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

[DiveBrew]

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.

Yes, and even then the approved changes don't go into effect until the next season.

Technical Regulations: What the teams have signed and agreed to for the season, and must abide.

Technical Directives: What the FIA wishes they would have included in the Technical Regulations, or loophole they missed, and hopes the teams will agree to follow even though they don't "technically" have too.

[jz11]

judging from the left window in that video, which looks like 100Hz CAN data, I cannot imagine how they can claim that the reading at 0,2sec rate would anywhere near accurate representation of the real flow rate to the error factor of 0,25% that people here seem to suggest (based on the datasheet) for this type of application, it seems that an average over 1sec or more maybe could be somewhat usable, but not 0,2sec, and certainly not to disqualify someone based on that

What is the point of going into such a fine detail even, I mean even if someone consistently did for 0,35 or 0,5sec have the actual flow higher than normal for couple %, but the average over 1sec would still be at 100kg/h (meaning the rest of that seconds duration the flow would be less than max allowed), what is the benefit of those pulses from lap performance POV, because I can only see problems related to reliability of engine and whole drive train, when you introduce this "noise", overall, over the course of a lap, or even course of a sector or a turn, the "energy" that propelled the car forward would still have been at the allowed limit of 100kg/h...

[hollus]

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

Check the upshifts at 53s, 1:19s or 1.25s. This is on a car where they are just measuring consumption, not limiting it, and before the car settles in the new gear (with lower revs and hence lower fuel usage) there are huge oscillations in the measured values. If one had try to hit exactly 100Kg/h after the shift (no longer lower consumption after the shift), I can see some 0.2 second windows where the average would be larger than 100.
Of course the shift technology in F1 is a bit different. But this was a simulation. I wonder what the actual data look like...

[Juzh]

horner interview by skyf1:

http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/24239 ... ing-appeal

In short, all they need to do is prove their fuel rail is the accurate one, and gill sensor erroneous. That's it. No other strings such as "you must follow FIA sensor" are attached.

RB will win this appeal no question about it, otherwise they wouldn't go into all trouble.

[turbof1]

Nice spot Juzh.

It doesn't bring anything new or something we haven't discussed already: they will question the legality of the techical directive in front of the court.

He mentions technical directives in the cases of the pirelli test and the 2009 double diffuser saga. Interesting, I didn't knew they had technical directives in place for those. Mercedes got punished for it, but I have to question if there was really a technical directive in place for the double diffusers, since 3 teams showed up from the beginning of the 2009 tests with double diffusers. The FIA even deemed them legal.

I have to question if there really were TD's (actually sporting directive in the case of the pirelli test) in place during those events.

[Richard]

horner interview by skyf1:

http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/24239 ... ing-appeal

In short, all they need to do is prove their fuel rail is the accurate one, and gill sensor erroneous. That's it. No other strings such as "you must follow FIA sensor" are attached.

RB will win this appeal no question about it, otherwise they wouldn't go into all trouble.

Of course that's simply Horner making his case, whether his view is correct is another matter.

Meanwhile the FIA say the sensor is the primary source, that's it. No other strings such as "I'm going to use my own data" are attached.

[Juzh]

It doesn't bring anything new or something we haven't discussed already: they will question the legality of the techical directive in front of the court.

It doesn't, no. Just confirms red bull's take on the situation. But not really sure why would they need to question the legality of TD whatsoever? They do not count as rules and as such have no weight in this matter. Confirmed by 2 team principals now.

Meanwhile the FIA say the sensor is the primary source, that's it. No other strings such as "I'm going to use my own data" are attached.

Not the point, is it? It still comes down to whether gill is accurate (enough) or not.

[turbof1]

It doesn't bring anything new or something we haven't discussed already: they will question the legality of the techical directive in front of the court.

It doesn't, no. Just confirms red bull's take on the situation. But not really sure why would they need to question the legality of TD whatsoever? They do not count as rules and as such have no weight in this matter. Confirmed by 2 team principals now.

Meanwhile the FIA say the sensor is the primary source, that's it. No other strings such as "I'm going to use my own data" are attached.

Not the point, is it? It still comes down to whether gill is accurate (enough) or not.

Be careful to make a distinction between "not being a rule" and the actually legality of a TD. Nobody is debating whether or not it is a rule, it isn't, but we still have to see if the teams have to follow it regardless.

Just to be clear: next year that'll definitely be a technical regulation. So if the court decides the technical directive holds no legal value, we'll have anarchy for 1 year.

[bonjon1979]

horner interview by skyf1:

http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/24239 ... ing-appeal

In short, all they need to do is prove their fuel rail is the accurate one, and gill sensor erroneous. That's it. No other strings such as "you must follow FIA sensor" are attached.

RB will win this appeal no question about it, otherwise they wouldn't go into all trouble.

Do they know the exact temperature of the fuel at the fuel rail?

Only mention it because measurement is in weight, I assume it would be cooler at the fuel tank where the sensor is so fuel is more dense, would this effect the measurements?

[dans79]

horner interview by skyf1:

http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/24239 ... ing-appeal

In short, all they need to do is prove their fuel rail is the accurate one, and gill sensor erroneous. That's it. No other strings such as "you must follow FIA sensor" are attached.

RB will win this appeal no question about it, otherwise they wouldn't go into all trouble.

Of course that's simply Horner making his case, whether his view is correct is another matter.

Meanwhile the FIA say the sensor is the primary source, that's it. No other strings such as "I'm going to use my own data" are attached.

I think the thing that will bite RBR in the butt when it comes to technical directives, is that they have abide-ed by them in the past. for example in Monaco 2012, They had holes in their floor. They removed them before the next race because of a technical directive. That is a Precedent (imo) saying TDs need to be followed.

[Juzh]

horner interview by skyf1:

http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/24239 ... ing-appeal

In short, all they need to do is prove their fuel rail is the accurate one, and gill sensor erroneous. That's it. No other strings such as "you must follow FIA sensor" are attached.

RB will win this appeal no question about it, otherwise they wouldn't go into all trouble.

Do they know the exact temperature of the fuel at the fuel rail?

Only mention it because measurement is in weight, I assume it would be cooler at the fuel tank where the sensor is so fuel is more dense, would this effect the measurements?

I don't know if they do, but one would assume so. I'm not qualified enough to answer your second question though

Be careful to make a distinction between "not being a rule" and the actually legality of a TD. Nobody is debating whether or not it is a rule, it isn't, but we still have to see if the teams have to follow it regardless.

Ah, I see what you mean. Still doubt it though. Guess we'll have to wait for some more info on this subject.

[turbof1]

Ah, I see what you mean. Still doubt it though. Guess we'll have to wait for some more info on this subject.

I can give the exact date: April 14th, 2014 .

Nobody ever questioned a TD before, so no precendence has been set for it. That'll be determined at the end of the case.

[mcdenife]

horner interview by skyf1:

http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/24239 ... ing-appeal

In short, all they need to do is prove their fuel rail is the accurate one, and gill sensor erroneous. That's it. No other strings such as "you must follow FIA sensor" are attached.
RB will win this appeal no question about it, otherwise they wouldn't go into all trouble.

Horner (and Red Bull?) are taking a simplistic and somewhat naive view. The argument has never been about the accuracy, or not, of their measurement or sensors, versus the accuracy, or not, of the FIA's sensor or measurement. The FIA never claimed their sensor or measurement was more accurate, indeed IIRC the FIA was aware of anomalies or inaccuracies in their sensor and advised the teams accordingly. I am sure RB can and will prove they did not go over the flow limit. In the end it will boil down to procedure. All the FIA need to say is, yes your measurements/sensor or whatever are more accurate, but did you follow the laid down procedures/guidelines or even advise the FIA you will be using your sensors? Yes, then not guilty. No, then guilty as hell. Their undoing is the simple fact that ALL the other competitors complied despite their misgivings. The FIA stance may well be that all the other teams could probably have gone faster had they also used their own measurements/sensor in which case we might as well have a free for all no holds barred race. The rule of law, guidance or directive has to prevail in virtually all walks of life, rightly or wrongly, else what you have is anarchy. If wrong, there is a process for righting it. Taking matters into your own hands is not and cannot be part of that process. It seems RB's intend is 'we dont agree with "the wrong-doing verdict" but will abide by it', rather than hold up their hands and admit they were wrong. That way they dont lose face.

[FoxHound]

The problem Red Bull have is the FIA have been crystal clear what will be deemed acceptable or not.
All teams where told to comply with measurements, even if they where not 100% accurate. The FIA being aware of the issue informed teams to abide so as not to create a situation as we had in Oz.
Ontop of this, all the other teams have complied by going with the FIA measurements at the Oz gp.

Ontop of that, the FIA asked Red Bull to conform to their measurements TWICE.

Now Red Bull claim the FIA instruments are inaccurate and they will run their own completely eschewing everything the FIA have asked.

Well the fia can very easily penalise red bull in another fashion.
Reinstate the team, but add a 50 second penalty for going over the prescribed fuel flow in relation to all other teams. This way red bull can finish the race but earn no points.

It's a mockery of F1 and the teams competing against red bull that they can run their own measurements and to hell with the sport, and the competition.

[DiveBrew]

The problem Red Bull have is the FIA have been crystal clear what will be deemed acceptable or not.
All teams where told to comply with measurements, even if they where not 100% accurate. The FIA being aware of the issue informed teams to abide so as not to create a situation as we had in Oz.
Ontop of this, all the other teams have complied by going with the FIA measurements at the Oz gp.

Ontop of that, the FIA asked Red Bull to conform to their measurements TWICE.

Now Red Bull claim the FIA instruments are inaccurate and they will run their own completely eschewing everything the FIA have asked.

Well the fia can very easily penalise red bull in another fashion.
Reinstate the team, but add a 50 second penalty for going over the prescribed fuel flow in relation to all other teams. This way red bull can finish the race but earn no points.

It's a mockery of F1 and the teams competing against red bull that they can run their own measurements and to hell with the sport, and the competition.

How is the FIA asking/mandating the teams run faulty fuel sensors, and to turn down their engines, not effecting the outcome of races and thereby the show??

Now that is a mockery of F1, using directives to try and force teams to use sensors with known issues.

All RBR did is call them out on this as they followed the letter of the rules. The fact the FIA stewards ruined the race and made a mockery of the show, especially for AUS fans, is down to their own doing.

I would say the FIA and their insistence through the directive to