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

For ease of use, there is one thread per grand prix where you can discuss everything during that specific GP weekend. You can find these threads here.
Jef Patat
Jef Patat
61
Joined: 06 May 2011, 14:40

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne

Post

thomin wrote:
Jef Patat wrote:I'm wondering if RB is playing smart ass again. I'm quite convinced the sensor is fine. I just can't believe RB would mount back a sensor they think is faulty. If I'd doubt the sensor was faulty and I'd the chance to replace it I'd just do that. Besides that I just can't image that many sensors are faulty. It can always happen, but chances are small.

With my limited knowledge and from what I've read I don't think it is that hard to fraud with the system. From what I've read the sensor is able to measure at 100 Hz and FIA is using a lowpass filter at 5 Hz. This is in my opinion is a very low frequency to if the primary goal is to prevent the peak usage. I don't know about the details of the measuring but there are two possibilities. Either the sampling is done by the same system or it is done by a different system. Knowing that the teams have access to the data they must be able to correlate that with their own system easilly. The trick is to have the flow happen at a higher frequency than the sampling in such a way that the FIA measurement is aliasing.

to draw a parallel with somthing everybody knows: the backspinning wheel of a filmed driving car. You know the FIA is filming at 24Hz. If you drive at the correct speed they'll think you stand still, or even drive backwards.

The better the correlation the easier to fraud. If the correlation is worse it just means you can fraud less, for a smaller period of time, but you can still do it. IMHO the only requirement is to be able to modulate the flow faster than 100Hz, which probably is not impossible.

Any thoughts pro contra this idea?
I'm not sure I completely get your point but I don't think you can cheat this way. If you could the FIA wouldn't have found out. It's all about the peaks in fuel flow. The FIA has provided a metric to measure those. Red Bull decided that this metric doesn't suit them and used their own which gave them an advantage.
To overly simplify with another example. Suppose you are on the highway with max speed 120 kph and you know the cops are measuring at point A, B, C, ... You could easilly be driving at an average of 200kph, you just have to slow down at point A, B, C, ... and speed up between those points. I'm not saying they are doing it all the time, but they could be doing it when they need it. On average, it wouldn't be detectable.

ChrisM40
ChrisM40
1
Joined: 16 Mar 2014, 21:55

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne 13-16th March

Post

beelsebob wrote:
ChrisM40 wrote: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.
I just do.. cant say much more than that. All teams got correction factors.

There are actually 2 correction factors in play. There is the sensor correction factor, thats how much its out by according to the calibration, and the car correction factor, how much the car is actually using. The latter is dynamic and is what the FIA advises the team of during the race. Its how much the team needs to reduce their usage by in order to comply. RB ignored that correction because they thought the FIA sensor was wrong.

None of the FIA sensors are 'faulty', the results were simply inconsistent at 10hz. The 5hz polling was much better and gave consistent results. RB simply didnt like the results because it left them underpowered.
Last edited by ChrisM40 on 16 Mar 2014, 22:15, edited 1 time in total.

hardingfv32
hardingfv32
35
Joined: 03 Apr 2011, 19:42

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne 13-16th March

Post

thomin wrote: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.
And where does it state the flow sensor is the only measure of the fuel rate?

Brian

beelsebob
beelsebob
85
Joined: 23 Mar 2011, 15:49
Location: Cupertino, California

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne 13-16th March

Post

hardingfv32 wrote:
thomin wrote: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.
And where does it state the flow sensor is the only measure of the fuel rate?
The same place it states that the FIA load tests are the only measure of whether a front wing is flexible. Also, it doesn't need to state that it's the only measure. It needs to state that the FIA believe that measure, which it does.

Jef Patat
Jef Patat
61
Joined: 06 May 2011, 14:40

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne

Post

beelsebob wrote:
Jef Patat wrote:
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.
Well, I meant absolutely measuring correctly the real physical value. I know it doesn't matter. What the FIA meassures is what is considered as the correct value in this discussion, but it doesn't mean that is the correct value in reality. Maybe the absolute correct value is neither RB's or FIA's.

User avatar
dans79
267
Joined: 03 Mar 2013, 19:33
Location: USA

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne

Post

No way this is going to get over turned, it's pretty strait forward. They where told do this or else, and they didn't do it.
202 105 104 9 9 7

hardingfv32
hardingfv32
35
Joined: 03 Apr 2011, 19:42

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne 13-16th March

Post

Pup wrote: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?
Now that sounds like way any professional race series would handle such a situation?????

Brian

beelsebob
beelsebob
85
Joined: 23 Mar 2011, 15:49
Location: Cupertino, California

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne

Post

Jef Patat wrote:Well, I meant absolutely measuring correctly the real physical value. I know it doesn't matter. What the FIA meassures is what is considered as the correct value in this discussion, but it doesn't mean that is the correct value in reality. Maybe the absolute correct value is neither RB's or FIA's.
Almost certainly it is, but as you say, that's irrelevant to the actual discussion of whether RBR ran an illegal race or not.

User avatar
thomin
3
Joined: 23 Feb 2012, 15:57

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne

Post

hardingfv32 wrote:
Gridlock wrote: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
I don't think this means what you think it means. A straightforward reading of this sentence would be that the FIA provided Red Bull with a setting that reduces the fuel flow for it to be legal.

User avatar
dans79
267
Joined: 03 Mar 2013, 19:33
Location: USA

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne

Post

thomin wrote: I don't think this means what you think it means. A straightforward reading of this sentence would be that the FIA provided Red Bull with a setting that reduces the fuel flow for it to be legal.
Are you saying something is wrong with that?
202 105 104 9 9 7

ChrisM40
ChrisM40
1
Joined: 16 Mar 2014, 21:55

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne

Post

thomin wrote:
hardingfv32 wrote:
Gridlock wrote: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
I don't think this means what you think it means. A straightforward reading of this sentence would be that the FIA provided Red Bull with a setting that reduces the fuel flow for it to be legal.
This is exactly what it is. The FIA never adjusted or doubted the sensor, the correction was to RBs fuel usage. They are allowed a warning in the race, which RB ignored.

User avatar
thomin
3
Joined: 23 Feb 2012, 15:57

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne

Post

dans79 wrote:
thomin wrote: I don't think this means what you think it means. A straightforward reading of this sentence would be that the FIA provided Red Bull with a setting that reduces the fuel flow for it to be legal.
Are you saying something is wrong with that?
Not at all. In fact, it is very lenient to give the teams the opportunity to correct their fuel flow instead of simply black-flagging the car.
Last edited by thomin on 16 Mar 2014, 22:24, edited 1 time in total.

kooleracer
kooleracer
24
Joined: 05 Jan 2012, 16:07

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne 13-16th March

Post

ChrisM40 wrote:
hardingfv32 wrote:
Pup wrote: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.
F1 is unlike all other businesses, we have seen that in the past and present. Look at Testgate from last season. F1 got itself in trouble with this silly fuel rate rule. The should have stick with you can use 100kg at the rate you want, that would have saved a lot of cost developing these stupid sensors. Just weigh the fuel before the race on "hyper modern" scale and they could have saved a lot money and headaches. I don't understand the added value of a fuel flow rate restriction. They should let the teams decide how to use their 100kg during the race.
Last edited by kooleracer on 16 Mar 2014, 22:24, edited 1 time in total.
Irvine:"If you don't have a good car you can't win it, unless you are Michael or Senna. Lots of guys won in Adrian Newey's cars, big deal. Adrian is the real genius out there, there is Senna, there is Michael and there is Newey.They were the three great talents."

hardingfv32
hardingfv32
35
Joined: 03 Apr 2011, 19:42

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne 13-16th March

Post

ChrisM40 wrote:There are actually 2 correction factors in play. There is the sensor correction factor, thats how much its out by according to the calibration, and the car correction factor, how much the car is actually using. The latter is dynamic and is what the FIA advises the team of during the race. Its how much the team needs to reduce their usage by in order to comply. RB ignored that correction because they thought the FIA sensor was wrong.
I can see the unit having a correction factor, but why would it be known to the user? Why is the unit not correctly calibrated at delivery?

DYNAMIC correction???? Now this sounds like SB. How in the world do I calibrate an instrument after installation? What is your baseline and how is it measured????

Brian

hardingfv32
hardingfv32
35
Joined: 03 Apr 2011, 19:42

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne

Post

thomin wrote:I don't think this means what you think it means. A straightforward reading of this sentence would be that the FIA provided Red Bull with a setting that reduces the fuel flow for it to be legal.
So you think that the FIA is stating the fuel rate RB should use at that moment? Possible, but I will stay with my interpretation.

Horner: "We were then asked to put the sensor from Friday back in the car and apply an offset. That offset we didn’t feel was correct, and as we got into the race we could see there was a significant discrepancy between what the sensor was reading and what the fuel flow, which was the actual injection of fuel into the engine, was stated as. That’s where there was a difference of opinion."

Clearly stated: 'apply an offset' or correction factor as I like to call it.

Brian
Last edited by hardingfv32 on 16 Mar 2014, 22:37, edited 1 time in total.