|
Daniel Ricciardo Dq'ed
|
|
Topic Started: Mar 16 2014, 03:55 PM (1,325 Views)
|
|
Norbert
|
Mar 24 2014, 06:40 PM
Post #31
|
- Posts:
- 21,385
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- March 13, 2006
|
- TheCompleteGuitarist,Mar 24 2014
- 10:32 AM
- Lex,Mar 23 2014
- 09:17 PM
I think that Horner is becoming a little arrogant. As Norbs said, they've managed to wriggle through loopholes before and he's obviously expecting they can do it again. TCG hit it on the head when he said they've gone against a directive.
I can't see them winning an appeal and I don't want to see them win an appeal. If they do, then F1 will become totally farcical.
The RBR owner has pretty much said that if they don't get their way, then they may well withdraw from the sport. The source is a bit dodgy, but that site does love this kind of gossip as we know. http://www.planetf1.com/news/3213/9229592/...Has-Its-Limits-Ferrari taught them well.
Good, it will be better off without them!
|
|
|
| |
|
John
|
Mar 24 2014, 07:54 PM
Post #32
|
- Posts:
- 11,435
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #211
- Joined:
- January 27, 2007
|
What a asinine comment to make.... RBR have been no more scheming than the likes of McLaren or Ferrari before them.... indeed no team has ever surpassed the shenanigans of the Scuderia. Just because RBR are the currant top team (well top before the tables was tilted against them) that is no reason to say F1 would be better without them....
|
|
|
| |
|
mikemagic
|
Mar 24 2014, 09:41 PM
Post #33
|
- Posts:
- 196
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #4,862
- Joined:
- August 2, 2010
|
- John,Mar 24 2014
- 07:54 PM
What a asinine comment to make.... RBR have been no more scheming than the likes of McLaren or Ferrari before them.... indeed no team has ever surpassed the shenanigans of the Scuderia. Just because RBR are the currant top team (well top before the tables was tilted against them) that is no reason to say F1 would be better without them....
The tables were tilted in their favour in 2009, they had done nothing before that so your comment about things being tilted against them now is rubbish although I suspect it's based on your love affair with a certain driver.
Red Bull have never really managed to cover themselves in glory from a sporting front but we all know that Benetton were cheating in 1994 so they aren't the first team to do that.
|
|
|
| |
|
Lord Tau
|
Mar 24 2014, 10:03 PM
Post #34
|
- Posts:
- 18,298
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #56
- Joined:
- March 17, 2006
|
- John,Mar 24 2014
- 07:54 PM
What a asinine comment to make.... RBR have been no more scheming than the likes of McLaren or Ferrari before them.... indeed no team has ever surpassed the shenanigans of the Scuderia. Just because RBR are the currant top team (well top before the tables was tilted against them) that is no reason to say F1 would be better without them....
Totally agree.
If there was a like button for this comment, I would have pressed it.
|
|
|
| |
|
John
|
Mar 24 2014, 11:13 PM
Post #35
|
- Posts:
- 11,435
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #211
- Joined:
- January 27, 2007
|
- Lord Tau,Mar 24 2014
- 10:03 PM
Totally agree.
|
|
|
| |
|
Norbert
|
Mar 25 2014, 09:17 PM
Post #36
|
- Posts:
- 21,385
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- March 13, 2006
|
- John,Mar 24 2014
- 08:54 PM
What a asinine comment to make.... RBR have been no more scheming than the likes of McLaren or Ferrari before them.... indeed no team has ever surpassed the shenanigans of the Scuderia. Just because RBR are the currant top team (well top before the tables was tilted against them) that is no reason to say F1 would be better without them....
The difference is the way they go about everything they do. At least the other teams have been open enough to admit when they've been wrong. That smug little twonk in charge is pretty much constantly accusing the FIA of making stuff up against his team, and right now they are effectively accusing the FIA of lying about fuel flow sensors. Frankly, if they want to quit, so be it. I'm still not convinced a single one of their championship winning cars has been anything but highly suspect in the extreme.
|
|
|
| |
|
John
|
Mar 25 2014, 10:23 PM
Post #37
|
- Posts:
- 11,435
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #211
- Joined:
- January 27, 2007
|
No there is NO difference between them hence why F1 without them specifically was a asinine comment... F1 currently need all the teams it can get and RBR like them or not (wonder were you stand on that) they have injected much needed colour and life to F1 in the last few years...
Do we need a shake up of the order.... sure, no question... Is it good for F1 to see RBR struggle this year... I think so, indeed if they can turn things around and challenge for the odd win F1 stand to benefit even more...
But, do we need a top draw to F1 (as RBR are) to leave the sport.... of course not... no right thinking F1 fan would think otherwise.
|
|
|
| |
|
Lex
|
Mar 26 2014, 12:37 AM
Post #38
|
- Posts:
- 8,605
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #15
- Joined:
- March 11, 2006
|
Are Red Bull in it for the racing?
Or are they in it for the high energy marketing potential?
As soon a F1 means eco friendly, slow, silent, careful, mind the fuel gauge.. And betternotgoasfastaswecanalloutenergyboostcrazymadspeedmyGodIneedahighlycaffeinatedenergydrinkjusttowatchthiscrazyshit..
It'll be bye-bye F1..
Absolutely, utterly no love whatsoever,
Red Bull
|
|
|
| |
|
P1
|
Mar 26 2014, 05:50 PM
Post #39
|
- Posts:
- 3,949
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #4,782
- Joined:
- September 17, 2009
|
Horner and RedBull team certainly appear completely hyped up and convinced that they have done absolutely nothing wrong.
Horner from interview today:
- Quote:
-
We are extremely confident we will win appeal. We are appealing on the grounds that we do not believe - and we are extremely confident that - we haven’t 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. 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.
I think our whole case, the whole dispute, is based on which reading is correct. We have a sensor that is drifting and is not reading correctly versus a fuel rail that we know is calibrated and we know that it has not varied throughout the weekend and has subsequently been checked and found to be not faulty and has not moved or varied at all since it was installed on the car prior to the weekend.
Our argument is very simple - that we have not broken the Technical Regulations. That we have not exceeded the fuel flow rate 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 case, 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 have not broken the regulations and Technical Directives are of non-regulatory value.
If that is being validated/accepted in court, then that makes technical directions from a FIA technician to teams on how to be compliant completely irrelevant during race weekends.
|
|
|
| |
|
u4coffee
|
Mar 27 2014, 09:02 AM
Post #40
|
- Posts:
- 17,813
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #11
- Joined:
- March 10, 2006
|
- P1,Mar 26 2014
- 05:50 PM
Horner and RedBull team certainly appear completely hyped up and convinced that they have done absolutely nothing wrong. Horner from interview today: - Quote:
-
We are extremely confident we will win appeal. We are appealing on the grounds that we do not believe - and we are extremely confident that - we haven’t 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. 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.
I think our whole case, the whole dispute, is based on which reading is correct. We have a sensor that is drifting and is not reading correctly versus a fuel rail that we know is calibrated and we know that it has not varied throughout the weekend and has subsequently been checked and found to be not faulty and has not moved or varied at all since it was installed on the car prior to the weekend.
Our argument is very simple - that we have not broken the Technical Regulations. That we have not exceeded the fuel flow rate 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 case, 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 have not broken the regulations and Technical Directives are of non-regulatory value.
If that is being validated/accepted in court, then that makes technical directions from a FIA technician to teams on how to be compliant completely irrelevant during race weekends. 
So what about:
- Quote:
-
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. Thus the Stewards find that:
A) The team chose to run the car using their fuel flow model, without direction from the FIA. This is a violation of the procedure within TD/ 01614.
B) That although the sensor showed a difference in readings between runs in P1, it remains the homologated and required sensor against which the team is obliged to measure their fuel flow, unless given permission by the FIA to do otherwise.
C) The Stewards were satisfied by the explanation of the technical representative that by making an adjustment as instructed, the team could have run within the allowable fuel flow.
D) That regardless of the team’s assertion that the sensor was fault, it is not within their discretion to run a different fuel flow measurement method without the permission of the FIA.
|
|
|
| |
|
Norbert
|
Mar 27 2014, 01:37 PM
Post #41
|
- Posts:
- 21,385
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- March 13, 2006
|
What next, ignore a drivethrough and take that to court? Where does it end? If teams are going to start court cases disputing decisions taken on numbers available to both they and the officials, then what's the point in having a rulebook? Argue about rulebook interpretations by all means, but if the powers that be say fuel flow = 100kg/h and our sensor is gospel, then their sensor is gospel and it doesn't matter if Red Bull's said they were using 1g/decade. Maybe, just maybe, if the other teams that were requested to turn their fuel flow down hadn't done so and also argued the FIA sensor was miles out then they would have a point. But the other affected teams (whoever they were) clearly decided that there was sufficient reasonable doubt to do as they were asked. After all, the FIA could quite legitimately have excluded them while the race was in progress or disqualify them afterwards rather than have a friendly word in their ear. Given the amount of extra power available, I'm not convinced it would even have affected Ricciardo's finishing position, so it seems to be yet another storm in a teacup. I guess Horner wants to try and embarrass the FIA because the rules have changed and his team has been looking rather ropey over winter and is only just getting on top of things....
|
|
|
| |
|
Rob
|
Mar 27 2014, 08:47 PM
Post #42
|
- Posts:
- 11,262
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #86
- Joined:
- March 29, 2006
|
- u4coffee,Mar 27 2014
- 04:02 AM
- P1,Mar 26 2014
- 05:50 PM
Horner and RedBull team certainly appear completely hyped up and convinced that they have done absolutely nothing wrong. Horner from interview today: - Quote:
-
We are extremely confident we will win appeal. We are appealing on the grounds that we do not believe - and we are extremely confident that - we haven’t 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. 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.
I think our whole case, the whole dispute, is based on which reading is correct. We have a sensor that is drifting and is not reading correctly versus a fuel rail that we know is calibrated and we know that it has not varied throughout the weekend and has subsequently been checked and found to be not faulty and has not moved or varied at all since it was installed on the car prior to the weekend.
Our argument is very simple - that we have not broken the Technical Regulations. That we have not exceeded the fuel flow rate 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 case, 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 have not broken the regulations and Technical Directives are of non-regulatory value.
If that is being validated/accepted in court, then that makes technical directions from a FIA technician to teams on how to be compliant completely irrelevant during race weekends. 
So what about: - Quote:
-
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. Thus the Stewards find that:
A) The team chose to run the car using their fuel flow model, without direction from the FIA. This is a violation of the procedure within TD/ 01614.
B) That although the sensor showed a difference in readings between runs in P1, it remains the homologated and required sensor against which the team is obliged to measure their fuel flow, unless given permission by the FIA to do otherwise.
C) The Stewards were satisfied by the explanation of the technical representative that by making an adjustment as instructed, the team could have run within the allowable fuel flow.
D) That regardless of the team’s assertion that the sensor was fault, it is not within their discretion to run a different fuel flow measurement method without the permission of the FIA.
Sounds pretty cut and dry.
Like I said I think RBR's goal is to at least get Danny's points back, they have to realize there is no way they are getting Constructor's points.
|
|
|
| |
|
Lex
|
Mar 27 2014, 10:26 PM
Post #43
|
- Posts:
- 8,605
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #15
- Joined:
- March 11, 2006
|
Wonder if Horner plays Countdown....
No! You're wrong! My dictionary is right so I have won...
|
|
|
| |
|
Lex
|
Mar 27 2014, 10:32 PM
Post #44
|
- Posts:
- 8,605
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #15
- Joined:
- March 11, 2006
|
- Rob,Mar 27 2014
- 10:47 PM
- u4coffee,Mar 27 2014
- 04:02 AM
- P1,Mar 26 2014
- 05:50 PM
Horner and RedBull team certainly appear completely hyped up and convinced that they have done absolutely nothing wrong. Horner from interview today: - Quote:
-
We are extremely confident we will win appeal. We are appealing on the grounds that we do not believe - and we are extremely confident that - we haven’t 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. 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.
I think our whole case, the whole dispute, is based on which reading is correct. We have a sensor that is drifting and is not reading correctly versus a fuel rail that we know is calibrated and we know that it has not varied throughout the weekend and has subsequently been checked and found to be not faulty and has not moved or varied at all since it was installed on the car prior to the weekend.
Our argument is very simple - that we have not broken the Technical Regulations. That we have not exceeded the fuel flow rate 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 case, 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 have not broken the regulations and Technical Directives are of non-regulatory value.
If that is being validated/accepted in court, then that makes technical directions from a FIA technician to teams on how to be compliant completely irrelevant during race weekends. 
So what about: - Quote:
-
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. Thus the Stewards find that:
A) The team chose to run the car using their fuel flow model, without direction from the FIA. This is a violation of the procedure within TD/ 01614.
B) That although the sensor showed a difference in readings between runs in P1, it remains the homologated and required sensor against which the team is obliged to measure their fuel flow, unless given permission by the FIA to do otherwise.
C) The Stewards were satisfied by the explanation of the technical representative that by making an adjustment as instructed, the team could have run within the allowable fuel flow.
D) That regardless of the team’s assertion that the sensor was fault, it is not within their discretion to run a different fuel flow measurement method without the permission of the FIA.
Sounds pretty cut and dry. Like I said I think RBR's goal is to at least get Danny's points back, they have to realize there is no way they are getting Constructor's points.
Can't see them getting Danny's points back - that would indicate they were right!
As has been shown here, they're not!
Null Points
|
|
|
| |
|
u4coffee
|
Apr 1 2014, 10:33 AM
Post #45
|
- Posts:
- 17,813
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #11
- Joined:
- March 10, 2006
|
|
|
|
| |