Red Bull Lose DSQ Appeal

[TenEightyOne]

The problem is that the rules don't appear to state that it has to be used; however one could argue that most of the other methods used to enforce the rules are not present in the rule book either. IRBR are correct on the letter of this (from what I can see) but not in the spirit.

Here you go:
http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/technical_regulations/8699/fia.html

They only state that the sensor should be fitted, what I meant to say was that the rules don't appear to state that the FIA sensor is the means by which rule 5.1.4 (fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h) is measured.

All it clearly states is that maximum consumption and that the FIA sensor must be in place downstream of any similar device that the team is using. I think IRBR are trying to exploit the FIA's ommission of any clear statement that the FIA's device is the arbiter of 5.1.4. It looks like they could be right, which is bloody irritating

 

[niky]

Reading the basic rules, you're right... but this was clarified in the Technical Directive released before the race, as stated in the Stewards Report.

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.

 

[Soundtrack]

Reading the basic rules, you're right... but this was clarified in the Technical Directive released before the race, as stated in the Stewards Report.

On the other hand:

We are confident in the meter’s accuracy but it will always be correlated with data we have from injectors to ensure there isn’t a wide divergence.

http://www.fia.com/news/f1-race-directors-2014-technical-briefing

 

[MrWednesday]

Reading the basic rules, you're right... but this was clarified in the Technical Directive released before the race, as stated in the Stewards Report.

Which comes back to RB's argument that the technical directive does not have regulatory authority.

 

[MustangManiac]

Which comes back to RB's argument that the technical directive does not have regulatory authority.

But wasn't the TD a result of the question the teams had on the rule? So RBR doesn't like the rule, asks for clarification (to see if they can find a work around) doesn't like the answer (no you can't fudge the rule in your favor) so they just unilaterally decide to ignore it. Do I have this straight? Nice strategy.

 

[niky]

That part is for the court to decide.

Here's the thing: The rules state a requirement that the fuel flow rate must be followed. Thus, the FIA have the right to record the flow rate and impose sanctions as they see fit.

RBR is saying, basically, the ruler the FIA is using is wrong, and they will not follow those measurements.

The court cannot allow that.

If you are saying that the measuring tools used by the FIA are not to your liking, and that you should be allowed to use your own measurement devices for scrutineering or monitoring, then you can make the equally valid argument that these regulations:

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/technical_regulations/8695/fia.html

...do not state whose ruler will be used in measuring bodywork, so teams get to use their own. There's also nothing in the regulations that state what sensor will determine whether you've exceeded the 15,000 rpm limit, either, so rev away.

Granted, the regulations should be more explicit in stating that the measurements in policing the 100 kg/hr limit will be taken from the FIA homologated sensor, but it is understood that the FIA itself is doing the measuring, and it's their measurements that count. Red Bull's case hinges on proving that the ruler in this case is wrong, but if the ruler checks out, they're out of luck.

Of course, this all comes down to interpretation. If the interpretation is that the teams themselves will be doing the measuring and are only required to provide the data to the FIA, then RBR may have a chance. If the interpretation is that the FIA itself is doing the measuring via the sensors installed, and is only requiring the teams to give them piggyback access on the car's communication system, then there's (probably) no case.

 

[MustangManiac]

While I am not an RBR fan, I can't see how they can let this stand and that has nothing to do with my views on RBR. If they do it would seem they are saying we (FIA) make the rules, but the teams are allowed to interpret and measure them as they see fit! Not sure how you can regulate a sport in that fashion.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Here's the thing: The rules state a requirement that the fuel flow rate must be followed. Thus, the FIA have the right to record the flow rate and impose sanctions as they see fit...If you are saying that the measuring tools used by the FIA are not to your liking, and that you should be allowed to use your own measurement devices for scrutineering or monitoring...

That's the point I was trying to make my way to - the presumption is normally that the FIA will check that the cars are legal. They don't need to specify how they'll make those checks. In this case a problem has arisen with a new technology because a team's said "but the way you're checking is faulty!". I accept that it isn't a global claim and is limited to a particular sensor but the overall appeal goes to the same principle.

I think IRBR thought this through beforehand. If they can exercise enough doubt in the panel's mind then they can keep this result, that's all they need to do. I still don't feel they'll have much success arguing that TDs aren't regulatory but as you say it's for the court to decide.

 

[niky]

Well, we can only wait and see.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Tad Kravitz on the Sky coverage also wonders if IRBR have held this trick as an "ace up their sleeve".

They're also running the camera in the vanity plate again... I think any talk of the "spirit" of the rules is now over, everything's going to have to be absolutely specified.

 

[Wardez]

I believe it, this seems like this was definitely planned as a kick in the nuts to the FIA for a while, since they figured out the sensor wasn't accurate as planned.

 

[niky]

Does anyone have PR showing who had issues with the sensors and when?

Someone on formula1blog posted the datasheet for the Gill sensor, and had some interesting observations:
http://www.formula1blog.com/f1-news/fuel-sensor-debate-heats-up-in-hot-malaysia/comment-page-1/

http://www.gillsensors.com/content/datasheets/gill-sensors-fuel-flow-meter-2014.pdf

92% of the meters are guaranteed to within 0.25%.... which is possibly 8.33 milligrams per ignition event (three events per rotation (four stroke) at 10,000 rpm... right?)... which isn't a whole lot of fuel... might be worth a whole two or three horses, right there.

More interestingly, the commenter pointed out the flow meter's maximum operating temperature is 85 degrees Celsius.

Which points to the possibility that Red Bull suffers the most because their engines are the hottest.

So... Red Bull's fault?

 

[TenEightyOne]

It clearly says that the teams must operate the flow meter correctly. That means no surface temps >85C and no fuel temps >110C.

It would, as you say @niky, be interesting to know who the other teams "having problems" are (Horner's quote seems to say both might and are). I imagine they're Renault teams of course...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

92% of the meters are guaranteed to within 0.25%.... which is possibly 8.33 milligrams per ignition event (three events per rotation (four stroke) at 10,000 rpm... right?)... which isn't a whole lot of fuel... might be worth a whole two or three horses, right there.

In the aftermath of the disqualification, Greg Rust appeared on "The Project", which is a news and discussion panel show. He was trying to explain the situation, and while he didn't do the greatest job, he did say that Ricciardo was supposedly using somewhere between 1.0 and 1.5% over the limit. I don't know what his source was, but combined with Charlie Whiting's comments that Ricciardo was going over the limit both regularly and consistently, they're going to have a devil of a time proving their innocence if Ricciardo's sensor was within that 92% range.

 

[niky]

In the aftermath of the disqualification, Greg Rust appeared on "The Project", which is a news and discussion panel show. He was trying to explain the situation, and while he didn't do the greatest job, he did say that Ricciardo was supposedly using somewhere between 1.0 and 1.5% over the limit. I don't know what his source was, but combined with Charlie Whiting's comments that Ricciardo was going over the limit both regularly and consistently, they're going to have a devil of a time proving their innocence if Ricciardo's sensor was within that 92% range.

Thinking about it, the benefit isn't just in pure power production at a certain rpm, but also in how long you can hold those gears. Which is very important given teams cannot change the gears more than once a season.

It would be interesting to see telemetry from all the Renault teams to see if Ricciardo had more revs available to him than the others. This might help indicate whether or not he gained an advantage, and whether it was intentional.

"Might" being a very nebulous term.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Wouldn't surprise me if it was. This has all the hallmarks of the team finding and abusing a loophole.

 

[Imari]

“Teams will end up buying hundreds of sensors, as some manufacturers already have, to try to pick the best.

“It ends up like the tricks in go-karting, where you go through carburettors to try to find the best ones. I don’t think that is an acceptable way of moving forward.”

Horner says the above. I'm baffled as to why they'd attempt to jerk around with the rules instead of taking the obvious advantage. Get yourself a sensor that reads low, laugh at other teams that failed to do the obvious.

Sure, it sucks in karting because it's a low cost sport and some people simply can't afford to spend that much money. But in F1? It's all about the money. What's a few hundred sensors when you've already spent millions on your car?

Less complaining, more getting on with making a fast car, Red Bull.

 

[Soundtrack]

Less complaining, more getting on with making a fast car, Red Bull.

My understanding is that you need a fast car to finish second in a F1 race.

I also find understandable that when you invest millions in your car, you don’t want it to be deemed illegal by a device that has a questionable reliability and who’s late implementation resembles a trial and error process.

I thought this concept could be understood in a forum that went on flame when another company released a rushed and unfinished product.

 

[niky]

The thing is, these sensors have been around for years. They're not exactly new technology.

As I've said, it may be possible that the reliability of the sensors is related to the heat of the engine bay in question. Just a theory, but I have a hunch it's a big possibility.

 

[Imari]

My understanding is that you need a fast car to finish second in a F1 race.

Would you prefer I said "less complaining, more getting on with making a fast legal car, Red Bull"?

I also find understandable that when you invest millions in your car, you don’t want it to be deemed illegal by a device that has a questionable reliability and who’s late implementation resembles a trial and error process.

I thought this concept could be understood in a forum that went on flame when another company released a rushed and unfinished product.

I understand that the technicalities of Formula 1 are always pretty ill defined, and that rule defined parts are likely to cause all sorts of issues. See problems with DRS, KERS, and each generation of Pirelli tyres that have been introduced.

One solution is to complain to the FIA. Maybe that will solve the problem, but it's not a quick fix.

Another solution would be to make an actual effort to work within the letter of the law. If the FIA tells you that you need to use the sensor, then you need to use the sensor, regardless of how reliable it is. If you need to test a hundred sensors to find a good one, or figure out what it is that's making it fail, or trick it into reading "correct" values, then do that.

It's Formula 1. Don't be a bunch of whining pansies, be clever in circumventing the rule. Everyone is working with the same sensors, it's not like Red Bull have been singled out for a dud batch.

I agree that if the sensors are unreliable then they need a better solution, but until that time comes I'd rather see Red Bull get on with making a quick, legal car than taking every opportunity to bash the FIA.

 

[HKS racer]

Ferrari had issues with FIA software losing something 120 KW until first pit stop but they didn't cry out loud like RBR always do.

 

[Soundtrack]

The thing is, these sensors have been around for years. They're not exactly new technology.

As I've said, it may be possible that the reliability of the sensors is related to the heat of the engine bay in question. Just a theory, but I have a hunch it's a big possibility.

If the technology was “mature” why the late homologation by the FIA?

Gill Sensors have confirmed that their fuel flow meter has been homologated by the FIA and is approved to be run during the 2014 Formula One season, following a race against time to get it ready.

Gill initially had trouble making sure their ultrasonic fuel flow meter was accurate enough to be used in Formula One and WEC, and therefore to satisfy the FIA, ensuring they would be able to reliably enforce the fuel limit that is in the regulations for 2014 and beyond.

in tempore non suspecto http://www.f1technical.net/news/19049

And if temperatures are to blame in the failing of the sensors, that would make the Reds Bulls just hotter, not illegal...

 

[TenEightyOne]

And if temperatures are to blame in the failing of the sensors, that would make the Reds Bulls just hotter, not illegal...

Not if the data sheet must be mandatorily observed... I suspect it is temperature related and that they're exploiting this. Given that the sheet can be changed without notice I can't see it being regulatory in itself.

They'll keep Ricciardo's P2, I'm reasonably sure of it... let's hope the FIA are able to close the loophole and just put that race down to experience.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

They'll keep Ricciardo's P2, I'm reasonably sure of it... let's hope the FIA are able to close the loophole and just put that race down to experience.

But that doesn't change the fact that they ignored the rule that says the stewards are the only ones who can permit a change in the system. Even if Red Bull prove the sensor was faulty, that does not exonerate them from breaking a rule because it was more convenient for them.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But that doesn't change the fact that they ignored the rule that says the stewards are the only ones who can permit a change in the system. Even if Red Bull prove the sensor was faulty, that does not exonerate them from breaking a rule because it was more convenient for them.

That's true but only if they changed the system. They're arguing that they observed the rule, they can prove that they did and that in doing so with their own systems they complied fully. They say that any technical directive making the FIA sensor the primary data source was not mandatory. If they're found to be correct in that argument then any other ignorance is moot; they will have acted according to the rules.

Which stinks, incidentally

 

[Grayfox]

Who runs the courts?

FIA or some higher group or a non biased group?

 

[Tired Tyres]

The FIA, in a totally non biased way of course. Not that they have ever sided with FIA stewards who made the original decision or anything like that.

I mean they'd never do such a thing as clarify a rule or anything like that.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Curious how today's race and what happened with the sensor will play into the whole outcome

 

[MustangManiac]

Curious how today's race and what happened with the sensor will play into the whole outcome

RBR probably knowingly chose a faulty sensor just to bolster their case. I think FIA needs to take over the sensors, test them and bin them in like readings then hand them out to the teams.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

RBR probably knowingly chose a faulty sensor just to bolster their case. I think FIA needs to take over the sensors, test them and bin them in like readings then hand them out to the teams.

Well yeah isn't it obvious from Christian's pre-race comments on the matter.