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.
What makes that clear? The fact that one team out of 11 disagrees with the result?djos wrote:It's quite clear they don't work
Your logic does not work. None of these teams suggested that it was invalid to turn down their fuel flow rates. In fact, they went ahead and did it, which suggests they think it's entirely valid.to claim they do work properly ignores the fact that Mercedes and Renault powered teams have both been told to turn down their fuel flow rates!
It all depends on the interval of time you look at and at individual spikes in fuel consumption. Who's to say how the teams/engine manufacturers measure their fuel flow and how it compares to the FIA method? Also, the place where the measurement takes place also can make a difference. That's why we need one sensor that is the same for everyone in order to prevent "trickery" as Montezemolo called it before the race.djos wrote:It's quite clear they don't work, to claim they do work properly ignores the fact that Mercedes and Renault powered teams have both been told to turn down their fuel flow rates!thomin wrote: How do you know that they don't work? That is nothing more than an assertion. I have also not seen any evidence that the FIA changed any correction factors during the race. They did so after free practice when they analyzed the data and they did so with every team by increasing the measurement interval.
To suggest that these billion dollar car companies can't accurately measure their own fuel flow while developing and running their engines is simply nuts!
Toto claimed the adjustment cost them .5 of a second ... Why would Mercedes waste millions of Dollars developing their engines to run at a rate that is illegal and of no use to them?beelsebob wrote:What makes that clear? The fact that one team out of 11 disagrees with the result?djos wrote:It's quite clear they don't work
Your logic does not work. None of these teams suggested that it was invalid to turn down their fuel flow rates. In fact, they went ahead and did it, which suggests they think it's entirely valid.to claim they do work properly ignores the fact that Mercedes and Renault powered teams have both been told to turn down their fuel flow rates!
Such an integral does not answer whether >100kg mass has been used, which was your initial point.beelsebob wrote:The point is that if the fuel flow meter is accurate, the integral of the values it records over the length of the race should be very close to the final fuel usage. It should be possible to demonstrate it's inaccurate by taking that integral, and seeing if it matches the fuel consumed.sAx wrote:Read this argument a few times now and I believe it misses the point. It is not about the mass of fuel left in the tank, it is about the power strategy during the race. A continuous peak flow 100kg/h would mean spending the remaining 30min race period watching from the sidelines. From inspection then, a continuous exceedance in fuel flow would not allow a car to make the hour mark! However, if you could stratgeically burn at higher fuel flow rates (> 100kg/hr) at key periods to increase power to overtake/maintain position (...like Magnussen is catching you!), then switch to fuel conservation engine map, you would not trigger exceedance of max consumption limit as many cars did not require 100kg fuel mass to cover the distance from the start.beelsebob wrote:... Weigh the fuel before, weigh the fuel after...
I'm not claiming I have evidence, I'm just arguing thru the logic, it seems all the teams have been told to turn down their maps, and while F1 teams will always try to use every inch of the rules to gain advantage, in this case I don't see all 3 engine makers and every team being wrong.thomin wrote:
What you present here as evidence really still amounts to nothing.
While I still disagree for the reasons I gave above, even if you were right, it would be completely beside the point. If the FIA sensor was less accurate, then it would still be less accurate for everyone, so nobody is at a disadvantage...except of course when Red Bull decided to ignore the sensor against the explicit orders of the FIA, at which point they put every other team at a disadvantage.djos wrote:Toto claimed the adjustment cost them .5 of a second ... Why would Mercedes waste millions of Dollars developing their engines to run at a rate that is illegal and of no use to them?beelsebob wrote:What makes that clear? The fact that one team out of 11 disagrees with the result?djos wrote:It's quite clear they don't work
Your logic does not work. None of these teams suggested that it was invalid to turn down their fuel flow rates. In fact, they went ahead and did it, which suggests they think it's entirely valid.to claim they do work properly ignores the fact that Mercedes and Renault powered teams have both been told to turn down their fuel flow rates!
Mercedes have one of the most advanced F1 engine development organizations ever seen and I doubt the €50k FIA sensor is half as accurate as what they use while developing their engines!
This was a live press conference so I'm sure it will be published on news sites soon."product of this Grand prix was not what we signed for and the sexyness is lacking, we signed up for a completely different product and will work in conjunction with the FoM, yes sound was part of the contract to which the Australian GP corporation agreed to"
it is the same for everyone so it doesn't really matter, the measuring stick that counts is FIAsdjos wrote:Toto claimed the adjustment cost them .5 of a second ... Why would Mercedes waste millions of Dollars developing their engines to run at a rate that is illegal and of no use to them?beelsebob wrote:What makes that clear? The fact that one team out of 11 disagrees with the result?djos wrote:It's quite clear they don't work
Your logic does not work. None of these teams suggested that it was invalid to turn down their fuel flow rates. In fact, they went ahead and did it, which suggests they think it's entirely valid.to claim they do work properly ignores the fact that Mercedes and Renault powered teams have both been told to turn down their fuel flow rates!
Mercedes have one of the most advanced F1 engine development organizations ever seen and I doubt the €50k FIA sensor is half as accurate as what they use while developing their engines!
This is F1 not formula Ford!langwadt wrote:
it is the same for everyone so it doesn't really matter, the measuring stick that counts is FIAs
if the FIAs sensor is consistent but say 2% high for everyone, they can all just pretend the regulations says 98Kg/h
No it wasn't. If you read it like that, then I phrased it badly, sorry.sAx wrote:Such an integral does not answer whether >100kg mass has been used, which was your initial point.beelsebob wrote:The point is that if the fuel flow meter is accurate, the integral of the values it records over the length of the race should be very close to the final fuel usage. It should be possible to demonstrate it's inaccurate by taking that integral, and seeing if it matches the fuel consumed.sAx wrote:Read this argument a few times now and I believe it misses the point. It is not about the mass of fuel left in the tank, it is about the power strategy during the race. A continuous peak flow 100kg/h would mean spending the remaining 30min race period watching from the sidelines. From inspection then, a continuous exceedance in fuel flow would not allow a car to make the hour mark! However, if you could stratgeically burn at higher fuel flow rates (> 100kg/hr) at key periods to increase power to overtake/maintain position (...like Magnussen is catching you!), then switch to fuel conservation engine map, you would not trigger exceedance of max consumption limit as many cars did not require 100kg fuel mass to cover the distance from the start.
The 'sexyness' was lacking? What on earth does that mean? Was it really less sexy than last year, or is this all about Ricciardo?Hail22 wrote:News in: Australian GP Corporation considering legal options against the FIA as apparently the:
This was a live press conference so I'm sure it will be published on news sites soon."product of this Grand prix was not what we signed for and the sexyness is lacking, we signed up for a completely different product and will work in conjunction with the FoM, yes sound was part of the contract to which the Australian GP corporation agreed to"
Either Bernie E is using his pawns to start a revolt against the FIA or genuinely the Aus GP corporation are doing it on their own steam due to a contractual breach.
I thought there was far too much reverb, and all the midtones were clipped. This was an issue last year at some tracks; it sounds like the inside of a Pringles tin.stuartpengs wrote:Slightly off tangent, but I thought the pits/car comms was much clearer than last year. Could actually understand the drivers. I watched the race on BBC as I couldn't make the Sky live race, and if I'm honest I was disappointed with the lack of noise from the engines. I'm hoping its a broadcast feed issue that needs some fine tuning, they certainly sounded more audible during the testing. Maybe I just need to crank the TV up a bit.
and the rules are very clear, they must flow less than 100kg/h as measured by the FIA sensor, what the team measuresdjos wrote:This is F1 not formula Ford!langwadt wrote:
it is the same for everyone so it doesn't really matter, the measuring stick that counts is FIAs
if the FIAs sensor is consistent but say 2% high for everyone, they can all just pretend the regulations says 98Kg/h
