Red Bull disqualified for exceeding flow rate or disobeying FIA?

[John S]

Others, on advice, cut flow though sensors wacky.

Do RBR have a case about their readings being more accurate as explained in the article below from F1tmes.co.uk, or is this really about defying the ref's authority?
I personally think it's the latter and expect a bigger punishment on appeal     

Red Bull's rivals all took notice of the FIA's advice regarding fuel flow during the Australian Grand Prix, but they shared the team's doubts over the accuracy of the sensor. Red Bull chose to ignore the FIA's warnings during the race that Daniel Ricciardo was exceeding the 100kg/h fuel flow limit, instead opting to rely on their own data which they believed was more accurate.

The other ten teams however didn't, and when warned by the FIA that they were nearing the limit, they dialled the fuel flow back when asked to do so. The teams were warned that they would face consequences if they went over 100kg/h as measured by the FIA's standard flow sensor provided by Gill Sensors. The sensor supplier claims that 52 per cent of its meters are with a 0.1 per cent accuracy reading, with 92 per cent within 0.25 per cent. Red Bull chose to rely on its own readings throughout the race, doubting the readings coming from its FIA supplied sensor and therefore ignoring requests to decrease fuel flow.

Ferrari's Stefano Domenicali said the teams must trust the governing body and abide by its advice. "We need to rely on the fact that it is a situation that is well managed by the FIA, and that is it to be honest," he told Autosport. "We have the FIA that will do their job and I am sure there will not be a problem at all."

Red Bull has appealed the decision to disqualify Ricciardo as a result, saying it can prove they never exceeded the maximum fuel flow allowed under the regulations.

F1tmes.co.uk, Today.

 

[Scott]

If they simply ignored the advice, while other teams heeded it, I am really disappointed for Ricciardo.  He probably had no idea there was any problem. 

That said, if they can prove that they are correct, and that the flow did not exceed the 100kg/h limit based on their own data and that they have a more accurate way of determining the flow than the FIA supplied sensor, then they were right to break the rules.  If the FIA are going to create rules without the correct technology to manage it, then they shouldn't create the rules.

[Jericoke]

If they simply ignored the advice, while other teams heeded it, I am really disappointed for Ricciardo.  He probably had no idea there was any problem. 

That said, if they can prove that they are correct, and that the flow did not exceed the 100kg/h limit based on their own data and that they have a more accurate way of determining the flow than the FIA supplied sensor, then they were right to break the rules.  If the FIA are going to create rules without the correct technology to manage it, then they shouldn't create the rules.

Disagree here.  RBR made a big deal about their 'flexible' front wing being within the rules because it complied with the FIA measuring device, yet not the word of the rules.

They can't turn around and say that FIA measurements are meaningless because it suits them.

Even if RBR is 'right' and the FIA device doesn't work, all the teams used the same device, so it's fair.

[Warmwater]

At first glance it seems that Riccardo was innocent of the problem and his podium finish should not have been denied him, and only the team should have been penalized.
BUT... if you consider that the TEAM is all inclusive, everyone on the team is equally responsible for all results, the driver is also equally responsible whether he is aware of all the facts or not. Apparently the driver was not told that his fuel rate was too high, and it should be the responsibility of the TEAM management to ensure that all members of the TEAM are aware of any potential problems.
Apparently Red Bull management does not share information with all members of the TEAM; with the resultant complications. Other teams probably have the same mind-set, perhaps drivers (and other team members) should insist on information equality, and if the team management is reluctant to do so, maybe they should strengthen their employee's loyalty commitments.
Or am I living on a different planet....

[lkjohnson1950]

How IS the weather on Mars ? 

[Vince]

I read somewhere prior to the race that 'there were to be no excuses' when it came to fuel-flow and fuel used, etc... I have tried to look at this objectively but must admit that when push comes to shove, the rules were broken by Red Bull and they have to pay the penalty. If it should be decided that they have a point and the points are re-awarded, I believe that a can of worms will have been opened with other so called 'rules' imposed by the FIA being called into question...

How IS the weather on Mars ? 

Oh yeah - I would say Fair to Middlin'... We've had a bit of a dry spell recently though..   

[cosworth151]

Wait until well after the race broadcast is over to change the podium over some glitchy little sensor. Now there's a great way to attract & keep new fans. 

[Scott]

I think the fans will understand a technical penalty or DQ, just like in any series.  What should be explained more clearly is RBR's side.  If they can prove that their readings are more accurate, and with what sort of tech they measured it, then the fans can agree or disagree (as well of course can the FIA). 

But don't forget, according to RBR, different teams were getting different readings - and I guess that's where their defence lies.  We'll see...

[cosworth151]

I've been a fan for over half a century. I don't understand why they even have a stinking fuel use rule, especially when they apparently don't even have dependable equipment to monitor it.

[Jericoke]

I've been a fan for over half a century. I don't understand why they even have a stinking fuel use rule, especially when they apparently don't even have dependable equipment to monitor it.

I was thinking the same thing.  There's a limit of 100kg of fuel.  The race is about 90 minutes long... obviously a car can't sustain 100kg/h of fuel use.

But the 'reasoning' here is that a car could go with maximum fuel flow for say 10 laps and build a large lead, then coast to the finish.  As a fan, I'd rather see the cars going about the same speed the entire time instead of going through 'fast/slow' phases to manage fuel.

[Scott]

There's also a rev limit, and most of the cars are on it.  I would think anyone with a large lead will get it through aero, or driver skill, not extra fuel flow.

[Jericoke]

There's also a rev limit, and most of the cars are on it.  I would think anyone with a large lead will get it through aero, or driver skill, not extra fuel flow.

Aero, brakes, tires, ers, driver skill... all ultimately serve to keep the car at the rev limiter as long as possible.  Same thing with fuel flow.  More fuel means more revs faster.  It might only be 1/10 of a second per corner, but that adds up quickly over an entire lap.

I would assume this rule is in the spirit of the 'restrictor plate' rules that NASCAR has to keep cars bunched up.

[lkjohnson1950]

NASCAR's plate rule isn't to bunch the cars, it's to keep them under 200mph at the big tracks. It's the aero rules that keep them bunched. Someone at the FIA got scared that F1 would be banned in some places because it wastes gas (Petrol) and pollutes, so the FIA decided the cars should be more efficient. At the same time, they hoped to lure in more manufacturers by using a smaller, turbo-charged and more relevant engine. BAH!! Either give them a displacement or a fuel limit and let them have at it. And NASCAR would have let the results stand and taken points from the team and driver as a penalty or maybe suspended them from the next race. DQs are extremely rare in NASCAR.

[J.Clark]

Rules have a purpose - keep the playing field level.

At issue is the simple fact that Red Bull chose to ignore them, claiming they were able to more accurately discern the true fuel flow.  If allowed, it would mean that all teams could ignore the rules on the same basis. 

Red Bull would have been wise to dial it back, as the other teams did, and argue their case following the race.  They could likely have even engaged the other teams as co-defendants.  As it stands now, they have isolated themselves and none of the other teams are going to go with Red Bull when appealing to the FIA.

The implication here is that a team could simply pick and choose which rules it believed relevant.  What other rules would be deemed irrelevant by any of the teams?

[cosworth151]

It's just the latest example of why the FIA needs to be removed from motorsport as quickly as possible. It serves absolutely no good purpose whatsoever. It's merely an albatross of bureaucracy dragging everything down.