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

[Blanchimont]

https://twitter.com/JennieGow/status/449417117402931200 https://twitter.com/JennieGow/status/449508532463755264

[iotar__]

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...

This is continuation into one-sided absurd through repetitiveness and weird comparisons (Parkinson's) not related to anything .
No, FIA did not become "a side" as long as all teams are treated equally, again they made adjustment in changeable conditions (as they made hundreds of times) to whatever inaccuracies/inconsistencies there were in sensor flow measurement. You can only repeat this ("side") if you're looking at it through one-sided Red Bull against the world view. Splitting hair of fuel measurement should be applied to all other teams, not only Red Bull owned.

Second part: yes it is a cut-throat business when you don't comply with regulations, get unfair advantage, you get disqualified and get zero points.
Problem starts when you mix being a competitor, administrator/owner's favourite and ally, one of the chosen teams with influence on the rules, team with special financial treatment, GP owner and future member of the F1 board. They start act as if it was their own private formula and small problem that affects all teams is turned into one team drama.

[iotar__]

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.

So safety doesn't change everything, consent of teams is required, and as anything (sensors) it can be questioned, when FIA changes tyre recommendations to rules it can mean as debated here:
- Fia doesn't know anything about safety either, Red Bull knows better,
- If it affects their performance they have every right to ignore technical directives about tyres, simple - their performance comes first
- There's nothing about left-right, camber, exact pressure in technical regulation so Red Bull can do whatever they want they won't break any rules, they can be DSQ and easily win an appeal
- Just because every other team complied and was negatively impacted doesn't matter, those "opinions" are meaningless their fault for listening to FIA and not doing what Red Bull did, joke's on them

OK, fine tyres/safety is not identical or the best example, "safety changes everything" but there were literally hundreds instances when clarification of rules was applied through directives which (again) were in fact accepted source of law. I still didn't get the answer why this particular case is different from legal point of view. Two ways to check it: 1. Were there any instances when technical directive (assumption it's not against technical regulations) was questioned 2. Annoying searching for examples, let's see:
- Lotus ride-height gizmo: "An FIA spokesman told Reuters that Whiting sent the directive on Friday following "a number of technical enquiries from teams" about the legality of the Lotus-type concept."
- see-saw tray "The FIA’s response was a technical directive, coded TD35. It’s not surprising that it confirmed such an splitter would not be legal. But, crucially the FIA confirmed that they reserve the right to alter the test to ensure the deflection test procedure isn’t being exploited."
- front hub: "Coming straight after another Technical Directive from the FIA, Red Bull have again had one of their designs ruled on by Charlie Whiting. It’s now the Front hub design that has stretched the rules to the point where a clarification was required. Uniquely Red Bull duct air through the front hub to vent it out through the wheel for aerodynamic benefit."
- off throttle With the FIA keen to ensure that off-throttle blowing of exhausts does not continue, the governing body has issued a Technical Directive to teams informing them that there will now be severe limitations on what is allowed next year. FIA has made it clear that the 2012 version of the software used by F1's standard ECU will now put certain limitations on engine mapping.
- RB engine maps, "Now the rules have been clarified and further restrictions applied. RBR will just have to change to their previous engine map setting or a map setting satisfying the technical directive issued by the FIA." "It has now been confirmed to ESPNF1 that the teams have been issued with a clarification surrounding the engine maps, and although the contents of the clarification have not been made public, the BBC reports that a reference map from the opening four races must be supplied to the FIA and that the directive states: "Above 6,000rpm, the maximum engine torque may vary by no more than +/- 2% (from the reference map). And the ignition angle may vary by no more than 2.5%."

And so on and so forth, bringing twenty other examples won't change anything, you get the picture. Before anyone brings that up, no it doesn't mean that every TD is not debatable but it means they were/are much more than just an opinion.

[thomin]

Ok, it gets juicier. First of all, in a follow-up article to the one I mentioned above in AMuS, they now report that the defects with the two Toro Rosso FFMs were not that they stopped sending signals as in Ricciardo's car but that they simply sent false data.

More interesting is however another factoid: Apparently there are three teams who modified their sensors due to packaging constraints. No names were named though. It wouldn't surprise me if it were Red Bull, Toro Rosso and Lotus as these teams seem to have the biggest problems.

[Pup]

The FIA has grounds to change rules based on safety.

Likewise, they have grounds to keep them the same, based on safety.

The FIA has rejected on safety grounds the idea of scrapping Formula 1's fuel-flow limit to avoid a repeat of the Red Bull controversy.

http://www.racer.com/f1/item/102250-dro ... gerous-fia

[Pup]

Apparently there are three teams who modified their sensors due to packaging constraints.

How do you go about modifying a homologated part?

[basti313]

Ok, it gets juicier. First of all, in a follow-up article to the one I mentioned above in AMuS, they now report that the defects with the two Toro Rosso FFMs were not that they stopped sending signals as in Ricciardo's car but that they simply sent false data.

More interesting is however another factoid: Apparently there are three teams who modified their sensors due to packaging constraints. No names were named though. It wouldn't surprise me if it were Red Bull, Toro Rosso and Lotus as these teams seem to have the biggest problems.

I don't know how we can talk about these three teams of having the biggest problems...if I remember it right nearly every team had issues with the sensors which sometimes just stop to work.

And the modifications are not really modifications: You order the sensor with connectors you like. These connectors are screwed into the sensor, the sensor itself it completely encapsulated.
In F1 most teams run the same connectors, Redbull is a team which has a very special choice of connectors for nearly all fluids, you can see that in the pictures in the car threads. So nothing special about it when they order different connectors than most other teams.

[thomin]

Apparently there are three teams who modified their sensors due to packaging constraints.

How do you go about modifying a homologated part?

Apparently, changes were made to both fuel inlets as well as the coupling to the sensor. That's all the details that were given.

[dans79]

I don't know how we can talk about these three teams of having the biggest problems...if I remember it right nearly every team had issues with the sensors which sometimes just stop to work.

Proof?

[Pup]

Apparently, changes were made to both fuel inlets as well as the coupling to the sensor. That's all the details that were given.

Seems like if you modified the fuel intake you could easily introduce all sorts of turbulence that hadn't been accounted for in the design.

[basti313]

I don't know how we can talk about these three teams of having the biggest problems...if I remember it right nearly every team had issues with the sensors which sometimes just stop to work.

Proof?

Is this all you can contribute?

Apparently, changes were made to both fuel inlets as well as the coupling to the sensor. That's all the details that were given.

Seems like if you modified the fuel intake you could easily introduce all sorts of turbulence that hadn't been accounted for in the design.

This is a good point. The question is if really the angular connectors we can see on the pictures are standard.
Maybe everyone uses straight connectors and the type or diameter of the connector is the problem...

[Pup]

Proof?

Is this all you can contribute?

A question is a better contribution than an opinion stated as fact.

[beelsebob]

So, by the looks of things we're going to see 2 red bull DSQs assuming they make it to the end of the race then.

Looks like RedBull are planning to push this to the limit, and threaten to quit if they have their first 3 races of results stripped from them.

[Pup]

I doubt many would miss them.

I still think the stewards should say that they'll black flag anyone not following the technical delegates instructions on fuel flow. Then there will be no result to restore.

Actually, the race director could prevent them from even starting, now that the FIA has called the issue a safety related one.

[turbof1]

It looks like the fia wants to defend its case based on safety grounds:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113141

While their argumentation might be valid, I feel this is just more rule bending in this whole saga. After all: this was a technical matter, and now out of a sudden the fia wants to apply the sporting regulations. Red Bull and the fia are playing a very dirty game. I fear for the reporcussions for the sport.

Note: I previously said I was ok with this. But now I do have to wonder where this will end. For me both parties are at the wrong.