"We are appealing on the grounds that we do not believe, we are extremely confident, that we have not broken the rules, that we haven't exceeded the 100kg/h of fuel that is permitted to be utilised by the car and the engine," Horner told Sky Sports News. "So that was the reason for our appeal, we feel we have a strong case and it will be down to the appeal court to ultimately decide." Live on Sky Sports Live Formula One 2014 Malaysian Grand Prix March 30, 2014 8:00am Get a Sky Sports Day PassUpgrade to Sky Sports The World Champions argument centres on the wording of the FIA's Technical Regulations with Article 5.1.4 stating "Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h". However, as it does not say that this reading has to come from the FIA's sensor Red Bull feel they can use their own measurements to prove they did not breach the regulations. "Our whole case is on the fact of which reading is correct," the Team Principal added. "We have a sensor that is drifting and isn't reading correctly versus a fuel rail that we know is calibrated and we know that hasn't varied throughout the weekend and has subsequently been checked and found to be not faulty and hasn't moved or varied at all since it was installed on the car prior to the weekend. "Our argument is very simple - that we haven't broken the Technical Regulations. That we haven't exceeded the fuel flow limit and that the sensor, which hopefully we will be able to demonstrate in the appeal, is erroneous. "I think the problem with the Technical Directive is that as we have seen in the Pirelli tyre case or the double diffuser days, that the directive, as it now states on the bottom of the directive, is the opinion of the Technical Delegate - it is not a regulation, it is not regulatory, it is purely an opinion. "We are bound by the Technical and Sporting Regulations. 5.1.4 of the Technical Regulations says you must not exceed 100kg/h of fuel usage - we haven't done that. Therefore our view is we haven't broken the regulations and Technical Directives are of non-regulatory value." Red Bull will contest both the Malaysian and Bahrain grands prix before their case is heard and Horner refused to reveal what system they will use to measure their fuel flow in those races. "Hopefully we will have a sensor that works and works in line with the fuel rail and there isn't this discrepancy," he said. "Fundamentally that is the most important thing and if there is a variance or a drift it is something that we will obviously have to discuss with the FIA and we probably won't be alone in that."
So, as yet, it's unclear as to whether RBR have actually done anything wrong other than challenge the readings of the FIA's sensor and ignored the opinion of the stewards based on that and trusted their own engineering. Persoanlly I think if that was a team like Lotus or Williams there might be a bit more sympathy. I don't think the Renault will ever be as good as the Merc, and the ferrari the worst of the lot, I'd like to see a working RBR that can challenge the Mercs as it should throw up some good races between cars with very different characteristics performance wise, one speed the other control.
I'm sure red bull being red bull isn't helping their cause to the average fan, but, the more I read their defence the more I feel it's doomed to fail. They've claimed the rules don't require this and that but even I can find the bits in the rule that categorically put red bull in the wrong. How far out the sensors are will determine my sympathy but at the end of the day they've broken one of the simplest rules in this year's rule book.
According to AMUS (translation) Red Bull repedly broke the fuel flow limit and that the amount they claim the sensor was out is the equivalent of 7-8PS....... Why take the risk of DSQ for that? Especially after being warned!
7-8% out is a massive amount. Even before the FIA sensors were 'improved' by the manufacturer they are supposed to be 0.5% accurate, I seem to remember reading. If you think about it 7-8% could be 40-50bhp! I used to have a dual level boost control in a car with a +30bhp switch and you could really notice +30bhp even in a normal road car that weighted about 1200kg. At 7-8% error Red Bull might not have made top 10 if they had turned the fuel down that much. In fact I do wonder if they could turn peak fuel flow down by that much? EDIT: Oops PS - metric horse power. Silly me. Thanks BLS for pointing that out. In that case losing 7bhp shouldn't have made much of a change to the results but that is in hindsight.
7-8PS as is "PS or Pferdestärke (horse-strength in German) was actually replaced by kW as the EU's ‘legal’ measurement of engine power in 1992. One brake horsepower is about 98.6% of a PS – the two are virtually interchangeable, and PS is sometimes referred to as 'metric horsepower'." 6.9-7.9BHP
Quite agree. Rule 5.1.4 defines the limit. Rule 5.10 says how the fuel limit will be monitored via the homologated fuel sensor.
http://www.gptoday.com/full_story/view/482229/Horner_Sensors_giving_some_teams_big_advantage/ Red Bull's Christian Horner says Formula 1 must find an alternative solution to monitoring the fuel flow during races, as the present system is giving some teams a significant advantage. Red Bull chose to ignore the data coming from the FIA fitted sensor in Australia as it deemed the data inaccurate and says it would have had a detrimental affect on their pace. Whilst the margin of error is small, Horner said the performance gained or lost from even the smallest of change is enough to determine which cars might win a race and which won't. "We have got to find a better way - especially when the margins are so fine and the knock-on in performance is so significant," he told Autosport on Wednesday. "Depending on the calibration of your sensor, it will determine your competitiveness, which is completely wrong," he explained. The teams may fit their own sensors according to the rules, as long as they've been approved by the FIA. Horner says this could lead to some spending vast amounts of money until they find the most beneficial sensor. "Teams will end up buying hundreds of sensors, as some manufacturers already have, to try to pick the best," he added. "It ends up like the tricks in go-karting, where you go through carburettors to try to find the best ones. I don't think that is an acceptable way of moving forward." The 40-year-old believes the sport must find a better way going forward if it's to avoid controversial decisions, such as the one to disqualify Daniel Ricciardo from second place - a decision which the team have appealed. "We know that some cars' fuel sensors didn't work at all in Melbourne - so we need to find a more robust and reliable way of having confidence in the FIA measurements. "On an aircraft they have three sensors and they believe the mean between those sensors," he explained. "If one shows a drift then the other two count. I think it is very immature technology in F1 and we are trying to rely on a sensor that has proved to be problematic." Does any of that Hornet rubbish make sense? Weren't all the teams warned about the fuel issue and they all complied except for Red Bull? So how can other teams have "Big Advantage" Horner? So what he is saying... Let Red Bull break the rules so they can win the races... they are world Champions. The other teams should comply, because they are not! Horner...you not only bent the rules, you also refused to comply when you were caught and you were penalised - stop talking crap about other teams having big advantage already.
Yes. It would appear Red Bull are being somewhat selective in their argument. The whole point is that it is not up to them to decide if one rule has more value than another. Furthermore, in my opinion, they should not be allowed to argue that one of these rules – even if its implementation is found to have been inaccurate – negates any other. At no point should they be encouraged or allowed to believe that they can manipulate the FIA and its rules. To do so suggests a quite incredible arrogance.
I totally agree cosicave... How many other teams are crying over the sensors? How many teams obeyed the rules? So the FIA must roll over and play dead once Red Bull comes crying like a little child.. Horner: I once heard this – Cheating is not an accident. An accident is when you fall off your bike, not when you accidentally fall into someone's vagina! You were told what was going on just like the other teams were told... they complied.. so it wasnt even an accident, you knew what you were doing!
I need to get a job as a lawyer for Red Bull! This bit's not in doubt - the rules are black and white and have the huge loophole Horner mentioned. The question is, can they demonstrate the directives don't have to be followed as that's the only place the sensor and the limit is linked.
This is what happens when you let a manufacturer have a free, totally illegal, mid season test with a very negligible punishment imposed, people will select which technical rule to select, which opinion to follow, RBR have found the loophole just as Mercedes seemed to find theirs. "I phoned my mate Charlie (who is somehow still in his position) who said it was okay" vs "the tech regs say this, the directive says that" RBR have been very good at exploiting the wording of the technical regs, just as Brawn, Ferrari, McLaren have in the past. 'spirit of the rules' is as meaningless as an opinion. People seem to be missing the argument. It hasn't been proved RBR have broken the rules, that they have ignored an 'opinion' is without doubt, but they have been DSQ'd for exceeding the 100kg/h flow rate, but if they prove they havn't exceeded that (which I think they will) what exactly are they going to be DSQ'd for? making the FIA look stupid for giving a (probably lucrative) contract to a company for a sensor that isn't up to the job? Not letting the FIA fix the result? Being faster than they hoped the new regs would allow them?
Really. Here are the relevant parts of 5.10 with respect to the sensor 5.10.3 Homologated sensors must be fitted which directly measure the pressure, the temperature and the flow of the fuel supplied to the injectors, these signals must be supplied to the FIA data logger. 5.10.4 Only one homologated FIA fuel flow sensor may be fitted to the car which must be placed wholly within the fuel tank. It definitely doesn't say that the sensor value has to be used to determine compliance with the limit.
I'm sure it doesn't specify that a FIA ruler has to be used to measure the cars, or that sequential numbers have to used when counting cylinders the either
Surely you're not trying to claim that if a car was thrown out because the Stewards used an inaccurate ruler, there wouldn't be grounds for appeal?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but either way, they didn't have this sensor on the car. So which ever way they argue their point, this will still bite them won't it? I'd love for Ricciardo to have his podium reinstated, but I'm not understanding how they might win their appeal other than by using a debatable loophole and threats.
I believe the sensor was fitted, otherwise where did the FIA get the data to request that the engine be turned down from?
If that's the case and RBR can prove they were in the limits, then the only item they could be in breach of would be having a secondary sensor. If they're excluded for that alone, then that would be incredibly harsh.
