Red Bull exceed fuel flow limit, Ricciardo DSQ at Australian GP

[Vasconia]

What about top speeds during this GP? No info whatsoever on TV, what a joke. No Gforce information, no nothing. Are they too ashamed of how slow the cars are?

Well, it is supposed that those cars have a good top speed, so I imagine that this has been a mistake or technical problem, anyway its strange, and we dont know this data to confima that those car are really slow.

[CBeck113]

I guess my main gripe with the situation is that while the rule is clear (max. flow), *I* as a team would want to run as close to that limit and be able to rely on its accuracy of the sensor that is going to dictate if I am within that threshold or not. This calibration and the FIA effectively "ordering" correction values during the race is problematic, if RedBull seems to think they've been running way within the stated threshold and could prove it. Imagine if this is in fact correct - what a farce! You certainly don't want to walk out of a GP and feel you've been effectively shafted due to an inaccurate sensor!

I know there are some that seem to think the FIA are the "police" - the undisputed rule - the referee and what they say is correct regardless of right or wrong... but imagine, you driving along a highway and the police stops you and claims you've been doing 10km/h over the speed limit (while effectively being 5km/h under it). There are only two (fair) outcomes to this: either you can prove that the messurment device of the police was fauly/inaccurate (on which basis, you should be free to walk) or you can't prove it and you must assume your own speedo was incorrect, which will mean that any penality enforced would be fair.

In other words - the onus (IMO) is on Redbull to prove that the correction value of the FIA was incorrect and that they were running "legal". If they can't prove this, then the penality is just. If they can prove it however, and given we as fans want fairness and a credible sport, the penality is not and the FIA will really need to find ways to either enforce the rule credible or not at all.

That's not quite accurate. Actually it would be more like the police giving you a second speedometer and saying THIS one is never allowed to show a reading which exceeds the speed limit. Then the police see that it indeed does show excessive values, and gives you a warning, which you ignore. So, who's fault is it?
I certainly do understand RBs decision - if they adjusted the fuel it would have been a disadvantage which they couldn't fight against after the race - the FIA wouldn't give them the points they thought they would have achieved. BUT, that is not the reason for the DQ. They did not follow the instructions even after being warned - they had to be DQed, but at least they tried. I personally believe that this is their martyr to contest the rule itself, and not the DQ.

[timbo]

As I understand the technical directives are not rules.

Teams still have to follow them, right?

[Phil]

That's not quite accurate. Actually it would be more like the police giving you a second speedometer and saying THIS one is never allowed to show a reading which exceeds the speed limit. Then the police see that it indeed does show excessive values, and gives you a warning, which you ignore. So, who's fault is it?

That wouldn't be accurate though. Not in my country anyway. The 'law' only states the max speed on highways (or as indicated), not what speedometer you need to use. I think it's the same in F1 where the rule states the fuel flow max - not specifically that the fuel flow sensor is always correct and must be abided by (even if it isn't). I also don't think the FIA came and said *you must limit the fuel of car 3* - but more as in *we have reason to believe that your car 3 is running over the threshold as indicated by these numbers - we therefore advice you to lower it accoarding to these values [or risk an investigation post race where we might conclude when in breach of article x.y.z. your disqualifcation from the race].

Because of this, I'm not sure I agree, but perhaps there are also different view points to consider. I'm looking at it from a sporting perspective. The rules are clear in what fuel flow is allowed. This is undisputable. From a sporting perspective, it is also important that the rule can be enforced equally and accurately over all competitors. If Redbull is right in their argument that they were within the rule of using the allowed fuel flow is yet to be seen. If they indeed can prove this, IMO the FIA will have a lot to answer for. They can't be seen telling teams to run below what the rule states. If they do, they need to at least be sure that their reasoning is sound and doesn't breach the sporting rules. That being that all teams must confirm to the same rules.

I refuse to think that different sensors (calibrated differently) could and should result in different fuel-flow-max across cars. In an idea world - the sensor is accurate the therefore the rule undisputed. IMO it's up to Redbull to prove now that this is *not* the case (in their case). If this is true, I see a huge scandal awaiting for the FIA because it would put the sporting code in doubt.

[MadMatt]

F1 has digged its own grave long time ago. I'm surprised people realize it just now.

[n_anirudh]

Size of Pirelli marbles collected on the main straight at Albert Park during the last 3 GPs




This could be so very random, but this year I could hardly find any marbles and those that I found were very small.

[e30ernest]

This calibration and the FIA effectively "ordering" correction values during the race is problematic

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, the correction values sent to Red Bull were for the team's own fuel measurements and not the FFM. Basically, they were told to adjust their own readings to correlate with the FIA's FFM so that they won't go over the 100kg/h flow limit as read by that FFM.

In other words - the onus (IMO) is on Redbull to prove that the correction value of the FIA was incorrect and that they were running "legal". If they can't prove this, then the penality is just. If they can prove it however, and given we as fans want fairness and a credible sport, the penality is not and the FIA will really need to find ways to either enforce the rule credible or not at all.

The DQ wasn't just because of that, but also due to the team ignoring warnings of the FIA. They were given sufficient notice and time to adjust their fuel flow to conform with the FIAs measurements but they did not. It doesn't matter if they think the FIAs FFM wasn't accurate since the rules state that this will be the basis for measuring fuel flow.

[timbo]

That's not quite accurate. Actually it would be more like the police giving you a second speedometer and saying THIS one is never allowed to show a reading which exceeds the speed limit. Then the police see that it indeed does show excessive values, and gives you a warning, which you ignore. So, who's fault is it?

That wouldn't be accurate though. Not in my country anyway. The 'law' only states the max speed on highways (or as indicated), not what speedometer you need to use. I think it's the same in F1 where the rule states the fuel flow max - not specifically that the fuel flow sensor is always correct and must be abided by (even if it isn't). I also don't think the FIA came and said *you must limit the fuel of car 3* - but more as in *we have reason to believe that your car 3 is running over the threshold as indicated by these numbers - we therefore advice you to lower it accoarding to these values [or risk an investigation post race where we might conclude when in breach of article x.y.z. your disqualifcation from the race].

This is wrong, just above there are quotes from the regs:
5.10.3 Homologated sensors must be fitted which directly measure the pressure, the temperature and the flow of the fuel supplied to the injectors, these signals must be supplied to the FIA data logger.
5.10.4 Only one homologated FIA fuel flow sensor may be fitted to the car which must be placed wholly within the fuel tank

[tim|away]

The big question to me is: In the future, how will they distinguish a faulty flow meter from a team exceeding the allowed flow limit? This appears to be an impossible task without any redundancies.

[SectorOne]

Size of Pirelli marbles collected on the main straight at Albert Park during the last 3 GPs

http://i837.photobucket.com/albums/zz29 ... fb9afe.jpg


This could be so very random, but this year I could hardly find any marbles and those that I found were very small.

Nice one, that is good news!

[smr]

Kevin really is doing the definition of "sticking it to" though.

This.

Only Kevin beat his teammate in a straight fight this weekend.

D.R and Nico were both aided by mechanical problems their teammate faced. That said, both drove really well.

How can it be deemed a fair fight when Jenson had to back off under Kimi's yellow flag in Q2! =D>

[the EDGE]

Size of Pirelli marbles collected on the main straight at Albert Park during the last 3 GPs

http://i837.photobucket.com/albums/zz29 ... fb9afe.jpg


This could be so very random, but this year I could hardly find any marbles and those that I found were very small.

I have no doubt Pirelli have finally found the correct formula

I think where they have gone wrong the last few years is in attempting to design tyres that only lasted a certain length of time whereas what they should have done is try to design tyres that would last the whole go but had gradual drop off in performance so teams were encouraged to change tyres rather than being forced too

This would have lead to a wider mix of strategy with some choosing to take the long careful approach and some to to push hard and Pitt more

[the EDGE]

Kevin really is doing the definition of "sticking it to" though.

This.

Only Kevin beat his teammate in a straight fight this weekend.

D.R and Nico were both aided by mechanical problems their teammate faced. That said, both drove really well.

How can it be deemed a fair fight when Jenson had to back off under Kimi's yellow flag in Q2! =D>

Did Kevin not also set his best Q2 time under yellows?

I think Jensons a great, steady driver who definitely belongs at McLaren, but you got to hand it Kevin... That was one heck of a debut from quali in the wet to chequered flag in what is undoubtably the hardest era in F1 in a long long time. More torque, less downforce and in what most claim is only the 4-6 fastest car on the grid (yer right!)

[smr]

Did Kevin not also set his best Q2 time under yellows?

I think Jensons a great, steady driver who definitely belongs at McLaren, but you got to hand it Kevin... That was one heck of a debut from quali in the wet to chequered flag in what is undoubtably the hardest era in F1 in a long long time. More torque, less downforce and in what most claim is only the 4-6 fastest car on the grid (yer right!)[/quote]

I'll have to rewatch it but I was sure KM didn't get caught out by it like Jenson did. The interesting thing is that both drivers were trading blows throughout the weekend, neither one or the other exactly had the upperhand during any session.

[Phil]

This is wrong, just above there are quotes from the regs:
5.10.3 Homologated sensors must be fitted which directly measure the pressure, the temperature and the flow of the fuel supplied to the injectors, these signals must be supplied to the FIA data logger.
5.10.4 Only one homologated FIA fuel flow sensor may be fitted to the car which must be placed wholly within the fuel tank

Thanks for pointing that out again. I still don't quite see how these regulation cover the case of the sensor perhaps supplying false values - may it be by missconfiguration or other factor. IMO - the predetermined rule, above all else, is the limit, that being 100kg/h. The other regs are there to ensure that the specified fuel flow limit is met and can be policed.

I still think RedBull has an extremely strong case if they can prove that the measuring device (and the correction values supplied by the FIA during the race) were not correct and that they were not in breach of the fuel rate. If they can't, then of course all this talk is redundant and the disqualification will stand as an example of just enforcing of the rules.