Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Emmcee

Should Ricciardo Have His Points And Position Reinstated?

44 posts in this topic

I ask this as I feel he was shafted big time, Redbull were warned about this fuel sensor and fuel flow during the race, do they just hate Aussies? I think Redbull should loose there 18 constructors points but Daniel should keep his and his podium, they did it to both Williams and Benetton in the 95 Brazilian gp due to a fuel issue, yet Schumacher and hill were still allowed there points and positions, it's the team that lost out, this needs to be applied here. Dan was simply doing as he is told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry mate the answer is know, RB were given plenty of chances through out the race weekend, very sorry for Daniel but the team new exactly what they were doing and quite possibly gave Daniel a performance advantage he would not have had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite possible but in my original post about Benetton and Williams, you could say the same there yet they kept there points and positions under the exact reason iam saying as it was unfair to the drivers, yes Redbull did refuse the notifications but weather it affected Daniel or not, he most likely wouldn't have been aware and is doing as he is told. Yes iam gutted as iam a huge supporter of his and this is probably why iam so p*ssed over it. Another question, based on his performance over the entire weekend, is he quicker than Mark Webber?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep his points? I already replied to this question somewhere else in this forum but basically, NO! Unless RBR can prove that their flow measurements were right and the FIA's homologateed sensor weren't, AND that Daniel did not gain an unfair advantage in the process. THEN and only THEN he should be allowed to have his points reinstated. And in any case, RBR should not keep theirs. Amd it is irrelevant whether Danny boy was aware or not of RBR's machinations with the sensor, if they broke the rules and his car was exceeding the fuel flow limit, then he had an unfair advantage over the rest and he doesn't deserve the point.

Otherwise, that would be unfair to the rest of the field. Ricciardo was not racing alone there.

Re DR vs MW: DR has only done a single race for RBR and not exactle your average race. More data is needed. As for their pre RBR runs, MW's was more impressive right from his Minardi days than Danny in his STR days. He seemed like the real thing, if that makes you feel better, but we won't know until a few more races have come and gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan looks alot more aggressive IMO and cleaner under pressure than mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes he should have. He should have known that by taking Webber's vacant Red Bull seat that he'd inherit all his horrible luck :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ask this as I feel he was shafted big time, Redbull were warned about this fuel sensor and fuel flow during the race, do they just hate Aussies? I think Redbull should loose there 18 constructors points but Daniel should keep his and his podium, they did it to both Williams and Benetton in the 95 Brazilian gp due to a fuel issue, yet Schumacher and hill were still allowed there points and positions, it's the team that lost out, this needs to be applied here. Dan was simply doing as he is told.

Rulings that were made 20 races ago don't seem to have any bearing on current decisions, let alone rulings that were made nearly 20 years ago.

You have an inference that Ricciardo didn't know about the team decision to run their own flow rate and I am not sure if that's the case or not? So, no I don't think he was shafted as I expect he may have known about the decision.

However, you win as a team and you lose as a team, unfortunate as that may be.

If he had been black flagged from the race then that would have been unfair, but as it is the Aussie crowd got to see him finish 2nd, so it didn't spoil the spectacle for them at the time. He may also still keep his 2nd place, depending on the appeal.

I dare say RBR will be right in what they are saying, I am just not sure it's enough to overturn the decision. If somebody from the FIA has bollocked up somewhere along the line, as I suspect they might have, then they will get the decision overturned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way too early to make any comparisons with Webber, who spent several years at RBR and notched up some great victories and produced some incredible racing along the way. Dan's had 1 good race, in Malaysia he might have a shocker and be nowhere. Can he dominate the Monaco GP like Webber did (twice I believe)? We don't know yet.

I feel really sorry for Dan but as other people have said, if there's a break of the rules then you get DQ'd. Nearly all DQ's are the team's fault rather than the driver's. And (yes i know this has already been mentioned) if the fuel issue gave him an advantage then he doesnt deserve that 2nd place anyway, even if he was oblivious to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it gave him an advantage then that's fair enough, but has there been any proof of that? I don't think there has. I see it like this, Redbull must have had some real serious concerns with the fuel sensor otherwise, why would they set him up, if that's the case, then we have to look at marks time at Redbull and his gap to seb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it gave him an advantage then that's fair enough, but has there been any proof of that? I don't think there has. I see it like this, Redbull must have had some real serious concerns with the fuel sensor otherwise, why would they set him up, if that's the case, then we have to look at marks time at Redbull and his gap to seb.

I think it's a safe bet to presume that the FIA sensor was showing more flow rate than RBR were showing on their sensors, otherwise why would RBR complain? If other teams had to work within the limits of the sensor (and there has been the suggestion that other teams had to work around the sensor issue, although nothing concrete) then there is a possibility that RBR had a higher fuel flow rate on Ricciardo's car than other cars and therefore they would have gained an advantage.

You have to ask yourself, though, if the FIA sensor had erred in favour of RBR, which sensor would they have gone with? I am pretty sure they would have gone with the FIA sensor and said it doesn't correlate with our sensors, but we have to abide by the FIA rules.

They have taken a calculated risk and it will all come out in the wash, as they say and then we will find out if the gamble was worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote about this elsewhere, and the SparkNotes is: no. You cannot separate driver and car. If the penalty holds, it must be to both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet the FIA did separate the driver from the car when they ruled on spygate. Apparently even though Alonso was found out to be both lying, blackmailing and intentionally dissecting over stolen plans with Pedro, he was able to keep his Championship points. I welcome anyone to explain that one. He was no innocent bystander, a passenger in a dodgy car that didn't know anything beforehand. Amazingly he got away with it again with crashgate.

I hope RBR get the points back. It's utter insanity to do anything else. The fuel sensors were faulty, even Charlie admitted as such, they were giving bad readings, and RBR get penalized? This shouldn't have happened. It should have been sorted out whereby they got sensors that worked, for ALL the teams and then go about policing the rules.

People still get speeding tickets when the speedgun/radar is off. But when challenged, some people do get off when it's found out the radar wasn't calibrated properly, or hadn't been done so for X amount of time.

How can you penalize anyone, when the items in question, have been exposed and admitted by the persons in charge of the penalizing that they give erroneous readings. It's makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the hysteria in other forums, this one was doing good until now :P

Unless there's some obscure regulation/wording of the rules/vital fact still not uncovered, the situation is this:

1) A sensor that could or could not be faulty was ignored by RBR. If faulty, and the readings meant that RBR should lower their fuel flow to comply, that would have been bad for them, no doubt. The sensor thing, though, is pretty technical and no one except a few eggheads at RBR and the FIA (and experts they will surely call) can tell what happened and who is right about it. This is only meaningful with regards to Ricciardo's points. If they can prove that his car did not gain an unfair advantage, then maybe the FIA will let the kid keep his points. But if they do that they would be doing that because the want to, not because the must do so.

2) RBR was told to comply with the sensor's readings and they decided not to. To use the speeding comparison again: if the first point is about a speedometer that might or might not have been working properly, and the possibility of avoiding the speeding ticket, this one is like disobeying the order to slow down or pull over because you know that your car is within the speed limit. You cannot do that.

The 2007 comments are a completely irrelevant to this case and, in my opinion, utterly distorted, but 2007 is in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet the FIA did separate the driver from the car when they ruled on spygate. Apparently even though Alonso was found out to be both lying, blackmailing and intentionally dissecting over stolen plans with Pedro, he was able to keep his Championship points. I welcome anyone to explain that one. He was no innocent bystander, a passenger in a dodgy car that didn't know anything beforehand. Amazingly he got away with it again with crashgate.

I hope RBR get the points back. It's utter insanity to do anything else. The fuel sensors were faulty, even Charlie admitted as such, they were giving bad readings, and RBR get penalized? This shouldn't have happened. It should have been sorted out whereby they got sensors that worked, for ALL the teams and then go about policing the rules.

People still get speeding tickets when the speedgun/radar is off. But when challenged, some people do get off when it's found out the radar wasn't calibrated properly, or hadn't been done so for X amount of time.

How can you penalize anyone, when the items in question, have been exposed and admitted by the persons in charge of the penalizing that they give erroneous readings. It's makes no sense.

Actually, it's no challenge at all to explain Alonso in 2007. He was granted immunity from penalty on the condition that he testified. Same applied to Piquet in 2008. There's a massive distinction between granting immunity to assist in fact-finding and granting immunity to a driver who earned a position in a car that, at present, has not been deemed compliant with the rules. I'm sure you don't need that explained.

To the rest of your post, that is for the appeal process to decide. If the FIA uphold that the Red Bull did not comply with the rules, however, they must penalize both the driver, who achieved his result in that Red Bull, and the team. Driver and car are not separate in achieving results in races.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't see how they can win. I am told that the rule explicitly states that the only sensor which is allowable is the one provided by FIA. So by ignoring them or claiming "s'not fair" won't get them anywhere esp. as all other teams abided by it by taking a more conservative approach to fuel flow (as their sensors suffered the same problem).

It would be like a tennis player claiming the official tennis balls were rubbish and did not bounce as high as they should, therefore choses to use his own. If they have an issue, raise it through the proper channels, don't have a do-it -yourself solution.... *

* As with all things, I invariably talk balls..... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.f1technical.net/news/19219

According to Boullier, everybody knew about the sensors since January, and everybody accepted to live with them. Except RBR. Nope, things don't look good for them.

On the plus side, this hubris is the sign that they are now an established top team doing the same dumb stuff that Ferrari, McLaren or Williams did in the past :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alonso and Mclaren did a far worse thing than Redbull and he kept his points, shows how corrupt this sport is becoming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alonso and Mclaren did a far worse thing than Redbull and he kept his points, shows how corrupt this sport is becoming.

That was already addressed.

Alonso was granted immunity for testifying.

That's not uncommon. Sometimes, you pick battles. They needed a lot of evidence, I imagine, to give the penalty they gave to McLaren, and realizing that McLaren was the big target, they gave the drivers immunity to get the facts they needed.

This is totally unrelated. There is no driver testimony needed here, so there's no option to grant immunity to anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You gotta feel my pain, webber failed to do this in his whole 11yr career and dan does it first go, man how much more luck do we need?

Talking about aus gp podium finish

Edited by WebRic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this will be a boring response, but here goes: There is no such thing as 'fair' because 'fair' is based on your point-of-view. That's why sports sometimes seem 'unfair'...there are too many points-of-view for a steward or referee to please all of them. The best then can do is stick to the rules. They often fail even at that. But there is one constant: The rule-makers' decisions are final. If there's an appeal process, you make use of it. If that process goes against you, then you live with the results.

When any team enters Formula 1 (and any regulated sport) they accept that the stewards (or refs) decisions are final, regardless of 'fair' or 'unfair'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You gotta feel my pain, webber failed to do this in his whole 11yr career and dan does it first go, man how much more luck do we need?

Talking about aus gp podium finish

Webric, the way that I would look it at is not that FIA have been unfair to Dan as Red Bull knew the situation for months and chose to breach the rules.

It's more the case that Red Bull have been unfair to one of their drivers in putting them in that position. If you are going to blame anyone, blame them.

I agree he appears to have been the innocent party and it is a shame, but this is only one race and if he drives that well in future then it will all be academic anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some people are still missing the point. The 'punishment' isn't about illegal levels of fuel flow. It's about blatantly disregarding an FIA directive regarding the use of sensors provided to measure it. That's it. Teams were told to use them unless they had specific permission not to. RBR said: '**** you! - we know better'. That is how the FIA see it and clearly, the stewards. There is no defence. The sensors may be a load of crap but it's irrelevant. The appeal court won't be interested in whether the sensors were faulty or not, even though RBR will offer their alleged unreliability in mitigation of their actions. They will simply rule on whether RBR disobeyed a directive and, right or wrong - they did. End of. personally, I feel it is another unnecessary rule. As Flabbio says, the FIA are turning drivers into accountants. Let them race, for God's sake! As far as DR is concerned, he's part of the team - win or lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some people are still missing the point. The 'punishment' isn't about illegal levels of fuel flow. It's about blatantly disregarding an FIA directive regarding the use of sensors provided to measure it. That's it. Teams were told to use them unless they had specific permission not to. RBR said: '**** you! - we know better'. That is how the FIA see it and clearly, the stewards. There is no defence. The sensors may be a load of crap but it's irrelevant. The appeal court won't be interested in whether the sensors were faulty or not, even though RBR will offer their alleged unreliability in mitigation of their actions. They will simply rule on whether RBR disobeyed a directive and, right or wrong - they did. End of. personally, I feel it is another unnecessary rule. As Flabbio says, the FIA are turning drivers into accountants. Let them race, for God's sake! As far as DR is concerned, he's part of the team - win or lose.

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some people are still missing the point. The 'punishment' isn't about illegal levels of fuel flow. It's about blatantly disregarding an FIA directive regarding the use of sensors provided to measure it. That's it. Teams were told to use them unless they had specific permission not to. RBR said: '**** you! - we know better'. That is how the FIA see it and clearly, the stewards. There is no defence. The sensors may be a load of crap but it's irrelevant. The appeal court won't be interested in whether the sensors were faulty or not, even though RBR will offer their alleged unreliability in mitigation of their actions. They will simply rule on whether RBR disobeyed a directive and, right or wrong - they did. End of. personally, I feel it is another unnecessary rule. As Flabbio says, the FIA are turning drivers into accountants. Let them race, for God's sake! As far as DR is concerned, he's part of the team - win or lose.

You make sense but I agree with Hammer, redbull were at fault and dan was rorted, that's my opinion, maybe Redbull thought, if they hit dan early, they can turn him into another Webber, but without the outspoken mind. Hey, could be a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make sense but I agree with Hammer, redbull were at fault and dan was rorted, that's my opinion, maybe Redbull thought, if they hit dan early, they can turn him into another Webber, but without the outspoken mind. Hey, could be a possibility.

Sounds like colonial paranoia to me :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0