ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
I'm not saying you're not. But at the same time I'm also allowed to point out the illogicalness of ideas you post.
2014 Formula One World Championship - Round One: Australian Grand Prix (14-16 March 2014)
- Thread starter Dannnnnnnnnn
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Jun 23, 2013
- 10,747
- 12,869
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Los Angeles Clippers
Tis a shame
Blue and Gold Blood
Norm Smith Medallist
if youre new to the sport then you really have avoided a lot of the political bullshit that goes along with F1 racing, and maybe im biased but more often than not its the australian driver who ends up on the wrong side of the s**t stick. Im referring to incidents with Webbers career, where RBR pitted him at the wrong time of the final race costing him the championship, taking his front wing off and giving it to golden boy seb, and maintaining the gap orders. Thats off the top of my head.
thread closed for some cleaning will reopen soon
OPEN AGAIN
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
Ricciardo's left the circuit. Still no decision. Journos getting more and more shitty.
This sucks. 
Had a really great day at the race and now this is just a massive downer.
Had a really great day at the race and now this is just a massive downer.
Smeg Head
Just take a bite
Does it have to be a DSQ and not possibly a grid penalty at the next race?
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
It'll be a DQ or nothing. Something like this isn't a grid penalty.
Smeg Head
Just take a bite
Assumed so since it would be considered an advantage, still wish they would sort this stuff out quicker if they have the data.
- Oct 9, 2003
- 45,078
- 42,909
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Eagles (NFL), Suns (NBA)
The official F1 site is seriously s**t. 5 hours since the race finished and this is all they have on the Dan fuel issue:
http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2014/3/15579.html
http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2014/3/15579.html
Off The Couch
TheBrownDog
- Oct 4, 2007
- 50,239
- 66,422
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Probably planning on being out of the country before they make an announcement
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
HA! While I'm waiting I watched a video on the BBC site with Allan McNish explaining all the rule changes with Lewis and Nico. Right at the end:
Nico: All that's missing now is something like double points only for the last race. That'd be rubbish wouldn't it?
Nico: All that's missing now is something like double points only for the last race. That'd be rubbish wouldn't it?
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
Official: Ricciardo disqualified.
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
Red Bull not happy:
“Following the decision of the FIA that Infiniti Red Bull Racing is in breach of Article 3.2 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations and Article 5.1.4 of the FIA Formula One Technical Regulations with Car 3, the Team has notified the FIA of its intention to appeal with immediate effect.
“Inconsistencies with the FIA fuel flow meter have been prevalent all weekend up and down the pit lane. The Team and Renault are confident the fuel supplied to the engine is in full compliance with the regulations.”
“Following the decision of the FIA that Infiniti Red Bull Racing is in breach of Article 3.2 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations and Article 5.1.4 of the FIA Formula One Technical Regulations with Car 3, the Team has notified the FIA of its intention to appeal with immediate effect.
“Inconsistencies with the FIA fuel flow meter have been prevalent all weekend up and down the pit lane. The Team and Renault are confident the fuel supplied to the engine is in full compliance with the regulations.”
Off The Couch
TheBrownDog
- Oct 4, 2007
- 50,239
- 66,422
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Cannot begin to fathom how disappointed he would be
Suppose he can take some solace in how well he drove and the confidence that brings but ATM that would be the furthest from his thoughts.
Just sucks big time
Suppose he can take some solace in how well he drove and the confidence that brings but ATM that would be the furthest from his thoughts.
Just sucks big time
This sucks arse.
Smeg Head
Just take a bite
Major suck, and if nothing else they do the sport no good taking so long to come to a decision after the fact. Guessing its time to break out the maths to try and prove if the sensor was talking s**t.
rideclutch
Norm Smith Medallist
What a load of s**t.
Anyway, at least he had some great experience duelling up the pointy end of the grid, drove beautifully as well.
Anyway, at least he had some great experience duelling up the pointy end of the grid, drove beautifully as well.
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
Stewards explanation:
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.
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.
Smeg Head
Just take a bite
So did they just balls up and forget to change it (seems unlikey given the prompts) or did they just choose to go ahead in hopes of getting away with and/or gaining techincal data for future set up. Or also possibly is the Renault power train that bad without the higher flow they would have gone well backwards down the order anyway?
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
The way I read that (admittedly it is late here so I'll come back to it in the morning) they changed the sensor as instructed, but went by their own readings rather than the FIA's readings, which they didn't trust. FIA told them during the race their fuel flow was too high, but RBR ignored that since they were going by their own readings which said they were fine.
Smeg Head
Just take a bite
Yeah that makes sense, my mind kept wandering over homologated...
Bah if it plays that way, RB are boned imo. Since FIA will just say, we can't know that your readings were to our calibrations or something. Interesting aside that crosses my mind, IF Vettel was still running they might have had more data to then compare and contrast, and would probably help them a lot going forward regardless.
2 weeks to get their s**t together before Sepang.
