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

[turbof1]

What I wonder is if the stewards couldn't simply direct the teams, prior to the race, to follow the technical delegate's instructions on fuel flow. Then it becomes not a technical issue, but a question of following the stewards' instructions, and so allows them to apply whatever remedies they have have available.

You'd be opening another can of worms with that. It's another maze of ambiguity, and the steward's decisions still have to be backed by the regulations, the technical regulations. Then you have questions about what sort of power the stewards have, and during which time.

Go down that way and you open the chance that the FIA's authority becomes completely undermined through law cases.

[Pup]

Graeme Lowdon sheds some light on the enforceability of technical directives, etc...

http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12475 ... ates-in-f1

[Pup]

You'd be opening another can of worms with that. It's another maze of ambiguity, and the steward's decisions still have to be backed by the regulations, the technical regulations. Then you have questions about what sort of power the stewards have, and during which time.

Go down that way and you open the chance that the FIA's authority becomes completely undermined through law cases.

I just think the stewards have leeway. They are allowed by the regs to give additional instructions to the teams prior to the race, and there's no reason I can think of that they can't say that they "will use the FFM readings solely to determine if a driver is exceeding the allowed fuel flow limit". Then they are able to hand out 10-second drive throughs and if the team doesn't do the drive through they can be black flagged. It puts Red Bull in the position of having to defend their defiance of the stewards rather than if they did or did not meet the letter of the regs.

[turbof1]

I just think the stewards have leeway. They are allowed by the regs to give additional instructions to the teams prior to the race, and there's no reason I can think of that they can't say that they "will use the FFM readings solely to determine if a driver is exceeding the allowed fuel flow limit". Then they are able to hand out 10-second drive throughs and if the team doesn't do the drive through they can be black flagged. It puts Red Bull in the position of having to defend their defiance of the stewards rather than if they did or did not meet the letter of the regs.

On the short term this works. However, on the longer term red bull could file in lawsuits against the fia due possible abusive use and not following usual procedures. The earlier announcement by the fia that any possible infringement towards fuel usage will be handled after the race doesn't help. And the fia still holds end-responsibility, even if the stewards are the ones ordering the black flag.

You have to understand that these things are very tricky when it comes down to juristic fight: any hint of procedural errors can be enough to undermine everything the fia uses in its defence. Even if the court of appeal puts the fia in its right, red bull can still evoke this at the civil court. Furthermore, if it turns out that the fia was wrong, then red bull will be forced to go to the civil court in any case. There's no appeal possible towards a black flag within the juristiction of the fia, so they'll have to do that.

I just think the stewards have leeway. They are allowed by the regs to give additional instructions to the teams prior to the race, and there's no reason I can think of that they can't say that they "will use the FFM readings solely to determine if a driver is exceeding the allowed fuel flow limit".

But how far does that leeway stretches. I could be wrong, but I suspect that is limited to safety reasons. You can't stretch safety reasons that far. Again, I could be wrong. We also have the precedence that technical directives forfill any technical instructions prior to the race.

I'm trying to find any ruling about the specifics of the stewards role, but can't find it. Anybody knows where?

[dans79]

maybe it's just me, but taking it all the way to civil court, would make me loose all respect for RBR as a team and put them firmly in the "whiny little bit...." category. I can't think of the last (if ever) time a competitor of any sport I follow took the governing body to court.

[turbof1]

maybe it's just me, but taking it all the way to civil court, would make me loose all respect for RBR as a team and put them firmly in the "whiny little bit...." category. I can't think of the last (if ever) time a competitor of any sport I follow took the governing body to court.

We are of course speaking in hypothetical cases. Red Bull would need to do this if it wants any sort of compensating if it gets black flagged since there's no appeal possible within the sport towards this. That is if red bull wants compensation.

I personally believe this will never happen. If the fia dsq's the team after the race, then everything can be settled in front of the court of appeal. It makes everybodies lifes much easier.

Flavio Briatore did this btw, and he won. His ban out of the sport as manager got overturned.

[basti313]

You'd be opening another can of worms with that. It's another maze of ambiguity, and the steward's decisions still have to be backed by the regulations, the technical regulations. Then you have questions about what sort of power the stewards have, and during which time.

Go down that way and you open the chance that the FIA's authority becomes completely undermined through law cases.

I just think the stewards have leeway. They are allowed by the regs to give additional instructions to the teams prior to the race, and there's no reason I can think of that they can't say that they "will use the FFM readings solely to determine if a driver is exceeding the allowed fuel flow limit". Then they are able to hand out 10-second drive throughs and if the team doesn't do the drive through they can be black flagged. It puts Red Bull in the position of having to defend their defiance of the stewards rather than if they did or did not meet the letter of the regs.

And you think that is fair in case of a perhaps broken sensor?

It is completely normal that teams appeal to the FIA court about the decisions of the stewards. This happened often in the history of F1 and I do not see why this should be different here.

And I do not see what should change due to this court appeal. If the court says the decision of the stewards stays everything is ok and if they say the data from the standard ECU can not be neglected, then they have to check it after the race and everything is ok.

So where is the problem except the points for Redbull?

[ebare]

An unidentified source from RB claims it was about 2%.

2% different from what they recorded though, not (necessarily) 2% different from the actual flow rate.

As far as we know, what they recorded could have been the actual flow, thus the hearing, I think.

[ebare]

First of all, I'm not sure that it will be enough to prove that they were within the 100kg/h limit, as the Technical Directive defines that as 100kg/h according to the FIA FFM. So even if they could prove their point, they'd also basically need to get the court to acknowledge that Technical Directives are null and void. The consequences for F1 would be monumental.

Secondly, even so, it should be virtually impossible to prove their point, because the only independent sensor in there is the FFM.

Lastly, you can only measure fuel flow over a certain amount of time. The FIA measures it per 0.2 seconds. But that's not in the rules either, this is also a Technical Directive. So if they wanted to, they could get technical on Red Bull's ass as well and just look very closely at their fuel consumption, say microsecond territory. The smaller the interval they'll look at, the unlikelier that Red Bull could stay below the 100kg/h threshold even if they wanted to.

Agree, that´s why C Whiting stuck to the FFM, despite the Technical Directive allow teams to rely on their own readings if something went wrong. In the end, i´m used to see TDs as the FIAs interpretation of the grey areas engineers are always popping up, in court things can change a lot. We better wait to see what happens, however, the alleged opening from the FIA to change the fuel efficiency rules stated by J. Todt to a RAI interview, may be indicative that something is wrong with the path things had taken. Because there’s one thing you are not tanking in account, there are a lot a people against the FFM, they are just quiet and waiting for RB to do the digging.

You can’t be serious claiming they do not know. Come on man, they have a race distance to accomplish, of course they know, that´s why once in a while we hear them telling the drivers to make switches in the motor mode, to short shift or not and all the kind of adjustments deemed necessary according to their readings

[ebare]

A small question
What will RBR do in the two races before the hearing Sepang and Bahrain?

Good question. And the same aplys to the FIA.

[ebare]

[quote="Cam"]In all of this, while the focus is on the TD and it's legality, there's still one part that has gone under the radar - what was the reason for listing Breach of Article 3.2 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations?

I think there's another thing people are forgetting: If i'm not wrong, TD become regulations only after ratification by the WMSC. Thus June, when they usually meet.

[ebare]

maybe it's just me, but taking it all the way to civil court, would make me loose all respect for RBR as a team and put them firmly in the "whiny little bit...." category. I can't think of the last (if ever) time a competitor of any sport I follow took the governing body to court.

So, is the concept of fighting for own rights hard to accept in the land of the free? By the way, what respect are you talking about.

[FW17]

Porsche critical of F1 fuel flow meter

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... flow-meter

[dans79]

So, is the concept of fighting for own rights hard to accept in the land of the free?

this is hardly a human rights, freedom of speech, or freedom from religious prosecution issue. The public will only take so much foot stomping and whining, just take a look at Arod's fall from grace.

[dans79]

Porsche critical of F1 fuel flow meter

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... flow-meter

people might find this video linked to form the article more informative than the actual article.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAWEOybGU80