2014 Formula One Australian Grand Prix

[Ho3n3r]

The fuel flow rule has nothing to do with the total fuel used, besides the unfortunate sharing of the number 100 that is confusing so many people. A much better choice would have been to change units, for example the rule could have been a maximum fuel flow of 27.8 ml/s and nobody would be thinking on the total race fuel.

That rule has to do with limiting power. FIA wanted to give the freedom of designing an engine, but with some boundaries on the power. They could have set a rule such as "engines will have less than 700 HP in any case", but that is much more difficult to enforce. Instead, they limit the amount of fuel the engine can use in an instant, and that sets a theoretical limit (maximum efficiency) on the power output.

Nothing at all to do with total race fuel. Nothing. Neither with watching teams running out of fuel.

And, IMHO, this is for once a quite well defined rule with little space for loopholes. They have clearly stated the limits, the measurement apparatus and the procedure in case of contingencies. It is spotless.

Then we were gravely misinformed on the Sky feed, as Ted Kravitz - who has a lot more inside info than we do, and doesn't have a tendency to make things up - indicated that the very reason they brought it in, was to assist with not running out of fuel. As you say, the numbers are a coincidence, but teams running at 100kg/h max will have much more consistent performance than some others who would be running at say 200kg/h at the beginning, only to have to crawl around at the end.

 

[Alberto Casado]

Then we were gravely misinformed on the Sky feed, as Ted Kravitz - who has a lot more inside info than we do, and doesn't have a tendency to make things up - indicated that the very reason they brought it in, was to assist with not running out of fuel. As you say, the numbers are a coincidence, but teams running at 100kg/h max will have much more consistent performance than some others who would be running at say 200kg/h at the beginning, only to have to crawl around at the end.

Well, yes, Mr. Kravitz (who after all is a journalist, not an engineer), was mixing pears and apples. You can be comfortably within the fuel flow rule and still run out of fuel.

 

[Ho3n3r]

Well, yes, Mr. Kravitz (who after all is a journalist, not an engineer), was mixing pears and apples. You can be comfortably within the fuel flow rule and still run out of fuel.

Yes, I agree. In fact, if you take theoretically that a race should last 1.5 hours on average - bit more, bit less in some cases - then you will run out of fuel if you run at only 67kg/h all race. But the impression I got was that it was still a way to assist the teams to curb running out of fuel.

Also, he's a reporter, not a journalist, and him having been in the paddock for over a decade sniffing around and finding info, makes him someone whose opinion and sources I would much rather trust than some armchair experts who haven't ever been in the pit lane even once... Also, he's a pilot, so he can't be too stupid.

 

[vee10]

The fuel flow rule has nothing to do with the total fuel used, besides the unfortunate sharing of the number 100 that is confusing so many people. A much better choice would have been to change units, for example the rule could have been a maximum fuel flow of 27.8 ml/s and nobody would be thinking on the total race fuel.

That rule has to do with limiting power. FIA wanted to give the freedom of designing an engine, but with some boundaries on the power. They could have set a rule such as "engines will have less than 700 HP in any case", but that is much more difficult to enforce. Instead, they limit the amount of fuel the engine can use in an instant, and that sets a theoretical limit (maximum efficiency) on the power output.

Nothing at all to do with total race fuel. Nothing. Neither with watching teams running out of fuel.

And, IMHO, this is for once a quite well defined rule with little space for loopholes. They have clearly stated the limits, the measurement apparatus and the procedure in case of contingencies. It is spotless.

I know why they have the rule and what their philosophy is behind it, but that doesnt make it right or necessary. The V8's didnt have this stipulation and they were even across the manufacturers. These kind of rules have no resonance with the average fan. I was trying to explain to my Dad and father in law yesterday why Ricciardo had been disqualified i could see their eyes glaze over, they are not interested as far as they were concerned the boy drove well.

Back in the good ol' days you had freedom to a point to make the best engine you could, most developements like pneumatic valves etc would not be around today if was not for F1 manufacturers having room to try different things. If they want everyone the same they should just use a standard unit across all teams as that seems to be what the FIA want.

 

[Alberto Casado]

Yes, I agree. In fact, if you take theoretically that a race should last 1.5 hours on average - bit more, bit less in some cases - then you will run out of fuel if you run at only 67kg/h all race. But the impression I got was that it was still a way to assist the teams to curb running out of fuel.

Not only that, even if you would run at 50 kg/h (which would ensure you can finish the race with 100kg fuel, no matter what), no team would ever load "useless" fuel, so they would skip a few liters and again risk running out of fuel (the rules dictate a maximum fuel per race, not a minimum).

That is why the explanation of the 100kg/h flow to assist teams is plainly wrong. It would be still wrong even if Newey itself would have said that.

Also, he's a pilot, so he can't be too stupid.

I know Nobel winners (talked to them) that are beyond moronic, I don't think that piloting anything prevents stupidity.

 

[Chris Jenkins]

End of the day, the breeched the regulations and couldn't buy their way out of it.

 

[Alberto Casado]

End of the day, the breeched the regulations and couldn't buy their way out of it.

I agree, I don't see why people see FIA as the bad side here, RB totally ignored each chance they had of running by the book, it is them who spoiled the race result.

 

[vee10]

I agree, I don't see why people see FIA as the bad side here, RB totally ignored each chance they had of running by the book, it is them who spoiled the race result.

The reg shouldnt be there in the first place its an irrelevance. Would it have been the same outcome if it was Ferrari? I doubt it.

 

[Chris Brand]

I'm not believing any of the rumours of Red Bull ignoring FIA warnings etc. until its officially sourced, and not from any newspaper or website with their "sources".

 

[Alberto Casado]

I'm not believing any of the rumours of Red Bull ignoring FIA warnings etc. until its officially sourced, and not from any newspaper or website with their "sources".

Official enough? http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2014/3/15579.html

"However, when the sensor used on Saturday failed to provide results that were satisfactory to them or the FIA, they were instructed to change back to the original sensor within parc ferme on Saturday night.

Considering this sensor unreliable, Red Bull chose to rely on their own internal fuel flow model, something that the stewards say is in violation of the procedure outlined in the technical regulations.

Furthermore, Red Bull were warned by the FIA’s technical representative during the race that the fuel flow on Ricciardo’s car was too high. The team were given the opportunity to correct this, but according to the stewards’ report, they chose not to make any changes."

You have the full stewards decision at the bottom for your perusal.

9) The FIA technical representative observed thought 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.

Beyond clear!

 

[Phil Dawson]

Horner also stated that they documented various discrepancies in the sensor over the weekend, and believed the readings from it to be incorrect.

 

[Shane Butler]

When can we expect to hear the result of Red Bull's appeal?

 

[mystaaRS]

When can we expect to hear the result of Red Bull's appeal?

At the Malaysian Grand Prix

 

[Kennett Ylitalo]

The reg shouldnt be there in the first place its an irrelevance. Would it have been the same outcome if it was Ferrari? I doubt it.

It's not irrelevant. It limits the maximum fuel flow. The same system is in place on a lot of racing series, most use restrictor plates to limit the incoming air. Why? To limit the max power to make more even playfield amongst the teams. Qualy would be significantly different and laptimes would not be comparable in any practice sessions. Smaller team could go for 150l/h and drive 2/3 distance 5 minutes in the lead hoping for red flag.. or making a red flag appear by a convenient "accident".. A LOT of reasons for "irrelevant" fuel flow limit.

RBR most likely just counted on slap in the wrist and "don't do it again" sentence. I'm pretty sure it didn't change the outcome of the race but FIA had to make a hard case now. RBR has got away with ducted nose (technically legal, breaks the intention of the nose rules), holes in the floor (Monaco..), engine mappings.... Basically they go over the limit just a tiny bit and then claim it's not important enough to get any real punishment.. You put hundred little things over the limit, it starts to stack up..

 

[vee10]

It's not irrelevant. It limits the maximum fuel flow. The same system is in place on a lot of racing series, most use restrictor plates to limit the incoming air. Why? To limit the max power to make more even playfield amongst the teams. Qualy would be significantly different and laptimes would not be comparable in any practice sessions. Smaller team could go for 150l/h and drive 2/3 distance 5 minutes in the lead hoping for red flag.. or making a red flag appear by a convenient "accident".. A LOT of reasons for "irrelevant" fuel flow limit.

RBR most likely just counted on slap in the wrist and "don't do it again" sentence. I'm pretty sure it didn't change the outcome of the race but FIA had to make a hard case now. RBR has got away with ducted nose (technically legal, breaks the intention of the nose rules), holes in the floor (Monaco..), engine mappings.... Basically they go over the limit just a tiny bit and then claim it's not important enough to get any real punishment.. You put hundred little things over the limit, it starts to stack up..

Well what can say that's your opinion and that's fine, i understand why they are in place but for me the essence of F1 (the pinnacle of motorsport no less) is about pushing the boundaries not narrowing them. Leave restrictor plates and the like to the lesser formulas. Like i have said before we may as well make it a one make series and be done with it. Surely the fuel limit is enough, another layer of complication is not needed.

The fuel flow sensors appear to unreliable and out of specification miles out in some cases they are not fit for purpose yet. I agree RBR should have maybe taken the advice but hindsight is great. Seems very harsh for something that made them have little advantage if any at all.

And thus the highlight of the race, the story in Australia (Ricciardo 2nd) is no more, take that out the equation and it was a bit of a bore fest.

 

[Alberto Casado]

Well what can say that's your opinion and that's fine, i understand why they are in place but for me the essence of F1 (the pinnacle of motorsport no less) is about pushing the boundaries not narrowing them.

In order to be pushed there need to be boundaries!

 

[vee10]

In order to be pushed there need to be boundaries!

Confucius

 

[Salut Gilles]

The reg shouldnt be there in the first place its an irrelevance. Would it have been the same outcome if it was Ferrari? I doubt it.

But Ferrari complied with the rule when ordered to, something Horner never did.

Re: Red Bull's rivals heeded FIA advice on fuel flow
http://www.f1times.co.uk/news/display/08641
...snip...
Ferrari's Stefano Domenicali said the teams must trust the governing body and abide by its advice.

"We need to rely on the fact that it is a situation that is well managed by the FIA, and that is it, to be honest," he told Autosport.

"We have the FIA that will do their job and I am sure there will not be a problem at all."

Red Bull has appealed the decision to disqualify Ricciardo as a result, saying it can prove they never exceeded the maximum fuel flow allowed under the regulations.
... end snip...

When ordered to comply, you just don't say eff u, I'm going to do it my way. Eff the rules.

 

[DarkZenith]

End of the day, the breeched the regulations and couldn't buy their way out of it.

It's also worth remembering, this is not the first time RBR have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. It may however be the first time that the FIA have actually done something about it.

 

[Warren Dawes]

"The other ten teams however didn't, and when warned by the FIA that they were nearing the limit, they dialled the fuel flow back when asked to do so."

I must say, this bit worries me.
This suggests that other teams were in similar situations (also indicating variability in the measuring device), which will no doubt cause lots of potential for drama throughout the season.
Now, it seems that every team must have the FIA monitoring their data and advising teams how to manage their races, during the race no less. That then leaves teams to decide who is correct (the teams data or FIA), and if they choose to trust their own data, risk finding themselves disqualified after the event.
Having teams reliant on "during the race" discussions / advice from FIA can only lead to friction throughout the Season, not only between the Teams and FIA, but between teams, and no doubt between FIA and the fans for whom the Series is aimed. Imagine the fans response if many of these races are decided in the courts, weeks / months after the race day.

If they want to force everyone to be equal regarding fuel flow, isn't there a better method somehow by supplying every team with a FIA approved flow restrictor, rather than rely on teams and FIA having to monitor it (and hopefully agree during a tense close race situation).
Surely there is a less dodgy way of managing this if needed.