Christian Horner, Bernie Ecclestone, Hungaroring, 2013

Ecclestone to “give serious thought” to retiring

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Christian Horner, Bernie Ecclestone, Hungaroring, 2013In the round-up: Bernie Ecclestone acknowledges he may have to relinquish control of Formula One sooner rather than later.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Bernie Ecclestone admits he is nearing the end of the road as boss of Formula 1 (The Mirror)

“I’m going to be 84 at the end of this year so I am probably going to have to start to think, ‘Do I want to go into the 85th year doing what I’ve been doing for goddamn how many years’. It’s something I’ll have to give some very serious thought to.”

Williams should have been on podium, says Wolff (Adam Cooper’s F1 Blog)

“I guess if you look at Valtteri [Bottas’s] pace before he hit the wall, and then I think his steering wheel was not completely straight, and then his pace afterwards, I would say if they have a normal race and they qualify better than here, probably they would have ended up on the podium.”

FIA backs meter maker in Red Bull flow row (Reuters)

“Gill Sensors said in a statement that the governing International Automobile Federation (FIA) had provided it with ‘positive feedback’ since Sunday’s controversial race in Melbourne.”

Red Bull baffled by Vettel car issues (Autosport)

Christian Horner: “From Saturday morning with Seb, the power unit put up a real fight and there was no logical reason for it.”

How many people in the world watch the Australian Formula One Grand Prix? (ABC)

“Based on the available data, live audiences for the Australian Grand Prix fall somewhere between 20 million and 50 million, but could be lower due to time zone differences with major markets and the declining popularity of Formula One since comprehensive measurements were last released in 2009.”

A look behind the scenes at FOTA: Part 1 (The F1 Broadcasting Blog)

Oliver Weingarten: “Unfortunately double points was presented by the Commercial Rights Holder (CRH) [Bernie Ecclestone] initially to the Strategy Group and thereafter to the World Motor Sport Council (WMSC). The reasoning was presented to the teams and they had their own reasoning for voting in favour. This was not an issue we discussed at FOTA level, given the status of FOTA at that point in time, when most discussions were focused on the requirement (or otherwise) to retain an association.”


Comment of the day

@Frankus28 wants to see the team and not the driver punished in Red Bull’s appeal against Daniel Ricciardo’s Australian Grand Prix exclusion:

I hope Ricciardo will get his points back!

At the 1995 Brazilian Grand Prix, Michael Schumacher (first) and David Coulthard (second) got disqualified for fuel sample irregularities which promoted Gerhard Berger to first place. An appeal of the FIA decision followed and Schumacher and Coulthard were reinstated to first and second places months later. However Benetton and Williams were stripped of their constructors’ championship points from the race.

As an Aussie and a Ricciardo fan, this would be a pretty good outcome. But I feel that the FIA has a great case against Red Bull with evidence to suggest they actively ignored a directive from the FIA – I’m pessimistic.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

No F1 Fanatic birthdays today

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Happy 50th birthday to Nicola Larini.

Sadly, the best result of Larini’s career came on one of the worst days for the sport. While substituting for Jean Alesi at Ferrari he finished second to Michael Schumacher in the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix – the same weekend Ayrton Senna and Roland Ratzenberger lost their lives.

This was not only his best career result up to that point but his first points finish. Prior to it he had driven for a series of back-of-the-grid outfits including Coloni (1987), Osella (1988-89) and Modena (1991).

That Imola start was his last F1 appearance for three years, after which he spent a brief stint at Sauber which ended acrimoniously after just five races.

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.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 77 comments on “Ecclestone to “give serious thought” to retiring”

    1. I see the author of the COTD’s point but the point remains that (if the reports regarding the sensor are accurate) Ricciardo earned his position with a car that had an unfair competitive advantage over the other cars. If teams were allowed to breach rules and the driver keep the points, what is to stop some team/driver combinations disregarding regulations to get the edge in the (arguably more important, at least to some people) drivers championship?

      1. Yeah, I don’t get these comments. It’s a team sport. It’s not like if a driver bins it the team gets to keep the theoretical points in the constructors’ championship they would have otherwise earned, and unfair to the rest of the field as you say.

      2. True but that also comes down to how much the fuel flow limit was breached and if the FIA deem it a big enough advantage.
        For example since you do have to save fuel for part of the race say roughly 30% (my guess), when you are in clean air and not being chased, and during safety cars you would assume they are only pushing that 100kg/hr mark when required (I wouldn’t be surprised if Rosberg wasn’t at all) so the FIA has to determine at what part of the race the breach was and if that effected Riccardo’s final result in the race, also from what I heard (on Australian radio though so it might be from a bias source) Ricciardo’s car was only just over the limit about 1.5% so 101.5kg/hr, very minimal but its not up to me to determine if that is enough to change the outcome or the race and nor do I have all the facts, once all the facts are on the table we can then say if Riccardo had a result effecting advantage or not.

      3. Isn’t the drivers championship meaningless to the teams since the prize money is based on the constructors championship?

        1. William Jones
          19th March 2014, 10:42

          While it may be meaningless in terms of prize money, it is certainly not meaningless in terms of sponsor relations and potential to attract new revenue sources!

          1. Good point. I guess a scenario where a team would have to choose between the two is unlikely.

        2. Well Ferrari kept a clearly substandard driver in their car for years, with it being obvious that they could never challenge for the WCC unless they built an utterly dominant car. By doing so they hoped to have their other driver have a shot at the WDC.

          1. Also the amount of sponsorship money Massa brought into was enormous
            Good link here regarding why they kept Massa over Raikkonen in the first place

    2. Be my guest Bernie

      1. 84 years old and talking about giving “serious thought”? It’s time to say loud and clear “I’m retiring on day X of month Y”.

        1. The guy is already 10 years over common life expectancy, time to consider it seriously indeed.

          1. antonyob (@)
            19th March 2014, 8:56

            Life expectancy for males is 82

          2. Also money makes you live longer.

      2. Since this could be the last round for Bernie, the German court should award him “double points”.

    3. Re COTD
      I doubt the FIA can reinstate Ricciardo’s points and penalise only the team because the RBR car was for all intents and purpose, an illegal car.
      They were running a none standard part, almost like a team choosing to run a none stander ECU.
      Its a big mess honestly because I think Daniel had driven beautifully all weekend long and to end up with such a massive anticlimax was a real shame.
      In all probability, he also was running above the threshold whilst being chased by Magnussen, which essentially robbed Mclaren of second and probably third places.

      1. GRRR *Angryface*
        Red Bull were not running ‘non-standard parts’. I’ve no idea where this rumour came from.

        The FIA’s flow sensor was fitted, they just chose to ignore the reading it was giving, instead using the (likely) more reliable (but still unauthorised) fuel injector read-out.

        This whole argument is nothing to do with what sensor was running, the accuracy of said sensor or anything Daniel Ricciardo did. The problem was Red Bull were informed multiple times across the weekend that they were running richer than the regulations allowed and if they didn’t slow the flow of fuel to the engine down, using software, then they would likely face sanctions for breaking the rules.

        They didn’t reduce the fuel flow.

        1. @optimaximal – You have no basis to claim that a fuel injector read out is more reliable (likely or not) than the FIA sensor. The fact is that the FIA sensor measures fuel flow directly whereas RBR derived the fuel flow from fuel pressure sensor readings and requested injector duty cycles from the ECU. It is very unlikely that such a derived value would ever be more accurate than a direct measurement.

        2. @optimaximal – You are right to point out that the only parts used were 2 fuel flow sensors of the same make, from the same supplier, and calibrated by the same 3rd party company.

          For the “unreliable” element, it does sound like a decent one, but from reading as much about it as I could find (especially some from AMuS and this article from @somersf1), I understand that the argument is not as solid as it might seem when RBR used it first. Let me quote:

          The FIA’s release however reveals their transparency in the matter and reveals Red Bull’s deceit, during Free Practice 1 the sensor gave eronious readings in their fourth run when compared with the previous three, although the same readings were present from run four throughout Free Practice 2.


          This sensor provided the same readouts as it did during run 4 of FP1 and all of FP2, this is an important factor as it’s correlation gives a definitive baseline reading. Once the sensor had been replaced post Qualifying the technical representative instructed the team to apply an offset to their fuel flow such that it would be legal (something done up and down the grid).

          Showing that while there was a difference between the readings from the first 3 runs and the 4th run in FP1, thereafter the sensor readings remained the same for FP2, so its not as if the readings were all over the place and unstable.

      2. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. Given the several warnings from the FIA, and RB’s failure to comply, it appears to me that the team must have had a pretty good idea all along that Ricciardo would likely be disqualified, and they would then bring the issue to a hearing. As much as I applaud Daniel’s drive, I’ll be surprised if either him or the team get their points back. Non-compliance by RB, and a possible performance advantage for their driver would seem (to me) to make this a no-brainer.

      3. The FIA did specifically say RIC was not at fault and if Red Bull can prove no advantage gained maybe there is a way to only punish RB. Hope so he had a great weekend and if there was no advantage he deserves it.

        1. The regulations say that “no advantage gained” is no defence. That precidence has been made many times.
          In 2011 Sauber had both cars disqualified post Melbourne due to discrepancies with their rear wing element being out of tolerance by a few milimeters. It cost them 7th and 8th position. There was performance benefit in the error in dimension but they were still outside the tolerance. They orignally planned to appeal but dropped it.
          Riccardo should not be treated any different just becuase it was his home race and hes a nice guy. Perez and Kobayashi are nice guys too.

          1. Edit. There was no performance benefit in the error in dimension

          2. Thanks, I’m sure they’re all nice guys but I meant he deserved it for his driving, especially quali and his first corner controlled dive. Sauber didn’t appeal though and I doubt they could afford the lawyers that RB can. I was responding to the precedence in the COTD where driver points were reinstated after fuel irregularities even though the constructors weren’t.

          3. @theoddkiwi There is also precedence to a driver being spared the points deduction (i.e. Brazil 1995), and that was also to a fuel-related irregularity.

            1. that was due to elf’s fuel not matching a sample given at the start of the season if my memory serves me right. Williams and benetton probably were not fully aware let alone DC and MS. Totally different.

        2. No_performance_advantage_still_not_an_excuse
          19th March 2014, 4:11

          The FIA did specifically say RIC was not at fault and if Red Bull can prove no advantage gained maybe there is a way to only punish RB. Hope so he had a great weekend and if there was no advantage he deserves it.

          As @keithcollantine himself reported, not gaining an advantage is not an excuse for ignoring FIA directive or otherwise violating the rules.

          1.3.3  If  an  Automobile is  found  not  comply  with  the 
          applicable  technical regulations,  it shall  be  no  defence  to 
          claim that no performance advantage was obtained.

          1. In fairness there is some ambiguity there. the phrase used is “if an automobile is found not to comply with the technical regulations..” which may well not be applicable. We know that the FIA sensor was showing that the car was using too much fuel, and yet RBR dispute this. If it could be shown that the car definitely didn’t use too much fuel and there was a fault with the sensor, then the car was compliant with the technical regulations and so the clause about performance benefit wouldn’t be applicable anyway. RBR would still be in breach of the sporting regulations relating to complying with the FIA procedures, but not the technical regulation about fuel usage. In which case the car’s disqualification could well be overturned and then RBR given some kind of token punishment for not following procedure. Possibly a fine or a warning or something.

            So I don’t think it’s absolutely cut and dry that the clause shoots down the performance argument. Because in this case if RBR didn’t gain a performance advantage, it’ll be because they didn’t use too much fuel.

            1. After repeated warnings over both Sat and Sun and then hours of deliberation by the stewards, I’m sceptical that it could now be shown that the car definitely didn’t use too much fuel. FIA was obviously checking everyone all weekend, so they must be pretty confident in their system for measuring and it seems this is more about RBR’s opinion, as nobody else had this issue, or if they did they complied with the FIA and were fine.

          2. 1.3.3 If an Automobile is found not comply with the
            applicable technical regulations, it shall be no defence to
            claim that no performance advantage was obtained.

            I read that article, but did the Automobile not comply? If it didn’t then that rule applies and cheaters deserve to be punished. If the FIA homologated sensor was out of whack and the RB10 did not break technical regs the only crime was RBs failure to comply with a directive and they deserve what they get. Not an RB fan by any means and I’m no lawyer, but if RIC is completely innocent he deserves his hard won finish. That’s all I meant.

      4. + 1, my thoughts exactly, suddenly Magnussen was on his tail and just as suddenly, he was able to open a gap, I know it could be tyres etc, but I really feel if the car is as described by the technical delegate…he’s out.

    4. I agree that penalties incurred for infractions outside the driver’s control shouldn’t see the driver punished (e.g. grid drops for parts changes) – in an ideal world. How this could be fixed in practice, I’m not sure.

      No matter what happens legally with Bernie, two things we can be sure of: he’ll never admit any wrong and he will go out on his own terms – which precisely what he’s gearing up for since a while now.

      1. Why not? Its a team sport and if your team cheats for you then you should be punished.

        Alonsos’ 2008 Singapore “win” is the worst example of this.

      2. So then by that logic @maciek, Ferrari could go and ignore all the regulations and make a car 10 seconds quicker than everyone else because they dont care about the constructors points as much as the drivers champs. By your logic that would be okay.

        1. Nooooo….. I’m pretty sure that’s not my logic, because that doesn’t make sense on any level. As I said – using a very common example from real-life F1 – I’m not talking about blatant cheating or ridiculously repeated offences, but simply the ever-stricter technical regulations on engine/gearbox changes and the like for which, in my humble opinion, driver penalties feel unfair.

    5. Noticed that Mercedes-AMG F1 team are now selling the ‘gangsta’ style Hamilton caps for fans!

      1. Omar R (@omarr-pepper)
        19th March 2014, 3:01

        #44 “Yo I’m a gansta, I dwell in Monaco and the shoots you can hear are the Martinis in my cups… I ain’t complainin’ when my team’s saying I should back off, that’s bad@$$ “

      2. @calum

        That’s called baseball cap and not “gangsta style cap”. Actually Ferrari has similar caps since like 2007 and Kimi was used to wear baseball style caps at Lotus as well. Daniel Ricciard did like them while at Toro Rosso as well…

        1. @jcost Aren’t the baseball caps the standard curved-bill ones worn by Rosberg, Schumacher, Vettel, and co.? You wouldn’t see Hamilton and Raikkonen’s flat-bill caps on a baseball field.

          1. You can have it flat or curved @journeyer. There’s no such think as “gangsta style cap”.

        2. @jcost – the word I was looking for was snapback cap. Yes they are pretty popular these days and I slso remember Kimi had one at his previous Ferrari stint.

          1. @calcum It isn’t a snapback cap it’s a fitted flatbill baseball cap made famous by the brand New Era via the production of the NY Yankees Cap.

          2. @calum like @watchkyle says, it’s fitted and not snapback. Snapback are adjustable. Like you say, those caps are very poplar these days and the first adopter in F1, as far as I can remember, was precisely Kimi Raikkonen. Among lovers of that style you find also, Alonso, Ricciardo, Kamui, Lewis…

      3. It’s a bit hard to see, so I could be wrong, but there seems to be a number of drivers wearing them in the Class of 2014 photo – both Ferrari drivers, Kobayashi, Vergne, Perez and Hamilton.

      4. David Tyrrell
        19th March 2014, 10:38

        It’s called a flat peak and is hardly ‘gangsta’.

    6. Well, retiring is something Bernie needs to think about but he may not have as much choice in the matter as he wishes if the court hearing doesn’t go his way. Personally, I think he should announce it now, go out on his own terms rather than have his hand forced. Think what you will about Bernie (and I personally think plenty) there is no denying he has made a grand contribution to F1 over the years (some would say almost as much as to his own bank balance) and he deserves to remembered for that.

      WRT to Ricciardo, I too wish there had been a penalty levied against the team rather than the driver especially given Daniel himself has been cleared of any wrongdoing. It’s a tough line to walk though, you can’t send the message that you can flex the rules yet still keep any advantage you gained (if there was one) so long as you make a ‘contribution’ to the FIA’s coffers. I think the best middle ground solution would be to leave the race results as is but ping them for the next round with a grid drop or similar plus a fine. That way, you avoid altering the race results which the fans utterly detest and avoid crushing an entire nation, who have waited year, no decades, for our boy to be on the podium at home.

      1. WRT to Ricciardo, that would set a dangerous precedent for teams that weren’t interested in WCC points (either clinched or couldn’t go anywhere in the standings in the last few races) to run illegal cars – giving their drivers an advantage in the WDC – since they could keep the WDC points and losing the WCC points wouldn’t matter.
        Considering the old adage of F1 (if you are not cheating, you are not trying), it would be an invitation to more trouble.
        I agree that it sucks for Australia and Aussies in general (one of the nicest people in the planet, by the way), but if the mixture was too rich, there was an advantage that could have meant, over the course of the entire race, the difference between 2nd and 3rd/4th.

        1. to run illegal cars – giving their drivers an advantage in the WDC – since they could keep the WDC points and losing the WCC points wouldn’t matter.

          but the driver did his job and the car didn’t drive itself to the finish line. It’s a tough call. But I agree with @pink-peril on this one

    7. The reasoning was presented to the teams and they had their own reasoning for voting in favour.

      I’m still betting on ‘they will pay us more’.

    8. What interests me is if Vettel was running in the same configuration. I would expect him to have been and I really hope that is the case. (Any confirmation that Vettel also ran without the FIA fuel sensor?)

      But if not, it really would open a can of worms as that would mean Red Bull were basically using Daniels car as a guinea pig. If he gets disqualified, no big deal, the team can take a one race hit. If he does not, then it means they gain a possible advantage in running the car in that configuration, or at least learn they can bend the rules. I guess any advantage would be wiped out when the other teams follow suit though. My point is, they scarified a good result and bet on the FIA not pursuing the case.

      1. Yeah, I think they where testing the waters, seeing how far FIA would let them bend the rules.

      2. Vettel’s car may not have had problems with the fuel sensor in the first place. Remember that Ricciardo’s FIA sensor gave conflicting readings in practice, but was used anyway. It was probably also conflicting with the RB fuel injection sensors, so RB felt they were right to ignore the FIA sensor.

        I can see both sides of the story – RB being annoyed that they would have to run at a lower fuel flow rate than allowed because of faulty equipment prescribed by the FIA. And the FIA being annoyed that RB ignored their instructions.

        In my view, it is correct to punish RB. However, the blame for Fuelflowgate ultimately lies with the FIA as they were unable to homologate reliable sensors.

      3. It seems unlikely that Vettels car’s issues were related to the fuel sensor. He reported no kinetic power and so RBR told him to retire because there’s no point in continuing.

    9. Bernie will quit F1 when it is “pried out of his cold dead hands”.

      It used to be my opinion that a big bucket of enough billions in cash would buy Bernie out of F1. But how much more money does he need than what he already has? I don’t think it’s about the money, it is about being the big wheel of Formula 1.

      Regardless of all the distracting talk, most of it coming from Bernie himself, I think he will get through his trial relatively unscathed. It wouldn’t be real surprising to see the old codger around F1 for another five or ten years.

    10. Many of the F1Fanatics are in favor of stripping RBR of points while giving back the points to Dan since the team was at fault. Well I completely disagree. I believe that most comments are psychologically affected. Since it was Dan, we are having such comments but would most of the F1Fanatics would have said the same thing if it was Sebastian Vettel? Clearly NO! He surely would have been accused of gaining an advantage and bla bla bla!

      Even in 2011, Sauber was disqualified from the Australian GP when their drivers had a fantastic 7th and 8th finishes and the drivers weren’t given back the points since FIA concluded that there was a performance gain so the 2014 Red Bull – Ricciardo is no different.

      1. @neelv27 Harsh, but true, people can not acknowledge their emotional biases and think rationally, or just choose to act emotionally and irrationally and unfairly.

        I don’t recall there being any mention or emphasis on performance advantage in the FIA disqualification of the Sauber drivers in 2011, I couldn’t find the FIA statements now, but from all the articles I found, seems that it was common knowledge in the paddock, that it did not give them any advantage. Sauber even talked about appeal. But it is simple, they did not measure up legally, thats that. Paul di Resta was half a kilo under the weight limit in Silverstone, which almost certainly would not affected his brilliant grid spot, but illegal is illegal.

        As for RBR now, well, they not only did not comply with the technical rules, but also ignored the authorities, after being warned (which in itself is illegal), and it is certain that they gained an advantage. They have no chance.

        And I just realised an interesting irony here. The FIA and the stewards have often been criticised for inconsistency, but the fact is, it is the fans who are by far the most inconsistent with praise, respect, disrespect and opinions for drivers and their performances, with opinions on sporting and technical matters and so on.
        (Not all of them to the same extent it must be said)

    11. The fuel flow thing wasn’t as straight forward as the FIA would like it to be. If they were totally confident that the technology works then a drive-through or a black flag would have been the right response and not a disqualification after 5 hours of post-race deliberation.
      Now I’m just guessing – but Laudenbach (from the Audi LMP1 project) talked about issues with changing temperatures and vibrations back in October. The sensor was homologated in January, which is not a lot of time to fix everything and makes RBRs claims of unreliability plausible considering that the operating window of the sensor is only up to 85°C.
      imo, if the sensor has troubles to stay in the FWHM window then not only has RBR a good case to get the points back (at least in the WDC), but the FIA has also more headache coming up.

      1. All the teams agree that the flow sensors have issues, but Ferrari and Mercedes believe they have to work hand in hand with the FIA and trust that the FIA can correct any anomaly but their frequent offset adjustments handed over to the teams.
        Now it was only one team, Redbull, who are not even an engine manufacturer, who chose to use their own reference during the race, despite repeated warnings from the FIA.
        Renault appear to be silent on the issue, no one knows if they advised Redbull on the issue.

      2. You may be right, but the FIA is not arguing the technicalities of whether or not the sensor was accurate: they told Red Bull how to measure fuel flow and Red Bull ignored that. The issue is disobeying authority, not measuring the flow accurately.

        Maybe Red Bull figured that they had nothing to lose. If they would have been out of the points running to the FIA’s instructions, they might as well go for broke and appeal it afterwards. Which is unsporting but it is becoming increasingly clear that F1 is a business, not a sport. Is this the fate of every sport which becomes sufficiently successful?

    12. In an effort to understand the accuracy of this sensor, which the FIA has mandated I have been to the suppliers website. Their datasheet ( says that the 52% of meters are within ± 0.1% accuracy of reading given, and 92% of meters are within ± 0.25% accuracy of reading. To put it into perspective that means that, assuming Red Bull’s meter is at the worst end of the 92%, that they were 250ml/hour of fuel flow down. But, if their meter was in the 8% which are worse then all bets are off- it would be great to know what magnitude of error Red Bull thought was there.

      I would dearly love Daniel’s drive to be rewarded by his finish being reinstated, but I don’t think the FIA will as they will argue he gained an unfair advantage from burning extra fuel. Also I believe FIA regs say that if believing the FIA is wrong is not an acceptable reason to break their rules, so sadly I don’t see Red Bull winning this arguement!

      1. 2.5ml/hour down I would think, not 250 ml

        1. @tvm
          0.25% of 100kg is 0.25kg
          1kg of fuel is roughly equal to 1 litre.
          Therefore 0.25kg is about 0.25l or 250ml.

          1. @jimbo yeah sorry my mistake to early in the morning :)
            Minuscule anyways.

      2. FIA already clarified that they did test the sensor and it was not one of the bad sensors.

      3. It also gives operating pressures and temperature ranges, not knowing any more details myself of the conditions under which it’s used in the engine are these all maintained? I would think so intuitively, but I don’t know for sure.

        I can sympathise somewhat with RBR, if the rules state only the maximum flow rate allowed and they have measured it themselves as under that limit. Unless of course the rules state “a maximum flow rate of whatever/time as read by certain instrument”, in which case they are wrong, but I highly doubt the rules are written that unambiguously.

        In the line of work I’m in, we find the only way to trust an instrument reading of any sort is to calibrate it independently ourselves. And even then, you need to understand what it’s measuring, as it might be only related to what it’s actually reporting – a simple analogy would be reporting mass from volume measurements and inferring density. I’m sure with a much larger and more complex operation like an F1 car, they probably have more complex calibration systems again. However, for RBR to be right they need to show independently and as definitively as possible that the maximum flow rate they were operating at did conform to the actual limit, and that the flow meter used was neither accurate nor precise enough.

        1. I can’t say I have my head completely wrapped around this subject, but I would think that after repeated warnings both on Saturday and Sunday there must have been numerous times that the readings were too high. In other words, between the discussions that must have occurred on Sat, Sun, and then after hours of deliberation by the stewards, the FIA must have a case, and certainly RBR had time to comply and were given that time but didn’t comply. ie. if we were talking about one reading that was too high, FIA wouldn’t have much to go by and I doubt would have dsq’ed DR.

      4. Had the same thought when reading about the possible variance in flow meter accuracy. Thanks for doing the math. The possible differences are minute.

        This always seemed to be about the opportunity to officially protest to the FIA and in the end who would be in control of measuring the fuel flow in races, Red Bull (the teams) with their own equipment or the FIA with their mandated flow meters. If all teams must use the FIA mandated meters it certainly seems to eliminate a possibility of any team finding their own way to beat the system.

        Even more telling is that RBR chose this issue to make a stand on. Ricciardo did much better in qualifying and the race than anyone expected from RBR. Was this down to using their own fuel metering or is it their real pace? We may have an indication as soon as Malaysia, or we may never know for sure. Either way, Ricciardo was sacrificed as the means to this protest by his own team.

    13. antonyob (@)
      19th March 2014, 9:03

      They cheated. Why would Dan get his points back? If it was Lewis it’d be cut and dried but people like Dan so…ridiculous.

      Re Bernie, he’s done wonders for F1, I for 1 will miss him. I won’t miss his tracks, his riding roughshod over Spa, the French GP, blackmailing Silverstone and building Chicken Tilke Massala circuits ( bland and dull) in deserts in the middle of nowhere but the sport would’ve torn itself apart without his steel hand on the tiller.

    14. I honestly don’t know what is scarier, Bernie not retiring or who is going to eventually replace him.

      1. I’ll replace him.

    15. COTD is completely flawed. If Ricciardo is in the title hunt at the last race, we’ll give him a v12 engine so he can win the WDC. So long as Red Bull don’t get any WCC points it’s fair, right?

      1. Yup. It’s a biased opinion with the writer admitting that he is a Ricciardo fan. I wonder if such comments would’ve come if it was Vettel who’d scored the 2nd place.

    16. I’ve read somewhere that Vettel’s car was using FIA approved fuel flow sensor which indicates that Ricciardo was Red Bull’s guinea pig. In that context as much as I like Daniel the podium strip is the only solution. Ricciardo should be angry at his team instead of FIA.

      1. Both cars had the sensor fitted. Red Bull chose not to adhere to what the sensor in RICs car was reporting because they assumed it was over-reading.

    Comments are closed.