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

[myurr]

I also wonder if the sanction would have been this harsh if they had regular type camera mounts on the nose of the car, maybe FIA was just flexing its muscle to show - hey! stop f&^&*^ with us!

Nothing to do with it. Fail a technical regulation and you're disqualified. Same when Hamilton didn't have enough fuel in his car to make it back to the pits after qualifying in 2012. It was a technical rule rather than sporting one, for some reason, therefore he was given an automatic disqualification.

[Juzh]

Who'd dare with only 5 PU per car for the season?

You can bet any money we'd see rocketships during qualifying with unlimited boost and fuel flow. Reliability would come second in that case 100%.

[myurr]

Isn't engine power capped too? How are these engines being run?

No power isn't capped, fuel flow is.

[Juzh]

Isn't engine power capped too? How are these engines being run?

Engine power is limited by maximum fuel flow rate only as boost pressure is unlimited by the rules. Take that away and we're essentially back to unlimited turbos from the 80s.

[komninosm]

TBH I hate the way F1 went.
I wish Energy Recovery was UNLIMITED and Fuel was unlimited and refueling allowed.
And 1996 (I think?) tyres.

[komninosm]

Isn't engine power capped too? How are these engines being run?

Engine power is limited by maximum fuel flow rate only as boost pressure is unlimited by the rules. Take that away and we're essentially back to unlimited turbos from the 80s.

So? That was fun.
A limit still existed. It was how much the engine could withstand.
I say NO to artificial limits. Let the engineers free.

[Dragonfly]

Doesn't matter if it's a nonsense rule or not, it's still a rule and Red Bull look like they've failed to comply.

I'd support your opinion and any punishment RBR get if it is proven beyond doubt. Currently we only know that there have been issues with the FIA sensors and numroeus red blinks on the FIA telemetry monitor. Blind confidence in electronic gadgets (and their sensors) is what causes accidents - from road to air crashes.

[Tim.Wright]

This is getting even weirder than previous explanations like: "Inconsistencies with the FIA fuel flow meter have been prevalent all weekend up and down the pit lane" So as long as there were inconsistencies earlier it's OK to break the rules later?

It's as if they on purpose took a gamble of not complying despite clear instructions. From technical and sporting point of view that doesn't make sense - it's not worth it to lose points like that. How much time this additional fuel was worth, let's say fourth (?) place instead of second. It can't be arrogance, only politically it makes any kind of sense but why, are they planning fuel/sensor trickery, protests against other teams, testing FIA?

You're missing the point, they are confident the sensor Is wrong. If they can prove this on appeal, then they can't be penalised for being against Art5.1.4 or 3.2.

They violated a technical directive but as I understand, these are not regulations themselves so that can't be penalised for not following them.

All they need to do is prove the sensor is not OK. The FIA probably know their remaining fuel level from post race fuel checks. Red Bull know their tank capacity. If they integrate the sensor signal and find it is showing more thanthe amount of fuel which can fit in the tank by an amount outside of the sensor's error spec, then you can safely conclude that the sensor was out of spec.

[Juzh]

Doesn't matter if it's a nonsense rule or not, it's still a rule and Red Bull look like they've failed to comply.

For years we've seen Red Bull skirting the rules, particularly around flexible aero, and had to put up with both them and their fans saying that the car passed the tests thus making it legal, even though we had video evidence showing it was flexing far more than the FIA intended. In this instance the car failed the tests and is therefore illegal, it shouldn't matter what other evidence they show.

In both instances the tests themselves are codified into the regulations thus making the passing of those tests a technical rule of the sport. Breach of the technical rules means instant disqualification. I can't see their appeal getting them very far.

Lotus was found a year or 2 ago they were running illegal rear suspension and absolutely nothing was done about it after it was discovered. All they had to do was to change it for the next race.
Skirting the rules =/= breaking the rules. Bitterness is getting the better of you.
Video evidence proved nothing about flexi wings. Tests were carried out, car was legal, the end.

edit: it was the front suspension:
http://www.gptoday.com/details/view/456 ... uspension/

[Juzh]

Isn't engine power capped too? How are these engines being run?

Engine power is limited by maximum fuel flow rate only as boost pressure is unlimited by the rules. Take that away and we're essentially back to unlimited turbos from the 80s.

So? That was fun.
A limit still existed. It was how much the engine could withstand.
I say NO to artificial limits. Let the engineers free.

I agree, but this is the FIA we're talking about. Utilizing logic and applying fan wishes to the sport is not something they're generally known for.

[myurr]

Doesn't matter if it's a nonsense rule or not, it's still a rule and Red Bull look like they've failed to comply.

For years we've seen Red Bull skirting the rules, particularly around flexible aero, and had to put up with both them and their fans saying that the car passed the tests thus making it legal, even though we had video evidence showing it was flexing far more than the FIA intended. In this instance the car failed the tests and is therefore illegal, it shouldn't matter what other evidence they show.

In both instances the tests themselves are codified into the regulations thus making the passing of those tests a technical rule of the sport. Breach of the technical rules means instant disqualification. I can't see their appeal getting them very far.

Lotus was found a year or 2 ago they were running illegal rear suspension and absolutely nothing was done about it after it was discovered. All they had to do was to change it for the next race.
Skirting the rules =/= breaking the rules. Bitterness is getting the better of you.
Video evidence proved nothing about flexi wings. Tests were carried out, car was legal, the end.

edit: it was the front suspension:
http://www.gptoday.com/details/view/456 ... uspension/

I agree that the FIA is highly political and inconsistent, however you argue "Tests were carried out, car was legal, the end". In this case the tests were carried out by the FIA and the car was found illegal, the end. It's not up to Red Bull to say "your tests are wrong". The test is the test, it is codified as a technical regulation, and the fall back is explicitly the FIAs choice to use. Red Bull are in clear breach of the rules and an appeal is highly unlikely to change that.

[Juzh]

I agree that the FIA is highly political and inconsistent, however you argue "Tests were carried out, car was legal, the end". In this case the tests were carried out by the FIA and the car was found illegal, the end. It's not up to Red Bull to say "your tests are wrong". The test is the test, it is codified as a technical regulation, and the fall back is explicitly the FIAs choice to use. Red Bull are in clear breach of the rules and an appeal is highly unlikely to change that.

I foresaw your response as soon as I posted that. There is a difference between a clear, simple static load test which has no chance of fluctuating and inconsistent results compared to a immature, highly unpredictable and proven malfunctioning fuel rate sensor. The two examples can not be compared as one is massively more complex than the other.

[R_Redding]

The fuel flow sensor is apparently calibrated twice.. Once by the manufacturer Gill Sensors..

The ones that pass initial calibration are then passed to Capricorn to be calibrated again.

even so.. there wwere scare stories in January about them.


http://grandprix247.com/2014/01/10/fia- ... s-in-2014/

Its such a shame for Ricciardo .. he must be gutted now.

Rob

[Redragon]

I can imagine the pit wall,

FIA advising to reduce the flow or being penalised, they gave them the opportunity. If they have done and the sensor would have proofed wrong on the race the FIA could have said officially used the second sensor but what I imaging Redbull did was:

Newey : Horner I think will should reduce that flow.
Horner: Not worries let me do the talk after the race.

Surprisingly only Redbull was activating the alarms on the race.
They had a chance not to be disqualified and they ignored. They F+++k themselves to me.

[1158]

I agree that the FIA is highly political and inconsistent, however you argue "Tests were carried out, car was legal, the end". In this case the tests were carried out by the FIA and the car was found illegal, the end. It's not up to Red Bull to say "your tests are wrong". The test is the test, it is codified as a technical regulation, and the fall back is explicitly the FIAs choice to use. Red Bull are in clear breach of the rules and an appeal is highly unlikely to change that.

I foresaw your response as soon as I posted that. There is a difference between a clear, simple static load test which has no chance of fluctuating and inconsistent results compared to a immature, highly unpredictable and proven malfunctioning fuel rate sensor. The two examples can not be compared as one is massively more complex than the other.

Well it could be compared in a sense. If what RB is claiming (bad sensor) is true it would be like the FIA applying more force than what is called for during the deflection test and then the FIA failing a car for flexing bodywork.

The key will be is the sensor bad and can RB prove it 100%. I have my doubts about that. On one hand I am shocked the FIA didn't forsee this but then on the other hand it is the FIA.

It's such a shame that this sensor nonsense is overshadowing the great drives some of the youngsters had.