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

[djos]

But even if they did see inconsistencies, those weren't necessarily the fault of the fuel flow meters themselves. If the variations are due to interference from the car - electrical, ultrasonic, or otherwise - then it becomes Red Bull's problem to either fix the interference or accept that they have to run with a significant safety margin.

Nope, not Redbull's problem at all, the brief from the FIA was that it had to work in all F1 Cars, there is no onus on the teams to modify their cars to make the sensor work aside from specific install instructions (in the fuel tank after the fuel pumps etc).

Indeed, it's not inconceivable that it's their car that's causing the problems. We know that some of the variation in the units is due to interference, and there was a lot of discussion here early on that at least part of Red Bull's engine problems were caused by electrical interference. And if they have an interference issue that's either difficult to track down or to fix; and if the safety margin they have to use is significant; then it would make sense that they'd want to cause a fuss and hopefully get the units puled from competition. After all, the strategy worked for them last year with the tires.

Other teams are seeing similar inconsistencies with the sensor as confirmed by AutoSport magazine, it's not isolated to Redbull.

I think it's very clear that the FIA did no real-world F1 testing and the teams did not run these FFM's at Jerez or Bahrain - if they had the FIA would not have changed the sampling spec from 10hz to 5hz on a race weekend!

[Sulman]

But even if they did see inconsistencies, those weren't necessarily the fault of the fuel flow meters themselves. If the variations are due to interference from the car - electrical, ultrasonic, or otherwise - then it becomes Red Bull's problem to either fix the interference or accept that they have to run with a significant safety margin.

Nope, not Redbull's problem at all, the brief from the FIA was that it had to work in all F1 Cars, there is no onus on the teams to modify their cars to make the sensor work aside from specific install instructions (in the fuel tank after the fuel pumps etc).

Indeed, it's not inconceivable that it's their car that's causing the problems. We know that some of the variation in the units is due to interference, and there was a lot of discussion here early on that at least part of Red Bull's engine problems were caused by electrical interference. And if they have an interference issue that's either difficult to track down or to fix; and if the safety margin they have to use is significant; then it would make sense that they'd want to cause a fuss and hopefully get the units puled from competition. After all, the strategy worked for them last year with the tires.

Other teams are seeing similar inconsistencies with the sensor as confirmed by AutoSport magazine, it's not isolated to Redbull.

I think it's very clear that the FIA did no real-world F1 testing and the teams did not run these FFM's at Jerez or Bahrain - if they had the FIA would not have changed the sampling spec from 10hz to 5hz on a race weekend!

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but don't ignore the politics. Renault have the weakest PU of the three, and they are clearly aware that this is an easy way to level up.

[Pup]

Nope, not Redbull's problem at all, the brief from the FIA was that it had to work in all F1 Cars, there is no onus on the teams to modify their cars to make the sensor work aside from specific install instructions (in the fuel tank after the fuel pumps etc).
...
Other teams are seeing similar inconsistencies with the sensor as confirmed by AutoSport magazine, it's not isolated to Redbull.
...
I think it's very clear that the FIA did no real-world F1 testing and the teams did not run these FFM's at Jerez or Bahrain - if they had the FIA would not have changed the sampling spec from 10hz to 5hz on a race weekend!

I usually don't like to go through posts point by point, since I think in reality all it does is make the original poster defensive. But I do want to address these three things -

The specs from the FIA didn't put the onus completely onto the device manufacturer as far as interference goes. They had specs that the device had to meet obviously, but that leaves room for the environment of a particular car to exceed what was required. (The actual requirements are here - http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... eter_0.pdf )

So then that sends us back to the general FIA requirement that it's up to the constructor to make sure that their car meets the regs, which one would assume includes providing a car in which the various FIA electronics can work. The analogy is that if a team were to run a race with brake ducts that are too small - you wouldn't blame the brake pad manufacturer when the pads explode.

Secondly, if the other teams are seeing similar inconsistencies, then there was no reason for Red Bull to complain. It's only if they were seeing inconsistencies that were not similar that they have any room to argue. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

And finally, the sensors were first run on the cars last year during the young driver test. And the current version was given to the teams prior to the first test, so they've had as much real world testing as anything else on the cars.

[l4mbch0ps]

I think it's very clear that the FIA did no real-world F1 testing and the teams did not run these FFM's at Jerez or Bahrain - if they had the FIA would not have changed the sampling spec from 10hz to 5hz on a race weekend!

I think it's entirely possible that this is due to circumstances being different on the race track and during the race weekend than what they had seen before. I know that in one track there was electrical issues on the cars as they ran over a particular main conduit (i think *maybe singapore??) in the street. Also, you can imagine the amount of radio and electromagnetic activity on an F1 race weekend in the middle of a fairly major city. I think it's entirely possible that they just had to reduce the fidelity because of these sorts of issues.

[timbo]

There have been reports all through winter testing – and the Melbourne free practices – that the FIA homologated sensors were delivering faulty, or at least unreliable, data as the sensor units turned out to have a rather unacceptable range of error. You could run 98 kg/h or 102 kg/h and still be legal, depending on how wonky your fuel flow meter is.

The FIA reacted by softening measurement from 10Hz to 5Hz and told teams to run significantly below 100 kg/h (by offset) because they couldn’t measure and govern their own limits as prescribed by the rules. But here’s the kicker – they would still decide the legality of a car by equipment proven to be unreliable.

Unless I’ve missed a news item that said that the FIA HQ has been moved from France to North Korea, such an approach is utterly unacceptable. Their own rules say that fuel flow is limited to 100kg/h and the teams have sensors in place to make sure they stay below that limit. But according to the rules, only the reading of the FIA sensor counts, whether it is accurate or not. What that means is – in everyday terms – the police can fine the raw stuffing out of you, if their wonky speed camera said you were speeding – even if your accurately measuring speedo says you weren’t.

I may be weird, but am I alone in thinking you can’t enforce a limit if you have no reliable way to measure it? Mercedes and other teams did what all blithering idiots tend to do – they blindly followed the fatwa from the authorities and ran lobotomised cars. Mercedes ran their cars to a limit of 96 kg/h, to avoid going over the limit, even if the sensor had a Münchhausen moment again.

Source: http://thejudge13.com/2014/03/17/hippos ... -red-bull/

So, that "hippo" called Merc which dominated the GP "blithering idiot"?

[dxpetrov]

There have been reports all through winter testing – and the Melbourne free practices – that the FIA homologated sensors were delivering faulty, or at least unreliable, data as the sensor units turned out to have a rather unacceptable range of error. You could run 98 kg/h or 102 kg/h and still be legal, depending on how wonky your fuel flow meter is.

The FIA reacted by softening measurement from 10Hz to 5Hz and told teams to run significantly below 100 kg/h (by offset) because they couldn’t measure and govern their own limits as prescribed by the rules. But here’s the kicker – they would still decide the legality of a car by equipment proven to be unreliable.

Unless I’ve missed a news item that said that the FIA HQ has been moved from France to North Korea, such an approach is utterly unacceptable. Their own rules say that fuel flow is limited to 100kg/h and the teams have sensors in place to make sure they stay below that limit. But according to the rules, only the reading of the FIA sensor counts, whether it is accurate or not. What that means is – in everyday terms – the police can fine the raw stuffing out of you, if their wonky speed camera said you were speeding – even if your accurately measuring speedo says you weren’t.

I may be weird, but am I alone in thinking you can’t enforce a limit if you have no reliable way to measure it? Mercedes and other teams did what all blithering idiots tend to do – they blindly followed the fatwa from the authorities and ran lobotomised cars. Mercedes ran their cars to a limit of 96 kg/h, to avoid going over the limit, even if the sensor had a Münchhausen moment again.

Source: [url]http://thejudge13.com/2014/03/17/hippos ... -red-bull/

Lol, I haven't read something so good and sane for awhile. Made me almost spill my morning coffee...

[Coulthard's Jaw]

What that means is – in everyday terms – the police can fine the raw stuffing out of you, if their wonky speed camera said you were speeding – even if your accurately measuring speedo says you weren’t.

That's rubbish though.

In this analogy, the police have warned you that their speed camera is a bit wonky and you should slow down, and you have decided to ignore the police. At the same time, all the other drivers on the road decided to slow down.

Red Bull don't have a leg to stand on here, of course it's madness that the FIA are using rubbish technology, but at the end of the day the are the rule makers and their word is final, you as the competitor don't get to decide your own criteria of measurement.

[ChrisM40]

In the speeding analogy even if the sensor (camera) was faulty the offender didnt follow the correct procedure. With speeding if you feel its wrong you fill in the NIP, but challenge the claim, you dont ignore it, thats in effect what RB did.

[Tim.Wright]

The speeding analogy is a good one. The law says you can't go over the speed limit but doesn't say how they will measure it.

You can have a speeding fine overturned by proving their measurements are wrong (faulty device or out of cal) or at least unreliable (not used correctly).

This is basically what Red Bull are doing.

[Coulthard's Jaw]

No they are not, Red Bull were told to change what they were doing by the FIA and they proceeded to ignore the FIA. It's really as simple as that.

[CBeck113]

But the technical directive clearly states that the Gill sensor provided by the FIA is the only source for the measurement. So even if this device was measuring the wind from the drivers' backsides during the race, and I decide that I want to use my fuel injector system which is specified for my engine installation only, then I am clearly breaking the rules from the FIA, and can expect to be punished for it.
Red Bull is contesting the accuracy of the sensor, the DQ came because they did not obey. Apples and pears.

[iotar__]

Exactly.
Speeding is not a good analogy, F1 is a competition with other participants, rules not applied uniformly affect not only Red Bull but others, creating advantages/disadvantages.
[Circular arguments anyway]

[timbo]

Actually it's not a speeding. It's like you are carrying a toy gun and get stopped the police, the police demands you to raise your hands and drop the gun, but instead you point it on the policemen and pull the trigger. Should we wonder you get shot?

[turbof1]

Imo we have 2 seperate cases here:

-We have the Gill ultrasonice fuel flow sensors which were acclaimed to be accurate to 0,1% in roughly half of the sensors, and accurate to 0.25% in 80% of the cases. Yet teams have deviation of 4-6%. Of course that's too much. Even the FIA should recognize that and instead of supporting Gill, they should reprimand them and urge to do a better job. Assuming of course it isn't a calibrati problem of course, since that's being handled by a thirth party. I think the FIA is on that front more busy with saving its face then doing the correct thing.

-However, since we have these issues for now, all involved have to deal with them. The FIA cannot deploy alternative methods to calculate the fuel flow, since those vary for every team and chances are teams will abuse that. Better is to use a flawed system that disadvantages everybody in roughly the same way. Certainly not a good solution, a crappy one actually, but still better then having every team calculate on their own terms the fuel flow.
Red bull actually tried this, very well knowing other teams would need to run with a disadvantage. They tried to weezle out of it by, although correctly, stating the sensor shows issues. But they did broke the technical directive, which holds the same value as a technical regulation, that only the fia can allow alternative methods. That directive is actually very crucial, else you would have a very serious loophole. Teams could turn to the exception if the sensor was even slightly off. The directive effectively outlaws that abuse.

Tldr:
-FIA should get the sensor much more accurate.
-Red Bull deservingly got punished.

[e30ernest]

If the deviation is that much, then adjusting to the sensors' inaccuracy would mean some teams would be at an advantage because some will be reading higher than others right? If that is the case, then it might be better to abolish that limit and let the 100kg max fuel load and engine reliability dictate flow management. I reckon that would be a fairer situation for all teams.