Red Bull Appeal..

[Scuffers]

NRS said:

zac510 said:

You basically just want them punished more for daring to use the appeal process that's in the sporting regulations.

The appeal might have been somewhat futile and the way it initiated not pretty but that's not reason to punish them more. It's acting purely out of spite.

You you think it was ok for RB to basically say the sensor was crap and so on, yet it appears obvious their measurements were not calibrated, had a larger uncertainty than that of the sensor "error", seemed to change to give more power when they needed it during the race and potentially the proper sensor "failed" because of modification? I think if I was Gill I'd be looking at some kind of court action, especially if they've been discussing any other contacts at the time that might have been influenced by RB's claims.

essentially, yes.

fine for RB to appeal the stewards, that's perfectly OK and winin their rights etc..

what is not is the public rhetoric and campaigning to trash Gill's rep and the FIA's staff and procedures.

[zac510]

Scuffers, comments like that make your opinions sound like a braying mob rather than the well calculated argument of a court room and legal process.

[Scuffers]

zac510 said:

Scuffers, comments like that make your opinions sound like a braying mob rather than the well calculated argument of a court room and legal process.

OK, explain how?

let me put it this way, if I was up before a real court and I tried to prejudice the case by putting gout a flood of press releases etc, how do you think a judge would view this?

[IainT]

rscott said:

zac510 said:

You basically just want them punished more for daring to use the appeal process that's in the sporting regulations.

The appeal might have been somewhat futile and the way it initiated not pretty but that's not reason to punish them more. It's acting purely out of spite.

FIA regularly impose additional penalties on appeal where they feel the appeal was without merit or frivolous, as this one appears to many of us.
At the very least I'd expect an award of costs against RBR and probably a fairly large fine.

Suggestion is that it could run close to 8 figures (USD).

[zac510]

Scuffers said:

OK, explain how?

let me put it this way, if I was up before a real court and I tried to prejudice the case by putting gout a flood of press releases etc, how do you think a judge would view this?

I don't have to explain how.

[Scuffers]

zac510 said:

I don't have to explain how.

in other words, you can't justify your accusation....

[zac510]

Scuffers said:

in other words, you can't justify your accusation....

You only reinforce my initial point with your leaps to conclusions

[rscott]

Interesting reading here - http://bensweeneysf1blog.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/...


Including:-

Link above said:

Red Bull’s lawyer, Lazarus, then points out that although they exceeded the limit at times, overall they stayed below the required limit. Lom argued that this cannot be used as an acceptable justification, and that the teams must remain below 100kg/h at all times.

So RBR even admitted in the hearing that the exceeded the limit, but that they thought it was okay to do so?

[NRS]

zac510 said:

rubystone yes I get it, and I agree that the case was a bit silly and pointless.

However I just don't want to set the precedent of punishing them just for being arrogant. You punish them for technical infractions, not for emotions.

I think the issue is they damanged a company (Gill) and sport's reputation, for what essentially was a "we'll just say the sensor was wrong and make up our own crap" which is what it seems to have come down to. There wasn't anything to say the sensor was wrong. Even if it was the numbers RB used to correct it don't add up to a smaller error and it is remarkably funny that they changed the correction to take into consideration how much fighting they needed to do for the place at the time...!

The stewards will not have been able to give punishment for those things since they did not know them at the time. That's why I think they deserve extra punishment, nothing to do with being a lynch mob.

[Kremer Nick]

Ah well at least justice has prevailed.
Although I agree with many that RBR have been long overdue for a pasting F1 design has always favoured the bold. I remember Colin Chapman (Lotus) making a firewall out of aluminium foil to look like a proper fire wall (as the then FIA had demanded for safety) just to save weight! Others added lead balls to the fuel tank to up the octane rating - F1 history is littered with what some may call cheating.

The rules have progressively got tighter over the years but designers are still rightly constantly looking for loop holes to get that extra edge over their competitors. In this case it seemed to me at least that this was not a designer idea more like arrogant management. ie - we are not fast enough and running too hot so let's bung some more fuel in it and blame the flow meter.

[zac510]

NRS said:

I think the issue is they damanged a company (Gill) and sport's reputation, for what essentially was a "we'll just say the sensor was wrong and make up our own crap" which is what it seems to have come down to. There wasn't anything to say the sensor was wrong. Even if it was the numbers RB used to correct it don't add up to a smaller error and it is remarkably funny that they changed the correction to take into consideration how much fighting they needed to do for the place at the time...!

The stewards will not have been able to give punishment for those things since they did not know them at the time. That's why I think they deserve extra punishment, nothing to do with being a lynch mob.

I didn't really feel that Gill had been damaged myself but I had a think about it and realised that I am a Racecar Engineering subscriber and had read about these sensors before the season started. I knew they had both a tolerance of accuracy and I knew that on the LM sportscars they fit two sensors for redundancy. Further to that they are also placed at the back of the car with quick release hose joins so they can be changed at pit stops if they fail during the 24hr race. Thus I kind of had the impression already that these sensors were good but had some known weaknesses and were likely to improve with development.

However I realise not all of the general public are RCE subscribers or sportscar enthusiasts so might not have had this information!

[johnfm]

Gill have had quite a bit of free publicity out of this in the end.

[Agent Orange]

rscott said:

Interesting reading here - http://bensweeneysf1blog.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/...


Including:-

Link above said:

Red Bull’s lawyer, Lazarus, then points out that although they exceeded the limit at times, overall they stayed below the required limit. Lom argued that this cannot be used as an acceptable justification, and that the teams must remain below 100kg/h at all times.

So RBR even admitted in the hearing that the exceeded the limit, but that they thought it was okay to do so?

If true that's hilarious. Can I get a job as a Red Bull lawyer?!

I've no idea of the validity of that blog but appears to mention in passing that for some teams the sensors were drilled/modified. Not entirely clear though whether a manufacturing issue or the teams that were modifying them. But first time I've seen that mentioned in the English speaking press.

"He went on to mention that – in some cases – while installing the sensors, the threads for the fuel feed lines was drilled so deep that the measurement section was damaged."

However I do have some sympathy for RB.

"The Red Bull lawyer stood to ask Lom how many sensors have failed. Lom replies with three in Melbourne, four in Sepang and five or six in Bahrain, adding that the reasons for the failures in Bahrain have been diagnosed and fixed."

[NRS]

Agent Orange said:

rscott said:

Interesting reading here - http://bensweeneysf1blog.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/...


Including:-

Link above said:

Red Bull’s lawyer, Lazarus, then points out that although they exceeded the limit at times, overall they stayed below the required limit. Lom argued that this cannot be used as an acceptable justification, and that the teams must remain below 100kg/h at all times.

So RBR even admitted in the hearing that the exceeded the limit, but that they thought it was okay to do so?

If true that's hilarious. Can I get a job as a Red Bull lawyer?!

I've no idea of the validity of that blog but appears to mention in passing that for some teams the sensors were drilled/modified. Not entirely clear though whether a manufacturing issue or the teams that were modifying them. But first time I've seen that mentioned in the English speaking press.

"He went on to mention that – in some cases – while installing the sensors, the threads for the fuel feed lines was drilled so deep that the measurement section was damaged."

However I do have some sympathy for RB.

"The Red Bull lawyer stood to ask Lom how many sensors have failed. Lom replies with three in Melbourne, four in Sepang and five or six in Bahrain, adding that the reasons for the failures in Bahrain have been diagnosed and fixed."

Yes, I think anyone can get a job there these days,

It's been posted earlier in the thread. Apparently on almost all the Renault engined cars (apart from Caterham) they had to mount the sensor seperately. These cars accounted for 95% of the failed sensors. So if that's the case sympathy is perhaps not deserved, since it seems like the issue does not seem to be with the sensor itself, but rather what the team/ Renault did with it.

[Dr Z]

Agent Orange said:

If true that's hilarious. Can I get a job as a Red Bull lawyer?!

I've no idea of the validity of that blog but appears to mention in passing that for some teams the sensors were drilled/modified. Not entirely clear though whether a manufacturing issue or the teams that were modifying them. But first time I've seen that mentioned in the English speaking press.

"He went on to mention that – in some cases – while installing the sensors, the threads for the fuel feed lines was drilled so deep that the measurement section was damaged."

However I do have some sympathy for RB.

"The Red Bull lawyer stood to ask Lom how many sensors have failed. Lom replies with three in Melbourne, four in Sepang and five or six in Bahrain, adding that the reasons for the failures in Bahrain have been diagnosed and fixed."

RB/TR/Lotus drilling in the sensor for installation purposes was reported previously, I think. It was covered in the cheating thread on here too. And curiously those teams are apparently the ones that have had the most number of failures/problems.

I think RB got off lightly for what they've done. The FIA evidence provided at the court was pretty damning I thought. It was quite clear that flow rates run by RB coincided with different engine modes/mapping (hence being within limits during safety car?) and at one point was running more than 4% over the limit according to the FIA measurement...quite significant. And RB's own error rates (by their own admission) were not considerably better than of FIA's own measurements.

What's more, they admitted to gaining a 0.4sec/lap advantage by not using the FIA sensor, and their own methods are affected by other confounders as evidenced by compliance to fuel flow rates at Malaysia, whilst the FIA was able to prove that their sensor readings were consistent between the two weekends.

Interesting reading too the TJ13 link posted earlier in the thread.

ETA: Even more interesting is that Renault did not require RB to run these flow rates for reliability reasons, it was purely RB's decision.

[Derek Smith]

IainT said:

Vaud said:

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...

The FIA court appears to be considering further sanctions... "The court’s decision and reasoning together with any incremental sanctions will be published by the end of the week."

Incremental sanctions being those above the upheld steward's sanctions.

Could result in a large(r) fine, race bans (which seem unlikely) or nfa.

The norm is that if a team appeals then the punishment is increased in some way if the appeal fails. This can be negated by mitigation, such as a misunderstanding or a clarification being required, that sort of thing, although it normally depends on a clear and unequivocal admission of guilt.

RB : contrite? I'm not sure that's going to run.

[anonymous-user]

No surprise there then. A few of us were saying from the day it happened that there's no way they'll win the appeal.

[Crafty_]

rscott said:

Interesting reading here - http://bensweeneysf1blog.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/...

Including:-

Link above said:

Red Bull’s lawyer, Lazarus, then points out that although they exceeded the limit at times, overall they stayed below the required limit. Lom argued that this cannot be used as an acceptable justification, and that the teams must remain below 100kg/h at all times.

So RBR even admitted in the hearing that the exceeded the limit, but that they thought it was okay to do so?

Slam dunk right there, the rules say you can't exceed 100kg/hr not average fuel flow over the race period must be less than 100kg/hr.

What the hell did an appeal even cross their mind ? Utterly ridiculous.

Red Bull need to have a long look at their attitude and reconsider their future behaviour.

I guess we'll have to see what further action is taken.

[Doink]

I know its all totally acedemic now but were RBR actually arguing the same argument as the FIA? On one hand you have the FIA DQ'ing RBR for not obtaining permission to use their own readings, then you had RBR trying to prove the flow meters were faulty hence they used their own equipment

Surely this is 2 seperate arguments

If RBR had of waited a bit longer (it would appear) then the FIA would of given them permission to use their own readings, more fool RBR; act in haste - repent at leisure

[Derek Smith]

Crafty_ said:

I guess we'll have to see what further action is taken.

I agree with this. The reaction of the FIA will be critical.

Whilst much has changed under Todt, not to mention Mosely's odd decision to give away any direct interest in and income from F1, over and above adjudication, I wonder if the old methods of influence and lobbying, as revealed in the Benetton fire, have also changed.

What we don't want, of course, is any ban from racing. If, for instance, they were given a two race ban one would assume it would include research and development. I wonder if that crossed Merc's mind when they demanded this.

RB are running an engine that cannot, it would appear, compete with the Merc. I'm not sure they'll be happy to be also rans for a whole season.

All in all a difficult time.

But what were RB thinking of in going for this appeal? They, presumably, have access to quality advice and a legal team of some renown and experience. From what has been reported, they didn't put up much of a fight though. It seems odd. I can't believe it was arrogance.

I await enlightenment.