Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 6 votes

Daniel Ricciardo disqualified from Australian GP [split] UPDATED


  • Please log in to reply
2749 replies to this topic

#2701 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 5,725 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 April 2014 - 19:29

Maybe it did not 'convince the court' because Red Bull appears to have 'cherry picked' the info they presented to the court - as I read it they showed graphs of some of the sensor reading they used to compute their fuel flow to support their case, but omitted other factors.

I think the decision of the court now makes that TD at least have the same value as the TRs - a bit like 'case law' in English courts.

They lost - so get over it!

Advertisement

#2702 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,836 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 18 April 2014 - 21:32

Maybe it did not 'convince the court' because Red Bull appears to have 'cherry picked' the info they presented to the court - as I read it they showed graphs of some of the sensor reading they used to compute their fuel flow to support their case, but omitted other factors.

I think the decision of the court now makes that TD at least have the same value as the TRs - a bit like 'case law' in English courts.

They lost - so get over it!

 

Flag (If I may call you that way): do you think that the FIA would have reacted so lenient as they have done, if they would have gotten the impression that Red Bull had cherry picked evidence, meaning: that they withheld information from the tribunal and thus have not given a truthfull and full testimony?

 

I think Red Bull has been truthfull in the testimony, because I think their action in Melbourne and the subsequent appeal had little to do with 'cheating'. They were testing the FIA, they were testing the regulations... Something like: nothing ventured, nothing gained. If they would have won the appeal, the FIA would have nuked their own regulations...



#2703 Henrik B

Henrik B
  • Member

  • 2,861 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 18 April 2014 - 22:52

I think the decision of the court now makes that TD at least have the same value as the TRs - a bit like 'case law' in English courts.


I cant agree there - my interpretation of the statements are that TD:s are possible to challenge, if you have a good case. It also depends on the TD in question - in this specific case the TD was guidelines for how the teams could satisfy the technical delegate. The relevant paras:

"41. According to the clear wording of Article 2.7 TR, the burden of proof as to a car’s compliance with the TR is borne by the competitor and not by the FIA.
42. In that perspective, the Court finds that if the TD are not legally binding per se, the issuance of TD 031-13 and TD/016-14 must be understood in the context of Article 2.7 TR, and must also take into account the need for the competitors to know how they can satisfy their obligations towards the FIA Technical Delegates and the stewards of the meeting as to the proof that their car is compliant with the TR.
43. As Article 2.7 TR provides that any competitor must, at any time, be able to prove that his car is compliant with the TR, a competitor who follows the procedures set out in TD/016-14 and TD/031-13 will obviously have satisfied the FIA Technical Delegate that his car does comply with the regulations as set out in Articles 5.14 and 5.15 of the F 1 SR, assuming, of course, that the measurements indicated by the sensor homologated by the FIA or the back-up system with the correction factor did not show that the car exceeded the limit set in that article.
44. If a competitor decides not to follow the TD, he has to accept the risk that the evidence he intends to bring as an alternative to that foreseen by the TD will not satisfy the Technical Delegate, the Stewards or, should the matter come before it, the International Court of Appeal."

You play safe by sticking to what the TD:s say, but you MAY get away with other interpretations if you think you have a really strong case and you have to be prepared to fight. Red Bull obviously didn't have a strong case - there really is nothing substantial in their testimony and evidence. - I think they panicked a bit during the race and were banking on more teams having trouble with the FFR and not trusting their sensor, forcing FIA to show leniency.

#2704 LoudHoward

LoudHoward
  • Member

  • 2,014 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 19 April 2014 - 04:27

As expected *cough*, the court was totally open to overturning the appeal if RBR could prove they didn't go over the limit, obviously they couldn't to a satisfactory level (and the reg is there that says you really need a physical measurement of some sort) so they lost - but the opening is definitely there.



#2705 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 11,785 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 April 2014 - 05:02

Horner on RTL during FP3, when asked about the appeal:

We thought that we had a good case, and the court also ruled that we didn't really break the rules, but that there are problems with the sensors.



#2706 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 5,725 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 April 2014 - 07:08

Flag (If I may call you that way): do you think that the FIA would have reacted so lenient as they have done, if they would have gotten the impression that Red Bull had cherry picked evidence, meaning: that they withheld information from the tribunal and thus have not given a truthfull and full testimony?
 
I think Red Bull has been truthfull in the testimony, because I think their action in Melbourne and the subsequent appeal had little to do with 'cheating'. They were testing the FIA, they were testing the regulations... Something like: nothing ventured, nothing gained. If they would have won the appeal, the FIA would have nuked their own regulations...

I based my comment on the following from the FIA judgement

56. As evidence of the reliability of its fuel flow model, the Appellant provided a series of graphs. According to the Appellant, these graphs show that no changes were indicated in the FFR of its car No. 3 based on its fuel flow model, whereas FFM SENSOR No. 73 had shown changes. It is the Appellant’s view that these discrepancies prove that FFM SENSOR No. 73 is inaccurate.
57. The Court noted that several graphs actually showed that parameters had changed from one lap to the other and that one cannot, therefore, conclude that the fuel flow model did not change notably during the various practice runs. On top of this, it appears that not all parameters leading to the determination of a car’s FFR were shown in the graphs.

I can only think of two reasons why Red Bull didn't show all their workings -
They did not want to show some figures as they perhaps somehow reduced the value of their claim.
or
They did not show some figures in order to simplify their presentation.

The reason why I surmise the former is because the FIA judgment pointed out the fact, which I doubt they would have done if they did not have some suspicion as to the reason.

#2707 Henrik B

Henrik B
  • Member

  • 2,861 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 19 April 2014 - 07:51

Horner on RTL during FP3, when asked about the appeal:
We thought that we had a good case, and the court also ruled that we didn't really break the rules, but that there are problems with the sensors.


So Horner tells lies on national television? Not unexpected.

#2708 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 4,982 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 19 April 2014 - 08:55

Red Bull says this means the sensor wasn't reliable, but the FIA merely handwaved it away by saying "parameters had changed from one lap to the other", whatever that means.

 

It means that if you are conceited enough to say that your measurement has remained consistent but only the FIAs has drifted, then nobody is going to believe you.  It is more plausible that one of the variables in RBR's "measurement" (which is actually nothing of the sort but a calculation) has changed and the homologated sensor has read consistently the whole time.



#2709 Nicktendo86

Nicktendo86
  • Member

  • 2,573 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 19 April 2014 - 10:15

Horner on RTL during FP3, when asked about the appeal:
We thought that we had a good case, and the court also ruled that we didn't really break the rules, but that there are problems with the sensors.

Well that is an out and out lie, he should have been called out on that. They are STILL trying to discredit the sensors/FIA. They need to suck it up and shut up now, they were damn lucky to not get a further penaulty.

#2710 wrighty

wrighty
  • Member

  • 3,794 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 19 April 2014 - 11:06

It took CH all the intervening time to go from:

 

'They say we ran over the fuel flow limit but we don't think we did'

 

to

 

'They say we lost the exclusion appeal but we don't think we did'

 

Easy money for the FIA, easy lolz for everyone else :) Hopefully once we get to Spain and the sensors have to be used as supplied their reliability issues will suddenly improve eh  :lol:



#2711 alfa1

alfa1
  • Member

  • 1,997 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 19 April 2014 - 11:16

It is more plausible that one of the variables in RBR's "measurement" (which is actually nothing of the sort but a calculation) has changed and the homologated sensor has read consistently the whole time.

 

I'd also be normally inclined to believe a physical measurement over a theoretical calculation, except that the dodgy calculation ** is exactly how all of the teams had been measuring fuel usage for many years now.

 

** Counting fuel injector "squirts" while taking into account temperature and pressure and other parameters.



#2712 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 5,725 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 April 2014 - 11:32

It's much easier to make that sort of calculation of fuel usage over a long period such as a race as all the minor fluctuations tend to cancel each other out.

It breaks down somewhat when you try and calculate 'instantaneous' fuel flow rates over the sort of period the FIA require to comply with the new regulation as there are too many [parameters involved that to give an accurate result all have to be sampled at the same time.

If the blog of the hearing posted on the German web site is correct, and the Google translate from German to English is accurate, then even the Red Bull engine guy admitted that their fuel flow rate calculation is only accurate to +/- 1%

#2713 YoungGun

YoungGun
  • Member

  • 29,479 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 April 2014 - 12:31

Seems there are more sensor issues and Red Bull is using their fuel-flow model with the FIA's permission.

 

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/113545



#2714 uzsjgb

uzsjgb
  • Member

  • 1,043 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 19 April 2014 - 13:31

I'd also be normally inclined to believe a physical measurement over a theoretical calculation, except that the dodgy calculation ** is exactly how all of the teams had been measuring fuel usage for many years now.

 

** Counting fuel injector "squirts" while taking into account temperature and pressure and other parameters.

 

Very good point.



#2715 uzsjgb

uzsjgb
  • Member

  • 1,043 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 19 April 2014 - 13:40

Fabrice Lom of the FIA:

"We discovered that there is a seam, an o-ring in the sensor, that doesn't support the Total fuel chemical composition so the seal is damaged by the fuel, which kills the sensor."

 

So, what happens now?

 

How fast can Gill provide a modified sensor?

 

Since those teams using Total fuel will regularly have sensor failures and then be allowed to use their own measurements, wouldn't it be fair, if the whole field would be allowed to use those?

 

How totally incompetent the FIA is. They obviously never thought of testing those sensors with the fuel the teams use.

 

I didn't expect the fuel flow affair to end with the court ruling, but what we have now is a total mess.



#2716 study

study
  • Member

  • 2,452 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 19 April 2014 - 13:45

It also made mention that Redbull are modifying the sensors causing them to short.



#2717 Nicktendo86

Nicktendo86
  • Member

  • 2,573 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 19 April 2014 - 13:47

Sure I read that the problem has already been fixed and Renault teams drilling the sensors cause other problems which is being stopped for Spain.

#2718 uzsjgb

uzsjgb
  • Member

  • 1,043 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 19 April 2014 - 13:58

Sure I read that the problem has already been fixed

 

Where did you read that?



#2719 YoungGun

YoungGun
  • Member

  • 29,479 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 April 2014 - 13:59

So there should be no arguments from the Mercedes camp if Daniel trumps both Lewis and Nico in China?



Advertisement

#2720 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 10,082 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 April 2014 - 14:00

Fabrice Lom of the FIA:

"We discovered that there is a seam, an o-ring in the sensor, that doesn't support the Total fuel chemical composition so the seal is damaged by the fuel, which kills the sensor."

 

So, what happens now?

 

How fast can Gill provide a modified sensor?

 

Since those teams using Total fuel will regularly have sensor failures and then be allowed to use their own measurements, wouldn't it be fair, if the whole field would be allowed to use those?

 

How totally incompetent the FIA is. They obviously never thought of testing those sensors with the fuel the teams use.

 

I didn't expect the fuel flow affair to end with the court ruling, but what we have now is a total mess.

 

You mean how fast can Total provide a fuel that doesn't affect the homologated sensor?

 

It's the responsibility of the teams to operate the sensor properly.


Edited by DanardiF1, 19 April 2014 - 14:00.


#2721 Nicktendo86

Nicktendo86
  • Member

  • 2,573 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 19 April 2014 - 14:05

Where did you read that?

I may have got confused with another issue, transcript below. Anyways as said above it is the teams job to ensure their car works with the sensor, not the other way round. Not sure why are still arguing about this almost a week after the lost appeal now...
- RBR lawyers ask, how many ffs have broken by now
- Lom says 3 in AUS, 4 in MAL, 5-6 in BAH. Says BAh was a singular problem caused by broken gaskets, and has been rectified. Says there never was a problem, the ffs either gave correct readings, or failed altogether.
- they ask for wrong FIA offsets. Lom states, in all laps done by all drivers, it were 5% in AUS, 1.5% in MAL
- Lom now talking about modifications to the ffs done by the teams. Says RBR drilled the screw thread for the fuel hose too deep, this damaging the ffs

Edited by Nicktendo86, 19 April 2014 - 14:06.


#2722 uzsjgb

uzsjgb
  • Member

  • 1,043 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 19 April 2014 - 14:08

You mean how fast can Total provide a fuel that doesn't affect the homologated sensor?

 

It's the responsibility of the teams to operate the sensor properly.

 

Is it? By what rule?

 

What you are suggesting is that all teams using Total fuel are not operating the sensor correctly and thus are in breach of the rules and should logically be disqualified. Seriously?

 

I am sure that the fuel Total supplies is fully legal. I see no reason why that should be changed.



#2723 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,395 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 19 April 2014 - 14:16

guys & gals ... can i ask for a favor ... please write 'Flow Sensor' for fuel flow sensor, not 'FFS'

 

this is because some of you are using it for 'For ****'s Sake' (which is the usual abbreviation) and 'Fuel Flow Sensor' in the same article. this is irritating and confusing.

 

thanks  :wave:



#2724 Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast
  • Paddock Club Host

  • 9,542 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 19 April 2014 - 15:07

Is it? By what rule?
 
What you are suggesting is that all teams using Total fuel are not operating the sensor correctly and thus are in breach of the rules and should logically be disqualified. Seriously?
 
I am sure that the fuel Total supplies is fully legal. I see no reason why that should be changed.

Are other teams' fuels damaging the sensor?

If they aren't, why shouldn't Total be the one to have to make a change?

#2725 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,074 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 April 2014 - 15:18

Are other teams' fuels damaging the sensor?

If they aren't, why shouldn't Total be the one to have to make a change?

 

In a fair world, you might think this. The problem is that IMHO the rules (as always) have been written very poorly. As I understand it they state:

 

1. That they must fit this fuel flow sensor

2. That they must operate the car without exceeding the fuel flow limit

 

They haven't really linked these two other than to say that they will use the output from the fuel flow sensor as their guide as to whether the flow rate is being adhered to.

 

The other point is that it's the team that own the fuel flow sensor, not the FIA, but the FIA have stipulated the exact type that must be used. In my opinion, it's a bit of a grey area as to whether, given that the teams have no choice in the fuel flow sensor, whether it's up to them to ensure the fuel they use is compatible with the sensor or whether it's reasonable for the teams to expect the mandated sensor to work with the fuel that they use.

 

Anyway, having identified the problem, I can't believe that it will take very long for it to be resolved.



#2726 uzsjgb

uzsjgb
  • Member

  • 1,043 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 19 April 2014 - 15:21

In my opinion, it's a bit of a grey area as to whether, given that the teams have no choice in the fuel flow sensor, whether it's up to them to ensure the fuel they use is compatible with the sensor or whether it's reasonable for the teams to expect the mandated sensor to work with the fuel that they use.

 

Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a fuel sensor not to be damaged by fuel?



#2727 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,836 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 19 April 2014 - 15:22

I based my comment on the following from the FIA judgement

56. As evidence of the reliability of its fuel flow model, the Appellant provided a series of graphs. According to the Appellant, these graphs show that no changes were indicated in the FFR of its car No. 3 based on its fuel flow model, whereas FFM SENSOR No. 73 had shown changes. It is the Appellant’s view that these discrepancies prove that FFM SENSOR No. 73 is inaccurate.
57. The Court noted that several graphs actually showed that parameters had changed from one lap to the other and that one cannot, therefore, conclude that the fuel flow model did not change notably during the various practice runs. On top of this, it appears that not all parameters leading to the determination of a car’s FFR were shown in the graphs.

I can only think of two reasons why Red Bull didn't show all their workings -
They did not want to show some figures as they perhaps somehow reduced the value of their claim.
or
They did not show some figures in order to simplify their presentation.

The reason why I surmise the former is because the FIA judgment pointed out the fact, which I doubt they would have done if they did not have some suspicion as to the reason.

 

Thank you, very interesting! :up:



#2728 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 5,725 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 April 2014 - 15:30

Regarding the Total fuel problem, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the engine/fuel suppliers where supposed to supply samples of the fuel before the season started in order to allow Gill to test and calibrate the sensors.
I guess it might be possible that as part of the Renault solution to their ICE problems during pre-season testing, they have been using a different fuel mix to that originally supplied and hence the problems have only come to light later than would be expected.

#2729 Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast
  • Paddock Club Host

  • 9,542 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 19 April 2014 - 15:32

Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a fuel sensor not to be damaged by fuel?

Isn't it reasonable to expect the fuel not to cause damage to a fuel sensor?

#2730 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,074 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 April 2014 - 15:35

Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect a fuel sensor not to be damaged by fuel?

 

Isn't it reasonable to expect the fuel not to cause damage to a fuel sensor?

 

Both, I'd say.



#2731 uzsjgb

uzsjgb
  • Member

  • 1,043 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 19 April 2014 - 15:37

Isn't it reasonable to expect the fuel not to cause damage to a fuel sensor?

 

You're making fun of me  :cool:



#2732 YoungGun

YoungGun
  • Member

  • 29,479 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 April 2014 - 15:39

Regarding the Total fuel problem, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the engine/fuel suppliers where supposed to supply samples of the fuel before the season started in order to allow Gill to test and calibrate the sensors.
I guess it might be possible that as part of the Renault solution to their ICE problems during pre-season testing, they have been using a different fuel mix to that originally supplied and hence the problems have only come to light later than would be expected.

 

“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”

 

I admit to being daft when it comes to the technical sides of things. However,  how is it that the FIA grants permission to Red Bull to use their fuel flow rate on a failed sensor on Vettel's car at the Chinese GP?



#2733 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,836 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 19 April 2014 - 15:42

Regarding the Total fuel problem, I seem to recall reading somewhere that the engine/fuel suppliers where supposed to supply samples of the fuel before the season started in order to allow Gill to test and calibrate the sensors.
I guess it might be possible that as part of the Renault solution to their ICE problems during pre-season testing, they have been using a different fuel mix to that originally supplied and hence the problems have only come to light later than would be expected.

 

I get a strange feeling of deja-vu here, ex-Flagman.  ;)

 

(Benetton-cough-Renault-removing-cough-fuel-cough-ring.)



#2734 Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast
  • Paddock Club Host

  • 9,542 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 19 April 2014 - 15:45

You're making fun of me  :cool:

Bah, you've spoiled it!

Seriously, as ExFlagMan has said, the sensors were supposed to have been tested with samples of all the fuels before the season. It may be there was a flaw with the test, or Total aren't using the same formula they submitted for testing. But it may be that the modifications to the sensors being made by some teams are allowing fuel ingress and hence the damage being done by fuel that passed the pre-season test.

#2735 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,395 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 19 April 2014 - 15:45

I get a strange feeling of deja-vu here, ex-Flagman.  ;)

 

(Benetton-cough-Renault-removing-cough-fuel-cough-ring.)

wasn't that fuel filter, not ring??? IIRC, they did that to get better fuel flow rate during re-fuelling. totally different scenario IMO.



#2736 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 7,836 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 19 April 2014 - 15:47

wasn't that fuel filter, not ring??? IIRC, they did that to get better fuel flow rate during re-fuelling. totally different scenario IMO.

 

Yeah, yeah, I know. I was just making a joke for the older posters (a double-entendre, if you like)

 

Still fuel-flow enhancing...



#2737 uzsjgb

uzsjgb
  • Member

  • 1,043 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 19 April 2014 - 15:59

Seriously, as ExFlagMan has said, the sensors were supposed to have been tested with samples of all the fuels before the season. It may be there was a flaw with the test, or Total aren't using the same formula they submitted for testing. But it may be that the modifications to the sensors being made by some teams are allowing fuel ingress and hence the damage being done by fuel that passed the pre-season test.

 

Article 19 of the rules defines precisely what kind of fuel may be used. The sensor should have been designed for any fuel which is within these rules. Nothing in there forbids changing your fuel, as long as you supply a sample to the FIA before using it. I have no information if the fuel was changed or not.

 

The FIA clearly speaks of two issues, they do not mention any connection between the two. In any case, from Spain on Renault will have modified its engine, so the sensor can be easily attached without modification, leaving only one cause for error. We'll see if things get better then.
 



#2738 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 5,725 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 April 2014 - 16:26

Article 19 of the rules defines precisely what kind of fuel may be used. The sensor should have been designed for any fuel which is within these rules. Nothing in there forbids changing your fuel, as long as you supply a sample to the FIA before using it. I have no information if the fuel was changed or not.
 
The FIA clearly speaks of two issues, they do not mention any connection between the two. In any case, from Spain on Renault will have modified its engine, so the sensor can be easily attached without modification, leaving only one cause for error. We'll see if things get better then.

Not sure what you mean by the last paragraph as the FIA sensor is mounted in the fuel tank, not on the engine. I have not seen any mention of the reason why the Renault engine teams changed the connectors, and cannot really think of any engineering reason why they would do so, the Gill sensor spec indicates the type of connector used and as there does not seem to be any reason why the teams could not use the matching connector on the sensor end of their fuel line even if the Renault engine required a different type at the fuel pump/rail end. Very strange, maybe TC3000 can come up with a feasible reason.

As for the first part of your reply, it might only be a problem if the O-rings are in contact with the Total fuel over a prolonged period of time, which might not become evident during the initial testing of the fuel/sensor combination - perhaps exacerbated by the lack if running time the Renault engines teams managed during the pre-season tests.

I think some people look for the 'conspiracy theory' side of any problem, rather than the engineering based approach. In any case people make mistakes, even 'super brains' like those employed by F1 teams, after all Red Bull admitted they 'forgot' they had a sensor in the spare chassis in Australia which they could have fitted rather than having to re-use the one from FP1, when their backup sensor fitted for FP3/qualifying failed

#2739 alfa1

alfa1
  • Member

  • 1,997 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 19 April 2014 - 16:55

Says RBR drilled the screw thread for the fuel hose too deep, this damaging the ffs

 

Can anyone provide a solid reference to an actual statement where this was definitely found to be the case?

 

I've read lots of suggestions and allegations over the last few weeks, with everybody jumping to conclusions that the thread modification IS causing failures, but never any proof.

 

Even Lom, (who states the fuel IS causing failures of a seal) merely suggests it as a possibility:

 

During the hearing, Lom also suggested that problems could also be caused...

 

but we also have another clue.   If it... it can ... we can have...



Advertisement

#2740 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 5,725 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 April 2014 - 20:24

I guess as long as the teams are not willing to divulge what they have done and why, there can only be speculation.

Maybe the FIA should do a proper technical inspection on a 'suspect'/random team car - not just check the easy/obvious external bits, but demand a complete strip-down. Not sure the teams would be too happy, especially as it would need to be done during a race meeting for any problems to be admissible as.

#2741 Physicist2

Physicist2
  • Member

  • 78 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 20 April 2014 - 01:19

This thread is 57 pages long, much of it arguing whether the FIA has the power to declare (in effect) "The readings from the official sensor will be official" and whether that declaration was made in a manner that is binding on the competitors. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in all of that, did anyone mention Article 2.7 of the regulations? The ICA found it. I guess that's why they pay those guys the big bucks, eh  ;)


Edited by Physicist2, 20 April 2014 - 02:32.


#2742 Physicist2

Physicist2
  • Member

  • 78 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 21 April 2014 - 01:27

True, but its never been shown to me that the teams know what reading the FIA are getting off the Gil sensor.

 

If the teams know what that number is, then there wouldn't be any need for the FIA to ever tell them anything during the race. The teams could simply correct it themselves, and it would all just be sort out the penalties later.

 

Example of Rosberg during the Australian GP. If we are to believe that Mercedes are a non cheating law abiding team when it comes to this sort of thing, then why did the FIA need to contact them to turn the fuel flow down:

Evan Short reveals during qualifying in Melbourne, the FIA had informed them Rosberg was using too high a fuel flow rate. It was immediately brought in line with the correction as instructed

 

The only conclusion I can arrive at is that the teams simply do not know what fuel flow rate the FIA are reading from the sensor, and thats why they have to be told.

 

 

I think, that's perhaps not too far from the truth.

I posted this earlier, but it may have "drowned" in the flood of pages this topic has generated.

From the FIA homologation paper, it can be seen - IMHO - that the sensor (FFM) is meant as a "stand alone" measuring device for the FIA, and is definitely not part of any "control system" for the engine on side of the teams.

 

 

Now, this leaves the option open to the FIA, to share the CAN-bus data with the teams, or may not.

In the later case, the FIA may provide a value to the teams, so that they know, where they stand with their own model - what the correlation to the FIA measurement is.

There is a second option, which seems more likely, at least to me.

While the CAN-bus data are the "exclusive domain" of the FIA, the sensor may provides another output signal, which the teams can use.

This "theory" (my one) is supported by the GILL data sheet. The data sheet shows the "pin-out" of the connector, and in this "pin-out" you have two CAN-bus signals (which go to the FIA data logger) but you have as well two RS-485 pins, which could be used by the teams to get the readings from the sensor into their own logger/telemetry system. (I'm not saying that this is the case, just pointing out the possibility).

 

In any case, the teams are not supposed to run the sensor in a "closed loop" control system.

They will have to operate their engines based on their own model(s) and sensor inputs.

The main reason, would be, that this "solves" the issue, that a car could/would DNF if the sensor fails or changes it's readings during a race.

If the engine would be mapped based on (only) the sensor readings, this would be the case.

 

Alfa1 and TC3000, events at the Chinese Grand Prix suggest you are correct in surmising the FIA does not share FFM data with the teams in real time during a race. Rosberg suffered a complete telemetry failure and had to relay fuel readings from his dashboard over the radio. Yet the fuel usage displayed periodically during the TV broadcast included numbers for Rosberg, I presume the broadcasters get their data from the FIA and Rosberg's FFM was relaying data even though the team's telemetry system was dead.



#2743 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 2,629 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 21 April 2014 - 02:24

Alfa1 and TC3000, events at the Chinese Grand Prix suggest you are correct in surmising the FIA does not share FFM data with the teams in real time during a race. Rosberg suffered a complete telemetry failure and had to relay fuel readings from his dashboard over the radio. Yet the fuel usage displayed periodically during the TV broadcast included numbers for Rosberg, I presume the broadcasters get their data from the FIA and Rosberg's FFM was relaying data even though the team's telemetry system was dead.


That raises an interesting question - what happens when the FIA telemetry feed drops off the net?

If the FIA has found that the team data is not reliable/accurate enough to base consumption on, is it 'game on' and we might see just what these powertrains can deliver?

Could the FIA use the teams' own data to DQ them, given the evidence in support of the AGP stewards decision?  If the answer to this is 'yes', what margin over the nominal limit would be acceptable (there has to be a margin, because the FIA line is that these are not accurate enough for the purpose)?

Can the Technical Delegate direct the teams to use their own data, as compared to agreeing to a team's request that their data be approved for use?
 



#2744 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 2,629 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 21 April 2014 - 13:28

Thanks TC for the reply.  I had forgotten about the on-board FIA data logger, but I did not realise the FFM also recorded its own data.



#2745 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 15,870 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 22 April 2014 - 14:30

Yesterday, Red Bull Racing's newsletter 'Spy Games' had something to say on Mercedes involving itself in the appeal hearings:

 

The big news we're digesting is that the playful scamps at Merc decided to have a good old sticky-beak at our appeal and requested we receive a three-race ban. There's a few pursed lips from our management at that but they've decided to rise above it and not comment – but down here at the coalface you can be sure we're telling out mates in the next garage along where they can shove that three-pointed star.

 

Actually it's quite reassuring: it means we're getting close enough to get them rattled and sweating a bit.


Edited by Nonesuch, 22 April 2014 - 14:30.


#2746 Maustinsj

Maustinsj
  • Member

  • 4,904 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 22 April 2014 - 16:08

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

What's "telling out mates"?

#2747 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 15,870 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 22 April 2014 - 16:37

They probably intended to write 'telling our mates', in that the Red Bull Racing mechanics will be making the described comment to their colleagues in the Mercedes pitbox. Or something along those lines.



#2748 grackle

grackle
  • Member

  • 279 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 02 June 2014 - 13:55

Sorry if this was posted elsewhere "F1 to switch to 'more reliable' fuel flow meter"

http://www.f1times.c...s/display/0894

grack


Edited by grackle, 02 June 2014 - 13:59.


#2749 ExFlagMan

ExFlagMan
  • Member

  • 5,725 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 02 June 2014 - 14:17

Hope they make it of indestructibleanium to prevent Red Bull tampering with it!



#2750 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 11,162 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 02 June 2014 - 14:44

Sorry if this was posted elsewhere "F1 to switch to 'more reliable' fuel flow meter"

http://www.f1times.c...s/display/0894

grack

 

F1times stole the news from RaceCar Engineering:

 

 

http://www.racecar-e...for-f1-and-wec/