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

[basti313]

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.

Yes, and i pointed out that this is wrong. There is just no adding up.

True injector opening times vary, pressure inside the cylinder varies, I don't think this argument can hold ground.

For the opening times you have a calibration on every injector which is necessary just to get the engine running smoothly. Above 5% inaccuracy you already have knocking...
And the pressure inside the cylinder does not play a big role as we have a 2000Bar system with short opening times. The pressure only plays a role if the pressure wave coming from the cylinder (velocity of speed) reaches the end of the prechamber of the injector.

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.
If you would have a reasonable inaccuracy in the calculation of the ECU this would always be there. Below 10500, above, half or full throttle.

I do not question, that we still need a fuel flow sensor. But when it comes to peaks in the reading of the fuel flow sensor I would always rely on the calculation from ECU.
Peaks should only be a problem for the teams if they are visible in ECU and fuel flow sensor.

[dans79]

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.

Reading between the lines, and deliberately doing something that instinctively goes against the rules is something completely different.

[turbof1]

That's not for us to decide. We'll have to wait what the verdict of the court will be. Red Bull took a risk and we'll see how it turns out.

[basti313]

It is turning again...is there not anything else technical to discuss?

[turbof1]

This topic generated 51 pages in mere weeks. It goes without saying that after so much discussion with so little to go on, that new technical arguments are becoming more and more sparse.

I'll leave it open for now. Hopefully some new pieces are revealed this weekend. The fia has been strangely quiet, so hopefully we get to hear from them within the next few days.

[FoxHound]

That's not for us to decide. We'll have to wait what the verdict of the court will be. Red Bull took a risk and we'll see how it turns out.

Risk implies knowledge of danger.

I'm scratching my head as to why they would do this. The main bone of contention here is that sure, it's a directive and not a rule per se, but the efforts of the FIA in trying to keep a lid on this before the race and during the TWG meetings appears to have fallen on deaf ears with RB.

I think there is more at stake than just a one off podium. Red Bull get more performance from using their own data and measurements, but what's to say they don't get even more out of the engine in terms of reliability and/or energy recovery from running a higher flow rate of even just 0.5/1.5 %? They'll get more power for sure.
They will not be running the maximum allowable throughout the race, but they will be doing so for the majority.
Something in it, more so than the obvious I reckon.

Also, what is the point of a technical directive issued by the FIA if it is not enforceable with punitive measures?
What use is a directive if adherence is optional?

[dans79]

I think there is more at stake than just a one off podium. Red Bull get more performance from using their own data and measurements, but what's to say they don't get even more out of the engine in terms of reliability and/or energy recovery from running a higher flow rate of even just 0.5/1.5 %? They'll get more power for sure.
They will not be running the maximum allowable throughout the race, but they will be doing so for the majority.
Something in it, more so than the obvious I reckon.

My guess would be it helps with reliability for a given power output. RBR had knocking issues during testing didn't they? a little more fuel can prevent knocking in certain situations.

[thomin]

Even if we assume for a minute that Horner is right and that Technical Directives are mere opinions with no authority whatsoever, then it's still far from a foregone conclusion anyway. It will be extraordinarily difficult for Red Bull to prove their point. Their method of measurement is inherently easy to manipulate. Slightly change a valve opening without telling your algorithm and your calculations will be way off. Red Bull's problem is that the only independent measurement device in the car is the FFM that they say is unreliable.

Back to the Technical Directive. Horner argues that Mercedes was punished for the Pirelli test last year despite Charlie Whiting deeming it legal beforehand. So Charlie merely expressed an opinion.
From there it's still a massive step towards calling Technical Directives as null and void. I could just as well interpret that ruling from last year as an instance of the cautionary principle: Even if the official technical director tells you something is legal, you might still have to be cautionary as he may not be in possession of all the facts. That however doesn't mean that calling something illegal is equally up for debate. He might still not be in possession of all the facts, but if his facts are sufficient to determine that something is illegal, then more facts won't change that. For example, if I search a poker player and find nothing, he might still be breaking the rules, however if I find a couple of cards up his sleeve then I know that he broke the rules, no matter what other facts I'm missing.

[turbof1]

From there it's still a massive step towards calling Technical Directives as null and void. I could just as well interpret that ruling from last year as an instance of the cautionary principle: Even if the official technical director tells you something is legal, you might still have to be cautionary as he may not be in possession of all the facts. That however doesn't mean that calling something illegal is equally up for debate. He might still not be in possession of all the facts, but if his facts are sufficient to determine that something is illegal, then more facts won't change that. For example, if I search a poker player and find nothing, he might still be breaking the rules, however if I find a couple of cards up his sleeve then I know that he broke the rules, no matter what other facts I'm missing.

I was thinking along the same way. Teams often go to charley white for numerous things and he gives his opinion about this. A technical directive is a different thing: it's an instruction to ALL the teams. If that holds equal, less or more legal value, that I can't tell, but Horner clearly is comparing apples and pears on that front.

However:
http://www.racer.com/f1/item/102175-red ... ppeal-plan

It [them being opinions] is even stated on the bottom of the directives now, that these do not have a regulatory value.

If truly on the paper is stated it's an opinion, the fia might be in a troubling position.

[tim|away]

[...] What's stopping Red Bull buying 5000 sensors and getting the biggest advantage of them all [...]

I think this is exactly what it will come down to and it will not be limited to Red Bull. Teams will purchase large numbers of sensors, have them calibrated and will cherry pick the ones they can get the biggest advantage from.

[thomin]

However:
http://www.racer.com/f1/item/102175-red ... ppeal-plan

It [them being opinions] is even stated on the bottom of the directives now, that these do not have a regulatory value.

If truly on the paper is stated it's an opinion, the fia might be in a troubling position.

Assuming again that Horner accurately conveyed the intention of any such statement, what would that mean? What exactly would be the point of Technical Directives in the FIA's eyes?
Still assuming that these are mere opinions, then they still must hold some value. Eben if it doesn't have authoritative power, at the very least there must be a well informed legal case at the bottom of it. So even then, Red Bull would first have to demolish that case before they can just go on to the next point of trying to prove that they were within the fuel flow limit at all times.

Also, on a different note, injecting fuel is a discrete event, not a continuous one. So depending on how small I make the time frame I look at, every single team would necessarily break the 100kg/h rule. The FIA decided to look at 0.2 second intervals for practical reasons. The interval is short enough to still be relevant regarding the prevention of power surges while being long enough to minimize the effect of aliasing. But that is not in the rules. The rules merely say that "Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h."
I wonder if Red Bull's argument boils down to a literal reading of this statement. I could certainly see them arguing that no matter which 1h interval you look at, Ricciardo never used more than 100kg of fuel, which in return should be much simpler to prove than when you look at 0.2s intervals. I guess we'll see...
On the flip side, if the court decides to read that rule (5.1.4) as "Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h at any moment." which would be just as justifiable, then it would be virtually impossible for Red Bull to get out of this, because as stated above, if the timeframe is small enough, they're bound to have exceeded that limit, even if the FFM was faulty.

[Pup]

A technical directive may be an opinion, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be followed. It essentially says, "This is most likely how the appeal court would rule, if you decide to act like a bunch of three year olds and protest." Not only that, but the directive itself weighs on the appeal court's opinion.

So, it's only an issue if the appeal court disagrees with the directive. Unlikely, imo, since there's really no viable alternative in this case apart from fuel flow anarchy.

And even if they do disagree, it's not "troubling" in any way. It just means the technical delegate's opinion was wrong this time.

[DiveBrew]

From this JA article: http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2014/03/s ... the-sport/, Vettel states RBR had their fuel rail system checked post Melbourne, with FIA staff on hand, and showed that their syatems were accurate. Also some other interesting tidbits.

from the article:

Red Bull’s appeal will be heard by the FIA Court of Appeal in Paris on April 14th. The team has indicated that this weekend it has acquired a number of new fuel flow sensors and will work with the FIA during the weekend to find one that is accurate to the satisfaction of both sides. A repeat of what happened in Australia is not ruled out, but it will be a case of seeing how well set up the teams are with accurate sensors after qualifying on Saturday.

Red Bull has carried out tests since Melbourne, observed by FIA staff, which show that their system was accurate and this is what has given them confidence that they will win the appeal. The appeal judges will have to assess, in other words, whether fuel flow sensors which are accurate to +/- 0.25 per cent are good enough and accurate enough for F1. Should the world’s most technically advance sport seek to do better?

Rival teams have pointed out that in these fine margins, there are real performance differences. Running at 0.5 per cent above the 100kg/hour flow rate for key parts of the race, for example, would make a difference of 1/10th of a second per lap to the overall race time.

Red Bull themselves estimate that if they had run as the FIA asked them to – with the troublesome sensor they used in practice together with the offset the FIA requested – that Ricciardo would have finished fifth.

[FoxHound]

Red bull can say their measurements are perfect, it is a moot point.

[DiveBrew]

If truly on the paper is stated it's an opinion, the fia might be in a troubling position.

Assuming again that Horner accurately conveyed the intention of any such statement, what would that mean? What exactly would be the point of Technical Directives in the FIA's eyes?
Still assuming that these are mere opinions, then they still must hold some value. Eben if it doesn't have authoritative power, at the very least there must be a well informed legal case at the bottom of it. So even then, Red Bull would first have to demolish that case before they can just go on to the next point of trying to prove that they were within the fuel flow limit at all times.

Also, on a different note, injecting fuel is a discrete event, not a continuous one. So depending on how small I make the time frame I look at, every single team would necessarily break the 100kg/h rule. The FIA decided to look at 0.2 second intervals for practical reasons. The interval is short enough to still be relevant regarding the prevention of power surges while being long enough to minimize the effect of aliasing. But that is not in the rules. The rules merely say that "Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h."
I wonder if Red Bull's argument boils down to a literal reading of this statement. I could certainly see them arguing that no matter which 1h interval you look at, Ricciardo never used more than 100kg of fuel, which in return should be much simpler to prove than when you look at 0.2s intervals. I guess we'll see...
On the flip side, if the court decides to read that rule (5.1.4) as "Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h at any moment." which would be just as justifiable, then it would be virtually impossible for Red Bull to get out of this, because as stated above, if the timeframe is small enough, they're bound to have exceeded that limit, even if the FFM was faulty.

From a purely legal perspective, which I believe is how the FIA Appeals court is supposed to operate in these cases, it would seem if all TD's now state they are only opinions as Horner said, than they should be immediately disregarded in relation to their compliance with the Tech Regs.

I believe TD's are the result of the difficulty in passing a new Reg in season. They are what the FIA wishes they had put in the rules, but are not the rules until voted on in June and then still do not officially go into effect until the next racing year.