We apologise for the delay this evening, as the FIA Stewards took five hours to decide whether or not to exclude Daniel Ricciardo.
The Australian Grand Prix was the start of a new era in Formula 1 history – and the race in Albert Park provided plenty of surprises, controversy and questions that will need to be answered in the weeks ahead. The Melbourne race was dominated by Nico Rosberg in his Mercedes. Lewis Hamilton would have been challenging his team-mate if he had not hit trouble early on. Also retiring early was Felipe Massa in the Williams. Later in the race his team-mate Valtteri Bottas gave an indication of the pace of the FW36, but a brush with a wall ended his hopes of glory, although he fought back impressively. Red Bull Racing surprised itself and local hero Daniel Ricciardo had the entire nation emulating his super-sized smile – but nearly six hours after the race it was announced that the Red Bull had been excluded from the event. Red Bull said it would appeal. There were brilliant performances from Kevin Magnussen and Daniil Kyvat, the Dane finishing second on his debut (after Ricciardo’s exclusion) and the Russian scoring two points for ninth place. McLaren leads the Constructors’ Championship
It is going to be a season of much excitement…
Also in this week’s issue…
– We talk to Jenson Button
– Proud Dane Peter Nygaard writes about the Magnussens, father and son…
– We look back to the amazing Eddie Rickenbacker
– How to buy a classic F1 car
– JS wonders what it is that F1 communication people actually do
– Mike Doodson meanders through history
– David Tremayne rants and rails
– And Peter Nygaard shows that Danes are good at photography as well as driving F1 cars
GP+ is a racing magazine like racing magazines used to be, but is published in electronic form in PDF format, so you can read it on a laptop or a tablet. We take you behind the scenes in the F1 paddock and explain what is really going on. There are plenty of fascinating stories from Grand Prix history as well, plus great photography, controversial opinions and old style reporting, giving you a blow-by-blow account of what happened, both in qualifying and in the race, so you have a proper record which can stay in your computer for years to come.
It’s a real bargain. You get 22 issues for £29.99, covering the entire 2014 Formula 1 season. And all for the price of a pizza and a couple of drinks. And if that is not value for money, we don’t know what is.
For more information, go to http://www.grandprixplus.com.
joeblogsf1 
Haha, I suspect there will be a large number of journos less than happy about the amount of time it took the stewards to make a decision.
Have a good night Joe.
If this (and other) technical data are part of the FIA rules now, why isn’t this data transmitted every lap to the the technical delegate via telemetry? And why not use the “best of three” system where three independent sensors (let’s face it, they can’t weigh more than the cameras, can they?) vote on the fuel flow and two have to agree.
That way you can have an instant “black flag” based on an indisputable fact.
Did you miss your plane?
Nope
I turned off the BBC replay. Why should I watch a procession of motorized vacuum cleaners go round? This isn’t F1 at all. RIP
Someone didn’t watch in the 80s, did they? It wasn’t much different, soundwise.
Nice work as always Boys! One thing though Joe, I think the Minogue with JB is in fact Danii not Kylie – but maybe I shouldn’t expect someone as august to know this!
As to Ricardo’s disqualification . Simple mathematics … IF … the Red Bull had been swallowing too much fuel as the FIA is claiming … the car would of run out of fuel before the end of the race . Period ! End of argument . The FIA’s once again trying to ‘ fix ‘ the results to meet their needs/expectations . So the Scripted drama continues on … so much for ‘ excitement ‘
BTW Joe … do the cars sound as bad in person as they do on TV ? Cause here in the US .. HD TV .. one mighty fine sound system …. they’re sounding like flagellating WWII DoodleBugs on steroids on the verge of self destruction …. hideous sums it up nicely
FYI – A gourmet pizza and a couple of good glasses of wine’ll cost you about $30 US .. at an excessively trendy restaurant in Aspen CO ! … not the $60 US you’re thinking .. no insult intended and no taking away from the value of a subscription … just saying is all 😉
In Europe…
But it’s NOT simple maths – the 100kg/hr is peak flow, not constant or even average. This is clear because the race lasts longer than an hour, and they only have 100kg of fuel to start with…
So the total amount used depends on the overall or average flow, but only the peak is capped at 100kg/hr.
“As to Ricardo’s disqualification . Simple mathematics … IF … the Red Bull had been swallowing too much fuel as the FIA is claiming … the car would of run out of fuel before the end of the race . Period ! End of argument . The FIA’s once again trying to ‘ fix ‘ the results to meet their needs/expectations . So the Scripted drama continues on … so much for ‘ excitement ‘”
Red Bull fan are we? It would appear RBR have decided to ignore the FIA and not to toe the line and attempted to sue their own fuel flow calculations, whereas all the other teams did as the FIA asked. It’s good to see that Red Bull can’t get away with absolutely everything they try, because their cars have been of, erm, dubious legality at times in the past, their cleverness aside.
Anyway, its not “simple mathematics”. Think about it – your own car (I presume you drive) doesn’t use the same amount of fuel at Idle and at Full Revs does it? It will use more fuel with more throttle. Using fuel at a rate of more than 100kg/hr won’t guarantee you run out of fuel, unless you constantly ran at that rate, which it can’t and won’t. However, the limit is there for a reason and the rules are the rules.
Regarding their implementation and the dispute, well think of them capping the fuel rate as being like the Rev Limiter. I expect you wouldn’t argue if the engines are limited to 15,000rpm and Red Bull’s engine was clearly running up to 16,000rpm, therefore they were breaking the rules?
A dull race, not enlivened by the lawnmower-like nose. Those cars even sound slow.
I found the noise displeasing only at low revs in corners… sounded like buckets of loose bolts at low revs… the rest of the time they sounded, um, OK.
Although they sure didn’t sound like 15K. I wonder if the power curve makes the higher revs not worth their cost…
More rpm= more friction.
I bet it’s better to burn the allowed fuel flow (which is fixed at 100kg/h over 10500rpm) with air at a higher boost than with the same amount of air generated by high rpm. My guess is the net power is highest at just over the 10500 any more and friction losses will use up to much power.
Wonderful reporting as always, Joe.
The Mercedes result and their early domination indicate, IMHO, that Ross Brawn did exactly the right thing in organising the structure of the teams (chassis and engines) and in getting the power unit running early.
Joe, did you hear any gossip recently about Santander anouncing during the spanish gp that Alonso has signed with mclaren for 2015? Here un spain i am starting to hear this rumores.
I doubt it for a bit…
subscribed…
FACT:
At least two months ago there were complaints that the manufacturer of the FIA fuel flow meters COULD NOT make them accurate /consistent.
I am sure Joe can confirm this.
And, as lot’s of people already pointed out elsewhere,
NO ONE can run anywhere near the flow rate of 100kg/h for any length of time, since they have to average 62.5kg/h to finish the race !
Clearly the flow meters are rubbish, AND not at all necessary.
Just scrap them, and the rule.
Keep it simple STUPID !
Regards,
Martin
It was a screw up that everyone knew about, there was no need to bring it onto the public domain but one team tried to exploit that. They got what they deserved. Terribly sad for Daniel.
Well said “Martin”. Blessed if I can see why fuel flow needs to be part of the regulations in the first place.
If the FIA wants to be greener (and so it should if only for political reasons), then why is it not sufficient to simply nominate 100 kg of fuel? Seems to me that if a team wants to have the fuel flow of a B52 on full climb at some point in the race, it will need to have the fuel flow of a Ford Fiesta ECOnetic coasting downhill at another part of the race. Swings and roundabouts… you simply gotta get to the line on 100 kilos.
The teams will soon enough figure out which strategy works best.
Because the teams might do something dim like use up all their fuel at the start and then all run out at the end, which would be a lousy spectacle… There is logic in it.
Using the fuel rapidly only to run out of gas later might make for a lousy spectacle for the sport… but not for a backmarker team who would love all the TV time and awe-laden commentary they’d receive before coasting to a stop on lap 36…
I can’t see the logic in it.
What ultimately matters most to the teams, specially the small ones, is the points. That gets them money and prestige with sponsors, leading up to chances to move up the grid / food chain.
Running up front for 2/3 of the race might be good TV exposure, but that would quickly evaporate once the car runs out of fuel.
Who remembers the non finishers ?
Who remembers those who finish at the back?
Joe in your editorial you mentioned the thankfully abortive attempt to prevent professional journalists from being on the grid. You described it as, “…indefensible, dare I say ridiculous…”
Well done for your restraint. The move epitomises the sickness that pervades the management of this sport.
Yet we see the glitterati lounging about and to an extent I can see how their presence lends some glamour to some people but for crying out loud to even think about excluding the very people who publicise their money making machine…. The bind moggles!
A pox upon the houses of the powers-that-be – as you said “(whoever they were)”.
Hi Joe,
I’m in in the office today (in Melbourne), my colleges who took an interest in the race over the weekend for the first time are struggling to understand why Dan was disqualified. I can explain why, but I can’t help but think that the penalty is incredibly over the top, Formula 1 just shot itself in the foot, if not chest with this one… I thought gaining new fans was a priority, upsetting an entire nation of casual/ new viewers can’t be good, Australians don’t take well to allegations of cheating, we be a proud sporting nation.
Interested to read your thoughts.
Hope you have enjoyed our city,
Miles.
I agree but rules must be rules and the team was trying to pull a fast one ( in my opinion).
It would be very interesting to know at whose direction that was done — and who decided what Christian Horner would say to the press — talking about the appeal afterwards he looked like a man with a very large spike up his bottom…. And one notes as well that Dr Marko seems to be wearing full team kit this year, rather than the lightly-logo’d shirts he used to. Perhaps Dietrich Mateschitz has decided that management by muppet is no longer what is needed?
Ah Joe, one more thing… now you’ve landed back in Europe. I see that Mike Doodson has been wonderfully feisty in his last two pieces – 2014 Preview and Oz GP.
‘Wunderbar’, say I. As one of the demographic to which The Hack refers I love his contributions and feistiness, as I love yours and David’s.
You have the formula right… and F1 nearly has too now. Keep it coming, all three of you ne’er-do-wells!
I just had lunch with Mike in Melbourne, se we have some travel long yet to do…
Joe, you are infinitely better at reading through the smoke of intrigue than am I, so I hope you can decode the RB #3 snafu for me…
Given hat RB was trying to get away with something, I would love to know more about the benefit they were chasing. Since overall fuel supply is constant, they were opting to use a bit more Here and a bit less There. Obviously, they thought the benefit would be non-trivial or they wouldn’t have taken the risk.
Question 1: Was this seemingly small difference enough to put Daniel up at the front? Could micromanaging the fuel flow provide the performance equivalent to 20 (or whatever) more hp?
Questiin 2: Did they really hope to get away with it? Or were they just happy to take the combination of (a) all the onscreen TV billboard time, and (b) the penalty-immune and much needed moral boost to the team itself while knowing that DR’s points likely would evaporate?
ps: I can see why they’d do it with #3 and not #1, as catching this sin in the latter car would sully SV’s rep in a way that would not happen to DR.
Just read GP+ as I only got back from holiday late yesterday. What a brilliant publication, I thought the race/practise reporting was superb, and if I had to choose I would read this rather than see the TV coverage. Added to that we had some very interesting background articles, however I wish you hadn’t included the talk with Gary Anderson about his Jordan GP designs, because it reminds me of what a huge hole his loss from the BBC coverage has occurred. Perhaps you could have some more from him as the season develops… Pretty please.
Hi Joe
I have just read my first GP+ and would like to thank you and your fellow scribes for an excellent job, well done. It is everything that I hoped for and more, well worth the subscription. I would encourage anyone else thinking of taking it up, great articles and mix of history and present combined in one magazine.
Thank you again Joe
Chris
I’d like to say that as penance for my occasional smirky comment, particularly related to the Grand Prix of New Jersey, I’ve re-subscribed to GP+. I would urge others to do the same. I can’t think of a better thing to do with twenty-seven pounds.
How about taking paypal for the magazine subscription. I am a cash and carry guy.
Yes – definitely Dannii Minogue. My mistake… jet lag!
I had wondered about not subscribing this year, as I was finding I didn’t have time to read the whole magazine last year, but after the first race something was missing. Balance has now been restored with a subscription.
The piece by DT about John Button particularly struck a chord with me. Thank you Mr Tremayne