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

[turbof1]

If the deviation is that much, then adjusting to the sensors' inaccuracy would mean some teams would be at an advantage because some will be reading higher than others right? If that is the case, then it might be better to abolish that limit and let the 100kg max fuel load and engine reliability dictate flow management. I reckon that would be a fairer situation for all teams.

I can agree with that. The FIA didn't handle the situation well. Though Red Bull tried to pull an advantage relative to others out of it. FIA trying to safe face and Red Bull being greedy. Both are wrong.

[MOWOG]

it might be better to abolish that limit and let the 100kg max fuel load and engine reliability dictate flow management.

Stop making sense, Sir! This is Formula One, the pinnacle of motorsport. Any connection to reality is accidental and unintentional.

[dans79]

Imo we have 2 seperate cases here:

-We have the Gill ultrasonice fuel flow sensors which were acclaimed to be accurate to 0,1% in roughly half of the sensors, and accurate to 0.25% in 80% of the cases. Yet teams have deviation of 4-6%.

has this been proven though? all I have seen is Horner, and some RBR fans claiming inaccuracies, and other teams saying they had to reduce flow. Just because they don't match what the teams think they should be doesn't mean they are inaccurate.
Until I see some independent lab tests saying the sensors are out of spec, this hole thing is just RBR and some of its fans being crybabies.

[thomin]

And I'm arguing that the sensor is NOT providing a level playing field due to not being accurate!
!

But that's mere conjecture. There's no evidence whatsoever other than RB inklings.

On the other hand the tolerance levels are defined to be so tight that you'd have to believe in some sort of conspiracy where inaccurate sensors are smuggled in despite failing calibration.

[thomin]

Imo we have 2 seperate cases here:

-We have the Gill ultrasonice fuel flow sensors which were acclaimed to be accurate to 0,1% in roughly half of the sensors, and accurate to 0.25% in 80% of the cases. Yet teams have deviation of 4-6%.

has this been proven though? all I have seen is Horner, and some RBR fans claiming inaccuracies, and other teams saying they had to reduce flow. Just because they don't match what the teams think they should be doesn't mean they are inaccurate.
Until I see some independent lab tests saying the sensors are out of spec, this hole thing is just RBR and some of its fans being crybabies.

Exactly. The tolerances are defined as such that any sensor used must not exceed a 0.25% variance. The sensors were tested before and after the race and all of them conformed to the standard.

If there is one thing to charge the FIA with, it's that they didn't communicate all that aggressively enough.

[miguelalvesreis]

Imo we have 2 seperate cases here:

-We have the Gill ultrasonice fuel flow sensors which were acclaimed to be accurate to 0,1% in roughly half of the sensors, and accurate to 0.25% in 80% of the cases. Yet teams have deviation of 4-6%.

has this been proven though? all I have seen is Horner, and some RBR fans claiming inaccuracies, and other teams saying they had to reduce flow. Just because they don't match what the teams think they should be doesn't mean they are inaccurate.
Until I see some independent lab tests saying the sensors are out of spec, this hole thing is just RBR and some of its fans being crybabies.

And furthermore, seeing some independent labs certifying the RB measurement is accurate! If the injectors are that accurate why no one raised that solution on 1st place? Sincerely, none of the solutions I've seen written in this thread seem accurate to the level the Gill sensor is claiming.

[the EDGE]

The speeding analogy is a good one. The law says you can't go over the speed limit but doesn't say how they will measure it.

You can have a speeding fine overturned by proving their measurements are wrong (faulty device or out of cal) or at least unreliable (not used correctly).

This is basically what Red Bull are doing.

If the police lower the speed limit from 70mph to 50mph and you continue to travel at 70mph you are breaking the limit and are liable to prosecution... so no, the speeding analogy is not a good example really

And the point the Judge makes about running out of fuel is flawed too because teams can out as much fuel in the tank as they want, its only the race which is limited and i suppose its the fuel mass sensor that measures that too

[Sebp]

[djos]

Imo we have 2 seperate cases here:

-We have the Gill ultrasonice fuel flow sensors which were acclaimed to be accurate to 0,1% in roughly half of the sensors, and accurate to 0.25% in 80% of the cases. Yet teams have deviation of 4-6%.

has this been proven though? all I have seen is Horner, and some RBR fans claiming inaccuracies, and other teams saying they had to reduce flow. Just because they don't match what the teams think they should be doesn't mean they are inaccurate.
Until I see some independent lab tests saying the sensors are out of spec, this hole thing is just RBR and some of its fans being crybabies.

Exactly. The tolerances are defined as such that any sensor used must not exceed a 0.25% variance. The sensors were tested before and after the race and all of them conformed to the standard.

If there is one thing to charge the FIA with, it's that they didn't communicate all that aggressively enough.

So far only the FIA and Gill believe the sensors are this accurate outside of a controlled lab environment!

There is no way in hell Toto wolf could justify his .5 a second lap time deficit claim if the sensors were consistently accurate to within .25% - however the 4-6% deviation mentioned around the traps could most definitely produce this kind of result!

[Gridlock]

So far only the FIA and Gill believe the sensors are this accurate outside of a controlled lab environment!

There is no way in hell Toto wolf could justify his .5 a second lap time deficit claim if the sensors were consistently accurate to within .25% - however the 4-6% deviation mentioned around the traps could most definitely produce this kind of result!

But as repeatedly explained accuracy can be impacted by a great number of things, many of which are entirely the team's responsibility such as suppression of electrical interference.

[Richard]

The news story on the front page of this site mentions:

backup system is the calculated fuel flow model with a correction factor decided by the FIA.
http://www.f1technical.net/news/19219

So in a scenario when the sensor is deemed incorrect would this mean the back up system uses fuel injection data from the ECU calculation with some sort of pre-arranged calibration?

So does that mean RB disputed both the sensor readings and also the fuel consumption calc derived from their own data?

[Pup]

I think so, Richard.

[djos]

But as repeatedly explained accuracy can be impacted by a great number of things, many of which are entirely the team's responsibility such as suppression of electrical interference.

No it isn't, the teams have no control over the FFM, it's a controlled part just like the ECU and it's up to the OEM to ensure that the controlled component operates in the intended environment.

[djos]

The news story on the front page of this site mentions:

backup system is the calculated fuel flow model with a correction factor decided by the FIA.
http://www.f1technical.net/news/19219

So in a scenario when the sensor is deemed incorrect would this mean the back up system uses fuel injection data from the ECU calculation with some sort of pre-arranged calibration?

So does that mean RB disputed both the sensor readings and also the fuel consumption calc derived from their own data?

The team have only ever pointed the finger at the FFM as being inaccurate, everything they've said publicly indicates they believe the numbers from the ECU over the FFM.

[langwadt]

The news story on the front page of this site mentions:

backup system is the calculated fuel flow model with a correction factor decided by the FIA.
http://www.f1technical.net/news/19219

So in a scenario when the sensor is deemed incorrect would this mean the back up system uses fuel injection data from the ECU calculation with some sort of pre-arranged calibration?

So does that mean RB disputed both the sensor readings and also the fuel consumption calc derived from their own data?

The way I understand it RB believed their own fuel flow model (the back up) was correct, The FIA had given them a correction factor to make it match the official flow meter, they wouldn't use the correction factor

To stay with the speeding analogy;

FIA: Measurements show you are speeding,
RB: Our speedometer shows under the limit,
FIA: Told you yesterday that you speedometer doesn't match the homologated measurement adjust it xx%,
we'll let it pass this time
RB: NO
..
FIA: Measurements show you are still speeding ,
RB: Our speedometer shows under the limit,
FIA: Told you already speedometer is wrong: DQ