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

[myurr]

So the outcome will either be the FIA wins or Red Bull demolishes a key mechanism via which the FIA governs the sport - the latter option may win Red Bull the battle but surely they're going to anger the rulemakers of the sport. Doesn't seem terribly clever to go down that route, nor do I think it's in the interests of the sport for them to win in that endeavour.

[jz11]

myurr, and you forget that in case RB win, and there is some other similar issue with any other team, they will have a chance against FIA, but if they lose, FIA might as well set up permanent residency up on the Mount Olympus, and no one will be allowed to question their word ever again, even if it is obviously wrong, mere mortals cannot fathom the infinite wisdom of the governing body and thus question any TDs or verbal instructions they receive.

will that be good for the sport then?

[iotar__]

myurr, and you forget that in case RB win, and there is some other similar issue with any other team, they will have a chance against FIA, but if they lose, FIA might as well set up permanent residency up on the Mount Olympus, and no one will be allowed to question their word ever again, even if it is obviously wrong, mere mortals cannot fathom the infinite wisdom of the governing body and thus question any TDs or verbal instructions they receive.

will that be good for the sport then?

[ If their ace in the sleeve is technical directive as an opinion this is going to be amusing. I had google search for technical directives with many examples (cold blowing, trays, Lotus ride-height gizmo) but now it's useless without more digging and full of Horner We've been through practical chain of F1 law under changeable conditions.]

1. FIA is not a side, well it is usually but the way you put it it seems as if Red Bull is working towards greater common good. No, on the contrary, RB and other teams are sides, competitors fighting against each other. their actions (legal and on track) affect other team negatively. And no, there's nothing "obviously" wrong with what happened, FIA made imperfect adjustments in changeable conditions. Their role is to apply rules uniformly which they did.

2. This is how it works anyway (leaving aside all politics, lobbying, trades) nothing new, remember pre 2012 tunnels/coanda controversy? Couple of team/cars were different and then controversial redirection of exhaust gases was OKed by Whiting. interpretation that could have gone one way or the other turned into law for 2012 season. Someone was gaining and someone was losing. Why no complaints then and was technical directive used?

I still think RB's explanations are weak on both levels: legal and sporting/technical. "There would have been a significant impact on performance" So what, that's empty, everything has. Saying that you're "extremely" confident doesn't cost anything either and is only a sign of intention of ploughing through with it no matter what. Or rather IMO gain as much as possible from the ripples behind the scenes.

I hope they will be consistent and ignore any technical directives and recommendations regarding fuel flow on anything else that 'have significant impact on performance" from Malaysia onwards.

[ebare]

So the outcome will either be the FIA wins or Red Bull demolishes a key mechanism via which the FIA governs the sport - the latter option may win Red Bull the battle but surely they're going to anger the rulemakers of the sport. Doesn't seem terribly clever to go down that route, nor do I think it's in the interests of the sport for them to win in that endeavour.

And? As far as i recall, the only time the fia “didn’t” rule against RB, be it TDs or just applying the article 2.5 from the technical regulations, was when it overturn the changes in the engine mapping rules introduced back at 2012 for the british GP, to avoid change the rules mid game. Meanwhile, e.g. we have seen the approvable of one aero system other then the DRS that worked automatically, but only after the driver made a move, if not he didn’t work at all.

It’s also true that this system was also banned in the end of 2012... When RB already had his own working well. Seemingly better then the inventors one and without driver influence.

There is something i don't understand: cars can't carry more than 100Kg of fuel, so, in a 1h30 race, how on earth Ricciardos RB could have been constantly above the fuel rate of 100kg hour?

[Cam]

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.

That is as it seems. And for good reason.

It's important to consider why the rules are 'fixed' in the first place. It gives all teams the platform to know what they are competing against for a 12 month period. Huge cash investments for designs and strategy is based around this. If you had a scenario where the rules can be changed at any time - there would be chaos. No-one in their right mind would enter a team. Imagine this extreme hypothetical.

Technical Directive 12345 - Red paint weighs more than any other paint, therefore all cars with more than 80% red paint coverage on their car may use 20hp more at each race. This is not an opinion, this is a rule.

Now this is extreme - but it illustrates what could happen if it was possible to change the rules at will.

There is far more at stake here than just Red Bull 'getting their way'.

[iotar__]

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.

That is as it seems. And for good reason.

It's important to consider why the rules are 'fixed' in the first place. It gives all teams the platform to know what they are competing against for a 12 month period. Huge cash investments for designs and strategy is based around this. If you had a scenario where the rules can be changed at any time - there would be chaos. No-one in their right mind would enter a team. Imagine this extreme hypothetical.

Technical Directive 12345 - Red paint weighs more than any other paint, therefore all cars with more than 80% red paint coverage on their car may use 20hp more at each race. This is not an opinion, this is a rule.

Now this is extreme - but it illustrates what could happen if it was possible to change the rules at will.

There is far more at stake here than just Red Bull 'getting their way'.

Really it's that simple?

OK simple example. Tyres in 2013, there were recommendations about pressure, left-right, camber. After failures these recommendation turned into hard rules checked and imposed by FIA. Or maybe those hard rules were just this "opinion" nonsense RB is now pushing and turning fairly simple case into absurd? What about fixed platform?

[thomin]

There is something i don't understand: cars can't carry more than 100Kg of fuel, so, in a 1h30 race, how on earth Ricciardos RB could have been constantly above the fuel rate of 100kg hour?

Well, technically, cars can carry more than 100kg of fuel. But that's not the point.
Regarding the fuel flow, my best guess is that he constantly peaked above 100kg/h, but on average, he stayed well below. Whereas the FIA has been pretty clear that they'd be taking a tough stance on this.

[jz11]

1. FIA is not a side, well it is usually but the way you put it it seems as if Red Bull is working towards greater common good. No, on the contrary, RB and other teams are sides, competitors fighting against each other. their actions (legal and on track) affect other team negatively. And no, there's nothing "obviously" wrong with what happened, FIA made imperfect adjustments in changeable conditions. Their role is to apply rules uniformly which they did.

I still think RB's explanations are weak on both levels: legal and sporting/technical. "There would have been a significant impact on performance" So what, that's empty, everything has. Saying that you're "extremely" confident doesn't cost anything either and is only a sign of intention of ploughing through with it no matter what. Or rather IMO gain as much as possible from the ripples behind the scenes.

I hope they will be consistent and ignore any technical directives and recommendations regarding fuel flow on anything else that 'have significant impact on performance" from Malaysia onwards.

about 1., FIA became a "side" when they enforced a rule based on a reading of non-consistent or even accurate reading of a sensor for a rule that may not even be broken if they chose to use different resolution instead of 0,2sec, even after when they had problems with 0,1sec resolution...

if that video of the FFM simulated readings is somewhat true, and they used here 0,2sec resolution, then it is very easy to get enough readings that over the limit and, when summed together, would equal to those rumored 25 grams per lap, but what if next to each of those reading of 1,5% over the limit was a reading 1,5% under the limit, what then? You can still say they consistently were over the limit based on 0,2sec resolution scale, but if you average down to 0,4sec resolution, they will be bang on! And nowhere does it say what will be the resolution that the flow will be measured at, at least I haven't seen it anywhere, there are just talks, that during the weekend, FIA and teams "met in the middle" about this case and settled on that 5Hz resolution, but it very well may be that for few cars that resolution is fine, for other ones it is not, you saw the differences in gearing and what gears the drivers actually use - that has huge impact on what sort of "noise" there will be on that 0,2sec resolution data

simply put - the measurement technique wasn't quite there yet, too dodgy and unreliable to be used as a base to enforce a rule and disqualify someone

and, in my opinion, this has nothing to do with how much of a gentlemen they were in regards to the other teams when they chose not to follow the suggestion of downtuning engines, everyone is there to compete, not to spend quality time, it is a cut throat business, that is what it IS all about for the team! For drivers it is a bit different, but driving has become quite a small factor, much more effort is put into getting the car that can beat the competition, and then someone comes and tells you that, by their ruler, that they seem to have bought at "home depot", their car is too long, and you can see that the guy measuring your car has Parkinson's...

[Cam]

OK simple example. Tyres in 2013, there were recommendations about pressure, left-right, camber. After failures these recommendation turned into hard rules checked and imposed by FIA. Or maybe those hard rules were just this "opinion" nonsense RB is now pushing and turning fairly simple case into absurd? What about fixed platform?

The FIA has grounds to change rules based on safety. They can also do so with all the teams agreeing - from memory.

Hembrey said, in regards to that matter:

"We would like to acknowledge the willingness of the FIA, FOM, teams, and drivers to act quickly to find an immediate solution to the problem.

That would be good enough to change rules. Indeed:

However the change of specification has been unilaterally put through by the FIA on the grounds of safety. FIA president Jean Todt described it on Sunday night as “a safety problem”.

So it would seem that incident you are referring is not really the same. We should compare apples for apples.

Edit: to clarify your point - the FIA could change the rules to mandate the exact sensor rules they want - but it could only be on safety grounds or if all the teams agree. Otherwise, they have to wait until next year.

[FW17]

What are the advantages of having a ultrasonic flow sensor over a mechanical flow sensor?

Why FIA do not have a backup solution to use in case of failure.

[thomin]

What are the advantages of having a ultrasonic flow sensor over a mechanical flow sensor?

Why FIA do not have a backup solution to use in case of failure.

The ultrasound sensor doesn't interact with the medium in any way which was crucial I think.

[thomin]

On a different note, according to AMuS, in FP1 in Malaysia, both Toro Rosso cars as well as Daniel Ricciardo's car once again had fuel flow issues. This time, all three sensors stopped sending signals.

Different sensors had to be installed for FP2. No word yet on how the sensors did there.

[henry]

On a different note, according to AMuS, in FP1 in Malaysia, both Toro Rosso cars as well as Daniel Ricciardo's car once again had fuel flow issues. This time, all three sensors stopped sending signals.

Different sensors had to be installed for FP2. No word yet on how the sensors did there.

Are cars designed at the Red Bull Technology centre having more sensor "problems" than other cars? Or are they just being reported more?

Either way I would suggest that it is possible to affect the quality of sensor behaviour by the installation design. This would seem to be the essence of High tech F1. The better the design the nearer the sensor will perform to its homologated performance and the less need to apply offsets to fuel rail consumption algorithms.

[Juzh]

Toro rosso is not developed or designed at red bull technology. not since 2009 anyway

[henry]

Toro rosso is not developed or designed at red bull technology. not since 2009 anyway

Thanks. I should have checked.