Dietrich Mateschitz, an Austrian billionaire and the man behind the all-encompassing Red Bull brand, had some stern words for Formula One during an interview with an Austrian newspaper. Vienna's Kurier asked what it would take for Red Bull to pull out of F1. Mateschitz's answer was tinged with frustration following the disqualification of Daniel Riccardo, who finished second in last weekend's Australian Grand Prix, but saw his results stripped after the FIA stewards claimed that the rate of fuel flow in his car exceeded regulations.

"The question is not so much whether it makes economic sense but the reasons would be to do with sportsmanship, political influence, and so on," Mateschitz said. "In these issues there is a clear limit to what we can accept."

Red Bull appealed the decision and a date has been set in April for a hearing. Mateschitz is still rather salty, though.

"The team has lodged a protest. The fuel-flow sensor, which was given to the teams by [the FIA], gave divergent readings and it is inaccurate. We can prove the exact amount of fuel flow and this was always within the limits," the billionaire said when asked if he'd reached his self-imposed limit. According to BBC Sport, Red Bull ignored a warning by the FIA in Australia that it must use the official fuel-flow sensor, rather than its own readings. It didn't comply.

Mateschitz is also displeased by the direction the 2014 regulations have taken the sport, saying, "F1 is not there to set new records in fuel consumption, nor to make it possible to have a whispered conversation during a race."

"It is absurd to race a lap seconds slower than last year. GP2 partially provides more racing and fighting and almost equal lap times as F1 with a small fraction of the budget," Mateschitz told the paper.

What do you think? Should Red Bull be penalized? Do you agree with Mateschitz's view of F1?


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 55 Comments
      pghcc2007
      • 9 Months Ago
      Ever increasing rules and regulations eventually ruin every sport (just like they do economies). Watching the demo reel on Forza or GT is more exciting then watching racing nowadays. Emasculated, corporate and family friendly shells of men driving purposefully stifled cars with no relation to anything you can buy and having no differences with each other .
      Gator
      • 9 Months Ago
      Why not give them a certain amount of fuel for the race and let the teams do what ever they want to with no restriction????
        gary
        • 9 Months Ago
        @Gator
        No kidding, I don't get the cap on instantaneous fuel flow rates. Why does it matter if I use more fuel here as long as I make up for it by using less there and don't use more than the TOTAL amount of fule allowed by the end of the race?
        sparrk
        • 9 Months Ago
        @Gator
        ..Because that would make too much sense.
      icemilkcoffee
      • 9 Months Ago
      Instead of disqualifying winners after the fact, why don't they just limit the amount of fuel that goes into the tank to begin with? That way, anyone who uses too much fuel will just plain run out of gas short of the finish line. No need for after-the-fact disqualifications, which are a downer for the spectators and competitors.
        ScottT
        • 9 Months Ago
        @icemilkcoffee
        F1 is doing both now. There is a fuel limit for the race and a fuel flow limit. The problem is that F1 can't seem to accurately measure fuel flow.
          ufgrat
          • 9 Months Ago
          @ScottT
          It's new technology. It has some issues. The FIA issued "correction" numbers to the teams, based on the information coming from the sensors. Everyone but Red Bull complied with the FIA's request.
        haloguy628
        • 9 Months Ago
        @icemilkcoffee
        Short burst of fuel over the 100kg/h will give the car 30/40 additional hp. Like additional KERS so the cheater passes and then gets back below the 100kg/h rate and still finishes the race while occasionally going over the 100kg/h in order to defend his position.
          gary
          • 9 Months Ago
          @haloguy628
          And that's a problem why?
      ken
      • 9 Months Ago
      I still don't understand why fuel flow rate is important when they already limited the amount of fuel and banned refuel.
        ufgrat
        • 9 Months Ago
        @ken
        Because naturally aspirated engines have a limit on how much fuel you can ram into the intakes on a push-to-pass basis. Turbo engines, with turbos capable of spinning at 120,000 RPM, have no such limits. Push the button, hear the turbo howl, get an extra 200 HP for a couple seconds, and if the driver keeps control of the car, you've got a passing system that makes DRS look insignificant by comparison. Sure, you can't keep it up for more than a few seconds without endangering your fuel limit, but it means your car can pass *anything*, and then coast. Last person to push the button wins!
      Centaur260
      • 9 Months Ago
      Now what actually needs to happen is a removal of the energy recovery systems and ridiculous fuel restrictions. F1 should be the pinnacle of the internal combustion engine and Formula E being the same for electric power. This would allow for greater focus on both technologies and not a halfway bastardization of the two with the hybrid systems. I always thought the pursuit of speed was above all else...
        ufgrat
        • 9 Months Ago
        @Centaur260
        No, the pursuit of speed died in the 60's and early 70's, along with many racecar drivers. Of course, the V8's everyone is pining for were actually fairly primitive ICE's-- the average street car has more sophisticated engine technology (less sophisticated engineering and materials to be fair) than the 2.4L V8's.
          PatrickH
          • 9 Months Ago
          @ufgrat
          Care to back up that statement? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to hear why you think that. And don't mention variable valve timing, because when you're racing there is no use for such a thing.
      Eggshen
      • 9 Months Ago
      "F1 is not there to set new records in fuel consumption, nor to make it possible to have a whispered conversation during a race." "It is absurd to race a lap seconds slower than last year. GP2 partially provides more racing and fighting and almost equal lap times as F1 with a small fraction of the budget," Good for you Dieteich, a voice of reason in what has become a world of insanity!
        Mondrell
        • 9 Months Ago
        @Eggshen
        "GP2 partially provides more racing and fighting and almost equal lap times as F1 with a small fraction of the budget." Funny that he realizes this shortly after a race in which his team wasn't the one running away from the next best contenders by 20+ seconds. The collective world of F1 has been a bore for some time in part because of your boys, Mister Mateschitz. Let's give the new regulations some time to mature before asserting that it's time backtrack. After all, it's not as if the FIA put a gun to everyone's head and told them to fall in line.
      David Leung
      • 9 Months Ago
      This is pretty straight forward to me... Red Bull ignored a warning by the FIA in Australia that it must use the official fuel-flow sensor, rather than its own readings. It didn't comply. (Politics? Duh.)
      akitadog
      • 9 Months Ago
      Rule changes from year to year make sense in general, but this grand "reboot" of rules, what technology is allowed and engine configuration is just too much at once. It costs an extraordinary amount of money, and requires more testing time than these teams have to get it right. Who would have expected anything less than the reliability fiasco we see now?
      FRD
      • 9 Months Ago
      Need to read the rulebook, see if it was a technical directive or in fact a rule that was broken.
      Bob
      • 9 Months Ago
      Rich arrogant prick Formula 1 is all about building technology for the future, we can't all afford to drive V8 powered cars and the technology being pioneered now will save performance cars for the future. Its not about lap times its about pushing the limits of what we can do with our technology and balancing that with what we should be doing, showing that you can have both efficiency and power. The world is moving on and guys like Dietrich Mateschitz are stuck in their own little world.
        Devonblue4u
        • 9 Months Ago
        @Bob
        I'm old enough to know the death of the V8 has been foretold for decades. They just keep coming back. I have one. But I have a very quick 4 cylinder for the daily commute. Those guys who want a 4 or 6 will get them. But all those improvements in efficiency came from racing V8's. And turbos? Nothing is free. Heat, packaging and lag are their biggest problems. And you can stomp a turbo to the same mileage as the next higher cylinder group. Do yourself a favor and look BACK on the history of F1. You just may see where it's headed.
          ufgrat
          • 9 Months Ago
          @Devonblue4u
          Yes, and no... The new cars are heavier, use 30% less fuel, and yet are significantly faster on the straights, and soon, will be matching the old V8 performance in the corners. Any turbo lag is deliberate, as they bolted a motor/generator (MGU-H) to the turbo, and recoup energy from the turbo spooling down, and re-use that energy to pre-spool the turbo on acceleration, eliminating turbo lag. They're getting somewhere between 600 and 700 HP from the engine, and 160 HP from the MGU-K (last year's KERS on steroids). All of which are taking place in engines which have to last for roughly 12,500 km (7.5k miles). There are definitely applications for the road industry here in terms of efficiency, energy management, and electrical storage. So yeah, the 1980's turbos might have been insane boost monsters, but they weren't that efficient, or long lasting.
        Pj Taintz
        • 9 Months Ago
        @Bob
        sounds like you care more about social engineering instead of racing. I dont really give a crap about social engineering in sports, I actually find that it is a hindrance
      recceba
      • 9 Months Ago
      Having watched the '14 Australian GP and having been to many races in the past, I am sure that I will not plan a trip to another F1 race with these new quite engine sounds regulations. What attracted me to F1 in the first place was being at the track and being completely blown away by the mind-boggling sounds that the machines produced. Cars are now slower, uglier, and the race itself is not any more interesting. I'm no Redbull fan, but I have to agree to Mateschitz on this one.
        gary
        • 9 Months Ago
        @recceba
        Meh, I could care less about engines that are loud enough to make your ears bleed without protection. After one year of sitting trackside in Paddock seats at the USGP in Indy, I got seats in the NW vista, away from the track, for subsequent years. It was nice to actually be able to verbally communicate with the friends who came with. I've been in the paddock for Indy cars in the last turbo era. You could tolerate the sound without earplugs, yet it was still an exciting sound.
      Kyle Chessman
      • 9 Months Ago
      F1 is old news. I'm just waiting until all the teams quit F1 to start F-Zero. When all the cars are designed like the Red Bull X2014, with no restrictions, then I'll be happy.
    • Load More Comments