Daniel Ricciardo, Red Bull, Albert Park, 2014

Red Bull formally lodge Ricciardo appeal with FIA

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Daniel Ricciardo, Red Bull, Albert Park, 2014In the round-up: Red Bull formally submit their appeal against Daniel Ricciardo’s disqualification from second place in the Australian Grand Prix.


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

Red Bull confirm F1 appeal against Daniel Ricciardo’s disqualification (The Guardian)

“After immediately serving notice of their intention to appeal, the team were then given 96 hours to process their application, doing so just ahead of Thursday’s deadline via the Austrian motor sport federation. A hearing will now go before the FIA’s court of appeal at a date yet to be determined.”

Mercedes were also warned about fuel flow in Australian Grand Prix – but unlike Red Bull complied with FIA (The Mirror)

“Race winner Nico Rosberg’s team were asked to modify it in both qualifying and the race – their readings were also not the same as the FIA’s.”

Quiet engines are least of Ecclestone’s worries (BBC)

Niki Lauda: “Because everybody involved decided five years ago that they wanted turbo engines, a turbocharger was fitted between the cylinder and exhaust. That means you have a different sound, like every kid knows. We will get used to it.”

Wolff: Red Bull recovery ‘phenomenal’ (ESPN)

“If you look at some of the teams and their development curve it was quite phenomenal what Red Bull managed to achieve.”

Ron Dennis, McLaren, Albert Park, 2014Dennis expects 0.5s gain for Malaysia (Autosport)

“We are confident that we will be half a second quicker at the next grand prix, for a variety of reasons.”

Lowdon: F1 has lost “wow factor” (Sporting Life)

“Every team up and down this pitlane will be taking very important key decision-makers into the garages, and it’s probably that more than anything else where there is an impact.”

Australian Grand Prix chairman Ron Walker to retire from post (News.com.au)

“I’m 75 this year and it’s good governance to let someone fresh take the reins.”

A look behind the scenes at FOTA: Part 2 (The F1 Broadcasting Blog)

Oliver Weingarten: “The landscape changed dramatically within two months of my employment commencing. Teams had resigned, were arguing over cost control, the Geneva office was being closed down, and most significantly teams struck individual deals with the Commercial Rights Holder (CRH), meaning that the idea of collectively bargaining to achieve a better commercial position, was made redundant.”

Spread across the globe (Toro Rosso)

“The first item on [Daniil Kvyat’s] agenda is going over some of the Albert Park data, before moving on to the Malaysian track. He won’t be able to experience the heat and humidity, but he will be able to work on car set-up as well as looking at routines linked to the new technology, such as recharging the batteries and getting a general feel for how the new power unit will work at this track, which features very different characteristics to Melbourne: high speeds, long straights and a second race for the new engines in very high ambient temperatures will provide a stern test for all eleven teams.”

The First Time – with Force India’s Nico Hulkenberg (F1)

“What was the first Grand Prix you can remember watching?
NH: That was when I went to Spa in 1998, when the big accident happened on Lap 1. Later in the race Schuey (Michael Schumacher) ran into the back of DC (David Coulthard) and eventually I think Damon Hill won in the Jordan. Quite an entertaining race. It was an awesome experience, one which I will never forget.”

Red Bull Racing hit with latest fine… (Milton Keynes Citizen)

“You’d be forgiven for thinking it was an early April Fool’s joke as world champion Sebastian Vettel’s car was found illegally parked inside the Milton Keynes Council’s Civic Offices on Wednesday.”


Comment of the day

@Palle offers some more perspective on the issue of reliability this year:

Working with development and running of technical equipment (mine hunting at sea) it is clear that the unreliability of F1 in the 1990s wasn’t at all a sign of engineering being on the limit. The teams – and Ferrari in particular – had just not made the analysis of how much the lack of quality control and verification before implementation did actually cost them in terms of DNFs and lost points. It was an unprofessional approach to the subject of controlling the quality of the equipment supplied to the part of the teams running the race cars during race weekends.

What changed it, at least by Ferrari, was the hiring of Ross Brawn, who turned their attention to quality control of every possible technical aspect. This founded the basis for the later Schumacher dominance era. I couldn’t find the data showing Ferraris improvement in terms of DNFs, but I found this quote from an interview with Pat Fry:

“Ross [was] obviously very organised and methodical. If you plot out the whole of the 1990s Ferrari’s reliability it was something like 25 per cent. Then Ross arrived when it stepped up to 90 per cent within six months, which was quite telling in terms of putting in structural changes to ensure that.”

That said the present day added F1 drivetrain complexity will lead to a slightly lower reliability due to the numbers: Any system has a given MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) and when you string more interdependent subsystems together the MTBF decreases. This means that if this season has a Mercedes team one second ahead of everyone else, the drivers’ championship will be decided primarily by the number of DNFs due to technical glitches from either Rosberg’s or Hamilton’s side of the garage.

Rosberg’s pit communications where he asks if there is anything he can do to improve reliability clearly shows that Rosberg is fully aware of this fact.


Indianapolis 500 start, 2013

The start of last year’s Indianapolis 500. This year’s race will be one of three on the schedule worth double points, all of which are twice the length of each of the other rounds (bar one). Details here:

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Gary Richardson, Gaz, Thomahawk_93 and Thomas Martin!

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

Michael Schumacher claimed his second consecutive win at the beginning of the 2004 season with a comfortable victory in Malaysia.

Mark Webber impressed by putting his Jaguar on the front row of the grid, but at the start his revs dipped low enough for the anti-stall to cut in and he was swamped by rivals.

That allowed Jenson Button to claim his first podium finish with third place behind Juan Pablo Montoya.

Today is also Ayrton Senna’s birthday – he would have been 54 today.

Images © Red Bull/Getty, McLaren/LAT, IndyCar/Walter Kuhn

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

  • 68 comments on “Red Bull formally lodge Ricciardo appeal with FIA”

    1. The Massa Lego figure is awesome. I made my own Ferrari Fernando Alonso one on Autodesk Inventor in my final year at high school back in 2010. Wish I had the pictures to share. :D

    2. Is Massa sitting on the nose of his car in that lego picture or is he just happy to see us?

      1. GB (@bgp001ruled)
        21st March 2014, 1:06

        susie is jealous!

        1. That didn’t take long :-)

    3. Well, if you’re gonna do double points, that’s the way to do it.

    4. Michael Brown (@)
      21st March 2014, 1:22

      On March 21, Google will commemorate Ayrton Senna. Just go to Google.com

      1. @lite992 As mentioned in the round-up.

        1. Nope, not able to see it yet

        2. Apparently, not here in the USA.

          1. This is incredibly annoying…

    5. Snap Hulkenberg, that was the first F1 race I saw as well and I was hooked from that moment on.
      Bernie, listen to your good friend Ron, who has the sense to know when to retire.
      Happy Birthday Senna, whereever you are. Gone, but not forgotten.

    6. Chris (@tophercheese21)
      21st March 2014, 2:35

      Happy Birthday Mr. Senna. I wish you were here today.

      1. Happy B’day Ayrton Senna da Silva. Died so young :(. 20 years ago!

      2. Whenever I remember Senna this sentence said by a Brazilian women in the day of his funeral always comes to me, and it goes like this: “We brazilians don’t need much to live: some food, education, healthcare and a litlle bit of joy, but joy, joy is already gone…”

    7. Chris (@tophercheese21)
      21st March 2014, 2:50

      I dont agree with Lowdon. I think now, more than (almost) ever, Formula 1 is as intriguing and “wow” as ever. The cars are technological masterpieces. The V8’s, V10’s and V12’s pale in comparison to how high tech this new bread of cars are.

      Formula 1 always prides itself on being the “highest class of motorsport”, with the most technologically advanced, and high performance cars in the world. However, the fact of the matter is that other series like the WEC were actually far more advanced than the dinosaurs of the later stages of the V8 era.

      Finally, Formula 1 is back on top. And if the amount of noise is the only thing that’s being used as an argument that F1 has “lost it’s wow factor”, then I encourage you to listen to the palette and range of different noises that these new cars make. Every team’s car sounds different. Last year, if you were to hear a car go past, unless you’re an extreme anorak, you’re not going to have a clue which car went past, however with these new ones, it’s a little easier, because they have subtle differences. Not to mention the gloriously space-age sound of the turbo whining just sounds terrific.

      One final point: The drivers are having to earn their money now (except Kobayashi) with these new levels of torque. The cars are far more difficult to drive, and the cream will rise to the top. The last 5 years, the cars looked too easy to drive (I’m sure they weren’t, but relatively speaking, they were easy), so now, the drivers can make more of an impact on the performance of the car. With all this new technology, they’ve inadvertently made the driver, arguably, the most important part of the car. It’s become more of a drivers formula… And that’s a good thing IMO.

      1. @tophercheese21, I agree, I also think that these cars and tyres are going to suit Kamui’s driving style a lot better than the previous iteration, I expect some impressive performances from him if Caterham can give him reliability. Another interesting thought is how simple it would have been to improve the entertainment factor the last couple of years simply by regulating smaller wings and central exhausts in combination with harder tyres instead of all the gimmicks, true the old engines lacked the torque of the new ones but they could have been more aggressive in wing area reduction and even harder tyre compounds.

      2. Formula 1 always prides itself on being the “highest class of motorsport”, with the most technologically advanced, and high performance cars in the world. However, the fact of the matter is that other series like the WEC were actually far more advanced than the dinosaurs of the later stages of the V8 era.

        Couldn’t agree more @tophercheese21.

        1. It doesn’t mean anything, though as long as the FIA forces the manufacturers into these technoligical advantages.
          Turbos in the 80’s were allowed, not mandated. The new engine formula has no opposition. It’s just tech crammed into a car, that never had to show that it’s better than an alternative. It’s ridicolous to call this the highest class of motorsport because of the new engines, when chances are that a 2.4 litre, N/A V8 in a car weighing 600 kilos would probably be quicker.

          Racing is about going fast, not showing off how advanced your car is.

          1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
            21st March 2014, 8:46

            It was the manufacturers who were pressuring the FIA into these changes in the first place.

            The V8 engines were losing their relevance by the day. Car manufacturers, Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault needed vast R&D into advanced hybrid technologies, so that they can implement them into their road cars.

            Just because they’re very very highly advanced cars this year, doesn’t mean they mean nothing.

            We’re only just beginning to see the vast untapped potential of hybrid power.

            Look at the new Hybrid hyper cars that Ferrari, Porsche and McLaren have come out with recently. Undoubtedly the knowledge acquired for those cars was gotten whilst developing the Formula One KERS systems. These new hyper cars are some of the fastest road cars in production.

            And I bet you, in 4-5 years time, these V6 cars will be faster than the V8’s were in 2013. There’s still a huge amount of development to be uncovered by teams, so the cars will get A LOT better.

            1. And I bet you, in 4-5 years time, these V6 cars will be faster than the V8′s were in 2013.

              I dunno – I think that’ll be closer to 4-5 race, certainly for some tracks.

            2. Don’t factor time into this, because F1 is always getting faster, regardless of the used technology as long as the rules stay the same.

              I’m glad people find interest in F1 for whatever reason, but I feel it’s not like F1 went there because of a performance advantage. Every great development in racing came because it was actually better compared to what the others used. Disc brakes, mid-engines etc… F1 is using hybrid turbos now, because it’s all the rage in production cars and pats itself on the back saying “Look, we’re up to date now.” This is utterly the wrong way around and doesn’t show in ANY way how what we have now is superior to what you call “irrelevant” engines.

            3. Chris (@tophercheese21)
              21st March 2014, 11:14

              Of course they didn’t go to these new regs for the performance advantage. They went their because the engine suppliers are investing in future road car technology by making these changes.

              Yes the old V8’s were absolutely irrelvent to engine manufacturers, because they’re not planning on using them for future road cars, so what good are they?

              Don’t get me wrong, I love the V8, 10’s and 12’s, and I wish we still had them, but saying that moving on with technology is wrong is just ridiculous.

              Times have changed whether we like it or not.

            4. @dennis, We arrived at the sorry situation of F1 running old technology via 3 steps, 1:banning Turbo’s in favour of NA 3.5L motors. 2: mandated format of V10/8 and 3:development freeze.
              Without these changes to the rules a simple fuel limit would likely have lead F1 down todays path.

          2. Australia 2012 Button won and did 58 laps in 1hr:34m:09s, 4 laps under safety car.
            Australia 2014 Rosberg won and did 57 laps in 1hr:32m:58s, 4 laps under safety car.
            Difference, 1 lap less and only 1m:11s less, therefore on corrected time about 30s slower or 0.5s/lap. Without a stopwatch you couldn’t tell the difference.
            And it is virtually universally agreed because he wasn’t under pressure Rosberg was taking it easy.

            Slower, probably not.

            1. Utterly irrelevant.
              What I meant was instead of pushing more and more tech into the cars by force, they could have simply invested into making the cars lighter and simpler, because that’s way more efficient.

            2. Chris (@tophercheese21)
              21st March 2014, 11:09


              As technology improves, it becomes smaller and lighter, but still able to deliver just as much if not more power than older tech.

              These new regulations are still in their infant stages. They will become lighter and more efficient over time.

        2. But there is so much technology that it banned in F1 that is not in other forms of racing. Traction control to name 1.

          1. But when we had traction control, it was said that the cars were too easy to drive, i.e. brake into corner until correct entry speed for corner, then bury right foot on the accelerator. The traction control would stop you spinning off.
            I want to to see the most technically advanced cars being driven by the best drivers as fast as possible. Not Joe Bloggs whose Daddy has 20Million to blow, so his little boy can say he mixed it with the best of them.

            And don’t forget the cars have to be slowed down every so often, because if not the G forces would exceed the limits some drivers could handle.

            P.S. I’ve been around F1 a long time, my 1st race live was when Colin Chapman introduced the Ford V8 DFV into F1.

      3. I dont agree with Lowdon. I think now, more than (almost) ever, Formula 1 is as intriguing and “wow” as ever. The cars are technological masterpieces.

        The casual viewer would have absolutely no idea that these car’s are tech masterpieces, those are the ones that needs to go “wow” not you on a f1 “fanatic” site.

        “…so now, the drivers can make more of an impact on the performance of the car…”

        As long as he is a good eco cruiser yes, not much “wow” to that.

        1. The casual viewer would have absolutely no idea that these car’s are tech masterpieces, those are the ones that needs to go “wow” not you on a f1 “fanatic” site.

          While I can see where you are coming from, that is the thinking which brought us DRS and Abu Double. If you are trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator, you will destroy the sport.

          As long as he is a good eco cruiser yes, not much “wow” to that.

          Actually, they have a lot more influence in going fast, too. The cars now have a lot more torque than grip. When a driver is trying to go fast, he cannot just floor it, he must search for the grip. You could see, even in a straight line, the back end squirming away from them. The driver has to find the limit, push the car to that limit, and not go over it. This is immensely more difficult in these cars, so the driver has much more influence.

        2. The casual viewer

          Which I doubt existed in the times people nowadays refer to as the golden era(s).

          Lets’ put it this way: Have grandfathers heard of Tazio Nuvolari, or Rosemayer, or who won the last European Championship prior to the start of the World Championship (which I think is Hermann Lang), or Juan Manuel Fangio, Stirling Moss?

          Or do all fathers know the difference between Formula One and the World Championship?

      4. I agree completely. One of the main reasons I love F1 is the technology.
        What gets me is that most of us watch F1 on the TV and the TV companies seem to have had a durrr! moment. They say “the engine noise is much quieter than it was with the V8s” and I find my self shouting at the TV ” Then turn up the volume on the feed!!! you morons!” We could then hear the great interesting sounds over your commentary.

    8. • Lowdon: F1 has lost “wow factor”

      I’d bet every time the drivers mash the throttle a bit too much when coming out of a corner they say “wow”.

      1. I bet both Marussia drivers said “Wow”, or something like it, on the grid in Melbourne.

    9. It drives me mad to think that RBR had such a clear warning from the FIA that they were on a last chance but decided to tell them to stick it. Mercedes took the not so veiled warning, did the smart thing and took the place and the points. Their arrogance is stunning and even though I’d love to see RICs position reinstated I’d hate to see RBR win an appeal.

      And as to the noise issue. Yes, it is underwhelming but who am I to say, I’m only the bloke who pays for tickets in the grandstand. It’s like going to a Who concert and not having your ears bleed.

      1. Agree on both points.

        Red Bull sacrificed Ricciardo to make a protest, willingly. Will be interesting to detect whether or not compliance will affect their performance.

        On the noise “issue”, most businesses in this modern era are actively pursuing less decibels wherever possible as a way to limit liability exposure. For some of the ridiculous complaints one would think that sheer noise trumps power, torque and driver skills. That seems rather shallow.

        1. maarten.f1 (@)
          21st March 2014, 7:08

          I suspect that the result Ricciardo achieved was completely unexpected to them. They probably wanted to make a statement, wanted to challenge the FIA on this dodgy fuel sensor. I don’t know what they had expected for the race, but I’m sure it wasn’t a podium.

          The situation with Mercedes is quite different in my view. They knew exactly what kind of car they had in their hands; one that is at least 1 second quicker over a lap. They played it safe with the fuel sensor.

      2. @thecollaroyboys It beats me how RBR always just feel they can do whatever they want. correction.In fact most of the top teams do something like this .Mclaren did spygate .Some people at Renault were involved in Crashgate . Merc were in a shady area last year with the tyregate . Now RBR want to beat that with ……fuelgate …whatever. Is it that the FIA don’t spell out the rules clearly? How does the communication between the FIA and teams work ?
        Whatever it is , I am happy it came out now rather than after 5 races or how many ever. Atleast RBR have a fair chance to set things right if they can and don’t lose many points . I hated how horner tried justiying what they did by stating that all teams were having a problem with the sensor . If they have a problem try working with the FIA to sort it out and not take advantage by doing something of your own . sheesh. Feeling sad for the driver . Sometimes I wonder , if Vettel were in any other team , I’d perhaps worship him ….who knows ?

        1. Maybe RBR did try to work with the FIA and got nowhere? What better way to bring the problem with the fuel flow sensor to the forefront and get the problem resolved so it doesn’t effect the rest of the season by getting your own driver disqualified?

        2. Is it that the FIA don’t spell out the rules clearly?

          I think the urles are too complex for the FIa to be able to do so. Like computer programmes, bugs appear. Like computer progrrammes, they’re annoying. Unlike computer programmes, they’re often squashed when they needn’t be.

        3. Mclaren did spygate not because they thought they could do anything they want but because they thought their competition could.

      3. I don’t completely agree on the RBR thing. Yes they should be punished and the penalty is actually fair – but I’m glad they did it. I was a skeptic about the flow meters from the beginning and all I’ve heard so far just confirmed what I thought would happen. And everything RB did in Melbourne and going forward will increase the pressure on GILL Sensors and the FIA to sort it out – especially for the WEC.

        1. Technically, there’s nothing for Gill to sort out. It’s the calibration that they’re having an issue with, not the quality of the devices themselves. The FIA has a third party don’t he calibration. There’s an interesting video on Peter Windsor’s YouTube channel that gives a bit more insight into the whole debacle.

          1. “Do the” calibration…

      4. It’s like going to a Who concert and not having your ears bleed.

        F1 isn’t all about noise so I think it’s a bit more like going to a Rush concert and getting served the 2nd side of Caress of Steel, 2112, and Moving Pictures. The music will be good, but not what most people paid for, probably.

      5. “Mercedes took the warning” but we don’t know how Mercedes FF unit was affected, perhaps they were told they were fine if they didn’t exceed 104%.
        We don’t even know what reading the FIA were receiving from the RBR car, except that it must have been over 96%, was it 98%, 100% or 104% we don’t know, and we don’t know the facts about any of the other teams either.

        1. Fair enough, but both were given a warning of some kind during the race. We’ll never know the extent of each warning but at face value with the information we all have in front of us I reckon that if someone with the power to disqualify you says you should do something it’s usually wise to take an interest in their request.

          @davidnotcoulthard No it’s not all about noise and I’m enjoying the season so far. But as a musician there’s something visceral and appealing (to me) about a certain type of sound and its impact.

    10. In 1996 I attended my first F1 race in Portugal and I left the track mesmerized by those cars sound. The last time I went to a GP was last August at Spa and I recorded a number of videos aimed at saving those V8 screaming to hear whenever I miss them because I’m sure I will miss that roar. However, I will not moan about the new sound every 5 minutes. It’s different, but I did like it.

      I was used to be skeptic about the new regulations but they’ve won me over a while ago. When teams get on top of main items racing should be better than what we’ve seen recently and being relevant to engine suppliers is fundamental. Andrew Benson has hit the spot on that article and I’m sure other people will come back like Honda did because the sole focus on aerodynamics was making F1 more “air relevant” than “road relevant” and giving engine suppliers a central role again will surely add a good reason for them to be there. Hybrid is the future, in 10 years time most cars will rely on some kind of hybrid power and racing cars will not be different, looking at all this facts, IMHO, making F1 hybrid was nothing but an inspired decision.

      1. The comparison video that was posted a couple of days ago from the grandstand opposite the pits in Melbourne sent a chill up my spine.

        The sound of the V10’s/V8’s had a magical quality about it and I can remember sitting halfway round a track and hearing the sound of 22 cars approaching from the grid at full speed.

        I miss hearing the furious noise, but you know what I miss just as much (if not more)? A technological battle. The engine freeze was a terrible thing for technological advancements and once again it is an avenue for major performance gain, which I think is fantastic for racing.

        The move to the new power units was the right one. Everyone knows it.

        If people miss the sounds of the V8’s so much and think that’s the only reason Grands Prix are popular, there should be enough old cars floating round the world to buy. I’m sure someone who wants to put their money where their mouth is can finance a new masters series: Elderly drivers in Yesterday’s cars driving Mickey Mouse street circuits.

        Come to think of it, it sounds like an idea Stoddart and Flavio would be in for.

        1. A nice retirement project for Bernie ?!

    11. Thank you Senna, for changing F1 forever…

    12. I know this is still early in the life of the new cars, but half a second to gain is pretty huge! McLaren must be bringing a lot of upgrades to the car to gain that sort of lap time. If they manage it though, I’ll be very impressed. Surely, if no other team is able to improve by that amount in Malaysia, then they’ll be Mercedes closest competitors.

      1. Not necessarily so. Perhaps they didn’t run their PU in an optimal configuration or mode, for example, they could have been running to a delta and realising they had too much fuel left in the tank. The can also have found out they didn’t deploy their ERS at the right moment. All these they could have discovered in their post race analysis before you even add any aerodynamic upgrades.

    13. So how are Red Bull going to approach the next race? Will they be sticking with their fuel flow readings or the FIAs? Surely they will have to conform to the FIAs or risk further consequences.

    14. Can somebody please explain why the names of the Grand Prixs on the official calendar are in different languages. However they are not in all local languages.


    15. Well said Andrew Benson – not always my favourite writer (to put it mildly) but that’s a well-argued demolition of Bernie’s soundbite. And good to read someone admitting they don’t sound that different from the 80s turbos.

    16. Not sure I agree with Toto Wolff on the Red Bull development curve. They probably had a pretty quick car from the start but with the battle against keeping the Renault power unit cooled and reliable they never had chance to show it consistently enough in testing.

      1. if redbull didn’t use the fia fuel flow meter, how did the fia get real time readings? – if redbulls meter is more accurate, how come the readings were still high when read by fia, when redbull says they were not too high?

      2. well that was part of the development curve wasn’t it?

    17. First time with Nico Hulkenberg

      What was the first word you said as a baby?


      1. It was the first Melbourne race that Hulk managed to complete

    18. Re CoTD – good points on reliability.

      If Mercedes does prove to be uncatchable this season then we can assume there will be a lot of 1-2 finishes or 1-DNFs. It would take one driver 4 wins to overcome 1 extra DNF (assuming a 1-2 in each) so it does seem possible that the driver’s championship will come down to reliability. This would not be great from a fan’s point of view, but does make my 10:1 bet on Rosberg pre-season look rather good, so you know, every cloud… ;)

      I hope the other teams can catch up though, championships are much more interesting if more drivers are involved and even scrapping for 6th-7th places can make the difference when things don’t go to plan.

    19. Can someone please explain the purpose of a fuel flow limit, when there is a 100KG limit for the whole race. What difference does it make how fast they suck it, as long as they don’t use 100kg before the end of the race?



      1. Here’s the FIA’s explanation for why they have both:

        FIA to guard against “extreme engines” in 2014

    20. Mark Webber impressed by putting his Jaguar on the front row of the grid, but at the start his revs dipped low enough for the anti-stall to cut in and he was swamped by rivals.

      So was it Red Bull’s fault?

      Oh, wait, was it one of the Red Bull boys that were already there in the Jaguar years that were screwing up Mark’s starts? :p

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.