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

[ChrisM40]

I dont think the RB fanboys know what it is they are arguing for. If RB lose the case they lose the points and have to comply, making them about as fast as STR. If they win then they will get the points back, but all the other teams will start doing what RB did, putting RB back down to where they genuinely are, about as fast as STR. All they stand to gain are the 18 points, which may or may not make much difference by the end of the season .

[djos]

I dont think the RB fanboys know what it is they are arguing for.

A/ Im a Dan Riccardo Fan Boi

B/ and also a Williams F1 Fan Boi (have been since the 80's)

C/ I know exactly what Im arguing for, Im arguing for a 4x 9's accurate fuel flow control system not the POS we currently have now that only works as advertised in a Lab! If the FIA want to restrict fuel flow to a maximum of 100kg per hour then use a homologated piece of titanium tubing to restrict flow, not a too clever for our own good ultrasonic measuring device.

You can get a spec Titanium restrictor part made to far finer tolerances than what you can accurately measure with ultrasonics and then there will be a 100% level playing field for all and then we can get on with the racing.

/rant

[triart3d]

The prloblem here is that the FIA sensor is THE UNIQUE allowed sensor to calculate the fuel flow.
The unique valid for that calculation... Work well, or not.

RedBull must run the car within the regulations:
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.


5.10.5 Any device, system or procedure the purpose and/or effect of which is to increase the flow rate after the measurement point is prohibited

[ecapox]

I think many of us, as do the teams, agree with those points djos. But that is not the issue at hand.

The issue is that Redbull intentionally disregarded the messages to adjust their flow from the FIA.

I disagree with the 45 mph speed limit on the road to my house. Unfortunately if I go over the speed limit and there is a cop patrolling the area, I will get a ticket. I can argue that the speed limit is garbage, and if a judge agrees, the speed limit will get adjusted, but I will still be on the hook for the ticket because I broke the speedlimit BEFORE it was adjusted.

[ChrisM40]

When i worked for a touring car team we found a way around a flow restrictor, although the solution only worked if the restrictor was placed in a specific section of the line and getting the solution right was tricky.

[Paul]

The current sensor is itself a flow restrictor, surely its diameter is same for everyone and doesn't change. Additional data and calculations are still necessary to determine the actual mass flow.

[ChrisM40]

I dont think anyone is arguing that the FFM is the perfect solution, but relying on the teams own data sure as hell isnt and flow restrictors are not the perfect answer either. The FIA wanted a quantifiable measure, so this is the system they use, its not going anywhere.

[jz11]

I'm no RB fanboy, but can look like one if someone is reading this thread, for me it's not about RB, it's about garbage solution that FIA implemented to police the issue, it could be Mercedes or Caterham instead of RB, I would still think and write the same thing

I was quite technical about why and how the sensors could make errors, about why tuning down the fuel flow is not as easy as it may look, especially when exhaust gas powered turbocharger with no bypass system is involved, and opposition brings no technical details here whatsoever, apart from flow meter datasheet numbers and legal stuff

for me the issue is - they are destroying the sport as it was, gradually, step by step, rule after rule upon new rule and new technical directive, just to limit the options and disable pretty much all possible innovation, and then introduce stuff like garbage tires, and this max flow limit that they can't really monitor accurately, but since they can - they introduce the rule and say that this solution will be the boss, and then go around the pit lane telling who is too fast and who is not - you don't see a problem here?

in a world where this flow meter was not introduced, but the 100kg/h limit was still there, and there was a suspicion of someone cheating, it would have been investigated by proper methods post race, not during it, you simply do not do that while the race is on, if found guilty afterwards - dsq, if not, then the innovative thought they had worked on - payed off, and now makes other teams scratch their heads as to what this thing is about - this is what F1 is about for me, not FIA going around and telling who should be fast and who not

[ebare]

I was reading up on it MONTHS ago, long before any RBR fan cared about it.....
Lol....

LOL? So, if things are that black and white, would you care to explain why did they bother to appeal? If you have been reading about the subject for months, you probably familiar with an interview with the head of Gill Sensors where he admitted they still had some issues, which he expected to have solve in the beginning of the championship, except that they wheren’t. And that’s the paddock’s word, aka: a fact

I dont think the RB fanboys know what it is they are arguing for.

Perhaps RB fan boys don't know what they are arguing for, but both of you abide by the same error, which is thinking like other teams fan boys, therefore being absolutely certain about the guilt. So let´s try the other way around. Let´s think of what conclusions to reach if the hearing happens to prove (April 14) that they complyed with the flow rate regs and where asked by the FIA to downtune their engine in one unfair manner? This is something both you should read: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113033

Being given that the sensors could lead to some teams being unfairly impaired, how would they be assigned, by pure luck (or lack of it, to be precise), the shortest straw, the eyes of the costumer or what?

[ChrisM40]

I was reading up on it MONTHS ago, long before any RBR fan cared about it.....
Lol....

LOL? So, if things are that black and white, would you care to explain why did they bother to appeal? If you have been reading about the subject for months, you probably familiar with an interview with the head of Gill Sensors where he admitted they still had some issues, which he expected to have solve in the beginning of the championship, except that they wheren’t. And that’s the paddock’s word, aka: a fact

I dont think the RB fanboys know what it is they are arguing for.

Perhaps RB fan boys don't know what they are arguing for, but both of you abide by the same error, which is thinking like other teams fan boys, therefore being absolutely certain about the guilt. So let´s try the other way around. Let´s think of what conclusions to reach if the hearing happens to prove (April 14) that they complyed with the flow rate regs and where asked by the FIA to downtune their engine in one unfair manner? This is something both you should read: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113033

Being given that the sensors could lead to some teams being unfairly impaired, how would they be assigned, by pure luck (or lack of it, to be precise), the shortest straw, the eyes of the costumer or what?

They ARE guilty! There is no debate about it, as the rule stands they are guilty because they ignored the FIA instructions, that in itself makes them guilty, whether they breached in the flow limit or not.

Whatever the truth they enjoyed a higher flow rate than the rest of the field, so even if the FIA sensor isnt giving a level playing field, RBs action made it even less level.

Sensors can be changed, variance should level out over the whole season, no one has an unfair advantage. I would say the same whatever team it affected. I like Ricciardo, I want him to do well (better than Vettel in fact), I don't care for the team, but its their own fault, they push limits, win some and lose some. They are running with illegal camera mounts to, which they got away with, so frankly, on balance, its justice.

[beelsebob]

I'm no RB fanboy, but can look like one if someone is reading this thread, for me it's not about RB, it's about garbage solution that FIA implemented to police the issue, it could be Mercedes or Caterham instead of RB, I would still think and write the same thing

The thing is, you have no evidence that the FIA's solution is actually garbage.

You have no evidence at all that the readings that RedBull are complaining about are actually inaccurate.

Don't get me wrong – if there's actually some evidence that the FFM does not accurately measure flow, then that's fine, but as it stands, there is none, and there's evidence that these devices have been tested to within ±0.25% accuracy.

[basti313]

Remarkable how no one can say anything in this thread without the fanboys reaching for their caps lock key. Meanwhile, over at Autosport, they're managing to have an actual technical discussion about the issue.

Embarrassing. If I were Stephen, I think I'd delete this entire thread.

This IS the ying-yang-thread, so no need to complain! (Sorry for caps lock...and !)

This thread was opened to keep RB and Gilles sensor thread clean from this BS. Everything is ok.

[jz11]

I'm no RB fanboy, but can look like one if someone is reading this thread, for me it's not about RB, it's about garbage solution that FIA implemented to police the issue, it could be Mercedes or Caterham instead of RB, I would still think and write the same thing

The thing is, you have no evidence that the FIA's solution is actually garbage.

You have no evidence at all that the readings that RedBull are complaining about are actually inaccurate.

Don't get me wrong – if there's actually some evidence that the FFM does not accurately measure flow, then that's fine, but as it stands, there is none, and there's evidence that these devices have been tested to within ±0.25% accuracy.

Did you not read what others and I wrote earlier about standartised testing and calibration of such devices? Standartised testing is what it is - under certain conditions (which are stated in the standard) taken measurements are +/- X amount to a true measurement which is done via this other (whatever that may be) method, and that is it, that is what it says for an engineer, it doesn't say that the X will be true for every and all possible applications and situations, that error rate is true only for the conditions of the standard test. And this current application is the exception - because there are inconsistencies with the projected fuel flow models, not only RBs model, but pretty much all of them, those are facts, it is just that for others it is not a big deal, they have a work around, but for RB there apparently wasn't.

Ok, the accuracy aside, let's imagine the sensor is 100% accurate.

Rule states - 100kg/h? so in theory you can have 500kg/h for 12 minutes and then stop the flow altogether and you will be compliant with the 100kg/h limit still, because which ever way you measure these 12 minutes, in 1h period with those 12min in it, the average flow will be 100kg/h. And this is where 10Hz and 5Hz come into the play.

Now what happened was that FIA apparently chose to run the flow meter and measure (and by measure I mean they got an average every 1/10 of a second from readings that were taken 1000 times a second) the flow in 10Hz frequency - meaning, every 1/10 of second the flow must not exceed the 100kg/h, now where is that statement in the rules that it will be measured 10 times a second? And then, during the course of the race weekend they decide, upon numerous inconsistencies with the predicted flow models, decrease that measurement rate to 5 times a second, does that not rise any doubt in your mind about this rule at all?

Maybe (because we don't know what the appeal wording is) RB claim is that their average is still 100kg/h, but if you measure 5 times a second, you will get 2 readings of 150kg/h, 2 readings of 50kg/h and 1 reading of 100kg/h, so the average is still 100kg/h, but from FIA point of view - they have CONSISTENTLY exceeded the flow rate and are to be disqualified.

there are 2 rules that are about this, and not 1 of them says that the flow must be those 100kg/h for smaller time period than an hour, that is how I understand the wording anyway

5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.
5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5.

second one is dodgy - because it mentions that rpm, but prior to that is still states that Q is in kilograms per hour.

[beelsebob]

Rule states - 100kg/h? so in theory you can have 500kg/h for 12 minutes and then stop the flow altogether and you will be compliant with the 100kg/h limit still, because which ever way you measure these 12 minutes, in 1h period with those 12min in it, the average flow will be 100kg/h. And this is where 10Hz and 5Hz come into the play.

Urgh... NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO

Really, stop spouting this rubbish. It has been discussed to death. The limit is not on average fuel flow, it is on maximum fuel flow.

Now what happened was that FIA apparently chose to run the flow meter and measure (and by measure I mean they got an average every 1/10 of a second from readings that were taken 1000 times a second) the flow in 10Hz frequency - meaning, every 1/10 of second the flow must not exceed the 100kg/h, now where is that statement in the rules that it will be measured 10 times a second? And then, during the course of the race weekend they decide, upon numerous inconsistencies with the predicted flow models, decrease that measurement rate to 5 times a second, does that not rise any doubt in your mind about this rule at all?

No where is it stated, that's because it's stated as a maximum. That is, for all samples, at any time, that sample may not exceed the limit. It does not matter when you sample, because if *any* sample exceeds the limit, no matter when you took it, the rule has been broken.

Maybe (because we don't know what the appeal wording is) RB claim is that their average is still 100kg/h, but if you measure 5 times a second, you will get 2 readings of 150kg/h, 2 readings of 50kg/h and 1 reading of 100kg/h, so the average is still 100kg/h, but from FIA point of view - they have CONSISTENTLY exceeded the flow rate and are to be disqualified.

Again, the average does not matter. The rule is about the maximum.

[jz11]

maybe I wasn't clear enough, I understand the maximum is 100kg/h, and from this I conclude that the sample is the average of all 10 or 5Hz samples during that particular hour, English is my second language, but this is how I read the rule - 5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.

you cannot quantify fuel flow without the time period, so you WILL have to average at some point, because if take a sample small enough, you will see that there is no actual fuel flow and then there is some gigantic number, and the reason is - your sample was too small, in fact so small, that you saw periods where all injectors were in closed state and then your got measurement of a an opened injector

now, if you wanted to be really clear about this - you specify fuel injector flow rate in the rules, but it is not there, there is only the 100kg PER HOUR - you are bound to work with some sort of average number even if you measure momentary flow in 5th of a second intervals, am I 100% clear now?