planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:51 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 11:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21134
http://grandprix247.com/2014/03/28/red-bulls-fuel-flow-problems-resurface-during-sepang-free-practice/

I can't imagine how one sensor can cost $26,000. Is it made of platinum?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21134
the two sides of the coin:

Quote:
The nub of the problem, Whiting observed, is that the rules state that if there is a problem with a sensor teams have to use a back up solution which has been calibrated against a known sensor. Red Bull did not do this, whatever the accuracy they may claim for their own system, it had not been calibrated against a known sensor in a controlled environment. This will be central to the FIA’s case at appeal.

Horner said that the fuel rail, which they used to measure the flow in the race, had been sealed after the race, taken back to Renault’s base in Paris and tested with observers present and had given the same reading as in the race in Melbourne. This will form the nub of their case at the appeal; that they did not break the rules of 100kg/hour at any time in the race.
Full article here


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 12:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 11:12 am
Posts: 355
Mr Horner really isn't a happy bunny.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113133

Yet more headaches for everyone really - if Horner is right. Although I do find it funny that Red Bull are the ones who seem to be making a big song and dance about this and the other teams aren't. I mean if STR and Force India are having issues then why are they not shouting about it. I certainly can't imagine teams like Ferrari and McLaren keeping quiet if they thought they were being held back by a piece of "faulty/defective/inaccurate/immature" FIA monitoring equipment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5953
Location: Nebraska, USA
hittheapex wrote:
If other teams are indeed buying hundreds of sensors, only to select a few each time, that does raise more doubts in my opinion about whether every team is running to the same limited fuel flow. There may be a good reason for why they are buying so many at once that has nothing to do with finding a competitive edge, but the more that comes out regarding the sensors, the worse it looks from where I'm sitting.


If they are buying "hundreds" at $26,000 each calibrated, that is some serious cash drain!

26,000 x 100 = 2,600,000

2,600 x (?) (in order to make it hundreds not just 100) = at least 6,200,000


I am guessing that teams are not buying 100s at a time in order to find one that works
;)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 1:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 1841
Blake wrote:
hittheapex wrote:
If other teams are indeed buying hundreds of sensors, only to select a few each time, that does raise more doubts in my opinion about whether every team is running to the same limited fuel flow. There may be a good reason for why they are buying so many at once that has nothing to do with finding a competitive edge, but the more that comes out regarding the sensors, the worse it looks from where I'm sitting.


If they are buying "hundreds" at $26,000 each calibrated, that is some serious cash drain!

26,000 x 100 = 2,600,000

2,600 x (?) (in order to make it hundreds not just 100) = at least 6,200,000


I am guessing that teams are not buying 100s at a time in order to find one that works
;)


Haven't Red Bull bought 5? Like you say - definitely not hundreds!

_________________
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:32 am
Posts: 2303
Since I posted that it's turned out that-unfortunately common now-a news site that has a print publication that is generally held in high regard, didn't just omit a quote, but actually changed it. That was bad enough before the cost of $26,000 a pop emerges...please disregard my previous post, the figures are wholly incorrect. Although, even if teams are buying several at a time, I still think that doesn't look good, even if it's not quite as bad as buying hundreds at a time!

_________________
"Jean Alesi is using the Maginot Line policy-You shall not pass!"-Murray Walker


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6529
Zoue wrote:
Prema wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Prema wrote:
dizlexik wrote:
If sensor is faulty it won't be homologated ever again. What happens later is FIA issue, but we know they have some backup solution too in case sensor fails. Red Bull just want to show that the FIA sensor is wrong.


Besides that, the main point is that the breach of the said Article 5.2.5 of the Technical Directives was not even mentioned in the FIA's official statement. Perhaps so as it falls under: "5.2 Other means of propulsion and energy recovery" and the sensors spoken about in that section apparently refer to some other kinds of sensors and not the fuel flow measuring sensors. This one is particularly covered under the section "5.10 Fuel systems" under 5.10.3, 4 and 5, the breach of these being listed in the FIA's statement. And RB's claim is that they were not in the breach of these mentioned Articles, which even might be so.

As already mentioned, it is covered under conditions of eligibility in 3.2 of the Sporting Regs


What exactly "it" is covered under 3.2 of the Sporting Regs? And mentioned exactly where?

It's a catch-all phrase "must comply with conditions of eligibility...throughout practice and the race."


One could confortably drive an oil tanker through such a "catch-all" phrase itself.

I hope you understand that the "catch-all phrase" is quite useless unless followed by the clear specification of what particular article of the Regulation it does refer to. Otherwise, it is meaningless. It would be like declaring "RB was disqualified because they didn't comply with conditions of eligibility". Right. No questions asked (and, oh yes, and 'thou shalt not sin'… another one of those "catch-all phrases").


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6529
Zoue wrote:
the two sides of the coin:

Quote:
The nub of the problem, Whiting observed, is that the rules state that if there is a problem with a sensor teams have to use a back up solution which has been calibrated against a known sensor. Red Bull did not do this, whatever the accuracy they may claim for their own system, it had not been calibrated against a known sensor in a controlled environment. This will be central to the FIA’s case at appeal.

Horner said that the fuel rail, which they used to measure the flow in the race, had been sealed after the race, taken back to Renault’s base in Paris and tested with observers present and had given the same reading as in the race in Melbourne. This will form the nub of their case at the appeal; that they did not break the rules of 100kg/hour at any time in the race.
Full article here



As fas as the above differences in what is being perceived as the nub of the problem, the FIA seems to be shifting the focus from that what appeared to be the nub of their official statement as the ground reason for DQ, that: "Car 3 was not in compliance with Article 5.1.4 of the FIA Formula One Technical Regulations". Instead, the FIA's nub of the problem at this point of time seems to be the noncompliance with the Technical Directives (that RB considers non-regulative). While RB's nub of the problem remains same: The car was in compliance with Article 5.1.4.

The impression being that FIA is somewhat backing, they seem not to be as sure as RB regarding the actuality of the breach of the fuel flow limits of 100 kg/hour.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21134
Prema wrote:
One could confortably drive an oil tanker through such a "catch-all" phrase itself.

I hope you understand that the "catch-all phrase" is quite useless unless followed by the clear specification of what particular article of the Regulation it does refer to. Otherwise, it is meaningless. It would be like declaring "RB was disqualified because they didn't comply with conditions of eligibility". Right. No questions asked (and, oh yes, and 'thou shalt not sin'… another one of those "catch-all phrases").
You may be right. I'm not a lawyer, but from a layman's perspective if that clause has no validity I'd have to wonder why it's even there in the first place? I know the FIA shoot themselves in the foot more often than not but that seems a fairly basic legal error even so


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21134
Prema wrote:
Zoue wrote:
the two sides of the coin:

Quote:
The nub of the problem, Whiting observed, is that the rules state that if there is a problem with a sensor teams have to use a back up solution which has been calibrated against a known sensor. Red Bull did not do this, whatever the accuracy they may claim for their own system, it had not been calibrated against a known sensor in a controlled environment. This will be central to the FIA’s case at appeal.

Horner said that the fuel rail, which they used to measure the flow in the race, had been sealed after the race, taken back to Renault’s base in Paris and tested with observers present and had given the same reading as in the race in Melbourne. This will form the nub of their case at the appeal; that they did not break the rules of 100kg/hour at any time in the race.
Full article here



As fas as the above differences in what is being perceived as the nub of the problem, the FIA seems to be shifting the focus from that what appeared to be the nub of their official statement as the ground reason for DQ, that: "Car 3 was not in compliance with Article 5.1.4 of the FIA Formula One Technical Regulations". Instead, the FIA's nub of the problem at this point of time seems to be the noncompliance with the Technical Directives (that RB considers non-regulative). While RB's nub of the problem remains same: The car was in compliance with Article 5.1.4.

The impression being that FIA is somewhat backing, they seem not to be as sure as RB regarding the actuality of the breach of the fuel flow limits of 100 kg/hour.

Bear in mind that the above quotes were extracts of a conversation with an engineer, not a formal submission to the courts. It needn't show a change in the FIA's position at all. It's just explaining one aspect of their dispute regarding the readings which are consistent with them saying that RBR didn't conform to official policy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 3:53 pm
Posts: 617
Location: Masku
What I find strange is that RB let everyone know what their defence is going to be before the hearing even starts.

_________________
2011 Winner of PF1's pick 10 competition.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:44 am
Posts: 287
Razoola wrote:
What I find strange is that RB let everyone know what their defence is going to be before the hearing even starts.


That is often sensible and sometimes even mandatory. It means all parties bring all the info they need. If one side doesn't know what is happening, they can say they don't have 'parity of arms' and adjourn to a later date when they have armed themselves fully.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 6:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6529
Zoue wrote:
Prema wrote:
One could confortably drive an oil tanker through such a "catch-all" phrase itself.

I hope you understand that the "catch-all phrase" is quite useless unless followed by the clear specification of what particular article of the Regulation it does refer to. Otherwise, it is meaningless. It would be like declaring "RB was disqualified because they didn't comply with conditions of eligibility". Right. No questions asked (and, oh yes, and 'thou shalt not sin'… another one of those "catch-all phrases").
You may be right. I'm not a lawyer, but from a layman's perspective if that clause has no validity I'd have to wonder why it's even there in the first place? I know the FIA shoot themselves in the foot more often than not but that seems a fairly basic legal error even so


I am obviusly a far cry from being any kind of a lawyer, but I can understand that 3.2 is a kind of a general "catch-all phrase" that can't stand alone.

In the Sporting Regulations, the Article 3.2 comes in the section "3 General Conditions". And if you read it, you will find that it does not specify just anything. There could be hundreds of different reasons that that Article 3.2 is said to be breached, that the car did not "comply with the conditions of eligibility and safety throughout practice and the race." Which one? You don't know. Nobody knows. Unless specified. That is why FIA did specify that in their statement under 'reasons': Art. 5.10.3 & 5.10.4 of the Technical Regulations (and not perhaps some others like the one you quoted, 5.2.5). Without that specification, it would be meaningless to mention it - it would be a "catch-all" phrase that catches nothing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6529
Zoue wrote:
Prema wrote:
Zoue wrote:
the two sides of the coin:

Quote:
The nub of the problem, Whiting observed, is that the rules state that if there is a problem with a sensor teams have to use a back up solution which has been calibrated against a known sensor. Red Bull did not do this, whatever the accuracy they may claim for their own system, it had not been calibrated against a known sensor in a controlled environment. This will be central to the FIA’s case at appeal.

Horner said that the fuel rail, which they used to measure the flow in the race, had been sealed after the race, taken back to Renault’s base in Paris and tested with observers present and had given the same reading as in the race in Melbourne. This will form the nub of their case at the appeal; that they did not break the rules of 100kg/hour at any time in the race.
Full article here



As fas as the above differences in what is being perceived as the nub of the problem, the FIA seems to be shifting the focus from that what appeared to be the nub of their official statement as the ground reason for DQ, that: "Car 3 was not in compliance with Article 5.1.4 of the FIA Formula One Technical Regulations". Instead, the FIA's nub of the problem at this point of time seems to be the noncompliance with the Technical Directives (that RB considers non-regulative). While RB's nub of the problem remains same: The car was in compliance with Article 5.1.4.

The impression being that FIA is somewhat backing, they seem not to be as sure as RB regarding the actuality of the breach of the fuel flow limits of 100 kg/hour.

Bear in mind that the above quotes were extracts of a conversation with an engineer, not a formal submission to the courts. It needn't show a change in the FIA's position at all. It's just explaining one aspect of their dispute regarding the readings which are consistent with them saying that RBR didn't conform to official policy.


I simply commented on the above presented quotes and what there is being perceived as the nub of problem, and what impression I am getting out of that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6529
Horner being too political in the middle of this twist with the FIA. A below-belt kick attempt, IMO:

"I think it's not great for the fans," he said. "An Australian driver finishes on the podium for his home race, he collects the trophy, the fans all leave the circuit beleieving that the home boy has done well, and then five and a half hours later the result changes... that's confusing."

http://www.pitpass.com/51174/Fuel-flow-row-rumbles-on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5953
Location: Nebraska, USA
I agree, and it is a bit disingenuous as well, Prema... as it was his own team's conscious decision push the FIA into the disqualification. At least his driver did get the celebration, the adulation and the trophy.... a bit awkward if the team's actions were the primary reason he was there.

I notice however, that Horner failed to make mention of the driver and the fans of the driver (Button) who did not get to celebrate on the podium and did not get his trophy in front of the fans, assuming that the DQ is sustained. One set of fans were confused, another set angry. You are right, Horner, it is not great for the fans.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 1:50 am
Posts: 1042
Prema wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Prema wrote:
One could confortably drive an oil tanker through such a "catch-all" phrase itself.

I hope you understand that the "catch-all phrase" is quite useless unless followed by the clear specification of what particular article of the Regulation it does refer to. Otherwise, it is meaningless. It would be like declaring "RB was disqualified because they didn't comply with conditions of eligibility". Right. No questions asked (and, oh yes, and 'thou shalt not sin'… another one of those "catch-all phrases").
You may be right. I'm not a lawyer, but from a layman's perspective if that clause has no validity I'd have to wonder why it's even there in the first place? I know the FIA shoot themselves in the foot more often than not but that seems a fairly basic legal error even so


I am obviusly a far cry from being any kind of a lawyer, but I can understand that 3.2 is a kind of a general "catch-all phrase" that can't stand alone.

In the Sporting Regulations, the Article 3.2 comes in the section "3 General Conditions". And if you read it, you will find that it does not specify just anything. There could be hundreds of different reasons that that Article 3.2 is said to be breached, that the car did not "comply with the conditions of eligibility and safety throughout practice and the race." Which one? You don't know. Nobody knows. Unless specified. That is why FIA did specify that in their statement under 'reasons': Art. 5.10.3 & 5.10.4 of the Technical Regulations (and not perhaps some others like the one you quoted, 5.2.5). Without that specification, it would be meaningless to mention it - it would be a "catch-all" phrase that catches nothing.


I don’t think that 3.2 is as all-inclusive as it sounds. It is very broad, don’t get me wrong but it is not limitless. After all, the rule can only be invoked for issues pertaining to: a) conditions of eligibility, or b) conditions of safety.

Now, safety is also a very broad subject matter; there are plenty of references in the Regulations regarding safety but I strongly doubt the stewards had safety in mind when they invoked the rule.

Which means 3.2 was used because the conditions of eligibility of Car 3 (Ricciardo) were questionable. But “eligibility” is not as broad a concept as safety. Matter of fact it's a very limited one. The ONLY references to eligibility in the sporting regulations are made within article 24) SCRUTINEERING.

I can post the rule if necessary but scrutineering (by my understanding of the rule at least) deals only with the compliance of the (stationary) car with the technical regulations and not the potential of this car for infringements. (The controversial Red Bull’s flexi wings are a pretty good example). Or otherwise you could say that if Red Bull was found illegal because the car COULD use more than 100kg/hr fuel, then so should have been found all other cars too.

So 3.2 should not apply in this case (unless it was meant for the safety aspect). There is no scrutineering report at any time during the event that found RBR ineligible. Ricciardo’s car obviously passed:

1. The initial scrutineering (I haven’t found the report but I assume it’s fair to say he did since he was allowed to participate)
2. Friday’s scrutineering (FIA Technical Report - Document No. 13, 14 March 2014, at 19:23).
3. Saturday’s scrutineering (FIA Technical Report - Document No. 39, 15 March 2014, at 21:51
4. Sunday’s Parc Ferme scrutineering (FIA Technical Report - Document No. 46, 16 March 2014, at 15:55) (after they replaced the Fuel Flow meter).
5. Ricciardo’s car was not involved in an accident that may have affected the conditions of eligibility.
6. After the race (FIA Technical Report - Document No. 55, 16 March 2014, at 22:32).

Personally I think that 3.2 was first misquoted ("Under Art. 3.2 of the Sporting Regulations it is the duty of the team to ensure compliance with the Technical Regulations throughout the Event" is not correct and it's actually pathetic considering that the stewards should know the rules by heart or at least have a copy handy) and later misapplied.

Honestly I don’t see why it was even important to invoke it. Rule 5.1.4 is so clear and sufficient I wouldn’t even think about using anything else. “5.1.4: Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.” Period.

BTW, for those that don't see why I call the interpretation of rule 3.2 by the stewards as pathetic, complying with the Technical Regulations throughout the event implies that if you damage your front wing for example so that it hangs lower or moves more than allowed (I'm not much of a technical guy, clearly) then you have to come in and replace it. Complying with conditions of eligibility means that if your front wing was compliant with the technical regulations prior to the race, if you damage it you're still OK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 8:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:31 am
Posts: 5
A lot of words have been spent on this issue in this thread alone. Mark my words, the RBR appeal has 0% chance of success. It just doesn't work that way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 8:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21134
FIA determined not to scrap the sensors:

http://grandprix247.com/2014/03/29/fia-confirm-controversial-fuel-flow-sensors-will-not-be-scrapped/

The claim is that the current engines have the potential to develop 2000BHP if the fuel was unrestricted 8O


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 8:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6529
Machinist wrote:
A lot of words have been spent on this issue in this thread alone. Mark my words, the RBR appeal has 0% chance of success. It just doesn't work that way.


You got 50% chance that your words are 100% right that the RBR appeal has 0% chance of success.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 9:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6933
Location: Belgium
Prema wrote:
Machinist wrote:
A lot of words have been spent on this issue in this thread alone. Mark my words, the RBR appeal has 0% chance of success. It just doesn't work that way.


You got 50% chance that your words are 100% right that the RBR appeal has 0% chance of success.

Prema, you've made my morning! :lol:

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 10:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 2:56 pm
Posts: 379
Fiki wrote:
Prema wrote:
Machinist wrote:
A lot of words have been spent on this issue in this thread alone. Mark my words, the RBR appeal has 0% chance of success. It just doesn't work that way.


You got 50% chance that your words are 100% right that the RBR appeal has 0% chance of success.

Prema, you've made my morning! :lol:


:thumbup:

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition:
Best Result: 2nd Korea (2013)
Best Overall: 67th (2013)
Top Three Overall: 5th (2013)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24140
JonA wrote:
Mr Horner really isn't a happy bunny.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113133

Yet more headaches for everyone really - if Horner is right. Although I do find it funny that Red Bull are the ones who seem to be making a big song and dance about this and the other teams aren't. I mean if STR and Force India are having issues then why are they not shouting about it. I certainly can't imagine teams like Ferrari and McLaren keeping quiet if they thought they were being held back by a piece of "faulty/defective/inaccurate/immature" FIA monitoring equipment.

They are the only team not happy with the sensors and Horner has said that if they are unhappy with the sensor again they will not use it, Horner is also saying they should do away with the 100kg/h rule, it seems that if Red Bull are not happy then they think the rules can be changed to suit them.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24140
Blake wrote:
hittheapex wrote:
If other teams are indeed buying hundreds of sensors, only to select a few each time, that does raise more doubts in my opinion about whether every team is running to the same limited fuel flow. There may be a good reason for why they are buying so many at once that has nothing to do with finding a competitive edge, but the more that comes out regarding the sensors, the worse it looks from where I'm sitting.


If they are buying "hundreds" at $26,000 each calibrated, that is some serious cash drain!

26,000 x 100 = 2,600,000

2,600 x (?) (in order to make it hundreds not just 100) = at least 6,200,000


I am guessing that teams are not buying 100s at a time in order to find one that works
;)

Yes a bit over dramatic, Mercedes are said to have bought 12 of the sensors

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 24140
Prema wrote:
Zoue wrote:
the two sides of the coin:

Quote:
The nub of the problem, Whiting observed, is that the rules state that if there is a problem with a sensor teams have to use a back up solution which has been calibrated against a known sensor. Red Bull did not do this, whatever the accuracy they may claim for their own system, it had not been calibrated against a known sensor in a controlled environment. This will be central to the FIA’s case at appeal.

Horner said that the fuel rail, which they used to measure the flow in the race, had been sealed after the race, taken back to Renault’s base in Paris and tested with observers present and had given the same reading as in the race in Melbourne. This will form the nub of their case at the appeal; that they did not break the rules of 100kg/hour at any time in the race.
Full article here



As fas as the above differences in what is being perceived as the nub of the problem, the FIA seems to be shifting the focus from that what appeared to be the nub of their official statement as the ground reason for DQ, that: "Car 3 was not in compliance with Article 5.1.4 of the FIA Formula One Technical Regulations". Instead, the FIA's nub of the problem at this point of time seems to be the noncompliance with the Technical Directives (that RB considers non-regulative). While RB's nub of the problem remains same: The car was in compliance with Article 5.1.4.

The impression being that FIA is somewhat backing, they seem not to be as sure as RB regarding the actuality of the breach of the fuel flow limits of 100 kg/hour.

Well McLaren themselves are quite confident in the result of the appeal they have a space in their trophy cabinet for the 2nd place trophy

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place

Wins: Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 5:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 9:15 am
Posts: 1986
pokerman wrote:
JonA wrote:
Mr Horner really isn't a happy bunny.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113133

Yet more headaches for everyone really - if Horner is right. Although I do find it funny that Red Bull are the ones who seem to be making a big song and dance about this and the other teams aren't. I mean if STR and Force India are having issues then why are they not shouting about it. I certainly can't imagine teams like Ferrari and McLaren keeping quiet if they thought they were being held back by a piece of "faulty/defective/inaccurate/immature" FIA monitoring equipment.

They are the only team not happy with the sensors and Horner has said that if they are unhappy with the sensor again they will not use it, Horner is also saying they should do away with the 100kg/h rule, it seems that if Red Bull are not happy then they think the rules can be changed to suit them.


They are probably the only ones who are making a song and dance about it because having an unlimited fuel flow plays perfect to their whole setup

get pole position in quali, then romp off into the distance in the first few laps on max fuel flow and bhp, then cruise the rest of the laps making sure they cannot be overtaken


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 2:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:55 am
Posts: 120
Has there been a definitive answer yet as to whether or not Red Bull actually used more than 100KG/hr fuel flow?

Forget the technical directives and the sensors for a moment. Did they or did they not break the 100KG/hr rule?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 2:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:04 am
Posts: 1785
PGracer wrote:
Has there been a definitive answer yet as to whether or not Red Bull actually used more than 100KG/hr fuel flow?

Forget the technical directives and the sensors for a moment. Did they or did they not break the 100KG/hr rule?

According to FIA equipment and FIA, they did. That is why the disqualification in the first place.
Redbull claim that they took their rig to Renault and did the tests again and by their observation it did not exceed 100KG/hr.

From what is being explained by FIA and FIA engineers that none of it matters as none of those are calibrated against the FIA sensor which is what all other teams have used.

And FIA has made it clear that technical directives supersedes the technical regulations. That is the whole point of them. Consider them as amendments to the regulations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 7:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 1:50 am
Posts: 1042
funkymonkey wrote:
And FIA has made it clear that technical directives supersedes the technical regulations. That is the whole point of them. Consider them as amendments to the regulations.

Can you show how FIA has made that clear?

I can't believe that a well respected journo said this when he should know better and many people are now running with it because it suits their bias.

F1 Technical Regulations are first reviewed and approved by the Formula One Strategy Group of 18 members (6 teams, 6 FIA and 6 FOM), they are later finally approved by the FIA commission and issued by FIA. They can only be changed and published by end of June and don't come into effect until next year after publication.
Code:
2014 F1 technical regulations:
2.2 Changes to these regulations may only be made in accordance with the provisions of the Code.

Code:
2014 FIA International Sporting Code:
ARTICLE 18.2. AMENDMENTS TO REGULATIONS
The FIA may make such changes as it deems necessary to the regulations.  Such  changes will  be  published  and will  come 
into effect in accordance with the following provisions
18.2.2 Technical design of the Automobile
Changes  to  technical  regulations,  to  Appendix J  or  to Appendix K  adopted by the  FIA, will be published no  later 
than 30 June each year and come into effect no earlier than 1 January of the year following their publication, unless the 
FIA considers that the changes in question are likely to have a substantial impact on the technical design of the Automobile 
and/or  the  balance  of  performance  between  the Automobiles,  in  which  case  they  will  come  into  effect  no 
earlier  than  1  January  of  the second  year  following  their publication.


But hey, FIA has made it clear that technical directives issued by a technical delegate or race director at any time supersede the regulations.

I guess FIA clearly doesn't care about the Sporting Code and the Regulations then.

Out of curiosity, can you please provide a quote or a link or anything to prove that what you claimed was based on something?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 7:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:22 am
Posts: 3846
PGracer wrote:
Has there been a definitive answer yet as to whether or not Red Bull actually used more than 100KG/hr fuel flow?

Forget the technical directives and the sensors for a moment. Did they or did they not break the 100KG/hr rule?

No, we don't know yet. This question will hopefully be answered during the appeal process.

IMO, its not the important question. The important question is whether or not they gained an advantage over the other teams.

Unfortunately, I doubt we'll ever know - but assuming its impossible for the FIA to get the info needed to establish this, we do know that RBR decided to ignore their faulty sensor even though they received warnings during the race telling them they were 'breaking' the limit according to their (admittedly faulty) sensor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 10:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:04 am
Posts: 1785
Greg92 wrote:
funkymonkey wrote:
And FIA has made it clear that technical directives supersedes the technical regulations. That is the whole point of them. Consider them as amendments to the regulations.

Can you show how FIA has made that clear?

I can't believe that a well respected journo said this when he should know better and many people are now running with it because it suits their bias.

F1 Technical Regulations are first reviewed and approved by the Formula One Strategy Group of 18 members (6 teams, 6 FIA and 6 FOM), they are later finally approved by the FIA commission and issued by FIA. They can only be changed and published by end of June and don't come into effect until next year after publication.
Code:
2014 F1 technical regulations:
2.2 Changes to these regulations may only be made in accordance with the provisions of the Code.

Code:
2014 FIA International Sporting Code:
ARTICLE 18.2. AMENDMENTS TO REGULATIONS
The FIA may make such changes as it deems necessary to the regulations.  Such  changes will  be  published  and will  come 
into effect in accordance with the following provisions
18.2.2 Technical design of the Automobile
Changes  to  technical  regulations,  to  Appendix J  or  to Appendix K  adopted by the  FIA, will be published no  later 
than 30 June each year and come into effect no earlier than 1 January of the year following their publication, unless the 
FIA considers that the changes in question are likely to have a substantial impact on the technical design of the Automobile 
and/or  the  balance  of  performance  between  the Automobiles,  in  which  case  they  will  come  into  effect  no 
earlier  than  1  January  of  the second  year  following  their publication.


But hey, FIA has made it clear that technical directives issued by a technical delegate or race director at any time supersede the regulations.

I guess FIA clearly doesn't care about the Sporting Code and the Regulations then.

Out of curiosity, can you please provide a quote or a link or anything to prove that what you claimed was based on something?


Technical directive was not issued by technical delegate on the spot. They were circulated to teams in the beginning of the march and it explained how the technical regulations will be implemented.
So Technical directives explain the method of conforming to the regulation. You cannot ignore them and then argue the case that technically we stuck to the rules.

FIA does not make those documents public unless the need be as that is why this was explained to journalists after the issue came up.
FIA Technical delegate suggested the offset to the sensor to stay within the FIA set fuel flow limit. He did not issue some brand new directive during race weekend.

You have your set of regulations, and how these regulations are implemented is set in black and white through Technical directives. All issued before we even reached the first race.

No rules were changed at any point. THat is why Technical directives come before rules as it explains how the regulations are governed.


Last edited by funkymonkey on Sun Mar 30, 2014 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 10:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:44 am
Posts: 90
The comentator of our local tv said that RB were not using the data of the FIA's sensor for todays race.
I can't find any confirmation. Is it true?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 10:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:44 am
Posts: 90
Sorry. Double post.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 11:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:04 am
Posts: 1785
EyeZ wrote:
The comentator of our local tv said that RB were not using the data of the FIA's sensor for todays race.
I can't find any confirmation. Is it true?


Yes. But they used FIA backup system which tells driver when they are exceeding the fuel flow rate by beeps in his ear. RedBull used that in this race. Not that it would have mattered with Daniel retiring.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 2:47 pm
Posts: 68
Another piece of information (or rumour) that puts a different slant on what, if anything, might be wrong with the sensors.

From grandprix247 translating a report in Auto Motor und Sport:

"But Auto Motor und Sport claims that ’95 per cent’ of all the problems with the sensor up and down pitlane in 2014 have been in Renault-powered cars.

It is suspected that after-market modifications made to the sensor to suit the installation of the Renault ‘power unit’ have been causing the problems.

So the German report said the FIA has reacted by instructing teams that, as from the Spanish Grand Prix in mid May, the sensors must be installed exactly as they are supplied by Gill.

Correspondent Michael Schmidt claims that if the problems persist beyond Barcelona, attention will turn to the fuel being used by the Renault-powered teams.

It is believed that, although sponsored by the Spanish fuel company Cepsa, Renault-powered Toro Rosso actually uses the same fuel as Red Bull and Lotus, supplied by Total."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2014 3:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 5:03 am
Posts: 377
Hmmm.... So Redbull actually listened to the FIA initially, turned their 'fuel flow' down, saw that they lost .4 secs a lap, had an internal meeting, and then turned it back up for the rest of the race totally ignoring the FIA this time around.
AND if anything their graphs did not in fact prove the FIA fuel flow meter was inaccurate.

I think they got off rather lightly with just the bill for the appeal. But as was mentioned in the appeal decision, the fact it was the first race of the new regulations gave them the benefit of the doubt as to not be labelled 'fraudulent'.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Black_Flag_11, Exediron, mikeyg123, RaggedMan, SteveW and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group