Daniel Ricciardo’s five-place grid penalty for the Brazilian Grand Prix is a consequence of how marshals handled his car when he retired from the previous race in Mexico.
Red Bull team principal Christian Horner revealed Ricciardo’s turbo had to be replaced because it was damaged by foam from a fire extinguisher when his car was recovered after he retired from the race at the Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez.“You can’t really blame them, the car was obviously smoking,” Horner told Sky. “They shot foam up the exhaust and as it solidifies in the turbo it’s terminated it.
“So he’ll take a five-place penalty. Hopefully on a track like this it’s actually not that big a penalty.”
Horner also revealed Max Verstappen was fortunate to win the race as his power unit was in the early stages of a potentially terminal failure. He missed the beginning of the second practice session in Brazil as the team had to replaced a damaged part on his car.
“The oil tower on the front of the engine has developed a crack so it was starting to leak oil in [the first] session. So it’s had to be changed. The guys have done a great job in getting the engine off the back and back on, replacing the part. Hopefully no more than a half-hour delay.
“The lucky thing is we suspect that crack may have started in Mexico because there was a little bit of oil loss in the race that couldn’t be accounted for,” he added. “So actually probably pretty lucky that it got to the end of the race.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2018 F1 season
- McLaren staff told us we were “totally crazy” to take Honda engines in 2018 – Tost
- ‘It doesn’t matter if we start last’: How Red Bull’s junior team aided Honda’s leap forward
- Honda’s jet division helped F1 engineers solve power unit problem
- McLaren Racing losses rise after Honda split
- Ricciardo: Baku “s***show” was Red Bull’s fault
GongTong (@gongtong)
9th November 2018, 17:22
Well this is just TOO convenient now. Is it only me who sees the full scale of Horner’s deviousness and the lengths he’ll go to to sabotage drivers that leave Red Bull Racing?!
bull mello (@bullmello)
9th November 2018, 17:58
I believe in unicorns…
But, I do not necessarily believe that RBR is purposely sabotaging their own cars.
Moi
9th November 2018, 18:05
Yes, he obviously has a masterplan to toss away points, money and reputation in order to…. what exactly?
Even leaving aside the utter lack of evidence, the near impossibility to do something like this without involving tons of technicians into the ‘conspiracy’, the near impossibility to keep something like that a secret AND the monumental stupidity Horner would need to suffer from to run these risks… there is simply no motive for him to do so.
Homerlovesbeer (@homerlovesbeer)
10th November 2018, 4:05
@moi RBR are throwing away money as points simply do not matter anymore and Horner’s reputation is already suspect.
Homerlovesbeer (@homerlovesbeer)
10th November 2018, 4:06
@moi RBR are not throwing away money as points simply do not matter anymore and Horner’s reputation is already suspect.
Shimks (@shimks)
9th November 2018, 18:07
@gongtong, seriously? That is a ridiculous thing to believe. How on earth would that benefit Red Bull?
Hank Dussen
9th November 2018, 18:27
I think he has no clue what’s going on in the RB factory. The maintenance on a front wing alone is just baffeling. The effort these people make is incredible. Sabotaging themselves? Never.
Drop Sochi
9th November 2018, 22:03
he forgot the /s
ColdFly (@)
9th November 2018, 18:24
No @gongtong, there are whole groups obsessed with crazy ideas.
Try flat-earthers; you might find some like-minded friends there :P
BasCB (@bascb)
9th November 2018, 18:47
Yeah, we can be sure he instructed those marshalls explicitly to fire enough of that extinguisher up the exaust to make sure it would damage the turbo, right @gongtong.
Racefan
10th November 2018, 6:52
The mechanic with the fireextinguisher was Dr. Marko. You are not the only one to ‘see’ but you are not nearly seeing enough. The RB factory produces extasy, weapons of mass destruction and my little ponies filled with explosives. The real surname of max is rockefeller. Their so called ‘own fuel’ produces chemtrails. The sparkly drink is making us blind for the reality that the f1 racing team is actually owned by the bilderberg group.
GongTong (@gongtong)
12th November 2018, 13:51
I think a couple of people saw through it. I apologise, I should have used sarcasm tags or a winky face.
@shimks @coldfly @bascb
GongTong (@gongtong)
12th November 2018, 13:54
I thought it would be obvious, but i think the problem is that there really are some idiots about so you just don’t know anymore.
But I don’t think we can compare a theory like this to the flat earth idea. I mean have any of us here actually been all the way ‘around’ it…?
Stephen Crowsen (@drycrust)
9th November 2018, 17:28
I used to work with a guy who had been a fireman in London. He said one of he problems with extinguishing a fire is the damage done to a property by dousing everything in water. While the damage is less than what the fire would have done, it is still a significant cost.
Jere (@jerejj)
9th November 2018, 17:49
LOL.
Todfod (@todfod)
10th November 2018, 4:28
@jerejj
Hate to admit it.. But I chuckled after reading the article as well.
You really can’t catch a break when your on for a podium finish, and your engine blows up.. Then the Marshall attending to your car puts the fire out and accidently destroys your turbo for the next race.. And you incur another grid penalty.
Poor guy
Chad (@chaddy)
9th November 2018, 18:17
Perhaps it was inadvertent, but this headline is misleading and should be improved.
ColdFly (@)
9th November 2018, 18:25
which part @chaddy?
Phylyp (@phylyp)
9th November 2018, 18:27
The headline needs to roughly fit within a line, so it has to be stripped down to the core message. I don’t see what’s wrong, especially since the article clarifies the sequence of events.
I’m not sure how it is misleading, perhaps you could mention how you interpreted it?
Jimmi Cynic (@jimmi-cynic)
9th November 2018, 21:45
@phylyp: Would it help if we implied the marshall was last seen leaving the RBR lounge just before the race watching 3D animations of where to avoid blasting fire retardant. ;-)
Phylyp (@phylyp)
10th November 2018, 3:06
@jimmi-cynic
Horner: “Whatever you do, don’t spray anything here” (big wink)
Green Flag (@greenflag)
9th November 2018, 20:52
There should be some form of waiver to allow unpenalized repairs when a mechanical problem is caused by an event not related to reliability or accident damage. In this case the turbo was damaged by foam sprayed by a marshal. It seems unfair that a team be penalized through an event completely outside the driver’s or team’s control.
Invisiblekid (@invisiblekid)
9th November 2018, 21:02
Agree.
More pathetic FIA crayoning in the rule book. A new turbo might give you a small advantage in the next race, but since you get zero points for the DNF, over the two, I fail to see how you gained an advantage.
Jimmi Cynic (@jimmi-cynic)
9th November 2018, 21:51
Indeed, @invisiblekid. With Danny Ric’s horrible onslaught of DNFs approaching double digits, instead of a penalty for replacing the turbo, the FIA should give Daniel a 5 place grid boost. That’s the fair thing to do.
Xcm
9th November 2018, 23:00
@Greenflag you ARE kidding right?
Marshall’s don’t hose down cars that aren’t on fire, so the obvious root of the problems is the fire exiting the combustion chambers, the ruined turbo is only a result.
You guys are a laugh sometimes! Don’t like fire retardant on your race car? Keep it not on fire…
anon
9th November 2018, 23:21
@greenflag, let’s be honest though – how long do you think such a system would last before teams started trying to abuse it by trying to claim that components were being damaged by external events in an attempt to make changes without penalty?
Chad (@chaddy)
9th November 2018, 20:59
The headline categorically implies that a marshal is responsible for, or made some error leading to, Red Bull’s engine penalty.
The actual sequence of events is something like:
Red Bull engine sucks > engine fails and catches fire > marshal puts out fire > turbo needs to be replaced > turbo replacements require starting penalties.
While literally true, even Christian Horner doesn’t suggest that the marshal did anything wrong– when there’s a fire you put it out. (The headline and body also disagree in terms of whether one or multiple marshals were involved.)
A less sensational headline would be something like, “Fire extinguishment necessitated Ricciardo’s turbo replacement” or “Ricciardo engine penalty due to turbo fire during Mexican GP”.
Seems like the sort of thing that one writes without thinking too much about, but needs to step back and re-read the way someone approaching the title without knowing the actual story will understand it. Racefans has set a high bar, which is why something below that standard seems worth pointing out.
erikje
9th November 2018, 21:57
Headlines attract people.
Sorry to say this site adapts to the internet standards on headlines.. ;(
Lithos
9th November 2018, 23:02
Ever so right, Chad! I hate clickbait and it shouldn’t be necessary here, where – I suppose – we read it all anyway.
clones
10th November 2018, 0:39
Good points. I agree that the title is not a representative or reflective of the incident itself. You have clearly explained lyour rationale and suggested good alternatives. Hope this feedback will be taken seriously. We do not need sensationalist headlines.
BlackJackFan
10th November 2018, 2:02
Hi Chad – although I agree with the gist of your comment I feel that: “The headline categorically implies…” is equally deceptive. One might say: ‘categorically states’ but, as the headline only ‘implies’ a marshal was at fault, making it categorical is like saying: ‘The headline unambiguously and explicitly implies…’ which I find a bit odd… Just my 2¢… ;-)