Red Bull lose appeal against Ricciardo’s Australian Grand Prix disqualification

2014 Australian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Red Bull have lost their appeal against Daniel Ricciardo’s disqualification from the Australian Grand Prix following a hearing of the FIA Court of Appeal in Paris.

The FIA issued a statement saying: “The court, after having heard the parties and examined their submissions, decided to uphold the decision number 56 of the stewards by which they decided to exclude Infiniti Red Bull Racing’s car number three from the results of the 2014 Australian Grand Prix.

“The International Court of Appeal was presided over by Mr Harry Duijm (Netherlands), and included Mr Rui Botica Santos (Portugal), Mr Philippe Narmino (Monaco), Mr Antonio Rigozzi (Switzerland) and Mr Jan Stovicek (Czech Republic).”

An FIA Court of Appeal was convened yesterday in Paris to hear Red Bull’s appeal.

Red Bull issued a statement saying it accepts the verdict of the court:

“Infiniti Red Bull Racing accepts the ruling of the International Court of Appeal today.

“We are of course disappointed by the outcome and would not have appealed if we didn’t think we had a very strong case. We always believed we adhered to the technical regulations throughout the 2014 Australian Grand Prix.

“We are sorry for Daniel (Ricciardo) that he will not be awarded the 18 points from the event, which we think he deserved. We will continue to work very hard to amass as many points as possible for the team, Daniel and Sebastian (Vettel) throughout the season.

“We will now move on from this and concentrate on this weekend’s Chinese Grand Prix.”

Ricciardo said: “It’s disappointing not to get the 18 points from Australia, but if anything it gives me more motivation to get back on the podium as soon as possible.

“I’ve had a few setbacks in the first couple of races this year, but in Bahrain I demonstrated that, if anything, I’m stronger for it and hungrier than ever to get back on the podium. Not that I need any more motivation, I’m pumped!

“I’m still really happy with my performance in Australia and for having had the experience of being on the podium in front of the home crowd. I said that week, I’d rather have a great race, finish on the podium and then be excluded than to have had a rubbish race and then retire with a car problem halfway through.”

The FIA will publish a full reasoning for the verdict later this week.

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.

212 comments on “Red Bull lose appeal against Ricciardo’s Australian Grand Prix disqualification”

  1. Paulius Kvedaras
    15th April 2014, 9:53

    i guess Ricciardo will still be smiling.

    1. Not that I need any more motivation, I’m pumped!

      Love it. Ricciardo is just great.

    2. He’s a good bloke in a good team. I’m sorry for him because he really deserved the points as a driver. It’s a bit unfair to punish the driver for infringement of technical regulation which is in my opinon responsibilty of the team. I cannot fathom what sense does it make to punish a driver because turbocharger on his car failed and hence destroyed the engine. The best solution would be to strip off the points from the team in the constructor’s table. The driver should be punished in the case of sporting regulation infringement. This isue was a bit more complexed because it resulted in performance gain but I am sure there are better solutions.
      RBR team showed they are behind their man. However, the way they dealt with the issue was imature, not to mention Christian’s behaviour in the Court room. I find extremely disrespecful to use smartphone ( in any way ) during the hearing. They should also learn that you must never question the system. I can’t help not thinking about one guy who was a pure genius in the situations like this. To bad he’s is enjoying fishing too much to bother with F1 anymore.

  2. I’m so pleased this is the verdict they decided on. Red Bull broke the rules and they should be punished even if the fuel sensors are faulty

    1. What an odd statement. If the fuel sensors were broken how would they know if they broke the rules?

      It will be interesting the reasons they chose to come to this conclusion as they accepted Red Bulls measurements were accurate after Melbourne, they accepted the sensors broke (and therefore can break) as they did on Dan’s car in Malaysia and on the STRs.
      On top of this its debatable whether you can be punished on a technical derivative (which isn’t a regulation).
      So yeah, interested on the reasoning used and how it will effect others when the sensors are faulty again.

      1. Of cause you should be punished for not following technical directives. If not why would anybody else follow them? There are loads of things in there that could give you an advantage should you ignore them, like the camber and toe-in on the tires if I’m not mistaken.

      2. @KaRn could the sensors be faulty because the Renault teams have been modifying them to help mount them perhaps? Something that’s banned from Barcelona onwards?

        1. I wouldn’t be surpirsed if thats the case

        2. That’s why God gave us the gift of gaffer tape :)

    2. FIA clearly said that Daniel’s car was above the fuel limit throughout the race except the SC period & some 4 laps. He gained performance benefits cause of higher fuel flow while McLaren was chasing him down. Also FIA said either the sensor is a dud and reports no reading or it’s accurate & faulty sensors can be replaced and fuel flow should be calibrated as per the new sensor. It was obvious RBR were playing beyond the rules and were rightly punished. Also FIA said vettels car was legal, the problem with Daniels car was RBR ignored FIA directive to calibrate fuel flow as per sensor.

  3. cheaters! Christian Horner should stop moaning for a while now.

    1. I don’t think RBR cheated, I can’t understand why Charlie didn’t give RIC a black flag if RBR continued all race with the sensor showing 101 kg/hr .
      All this crap could have been avoided had Horner just been told , ” comply or park the car”
      By Charlie Whiting !

      1. In a way I can see that, but on the other hand I’m not sure that’s how it works, or can, or should. I think the fact that it took the stewards 5 1/2 hours to decide to dsq DR means there were things to consider, and perhaps things too complex for CW to play judge and jury during the race.

        That said, surely Horner must have had at least some small if not greater concern that ignoring the FIA would not go unpunished, but thought he could appeal his way through it based on his own take on things.

      2. Hey,That would be logical! They cant do that.Thank you for finally adding some reason to this topic.

      3. Because their argument is that the sensor is faulty. If the sensor is truly not working, then Ric probably wouldn’t be disqualified. My guess is that it turns out that either the sensor is working as intended but RB felt that it wasn’t accurate enough thus using their own measurement (which if I’m not mistaken, Ric was constantly at 101Kg/hr for the last 4 laps, basically while being chased by Mag, so it was convenient for them to use their own measurement or Ric might be overtaken by Mag) or the faulty sensor is an installation fault (by RB) or the sensor was really faulty but RB didn’t do the correct procedure for using the backup measurement method.
        Basically, Ric wasn’t disqualified immediately because there was a chance that the measuring device was really broken.

  4. It was ruled, we lost, if they say we broke the rules we have to pay…
    Have to trie and work around this….

    1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
      15th April 2014, 10:03

      Do you work for RBR?

      1. @topcherchee21 Nop

        1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
          15th April 2014, 11:02

          Why do you say “we” then? lol

          1. Beeing a fan i assume i could use the “we” word, unless you have something against in that case, my apoligies, and wil not do that again

        2. You’re doing it wrong: it’s only “we” if we win.

          1. LOL.

            My late grand mother was used to say “we eat together, we starve together” :)

    2. If RB wants to be back on top they have to do what got them there in the first place, not what kept them there.

  5. How did you break this before even AutoSport?! You’re amazing, Keith!

    1. The best site for f1 indeed :)

    2. autosport are getting a bit lazy these days

      1. @sato113

        So true!

      2. Sky Sports will have it tomorrow (EXCLUSIVE) with some photos of cameramen.

  6. This is the result i was hoping for it is sad for Daniel but you cannot just go around ignoring Tech Directives as and when it suits you. Truthfully I believe that this was the only possible outcome even if RedBull showed they ran at 98kg/h the whole race.

    1. This is exactly right. It has nothing to do with fuel sensors, Its about playing by the rules.

  7. When Newey yesterday admitted they gained 0.4 per lap by not decreasing their fuel flow as instructed, I’ve had a feeling the verdict must be like this. It was either this or completely scrapping the fuel flow restriction rule.

    1. To their own admittance, Daniel did not deserve 18 points, he deserved only 12 for third (Newey mentioned it would have cost them the place).

      1. he deserved only 12 for third

        So now he only deserves 80% of the points other drivers get for third? ;)

        1. Actually 40%, since Australia is a half point race.

    2. You’re phrasing that completely wrong. They avoided to lose 0,4 seconds by not decreasing fuel flow to, what they feelt, was below the legal limit due to a faulty sensor. And how 1% difference in fuel flow equals almost half a tenth I have no idea how accurate that really is

    3. It will be interesting to see the full verdict. I have a feeling there’s more than what is communicated today. The scrapping of the sensors for future races or a change in how they are used?

      Red Bull accepted the verdict immediately and I don’t think they would have done so unless they got something for their effort.

      There was never a chance the appeal would have succeeded as that would have possibly “tainted” 3 races. I believe Red Bull was very much aware of this and used the hearing as pressure to change something for the future.

      1. What I don’t get is why it’s only a problem for them if every team has the same type of sensor. Maybe it’s how they’re modifying it?

  8. Good to have this one clear so we can get on with the season. Was a stupid (arrogant even?) decision by RBR to ignore what the FIA told them to. I fully expect the team to quickly catch up, push Renault to make the engine work to their advantage again and fight for the title this year!

  9. Well, probably everybody expected such decision. On the other hand, FIA should sort out their sensor problem. Sensors should be bullet proof at this stage, because teams are competing and it might influence results, and FIA are responsible for that. It’s pinnacle of motorsports after all. Teams are required to come to terms with highly complex new regulations this year, while FIA can’t sort such simple thing as fuel flow sensor.

    1. FIA can’t sort such simple thing as fuel flow sensor.

      Such a clueless statement… these devices are not ‘simple fuel flow sensors’ and it’s not like there’s a jurry-rigged twist-valve that slows the fuel or anything. They’re industry-grade ultrasonic sensors that measure up to ~130ml of fluid per second without impeding the flow of the fuel what so ever, something rarely explored in competitive motorsport.

      Firstly, no sensor can ever be bulletproof or 100% accurate, more so if the sensor is a passive sensor – there is always an accepted variance/error rate.

      Secondly, Gill officially state that ~52% of the sensors are accurate to within 0.1%, with 92% of units produced accurate to within 0.25% (source), with this value guarenteed for 30 days from manufacture. There’s no documentation regarding the remaining 8%, but i’d imagine in such a case they would be identified and replaced ahead of competitive running.

      If a sensor is mis-reading or fails, the unit can be swapped out (outside of competitive running) or operated with an accepted correction value of ~4% in order to comply with the regulations. If the unit has failed, a backup system, such as the engine fuel injectors/fuel rail, can be used, provided it is operated under FIA guidance with the correction value.

      Any argument that the FIA needs to ‘sort their sensors’ is either a gross-misunderstanding, a massive simplification or intentional misdirection.

      Any discussion of the issue also regularly bypasses the fact that Red Bull Racing, Toro Rosso and Lotus F1 have all been caught modifying their sensors so as to make them easier to fit – it’s no secret that these 3 teams have had the most issues with the meters reading consistently either. The FIA has issued a (heh) Technical Directive stating that as of Barcelona, no sensor can be modified what so ever.

      1. @optimaximal
        Thanks for the well written and informative comment.

      2. Mr win or lose
        15th April 2014, 11:25


      3. @optimaximal Well, I’m not an expert and I don’t have big understanding of fuel flow sensors. My point was that they should be more reliable, bacause there already have been a few failures, therefore they should be made as more reliable. But anyway, thank you for explaining the whole thing to me. :)

        1. @osvaldas31 I’m honestly no expert either. I’ve just gotten fairly annoyed at all the misinformation spread about the sensors by both interested parties and the clueless media.

      4. @optimaximal The values in the data-sheet are produced under lab conditions as long as they don’t provide details on the testing procedures/conditions the FWHM value of .1% means pretty much nothing.
        What’s frustrating about this problem is that folks from Audi and Porsche complained about the sensor’s sensitivity to temperature and vibrations back in October and the first F1 tests revealed similar issues. But instead of being all over this from the beginning they procrastinated until it hit them over their head.
        That RBR did wrong is out of the question but the FIA was in all this the FIA one more time.

      5. I do not feel like this explanation is getting FIA off the hook. According to these figures, about half of the sensors cannot do better than 0.25% reliability. Now a quarter of % of a typical lap time is something like 0.25 sec difference, which is a lot. Of course, a certain delta in fuel delivery does not directly translate to the same delta in engine output, which in turn does not translate directly to difference in speed, so I wonder. I think the relevant question is whether FIA can guarantee a sensor precision that would not influence lap time by more than 0.01 sec or so. It seems that right now the answer is no, which is very worrying.

        1. I believe this is where the FIA’s offset comes in, based on the specific sensor

        2. I don’t think you can correlate the same inaccuracy on flow as lap time as the cars are not at full throttle all the time. What you can say is that power is related to fuel flow, thus with say a maximum of 600 BHP a 0.25% drop in fuel flow could equate to a drop in power of 1.5 BHP

        3. @ph

          According to these figures, about half of the sensors cannot do better than 0.25% reliability.

          No. According to these figures, about half of the sensors cannot do better than 0.1% reliability, with about 8% of those produced not able to do better than 0.25% reliability.

          1. @matt90
            Well that’s precisely the point. For half of the sensors they can guarantee error not larger than 0.10% For the other half thay could not, and the next best thing they can guarantee is 0.25% for some 40% of sensors. This suggests that the error is around this figure or more for the other half, because if it were smaller, say, 0.15%,for a significant portion of sensors, then they would tell us (makes them look better).
            If course this is just a guess, the crucial question really is what real precision in lap time they are capable of achieving reliably and consistently. So far I havn’t seen any word on that.

          2. This suggests that the error is around this figure or more for the other half

            Or there’s just a fairly even spread for the 40% which fall within 0.1 and 0.25%. There isn’t much point speculating.

      6. petebaldwin (@)
        15th April 2014, 15:00

        @optimaximal – That totally misses the point.

        Ok, perhaps the comment you responded to should have read “FIA can’t sort such simple thing as limiting fuel flow.”

        The rule states that cars cannot exceed the 100kg/hr flow rate. The FIA decided the best method to ensure this was to use a fuel sensor to check how much fuel is used.

        You said it yourself – “no sensor can ever be bulletproof or 100% accurate”

        So why use a fuel flow sensor and not a fuel flow restrictor?

        1. @petebaldwin – flow restrictors with such a high precision are pretty complicated too. Toyota has developed one but F1 not only restricts the max. fuel flow it also restricts the flow below 10500 rpm (based on the torque map afaik) – a variable flow rate is something a restrictor can’t handle.

          1. my bad has nothing to do with the torque map and only with the rpms

            5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5

            so for 9000 rpm they are only allowed to use 86,5kg/h and so on.

        2. Probably because a mechanical restrictor cannot compensate for fuel density?

        3. That’s simple, a restrictor will pass more liquid given a higher dP. Liquids are fairly incompressible so by measuring velocity using an ultrasonic device it does not matter what the dP is, just the density

      7. Hang on a minute.. As mentioned above 0.25% is something like 0,25 seconds. Lets look at Australia specifically

        Of Rosberg’s fastest lap (1:32.4) at the Australian GP that is 0.1s variability in performance for half the grid!!!

        8% operate with a 0.25% variability – that is 0.25s a lap. 8% of 22 cars is 1.76 cars.

        It could be argued that it is therefore statistically likely that one car every Grand Prix is running 0.25s faster or slower than they should. (variability could go both ways)

        I assume if a team see’s the FIA sensor UNDER-reporting the fuel rate in comparison to their own they just think “bonus” and keep on running.

        If the sensor looks to be over-reporting the fuel rate they are supposed to inform the FIA, who will then tell them to back off a further 4%. There is another 0.4s.

        The height of innovation pffftt

        1. Again you would have to assume that the cars are at full throttle all the time for that to be true and clearly that cannot be so. The device is to stop you exceeding 100 kg/hr so if it is out by 0.25% then the allowance is down to 99.75 kg/hr!!!! or 100.25 kg/hr

          1. @sars No, the FIA has mandated an error rate of 0% above the fuel flow limit and that 0.25% below. The sensor is considered not acceptable if the error allows it to go above the allotted 100kg/hr flow.

          2. The sensor is considered not acceptable if the error allows it to go above the allotted 100kg/hr flow.

            Then most sensors will be unacceptable, as even a ‘perfectly’ accurate sensor is limited by its resolution, meaning there will always be a minor tolerance.

        2. a 0.25% variability – that is 0.25s a lap

          Where are you getting that from? Even if the cars were full throttle all lap, power doesn’t have a linear relationship to speed.

    2. @osvaldas31 I would also point out that in fact not everybody expected this decision. Not even close.

      Many thought that RBR would win their appeal by proving they did not in fact exceed the 100kg/hr flow rate during the race (and qualifying). Some even suggested, including RBR, that somehow things that have happened since Australia would make their case stronger, when in fact anything after Australia would have nothing to do with the circumstances of the Australian GP for which they were penalized.

      Some even suggested that because their performance since Australia while presumably complying with the regs, particularly DR’s, has been half-decent, they must not have had that much of an advantage from ignoring the FIA in Australia, and therefore should be let off the hook. Wishful thinking, methinks.

      Some have even suggested a conspiracy against RBR to ensure they do not bore the audience with a fifth Championship in a row.

      1. “I would also point out that in fact not everybody expected this decision”

        If you include RB fans then yes, not everyone expected this decision.

      2. Brilliant…conspiracy theories. As has been pointed out before in this thread, the result of the panel had NOTHING to do with fuel flow and EVERYTHING to do with laying down a marker that the Technical Directives DO hold regulatory value.

        Any other response from the FIA would have invalidate the Technical Directives which are used to correct holes in the regulations (McLaren’s brake/steer device springs to mind, the Renault “sprung mass” they used in the nose is another example).

        No conspiracy theory, this would have happened to ANY team because it was (to the FIA, and I agree) the ONLY possible response to their challenge to their power to regulate the championship.

  10. Common sense prevails…

  11. This was the only decision the FIA could come to. Merc were looking for payback after RBR wanted blood after the tyre test last year.

    1. @westy And by the way, what happen to Merc? Was Merc punished for breaking the rules?

      1. Mercedes was found to break the rules and they were punished by not being allowed to test during last years YDT turned tyre testing session @yes-master.

      2. Yes, they were banned from a later test….

      3. Yes they were banned from the Silverstone test, a Huge punishment as we can see know..

        1. The tyre changes did make it a bit more of a punishment for them though @hipn0tic, although I do agree with what @westy mentions – the punishment fits the crime.

      4. The punishment fitted the crime, RBR gained 0.4 a lap.

        1. So if the punishment should fit the crime what the hell happened to Mercedes for the test last year? I disagree with most of the comments here who are having a crack at RBR. If the FIA’s sensor had a history of erroneous readings (which it did) and RBR were instructed to re-install a sensor proven to be previously faulty (which they were) and then it played up again why would you not ignore the instruction and trust your own data, which would have had a lot more money thrown at the development of trustworthy readouts than a sensor?

          At the end of the day RBR have been punished not for breaking the 100kg/he rule but for ignoring the FIA’s instruction to turn the engine down to make the sensor read less than 100kg/hr. If RBR had exceeded 100kg/hr then the FIA would have shouted that from the rooftops. But it didn’t, thus why Horner was so confident of victory. That and the ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT from the Merc case last year regarding the validity of TDs.

          I think that RBR were unfairly punished for the unreliability of the FIA sensors and for the FIA sticking their head in the sand over the well-documented issues they were having. Instead of seeing sense they have simply said you didn’t do as we ask, regardless of whether you actually broke the fuel flow limit or not doesn’t matter, you ignored us, you get disqualified.

          Now just imagine if the FIA had taken the same approach to Merc’s test last year? Not just a no-show at a YDT as the punishment, but actual removal of points – that would have been a punishment that fitted the crime, as everyone knows in-season private testing has been banned for years (outside of the FIA approved test days of course). Not just a one-off finish either – a punishment of similar proportions for their ‘crime’ should have included a multi race ban.

          To me a more appropriate punishment would have been a reinstatement of Ricciardo’s place and drivers championship points but 0 constructors points. I mean how is the team managing the fuel flow within the legal limit using alternative and more accurate means (therefore being within the rules) worse than what McLaren did in 2007, yet their drivers kept their points?

          I think the anti-RBR sentiment that has built up because of finger-boy and the last four years has even filtered through to the FIA. Even they will ignore their own precedents and punish them in the hope someone else wins the championship this year.

          RBR you were robbed. Hang your head in shame FIA…

          1. @clay Beautiful. My sentiments are similar but I couldn’t have written it so well.

          2. @clay I disagree completely, and it starts with the fact that this issue this year has nothing to do with last year’s Pirelli tire test, and the two scenarios are not comparable.

            So far we haven’t heard the FIA’s exact reasoning for upholding their decision, so you cannot claim it is because of any one specific thing, and I would suggest the very reason the team was warned during the weekend is that RBR was indeed breaching the flow rate of 100 and the FIA were indeed shouting it from the rooftops by giving RBR a chance to comply…at least they did that…they warned RBR and got ignored for it.

            This is not about some imagined anti-RBR sentiment. What it is about is something the FIA will soon announce when they explain their reasoning for upholding their decision to disqualify DR.

          3. Oh dear, there’s so much wrong with this statement @clay.

            Firstly, in what world is it fair for the teams to measure their own fuel?!
            So, for qualifying in China, if Kimi Raikkonen refuses to be weighed, then pops along to the FIA later and says “oh, I’ve just weighed myself at the Ferrari garage, and I weight X kg”, that’s apparently okay, as long as Ferrari have invested more money into their scales?!

            Again, removal of points from Mercedes wouldn’t have worked. Which points should they lose? The technical infringement occured outside of a race weekend, so to tamper with any result would be illogical.

            And why on earth should Ricciardo keep his points? He was driving an illegal car!
            Let’s suppose that Red Bull make a version of their X2014 and bring that to china. And every other race this year. Yep, WDC number 5 for, as you called him, “Finger-Boy”. According to your logic, Red Bull should be disqualified from the constructors championship, but Vettel should keep all his points and thus his 5th title. Fair? I think not.
            As mentioned above by CyclopsPL and BasCB, they admitted that they would have lost second had they turned their engine down.

            Before you accuse me of being “anti-RBR”, save your breath. I’m not anti RBR, I’m just seeing things logically. As with drive-throughs for unsafe releases, this isn’t fair on the driver, but unfortunately it is the only feasible punishment.

          4. You are missing the core issue. The FIA told them they were non compliant to the regulations and then RB ignored them. The numbers and figures don’t matter. The FIA is the law in F1 like it or not. And as we have all observed the law is not always fair.

          5. @clay To compare this to Merc’s transgression misses one of the major points of that case…Charlie Whiting made a mistake and gave what appeared to be permission to Merc for them to conduct the test.

            In addition, to take away the team points but not the driver points would be to rob the other points scoring finishers who did comply by the rules. And how is that fair? What you’re saying there is “RBR, you misbehaved and ran your car in contravention of our orders – lose your points. Sorry to those positioned 2 -> 10, you lose out in the championship despite the fact that the car which beat you wasn’t running legally.” Doesn’t hang together in my mind.

  12. It was the only logical decision, they cant have teams doing things on their own accord. Chaos would ensue if that happened. Red Bull should have listened and taken some points home.

  13. Out of interest can anyone remember any team winning an appeal?

    I assume at some point in the sports past someone has launched an appeal against a stewards decision but for the life of me I can’t remember a single time it has happened.

    1. I assume at some point in the sports past someone has *SUCCESSFULLY* launched an appeal against a stewards decision but for the life of me I can’t remember a single time it has happened.

      1. SomeSayImTheStig
        15th April 2014, 10:21

        For me, Malaysia 1999 springs to mind, with the barge boards on the Ferrari’s being initially declared illegal, only to have the initial stance overturned during an appeal.

      2. SPANISH DRIVER FERNANDO ALONSO will race at his home Grand Prix in Valencia this weekend after the FIA Court of Appeal overturned Renault’s one-race suspension.

        The French outfit was penalised by stewards at the Hungarian Grand Prix for releasing Alonso from his pit box before his front right wheel had been properly fitted. The wheel subsequently came loose and was launched from the car on his out lap.


        1. petebaldwin (@)
          15th April 2014, 15:06

          In all fairness though, banning a driver because of a mistake by a mechanic is crazy! You have the punish the team either financially or ban the whole team from the next race. Not just one driver.

          1. The original ban was against the Renault team, not just Alonso. And I’m pretty sure it was the team’s decision to send Alonso back out on track when they knew full well there was no wheet nut on the tyre. It wasn’t like Ricciardo where they stopped him straight away. If I remember rightly that incident came soon after Henry Surtees was killed by a tyre as well so in retrospect I think they got away with one there by avoiding the ban.

          2. If I remember right, that was after the Singapore crashgate had bombed, and at the time it looked very likely that Renault would have quit altogether had they been kept out of those races @debaser91.

            I do think that this incident was what changed teams towards rather being safe than sorry and trying to have their cars stop ASAP when wheelnuts are not fixed

    2. Graeme Marsden
      15th April 2014, 10:20

      Ferrari won their appeal from their exclusion from the 1999 Malaysian GP due to illegal barge boards. Ross Brawn convinced the appeal panel with his bendy ruler.

    3. The Ferrari Bargeboard appeal was successful.

    4. The main example I can remember is Ferrari first being disqualified from the 1999 Malaysian GP, then winning on appeal. (This was with regards to bargeboard measurements.)

      Another example is the 1995 Brazilian GP, where Benetton and Williams were disqualified for fuel infringements. Their drivers were reinstated on appeal, but they were not awarded constructors points.

    5. I remember Renault successfully appealed a race ban in 2009 for the European Grand Prix which would have seen Alonso miss his home race, although I don’t think that went to the FIA court.

    6. I wasn’t following F1 back then but Ferrari launched an appeal when their car was disqualified in one of the last races of the 1999 season and thus gave Hakkinen the title. They won their appeal but Hakkinen won the championship anyway.

      1. Brawn double diffuser?

        1. @full-throttle-f1: That wasn’t an appeal against a stewards’ decision. Brawn (and others) got an opinion from the FIA before the season that double diffusers were legal. Other teams protested the double diffusers at the first race (I think they can only protest after something has been used in competition) and the FIA confirmed their earlier opinion that they were legal.

    7. For Spygate, weren’t both Hamilton and Alonso allowed to keep their WDC points, but McLaren weren’t awarded WCC points in Hungary and ultimately excluded from the WCC altogether? If I remember correctly, and if that was done via appeal.

      1. Alonso and Hamilton were never excluded in the first place, so it wasn’t an appeal.

    8. McLaren had a car which was illegally wide in 1976. They lost a victory initially, then won it back on appeal.

    9. Going back to seventies (I’ve remebered that one from Rush): 1976 Spanish Grand Prix

      McLaren appealed the disqualification and in July the appeal was upheld and Hunt re-instated as winner of the Spanish Grand Prix.

    10. Jarno Trulli US GP for having too much wear on the plank, although they won on a technicality

    11. Not sure if 1958 Portugal counts ;)

    12. As I recall FIA actually rarely wins against appeal of good mentions here to support that. I am almost surprised to see them uphold and win this case. It’s a good day for the soprt.

    13. F199player’s recollection of Jarno Trulli’s exclusion from the 2001 United States Grand Prix is an interesting one. He finished fourth for Jordan but the stewards found his plank was worn beneath the legal limit. Jordan won the appeal – held two weeks after the end of the championship – on a legal technicality by pointing out one of the stewards had been missing from the hearing at the circuit…

      Note that Trulli was also involved in a post-race redistribution of points in 2009 when he was reinstated in the results of the Australian Grand Prix and Lewis Hamilton was excluded. However this was not the result of an appeal by Toyota, but the stewards reopening their investigation after new information came to light (Toyota originally lodged an appeal but withdrew it when they realised it would be inadmissible on the ground that you cannot protest what is to all intents and purposes a drive-through penalty).

  14. Even if I feel sorry for some people, this was the best decision. To change the disqualification would have meant an awful lot of controversy on most parts, and would have damaged F1.

    1. petebaldwin (@)
      15th April 2014, 15:08

      It would have cause major problems. Red Bull’s argument seemed to rely on the idea that technical directives aren’t rules. There are loads of technical directives and if all of them suddenly ceased to be rules, the sport would fall apart.

      1. +1
        A succinct and extremely accurate assessment @petebaldwin

  15. The FIA CoA were never going to rule any differently. The appeal from RBR was based on the legal force of Technical Directives. For RBR to win the appeal the FIA would have to agree that the TDs are impotent and can be ignored which goes against many years of precedent of teams including RBR implicitly agreeing that the TDs clarify and define the rules. Furthermore if the TDs could be ignored for this year, then 2014 would turn into a farce allowing teams to interpret the rules in anyway that keeps to the letter of them without worrying about TDs making their interpretation illegal. I think RBR knew this and just wanted to hang out the dirty laundry in public.

    1. Trenthamfolk (@)
      15th April 2014, 11:04

      +1 – A great reply!

    2. +1 very true reading between the lines. This would also have impacted other motor sports over seen by the FIA

    3. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
      15th April 2014, 12:17

      @jimbo – I completely agree, directives are not some soft suggestion from the FIA, they are mechanism by which the regulations are applied. Red Bull knew this, they knew that the FIA’s case was indefensible, as did most people, so why on earth did they adopt a facade of such supreme confidence? I have to say I am thoroughly disliking the character of Red Bull in 2014, with this nonsensical appeal and significant figures within the team criticizing the state of F1 at a time when they are conveniently not winning…

      1. petebaldwin (@)
        15th April 2014, 15:12

        @william-brierty – I suppose going into court saying “we’re probably in the wrong but thought we’d have a go anyway….” wouldn’t do your case any favours!

        I agree though, Ferrari and Red Bull complaining about F1 because they aren’t winning is really sad… Ferrari have already proved this time and time again but it’s a shame to see that Red Bull are also such bad losers!

        1. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
          15th April 2014, 15:20

          @petebaldwin – I blame Red Bull for appealing in the first place. Every single scrap of information regarding the incident that has emerged since the race has made Red Bull’s case look more hopeless. The fact that Red Bull appealed with a case so impossible, coupled with recent well-publicized remarks against the sport, makes them appear utterly anti-systemic and certainly a bit “too big for their boots”…

          1. @william-brierty I don’t like this side of F1 that much, but it was always political. The roles of the teams change over the years but there is not 1 single top team out there that wouldn’t go a similar route.

          2. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
            15th April 2014, 18:24

            @tmf42 – I disagree, I’ve found the debate around this appeal highly interesting, and it is very significant. In broad brush strokes, it is the most dominant team of recent years making a fundamental structural challenge to the sport’s governance; the term “significant” doesn’t quite cut it. That said, some the quotes from Red Bull in recent years, and the manner in which they ignored directives intended to help them, leaves a rather bitter taste in the mouth…

          3. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
            15th April 2014, 18:25

            *recent weeks

  16. I think that it is not a fair verdict. I think they should be punished more. We all have the sense that RedBull is always in the borderline of legality and that they always try to find a way to “cheat”. As Mercedes said, we must be sure they will never try again, they should be excluded of the Aus GP results and one additional one at least!

    1. I disagree, and you are also misquoting Mercedes. Mercedes made the point that they should have a suspended ban as a warning, but this was gamesmanship and nothing more.

      This is exactly the correct result. FIA says “do this” and you do it, otherwise you will lose that result. An additional ban would be unfair to RBR…from which race? If they have a double retirement can they elect to be excluded from that race?! Or do the FIA wait and ban them from their best race of the season?!

      No, there is no need for an additional race ban or a suspended sentence. What has happened here is the FIA has made the point that they have the power to DSQ *if required* – there is the threat to RBR. And repeated transgressions would allow the FIA the chance to up the ante.

  17. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
    15th April 2014, 10:24

    An utterly inevitable, yet valid decision. The FIA simply could not afford to lose this appeal, it would have opened a Pandora’s box of directive disobedience…

    1. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
      15th April 2014, 10:38

      I would refine that opening comment by saying that despite the fact that Red Bull had a decent(ish) case, they were never going to win the appeal. The FIA’s case was all too fundamental, arguing, I think correctly, that directives are mechanisms under which the regulations are applied, and that, in a manner similar to how a driver is only deemed to have gained a “lasting” advantage by going off track if other drivers don’t take a similar line, because other teams, such as Force India, obeyed the directive, Red Bull received a lasting advantage over the rest of the field. This made Red Bull’s position essentially indefensible.

      1. After reading an article linked from one of yesterday’s topics with quotes from Horner, I was more convinced than ever that the term directive has been used in a bit of a manipulative way. The article states that the directive came before the season began. Whiting has also stated that it is in the rules that the sensors sanctioned by FIA and homologated shall be the method of measurement.

        So I think that it has been a bit manipulative to try to claim that directives are not enforceable, when in fact it was not directives RBR was being given in Australia, along with other teams…it was warnings…that they were breaking the rules. The initial articles announcing DR’s dsq talked of the teams being warned about exceeding the flow rate…warnings…not suggestions, directives, opinions, nor any other term that sounds more like guidance and hand-holding.

        So since the technical directive, and the written rule too, were in place before the season began, RBR knew full well the intention from the FIA that the fuel flow sensors would be the method of measurement, and RBR knew they were being given a chance to heed the warnings during the Australian weekend but ignored them anyway. And their case did not just depend on some claim that a directive is not an enforceable reg…they were also going to claim better accuracy with their measurement and some proof that they never exceeded the proper flow rate, which was never the point since said claims came from measurements not done at the Gill sensor.

        1. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
          15th April 2014, 15:13

          @robbie – In the case that the directive was in place before the season began, something I did not know (so thank you), Red Bull’s case was more than indefensible, it was impossible.

          And even if we put to one side the real nature of the FIA’s instructions, whether they were opinion-based directives or concrete warnings, something we will not know until the full case is published, a key part of the FIA’s case is breaking this assumption that because directives are opinion-based, they have little real gravity, because, to quote the FIA’s representative “it is only by adhering to the technical directive that teams can prove compliance with the technical regulation”, or in other words, directives are mechanisms by which the regulations are applied.

          And it is because the technical directive was in place prior to the race, and that other competitors, such as Force India, adhered to the FIA’s recommendations, that the FIA had no case to answer to. Personally, I think Red Bull is set to be penalized further…

          1. @william-brierty See from April 13th’s article by Keith “Quieter engines ‘better for F1’-Mosely” the link to “Red Bull appeal is first test of F1’s new era (Reuters)” and you will find the words under the heading Technical Directives regarding the directive being pre-season.

            As to RBR being punished further, I’m not sure they will be or that it is necessary, but I do feel that RBR was being treated more than fairly during the Australian weekend by being given a chance to comply and preventing this all from happening. So in that sense maybe you are right and the fact that the FIA tried to help them, and instead got ignored and basically were told they (RBR) knew better, perhaps should mean they’re ‘on parole’ for the rest of the season, or something like Mercedes is pushing for.

            Perhaps some are right who have suggested since Australia that Horner knew he was playing with fire but figured a) if they obeyed the warnings they would have scored less points anyway, and b) this brought the issue to the forefront, and also c) he might not have been immediately defaulting in his own mind that the consequence might be a dsq, but rather that he could argue his way down to something far less severe like a grid drop for the next race, or a fine, because of his proof of them never breaching 100kg/hr.

          2. @william-brierty , @robbie – Good discussion. When RBR started using the argument that directives are not regulations and they need not comply, it was akin to admitting they didn’t have much else to go on. Either the FIA is in charge of regulation compliance and enforcement, or not. As we can see, they are in charge.

            I also think the FIA was very fair in this case, especially giving RBR the chance to comply during the race. Also glad the call from Mercedes to penalize RBR further was ignored. The penalties incurred already were already severe enough and RBR has been in compliance since Australia as far as we know.

          3. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
            15th April 2014, 18:11

            @robbie – Thanks for the link, I probably should have read that at the time!

            Regarding further punishment, whilst I don’t think it is necessary in that Red Bull were merely staying true to form in sailing close to wind, and they genuinely had no intention to break the regulation because of their faith in the fuel rail sensor, I do think something like a suspended race ban is heading their way.

            I think that because the directives, as you say, were the FIA trying to aid Red Bull in sticking to the regulations, but more broadly the fact that Red Bull ignored the directive whilst others didn’t arguably shows a near cultural disdain for higher authority. Whilst you could validly argue that that’s what won Red Bull eight world titles, from the FIA’s perspective, such a flagrant and aloof disregard of the directive will surely warrant further sanctions.

            @bullmello – Whilst I agree that the penalties already imposed are harsh enough, I don’t think Mercedes’ call to impose further sanctions, which was unsurprisingly reciprocated by all other rival teams in attendance, has been ignored. I’m not entirely sure about this, but from what I understand the hearing is not yet over. All that has been established is Red Bull’s “guilt”, and tomorrow the subsequent course of action will be discussed, with it being certain that Ricciardo’s disqualification will be upheld, however I believe there is the option to impose further penalties.

          4. @william-brierty Fair comment regarding further sanctions but I wonder if that would only be to formally put ‘on paper’ something akin to ‘do it again and here’s what will happen’ whereas I’m inclined to think that message is now obvious as to what the consequence is of doing again what they did in Australia. Is that what you mean by a suspended race ban?

            It’s just a small point on my part but I thought what we were waiting for from FIA was further detail on why they declined RBR’s appeal, not on what further punishment they will impose…other than to my thinking RBR has to pay the ‘court costs’ as they were the one’s to prolong the decision by appealing and hauling everyone together in Paris.

            We’ll see though, and you could very well be right that there needs to be a formal reprimand/warning for them for the rest of the season. That would not be a surprise or unreasonable, along with paying court costs imho, but to me anything further that would literally take more points away from them or in any other way harm their Championship run should not be necessary.

          5. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
            15th April 2014, 19:13

            @robbie – Yes, by “suspended” I meant it in the that, as you say, “do it again and here’s what will happen”, and, as you also say, a penalty that takes championship points from Red Bull would be unnecessary and therefore highly unlikely. That said, the FIA are not unknown for flashes of savagery, with the disqualification of McLaren from the WCC in 2007, and that of Schumacher from the 1997 WDC as examples.

            The full report of the hearing is set to be published on Thursday, but tomorrow, although I’m not sure about this, the hearing will rule on whether further sanctions are justified and the FIA subsequently has the option to implement them (although, as I say, I’m not sure – I skim read something on Autosport about the Court of Appeal process weeks ago but I’m not sure if it’s applicable given the fact Ricciardo’s already been disqualified). Personally, I will maintain that I am expecting some form of formal reprimand or suspended penalty as a further illustration of the FIA’s authority.

          6. @william-brierty Makes sense that as you imply there should be a formal conclusion to the issue, as well as an adjustment if deemed necessary to the decision of the stewards of the day in Australia.

            Just for fun I must have you on a bit regarding your MS 97 reference. Imho MS got off lightly. Mosely had threatened the grid that any ‘funny business’ in terms of interference with the two protagonists vying for the WDC would result in a 3-race ban at the start of the 98 season. MS himself did just that, but no ban, merely lost his standing in the Championship which he had already lost for himself anyway, and got to keep his wins and poles. ie. a slap on the wrist. Still trying to figure out how you lose your standing ie. your points, but keep wins, but anyway that’s what it is.

          7. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
            16th April 2014, 14:49

            @robbie – I actually wrote several articles about Schumacher’s ’97 disqualification, as it was so significant at the time. If we’re being honest it had no effect on the overall character of Schumacher’s career, but at the time it was important, with Schumacher having just proved to world that he was by far and away the best racing driver in the world by taking a Ferrari substantially slower than the Williams to championship contention at the final race. It was an achievement deleted from the history books by the FIA for a move that was at best clumsy and at worse malicious, but in no way dangerous. Yes it was a formal “slap on the wrist” accounting to nothing, but as formal penalties go, it is by far the most significant example and opened a can of worms of question regarding whether championship ranking even mattered when the championship wasn’t won, or whether Schumacher’s win still counted and whether the FIA were wrong to threaten disproportionate on those that interfered with the championship contenders. Ah controversy, I really truly loved being a journalist in F1 in the mid-nineties…

          8. @william-brierty So interesting that you were a journalist in F1. I am not a journalist but wouldn’t have worded it that the FIA deleted from the history books a season that saw MS take his car to Championship contention in the last race…it was MS’s whack on JV that did that, no matter the consequent penalty, and brought to the fore his whack on DH in 94 and the suspicions that it was intentional back then too, and not merely a situation where MS couldn’t control the car as was claimed.

            Among my ongoing thoughts about that season and others surrounding it are to remind people that MS didn’t do what he did single-handedly. I believe no driver has ever had more money, time, and resources put into winning WDC(s), including the extra veto power and money with which Ferrari was plied, not to mention a guaranteed non-competing teammate. Sure many have argued MS earned that kind of treatment on a team, but whether or not that is the case is moot…he had more advantages hand over fist to get cars into Championship contention than any driver ever has. So every coin having two sides, for me he may have smashed the records, but I have to look at how that was done. For sure there was never any shortage of controversy when it came to MS.

          9. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
            16th April 2014, 17:36

            @robbie – And yet the advantage he had over Irvine, which was MAHAHOOOSIVE, and that over Barrichello when he wasn’t getting brow-beaten by the team, was all Schumacher. For me, and for many others at the time, 1997 saw Schumacher climb the ladder of greatness, with many, including me, thinking Jerez was overplayed, and that it was simply the dark side of ambition. The fact that Senna took Prost out in ’90, that Prost turned in on Senna in ’89 and that Vettel disobeyed team orders last year doesn’t change the fact that they are some of the greatest racing drivers of all time. Schumacher was simply a competitive animal, and as someone who met Michael, has spoken to him, and has someone who has stood beside the racetrack as he danced the car past, I can’t help but roll my eyes when anyone tries to portray him as anything other than what he is: a true sporting legend. Hang in there Michael, this is the most crucial stint of your life…

            One point: I was not a journalist in that that was how I made money, I was more of a “hooray-Henry” following the F1 circus around and voluntarily submitting the occasional opinion article when something juicy came up…

          10. @william-brierty Fair comment. Lol on the MAHAHOOOSIVE. Can’t say I agree with everything you have said…eg. ‘sporting’ legend, or ‘competitive’ animal without a competing teammate, but who am I to argue against your opinion based on your experience. As much as I disagreed with the MS/Ferrari way, and the driving tactics, and my opinion also coming from being a massive JV fan, I certainly share the sentiments of only wishing the best for MS and his family in his incredibly difficult struggle.

  18. Shock horror! Not a surprising result, always looked like it was heading this way. Unlucky for Dan, but innaccurate sensor or not, all the other drivers were running to the readings so it’s possible some of them were disadvantaged too. But for God’s sake can the FIA please sort out the issue with the sensors and have an accurate and reliable method of calculating fuel flow which is the same for everyone, if they haven’t already done so.

    I don’t want to hear any more about fuel sensors until the inevitable end of season position debates (“But Daniel only finished 15 points behind Seb so should actually be 3 points ahead!”, etc) ;)

    1. They have reportedly already instructed Red Bull, STR and Lotus to stop using sensors where the fitting has been adjusted by the teams to change their positioning in the cars from Barcelona on, this is likely to solve a considerable chunk of “faulty sensor” issues @keithedin, although I have also seen reports of the teams looking at fuel supplier Total to check if anything in the fuel causes issues (STR also uses Total, even if they officially have Cepsa as their supplier)

  19. I’m very happy with this decision, if Red Bull won it would have caused chaos for the sport.

  20. I feel sad for Ricciardo. Especially when it is mostly Renault and Total’s fault the sensors were faulty.

    1. @paeschli Wait, how so?

    2. Uhm, no. Newey actually took responsibility for it in court yesterday.

      1. @optimaximal @andae23 Fabrice Lom said that 90 percent of the problems with the sensors are on Renault engines that use Total fuel. That’s not a coincidence. Renault didn’t follow the guidelines from Gill Sensors to place the sensors. He also suggested that some chemical components of Total’s fuel may have affected the sensors.

  21. This is the only logical decision the court could have made. Glad to see a body associated with the FIA making a sensible decision for once.

  22. That’s actually quite a good result for Red Bull: it was pretty arrogant for them to appeal, as it was obvious that they had no case. It was a big gamble and fortunately for Red Bull it didn’t backfire completely.

    Looking at the evidence, Red Bull ignored to use the FIA’s fuel flow measurement as they believed it was inconsistent. Instead they used their own calculation based on parameters such as the time the fuel injectors were open and the fuel temperature – coincidentally, using these measurements they were able to go 0.4s per lap quicker. Obviously there is no way of convincing the court that their model is valid and hence there is no way that the court could reinstate Ricciardo’s second place. As I said, there was no way Red Bull could win this.

    Mercedes likened Red Bull’s case to the 2005 BAR case: BAR was disqualified from one event and banned from two other events after they had consciously breached the minimum weight requirement during the race. In my opinion, it’s clear that Red Bull defied the FIA’s guidelines for a 0.4s per lap advantage, but it’s difficult to prove as they showed that ‘in their opinion’ they did not breach the rules. Also the fact that the FIA fuel flow meters are a bit dodgy helped Red Bull here.

    I think the verdict is fair. However, it feels a bit wrong because, in my opinion, Red Bull got away with things like this a bit too often. For instance in 2012, when it was discovered at the Monaco GP that there were holes in the Red Bull’s floor – clearly illegal, but since Red Bull argued it was a ‘grey area’ they got away with it. Then again, that’s not how the justice system works.

    1. @andae23, If the FIA can only say something is illegal AFTER someone found that particular loophole in the rules, the rules are not clear. So RBR got away with nothing with those holes because the FIA had no leg to stand on.

      In this case however I too feel it was rather unnecessary to fight the DSQ as even when RBR was right, there wouldn’t be chance RIC would get his points. However, the way Mercedes reacted and demanded a full season ban is just ridiculous.

      I do feel to many people just wanted RBR to get a heavy punishment, once more because they are RBR and they’ve ‘gotten away with so much’. Their cars pass every scruteniring, at every race, every time again and still there are some simple minded fans who keep screaming it is illegal. By this of course I don’t mean you in particular.

      I also very much dislike the word ‘cheaters’. Used far to easily. In this ridiculous situation where RBR acted on a problem the way they thought was best. And that is all they did, act what they thought was best, obviously for them. I wonder how the fans would’ve responded to this if the exact same thing happend to Ferrari or Mercedes. Without a doubt the team would get a lot more support from them than RBR does now.

      On a side note, I guess with you background you know, these sensors are completely unreliable and with F1 being the top of the bill technology wise and racecraft wise it is a shame they need these faulty and terrible things to monitor such an important issue of their new rules. They should give every team 100kg fuel and end it there.

      1. If the FIA can only say something is illegal AFTER someone found that particular loophole in the rules, the rules are not clear. So RBR got away with nothing with those holes because the FIA had no leg to stand on.

        @ardenflo Red Bull are the masters of misinterpreting the rules for their own benefit. Of course it’s not ‘cheating’, but misinterpreting the rules is not very ‘nice’ in my opinion (there are people who can appreciate it, but I’m not one of them).

        Regarding the fuel flow sensors, it’s very difficult to measure the fuel flow. In the aerospace industry, so-called turbine flow sensors are used (similar to how an anemometer measures wind speed). Sadly these can’t be used for vehicles because the fuel flow is simply too slow. The ultrasonic flow sensor F1 currently uses are apparently the only option – makes you wonder why they would base regulations on something that just isn’t accurate enough to verify whether the regulations are met.

        1. In the aerospace industry, so-called turbine flow sensors are used (similar to how an anemometer measures wind speed). Sadly these can’t be used for vehicles because the fuel flow is simply too slow.

          Isn’t another issue, that by being in contact with the fuel they actually (marginally) slow down fuel flow, something the FIA/teams deemed not acceptable?

          I guess flow measurement in difficult circumstances is going to get the “F1 treatment” as well now, along with the whole hybrid optimization currently started off! Sure enough Gill will be pushed further along to improve the workings to get towards tighter measurement errors.

      2. @andae23, @ardenflo: That is exactly how the justice system works, at least here in the UK: the legislature writes the rules, someone else interprets them in a way that benefits themselves, and the justice system rules which interpretation is correct. F1 seems to follow the same model.

        I think that “cheaters” seems accurate in this instance. Not only did RBR interpret the rules to suit themselves, they also ignored warnings from the governing body.

        As for the sensors being “completely unreliable”, their accuracy (and variations in same) is well documented. No measurement is ever 100% accurate. And if the stories I’m hearing about Renault-supplied teams having the vast majority of problems are correct, this would point to operator error rather than manufacturing defect.

        I thought that the reasons for imposing a maximum flow rate were sufficiently well known, but apparently not: it is to force the teams to work on overall efficiency instead of returning to the days of massive outright power in short bursts.

        1. “I thought that the reasons for imposing a maximum flow rate were sufficiently well known, but apparently not: it is to force the teams to work on overall efficiency instead of returning to the days of massive outright power in short bursts.”

          would be true if they had as much fuel as they wanted. If they were to be given 100kg per race it would still be equal for all as they a better saving engine could push more and a not so fuel efficient engine has to save more and go slower. What you say is true, it’s just not really working as intended, as so often is true with FIA decisions.

          1. If they were to be given 100kg per race it would still be equal for all as they a better saving engine could push more and a not so fuel efficient engine has to save more and go slower

            That is not at all true@ardenflo. What that would give us is qualifying engines with max power and teams running max power for some periods of the race, evened out by extreme fuel saving in other parts of the race.
            Instead, with the fuel flow limited, we see teams actually trying to get as much power out of that limited amount of fuel that can be accessed – see the power advantage of the Merc engined cars where they use the direct transfer from one ERS part to the other to optimize this, leaving the battery untouched for those moments when its needed. This means a far bigger step towards efficiency, not just fuel efficiency but also limiting losses due to transfer into the battery (and off course in theory it should mean the battery lasts longer)

          2. @bascb It would be exactly the same. Now we have for example 100% as normal drive, 98% as fuel saving drive and 102% as pushing. With a limit of 100kg fuel and no other nonsense we could have at some times see cars go 130% and then down it to 70%. In the end even without the fuel flow teams would go for the first model but there wouldn’t be any rubbish futile disagreements on a faulty measurement. And to be honest, I’d love to see the Q without the fuel flow restrictions.

            If the teams just had a restriction in weight rather than flow, the most efficient engine would still come out on top as he could do all race on 115% for example.

          3. in addition to @bascb reply, its the maximum mass of fuel and not the volume that needs enforcing, the volume will vary with temperature, mass is constant. The ultrasonic sensor will measure the speed of the fuel flowing through, knowing its density, temperature and size of measuring chamber, its possible to calculate the mass over time.

          4. I see you really haven’t understood what the fuel flow meter nor the engine main concept is @ardenflo.

            The reason the fuel flow is there to push teams / engine manufacturers to try and then get the most out of that fuel by clever balancing between MGU-H, MGU-K, Internal Combustion Engine etc. The reason mercedes engines are ahead is a lot to do with not going much through the battery but instead use part of the energy available to let the engine supply current to the hybrid part of the powertrain to create more efficient use of the energy. If you take away the flow meter, a big part of the incentive to even work on that goes away, because you can just use up more fuel to achieve the same (with the disadvantage of having to coast and save later on/before that), which would result in creating exactly the gimmick Newey and Luca make of the new rules, instead of posing the teams a technical challenge to do more with less/fixed amount.

        2. I think that to hit the efficiency, and make it useful for road cars,
          they’ve gone to a neat turbo. The point about turbo’s is
          to over supply the oxygen in the mix.

          They’ve been allowed to pump in loads more than an old ’80s turbo would have especially at low RPM.

          This O2 rich environment is designed to burn all the fuel they spray in, and some. I’ve read they’ve even been able to switch to denser, slower burning fuels since they claim this is more efficient. (smaller fuel tanks, perhaps some calories per kg effect?!)

          If the FIA didn’t limit the fuel flow in this mother of all turbo environments,
          they couldn’t limit the power output. That could get dangerous and also lead to engine development wars that make Mercedes current lead
          look like a minor issue.

          Given Renault are so far behind, I really don’t think it is in Red Bull’s interest to unlimit the fuel flow.

        3. @bascb That is all very correct. But I disagree with the statement that removing the 100kg/h flow limit would remove everything you said. It would however bring the field closer to each other in certain stages of the race because those who rely more on their engine rather than the hybrid system could pump more fuel through their engine at a cost of extra fuel weight in the beginning of the race. Those cars with a effective hybrid however could start with less fuel. As I said before would a efficient engine in the end still prevail as he could’ve started with less fuel and used it better. By removing the fuel flow limit the teams with a less effective hybrid system could rely more on their engine whilst for example Mercedes can rely on both. It might even push a team to rely even more on their hybrid system.

          I do understand the concept behind it. I just don’t support it as I don’t believe in the same way you do.

          1. Your proposal would be a gimmick as much as degrading tyres @ardenflo, not a way forward.

          2. @Bascb, I dissagree because I believe it would inspire enigne manufacturers to create an engine empowering their inherited strenghts more than this formula where it is just about who spends the most money and for the longest time.

          3. inspire enigne manufacturers to create an engine empowering their inherited strenghts

            What is that supposed to even mean @ardenflow??

            Like Ferrari wanting to showboat a big, heavy, fuel slurping V12, even when they know they could be faster, more reliable and far more efficient by putting in a smaller, more optimized engine? If so, you should be thrilled by Bernies idea to bring “historic F1 masters” into the program for F1. But its not something that is part of the sport, its a crowd pleasing gimmick. Can be a lovely spectacle and great part of the weekend.

          4. sorry, typing/thinking error there @ardenflo

          5. @bascb, You can also create a big heavy fuel slurping V6. In the end it bothers me that these engines never run to what they can due to restrictions in the rules. Restrictions like the RPM limit, the fuel flow, …

            And I’m really interested in the hybrid possibilities aswell. In the WEC we now have Porsche with a V4, Audi with a V6 and Toyota with a V8 all combined with different fuel and hybrid systems. Although they have admitted to also have problems with the sensors I find that far more interesting than the engine part of F1 (at the moment).

          6. soo… where is your problem with the F1 rules compared to WEC @ardenflo? You started your argument against the fuel flow meters, but surely you know (as your refer to some issues being registred in WEC as well) that WEC has the same kind of fuel flow restriction nowadays?

            I too would be happy if the rules did not mandate a V6 and only a V6 for F1, allowing some to try a V4, or an inline 4 or different configurations. But in such a case, a limit on fuel flow makes even more sense, not less.

          7. @bascb Imagine they were to give teams a max 100kg of fuel for one race. So teams with a good working hybrid system and a good engine could go on full attack whether that is by hybrid power or engine power. By allowing a maximum fuel flow there always remains a part of performance locked away in the engine. Like having 6 gears in your car but trying to max out by only using the first 5. I don’t like they build this awesome turbo V6 engines so that they can only use 90% of them. The fuel flow and RPM limit is holding back these engines.

            If last year with the V8s there was not one track where they started with less than 100kg. And I really like the part where engines need to be efficient, I don’t like how that is done by just letting less fuel flow through it and thus going slower. Then the engine itself isn’t really saving more fuel, cars are just going slower.

            But as the season progresses and maybe next season when teams understand the new rules 100%, we’ll see cars unlock more power withing the fuel flow limit, I guess.

    2. @andae23
      Well , the punishment is fair . I think RBR should be put in their place . But I don’t think they should be punished further . That would be unfair.

      By the way why did you change the colour in profile pic ? don’t support caterham anymore ? ;-)

      1. @hamilfan I change it from time to time – this one’s already for next week to support Porsche at Silverstone :)

    3. Mercedes didn’t ask for a “full season ban”

      They said:

      “We respectfully submit that the most effective way to ensure that Red Bull do not flount further instructions from the FIA is for this court to recognise the severity of their infringement and to impose a further sanction upon them which is to be suspended for the rest of the season, so that they are acutely aware.”

      That means that they get a punishment which is suspended (i.e not served unless they commit a further infringement).

    4. Wasn’t part of the problem RBR made “after market” changes to the sensors?

  23. Good decision by the ruling body, RBR as a team need to step down a little and remember their short history. As for the penalty at the time… well in all races there are 2 elements: The team in the garage providing a competitive tool and the driver on the track using that tool. In an instance where the driver makes a decision and consequently nreaks rules and thereby recieves a penalty the FIA give a drive thru or stop/go or grid position etc.. because it was his fault. But, if a driver gives all he has got and uses the tool provided to best advantage without infrigingthe on track driving rules, unknown to him that the team have given him “illegal” fuel supply, then the team (constructors) points should be forfeit but not the driver. In brief penalise the team and management but give credit to the best drive of the day and let the podium stand.

    1. I understand your reasoning, but as the Driver’s Championship is far more prestigious than the Constructor’s, I cannot agree with you.
      Imagine the scenario-
      “You’re sure this is legal?”
      “Sure Dan. Just light the fuse when you get to the end of the pit lane.”
      “Well, if you’re sure . . .”
      “Yeah, yeah. Honest!”
      And so, confident that the driver knows nothing of what’s going on, the team send him out. The team forfeit the Constructor’s points because they knew it was illegal, but driver retains the Driver’s Championship points and becomes Champion. Can’t really work, can it?

    2. It doesn’t work like that. Win together, lose together.

      If Ricciardo theoretically went on a massively successful run and won the WDC by any less than 18 points, his championship would be called into question because he did so with a car that was ruled illegal.

      He still got to stand on the podium and enjoy his moment…

      Personally? I’d have rathered Red Bull take the hit, run the car legally and Jenson be on the podium so he could have his emotional moment and really let his heart go about the loss of his dad. That would have meant so much more to me (and F1 as a whole, IMO) than Daniel getting his podium with an illegal car.

    3. Wasn’t that long ago Sauber got disqualified after the race due to the wing radius being outside the regs, the gains were marginal (definitely less than the 0.4 RBR gained) but they still had the points taken from them. The car is either legal or not.

  24. Thank you! Finally justice is served in F1. Hopefully Horner will keep his mouth shut for a while now and RBR tone down a little with their arrogance (doubt it though)

    1. I doubt it as well. I’m surprised to see Newey become such a whiner recently, as he was always a behind the scenes, quiet guy.

      There are a lot of teams that cannot lose gracefully, and honestly, I didn’t expect Red Bull to stoop as low as cheating. Dont get me wrong, Mercedes cheated last year, but I’m more surprised that Red Bull. RB was always trying to find loopholes in the rules to exploit, but I never expected them to blatantly disregard the rules when things don’t go their way.

      I never thought I would say this, but Mclaren and Ferrari seem more gracious in defeat as compared to Red Bull and Mercedes.

  25. Red Bull did a mistake. The FIA punished them. It’s time to move on.

  26. It’s through no fault of Daniel, but the stupid RBR team which if it wasn’t for their stupid mistakes, Daniel would have been third in the driver’s standings instead of tenth, but rules are rules which RBR broke.
    I think it’s better if Daniel moves to a better team that doesn’t treat their ”number 2” drivers like rubbish because at least other teams would treat him fairly unlike RBR.

    1. Dan is good, talented, I like his attitude. But he never would have got this seat if it was all about talent. Row of better drivers suffer in weaker teams and even in weaker series.

    2. @ultimateuzair This makes no sense to me. How exactly did RBR treat RIC poorly? By putting him in a Torro Rosso so as to develop his skills as a driver in a F1 car or by moving him to the top team to give him a shot at a WDC? Or did I miss something?

  27. This outcome was innevitable. Red Bull were just attempting to use their new found weight as multi-title winners to put pressure on the FIA to favour them but gladly to no avail.
    It is explicit in the regulations that during the race event “it is the duty of the participant to satisfy the Technical Delegate” not the other way around. As the instruction to reduce the flow (following a reading from the sanctioned device revealed an Illegal fuel flow level) was issued by the Technical Delegate Red Bull didn’t have a leg to stand on. End of story!

    1. @coefficient Well to be honest , RBR were multi title winners ages ago .. But yeah I get the point . They always bully around .

  28. Couldn’t be happier about this. Red Bull have been massively arrogant here, and it’s good that they’ve been brought down a peg.

    You can’t just choose to what extent you comply with direct orders from the people who are regulating the sport. If you are told that you need to reduce your fuel flow or risk disqualification then you should do so.

    If the sensors are inaccurate, it’s clearly tiny fractions we’re talking about here, otherwise there would be more outrage from other teams about this, and there hasn’t been.

  29. @Akshay

    When you’ve been following F1 as long as I have the last 4 years seems like recent history.

    I have to say, Red Bull are the most annoying team to me. They should sign Maldonado, they’re both prone to a vulgar sense of entitlement which is becoming of someone in such a lofty position.

    1. correction – unbecoming

  30. RBR really screwed this up, their issue was with the sensor and when directed by the race stewards to use it and comply, they didn’t. They then argued the sensor was unreliable, probably right.
    The correct approach, follow the directions of the race stewards, probably lose a couple of places and then argue the toss re the sensor. Instead they directly challenged the authority of the stewards, what a dangerous precedence to make if the FIA had said, ‘fine anyone can ignore the stewards and do what you think is best’ that would be a recipe for chaos. sad for Daniel as he has been the revelation of the season for me. Horner, take it on the chin, you screwed up.

  31. Decision was correct but now i have a serius question.. in the races after Melbourne what RBR was doing as matter their flue flow? i havent saw anything that has this info or i missed it.

    1. I would assume, since we haven’t heard otherwise, that RBR have been complying, since the FIA would have continued to monitor all teams since Australia just as they were in Australia, and it would seem there have been no further issues of RBR ignoring them.

    2. During the Malaysian & Bahrain weekends when/if a fuel flow sensor failed they did what they should have done in Melbourne & followed the FIA’s backup calculations.

      1. Trenthamfolk (@)
        15th April 2014, 18:55

        on the uK coverage, they asked Horner if he would be using the fuel flow meter, and he replied “Yes, we have to…” (or words to that effect) which I thought was odd… he effectively shot his argument in the foot at that point.

        1. I heard that at the time. The context of the answer was that the contracted sensor is the only one that can be installed in the car, but the team(s) can do their own measuring via their own software/telemetry too. All he was saying was that they couldn’t go out and buy someone elses to do the job. It didn’t change or prejudice the argument they were going to put to the FIA afterwards. Although that clearly didn’t work anyhoo.

  32. It’ll be interesting to read the no-doubt-very-carefully composed reasoning from the FIA on this decision. I wonder why it’s not available now.

    I still think this final judgement was reached so as not to open the floodgates, rather than to actually deliver the correct ruling. In other words, I think Red Bull didn’t really exceed the actual fuel flow limit, but that the dodgy sensor claimed that they did. The sensor which has completely failed on Ricciardo’s car in the subsequent 2 races and which has caused trouble up and down the paddock (how the hell do that company continue to have the contract???).

    But if the FIA (or the court of arbitration etc etc) had set a precedent of allowing the teams to monitor their own fuel based on the failings of the ‘immature'(sic) technology it could potentially take some of the ability to control the teams away from the FIA. Something they’re quite clearly loathe to do based on the evidence of the past 5 or 6 years (standard ECUs etc).

    So you’re faced with 2 scenarios.
    1) Do the right thing and re-instate Ricciardo but be faced with the fallout from what is a rubbish fuel sensor and all the teams measuring their own way. In the FIA’s eyes that is too close to chaos.
    Or …
    2) Keep the teams in tow with the rubbish sensor and, so as not to lose face, continue the injustice on Ricciardo.

    This would also explain why there was no follow-up punishment dished out to Red Bull. After all, it is the norm for a punishment to be either increased or decreased depending on the outcome of an appeal. Rarely does it remain completely unchanged.

    And no, I’m not a RBR fanboi at all before anyone asks :)

    Gotta say the over-riding feeling I have here is that this stinks a little bit. It is ultimately not good for Formula One when a fundamental part that determines the pace of the car (by determining the fuel delivery) is failing the teams so consistently and then gets backed by the FIA.

    1. Except for a few things. It would seem it is not everyone up and down the paddock that has an issue with the sensors, but moreso the Renault powered teams who fiddled with them. Also, dodgy or not, at least the FIA was trying to keep everyone on the same level during Australia by having them all use the sensors for their measurements rather than their own measurements that the FIA would not be able to monitor.

      I reject your two scenarios. I don’t think it is the right thing to re-instate DR, nor am I convinced the sensor is rubbish unless altered.

      As to your last paragraph, I think what would be ultimately not good for F1 is if teams got to ignore the FIA during a race and expect and receive no consequence for doing so. I think if anything stinks it is that only RBR seems to have an issue, and they could have raised it before the season began, since the rules and the technical directives came then and should have come as no surprise during the Australian weekend. RBR tried to get away with something, and failed, and perhaps decided they didn’t have much to lose taking the whole season into account, since Horner was out there claiming Merc could lap everyone twice anyway…btw, doing so using the same flow sensor as them…albeit unaltered, and complying with the FIA.

      1. The rule was not to exceed the fuel flow. The guideline was on how to achieve that.

        This ruling seems to have subtly changed the definition of the word ‘guideline’ to be more similar to ‘rule’.

        As I’ve said in the following response to Cyclops_PL. Obviously if DR actually (as in really really) exceeded the flow limit then yes it would be wrong to re-instate him. We differ on whether the FIA are putting false faith on a wonky sensor and coming to a conclusion on DR’s real fuel rate. I’m somewhat sceptical and cynical as to the motives behind siding with the sensor (the technical fallout, subsequent protests, loss of face both technologically and from a beauracracy POV).

        Apropos of this. As for altering the sensor. It has failed on DR’s car since. Which I believe means they default to some FIA mandated something-or-other formula/setting. I’m not sure how exactly that works because if the FIA can be sure that the cars can operate legally with a broken sensor then it begs the question why they need the sensor in the first place?

    2. You might not be a Red Bull fan boy, but you clearly are against the fuel flow rule or any other restrictive rule. And this appeal wasn’t about the sensor being accurate or the rule being silly or not. It was about Red Bull ignoring the rule. Which was pretty much undeniable.

      1. I’m not against the fuel flow rule. I’m against a component that seems flaky at measuring the rule and one that seems to have discrepancies in it, that’s all. I think it’s quite important that the ‘pinnacle of motorsport’ be seen to have accurate technology.

        If Red Bull exceeded the limit then fine. I just find it a bit hard to believe that an outfit like them would go to appeal if they couldn’t prove that the actual real-life fuel flow rate that they were providing their engine wasn’t within or on the limits allowed and that the alleged breach was solely down to a reading from a faulty component.

        My attitude towards things like DRS are completely separate to this. I re-iterate, I am not against the fuel flow limit.

  33. Do the FIA publish fuel mass flow readings for all teams?
    I’d love to see the data for each race and compare which car/team is most efficient

  34. “I’d rather have a great race, finish on the podium and then be excluded than to have had a rubbish race and then retire with a car problem halfway through.”

    Interesting, seems to me that he’s saying that he prefers to cheat to get a good result and then be disqualified rather then complete fairly if it means the crowd won’t cheer.

    Maybe Daniel can drive a car, but he’s not the brightest.

    1. Lol, well pointed out. I guess that feeling for DR was undoubtedly a highlight of his life, so it’s hard for him now to admit he was only there falsely. I perhaps would have understood his sentiment more if he had said that he might have still been on the podium except in third rather than in second, but for him to take the extreme alternative of having a rubbish car and dnf’ing is telling that he is trying to convince himself still that he did a righteous thing in Australia. Perhaps his strong performance since then has helped convince himself, and even the team is convinced, when Newey says they still would have gotten third in Australia. Maybe next time they consider ignoring the FIA, they’ll cut their losses, and choose to heed their warnings. That way, whatever happens DR could still reasonably hold his head high without having to sell himself on it.

    2. The problem with your comment is that it assumes Daniel knew about the fuel issue. Nowhere have I seen a suggestion that he knew anything about it until afterward. So as far as he was concerned, yes, he was on the podium fair & square. And fuel flow aside, to gain an advantage from the increased fuel flow (if there was one) he still had to outrace 19 other cars to get that result so I think it’s a tad unfair to suggest his result was only down to that one aspect.

      It’s similar to Singapore 2008. Yes Alonso gained an advantage from the timing of the safety car but he still had to keep it on the black stuff for another 50-odd laps and keep it in front of anyone else while doing so. The whole excercise would have been a complete waste of time had he binned the car the next lap. That is why I have always maintained he should be allowed to keep the result because although it was tainted it was still mostly down to his hard work – as was the case here with Daniel.

      1. So because alonso still needed to keep driving then that should absolve him of cheating in the first place? There is no way alonso did not know about the plan as he would have needed to be in on it for it to have worked so well. Ricciardo however probably had no idea about rbs fuel issue. But still should be punished as f1 is a team sport and he benefitted albeit unknowingly from rbs decision.

  35. Before the Australian GP, C.Horner said that Mercedes GP will lap other teams TWICE during the race.
    This I think is because the Renault engine is less fuel efficent. Red Bull also has more downforce than other teams and that will increase the fuel consumption. To reduce the performance gap to Mercedes, the Red Bull has to use more fuel to get more power out of the engine and that will exceed the fuel limit for the race. The fuel sensor is not faulty. They are using more fuel and trying to find a gap in the regulations to have an excuse for the fuel flow so that they can be more competitive in the races.

    1. +1 was my thoughts exactly in the 1st place… even though in 2nd race i saw them not too far behind. I cannot imagine a team with with RBR sasi and Merc engine… maybe Haas has to do this if they wanna have any luck in F1.

    2. Not only less fuel efficient but also significantly underpowered.

  36. They mentioned during one of the practice session on SSF1 that Red Bull, STR & Lotus were the only 3 team that had been modifying there fuel flow sensors for packaging reasons & that they & Caterham were the 4 teams which were having 95% of the problems with the sensors.

    Charlie Whiting has said that there will be no alterations to the fuel flow sensors allowed from the Spanish Gp.

    Ted Kravitz also said that there had been some discussion that the fuel been used by Total which all Renault teams are using was causing some problems with the sensors.

  37. CovertGiblets
    15th April 2014, 15:12

    A great deal of time is dedicated to the subject of reducing costs in Formula 1. I couldn’t begin to guess at the total cost to RBR, the FIA and who knows who else in getting this appeal through the courts, but needless to say the only people getting rich from such actions are the lawyers. Surely it was a little foolish to spend money on something RBR knew they could not realistically win.

    Common sense costs nothing don’t you know.

  38. I’m half expecting Red Bull to throw their toys out of the pram again and question their entry within Formula 1. A classic Ferrari approach!!!

    1. Trenthamfolk (@)
      15th April 2014, 18:59

      Haven’t they already threatened to do just that?

  39. This was a forgone conclusion. However my take on why RBR went ahead with their measurement was they wanted a podium in the first race. They might have felt that a poor finish was a going to be bad for Red Bull image, so it is better to get to a podium and get disqualified than to finish poorly.

    Everything else after that was theatrical, they can’t say they knew what they were doing was wrong, that would be foolish! I don’t think there is a conspiracy to undermine technical directives (Hopefully they were not that foolish that this would succeed) nor do i think they were trying to be arrogant.

  40. GB (@bgp001ruled)
    15th April 2014, 16:22

    i’m kinda dissapointed. i wanted red bull and ric to have the points so the standings are more interesting. but in the end they used an illegal car so it is fair!!! hopefully the FIA keeps everybody on track, not just red bull!

  41. Where is the surprise in RBR’s demeanor!? They have “overlooked” TD’s in the past in order to gain advantage. Specially when it comes to Design/Aero directives.

    This it went all the way to the CoA. It happens, it’s sports.

    However 1 must remind ourselves of this, the CoA never overrules and FIA steward decision when it come to TD’s. Cause like other’s have pointed before, TD’s set the boundaries for the rules. If it was a penalty on driving behavior, or team errors in pit stops or “team orders”, then the CoA might have overruled the stewards decision!

    Also RBR went to court not cause “they might have a chance” but because they wanted the rulling to be changed in order to allow any kind of sensors to be used in fuel flow management and not only the one’s the FIA mandated! That was the original issue, the FIA sensor wasn’t working, and RBR switched to 1 of their own sensors.

  42. Red Bull lost, but who won? Last year Mercedes were secret buddies with RBR, this season, they’ve gone against them, which is not surprising what is surprising is the statements they’ve produced in the coming days of the appeal. Red Bull had a very strong case but it appears as though someone else had a stronger heavier case. I feel sorry for Ricciardo but in the end I am convinced that is was the right decision.

    1. Not sure I understand. How were Merc secret buddies with RBR last year? Also, RBR must not have had a strong case since they lost their appeal. Also, the only entity in this that could have had a stronger case, and obviously did, was the FIA.

      I think who won in the was the FIA and F1. Teams should not be able to decide during a race weekend that they can operate with their own rule book to suit themselves.

  43. Redbull’s disrespect for the officials is akin to a baseball player walking to first after the ump struck him out, because he didn’t agree with the umps ball and strikes calls. Guess what it doesn’t matter how bad the call are. You got to follow what the officials say or you’re going to get ejected. Happens in every sport. F1 is no different.

    FIA made the right call 100%.

  44. I would like to see teams that are found of “misinterpreting” the rules slapped with probation. It would be a great way to curb spending as well as improve the racing product. NASCAR uses probation as a very useful tool to harness teams that get too arrogant or sneaky.

  45. They will get more points. :)

  46. Sad for Daniel but not an entirely unexpected outcome. I’d still rather have seen a penalty levied against the team rather than the driver (however that would have worked) but c’est la vie.

    The FIA will just have to try harder to find something that breaks Daniel’s ‘smile-o-meter’ :D

    1. F1 drivers are linked directly to the team as they rely on the team to prepare their car, design the car, make tactical decisions etc. If any driver gains an advantage from a team breaking the rules then they do need to be punished however unfair that may seem. The only time they should be left alone is when the issue is not race related.

  47. I am pleased! Those cheats had it coming…

Comments are closed.