Red Bull's appeal hearing into Dan's Aussie DSQ is underway with Merc, Lotus, Williams, Force India, McLaren all present
Tobias Grüner F1 ‏@tgruener 4m FIA-expert Lom explains: Ricciardos fuel flow at 101 kg/h for the last 4 laps. Only 5 laps + SC below 100 kg/h. 12:15 Lom presents an interesting chart. The list shows all 58 laps of Daniel Ricciardo with the lap times and the corresponding flow rate. With the exception of rounds 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Ricciardo drives consistently above 100 kg / h mark. In the first 12 laps before the safety car phase the value is 100.5 to 100.8 kg / h Then from 100.4 to 101.1 kg / h In the last four rounds in which Ricciardo fought against Kevin Magnussen to position 2, the average Durchflussmene: 101.0 to 101.0 - 101 0 and 101.1 kg / h 12:21 Another column of figures is cast on the wall. Lom shows now where the flow rate after the Red Bull model would have, the correction factor would not have been included. The values ​​ranged from 99.02 kg / h during the safety car phase and 103.37 kg / h in the race.
It might be the poor translation, but Red Bulls defence at the fuel flow trial is coming across as shockingly bad
Getting a bit oooo errr at the trial: 14:30 Red Bull lawyer Ali Malek repeated the position of his client. He denied, however, is that Red Bull has cheated and deliberately ignored the instructions of the FIA. They also did not want to undermine the authority of the FIA. That would have been the case only if the technical directive would be a binding rule that only the FIA has the right to decide whether the replacement measurement of the team should be used. But this is not the case. Consequently, one could oppose any rule also. 14:41 Red Bull denied himself against the accusation that they do what they wanted and decide as they see fit, which measurement has relevance.The rules provide a backup measure in the event that there is reasonable doubt as to the first measurement method exist. This was the case in Melbourne. The team has proven that their own Messuing was correct, and the FIA had failed to prove that their own measurement is reliable.
Mathematical deviation can be pretty strong evidence as we are talking about fact rather than sensor belief of FIA standards that has been proven to be faulty in the past. Red Bull are claiming their method to measure fuel flow is far more accurate and faultless then the FIA's. If Red Bull can prove they never strayed from this deviation of 1.5% with worldwide used and supported mathematical methods, the FIA have no case against Red Bull as they broke no rule in effect. I've read a bit about this case today and it seems Red Bull have tested the engine and the degrees of likelihood of how much fuel it will use in different climates. The experts on Red Bull's side said the likelihood of it going over is unlikely as the humidity wasn't a factor at Australia unlike Malaysia for exampe, so Red Bull's / Renaults accuracy in their calculations on this matter would be pretty close to what the FIA wanted.
14:43 Ali Malek has finished his lecture and hands over to his colleague Michael Lazarus. The focus on the question of whether the flow rate sensor have FF73 worked correctly and reliably. In his opinion, it was the FIA failed to offer proof that the sensor was working satisfactorily in the second half of the first training over the rest of the weekend. The opposite is the case: "We have not asked for more gasoline, but the sensor hateine ​​reported higher flow rate Quite the contrary to our own measurement This happened twice once at the end of the first training, and a second time on lap 37... of the race. Moreover, the alleged increase in the flow rate has not changed, the motor data, which suggests that the flow rate has not changed. A further proof of the malfunction of the sensor. " 14:52 Lazarus accuses FIA expert Lom, he was unable to adequately explain the increase of the flow rate towards the end of the first workout. "The increase in training he has offered only speculation. For the fluctuations in the race he had no answer." So Red Bull are claiming they changed nothing with regards to fuel during this time and it was only the FIA sensor which suddenly changed it's mind.
15:10 Bernard points out that Ricciardo is located under both the uncorrected Red Bull measurement as well as the Red Bull measurement with FIA correction factor over the limit of 100 kg / h. The values ​​of the FIA sensor used. -That mean Red Bulls sensor said Ricciardo was over as well? 15:12 Red Bull relies in his plea to certain technical directives, but recognizes the crucial not to that of the FIA admits the sole right to determine the method of measurement. Conclusion of Sebastien Bernard to the address of Red Bull "., You can not pick out the cherries in. If you specify certain technical directives as relevant, then it must apply to all." -More ooo err 15:05 Unlike Red Bull Red Bull Bernard calls to compete at the proof that the sensor in the state at the end of the first training Unreliable supplied values ​​and not the other way around. "If they take out the right not to follow the instructions of the referee, they must already provide very good evidence that the sensor has not been working properly. Their alleged evidence has convinced no one." ​-The problem it seems
15:25[FONT=Open Sans, sans-serif] Now are the Mercedes-lawyer his two cents. Paul Harris throws Red Bull) to i) prior to the violation of Section 12.1.1 c by have defied the instructions of the officials. This one has harmed the interest of fair competition. Then Harris comes to the crucial point. Mercedes has not forgotten that Red Bull had called in the tire test affair, severe punishment for Mercedes. Now came the retort. He refers to the punishment of BAR by the tank fraud in 2005. The team was then banned for three races. The lock was extended on probation for another six months. At that time, BAR was trying to prove by a software-based model of his innocence. Just as Red Bull have now also made. The rule conformity of one's gasoline volume measurement have also can be proved only by a software model, what are the rules, however, do not allow. Harris estimates the event Red Bull as an even more serious as the casus BAR. Because you have intentionally ignored the instructions of the race. [/FONT]Harris proposes that the court has thus extends the use of punishment. [FONT=Open Sans, sans-serif]Should Red Bull once again deliberately break the rules, one must consider a conditional lock as a deterrent.[/FONT] [FONT=Open Sans, sans-serif]-Hard hitting![/FONT] [FONT=Open Sans, sans-serif]Decision due tomorrow. [/FONT]
*laughs* Merc rubbing their hands and dishing it back to Horner. I'm amazed they didn't call for crucifixion.
What are the odds of Vettel and Ricciardo driving for Toro Rosso if Red Bull get punished for 3 races?
FIA wouldn't dare punish RBR that much so I'd say slim Plus jumping into new cars out of the blue will probably have them struggling to do anything.
The arrogance is frightening. No team is bigger than F1 as McLaren found out! The infringement should carry the exclusion. The refusal to follow a directive when wrong should carry a ban and I can see the justification of 3 races as per the BAR argument. The appeal which is frivilous should carry a probation of 6 months. Things like this ruin the integraty of the sport far more than the domination of a signle team or driver!
I don't think they'll get banned, maybe deducted constructors points. If they get banned then I see Red Bull pulling out of the sport at the end of the season. It would hurt their image considerably.
Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari have all been caught blatantly cheating, and let off, it's the privateers who get ****ed over.
Very true and this reflects just as badly on the sport. For me though, publically refusing a race directive is just unacceptable - regardless of whether the directive is wrong or right or which team it involved.
