Just saw part of an interview with Christian Horner on the late news. He claims that other teams were having issues with the sensors, which we already knew, but said that they "must have" turned them off.
The obvious problem with this statement is that the FIA was able to monitor Ricciardo's fuel consumption in real time. And so it stands to reason that they could monitor anyone's fuel consumption like that. Which means that they would have noticed it if anyone had turned their sensors off. Assuming for the moment that someone else did just that, then why didn't the FIA disqualify them, too?
Simple answer: the FIA didn't disqualify anyone else because nobody else did it.
It's a rule. Eventually a weird one but other teams respected it and Redbull gained an unfair advantage over opponents (nothing new to be honest). FIA can't close booth eyes everytime.
Just saw part of an interview with Christian Horner on the late news. He claims that other teams were having issues with the sensors, which we already knew, but said that they "must have" turned them off.
The obvious problem with this statement is that the FIA was able to monitor Ricciardo's fuel consumption in real time. And so it stands to reason that they could monitor anyone's fuel consumption like that. Which means that they would have noticed it if anyone had turned their sensors off. Assuming for the moment that someone else did just that, then why didn't the FIA disqualify them, too?
Simple answer: the FIA didn't disqualify anyone else because nobody else did it.
The answer to that (and a load more info) can be found here:Or if they disabled the fuel sensors which is similar to using another sensor they would have to disqualify them too
And I cant see the FIA doing that to all 22 drivers.
Racecar EngineeringRed Bull Racing has been disqualified from the Australian Grand Prix after it was found in post race inspection that the RB10 driven to second place by Daniel Ricciardo broke the new fuel flow rate rule. In 2014 Formula 1 cars are limited to 100kg of fuel in the race and it cannot flow to the engine at a rate of more than 100kg per hour. It is this second part the, flow rate which Red Bull exceeded. The teams second car retired early with engine trouble.
The problem which lead to the disqualification stemmed from Red Bull lacking faith in the reliability of the FIA fuel flow meter and deciding to not use it in the race and relying on a backup mathematical solution instead.
The following is an edited version of what happened according to the stewards:
In free practice 1 the team noticed a difference in the flow reading between the first three runs and the fourth. Then that difference carried on throughout Free Practice 2. As a result 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.
They reverted back to the original sensor which had given the different readings in Free Practice 1. After qualifying the FIA’s technical representative in charge of the flow meters instructed Red Bull to apply an offset to their fuel flow such that the fuel flow would have been legal.
The FIA technical representative went on to state to the Stewards that there is variation in the sensors. However, the sensors fall within a known range, and are individually calibrated (by Calibra Technologies). They then become the standard which the teams must use for their fuel flow.
Red Bull then told the stewards that based on the difference observed between the two readings in FP1, 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.
A technical directive issued by the FIA at the start of march does set out the methodology by which the sensor will be used, and, should the sensor fail, the method by which the alternate model could be used (which is apparently what Red Bull did).
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 by the FIA.)
c. The backup system is the calculated fuel flow model with a correction factor decided by the FIA.
The FIA’s 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.
The stewards decided to disqualify the Red Bull as the team chose to run the car using their fuel flow model, without direction from the FIA. This is a violation of the procedure set out in the technical directive. Although the sensor showed a difference in readings between runs in P1, it remained 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 (which the FIA did not do).
The Stewards were satisfied that by making an adjustment as instructed, the team could have run within the allowable fuel flow and 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.
Red Bull however denies any wrong doing and has said that it intends to appeal “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 three, 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.”
If the flow meters (above) are unreliable then it is likely more teams will have issues through the season, not just in Formula 1 but also in the World Endurance Championship which uses identical units in the LMP1 category. The flow meter is supplied by UK company Gill Sensors. Its method of operation and details of how the FIA and ACO are using can be found in the 2014 Racecar Engineering F1 preview – which can be downloaded free below.
It looked nicer afterwards too.The noses will change. The way Kobayashi's Caterham went under Massa's Williams in the first corner crash shows that.
Now there is a new drama..
Aussie organisers consider suing for lack of sexiness
I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking that less people would pay for the ticket.
Although I must admit, I enjoyed the tyre squealing sound thanks to the quieter engine sound.
And the effect of new rule changes help me forget about the engine sounds throughout the race!
Which mean Horner and Redbull are talking out of their arse.Just saw part of an interview with Christian Horner on the late news. He claims that other teams were having issues with the sensors, which we already knew, but said that they "must have" turned them off.
The obvious problem with this statement is that the FIA was able to monitor Ricciardo's fuel consumption in real time. And so it stands to reason that they could monitor anyone's fuel consumption like that. Which means that they would have noticed it if anyone had turned their sensors off. Assuming for the moment that someone else did just that, then why didn't the FIA disqualify them, too?
Simple answer: the FIA didn't disqualify anyone else because nobody else did it.
The thing is you don't need to be a Ferrari fan to admit Vettel should have taken a penalty for overtaking while on yellow flags. Everyone with a little bit of fairness should have said so.the main reason is RB never followed FIA instructions and these last seasons, over their dominance, they often make criticisms toward FIA, wheel manufacturer...
pretty arrogant behavior.
people on the paddock could confirm how arrogant they looks to be
at their beginning, they have been considered as cool and funny team, very similar to Lotus team and when they started to win and dominate F1 scene, they turned into most arrogant team ever seen, even more then Ferrari from 2000 to 2004
i m Ferrari fan btw and everyone agrees they deserved to be disqualified
and in my opinion Vettel in 2012 must take a penalty for not being slower with yellow flags area
What befuddles me is that Indy Car also uses turbo V6's and they sound like this.As for the cars, I remember it being said the cars may have artificial sound to make the cars louder. Since the cars are being improved each race, just experiment with the mufflers. If a stock '82 RX7 can go from hush quiet, to sounding like a hornets nest after a new owner puts a bazooka out back, it can be done by F1.
Especially as F1 has a 15k rpm limit and Indy a 12k limit.
Yep - the Sport1 alternate feed has the onboard all race with telemetry- I dont recall seeing anything over 11,500rpmBut do they even reach that limit? I heard the Dutch commentator stating that they barely hit 12K.
Is there data available that shows their rpm?
Since the cars are being improved each race, just experiment with the mufflers. If a stock '82 RX7 can go from hush quiet, to sounding like a hornets nest after a new owner puts a bazooka out back, it can be done by F1.
But do they even reach that limit? I heard the Dutch commentator stating that they barely hit 12K.
Is there data available that shows their rpm?
I got to thinking more about the new sound of F1 and have realized it may actually be a very good thing for motorsports. It seems one of the main gripes people have about race tracks is the noise the cars put out so maybe having quieter cars will help lessen these complaints a little.
Which sounds louder at the track - the old sound with earplugs, or the new sound no earplugs?
I was planning to go to at least 2 gp's this season....but after watching this video i am not so sure i want to...
Spy.
I got to thinking more about the new sound of F1 and have realized it may actually be a very good thing for motorsports. It seems one of the main gripes people have about race tracks is the noise the cars put out so maybe having quieter cars will help lessen these complaints a little.
His point, I think, is that the cars sound like lawnmowers...
What befuddles me is that Indy Car also uses turbo V6's and they sound like this.
Compared to:
I don't know about others but I prefer an Indy Car's note over F1 and to the latter, that's embarrassing to a series with much more people and resources.
Wow! I was planning on going to my first Grand Prix this year, now I don't know what to expect.
I enjoyed the race but not keen on the new sound of the power units, and I am not the only one:
"Australian Grand Prix organisers have complained to Formula One commercial supremo Bernie Ecclestone about the quieter V6-powered cars and say their reduced volume may have breached race contracts with Formula One management." (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-17/aussie-gp-boss-raps-ecclestone-about-quiet-cars/5326388)