Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

The stewards' decision in full:

The Stewards, having received a report from the Technical Delegate, heard from the team representatives, have considered the following matter and determine a breach of the regulations has been committed by the competitor named below and impose the penalty referred to.

No/Driver: 3, Daniel Ricciardo

Competitor: Infiniti Red Bull Racing

Time: 20:17

Session: Race

Facts: Car #3 was not in compliance with article 5.1.4 of the FIA Formula 1 technical tegulations.

Offence: Breach of article 3.2 of the FIA Formula 1 sporting regulations and Article 5.1.4 of the FIA Formula 1 technical regulations.

Decision: Car #3 is excluded from the race results.

Reason:

1) The technical delegate reported to the stewards that car #3 exceeded the required fuel mass flow of 100kg/h. (article 5.1.4 of the Formula 1 technical regulations)

2) This parameter is outside of the control of the driver, Daniel Ricciardo.

3) The fuel flow is measured using the fuel flow sensor (Art. 5.10.3 & 5.10.4 of the technical regulations) which is homologated by the FIA and owned and operated by the team.

4) The stewards considered the history of the fitted fuel flow sensor, as described by the team and the technical delegate's representative who administers the programme. Their description of the history of the sensor matches.

a. During practice one a difference in reading between the first three and run four was detected. The same readings as Run 4 were observed throughout practice two.

b. 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.

c. They operated the original sensor during the race, which provided the same readings as run four of practice one, and practice two.

5) The stewards heard from the technical representative that when the sensor was installed on Saturday night, he instructed the team to apply an offset to their fuel flow such that the fuel flow would have been legal. He presented an email to the stewards that verified his instruction.

6) The technical representative stated to the stewards that there is variation in the sensors. However, the sensors fall within a known range, and are individually calibrated. They then become the standard which the teams must use for their fuel flow.

7) The team stated that based on the difference observed between the two readings in P1, 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.

8) 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 back-up system."

(emphasis added.)

c. The back-up system is the calculated fuel flow model with a correction factor decided by the FIA.

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.

10) Under Art. 3.2 of the sporting regulations it is the duty of the team to ensure compliance with the technical regulations throughout the event.

Thus the stewards find that:

A) The team chose to run the car using their fuel flow model, without direction from the FIA. This is a violation of the procedure within TD/01614.

B) That although the sensor showed a difference in readings between runs in P1, it remains 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.

C) The stewards were satisfied by the explanation of the technical representative that by making an adjustment as instructed, the team could have run within the allowable fuel flow.

D) That 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.

The stewards find that car #3 was out of compliance with the technical regulations and is therefore excluded from the results of the race.

Power.

Not economy. The economy part is the fact they only have 100 litres to start and finish the race with.

Fuel flow restricts the maximum power available from the turbo motor. Otherwise with an unrestricted flow, you could run massive power to pass at will, then just trickle around to save fuel.

Power.

Not economy. The economy part is the fact they only have 100 litres to start and finish the race with.

Fuel flow restricts the maximum power available from the turbo motor. Otherwise with an unrestricted flow, you could run massive power to pass at will, then just trickle around to save fuel.

Yeah you have to laugh at the mainstream medias attemps to explain what the hell it was he got pinged for. Hopeless. Still brilliant effort by Dan none the less. He just needs to repeat it in a couple weeks and he is on his way to crushing Tool.*

Also good effort by Magnussen. Pretty young looking podium, all up.

*May have gone a bit early with that prediction.

It was a little strange seeing the McLaren not make much ground on the RB down the straight, when all the talk was about how slow the Renault was in a straight line.

Overall it's a sad state of affairs for a sport that revived such a PR boost in this country with Dans result. Not saying it could be over looked for the PR, but it's just sad.

I skimmed over that stewards report, makes me very uneasy about these fuel flow meters for "parity".

It was a little strange seeing the McLaren not make much ground on the RB down the straight, when all the talk was about how slow the Renault was in a straight line.

Overall it's a sad state of affairs for a sport that revived such a PR boost in this country with Dans result. Not saying it could be over looked for the PR, but it's just sad.

I skimmed over that stewards report, makes me very uneasy about these fuel flow meters for "parity".

Back in the eighties they used to have the same issues with the boost limiters (bovs basically if i remember correctly) they used to limit the turbo motors. FIA stuff was not up to scratch and the teams quickly figured out how to game them anyway.

Lets see Vettel get a good weekend in and see if Dan can ruffle feathers. It does look like being a race for the 3rd step between RBR, Williams and McLaren which will make for interesting racing. But Mercedes are clearly quicker much like Seb was in Singapore last year. Pace to burn.

RBR are probably, in leagalese, screwed; but we'll see

To clarify, it turns out not to be L/h fuel flow (volume) but rather mass flow (kg/h)

Depending on the specific gravity of the control fuel and the ambient temp, 100kg/h would probably be between 110-120L/h (?)

here's an excellent picture for all you Kobi fans out there

rajab knows why you're fans, but you deserve pics regardless

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000ZyJhCjP7Gb4/s/1000/I0000ZyJhCjP7Gb4.jpg

Great picture with a caption below it...

"WHAT DEFECT?"

here's an excellent picture for all you Kobi fans out there

rajab knows why you're fans, but you deserve pics regardless

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000ZyJhCjP7Gb4/s/1000/I0000ZyJhCjP7Gb4.jpg

yeah bag him because his rear brakes didn't work.

fans because a Caterham has never been far enough up the grid to crash into anyone before!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Mind if I ask what brand was that alternator? Not to take a stab at the brand, but just curious, as I had voltage drop issues too, but seemed to have stabalised after i changed battery.
    • That shoots down the suggestion they are a similar price to a 5yr older Q50 RS.  if you pay that price for a 2016 RS you would have rocks in your head.
    • It can't be some stupidly proprietary video signal coming out of it that only Nissan's can understand. Surely you can just find some generic camera to stuff in there and use hot melt glue/blu-tac/gaffer tape to hold it in place if need be?
    • Update: Tunehouse looked into the problem and identified a wiring issue between the camera unit and the connector. They managed to get it working , but did warn me at some point it will stop working again. From their perspective it is unserviceable and will need replacement. They did some research and found that the new replacement camera would be Approx $1400 supply only (their fitting cost would be $190) . They did provide the part number (28442-JL05B) and a quick google of the part number shows that these are rather expensive brand new (seemingly no longer in manufacture) for the places that still have them in stock, with the used option potentially presenting  the same issue down the track at some unknown point. They are happy for me to supply the part so that they can fit it. Decisions, decisions... I can definitely recommend Tunehouse (thankyou Vee37!). Cost for the diagnosis was as quoted  ($190) , car was ready on time and communication was top notch. Their workshop is super clean and modern, and there was plenty of car candy parked out the front on the day I went.   Would definitely go back.   
    • to fix the voltage drop issue I swapped out the old 150amp alternator which turns out is a brand known for having issues and replaced it with the black 180amp alternator beside it 
×
×
  • Create New...