Daniel Ricardo disqualified from Australian F1 race

[driveace]

Just on Sky news that Daniel Ricardo had been disqualified from the Australian F1 race today ,after his fine drive to 2nd place
Story is " Due to breaking Technical Regulations "
What has Red Bull been up to now ?

[driveace]

Given a chance to alter the Fuel Regulator,as it was delivering too much fuel pressure.Told by FIA ,and given chance to rectify it but refused ,resulting in disqualification after such a good drive to 2nd for Australian Daniel Ricardo
Do RB think they are a law unto themselves ?
Obviously thats why the RB team was able to be so fast and finish 2nd ,with an illegal car !!!

[Dave B]

The stewards' full ruling is now on Autosport:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112966

The key seems to be that RBR were informed of the breach and, like Mercedes, given an opportunity to correct it during the race. They, unlike Mercedes, chose not to, relying on their own measurements instead. Arrogance? Confidence? Innocent mistake? With Charlie Whiting saying earlier in the week that this would be a zero-tolerance matter, it seems foolhardy at best.

[Doc Austin]

Wow. What a shame for Ricardo.

[Doc Austin]

Wow. What a shame for Ricardo.

[MAX_THRUST]

Terrible shame for Daniel ..........

[Mark]

During the race? Something that could be changed in a pit stop or remotely?

[N4D13]

During the race? Something that could be changed in a pit stop or remotely?
According to the ruling, it's outside of the driver's control. But I find it strange that RBR could change the car's parameters remotely!

[Doc Austin]

I hope we are not in for a whole season of this kind of BS. They've made F1 so complicated that it's not any fun to watch any more.

Ricardo had what was arguably the drive of the race snatched away from him because he burned too much fuel? Hell, that's what you're supposed to do when you're racing: burn too much fuel, go too fast, make too much noise and kick too much ass. I don't know what the hell we were watching last night but it wasn't racing.

[anfield5]

If what RBR are saying is correct, i.e that sensor failed in practice and a second one failed in qual, and they where instructed to re-intall the first faulty one and come up with an equation to offset the false readings, the dsq should be overturned.

[dj_bytedisaster]

FIA should be taken outside and shot in the face. They 'enforce' a rule with equipment that has been proven to be faulty. There were inaccurate readings all through winter testing. The Mercs had too high readings in FP3 and limited their engines to 96 kg/h to satisfy the lying sensors. But that's an easy thing to do if you have a ridiculously superior engine, a luxury that Ferrari and Renault customers don't have.
How the hell can you enforce a rule that you can't gouvern reliably?? It's ridiculous.

[anfield5]

FIA should be taken outside and shot in the face. They 'enforce' a rule with equipment that has been proven to be faulty. There were inaccurate readings all through winter testing. The Mercs had too high readings in FP3 and limited their engines to 96 kg/h to satisfy the lying sensors. But that's an easy thing to do if you have a ridiculously superior engine, a luxury that Ferrari and Renault customers don't have.
How the hell can you enforce a rule that you can't gouvern reliably?? It's ridiculous.

Well said that man!

I feel sorry for Ricciardo, even when the dsq is overturned and he gets the place back, the moment is gone. He has joined an exclusive club of drivers who have scored a podium in their home GP. At the end of the day he did nothing wrong.

What confuses me a wee bit is this - if he was using more than the mandated maximum of 100kg of fuel per hour, how come he managed to get to the end of the race on 100kg of fuel, when the race was far longer than an hour long. I know someone will point out that this is a maximum reading, not an average, but still...

[truefan72]

If what RBR are saying is correct, i.e that sensor failed in practice and a second one failed in qual, and they where instructed to re-intall the first faulty one and come up with an equation to offset the false readings, the dsq should be overturned.

nope

it is the teams fault the sensor failed twice
and the teams fault they gained an illegal advantage
it would be absurd to think the FIA would overturn a clear infringement because the "team" screwed up and could not produce decent parts?
I bet you the tight packaging, led to overheating, which lead to sensor failure.
There is nothing the fIA did wrong in this case

shoot, if they are in the business of overturning results, maybe they should give the race win to hamilton, because something malfunctioned in his car and had nothing to do with his driving. lol

[Rollo]

What confuses me a wee bit is this - if he was using more than the mandated maximum of 100kg of fuel per hour, how come he managed to get to the end of the race on 100kg of fuel, when the race was far longer than an hour long. I know someone will point out that this is a maximum reading, not an average, but still...

100kg/hr is a rate whilst 100kg of fuel is a fixed amount of stuff.

How come it's possible to to 70mph on the motorway on a journey of only 9 miles? Same thing.

[airshifter]

IMO the FIA have made this more complicated than it needs to be, and could easily simply monitor fuel load for the race and deal with an average instead of an absolute flow rate. Less parts to question, more options for the teams, and it would also reward the best designs of aero efficiency as well as ERS energy use and recovery.

But regardless, RB shouldn't have screwed Daniel out of such a great drive.

[dj_bytedisaster]

If what RBR are saying is correct, i.e that sensor failed in practice and a second one failed in qual, and they where instructed to re-intall the first faulty one and come up with an equation to offset the false readings, the dsq should be overturned.

nope

it is the teams fault the sensor failed twice
and the teams fault they gained an illegal advantage
it would be absurd to think the FIA would overturn a clear infringement because the "team" screwed up and could not produce decent parts?
I bet you the tight packaging, led to overheating, which lead to sensor failure.
There is nothing the fIA did wrong in this case

shoot, if they are in the business of overturning results, maybe they should give the race win to hamilton, because something malfunctioned in his car and had nothing to do with his driving. lol

Your opinion is invalid, because your bum hurts because Lewis din't win and you'd have a go at everyone who dared to be ahead of your love interest.

[anfield5]

What confuses me a wee bit is this - if he was using more than the mandated maximum of 100kg of fuel per hour, how come he managed to get to the end of the race on 100kg of fuel, when the race was far longer than an hour long. I know someone will point out that this is a maximum reading, not an average, but still...

100kg/hr is a rate whilst 100kg of fuel is a fixed amount of stuff.

How come it's possible to to 70mph on the motorway on a journey of only 9 miles? Same thing.

Yes I realise this, but simple maths says that if you are using fuel at the rate of over 100kg/hour, for an extended period of time and have 100kg of fuel on board it will run out before an hour lapses. Similarly if you are running a car at 12 mpg and drive 20 miles, you will run out of fuel.

My thought is this (please feel free to dusagree (said with Kiwi accent)) there is no need to regulate the fuel flow rate, as there is only 100kg of the stuff allowed, if you use too much you run out, why do things need to be complicated by the rule makers? The fact is Ricciardo got to the end of the race on his allotted fuel (but I digress), the rules are there and that is that, but

[truefan72]

If what RBR are saying is correct, i.e that sensor failed in practice and a second one failed in qual, and they where instructed to re-intall the first faulty one and come up with an equation to offset the false readings, the dsq should be overturned.

nope

it is the teams fault the sensor failed twice
and the teams fault they gained an illegal advantage
it would be absurd to think the FIA would overturn a clear infringement because the "team" screwed up and could not produce decent parts?
I bet you the tight packaging, led to overheating, which lead to sensor failure.
There is nothing the fIA did wrong in this case

shoot, if they are in the business of overturning results, maybe they should give the race win to hamilton, because something malfunctioned in his car and had nothing to do with his driving. lol

Your opinion is invalid, because your bum hurts because Lewis din't win and you'd have a go at everyone who dared to be ahead of your love interest.

absolute rubbish

but lets play devil's advocate for a minute...
then what are you doing posting here since your golden boy got knocked out, your team got found out for cheating and thus you are having a go at other members.

this is 2014 DJ. I thought you would have grown up a bit ,but it is the same childish and rather colorful language pockmarking your posts throughout the forum. so off to ignore and report to the admins
cheers

[truefan72]

What confuses me a wee bit is this - if he was using more than the mandated maximum of 100kg of fuel per hour, how come he managed to get to the end of the race on 100kg of fuel, when the race was far longer than an hour long. I know someone will point out that this is a maximum reading, not an average, but still...

100kg/hr is a rate whilst 100kg of fuel is a fixed amount of stuff.

How come it's possible to to 70mph on the motorway on a journey of only 9 miles? Same thing.

Yes I realise this, but simple maths says that if you are using fuel at the rate of over 100kg/hour, for an extended period of time and have 100kg of fuel on board it will run out before an hour lapses. Similarly if you are running a car at 12 mpg and drive 20 miles, you will run out of fuel.

My thought is this (please feel free to dusagree (said with Kiwi accent)) there is no need to regulate the fuel flow rate, as there is only 100kg of the stuff allowed, if you use too much you run out, why do things need to be complicated by the rule makers? The fact is Ricciardo got to the end of the race on his allotted fuel (but I digress), the rules are there and that is that, but

Anfield,

Of course I agree with you about the ridiculousness and over complication of the fuel regs. And said so much in another thread.
I agree. simplify it to the allotted fuel and if they run out, they run out.

but the rules are what they are and if everyone is abiding to one set of rules and one team is not and is given multiple opportunities to rectify the situation, even during the race and choose not too, then that is a problem. That fact remains that the increased fuel flow did provide an advantage for him because others were managing under restrictive levels and thus raced with a handicap as compared to the RBR.

I think the punishment is justified. a tough break fro Ricciardo, and perhaps they can do away with the rule going forward.
that is, if common sense hasn't completely left the FIA

[Hawkmoon]

If they've only got 100kg of fuel what difference does it make how fast they use it? If they use it too fast they'll run out. Surely it should be up to the teams how much fuel they want to use as long as they don't exceed the maximum overall limit.

It's a shame for Ricciardo as he drove very well all weekend and put his much vaunted teammate in the shade.

[TheFamousEccles]

Surely if it is a matter that is outside of the control of the driver, then penalise the team their constructor points, but leave the driver points out of it. I realise that constructors points are the ones that pay, so surely then that would be more of a penalty if drivers points mean little to the team?

Still, the whole debacle is being appealed so we shall have to wait.

[Whyzars]

If they've only got 100kg of fuel what difference does it make how fast they use it? If they use it too fast they'll run out. Surely it should be up to the teams how much fuel they want to use as long as they don't exceed the maximum overall limit.

It's a shame for Ricciardo as he drove very well all weekend and put his much vaunted teammate in the shade.


The 100kg/h figure is a maximum delivery figure. On full boost they are allowed this rate so I agree with what you say that they have already imposed a limit but there is a reason they are doing this as well.

The fact that it is stupid and the cars sound like a long wet fart does not come into it.

At best this is a 5 spot grid penalty. I am gutted.

[Valve Bounce]

If they've only got 100kg of fuel what difference does it make how fast they use it? If they use it too fast they'll run out. Surely it should be up to the teams how much fuel they want to use as long as they don't exceed the maximum overall limit.

It's a shame for Ricciardo as he drove very well all weekend and put his much vaunted teammate in the shade.

You are so right on this point. Magnussen was instructed to go into a fuel saving mode around 5 laps from the finish so he would have sufficient fuel to attack in the final two laps. I would suspect that had Magnussen kept going as fast as he could to catch Riciardo, he might have run out of fuel before the end of the race.

[Warriwa]

Official sources are now saying it was Vettel who alerted the stewards of the fuel infraction.

[Whyzars]

Official sources are now saying it was Vettel who alerted the stewards of the fuel infraction.

Do you have a link?

I thought the sensor triggers a heads-up alarm for the scrutineers and that is what prompted them to check initially in FP1.

[Valve Bounce]

Official sources are now saying it was Vettel who alerted the stewards of the fuel infraction.

I cannot believe this - please provide a link for this!

[Warriwa]

Sorry fellas, I was just taking the piss.

[Valve Bounce]

Sorry fellas, I was just taking the piss.
:rolleyes:

[Storm]

I thought that was funny :p:

[Mark]

My thought is this (please feel free to dusagree (said with Kiwi accent)) there is no need to regulate the fuel flow rate, as there is only 100kg of the stuff allowed, if you use too much you run out, why do things need to be complicated by the rule makers? The fact is Ricciardo got to the end of the race on his allotted fuel (but I digress), the rules are there and that is that, but

That's the way F1 did it in the past, you go so much fuel and you ran out towards the end if you used too much. But the problem is that it caused the spectacle of drivers running out of fuel while leading the race, and thus losing through no apparent fault of their own (of course it was their fault but the public won't see it that way). So to have limited fuel but to avoid drivers running out on the track, they have given the cars more fuel than they need but limited it's consumption rate, which is sensible.

As for the part itself, is that manufactured by the teams, or supplied as part of the ECU?

[Whyzars]

I thought that was funny :p:


Me too. Fell right in. :D

[Valve Bounce]

As for the part itself, is that manufactured by the teams, or supplied as part of the ECU?

From the autosport article I referenced, these meters were supplied by the FIA, and RBR's contention is that they gave incorrect readings, and RBR did checked this out with their own flowmeter device. That FIA supplied these meters and if it can be shown that their readings were inconsistent, very easily done by independent tests if they were, then the FIA would have a helluva lot of explaining to do. Somehow, I wish Max was here to take the blame! :D

[Tazio]

nope

it is the teams fault the sensor failed twice
and the teams fault they gained an illegal advantage
it would be absurd to think the FIA would overturn a clear infringement because the "team" screwed up and could not produce decent parts?
I bet you the tight packaging, led to overheating, which lead to sensor failure.
There is nothing the fIA did wrong in this case

shoot, if they are in the business of overturning results, maybe they should give the race win to hamilton, because something malfunctioned in his car and had nothing to do with his driving. lol
Yep

I have this crazy conspiracy theory running around my cranium, that given their chance to change the flow meter before the race RB refused, (knowing their package would cause it to fail again) just to look good and sell more cow piss to Australians.

And.......the order came down from Dietrich Mateschitz :devil:

Probably not :p:

[Mark]

There was a comment on the Sky coverage that Red Bull were having issues with reliability and working on the car as the packaging was so tight.

[Bagwan]

OOOOO Taz , you've got the "evil genius" gene in you , don't you ?

It all fits , dude .
When you think that the drink sales must have been hurting from the Webber treatment , an appeal on this might make them look like heroes for the great Aussie cause .
They'll have to make the FIA look entirely stupid to do it , but they'll get away with it easily , by virtue of having two teams in the game making them quite indispensable .
Even if they don't win the appeal , they will win in sales . Pretty slick if so .

One thing seemingly escaping notice here , though , is that the FIA took five hours to determine a decision .
Given that Red Bull made deliberate decisions to disobey procedures and directions , we should be able to assume that they gave somewhat full reasoning for such moves to those making the call .
I think we may assume also , that those reasons were considered , and that it is , perhaps , why it took five hours .
It's no small thing to disqualify the home town boy , and that point would be crucial in the decision making process .
That's all the more reasoning for the five hours .

But , in the end , they came to this decision , so I think it will stick , no matter how cruel .



nope

it is the teams fault the sensor failed twice
and the teams fault they gained an illegal advantage
it would be absurd to think the FIA would overturn a clear infringement because the "team" screwed up and could not produce decent parts?
I bet you the tight packaging, led to overheating, which lead to sensor failure.
There is nothing the fIA did wrong in this case

shoot, if they are in the business of overturning results, maybe they should give the race win to hamilton, because something malfunctioned in his car and had nothing to do with his driving. lol
Yep

I have this crazy conspiracy theory running around my cranium, that given their chance to change the flow meter before the race RB refused, (knowing their package would cause it to fail again) just to look good and sell more cow piss to Australians.

And.......the order came down from Dietrich Mateschitz :devil:

Probably not :p:

[driveace]

I understand the FIA told all the teams that this device would be monitored,and they ( The FIA) would come down heavily on any infringements.Glad to see they have stuck to their word,on the first race of the year.Now all the teams understand that any (Cheating) or blatant breaking of the rules will result in heavy action .
Two teams were warned of the fuel meters showing too much fuel pressure during the race ,one Mercedes did something about it ,and their results stands,the other team chose to ignore the advice from the FIA ,and NOT do anything and must accept the penalty .
A pity ,as I feel Ricardo drove a fine race,but RB knew the car was illegal,and were told so ,Dan did not !
His team let him down

[ShiftingGears]

FIA should be taken outside and shot in the face. They 'enforce' a rule with equipment that has been proven to be faulty. There were inaccurate readings all through winter testing. The Mercs had too high readings in FP3 and limited their engines to 96 kg/h to satisfy the lying sensors. But that's an easy thing to do if you have a ridiculously superior engine, a luxury that Ferrari and Renault customers don't have.
How the hell can you enforce a rule that you can't gouvern reliably?? It's ridiculous.
Absolutely. Farcical stuff from the FIA.

[Valve Bounce]

At this juncture, I would like to correct the guy's name on the thread title. His name is RICCIARDO, pronounced RICHIARDO - in Italian. (Can pino confirm the pronunciation please). Of course, in Oz, he is called Ricardo and it doesn't seem to phase him. Great personality, always friendly with a big smile and a dimple.
For those wondering about the 5 hour delay before RBR was DQ'd, today's news article reports that Ron Walker wanted Ricciardo to have his moment of glory, and champagne bath and adulation from the home crowd after a magnificent faultless drive over the weekend. Jo Baur had already reported the infringement immediately after the race. '

[Storm]

It is obviously Rich-ee-ardo if it is Italian but on sky/star, they said he prefers it to be Ricardo...a bit weird since I thought you would like
people to call you by your actual name rather than what is easy for them..

[AndyL]

It is obviously Rich-ee-ardo if it is Italian but on sky/star, they said he prefers it to be Ricardo...a bit weird since I thought you would like
people to call you by your actual name rather than what is easy for them..

Well he is Australian, not Italian. If he says it's to be pronounced "ricardo" then I don't think anyone else can really argue!

[Tazio]

For those wondering about the 5 hour delay before RBR was DQ'd, today's news article reports that Ron Walker wanted Ricciardo to have his moment of glory, and champagne bath and adulation from the home crowd after a magnificent faultless drive over the weekend. Jo Baur had already reported the infringement immediately after the race. '
What a joke. I don’t mean to be antagonistic Valve, but all that means to me is it afforded more time to party on Red Bull diluted with Vodka. Great advertising I must say :dozey:

[Mark]

I very much doubt that's the case. The 5 hours will be going through the process of the protest and investigation.

[Tazio]

I very much doubt that's the case. The 5 hours will be going through the process of the protest and investigation.
Are you calling Valve a liar? :confused: :devil:

[Mark]

LOL, sod off you ;). I think perhaps the news article may have not been entirely accurate ;)

[steveaki13]

I reckon Seb waited for Daniel to buy a round of drinks in the bar before reporting his car to the FIA. Hence the delay. :D :devil: :vampire:

[Valve Bounce]

I think there would have been a riot there at the podium if Ricciardo had been dq'd before the ceremony.

[COD]

There is a Rule and it is monitored by the equiment given. If they are told to adjust because those meter show too much flow, then they were given a fair chance to change.

Why would anyone believe RB's own meters? They can calibrated to show too little just to piss FIA off in these ind of situations....

[tommy2k8]

I hope we are not in for a whole season of this kind of BS. They've made F1 so complicated that it's not any fun to watch any more.

Ricardo had what was arguably the drive of the race snatched away from him because he burned too much fuel? Hell, that's what you're supposed to do when you're racing: burn too much fuel, go too fast, make too much noise and kick too much ass. I don't know what the hell we were watching last night but it wasn't racing.

Well said!
I thought the race wasn't bad, but if they want to encourage fans to watch and see F1 for what it should be, they shouldn't make decisions like this.
Burning too much fuel? Never heard so much poppycock in my life!
As you say, motor racing is meant to be like that.
As Adam Hills would say on his Last Leg show (I can't say the word on here but I shall put one that rhymes): The FIA, you are micks!

[driveace]

I agree completely with you .They were told they were over the limit with fuel supply ,as were Mercedes,and given the option to do something about it by adjusting the flow .Mercedes DID Red Bull decided not to .So from my mind nobody to blame but RB .Probably because they have got away with a few things before they thought ,they bend the rules for us !But the FIA made it very clear they were going to clamp down on this very heavily and I am glad they did !
There is a Rule and it is monitored by the equiment given. If they are told to adjust because those meter show too much flow, then they were given a fair chance to change.

Why would anyone believe RB's own meters? They can calibrated to show too little just to piss FIA off in these ind of situations....

[COD]

This somewhat confirms what I said. I doubt RB will be succesfull in their appeal

http://m.crash.net/f1/news/201284/1/teams-were-aware-of-sensor-issue.html

[greencroft]

Red Bull must feel very sure of their grounds. My guess is the penalty may be increased. Has anyone ever won an appeal to the FIA against a stewards' decision?

The only material one I can remember was in the World Rally Championship in 1986 when Peugeot appealed against their disqualification from the Sanremo Rally due to them allegedly using ground effect skirts on their 205 T16's. The appeal was upheld and Peugeot reinstated thus winning the championship for Juha Kankkunen and denying it to Lancia's Markku Alen who was champion for about a week.

[Doc Austin]

Has anyone ever won an appeal to the FIA against a stewards' decision?


Ferrari .......... imagine that.