Daniel Ricciardo, Renault, Suzuka, 2019

Renault will not appeal against “inconsistent” double disqualification

2019 Mexican Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Renault has confirmed it will not appeal against the disqualification of both its cars from the Japanese Grand Prix.

However the team described the penalty as disproportionate and said it was “inconsistent” with past sanctions imposed by the FIA stewards.

Daniel Ricciardo and Nico Hulkenberg lost their sixth and 10th places finishes at Suzuka after the stewards ruled Renault’s brake bias system functioned as an illegal driver aid.

“We regret the stewards’ decision and, in particular, the severity of the sanction applied,” said Renault in a statement.

“In our opinion, the penalty is not proportionate to any benefit the drivers derived, especially when used within the context of a system confirmed fully legal and innovative. It is also inconsistent with previous sanctions for similar breaches, as acknowledged by the stewards in their decision, but expressed without further argumentation.

“However, since we have no new evidence to bring other than that already produced to demonstrate the legality of our system, we do not wish to invest further time and effort in a sterile debate in front of the International Court of Appeal concerning the subjective appreciation, and therefore sanction, related to an aid that reduces the driver workload without enhancing the performance of the car.

“We have therefore decided not to appeal the stewards’ decision.”

Renault said it will review its internal procedures to prevent a repeat of the disqualifications which cost them nine championship points.

“Formula 1 will always be an arena for the relentless search for the slightest possible opportunities for competitive advantage,” it said. “It is what we have always done and will continue to do, albeit with stronger internal processes before innovative solutions are brought on track.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2019 F1 season

Browse all 2019 F1 season articles

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.

17 comments on “Renault will not appeal against “inconsistent” double disqualification”

  1. I am really surprised.

    The only explanation I have – they don’t want to risk being thrown out of other races as well…

    Anyway – I am really glad this story is closed (at least penalty-wise).

    1. You have to have new evidence to trigger an appeal. They don’t have any. The fact that the stewards are being pinheads about it isn’t news.

    2. Its not that surprising.

      Look at the points that they have it leaves them with 68 point – 9 more than Toro Rosso and they have been pretty consistently out scoring them. With Just 4 races left of the season they are in a “fairly” safe position in the midfield with no real chance of catching McLaren or losing out to TR.

      There is probably a bigger chance of further penalties should they appeal and be found wrong a second time.

      I would love to see the documentation provide by RP – if the onboard footage gave it away I would like to see how they really came to the 12 pages they did.

  2. I have to say that, based on what I have read, I disagree with the stewards here. I also disagree with Renault’s decision not to appeal.

    The system used is not specifically banned and comes down to an interpretation of the driver aid rules. In the stewards’ position, I would have let the results stand, but issued a technical declaration/bulletin (or whatever they are called) clearing the matter up and banning these systems in future.

    For Renault, while I can understand them not wishing to waste resources on appealing the decision, I feel they are letting the sport down in not doing so. They are also potentially throwing away a decent points haul without a fight.

    1. @drmouse said exactly what I was about to type. If this is not against the technical rules, and is a grey area of the sporting rules, then it should just be banned from here on. The DQ is out of line, imo

    2. Which is *exactly* what they did to Red Bull for their engine map sneakiness, their hand-adjustable ride height (something actually banned in the technical regulations), and their flexible wings that were designed to pass scrutineering, yet still flex enough to grant a benefit to the car during the race.

      Red Bull never had their points taken away for technical “innovation”.

    3. Don’t be so naive… They threatened to leave F1 if they would be Disqualified from all races… (And that is a serious threat because they have done so before if you know your history) So they will only get Disqualified from one race if they wouldn’t appeal..

  3. Cheeky so-and-sos. Knew well what they were doing.

    1. Yes they did, and it was found to be complying with the technical rules.

      The fact that some stewards have applied a rather subjective ruling suggests that they probably shouldn’t have been DQ’d but rather told to remove it as has been the case in similar situations.

      That would allow for a formal clarification from the FIA.

  4. Sounds like an admission of guilt. Is changing brake bias programatically worth the DQ? That’s what surprises me.

    1. @eljueta I think you mean automatically, and hard to judge if it’s specifically DSQ-worthy. Still, I guess there was a reason to hand out some form of penalty given that the BB-adjustment while on track is something a driver has to do himself without automatic-assistance.

  5. The penalty is not proportionate to any benefit the drivers derived

    Irrelevant. If a car is technically illegal, regardless of any performance advantage, then it is illegal… simple.

    There are two different perspectives to this. On one hand, if the automatic brake bias adjuster was a loophole to the regulations such as the double diffuser and the mass damper, then Renault might well feel as if they’ve been treated unjustly. On the other hand, if Renault’s device was already classed as an illegal driver aid as per the stewards’ ruling, then they have absolutely no cause for complaint. I think back to BAR’s secondary fuel tank in 2005.

    1. The car wasn’t technically illegal. Read the steward’s decision.

    2. @brickles, there is a strict difference there though, as all of the cases you have cited above were examples of a team being punished for breaking the Technical Regulations.

      In the case of BAR’s additional fuel tank, for example, that was a clear technical breach because it broke the minimum weight rules – the car did not meet the minimum weight limit when drained of fuel – and because it also broke the fuel storage requirements (by storing fuel outside of the main fuel tank).

      In this case, the FIA have said that the design of the car meets all of the technical regulations – it is their interpretation of how the sporting regulations should be applied that has resulted in this penalty being applied.

  6. While I had commented here the other day, that Renault had been clever in circumventing the tech regs and it depended upon how “aid” was defined. If you read the full FIA statement they do in fact say that Renault had basically got away with the device or method by using 10.9.
    However the very fact that it worked meant that it saved the driver adjusting the brake balance him or her self, thus it was an “aid” and contravened the sporting regs!

    Now the way it worked was kept secret and obviously has the whole F1 tech circus guessing how it worked. The FIA did say it was not pre-programmed upon distance (which is not specifically banned but constitutes a pre-set operation contrary to 11.1.4.
    11.1.3 only bans “Any powered device, other than the system referred to in Article 11.9”
    Mind if you read 11.9 there seems to be some scope there!
    For those too lazy to look it up:
    11.9 Rear brake control system :
    The pressure in the rear braking circuit may be provided by a powered control system provided that :
    a) The driver brake pedal is connected to a hydraulic master cylinder that generates a
    pressure source that can be applied to the rear braking circuit if the powered system is
    disabled.
    b) The powered system is controlled by the control electronics described in Article 8.2.

    8.2 Basically says that everything must be controlled or monitored or sensed by the ecu which is an FIA homologated part. All control sensors, actuators, monitoring sensors, and the wiring loom have to be approved by the FIA, will be sealed and may not be opened or modified by the team. ish.
    Penalty harsh but fair, any sign of Flav hiding in the wings?

  7. So if this is a stewards decision from 1 race, does this mean Renault could run the same system this weekend and see if this weeks stewards have a differing opinion?

    1. I’m sure that they won’t. why risk it?

Comments are closed.