F1 Australia: So what did everyone think?
03-16-2014, 04:54 PM
#1
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Member Since: Mar 2001
Location: Boston, Dallas, Detroit, SoCal, back to Boston MA
Posts: 30,596
Received 238 Likes
on
166 Posts
F1 Australia: So what did everyone think?
I thought that was pretty good racing
Actual PASSING going on.
Yeah some teams broke, but a lot didn't
Red Bull DQ'ed
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...f1-fuel-rules/
http://www.williamsf1.com/Team/Media...lian-GP-Race1/
http://www.racer.com/index.php/f1
Questioing the safety of the new noses
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...an-grand-prix/
Actual PASSING going on.
Yeah some teams broke, but a lot didn't
Red Bull DQ'ed
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...f1-fuel-rules/
McLaren
What a performance from Kevin, third place and on the podium in his first ever F1 grand prix! Excellent drive from Jenson too, coming home in fourth.
What a performance from Kevin, third place and on the podium in his first ever F1 grand prix! Excellent drive from Jenson too, coming home in fourth.
http://www.racer.com/index.php/f1
Questioing the safety of the new noses
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...an-grand-prix/
03-16-2014, 05:46 PM
#2
Wow! RBR and Ricciardo DQ'ed. How unfortunate as I thought they had a nice looking race but I guess using 100+% of the fuel allowance will do that.
Agree about Magnussen doing an outstanding job first time out. Probably a bit of a wakeup call to JB as well to see that.
Also impressed how Bottas worked his way up, twice! Makes me wonder is it Valteri or Williams that is the change from last years results. Nice to see Williams fighting it out again!
Agree about Magnussen doing an outstanding job first time out. Probably a bit of a wakeup call to JB as well to see that.
Also impressed how Bottas worked his way up, twice! Makes me wonder is it Valteri or Williams that is the change from last years results. Nice to see Williams fighting it out again!
03-16-2014, 07:10 PM
#3
Safety Car
I thought it was pretty good. Certainly much better than I thought it would be. Excellent for Magnussen and VERY excellent for Bottas. Wow.
re: Red Bull
Horner insists that they will prevail in their appeal but if you read the FIA's report I think they are dicked. The FIA instructed Red Bull on what to do on the fly during the race and they declined to do so. Now their appeal rests upon the concept that they knew better that Mr. Whiting and crew as the race progressed? Seriously, Christian?
Z//
re: Red Bull
Horner insists that they will prevail in their appeal but if you read the FIA's report I think they are dicked. The FIA instructed Red Bull on what to do on the fly during the race and they declined to do so. Now their appeal rests upon the concept that they knew better that Mr. Whiting and crew as the race progressed? Seriously, Christian?
Z//
The FIA stewards have issued the following explanation for their decision to exclude Red Bull driver Daniel Ricciardo from the results.
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 through 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 at 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 through 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 at fault, it is not within their discretion to run a different fuel flow measurement method without the permission of the FIA.
04-15-2014, 11:39 AM
#5
Safety Car
FIA Decision on Red Bull's Fuel Flow Meter
Red Bull accepts verdict after losing appeal
The FIA Court of Appeal has upheld the original decision of the stewards of the Australian GP, which means that Red Bull and Daniel Ricciardo have now definitively lost their second place.
The court, which sat on Monday, rejected the arguments from RBR about the unreliability of the Gill fuel flow sensor in the RB10.
The FIA noted: "On 16 March 2014 the panel of the stewards decided to exclude car #3 (driver Daniel Ricciardo) from the results of the race as it was found to be not in compliance with the Technical Regulations (the Technical Delegate reported to the Stewards that car #3 exceeded the required fuel mass flow of 100kg/h).
"The Court, after having heard the parties and examined their submissions, decided to uphold the Decision #56 of the Stewards by which they decided to exclude Infiniti Red Bull Racing’s car #3 from the results of the 2014 Australian Grand Prix."
The team quickly responded by saying that it accepted the decision, and now wanted to move on.
A statement read: "Infiniti Red Bull Racing accepts the ruling of the International Court of Appeal today. We are of course disappointed by the outcome and would not have appealed if we didn’t think we had a very strong case. We always believed we adhered to the technical regulations throughout the 2014 Australian Grand Prix.
"We are sorry for Daniel (Ricciardo) that he will not be awarded the 18 points from the event, which we think he deserved. We will continue to work very hard to amass as many points as possible for the team, Daniel and Sebastian (Vettel) throughout the season. We will now move on from this and concentrate on this weekend’s Chinese Grand Prix."
The decision validates the FIA sensor as the approved method of measuring fuel flow. Had it gone against the governing body it would have set a precedent that could have called into question other parts of the rule book.
//
The FIA Court of Appeal has upheld the original decision of the stewards of the Australian GP, which means that Red Bull and Daniel Ricciardo have now definitively lost their second place.
The court, which sat on Monday, rejected the arguments from RBR about the unreliability of the Gill fuel flow sensor in the RB10.
The FIA noted: "On 16 March 2014 the panel of the stewards decided to exclude car #3 (driver Daniel Ricciardo) from the results of the race as it was found to be not in compliance with the Technical Regulations (the Technical Delegate reported to the Stewards that car #3 exceeded the required fuel mass flow of 100kg/h).
"The Court, after having heard the parties and examined their submissions, decided to uphold the Decision #56 of the Stewards by which they decided to exclude Infiniti Red Bull Racing’s car #3 from the results of the 2014 Australian Grand Prix."
The team quickly responded by saying that it accepted the decision, and now wanted to move on.
A statement read: "Infiniti Red Bull Racing accepts the ruling of the International Court of Appeal today. We are of course disappointed by the outcome and would not have appealed if we didn’t think we had a very strong case. We always believed we adhered to the technical regulations throughout the 2014 Australian Grand Prix.
"We are sorry for Daniel (Ricciardo) that he will not be awarded the 18 points from the event, which we think he deserved. We will continue to work very hard to amass as many points as possible for the team, Daniel and Sebastian (Vettel) throughout the season. We will now move on from this and concentrate on this weekend’s Chinese Grand Prix."
The decision validates the FIA sensor as the approved method of measuring fuel flow. Had it gone against the governing body it would have set a precedent that could have called into question other parts of the rule book.
//
04-15-2014, 01:21 PM
#7
Safety Car
If they gave him points when he gained them using an illegal car (and illegal in a way that clearly provides meaningfully more horsepower and not just a "your winglet was 1/4" out of spec" thing) just what kind of a precedent does THAT send?
The World Championship should not be determined by sentiment.
Live by the team, die by the team.
Z//
04-15-2014, 01:55 PM
#8
Racer
He initially finished second.
If they gave him points when he gained them using an illegal car (and illegal in a way that clearly provides meaningfully more horsepower and not just a "your winglet was 1/4" out of spec" thing) just what kind of a precedent does THAT send?
The World Championship should not be determined by sentiment.
Live by the team, die by the team.
Z//
If they gave him points when he gained them using an illegal car (and illegal in a way that clearly provides meaningfully more horsepower and not just a "your winglet was 1/4" out of spec" thing) just what kind of a precedent does THAT send?
The World Championship should not be determined by sentiment.
Live by the team, die by the team.
Z//
04-15-2014, 06:09 PM
#9
Safety Car
This is the FIA, remember. It pretty much always takes them multiple shots at the basket before they sink the ball properly. Remember all the versions of qualifying they went through before they finally settle on the one we have now? (And they even fiddled that this year
)Z//