Marussia hopes Red Bull lose Ricciardo disqualification appeal

Graeme Lowdon

Graeme Lowdon

Marussia CEO Graeme Lowdon is of the opinion that Red Bull should have accepted Daniel Ricciardo’s disqualification from the Australian Grand Prix.

Instead, the reigning world champions plan to argue in an April 14 appeal that it ignored the FIA-mandated fuel flow sensor in Melbourne because it was inaccurate.

The hearing will not be heard in Paris until after the forthcoming Malaysia-Bahrain double-header, raising the risk of more race exclusions for Red Bull.

“Do they continue their defiance and risk exclusion – and mounting punishments – or do they fall in line like the other teams?” Mirror correspondent Byron Young wonders.

Marussia’s Lowdon admitted that he hopes that the Red Bull appeal fails.

He said that if every team ignored Charlie Whiting’s “opinions” about how to interpret the technical regulations then “every single result would always be decided” after an appeal.

So if Red Bull wins this appeal, Lowdon thinks it would “open the floodgates” for more teams to ignore Whiting’s running guidance.

“It happens on things all the time,” said Lowdon. “It is an opinion [of Whiting’s] and if we were just to ignore all of those opinions and constantly test them in a court then the sport would just stutter along endlessly.

“It really is going to be difficult for the sport to operate races in a way that the fans are going to understand if the advice is simply ignored because you can make a car go quicker,” he added. (GMM)

Subbed by AJN.

Content on by: staff & contributors, Reuters syndication, GMM service, Getty Images, Formula 1 teams, sponsors & organisations.

  • Amos James

    Fair point

  • bobmendon

    I don’t know why he toeing the FIA party line. Anytime there is a ruling by an individual an appeal process helps to to keep everybody honest. Especially in the case of something that requires an in depth look at data and how it measures against the intent of a particular rule. Red Bull is not being frivolous in their appeal and the FIA court is not likely to accept cases for review that are clear cut.

  • =El Presidente=

    Lowden makes perfect sense.

    As i see it, it is not about the maximum amount of fuel that RB think they can use.
    It is very clear that there is a restriction for 100l/h at any time. this is to be checked by this “FuelFlowSensor” This sensor has a margin of <1%.
    So in resume, the max fuel-limit is 99l/hour.

    they (RB) refused to calibrate their sensor even after repeated warnings of CW. I think the DSQ is not up for discussion.

    It is like RedBull are saying "Yes mister Whiting, we know we can only use Euro-benzine, but we brewed some juice that will give us a lot more horsepower, so we are using that"

    I would say it is very unlikely RB wins the appeal. it is just a PR-stunt.

  • JohnWhitling

    I think the RB appeal is a good thing. This whole fuel used per every hundredth of a second is gonna kill the sport. Even though the engines are allowed to turn up to 16,000 rpms, they are only doing 10-11,000 rpms due to the obsessive fuel monitoring. Limiting the amount of fuel for race is limitation enough.

    This extreme fuel limitation serves nobody, save for the sensor mfr. The show as it is now, is very sad. At least let us hear something other than a truck sound ..

  • Carbisc

    Rules are rules , I would like all the teams to have a level playing field , to allow 1 team to have slightly more fuel use at any time is unfair esp. , when that team were forewarned , prior an during the race , RB’s threat to leave the sport before this hearing is a form of black mail , you wanna leave? just leave RB , you have had good use of the last 4 yrs PR wise .

  • Dave Bates

    I completely agree, 100kg of fuel for each car is fair to all , The teams who decide to use this controlled amount on max revs will fall short of the flag, At least this would be transparent to F1 fans who do not have any technical interests. In time the teams would average out their pace to take fuel & rubber into account. The fuel sensor under the control of the FIA in my opinion is a redundant item, that has been homologated before it,s proven to be 100% accurate on a repeatable basis. I reckon ( hardware ) and who are responsible to the FIA for calibration services will no doubt be fall guys in this fiasco, regards & thanks DB.