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

[beelsebob]

70% is a pretty large overestimate of the amount of time that the engine is anywhere near 12000rpm.

[bill shoe]

If we simply agree with the RB position that Technical Directives are irrelevant, where does that leave the RB appeal?

The rules say something to the effect of: It's the duty of the competitor to prove the legality of their car at all times during the event. So RB would need to prove to the FIA that their fuel measurement system was accurate to within some tolerance. This would require that RB --

1. state their claimed tolerance for their fuel measurement model/system.

2. show they did not exceed 100 kg/hr, even at the limits of their own tolerance.

3. prove their tolerance by showing results from on-track testing where the actual measured change in fuel mass before and after a run was consistently within their claimed tolerance for their measurement system. Given the RB and Renault pre-season difficulties, this fuel testing must have occurred during Australia practice.

What is the tolerance of their scale, and of their ability to consistently get every drop of fuel out of the tank considering evaporation, etc. How many fuel measurement runs could they have done in practice, and where does that leave their probability distribution? Is this tolerance really much tighter than the ~1% error RB seems to be claiming for the FIA FFM?

It's one thing to "know" how much fuel you're using, but it's a very different thing to prove it to other people in a documented, systematic way. If RB succeeds in getting the Technical Directive declared irrelevant, then that gets them about 5% of the way toward proving they were compliant. TD's are the Red Herring.

[SidSidney]

If we simply agree with the RB position that Technical Directives are irrelevant, where does that leave the RB appeal?

Thanks to Richard Leeds for re-opening this thread.

I have to admit Horner's comments have turned me around quite a bit on this one.

I too have searched the F1 TRs, SRs and the ISC for any mention of Technical Directives, and I just can't find anything. The closest I have come is a mention in the SRs (delegated from the ISC) section 11, which just says the the Technical and other Delegates will make sure all the regulations are followed.

So I now actually buy into the argument on Technical Directives that Horner is making in AS (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113091).

And if I agree with that, then it follows that if they can prove they are following the letter of the law in the TRs to the satisfaction of the appeal board, they will win, and I think it is clear they feel they can prove they are not using more than 100 kg/h (TR 5.1.4), and they have a FIA sensor fitted per TR 5.10.4 and supplying data to the FIA datalogger per 5.10.3 (nobody would dispute the fact they have one fitted and supplying data, no matter what the quality of the data, I guess?).

In fact, regulations 5.10.3 and 5.10.4 say nothing about whether the FIA homologated fuel flow sensor needs to be

a) used for measuring the 100kg/h or not;
b) the only method of fuel flow metering on the car - it only mentions one homologated sensor:-

"Only one homologated FIA fuel flow sensor may be fitted to the car which must be placed wholly within the fuel tank."

So all-in-all I think Red Bull have turned me around on this one. Last week I thought they were bang to rights, now I think they have a better than 50/50 chance of winning the appeal.

[CBeck113]

Here's the statement from the AMuS article:

" Red Bull soll im Rennen Gerüchten zufolge in jeder Runde den Grenzwert nach offizieller Messung um 25 Gramm überschritten haben. Hier ist nicht von vereinzelten Spitzenwerten, sondern von konstant auftretenden Überschreitungen die Rede."

"According to rumors, Red Bull exceeded the limit by 25g on every lap according to the official measurement. The talk is not from individual peaks but from constant violation of the limit."

If this is true, then this is really a challange against the "legality" of technical directives, and not a question of them exceeding the limit - apparently they believe that they can get away with it. What I don't understand is the 25g/lap - is it 27,67g+25g=52,67g as maximum? That would be ridiculous, and not defendable with an honest mathematical model, except to people that don't understand the model.

The outcome will have interesting effects for F1, and this challange should also - the rules need to be rewritten very clearly and concisely.

[turbof1]

I believe it's the sum of the amounts they went over the 100kg/h limit. Say at time A they had 28,67g, At time B 24,67g and a time C 30,67g. Time A and C is combined 4g over the limit. Time B isn't relevant since they kept it below the allowed maximum, and doesn't compensate in any way for A and C.

[Blanchimont]

I would say that 100kg for 57 laps makes an average of 1754g per lap. Red Bull could have used 1754+25 g per lap on average, a difference of 1,4% to the fuel sensor.

[iotar__]

It all doesn't make sense so it's:
- not the end of controversy with fuel, if we push this sensor thing (question it) our competitor might lose 0,5 s and we only 0,35 through some trickery, that's 0,15 of gap closed worth losing 18 points, or some other way of gaining advantage
- Red Bull now can't win so they want to turn early part of the season into legal controversy or another crusade like tyre lobbying in 2012-2013 to force changes, with Ecclestone backing them up.

This one didn't take long. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113093
"We have got to find a better way - especially when the margins are so fine and the knock-on in performance is so significant," Horner told AUTOSPORT "Depending on the calibration of your sensor, it will determine your competitiveness, which is completely wrong. "Teams will end up buying hundreds of sensors, as some manufacturers already have, to try to pick the best."

I somehow doubt Horner's motives (care for the sport), precision and it doesn't make sense. What's stopping Red Bull buying 5000 sensors and getting the biggest advantage of them all, like they do in every other area? Unless they can't or have other ideas. [Less probable option it was mistake/arrogance and they cover it up with blowing sensor thing out of proportions.]

[basti313]

I would say that 100kg for 57 laps makes an average of 1754g per lap. Red Bull could have used 1754+25 g per lap on average, a difference of 1,4% to the fuel sensor.

Yes, I think it is like that. But we have to take into account that the difference occurs only above 10500rpm. So the disadvantage of a misreading sensor is bigger than this 1.4%.

I somehow doubt Horner's motives

As you always do in threads concerning Redbull? I do not get why you join a technical discussions forum just to make politics against people you do not like...there are many other forums with better impact factor for this.

[turbof1]

The mindset isn't wrong. I think every team manager is constantly busy with the question "how can I improve my performance relative to others?". I share the opinion that Horner wasn't looking for a more fair and equal means of measuring the fuel load, but a means to improve relative performance. Everything that comes along is great, but doesn't really matter.

Note that this isn't criticism. You do what you have to do to get the best out of your team, that's what f1 is about. Unfortunaly for the fans it involves off-track politics.

[Jef Patat]

The calculations give an idea of the advantage RB might have taken by going over the limit (positive delta). The advantage to other teams will be a bit bigger because other teams will be staying clear of the limit by some amount (negative delta). The total advantage will be the sum of the two.

[basti313]

The mindset isn't wrong. I think every team manager is constantly busy with the question "how can I improve my performance relative to others?". I share the opinion that Horner wasn't looking for a more fair and equal means of measuring the fuel load, but a means to improve relative performance. Everything that comes along is great, but doesn't really matter.

But if he would have this aim, then he would buy 5000 sensors and use the best among them. Using the ECU values, still the standard McLaren ECU, does not make sense if you want to gain an advantage.
On the other hand, if this would be Williams or Sauber saying they do not buy more than two sensors per car and use the calculation of the standard ECU if they are not working in the right way, then nobody would even think about gaining an advantage.

The calculations give an idea of the advantage RB might have taken by going over the limit (positive delta). The advantage to other teams will be a bit bigger because other teams will be staying clear of the limit by some amount (negative delta). The total advantage will be the sum of the two.

If the ECU is measuring correct, than there is no positive delta. Your injector has to work perfect and you have to write the exact amount per time of each injector into the ECU. Otherwise your engine will not work correctly and will be destroyed.
And I do not think the rate Merc had to turn back their fuel injection is still overestimated. According to the numbers we have they were only 1g above the limit...this does not fit at all to a really noticeable reduction of the flow if we do not talk about a totally crappy sensor.

[Jef Patat]

I'm not going into the discussion about ECU measuring correct or incorrect. I was referring to the 1.4% calculations compared to the legal limit, I didn't mention anything about the way of measuring. I just wanted to point to the fact that other teams will be staying below the limit, even if it is by a fraction, and that this fraction is also part of the possible advantage when comparing to other teams, and not comparing to the limit.

[alexx_88]

The calculations give an idea of the advantage RB might have taken by going over the limit (positive delta). The advantage to other teams will be a bit bigger because other teams will be staying clear of the limit by some amount (negative delta). The total advantage will be the sum of the two.

If the ECU is measuring correct, than there is no positive delta. Your injector has to work perfect and you have to write the exact amount per time of each injector into the ECU. Otherwise your engine will not work correctly and will be destroyed.
And I do not think the rate Merc had to turn back their fuel injection is still overestimated. According to the numbers we have they were only 1g above the limit...this does not fit at all to a really noticeable reduction of the flow if we do not talk about a
totally crappy sensor.

The ECU doesn't measure anything other than rail pressure. As it was discussed on the Gill sensor thread (I think), the ECU just outputs an injector pulse of a certain duration. From there on, you really can't tell precisely how much fuel has gone into the engine from that pulse alone, certainly not with a 1% accuracy. True injector opening times vary, pressure inside the cylinder varies, I don't think this argument can hold ground.

[Pup]

Note that this isn't criticism. You do what you have to do to get the best out of your team, that's what f1 is about. Unfortunaly for the fans it involves off-track politics.

Disagreed. Sportsmanship does have a place, even in F1.

[turbof1]

Note that this isn't criticism. You do what you have to do to get the best out of your team, that's what f1 is about. Unfortunaly for the fans it involves off-track politics.

Disagreed. Sportsmanship does have a place, even in F1.

Between drivers on the race track: yes. But concerning politics, or reading inbetween the lines of the rules, no: f1 is on that front a sports of sharks. Probably a lot more then I even can imagine.