If somehow red bull can prove the FIAs sensor was miles out and their none accredited one was actually correct then they'll have my sympathy. But if was more or less correct what red bull has done is more or less thrown the race. They've purposely done something against recommendations to get Ricciardo dsq'd. That's one for the anti vettel fan club to use
This is my thinking too. Much as they might like to think it, no team is bigger than the sport, and teams have to respect (or at the very least abide by) rulings made by the FIA, and just accept the fact that mistakes happen. In this weekend's Arsenal game, Gibbs didn't refuse to walk off the pitch because he knew the ref was wrong. The FIA took into account the fact that they knew the sensors weren't perfect when they requested Red Bull adjusted the flow rate, rather than a black flag mid race. Red Bull showed arrogance and contempt for the sport with their course of action, and refusing to comply with a similar warning this weekend should see them much more heavily penalised. The Red Bull sensor had not been approved by the FIA by Australia, so the stewards can't trust data from it over their own, approved and tested sensors. Whether than sensor is later proved to be more accurate is irrelevant to me, the team still ignored a request by the FIA, which should result in disqualification. Yes they would have been disadvantaged by turning their engine down, but if they'd got a hotly contested drive-through they would have had to obey it, rather than ignore it and decide to fight it in the courts afterwards. If during the next few races Red Bull continue this approach then I hope they're excluded from the championship, you can't ignore those enforcing the rules. If the FIA sensor is proven to be faulty, then that is a separate issue for me, and one that should be resolved swiftly. Presumably it can't take too long to test any teams additional sensors to see if they're more accurate (I'd have thought free practice could provide enough evidence), and roll the most accurate one out across all teams the following race.
I believe that the teams don't have an alternative sensor to measure fuel flow. I believe that they are calculating the fuel flow from the fuel pressure, the injector flow rate, and the duration of the injection pulse. Dynamic fuel flow is very difficult to measure accurately. There are turbine meters, gear meters, orifice plate meters and lots of variations of them but most of them are not good at transient spikes or they impede the transient flow of fuel. The ultrasonic ones that the FIA are using have been refined by the manufacturers to make them more accurate. So they are being used in a very harsh environment with huge transient spikes and to an accuracy they have not traditionally been pushed to. So it's quite understandable that they can fail to provide accurate readings when pushed. But to me Red Bulls can't win even if they prove the sensor was inaccurate. The FIA will just say but you didn't have approval to use an alternative method of measurement. I believe Red Bull are playing the longer game to have the limit of peak fuel flow removed. I think they believe that with no limit on fuel flow their car would be faster that the competitors. What do you think?
“what is that saying about the FIA? Lets not forget they're still pissed off with Renault over their demand for more relevant engine technology, and the fact that the last team/driver they want to win, from a commercial point of view, is RBR. Once again, as we don't know what the deficit in performance was there's no way to judge IMO, maybe Mercedes lost 5hp and RBR would've lost 100. If the RBR sensor is well out, and it's been calibrated by the FIA specifically for their cars, and the FIA are saying they have to use the poorly calibrated one that's going to keep them out of the points, what is that saying about the FIA? Lets not forget they're still pissed off with Renault over their demand for more relevant engine technology, and the fact that the last team/driver they want to win, from a commercial point of view, is RBR.” The FIA is a not for profit organisation that receives it's income from a variety of sources. It is irrelevant which teams wins. The FIA income is fixed. The FIA attempted to encourage a variety of manufacturers to enter F1 and they demanded that the rules where changed. Renault where not the only one. The action of Red Bull was wrong. Not cheating, but wrong. “the fact that the last team/driver they want to win, from a commercial point of view, is RBR.” Needs to be explained. If possible
Let's just say that the FIA wanted to prevent RBR from winning another title, do we honestly think that they'd hamstring them so badly that they were totally uncompetitive while simultaneously replacing them with an alternate team that could potentially be more dominant, and have even more people turning off in droves? People haven't just been turning off just because of RBR. They've been walking away because the racing has been positively crap. Hamstringing RBR isn't going to fix that. It's surely in their interest to have a competitive field. Over the past few years, they seem to have been completely anti racing though. What with ridiculous tyres, overtaking gimmicks and laughable restrictions on defending... Not to mention the appalling circuits that are springing up. Screwing RBR wouldn't fix any of the above. I really just think this is RBR trying it on as they need any possible advantage to attempt to compete right now, so they'll fight for whatever they can. Which I'm good with... so long as it doesn't come to teddy throwing from the gaffer.
I don't know the specifics, but presumably the FIA income is somehow linked to TV revenue, perhaps through FOM? After several years of Vettel domination, where audiences have dropped, another season of the same doesn't do the TV revenue any favours. If rule changes give a close field, that's great, but even if another team dominates, at least it's different and you hold onto the section of the audience that support that team. A strong Mercedes and Mclaren this season will undoubtedly help the British viewing figures for example. With Red Bull dominance you know nobody will touch Vettel, at least the Rosberg/Hamilton, Button/Magnussen and Alonso/Raikkonen rivalries have the potential for intra-team battles, even if they're 30 seconds clear of the rest of the field. Basically, anything but Vettel dominance will improve TV audiences, which may well boost profits. Against that, is the FIA's integrity. If any deliberate attempt to hamstring one team was ever revealed, you wouldn't think they'd ever have any credibility to run a race series left. For all the accusations of bias in the past, none have ever been proven beyond doubt. Concrete evidence would make the FIA a laughing stock. F1 would split from them for starters, with others no doubt following suit. I don't think they'd ever take that risk.
More from Mr Judge: Red Bull, Pariah or Patron? We can chew the cud over how things were done in yesteryear F1 land – until the cows come home. However, the fact is that the way teams agree to behave has supposedly changed in recent times. Ferrari were despised by many for a time, mostly for a range of alleged shenanigans and charges of cheating. Yet such was the favour shown to them by the FIA, various forms of acronym were devised where the ‘F’ in FIA represented ‘Ferrari’. But times have changed. No longer do we have the spectre of race results being regularly challenged, then altered sometimes weeks and months later, or even final championship standings being retrospectively affected. Graham Lowden explains how the teams now operate a code of conduct to prevent continual court hearings and disputed race results.“We have this system where the FIA give their opinion. It happens on things all the time. We seek Charlie Whiting’s opinion on a lot of things and he gives it and I think there’s a general view that it’s good for the teams to follow that advice, even though it might not necessarily constitute a part of the Technical Regulations as such, but I think some things should be reasonably straightforward”. The consequence of ignoring this agreed code of operating within F1, Lowden says is stark. “It is an opinion and if we were just to ignore all of those opinions and constantly test them in a court then the sport would just stutter along endlessly”. It is for this particular reason that the Red Bull/Ferrari furore over the Mercedes ‘tyre-gate’ test in 2013 resulted in nothing more than a slap on the wrist for the team from Brackley. Ross Brawn explained to the International tribunal that he had checked with Charlie Whiting whether the test was legal and had been given the green light from the FIA delegate. With regard to the fuel flow sensors, Graham Lowden is yet another from the paddock to confirm the problems have affected many of the teams.“From what I understand, a number of teams were given advice by the FIA on what they should do with regard to fuel consumption and I think most of them followed it. It really is going to be difficult for the sport to operate races in a way that the fans are really going to understand if the advice is simply ignored because you can make a car go quicker. If Red Bull chose to ignore the guideline from the FIA then they will have only done that to make their car go quicker – there’s no reason why they would have done anything other than that”. Following the stewards disqualification of Ricciardo, TJ13 took the position that Red Bull would be best served not appealing the decision, despite the romance of Ricciardo’s second place in the race. This is simply a pragmatic view based upon where F1 is at with some of the new technology not working properly. It may be that the whizz kids from Milton Keynes they can prove from their measurements that fuel was not delivered at more than 100kg of fuel per hour, but so what? Mercedes have indicated it was the same for them, yet they chose to comply as did others not in such a dominant position. Lowden also believes Red Bull should have obeyed the instructions from the FIA technical delegate during the race, otherwise the result would be chaos. “If that was the approach that every single team took then without any question every single result would always be decided in the International Court of Appeal, and that’s not really what it’s meant for and it wouldn’t be good for the fans and, you’d argue, it wouldn’t be good for the sport.” Unfortunately, Horner et al have proven in times past they are not interested in the good of F1 as a whole, just what gives them any kind of advantage. This is the way F1 used to be, however things have changed. Red Bull’s insistence on this matter could force other teams to act in a similar manner, consistently testing the technical regulations, which clearly would result in disaster. As such, Lowden concludes, “obviously the International Court of Appeal is the final arbiter on these things, so there is a process which is well laid out. My own view is, and it’s purely a personal view, that it would open the floodgates to all sorts of things if this appeal were to be successful”. It should be hoped that indeed times have changed and F1 does not wish to return to the days of continual protests and appeals with the resulting constant legal battles. To that end it’s time for the F1 world champions to demonstrate they are not just thoroughbred winners, but that they can act with some class and respect for their competitors and for the sport in general. After all, other teams want to win just as much as Red Bull does, but on this particular issue the rest have chosen to act as patrons of the sport and to look to its greater good – not one of a pariah who merely has to win at all costs.
So Red Bull are trying to use their reputation as a means of a weapon eh? Not surprised as back in 2012 they were doing the same with regards to the safety car in Valencia which cost Vettel the win there by accusing the FIA trying to break the back of Vettel's lead so Alonso could win.
The TV revenue is split between Bernie and the Teams. None of it goes to the FIA. The FIA gets its F1 money from charging the teams entrance fees for the season. The fee is based on a flat fee plus $5k per point scored the previous season. The FIA will lose revenue if half points are awarded for a race and gain revenue from the introduction of double points. The TV viewing figures did not drop because of Vettel. The FOM viewing figure data revealed that the drop in numbers occurred in two countries, France and China. These drops were the result of moving from Free To Air to subscription channels. If there was a way of counting illegal viewing then maybe the viewing figures would have increased.
It really is time for Red Bull to come of age. Despite their entry into the sport being to out-Ferrari Ferrari, they really ought to "grow a pair" (to quote a young relative of mine). The sooner the FIA make it clear that mummy will eventually grow tired of picking up the silly Red Bull toy and putting it back in their collective hand, only to be thrown again at a later date, the better.
Seems they are out Ferrari-ing Ferrari on all levels. Another example of absolute power corrupting absolutely?
I cant remember Ferrari actually trying to make the FIA look incompetent though so I have to hand it to Red Bull on that one.
"If Red Bull chose to ignore the guideline from the FIA then they will have only done that to make their car go quicker - there's no reason why they would have done anything other than that. Therefore if that was the approach that every single team took then without any question every single result would always be decided in the International Court of Appeal, and that's not really what it's meant for and it wouldn't be good for the fans and, you'd argue, it wouldn't be good for the sport." "It is an opinion and if we were just to ignore all of those opinions and constantly test them in a court then the sport would just stutter along endlessly. From what I understand, a number of teams were given advice by the FIA on what they should do with regard to fuel consumption and I think most of them followed it. It really is going to be difficult for the sport to operate races in a way that the fans are really going to understand if the advice is simply ignored because you can make a car go quicker. A couple of extracts from an interview with Graeme Lowdon.
non-profit organisations, along with charities, are generally the most corrupt organisations on the planet. The FIA has liked to play favourites for as long as I've been watching motorsport (over 30 years). As i have said, if RBR can conclusively prove they were within the limits this really will look terribly bad on the FIA. I think RBR are right, simply because I don't think one of the most technically brilliant teams in the paddock would be so bad at math that their 3 top mappings would be illegal to use, it's illogical. And while we are considering RBR's 'threat to quit' (I've read the article, it's not quite what he says), lets look at the top teams shall we. McLaren motorsport company, makes high end sports cars, F1 is it's shop window. Ferrari, roughly the same. Mercedes, also similar, though makes luxury and sports cars, Lotus, solely F1. RBR, nothing to do with engineering at all, energy drink company that has no commercial interest in F1 at all, they do it for the love, and when the love runs out, it's time to leave, he hasn't said he's run out of love for F1, but if he feels like he's being purposefully shafted by the FIA he will.
I agree about the temporary nature of Red Bull. All the more reason to be rid of them sooner rather than later, if they want or expect special dispensation with regard to sporting matters. One point I'd like to add to though, Miggs; this energy drinks company has a gigantic commercial interest in F1. In fact, in my opinion, it was the biggest single reason for them to enter F1 in the first place. Their "love" is for money, not the sport – as is clearly demonstrated in this latest debacle*. *If I'm wrong, perhaps they could take the opportunity to prove me wrong by apologising for their collective tantrum to quit? Of course, I'm not holding my breath on this: it's not in their style…
I just look at what red bull put money into, I'm not saying he doesn't use it as a commercial tool, but I think it's more for the love of adrenaline sports. He had already made his money with the fizzy drink and used that money to do the stuff he probably always wanted to do. Yes it's good marketing, but in all honesty I doubt he needs the marketing and I doubt there's much profit at the end of the day. I like what he does, he wasn't born into the old boys club or the aristocracy like the other team owners and the hierarchy of the FIA and F1, maybe that's part of the problem, on both sides.
Getting a bit off topic here but I feel Red Bull is essentially very good for F1. Their talent/feeder program is second to none (more or less). They fund and help so many talented drivers that sadly would probably miss out in todays climate.
