Red Bull exceed fuel flow limit, Ricciardo DSQ at Australian GP

[thomin]

if the rule said - "maximum flow rate is defined at 100kg/h which will be measured 5 times a second", this whole debacle would have been avoided

That's what the Technical Directives are there for. I think everybody has had to go through a learning process here. At first, the sensor measured the fuel flow 10 times a second. It's a good thing that this wasn't written in the technical regulations or the teams would have been in much bigger trouble. Now the FIA and the teams seem to have settled on 5Hz.

[thomin]

I'm sure the discussion at the court will also handle the technical directive. I think that'll be the biggest issue: the fia has only this to defend its position, while red bull faces the task to proof it doesn't have any ground. The case effectively stands or falls with that.

While this may well be the crucial element, I think the FIA indeed has more than just the technical directive.

They have their sensor after all.
Apparently the sensor showed some odd readings during FP1, which is why Red Bull didn't trust it and decided to ignore it. But the sensor never again showed any odd readings and the FIA did test it in depth on Saturday, finding that everything was in order. Given that the FFM was the only independent fuel sensor on board and given that its functioning was verified just the day before, I think Red Bull will have a hard time proving their point.

What I wonder is that if that Friday FP1 incident was big enough for Red Bull to ignore the sensor outright, why didn't they protest when the sensor was reinstated for Sunday? Why not make their case to the FIA before the race? Nothing has changed during the race after all. Their main argument is still the FP1 issue.
Had they already protested on Saturday, this might have bolstered their case. But they didn't. Which to me sounds like they were happy to get this particular sensor back into the car as it would give them an excuse to ignore it come Sunday. And maybe Red Bull was hoping that the same issue that appeared in FP1 would turn up again during the race, making their case for them...but unfortunately for Red Bull, nothing happened.

[bonjon1979]

Red Bull are losing this case but I think there is something bigger going on here. I wouldn't be surprised if Red Bull have ulterior motives for wanting all this dirty laundry to be aired. Not happy with the fuel flow, perhaps their engine cooling woes would be improved if they had a slightly higher flow. Purely speculation but I really wouldn't be surprised if getting all this out in public will cause further repercussions down the line. It's not all about the court case is what I'm saying. From what I can gather the technical directives are there to clarify the technical regs so they are relevant. It is one thing for Red bull to complain that their sensor isn't functioning properly but it is quite another to decide on their own that they get to decide how their fuel flow is measured. It would be like a team declaring that the rig that they use to test for flexy wings is dodgy because they have different results, so they decide to go with their own results rather than the FIA. Absolutely, no way that this is going to go in Red Bull's favour.

[fritticaldi]

Does anyone know the cost of appealing the sanction at the FIA tribunal in Paris ? I suspect it must be very expensive.

[dans79]

You can't have 6 injections per rotation. This is a 4 stroke engine.

+ 1 on this, a cylinder only fires once every 4 rotations of the crank.

2 rotations; down,up, down,up => suck, squeeze, bang, blow

Lol, that's what I get for responding during a meeting.

[Harsha]

A small question
What will RBR do in the two races before the hearing Sepang and Bahrain?

[basti313]

A small question
What will RBR do in the two races before the hearing Sepang and Bahrain?

Good question, not small....

[Cam]

In all of this, while the focus is on the TD and it's legality, there's still one part that has gone under the radar - what was the reason for listing Breach of Article 3.2 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations?

The FIA document states this:

10) Under Art. 3.2 of the Sporting Regulations it is the duty of the team to ensure compliance with the Technical Regulations throughout the Event.

Which is not quite right. What Article 3.2 actually says is:

3.2 Competitors must ensure that their cars comply with the conditions of eligibility and safety throughout practice and the race.

So why did the FIA misquote their own document? Being a reason to disqualify someone, surely you'd have your dots lined up? So what exactly about Article 3.2 did they breach?

----------------------

Another possible avenue regarding the TD for Red Bull are these little gems from the INTERNATIONAL SPORTING CODE

ARTICLE 18.2 AMENDMENTS TO REGULATIONS

18.2.2 Technical design of the Automobile
Changes to technical regulations, to Appendix J or to Appendix K adopted by the FIA, will be published no later than 30 June each year and come into effect no earlier than 1 January of the year following their publication, unless the FIA considers that the changes in question are likely to have a substantial impact on the technical design of the Automobile and/or the balance of performance between the Automobiles, in which case they will come into effect no earlier than 1 January of the second year following their publication.

18.2.3 Sporting rules and other regulations
18.2.3.b Such changes cannot come into effect before 1 January of the year following their publication, unless the FIA considers that the changes in question are likely to have a substantial impact on the technical design of the Automobile and/or the balance of performance between the Automobiles, in which case they will come into effect no earlier than 1 January of the second year following their publication.

This sounds like a TD doesn't it? Which follows suit where previous examples of TD's rolled into the Regulations the year after they were issued. If this is right, then that TD cannot come into effect until 1 January 2015.

[turbof1]

A small question
What will RBR do in the two races before the hearing Sepang and Bahrain?

They could ask for a new sensor and claim that one is accurate enough to use during the race. That would in any case be the most sensible thing without loosing face and without running the risk of having 3 pointless races.

[thomin]

A small question
What will RBR do in the two races before the hearing Sepang and Bahrain?

They will do whatever suits their interests the most.

If they feel like they can't race competitively with the limitations on fuel flow that the FIA demands, then they will continue to ignore the FIA and take their chances.

If they think they can get on top of the performance issue and engine mapping, then I'm sure they'll comply and not risk losing more vital points.

My guess would be that Red Bull will continue to moan and groan, but they'll abide by the FIA rules. With every week that goes by, Red Bull gets a better grip of their overall package which not only should make them competitive enough, but also means that they'd have more to lose from a senseless disqualification.

Although I have another question. Now that the precedent of how the FIA dealt with Ricciardo has been set, can the FIA take a step back and actually black flag someone for fuel flow infringement the next time around? If they did that, there wouldn't be any incentive to take your chances as there would be no points you could get back from the court.

[turbof1]

Although I have another question. Now that the precedent of how the FIA dealt with Ricciardo has been set, can the FIA take a step back and actually black flag someone for fuel flow infringement the next time around? If they did that, there wouldn't be any incentive to take your chances as there would be no points you could get back from the court.

The black flag is part of the sporting regulations. Since this issue falls under the technical regulations, the black flag cannot be applied. The fia would shoot itself in the foot because red bull suddenly gets the chance of evoking procedural errors. Although points are lost and nothing can change that, red bull could ask financial compensation for that in front of a civil court.

[Pup]

I think it would depend on what instructions the stewards gave prior to the race. There was no black flag in Australia because the problem either wasn't communicated to them during the race, or they thought it was too complicated an issue to deal with.

I could be wrong, but I think the stewards have a good bit of discretion with black flags, and if they're made aware of the issue beforehand, they may well decide to use it. If I were the FIA, it's the strategy I would turn to if I could. It's a big stick, that isn't subject to the appeals process.

[Richard]

.... If this is right, then that TD cannot come into effect until 1 January 2015.

You seem to be questioning the whole premise of TDs, if your logic is correct then decades of precedence will go in the bin.

Alternatively, we can read the situation based on what actually happens - TDs are issued to clarify ambiguities in the rules. They are not strictly binding, but I can't recall them ever being overturned. It's a system in which precedence has a significant role in interpreting the regs.

We don't have copies of all the TDs and previous judgements so we're unable to fully understand how the regs have been interpreted. However all the teams and journalists with good contacts agree that it was explicit that the FIA sensor was the primary source, we'll have to take their word for it.

Also, teams can't decide to use their own measuring devices to test for compliance or there would be anarchy. So that's why we have scrutineers using standardised FIA methods of measurement. Some people may not like the method, but at least everyone works to that common method as opposed to their own personal measurements.

[turbof1]

I think it would depend on what instructions the stewards gave prior to the race. There was no black flag in Australia because the problem either wasn't communicated to them during the race, or they thought it was too complicated an issue to deal with.

I could be wrong, but I think the stewards have a good bit of discretion with black flags, and if they're made aware of the issue beforehand, they may well decide to use it. If I were the FIA, it's the strategy I would turn to if I could. It's a big stick, that isn't subject to the appeals process.

Not in front of the courts appointed by the fia, but red bull could still go to a civil court. And I believe red bull would win that since the proper procedure hasn't been followed. The fia even mentioned, before this debacle started, that such matters about fuel and fuel flow would always be handled after the race.

[Pup]

What I wonder is if the stewards couldn't simply direct the teams, prior to the race, to follow the technical delegate's instructions on fuel flow. Then it becomes not a technical issue, but a question of following the stewards' instructions, and so allows them to apply whatever remedies they have have available.

It would also free the FIA to impose even harsher penalties, since Red Bull would then be thumbing their noses at the stewards - bringing the sport into disrepute and all that.

It would strengthen the FIA's hand immensely.