GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: John S on March 17, 2014, 08:30:53 PM
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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....
-
How IS the weather on Mars ? :tease:
-
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 ? :tease:
Oh yeah - I would say Fair to Middlin'... We've had a bit of a dry spell recently though..
-
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. :confused:
-
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...
-
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'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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
I love Bernie's take on it...
I find myself on his side. Except the bit about going into the grandstands and asking how many cylinders the cars have. I would say it is more likely the Paddock Club ticket holders haven't a clue. The grandstand fans shelled out a lot of their own money to see the race and are far more likely hard core fans...not like the PC fans, who are there to sip champagne and try to 'be seen'.
http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/307973/ecclestone-fuel-rules-a-bit-of-a-joke/
-
He make a valid point. This isn't supposed to be endurance racing. In fact, the races are notably shorter than they were in the fifties and sixties.
-
I love Bernie's take on it...
I find myself on his side. Except the bit about going into the grandstands and asking how many cylinders the cars have. I would say it is more likely the Paddock Club ticket holders haven't a clue. The grandstand fans shelled out a lot of their own money to see the race and are far more likely hard core fans...not like the PC fans, who are there to sip champagne and try to 'be seen'.
http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/307973/ecclestone-fuel-rules-a-bit-of-a-joke/
I'm going to have to disagree with Bernie here... I thought that F1 was supposed to be about innovation. If they're happy running old engines, why not old cars? Old tires? Why not just hand everyone a copy of the 2003 Ferrari and let them go at it?
I do think the new engine regs are half baked, but I don't think the status quo forbidding innovation was the answer.
-
I agree that the fuel rules are redundant, either regulate the flow or the total allowed. There is no need to do both.
-
I'm going to have to disagree with Bernie here... I thought that F1 was supposed to be about innovation. If they're happy running old engines, why not old cars? Old tires? Why not just hand everyone a copy of the 2003 Ferrari and let them go at it?
I do think the new engine regs are half baked, but I don't think the status quo forbidding innovation was the answer.
Bernie said 'last year's engine'...not comparing anything to 2003. They could have put in regulations in forcing the teams to innovate the engine from last year to make it more efficient instead of creating a completely new one. Wouldn't have cost manufacturers 100's of millions to R&D either (you are a fan of the cost cutting, aren't you Jeri?). I rarely agree with Bernie, but all his points are good in this case.
-
I'm going to have to disagree with Bernie here... I thought that F1 was supposed to be about innovation. If they're happy running old engines, why not old cars? Old tires? Why not just hand everyone a copy of the 2003 Ferrari and let them go at it?
I do think the new engine regs are half baked, but I don't think the status quo forbidding innovation was the answer.
Bernie said 'last year's engine'...not comparing anything to 2003. They could have put in regulations in forcing the teams to innovate the engine from last year to make it more efficient instead of creating a completely new one. Wouldn't have cost manufacturers 100's of millions to R&D either (you are a fan of the cost cutting, aren't you Jeri?). I rarely agree with Bernie, but all his points are good in this case.
I picked 2003 arbitrarily to point out that when you're talking 'high tech', what's the difference between last year or a decade ago? I could just as easily have picked 1959. (I originally put 1996, but since that would be a good year for Villeneuve, I changed it to avoid my bias)
I'm not technically pro cost cutting. I'm just pro 'having a healthy competitive F1, which in the current era requires reigning in the free spenders until their competition can catch up'. I hate that Ferrari and Toyota can't just let their engineers' imaginations run wild, but appreciate that letting that happen would mean we'd ONLY have Ferrari and Toyota left on the grid.
Finally, if people really watch F1 'for the sound'... how can anyone explain that it's a multi billion dollar industry? Whether Bernie is right or wrong on the issue... he's coming dangerously close to pointing out that there's not much difference between F1 and my neighbour's kid's Jetta with a rotted muffler.
-
Let's be clear, however they may sound, the current engines are far more high tech than the ones they replaced. The 4 cam 4 valve V8 may not have reached it's end of cycle, but it is very close. Any further development will be at a very poor cost/benefit ratio. I don't like the fuel rules, this is not the Mobil Economy Run. I wish, as I said, that they had just turned them loose to find whatever solution they could. I'm not a fan of cost cutting per se. I recognise the need to keep the less well funded teams on the grid, but I think the FIA is carrying it to an extreme when Lewis is told he must retire to save the engine.
>:D >:D
-
Here is Horner's reply to the FIA decision. I guess it will have to play out at appeal for them to prove that their calculations and equipment are more accurate than the FIA's.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112968
-
Just because it's different doesn't make it innovative. After all, V6 turbos were available in 1978 Buick LeSabres. They ran at Indy decades ago.
-
Here is Horner's reply to the FIA decision. I guess it will have to play out at appeal for them to prove that their calculations and equipment are more accurate than the FIA's.
Red Bull can argue accuracy until the cows come home, the real reason for the DQ is that they didn't obey the rules that are set by the governing body. All the other teams stuck to the rules even if this meant compromising their own situations. You can't just disobey rules because you think your solution is better. :nono:
What next Red bull turning up with last year's car on the grounds that they know the new engines don't perform as well as last year's :D
For me this is a plain and simple, a red card for saying bo**ocks to the ref, so a sending off offence.
For the record the FIA is the rule maker and ultimate owner of the F1 format, they were forced by the European Union to split up the governance from the commercial side of F1. This inevitably leads to rules and restrictions that may appear to be against the commercial interest of some parties in the sport. The FIA can take decisions as they see fit to further competition and keep reasonable equality amongst the participants. It's hard to see how Bernie's FOM could possibly be trusted to apply rules fairly; let alone write any sensibly for the whole grid. ::)
-
I don't think they'll have much chance either, but maybe they have a case to just get rid of the meter entirely...as it's been said, controlling fuel levels and flow is a bit redundant.
-
RBR were showing a ridiculous level of arroagnce by ignoring the FIA advice. It was the first race and they were in a strong position. Even if turning their fuel rate down had resulted in Riciardo losing a place or two (which I doubt) they should have complied with the rules and argued later. I think there is zero chance of the FIA reversing the decision so RBR have cheated Riciardo of some well earned points.
-
Exactly, totally agree. Perhaps though, RB did it on purpose to create a scenario early in the season where they could challenge the sensor hoping to be rid of it. :DntKnw: :DntKnw:
-
Here is Horner's reply to the FIA decision. I guess it will have to play out at appeal for them to prove that their calculations and equipment are more accurate than the FIA's.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112968
The problem is that RBR put so much stock in the FIA's measurements when it came to their flexible front wing. The FIA merely needs to cite that to show that their measurements are the final word on legality.
-
The merits of the fuel rule are open to debate, but so far as I can discern, Red Bull broke the rules, and don't have a leg to stand out. I expect the appeal to go against them. Very few appeals against the FIA are successful, so history is not on Red Bull's side.
-
It's hard to fathom Red Bull's logic in doing what they've done. Even if they are certain about the fuel flow readings etc, ignoring the technical directive during the race is a bizarre way to start their 2014 campaign.
There are three ways it can go:
1. The FIA agrees with Red Bull and reinstates Ricciardo's P2. All hell breaks loose with the other teams, the whole race result is thrown into disrepute and the season is tainted from the first weekend. Unlikely but possible.
2. Red Bull's flow-rate figures are shown to be wrong. Unlikely.
3. The FIA doesn't agree or disagree with Red Bull's flow-rate figures, but rules against them because they ignored a technical directive, which although isn't law, should have been followed. This one could get messy, but it's the more likely of the three to me.
Either way, Red Bull's decision is a complete PR disaster, coming when their stock amongst fans has never been lower. If they'd followed the directive they would have made 3rd? 4th? Ok not so bad, first race of the season and all that. Worth losing a few points so as not to cause mayhem for the team and possibly everyone else, fans included.
Whichever way it goes they'll come out looking bad - fools.
-
So true. I can't understand it either. It's as if they were surprised that he would be DQ'd. We all were, but we didn't have the luxury of hearing the race control to RBR communications during the race - and had we, perhaps we would have seen it coming. Ignoring race control during a race is always going to go bad. Lawyering up is just a waste of time.
-
I would agree with Vintly.
If a team ignores Race Control, for whatever reason, right or wrong becomes irrelevant. Red Bull will lose, as they should.
They may not even have gained an advantage. It is possible that had they followed what was dictated by Race Control, they would still have ended up with the same result. If that had not been the result, one must consider that, as I stated earlier, rule level the playing field for all and since all other teams were in compliance, Red Bull took advantage by disregarding the directive.
It does not bode well for their championship hopes.
-
I think that over the years, many of the teams can admit to becoming somewhat arrogant as they become more successful. Ferrari and McLaren have both certainly been there, possibly Williams during the Mansell/Hill years... Red Bull are now the team who believe that they are 'above the law' and better than the FIA.
If they had a genuine grievance about this system, it should have been aired publicly before the race. At least they would then have had the opportunity to say 'we told you so' following confirmation that the FIA fuel flow measuring system proves to be inaccurate.
For the record - I don't have a problem with Red Bull nor with their argument. I just think that they've done this all a**e about face...
In my opinion, the Australian fans and Ricciardo in particular are the real victims.