Christian Horner reveals why Red Bull 'are extremely confident' of winning appeal | Daniel Ricciardo Profile | Formula 1 | Sky Sports Christian Horner has revealed the reasons why Red Bull "are extremely confident" that Daniel Ricciardo's car did not break the rules governing fuel flow at the Australian Grand Prix. Ricciardo finished second in Melbourne, but was disqualified after the race when the stewards ruled that his RB10 had repeatedly exceeded the fuel flow limit of 100kg/h. Red Bull immediately announced that they would appeal the decision and the FIA's International Court of Appeal will hear the case on April 14. "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." 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."
If true Im surprised other teams are not supportive. My take is they are allowing Red Bull to lead this effort and closely watch it of course. While putting out the usual We love the FIA spin
This is like Newey stating the front wing did not flex, at all (he actually said this). It flexed, but not according to the Fia measuring device and Red Bull were certain they were the smartest elephant ever. The reality was identical to what we see with this fuel situation, and I find it rightfully ironic because Red Bull are now at the bad end of the deal having to *finally* fight for their own legality. Horner has big cohones setting an arrogant stage going in which I'm certain is a public posturing maneuver that he hopes to further build and take with him to court. The more it's publicized the better it will go for a team with lots of support already. Red Bull still have a mountain to climb arguing that the Fia yardstick which everyone else adheres to (and did) is faulty compared to their own which is biased toward themselves to begin. If the Fia accepts and Red Bull wins their appeal then team fuel maps and readings compared to the Fia sensor will go off the deep end and here will be chaos in the courts, guaranteed.
While I fully agree with every comment you made, to me this is just a repeat of MB's illegal tire test last year. I know you disagree on that one and I don't mean to reopen that can of worms. Just saying. It is also a repeat of when Ferrari claimed their turning vanes were legal (Ross won that one) or when Sauber claimed their wing was legal (they lost). Bottom line is: When you have some clout in F1, your chances of winning an appeal are a lot better. Unless you are McLaren and Mad Max is in charge.
Understood, your position is duly noted although I certainly see the situations as being entirely different. No worms from me on that one though, they're for another day that may never come
If you read the decisions by the World Motorsport Council, they are pretty much based on facts and arguments. Not so much on whichever team is involved. It is easy to dismiss a verdict you don't agree with in this way, but that doesn't mean you are correct in your opinion. RedBull genuinly believe the disqualifcation of Ricciardo is wrong and they have the right to appeal. What the verdict will be, no one knows. Furthermore, they also have the right to take their business elsewhere if they feel Formula 1 no longer provides a stage to their benefit. I don't see any problem with Mateschitz stating as such, nor do I have a problem with the timing. Of course they are more likely to turn their backs on F1 when not only the sport itself is less attractive as a stage for their brand, but also decisions are made that hurt the interests of RedBull and, more importantly, are, in the view of RedBull, wrong.
Not unique to the "Drinks Maker". Both Renault and Mercedes have threatened to walk away from the sport if they didn't get what they wanted. As, of course, has Ferrari.
That's all nice and dandy when they get it right. Sometimes they don't in a blatantly obvious way. That said in this case I actually think RB has a point.
Yes correcto, and thankfully we haven't got a complete lunatic running the FIA to deal into that mix as well.
Red Bull know how to play politics and throw their weight around, this is a perfect example. Remember the days when Ferrari used to have balls like this?
True but it is never pretty. I don't like RB and this makes them look even more ugly. What is interesting is that they make such a fuss over their #2 driver. It's not like he is going for the WDC or anything. It it was Seb I could understand their attitude
Excusing me for saying so but it seems that your (admitted) prejudice is coloring your opinions of RB.
How so? I said a couple of posts earlier that they have a case. What I don't like is Mateschitz being a bully. This blackmail is always ugly, whether it is RB, MB or Ferrari who does it PS: I even said I like their drink and as everybody knows I'm a huge Vettel fan PPS: to like them they would need to sell the super car Newey built for Goodwood
This is a real mess, and hopefully some rules changes result for next season with rules that can enforced by a real metric. Relying on "faulty" sensors allows race fixing. It'd be interesting to see what the sensor on K.M.'s car was reading vs reality and addition to D.R.'s sensor.
That may be so, but no one cares or remembers after the champagne is sprayed and WDC/WCCs are in the cabinet.
I think Red Bull puts a lot of emphasis on it, yes. It's also not a good look to ever be disqualified.
Hey, just asking: why they didn´t check if FIA´s sensor was working fine after the race? They can´t take it out from the car and check it out or what?
I think after the race its too late to make "corrections"; No If RBR can prove that they actually flowed less than 100 kg/Hr and its the FIA sensor thats to blame then FIA needs to step up and say it was wrong. If RBR knowing flowed >100 kg/Hr then let the chips fall and then change their diaper. IMO the blow up is Mateschitz's way of asking for more value (money).
