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

For ease of use, there is one thread per grand prix where you can discuss everything during that specific GP weekend. You can find these threads here.
User avatar
turbof1
Moderator
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: MountDoom CFD Matrix

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne 13-16th March

Post

Looks like Ricciardo will get DSQ'd...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112953

Unless they can prove the fuel rate meter was malfunctioning, this pretty much looks like a black 'n white case.
#AeroFrodo

User avatar
mnmracer
36
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:41 pm

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne 13-16th March

Post

thomin wrote:
NathanOlder wrote:Ricciardo under investigation

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/03/16/r ... t-breach/?
That doesn't look good for him...I really wonder how Red Bull could commit such an error...? If the FIA was able to tell that he "consistently" exceeded the fuel limit, then so was Red Bull. A sensor issue therefore seems highly unlikely. Of course I'm speculating here, I'll be interesting to hear Red Bull's explanation.
What is the penalty for that? Automatic DSQ or a possible time penalty?

User avatar
Holm86
227
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:37 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne 13-16th March

Post


SidSidney
SidSidney
43
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:34 am
Location: Racetracks around the world

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne 13-16th March

Post

mnmracer wrote: Yeah, overall he has had 17 retirements, but that alone doesn't say anything without understanding what happened to other drivers.

Hamilton has had 17 retirements from 130 starts, or 13%.
Alonso has had 33 retirements from 218 starts, or 15%.
Vettel has had 19 retirements from 122 starts, or 16%.
Button has had 48 retirements from 251 starts, or 19%.
Räikkönen has had 44 retirements from 195 starts, or 34%.

Retirement-wise, Hamilton's got the best score from all the champions.
That is interesting, thanks for pointing that out. I do tend to compare the stats that show success/fail, which means wins/poles/retirements, rather than per race, but that is also quite interesting. In that context you could say he is pretty lucky compared to many drivers, which seems to be counterintuitive.

I do have a feeling there is some Sabermetrics-type analysis to be done on driver numbers. Hamilton has some interesting stats compared to other senior drivers (he has to be considered senior now at about half way through his career I guess) that may reveal where he should focus his talents to be more successful.
This signature is encrypted to avoid complaints, but it makes me laugh out loud:-
16S75 13E7K 41C53 7CT23 14O5O 67R32 76175 90B67 L4L42 41O63 72W56 98M10 52E87

User avatar
thomin
17
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:57 pm

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne 13-16th March

Post

mnmracer wrote:
thomin wrote:
NathanOlder wrote:Ricciardo under investigation

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/03/16/r ... t-breach/?
That doesn't look good for him...I really wonder how Red Bull could commit such an error...? If the FIA was able to tell that he "consistently" exceeded the fuel limit, then so was Red Bull. A sensor issue therefore seems highly unlikely. Of course I'm speculating here, I'll be interesting to hear Red Bull's explanation.
What is the penalty for that? Automatic DSQ or a possible time penalty?
One would think that an automatic DSQ would be in order, especially after declaring a hard stance on the issue before the race. On the other hand, if there was some sort of malfunction by a FIA specified part, then there might be no consequence. I remember Alonso getting off without penalty despite using DRS when he wasn't legally permitted to do so.

lks
lks
0
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 11:03 am

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne 13-16th March

Post

Image

Gaara
Gaara
8
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne 13-16th March

Post

So they are allowed 100 kg per race right? the race is 1.5 hours. How the drivers should not pass the 100kg/hour limit?

User avatar
NathanOlder
152
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:05 am
Location: Kent

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne 13-16th March

Post

Gaara wrote:So they are allowed 100 kg per race right? the race is 1.5 hours. How the drivers should not pass the 100kg/hour limit?
By not using fuel at a rate of 100kg per hour
GoLandoGo
Lewis v2.0

Does anyone play F1 2020 on Ps4, Now starting our 3rd season. No assists, 50% races.

https://rapidpixelracing.com

User avatar
mikeerfol
123
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:19 pm
Location: Greece

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne 13-16th March

Post

NathanOlder wrote:
Gaara wrote:So they are allowed 100 kg per race right? the race is 1.5 hours. How the drivers should not pass the 100kg/hour limit?
By not using fuel at a rate of 100kg per hour
Indeed, 100 kg/hour is the maximum they can go.

User avatar
thomin
17
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:57 pm

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne 13-16th March

Post

AlexJ wrote:
thomin wrote:One would think that an automatic DSQ would be in order, especially after declaring a hard stance on the issue before the race. On the other hand, if there was some sort of malfunction by a FIA specified part, then there might be no consequence. I remember Alonso getting off without penalty despite using DRS when he wasn't legally permitted to do so.
If I remember that incident Alonso's DRS popped open during a turn, so he got off on the grounds of not having gained an advantage.

Exceeding the permitted fuel usage even by accident is unlikely to be considered the same way.
I'm not entirely sure about this, but I seem to remember that at least parts of the fuel injection system are specified by the FIA in order for them to be able to monitor it and to prevent teams from cheating. If there was a malfunction in that specific part, then it would be very difficult to punish Red Bull for it. But I admit that I'm reaching here...

User avatar
thomin
17
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:57 pm

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne 13-16th March

Post

mikeerfol wrote:
NathanOlder wrote:
Gaara wrote:So they are allowed 100 kg per race right? the race is 1.5 hours. How the drivers should not pass the 100kg/hour limit?
By not using fuel at a rate of 100kg per hour
Indeed, 100 kg/hour is the maximum they can go.
Could Red Bull have just ignored that? I mean I can see how it could have happened: They saved a lot of fuel at the beginning due to the second warm up lap and the safety car, so they could afford to use more than 100kg/h later without exceeding the overall 100kg limit. But that seems to be a very stupid mistake to make...


SidSidney
SidSidney
43
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:34 am
Location: Racetracks around the world

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne 13-16th March

Post

Red Bull changed the fuel flow meter of car 3 in Parc Ferme yesterday:-

http://184.106.145.74/f1-championship/f ... -%2046.pdf
This signature is encrypted to avoid complaints, but it makes me laugh out loud:-
16S75 13E7K 41C53 7CT23 14O5O 67R32 76175 90B67 L4L42 41O63 72W56 98M10 52E87

the EDGE
the EDGE
71
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:31 pm
Location: Luton ENGLAND

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne 13-16th March

Post

thomin wrote:
By not using fuel at a rate of 100kg per hour
Indeed, 100 kg/hour is the maximum they can go.[/quote]

Could Red Bull have just ignored that? I mean I can see how it could have happened: They saved a lot of fuel at the beginning due to the second warm up lap and the safety car, so they could afford to use more than 100kg/h later without exceeding the overall 100kg limit. But that seems to be a very stupid mistake to make...[/quote]

theres 2 rules

1, no more than 100kg fuel
2, maximum flow rate of 100kg per hour

User avatar
iotar__
7
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:31 am

Re: 2014 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne 13-16th March

Post

Ricciardo? But team radio message was that fuel was OK, RB lying again ;-) or they don't know what's going on with their car (again) after "software" debacle? [I bet they'll agree to blame Renault later.]