Daniel Ricciardo, Red Bull, Albert Park, 2014

Red Bull lose appeal against Ricciardo’s Australian Grand Prix disqualification

2014 Australian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Red Bull have lost their appeal against Daniel Ricciardo’s disqualification from the Australian Grand Prix following a hearing of the FIA Court of Appeal in Paris.

The FIA issued a statement saying: “The court, after having heard the parties and examined their submissions, decided to uphold the decision number 56 of the stewards by which they decided to exclude Infiniti Red Bull Racing’s car number three from the results of the 2014 Australian Grand Prix.

“The International Court of Appeal was presided over by Mr Harry Duijm (Netherlands), and included Mr Rui Botica Santos (Portugal), Mr Philippe Narmino (Monaco), Mr Antonio Rigozzi (Switzerland) and Mr Jan Stovicek (Czech Republic).”

An FIA Court of Appeal was convened yesterday in Paris to hear Red Bull’s appeal.

Red Bull issued a statement saying it accepts the verdict of the court:

“Infiniti Red Bull Racing accepts the ruling of the International Court of Appeal today.

“We are of course disappointed by the outcome and would not have appealed if we didn’t think we had a very strong case. We always believed we adhered to the technical regulations throughout the 2014 Australian Grand Prix.

“We are sorry for Daniel (Ricciardo) that he will not be awarded the 18 points from the event, which we think he deserved. We will continue to work very hard to amass as many points as possible for the team, Daniel and Sebastian (Vettel) throughout the season.

“We will now move on from this and concentrate on this weekend’s Chinese Grand Prix.”

Ricciardo said: “It’s disappointing not to get the 18 points from Australia, but if anything it gives me more motivation to get back on the podium as soon as possible.

“I’ve had a few setbacks in the first couple of races this year, but in Bahrain I demonstrated that, if anything, I’m stronger for it and hungrier than ever to get back on the podium. Not that I need any more motivation, I’m pumped!

“I’m still really happy with my performance in Australia and for having had the experience of being on the podium in front of the home crowd. I said that week, I’d rather have a great race, finish on the podium and then be excluded than to have had a rubbish race and then retire with a car problem halfway through.”

The FIA will publish a full reasoning for the verdict later this week.

2014 Australian Grand Prix

Browse all 2014 Australian Grand Prix articles

Image © Red Bull/Getty

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

212 comments on “Red Bull lose appeal against Ricciardo’s Australian Grand Prix disqualification”

  1. Paulius Kvedaras
    15th April 2014, 9:53

    i guess Ricciardo will still be smiling.

    1. Not that I need any more motivation, I’m pumped!

      Love it. Ricciardo is just great.

    2. He’s a good bloke in a good team. I’m sorry for him because he really deserved the points as a driver. It’s a bit unfair to punish the driver for infringement of technical regulation which is in my opinon responsibilty of the team. I cannot fathom what sense does it make to punish a driver because turbocharger on his car failed and hence destroyed the engine. The best solution would be to strip off the points from the team in the constructor’s table. The driver should be punished in the case of sporting regulation infringement. This isue was a bit more complexed because it resulted in performance gain but I am sure there are better solutions.
      RBR team showed they are behind their man. However, the way they dealt with the issue was imature, not to mention Christian’s behaviour in the Court room. I find extremely disrespecful to use smartphone ( in any way ) during the hearing. They should also learn that you must never question the system. I can’t help not thinking about one guy who was a pure genius in the situations like this. To bad he’s is enjoying fishing too much to bother with F1 anymore.

  2. I’m so pleased this is the verdict they decided on. Red Bull broke the rules and they should be punished even if the fuel sensors are faulty

    1. What an odd statement. If the fuel sensors were broken how would they know if they broke the rules?

      It will be interesting the reasons they chose to come to this conclusion as they accepted Red Bulls measurements were accurate after Melbourne, they accepted the sensors broke (and therefore can break) as they did on Dan’s car in Malaysia and on the STRs.
      On top of this its debatable whether you can be punished on a technical derivative (which isn’t a regulation).
      So yeah, interested on the reasoning used and how it will effect others when the sensors are faulty again.

      1. Of cause you should be punished for not following technical directives. If not why would anybody else follow them? There are loads of things in there that could give you an advantage should you ignore them, like the camber and toe-in on the tires if I’m not mistaken.

      2. @KaRn could the sensors be faulty because the Renault teams have been modifying them to help mount them perhaps? Something that’s banned from Barcelona onwards?

        1. I wouldn’t be surpirsed if thats the case

        2. That’s why God gave us the gift of gaffer tape :)

    2. FIA clearly said that Daniel’s car was above the fuel limit throughout the race except the SC period & some 4 laps. He gained performance benefits cause of higher fuel flow while McLaren was chasing him down. Also FIA said either the sensor is a dud and reports no reading or it’s accurate & faulty sensors can be replaced and fuel flow should be calibrated as per the new sensor. It was obvious RBR were playing beyond the rules and were rightly punished. Also FIA said vettels car was legal, the problem with Daniels car was RBR ignored FIA directive to calibrate fuel flow as per sensor.

  3. cheaters! Christian Horner should stop moaning for a while now.

    1. I don’t think RBR cheated, I can’t understand why Charlie didn’t give RIC a black flag if RBR continued all race with the sensor showing 101 kg/hr .
      All this crap could have been avoided had Horner just been told , ” comply or park the car”
      By Charlie Whiting !

      1. In a way I can see that, but on the other hand I’m not sure that’s how it works, or can, or should. I think the fact that it took the stewards 5 1/2 hours to decide to dsq DR means there were things to consider, and perhaps things too complex for CW to play judge and jury during the race.

        That said, surely Horner must have had at least some small if not greater concern that ignoring the FIA would not go unpunished, but thought he could appeal his way through it based on his own take on things.

      2. Hey,That would be logical! They cant do that.Thank you for finally adding some reason to this topic.

      3. Because their argument is that the sensor is faulty. If the sensor is truly not working, then Ric probably wouldn’t be disqualified. My guess is that it turns out that either the sensor is working as intended but RB felt that it wasn’t accurate enough thus using their own measurement (which if I’m not mistaken, Ric was constantly at 101Kg/hr for the last 4 laps, basically while being chased by Mag, so it was convenient for them to use their own measurement or Ric might be overtaken by Mag) or the faulty sensor is an installation fault (by RB) or the sensor was really faulty but RB didn’t do the correct procedure for using the backup measurement method.
        Basically, Ric wasn’t disqualified immediately because there was a chance that the measuring device was really broken.

  4. It was ruled, we lost, if they say we broke the rules we have to pay…
    Have to trie and work around this….

    1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
      15th April 2014, 10:03

      Do you work for RBR?

      1. @topcherchee21 Nop

        1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
          15th April 2014, 11:02

          Why do you say “we” then? lol

          1. Beeing a fan i assume i could use the “we” word, unless you have something against in that case, my apoligies, and wil not do that again

        2. You’re doing it wrong: it’s only “we” if we win.

          1. LOL.

            My late grand mother was used to say “we eat together, we starve together” :)

    2. If RB wants to be back on top they have to do what got them there in the first place, not what kept them there.

  5. Milky White
    15th April 2014, 9:58

    How did you break this before even AutoSport?! You’re amazing, Keith!

    1. The best site for f1 indeed :)

    2. autosport are getting a bit lazy these days

      1. Lucas Wilson (@full-throttle-f1)
        15th April 2014, 14:06


        So true!

      2. Sky Sports will have it tomorrow (EXCLUSIVE) with some photos of cameramen.

  6. This is the result i was hoping for it is sad for Daniel but you cannot just go around ignoring Tech Directives as and when it suits you. Truthfully I believe that this was the only possible outcome even if RedBull showed they ran at 98kg/h the whole race.

    1. This is exactly right. It has nothing to do with fuel sensors, Its about playing by the rules.

  7. When Newey yesterday admitted they gained 0.4 per lap by not decreasing their fuel flow as instructed, I’ve had a feeling the verdict must be like this. It was either this or completely scrapping the fuel flow restriction rule.

    1. To their own admittance, Daniel did not deserve 18 points, he deserved only 12 for third (Newey mentioned it would have cost them the place).

      1. he deserved only 12 for third

        So now he only deserves 80% of the points other drivers get for third? ;)

        1. Actually 40%, since Australia is a half point race.

    2. You’re phrasing that completely wrong. They avoided to lose 0,4 seconds by not decreasing fuel flow to, what they feelt, was below the legal limit due to a faulty sensor. And how 1% difference in fuel flow equals almost half a tenth I have no idea how accurate that really is

    3. It will be interesting to see the full verdict. I have a feeling there’s more than what is communicated today. The scrapping of the sensors for future races or a change in how they are used?

      Red Bull accepted the verdict immediately and I don’t think they would have done so unless they got something for their effort.

      There was never a chance the appeal would have succeeded as that would have possibly “tainted” 3 races. I believe Red Bull was very much aware of this and used the hearing as pressure to change something for the future.

      1. What I don’t get is why it’s only a problem for them if every team has the same type of sensor. Maybe it’s how they’re modifying it?

  8. Good to have this one clear so we can get on with the season. Was a stupid (arrogant even?) decision by RBR to ignore what the FIA told them to. I fully expect the team to quickly catch up, push Renault to make the engine work to their advantage again and fight for the title this year!

  9. Well, probably everybody expected such decision. On the other hand, FIA should sort out their sensor problem. Sensors should be bullet proof at this stage, because teams are competing and it might influence results, and FIA are responsible for that. It’s pinnacle of motorsports after all. Teams are required to come to terms with highly complex new regulations this year, while FIA can’t sort such simple thing as fuel flow sensor.

    1. FIA can’t sort such simple thing as fuel flow sensor.

      Such a clueless statement… these devices are not ‘simple fuel flow sensors’ and it’s not like there’s a jurry-rigged twist-valve that slows the fuel or anything. They’re industry-grade ultrasonic sensors that measure up to ~130ml of fluid per second without impeding the flow of the fuel what so ever, something rarely explored in competitive motorsport.

      Firstly, no sensor can ever be bulletproof or 100% accurate, more so if the sensor is a passive sensor – there is always an accepted variance/error rate.

      Secondly, Gill officially state that ~52% of the sensors are accurate to within 0.1%, with 92% of units produced accurate to within 0.25% (source), with this value guarenteed for 30 days from manufacture. There’s no documentation regarding the remaining 8%, but i’d imagine in such a case they would be identified and replaced ahead of competitive running.

      If a sensor is mis-reading or fails, the unit can be swapped out (outside of competitive running) or operated with an accepted correction value of ~4% in order to comply with the regulations. If the unit has failed, a backup system, such as the engine fuel injectors/fuel rail, can be used, provided it is operated under FIA guidance with the correction value.

      Any argument that the FIA needs to ‘sort their sensors’ is either a gross-misunderstanding, a massive simplification or intentional misdirection.

      Any discussion of the issue also regularly bypasses the fact that Red Bull Racing, Toro Rosso and Lotus F1 have all been caught modifying their sensors so as to make them easier to fit – it’s no secret that these 3 teams have had the most issues with the meters reading consistently either. The FIA has issued a (heh) Technical Directive stating that as of Barcelona, no sensor can be modified what so ever.

      1. @optimaximal
        Thanks for the well written and informative comment.

      2. Mr win or lose
        15th April 2014, 11:25


      3. @optimaximal Well, I’m not an expert and I don’t have big understanding of fuel flow sensors. My point was that they should be more reliable, bacause there already have been a few failures, therefore they should be made as more reliable. But anyway, thank you for explaining the whole thing to me. :)

        1. @osvaldas31 I’m honestly no expert either. I’ve just gotten fairly annoyed at all the misinformation spread about the sensors by both interested parties and the clueless media.

      4. @optimaximal The values in the data-sheet are produced under lab conditions as long as they don’t provide details on the testing procedures/conditions the FWHM value of .1% means pretty much nothing.
        What’s frustrating about this problem is that folks from Audi and Porsche complained about the sensor’s sensitivity to temperature and vibrations back in October and the first F1 tests revealed similar issues. But instead of being all over this from the beginning they procrastinated until it hit them over their head.
        That RBR did wrong is out of the question but the FIA was in all this the FIA one more time.

      5. I do not feel like this explanation is getting FIA off the hook. According to these figures, about half of the sensors cannot do better than 0.25% reliability. Now a quarter of % of a typical lap time is something like 0.25 sec difference, which is a lot. Of course, a certain delta in fuel delivery does not directly translate to the same delta in engine output, which in turn does not translate directly to difference in speed, so I wonder. I think the relevant question is whether FIA can guarantee a sensor precision that would not influence lap time by more than 0.01 sec or so. It seems that right now the answer is no, which is very worrying.

        1. I believe this is where the FIA’s offset comes in, based on the specific sensor

        2. I don’t think you can correlate the same inaccuracy on flow as lap time as the cars are not at full throttle all the time. What you can say is that power is related to fuel flow, thus with say a maximum of 600 BHP a 0.25% drop in fuel flow could equate to a drop in power of 1.5 BHP

        3. @ph

          According to these figures, about half of the sensors cannot do better than 0.25% reliability.

          No. According to these figures, about half of the sensors cannot do better than 0.1% reliability, with about 8% of those produced not able to do better than 0.25% reliability.

          1. @matt90
            Well that’s precisely the point. For half of the sensors they can guarantee error not larger than 0.10% For the other half thay could not, and the next best thing they can guarantee is 0.25% for some 40% of sensors. This suggests that the error is around this figure or more for the other half, because if it were smaller, say, 0.15%,for a significant portion of sensors, then they would tell us (makes them look better).
            If course this is just a guess, the crucial question really is what real precision in lap time they are capable of achieving reliably and consistently. So far I havn’t seen any word on that.

          2. This suggests that the error is around this figure or more for the other half

            Or there’s just a fairly even spread for the 40% which fall within 0.1 and 0.25%. There isn’t much point speculating.

      6. petebaldwin (@)
        15th April 2014, 15:00

        @optimaximal – That totally misses the point.

        Ok, perhaps the comment you responded to should have read “FIA can’t sort such simple thing as limiting fuel flow.”

        The rule states that cars cannot exceed the 100kg/hr flow rate. The FIA decided the best method to ensure this was to use a fuel sensor to check how much fuel is used.

        You said it yourself – “no sensor can ever be bulletproof or 100% accurate”

        So why use a fuel flow sensor and not a fuel flow restrictor?

        1. @petebaldwin – flow restrictors with such a high precision are pretty complicated too. Toyota has developed one but F1 not only restricts the max. fuel flow it also restricts the flow below 10500 rpm (based on the torque map afaik) – a variable flow rate is something a restrictor can’t handle.

          1. my bad has nothing to do with the torque map and only with the rpms

            5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5

            so for 9000 rpm they are only allowed to use 86,5kg/h and so on.

        2. Probably because a mechanical restrictor cannot compensate for fuel density?

        3. That’s simple, a restrictor will pass more liquid given a higher dP. Liquids are fairly incompressible so by measuring velocity using an ultrasonic device it does not matter what the dP is, just the density

      7. Hang on a minute.. As mentioned above 0.25% is something like 0,25 seconds. Lets look at Australia specifically

        Of Rosberg’s fastest lap (1:32.4) at the Australian GP that is 0.1s variability in performance for half the grid!!!

        8% operate with a 0.25% variability – that is 0.25s a lap. 8% of 22 cars is 1.76 cars.

        It could be argued that it is therefore statistically likely that one car every Grand Prix is running 0.25s faster or slower than they should. (variability could go both ways)

        I assume if a team see’s the FIA sensor UNDER-reporting the fuel rate in comparison to their own they just think “bonus” and keep on running.

        If the sensor looks to be over-reporting the fuel rate they are supposed to inform the FIA, who will then tell them to back off a further 4%. There is another 0.4s.

        The height of innovation pffftt

        1. Again you would have to assume that the cars are at full throttle all the time for that to be true and clearly that cannot be so. The device is to stop you exceeding 100 kg/hr so if it is out by 0.25% then the allowance is down to 99.75 kg/hr!!!! or 100.25 kg/hr

          1. @sars No, the FIA has mandated an error rate of 0% above the fuel flow limit and that 0.25% below. The sensor is considered not acceptable if the error allows it to go above the allotted 100kg/hr flow.

          2. The sensor is considered not acceptable if the error allows it to go above the allotted 100kg/hr flow.

            Then most sensors will be unacceptable, as even a ‘perfectly’ accurate sensor is limited by its resolution, meaning there will always be a minor tolerance.

        2. a 0.25% variability – that is 0.25s a lap

          Where are you getting that from? Even if the cars were full throttle all lap, power doesn’t have a linear relationship to speed.

    2. @osvaldas31 I would also point out that in fact not everybody expected this decision. Not even close.

      Many thought that RBR would win their appeal by proving they did not in fact exceed the 100kg/hr flow rate during the race (and qualifying). Some even suggested, including RBR, that somehow things that have happened since Australia would make their case stronger, when in fact anything after Australia would have nothing to do with the circumstances of the Australian GP for which they were penalized.

      Some even suggested that because their performance since Australia while presumably complying with the regs, particularly DR’s, has been half-decent, they must not have had that much of an advantage from ignoring the FIA in Australia, and therefore should be let off the hook. Wishful thinking, methinks.

      Some have even suggested a conspiracy against RBR to ensure they do not bore the audience with a fifth Championship in a row.

      1. “I would also point out that in fact not everybody expected this decision”

        If you include RB fans then yes, not everyone expected this decision.

      2. Brilliant…conspiracy theories. As has been pointed out before in this thread, the result of the panel had NOTHING to do with fuel flow and EVERYTHING to do with laying down a marker that the Technical Directives DO hold regulatory value.

        Any other response from the FIA would have invalidate the Technical Directives which are used to correct holes in the regulations (McLaren’s brake/steer device springs to mind, the Renault “sprung mass” they used in the nose is another example).

        No conspiracy theory, this would have happened to ANY team because it was (to the FIA, and I agree) the ONLY possible response to their challenge to their power to regulate the championship.

  10. Common sense prevails…

  11. This was the only decision the FIA could come to. Merc were looking for payback after RBR wanted blood after the tyre test last year.

    1. @westy And by the way, what happen to Merc? Was Merc punished for breaking the rules?

      1. Mercedes was found to break the rules and they were punished by not being allowed to test during last years YDT turned tyre testing session @yes-master.

      2. Yes, they were banned from a later test….

      3. Yes they were banned from the Silverstone test, a Huge punishment as we can see know..

        1. The tyre changes did make it a bit more of a punishment for them though @hipn0tic, although I do agree with what @westy mentions – the punishment fits the crime.

      4. The punishment fitted the crime, RBR gained 0.4 a lap.

        1. So if the punishment should fit the crime what the hell happened to Mercedes for the test last year? I disagree with most of the comments here who are having a crack at RBR. If the FIA’s sensor had a history of erroneous readings (which it did) and RBR were instructed to re-install a sensor proven to be previously faulty (which they were) and then it played up again why would you not ignore the instruction and trust your own data, which would have had a lot more money thrown at the development of trustworthy readouts than a sensor?

          At the end of the day RBR have been punished not for breaking the 100kg/he rule but for ignoring the FIA’s instruction to turn the engine down to make the sensor read less than 100kg/hr. If RBR had exceeded 100kg/hr then the FIA would have shouted that from the rooftops. But it didn’t, thus why Horner was so confident of victory. That and the ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT from the Merc case last year regarding the validity of TDs.

          I think that RBR were unfairly punished for the unreliability of the FIA sensors and for the FIA sticking their head in the sand over the well-documented issues they were having. Instead of seeing sense they have simply said you didn’t do as we ask, regardless of whether you actually broke the fuel flow limit or not doesn’t matter, you ignored us, you get disqualified.

          Now just imagine if the FIA had taken the same approach to Merc’s test last year? Not just a no-show at a YDT as the punishment, but actual removal of points – that would have been a punishment that fitted the crime, as everyone knows in-season private testing has been banned for years (outside of the FIA approved test days of course). Not just a one-off finish either – a punishment of similar proportions for their ‘crime’ should have included a multi race ban.

          To me a more appropriate punishment would have been a reinstatement of Ricciardo’s place and drivers championship points but 0 constructors points. I mean how is the team managing the fuel flow within the legal limit using alternative and more accurate means (therefore being within the rules) worse than what McLaren did in 2007, yet their drivers kept their points?

          I think the anti-RBR sentiment that has built up because of finger-boy and the last four years has even filtered through to the FIA. Even they will ignore their own precedents and punish them in the hope someone else wins the championship this year.

          RBR you were robbed. Hang your head in shame FIA…

          1. @clay Beautiful. My sentiments are similar but I couldn’t have written it so well.

          2. @clay I disagree completely, and it starts with the fact that this issue this year has nothing to do with last year’s Pirelli tire test, and the two scenarios are not comparable.

            So far we haven’t heard the FIA’s exact reasoning for upholding their decision, so you cannot claim it is because of any one specific thing, and I would suggest the very reason the team was warned during the weekend is that RBR was indeed breaching the flow rate of 100 and the FIA were indeed shouting it from the rooftops by giving RBR a chance to comply…at least they did that…they warned RBR and got ignored for it.

            This is not about some imagined anti-RBR sentiment. What it is about is something the FIA will soon announce when they explain their reasoning for upholding their decision to disqualify DR.

          3. Oh dear, there’s so much wrong with this statement @clay.

            Firstly, in what world is it fair for the teams to measure their own fuel?!
            So, for qualifying in China, if Kimi Raikkonen refuses to be weighed, then pops along to the FIA later and says “oh, I’ve just weighed myself at the Ferrari garage, and I weight X kg”, that’s apparently okay, as long as Ferrari have invested more money into their scales?!

            Again, removal of points from Mercedes wouldn’t have worked. Which points should they lose? The technical infringement occured outside of a race weekend, so to tamper with any result would be illogical.

            And why on earth should Ricciardo keep his points? He was driving an illegal car!
            Let’s suppose that Red Bull make a version of their X2014 and bring that to china. And every other race this year. Yep, WDC number 5 for, as you called him, “Finger-Boy”. According to your logic, Red Bull should be disqualified from the constructors championship, but Vettel should keep all his points and thus his 5th title. Fair? I think not.
            As mentioned above by CyclopsPL and BasCB, they admitted that they would have lost second had they turned their engine down.

            Before you accuse me of being “anti-RBR”, save your breath. I’m not anti RBR, I’m just seeing things logically. As with drive-throughs for unsafe releases, this isn’t fair on the driver, but unfortunately it is the only feasible punishment.

          4. You are missing the core issue. The FIA told them they were non compliant to the regulations and then RB ignored them. The numbers and figures don’t matter. The FIA is the law in F1 like it or not. And as we have all observed the law is not always fair.

          5. @clay To compare this to Merc’s transgression misses one of the major points of that case…Charlie Whiting made a mistake and gave what appeared to be permission to Merc for them to conduct the test.

            In addition, to take away the team points but not the driver points would be to rob the other points scoring finishers who did comply by the rules. And how is that fair? What you’re saying there is “RBR, you misbehaved and ran your car in contravention of our orders – lose your points. Sorry to those positioned 2 -> 10, you lose out in the championship despite the fact that the car which beat you wasn’t running legally.” Doesn’t hang together in my mind.

  12. It was the only logical decision, they cant have teams doing things on their own accord. Chaos would ensue if that happened. Red Bull should have listened and taken some points home.

  13. Out of interest can anyone remember any team winning an appeal?

    I assume at some point in the sports past someone has launched an appeal against a stewards decision but for the life of me I can’t remember a single time it has happened.

    1. I assume at some point in the sports past someone has *SUCCESSFULLY* launched an appeal against a stewards decision but for the life of me I can’t remember a single time it has happened.

      1. SomeSayImTheStig
        15th April 2014, 10:21

        For me, Malaysia 1999 springs to mind, with the barge boards on the Ferrari’s being initially declared illegal, only to have the initial stance overturned during an appeal.

      2. SPANISH DRIVER FERNANDO ALONSO will race at his home Grand Prix in Valencia this weekend after the FIA Court of Appeal overturned Renault’s one-race suspension.

        The French outfit was penalised by stewards at the Hungarian Grand Prix for releasing Alonso from his pit box before his front right wheel had been properly fitted. The wheel subsequently came loose and was launched from the car on his out lap.


        1. petebaldwin (@)
          15th April 2014, 15:06

          In all fairness though, banning a driver because of a mistake by a mechanic is crazy! You have the punish the team either financially or ban the whole team from the next race. Not just one driver.

          1. The original ban was against the Renault team, not just Alonso. And I’m pretty sure it was the team’s decision to send Alonso back out on track when they knew full well there was no wheet nut on the tyre. It wasn’t like Ricciardo where they stopped him straight away. If I remember rightly that incident came soon after Henry Surtees was killed by a tyre as well so in retrospect I think they got away with one there by avoiding the ban.

          2. If I remember right, that was after the Singapore crashgate had bombed, and at the time it looked very likely that Renault would have quit altogether had they been kept out of those races @debaser91.

            I do think that this incident was what changed teams towards rather being safe than sorry and trying to have their cars stop ASAP when wheelnuts are not fixed

    2. Graeme Marsden
      15th April 2014, 10:20

      Ferrari won their appeal from their exclusion from the 1999 Malaysian GP due to illegal barge boards. Ross Brawn convinced the appeal panel with his bendy ruler.

      1. LOL!

    3. The Ferrari Bargeboard appeal was successful.

    4. The main example I can remember is Ferrari first being disqualified from the 1999 Malaysian GP, then winning on appeal. (This was with regards to bargeboard measurements.)

      Another example is the 1995 Brazilian GP, where Benetton and Williams were disqualified for fuel infringements. Their drivers were reinstated on appeal, but they were not awarded constructors points.

    5. I remember Renault successfully appealed a race ban in 2009 for the European Grand Prix which would have seen Alonso miss his home race, although I don’t think that went to the FIA court.

    6. I wasn’t following F1 back then but Ferrari launched an appeal when their car was disqualified in one of the last races of the 1999 season and thus gave Hakkinen the title. They won their appeal but Hakkinen won the championship anyway.

      1. Lucas Wilson (@full-throttle-f1)
        15th April 2014, 10:50

        Brawn double diffuser?

        1. @full-throttle-f1: That wasn’t an appeal against a stewards’ decision. Brawn (and others) got an opinion from the FIA before the season that double diffusers were legal. Other teams protested the double diffusers at the first race (I think they can only protest after something has been used in competition) and the FIA confirmed their earlier opinion that they were legal.

    7. For Spygate, weren’t both Hamilton and Alonso allowed to keep their WDC points, but McLaren weren’t awarded WCC points in Hungary and ultimately excluded from the WCC altogether? If I remember correctly, and if that was done via appeal.

      1. Alonso and Hamilton were never excluded in the first place, so it wasn’t an appeal.

    8. McLaren had a car which was illegally wide in 1976. They lost a victory initially, then won it back on appeal.

    9. Going back to seventies (I’ve remebered that one from Rush): 1976 Spanish Grand Prix

      McLaren appealed the disqualification and in July the appeal was upheld and Hunt re-instated as winner of the Spanish Grand Prix.

    10. Jarno Trulli US GP for having too much wear on the plank, although they won on a technicality

    11. Not sure if 1958 Portugal counts ;)

    12. As I recall FIA actually rarely wins against appeal of good mentions here to support that. I am almost surprised to see them uphold and win this case. It’s a good day for the soprt.

    13. F199player’s recollection of Jarno Trulli’s exclusion from the 2001 United States Grand Prix is an interesting one. He finished fourth for Jordan but the stewards found his plank was worn beneath the legal limit. Jordan won the appeal – held two weeks after the end of the championship – on a legal technicality by pointing out one of the stewards had been missing from the hearing at the circuit…

      Note that Trulli was also involved in a post-race redistribution of points in 2009 when he was reinstated in the results of the Australian Grand Prix and Lewis Hamilton was excluded. However this was not the result of an appeal by Toyota, but the stewards reopening their investigation after new information came to light (Toyota originally lodged an appeal but withdrew it when they realised it would be inadmissible on the ground that you cannot protest what is to all intents and purposes a drive-through penalty).

  14. Even if I feel sorry for some people, this was the best decision. To change the disqualification would have meant an awful lot of controversy on most parts, and would have damaged F1.

    1. petebaldwin (@)
      15th April 2014, 15:08

      It would have cause major problems. Red Bull’s argument seemed to rely on the idea that technical directives aren’t rules. There are loads of technical directives and if all of them suddenly ceased to be rules, the sport would fall apart.