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

[langwadt]

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'd say they are similar an handled consistent

Lotus was told by FIA that their suspension was illegal and told to chance it and they did, so no penalty

RB is told by FIA that their fuel flow is too high and are given a chance to fix it, they didn't , so they got a penalty

[myurr]

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.

That's not Red Bull's call though. If they were unhappy with the sensor they should have asked the FIA to use the backup measure. The stewards report is clear though that Red Bull were explicitly directed to use the sensor and were warned again in the race. It is also codified in the rules, a point you continually ignore.

If the FIA applied too much load during the flex test then Red Bull could ask them to change the way they are testing. They couldn't force the FIA to do so nor could they run the part regardless and not expect punishment. The two are directly equivalent.

[NTS]

FIA advising to reduce the flow or being penalised, they gave them the opportunity.

I expect RB to explain this another way: RB is in compliance with the rules, but a sensor that has failed before is showing them they are not. FIA tells them "tune down the engine, because our sensor says so" and RB responds: "Our data shows otherwise and your option-B measurement agrees with that, we're not tuning the engine down".

Now that's a smart move politically, because now the FIA has two options:

1. Publicly disqualify them allowing for an appeal and a lot of noise about how bad the sensors are
Or:
2. Let them go ahead to avoid too much publicity about the reliability of the sensors (average viewer doesn't know much about them)

While if they would have tuned the engine down we (the outsiders in this) would have just seen Ricciardo lose time lap after lap which would make RB / Renault look bad and provide no option for appeal later.

So basically they did a smart thing, their challenge now is to prove the sensor was wrong and win the appeal. If they can arrange that evidence they're probably going to parade around the media with it...

[ESPImperium]

Good race, and love this new F1 era.

However, i think there is problems arising in the new technology at the moment.

The fuel flow meter is a pile of crap, id like a fuel flow regulator that is based on a mechanical system that either constricts a pipe or is pressure based and is managed by the ECU and gives drivers a read out. The fuel flow meter thing just aint accurate enough for me at the moment.

Secondly, technical directives... I think in a transparent world these things should be bloody published publicly, same with any questions or clarifications any team requests to the FIA, with the FIA answer. Meaning that if you think it will make you faster and is of questionable material/matter, all will see it and can copy quicker, if you run the risk of taking something to a race and its legality is questioned, be prepared to get burnt with the consequences.

Thirdly, those bloody noses, they are already submarining under cars. Time to review the rule and raise the nose to from 185mm above the reference plane to in line with the front wheel axle height and make the cross section 40,000mmsq with 65% of that being in the centre and make the chassis flat from the A-A line to B-B line under the drivers legs, and from the B-B line to the front crash structure. Thus reducing overall downforce at the front and also make it hard for the aero guys to recoup.

Lastly, im a broken record, but the DRS rules need changed, 300 seconds available each session with DRS disabled when wet tyres are on as well, use its to attack and defend or use it to aid fuel consumption as well. I hate this DRS 1 second thing, if a driver has confidence let him use it, if it goes wrong, he ends up in the wall.

[Tim.Wright]

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.

That's not Red Bull's call though. If they were unhappy with the sensor they should have asked the FIA to use the backup measure. The stewards report is clear though that Red Bull were explicitly directed to use the sensor and were warned again in the race. It is also codified in the rules, a point you continually ignore.

If the FIA applied too much load during the flex test then Red Bull could ask them to change the way they are testing. They couldn't force the FIA to do so nor could they run the part regardless and not expect punishment. The two are directly equivalent.

It not codified in the rules, its a technical directive that they broke by not listening to the Fia. If they prove the sensor is out of spec then they cant be found guilty of breaching Arts 3.2 and 5.1.4

[Redragon]

FIA advising to reduce the flow or being penalised, they gave them the opportunity.

I expect RB to explain this another way: RB is in compliance with the rules, but a sensor that has failed before is showing them they are not. FIA tells them "tune down the engine, because our sensor says so" and RB responds: "Our data shows otherwise and your option-B measurement agrees with that, we're not tuning the engine down".

Now that's a smart move politically, because now the FIA has two options:

1. Publicly disqualify them allowing for an appeal and a lot of noise about how bad the sensors are
Or:
2. Let them go ahead to avoid too much publicity about the reliability of the sensors (average viewer doesn't know much about them)

While if they would have tuned the engine down we (the outsiders in this) would have just seen Ricciardo lose time lap after lap which would make RB / Renault look bad and provide no option for appeal later.

So basically they did a smart thing, their challenge now is to prove the sensor was wrong and win the appeal. If they can arrange that evidence they're probably going to parade around the media with it...

That's it is what I am saying, they decided to ignore the call. So they got penalised but as I said in my second sentence

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

They could have reduce the power and maybe show on real time that the sensor was faulty, because maybe with the low flow advice by FIA still faulty. Allowing them officially used the back up sensor and increase the power for the rest of the race.

On a perspective of the team yes they did the right call, none team wants to loose. But they didn't do right sportively, ignoring the rules and the advice not to be penalized. As an example we can use the Olympic walking, you have 3 calls if you run faster, you are advice to slow down, after 3 calls you are penalised. And Redbull case is the same, they ignore the call they are penalized.

[SidSidney]

So, where's the dude about his pole conversion ratio?

Lewis's is dropping further as a result of the engine failure...

Thansk for remembering me. I already mentioned it a few pages back:

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 04#p495404

[fawe4]

It not codified in the rules, its a technical directive that they broke by not listening to the Fia. If they prove the sensor is out of spec then they cant be found guilty of breaching Arts 3.2 and 5.1.4

Off course they are guilty. It does not matter if the sensor worked or not. FIA gave them an option of replacing the sensor, they refused it and run with old one. Therefore that sensor is deemed ok for flow detection. Only FIA themselves are able to decide that a sensor is out of order and allow others methods of measurement. RB surely had the same measurements that FIA had about from fuel flow sensor, but they ignored them, saying their method is working. Basically they bluffed and got called. Case closed.

[beelsebob]

If the sensor was faulty, it would be trivial for RedBull to prove it. Weigh the fuel before, weigh the fuel after, demonstrate how much was used, demonstrate how much the FIA sensor said was used. If the FIA sensor read more fuel than can possibly have been burned going into the engine it's faulty.

If they couldn't prove it this way, then it's clear that the "your sensor is faulty" argument is bullshit.

[jz11]

you can't compare technical sport to olympic walking

the thing is - if they would have reduced the fuel flow, they would lose the place for sure, and if they would have found out afterwards that the sensor was indeed faulty - no one will ever give them higher position, you cannot expect FIA to say - of yes, our bad, lets move your driver 3 positions up!

there was no real win situation for RB here, its lose/lose or lose and maybe argue your way out of it

IMHO - if FIA really wanted to do this right - certify injectors, certify fuel delivery system and check injection maps - that is it, and use the flow sensor just for reference, if someone is a suspect - investigate, not penalize someone based on some not-too-reliable sensor data

and why did they not go to the B. option of the rule book? didn't look at the maps?

[Traction]

I just can't believe that RB would make such a catastrophic blunder without been damn sure of their facts. That or they are incredibly arrogant thinking they could ignore the warnings issue and still get away with it. As a RB fan even I'm leaning to the arrogance side of the argument.

[Tim.Wright]

It not codified in the rules, its a technical directive that they broke by not listening to the Fia. If they prove the sensor is out of spec then they cant be found guilty of breaching Arts 3.2 and 5.1.4

Off course they are guilty. It does not matter if the sensor worked or not. FIA gave them an option of replacing the sensor, they refused it and run with old one. Therefore that sensor is deemed ok for flow detection. Only FIA themselves are able to decide that a sensor is out of order and allow others methods of measurement. RB surely had the same measurements that FIA had about from fuel flow sensor, but they ignored them, saying their method is working. Basically they bluffed and got called. Case closed.

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?

[Ferraripilot]

Red Bull are out of their minds if they believe they are too good to use the Fia homologated sensor, which is by the way good enough for every single other team including the all dominating W05.

[Tim.Wright]

Red Bull are out of their minds if they believe they are too good to use the Fia homologated sensor, which is by the way good enough for every single other team including the all dominating W05.

Sensors aren't magic. I've seen 50k€ inertial sensors giving BS outputs which we were able to confirm with the 100€ yaw sensor on the vehicle CAN.

[myurr]

If the sensor was faulty, it would be trivial for RedBull to prove it. Weigh the fuel before, weigh the fuel after, demonstrate how much was used, demonstrate how much the FIA sensor said was used. If the FIA sensor read more fuel than can possibly have been burned going into the engine it's faulty.

If they couldn't prove it this way, then it's clear that the "your sensor is faulty" argument is bullshit.

I still think that Red Bull are bang to rights on this, but a simple weight check assumes the error in a sensor is linear. If it gives a low reading at low flow rates but gives a high reading at high flow rates (or vice versa) then the total weight of fuel the sensor thinks has been used may be less than was actually used even though the peak flow rate was reported as being higher than it was.