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

[flmkane]

To me personally, that is still fraud,

No, fraud is claiming your sensors are accurate and fit for purpose when they have been shown across both F1 and WEC to be anything but rock solid!

Why the hell does that even matter.

Rules dictate the use of the specified sensore. Red bull didn't use it, hence it's a violation of the rules.

Furthermore, the accuracy of the mandated sensor is EXTREMELY high. You cant get more accurate than that. Hence the argument that Red Bulls own sensor is more accurate is just crap. It's impossible.

I personally dont see the fuss. All teams attempt to cheat. If not, then I'd question their motivation to win.

As far as I'm concerned, kudos to Red Bull for trying. Too bad they got caught.

It's quite fun watching the drama. Just like in 09 with the DDD, just like in 07 with Spygate. It's a part of the show that you cant create with DRS.

[NTS]

Rules dictate the use of the specified sensore. Red bull didn't use it, hence it's a violation of the rules.

Nowhere in the rules is it specified that the sensor is the only measurement. The FIA realized this and wrote a TD, however they admitted in court that a TD is an opinion and not a rule. So basically: no, it's not that clear, that's what this whole case is about.

[Thunder]

The Problem for RedBull in Terms of TD's is that they base some of their Arguments on TD's while saying this specific TD doesn't stand as a rule. They can't Pick out the rules they like and dismiss all the others.

[thomin]

While they're not rock solid, it's apparently quite obvious when they fail. The sensor in question didn't though.

This is exactly why we have 'Product Recalls'. Manufacturers recall all products when a fault is detected - not just the ones that are broken. They don't assume one working product is fit and proper, so leave it there. The fact that most seem quite happy to accept that the sensors are not "rock solid" beggars belief. It's either fit for purpose, or it's not.

You are building a false dichotomy. Breaking the rules and "capitulating" weren't the only options......They were told by the FIA by how much they had to offset their own fuel injectors in order to be legal on Saturday and again on Sunday before the race. Red Bull knew then that they would ignore that demand, yet they said nothing.

Horner stated that they only made the decision during the race - after they had the facts - there were two choices. Where does it say on Saturday they "knew then that they would ignore that demand, yet they said nothing"?

“It’s a decision that was made in the race,” he told Sky. “We were presented with the facts: we’ve got a [fuel flow] sensor that we believe to be erroneous, we’ve got a fuel rail that we believe is reading correctly. The regulations are very clear, you make a call.”

That doesn't make sense. The reason they didn't trust the sensor was FP1. After that it gave consistent readings throughout the weekend. The fuel that Red Bull was allowed to use was based on that. It was the same on Saturday as on Sunday. The facts that Horner presents were all there on Saturday, nothing had changed. It's not that suddenly during the race the sensor gave odd readings. Either Red Bull was so stupid that they believed the sensor would for no reason behave differently during the race than it did before, despite it being thoroughly tested on Saturday by the FIA, or he's lying.

[jz11]

aparently someone needs a reminder, they had different sensor on saturday, the first sensor gave concistent-inconsistent-consistent readings in FP1, was replaced for rest of practice and quali, and then FIA ordered, because the replacement also failed, to put the initial sensor back on the car and downtune the engine so the inconsistent reading would be below the limit

each one of those cost 4500GBP + the additional cost of calibrating by that 3rd party (that supposedly almost doubles the price), wouldn't you want something so critical for the performance of the car to actually work perfectly without any hiccups? even more so when the thing is forced upon you by the governing body? and when the thing obviously (to the team) fails, they are not even allowed to switch to alternate measurement of the flow

this is what the appeal is about and the punishment in essence wasn't

[XRayF1]

Rules dictate the use of the specified sensore. Red bull didn't use it, hence it's a violation of the rules.

Nowhere in the rules is it specified that the sensor is the only measurement. The FIA realized this and wrote a TD, however they admitted in court that a TD is an opinion and not a rule. So basically: no, it's not that clear, that's what this whole case is about.

No, it does not. You are correct.

But the Technical Rules also say "5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h."

You may argue that the Technical Directives are no rules as such, but they were accepted by everyone in the F1 grid in the past as being de facto rules in every sense. This is the reason they were written in the first place, otherwise the result of each GP would only be available some days after the race (best case) as every car would have to be scrutinised to ensure rule compliance.

However you may think about this, bottom line is that during yesterday's hearing Fabrice Lom, FIA's engine expert, also detailed that even with RB's measurement method the fuel flow was exceeded, some 99,02 kg/h during safety car and 103.37 kg/h during race - if the (FIA's !!) corrective factor would not have been applied.

Last but not least, it strikes me as very odd that RB challenges the TDs as a whole ("they are not rules as such."), but at the end challenging only the priority of measuring methods for the fuel flow. Not only FIA's alternative measurement shall be allowed, but in dispute also the team's method shall be.
How can this be, and not result in multiple hearings/court rules post-race?

... thats, why we have the Technical Directives ...

[thomin]

aparently someone needs a reminder, they had different sensor on saturday, the first sensor gave concistent-inconsistent-consistent readings in FP1, was replaced for rest of practice and quali, and then FIA ordered, because the replacement also failed, to put the initial sensor back on the car and downtune the engine so the inconsistent reading would be below the limit

Yeah well, that was exactly my point. The team had all the information on Saturday. Nothing changed during the race. Not to mention that they had a third, unused sensor in hand. It suspiciously looks as if the team wanted to use a sensor where they could claim controversial readings, otherwise, why not use the third sensor?

each one of those cost 4500GBP + the additional cost of calibrating by that 3rd party (that supposedly almost doubles the price), wouldn't you want something so critical for the performance of the car to actually work perfectly without any hiccups? even more so when the thing is forced upon you by the governing body? and when the thing obviously (to the team) fails, they are not even allowed to switch to alternate measurement of the flow

this is what the appeal is about and the punishment in essence wasn't

Of course you would want everything to work perfectly. But then this never happens. Every set of tires is slightly different, some suit your car more than others due to natural variations. But that doesn't give you the right to use your own tailor made rubber in order to compensate for what you think is an obvious disadvantage.

Not to mention that it's entirely irrelevant what is obvious to YOU as a team. All that matters is what is obvious to the stewards. The teams can tell the FIA all kinds of fairy tales. That's why there are rules and procedures. Red Bull didn't care for either and despite everything they said, their actions indicate that they deliberately acted this way, that they deliberately chose a potentially controversial fuel flow meter and that they deliberately remained silent until after the race, so that they could run above the allowed limit. But again, that's as much interpretation as is your assertion that the team genuinely thought they were acting with only the best intentions, it's more consistent with the facts, but still interpretation. At the end of the day, all that matters is the team's actions and they speak for themselves. That's why I'm sure that Ricciardo won't be reinstated. Wanna bet?

[jz11]

Wanna bet?

I don't gamble, and I also don't judge, I speculate based on the information I have available, and I draw different conclusions from you on the whole matter, so lets agree to disagree

and I will not speculate on the result of the appeal because there is too much politics involved, which the hearing showed, so little detail about facts and way too much finger pointing

[thomin]

Rules dictate the use of the specified sensore. Red bull didn't use it, hence it's a violation of the rules.

Nowhere in the rules is it specified that the sensor is the only measurement. The FIA realized this and wrote a TD, however they admitted in court that a TD is an opinion and not a rule. So basically: no, it's not that clear, that's what this whole case is about.

No, it does not. You are correct.

But the Technical Rules also say "5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h."

Exactly, and the only sensor in the car is the homologated FIA approved fuel flow meter.

Actually, I thought that Red Bull would go a different route in their argument. Trying to argue that their own calculation trump the measurement of the sensor was stupid, particularly since even according to their own testimony it's not any more accurate (1% inaccuracy vs. 0.25% of the sensor). The sensor has been tested thoroughly and it was within the 0.25% accuracy range. Not to mention that the teams numbers would be easy to fudge and are hence not reliable, whereas the numbers from the fuel flow meter are virtually impossible to fudge.

That's why I thought Red Bull might go after the 100kg/h rule, because the Technical Regulations don't state over which timeframe this rule applies, that was only specified within the Technical Directives, first 1/10th of a second, later 1/5th. The only timeframe the regulations state is an hour within the 100kg/h limit itself. So if Red Bull's argument was based on the Technical Directives being mere opinion, they probably would have had a better chance to go after the limit itself. Red Bull surely wasn't exceeding the 100kg over the course of an hour.

[FoxHound]

That it has gone to court means there is a case to answer.
Even with the best intentions in the world, red bull gained an advantage they otherwise would not have had.

[thomin]

Wanna bet?

I don't gamble, and I also don't judge, I speculate based on the information I have available, and I draw different conclusions from you on the whole matter, so lets agree to disagree

and I will not speculate on the result of the appeal because there is too much politics involved, which the hearing showed, so little detail about facts and way too much finger pointing

The court was established as an independent entity (was it last year or 2012?), precisely in order to make it immune to F1 politics.

[djos]

Actually, I thought that Red Bull would go a different route in their argument. Trying to argue that their own calculation trump the measurement of the sensor was stupid, particularly since even according to their own testimony it's not any more accurate (1% inaccuracy vs. 0.25% of the sensor). The sensor has been tested thoroughly and it was within the 0.25% accuracy range. Not to mention that the teams numbers would be easy to fudge and are hence not reliable, whereas the numbers from the fuel flow meter are virtually impossible to fudge.

Here's the thing tho, if they can show they were still well within the 100kg/h rate even after removing the error margin 1% from their numbers and show that the FFM was wildly inconsistent at the same time then it's game over for the FFM IMO!

Aiui RBR had the FIA seal the fuel rail and take it for FIA witnessed testing to prove their model was consistently accurate - there's another nail in the coffin for the FFM right there!

[FoxHound]

@djos

Why debate the innacuracy and the ffm when it is in fact RBRs actions on trial?
Other teams experienced fluctuations but held by the FIA mandate.
That is the crux of the matter, unilateral action that goes against the FIA mandate of using their own readings and not that of the teams.
Red bull flouted that.

[djos]

@djos

Why debate the innacuracy and the ffm when it is in fact RBRs actions on trial?
Other teams experienced fluctuations but held by the FIA mandate.
That is the crux of the matter, unilateral action that goes against the FIA mandate of using their own readings and not that of the teams.
Red bull flouted that.

Quite simple, it seems to me that the FIA's actions backed RBR into a corner and forced them into a fight - once forced into the fight, RBR decided they had nothing to lose by an all out assault.

[turbof1]

We'll see what the view of the judges is.

(I do expect everyone to behave whatever the decision is. Disagreeing is fine, but no bickering.)