and FIA is promoting "SAFETY FIRST"!? WTF!!!
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
The International Court of Appeal has today revealed that it will uphold the exclusion of Daniel Ricciardo from the Australian Grand Prix and reject the team's appeal.
Sound like the sensor representative is changing the calibration on the fly. Now that sounds like sound engineering. You wonder why RB would disregard such instructions?Ral wrote:C) The stewards were satisfied by the explanation of the technical representative that by making an adjustment as instructed, the team could have run within the allowable fuel flow.
The discussion is centred around the claim that the sensor was ---. I.e. not working, i.e. out of spec.iotar__ wrote:Written regulations don't cover every detail and possibility and are not the only way of applying rules in F1, it's kind of stubborn to pretend otherwise.Tim.Wright wrote: My point is, there is nothing about flow sensors, calibrations and who decides how the flow is measured in the regs. The regs only state a mass limit and a flow limit. If they can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that they respected these two limits, what exactly are they guilty of?
Rules are applied through further written (and spoken?) clarifications from FIA's technical delegates (I didn't check I but think there are written rules about that), actions and physical objects - like sensors on every car. It's not the first or last time it happened that way.
It's a changeable environment FIA reacts to, recent example: note posted in this thread about filter lowpass frequency (or whatever it was). Do you think that since this frequency wasn't in the rules any team could and should challenge any measurements taken or analysed this changed way? [Practically any fuel flow measurement taken this season onwards] How is this clarification different than the whole sensor drama?
Exactly. If someone told me my factory calibrated flow sensor, which I'm guessing costs upward of 5k€ a piece, needs an extra fudge factor when all my other data is suggesting otherwise I'd be asking questions about the said flow sensor.hardingfv32 wrote:Sound like the sensor representative is changing the calibration on the fly. Now that sounds like sound engineering. You wonder why RB would disregard such instructions?Ral wrote:C) The stewards were satisfied by the explanation of the technical representative that by making an adjustment as instructed, the team could have run within the allowable fuel flow.
This could be RB's effort to nail the FIA and the sensor's manufacture for what the teams consider a poorly designed meter. This is going to make things very public. RB has nothing to lose in this approach. They were going to go back down the field/grid if they dialed back their fuel consumption as requested.
Brian
They were told to use the old sensor for the race by the FIA... no option.fawe4 wrote:RB stayed with old sensor. Therefore that sensor is accepted as working.
Looks like it for now. But I wouldn't discount either Red Bull or Ferrari. Apparently Ferrari had some problems, preventing them from running their engines at 100%, while the Red Bull obviously has the quality and simply needs some time to get everything running.bosanac1 wrote:Am I the only one worried how easily Rosberg dominated the race?
He wasn't even trying.
This could be Hamilton vs Rosberg for title.
Kobayashi had a brake failure (ERS-K, specifically).zoro_f1 wrote:for fuel irregularities there is disqualification for daniel ricardo, but for hitting a car from behind (kobayashi on massa) there is no penalty!
We will see...Skippon wrote:Fuel flow sensor accurate or not RB are still bang to rights.
From the Stewards Report................
D) That regardless of the team’s assertion that the sensor was fault, it is not within their discretion to run a different fuel flow measurement method without the permission of the FIA.
than the FIA should punish the team!!!Pup wrote:Kobayashi had a brake failure (ERS-K, specifically).zoro_f1 wrote:for fuel irregularities there is disqualification for daniel ricardo, but for hitting a car from behind (kobayashi on massa) there is no penalty!
Well which rule exactly was broken?zoro_f1 wrote:than the FIA should punish the team!!!Pup wrote:Kobayashi had a brake failure (ERS-K, specifically).zoro_f1 wrote:for fuel irregularities there is disqualification for daniel ricardo, but for hitting a car from behind (kobayashi on massa) there is no penalty!
let me point this one again... there is no punishment yet and FIA is still promoting "SAFETY FIRST"!!!
Tim Wright has made this point, but some of you still do not have an understanding of the facts. FIA is stating that RB exceeded the fuel rate. How is the FIA making this judgement? They are basing this judgement on a flow sensor that is known to be out of calibration. This faulty meter is the FIA's only source of data regarding fuel flow.thomin wrote:I think the case is quite clear. Whether or not the sensor was faulty is not even the issue. The point is that only the FIA can make that decision. As long as the FIA says that you have to stick to their sensor, that's what you have to do. The team were told to do so before and during the race and it didn't comply. Stupid tactics by Red Bull.
