Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Pit Lane. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Daniel Ricciardo Dq'ed
Topic Started: Mar 16 2014, 03:55 PM (1,324 Views)
Rob
Member Avatar

Admin
The stewards determined he had exceeded the maximum allowed fuel rate.

Of course Red Bull is appealing, with Horner adding "if this had happened to any other team we would of course support the FIA 100%."

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
P1
Chief Engineer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Wow - That would put both Kevin and Button on the podium for McLaren, while that team had not a single finish on the podium in 2013.

I understand that the FIA determined after the race that Ricciardo's car had consistently surpassed the 100kg/h fuel flow limit set in the new regulations for 2014.

Red Bull will clearly appeal as there have been observed inconsistencies with the FIA fuel flow meter by several teams during this weekend. Now I do not know how RedBull/Renault are to prove their defence after the fact, but sure they will insist the engine (and fuel flow) were in full compliance with the regulations. Guess they will have to demonstrate the flow meter on Ricciardo's car is measuring wrong? <think>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheCompleteGuitarist
Driver
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
P1,Mar 16 2014
04:52 PM
Guess they will have to demonstrate the flow meter on Ricciardo's car is measuring wrong? <think>

Or prove that it was wrong . . . masters of evasion, they'll manage it lolt

Actually on a more serious note, I have been reading that the fuel rate is determined by the engine and engine supplier and not by car design.

If it was genuinely illegal is that an by accident or by intent? Or can it be both?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
P1
Chief Engineer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
TheCompleteGuitarist,Mar 16 2014
07:20 PM
P1,Mar 16 2014
04:52 PM
Guess they will have to demonstrate the flow meter on Ricciardo's car is measuring wrong? <think>

Or prove that it was wrong . . . masters of evasion, they'll manage it lolt

Actually on a more serious note, I have been reading that the fuel rate is determined by the engine and engine supplier and not by car design.

If it was genuinely illegal is that an by accident or by intent? Or can it be both?

It could in principle be both. Think the control meter is specific from Gill Sensors and homologated by the FIA for F1 usage, so the teams know how they are being measured.

But latest statements from FIA are clear that Red Bull ignored to follow regulations and very direct instructions to still stay compliant despite first observed in breach. And there is no pardon for such acts:

1) The Technical Delegate reported to the Stewards that Car 3 exceeded the required fuel mass flow of 100kg/h. (Article 5.1.4 of the Formula One Technical Regulations)

2) This parameter is outside of the control of the driver, Daniel Ricciardo.

3) The fuel flow is measured using the fuel flow sensor (Art. 5.10.3 & 5.10.4 of the Technical Regulations) which is homologated by the FIA and owned and operated by the team.

4) The stewards considered the history of the fitted fuel flow sensor, as described by the team and the Technical Delegate’s representative who administers the program. Their description of the history of the sensor matches.

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.

b. The team used a different sensor on Saturday but did not get readings that were satisfactory to them or the FIA, so they were instructed to change the sensor within Parc Ferme on Saturday night.

c. They operated the original sensor during the race, which provided the same readings as Run 4 of Practice 1, and Practice 2.

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.

6) The technical representative stated to the Stewards that there is variation in the sensors. However, the sensors fall within a known range, and are individually calibrated. They then become the standard which the teams must use for their fuel flow.

7) The team stated that based on the difference observed between the two readings in P1, they considered the fuel flow sensor to be unreliable. Therefore, for the start of the race they chose to use their internal fuel flow model, rather than the values provided by the sensor, with the required offset.

8) Technical Directive 016­14 (1 March 2014) provides the methodology by which the sensor will be used, and, should the sensor fail, the method by which the alternate model could be used.

a. The Technical Directive starts by stating: “The homologated fuel flow sensor will be the primary measurement of the fuel flow and will be used to check compliance with Articles 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 of the F1 Technical Regulations…” This is in conformity with Articles 5.10.3 and 5.10.4 of the Technical Regulations.

b. The Technical Directive goes on to state: “If at any time WE consider that the sensor has an issue which has not been detected by the system WE will communicate this to the team concerned and switch to a backup system” (emphasis added.)

c. The backup system is the calculated fuel flow model with a correction factor decided by the FIA.

9) 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.

10) 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. Thus the Stewards find that:

A) The team chose to run the car using their fuel flow model, without direction from the FIA. This is a violation of the procedure within TD/ 016­14.

B) That although the sensor showed a difference in readings between runs in P1, it remains the homologated and required sensor against which the team is obliged to measure their fuel flow, unless given permission by the FIA to do otherwise.

C) The Stewards were satisfied by the explanation of the technical representative that by making an adjustment as instructed, the team could have run within the allowable fuel flow.

D) That regardless of the team’s assertion that the sensor was fault, it is not within their discretion to run a different fuel flow measurement method without the permission of the FIA.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lex
Member Avatar
Driver
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
RBR don't have a leg to stand on!

Horner will be an able replacement for Ecclescake in his rule bending ways...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheCompleteGuitarist
Driver
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
yes, i also read on a couple of different sites that RBR were asked to make changes and they didn't.

Shot themselves in the foot. Can't see how they'll win that appeal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rob
Member Avatar

Admin
Steve Matchett summed it up on twitter pretty well:A simple analogy would be disagreeing with the utility company over the volume of water used if your DIY meter differed from the company's.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
u4coffee
Member Avatar
Just Married
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I think this is the key part of the ruling and can't see how Red Bull can appeal their way out of it (though won't be surprised if they manage it)

Quote:
 
10) 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. Thus the Stewards find that:

A) The team chose to run the car using their fuel flow model, without direction from the FIA. This is a violation of the procedure within TD/ 016­14.

B) That although the sensor showed a difference in readings between runs in P1, it remains the homologated and required sensor against which the team is obliged to measure their fuel flow, unless given permission by the FIA to do otherwise.

C) The Stewards were satisfied by the explanation of the technical representative that by making an adjustment as instructed, the team could have run within the allowable fuel flow.

D) That regardless of the team’s assertion that the sensor was fault, it is not within their discretion to run a different fuel flow measurement method without the permission of the FIA.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Norbert
Member Avatar

Admin
Do the FIA not have a master test rig? Quite a simple solution really. Have a calibrated test rig that is able to produce a fuel flow between the minimum rate the engine can use, and the 100KG/h limit. Stick Red Bull's own fuel flow sensor on that and see what the output it give is in relation to the master reading. Then stick the suspected FIA units on and see what they read. Surely it's no different from asking to see the calibration papers is you get done by a copper with a speed gun? The only difference is that Red Bull are claiming the police have effectively falsified the calibration documents, and the copper offered to let them off of speeding if they slowed down!

Next we'll hear the engine needs to have more than a 100KG/h flow at times for 'reliability', just like the illegal maps they were allowed to use for the same alleged purpose a couple of years ago, when in reality it was to blow the diffuser! What engine needs 50% throttle when you are on the brakes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
u4coffee
Member Avatar
Just Married
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Anyone know how long the appeal will take?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
P1
Chief Engineer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
u4coffee,Mar 17 2014
01:18 PM
Anyone know how long the appeal will take?

Closure is expected before next race in 2 weeks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
P1
Chief Engineer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Norbert,Mar 17 2014
11:39 AM
Do the FIA not have a master test rig? Quite a simple solution really. Have a calibrated test rig that is able to produce a fuel flow between the minimum rate the engine can use, and the 100KG/h limit. Stick Red Bull's own fuel flow sensor on that and see what the output it give is in relation to the master reading. Then stick the suspected FIA units on and see what they read.

As far as I understand, that is exactly what the FIA technician did in the multiple visits to the RB garage during the race weekend. Reason why he gave precise instructions to the RB team on calibration results and correct settings of the flow meter. Despite repeated visits and instruction on proper calibration settings, RB went their own way.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
u4coffee
Member Avatar
Just Married
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
P1,Mar 17 2014
12:43 PM
u4coffee,Mar 17 2014
01:18 PM
Anyone know how long the appeal will take?

Closure is expected before next race in 2 weeks.

Cheers <thumbsup>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rob
Member Avatar

Admin
P1,Mar 17 2014
07:43 AM
u4coffee,Mar 17 2014
01:18 PM
Anyone know how long the appeal will take?

Closure is expected before next race in 2 weeks.

Good, I was fearing a long drawn out process where we wouldn't know the results until after Monaco.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
P1
Chief Engineer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
More news coming out today on subject. Some other F1 teams shared Red Bulls doubts on sensor but followed FIA instructions. Think I saw some calculations where the increased fuel flow on Ricciardo's RedBull was equal to something like 8HP or so.

Other teams had notified FIA about what they considered minor discrepancies between the sensor's rate and what their own fuel-flow estimation was. But clarifications by the FIA (earlier this month to all teams!) made it clear that the fuel-flow rate being produced by the sensor would be the one that determined conformity with the regulations. No other team went down the Red Bull route and deliberately ignored the sensor reading.

Instead, the teams have accepted that when they are alerted to the possibility the sensor could exceed the 100kg per hour rate at peak flow, irrespective of what their own data says, they have to peg back their rate slightly to ensure there is no breach of the rules. The winding back is minor but has become an accepted part of understanding the new fuel efficiency formula.

Red Bull did not trust the readings from the sensor on Ricciardo's car, however, and furthermore ignored advice from the FIA to turn down its flow rate in the race.

Sensor supplier Gill Sensors claims that 52 per cent of its meters are within a 0.1 per cent accuracy reading, with 92 per cent within 0.25 per cent. On top they are calibrated before usage.

Domenicali F1 Ferrari: 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. We have the FIA that will do their job and I am sure there will not be a problem at all.

Wolff Mercedes: I think it is just all the systems have to work together. The FIA is obviously controlling fuel flow and checking with all the teams, and it is a question of learning by doing it between the FIA and the teams. The fuel-flow meter is an FIA system, and this needs to be integrated in the cars. This is a learning process where the teams support the FIA and vice versa.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Formula 1 · Next Topic »
Add Reply