Support NeoGAF

[Hammer24]

- RBR lawyers ask LOM, why the sensors showed a change from 1.3 to 1.8% in lap 37. Lom says, it was a minor change that went back on the next lap. There was no ramping up, as RBR states.
- Lom shows a chart with all of RIC laps, his corresponding fuel flow and lap times. Aside from laps 13 to 17 it shows measurings all the time over 100kg/h. First 12 laps between 100.5 and 100.8, after the SC phase between 100.4 and 101.1 kg/h. The last four laps, when RIC fought against MAG, read 101, 101, 101 and 101.1
- more numbers. Lom shows the discrepancy between RBR model and FIA measuring. Without the FIA offset the fuel flow would have been between 99.02 and 103.37 kg/h
- RBR lawyers go at him, want to know what position he has within FIA. Want to know why the FIA choose the Gill ffs. Lom says there have been two candidates, the other one presented a too complicated solution, which reacted too much to vibrations. Says Gill were the only ones able to produce a ultrasonic sensor working reliably in a racing environment.
- they ask him why the FIA put a backup model into the rules. Lom says its usual for the FIA to do this for crucial data. Says the backup model is no measuring, but a mathematical model, which the FIA only allows teams to use when its certain the ffs failed. RBR lawyers say that technical directive 0.3.1.30 says the sensors to be the primary system, so the backup had to be sensors as well and no math model (I don´t get it, doesn´t that contradict the teams stance to use their own math model??)
- Lom has now to explain, how the backup math model works. It was at first planned, to have every team make their own model, and put this through a lengthy validation process. FIA then decided to easen the process, sending a software expert to every team controlling each teams software, comparing it with engine tests.

 

[duckroll]

"Stefano Domenicali steps down as Ferrari F1 team boss" http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113446

I never thought I would see the day. Seemed like he was invincible even though the team has been dogshit for years. Now they just need to overhaul the entire team and maybe they have a chance in a year or two to be..... not a joke anymore. I hesitate to say "competitive".

 

[Nicktendo86]

And here we go:
12:46 Fabrice Lom now mentioned the modifications which have granted certain teams at the Gill-Senoren. Among other things, Red Bull, "We have found in some cases that when installing the sensors, the threads for the fuel feed lines was drilled so deep that the measurement section is damaged.

 

[Hammer24]

- and the grilling continues...
- RBR lawyers ask, how many ffs have broken by now
- Lom says 3 in AUS, 4 in MAL, 5-6 in BAH. Says BAh was a singular problem caused by broken gaskets, and has been rectified. Says there never was a problem, the ffs either gave correct readings, or failed altogether.
- they ask for wrong FIA offsets. Lom states, in all laps done by all drivers, it were 5% in AUS, 1.5% in MAL
- Lom now talking about modifications to the ffs done by the teams. Says RBR drilled the screw thread for the fuel hose too deep, this damaging the ffs
- RBR lawyers asking what happened to VER in BAH on his 2nd qualy try, when he got asked to reduce by 2.9%. Lom says that's new to him, but irrelevant anyway, since the software has been changed since BAH, so its not comparable to AUS and MAL.

 

[Dilly]

I never thought I would see the day. Seemed like he was invincible even though the team has been dogshit for years. Now they just need to overhaul the entire team and maybe they have a chance in a year or two to be..... not a joke anymore. I hesitate to say "competitive".

Meanwhile wasting Alonso's best years.

 

[Dutch Gronk]

"Stefano Domenicali steps down as Ferrari F1 team boss" http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113446

They're replacing the team principal with a salesman?

 

[Hammer24]

Meanwhile wasting Alonso's best years.

Did he trade in his soul and sign his FER contract in blood, effectively stopping him from going to another team? ;-P

On with the trial...
- RBR lawyer strategy seems to be to try to perplex Lom. Much back and forth about the validity of technical directives (are they even rules?), possibilities of sensor defects and wrong team calculations. Let´s see how long the judge is gonna take it.
- Now Lom gets asked again about the lap37 change. Lom repeats his stance from earlier, it has been an exception, not a ramping up.

 

[kiyomi]

"Stefano Domenicali steps down as Ferrari F1 team boss" http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113446

Finally, that team might move forward.

Spoiler

Or even further backwards.

 

[Zeppu]

I heard Domenicali was personally making the Ferrari PU heavier and thirstier.

 

[Hammer24]

Fun fact: one of the RBR lawyers is named "Lazarus".

 

[Shaneus]

Dullard question: Can anyone summarise to me exactly what Domenicali did at Ferrari (or didn't do) do screw them up?

 

[ConstructMe]

Feel bad tho he seems like a cool guy- who the hell is the new guy.

 

[Nicktendo86]

So they are going with the 'technical directives are not really rules' route. They have no case.

 

[ConstructMe]

What did they do in race 2/3 ??

 

[kmag]

So they are going with the 'technical directives are not really rules' route. They have no case.

Technical directives aren't rules. Neither rule book ever mentions them. The Sporting and Technical rule books are the rules. TD's are how the FIA are interpreting the rule book, and the TD's can and do change frequently during the season whereas the rule book is largely static, and there are fixed consultation processes for rule changes which just aren't there for TD's.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Technical directives aren't rules.

You really think the fia will let that fly? Sets a terrible precedent.

 

[operon]

bye bye stefano

 

[brotkasten]

"For sure we know where we need to improve the car and our team at Maranello is working day and night to get it right."

 

[kmag]

You really think the fia will let that fly? Sets a terrible precedent.

Neither rule book ever mentions them. The Sporting and Technical rule books are the rules. Amendments to the rule book get voted on by the World Motor Sport Council, TD's don't. TD's are how the FIA are interpreting the rule book, and the TD's can and do change frequently during the season whereas the rule book is largely static.

If you want to make them rules, then they should go in the rulebook and be subject to the same consultation and voting process at the World Motor Sport Council. But that would be completely unworkable as the TD's by necessity need to change pretty frequently.

A simple stated, TD's should be followed needs to go in the rules. It currently isn't there. But if it is there then the nature of some TD's will need to change as they've been kind of using them as back door rule making. TD's aren't generally public so it's a bit rich to say they're rules when the rest of the rule book is publicly available. I don't think RB's argument will fly because of the chaos it would cause but they do have a more than reasonable argument.

 

[operon]

surely RBR haven't a case.

 

[Hammer24]

While Horner is playing on his cell phone, the discussion basically boils down to the FIA (Lom) saying that Sepang proves they were right in Melbourne, and RBR (lawyers) are saying it can´t be compared, as the engines ran 20° hotter in Sepang.
- Lazarus trying a new tack: he concedes that RBR has been over the limit "in certain sequences", but below on the average. Lom says that's irrelevant, as you have to be under all the time. Now they are arguing, why the FIA changed the offset as a result of FP1 and didn´t stay with the offset of the beginning of FP1.
- Lom can go now, up comes Evan Short.

 

[duckroll]

Thanks for the updates Hammer24. Really appreciate it. It seems so far that Red Bull doesn't have a very strong case if they're fighting on technicalities. Horner's "confidence" in their appeal looks like a lot of hot air right now...

 

[Hammer24]

- Lazarus tackles Short, saying its a wrong accusation by him, to state that RBR is wrong in saying their math model to be more accurate than FIA measuring
- Short answers that measuring is always more accurate, any math model can only be close
- Lazarus asks about ROS being over in Melbourne qualy. Short says that was the case, after the warning by FIA they immediately changed the offset.

 

[Hasney]

- Lazarus tackles Short

As soon as I read that, I pictured a rugby tackle and thought things were getting out of hand.

I really need some sleep.

 

[DBT85]

Goodbye Stefano "for sure" Domenicali.

 

[Zeknurn]

@pitlanetalk: Mattiacci is a temporary replacement. Flavio Briatore and Ross Brawn are still priority and Montezemolo is keen to have one of them. #F1

Good good.

 

[Hammer24]

As soon as I read that, I pictured a rugby tackle and thought things were getting out of hand.

I really need some sleep.

Yeah, sounds like you are close to the truth...
- Lazarus: you are doubting Monaghan´s competence when you say its wrong that FIA changed the offset over FP1.
- Short: I don´t doubt Monaghan´s competence, but I think he was wrong there.I know from experience, that even with constant engine data the fuel flow rate can change.
- Lazarus: That might be right for Merc engines, but what makes you think this goes for Renault too?
- Short: Engine knowledge. That goes for all, and not just some manufacturers.

Judge orders a 15min break.

My conclusion thus far: RBR lacks a clear strategy. Thus far they weren´t able to show that their math model is more precise than the sensor data. They didn´t fully go the "technical directives are no rules" route, as this would open up all kinds of cans of worms. They couldn´t show the sensors being faulty by themselves, or having a high failure rate. They had to concede that going by their own data gave them an advantage of .4secs a lap.
I´m unsure how they´ll get out of that, close from saying FIA can´t judge the sport at all. From what we heard so far its hard to make out, were they would have been at a disadvantage compared to other teams. Especially as they adhered to the rules the last two races, and were competitive.

 

[TCRS]

"I quit."
"Thank god."

holy shit! megaton! never thought I'd see the day. but after this:

it was kind of inevitable.

 

[theignoramus]

Bye bye Stefano. But his hollow excuses and reassurances were a symptom of the disease,not the core problem itself. more shakeups needs to happen.

 

[prettyvacant77]

holy shit! megaton! never thought I'd see the day. but after this:

it was kind of inevitable.

As soon as his eyes drop you can see he's made his decision...

 

[Nicktendo86]

I don't think RB's argument will fly because of the chaos it would cause but they do have a more than reasonable argument.

I would agree with this if it hadn't been for the fact that all other teams stuck to the TD. You are right of course, on a technical level but as you say the chaos that would kick up if teams decided to pick and choose which TD to follow so I suspect the FIA will have to throw this appeal out, there is no other choice to be made.

 

[Hammer24]

Using the break I read up a bit on the judge, Harry Duijm. He´s vice president of the FIA international court of appeal. Thus far I haven´t been able to find a single decision, were he overruled a stewards decision.

 

[Hammer24]

Now we know how long 15min are in lawyer world... room fills up again.
No more witnesses, time for the pleading. RBR start.

 

[DBT85]

Now we know how long 15min are in lawyer world... room fills up again.
No more witnesses, time for the pleading. RBR start.

"please, we are Red Bull, we shall leave the sport"

 

[Dutch Gronk]

holy shit! megaton! never thought I'd see the day. but after this:

it was kind of inevitable.

This .gif kinda makes me think Stefano is lucky that he's still alive.

 

[Nicktendo86]

I´m unsure how they´ll get out of that, close from saying FIA can´t judge the sport at all. From what we heard so far its hard to make out, were they would have been at a disadvantage compared to other teams. Especially as they adhered to the rules the last two races, and were competitive.

Indeed, but not as competitive as in Oz. They have not been anywhere near able to compete to get on the podium, let alone split the mercs.

 

[systemfehler]

Thanks for all the RBR case updates. Reads like a prime time daily soap.

 

[jey_16]

SD is gone....finally! I'll take Flav, Ross or both

 

[Nicktendo86]

Is the hearing due to last just today? Are we expecting to hear the result today does anyone know?

 

[mclem]

SD is gone....finally! I'll take Flav, Ross or both

Both would be some sort of crazy left brain / right brain thing.

 

[DBT85]

Thanks for all the RBR case updates. Reads like a prime time daily soap.

Just waiting to find out who slept with who and which one tried to kill Gail Platt.

 

[kmag]

I would agree with this if it hadn't been for the fact that all other teams stuck to the TD. You are right of course, on a technical level but as you say the chaos that would kick up if teams decided to pick and choose which TD to follow so I suspect the FIA will have to throw this appeal out, there is no other choice to be made.

Rules are rules though. If the impact of the logical conclusion of the rule book is chaos then frankly it's the rule book should be changed. If we're making up rules as we go along on the basis of what would happen if we didn't then there's something wrong with the rule book.

If the WMSC hadn't just met, I'd probably say the best course of action would be a change to the actual rulebook around TD's via the WMSC and just quietly sweeping the Melbourne debacle under the carpet, reinstating Ric and saying look there was legitimate ambiguity over the place of TD's in the rule book which has now been closed going forward. TD's are the applicable definition of the rule book. If there is any issue with TD's going forward appeal to the WMSC.

And I don't particularly care for RB at all. Just think they have a bit of a point over the current rule book.

 

[Hammer24]

Lawyer Ali Malek speaking for RBR:
- we did not cheat
- we did not ignore FIA on purpose
- we did not want to undermine FIA
- this would only have been the case, if the technical directive were a rule
- but it is no rule, so FIA can´t decide all by themselves, if teams use the backup math model
- so we didn´t break any rules
- we didn´t go back to the backup as tickled by our fancy, but as its stated in the rules, when there are serious doubts it should be gone back to the backup model, and that's what we did
- we have proven our model is correct, the FIA did not prove their measurings are correct

 

[duckroll]

LOL. They really are going all in on "technical directives are not rules". Omg.

 

[Dutch Gronk]

SD is gone....finally! I'll take Flav, Ross or both

I'm just done sending an email to Ferrari their HR department. I think I have a good shot at the job.

Lawyer Ali Malek speaking for RBR:
- we did not cheat
- we did not ignore FIA on purpose
- we did not want to undermine FIA
- this would only have been the case, if the technical directive were a rule
- but it is no rule, so FIA can´t decide all by themselves, if teams use the backup math model
- so we didn´t break any rules
- we didn´t go back to the backup as tickled by our fancy, but as its stated, when there are serious doubts it should be gone back to the backup model, and that's what we did
- we have proven our model is correct, the FIA did not prove their measurings are correct

Red Bull pls

You've been cheating, ignoring the FIA and undermining them for years now. Let's not act like you stopped.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Can't believe that this is their argument, thought they would have something a bit more concrete tbh
14:41 Red Bull denied himself against the accusation that they do what they wanted and decide as they see fit, which measurement has relevance. The rules provide a backup measure in the event that there is reasonable doubt as to the first measurement method exist. This was the case in Melbourne. The team has proven that their own Messuing was correct, and the FIA had failed to prove that their own measurement is reliable.

 

[Hammer24]

Now lawyer Michael Lazarus speaking for RBR:
- his topic is, if sensor #73 did work correctly
- FIA did not prove, that this sensor did work correctly from the second half of training over the rest of the weekend
- its quite the opposite, we did not change the fuel flow rate, but the sensor showed a higher and higher rate
- this happened twice, once in the middle of the first practice, and in lap37 of the race
- we showed no engine data changed at this time, so the sensor has to be incorrect


Both so far sound to me like pre-prepared statements, that in no way reflect what has been said in the testimonials this morning.

- Lazarus: Lom was unable to explain the fuel flow rise in the middle of first training
- He only gave speculation. He had no answer for the lap37 thing as well.
- FIA is incorrect, as they used spikes, and no long time average.
- if going by the FIA, they´d even be over in the safety car phase, which is impossible (wut? Lom showed different data? Whats going on here?)

 

[Nicktendo86]

They don't seem to get it, fia don't have to prove it was working, rb have to prove it wasn't. Which they haven't.

Edit: I should say I don't think they have to a satisfactory degree.

 

[mclem]

Just waiting to find out who slept with who and which one tried to kill Gail Platt.

I didn't know these guys had an F1 team.

 

[mclem]

The team has proven that their own Messuing was correct, and the FIA had failed to prove that their own measurement is reliable.

Isn't it possible to prove which measurement is correct by comparing the fuel at the start with the fuel at the end? If F1A are claiming too much fuel flow over the race as a whole, then surely they'd have figures suggesting that there's less fuel left in the RBR than RB's calculations?