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

[kaido]

For anyone interested, there's a live-feed from the trial going on today here - http://ticker.auto-motor-und-sport.de/

Thanks! some interesting points being raised

10:52 Paul Harris takes Paul Monaghan cross-examined . He bites firmly on the three sensors , the Red Bull in Melbourne had it. He wants to know why the third sensor was never used , even though it was installed in the replacement chassis. He could theoretically can provide values ​​that Red Bull would have been satisfied . Monaghan can give no satisfactory answer .

[Jef Patat]

For anyone interested, there's a live-feed from the trial going on today here - http://ticker.auto-motor-und-sport.de/

As I've mentioned a lot, RB uses a model, with 1% accuracy, based on a couple of parameters. To every member that stated it can't be done: this is from a RB source in court.

Google translate:

"Another FIA Ask Monaghan: "Measure directly the flow?" Monaghan denied. "We calculate the flow rate based on different measurements. Opening time of the injectors, injection quantity, fuel density, fuel temperature." Monaghan claims that this measurement lies in an accuracy range of plus and minus one percent. Harris bites back immediately:... "Red Bull presents figures of a computing model and data not a direct measurement Nobody knows what data is entered into the model depending, however, is the calculation result Would the FIA left to each team's own calculation, it would in the forest. "

[alexx_88]

Yes Jef, but who can verify that the model worked well enough for the Australian GP? It's probably very similar to the model used by car manufacturers to report the instantaneous fuel consumption reported on most cars' dashobards, but without having it calibrated and locked by the FIA, it's simply useless.

This is an article written in Racecar Engineering as to why this approach won't work as a solution for the entire grid: http://www.racecar-engineering.com/arti ... ow-meters/

[Jef Patat]

Sorry for the confusion Alexx. I'm on your side as well. I didn't mean to go into that discussion again. I fully agree that we/FIA cannot trust the teams in using their own models. Lots of people have been stating that this couldn't be done. I just wanted to point out that those models do exist and have a decent accuracy, the source mentions 1%. I have mentioned sub 1% accuracies from my own experience (gill fuel flow sensor thread discussion) but I didn't see the accuracy being mentioned by a team before.

[jz11]

looks like a circus so far, judging from the google translated live feed

anyone find it weird that a Mercedes attorney (if the google translate is accurate) is asking questions and Mercedes engineer is testifying there in the court, when they are direct competitors to RB and beneficiary if the appeal is denied?

[Juzh]

looks like a circus so far, judging from the google translated live feed

anyone find it weird that a Mercedes attorney (if the google translate is accurate) is asking questions and Mercedes engineer is testifying there in the court, when they are direct competitors to RB and beneficiary if the appeal is denied?

Maybe they believe they'll gain even more advantage if flow meters were to be removed or something along that lines.

[CriXus]

I really hope, RedBull won't get away this time.

[theformula]

What's the likelihood of RB getting their other results disqualified? ie. getting disqualified from malaysian GP?

[jz11]

none? Malaysian GP is irrelevant to the case

[turbof1]

At the moment, the attorney of red bull is questioning just about everything the fia did with and said about the sensor. Whether or not red bull is right I'll leave it in the middle, but they are relentless at the court. They go as far as claiming the fia should be the one to proof the sensors were reliable. I think that's one step too far; red bull made the appeal so it's their burden to proof they weren't reliable.

edit: and the fia confirms the technical directives don't have the regulatory value a technical rule has. The FIA is trying now to appeal for reason, but personally I think this is quite a big blow for their case.

[NTS]

Maybe they believe they'll gain even more advantage if flow meters were to be removed or something along that lines.

They're not helping RB, they are testifying against them explaining that the fuel-flow model used by RB is only a model and could never be more accurate than a direct measurement by a sensor.

[NTS]

They go as far as claiming the fia should be the one to proof the sensors were reliable. I think that's one step too far; red bull made the appeal so it's their burden to proof they weren't reliable.

They did this in quite a smart way: They first provided "proof" that their method is correct by showing that the fuel-flow as measured by the FIA changed at illogical moments and independent of other values such as emissions which technically is strange. And then they showed that their own measurements do correlate with those other changes and thus have some internal consistency. The next step was indeed to ask the FIA to prove their values, because RB now considers their own values "proven" and the FIA has done nothing to prove the measurements of the flow-sensor.

So yes, far fetched, but in this context a very logical approach for a lawyer.

[astracrazy]

looks like a circus so far, judging from the google translated live feed

anyone find it weird that a Mercedes attorney (if the google translate is accurate) is asking questions and Mercedes engineer is testifying there in the court, when they are direct competitors to RB and beneficiary if the appeal is denied?

Maybe they believe they'll gain even more advantage if flow meters were to be removed or something along that lines.

from what I read it looks like merc is on the fia's side of the fence?

[turbof1]

@NTS: They are definitely showing confidence, and the fia is yet to convince. They now say that Red Bull should either follow all directives, or none of it. A non-argument really.

Further, they still claim that it's the fia's sole right whether or not it's appropiate to switch to the alternative way, a claim based on a technical directive they confirmed not having the same value as a rule.

[astracrazy]

fia now asking the question as to why do Red Bull choose to ignore the directive when every other team followed it. I'd expect them to ask also why Red Bull has followed every other directive in the past. (which they now basically have stated)