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

[FoxHound]

@ cam

Why did all the other teams not follow suit?
Very simply because there was a meeting of the teams and the FIA, and it was stipulated which readings would be acceptable.

This did not come out of the blue. It was made clear to all teams. The FIA did also admit that the sensors were not reading to the accuracy they desired, but that the teams abide while they work on a solution.

I posted a link to a Saward article that goes into that.

The FIA asked that no team should go against the directive as the solution was being readied.

Now this?
They are going to get hauled over hot coals IMO.

[dans79]

Porsche haven't even raced the FFM and already they've flagged doubts about its readiness for use!

That's not proof.....

[djos]

Porsche haven't even raced the FFM and already they've flagged doubts about its readiness for use!

That's not proof.....

No it isnt, but it does paint a picture of unreliable technology being rushed into service ....

[DiveBrew]

So take matters into your own hands and gain the advantage right?

What advantage? Do you know what offset +/- each team ran if any, and how much it affected their lap times?

As has been said before, if you can get teams with high reading sensors, than you can also get teams with low reading sensors, so some teams may have been able to go over the limit while the FIA sensor says they aren't. That's an advantage.

RBR made it clear to the FIA they were not happy with the sensor, however they were instructed to run the sensor with an offset even though this "precise" meter changed its zero offset/reading mid practice. They asked to run the backup protocol since they deemed the sensor inaccurate, FIA disagreed, both did what they thought was right, and here we are.

It is unknown how RBR would have ran Ricciardo's car had they not had a shifting sensor, followed by a failed sensor, only to be told to run the shifty sensor. So far we do not know whether other teams had the same level of issues throughout the weekend, except for Perez's sensor failing before the race, for which FI was allowed to use the backup plan.

What level of shifting and offset does a team have to endure before the FIA deems the sensor failed and allows you to switch to the backup. Right now there is no guideline for this, it's just the FIA's discretion. So when a team has spent $10's of millions developing and building a racecar, and has been forced to purchase 2 expensive fuel sensors, one shifting, and one that failed, this team should be demonized for trusting their own data (the FIA backup plan) and using their own discretion within the confines of the rules??

[dans79]

Porsche haven't even raced the FFM and already they've flagged doubts about its readiness for use!

That's not proof.....

No it isnt, but it does paint a picture of unreliable technology being rushed into service ....

Sounds a lot more like racing teams griping about having to deal with ever tighter rules.

[Cam]

Why did all the other teams not follow suit?
Very simply because there was a meeting of the teams and the FIA, and it was stipulated which readings would be acceptable.

I hear you - I really do and I agree that that is the FIA's position. But are they right? Just because the FIA say so, doesn't mean it's necessarily right. Would you agree with that?

The FIA know they can get things wrong - which is why there is an avenue to appeal. Otherwise is just North Korea all over again.

The FIA asked that no team should go against the directive as the solution was being readied.

Probably Red Bull asked that in that case, no DSQ should be issued until the "solution was readied". Again, there is always two sides to every story.

I (hopefully) completely understand the FIA's position. I (hopefully) completely understand Red Bulls position. I am simply making Red Bulls case as no other person seems to be doing so in as much detail... I want fair and as accurate as possible, information to be published. Not just the one sided, bias fueled lynch mob posts, we have strewn throughout this and other threads. The rules are what count - nothing else. Understanding those is the answer.

Personally, Red Bull should get off, strictly as they are adhering to the rules as written - which all teams play to. Morally? Well, there is no such thing in this case. Yes, both sides should have come to a common sense middle ground. Both sides have mud on their face here to some extent. You can see this with the FIA's "EMPHASIS" on the word we. They are trying to force their authority. Red Bull are calling them on it.

A good king should do what is best for his people, not for himself.

[dans79]

RBR made it clear to the FIA they were not happy with the sensor, however they were instructed to run the sensor with an offset even though this "precise" meter changed its zero offset/reading mid practice. They asked to run the backup protocol since they deemed the sensor inaccurate, FIA disagreed, both did what they thought was right, and here we are.

Do you have proof of any of this, or are you just regurgitating incorrect information that's be posted in this thread?

[DiveBrew]

And seriously, LeMans petrol cars need 2 and diesel cars need 3 of them???? FFS that is just mental!

now you're just complaining to complain, you don't even know why they need 2 or 3.... For all you know, it could be because of how fuel lines are configured......

Petrol LMP cars are forced to run 2 in series, not sure if the FIA will readout both to check validity, or average them, but the second one is their for redundancy first. Diesel will run 3 because they have a fuel return line. So they have 2 in series for outflow, and 1 for inflow.

Audi actually had to change their already completed LMP monocoque to accommodate the newly required FIA fuel sensors, as they are so "reliable" (cough) the FIA mandates they are easily accessible/replaceable on the side of the crash structure behind the driver.

[DiveBrew]

Do you have proof of any of this, or are you just regurgitating incorrect information that's be posted in this thread?

We had an issue with a sensor that changed its reading through Friday practice, that sensor was then replaced for another sensor on Saturday that then failed during qualifying. We were then asked to put the sensor from Friday back in the car and apply an offset. That offset we didn’t feel was correct, and as we got into the race we could see there was a significant discrepancy between what the sensor was reading and what the fuel flow, which was the actual injection of fuel into the engine, was stated as. That’s where there was a difference of opinion.

“It’s immature technology, and it’s impossible to rely 100% on that sensor, which had proved to be problematic in almost every session that we’ve run in."

Regarding the fact that the team ignored requests from the FIA to make an adjustment during the race, he said: “They informed us and we informed them that we had serious concerns over their sensor. We believed in our reading, otherwise you are in a situation where you are reducing significant amounts of power with the engine, when we believed we fully comply with the regulations. If we end up with that situation, depending on the calibration of your sensor, the plus and minus, it will dictate quite simply who is competitive and who isn’t.”

[DiveBrew]

RBR made it clear to the FIA they were not happy with the sensor, however they were instructed to run the sensor with an offset even though this "precise" meter changed its zero offset/reading mid practice. They asked to run the backup protocol since they deemed the sensor inaccurate, FIA disagreed, both did what they thought was right, and here we are.

Do you have proof of any of this, or are you just regurgitating incorrect information that's be posted in this thread?

I posted quotes to Horner's comments but the mods???

[Richard]

So we have two sets of members saying "prove it" to each other. That's just silly because we have absolutely no evidence for anything. We only have hearsay.

What we do know is:

• RB say everything is terrible so they're going to make up their own numbers.
• FIA say everyone has to use the same method of measurement
• The other teams say the sensors aren't perfect but at least everyone is following the same method of measurement.

The quality of debate has sunk to a bun fight. Porsche did not give any "evidence" that the sensors don't work, they actually said "right now we don’t know if it is all going to be robust. We should know at the end of March". Nothing to see there, move along.

As Dans said, all we have are soundbites from blowhards*, that's not any basis for rational conversation.

Thread locked, please do send a PM to "Moderators" if there is anything new to add. Otherwise we'll see you on 14th April.


*blowhard- Unfortunately this word has been misunderstood by some members. I blame the gratuitous sexualisation of social intercourse (I'm looking at you Mr DH Lawrence).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blowhard - a person who talks too much and who has strong opinions that other people dislike.
[/i]

[thomin]

While the thread is still open, there was an interesting article in AMuS today:
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 21034.html

The core points:

• It really is about how to treat Technical Directives. Horner said that they are "the opinion of the technical delegate." The court first has to agree to this assessment (with all its enormous consequences for F1) before assessing the validity of Red Bulls claims regarding their fuel usage becomes even relevant.
• Red Bull's numbers are based on a mathematical model. Preventing a reliance on such model was the entire point of the FFM, as it measures fuel flow directly.
• Inaccurate sensor reading can also be caused by the team itself. That is in line with what Porsche said, namely that the environment of the sensor can play a role. Apparently Ferrari modified their fuel pump before the season in order for the FFM to work properly while Lotus installed a dampener in their injection rig in order to prevent pressure fluctuations.
• The teams purchase and own the FFM. Red Bull only brought four sensors to Australia, other teams had as much as 12.
• For the first time, the article presents some real numbers, though I cannot really interpret them. It not only says that Ricciardo was constantly over the limit, not just peaks, but always and they give the figure of 25g per lap. I don't know what that is supposed to mean. My guess is that if you add all the surplus consumption within the 5Hz monitoring intervals during one lap you end up with that number.
  Apparently the FIA allows up to 3g per lap. Mercedes had up to 4g during free practice but they then reduced fuel flow on their own before the FIA said anything. So 25g per lap seems to be massive.
• In an opinion piece that was published with the article, the author wondered why Red Bull would so blatantly break the rules, knowing full well that the FIA would have no other chance but to disqualify them. His conspiracy theory: Red Bull and Bernie Ecclestone want to create a break off series. While he makes some good points as to why Red Bull would want to do that and how Bernie's recent antics would play into that plan, and while he also describes the potential allure for other teams, I don't see how "fuel gate" plays into this, so for the time being, I don't buy it.

Lastly, I really wonder why Red Bull didn't protest on Saturday, before the race and before they were ordered to put the old FFM back into Ricciardo's car. All the information was on the table then. Red Bull knew already on Saturday that they would ignore the FIA's request to reduce fuel flow. Why then wait until the race? That doesn't make any sense at all if your goal is to race under fair conditions. They could have argued their case on Saturday just as well, that the FFM is faulty and that they should be allowed to use their own measurements (which I think one team was allowed to do...can't remember, possibly one of the Force India cars...), or they could have requested a new FFM.

[chip engineer]

While the thread is still open, there was an interesting article in AMuS today:
http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 21034.html

The core points:
...
For the first time, the article presents some real numbers, though I cannot really interpret them. It not only says that Ricciardo was constantly over the limit, not just peaks, but always and they give the figure of 25g per lap. I don't know what that is supposed to mean. My guess is that if you add all the surplus consumption within the 5Hz monitoring intervals during one lap you end up with that number.
Apparently the FIA allows up to 3g per lap. Mercedes had up to 4g during free practice but they then reduced fuel flow on their own before the FIA said anything. So 25g per lap seems to be massive.
...

The fuel flow limit (above 10,500 rpm) is 27.8 grams/second.
So for a 100 second lap, 25g is a little less than 1%.
If they are making 700 hp, then that is less than 7 hp, so not massive.

[thomin]

The fuel flow limit (above 10,500 rpm) is 27.8 grams/second.
So for a 100 second lap, 25g is a little less than 1%.
If they are making 700 hp, then that is less than 7 hp, so not massive.

I don't think that's how these numbers are meant. If that were the case, Ricciardo couldn't possibly have finished the race with less than 100kg of fuel.

The original article is really poorly worded, so it's not obvious what those 25g/4g/3g relate to. Though they did say that Ricciardo would have made up for the additional fuel flow by coasting elsewhere. So they cannot simply mean that he was 25g above the allowed fuel usage per lap in total.

My best guess is the following:
They translate the 100kg/h into 5.5555g/0.2s and then they split up the lap into pieces of 0.2 seconds. For each piece, they measure how much fuel a car uses. Say a car uses 5.9555g/0.2s in one such fragment of a lap, they notice that the car exceeded the limit by 0.4g. The next time that happens, they add it on top and get 0.8g, etc. all the way to the end of the lap. This way, you could end up with 25g that were used in excess per lap while still overall being below the 100kg per race limit.

Of course this is pure conjecture on my part, but it's the only way I can make sense of the numbers.

[chip engineer]

The fuel flow limit (above 10,500 rpm) is 27.8 grams/second.
So for a 100 second lap, 25g is a little less than 1%.
If they are making 700 hp, then that is less than 7 hp, so not massive.

I don't think that's how these numbers are meant. If that were the case, Ricciardo couldn't possibly have finished the race with less than 100kg of fuel.

The original article is really poorly worded, so it's not obvious what those 25g/4g/3g relate to. Though they did say that Ricciardo would have made up for the additional fuel flow by coasting elsewhere. So they cannot simply mean that he was 25g above the allowed fuel usage per lap in total.

My best guess is the following:
They translate the 100kg/h into 5.5555g/0.2s and then they split up the lap into pieces of 0.2 seconds. For each piece, they measure how much fuel a car uses. Say a car uses 5.9555g/0.2s in one such fragment of a lap, they notice that the car exceeded the limit by 0.4g. The next time that happens, they add it on top and get 0.8g, etc. all the way to the end of the lap. This way, you could end up with 25g that were used in excess per lap while still overall being below the 100kg per race limit.

Of course this is pure conjecture on my part, but it's the only way I can make sense of the numbers.

I'm not sure I see much conflict between our calculations. I suppose I should include the fraction of time the engine is near full throttle, so say that is 70%. So instead of using 100 seconds, I use 70 seconds on full or near full throttle each lap.
So then we have: normal fuel used per lap = 70*27.8 = 1.944 kg
Ricardo fuel used per lap = 70*27.8 + 25 = 1.969 kg
Extra horsepower from 25g/lap = 700*(1.969/1.944)-700 = 9 hp
So still not 'massive'.