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.
Because Red Bull would claim that theirs is too small, drill it out, and claim that their drill bits are more precise than the FIA's.Tim.Wright wrote:Makes me wonder, why don't they run a mechanical orifice restrictor in the fuel lines or intake like every other series does.
Actually they are fully free to race as Toto pointed out many times even pointing out that they have already done this many many times in the past.Juzh wrote:There will be no battle at the front:SectorOne wrote: Boring? Not so fast... Hamilton and Rosberg will have one hell of a battle in the front i think so there could still be some entertainment from those two.
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/03/14/m ... scenarios/
This is shaping up to be the dullest season of possibly all times.
These sensors DO NOT work the same for everyone.... or they would not need a correction factor issued DURING the race. How does the FIA or the sensor manufacture know if a unit is accurate during the race? Again, RB's approach is a no brainer. They are bring to public light the unresolved issue with the fuel flow meters.thomin wrote:These are standard sensors that work the same for everyone. It's not up to the individual team to determine whether or not that is accurate enough.
Indeed it is a no brainer – that is to say, they had no brain in using it.hardingfv32 wrote:These sensors DO NOT work the same for everyone.... or they would not need a correction factor issued DURING the race. How does the FIA or the sensor manufacture know if a unit is accurate during the race? Again, RB's approach is a no brainer. They are bring to public light the unresolved issue with the fuel flow meters.thomin wrote:These are standard sensors that work the same for everyone. It's not up to the individual team to determine whether or not that is accurate enough.
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.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?
Precisely. There is no "objective" fuel flow rate - what the FIA sensor tells you is what matters.beelsebob wrote:If the FIA's sensor says you used too much fuel, you used too much fuel. RedBull were idiots to pay attention to any sensor other than the FIA's.
SAFETY FIRST!!!Tim.Wright wrote:Well which rule exactly was broken?zoro_f1 wrote:than the FIA should punish the team!!!Pup wrote: Kobayashi had a brake failure (ERS-K, specifically).
let me point this one again... there is no punishment yet and FIA is still promoting "SAFETY FIRST"!!!
I think this is the first thing you've ever posted I agree with, albeit probably not in the way you meant.hardingfv32 wrote:Again, RB's approach is a no brainer.
Wrong... You break the rules when the fuel rate is too high. No rule states 'when the homologated sensor records a too high fuel flow rate'.beelsebob wrote:No, the FIA is stating that their homologated sensor recorded a fuel flow rate that was too high. You break the rules exactly when the homologated sensor records a too high fuel flow rate, not exactly when your fuel flow rate is too high.
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.kalinka wrote: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.
Quoting the stewards:hardingfv32 wrote:Wrong... You break the rules when the fuel rate is too high. No rule states 'when the homologated sensor records a too high fuel flow rate'.beelsebob wrote:No, the FIA is stating that their homologated sensor recorded a fuel flow rate that was too high. You break the rules exactly when the homologated sensor records a too high fuel flow rate, not exactly when your fuel flow rate is too high.
Brian
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.hardingfv32 wrote:
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
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.Pup wrote:Precisely. There is no "objective" fuel flow rate - what the FIA sensor tells you is what matters.
The teams are going to base their engine setups on what the sensor specified in the rules tells them, yes.hardingfv32 wrote: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.Pup wrote:Precisely. There is no "objective" fuel flow rate - what the FIA sensor tells you is what matters.
