2014 Formula One World Championship - Round One: Australian Grand Prix (14-16 March 2014)

[Mister B]

If he'd driven the whole race with that fuel flow, yes. I'm assuming that high fuel flow was just at times, like when he got told to turn the engine up.

But then his lap times would have fluctuated greatly wouldn't they. From what I have read they didn't. The FIA state that they were consistently above those levels too which suggests it wasn't just at patches. As I have said, I have little clue about it all, just trying to make sense of it all.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

If he'd driven the whole race with that fuel flow, yes. I'm assuming that high fuel flow was just at times, like when he got told to turn the engine up.

The confusing part for me is that Dan was the only one of the top five (that I know of) that didn't turn his engine down in the dying laps of the race; they'd told guys like Magnussen and Rosberg to manage fuel whereas with Dan the message was constantly, "You don't need to conserve fuel." If it was breaching the limit during high-engine settings then Dan should have been running out of fuel, except he was the only one that wasn't.

If Red Bull have made this mistake then fair enough, the disqualification is correct regardless of it not being Dan's fault. That said, it just seems weird to me that Dan seemed to be the only one not conserving fuel in the race's dying laps.

 

[ManWithNoName]

But then his lap times would have fluctuated greatly wouldn't they. From what I have read they didn't. The FIA state that they were consistently above those levels too which suggests it wasn't just at patches. As I have said, I have little clue about it all, just trying to make sense of it all.

Here's his lap times from the race, make of this what you will:

 

[catman 71]

Well that's it isnt it, you have the same amount of fuel but one uses it at a higher rate than the other, that one runs out. Simplistic perhaps, but to me it makes sense.

I wonder if it is based on whether drivers refuel in the pits, how often they refuel etc.

The simple way is set a rule of something like, one fuel up per race, so that everyone is on the same level.

Or make it that all cars have the same size fuel tank.

Some mathematical equation to work out fuel on some dodgy sensors is ridiculous.

If those in charge of the rules want teams to use the proper sensors, than make 110% sure they work properly first.

 

[ManWithNoName]

I wonder if it is based on whether drivers refuel in the pits, how often they refuel etc.

The simple way is set a rule of something like, one fuel up per race, so that everyone is on the same level.

Or make it that all cars have the same size fuel tank.

Some mathematical equation to work out fuel on some dodgy sensors is ridiculous.

If those in charge of the rules want teams to use the proper sensors, than make 110% sure they work properly first.

No refuelling during races.

 

[hey shorty]

Everyone has the same size tank, does the RB have better conservation modes ?? Bizzare set of circumstances really, interestingly enough according to that data ADRs last lap was much slower than the penultimate one.

If they broke the rules then so be it, but theres some muddy water.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Everyone has the same size tank, does the RB have better conservation modes ?? Bizzare set of circumstances really, interestingly enough according to that data ADRs last lap was much slower than the penultimate one.

If they broke the rules then so be it, but theres some muddy water.

Looking through the others, that's a common trend. I guess if you're not trying to pass someone or fighting to keep your position, you'd just back off a bit on the last lap.

 

[hey shorty]

He wouldn't have wanted to do too much with the Mclaren up his clacker. Makes sense though, as I said there's some muddy waters here with so many sensor issues through the field.

 

[tandino]

Are they afraid of teams hiding extra fuel in their cars? Is that even possible?

 

[Andrew Mc]

Looking through the others, that's a common trend. I guess if you're not trying to pass someone or fighting to keep your position, you'd just back off a bit on the last lap.

Yeah, unless it's super close, that's pretty normal. The graphs here: http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/03/16/2014-australian-grand-prix-lap-times-fastest-laps/ show it really well.

 

[ricardogp]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. There is clearly a rule in the regulations regarding maximum fuel flow. I'm pretty sure that there was one last year as well, because I believe I read somewhere that the maximum fuel flow rate had been 'decreased' this year.

I'm not an expert on engines by any means, but I'm assuming that when it comes to Turbos and Direct Fuel Injection that the fuel flow rate is not linear to engine power, otherwise if it was then everyone would just run at whatever rate uses up their 100kg in 58 laps. We heard on the radio that the Magnussen was being told to switch between 'G3' and 'G6', and Brundle then went on to expain that these are the fuel flow rates. Clearly an engine power thing. Maybe there is an engine expert in this group that can confirm that for us?

From the Stewards' transcript that was posted here, RBR was informed by the FIA and given an instruction to follow during the race, which they then ignored. I'm not speculating on the whys and wherefores of RBR's decision, but that has been deemed to be a breach by the FIA.

The purpose behind the Fuel Flow rule is an entirely separate question. I for one agree with those saying that the teams are given 100kg and should be able to use that how they wish; after all this is supposed to be a high-performance innovation-driven frontier of technology. But the rule is in place and I'm assuming it was ratified by the teams (please correct me if I'm wrong), and thus it must be applied. Same as Ferarri/McLaren and the 'front plane height' in 1999 (I think?) and the Fuel Fingerprint failure on the McLaren in Brazil (200X? I think it was on Hamilton's car).

 

[Mister B]

With the exception of laps 25 - 30 Magnussen and Dan's lap times are almost identical. This is despite Magnussen having to go into fuel saving mode with about 10 laps to go. The Red Bull must be a pretty ordinary car if it was gaining such an advantage but the performance continues to match that of a car in fuel saving mode.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Being all new with the changes to the rules, I can see the FIA going hard on any team stepping outside the lines and taking the stricter interpretation if there is any ambiguity. The key point will be that only the FIA can call the sensor faulty and allow the team to run off their mathematical modelling. That Red Bull did it off their own bat will be their downfall, it wont matter if the sensor was actually faulty or not. I think that was a bad decision by Red Bull.

 

[ricardogp]

I agree Admiral. I think the best possible outcome is that Dan gets to keep his podium and points as it was a breach by the team and not the driver, and RBR gets their constructor points stripped. I think this has happened before. Maybe someone can pinpoint when?

[By the way, I posted bad data in my previous post. McLaren didn't fail the Fuel Fingerprint test in Brazil 2007; Williams and Sauber did and McLaren considered appealing the fact that it was overturned. Thanks Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Brazilian_Grand_Prix#Post-race ]

 

[The_Todd07]

A higher rate, means Dan could benefit from extra power. That power could've helped him hold off Magnussen, for instance.

I understand that in term of this race under these rules

I'm saying why have the rule in the first place

Limit the amount of fuel they can start with and the teams can figure out their own flow rate. If they get too greedy, stuff s**t but if they can still finish with a higher rate, well done to them

 

[Herbs]

I agree Admiral. I think the best possible outcome is that Dan gets to keep his podium and points as it was a breach by the team and not the driver, and RBR gets their constructor points stripped. I think this has happened before. Maybe someone can pinpoint when?

[By the way, I posted bad data in my previous post. McLaren didn't fail the Fuel Fingerprint test in Brazil 2007; Williams and Sauber did and McLaren considered appealing the fact that it was overturned. Thanks Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Brazilian_Grand_Prix#Post-race ]

Think the same happened with Michael Schumacher in the Benetton back in Brazil 1995, fuel irregularity and he kept the win but no constructors points. That's going back a while though.

 

[AM]

It'll be interesting to see hard Horner and his team fight for Daniel. If it was Vettel there'd be hell to pay I reckon.

 

[catman 71]

Being all new with the changes to the rules, I can see the FIA going hard on any team stepping outside the lines and taking the stricter interpretation if there is any ambiguity. The key point will be that only the FIA can call the sensor faulty and allow the team to run off their mathematical modelling. That Red Bull did it off their own bat will be their downfall, it wont matter if the sensor was actually faulty or not. I think that was a bad decision by Red Bull.

But it is the FIA's fault.

It is their responsibility to not implement the rule until the sensors work 100% of the time, and the teams understand it.

Don't impose technology on the teams, tell them to figure it out, and then catch them when they have misunderstood your stupid rule.

Idiots in suits ruining it for the rest of us again. F1 almost has more rule changes than the AFL, and that is saying something.

 

[surfsup]

Loved the statement at the end.

http://www.sportsfan.com.au/Home/Vi...?cid=BP_RSS_SPORT_1_WhyRicciardowasDQd_170314

 

[OzBomber]

Sure Ricciardo was DQ'd, but you can never take away that moment from him. That feeling of going on the podium in front of your home fans and seeing them chanting your name and celebrating like crazy. Was a fantastic afternoon, it's a shame he had it taken away from him but I won't be forgetting the actual performance any time soon.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Loved the statement at the end.

http://www.sportsfan.com.au/Home/Vi...?cid=BP_RSS_SPORT_1_WhyRicciardowasDQd_170314

Yeah that was brilliant.

 

[imadodgyumpire]

I understand that in term of this race under these rules

I'm saying why have the rule in the first place

Limit the amount of fuel they can start with and the teams can figure out their own flow rate. If they get too greedy, stuff s**t but if they can still finish with a higher rate, well done to them

I'm only speaking generally, and just my opinion. But it seems to be an area that can be exploited.

If the flow rate wasn't restricted, then the fuel suppliers would just go bananas developing fuel. They'd make more concentrated fuel. 100kgs of fuel becomes then becomes the equivalent of 120kgs, or whatever amount, of previous years. The cars then can run richer, for longer. I think that defeats the purpose of these new cars. I think the idea of these cars is to promote efficiency and have KERS, or ERS-K, become a bigger contributor of power.

 

[tandino]

I'm only speaking generally, and just my opinion. But it seems to be an area that can be exploited.

If the flow rate wasn't restricted, then the fuel suppliers would just go bananas developing fuel. They'd make more concentrated fuel. 100kgs of fuel becomes then becomes the equivalent of 120kgs, or whatever amount, of previous years. The cars then can run richer, for longer. I think that defeats the purpose of these new cars. I think the idea of these cars is to promote efficiency and have KERS, or ERS-K, become a bigger contributor of power.

It's a fair point you make. There's probably a regulation on the down side as well.

 

[Admiral Byng]

But it is the FIA's fault.

It is their responsibility to not implement the rule until the sensors work 100% of the time, and the teams understand it.

Don't impose technology on the teams, tell them to figure it out, and then catch them when they have misunderstood your stupid rule.

Idiots in suits ruining it for the rest of us again. F1 almost has more rule changes than the AFL, and that is saying something.

In an ideal world, yes. But we don't have one of those.

 

[Smeg Head]

If nothing else its a massively bad look for the FIA and the new era is the 'races' are going to start being dictated by who saves fuel the best. Think how popular the recent tyre conservation era has been.