Your Reject of the Race - Australia

[FMecha]

Red Bull - DNF and DSQ. Good riddance, hope you lose your bathplugging title this year.

(That's coming from a Vettel fan, btw)

[roblo97]

My ROTR is…
The bloke who asked Hamilton for ID whilst Hamilton clearly had his helmet on during FP1

[girry]

Red Bull hands down

Really, that is as rejectful as it gets. I read some blokes conspiracy theory that Red Bull did it on purpose and laughed it off without comment as per normal with lunatic conspiracy theorists. Turns out the bloke was right. Ignoring FIA saying 'hey, you guys are breaking them rules here'? What planet are you on, RB?

[DanielPT]

I am still unsure of Red Bull being reinstated pending appeal, but if not, then my RotR will go for them. They should have not placed themselves in this position in the first place. They've should have known better than to mess around with FIA. On top of all, they seemly completely ruined Ricciardo's efforts and his début podium.

My second nomination, as I am going against the flow here, is Marussia. Why? Because no one stalled in the grid for a long time and they managed to do it twice in the same race. If that is not a rejectful achievement then I don't know what is one.

My third nomination will go to Pastor Maldonado. It is not the way he raced exactly, but it was hilarious to see him much worse than last year. All his moves and shenanigans that led him to his current predicament which is trundling along in an atrociously unreliable car, if not slow too. Sure he and his team may recover and I hope so, but throwing tantrums at Williams, forcing his way out and then choosing Lotus when it was already clear that they were going through a rough phase it is an quite a deeply rejectful behaviour that saw karma come back at him. He may well save his skin from RoTY for this, but I wanted it not to go unmentioned.

As for not nominating Sauber, well, I was already aware of this possibility in the first place and said so in this forum, so I was not one bit surprised by this performance. Besides, as our Overlords once said it, being slow in one race is not automatically a rejectful thing or at least a RoTR candidate. Having said this, they are certainly placing an early bid for RotY.

[CoopsII]

Lotus for looking totally unlike the team they were last year.
Raikkonen for making the same breaking error repeatedly.

[AndreaModa]

My second nomination, as I am going against the flow here, is Marussia. Why? Because no one stalled in the grid for a long time and they managed to do it twice in the same race. If that is not a rejectful achievement then I don't know what is one.

Neither stalled, both had their engines shut down because of sensors detecting too much of something (heat, or something related). Once they were back in the pitlane the electronics were reset and they could drive off with no problems.

[DanielPT]

My second nomination, as I am going against the flow here, is Marussia. Why? Because no one stalled in the grid for a long time and they managed to do it twice in the same race. If that is not a rejectful achievement then I don't know what is one.

Neither stalled, both had their engines shut down because of sensors detecting too much of something (heat, or something related). Once they were back in the pitlane the electronics were reset and they could drive off with no problems.

I was guessing something in those lines indeed. Whence I did not nominate any of the drivers. The fact that the cars were able to drive off with no problems just enlighten the rejectful moment it was for the team in my view, of course.

[CaptainGetz12]

Reject of the Race Podium (After FIA penalties):

3) Kimi Raikkonen. Utterly lethargic. Had the Toro Rossos swarming him the whole time. Bottas passing him on merit is not a good sign for this old Finn.
2) Caterham. Botched Kamui's return or Kamui was being an idot, and Ericsson didn't even try to crack the top 10 when it beckoned. Fernandes is probably grinding his teeth for the races to come...
1) Red Bull. Their behavior today cried "desparate" to me. Vettel DNFed and left in a fuss unfitting for the defending champ, and purposefully cirumventing the rules to get Ricciardo on top only to be caught surely left a sour taste in the mouths of many Aussies. Here's hoping this isn't the sart of a trend for them, or they may fall even further than Lotus has.

(Dis)Honorable Mentions:
Sauber (As slow as the Lotuses, and this time without a driver with x-factor means an even harder hill for them to climb this year.)
Force India (Pace really fell off in the second half, particuarily for Hulkenburg. Slow pit stops and Perez's meadering dont help matters.)

[Barbazza]

Much as I dislike them, I can't give it to Red Bull even if it is a stupid disqualification. Lotus and Sauber I expected to be rubbish.

No, for sheer crushing disappointment having qualified well and with a potential 14th place (at least, who knows?) lost on his glorious return, it has to go to Kobayashi.

[WeirdKerr]

Im gonna nominate my Alarm for not waking me up until 20 minutes after the start... (or did some pixies sneek in during the night and change it)

[CarlosFerreira]

It's a well known fact that I am not a fan of the guy, but I am going to go with Kimi Raikkonen as reject of the race.

After bailing out of Lotus early last year (proving once more that his motivation is as fickle as you like), Kimi looked to be at the same level as Alonso during the pre-season, which honestly surprised me. Unlike most people, I have always thought that Alonso was a step ahead of him. Oh, he dropped the car during a testing session, but he seemed to be on Fernando's pace at least.

Come Melbourne and Raikkonen was consistently and convincingly beaten by Alonso in every session. To make matters worse, he crashed the car on an in-lap during Q2, and spent the race battling to stay on the track.

Let's be honest here: the Ferrari is a bit of a dog - again - and Kimi probably never had a clean session. But he was so thoroughly beaten over the weekend, I am seriously thinking Fernando was sandbagging over the pre-season. Given Raikkonen's past form, I am seriously predicting he might soon lose interest again, and find a way to get Ferrari to pay him to bugger off again.

You never know, maybe Stefano Domenicalli is calling The Hulk's agent as we speak.

[CarlosFerreira]

Vettel DNFed and left in a fuss unfitting for the defending champ...

What? The guy stayed over in the garage and talked to the press during the race.

[Dj_bereta]

Stewards: Ricciardo's DSQ ruined my prediction. They robbed me a potential win.

Brazilian TV Coverage: spent the whole time talking about Massa/Kobayashi crash, saying that Massa lost a potential podium finish and the crash was equivalent of what Grosjean did in the Belgium Grand Prix (2012). Special mention for Rubens Barrichello: another rubbish performance.

Lotus: Extremely bad, but it was expected.

My winner:

Sauber: Worst season start of team history. Miles off the middlefield.

[Benetton]

The Fuel Flow rule So apparently these FIA sensors couldn't provide a accurate reading. I mean, how is it possible that car #3 'consistently' exceeded a flow of 100 litres per hour when the race lasted 1 hour 30 something minutes and car #3 started with 100 litres even considering the SC periods?

And why the bloody hell was this rule put in the first place? What does it bring to improve the sport from an environmental, sporting and a entertainment aspect? Why can't the rule just read 'you have your 100 litres of fuel for the race, you make use of it the best you see fit, no flow restrictions'. That would lead to a more tactical game where one with track position might do some mega laps only to really save fuel at a certain point (and maybe betting on a SC apperance and so on).

[CarlosFerreira]

And why the bloody hell was this rule put in the first place? What does it bring to improve the sport from an environmental, sporting and a entertainment aspect? Why can't the rule just read 'you have your 100 litres of fuel for the race, you make use of it the best you see fit, no flow restrictions'. That would lead to a more tactical game where one with track position might do some mega laps only to really save fuel at a certain point (and maybe betting on a SC apperance and so on).

I think the idea is to smooth fuel flow, therefore limiting maximum available horsepower. If you use more than the average horsepower, it means that at peak your engine is over-using fuel. The FIA wants to stop that.

[Benetton]

I think the idea is to smooth fuel flow, therefore limiting maximum available horsepower. If you use more than the average horsepower, it means that at peak your engine is over-using fuel. The FIA wants to stop that.

Why? To reduce cornering speeds?

[mario]

The Fuel Flow rule So apparently these FIA sensors couldn't provide a accurate reading. I mean, how is it possible that car #3 'consistently' exceeded a flow of 100 litres per hour when the race lasted 1 hour 30 something minutes and car #3 started with 100 litres even considering the SC periods?

And why the bloody hell was this rule put in the first place? What does it bring to improve the sport from an environmental, sporting and a entertainment aspect? Why can't the rule just read 'you have your 100 litres of fuel for the race, you make use of it the best you see fit, no flow restrictions'. That would lead to a more tactical game where one with track position might do some mega laps only to really save fuel at a certain point (and maybe betting on a SC apperance and so on).

The peak fuel flow rate is 100kg/hour, which only applies when the throttle is fully open - as the driver will only be using full throttle for part of the lap, it means that the average fuel rate for an entire lap is much less than 100kg/hour. It is therefore possible that the peak fuel flow rate could exceed the 100kg/hour rate and yet the average fuel flow rate is still sufficiently low enough that they stay within the total allowable fuel load of 100kg, which seems to be what the FIA is saying happened.

As for why the rule exists, I would guess the main reason is that it acts as a check on the maximum power output of the engines, particularly in qualifying trim - the ACO is also using a fuel flow rate as the main means of enforcing greater efficiency and keeping speed in check in the WEC, as it seems that is a more straightforward method. The cars were going around 10kph faster in qualifying this year compared to 2013 (the official readings are from Q3, but in the dry Q1 session the teams were pushing about 320kph compared to about 310kph in 2013), and that is at a circuit with a relatively short main straight, so it would suggest that we might see that creep up even more at certain circuits (China, Monza, Abu Dhabi etc.).
Keeping the power, and therefore straight line speed, in check would also reduce the pressure on circuit owners to possibly lengthen the crash protection zones at the end of the longer straights (a move which would not be popular due to the financial implications) and overall make the FIA less nervous about the potential safety implications.

[CarlosFerreira]

I think the idea is to smooth fuel flow, therefore limiting maximum available horsepower. If you use more than the average horsepower, it means that at peak your engine is over-using fuel. The FIA wants to stop that.

Why? To reduce cornering speeds?

No, to reduce maximum power. See Jamie's explanation.

[Benetton]

The Fuel Flow rule So apparently these FIA sensors couldn't provide a accurate reading. I mean, how is it possible that car #3 'consistently' exceeded a flow of 100 litres per hour when the race lasted 1 hour 30 something minutes and car #3 started with 100 litres even considering the SC periods?

And why the bloody hell was this rule put in the first place? What does it bring to improve the sport from an environmental, sporting and a entertainment aspect? Why can't the rule just read 'you have your 100 litres of fuel for the race, you make use of it the best you see fit, no flow restrictions'. That would lead to a more tactical game where one with track position might do some mega laps only to really save fuel at a certain point (and maybe betting on a SC apperance and so on).

The peak fuel flow rate is 100kg/hour, which only applies when the throttle is fully open - as the driver will only be using full throttle for part of the lap, it means that the average fuel rate for an entire lap is much less than 100kg/hour. It is therefore possible that the peak fuel flow rate could exceed the 100kg/hour rate and yet the average fuel flow rate is still sufficiently low enough that they stay within the total allowable fuel load of 100kg, which seems to be what the FIA is saying happened.

As for why the rule exists, I would guess the main reason is that it acts as a check on the maximum power output of the engines, particularly in qualifying trim - the ACO is also using a fuel flow rate as the main means of enforcing greater efficiency and keeping speed in check in the WEC, as it seems that is a more straightforward method. The cars were going around 10kph faster in qualifying this year compared to 2013 (the official readings are from Q3, but in the dry Q1 session the teams were pushing about 320kph compared to about 310kph in 2013), and that is at a circuit with a relatively short main straight, so it would suggest that we might see that creep up even more at certain circuits (China, Monza, Abu Dhabi etc.).
Keeping the power, and therefore straight line speed, in check would also reduce the pressure on circuit owners to possibly lengthen the crash protection zones at the end of the longer straights (a move which would not be popular due to the financial implications) and overall make the FIA less nervous about the potential safety implications.

Thank you Mario! Insightful. But why just won't the FIA drain the cars after qualifying and make the teams fill them with 100 litres using some kind of FIA fueling system?

[Ferrim]

Stewards: Ricciardo's DSQ ruined my prediction. They robbed me a potential win.

Brazilian TV Coverage: spent the whole time talking about Massa/Kobayashi crash, saying that Massa lost a potential podium finish and the crash was equivalent of what Grosjean did in the Belgium Grand Prix (2012). Special mention for Rubens Barrichello: another rubbish performance.

I find these two comments, posted one after the other, quite ironic

[the Masked Lapwing]

My last post where I nominated Sauber? Bathplug that, Red Bull have it now. When the FIA tells you the car is illegal, you bathplugging fix it, not go 'Screw you, we're right!'

[mario]

The Fuel Flow rule So apparently these FIA sensors couldn't provide a accurate reading. I mean, how is it possible that car #3 'consistently' exceeded a flow of 100 litres per hour when the race lasted 1 hour 30 something minutes and car #3 started with 100 litres even considering the SC periods?

And why the bloody hell was this rule put in the first place? What does it bring to improve the sport from an environmental, sporting and a entertainment aspect? Why can't the rule just read 'you have your 100 litres of fuel for the race, you make use of it the best you see fit, no flow restrictions'. That would lead to a more tactical game where one with track position might do some mega laps only to really save fuel at a certain point (and maybe betting on a SC apperance and so on).

The peak fuel flow rate is 100kg/hour, which only applies when the throttle is fully open - as the driver will only be using full throttle for part of the lap, it means that the average fuel rate for an entire lap is much less than 100kg/hour. It is therefore possible that the peak fuel flow rate could exceed the 100kg/hour rate and yet the average fuel flow rate is still sufficiently low enough that they stay within the total allowable fuel load of 100kg, which seems to be what the FIA is saying happened.

As for why the rule exists, I would guess the main reason is that it acts as a check on the maximum power output of the engines, particularly in qualifying trim - the ACO is also using a fuel flow rate as the main means of enforcing greater efficiency and keeping speed in check in the WEC, as it seems that is a more straightforward method. The cars were going around 10kph faster in qualifying this year compared to 2013 (the official readings are from Q3, but in the dry Q1 session the teams were pushing about 320kph compared to about 310kph in 2013), and that is at a circuit with a relatively short main straight, so it would suggest that we might see that creep up even more at certain circuits (China, Monza, Abu Dhabi etc.).
Keeping the power, and therefore straight line speed, in check would also reduce the pressure on circuit owners to possibly lengthen the crash protection zones at the end of the longer straights (a move which would not be popular due to the financial implications) and overall make the FIA less nervous about the potential safety implications.

Thank you Mario! Insightful. But why just won't the FIA drain the cars after qualifying and make the teams fill them with 100 litres using some kind of FIA fueling system?

The FIA does, I believe, usually drain the fuel tanks of at least the top 10 cars after qualifying for fuel samples - as for fuelling the cars, the amount of fuel placed into the car is left at the discretion of the teams. Because the 100kg of fuel only applies to the race itself, if a driver wanted to do a reconnaissance lap prior to lining up on the grid (and some drivers sometimes do two or three laps, especially in changeable conditions), the fuel he uses during those laps doesn't come out of his allocation of 100kg because those laps are not officially part of the race.

Even the formation lap itself doesn't count (I believe that, when we had the second formation lap due to the aborted start, the race distance was shortened by a lap but the fuel used in the second formation lap didn't count either), so in reality a driver will have used up a number of kilos of fuel before he even starts the race. Ultimately, the FIA is telling the teams that they can put as much or as little fuel as they want into the car - the teams will probably be putting closer to 110-115kg so they can get through the reconnaissance and formation laps - just as long as they don't use more than 100kg in the race itself and have enough for a post race fuel sample if required.

As an aside, I understand that the FIA prefers to use a fixed mass of fuel rather than a fixed volume because of thermal expansion effects (though it could be interesting if, as promised, they do go to Mexico City in the future - there is a slight but discernible reduction in the strength of gravity in Mexico City, so a 1kg mass would weigh a little over 0.3% less in Mexico City compared to the "standard" value for Earth's gravitational field).

[dr-baker]

As an aside, I understand that the FIA prefers to use a fixed mass of fuel rather than a fixed volume because of thermal expansion effects (though it could be interesting if, as promised, they do go to Mexico City in the future - there is a slight but discernible reduction in the strength of gravity in Mexico City, so a 1kg mass would weigh a little over 0.3% less in Mexico City compared to the "standard" value for Earth's gravitational field).

I know that the metre is accurately, scientifically fixed as the distance that light travels in a vacuum in a given time period (a fraction of a second), and that the second is accurately, scientifically fixed as a given number of vibrations of a caesium atom. And I know that the kilogram is scientifically fixed in the following way: The Parisians have a lump of metal. They say it's a kilogram. Ergo, that's what a kilogram is. There are a few other sample kilo weights around, but thanks to being transported and handled etc, they vary by at least a few picograms. Is the litre not defined as the space occupied by water at a certain temperature and pressure? They both seem a bit inaccurate to me, relative to how the metre and second are defined.

And Red Bull's defence is that the FIA's sensor's are inaccurate therefore let's just ignore it and ignore the rules because they can't apply to us? Even though the rules allow for situations where the equipment is faulty and Red Bull just ignore that too? Smacks of complete arrogance to me. Tough break for Daniel, but no sympathy for the team for their completely blaze attitude. If they want to play by their own rules, go and play somewhere else.

[James1978]

Yep Red Bull get it for me as well now - Sauber were just anonymous, what Red Bull did was far worse!!

[More_Blue_Flags]

I am glad that I waited until the stewards ruling on Kobayashi hitting Massa before nominating my ROTR - I did get a language 'yellow card' from the wife when it happened, so I may have been a little bit over-excited and my initial reaction would definitely have been unfair to Kobayashi.

ROTR has to be Red Bull for blatantly ignoring the FIA, and I would feel exactly the same if it had been Vettel rather than Ricciardo losing a podium. Red Bull's position as ROTR is further reinforced by the 'Red Bull has it in for Aussie drivers' conspiracy theories I am going to hear at work all day today as a result.

Teams with a dishonorable mention include Sauber and Lotus - I will go against the trend and call Lotus the worst of the two, as finishing the day by not being quite as rejectful as expected doesn't count as a stellar victory in my book. As for drivers, Kimi was completely underwhelming, but I am now unsure whether Bottas clipping the wall was a potential ROTR moment or just an inherent and acceptable risk of pushing hard and driving on the limit?

[watka]

Sauber were dead slow and Red Bull made some big mistakes but sorry, I'm not going to let Lotus away with this one.

Yes, it was expected that they'd have problems and yes, they have some money issues. However, they were about as unprofessional this weekend as HRT were on their debut. Chronic shortage of laps, distinct lack of pace and an inevitable double DNF. All of the other 3 Renault engined teams made significant developments just over the course of the weekend whereas Lotus just made two decent drivers look like mugs. They may as well not have turned up (if Bernie didn't issue penalties for doing so!).

[DanielPT]

My last post where I nominated Sauber? Bathplug that, Red Bull have it now. When the FIA tells you the car is illegal, you bathplugging fix it, not go 'Screw you, we're right!'

As an aside joke we could almost say: "Who do they think they are? Ferrari?"

[Stareagle]

Bronze: Lotus, for going from a race-winning team to one excited because they made it to the halfway point before blowing up. They couldn't even get the Pastor on track for qualifying.

Silver: Kimi Raikkonen. Kimi, the fact that the track has a Corner 10 usually means there is also a Corner 9. At some point, you should probably be able to remember that it exists.

Gold: Red Bull. Forget the fact that they managed to give Vettel a competitive car at any point of the weekend. They win this for the "No it isn't" reaction to being told that Ricciardo's car was breaking the fuel-flow regulations. If it happened "up and down the pitlane" all weekend and no one else got DQ'd, that means that all the other teams turned down the fuel flow upon being warned, or it just so happened that your car -- the only Renault showing any pace -- was the only one that had a misfiring sensor. Right.

[James1978]

I'm liking the fact that all the nominations are purely for drivers and teams - quite often the first race of the season (like 2004 and 2010) it goes to something to do with the new rules which people don't like - good to see there's none of that now.

[Ferrim]

I'm liking the fact that all the nominations are purely for drivers and teams - quite often the first race of the season (like 2004 and 2010) it goes to something to do with the new rules which people don't like - good to see there's none of that now.

i guess the wet qualifying has something to do with that -we avoided the new "start the race in Q2 tyres" rule, but that won't last for long.

Anyway, and putting that aside for the time being, I have to change my nomination from Kobayashi, who seemingly wasn't at fault (although he apologised to Caterham and Massa in his Twitter feed... oh, the Japanese culture!), to Red Bull.

[CarlosFerreira]

I'm liking the fact that all the nominations are purely for drivers and teams - quite often the first race of the season (like 2004 and 2010) it goes to something to do with the new rules which people don't like - good to see there's none of that now.

I want to second that.

Also, after reading through what seems like a blatant disregard for the FIA's advice, Red Bull gets my nomination. Kimi is on reject-watch for the next three races.

[dr-baker]

Another counterargument to Red Bull's defence!

[Collieafc]

I wish to change my vote from Kobayashi to Red Bull. One car nowhere, another car disqualified after a good performance. Shame for Riccardo

[Kuwashima]

I wish to change my vote from Kobayashi to Red Bull. One car nowhere, another car disqualified after a good performance. Shame for Riccardo

Hmmm... I just recorded a segment for the podcast that sounded eerily similar...

[Kuwashima]

Bathplug that, Red Bull have it now. When the FIA tells you the car is illegal, you bathplugging fix it, not go 'Screw you, we're right!'

Yes.

[Frentzen127]

Fox Sports LatAm for me, they kept calling Kevin Magnussen Jan.
Honorable mentions to Rb and Sauber.

[Vassago]

Has to be Red Bull.

OK, so they've had a terrible winter testing and Vettel's lack of power could be solely blamed on Renault engine BUT when was the last time a team ignored the FIA orders and decided that the egg was more important than the hen? Sure, they think they're the big players but this is a classic kick in the teeth for Horner and Marko. They can appeal the DQ but when was the last time a DQ was revoked in F1? They should have done everything to cherish Ricciardo's run and they've killed the boy's best race of his career. Sure, he could have run out of fuel or whatever else but since all the other teams also had doubts but still stuck to FIA ruling that makes this whole situation a truly reject worthy material.

[good_Ralf]

They can appeal the DQ but when was the last time a DQ was revoked in F1?

2001 US IIRC. Jarno Trulli finished P4 but the 'plank' was excessively worn just like Schuey in Spa 1994. Jordan appealed and after the last race the DQ was overturned.

[DOSBoot]

1. Red Bull: Vettel having a weekend from hell, and the team blatantly ignoring the rules that cost Riccardo a dream podium finish.

2. Kamui Kobayashi: Not the great return from the banzai kid that we were expecting.

[Aerospeed]

Lots of candidates but I;m going to give to Kobayashi for his bungling of his first race for Caterham.