The Red Bull Appeal

[Chris Jenkins]

So today is the day we all find out what kind of backbone the FIA have.

The appeal started at 9:30am local (8:30 GMT).

Feel free to discuss here...

 

[Tom]

If the FIA wouldn't want to make the right decision they wouldn't have stripped RB of the 3rd place in the first place. I doubt they'll change something just for the sake of satisfying RB as a team.

 

[Chris Jenkins]

Is worth mentioning as well that the Appeal panel is made up of independent parties.

 

[Tony Holder]

 

[Tony Holder]

About time Red Bull had this. If they'd have gotten away with this issue, then they would try again to flounce the rules to suit them.

 

[Nox]

Good decision.

 

[Tony Holder]

And there could be more, read on;

Red Bull have confirmed that Mercedes are the only team that is seeking additional sanction for the Milton Keynes outfit over their appeal of Daniel Ricciardo's Australia Grand Prix disqualification.

During the opening remarks of their appeal on Monday, Red Bull barrister Ali Malek QC said that "only Mercedes believes that the sanction should be increased", after Ricciardo was disqualified from second place from the Australian GP because his car exceeded the maximum permitted fuel flow rate.

According to Mercedes' barrister Paul Harris QC, additional punishment could be handed out because new information was submitted to the panel of judges, which means the appeal has became a hearing instead.

"This is a rehearing with new and different evidence than the stewards had [at the time in Australia]," Harris, who also represented Mercedes during the 2013 tyre test tribunal, said in his opening remarks on Monday.

"Now this court has had sight, it can see more clearly than the stewards that the breach was very deliberate; it was a flagrant breach.

"[Red Bull] knew [it was] not compliant, not doing what Mr Lom [FIA head of powertrain] said repeatedly, and knew full well it was being done to obtain and express sporting advantage - 0.4s per lap for Mr Ricciardo."

 

[Tony Holder]

Why does my avatar appear to be enjoying this news?

 

[April Dillon]

Wonder if they'll go through with their threat from a while back? Though, I suspect not

 

[Ben Goymer]

Wonder if they'll go through with their threat from a while back? Though, I suspect not

And what if they did? I would imagine there would be no end of people willing to buy the team and run it under a different name.

 

[Tom Michelmore]

It would hurt Red Bull's reputation quitting like that, being known for being butthurt over decisions against them.

 

[Tony Holder]

Haha

 

[Kennett Ylitalo]

Well, i think every F1 team has threatened to quit for some reason of the other; none has so far.. Red Bull quitting now would mean all those championships would pretty much be wiped away, there would be eternal "cheater" branded on every can of that crap they sell (note, i don't like energy drinks in general, they are pretty effing toxic stuff)

It fits to what results have shown: around 0.4s of unfair gain. Ricciardo could just suddenly keep up with mercs, next race they weren't even close to those speeds.

 

[Tony Holder]

It just fills me with joy that Red Bull have got what they deserve.

 

[Martin Maaskant]

Agree Tony, RBR got what it has asked for. But I feel a bit pity for Ricciardo. He was punished for something that was not his fault. Anyway now this is out of the way just head forward and hope there is more spectacle on the track and not behind the green table.

 

[DarkZenith]

It's a shame about Ricciardo, but RBR have had this coming for some time. I do suspect though, that if any other team had done this, then the sanctions would have been far more severe.

 

[Ho3n3r]

I sense a bit of sour grapes in the tones of Red Bull haters around here - yet all of you would most likely have done exactly the same thing in the same situation. If you've got proof from your system that the sensor is drifting farther and farther away from the real readings, yet it could cost you a position or more, you'd stick to your guns.

The only problem seems to be that they didn't get permission to run without it/ignore it in Melbourne, but because the FIA gave them permission when Ricciardo's broke again in the following race, then it was suddenly fine.

I smell witch hunt, led by Merc.

 

[Michael Stead]

The only problem seems to be that they didn't get permission to run without it/ignore it in Melbourne, but because the FIA gave them permission when Ricciardo's broke again in the following race, then it was suddenly fine.

When it failed in race 2 Ricciardo had to drive to beeps in his helmet telling him when to lift off etc. This was a conservative pace that wouldn't exceed the limit and had been agreed with by the FIA before the race.

 

[Ho3n3r]

When it failed in race 2 Ricciardo had to drive to beeps in his helmet telling him when to lift off etc. This was a conservative pace that wouldn't exceed the limit and had been agreed with by the FIA before the race.

Exactly. If this wasn't in place for Melbourne, but it's fine for Sepang, FIA is at least partly to blame here - which has been the point all along.

 

[Howard]

This is the statement the editorial team was issued with by RBR.