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

[Juzh]

Hes basing 4% innacuracy off of toto wolfs statement that merc ran at 96kg/h to be on the safe side.

1) As someone else pointed out, this is 4% relative to what their sensors tell them, not relative to the absolute amount of fuel flowing through it.
2) They asserted "to be on the safe side", which implies that this is more than they thought they needed to correct by.
3) This still doesn't explain where you got the 6% figure from.

It could well be that they ran at 96 to be on the safe side, because they hit 100 when their sensors said 98.5, and they had a lot in hand, so they went under by a substantial amount. Then, 1kg/h of that inaccuracy was caused by their own estimates of how much fuel they were using being 1% out. Then... the FIA sensor is in spec.

1. i know
2. i know
3. I was just pointing out where djos's 4% came from. I didn't even mention 6% anywhere.

[dans79]

Hes basing 4% innacuracy off of toto wolfs statement that merc ran at 96kg/h to be on the safe side.

Correct, I am.

I'm sorry man but why on earth would you believe anything a TP says, let alone the non technical one.

[Gridlock]

They did it better than most other teams and deserve credit for that. End of conversation.

Considering 'most other teams' were not running the fuelling they'd have preferred following FIA feedback?

They're all keeping quiet, because it's in their interests if RBR win, but it's obvious. Just look at eg Lowdon on the F1 show or Bouillier post-race comments.

[beelsebob]

Hes basing 4% innacuracy off of toto wolfs statement that merc ran at 96kg/h to be on the safe side.

1) As someone else pointed out, this is 4% relative to what their sensors tell them, not relative to the absolute amount of fuel flowing through it.
2) They asserted "to be on the safe side", which implies that this is more than they thought they needed to correct by.
3) This still doesn't explain where you got the 6% figure from.

It could well be that they ran at 96 to be on the safe side, because they hit 100 when their sensors said 98.5, and they had a lot in hand, so they went under by a substantial amount. Then, 1kg/h of that inaccuracy was caused by their own estimates of how much fuel they were using being 1% out. Then... the FIA sensor is in spec.

1. i know
2. i know
3. I was just pointing out where djos's 4% came from. I didn't even mention 6% anywhere.

Cool, so we agree, bullshit on 4-6% then.

[Pup]

Oh, great.

I show up to this thread this morning and people are agreeing with each other. Obviously, I've woken up in an alternate universe. Are you guys all wearing goatees?

[Richard]

Hes basing 4% innacuracy off of toto wolfs statement that merc ran at 96kg/h to be on the safe side.

I understood Wolf's statement to be mind games, he's asserting their dominance by saying they turned the engine down and still won by a huge margin.

[FoxHound]

Hes basing 4% innacuracy off of toto wolfs statement that merc ran at 96kg/h to be on the safe side.

I understood Wolf's statement to be mind games, he's asserting their dominance by saying they turned the engine down and still won by a huge margin.

Wolff has been at pains to talk down Mercedes advantage.

[Scardini1]

[quote="Gridlock"

Considering 'most other teams' were not running the fuelling they'd have preferred following FIA feedback?

They're all keeping quiet, because it's in their interests if RBR win, but it's obvious. Just look at eg Lowdon on the F1 show or Bouillier post-race comments.[/quote]


Hi Gridlock,
Haven't seen those quotes, but I agree it's in their best interest. Sooner or later the Teams must rebel against the FIA's meddleing. I'd love to return to the old Turbo days when the drivers could dial-up the boost to whatever level they wanted if they thought there'd be enough fuel to finish the race (AND not blow the engine up). How dramatic it used to be when you never knew if the lead car actually had enough gas to finish the race. THAT was exciting. If no one stops the FIA, F1 will "bore" (as in: zzzzzzzzzzz............) itself into extinction. Case-in-point: the horrible lack of sound this year. How many of you saw Vijay Mallya's disgust over this?

[thomin]

The FIA's rule making is killing the sport and is the leading cause of all this pettiness.
.

There's a lot wrong with F1, but not all is down to the FIA. Particularly this entire engine formula was mostly down to the teams and engine manufacturers.

Red Bull used the mandated fuel sensor

They did not...that's the point.

(give me a break: a "mandated" fuel sensor?! - Just shoot me),

How else would you measure fuel flow in a way that is comparable?

they raced on the required amount of fuel. They finished the race. They Podiumed. They did it better than most other teams and deserve credit for that. End of conversation.

You forgot the point where they were able to squeeze more power out of their engine than anyone else thanks to an illegal fuel flow setting.

You may not like the rules - and I can sympathize - but these are the rules nonetheless. You can't just ignore the rule that doesn't suit you.

[langwadt]

Despite the FIA's efforts to turn F1 into an open wheel NASCAR, F1 is "NOT" NASCAR (which is such an embarrassment). The FIA's rule making is killing the sport and is the leading cause of all this pettiness.

Red Bull used the mandated fuel sensor (give me a break: a "mandated" fuel sensor?! - Just shoot me), they raced on the required amount of fuel. They finished the race. They Podiumed. They did it better than most other teams and deserve credit for that. End of conversation.

Should we skip technical control all together or do you have list of rules that we can safely ignore checking and just
believe the teams adhere to because they say so?

[dxpetrov]

A lot of pointless discussion.
i can't wait to see people's faces when RBR nail this appeal, which I'm 100% sure they will...
Lot of ''experts'' everywhere but no one can't read it better than the teams, more so the RBR who are the kings of loopholes and regulations.

[turbof1]

I feel the conversation is starting to run in circles. The same pro- and contra-arguments keep coming up.

I've been looking around and James Allen put up a nice article about the details of the court:

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2014/03/r ... -flow-row/


Apperently the judges are choosen from a panel approved by both the fia and the other teams. Was that panel choosen before or after the race in melbourne? I don't see other teams chosing favorable judges for red bull.

The fia will also, I think, raise the infamous 151c: "any fraudulent conduct, or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally". It acts as their catch-all regulation.

[dans79]

I feel the conversation is starting to run in circles. The same pro- and contra-arguments keep coming up.

I've been looking around and James Allen put up a nice article about the details of the court:

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2014/03/r ... -flow-row/


Apperently the judges are choosen from a panel approved by both the fia and the other teams. Was that panel choosen before or after the race in melbourne? I don't see other teams chosing favorable judges for red bull.

The fia will also, I think, raise the infamous 151c: "any fraudulent conduct, or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally". It acts as their catch-all regulation.

When the FIA does exactly what you suggest, I'm sure this forum will explode with outraged RBR fans.

[FoxHound]

Why "outraged"?

The FIA gave a clear message to all teams before the race and qualifying.
Only 1 team chose not to heed the calls despite being asked twice.
Whoever made the call to keep going on their own data is clearly the one where the outrage should be levelled inmy opinion.

[kaido]

hmmm interesting topic.

I really don't think Red Bull will win against the FIA this time. The problem is the FIA and F1 have to much to lose. If Red Bull win what does this mean for the sport? It means that the FIA fuel flow sensor is pretty much null and void if teams can prove that there calculation where correct and the FIA fuel flow sensor where not.

So where does this leave teams? Does this mean at the end of every race the FIA will have to go to each time and ask them for there fuel flow calculation, to prove that even though the Official flow sensor said one set of "numbers" that they were not correct and that the teams "numbers" are. It will pretty much bring the sport in chaos.

The FIA will need to look at another method of measure "fuel flow" and i can 100% guarantee that this same issue will still be there. The FIA are not perfect and can not be expected to get everything 100% right all the time, especially for this season where there is so many major changes to the regulation. There needs to be some room for "error".

Red Bull made the choice to not follow the FIA, even after they where told during the race. If the ruling is overturned does this mean that all teams do not need to follow the regulation if they believe they are right regardless of what the governing body says.

There is alot more at play than just a fault "flow flow sensors". The implications will have a major affect on F1 and what happens for the rest of the seasons.