the FIA can’t guarantee its equipment is working as intended, then RBR is doing the right thing.

    If, the important word. But that’s what the appeal is for.

    1. All sensors have a measure of variance that has to be considered. The FIA have said that the sensor was working within ‘acceptable limits’, meaning it might have been all over the place, but it was within a specific boundary for the part.

      The articles out there say that the FIA changed the acceptable variance values following Mercedes (and possibly other teams) seeing issues on Friday. Red Bull still didn’t accept the performance of the part, so the FIA said ‘try another sensor’. They didn’t like that either (it was worse), so they switched back. the FIA issued them with an advisory flow rate to aim for, which would mean they would be sure to run under the limit for the entire race.

      Red Bull chose not to do this.

  65. 9) The FIA technical representative observed thought the telemetry during the race that the fuel flow was too high and contacted the team, giving them the opportunity to follow his previous instruction, and reduce the fuel flow such that it was within the limit, as measured by the homologated sensor – and thus gave the team the opportunity to be within compliance. The team chose not to make this correction.

    Red Bull’s arrogance knows no limits. Also, if anyone let Dan down, it’s Red Bull themselves.

  66. They were warned. They continued. They were punished.
    Very clear.

    1. Yup. No argue with it. Totally Red Bull’s fault. No excuse.

  67. I feel sorry for him but this is completely Red Bull’s fault.

  68. Does anyone know what the readings were. Any why didn’t red-bull slow the fuel rate when they were warned during the race. They did the wrong thing by Daniel

  69. If RBR have clear telemetry which shows accurately that they did not exceed the mandated maximum fuel flow limit, and can prove that the problem was simply the homologated FIA sensor being at fault, then it seems pretty unfair that they would be punished for it. The crux of the matter really should be – did Ricciardo’s car exceed the fuel flow limit. If not. then firstly his place should be reinstated, and secondly the FIA have a big problem on their hands with this unreliable, inaccurate part being used to measure one of the most important aspects of car performance.

    I can’t imagine that RBR would ignore what the stewards were saying if they didn’t feel they could prove afterwards that it was actually the FIA part which was at fault, and that they were actually compliant with the rules. If that IS the case then I would say they did exactly what they should have done.

    1. That ignores the fact that redbull fitted a non homulgated part to the car. That is a fundamental error in any racing class.

      Every part of the car must be homulgated and legal, you can’t just add your own part when an official sanctioned part is available.

      1. No part was added/replaced. They chose the read the fuel-flow from the engine metrics/ECU rather than the FIA sensor, because they didn’t believe the reading the latter was giving.

    2. It’s not just about ‘proving a problem with the sensor’. It’s that the FIA mandated a process for resolving the issue and the team chose to pursue their own tactics in direct violation of some of the written rules of the sport.

      1. When those processes seem to result in a team having no choice but to be compromised in performance then the process would appear not to be fit for purpose. And let’s face it, it wouldn’t be the first time the FIA were economical with the truth – we can’t be sure that a conversation hadn’t already taken place between RBR and the FIA.

        The main point really is that if the car was compliant with the rules then it shouldn’t be DSQ for breaking those rules. If you can prove, for instance, that you were driving within the speed limit, then you shouldn’t get a fine just because the radar was miscalibrated, should you?

      2. @optimaximal

        The problem is that the “process for resolving the issue” that the FIA mandated allegedly put the the team in a disadvantage. That’s the problem.

        If the FIA had mandated that to all teams in the exact same way, I would agree that RBR deserved to be punished. But this was made on a team-by-team basis. Were all sensors faulty? Were all equally faulty? Were the exact same solution mandated to all teams?

        If (important word) RBR can prove their sensors were faulty and that the FIA’s solution would have given them a disadvantage, they were right to act the way they did.

        That’s why we should reserve judgement until the appeal is done and we have all the facts.

    3. @mazdachris Nothing can be more important than the fact that everyone should be in the same condition. Whether accurate fuel flow is 101kg/h or 96kg/h is secondary. even if Red Bull’s sensor and calculation are more accurate than FIA, still they ran with unfair advantage. That’s it.

      If Red Bull want to clear reliability of the sensor, they should appeal it in different way rather than doing something dogmatic.

      1. That only works if all of the sensors on all of the cars were misreading consistently in the same way, which nobody has suggested is the case. The flow meter was replaced by the FIA because it was not reading correctly, but the replacement was even worse. So the FIA put back the broken part even though they knew that RBR would be disadvantaged by it.

        The rule is about how much fuel is used, that’s the main point. No team should be punished for the fact that the FIA can’t accurately measure this metric.

  70. Over the weekend it was mentioned many times that due to the flat torque range of the new engines many corners could be taken in any of about three gears to achieve either fuel saving or speed.
    Often you could hear them shift two gears in quick succession.
    The fuel flow is relative to the power the engine is producing and one of the ways to keep you fuel flow down and not ask so much of the engine is to use a different gear. That and changing engine settings.

    If Riccardo was using lower gears for longer to keep in front of Magnussen and thus using higher fuel flow, then he was gaining an advantage. If the Renault engine is not capable of producing the power with the lower fuel flow, then Riccardo was gaining an unfair advantage and thus they were cheating.

    Many are confusing total fuel used with fuel flow. None of the cars use max fuel flow at all times, it’s relevant during acceleration and when at top speeds. They can reduce fuel flow by not accelerating as hard and not trying to run at higher speed. Which is why short shifting is a simple means of keeping the fuel flow in check. Remember the new engines and gear ratios allow for a much wider range of operation.

    The fact that they were warned multiple times during the race meant they had a choice, accept a lower finishing position or risk disqualification. They chose the latter. Had they chosen to comply with what the FIA was warning them about and accepted 4th place or so then they would have been in the high moral ground to complain that the fuel flow sensor was faulty.

    The got an advantage because they drove their engine harder and gained an advantage over others who complied with the rules. Faulty sensor or not, they were warned they were breaking the rules and chose to ignore the risk.

  71. The most amusing aspect of this whole kerfuffle – Red Bull, along with Ferrari, torpedoed FOTA. If the association still existed, they might have been able to collectively take on issues with the fuel sensor.

    As it stands, i’m sure any change to the system that requires approval from either the strategy group or the teams will get shot down, because it will be seen as a ‘Pro-Renault/Pro-Red Bull’ decision.

  72. Rules are rules, but look at this thread? Look at the actual issue!? Do we want to be talking about such rubbish, or actually talking about the divers, and the quality of racing?
    The ridiculous FIA say they brought in double points for what reason? Yeah, lets bring in one rule, but then lets have another that does the total opposite! I once hated V8 Supercars, had no interest, but I am actually enjoying watching it more and more, it’s real racing plain and simple.

  73. Simon Cresswell
    17th March 2014, 18:18

    Well it’s a shame for Ricardo the innocent party but hasn’t Bernie said consistently including in his book! Everyone in formula cheats!!!” it’s about not getting caught” we and the media call it cheating but the teams call it bending the rules! I suspect red bull are chancing there luck again. If they were in conflict all weekend why were they allowed to run anyway? I mean if a sportsman was found on steroids he would not be allowed to run right????

  74. Horner stats…Hopefully through the appeal process, it will be clear the car has conformed at all times with the regulations and we have complied with technical regulations.

    Notice, no mention of doing as he was told during the race !

  75. This is Red Bull hypocrisy of the highest order.
    A few years ago when there was the issue of flexable wings RB said that their cars were legal because they passed when they were measured by the FIA, now when the FIA measures something which is over then RB do not want to accept the FIA findings anymore.

  76. It makes you wonder why they chose to ignore a warning when they know that they will have trouble when the FIA warns you. It also makes you wonder how prepare to risk going against warning will they have been if the car was Vettels.

Comments are closed.