#F1 Race Review: Rosberg Wins Down Under as Magnussen shines

Brought to you by TheJudge13 contributor Mattpt55

2014 Rolex Australian Grand Prix Winner - Nico Rosberg

In an event filled race Nico Rosberg took his Mercedes AMG Petronas W05 to the first victory of 2014. He was followed by a distant Daniel Ricciardo with McLaren rookie Kevin Magnussen close on his tail. While Hamilton was left to ponder on what may have been Magnussen repeated Hamilton’s rookie performance of 2007 at McLaren. Time will tell if he will be able to maintain this performance.

The first Grand Prix of 2014 has also shown us that everything we kept saying we didn’t know from testing is actually true. Reliability was the story of the day with 2 former World Champions going down (Hamilton and Vettel) in the first two laps and only 3 Renault PU’s making the end of the race, though one of them was attached to Daniel Ricciardo’s Red Bull for P2. Bottas gets the unofficial TJ13 drive of the day award, for his thoroughly entertaining romp through the field.

Otherwise, you could just take any report from last year and substitute the word “Mercedes” for “Red Bull” and you’d have the story right. Mercedes confirmed their utter dominance with Rosberg’s win, and we were all deprived of a great race for P1 by the retirement of Hamilton on Lap 2.

Ferrari confirmed that we have yet to see their true pace, due to electrical problems, but as it stands Mercedes, Williams and McLaren were the order of the day. Mclaren had out-strategized the rest and taken the early lead in the constructors and Red Bull threatened with a strong showing from Ricciardo, if only Renault can get their house in order.

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

-The Who, Won’t Get Fooled Again

Act I

The race began with Vettel and Gutierrez on Mediums and everyone else on Softs. Problems started immediately for Chilton on the parade lap as his car refused to start. The wind was gusting and changing directions. Grosjean who planned to start from the pit-lane was issued a drive through penalty for leaving the garage too soon. Vettel had boost problems on the parade lap and complained of no power on the radio. As the cars pulled into formation, out came the yellow flags and another formation lap was required. One could hear the screams of frustration echoing from the pit lane as the cars set off for the 2nd time. The cause was the other Marussia stranded at the back. Tension mounted as the cars lined up again, with 3 cars starting from pit-lane.

2014 Rolex Australian Grand Prix - Felipe MassaAs the lights went out Turn 1 claimed its ritual sacrifice, with Kobayashi taking out himself and Massa with his brakes fully locked. He also bounced off Kimi, though Raikkonen was able to continue. Rosberg was able to get a great start and jumped into P1 while Hamilton looked to be driving backwards. Despite the assurances of his team over the radio, there was no MGU-K for Vettel.

Perez and Gutierrez headed into the pits with damage and Hamilton was told to retire on lap 2 to save his engine. He ignored his engineer and then they told him to stay out. Bottas was storming through the field up to 9th from his starting postion of 15th. Kvyat was sailing backwards, while Rosberg was showing the true power of the Mercedes.

Hamilton pulled in and called it a day in agreement with his engineers. Engine problems – specifically a misfiring cylinder. Meanwhile Bottas had passed JEV on the outside into the 8th turn.

So far this race had confirmed the impressions from testing. Vettel had now pulled in with a malfunctioning MGU-K, his day was also done as the new regulations claimed another victim. Bottas in the Williams had begun out-dueling the Ferrari of Raikkonen. Ricciardo held station in P2 as Rosberg effortlessly pulled away. And with a savage miscalculation Bottas tapped the wall exiting turn 9 and had blown his tire.  Hulkenburg had snuck into 4th and Magnussen into 3rd. Lap 12 saw the safety car emerge so that debris from Bottas’ Williams could be retrieved.

Act II

Button then lead the charge into the pits having made little progress thus far – a last minute decision that saw him barely making the pit entry.

Rosberg decided to pit as well and was followed by most of the field. Raikkonen was up to 7th, but forced to drive to a very low delta so Alonso could get in and out. Sutil 10th and Maldonado 11th opted to stay out. Surprisingly neither Lotus had burst into flames. Aussies who bought fire extinguisher futures are no doubt sitting nervously right now.

Bottas re-emerged in 16th with a long road to reclaim the ground he made up prior to hitting wall. He had the pace, but would he have the fuel left? Lap 16 brought the Safety Car in. Rosberg got off well and immediately began disappearing into the distance. Repaint the Merc in Red Bull colors and you’d have a repeat of last season as far as P1 was concerned. Magnussen did better hanging onto Ricciardo, perhaps the car coming into a better balance as the fuel load dropped. Bottas moved rapidly up to 12th and with DRS enabled Bottas passed Maldonado and Raikkonen lost a further 2 places. The Finn does not look like a happy camper at the moment.

Lap 20 and Ricciardo was told no need to save fuel. Take that, haters. Button had moved up to 6th with his clever safety car work and Hulk was being harried by Alonso, as his tires’ graining cost him overall speed. Rosberg had put 5.2s on Ricciardo in 5 laps. Bottas was experiencing problems with his DRS system and the team cautioned his use of it.

Both Toro Rosso’s were still running in the top 10, with JEV catching up to Button. Magnussen was told other cars may struggle with fuel so to remain patient. The battle to avoid humiliation was being fought by RoGro and Mal in 13th and 14th, with RoGro overtaking Mal.

Barring any miscalculation the race was over for P1, the retirement of Hamilton had effectively removed any competition for Rosberg. It also proved very interesting, too, that Mclaren couldn’t make any headway on the Red Bull of Ricciardo.

Bottas stormed back up in to 9th  for the second time (yes, I am required by the style guide to use the word ‘stormed’ when discussing Bottas). At this rate he would actually be able to challenge for top 5 and if he hadn’t stuffed it into the wall, of course, he may well have been looking at a top 3. Kimi continued to struggle with his car but held onto 8th. In his post-race interview, Massa wanted a race ban for Kobayashi – a la Grosjean at Spa 2012 – but most knowledgeable observers agreed it would most likely be points on Kamui’s license. Kamui himself admitted fault, but the stewards would look at the incident after the race.

By this stage of the race Sutil, Grosjean and Maldonado all appeared to be on a one stop strategy and with a vicious finality the reliability bug bit again with Ericsson out of race and told to shut his engine down. On lap 32 Maldonado retired with an MGU-H failure.

Act III

Button again led the charge into the pits on lap 33 but Rosberg was told to extend his stint. His medium tires well past their best as they were sliding as he finally entered the pits. In the haste of the pit-stop, Button was dropped off the jack and damaged his nose. Hulkenberg and JEV both tried to respond to protect against the undercut, but it was too late – Button passed ahead of both Hulk and JEV when they emerged from the pits.

Bottas had caught up to Raikkonen and Kimi locked his tires up and Bottas walked past. Bottas had provided the most entertainment in this race by far, as the Lotii have refused to engage in an Auto-da-fe´. When Ricciardo boxed he was followed by the drivers in positions P4-6. Bottas maintained his position on exit and Button to 4th. Magnussen boxed from P2 on lap 38 and despite a 2.8s stop he still emerged behind Ricciardo. Rosberg pitted to cover Ricciardo and emerged into P1 with enough time left over to order a pizza for his pit crew.

Raikkonen dropped back to 9th. Kvyat sat in 10th and was making up ground. At this point, McLaren headed for P3 and P4, looking to take an early lead in the Constructors championship. It was a pity that Bottas had removed himself from that potential battle as the fireworks at the end would have been fantastic. As it was, Bottas moved up to 8th with no signs of slowing to save fuel.

2014 Rolex Australian Grand Prix - Kevin MagnussenMeanwhile Magnussen had caught up to Ricciardo. It was K Mags debut, and 2nd on the podium would indeed be a special treat and would have improved on Hamilton’s rookie 3rd in 2007. Ferrari had reported electrics problems which meant both cars were down on power. Bottas had caught up to JEV and looked to dispatch him quickly. Bu lap 45 Grosjean was out. How many laps does it take to get to the center of a Lotus? 45.

JEV made a huge mistake which allowed Bottas to over-take and move up to 7th. This moved Hulkenberg squarely in to his sights with just 9 laps remaining. Bottas ripped into 6th after an excellent recovery, but it was a little disappointing compared to what might have been. Meanwhile the battle over second position intensified as Magnussen put Ricciardo under increasing pressure with only 5 laps remaining.

2 laps later and Magnussen had turned his engine up to have a final assault at Ricciardo but either way it was a certainty that a local boy – Ricciardo – would finish on the podium.

The last laps were utterly free of drama, and Rosberg finished P1 followed by Ricciardo and Magnussen, who matched with Hamilton’s 2007 debut 3rd place for McLaren.

****************** UPDATE ******************

Stewards’ Corner:

Two big decisions handed down by the Stewards post race, the biggest being Ricciardo’s exclusion from the results. This moves Magnussen into 2nd and Button into 3rd, belatedly eclipsing Lewis Hamilton’s debut 3rd in 2007.

The FIA ruling is quoted at length in the comments, but suffice it to say that the Fuel Flow Meter for Red Bull had issues and rather than going with the FIA solution – they substituted their own. This was noticed during the race and rather than reverting back they continued to race – hence the exclusion and subsequent appeal to the FIA. Red Bull allege, however, that this was a problem throughout the pit-lane this weekend. If so, then the FIA face a real issue going forward.

The second major decision was the total exoneration of Kobayashi from any responsibility for his crash. The Stewards have determined that it was a technical failure and have remanded Caterham to work with the technical delegate to resolve the issue. Essentially, the brake by wire system failed and they’re not sure why yet.

************************************

2014 Rolex Australian Grand Prix Podium

Final Results*:

Pos Driver Team Time
1 Nico Rosberg Mercedes 01:33.9
2
Daniel Ricciardo*
Red Bull 01:34.2
3 Kevin Magnussen McLaren 01:34.7
4 Jenson Button McLaren 01:33.2
5 Fernando Alonso Ferrari 01:35.0
6 Valtteri Bottas Williams 01:34.7
7 Nico Hulkenberg Force India 01:33.4
8 Kimi Raikkonen Ferrari 01:35.0
9 Jean-Eric Vergne Toro Rosso 01:34.9
10 Daniil Kvyat Toro Rosso 01:35.8
11 Sergio Perez Force India 01:37.4
12 Adrian Sutil Sauber 01:34.7
13 Esteban Gutierrez Sauber 01:35.8
14 Max Chilton Marussia 01:35.6
R Jules Bianchi Marussia 01:35.7
R
Lewis Hamilton
Mercedes RETIRED
R Marcus Ericsson Caterham RETIRED
R Romain Grosjean Lotus RETIRED
R Pastor Maldonado Lotus RETIRED
R Sebastian Vettel Red Bull RETIRED
R Felipe Massa Williams RETIRED
R Kamui Kobayashi Caterham RETIRED

*Results are provisional as Ricciardo is being investigated for exceeding the fuel-flow limit during the race.

World Drivers Championship

2014 Drivers' Championship Graph

World Constructors Championship

2014 Constructors' Championship Graph

68 responses to “#F1 Race Review: Rosberg Wins Down Under as Magnussen shines

  1. DO NOT PUT SPOILERS IN YOUR HEADLINE! Not all of us watched the race yet. You just ruined it for me. [seriously pissed.]

    • So you don’t watch the race but do check an all f1 website? I think the fault may be with you there…

    • Don’t be so lazy and get up, it’s your problem to avoid headlines if you don’t watch live, surely you must have known the live event was over and people would be posting reports, that is the stupidest post I have EVER read. If you don’t watch live, don’t go to news sources where the results will be published.
      Some people! Really……

    • LOL, you didn’t watch the race but check an #F1 website – who’s fault is that?

    • I am subscribed to the TJ13 emails. When I get an email in my inbox, I read the SUBJECT. In this case, the subject spoiled the whole event for me. So now I need to unsubscribe from all TJ13 posts apparently.

      • Don’t throw out the bath water yet, if you can’t avoid email then make a request. The admins will generally help if they can. 🙂

      • Most EMail clients allow you to create sub-folders in your inbox and put emails there based on rules. Just reroute the Judge emails there. Else unfollow the blog on quali day and re-follow it after watching the race – it’s a single click.

  2. Ricciardo disqualified… seems when you turn the power up on these Renaults they are thiiirstyyyy …

    A pity for him but hey… rules are rules 😛

    • The teams were warned about zero tolerance, so unless the flow meter was dodgy (which RB seem to be arguing) ….

      Anyone knowledgeable got an opinion on the likelihood of an untrustworthy flow meter ?

      • The fuel flow meters have been delivering faulty reading all through winter testing and Melbourne FP (for instance the mercs read >100 kg/h in FP3). FIA asked teams to downgrade engines, RB declined. Hippo rant coming up…

        • My understanding is that they were asked to run with an offset rather than replace the meter, i.e., use a different data set to control the fuel flow, *not* downgrade the engine, per the FIA document. Is that what you mean? Further, all teams were requested to change the parameters that the FFM used on Friday.

          The little digging I have done indicates that these FFM’s run within and acceptable range, and they have to be individually calibrated for each car. Clearly, the technology was oversold to the FIA and instead of changing course early on, they persisted and have, at best a Franken Solution.

          Of course, none of the other teams had a problem, so, much like the tires last year this may also be an effort to bend the rules to their advantage by using the weight of public opprobrium.

          In fact, an excellent comparison would be the Mercedes test last year, with the exception that Merc actually went to Whiting and asked what might make it acceptable. RB skipped this step as it was already written into the regulation.

    • Having read the FIA’s 10 point release, we, the fans, find them in breech of article 5.7.2 ‘inability to find arse with both hands and a map’… This is exacltly what has been discussed all winter, that we don’t want results decided 5 hours after a race, and if there could be an issue with a cars fuel amount/flow during the race, the commentary teams need to be made aware of it, or any warnings issued by the FIA ‘car 3 under warning for fule flow exceeding by the stewards’ for example.

      • I think you’re quite right re: communication to the public. There may be reasons NOT to do this, but on the face of it it would seem easy and better to make public the warning that the FIA gave RB during the race.

        Having said all that, even if we WERE told exactly what was going on, the results would STILL have been decided some hours after the race – the judicial proves would have carried on the same…

        • There would be a big difference as the technical delegate noticed the discrepancy *during* the race and told Red Bull to use the approved model. They refused. This should at a minimum have been put out at the end of the race as an “under investigation”. I watched coverage for an hour at least after the race and heard nothing.

          • I made a suggestion earlier this year, that CW speak to TV following races regarding decisions made.

            I was told there was no demand or need for this.

    • You would think the pit wall and race control would know the second too much fuel was used, surely if your car had exceeded the fuel flow, you may as well pull over there and then and save mileage on the engine. RB knew just like everyone there is zero tolerance, they should have parked the car the moment the telemetry showed over useof fuel. I think RB and Renault had tried a bit of that trickery that Luca dM warned about and got caught 1st race. Good! As far ad I’m concerned, again I say, RB new the second too much fuel flow had been used and yet chose to try and protest to information. I don’t think this is the last time RB will be controversial thus season. I think Renault wanted to try and save face and look as stupid so they ran the gauntlet and lost.

  3. I didn’t know what happened with Kimi and Alonso during the SC, I thought Kimi had to wait after Alonso. But driving a ‘delta’ while compromising your own position so much… Says ‘nr 2’ to me.

  4. The ruling opens a can of worms.
    While Red Bull clearly ignored an unambiguous instruction for the stewards (anyone else find the FIA’s capitalisations pompous ?), the fallibility of the fuel flow sensor is more than unfortunate.
    Doubly disturbing is that they couldn’t get sensible readings off the replacement sensor, and had to revert to the original.

    Did Red Bull object prior to the race ?

    1) The Technical Delegate reported to the Stewards that Car 3 exceeded the required fuel mass flow of 100kg/h. (Article 5.1.4 of the Formula One Technical Regulations)

    2) This parameter is outside of the control of the driver, Daniel Ricciardo.

    3) The fuel flow is measured using the fuel flow sensor (Art. 5.10.3 & 5.10.4 of the Technical Regulations) which is homologated by the FIA and owned and operated by the team.

    4) The stewards considered the history of the fitted fuel flow sensor, as described by the team and the Technical Delegate’s representative who administers the program. Their description of the history of the sensor matches.

    a. During Practice 1 a difference in reading between the first three and Run 4 was detected. The same readings as Run 4 were observed throughout Practice 2.

    b. The team used a different sensor on Saturday but did not get readings that were satisfactory to them or the FIA, so they were instructed to change the sensor within Parc Ferme on Saturday night.

    c. They operated the original sensor during the race, which provided the same readings as Run 4 of Practice 1, and Practice 2.

    5) The Stewards heard from the technical representative that when the sensor was installed on Saturday night, he instructed the team to apply an offset to their fuel flow such that the fuel flow would have been legal. He presented an email to the stewards that verified his instruction.

    6) The technical representative stated to the Stewards that there is variation in the sensors. However, the sensors fall within a known range, and are individually calibrated. They then become the standard which the teams must use for their fuel flow.

    7) The team stated that based on the difference observed between the two readings in P1, they considered the fuel flow sensor to be unreliable. Therefore, for the start of the race they chose to use their internal fuel flow model, rather than the values provided by the sensor, with the required offset.

    8) Technical Directive 016­14 (1 March 2014) provides the methodology by which the sensor will be used, and, should the sensor fail, the method by which the alternate model could be used.

    a. The Technical Directive starts by stating: “The homologated fuel flow sensor will be the primary measurement of the fuel flow and will be used to check compliance with Articles 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 of the F1 Technical Regulations…” This is in conformity with Articles 5.10.3 and 5.10.4 of the Technical Regulations.

    b. The Technical Directive goes on to state: “If at any time WE consider that the sensor has an issue which has not been detected by the system WE will communicate this to the team concerned and switch to a backup system” (emphasis added.)

    c. The backup system is the calculated fuel flow model with a correction factor decided by the FIA.

    9) The FIA technical representative observed thought the telemetry during the race that the fuel flow was too high and contacted the team, giving them the opportunity to follow his previous instruction, and reduce the fuel flow such that it was within the limit, as measured by the homologated sensor – and thus gave the team the opportunity to be within compliance. The team chose not to make this correction.

    10) Under Art. 3.2 of the Sporting Regulations it is the duty of the team to ensure compliance with the Technical Regulations throughout the Event. Thus the Stewards find that:

    A) The team chose to run the car using their fuel flow model, without direction from the FIA. This is a violation of the procedure within TD/ 016­14.

    B) That although the sensor showed a difference in readings between runs in P1, it remains the homologated and required sensor against which the team is obliged to measure their fuel flow, unless given permission by the FIA to do otherwise.

    C) The Stewards were satisfied by the explanation of the technical representative that by making an adjustment as instructed, the team could have run within the allowable fuel flow.

    D) That regardless of the team’s assertion that the sensor was fault, it is not within their discretion to run a different fuel flow measurement method without the permission of the FIA.

    • According to the FIA, no they did not object and further, when it was pointed out during the race, they refused to revert. The only notice regarding fuel flow was a directive on Friday requiring all teams to change the filter parameter for fuel flow to 5 Hz from 10.

      There was a lot of carping about these items, as they were *not* ready on schedule. I suspect the FIA would rather us not know about the sausage making process as it were, but if I understood their documents correctly each filter needs to be individually set for the teams, and that becomes their homologated unit for the GP.

      From Friday’s document:

      “The maximum fuel flow limit mFFMIllegal will be checked using a fuel flow filter frequency (parameter fdmFFMFuelFilter) of 5Hz instead of the 10Hz currently configured in the  FIA data version.
      Due to time constraints before the qualifying session the FIA data versions will not be changed. The
      revised monitoring will be processed by the FIA off­car.”

      Red Bull response to the decision:

      “Following the decision of the FIA that Infiniti Red Bull Racing is in breach of Article 3.2 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations and Article 5.1.4 of the FIA Formula One Technical Regulations with Car 3, the Team has notified the FIA of its intention to appeal with immediate effect.
      Inconsistencies with the FIA fuel flow meter have been prevalent all weekend up and down the pit lane. The Team and Renault are confident the fuel supplied to the engine is in full compliance with the regulations.”

      I had a comical interchange with FH regarding the role of reporters, but how is it if this was a real problem up and down the pitlane that not one outlet or forum I follow reported it? I just can’t see that being the case. The info would have surfaced somewhere.

      Still, this is kind of massive for the FIA, if the Fuel Flow Meters are that buggy, how can we be sure the race results are down to the teams and not a random result determined by inaccurate FIA technology?

      • Had they formally protested prior to the race, I would have some sympathy for them.
        As it is, both Red Bull and the FIA look foolish – and it is not entirely unreasonable for some to suggest that Red Bull were trying to finesse the rules.
        “Zero tolerance” ought to have been sufficient warning as far as the teams are concerned.
        Not that the FIA should be excused for failing to produce a reliable flow meter.

        • RB had pointed FIA to the fact that their sensor delivered faulty data. They were allowed to change it for saturday, but that didn’t work at all, so FIA forced them the reinstall the original one that they had flagged for inaccuracy. Epic fail if I ever saw one.

      • If this was a problem “up and down the pitlane”, presumably other teams had to apply an offset to their fuel flow ?

        I wonder if any will speak out ?

        • FIA told them to downgrade their engines. Merc ran at a limit of 96 kg/h. Easy to do if you have a ridiculously superior engine. RB insisted on using 100kg/h, because that’s the limit prescribed by the rules.

          • That’s disingenous at best. The question is, is it a calibration problem or a fundamental accuracy problem?

            If every team made the same adjustment then the playing field was the same for everyone except Red Bull who didn’t. Hence they deserve exclusion.

            On the other hand, if the FFM are not capable of the accuracy required, FIA have a very large hippo in the room, LOL!

      • Considering everyone knew the fuel flow meters were dodgy (and I think it was said here to be a big snafu pre-season), you have to say the FIA are at fault, if RB can prove they stuck within the 100kg fuel limit and per hour usage.

        • I disagree. While I think, if RB can indeed prove their claim, they are unfortunate, part of the rule very clearly states that only the FIA can approve any alternative measuring or offset.

          I can’t see how RB can prove that they followed THIS part of the rule…

          Nonetheless, unreliable flow-o-meters are clearly an issue for the FIA!

          • That’ll become known as the North-Korea rule. FIA can declare their sensor to be right, even if it is wrong. Great. *facepalm*

          • No, my friendly Hip – the FIA have declared that they are the referees. Odd that…

          • Indeed. If the stewards said “Turn your fuel flow down so the official sensor reads 96” and Red Bull decieded to ignore them. And if the stewards then said “You appear to be ignoring us – turn your fuel flow down.” And RB ignored them again. Then it shouldn’t really be a surprise if the stewards then disqualify them. Rules look quite clear – in the event of a sensor problem only the stewards get to decide what fallback method to use – they decided, Red Bull decided they knew better. And poor Daniel will pay the price, though I daresay had he been 4% slower he might have paid it earlier…

            I can’t decide if RB were arrogant, stupid, or arrogant AND stupid.

          • Not really fussed about reading the regs (as they are always written so badly), but I’m going off what Horner said – that they measured it via another method (engine related) which they already knew was reliable (0 variation). It seems he is hinting as to why the FIA don’t use something similar instead of faulty fuel flow meters (my guess is ease of measuring the telemetry).

            If the other cars ran at 96 and RB 100, then this is a whole kettle of fish that the FIA has brought upon itself (and DQ’ing RB for ‘stepping out of line’ seems like the thing to do to retain authority. Both sides really need Ross Brawn in their corner!).

            Fat Hippo – Tbh, the FIA is not far off the glorious leader nation.. there was a shocking Panorama here last month on how brainwashed the elite students are (or that they are not allowed to show anything else but that impression out of fear), in a university funded by the west (but still censored by the govt.).

      • @mattpt55 re sensor problems not mentioned previously

        The big problem for all of us on the outside of the paddock, is the lack of communication and complete information. Throughout the year, the FIA Tech people put out numerous ‘Technical Directives’, which are not publicly available. Some of these are relevant to the current discussion, as you can see from the Stewards decision document #26. Reason 8 a & b. on the FIA web site. (Link below). Almost certainly the most technically complex sport/business in existence, and the spectators can’t have the rules. Being an engineering person, I find this most frustrating and a bit insulting. Should we expect more, given past events? Anybody remember F1’s idea of getting closer to fans, was cutting a slot in the chain link fencing so that people could get a autograph.

        http://tinyurl.com/o699g3p

        • You are completely correct in this. Lap times unavailable during testing, walling off sector times behind a paywall for live timing, no more rpm’s or gear info onscreen, it’s like the only people they want to watch the sport are a bunch of rich, clueless idiots….. Oh wait…. that’s their business plan.

    • Really great post, that is the explanation I was looking for, the team can obviously see from load sensors on the suspension how much fuel is being burned of each lap. Another case of RB doing what they want not what is required. Holes in floors, flexi wing and questionable engine maps, ride hieght adjuster they ‘don’t use in the race’, all ended with a little slap on the wrist and “don’t have it on the car at the next event” well this time they got the full weight of zero tolerance thrown at them. Which is what I would expect for ANY team who had the same issue.

      • Well that’s f1 for ya. Some teams always seem to get away with a bit more, not only red bull. It’s like the farm animals said, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

  5. I was annoyed by everybody complaining about the sound of the engines after the decision was made, but watching todays race on television felt like watching a kart race. I don’t think it will be an issue when you’re actually there, since the former engines were definetely earshatteringly loud, and in my opinion, made watching a gp barely bearable, but on tv it takes away from the ecperience.

    • on the contrary, i found it enjoyable to be able to hear tires screeching and (as sky pointed out) to actually be able to hear the radio communications. i also found it interesting to be able to hear *other* noises from the onboard cameras, like when bo77as hit the wall – you could hear something was wrong before you saw it.

    • I think the problem lies more with what you are using to listen to the race with.

      Normal TV speakers are rubbish.

      Play through a decent amp and speakers, or as I, and many other TJ readers have, a good surround sound system – and the noise was fabulous 🙂

      As 519vdb said – you can clearly hear all sorts of differentiated sounds, whereas before with the V8’s, that was all you could hear.

      I love the new sound – as the Great Baretzky said – quiet is sexy 😉

        • I would have him odds on to replace Button.. but it depends on Honda/Ron wanting a WDC leading the team – could be Button or could be Alonso etc. but Magnussen shows it can be done with a rookie, the question now is if using two is possible.

          • True, but they’d be relying on 1 year’s F1 racing experience and then whatever else the test team still has. Granted they’d still be in a better position than most teams (which is why I think it’s doable).

    • Hehe! Thanks BJF. I just thought that whichever teammate scored first, or higher, ‘deserved’ the solid line. Had you noticed that, in their absence, both Massa and Vettel have been given the dotted-line treatment as well!

  6. Can’t help but feel a Lewis and Kevin comparison article would be a good one.. they both have similar junior records and a long McLaren junior history. Then K-Mag matches Lewis’ debut almost to a tee, but perhaps even more impressively, given the lack of testing now.

    Button, Davidson and Di Resta all winning the McLaren Autosport award could also be a pre-cursor of what’s to come for some of the other McLaren juniors – Vandoorne, de Vries etc. until there is space in the senior team/no WDC driver leading. Paffett/Turvey is a similar example of progressing to the test team when the way ahead is blocked.

  7. I’ve been trying to think of why RBR decided to break this rule. It is such a huge gamble to risk some decent points on the hope that either a sensor that has a history of irregularity or the bad PR of disqualifying an Aussie in Melbourne might be big enough reasons to let them keep their points with just a warning.

    The only thing I have read that makes sense is based the fact that all the other Renault cars were either slow or retired, and RBR never ran a full race distance in testing due to cooling problems. This weekend they chose to risk losing 2nd place points to keep running a high fuel flow.

    If they have been having turbo failures due to overheating, maybe because the intercooler is too small, one other way to cool the turbo is to add extra fuel into the mixture and run the engine rich for cooling. The extra fuel isn’t burned and changes to a gas state absorbing heat.

    It’s just a theory but if it’s true then the risk makes a lot more sense. The choice then becomes: A. follow the FIA demand, run the engine leaner, retire and get no points, OR B. ignore the FIA, run the engine rich, finish the race and appeal the penalty.

    If you had to choose guaranteed 0 points or a 50/50 chance of getting 12 or 15 points what would you choose? Knowing that everyone says the sensors can be faulty. It’s ruthless but the only smart choice is to break this rule, finish the race and take your chances.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.