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

[ChrisM40]

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

The sensor is just a sensor, not a computer. The software in the systems ECU makes the correction, this is built into the car so each team need to know what the correction value is. ALL sensors need calibrating, even those on road cars, but dont need to be so accurate, so as long as they work, they are fine. Indeed replacing a sensor on your road car can make it run worse if its a bad sensor, its pretty common. The dealer doesnt calibrate it, you just swap it out.

The dynamic correction is to the CARS usage, NOT to the sensor. The technical representative will tell the team they are over limit and issue them with a correction, the driver then has to adjust the car to prevent over use. Basically they will say that you are using, say, 103kg/h, so turn down your map to be compliant.

[ChrisM40]

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.

Brian

Thats exactly that. They will have live figures for the usage, they can tell them to run leaner on the fly. They did, RB ignored it. It was then reported to the FIA who refered it to the Stewards. Simple.

[dans79]

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

at the factory sensors of various types are calibrated against a known standard. for real world use however they need to be calibrated for the work they are doing. Off the top of my head i can think of several calibration constants they might have.

1. one for fuel manufacture since the rules can be different.
2. one for temperature since it plays a significant impact on density.
3. they probably have one per engine manufacture as well to minimize interference specific to that engine.

[ChrisM40]

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

at the factory sensors of various types are calibrated against a known standard. for real world use however they need to be calibrated for the work they are doing. Off the top of my head i can think of several calibration constants they might have.

1. one for fuel manufacture since the rules can be different.
2. one for temperature since it plays a significant impact on density.
3. they probably have one per engine manufacture as well to minimize interference specific to that engine.

Fuel already has to meet a standard, this is taken into account.
The flow sensor incorporates a temperature sensor.
Its up to the engine manufacturer to ensure their engine works with all other systems on the car. If there is interference, they need to suppress it, or its their own fault.

[dans79]

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.

It's an educated guess, but i would bet they didn't want we had in the 80's, motors cranked up to 120, 130+ percent of what they would be in the race.

[Powershift]

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.

Why don't you understand Safety? without a max fuel rate/boost rate the cars can develop up to 1000hp as was seen in the 80's... The tracks CANNOT contain cars with that type of power, can you imagine what happened at the start this year with Kobay if he had twice as much power and his brakes failed as they did? Or in Qualifying when there is no 100kg/race rule.

If the there is a long SC period then cars can save all types of fuel and then turn it up with max HP when they go back to racing... IT IS NOT SAFE! So the max HP must be limited, the teams(since they make the rules) probably did not want an air restrictor or a fuel restrictor so they set a max fuel rate for the FIA to police the teams on.

No F1 is not regulated as a typical business, The FIA act as the police, your local police don't make the laws they only enforce them, the TWG & SWG(which is made up of team employees) make the rules they act as the legislative branch which make the laws.

[hardingfv32]

Thats exactly that. They will have live figures for the usage, they can tell them to run leaner on the fly. They did, RB ignored it. It was then reported to the FIA who refered it to the Stewards. Simple.

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

[dans79]

Fuel already has to meet a standard, this is taken into account.

Each fuel manufacture had to provide a standard, but the fuels are not the same for every manufacture.
http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules ... 0/fia.html

[Xwang]

Is it possiple to mandate a fuel tube maximum internal section and fuel pressure to limit the max fuel flow instead of trying to measure it during the race?

[dans79]

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."

Problem is, his opinion doesn't matter.

[dans79]

Is it possiple to mandate a fuel tube maximum internal section and fuel pressure to limit the max fuel flow instead of trying to measure it during the race?

you could, but they would still need to be calibrated for the individual fuel formulas and you would have no way of correcting for different fuel temperatures.

[ChrisM40]

Thats exactly that. They will have live figures for the usage, they can tell them to run leaner on the fly. They did, RB ignored it. It was then reported to the FIA who refered it to the Stewards. Simple.

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

The offset was the sensor calibration, it didnt change! Why is this so hard to understand?? The problem from Friday was that interference was making the results inconsistent.

RBs problem is it didnt match with what their engine was telling them. Thats tough. Horner is making it sound like the FIA changed the calibration, they did not. Its his usual deflection game. All sensors will have an offset (or correction factor).

[munudeges]

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.

Precisely. There is no "objective" fuel flow rate - what the FIA sensor tells you is what matters.

So, it could be anything then?

Why don't they just substitute the thing so it generates random numbers, or maybe it already does?

[munudeges]

The offset was the sensor calibration, it didnt change! Why is this so hard to understand?? The problem from Friday was that interference was making the results inconsistent.

When you have to apply an 'offset' to anything, to put it in polite terms, it doesn't bloody work.

[dans79]

The offset was the sensor calibration, it didnt change! Why is this so hard to understand?? The problem from Friday was that interference was making the results inconsistent.

When you have to apply an 'offset' to anything, to put it in polite terms, it doesn't bloody work.

It sounds like you don't fully understand the complexity of a modern computer controlled engine let alone these new state of the art F1 engines.