Red Bull Lose DSQ Appeal

  • Thread starter Thread starter TenEightyOne
  • 173 comments
  • 8,610 views
Samus
They all had an equal chance to develop the engines.
Click to expand...
I'm qestioning exactly this point. I don't think it's fair you freeze development on new technologies.
Teams doing a better job can take advantage of early races, but other teams should be allowed to at least try to catch up building new engines from scratch you know, learning from their mistakes.
Instead with these regulations Mercedes will dominate for 5 years.
 
Imari
There is a bit of a stereotype that engineers/scientists are incapable businessmen. .
Click to expand...

I base that entirely on my own experience, I've met very very few people who were both gifted engineers and businessmen (plenty who weren't gifted who did a bit of both). Throughout Newey's career I've always seen him a rather awkward geek with not much interest in anything other than peace, quiet, and beautiful machines.

I think Horner could convince you that black was white using flip-charts and a bit of quick talking. Newey would argue about the nature of black but be happy to agree with the science, regardless of what the outcome meant. I've also found that engineers lie less about predicted outcomes than most other project 'disciplines', they see things as fact or hypothesis for the most part. I think that's how Newey is, if you show him specific data he'll tell you what it says within that scope, no more no less.

@MustangManiac, that's the core of IRBR's argument, they say that not all Directives have been binding and nor should this one be. The other teams disagree, but then they would for a number of reasons. I think IRBR may be correct within the absolute letter of the rules and the precedent for Direction but, as I repeatedly say, it stinks of bull shiftiness.

EDIT: And IRBR lose the appeal :D :D :D
 
TenEightyOne
@MustangManiac, that's the core of IRBR's argument, they say that not all Directives have been binding and nor should this one be. The other teams disagree, but then they would for a number of reasons. I think IRBR may be correct within the absolute letter of the rules and the precedent for Direction but, as I repeatedly say, it stinks of bull shiftiness.

EDIT: And IRBR lose the appeal :D :D :D
Click to expand...
Yes I know, I was replying to the guy who said he thought a rules clarification should come from this. True, by the letter of the law a TD is not a rule, but when teams ask for a clarification and a TD is issued by FIA (the sole authority) it seems logical to assume it needs to be followed...except to those at RBR apparently. Maybe this ruling will clarify it for them and others in the future who might think of using such a "defense".
 
MustangManiac
Yes I know, I was replying to the guy who said he thought a rules clarification should come from this. True, by the letter of the law a TD is not a rule, but when teams ask for a clarification and a TD is issued by FIA (the sole authority) it seems logical to assume it needs to be followed...except to those at RBR apparently. Maybe this ruling will clarify it for them and others in the future who might think of using such a "defense".
Click to expand...

Exactly, and it looks like the adjudication panel saw it the same way... which in my opinion is a very good decision for the sport as a whole - especially during this year.
 
TenEightyOne
UPDATE: Infiniti Red Bull Racing lose their appeal against the disqualification. BBC
Click to expand...

Oh well, all IRBR can do is learn from this and ensure that it doesn't happen again

As for Ricciardo, hopefully it is in China where he can finally have a race incident-free and show his true potential (and hopefully score a legitimate podium :))
 
I think we saw the potential at the last race... they can't run as quick and lean as the Merc. And nor can Ferrari.
 
Other teams are going to struggle for podiums. Unless one of the Mercedeseses retires, there's only one spot up for grabs. And Ferrari and RB are going to have to fight off the likes of Williams/Force India/McLaren for it. Not good odds.

Then again, I'm pretty sure that Rosberg and Hamilton will take each other out at least once during the season, so that will give the "lower" teams a shot.
 
HKS racer
Ok I know it's their fault but what if one day (hopefully soon) Marchionne and LCDM decide Ferrari has to come back on top? With these rules you'll have an hard time. A possible work-around would be using Maserati name for a new PU but this would be a problem since Ferrari always built their own engines.
Click to expand...

You mean the day LDM decides to stick to politics and let a real engineer or racer take over? Also no you wont have a hard time because the rules aren't static and any F1 fan that has watched that past few seasons alone knows this. Also Ferrari know how to work around the rule book and bend it to their every whim so I wouldn't be too worried. Be worried about LDM's talk about hating wind tunnels and simulators and rather it going back to full on testing. That to me sounds like the best options aren't being made and this new wind tunnel that is suppose to be awesome is suffering due to the lack of care at the top.

EDIT: Glad they lost and order was upheld, IRBR were in the wrong.
 
Last edited:
Why didn't anybody talk about it being an unfair advantage? If all the teams used their own measuring equipment they'd be much faster too. I'm with Merc, they deserve a harsher penalty. At least a fine or something.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
You mean the day LDM decides to stick to politics and let a real engineer or racer take over? Also no you wont have a hard time because the rules aren't static and any F1 fan that has watched that past few seasons alone knows this. Also Ferrari know how to work around the rule book and bend it to their every whim so I wouldn't be too worried. Be worried about LDM's talk about hating wind tunnels and simulators and rather it going back to full on testing. That to me sounds like the best options aren't being made and this new wind tunnel that is suppose to be awesome is suffering due to the lack of care at the top.
Click to expand...
I'll keep my opinion since I know why they accepted these rules, FIAT was needing money for Chrysler, but Ferrari always prefer real life testing than computer testing but LCDM these years was too focused on politics. Let's hope the situation is not that bad as you say.
Anyway it's LCDM (Luca Cordero Di Montezemolo) or if you want, as Nicky Lauda says "Monteprezzolo".
We italians call him "Montezuma" or "Monte Prezzemolo" (literally in english "Mount Parsley").
 
prisonermonkeys
They are allowed to argue their case however they want. The FIA clearly felt that the disqualification was punishment enough.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it an independent body that heard the appeal? If so, finding in favour of one party or the other would be the only option available.
 
BHRxRacer
Because they're intimidated by Mataschitz.
Click to expand...
No, because no further punishment was necessary. This isn't like BAR at Imola in 2005, who were essentially cheating.

Red Bull would like to think they have weight to throw around, but the FIA let them pick the issue to hang their appeal on, and then nailed them in it. Red Bull pride themselves on knowing the rule book backwards; it is how they have slipped so many questionable updates through in the past. They were clearly aiming for the same thing here, getting by on a technicality, but for the FIA to have prevailed does more damage than any further punishment. Right now, they will be licking their wounds.

Tired Tyres
Wasn't it an independent body that heard the appeal? If so, finding in favour of one party or the other would be the only option available.
Click to expand...
Technically, the International Court of Appeal is part of the FIA. It's like any arbitration committee in sport - it ultimately answers to the governing body, but is structured to be independent.
 
As expected. And for anyone who contends that Red Bull's software model could be more accurate than actual sensor measurement... eat that. :lol: As if the software model didn't depend on several equally fallible sensors and a boatload of assumptions.
 
Red Bull are having more fuel sensor problems in Shanghai:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113545

Interestingly enough, it has been suggested that the problems they are having relate to the fuel itself. Each of the engine manufacturers have bespoke fuel and lubricants; Ferrari use Shell, Mercedes use Petronas, and Renault use Total. Individual teams are free to do their own deals, like McLaren and Mobil, but Red Bull are definitely using Total, and it has been suggested that something in the fuel itself is corroding a rubber o-ring in (or, more likely, correcting to) the sensor, which is causing the anomalous readings.

That doesn't explain why Red Bull seem to be having the problems exclusively, though. Lotus definitely use Total; Toro Rosso might be (but are possibly using CEPSA); and Caterham were using it last year, but I have no idea what they are doing now. It has also been suggested that modifications made to the sensors by the teams is contributing to the problem. The sensor is supposed to be homologated, so I have no idea what kind of modifications they can make, but while every team has had some kind of problem with the sensors, Red Bull have had more problems than everyone else combined. That, to me, suggests that it is something that they are doing which is causing these problems.
 
Last edited:
prisonermonkeys
Interestingly enough, it has been suggested that the problems they are having relate to the fuel itself. Each of the engine manufacturers have bespoke fuel and lubricants; Ferrari use Shell, Mercedes use Petronas, and Renault use Total. Individual teams are free to do their own deals, like McLaren and Mobil, but Red Bull are definitely using Total, and it has been suggested that something in the fuel itself is doing something to the sensor to cause the anomalous readings.
Click to expand...

That is interesting. I thought fuel composition was fairly heavily regulated, in terms of what you're allowed in it and what ratios are acceptable.

Still, it may be something like the flexi-wing where they've discovered something that passes the tests, but is somehow significantly faster. It would just be unfortunate if that something happened to mess up another part of their system. :D
 
I would say the issue has more to do with the rubber ring than the fuel. It's one of those areas where there is very little in the way of regulation, mostly because there is no scope for development, and therefore no potential for a performance advantage. In the mentality of extreme weight saving, the teams probably went for something of lower density all throughout the car to save a kilo or two.

The solution to the problem will almost certainly be to replace the rubber rings with a control part. It's cheaper and easier than concocting a new blend of fuel.
 
prisonermonkeys
The solution to the problem will almost certainly be to replace the rubber rings with a control part. It's cheaper and easier than concocting a new blend of fuel.
Click to expand...

Oh, certainly. But the rubber ring is likely to be Viton or some other super-chemical resistant "rubber". Normal rubber wouldn't last five minutes. That they're managing to have the fuel eat it (and no one else seems to be) begs the question, what's in Total fuel that isn't in the others?

The solution will be easy enough, no doubt, but there's something interesting in the causes of the problem I think.
 
Imari
That they're managing to have the fuel eat it (and no one else seems to be) begs the question, what's in Total fuel that isn't in the others?
Click to expand...
If it was just the fuel, everyone using Total would have the same problem. So it's definitely something Red Bull are doing.
 
Shouldn't they be using silicone O-rings? Especially considering that certain fuels and additives tend to eat into rubber?
 
prisonermonkeys
If it was just the fuel, everyone using Total would have the same problem. So it's definitely something Red Bull are doing.
Click to expand...

The teams are allowed their own mix to a certain extent, but overall the base fuel has to be within fairly narrow parameters. I struggle to imagine what could be so different about the composition of IRBR's mix that it eats the seal. Logically though, as you point out, it must be something that they are doing that the other teams aren't, or it's to do with the reactivity of the seal within a certain temperature range.. and I bet their operating range is still higher than most.
 

Latest Posts

Back