F1 in 2014

Remove this Banner Ad

So just a quick one.

If Mercedes' dominance holds up and Rosberg/Lewis win the WDC, they'll be an unworthy champion right? Just making sure of consistency around these parts. Since Mercedes look like they hold the biggest advantage over the others since Ferrari in 2004.
 
With the current reliability issues of these cars Lewis will be lucky to finish the first 4 races. I think the massive gap between them and the rest will close ala Brawn in 09 but they might be out of sight by then.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

hey shorty said:
With the current reliability issues of these cars Lewis will be lucky to finish the first 4 races. I think the massive gap between them and the rest will close ala Brawn in 09 but they might be out of sight by then.
Click to expand...
Renault are talking up their chances of closing the engine gap, but they're just talking about learning how to use the engine better. I can't see that closing a gap of 1-2 seconds a lap.
 
ManWithNoName said:
So just a quick one.

If Mercedes' dominance holds up and Rosberg/Lewis win the WDC, they'll be an unworthy champion right? Just making sure of consistency around these parts. Since Mercedes look like they hold the biggest advantage over the others since Ferrari in 2004.
Click to expand...

I have $100 on Rosberg to win the WDC. So he will be a very worthy champion in my eyes :)
 
hey shorty said:
With the current reliability issues of these cars Lewis will be lucky to finish the first 4 races. I think the massive gap between them and the rest will close ala Brawn in 09 but they might be out of sight by then.
Click to expand...
I don't think that there is much of a reliability problem amongst the Mercedes teams. Granted, Lewis had 2 problems, but given the amount of running they did over the winter I am currently putting this down to bad luck.

Half the Renault-powered cars retired because of technical problems. Only 1 Mercedes-powered car did: Lewis. Given what we saw in Australia (the performance difference), I would not be surprised to see Merc adopt a Vettel-2013 tactic and sprint to a 20-second lead and turn their engines down. This is effectively what Rosberg did.

I don't think you can compare Mercedes to Brawn '09 either - the gap closed in '09 because Honda put out a very good car and then pulled all their budget. I think it is an excellent standing example of the development-curve across an F1 season, because Brawn basically couldn't afford one and everyone else overtook them.
 
So, this Fuel Flow thing is bigger than just the Aussie GP now. Do we think that RBR has a chance on April 14? They are taking the 'our sensors are better than your sensors' approach to prove that they did not break the fuel flow limit, instead of arguing that while they may have been wrong that RIC had nothing to do with it to protect his points (which I think they would have more luck with).

With this approach though, I can't see it getting through because it would basically invalidate one of the FIA's technical regulations. If the appeals court agree that RBR didn't break rule 5.1.4 (Fuel Flow Rate), then they must admit that in conforming to 5.1.4 the teams are allowed to bypass rule 5.10.4 (use of an FIA fuel sensor), thus opening the door to other teams using their own sensors. Which would probably be a nightmare for the FIA to police.

Any thoughts?
 
ricardogp said:
So, this Fuel Flow thing is bigger than just the Aussie GP now. Do we think that RBR has a chance on April 14? They are taking the 'our sensors are better than your sensors' approach to prove that they did not break the fuel flow limit, instead of arguing that while they may have been wrong that RIC had nothing to do with it to protect his points (which I think they would have more luck with).

With this approach though, I can't see it getting through because it would basically invalidate one of the FIA's technical regulations. If the appeals court agree that RBR didn't break rule 5.1.4 (Fuel Flow Rate), then they must admit that in conforming to 5.1.4 the teams are allowed to bypass rule 5.10.4 (use of an FIA fuel sensor), thus opening the door to other teams using their own sensors. Which would probably be a nightmare for the FIA to police.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more with this. If the argument was 'we ran an illegal car but the driver didn't know so he should keep the points' then you may as well just run a car with T/C, active aero etc and just win the WDC.

A technical directive is not law. They have been charged with exceeding the max FF. If they can prove they didn't then they will (and rightly should) win the appeal, which I think would be good for the sport.

Don't get me wrong, I get just as sick of RBR seemingly getting away with bending the rules more than others as anyone else (and having an Aussie driver doesn't at all change that), but in this instance I feel it's actually good for everyone if they win the appeal. Forcing a sensor on people that only sometimes works, a bit, is a farce in a sport that has just spent billions of dollars developing new PU technology.

I'd love DR to keep his podium but really he had the moment, I had the moment and so did everyone else. Plus he's a good driver and should have a long enough career in F1 to get more podiums/wins in the future.
 
Last edited:
Simple Jack said:
I couldn't disagree more with this. If the argument was 'we ran an illegal car but the driver didn't know so he should keep the points' then you may as well just run a car with T/C, active aero etc and just win the WDC.
Click to expand...

You have a good point. I mentioned this because it has happened in the past - the one I recall being the McLaren spy-gate scandal where the drivers continued to race and receive WC points. Although I can't confirm that they used this driver-deniability as an actual defense.

Simple Jack said:
Forcing a sensor on people that only sometimes works, a bit, is a farce in a sport that has just spent billions of dollars developing knew PU technology.
Click to expand...

I do agree with this, however I think it is a separate issue related to the 'why have a Fuel Flow Rate limit in the first place?' question. But if you are going to have that rule, then I expect that the only effective way of policing it is with a homologous sensor, which I expect is why it is in the rules. Back in the days before the FIA restriction on ECUs, it was a nightmare to police all the teams' ECU code and so the FIA brought in standard sealed ECUs.

So I agree that the problems seen with the FIA sensors do throw F1 into cowboy territory, and I certainly can't comment on the reasons behind why this might have happened, but I'm genuinely interested in what effect a ruling in favour of RBR will have on the rule that teams must use a FIA-supplied sensor. Will it open the gate for all teams to use their own sensors as soon as they detect glitches in the FIA one, as long as they can prove their own measurements?
 
ricardogp said:
Will it open the gate for all teams to use their own sensors as soon as they detect glitches in the FIA one, as long as they can prove their own measurements?
Click to expand...
I would imagine so. Which will either lead to a) Going on the teams data and believing them or in my opinion more likely b) designing a working sensor.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ricardogp said:
You have a good point. I mentioned this because it has happened in the past - the one I recall being the McLaren spy-gate scandal where the drivers continued to race and receive WC points. Although I can't confirm that they used this driver-deniability as an actual defense.



I do agree with this, however I think it is a separate issue related to the 'why have a Fuel Flow Rate limit in the first place?' question. But if you are going to have that rule, then I expect that the only effective way of policing it is with a homologous sensor, which I expect is why it is in the rules. Back in the days before the FIA restriction on ECUs, it was a nightmare to police all the teams' ECU code and so the FIA brought in standard sealed ECUs.

So I agree that the problems seen with the FIA sensors do throw F1 into cowboy territory, and I certainly can't comment on the reasons behind why this might have happened, but I'm genuinely interested in what effect a ruling in favour of RBR will have on the rule that teams must use a FIA-supplied sensor. Will it open the gate for all teams to use their own sensors as soon as they detect glitches in the FIA one, as long as they can prove their own measurements?
Click to expand...

I don't believe that Red Bull were using their own fuel flow sensor. They used a different method to determine the fuel flow. Here's the FIA report:

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.
Click to expand...

I believe what happened was that Red Bull used a different off-set to determine the fuel flow because they didn't believe the readings they were getting from the FIA sensor. During the race the FIA detected a high fuel flow rate and directed Red Bull to reduce fuel flow, Red Bull countered that in their opinion the fuel flow was OK and didn't reduce the rate.

Interestingly, the car made it to the checkered flag and if it was using too much fuel surely it would have run out of fuel. I'm sure this will be used as evidence by Red Bull at the hearing.

BTW - there are races between nw and when the hearing is scheduled so I'm not sure what Red Bull are going to do if the situation arises during that time....
 
imadodgyumpire said:
I think it's time to review the tyre rules. They can have to compounds to choose from if they want, but scrap forcing them to use both. Those last stops so close to the end were unnecessary, and added nothing.

So much for the preseason talk about how bad RB are. It was clearly full of s**t.
Click to expand...
They were that bad. But they're just that good a team they've caught up. They were absolutely nowhere at the start of testing.
 
imadodgyumpire said:
Clearly a premature, and exaggerated, outcry.
Click to expand...
given they managed about 30 laps in 12 days of testing:rolleyes:

they made massive whole-sale changes to the car for Melbourne and really got pretty lucky, even considering the quality of the team. They were miles off it, and they've turned it around.
 
imadodgyumpire said:
I'll try again..

Clearly a premature, and exaggerated, outcry.
Click to expand...
thank you captain hindsight but the claims were right on, Red Bull had a horrible preseason and no car. 9 times out of 10 they'd be in the same position as Lotus right now.

EDIT: if someone had said something like "Red Bull won't even make the podium this season" that would have been exaggerated and premature, but I haven't heard anyone say anything that stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

skam85
F1 2024 thread
67 68 69 70 71
Replies
2K
Views
43K
Barrybran
Barrybran
skam85
F1 2023 - The Rise of Oscar
279 280 281 282 283
Replies
7K
Views
155K
Black_White
Black_White
RU_
  • Poll
Win Prizes MEGA Tipping - What racing team will win the F1 Grand Prix?
Replies
4
Views
1K
RU_
RU_
Wizard
AMA Supercross in Australia
Replies
2
Views
719
BomberFan355
BomberFan355

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top