2014 Rolex Australian Grand Prix

[Sum1s2pid]

Am I the only one who really likes the engines sounds, mainly the turbos?

They're quite a bit muted compared to the cars from the 80s, but don't sound too bad when going flat out. Heck, one of the beastlilest cars in the sport's history -- the MP4/4 -- had a V6 turbo. Maybe some people are too young to know or too old to remember?

 

[Brutaka]

I'll just say the cars are ****ing piles of **** they need to be scrapped like the rules ..

I spent most of the time trying to hear the cars through my surround sound system and was not amused. F1 is now trash can't wait till they see sense and change the rules again.

Wish there was a blue rays with older season available I'd snap them up

Well unfortunately you will have to get over it, the teams will not want to waste the tons of money they spent on R&D for these cars and their engines.
Besides, the races are better than ever and more unpredictable atm, they just don't sound the best.

 

[velly]

I wwent to the race yesterday...I thought it was awesome, cars are so fast!
yes they sound different but it wont stop me from watching. just gutted it never rained lol

 

[Northstar]

I really don't see the fuss over engine sounds on tv considering commentators usually don't shut up long enough for you to really appreciate the sound of the cars anyways.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Why limit fuel flow?

Because the FIA wants to encourage fuel efficiency. Not just in terms of using less fuel over the course of the race, but by restricting the amount of fuel going into the engine at any given moment.

 

[mister dog]

I'll just say the cars are ****ing piles of **** they need to be scrapped like the rules ..

I spent most of the time trying to hear the cars through my surround sound system and was not amused. F1 is now trash can't wait till they see sense and change the rules again.

Wish there was a blue rays with older season available I'd snap them up

Luckily i switched to a stream because those incompetents @ Antena 3 forgot to rebalance the sound from last year, so all you heard was their commentator voices.

And me thinking the cars were so silent... Thanks again for the tip @MatheusBond

Good chance you had the same with your TV channel?

 

[MagpieRacer]

Because the FIA wants to encourage fuel efficiency. Not just in terms of using less fuel over the course of the race, but by restricting the amount of fuel going into the engine at any given moment.

I think it's silly, surely just the 100kg fuel limit would force them to be more eco.

 

[86Debris86]

I really don't see the fuss over engine sounds on tv considering commentators usually don't shut up long enough for you to really appreciate the sound of the cars anyways.

I foresee the various broadcaster's sound teams lowering the commentary volume and raising the track-side sounds.

I turned the volume up on my t.v. so I could hear the engines (powertrains) but couldn't do with the commentators bellowing through my house like stadium announcers!

I quite like how they sound, especially as the car decelerates. I just wish I could hear it better.

 

[Whodoyouthink]

I'm beginning to think they somehow structured the limits to try and prevent drivers running out fuel or something. Less fuel to be green (barely), and perhaps cut costs, and a restricted fuel rate to prevent them running out?

Still kinda can't believe this...not that I would want this to happen but why is there no questioning of Rosberg? He was HAULING. Although I guess it really comes down to RB not using the proper spec part.

 

[vasiliflame]

Well unfortunately you will have to get over it, the teams will not want to waste the tons of money they spent on R&D for these cars and their engines.
Besides, the races are better than ever and more unpredictable atm, they just don't sound the best.

Nah I don't have to get over it , I will just stop watching it and buying their wares, games models etc last few years I really enjoyed it even with vettal being dominant, tires were the issue for last few years ,not Pirelli's fault .

I would have ditched the stupid recovery tech totally then just used a v6 turbo and smaller wings and no blown aero parts also bring back sticky tyres and pit stop refuelling .

What channel was you watching mister dog , I watched it on the BBC

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I think it's silly, surely just the 100kg fuel limit would force them to be more eco.

Actually, the 100kg/hr formula is what they were using last year - if you spent the whole race burning 100kg/hr, you would need 150kg of fuel to make it to the end of the race. It is a tolerance that allows drivers to push hard, and one that should be evened out by the low-speed running and the throttle mapping. So for Ricciardo to be burning fuel at a rate "consistently above" (in the words of the stewards) 100kg/hr means he had to be burning a *lot*.

Even if Red Bull demonstrated that Ricciardo never went above 100kg/hr, they still ignored the FIA. They raised a genuine concern over the reliability of the sensor, and the FIA made recommendations to account for it. Red Bull still decided to stop using the sensor, even though the rules clearly state that the stewards are the only ones who can make that call.

 

[Grayfox]

The cars might have some kind of muffler system to make them quite.

They would have no catalytic converter which how road cars are all "eco", cause if it was just a straight pipe from the engine it would be quite loud.

As with vettels software issue, could they not use Dans software to patch it or does each car have to run its own software.

 

[Famine]

So I've just caught this on iPlayer (waiting until SIX hours after the time delayed highlights broadcast to make it available - you stay classy, BBC). I laughed mightily at the second formation lap because the cars literally sounded like playing Gran Turismo 5.

In other news, I've always thought that what we need more of in F1 is races decided in a portakabin 90 minutes after the driving.

 

[DNW]

I can understand Aussies booing Seb what with his relationship and past dealings with Mark Webber.

I can't understand him being booed by virtually everyone else though. It's infantile and incredibly disrespectful. If you don't like someone is it really necessary to constantly make that known? Just cheer louder if and when someone else wins and don't cheer at all when he does. Simple.

Everyone blames it on multi 21, but Vettel was booed in Melbourne last year too. Obviously that was before multi 21 had even happened, and Vettel didn't even win the race or come 2nd, let alone dominate the race from start to finish.

People just want someone to hate.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Everyone blames it on multi 21, but Vettel was booed in Melbourne last year too. Obviously that was before multi 21 had even happened, and Vettel didn't even win the race or come 2nd, let alone dominate the race from start to finish.

People just want someone to hate.

They boo'd because him and Webber have had issues since 2011 and all the BS every season from then until his exit created to make Australians dislike RBR/Vettel more.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

In other news, I've always thought that what we need more of in F1 is races decided in a portakabin 90 minutes after the driving.

What were they supposed to do? Let the result stand because the race had finished? Charlie Whiting said there would be zero tolerance on fuel consumption before the race, and the stewards had told Red Bull to use the sensor in question before and *during* the race, and were even willing to let the issue go if they followed the instruction. And Red Bull still ignored them.

Having the race settled once everyone is packed up is never ideal, but in this case, Red Bull deserved everything they got. In the post-race interviews, they admitted Ricciardo's podium was under threat based on fuel consumption, and Kevin Magnussen looked like he could have caught the Red Bull - so how is it fair on the teams and drivers who followed the rules if Red Bull get a free pass?

 

[DNW]

ye F1 directly leads toward our road car improvements
but within near future for expensive cars only, you will never find such technology on common car
hybrid engine motor and full of newest technology on cars under 10 000$?
pure dream

Yes, but it has to start somewhere. The technology starts out expensive in racing cars where the budgets are huge, or in high end luxury or supercars where the customers pay big dollars. The huge cost isn't necessarily the actual parts, it's in the initial development of the technology and manufacturing processes and whatnot.

Super unlikely. The FIA always back the stewards.

On the other hand, if Red Bull are technically right, just blindly siding with the rules could potentially make a mockery of the sport.

Having the race settled once everyone is packed up is never ideal, but in this case, Red Bull deserved everything they got. In the post-race interviews, they admitted Ricciardo's podium was under threat based on fuel consumption, and Kevin Magnussen looked like he could have caught the Red Bull - so how is it fair on the teams and drivers who followed the rules if Red Bull get a free pass?

From what I can gather, the problem is the fuel sensors aren't just inaccurate, they're inconsistently inaccurate. If Magnussen's sensor is saying 100kg/h when the team's data is telling them he's running 100kg/h, he can run at 100kg/h. If Ricciardo's sensor is saying they're running at 120kg/h when the team knows he's only running 100kg/h, what are they to do? If they just back off to please the stewards, they can't protest post-race and say, "We could have gone faster, so give us the 2nd place." So they run according to their own data that they believe is accurate, and take the 2nd place on track knowing there'll be a fight afterwards. A fight in which they believe their own data proves them to be right.

 

[Famine]

zero tolerance

Annulling a result isn't zero tolerance. Zero tolerance would be banning the team. From the season. Still, that's a bit excessive, despite the accuracy - but not without precedence. Banning the team from the next race for deliberately dicking about should catch their attention - and the attention of any team that wants to deliberately dick around in future.

That said, if the aim is to strictly enforce fuel consumption, disqualifying cars that don't actually exceed the limits because a known-faulty sensor says they did doesn't really fulfil that "spirit of the law" requirement. Though if they still did, fine.


I guess I'm just bored of investing time in watching races where what I see isn't what history records as what happened.

*shrug*

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

From what I can gather, the problem is the fuel sensors aren't just inaccurate, they're inconsistently inaccurate. If Magnussen's sensor is saying 100kg/h when the team's data is telling them he's running 100kg/h, he can run at 100kg/h. If Ricciardo's sensor is saying they're running at 120kg/h when the team knows he's only running 100kg/h, what are they to do? If they just back off to please the stewards, they can't protest post-race and say, "We could have gone faster, so give us the 2nd place." So they run according to their own data that they believe is accurate, and take the 2nd place on track knowing there'll be a fight afterwards. A fight in which they believe their own data proves them to be right.

First off, no need for the multi-post string. Also, sadly you're mistaken and wrong. The data the FIA had showed they were over the limit, and then when they took the data from the car in parc femme it confirmed the FIA's data was right. The FIA took the data off the cars from the outside for everyone.

 

[DNW]

That said, if the aim is to strictly enforce fuel consumption, disqualifying cars that don't actually exceed the limits because a known-faulty sensor says they did doesn't really fulfil that "spirit of the law" requirement.

I guess I'm just bored of investing time in watching races where what I see isn't what history records as what happened.

*shrug*

Exactly. Just blindly following what the FIA's sensors say, when they're known to be problematic, would be ridiculous. Red Bull protesting this is not just good for them, it's in the interests of the sport. I'm not going to bother following a season where at any given race it's a lucky dip as to who's actually allowed to run the fuel flow they want and who's restricted because they have to follow what their FIA sensors are incorrectly measuring.

First off, no need for the multi-post string. Also, sadly you're mistaken and wrong. The data the FIA had showed they were over the limit, and then when they took the data from the car in parc femme it confirmed the FIA's data was right. The FIA took the data off the cars from the outside for everyone.

If all the data matched up, there wouldn't be a protest. They were using a sensor that was known to be faulty, so I don't see how it's even possible the data matched up.

 

[niky]

Red Bull's contention is that the fuel sensors are faulty. If the FIA are taking their readings from those, then the readings will be suspect.

This doesn't excuse them completely, though. The rules state that if the fuel sensor is found insufficient, Red Bull can run their maps after the FIA have reviewed them and have calculated a correction factor to ensure the fueling is within the flow limit.

I think it's silly, surely just the 100kg fuel limit would force them to be more eco.

Actually, the real problem is when someone throttles way back, holding up traffic, but confident they'll have enough fuel to gain a 100-200 horsepower boost (on the 1.6 liter engine alone) to defend against overtaking. The 100 kg/h limit is effectively a power limiter.

The cars might have some kind of muffler system to make them quite.

They would have no catalytic converter which how road cars are all "eco", cause if it was just a straight pipe from the engine it would be quite loud.

As with vettels software issue, could they not use Dans software to patch it or does each car have to run its own software.

Turbocharged cars without cats or muffler just aren't that loud. The turbo is a very effective muffler, converting all that sound energy into power.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Annulling a result isn't zero tolerance. Zero tolerance would be banning the team. From the season. Still, that's a bit excessive, despite the accuracy - but not without precedence. Banning the team from the next race for deliberately dicking about should catch their attention - and the attention of any team that wants to deliberately dick around in future.

That said, if the aim is to strictly enforce fuel consumption, disqualifying cars that don't actually exceed the limits because a known-faulty sensor says they did doesn't really fulfil that "spirit of the law" requirement.

If the FIA wanted to ban Red Bull like that, then they would need to prove that they did it deliberately. And if they did do it deliberately, then they set up one hell of a defence by going to the FIA about the fuel sensor issue in advance. They claim that the sensor was faulty, but the FIA says that the sensors have a tolerance for readings that are outside the consumption rate, probably so that drivers don't get disqualified for one anomalous reading. Right now, there is no evidence that Ricciardo's fuel consumption figures were anything more than someone making a mistake in their calculations.

Red Bull are clearly trying to set this up as a case of the FIA giving them faulty equipment and then penalising them for not using it. They know they can get the fans whipped up into a frenzy - they did it last year with the tyres. Look at what they are saying: that the equipment was faulty and the fuel consumption was fine. But if they were so convinced the sensor was bad, why not ask for a new one? Why did they break the rules by making that decision themselves? And why did they ignore the FIA's instructions mid-race when the stewards made it clear that there would be no further action if they switched back?

 

[GTPorsche]

The cars might have some kind of muffler system to make them quite.

They would have no catalytic converter which how road cars are all "eco", cause if it was just a straight pipe from the engine it would be quite loud.

As with vettels software issue, could they not use Dans software to patch it or does each car have to run its own software.

Some of the exhaust is being fed to the turbo and the ERS system as well. No muffler.

 

[Famine]

If the FIA wanted to ban Red Bull like that, then they would need to prove that they did it deliberately. And if they did do it deliberately, then they set up one hell of a defence by going to the FIA about the fuel sensor issue in advance. They claim that the sensor was faulty, but the FIA says that the sensors have a tolerance for readings that are outside the consumption rate, probably so that drivers don't get disqualified for one anomalous reading. Right now, there is no evidence that Ricciardo's fuel consumption figures were anything more than someone making a mistake in their calculations.

The issue is that Red Bull were told by the FIA to use the sensor with a given offset and Red Bull chose to use their own offset instead because they felt it was wrong:

The nub of it is that Red Bull decided that the sensors were unreliable and applied its own offset rather than the one that the FIA included in its calibration. The FIA observed that it is up to them – not the team – to give instructions on what measures to follow in the event that wrong readings are suspected.

And that's a deliberate act. Oh, and they were warned about it during the race:

The stewards issued a statement after four hours of investigation and deliberation, advising that Red Bull had been notified during the race that the flow rate was exceeding 100kg/hour, which is the maximum in the regulations. The statement added that the team was asked to turn the rate down but declined to do so.

And they did ask for a new one. The one run in the race was the one that failed on Friday. They ran a different sensor on Saturday and that failed too. The FIA told them to refit the original and apply an offset.

But of course if Red Bull are right and the FIA's offset was wrong, they've only technically breached a rule (that the FIA's word is final) rather than actually broken one (that the car used more than 100kg/h). It then just becomes a churlish "because we said so" punishment on behalf of the FIA, rather than for any breach that would give Red Bull an on-track advantage. I'd like to see teams punished for actually cheating rather than just disagreeing with the FIA.

Though the car might have actually exceeded 100kg/h and both offsets were wrong.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

If all the data matched up, there wouldn't be a protest. They were using a sensor that was known to be faulty, so I don't see how it's even possible the data matched up.

Sure there would, it's RBR are you not aware of how many times they have to defend their BS after being called in front of the FIA over the past several years. Read the press report because RBR swapped out the FIA mandated fuel regulator with their own didn't get approval and are trying to talk their way out of it because they just lost a better start then they thought they would to this F1 season.

 

[DNW]

Sure there would, it's RBR are you not aware of how many times they have to defend their BS after being called in front of the FIA over the past several years. Read the press report because RBR swapped out the FIA mandated fuel regulator with their own didn't get approval and are trying to talk their way out of it because they just lost a better start then they thought they would to this F1 season.

Red Bull swapped the sensor for another of the same kind on Saturday after the readings it was giving changed in FP1. Both RB and the FIA weren't happy with the readings of the new sensor, so the FIA said to put the other one back. A known faulty sensor. The FIA told them to apply an offset to supposedly adjust for the dodgy readings. Was the offset necessarily the right offset to give them a fair chance in the race? Not necessarily. If I were in RB, would I trust the FIA's capabilities over the team's to figure out the right numbers? Definitely not.

More to the point, why are the teams having to deal with dodgy readings from a control component? Why are teams having to deal with even dodgier readings from a replacement for the same component? A component that a crucial "zero tolerance" rule depends on. Way to run a sport.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Red Bull swapped the sensor for another of the same kind on Saturday after the readings it was giving changed in FP1. Both RB and the FIA weren't happy with the readings of the new sensor, so the FIA said to put the other one back. A known faulty sensor. The FIA told them to apply an offset to supposedly adjust for the dodgy readings. Was the offset necessarily the right offset to give them a fair chance in the race? Not necessarily. If I were in RB, would I trust the FIA's capabilities over the team's to figure out the right numbers? Definitely not.

More to the point, why are the teams having to deal with dodgy readings from a control component? Why are teams having to deal with even dodgier readings from a replacement for the same component? A component that a crucial "zero tolerance" rule depends on. Way to run a sport.

The reports show it was their own and the press release makes note of that I see nothing in your post that debunks what I just reiterated from the FIA release. Also your sweeping decisions that all teams are having this issue is reaching and in need of proving, only one team had this issue. The data (once again) was grabbed from RBRs own telemetry after the race and that too confirmed what the FIA saw. A car that was in breech of the max fuel flow rate, and they got this info directly off the RB10 after the race. So there was no faulty system from the evidence provided, and RBR are just trying to talk their way out of it, until further info comes about to disprove the FIA which has yet to be seen then I can agree with you. Yet you nor anyone has that info so you're not correct and it's just conjecture at this point to excuse RBR. I wanted to see DR get a podium and keep it but the rules specify.

 

[GTPorsche]

I'd be surprised if DR doesn't get many podiums this year and possibly a win or two. I'd also like to see McLaren get both cars on the podium.. legitimately, although it is nice to know they have bounced back to their normal performance. Last year, they might as well not have even been there...

 

[Dodzzz]

As long as the teams obey what the FIA said, they won't get punished, it's actually as simple as that.. every other teams can and don't have problems (obeying) with that, so why can't Red Bull? I'm getting sick of Red Bull, last year they got away with the tyres and got it changed (for them) for the sake of safetines, where the problem was because their car eat too much rubber, what a nonsense, now this? they want more changes because of their own incompetent, to produce a reliable car? please stop.. what next, next year? I'm so disgusted with Horner's attitude.

 

[DNW]

The reports show it was their own and the press release makes note of that I see nothing in your post that debunks what I just reiterated from the FIA release. Also your sweeping decisions that all teams are having this issue is reaching and in need of proving, only one team had this issue. The data (once again) was grabbed from RBRs own telemetry after the race and that too confirmed what the FIA saw. A car that was in breech of the max fuel flow rate, and they got this info directly off the RB10 after the race. So there was no faulty system from the evidence provided, and RBR are just trying to talk their way out of it, until further info comes about to disprove the FIA which has yet to be seen then I can agree with you. Yet you nor anyone has that info so you're not correct and it's just conjecture at this point to excuse RBR. I wanted to see DR get a podium and keep it but the rules specify.

The sensors all belong to the teams. At the very least, Mercedes also had an issue in practice and were told to turn it down. I think it was Toto Wolff who supposedly claimed they could have been 5/10ths faster if they hadn't done so. I never said all the teams were having problems, but there are claims that the sensors have been problematic all through testing and through the race weekend.

I've not seen anything aside from your posts claiming they matched it up with Red Bull's own telemetry. Everything official I've read only refers to the sensor readings (including acknowledging inconsistencies in the sensors) and that Red Bull decided to ignore the FIA's word and do their own thing. On that side of things, they certainly are guilty. Even if RB argue their way into DR getting his position back, I would imagine RB are likely to cop a fine or lose the constructors points just for going against the FIA.

As long as the teams obey what the FIA said, they won't get punished, it's actually as simple as that.. every other teams can and don't have problems (obeying) with that, so why can't Red Bull? I'm getting sick of Red Bull, last year they got away with the tyres and got it changed (for them) for the sake of safetines, where the problem was because their car eat too much rubber, what a nonsense, now this? they want more changes because of their own incompetent, to produce a reliable car? please stop.. what next, next year? I'm so disgusted with Horner's attitude.

You say that as if Silverstone never happened. You know, the race after which pretty much every other driver was saying it was unacceptable and something had to be done.
There wouldn't be a problem if the sensors were reliable. Then all teams could follow what the FIA say and it would be a fair fight. When you can get two different readings from the one sensor in one session, something isn't right. When that sensor is replaced and both the team and the FIA aren't happy with the readings, something isn't right. If they can't even get consistent readings on one car in one session, how are they supposed to trust the system? How is it a fair race if someone else's sensor effectively allows them to run a higher flow rate?