Byejz11 wrote:I'm out of this, going to wait for more information about the appeal.
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
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.
Byejz11 wrote:I'm out of this, going to wait for more information about the appeal.
jz11 wrote:
simplest way is to delay spark if that is the source of knock, if not, and your fuel is very precious, you reduce air by allowing some exhaust gasses escape past the turbocharger, or in F1 case - you increase the generator load on the turbocharger shaft, thus reducing boost levels - which will cool the engine down if you've been running too lean and cylinders overheated, there really is no simple fix or it would have been used, or you think renault are just a bunch of amateurs?
Meaning that unless you have reliable intel, and by reliable i mean something like: from x to y the fuel rate exceeded the 100Kg/h by z, wich you haven´t, right now, that’s the only thing you can acuse them for. As for the remaining, is just the typical empty hatter speech, as long as there is a conviction it’s ok to you, and even dare to talk about justice.ChrisM40 wrote: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.
What you fail to understand is that following procedure is everything. Whatever else they may or may not be guilty of they are guilty of failing to follow procedure. Seriously, next time you are given instructions by a policeman or your boss, fair or otherwise, please refuse, and see where it gets you.ebare wrote:Meaning that unless you have reliable intel, and by reliable i mean something like: from x to y the fuel rate exceeded the 100Kg/h by z, wich you haven´t, right now, that’s the only thing you can acuse them for. As for the remaining, is just the typical empty hatter speech, as long as there is a conviction it’s ok to you, and even dare to talk about justice.ChrisM40 wrote: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.
In the end you might get lucky. Not because they are guilty of exceeding the flow rate, but because the FIA will try to defend the sensors it homologated, otherwise it will open the Pandora box allowing the other teams to rely in their own readings, thus making the sensors look clumsy and a step longer the the legs.
So, just let life unfold and the universe will find it’s balance in the end.
P.S. Next time you want to make a point don't use just the caps lock, underline it to. Just in case.
Except that they weren't penalised for not following procedure. They were penalised for breaking the fuel flow limit:ChrisM40 wrote:What you fail to understand is that following procedure is everything. Whatever else they may or may not be guilty of they are guilty of failing to follow procedure.
What are you on about? The fact that the FIA fuel flow meter (FFM) recorded that Ricciardo was consistently exceeding the allowed fuel rate is not in dispute. The FIA has not made their data public (which they should), possibly to protect Red Bull as it could reveal intricacies about their engine mapping. Yet we can safely assume that the facts support their claim, otherwise Red Bull would have objected, which they didn't.ebare wrote:Meaning that unless you have reliable intel, and by reliable i mean something like: from x to y the fuel rate exceeded the 100Kg/h by z, wich you haven´t, right now, that’s the only thing you can acuse them for. As for the remaining, is just the typical empty hatter speech, as long as there is a conviction it’s ok to you, and even dare to talk about justice.ChrisM40 wrote: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.
In the end you might get lucky. Not because they are guilty of exceeding the flow rate, but because the FIA will try to defend the sensors it homologated, otherwise it will open the Pandora box allowing the other teams to rely in their own readings, thus making the sensors look clumsy and a step longer the the legs.
So, just let life unfold and the universe will find it’s balance in the end.
P.S. Next time you want to make a point don't use just the caps lock, underline it to. Just in case.
I'm not so sure. Have you read the reasons? It ends with the following:Tim.Wright wrote:Except that they weren't penalised for not following procedure. They were penalised for breaking the fuel flow limit:ChrisM40 wrote:What you fail to understand is that following procedure is everything. Whatever else they may or may not be guilty of they are guilty of failing to follow procedure.
Stewards decision from fia.com
TD are not technical regulations, hence they can not be enforced as such. This has been confirmed by marrusia's TP on skyf1 show. IMO they hold zero ground against red bull in this case.Gridlock wrote:Nobody knows what weight TDs carry, just like nobody knows what's in them most of the time, IMO. That's why arguing F1 is largely pointless, there's too much hidden. I would note that it's called a Technical Directive though, not a Technical Hint.
Zero ground? They're a clarification on the rules. Should the court decide that they hold no weight, the implications would be massive as virtually every regulation is flanked by directives.Juzh wrote:TD are not technical regulations, hence they can not be enforced as such. This has been confirmed by marrusia's TP on skyf1 show. IMO they hold zero ground against red bull in this case.Gridlock wrote:Nobody knows what weight TDs carry, just like nobody knows what's in them most of the time, IMO. That's why arguing F1 is largely pointless, there's too much hidden. I would note that it's called a Technical Directive though, not a Technical Hint.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k3OJpNjLokby5D6dYxethomin wrote:Zero ground? They're a clarification on the rules. Should the court decide that they hold no weight, the implications would be massive as virtually every regulation is flanked by directives.Juzh wrote:TD are not technical regulations, hence they can not be enforced as such. This has been confirmed by marrusia's TP on skyf1 show. IMO they hold zero ground against red bull in this case.Gridlock wrote:Nobody knows what weight TDs carry, just like nobody knows what's in them most of the time, IMO. That's why arguing F1 is largely pointless, there's too much hidden. I would note that it's called a Technical Directive though, not a Technical Hint.
He also states that any team that goes all the way to court without taking heed of technical directives is "pushing it". He also says technical directives "tell you where to go with the rules". In other words a technical directive tells you how to follow a rule.Juzh wrote:
starts at 6:50. Think what you will. For the moment I believe technical directives can not be upheld as rules during the appeal.
Hate to be splitting hairs but this is a common misunderstanding. The sample rate isnt 5hz. Its sampled at 1kHz and then output onto the CAD bus at 100Hz. The FIA then apply a 5Hz filter on the data. This is absolutely not the same as a sampling rate of 5Hz. A sampling rate of 5Hz means that no data above 2.5Hz can be in the signal.Pierce89 wrote:The one thing I don't understand is the people who say " He finished on 100kg , the race was more than an hour so he was under 100kg/h. Do you people not get the idea of an instantaneous flow rate? The sampling rate is 5 hz, so, every . 2 seconds they take an average flow rate for that .2 seconds and that average flow must be under 100kg/h. Got it?
