It will be very interesting. I can't see how they have found a loophole. The rules are the FIA meter is used to determine fuel flow unless the FIA give approval for an alternative. It is irrelevant if the flow meter is correct or not you can't use your own calculation unless FIA say so. It would be unfortunate if the FIA meter was reading wrong but rules is rules. Red Bull have got away with lots of things in the past like hand adjustable suspension etc. so some you win some you lose.
I think I read somewhere that the hearing would not be until after China - which for me is too long. If there is an issue (right or wrong) it needs to be addressed so that the RB can race legally between now and then!
Its a can of worms. I'm not sure how red bull can prove the sensor wrong. If they do it then it means all the other teams can ignore the sensors and wave this case as evidence. The FIA is already in the wrong, red bull should have been black flagged in the race, not given several chances. Why have rules if you ignore them .....
I don't have all the background on this, but I understood the issue to be that the reg says fuel flow must not exceed 100kg/hour and that The car must be fitted with the fia sensor. It doesn't say that the 100kg will be enforced by the sensor reading. So if you can prove the sensor must have been wrong and hence that the fuel flow was ok, that gives grounds for appeal.
How do you prove the sensor was wrong? If it's against your own readings, how can you prove after the event that they are right?
The only backup would be for the FIA to know the before and after fuel loads, see ifg that tallies with the supposed fuel use.... To late.
It's instantaneous peak fuel flow rate, which couldn't be determined from before and after fuel loads, surely?
A teams sensor could read high for low values and low for high values to cancel out, but in theory the sum of race long flow rates should match up with total use. It wouldn't tell you if they went over 100kg/hr, but it would tell you if the numbers add up Sort of.....
Horner said they were told to apply an offset so it was either under or (probably) over reading. I guess they could put the sensor on a flow rig and prove it?
As has already been said, this is a can of worms. It should never have happened. If the FIA had been less generous in their efforts to help Red Bull as the difficulty arose, the problem now before us may well have been averted altogether. Quite why the FIA (and Charlie is the obvious figurehead) appears so often to bend over backwards for x (number of) teams* is beyon⦠no: actually, it's not⦠Hmm. I've stopped myself. â Too rhetorical. Too political⦠it's difficult to believe he's that naive⦠(Twiddles thumbs and whistles nonchalantly⦠and backtracks to earlier sentenceâ¦) â Yes, it's a big can of worms. But it shouldn't be! I firmly believe Red Bull were wrong to pursue the route they took in disregarding the advice they were given. Ignoring such directives from a governing body is like sticking two fingers up at a speed camera because one does not agree with the way a speed limit is being enforced, or arguing that one's personal speedometer is a better measure of speed than that utilised by authority to enforce an equal rule for all â even if it may have the occasional glitch. Of course, I acknowledge that I am not yet in full possession of the facts but on face value, I really don't see that Red Bull have a leg to stand on (including either of Horner's). It will be interesting to see how this saga pans out; but if the FIA rescind their position as it stands at present, in my opinion they will be shooting themselves in their collective foot (sic). P.S. In my opinion, * = 2. Hmm⦠the cynics may well wonder (and on this occasion, I'm a little surprised to sense Miggins at odds with my own particular brand of cynicism!): is it mere coincidence that '*' teams are also the wealthiest? And is it just coincidence that they have been the least compliant in terms of what was once idealistically called FOTA?â¦
It's a can of worms the other way too though. Black flag Daniel and if then after the race Red Bull can prove he was wrongly disqualified there's nothing that can be done. The approach isn't inconsistent with either A) the way now often, where there is doubt, incidents will be investigated after the race and if a penalty is proven to be required, it is applied to the next race. B) the way the dimensional regs are measured where the cars are finally scrutineered (as in prior to th result being confirmed) at the end of a race The speed camera analogy doesn't work either because the law effectively states that speeding is being observed by static or hand held police equipment to be over the posted limit. The regs don't say that. They say you must fit our sensor, no tech to increse the rate after the sensor, and don't exceed the limit. As the three aren't tied together the way speeding and cameras are, there's a huge hole which could be exploited if a sensor can be proven as inaccurate. The bit I find odd, is why it sounds like the FIA kept raising it. You'd have thought RB would have said the first time. We know your sensor's wrong, we're racing to the end and we'll prove it to you afterwards. I guess also we don't know how inaccurate it was. If it was 40% at the top end for example following the FIA directionwould be much lessof an option than if it was 0.1%
I wasn't suggesting a Black Flag, Sportista. As you've pointed out, it would be wrong in this instance. As for my choice of analogy, it's not perfect; but then, analogies rarely are. That said, I'm sure most readers will know what I was getting at. - That Horner chose to ignore the advice he was being given (quite generously in my opinion) whilst there was plenty of time to do so, would appear either naive or arrogant. And I know which word I prefer in this instance…
Maybe it was a case of 'if we ignore what they're asking us to do because we know they are wrong, we may score some decent points. If we do what they ask, we'll score nothing, lets go for it and prove our case at the independent court for of arbitration for Sport'. If this was something that actually affected the engine I may agree with you, but as it is little more than a sensor, well, if proved faulty, a very stinky mess. Without knowing how much it was out, or how much it would affect the performance turning down their engine we can't really say why they chose to do it. You wouldn't ask Usain Bolt to jog the 100 metres would you?
Will be interesting to see how far out the sensor was, and the outcome of the appeal. Autosport made as good point about whastsd next, ignoring the FIA weigh bridge because it differs from your own readings? Surely its not to hard to give the cars a backup sensor, in case one does go way out as claimed. If they do however prove red bull were very in the wrong then surely more should be done, contempt, disrepute, what ever you wish to call it.
But the teams are allowed their own sensors in addition to the FIA ones, and the FIA have an approval process for the additional sensors. But, Red Bull didn't subject their sensor to the FIA testing before the race. If the FIA-mandated sensor was reading too high and Red Bull can respond saying "Yes, but our FIA-approved sensor says otherwise", then they've got a point. As it is/was, they've ignored the readings from an approved sensor and gone with their own, which the FIA have no idea of the accuracy of. Whilst the Red Bull sensor may well be proven to be accurate, at the time of the disqualification the evidence to support that isn't good enough, so Red Bull's sensor can't be relied upon.
I'm supposing you are asking this from the point of view of what the FIA might have done differently? But just in case you're not, I'll answer from both points of view. Firstly, I believe Red Bull should not have taken matters into their own hands. Secondly, and after having done so without the approval of the FIA, they should have heeded the advice they were offered (on several occasions, so far as I know), especially when the matter was raised yet again during the race. From the FIA perspective, I believe Charlie Whiting bent over backwards to help all along, although it is questionable that they should ever entertained the idea of Red Bull using their own sensor for ANY reason. However, having allowed it, they opened up a grey area to which, in effect, Horner et al appear to have said, "thank you very much!". Once this grey area had opened up, I believe the FIA and Charlie Whiting did the right thing in offering advice/warning Red Bull and also allowing Ricciardo to run his race; the intent being to have things checked over afterwards, as is now happening. But the problem should not have arisen in the first place. As others have said and I will repeat: doing so has opened a can of worms. Red Bull should not have been allowed to start the race with their own unapproved item, thus ensuring they would still be subject to the rules about flow-rate as recorded by the standard unit, just like everyone else. No argument. No case to answer. Nice and clear. Just as is the case for all others. That Red Bull took the route they did, was at best very naive; and at worst appears to have been a rather arrogant snub to the presiding authority.
http://www.fia.com/news/ricciardo-excluded-melbourne-result Have you read that, it paints a slightly different picture to your understanding I think?
From your link I've just noted the date of the hearing as 14th April http://www.fia.com/international-court-appeal-hearing-april-14-2014
