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

[Jef Patat]

http://www.racer.com/f1/item/102245-fia ... -clear-cut

[basti313]

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

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

This is not about the case.

[Pup]

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

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

This is not about the case.

Were you waving your hand in the air like Obiwan Kenobi when you typed that? Because it didn't work.

[iotar__]

You can dissect for 100th time the same legal/fuel flow argument but this case is no different to any TD situation which is usually one of two (or mixed) issues, this covers all examples posted earlier:
- clarification - this is what we meant by this and this rule if do like you do you break it
- modification: dealing with some specific case that wasn't precisely described in the rules: RB's engine maps
Both apply here and different background (new rules, third party equipment, all teams are affected) is not working in RB favour, on the contrary.

It's all meaningless noise, the real reasons for this drama are different and Horner in usual marketing strategy manner is dosing information just to stretch period of controversy, adding another detail according to plan and revealing them:
1. First it was some sensor choosing others do and RB can't and now this:
2. http://www.f1plus.com/en/news/item/5612 ... -fuel-rule "Horner urges F1 to scrap 'complicated' fuel rule"
"It's kept Formula One in the news for 10 days. Ultimately is it good for the sport? No, because it's too complicated," Horner told reporters at the Sepang circuit. "I think we need to look at a more robust system," Horner said, adding that he had raised his concerns with technical officials.
"In many respects I think personally it would be easier to get rid of it and just say, 'You've got 100 kilos, use it how you like but that's all you've got'."
This is outrageous, "it's kept F1 in news" because you created it for this very purpose . It's as simple as it gets, if you can't win according to current rules, change them, I bet it's only the beginning. (for the good of the sport).

[basti313]

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

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

This is not about the case.

Were you waving your hand in the air like Obiwan Kenobi when you typed that? Because it didn't work.

So you think it is about the case? Why?
I always thought the case would be about the measurement method and not about dropping the fuel limit completely.

[dans79]

Proof?

Is this all you can contribute?

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

I would +1 this if I could.

[turbof1]

So you think it is about the case? Why?
I always thought the case would be about the measurement method and not about dropping the fuel limit completely.

Any argument to win a case is good enough. It's what we call a chewbacca defense:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense

The FIA has an agenda now they suddenly want to give info sessions, months after the announcement of the sensor. Opening the way to safety grounds allows them to use the sporting regulations. I believe this article could be used for instance:

15)
INSTRUCTIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS TO COMPETITORS
15.1
The stewards or race director may give instructions to competitors by means of special
circulars in accordance with the Code. These circulars will be distributed to all competitors
who must acknowledge receipt.
15.2
All classifications and results of practice and the race, as well as all decisions issued by the
officials, will be posted on the official notice board.
15.3
Any decision or communication concerning a particular competitor should be given to him
within twenty five minutes of such decision, and receipt must be acknowledged.

It also allows them to force the sensor through even if they loose the case.

[basti313]

Is this all you can contribute?

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

I would +1 this if I could.

Of course you would. But can you also name teams without any fuel sensor problems? Would be easier to post the names of two or three teams than just posting all the interviews people state they have/had problems with them.

[basti313]

So you think it is about the case? Why?
I always thought the case would be about the measurement method and not about dropping the fuel limit completely.

Any argument to win a case is good enough. It's what we call a chewbacca defense:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense

The FIA has an agenda now they suddenly want to give info sessions, months after the announcement of the sensor. Opening the way to safety grounds allows them to use the sporting regulations. I believe this article could be used for instance:

15)
INSTRUCTIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS TO COMPETITORS
15.1
The stewards or race director may give instructions to competitors by means of special
circulars in accordance with the Code. These circulars will be distributed to all competitors
who must acknowledge receipt.
15.2
All classifications and results of practice and the race, as well as all decisions issued by the
officials, will be posted on the official notice board.
15.3
Any decision or communication concerning a particular competitor should be given to him
within twenty five minutes of such decision, and receipt must be acknowledged.

It also allows them to force the sensor through even if they loose the case.

Come on...
Horner said quite stupid "just leave the fuel limit away" and FIA said "we can not leave it away, cause that would be unsafe".
Not more, not less.

During the case they argue if it is ok to use the ECU measurement or if it has to be the fuel sensor. Also, not more and not less. The fuel limit itself is not in question.

I think you just read to much into stupid opinions there. This can not even be counted as politics and the point of the FIA is nothing new.

[dans79]

Of course you would. But can you also name teams without any fuel sensor problems? Would be easier to post the names of two or three teams than just posting all the interviews people state they have/had problems with them.

I'm not the one making the claims. It's called "burden of proof" you are the one making claims, so you need to prove your statements are valid.

[basti313]

Of course you would. But can you also name teams without any fuel sensor problems? Would be easier to post the names of two or three teams than just posting all the interviews people state they have/had problems with them.

I'm not the one making the claims. It's called "burden of proof" you are the one making claims, so you need to prove your statements are valid.

You are quite selective on that, aren't you?
I just answered on the claim that three teams have "the biggest" problems...now I have to prove who has problems and who not?
Just googling for 30sec (I do not want to waste more time with this ridiculous question) gave me Ferrari, Merc and Sauber and I would say Ferrari and Sauber clearly had bigger problems than Lotus with failing sensors for parts of the race or even the whole race...

[turbof1]

Come on...
Horner said quite stupid "just leave the fuel limit away" and FIA said "we can not leave it away, cause that would be unsafe".
Not more, not less.

During the case they argue if it is ok to use the ECU measurement or if it has to be the fuel sensor. Also, not more and not less. The fuel limit itself is not in question.

I think you just read to much into stupid opinions there. This can not even be counted as politics and the point of the FIA is nothing new.

First of all, I base my opinions solely on what I read in official statements. As you might have noticed I actually have taken quite a neutral stance, while most here have taken sides. I'm perfectly able to have an opinion myself, thank you.

Second, I previously said the argument could be valid. I'm merely doubting the intentions behind it. You don't give a full-on presentation to all the teams just because one team asked for the removal of the fuel limit.

During the case a lot more will be argued then just measurements. I would be glad infact if the case was limited to that. But unfortunaly, we have technical directives questioned in legality and we have a technical infringement tried to be bent into a sporting matter. The court's decisions on those issues will be hugely important, as they will act as precedents.

[Pup]

Actually, the presentation was for the press. Red Bull have waged a little PR campaign against the FIA for the past week - several interviews with Horner and a couple from Mateschitz - so you can't really blame them for wanting to respond. And it's a complicated issue for most people to grasp, so a press release probably wouldn't have done it - one of the attendants tweeted that the presentation was like being back in school.

Given that, I guess it's not surprising that all Autosport took from the presentation was the safety quote. TJ13 has a better article, though it's peppered with their usual bias, innuendo, and excess of commas. Hopefully Scarbs attended and will write something up.

[FW17]

The war of words over Daniel Ricciardo’s disqualification in Australia went up a level today as Red Bull team boss Christian Horner said that the fuel flow sensors, which the FIA has specified and which were at issue in Australia, are not good enough for F1.

Horner confirmed that they and another Renault powered team had suffered a further sensor error during today’s free practice session. Asked whether he felt that the sensors were good enough for F1 he said,

“With where it’s at at the moment I would have to say no. We need to work with the FIA to find a better solution because there is so much hanging on it. At this level, it’s not good enough.”


Meanwhile the FIA, clearly feeling that it’s authority is being challenged, took the step of hosting a briefing with Fabrice Lom, the former Renault F1 engineer who is now responsible for regulating the power units in F1. Fuel flow sensors are part of his remit. The FIA’s Charlie Whiting who oversees all technical matters also spoke.

Asked is he was satisfied with the performance of the sensors so far, Lom said, “I’m an unsatisfied person by definition, that is how you make progress. But with this sensor we do a better job than without, better than any other we know about.”

Lom pointed out that the accuracy of these Gill sensors which weigh 300g and are smaller than a mobile telephone is remarkable compared to large bench-top machines which do the same job in a static environment.


The nub of the problem, Whiting observed, is that the rules state that if there is a problem with a sensor teams have to use a back up solution which has been calibrated against a known sensor. Red Bull did not do this, whatever the accuracy they may claim for their own system, it had not been calibrated against a known sensor in a controlled environment. This will be central to the FIA’s case at appeal.

Horner said that the fuel rail, which they used to measure the flow in the race, had been sealed after the race, taken back to Renault’s base in Paris and tested with observers present and had given the same reading as in the race in Melbourne. This will form the nub of their case at the appeal; that they did not break the rules of 100kg/hour at any time in the race.

Experts and engineers here in Kuala Lumpur can see both sides of the argument. Red Bull may turn out to be right, their measurements may turn out to be accurate, but they didn’t follow due process, according to the FIA.

As the FIA is responsible for sporting fairness, “Our role is fair regulation” as Lom put it, it seeks to create and enforce rules which can apply fairly to all 11 teams, not individual exceptions, they feel that they have a strong case and the other teams hope that the FIA prevails otherwise rule enforcement could get like the Wild West.

FIA briefing notes, from Fabrice Lom

Why is there a fuel flow limit?
Because with a turbo engine you have to limit the power otherwise you would have drivers using over 1,000hp at times, while others were fuel saving, the speed differential would be enormous and dangerous. Additionally the message from the new hybrid F1 rules is efficiency, 35% more performance from a drop of fuel than the old V8s. It’s not about monster power for short bursts.

How are the sensors calibrated?
The FIA takes steps to ensure that the sensors are accurate and the same for all teams. Team X gives its sensors and a sample of it’s fuel to the FIA and they contract a company called Calibra to calibrate the sensors to the fuel, by placing them in series and checking each against a known reference sensor. This is carried out in various conditions and at five different temperatures.

During the race weekend the teams tell the FIA which sensor they are using. Each sensor is bought and owned by the team, at a cost of £4,500 each and is regulated by the FIA.

Where does the fuel flow sensor sit?
Inside the fuel cell, in the low pressure area.

What is the limit the FIA will accept for a car going over the 100kg/hour limit before they act against the team?
If a car goes 1% over the 100kg/limit for 10 seconds in any given lap, they are warned by the FIA and asked to make an offset or switch to a back up. This adds up to 3 grammes of fuel per lap above the limit, which is the cut off for intervention (NB The FIA contends that the Red Bull sensor was not faulty and had not broken on Ricciardo’s car in Australia)

What happens if a car hits that limit?
If the FIA feels that a sensor is drifting in its reading (which it contends is very obvious) it reverts to the back up, which has been planned for and the back up has been calibrated against an official sensor. They cannot accept an alternative system for measurement because it has not been calibrated against a known sensor.

Article 5.10 of the technical regulations says that the fuel can only be measured by a homologated sensor and there is only one sensor, which is made by Gill Sensors.

How long do sensors last?
They need to be recalibrated after 100 hours and their life is 400 hours. It should be theoretically possible to do the F1 season on two sensors.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com

What is the backup they are talking about? from what i understand it is not the fuel rail.

[turbof1]

Actually, the presentation was for the press. Red Bull have waged a little PR campaign against the FIA for the past week - several interviews with Horner and a couple from Mateschitz - so you can't really blame them for wanting to respond. And it's a complicated issue for most people to grasp, so a press release probably wouldn't have done it - one of the attendants tweeted that the presentation was like being back in school.

Given that, I guess it's not surprising that all Autosport took from the presentation was the safety quote. TJ13 has a better article, though it's peppered with their usual bias, innuendo, and excess of commas. Hopefully Scarbs attended and will write something up.

Thanks for pointing that out. I feel this backs my point even more: the fia usually keeps a low profile. This isn't how they usually work.

I don't blame them for responding. Most of all, I fear for the consequences this all brings. If the FIA brings up that red bull violated the sporting regulations by creating an unsafe situation, and the FIA wins the case by it, we might see the fia doing so in the future as well.

For the record, I do hope the fia wins this, but only if the technical directives are declared to have legal value. Else we'll have anarchy.

James Allen made a nice report I see. It's certainly more then just the safety issue, but I nowhere see any new argument that bolsters the fia, safe for the "take a walk with safety" argument, just new details.