Red Bull Appeal..
Discussion
I don't think Red Bull have much of a leg to stand on here. Their approach is basically we don't agree with your sensor, we've no proof, so we'll just do it our own way via unverifiable software, even though you've told us we're operating outside of the regs.
Sad for the sport, but they've essentially been cheating and should be banned for at least a race with further suspended punishment held until the end of the season.
Sad for the sport, but they've essentially been cheating and should be banned for at least a race with further suspended punishment held until the end of the season.
Some important points:
The FIA representative explains . . . the calibration of the FIA . . . Only this creates equal conditions for all parties involved.
The Mercedes brief states: Red Bull had gained an advantage of 0.4 seconds per lap and . . . if [we] had applied Red Bull’s philosophy, “we could have gone even faster in these circumstances.”
Paul Monaghan, Red Bull engineer . . . agrees . . . that by ignoring the FIA instructions, Ricciardo’s car ran around 0.4 seconds a lap quicker.
Fabrice Lom, the FIA expert, . . . explains that even during the practice sessions, Red Bull had failed to run the correct offset value, and so their calculations were wrong . . . [so] Renault and Red Bull’s algorithms were incorrect.
Mercedes electronics engineer, Evan Short says: . . . the calculation of [Red Bull] can be at best an approximation.” and that . . . during qualifying in Melbourne, the FIA had informed them Rosberg was using too high a fuel flow rate. It was immediately brought in line with the correction as instructed,
FIA representative says [Red Bull] . . . should indeed provide proof that the sensor fluctuated unnecessarily. If they decide not to follow the instructions of the referee, they must provide solid good evidence that the sensor has not been working properly. Their alleged evidence has convinced no one.”
FIA rep: Red Bull denied the instructions of FIA officials and that this in fact harms the interest of fair competition.
Then we have rather nasty arguments from Mercedes about the sentence that Red Bull should suffer. Remember that an appeal is not bound by the penalty awarded by the stewards, although they can, and should, consider any punishment suffered by it.
Harris recalls the case of the BAR fraudulent fuel case in 2005 where the team was banned for 2 races in Barcelona and Monaco and given a six month suspended ban with a disqualification from the race where their fuel irregularities were discovered.
The Mercedes brief said Red Bull’s intentionally defied the FIA regulators and are attempting to protests a physical measurement with a mere calculation. “ . . . Red Bull have shown such a flagrant and deliberate disregard for these rules that there is a real risk they will do it again.”
They quoted a precedent of a 2-race ban on BAR, plus a disqualification from the race where suspect fuel was used, and a 6-month suspended ban, but the suggestion was that the RB case is more serious in its intent.
Mercedes seem to be going for the throat. One might assume that they see RB as their main competitor, not only perhaps for this season but for future ones as well. This started off as a power struggle and appears to be continuing as one.
One cannot come to a decision where statements are not available, although by keeping them secret one wonders if the FIA might be protecting itself from fall-out from the press if they find for RB.
My feeling is that the FIA are between a rock and another rock. Whatever the decision they are going to upset one of the two major players in the new F1.
Is it possible that RB have been trying to set this up all along? Have they been told that the FIA will be sympathetic? Are RB looking for a way out with some credibility? After all, F1 ain't cheap.
A bit of a worry here. No one wants one team in the ascendant with regards to political influence over the rule-makers, we saw too much of that a few years ago. But the two teams have nailed their colours. This is not going to end with a handshake and a drink in the clubhouse afterwards.
The FIA representative explains . . . the calibration of the FIA . . . Only this creates equal conditions for all parties involved.
The Mercedes brief states: Red Bull had gained an advantage of 0.4 seconds per lap and . . . if [we] had applied Red Bull’s philosophy, “we could have gone even faster in these circumstances.”
Paul Monaghan, Red Bull engineer . . . agrees . . . that by ignoring the FIA instructions, Ricciardo’s car ran around 0.4 seconds a lap quicker.
Fabrice Lom, the FIA expert, . . . explains that even during the practice sessions, Red Bull had failed to run the correct offset value, and so their calculations were wrong . . . [so] Renault and Red Bull’s algorithms were incorrect.
Mercedes electronics engineer, Evan Short says: . . . the calculation of [Red Bull] can be at best an approximation.” and that . . . during qualifying in Melbourne, the FIA had informed them Rosberg was using too high a fuel flow rate. It was immediately brought in line with the correction as instructed,
FIA representative says [Red Bull] . . . should indeed provide proof that the sensor fluctuated unnecessarily. If they decide not to follow the instructions of the referee, they must provide solid good evidence that the sensor has not been working properly. Their alleged evidence has convinced no one.”
FIA rep: Red Bull denied the instructions of FIA officials and that this in fact harms the interest of fair competition.
Then we have rather nasty arguments from Mercedes about the sentence that Red Bull should suffer. Remember that an appeal is not bound by the penalty awarded by the stewards, although they can, and should, consider any punishment suffered by it.
Harris recalls the case of the BAR fraudulent fuel case in 2005 where the team was banned for 2 races in Barcelona and Monaco and given a six month suspended ban with a disqualification from the race where their fuel irregularities were discovered.
The Mercedes brief said Red Bull’s intentionally defied the FIA regulators and are attempting to protests a physical measurement with a mere calculation. “ . . . Red Bull have shown such a flagrant and deliberate disregard for these rules that there is a real risk they will do it again.”
They quoted a precedent of a 2-race ban on BAR, plus a disqualification from the race where suspect fuel was used, and a 6-month suspended ban, but the suggestion was that the RB case is more serious in its intent.
- **************
Mercedes seem to be going for the throat. One might assume that they see RB as their main competitor, not only perhaps for this season but for future ones as well. This started off as a power struggle and appears to be continuing as one.
One cannot come to a decision where statements are not available, although by keeping them secret one wonders if the FIA might be protecting itself from fall-out from the press if they find for RB.
My feeling is that the FIA are between a rock and another rock. Whatever the decision they are going to upset one of the two major players in the new F1.
Is it possible that RB have been trying to set this up all along? Have they been told that the FIA will be sympathetic? Are RB looking for a way out with some credibility? After all, F1 ain't cheap.
A bit of a worry here. No one wants one team in the ascendant with regards to political influence over the rule-makers, we saw too much of that a few years ago. But the two teams have nailed their colours. This is not going to end with a handshake and a drink in the clubhouse afterwards.
It was covered at length in the cheating thread but i believe the jist of it is the FIA had said that 'IF' the flow meter readings are massively out then a 'SECOND' method can be used with the permission of the FIA
2 things here,
1/ The FIA have awknowledged the different readings but deemed that the offset would be the best way to proceed, i believe they have never accepted that the readings were massively out to warrant using a second method i.e RBR's own readings
2/ Because of the above the FIA did not give RBR permission to use their own equipment to take readings, it appears RBR did so of their own accord
The fact that the flow meters may be faulty is IMO irrelevant now as RBR proceeded to take their own course of action without the FIA's permission, i believe this is why they were DQ'd, what are RBR appealling, surely its not to argue they didn't need the FIA's permission on using their own readings as i thinks thats all in black and white
2 things here,
1/ The FIA have awknowledged the different readings but deemed that the offset would be the best way to proceed, i believe they have never accepted that the readings were massively out to warrant using a second method i.e RBR's own readings
2/ Because of the above the FIA did not give RBR permission to use their own equipment to take readings, it appears RBR did so of their own accord
The fact that the flow meters may be faulty is IMO irrelevant now as RBR proceeded to take their own course of action without the FIA's permission, i believe this is why they were DQ'd, what are RBR appealling, surely its not to argue they didn't need the FIA's permission on using their own readings as i thinks thats all in black and white
While I agree with Derek that Mercedes are being, shall we say.. robust? What Harris is saying is true, RBR did deliberately and consciously ignore the direction of the FIA stewards.
The Merc case last year was a different kettle of fish, they pretty much had written permission from the FIA to do the test.
Lets remember that it was Horner that started that one off claiming he just wanted the rules clarified. In this case the rules are quite clear, he and RBR just ignored them.
I don't particularly want to see Red Bull punished heavily, but they do need to be given a bloody good kick to get them off their high horse and realise they are not "special". So maybe no further race bans etc but a bit of a fine and a suspended sentence for the rest of the year.
The Merc case last year was a different kettle of fish, they pretty much had written permission from the FIA to do the test.
Lets remember that it was Horner that started that one off claiming he just wanted the rules clarified. In this case the rules are quite clear, he and RBR just ignored them.
I don't particularly want to see Red Bull punished heavily, but they do need to be given a bloody good kick to get them off their high horse and realise they are not "special". So maybe no further race bans etc but a bit of a fine and a suspended sentence for the rest of the year.
Crafty_ said:
While I agree with Derek that Mercedes are being, shall we say.. robust? What Harris is saying is true, RBR did deliberately and consciously ignore the direction of the FIA stewards.
The Merc case last year was a different kettle of fish, they pretty much had written permission from the FIA to do the test.
Lets remember that it was Horner that started that one off claiming he just wanted the rules clarified. In this case the rules are quite clear, he and RBR just ignored them.
I don't particularly want to see Red Bull punished heavily, but they do need to be given a bloody good kick to get them off their high horse and realise they are not "special". So maybe no further race bans etc but a bit of a fine and a suspended sentence for the rest of the year.
Nah no way, they need to be punished hard and where it hurts the most like a 2 race ban, 3rd race ban suspended for 6 months and all constructors points earned so far (with an illegal car) taken awayThe Merc case last year was a different kettle of fish, they pretty much had written permission from the FIA to do the test.
Lets remember that it was Horner that started that one off claiming he just wanted the rules clarified. In this case the rules are quite clear, he and RBR just ignored them.
I don't particularly want to see Red Bull punished heavily, but they do need to be given a bloody good kick to get them off their high horse and realise they are not "special". So maybe no further race bans etc but a bit of a fine and a suspended sentence for the rest of the year.
Whats the point of fining red bull, its like fining a millionare a £1000
But then all we'll hear is Horner whining all season that RBR have been denied the chance to catch Merc and that the FIA have ruined/tainted the championship by not allowing fair play.
Its b
ks but I can hear the slimy little git saying it. Also if Mateschitz gets the hump because its costing him money and he's not winning he might chuck the towel in.. not what the FIA or Bernie will want.
Its b
ks but I can hear the slimy little git saying it. Also if Mateschitz gets the hump because its costing him money and he's not winning he might chuck the towel in.. not what the FIA or Bernie will want.Scuffers said:
So, at worse, the sensor is 0.1% off?
But red bull ran up to 4.5% more fuel?
Yea, right,
.....and validate their own fuel flow "measurement" with a calculation, based on a number of other variables, that gives a resultant with a margin of cumulative error of +\- 1%?But red bull ran up to 4.5% more fuel?
Yea, right,
Poor show, boys.
As far as I can tell from reading that transcript they've been caught bang to rights and the subsequent crying in the media afterwards that it was all down to shifty sensors provided by the incompetent FIA and their suppliers means they deserve everything they get IMO.
Crafty_ said:
But then all we'll hear is Horner whining all season that RBR have been denied the chance to catch Merc and that the FIA have ruined/tainted the championship by not allowing fair play.
Its bks but I can hear the slimy little git saying it. Also if Mateschitz gets the hump because its costing him money and he's not winning he might chuck the towel in.. not what the FIA or Bernie will want.
Effectively saying then the bigger teams set their own rules with the FIA have no power over them, no way, the FIA need to put RBR in their place, if they don't like it then maybe they'll sell up to one of the 3 teams we have coming?Its b
ks but I can hear the slimy little git saying it. Also if Mateschitz gets the hump because its costing him money and he's not winning he might chuck the towel in.. not what the FIA or Bernie will want.Remember it's not just Mercedes team - It's the other Mercedes engined cars that were impacted as well.
If even half of that is true then Red Bull must be risking a ban by appealing
However, much like Pistorious, I have an odd feeling they will be found guilty on all charges yet receive little punishment due to technicalities.
If even half of that is true then Red Bull must be risking a ban by appealing
However, much like Pistorious, I have an odd feeling they will be found guilty on all charges yet receive little punishment due to technicalities.
Doink said:
The fact that the flow meters may be faulty is IMO irrelevant now as RBR proceeded to take their own course of action without the FIA's permission, i believe this is why they were DQ'd, what are RBR appealling, surely its not to argue they didn't need the FIA's permission on using their own readings as i thinks thats all in black and white
The flow meter reading being irrelevant is what I've said all along - RBR are trying to argue that they didn't need FIA permission to do it their own way. It has become clearer with recent Horner statements that they didn't feel the directives were something they had to comply with - an almost petulant response to the ruling on the Merc tyre test: which clearly annoyed RBR.What I'd like to see is all/more of the technical directives that have been published: I'd bet there are plenty that RBR happily comply with! They are trying to be selective on which rules they comply with.
Also worth noting that Merc are not the only team there (at the appeal), there are several, just Merc appear to be the most vocal in questioning!
llewop said:
Also worth noting that Merc are not the only team there (at the appeal), there are several, just Merc appear to be the most vocal in questioning!
remember, this is Merc the engine builder/supplier as opposed to Merc the race teamalso, other teams have sent observers, they chose not to get involved over observing.
Scuffers said:
Agent Orange said:
I think RB will win the moral victory as they'll be able to prove they didn't exceed 100kg/h but Ricciardo's disqualification will still stand due to them not following FIA instructions during the race.
Reading the reports, you would have to be in drugs to think this!If half the detail is correct, red bull deserve to be thrown out.
I note no mention if them modifying the sensors yet?
No mention of the modifications anywhere outside of a single outlet in Germany last time I looked. I'm leaning towards this being unreliable reporting at this point.
Derek Smith said:
No increase in penalty then? That's unusual, and not only in the sense of being sensible.
Not sure I agree that it is unusual. There are many appeals, most of which don't seem to carry an increase in penalty?http://www.fia.com/about-fia/fia-courts/internatio...
Hunky Dory said:
Scuffers said:
So, at worse, the sensor is 0.1% off?
But red bull ran up to 4.5% more fuel?
Yea, right,
.....and validate their own fuel flow "measurement" with a calculation, based on a number of other variables, that gives a resultant with a margin of cumulative error of +\- 1%?But red bull ran up to 4.5% more fuel?
Yea, right,
Poor show, boys.
As far as I can tell from reading that transcript they've been caught bang to rights and the subsequent crying in the media afterwards that it was all down to shifty sensors provided by the incompetent FIA and their suppliers means they deserve everything they get IMO.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff