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

[Redragon]

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?

Technical or not there are rules on any sport, and today Redbull has braking them not following advice, deciding by themselves that the FIA sensor was faulty and use their own.

As the FIA states on the decision statement

b. “If at any time WE consider that the sensor has an issue which has not been detected by the system WE will communicate this to the team concerned and switch to a backup system”

I assume the FIA didn't call on the middle of the race just blind, there were probably alarming details to do that call.
They ignore the call and the chance to rectify, consequently they got disqualify because they didn't prove wrong the FIA after the race.

The took the risk they lost any possibility of points. They could have finish 5th or 6th if following the advice far more better than nothing.

If other teams would have problems with the sensors I will feel sorry for them. But just one team who for the last 4 years have being playing well with rules, loopholes and politics, had this problem. When you play this game some times you win and sometimes you lose. And in this occasion as I said, they f+++ themselves.

[Ral]

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.

Yeah. Unfortunately all the weight would prove is the average fuel flow for the race. And presumably the FIA is already aware how much fuel the car used for the race. It's the 100kg/h flow rate that's in question and it is entirely possible the engine did go over and still made the 100kg/race limit.

Does it strike anyone else as a bit strange that they went with such a big unit for the fuel flow limit? I mean, if you know you are going to measure every one or two tenths of a second, surely a smaller unit would leave a lot less margin for interpretation shenanigans? Or, even less dubious, since they limit the RPM for the engine, they know how often ignition will take place per cylinder, so just limit the amount of fuel injected per ignition? Then they don't need to measure at all, since the engines get homologated separately and can at that point be checked for legality.

[basti313]

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.

Well, turning down the fuel rate cost the Mercs 5 tenth per lap according to Toto. If Redbull would have turned down Ric's car like this he would have been right at the Torros...

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.

We are talking about faults in the tenth-of-a-second range. You can not find them with weighting 100kg of fuel, cause the error is much higher than the deviance.

I find it quite strange, that the FIA said that they have to replace the defective sensor not with a new sensor, but with the sensor, that showed strange behavior in FP...

[Powershift]

does anyone know why under braking sometimes the rear light flashes sometimes? Sure it never used to happen

Because of the huge difference in speed when one driver lifts and coasts and a driver behind them is still on throttle, the FIA decided for safety reason that when a driver lifts and coasts, and thus the KERS goes into harvesting mode, that the rain light will "blip"

[basti313]

Does it strike anyone else as a bit strange that they went with such a big unit for the fuel flow limit? I mean, if you know you are going to measure every one or two tenths of a second, surely a smaller unit would leave a lot less margin for interpretation shenanigans? Or, even less dubious, since they limit the RPM for the engine, they know how often ignition will take place per cylinder, so just limit the amount of fuel injected per ignition? Then they don't need to measure at all, since the engines get homologated separately and can at that point be checked for legality.

Good point. For me it is also very strange, that the needed a fuel flow meter. This comes from racing series without standard ECU and partially completely different engines and fuel.
Here we have a standard ECU, so it would have bean the easiest way to use calibrated injectors. If you have a fault in these, it divides by 6 and you can see it because the engine is not running smooth.

[Pup]

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?

Ignoring the stewards. It's no different than getting a drive-through that you don't agree with. You do it anyway or suffer the consequences.

[Sebp]

[hardingfv32]

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?

This is complete valid. "Inconsistencies with the FIA fuel flow meter have been prevalent all weekend up and down the pit lane." Horner

Assuming you prove the sensor is bad, how does FIA prove the flow was exceeded during the race? Seems like the FIA has already admitted that the sensor was faulty. They issued a correction factor for the meter to RB when they asked for the team to dial back consumption during the race? How was this correction factor established? Is the issuing of a correction factor normal FIA operating procedure?

Now if you are pouting about RB disregarding a FIA/Steward instruction, you should note this was not stated as a reason for the DQ.

Brian

[Tim.Wright]

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?

Ignoring the stewards. It's no different than getting a drive-through that you don't agree with. You do it anyway or suffer the consequences.

Drive throughs are for sporting infringmnents. This is different in my opinion. Anyway, I think for now exclusion is the only option the stewards could give given the info they had at the time. If there is a real qustion mark on the sensors in genral it will likely end up at the FIA world council.

[frosty125]

Red Bull seemed to indicate that their appeal would be based on proving that they did not breach the fuel flow limit. But are they not getting the wrong end of the stick on this one? The stewards penalty seemed to be for the team not using the correct fuel flow model as directed by the FIA?

A)        The team chose to run the car using their fuel flow model, without
direction from the FIA. This is a violation of the procedure within TD/ 016­14.
 
B)        That although the sensor showed a difference in readings between runs
in P1, it remains the homologated and required sensor against which the team is
obliged to measure their fuel flow, unless given permission by the FIA to do
otherwise.
 
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.
 
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.

[marcush.]

I d guess this is what happens when you are not really a specialist in Field You try to Police .

[henra]

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!

That is the problem with such devices which are directly interfering with the race result.
If they are found faulty afterwards there must be a way to correct a spoilt result or compensate the Team. I.e. like you mentioned: Move the driver x postions up.
Or pay x million$ to the Team as compensation.
Otherwise Teams might be strongly (and rightfully) tempted to pull FIA to Court.

[Ral]

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?

This is complete valid. "Inconsistencies with the FIA fuel flow meter have been prevalent all weekend up and down the pit lane." Horner

Assuming you prove the sensor is bad, how does FIA prove the flow was exceeded during the race? Seems like the FIA has already admitted that the sensor was faulty. They issued a correction factor for the meter to RB when they asked for the team to dial back consumption during the race? How was this correction factor established? Is the issuing of a correction factor normal FIA operating procedure?

Now if you are pouting about RB disregarding a FIA/Steward instruction, you should note this was not stated as a reason for the DQ.

Brian

It was: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112966

Thus the stewards find that:

A) The team chose to run the car using their fuel flow model, without direction from the FIA. This is a violation of the procedure within TD/01614.

B) That although the sensor showed a difference in readings between runs in P1, it remains the homologated and required sensor against which the team is obliged to measure their fuel flow, unless given permission by the FIA to do otherwise.

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.

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.

The stewards find that car #3 was out of compliance with the technical regulations and is therefore excluded from the results of the race.

[fawe4]

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?

This is complete valid. "Inconsistencies with the FIA fuel flow meter have been prevalent all weekend up and down the pit lane." Horner

Assuming you prove the sensor is bad, how does FIA prove the flow was exceeded during the race? Seems like the FIA has already admitted that the sensor was faulty. They issued a correction factor for the meter to RB when they asked for the team to dial back consumption during the race? How was this correction factor established? Is the issuing of a correction factor normal FIA operating procedure?

Now if you are pouting about RB disregarding a FIA/Steward instruction, you should note this was not stated as a reason for the DQ.

Brian

RB stayed with old sensor. Therefore that sensor is accepted as working. The sensors data is all the proof FIA needs. RB had an option of switching and they were given measurements of by how much they were over allowed flow. They did nothing and they were also only one over the limit, so they can't even argue that others had the same problems and talk themselves out of it.

I think it's fairly obvious what they were after. They stayed with old sensor, tried to argue that it's faulty and put forward their own measurement. Measurements that obviously would put them on the right side of the rules, but would allow them slight fuel flow advantage. If they weren't the only one, the bluff may even work.

[iotar__]

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?

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.
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?