Red Bull Unhappy

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

I liked RB up until a year or two ago but a number of things have started to make me rethink my view. Some of them are related to Horner and Ecclestones freindship.
RB's leaving FOTA and thereby breaking up the teams organisation.
RB getting a very good deal from Bernie.
All the complaining about tyres last year and then winning almost every GP when they got the tyres they wanted.
All the moaning about fuel flow sensors until they get the ones they want....
They are even complaining about rules they approved in relation to the unsafe relase at pit stops.

Well lets look at the history here.
1. Bernie is the friend of anyone who will do his bidding to help him get what he wants or his purpose. In that sense he maintains a friendship with everyone he considers useful to him.
2. Ferrari left FOTA first, then the Ferrari engine cars and a deal with RBR also helped STR along the way with their Ferrari engines.
3. Pirelli had everyone on their backs including a huge number of people on this forum over the tyres and don't forget Mercedes got an exclusive test session in Spain and were doing OK on results until RBR hit their stride. The tyres weren't built around the RBR like the Bridgestone's were for Ferrari
10-15 years ago.

In the late 90's RD and FW stood together for a better deal for the teams from Bernie's Concorde agreement. he hung them out and signed up everyone else on his terms and left them with a take it or leave it. Bernie can be quite ruthless. None of the team principals are unaware of that. They all make sure they stay on the right side of Bernie.
4. The fuel sensors is the FIA's method of deal with fuel in process. They should have been thoroughly tested before they were implemented but they weren't and LMP1 has some similar questions too, so its not just RBR. RBR happens to be a team that will push an issue to head because they want a proper answer and a problem properly dealt with, not smoke and mirrors. Contentious? Yes. But they are in a competition. Red Bull isn't a charity.
6.Pit lane release and loose wheels? The rule is to discourage a sloppy attitude toward tyre changes and pit lane conduct for teams and drivers. But idf an incident occurs and the team take care of it with a minmal threat to safety because they are responsible then why not just dismiss it as not a major infraction. we do that in effect with yellow flags. If you redeem a pass within a reasonable distance no penalty is issued. The biggest problem in F1 today is the 'automatic penalty' and a pedantic legalistic way of ruling on incidents and flicking off ridiculous penalties out of proportion to the offence. It will kill the sport.

If you think the people on 10tenths are dismayed you should take a skelter around the web and people in my circle. They are appalled at the way the sport is being administered, and nothing will turn them off faster than stupid, oppressive, and abusive penalties. It simply will not be a sport they want any part of any more. Engine noise? Bah. Nothing compared with this.

If people feel a sport is badly refereed or umpired they turn off. That's why most associations deal quickly with poor referee's or umpires. This is the biggest single issue facing the FIA right now and if left unattended it will have a significant effect on the sport over the next 12-18 months.

[wnut]

Great post T! Very well put!

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Well lets look at the history here.
1. Bernie is the friend of anyone who will do his bidding to help him get what he wants or his purpose. In that sense he maintains a friendship with everyone he considers useful to him.
6.Pit lane release and loose wheels? The rule is to discourage a sloppy attitude toward tyre changes and pit lane conduct for teams and drivers. But idf an incident occurs and the team take care of it with a minmal threat to safety because they are responsible then why not just dismiss it as not a major infraction. we do that in effect with yellow flags. If you redeem a pass within a reasonable distance no penalty is issued. The biggest problem in F1 today is the 'automatic penalty' and a pedantic legalistic way of ruling on incidents and flicking off ridiculous penalties out of proportion to the offence. It will kill the sport.

Christian Horner was the only team boss at Bernie's most recent wedding.

The reason for an automatic penalty is that it should hit hard and not result in it being watered down due to the possible results of wheels flying around the place.
Bernie has operated a divide and rule policy for years that is currently to the disadvantage of teams, circuits and fans. RB in recieving a very sweet deal from Bernie allowed themselves to go against the greater good of F1.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Christian Horner was the only team boss at Bernie's most recent wedding.

The reason for an automatic penalty is that it should hit hard and not result in it being watered down due to the possible results of wheels flying around the place.
Bernie has operated a divide and rule policy for years that is currently to the disadvantage of teams, circuits and fans. RB in recieving a very sweet deal from Bernie allowed themselves to go against the greater good of F1.

if a driver sees a tyre loose as he leaves his pit and stops so his mechanics can push him back and re-fix it properly that is NOTHING like pulling out of a stall and colliding with someone, or powering off down the pitlane or onto a circuit with a loose wheel.
The rule has a purpose but treating every incident with the same penalty actually is actually counter productive. Why act responsibly if the penalty is the same as being irresponsible? In the end people will act without restraint because justice is absent from the situation.

Unnecessary harshness or a disproportionate penalty / punishment is always counter productive because the purpose of discipline is to train and correct a person, not to abuse or hurt them.

[wnut]

Plus 1.

Smacks of victimization!

(You really are in form today T!)

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

if a driver sees a tyre loose as he leaves his pit and stops so his mechanics can push him back and re-fix it properly that is NOTHING like pulling out of a stall and colliding with someone, or powering off down the pitlane or onto a circuit with a loose wheel.
The rule has a purpose but treating every incident with the same penalty actually is actually counter productive. Why act responsibly if the penalty is the same as being irresponsible? In the end people will act without restraint because justice is absent from the situation.

Unnecessary harshness or a disproportionate penalty / punishment is always counter productive because the purpose of discipline is to train and correct a person, not to abuse or hurt them.

You really are getting your knickers in a twist about this matter. At what point do you expect the line to be drawn so that the stewards can hand down a certain level of penalty?

If I am not mistaken, some while ago either during practice/qualifying or a race, a wheel became detached from a car after it left it's pit-box but the car was still in the pit-lane. So, using your logic, that type of incident would not merit the harshest penalty available because the car had not joined the circuit - it matters not to you that it may have injured, maimed or even killed someone within the pit-lane area!

The whole point behind the severe penalty, and one of the reasons that Horner signed up for it's inclusion, was to stop teams rushing pit stops or, as in this case with Red Bull, allowing a wheel-man to not stop the release of the car when it was unsafe to release it. Horner has confirmed that the wheel-man knew that the wheel was not securely attached, was unable to get his pneumatic gun to tighten the wheel-nut, but still let the car go.

Please do not attempt to compare this unsafe release with any other type of infringement; each and every one needs to be decided on by what is written in the rule book. The problem lies with the past when too many acts were treated far too leniently, in my opinion.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

Excuse me!?

I find your own quoted sources highly interesting, but not for the reasons you might expect. We are hearing a largely one sided story. In my opinion a large part of it is an attempt by RBR to shore up their arguments for the appeal…

blah blah blah said Horner

Dr Helmut Marko told Auto Bild: blah blah blah

blah blah blah, Horner said on Wednesday

The one quote you provide that doesn’t sound to have come out of the mouth of RBR I happen to agree with 100%. It is about how RBR handled sensor problems in Malaysia…

The sensor failed early on, but the team avoided disqualification this time around by simply following the FIA's advice about how to comply with the rules in the absence of the troublesome Gill device.

Directly to the point about playing fast and loose with the facts, you said (paraphrasing here) that RBR was disqualified due to evidence from a faulty sensor that was drifting over the course of the race.

I don’t think I am being pedantic here, but that is not what happened. My understanding of the facts is that RBR never used the data from the sensor during the race. They didn't use an offset as specified by the FIA. They ignored steward’s directions during the race. All three of those items are against the rules.

The above news quote is about Malaysia, but it also sums up nicely what RBR should have done in Australia, but purposefully choose to not do. I think many who are supporting RBR in this argument conveniently forget some of the facts. Particularly those that don’t paint RBR in a good light with respect to their actions in Australia .

Originally Posted by wnut

P.S. I try not to play fast and loose with the facts - this assertion is not appreciated.
If you feel any fact I have used is incorrect Richard please feel free to correct it. I have no agenda other than a better understanding of what goes on in F1.

If you are overly wound up, let me apologize. I was not trying to challenge your integrity. Rather I felt you were being selective of facts to make a point. And I was making a spirited reply that was contrary to your opinion.

To your point about not having an agenda, I don’t know you, but I will respectfully disagree. Everyone has agendas and biases on topics that they feel strongly about. I have my own, but I try to recognize them, and adjust accordingly. I actually try hard to be neutral to the facts, but it is hard at times as I am also passionate about the sport, so I fall short at times as well. In short, this entire thread (forum?) is full of agendas and biases. Mine, yours and others.

In this case, I feel strongly that RBR didn't play by the rules, but at the same time I am not even close to trying to defend the rules that try to accurately measure instantaneous fuel flow as well as the implementation of that via the single sensor. I think a different solution needs to be found. Maybe things will be sorted out this season, maybe not. I am also skeptical of the accuracy of the fuel flow models (for instantaneous flow) and think they have their own set of issues (lack of uniformity, potential ease of manipulation to gain advantage) that many seem to ignore, but I can absolutely be swayed when presented with actual (i.e. scientific) and not anecdotal evidence.

To this specific thread (which isn't the one I started to discuss fuel sensor stuff), I am no particular fan of Vettel, but am a huge fan of Newey and am mostly ambivalent toward RBR. I think I mostly fall in the category of “root for the underdog”. If RBR was down and out, you might actually find me cheering them on. I have tried to focus my comments here around my negative opinion toward threats by RBR to leaving F1.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

if a driver sees a tyre loose as he leaves his pit and stops so his mechanics can push him back and re-fix it properly that is NOTHING like pulling out of a stall and colliding with someone, or powering off down the pitlane or onto a circuit with a loose wheel.
The rule has a purpose but treating every incident with the same penalty actually is actually counter productive. Why act responsibly if the penalty is the same as being irresponsible? In the end people will act without restraint because justice is absent from the situation.

Unnecessary harshness or a disproportionate penalty / punishment is always counter productive because the purpose of discipline is to train and correct a person, not to abuse or hurt them.

To pile on...

Kudos to Ricciardo for not pulling out on track when he noticed the tire loose. But it was the unsafe release by the team that was the issue. Maybe we can find a way to start penalizing individual people instead of the driver/team. Who should have been penalized? The guy with the gun at the left front? The guy who called for the release of the car? The only thing that really seems to work is penalties that impact race results (DSQ, stop and go during race, loss of points, grid position reduction, etc.) Monetary and other similar penalties are "cost of doing business" for those with deep pockets.

As pointed out above, this entire topic is a hot one with regards to safety. I think they are looking to have a zero tolerance regarding letting cars pull out with out wheels properly attached regardless of how quickly they discover the problem.

So can RBR do no wrong? Is all actions by the FIA and stewards targeting RBR in a negative way? What about during qualifying in which Ricciardo was apparently blocked by Bottas. If there was a conspiracy wouldn't they have looked the other way and let Bottas emerge unscathed? Or did Bottas "take one for the wider anti RBR team"?

Richard

[chillibowl]

While I think that RB are being hard done by with regards to the sensors I actually have no real issue with the unsafe release penalty.

Great that DR pulled over it just would have been better if he didn't block another team's pit to do so, it would have been better if he didn't have to wait there while his team ran down the lane blocking everyone else's entry, and it would have been better if they didn't (and this is how it looked to me) break his front wing and unsafely release him for a second time. I don't think it was zero tolerance but rather several infractions in a row.

In fairness to RB and Horner they seem to be taking this penalty on the chin which imo they deserve credit for.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

In fairness to RB and Horner they seem to be taking this penalty on the chin which imo they deserve credit for.

I agree with that completely.

I think I am going to "try" to bow out of this topic/thread for a bit. I am afraid any additional replies from me will likely just be me saying the same things. A few parting thoughts. I did say earlier that I think a world without RBR would be interesting (I think I said the same regarding Ferrari as well). I do think it would be interesting, but I really don't want RBR or Ferrari to leave the sport just out of curiosity. Both teams bring positive things to the mix. And the sport can't just chuck aside teams with the idea that someone else is going to fill the vacuum in a better way.

Richard

PS: 500th post!

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

You really are getting your knickers in a twist about this matter. At what point do you expect the line to be drawn so that the stewards can hand down a certain level of penalty?

If I am not mistaken, some while ago either during practice/qualifying or a race, a wheel became detached from a car after it left it's pit-box but the car was still in the pit-lane. So, using your logic, that type of incident would not merit the harshest penalty available because the car had not joined the circuit - it matters not to you that it may have injured, maimed or even killed someone within the pit-lane area!

The whole point behind the severe penalty, and one of the reasons that Horner signed up for it's inclusion, was to stop teams rushing pit stops or, as in this case with Red Bull, allowing a wheel-man to not stop the release of the car when it was unsafe to release it. Horner has confirmed that the wheel-man knew that the wheel was not securely attached, was unable to get his pneumatic gun to tighten the wheel-nut, but still let the car go.

Please do not attempt to compare this unsafe release with any other type of infringement; each and every one needs to be decided on by what is written in the rule book. The problem lies with the past when too many acts were treated far too leniently, in my opinion.

My knickers are not in a twist Mike. I simply have a quite different opinion about this than many others. Horner took the whole thing on the chin as simply their mistake and that's a commendable attitude. I personally feel the implementation of the rule is poor from a sporting view and that automatic penalties can be very unjust. I can see the reason for a rule about release but feel this one is not a good as it could be. As a sporting regulation far from it in fact.
Just my opinion.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

I can see the reason for a rule about release but feel this one is not a good as it could be. As a sporting regulation far from it in fact.
Just my opinion.

But it isn't a sporting regulation, is it? Its a safety regulation......

(Adds his two-penneth very quickly before bowing out to get a life, probably never to return.......)

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

(Adds his two-penneth very quickly before bowing out to get a life, probably never to return.......)

dont be so hard on yourself...im sure you will find a life in no time!

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

But it isn't a sporting regulation, is it? Its a safety regulation......

(Adds his two-penneth very quickly before bowing out to get a life, probably never to return.......)

Yes it is under the reason of safety but the effects of the rule affect sporting considerations. It is contained in the FIA F1 Sporting Regulations .

23.12 It is the responsibility of the competitor to release his car after a pit stop only when it is safe to do so. The competitor must also provide a means of clearly establishing, when being viewed from the front of the car, when that car was released.

So officially it is a sporting regulation.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

My knickers are not in a twist Mike. I simply have a quite different opinion about this than many others. Horner took the whole thing on the chin as simply their mistake and that's a commendable attitude. I personally feel the implementation of the rule is poor from a sporting view and that automatic penalties can be very unjust. I can see the reason for a rule about release but feel this one is not a good as it could be. As a sporting regulation far from it in fact.
Just my opinion.

It may be just me, but I come from the old school where we obeyed the rules or suffered the consequences. For example, strict driving standards were expected and adhered to, centainly by the vast majority. For example, drivers were exected to have good spacial awareness, and know where their competitors were and respect their space. This meant that drivers didn't dive down the inside of another car to overtake in the expectation that the other driver would be bullied off line. The rule was quite clear cut - if the following car had his front wheels ahead of the rear wheels of the car in front, then the corner was his and the front car gave him the racing line. If not, the following car backed off.

Likewise, there was no blocking allowed, nor "swerving" across the track by the car in front. These behaviours, as was the corner etiquette, were all part of the driving standards that we had to adhere to, and if we didn't, we wouldn't get a warning, we would have just got a black flag and been disqualified on the spot. So, we followed the rules, and in the years that I raced, I cannot recall any drivers in my races, saloons, being black-flagged for breaching driving standards.

As our races were far from processional, it is blindingly obvious that draconian penalty for fairly minor infringements do not mean that the sporting element was diminished. In fact, we respected each other as competitors and would scrap for position adding to the sporting vista for the spectators, and off track we supported each other when the need arose. My first overall win only came about because of the assistance of one of my main competitors, whose crew helped us, out in an open paddock in the poring rain, to remove my gearbox and replace the flywheel bolts that had sheared in qualifying. They also supplied the replacement bolts.

[Adam43]

Does F1 have a separate Safety regulations document? It has to go somewhere and it ain't suitable for the technical regs.

I think Aysedasi was talking about the real reason behind the rule. Which is for the benefit for safety not the benefit of sport. Which I'm sure you knew.

Perhaps they should have a safety refs document to avoid any undue confusion.

[wnut]

"In this case, I feel strongly that RBR didn't play by the rules, but at the same time I am not even close to trying to defend the rules that try to accurately measure instantaneous fuel flow as well as the implementation of that via the single sensor. I think a different solution needs to be found. Maybe things will be sorted out this season, maybe not. I am also skeptical of the accuracy of the fuel flow models (for instantaneous flow) and think they have their own set of issues (lack of uniformity, potential ease of manipulation to gain advantage) that many seem to ignore, but I can absolutely be swayed when presented with actual (i.e. scientific) and not anecdotal evidence." Richard.

Sorry system would not let me quote you.

I think we agree here, the FIA does not have a basis to regulate instantaneous fuel usage with the data provided by the gill meter.
To do so using questionable figures smacks of manipulation.

Given the paucity of information of scientific information supplied by both RBR and the FIA, I am afraid all we are really left with is published anecdotal evidence.

P.S.

Sensor A found inaccurate on Friday.
FIA instructed RBR to fit sensor B.
Sensor B found faulty.
FIA instructed RBR to refit sensor A.
During the race sensor A (previously replaced as faulty) gave "drifting" (Horner)readings in contradiction to RBR's own system that was known and trusted as consistent by RBR.
Sensor A (probably faulty) ignored despite FIA instructions to apply changing correction factors to the figures it was reporting.
Allegedly this would have resulted in a severe performance deficit against the RBR figures.
FIA figures ignored (incorrect readings from Sensor A - probably)
Disqualification for ignoring FIA directives. (Upheld - probably)
Were the FIA figures incorrect - hell yes, based on results reported all over the place,

The question is:

Can the FIA continue to regulate the F1 championships on the basis of these meters?

[Richard C]

Argh... must resist....

Originally Posted by wnut

I think we agree here, the FIA does not have a basis to regulate instantaneous fuel usage with the data provided by the gill meter.
To do so using questionable figures smacks of manipulation.

We can agree on some, but I can't make the leap from a likely flawed system to manipulation.

Originally Posted by wnut

Sensor A found inaccurate on Friday.
FIA instructed RBR to fit sensor B.
Sensor B found faulty.
FIA instructed RBR to refit sensor A.
During the race sensor A (previously replaced as faulty) gave "drifting" (Horner)readings in contradiction to RBR's own system that was known and trusted as consistent by RBR.
Sensor A (probably faulty) ignored despite FIA instructions to apply changing correction factors to the figures it was reporting.
Allegedly this would have resulted in a severe performance deficit against the RBR figures.
FIA figures ignored (incorrect readings from Sensor A - probably)
Disqualification for ignoring FIA directives. (Upheld - probably)
Were the FIA figures incorrect - hell yes, based on results reported all over the place,

The question is:

Can the FIA continue to regulate the F1 championships on the basis of these meters?

On the A/b sensor situation. Does anyone know how many of the sensors RBR actually had at their disposal? The sensors belong to the teams not the FIA. Maybe RBR only had three in total? One in each car and a spare. That they only had two to pick from?

Richard

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

It may be just me, but I come from the old school where we obeyed the rules or suffered the consequences. For example, strict driving standards were expected and adhered to, centainly by the vast majority. For example, drivers were exected to have good spacial awareness, and know where their competitors were and respect their space. This meant that drivers didn't dive down the inside of another car to overtake in the expectation that the other driver would be bullied off line. The rule was quite clear cut - if the following car had his front wheels ahead of the rear wheels of the car in front, then the corner was his and the front car gave him the racing line. If not, the following car backed off.

Likewise, there was no blocking allowed, nor "swerving" across the track by the car in front. These behaviours, as was the corner etiquette, were all part of the driving standards that we had to adhere to, and if we didn't, we wouldn't get a warning, we would have just got a black flag and been disqualified on the spot. So, we followed the rules, and in the years that I raced, I cannot recall any drivers in my races, saloons, being black-flagged for breaching driving standards.

As our races were far from processional, it is blindingly obvious that draconian penalty for fairly minor infringements do not mean that the sporting element was diminished. In fact, we respected each other as competitors and would scrap for position adding to the sporting vista for the spectators, and off track we supported each other when the need arose. My first overall win only came about because of the assistance of one of my main competitors, whose crew helped us, out in an open paddock in the poring rain, to remove my gearbox and replace the flywheel bolts that had sheared in qualifying. They also supplied the replacement bolts.

As a race official I would have no problem with setting good driving standards, obeying rules, etc. However I ensure that as an official I do not act in an abusive or authoritarian manner with drivers. I am firm on what I expect but fair and often spend time being proactive to ensure rising problems are nipped in the bud before they happen.
Consequently I have few problems with competitors familiar with my adjudication or management. My meetings run smoothly with few problems and they get quickly and quietly sorted out.
What I see in F1 at the moment are penalties and a management system out of sync with the offences and that appals me. F1 should have the highest standards of management and officiating but what we have is officiating that is out of balance in the judiciary.
Having watched hardly anything in the last two seasons I was looking forward to the new power units and hopefully some interesting events, but its nothing like that at all and it irks me.
Its totally unnecessary.
You can still follow the rules and principles in a conducive way and still provide some discipline and penalties without this harsh or abusive nonsense.
It doesn't need to be this way.

[VIVA GT]

I think that this "unsafe release thing" is typical of the way rules, regulations and even laws are going nowadays.
Previously there was usually a little bit of 'greyness' in-between the black & white of regulations which would allow common-sense to be used to determine if a rule had been broken or not.
Unfortunately, over time the greyness has been exploited, or others have disagreed with the interpretation of this grey area, and subsequently disagreed with the decision taken.
To counteract this, the rules have been made specific, black & white, with no interpretation, so despite any 'mitigating circumstances', the same penalty is applied if a car is released from the pits with a loose wheel, which the driver realises and stops before anyone is hurt, or if one is released out into the side of another car travelling down the pit lane.

[wnut]

The wheel was retained on the car.

In this instance I do feel that the unsafe release which is designed to prevent a team releasing a car in front of another in the pit lane and risking a massive accident was somewhat dishonestly applied to a team releasing a car with a loose wheel that never became detached from the car!

[Aysedasi]

It's always good to have luck, eh?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

The wheel was retained on the car.

In this instance I do feel that the unsafe release which is designed to prevent a team releasing a car in front of another in the pit lane and risking a massive accident was somewhat dishonestly applied to a team releasing a car with a loose wheel that never became detached from the car!

I think if your read the entire regulation you can see that yes, while that particular regulation likely started with a focus on releasing a car into the path of another "23.12 (a)", it was expanded to cover other topics, but newer parts of that rule move beyond "unsafe release" and use the phrase "released in an unsafe condition". "Condition" and "Safe" is key and the rule also has a specific automatic penalty for during the race and if the car is able to continue "23.12 (c)".

The rule clearly is targeted the the exact scenario that we are discussing. Absolutely no dishonesty here. The entire incident and application of the rules couldn't be more clear. And as mentioned, RBR says the same. And yes, the wheel was retained on the car "at that moment", but not not being retained in the way it was designed and was clearly in an unsafe condition when it was released.

Quote below (my bold) from the 2014 Sporting Regulations. Article 23 covers pit entry, lane and exit stuff...

23.12
a) It is the responsibility of the competitor to release his car from his garage or pit stop position only when it is safe to do so. The competitor must also provide a means of clearly establishing, when being viewed from the front of the car, when that car was released.
b) If a car is deemed to have been released in an unsafe condition during any practice session, the stewards may drop the driver such number of grid positions as they consider appropriate.
c) If a car is deemed to have been released in an unsafe condition during a race the driver concerned will receive a ten grid place penalty at the driver’s next Event. However, if any car released in an unsafe condition is able to resume the race a penalty under Article 16.3(c) will also be imposed on the driver concerned.

Richard

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by wnut

The wheel was retained on the car.

In this instance I do feel that the unsafe release which is designed to prevent a team releasing a car in front of another in the pit lane and risking a massive accident was somewhat dishonestly applied to a team releasing a car with a loose wheel that never became detached from the car!

You, and others, seem to be fixated on the undeniable fact that the wheel did not become detatched before Ricciardo left the pits. However, you seem to be able to ignore the potential danger that the release of that car posed to the driver, team members, and other individuals along the pit lane if it had become detatched.

We are discussing this particular incident, and to repeat what I have written previously, Horner acknowledges that his (RBR's) team member working on that wheel knew that the wheel was not attached securely, and more importantly, safely attached.

As an analogy, I assume that you have and drive a car; I also assume, I hope correctly, that you hold relevant liability insurance for the car. The question is, why? The answer is just in case you need it in the event of an accident. You don't wait to have an accident and then take out insurance. You take precautions in anticipation of an event.

The penalty handed to Ricciardo, on behalf of the team, is to stop them taking unecessary risks, and for having taken one by releasing the car from the pit-box before the car was in a safe condition to a) drive down the pit lane and b) join the track.

[Sodemo]

I don't fully understand what these fuel flow meters are actually for. They already have a maximum fuel amount that the cars are allowed to carry, so why the need for any other jiggery-pokery? Surely its just a case of; there's your fuel amount, now get to the finish, by hook or by crook...?