The International Court of Appeal has today revealed that it will uphold the exclusion of Daniel Ricciardo from the Australian Grand Prix and reject the team's appeal.
No it is not.... Fuel rate measured using injector data vs a FIA flow meter that must be re-calibrated during the race. Any doubt about which is more accurate?Ral wrote:It really isn't that hard.
for the last time man the the sensor didn't need recalibrated, RBR was told to correct the amount of fuel the where using because the sensor said they where using to much. RBR only really has two ways of doing that during a race, tell the driver not to use full throttle or adjust the map so that at full throttle less fuel is used. I would love to hear the radio message to Ric, "Ric only push the pedal 98% of the way down so we don't use to much fuel"hardingfv32 wrote:No it is not.... Fuel rate measured using injector data vs a FIA flow meter that must be re-calibrated during the race. Any doubt about which is more accurate?Ral wrote:It really isn't that hard.
Brian
Red Bull used their own fuel rate model and abandoned the FIA's. Its a software matter; in lay terms, the charge is that Red Bull effectively chucked out the FIA's directions about how code could read fuel parameters from the sensor and invented their own methods.LionKing wrote:Technical Regulations copied from previous posts:
5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.
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.
Why people keep saying RBR did not use FIA supplied fuel meter? That part I don't understand.
As far as I know they did use it. It was in the car and obviously sending the values out. So RBR is compliant with 5.10.3 and 5.10.4.
The only issue is whether they adhere to 5.1.4 regulating the mass flow or not? If they can prove that they should win the appeal.
I'm not nit picking. This is an important distinction. You guys claimed that there were no "flow meters" in the engine injectors because they're simply measuring time open, pressure etc, and then computing flow from that. Similarly, the FIA official flow meter is simply measuring velocity, temperature etc, and then computing flow from that. The two are doing the exact same job, in the exact same way. There is no reason to believe that the injectors do it more accurately than the FIA's sensor.jz11 wrote:why are you nit-picking? no one is concerned as to what happens inside the thing - the output is the mass flow, therefore you can ignore the detailed specifics and just say - it measures mass flow
The FFM uses an ultrasonic measuring device, this is in no way the same as calculating the fuel flow using pump pressure and injector open times!beelsebob wrote:I'm not nit picking. This is an important distinction. You guys claimed that there were no "flow meters" in the engine injectors because they're simply measuring time open, pressure etc, and then computing flow from that. Similarly, the FIA official flow meter is simply measuring velocity, temperature etc, and then computing flow from that. The two are doing the exact same job, in the exact same way. There is no reason to believe that the injectors do it more accurately than the FIA's sensor.jz11 wrote:why are you nit-picking? no one is concerned as to what happens inside the thing - the output is the mass flow, therefore you can ignore the detailed specifics and just say - it measures mass flow
None of these circular arguments mater. The sensor is what's supposed to be used to measure fuel flow, if they don't want to use the sensor, then they can feel free to pack up and go home.djos wrote: The FFM uses an ultrasonic measuring device, this is in no way the same as calculating the fuel flow using pump pressure and injector open times!
Ultrasonic measurement is a last resort, it's horribly low res and why ultrasonic tape measures went the way of the dodo as soon and laser tape measures became affordable!
You only use ultrasonic measuring when you have no other choice.
They are accurate, error is less than 1%, and from I have read over the last several months they are more accurate than the method RBR used. hence the reason the method RBR used is the fall back method and not the primary method.djos wrote:Thats a crazy argument! F1 is supposed to be about cutting edge racing, using unreliable and inaccurate FFM's is tarnishing F1's reputation!
They'd have been better of issuing titanium flow restriction tubes and then there's be no need to have this discussion!
That is to comply with the Tech Regs and the procurement contract..dans79 wrote:They are accurate, error is less than 1%
djos wrote:Thats a crazy argument! F1 is supposed to be about cutting edge racing, using unreliable and inaccurate FFM's is tarnishing F1's reputation!
They'd have been better of issuing titanium flow restriction tubes and then there's be no need to have this discussion!
