Formula One 2014

[djr81]

what on earth are you talking about?

The sensor was not faulty. If RBR could have demonstrated the sensor was faulty, how on earth could they have lost the appeal???

You don't think the sensor at the center of this dispute would have been thoroughly tested after the race???

I think it's time to stop believing the team's claim the sensor was faulty.

And of course it's up to the governing body to police the use of the sensors rather than each individual team to decide what's right and wrong during the course of the race. That's the only fair way to get everyone playing by the same fuel flow parameters!

The FIA and the manufacturer say faulty sensors are VERY obvious. It's not a thing to be disputed. If it was as dodgy as RBR claimed, the other teams would have jumped on board and lobbied against the meters as well. No-one would want to be disadvantaged by dodgy fuel flow meters. But the other teams are on the FIA's side - so you already have the answer to who's playing silly buggers.

Good trolling Harry. This is what Autosport had to say:

The FIA Court of Appeal's hearing of Red Bull's attempt to overturn Daniel Ricciardo's disqualification from the Australian Grand Prix was a test case for Formula 1's new fuel-efficiency regulations.

By rejecting it, the court ensures the viability of the fuel-flow sensor to police both the 100kg/h maximum fuel flow and the 100kg-per-race fuel allowance.

As the FIA's legal representative, Jonathan Taylor argued, competition cannot be allowed to become the "wild west".

That does not mean Red Bull's appeal was frivolous. While the media is not privy to the written testimony and data, based on yesterday's six-hour hearing in Paris, there are grounds to believe Red Bull did not exceed the fuel-flow limit.

It was crucial to Red Bull's case to be able to prove this with certainty. This was difficult given data gathered from the fuel rail on which the injectors are mounted still needs to be run through software to calculate the flow rate.

You can understand why Red Bull wanted to rely on its own, likely more accurate data.

This was not a case of cheating, because it was done in plain sight. But it was a clear challenge to the policing of the regulations.

These ultrasonic sensors are new technology. While measuring flow in stable conditions is relatively straightforward, to do so instantaneously in a moving car under demanding conditions is not.

The FIA has established a calibration protocol and the error bars are big enough to ensure that only clear cases of going over the fuel-flow limit as measured by the meters are punished.

In the long-term, the technology does need to improve to be as precise as is required for F1. All teams have encountered problems and there are discrepancies between their own data and what the sensors say.

It's tempting to cast Red Bull as the bad guy in all this, trying to pull a fast one. But it had a legitimate case and the hearing cast light on the current state of this technology.

No verifiable reason was given for why the fuel-flow meter it used during the race in Australia had started reading higher than before after the first three runs of free practice two.

And as Red Bull's legal team pointed out, the sensor in question was in the possession of the FIA but without any subsequent testing to understand exactly why there was this difference.

All of this points to more analysis and development being necessary because there are question marks about just how level this playing field is and whether race results will be distorted by the accuracy of any given sensor.

For now, while the sensors are not perfect, they are necessary. It's not ideal, but self-policing is even more dangerous.

This is why the verdict was probably the best one for F1

[djr81]

CARNTS!!!!! Though predictable So i guess we see cars tank performance based on rol of dice, with viewers not knowing whether the driver is sucking on a given day or they are giving away 1.5-2% of power which is easily 12-15hp

Looks like car performance is now based on the chook lotto of finding the right fluel flow meter. No wonder team are reportedly buying the thing by the box full just to get a good one.

Thoroughly predictable outcome. FIA decides that the FIA is the one who decides things. Even when they are wrong or unless they defer to Ferrari like they agreed to.

[Roy]

You don't think the sensor at the center of this dispute would have been thoroughly tested after the race???

I

Ah, several teams have had them stop and completely fail and been allowed to run alternate. RBR took teh sensor back to France and tested it on the bench with FIA witnessing then handed it over to FIA for their own testing. FIA chose not to test it.

The sensors are faulty and do lose accuracy with multiple other teams on multiple occassions being allowed to use an offset. Those offsets may or may not be accurate....RBR thought the sensor was way off even after an offset. I look at Vettels performance in Bahrain and cant help but think he doesnt give that much away to Dan and other guys in combat. Why I wonder?!?!?!

FI have had them fail, STR fail, Virgin not happy with the offset...saying that their tru performance has been hurt in two GPs and Bahrain was the first indication of the cars performance etc THEY ARE CRAP! But that all they have and the FIA have to be stick to their guns even if the sensros are affecting performance and places in GPs!!!!!!!

So it dosnt matter if RBR was right...FIA cant allow teams to second guess them during a race. RBR shoudl have continued to argue with FIA during the race to get them to default to alternate means of measurement...not try to sort it out later. Its a process issue...not that RBR cheated.

[hrd-hr30]

Good trolling Harry. This is what Autosport had to say:

The FIA Court of Appeal's hearing of Red Bull's attempt to overturn Daniel Ricciardo's disqualification from the Australian Grand Prix was a test case for Formula 1's new fuel-efficiency regulations.

By rejecting it, the court ensures the viability of the fuel-flow sensor to police both the 100kg/h maximum fuel flow and the 100kg-per-race fuel allowance.

As the FIA's legal representative, Jonathan Taylor argued, competition cannot be allowed to become the "wild west".

not sure how it's trolling. This is the exact same sentiment as one of my points:

of course it's up to the governing body to police the use of the sensors rather than each individual team to decide what's right and wrong during the course of the race. That's the only fair way to get everyone playing by the same fuel flow parameters!

allow every team to decide for themselves how to measure flow and when to listen to the meter and it's "wild west" stuff.

Good trolling Harry. This is what Autosport had to say:

...there are grounds to believe Red Bull did not exceed the fuel-flow limit.

It was crucial to Red Bull's case to be able to prove this with certainty.

you neglected to bold the important (some may even say crucial) part there. lol

It also echos what I said:

If RBR could have demonstrated the sensor was faulty, how on earth could they have lost the appeal???

How's that trolling?

You can understand why Red Bull wanted to rely on its own, likely more accurate data.

Yes, you certainly can. Because they would have lost second place otherwise. As they have repeatedly said themselves. Good point to bold and highlight in red.

This was not a case of cheating, because it was done in plain sight.

That's his opinion. I beg to differ. Maradonna's 'Hand of God' goal was also done in plain sight. Doesn't mean it's not cheating.

Same goes here. If everyone else is playing by the rules and Red Bull say, "stick it, those rules have no regulatory value and we'll do what we damn well please", they're breaking the rules to gain an advantage. It's literally the textbook definition of cheating.

All teams have encountered problems and there are discrepancies between their own data and what the sensors say.

Yes, and all other teams have followed the FIA and their rules when the problems have been encountered. Again, as i said,

If it was as dodgy as RBR claimed, the other teams would have jumped on board and lobbied against the meters as well. No-one would want to be disadvantaged by dodgy fuel flow meters. But the other teams are on the FIA's side...

So, all three of my points are validated in that very autosport article you cherry picked to argue that I'm just trolling... good work.

[hrd-hr30]

Looks like car performance is now based on the chook lotto of finding the right fluel flow meter. No wonder team are reportedly buying the thing by the box full just to get a good one.

You're just parroting RBR's "trial by media" propoganda.

The fact is the meter's accuracy (how correct it's measurements are) is corrected individiually by offsets, so they all effectively read the same mass flow. The meter's precision (how repeatabe it measurements are) is very high. So once corrected against the test bench mass flow, all meters deliver the same end result.

If it was "chook lotto" like that RBR claim, all the teams would be shitty about the meters. But the other teams are on FIA's side!

[tweety bird]

Formula 1 teams are considering lifting the ban on active suspension as part of a move to control costs, AUTOSPORT has learned.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113465

[hrd-hr30]

Ah, several teams have had them stop and completely fail and been allowed to run alternate. RBR took teh sensor back to France and tested it on the bench with FIA witnessing then handed it over to FIA for their own testing. FIA chose not to test it.

source?

The sensors are faulty and do lose accuracy with multiple other teams on multiple occassions being allowed to use an offset. Those offsets may or may not be accurate....RBR thought the sensor was way off even after an offset.

You misunderstand accuracy and precision, and what the offset is for.

I look at Vettels performance in Bahrain and cant help but think he doesnt give that much away to Dan and other guys in combat. Why I wonder?!?!?!

could be any number of reasons early in the season with the teething problems both RBR and Renault have had, and a brand new Renault PU for that team that weekend. But for you, it MUST be the fuel flow meter... Can't argue with logic like that.

FI have had them fail, STR fail, Virgin not happy with the offset...saying that their tru performance has been hurt in two GPs and Bahrain was the first indication of the cars performance etc THEY ARE CRAP! But that all they have and the FIA have to be stick to their guns even if the sensros are affecting performance and places in GPs!!!!!!!

Yes they can fail. That's not a point in favour of your argument. That's why the FIA have the process in place to use a backup method when they do fail. The failures are very easy to identify. it didn't happen to RBR's meter in the race. It behaved the same as it did in practice.

Virgin not happy with the offset? They haven't raced since 2011 mate. Calm down, take a deep breath...

I've just read through Marussia's official site and only see talk of them improving the car, re-optimising ERS, improving the performance of the PU, and strategy as reasons for their improved performance. A quick google didn't turn up any articles about them complaining about the meter hurting performance either. In fact, Marussia hopes Red Bull lose Ricciardo disqualification appeal

Read more http://grandprix247.com/2014/03/25/marussia-hopes-red-bull-loses-ricciardo-disqualification-appeal/:

Edited April 16, 2014 by hrd-hr30

[89CAL]

f**k me does it really mater, or is it that important that everyone agrees with you?

Its not going to happen. Agree to disagree guys. This is getting rediculous. I think we all WANTED Dan to have his position re-instated but we can all accept what has happened.

[Roy]

source?

You misunderstand accuracy and precision, and what the offset is for.

could be any number of reasons early in the season with the teething problems both RBR and Renault have had, and a brand new Renault PU for that team that weekend. But for you, it MUST be the fuel flow meter... Can't argue with logic like that.

Yes they can fail. That's not a point in favour of your argument. That's why the FIA have the process in place to use a backup method when they do fail. The failures are very easy to identify. it didn't happen to RBR's meter in the race. It behaved the same as it did in practice.

Virgin not happy with the offset? They haven't raced since 2011 mate. Calm down, take a deep breath...

I've just read through Marussia's official site and only see talk of them improving the car, re-optimising ERS, improving the performance of the PU, and strategy as reasons for their improved performance. A quick google didn't turn up any articles about them complaining about the meter hurting performance either. In fact, Marussia hopes Red Bull lose Ricciardo disqualification appeal

Read more http://grandprix247.com/2014/03/25/marussia-hopes-red-bull-loses-ricciardo-disqualification-appeal/:

I still call them virgin because they still haven't popped thjeir cherry! I watch the Sky F1 pre shows, post shows and also the BBC stuff. I skip loads but do watch the interviews. Yes Mur-Virgin wanted RBR to lose the appeal but in one of the interviews he also said that their pace had been hurt in Australia due to their sensor readings being wrong. They applied the FIA offset and felt that it still hindered their pace as it was still wrong! The line of questioning came from Ted Kravitz when the same person saying they hope RBR got penalised mentioned their lack of pace being artificial and not true to their potential

Anway...I am not saying Vettel had a fuel problem...what I am saying is that going forward until they are reliable if a drivers pace is off then there is a reason why a driver could be unduly hindered.

Precision and accuracy...lol they drift in readings. Thats just not RBR saying that. Force India had to apply different offsets on the same meter between practice sessions and ended up binning the meter and going with a new one.

[djr81]

f**k me does it really mater, or is it that important that everyone agrees with you?

Its not going to happen. Agree to disagree guys. This is getting rediculous. I think we all WANTED Dan to have his position re-instated but we can all accept what has happened.

not sure how it's trolling. This is the exact same sentiment as one of my points:

allow every team to decide for themselves how to measure flow and when to listen to the meter and it's "wild west" stuff.

you neglected to bold the important (some may even say crucial) part there. lol

It also echos what I said:

How's that trolling?

Yes, you certainly can. Because they would have lost second place otherwise. As they have repeatedly said themselves. Good point to bold and highlight in red.

That's his opinion. I beg to differ. Maradonna's 'Hand of rajab' goal was also done in plain sight. Doesn't mean it's not cheating.

Same goes here. If everyone else is playing by the rules and Red Bull say, "stick it, those rules have no regulatory value and we'll do what we damn well please", they're breaking the rules to gain an advantage. It's literally the textbook definition of cheating.

Yes, and all other teams have followed the FIA and their rules when the problems have been encountered. Again, as i said,

So, all three of my points are validated in that very autosport article you cherry picked to argue that I'm just trolling... good work.

My textbook says that cheating requires deceipt. They were hardly hiding it from anyone, now were they?

Ofcourse Redbull were unhappy about being asked to reduce their fuel flow. How could they be otherwise? It doesnt make the FIA numbers correct, however. Or their flowmeters good It is easy to comply with something when you have nothing to lose. Just as it is easy to carry on like a pork chop (eg Mercedes) when you have something to gain.

[hrd-hr30]

so no source.

f**k me does it really mater, or is it that important that everyone agrees with you?

Its not going to happen. Agree to disagree guys. This is getting rediculous. I think we all WANTED Dan to have his position re-instated but we can all accept what has happened.

just correcting mis-information.

but you did hit on the problem; "we all WANTED Dan to have his position re-instated" because you're parochial aussie fans... the rest of the sport wanted the exact opposite, including the other teams. If the meters were so bad they were affecting performance of all these other teams, they'd be wanting change too.

[djr81]

2 seconds of googling turned this up.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news/porsche-critical-of-f1-fuel-flow-meter/

[hrd-hr30]

My textbook says that cheating requires deceipt. They were hardly hiding it from anyone, now were they?

Ofcourse Redbull were unhappy about being asked to reduce their fuel flow. How could they be otherwise? It doesnt make the FIA numbers correct, however. Or their flowmeters good It is easy to comply with something when you have nothing to lose. Just as it is easy to carry on like a pork chop (eg Mercedes) when you have something to gain.

Every other team complied with FIA's directions though. Only RBR chose to play the game their own way to stay ahead of those teams playing to the rules.

The absolute correctness of the FIA's numbers in comparison to each individual teams modelling is pretty much irrelevant. The important factor is each team gets the same mass flow rate. If each team gets to decide how to calculate fuel flow themselves just because they don't want to lose a position, it's going to be a complete farce.

[hrd-hr30]

2 seconds of googling turned this up.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news/porsche-critical-of-f1-fuel-flow-meter/

f**king Porsche! I was trying to verify Roy's claim that Virgin's performance had been hurt in the first two GP's by the fuel flow meter. And all it says anyway is "right now we don’t know if it is all going to be robust. We should know at the end of March". Compelling!

Edited April 16, 2014 by hrd-hr30

[mad082]

My opinion (and I don't expect everyone to share it, as some here clearly won't, as demonstrated by previous posts) is that rbr lost the appeal more because they didn't follow protocol rather than anything to do with what the actual fuel flow may have been. I feel that regardless of whether rbr could've proved that they didn't exceed the flow limit or not, that was only a secondary part of the argument. The crux of the argument was that rbr ignored instruction about the offsets. We could argue about the sensors all day, but that isn't really the point. While they are what caused the issue to start with, they aren't why rbr lost the appeal.

I wouldn't call what rbr did cheating per se, as we don't know whether they actually exceeded the fuel flow or not, but they did ignore instructions from officials and therefore broke the rules.

As for the other teams all supporting the fia during the appeal, that hardly means that they are happy with how the sensors are working and the procedures put in place. Of course teams like Mercedes were going to go on the offensive against rbr. Rbr is one of their main rivals, so they'd be happy to stick the boot in and try and keep their lead by as much as possible (as was clear by saying that rbr should be suspended for the rest of the season).

[tweety bird]

FFS...

So many TLDR'S.

[Roy]

Poor 89CAL....lol must be painful . Sorry.

Source?? I told you...go watch the Ted interviews pre Malaysia etc. What you want me to crop interviews and youtube it?

He most likely wanted RBR punished as he threw away pace when his meter was wrong. Good enough for him...good enough for RBR. Doesnt make the meter right or RBR wrong...just silly meter.

LOL, FI, STR are lucky in that theirs outright failing means they divert to the engine parameters/fuel rail etc whilst the meter was performing. Bets put a kill switch or fusible link in that power cable

Most likely teams have worked out by now the way around the meters and are either bench testing units and only installing the optimum ones. Remember the tolerance is + / - so imagine the holy grail is the one that reads a tad low and they get that .5% or 3-5hp extra

Edit...you wont be satisfied but here is something on line. Similar things were said to Ted Kravitz and Ted drilled down on why they didnt show their true pace (suspecting he knew the answer was the fuel flow meter) Graeme Lowdon smiled, shrugged his shoulders ; effectively answering to Ted , yes...the reason we were slower than we should have been was the fuel meter.

Extracts from what is online...

"I don't think we showed our true pace in particular in the race and there were various reasons for that. So I do think that pace-wise we have made a step forward, it's just I don't think we've really shown that yet."

"For all there were various issues and problems, and certainly we experienced some circumstances on the fuel flow where we had to make some decisions, I think most of the teams made those decisions in accordance with how the FIA thought the teams would act, which is to err on the side of ensuring that your car is safe and legal at all times, which is the stipulation that's in the Sporting Regulations. I know whenever we were presented with a decision to make we took it into accordance with the guidelines that have been issued with the FIA."

http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/17581/9230233/exclusive-graeme-lowdon-qa-marussia-sporting-director-on-engines-appeals-2014

I am with CAL89 from here on. Hopefully everyone has 5 bench tested meters all reading a little conservative ready for this weekend....swap them out and be ready to start each session with a new one. Great for the supplier

[djr81]

FFS...

So many TLDR'S.

Reckon that may be the epitaph for the 2014 season.

On an unrelated topic I bough this:

http://www.amazon.com/F1-Retro-1970-Mark-Hughes/dp/0957025521

Has some good stuff in it. The author is the editor of motorsport and he can write. He has interviewed a fair few of the survivors of that era, the likes of Ron Tauranac for example and gone through the cars/engines/drivers/racers and reviewed them from todays perpective. Makes for an interesting read - there is even some cfd analysis of the frontrunners from the era (although this isnt as good as you would think).

Most of it is race reviews but there is stuff like a write up of Frank Williams and the De Tomaso effort, an interview with the Matra designer and other goodies. Anyway if you can get it for a reasonable price (or at all) I would recommend it.

[Roy]

I started reading the Colin Chapman - Lotus book the other day. He was a hard man!

http://www.bookdepository.com/Colin-Chapman-Gerard-Crombac/9781859608449

[tweety bird]

I started reading the Colin Chapman - Lotus book the other day. He was a hard man!

Some books I've read called tales from the toolbox a collection of behind the scenes tales from Grand Prix mechanics (mostly from the early days of f1) and another book called the piranha club have painted similar pictures of him..