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

[thomin]

Well, we have heard from Red Bull that Vettel's problems in qualifying stemmed from a Software change that was made necessary in order conform with FIA fuel flow numbers. Ricciardo didn't have that constraint as he ran a faulty fuel flow meter (FFM) on Saturday, so the FIA allowed Red Bull to go to their fallback fuel monitoring method.

So I think it does sound reasonable that Red Bull may have lacked the experience with the engine in order to adapt the software on the fly.

While this ultimately comes down to speculation, I do believe that Red Bull couldn't run the Renault engine with the specs the FIA demanded. They tried it with Vettel and failed. With Ricciardo they ran the illegal spec, hoping to be able to get away with it after all the back and forth regarding the FFM on his car. When the FIA contacted Red Bull during the race, in order to warn them, Vettel was already out of the race and they suspected that Ricciardo would suffer the same fate, should they bow down. So they took their chances, having nothing to lose.

Again, pure speculation, but it fits in neatly with all the info we have.

It's thought-out and reasonably argued, but forgets a very critical part: you only have 100kg. You can't run 100kg/h or higher the whole race, so ricciardo eventually had to lower the fuel flow. The fact, yes that is a fact, that he did and didn't result in a DNF means it defeats the argument.

When we talk about the fuel flow limit, we necessarily talk about spikes, not long term averages. I'm no expert on the issue, but I gather that this indeed does make a difference. Being able to have sub-second bursts in power can make a performance difference if the engine mapping makes smart use of it. But regarding reliability, it can also make a difference. Maybe the Red Bull engine mapping needs a certain amount of fuel flow at a certain stage and if less is injected, the software runs into errors, going into safe mode or whatever. Even if that only happens once per lap, it could be fatal.

And again, Red Bull themselves said on Saturday that the software problems on Vettel's car came after they adjusted it according to the FIA's demands.

[turbof1]

When we talk about the fuel flow limit, we necessarily talk about spikes, not long term averages. I'm no expert on the issue, but I gather that this indeed does make a difference. Being able to have sub-second bursts in power can make a performance difference if the engine mapping makes smart use of it. But regarding reliability, it can also make a difference. Maybe the Red Bull engine mapping needs a certain amount of fuel flow at a certain stage and if less is injected, the software runs into errors, going into safe mode or whatever. Even if that only happens once per lap, it could be fatal.

And again, Red Bull themselves said on Saturday that the software problems on Vettel's car came after they adjusted it according to the FIA's demands.

I can't see how spikes would keep things reliable, but I'm no engine expert . In that case it's possible (yet also far fetched), but I do think red bull would have communicated that. In that regard we also should need to know the actual fuel flow that was in the red.

[Pup]

It's thought-out and reasonably argued, but forgets a very critical part: you only have 100kg. You can't run 100kg/h or higher the whole race, so ricciardo eventually had to lower the fuel flow. The fact, yes that is a fact, that he did and didn't result in a DNF means it defeats the argument.

How are you calling that a fact? No one but Red Bull knows how much fuel was in the car or how much he actually used. If the FFM shows that he used less than 100kg, that in fact is more evidence that the unit was working properly. Red Bull's argument is that the FFM was showing a higher rate than actual; so according to them it should show that he used more than 100kg of fuel.

Red Bull's numbers of course will say he didn't, and that the flow rate was within limits. But as I've said before, the entire reason for having the FFM is because the teams' data is too easy to fudge.

[forty-two]

Good point.

[turbof1]

It's thought-out and reasonably argued, but forgets a very critical part: you only have 100kg. You can't run 100kg/h or higher the whole race, so ricciardo eventually had to lower the fuel flow. The fact, yes that is a fact, that he did and didn't result in a DNF means it defeats the argument.

How are you calling that a fact? No one but Red Bull knows how much fuel was in the car or how much he actually used. If the FFM shows that he used less than 100kg, that in fact is more evidence that the unit was working properly. Red Bull's argument is that the FFM was showing a higher rate than actual; so according to them it should show that he used more than 100kg of fuel.

Red Bull's numbers of course will say he didn't, and that the flow rate was within limits. But as I've said before, the entire reason for having the FFM is because the teams' data is too easy to fudge.

The amount of fuel used can be varified later on by different means (weight of dry car + amount fuel put in before race - weight of car after race). The exclusion is based only on the fuel rate. If they also burned more fuel the official release would also have stated that. So it's safe to say that is a fact.

Remember the FFM has to be used for the fuel flow, but not for the total fuel burned off. It also isn't necessarily true that the FFM showed a total fuel usage of over 100kg. We had 5 laps of safety car and we don't have any data on how low fuel usage was when they weren't above the limit. So not, it "shouldn't" necessarily show a higher total fuel usage then 100kg, keeping in mind it isn't a regulatory means for total fuel calculation.

[beelsebob]

It's thought-out and reasonably argued, but forgets a very critical part: you only have 100kg. You can't run 100kg/h or higher the whole race, so ricciardo eventually had to lower the fuel flow. The fact, yes that is a fact, that he did and didn't result in a DNF means it defeats the argument.

How are you calling that a fact? No one but Red Bull knows how much fuel was in the car or how much he actually used. If the FFM shows that he used less than 100kg, that in fact is more evidence that the unit was working properly. Red Bull's argument is that the FFM was showing a higher rate than actual; so according to them it should show that he used more than 100kg of fuel.

Red Bull's numbers of course will say he didn't, and that the flow rate was within limits. But as I've said before, the entire reason for having the FFM is because the teams' data is too easy to fudge.

The amount of fuel used can be varified later on by different means (weight of dry car + amount fuel put in before race - weight of car after race). The exclusion is based only on the fuel rate. If they also burned more fuel the official release would also have stated that. So it's safe to say that is a fact.

Remember the FFM has to be used for the fuel flow, but not for the total fuel burned off.

Actually, it is used for the total fuel burned off too. The reason being that there are several things the teams do between opportunities to weigh the fuel tank/do other measurements, that are not counted towards the total.

Remember, the 100kg is for lights to flag, formation laps do not count, laps to get to the grid do not count, firing the engine up and running a warm up sequence does not count. It's not possible to measure how much was used over the course of the race other than taking the integral of the FFM's results.

[dans79]

come on people this should not be that hard to understand.

Rules:
1. Don't use more than 100kg of between lights out and the checkered flag.
2. Don't use fuel at a rate greater than 100 kg/hour.

generalities:
1. more fuel equals more power, less fuel equals less power
2. Higher rpm uses fuel at a higher rate

potential issues:
1. to much fuel can cause reliability problems
2. to lean a fuel mixture causes reliability problems


RBR is accused of using fuel at a rate greater than 100 kg/hr during points of the race. This most likely only happened on certain engine mappings in the higher rpm ranges. for example when Mag was attacking Ric probably switched to a higher output map. Thus any time he was above say 10k rpm he was using more than 100 kg/hr.

RBR's entire argument is that they say they can measure fuel flow better than the fia mandated sensor. IMO they are going to loose this argument if the fia shows any backbone at all, because they were told 2 weeks before the race that the sensor reading was the definitive source of information.

[basti313]

And again, Red Bull themselves said on Saturday that the software problems on Vettel's car came after they adjusted it according to the FIA's demands.

The problems have been based on wrong communication. The software for the sensor was fine, they just used the wrong mapping for the sensor. So please do not tell the same wrong stories over and over again.

[turbof1]

Actually, it is used for the total fuel burned off too. The reason being that there are several things the teams do between opportunities to weigh the fuel tank/do other measurements, that are not counted towards the total.

Remember, the 100kg is for lights to flag, formation laps do not count, laps to get to the grid do not count, firing the engine up and running a warm up sequence does not count. It's not possible to measure how much was used over the course of the race other than taking the integral of the FFM's results.

Good point about the usage outside the race. I however have issues with with assuming would just temper with the car afterwards; that same argument can be used for every technical rule. I know teams used such despickable means in the past, but I don't think they deliberately now want breach the rules. Too much scrutiny for that.

I have to take a look at the rules when I get home to verify the FFM has to be used for total fuel consumption. For me it still stands though that they obeyed the maximum allowed fuel usage. The official report would certainly have included that.

[beelsebob]

Actually, it is used for the total fuel burned off too. The reason being that there are several things the teams do between opportunities to weigh the fuel tank/do other measurements, that are not counted towards the total.

Remember, the 100kg is for lights to flag, formation laps do not count, laps to get to the grid do not count, firing the engine up and running a warm up sequence does not count. It's not possible to measure how much was used over the course of the race other than taking the integral of the FFM's results.

Good point about the usage outside the race. I however have issues with with assuming would just temper with the car afterwards; that same argument can be used for every technical rule. I know teams used such despickable means in the past, but I don't think they deliberately now want breach the rules. Too much scrutiny for that.

I have to take a look at the rules when I get home to verify the FFM has to be used for total fuel consumption. For me it still stands though that they obeyed the maximum allowed fuel usage. The official report would certainly have included that.

Absolutely, I'm sure they did get under the 100kg per race limit, but that doesn't change the fact that that's measured with the FFM.

[thomin]

And again, Red Bull themselves said on Saturday that the software problems on Vettel's car came after they adjusted it according to the FIA's demands.

The problems have been based on wrong communication. The software for the sensor was fine, they just used the wrong mapping for the sensor. So please do not tell the same wrong stories over and over again.

I never said anything else. My point being that they couldn't come up with a working engine mapping that was also within the fuel flow limits as defined by the FIA's sensor.

[thomin]

When we talk about the fuel flow limit, we necessarily talk about spikes, not long term averages. I'm no expert on the issue, but I gather that this indeed does make a difference. Being able to have sub-second bursts in power can make a performance difference if the engine mapping makes smart use of it. But regarding reliability, it can also make a difference. Maybe the Red Bull engine mapping needs a certain amount of fuel flow at a certain stage and if less is injected, the software runs into errors, going into safe mode or whatever. Even if that only happens once per lap, it could be fatal.

And again, Red Bull themselves said on Saturday that the software problems on Vettel's car came after they adjusted it according to the FIA's demands.

I can't see how spikes would keep things reliable, but I'm no engine expert . In that case it's possible (yet also far fetched), but I do think red bull would have communicated that. In that regard we also should need to know the actual fuel flow that was in the red.

I don't think Red Bull would communicate that as it would undermine their case.

But maybe the details will be revealed when they meet in court.

[jz11]

people arguing that max fuel flow is so easy to adjust have no idea about how the whole package is actually ran, I can't call myself an expert on F1 engines, and I know very little facts about the design of the package and how each part interacts with each other, but seeing that they don't seem to use any sort of mechanical device to limit exhaust gas pressure for turbocharger, they must be using some other means of controlling the boost levels (which have direct relation to the amount of fuel that is required for the engines combustion temperatures not to skyrocket and destroy it in seconds), and my guess is they use the AC generator on the turbocharger shaft to extract the excess energy from it (thus getting rid of the need to vent the excess gasses past the compressor) and by doing this control the boost levels (which directly correlates to max fuel flow required at any given time), and if you go in and bluntly reduce the max fuel flow, this will affect ALL engine adjustment maps - fuel injection, turboshaft AC generator control, then the usage of this energy during race and so on, one minor detail - BIG change on the already troublesome engine management as a whole

from my point of view, it was basically - either to conform to the FIA suggestion and risk of DNF, a finish outside points at best, or try to argue their way out of it after the race using their own fuel flow model, IMO no brainer here... they learned pretty much nothing from SV early retirement, but DR finish game them hours of log data to understand their car, engine, and, more important, FIA stance on their shitty fuel flow monitoring solution

it is not so easy to adjust that max fuel flow and maintain some sort of performance from the car, surely they gained some advantage over the competition by doing so, but calling them cheats - never, its just dumb, the base rule still is - 100kg/h, which they claim not to have exceeded and FIA, the POLICE, say they did, based on a wacky flow meter

and when the driver is called to "turn the engine down", it is not done via the fuel flow, because fuel flow amount is the result, not the means of controlling a petrol engine, turning the engine down is done via ignition timing maps, ignition max early - max engine output, delay it a bit - get less torque - less torque - less exhaust gasses - less gasses - less AC charging of the battery, less air in the engine, smaller amount of fuel etc etc, while for NA engines it is quite easy, when turbocharging is involved - this get quite complicated very fast, especially when the supercharger is powered by exhaust gasses

[jz11]

p.s. I still think that FIA totally screwed the whole thing up - they are THE police, if they think someone is working outside the rules and they are 100% sure of it - they should have just black flagged the car immediately and avoid all this nonsense, instead they go and suggest to adjust the car DURING THE RACE, which basically means - the car was illegal during some part of the race AND THEY KNEW IT!

either black flag, or immediately after the race, when the car is parked in the parc ferme, announce the decision to exclude the car based on the breach of the max fuel flow rule, and that's it!

[Pup]

At first I thought the same, but I think the reason they didn't black flag the car is that the infraction wasn't communicated to the stewards until after the race. The FIA's technical delegate can't black flag a car, as far as I know. Or maybe he did tell the stewards during the race, but they felt they needed more info from the team (or needed a crash course on fuel flow meters) before they made a decision.