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.
The race time is not bad compared to the 2013 one, if we consider the safety car cost them 150s. It put Rosberg in 4th on the 2013 race, without pushing and with a lot of still unknown systems.atanatizante wrote: 2. Had you compare 2013 fastest times with 2014 ones Rosberg`s 1.32,478 was good enough to battle with the Catherhams and Marussia !
Hahahahahahaha.you don't get more blatant than that.....zonk wrote:The FIA technical representative observed thought the telemetry during the race that the fuel flow was too high and contacted the team, giving them the opportunity to follow his previous instruction, and reduce the fuel flow such that it was within the limit, as measured by the homologated sensor – and thus gave the team the opportunity to be within compliance. The team chose not to make this correction.
It seems that the sensor was/might have been broken and the technical representative decided to tell Red Bull to tune down their fuel flow even though that same flow was deemed legal by that same sensor earlier in FP1. Red Bull did not agree with this and installed a new sensor. Then raced with the original sensor, which again said that the fuel-flow was too high. The technical delegates again told Red Bull to tune down the fuel-flow "such that it was within the limit". However, since Red Bull was convinced the sensor was broken they refused to do that. Instead they used the backup model specified in the rules. Now the stewards are arguing that switching to the backup model is their call to make and not Red Bulls, while Red Bull now basically appeals with the argument: "we did not break the fuel-flow limit, the sensor sucks, that's not our problem"5) The Stewards heard from the technical representative that when the sensor was installed on Saturday night, he instructed the team to apply an offset to their fuel flow such that the fuel flow would have been legal. He presented an email to the stewards that verified his instruction.
According to the sensor's datasheet http://www.gillsensors.com/content/data ... r-2014.pdf , it outputs its data at 100Hz. Knowing that the FIA integrate that data to enforce the 100 Kg/race rule, I'm pretty sure that the change of frequency also relates to the integrator. If it doesn't then it means they are now discarding 95/100 samples which would be incredibly dumb in my opinion.piast9 wrote:In terms of signal conditioning the effect of the lowpass filter and integrator are similar but the integrator doesn't reset periodically but it just integrates last, for example, 0.2 s of the signal.basti313 wrote:Sounds reasonable. But I would rather think about an integrator rather than a lowpass which is read and reset in a 5 or 10Hz frequency. A lowpass would just cost you information.
I recall suggesting this on the yin yang thread last year!absbeginner wrote:Because there were rumors about the possibility of counterfeiting device measurements by pulsing the fuel flow at high frequencies.gandharva wrote: If this is bulletproof, then explain why they already had to change the measurement method on friday?
With the increased frequency this is no longer possible.
You are reading it wrong. Fuel flow was already deemed illegal during FP. But really you can run whatever you like in practice, so they only warned them and when new sensor was installed told them by how much they should reduce their fuel flow.NTS wrote:Ok, reading the report:It seems that the sensor was/might have been broken and the technical representative decided to tell Red Bull to tune down their fuel flow even though that same flow was deemed legal by that same sensor earlier in FP1. Red Bull did not agree with this and installed a new sensor. Then raced with the original sensor, which again said that the fuel-flow was too high. The technical delegates again told Red Bull to tune down the fuel-flow "such that it was within the limit". However, since Red Bull was convinced the sensor was broken they refused to do that. Instead they used the backup model specified in the rules. Now the stewards are arguing that switching to the backup model is their call to make and not Red Bulls, while Red Bull now basically appeals with the argument: "we did not break the fuel-flow limit, the sensor sucks, that's not our problem"5) The Stewards heard from the technical representative that when the sensor was installed on Saturday night, he instructed the team to apply an offset to their fuel flow such that the fuel flow would have been legal. He presented an email to the stewards that verified his instruction.
a. During Practice 1 a difference in reading between the first three and Run 4 was detected. The same readings as Run 4 were observed throughout Practice 2.
