Infiniti Red Bull Racing 2014

[astracrazy]

if they don't want to be in the sport then don't be.

What do they expect to happen now? The fia drop the case because they have threatened to the pull the plug and then be open to such threats in the future. I don't think so.

[basti313]

These kinds of threats have lost their value -how many team owners have live up to that?

Who?
Except of Tony Fernandes, who makes it depended on the teams success, I do not really remember anyone threatening with this...

and this looks more to be putting pressure then anything else.

The decision is now at the FIA court...for them it is not not be measure if RB drops out of F1 or not.
So the pressure is put on the right people. The supplier of the sensor and the "Technical Delegate" who are responsible to sort out the mess they are responsible for.

Though he makes several good points towards the end of the article: it's absurd they are only a but faster then gp2, while the cost of running a F1 team is so much higher.

Yes, there are so many stupid decisions made by the FIA when it comes to money...they have a complete lack for what makes sense and what does not.
A very nice example is the crash structure: We have a standard side impact structure...so far, so good...this a a part you develop once, maybe twice in a season and crash test it once or twice.
But we do not have a standard front crash structure even that FIA was thinking of an exact shape when they made the rules. This gives ugly noses, weak structures and a lot of money burned for development throughout the season and many crash tests.
Mateschitz is a person, who really knows how to deal with money and what makes sense if you want to promote something. I wish there would be more people like him in FIA...and not only rich, old people who do not even know how to write an email...

[turbof1]

Who?
Except of Tony Fernandes, who makes it depended on the teams success, I do not really remember anyone threatening with this...

Luca di Montezemolo had a few of these spat outs. Don't bite me if I'm not correct, but I believe Flavio Briatore did the same once. Just to take to a different series: Honda made the same threats this year regarding the open class in motogp.

[RagingBullx]

Interesting post from Joe Saward http://joesaward.wordpress.com saying that Red Bull ignored the intrateam agreement before the race not to exceed the FIA fuel flow sensor, then ignored the FIAs warnings throughout the race and finally appealed the disqualification after all the warnings and dragged the sport through the gutter with them.

Red Bull’s decision to appeal the exclusion of Daniel Ricciardo in Melbourne is entirely predictable, but I am not sure what will be gained from this, except perhaps diverting attention away from the team’s lacklustre performance overall since the new cars first appeared. The FIA stewards in Melbourne seem to have had a pretty good understanding of the situation and why the troublesome fuel flow meters were being treated with care by all the teams except Red Bull. I do feel sad for Ricciardo because he deserved a reward for a good drive, even if one can argue that he gained advantage by being able to burn fuel when he needed it.

Still, the ethos at Red Bull, as seen clearly last year, is that winning is all that matters, even if that means crapping on the sport. In my view that is what has happened here. Red Bull decided that there was a grey area that could be exploited and duly exploited it, just as last year they wanted different tyres and piled criticism on Pirelli until that happened. One can argue that winning is all that matters, but I will always argue that winning with grace is better than winning at any cost. In the long term this kind of behaviour impacts on a team’s reputation and that rubs off on the brand as well. I doubt that the Red Bull lawyers will come up with any arguments that the stewards did not hear. Yes, the FIA messed up with the supplier, but from what I hear it was somewhat beyond the control of the federation, as there seems to have been some chicanery going on which caused delays, but I am not sure what the FIA should have done once the mess has begun. One can say that they made a bad choice during the tender process but at the time it was a logical decision. The problem was explained to the teams and they understood the need to avoid unnecessary bad publicity while the problem was being solved. Red Bull chose to do it by their own rules. Much will depend on whether the Court of Appeal looks at the question in purely legal terms, or whether it allows for some commonsense and ‘doing the right’ thing. The verdict will matter because if it is just a legal decision then teams will never again be relied upon to do something in the interest of the sport. All things considered, however, I think that a better decision would be to dismiss the appeal as frivolous and give the team a big fine for wasting everyone’s time. However, I am not a lawyer… So we will just have to see what happens.

[Juzh]

Red Bull decided that there was a grey area that could be exploited and duly exploited it, just as last year they wanted different tyres and piled criticism on Pirelli until that happened.

Except guess what, tyre change predicted for canada was blocked by some teams and only kicked in when half the field blew their tyres off their rims, and half the floor with them.

[Scardini1]

The FIA invites these controversies because of all their rinky-dink meddling. They already mandate the ECUs; they need to mandate a friggin' fuel flow sensor too?! How absurd. Red Bull did exactly what they should have: take a calculated risk that the unit would work just well enough for them. It was a risk - the choice could have backfired and have both cars DNF.

I'm really a Williams fan, but I've cheered Red Bull on since they came to F1. They're aggressive and innovative. They find ways around the insipid restrictions imposed by the FIA. They build the best cars, and because of it deserve the spoils of their dedication and genius. They remind me of when Lotus first shook-up the old stodgy F1 intelligencia, opened the door for all the "Garage Teams", and started the most innovative score of years in racing history.

And with regard to Red Bull just caring about winning: For the cost just to play in the F1 playground - HELL YES, it's just about winning. Someone would have to be a lunatic to cough up that much money and then sit back and just accept the rules.

I do hope Williams takes the title this year (even Ferrari would be cool), but if Red Bull continues to be better than everyone else in in dancing around the FIA's intrusion, they deserve to win again, and again, and again.

The "Best" deserve to win. Always. This ain't NASCAR.

[beelsebob]

The FIA invites these controversies because of all their rinky-dink meddling. They already mandate the ECUs; they need to mandate a friggin' fuel flow sensor too?! How absurd. Red Bull did exactly what they should have: take a calculated risk that the unit would work just well enough for them. It was a risk - the choice could have backfired and have both cars DNF.

RedBull coming up with a number significantly higher than anyone else demonstrates exactly why a fuel flow monitor was necessary.

[Scardini1]

Red Bull's threat of leaving F1.

Why do you think that the most successful Team in LeMans history (Audi) won't compete in F1? Not only don't they compete, they "refuse" to compete. It's because of the FIA's crushing restrictions and unbridled rule changing. Have you even heard mention of Porsche lately? Despite the supernatural success of the TAG engine, they too, have nothing to do with F1.

Do you want to know who's really scared of Red Bull leaving F1? The teams in every other top tier racing venue.

Yes. Red Bull could leave F1. And if they do it will be the monumental FIA failure of all time

[Scardini1]

RedBull coming up with a number significantly higher than anyone else demonstrates exactly why a fuel flow monitor was necessary.

Sorry about getting riled up in here, but I really have had it with the FIA. My apologies.

The Teams should be allowed to use the fuel as they see fit. They get just so much per race - they manage it with their own strategies to finish and win the race. If they go for the gold and miscalculate - guess what? - no points for you today. Play a little more conservative, finish, but score fewer points? It should be their choice. Their risks to take.

Thanks for the reply beelsebob.

[flmkane]

Red Bull's threat of leaving F1.

Why do you think that the most successful Team in LeMans history (Audi) won't compete in F1? Not only don't they compete, they "refuse" to compete. It's because of the FIA's crushing restrictions and unbridled rule changing. Have you even heard mention of Porsche lately? Despite the supernatural success of the TAG engine, they too, have nothing to do with F1.

Do you want to know who's really scared of Red Bull leaving F1? The teams in every other top tier racing venue.

Yes. Red Bull could leave F1. And if they do it will be the monumental FIA failure of all time

Red Bull didn't complain when the 2009 regs slowed the cars down significantly. Red Bull didn't complain when the V10s were ditched for V8s.

Red Bull ONLY complains and threatens to quit, when THEY are slow AND THEY are penalized for cheating.

This means that this is just bluffing, ie they are playing a political game. It's the the way of F1.

Audi wont come to F1 because they wont see benifits to the road car business. But even if they do they wont be competitive at all. You underestimate the jump in competitiveness from LMP to F1.

Red Bull MAY go to LMP, and they WILL dominate, but that applies for any other F1 mid to top tier F1 team. I dont see the point your trying to make, perhaps you can eleborate.

[Scardini1]

True statement Kane: I agree LMP better relates to car sales than F1. Still, If the Mercedes team takes the title, I've got to figure there'll be one or two reminders of that posted in dealerships around the world. Just a hunch.

From what I read a few years ago, Audi specifically just wasn't interested in playing the FIA's game. And let's face it - they do throw a ton of R&D bucks into LMP, so it's not just the money. Sorry, I don't remember my sources though. And it's just speculation on my part about Porsche. I've always wondered where they went after such an amazing run.

As my discontent with the FIA has built over the years, I just extrapolated that they might be reason Porsche is absent now as well. Now, I don't apply this same cause to all manufacturer absences. Teams like Toyota and Jaguar just couldn't compete, and being non-competitive was possibly a liability to their car sales.

Don't you think Red Bull garnered just a little too much scrutiny last year? I thought they handled it all quite maturely, but everybody has their limit. If they keep getting excessively singled out just because of their dominance (when in fact they should be applauded for it), then yes, I do believe they might leave. I pick on NASCAR mercilessly because it epitomizes my greatest fear for F1: a bunch of identical cars all parading their sponsors logos at the same speed in one inexplicable heard. I can thing of no fate more horrible for my beloved F1.

[bhall]

[...]

Still, the ethos at Red Bull, as seen clearly last year, is that winning is all that matters, even if that means crapping on the sport.

[...]

It's kinda like that time Red Bull willfully ignored the Pirelli directive on safe camber settings at the 2011 Belgian Grand Prix, despite a historically healthy lead in both Championships, in order to chase the record for poles/victories in a season.

Said Adrian Newey, who could have very easily made the necessary adjustments to his cars and started them from the pitlane in order to ensure his drivers' safety:

"I have to say it was one of the scariest races I've been involved in, it was heart-in-the-mouth stuff, as first and foremost our duty of care is to the drivers' safety."

To be fair, though, I think most teams are assholes when it comes to this sort of stuff.

[Juzh]

It's kinda like that time Red Bull willfully ignored the Pirelli directive on safe camber settings at the 2011 Belgian Grand Prix, despite a historically healthy lead in both Championships, in order to chase the record for poles/victories in a season.

Just a question here: did bridgestone or michelin ever forcefully impose camber and pressure settings? I don't remember them doing so. Maybe teams didn't use to run to such extremes in the past, or it could be pirellis are just crap tires.

[FoxHound]

@juzh

Bear in mind the tyres Pirelli were asked to produce.

[bhall]

Just a question here: did bridgestone or michelin ever forcefully impose camber and pressure settings? I don't remember them doing so. Maybe teams didn't use to run to such extremes in the past, or it could be pirellis are just crap tires.

Though I think Pirelli tends to supply inferior product, it's important to note that the directive wasn't some arbitrary competitive measure. It was Pirelli saying, in essence, "it is unsafe to use settings beyond XXXX at this event," though, as history has shown, Pirelli will never really admit to any safety concerns. Nevertheless, Red Bull willfully ignored that...

But, Newey admitted, it was that decision to exceed the recommended camber limit of four degrees that was so hazardous.

...in order to secure P1 and then turned to the FIA for special dispensation to make adjustments to the car in parc fermé without penalty, a request that was justifiably denied.

Red Bull's apparent lust for setting records initially created the problem, and it subsequently prevented the team from making any necessary adjustments, because they did not want to incur the penalty of having to start from the pitlane, which would have been the result had they breached parc fermé regulations. In all cases, however, Red Bull was free to do as they pleased so long as they accepted the consequences of those decisions.

So, they decided to roll the dice.

This is what teams do. And then they play politics when it's all over.

To wit: this gem offered up after the fiasco that was the 2013 British Grand Prix:

Pirelli came up with a solution for that, with a different construction, and that was being offered initially for Montreal.

But two or three teams vetoed that because they were worried it would suit some other teams more than it would suit them.

As a result of that short-sightedness, Formula 1 ended up putting up the worrying performance it did [at Silverstone] and concerns about driver safety.

Something, something...pot, kettle.

(God, I love F1.)