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

[thomin]

Precisely. There is no "objective" fuel flow rate - what the FIA sensor tells you is what matters.

So now the teams are going to base their engine setups on what a faulty designed meter allows? Sounds like real crap shut to me.

Brian

The sensor was deemed NOT faulty by the FIA. That should be the end of it. Red Bull provided no evidence for the sensor being faulty other than not trusting it.

[kalinka]

I don't get this "is it faulty or not" arguing. There are independent calibration companies - FIA and RB just have to give them the damn sensor with some fuel and wait for the answer.

They already know the unit is out of calibration by the FACT that they issued a correction factor to RB during the race to use.

Brian

That's ok, but how could they provide a correction factor without recalibration ? I doubt they can recalibrate it on site with some portable equipment and in such a short time...but maybe I'm wrong of course. RB did all wrong, but anyway it would be nice to know by what margine they were up on flow limit.

[hardingfv32]

Quoting the stewards:
"3) The fuel flow is measured using the fuel flow sensor (Art. 5.10.3 & 5.10.4 of the Technical Regulations) which is homologated by the FIA and owned and operated by the team."

Yes, the fuel is measured by the flow sensor BUT the written section of the rules does not make such a statement. It only specifies a rate.

Yes, the FIA must rely on the flow sensor to gather the relevant data. BUT that does not imply that the data gathered is accurate. RB can demonstrate other wise.

Brian

[Unc1eM0nty]

Whoever made the call at RedBull needs sacking, it seems like most or even all the teams have had similar issues with the sensor, Redbull were the only one's not to follow the FIA's verbal & "written" directions, not only that but when they were given a chance to rectify this during the race they chose to ignore them, stupid, just plain stupid.

Just how fast is the Merc compared to other cars?
It's hard to tell just how hard he was pushing but the safety car went in on lap 16, by lap 21 Rosberg had a 5.5 sec gap, apart from this and the start he was on cruise control.

[beelsebob]

Quoting the stewards:
"3) The fuel flow is measured using the fuel flow sensor (Art. 5.10.3 & 5.10.4 of the Technical Regulations) which is homologated by the FIA and owned and operated by the team."

Yes, the fuel is measured by the flow sensor BUT the written section of the rules does not make such a statement. It only specifies a rate.

Yes, the FIA must rely on the flow sensor to gather the relevant data. BUT that does not imply that the data gathered is accurate. RB can demonstrate other wise.

It has been argued repeatedly here that what the FIA's tests say are law when it comes to whether you broke the rules or not. RedBull have benefited hugely by accepting what tests of their wing and T-tray say over what they really do. The FIA are being as consistent as it's possible to be here. Their test says that the car went over 100kg/h, therefore the car went over 100kg/h. In much the same way as the FIA's tests said it didn't have a flexible front wing, and therefore it didn't.

[Jef Patat]

They already know the unit is out of calibration by the FACT that they issued a correction factor to RB during the race to use.

Brian

That's how you read it, I didn't read it that way. They instructed the team to use a correction factor. They didn't say the FIA sensor is faulty. I read it as the FIA is thinking the RB measurement is faulty and they need to correct to comply with the FIA sensor, not vice versa. It just depends on who you think is measuring correctly, but that is not within our knowledge.

[thomin]

Quoting the stewards:
"3) The fuel flow is measured using the fuel flow sensor (Art. 5.10.3 & 5.10.4 of the Technical Regulations) which is homologated by the FIA and owned and operated by the team."

Yes, the fuel is measured by the flow sensor BUT the written section of the rules does not make such a statement. It only specifies a rate.

Yes, the FIA must rely on the flow sensor to gather the relevant data. BUT that does not imply that the data gathered is accurate. RB can demonstrate other wise.

Brian

Here's what the regulations say:

5.10.3 Homologated sensors must be fitted which directly measure the pressure, the temperature and the flow of the fuel supplied to the injectors, these signals must be supplied to the FIA data logger.
5.10.4 Only one homologated FIA fuel flow sensor may be fitted to the car which must be placed wholly within the fuel tank.

[ChrisM40]

Precisely. There is no "objective" fuel flow rate - what the FIA sensor tells you is what matters.

So now the teams are going to base their engine setups on what a faulty designed meter allows? Sounds like real crap shut to me.

Brian

Can I just say, the correction factor they issued to RB was how much RB needed to reduce their flow by, not by how much the FIA sensor was out by. The FIA maintain their sensor is accurate.

The problems encountered by RB (and others) was mainly down to the 10hz polling of the sensor, the change to 5hz had corrected a large proportion of the error, which was worse on Daniels car than most. This is why there was a discrepancy between sessions on his car. RB disliked the original sensor, the FIA never did.

Other teams ran conservative flow rates, RB did not, they got caught out and are now crying like babies over it.

RB have no legal case at all. For a start they agreed to the terms of competition by competing. Even if the sensor is shown to be faulty, they broke agreed procedure, that is almost worse than the actual 'crime' itself. In no other industry will a court accept their excuses.

[hardingfv32]

And you don't see how this undermines all of your trolling, sorry, arguments? Specifically the fact that RBR ignored it, and you have no idea what factor (if any) was issued to other teams.

Trolling??? Grt with the program:

"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."

Brian

[beelsebob]

They already know the unit is out of calibration by the FACT that they issued a correction factor to RB during the race to use.

Brian

That's how you read it, I didn't read it that way. They instructed the team to use a correction factor. They didn't say the FIA sensor is faulty. I read it as the FIA is thinking the RB measurement is faulty and they need to correct to comply with the FIA sensor, not vice versa. It just depends on who you think is measuring correctly, but that is not within our knowledge.

It's quite within our knowledge – it's specified who's measuring correctly in the rules. The FIA is measuring correctly.

[Pup]

Precisely. There is no "objective" fuel flow rate - what the FIA sensor tells you is what matters.

So now the teams are going to base their engine setups on what a faulty designed meter allows? Sounds like real crap shut to me.

Brian

Assuming it's faulty, yes. Or you work with the FIA to fix the issue. What you do not do is, on race day, completely ignore the workaround that the FIA instructed and substitute your own, without getting approval.

If you get a faulty sensor on race day, you work with what you have and with what the FIA says you can do about it. If you get a bad set of tires, no one is going to stop the race while you go back to the pits to get a better one. If the sensor is indeed bad, then sure, Red Bull got the short end of the stick today. Next time, they might get a sensor that errs the other direction - I wonder if they'll complain then?

[beelsebob]

The problems encountered by RB (and others) was mainly down to the 10hz polling of the sensor, the change to 5hz had corrected a large proportion of the error, which was worse on Daniels car than most. This is why there was a discrepancy between sessions on his car. RB disliked the original sensor, the FIA never did.

What makes you think that it was worse on Daniel's car than on most? Remember, the other teams have stated that they were given similar correction factors, and applied them as requested.

[hardingfv32]

This is what every single team other than RBR did this weekend, and it worked out just fine for them.

What evidence do you have to support this statement?

Brian

[beelsebob]

This is what every single team other than RBR did this weekend, and it worked out just fine for them.

What evidence do you have to support this statement?

The statements of the other technical directors, that they were given corrections, and applied them. Mercedes even went as far as stating how much of a correction they applied – 0.5s a lap!

[marcush.]

Spannerman shanigans ...who thought this was ging to be easily policed ? Measuring Fluid mass flows is Not trivial.The Open Times of a injector at 12k rpm are also not suitable to determin True momentary flow numbers.

One question remains : how would you be able to detect a faulty fuel Flow sensor anyways? Say it deviates from your average consumption does Not Say much about momentary figures .I don't See how a Team could validate a slightly off sensor apart from comparing it to other identical Sensors .
the Equipment available at the Track will be of no use to determine slight deviations in accuracy of a precision Instrument like this Gill Sensor.Ideally you would try to validate such a sensor with a different measuring method -but what to use in a harsh Environment like a F1 Car driven at the Limit ?