See, what really annoyed me about that wasn't so much that things changed to help RBR but the way that RBR stood back and let Mercedes take all the shit for getting involved in the tyre tests and then reaped the benefits themselves.

The problem with F1, is that each team is looking out for itself, rather than the sport. Which is one of the reasons FOTA no longer exists. The top teams have the power, and the smaller teams are left struggling as they have to play by the big boys rules.

Until the teams change their attitude, and think about the sport rather than themselves, you will always get teams, doing whats right for them. With the amount of money teams throw at F1, they will always think about their best interests.



You think Merc would have done anything different if the roles were reversed? See comment above.

The issue isn't whether the FIA flow meter is accurate or not. At the moment it clearly isn't but it's apparent it's an issue across the field and I'm sure it's something the manufacturer of the meter will be working on. The issue is simply that while every other team complied by the rules and reduced their fuel usage according to the FIA meter RB ignored the advice of the FIA and carried on regardless. Even if RB could conclusively prove that their fuel meter was more inaccurate than anyone else's, which they can't, it wouldn't change the fact that according to the FIA's measurements they broke the rules. There has to be a universal measurement. The FIA will not allow the teams to measure the fuel flow by themselves. RB are wasting their time with the appeal.

I agree with both those comments. For me, the best thing about this season so far is that's it's levelled the playing field - for now. And of course, the way for some to regain their advantage, if they don't have the technical short-cut is to muscle their way back in. That's what I see Mateschitz doing and TBH, if Red Bull are only an occasional podium visitor in the first half of this year, the level of his current grumbling will be nothing compared to what will come later.

I'd treat it the same as Football Managers who complain the same about refs. Fine him an amount which just make him think twice before doing it a second time. Then again, I'm a tad reactive in situations like this

Mateschitz sees himself as the new Enzo Ferrari, the godfather of F1. He's slowly built his influence behind the scenes and has been able to protect his precious team and lead driver when he's needed to, most notably last season with the tyre changes. He's some how engineered a return to the calendar for the Austrian GP despite a) it being a dire circuit and b) BE trying to reduce the number of European GPs in favour of fly-aways.

But now he sees Mercedes likely to dominate and the rules shifting the importance away from his pet star designer's forte of aero to engines which is the team's weakness and he feels really threatened. Mateschitz is going to discover that with the influence of Newey's design brilliance marginalised his money and influence mean nothing.

TBH, I'm not sure Merc', or a lot of the other teams, would have been quite as two-faced and slippery about it.

As I said earlier, they acted in a similar way over stuff like hot-blown diffusers (agreeing that they should be banned and then claiming their diffuser wasn't "hot-blown" and not changing it) and with regard to holes in the car floor (agreeing that holes were banned but that their floor didn't have "holes" in it but, instead, simply had a perimeter that included areas of space).

TBH, I do agree that all the teams are as devious as each other (or, at least, as devious as they can be) but RBR seems to fib more and that probably had something to do with FOTA folding, cos I guess most of the teams would get sick of voluntary agreeing to various things, only for RBR to not adhere to what's been agreed.


I'm sure RBR would say that if all the other teams simply decided to comply with the readings of the FIA equipment, even though they knew those readings were wrong, that's their own lookout.

I'm sure that, in reality, the readings were only out by a tiny amount and that's why all the other teams decided to just go with the flow (no pun intended) but if RBR can prove that the FIA flowmeter in DR's car was inaccurate they can say they had reasonable grounds for ignoring it because, as far as they knew, everybody else's was accurate so, by going with the readings from the FIA meter, RBR were putting themselves at a disadvantage to everybody else.

As long as there is consistency, as long as everyone is measuring by the same yardstick it doesn't actually matter if the yardstick measures exactly 1 yard or slightly more or slightly less, it's the same for everyone. What RB have done is said they don't want to use the same yardstick as everyone else and use their own. Their excuse is that according to their measurements the yardstick is wrong. Who is verifying their measurements? Who can vouch that their measurement is any more accurate than the FIA measurement? It may well be but it's impossible to verify so it's an empty argument.

It's really very simple. The FIA have provided a sensor. Every team has to abide by the readings from that sensor no matter what their own readings are. If they don't, they get penalised. If they don't like it, they can withdraw form the championship. 10 out of the 11 teams seem to have no issue with this. Frankly I hope RB are stupid enough to ignore the FIA sensor in the next few races and get disqualified from them too.

You're still ignoring the fact that if the sensors aren't accurate then there isn't consistency and the yardstick isn't the same.
One might be reading a couple of percent high, thus forcing a team to reduce their performance by a couple of percent, while another might be reading a couple of percent low, thus allowing another team to run with more power.

I guess RBR will simply say "We wouldn't want to speculate on why other teams might have chosen to abide by the readings from a potentially faulty instrument but we can only say that when we realised the sensor in our own car was faulty we just used an alternative source of data in order to continue to comply with the rule".

TBH, my main concern over this is that the FIA will make things worse if they're intransigent about it all.
If they just say "Teams WILL abide by the flowmeter readings or be excluded. The end" then it all seems rather defensive.

Personally, my experience of ultrasonic fluid flowmeters is that they're rarely accurate to better than +/-5% so that means there might be a 10% difference between a team with a meter that's reading high and one that's reading low and that will create an unfair advantage.

I'd certainly hope that these FIA flowmeters are more accurate than that, but that's where a bit of transparency would be useful.
If the FIA are willing to publish the calibration results for the flowmeters, which shows that they're all accurate to within, say, +/- 0.5% and they can get an engine manufacturer to go on the record as saying that the difference in flow yields a negligible benefit they we'll know, with some certainty, that RBR are just being petulant.

Tell you what might solve this easily, to some extent at least...

Maybe the FIA should specify an easily accessible place where the flowmeter can be fitted and then they could just have 22 flowmeters in a box and issue them randomly at the start of each race?
That way, even if there are minor inaccuracies, it'll just be luck of the draw as to which team gets which flowmeter for a given race.
Sometimes you'll get a "good" one which'll give you a tiny benefit and sometimes you'll get a "bad" one, which'll put you at a tiny disadvantage, just as is probably the case with tyres.

Or even that what they are measuring is exactly the same as is being measured by the official device? In fact it can't be unless their sensors occupy the same place in space and time as the official sensors. They may be clever but they ain't no Dr Who.

Not sure how you can say that, when it was Merc that carried out the illegal tests using the current car. If Merc hadnt 'cheated', then RBR couldnt have taken advantage of the situation. The whole saga started with Merc. Who were actually slippery enough to get the drivers to wear plain helmets, and not their usual designs. That to me is pretty slippery. Luckily due to the Ferrari connection that got of very lightly.


The holes, were not holes, as they were cut into the perimeter. That was a clever way around the rules. Something RBR are, is clever. Much like brawn GP were when they came up with the double diffuser. You may call it fibbing, others would call it being clever, other may call it cheating. It really depends on who you support.


You call it fibbing, I call it being clever. The reason you state for FOTA folding, has nothing to do with that you suggest. The big teams had left FOTA, and made their own deals with Bernie. This left the small teams, to fend for themselves. With the FOTA chairman, Martin Whitmarsh, disappearing there was no desire for the teams to keep FOTA up and running. FOTA was more to do with the commercials rather than the rules/regulations. Although I am not saying they didnt rubber stamp rules/regulations.



Who knows the teams that were gaining an advantage, probably kept quite about it. I think RBR racing have a good case. I think DR will be re-instated. The team may not get its constructor points. However I think the current situation will not remain after the appeal.

In a sport where timings are taken to 0.001s using a meter that isnt accurate seems pretty poor. As we have both said, the use of these meters is pretty pointless, when you say to teams you can use a 100L of fuel. Who really cares at what rate they use it at?

Consider this scenario:
Red Bull's appeal is upheld, the points are re-set to the race-ending position and the FIA give an feeble excuse for the confusion.
Mercedes and possibly others complain that since they complied with the advice to reduce their flow, then they have been disadvantaged by adhering to the rules.

A team owner that protects his team and drivers...shock horror, no other team owner would do such a thing.

I think Mateschitz comments are more a warning shot across the FIA bows. Hes saying you screw us over, and I may take my toys else where. Its actually quite a clever move by him. Its what Ferrari have done quite a few times in the past. Most people know he is just playing the game, and is pretty much an empty threat.

Hes engineered the Austrian GP back on to the calendar - you mean by paying the huge fee that Bernie asked for? Thats how the circuits get picked, you pay the most and you will have a GP. The only exception being Monaco, and probably the US GP - however F1 has a vested interest in breaking into the US market - so they may get away with playing less than others.

Your point B - seems to be the opposite of point A. The last time I checked Austria was in Europe. So not sure how he can do both points A and B.

I think you have Mateschitz all wrong.

That wont be RBR racings headache, thats the FIAs problem. All they have to do is provide meters that are accurate. Problem solved.

Agreed.


That doesn't address the possible grievances of others as suggested in my scenario were the appeal to be upheld.

As I see it, the only way the appeal can be upheld is if the FIA deem that RBR were within their rights to ignore the data from a sensor which was faulty (the inference being that the stewards were wrong not to have allowed "Plan B" to be put into operation), in which case the other Teams had the right to do the same, but didn't ... so tough!

Having said that, I'm struggling to see how RBR will win their case, but I hope it results in the issue with the sensors being sorted, and that we don't have a season which is heavily influenced by who gets lucky with the fuel sensors!

Those are my thoughts exactly, but we all know that, when under pressure, the FIA can always find, or create a loophole in order to placate those whom they see as vital to F1.
With Mateschitz reported as saying his company could quit Formula 1 if he is not happy with the way the sport is run, this just may be enough pressure to ensure the appeal's overturning.

Depends on what you call a win. RBR may see getting fined, as a win. They may be happy with DR getting re-instated, but not getting constructor points, so will call that a win.

I think the FIA will do a half assed job, and it will be a win-win for both sides. The FIA havent shown much back bone recently, just look at the half-assed way they dealt with Merc last year.

What piques my interest is the possibility of RBR, who are supremely confident that they will win their appeal, also ignoring the rules this weekend, or will they suddenly find that their flow-meter is within acceptable range.
Not long to wait.

Is the Malaysian grand prix live on bbc tv?

simple question, you'd think, to be able to find the answer, yet my sky planner suggests it is and the bbc website states that is is not.

The BBC web site seems pretty clear that it is live

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/26443262

Horner has come out and said the sensor failed again, and they are waiting for results of the new sensor.

Will be interesting to see what happens, if the new one fails again.

The first thing that went through my mind when I saw the McLaren nose was "Kilroy was here"

Like I said before, RB seem to be the only ones making a big deal about this. The FIA have basically said that the sensor in Australia wasn't faulty, that all sensors are working to the same tolerance and are basically accusing of RB of over-stating the inaccuracy of the sensor so they can use their own data to their advantage. Doesn't look like the FIA are in the mood to compromise.

BIB - Not sure the FIA can say that, when they told RBR to apply an offset to the sensor readings. If the sensor wasnt faulty, why would RBR need to apply an offset?

Interesting choice of words by Horner.
By "failed", he probably really means "was reading a couple of percent different from our own calc's" or something but, then again, as my old boss used to say "If it's not right it's wrong and if it's wrong it's useless".

Must admit, I dozed off while watching FP2 this morning (bit sick at the moment) but I vaguely recall the BBC pundits saying that a few of the teams have mentioned similar issues and that an engine manufacturer (didn't catch which one - Renault, perhaps?) has unoffically said that the variations in data from the flowmeters are enough to yield noticeable differences in engine power.
Will watch it again later and see exactly what was said.

I agree with you about the broader implications.
It's not RBRs problem if other teams have put themselves at a disadvantage by adhering to the figures from the f/m's.
It's up to the FIA to provide a method of policing the rules that's fit for purpose and if other teams are happy to go along with the f/m's and that puts them at a disadvantage, that's an issue between them and the FIA and isn't RBR's problem.

In other news, apparently somebody asked Renault if they've got enough money to properly develop the car and compete with the top teams and the reply was something like "Top teams? Right now we don't even have the same budget as Marussia or Caterham"