Red Bull Appeal..
Discussion
Scuffers said:
Seems to me to be more a case if total not being open to gill and the FIA about what's in their fuel.
Trying to think what they will have used that eats said o ring
I would assume they have already gone though this with renault on the engines fuel system, so seems somewhat odd not to have mentioned this to the fia or gill?
Surely can't be that hard to chuck a sample into a lab for mass spectrometry? The FIA have litres of total's F1 product.Trying to think what they will have used that eats said o ring
I would assume they have already gone though this with renault on the engines fuel system, so seems somewhat odd not to have mentioned this to the fia or gill?
CBR JGWRR said:
Gaz. said:
It isn't happening to Caterham though?
Most likely because they are installing the various bits as the various people tell them, rather than being clever with placing and modifying stuff.It won't be too hot/cold either as the fuel is minimum of 10C below ambient, and is at all times as cold as the teams can get it for power reasons.
In other words, it's a decent question.
The fuel composition is still just one possible cause identified. They are also still investigating the sensor modifications made by RBR, among others.
"We identified the chemical composition issue of the Total fuel, but we also have another clue, which is the teams that are modifying the sensor. If you take the picture of the sensor, you have two connections, and some teams, Red Bull for example, are removing these connections and putting in their own connections. If it [the replacement connection] is a bit too long inside, it can touch the tube where the measurement is done. This is the second cause we can have."
The FIA has issued a directive in effect from the Spanish Grand Prix which will ban teams from modifying the sensors. Should that not fix the problem, they will request that Total modifies its fuel.
"We identified the chemical composition issue of the Total fuel, but we also have another clue, which is the teams that are modifying the sensor. If you take the picture of the sensor, you have two connections, and some teams, Red Bull for example, are removing these connections and putting in their own connections. If it [the replacement connection] is a bit too long inside, it can touch the tube where the measurement is done. This is the second cause we can have."
The FIA has issued a directive in effect from the Spanish Grand Prix which will ban teams from modifying the sensors. Should that not fix the problem, they will request that Total modifies its fuel.
CraigyMc said:
In other words, it's a decent question.
It is though possibly be answered in the F1 Times article which to me suggests whilst the fuel is a factor it's amplified by the modification some teams are performing to the sensors. Caterham didn't appear to be in the group of teams that were doing that.From the article I take it the new FIA ruling which bans modification of the fuel flow sensors from the Spanish GP is hoped to prevent these issues. If despite that the issues persist then the FIA are saying they'll ask Total to change their fuel.
As Red Bull I'd be pretty annoyed if by mid-way through the season the Total cars still have issues and the FIA are effectively saying you were right back in Australia, at least in so far as the belief the sensor was problematic with your car, just the FIA sensor doesn't work well with your fuel - which by the way the fuel is fine as we've approved it.
In addition as Red Bull/Total I'd be lobbying hard to have the sensors upgraded to work with my perfectly legal fuel - either that or change the fuel approval to ban the substance that is causing the issue.
CraigyMc said:
I think the point he was making is that total supply the same fuel to caterham for use in their renault engines as they supply to RBR for their renault engines. THe gill sensor in each still gets exposed to the same stuff.
Are you sure? It could be different, to be cheaper for example.Doink said:
Scuffers said:
Interesting that the FIA have recordings of the pit intercom talk.....
They have the recording of red bull during the race saying they will argue it with the stewards....
The FIA have all the behind the scenes closed loop radio comms recorded so it makes the appeal by RBR even more puzzling, especially when one of RBR's own engineers even said 'are you sure' [you want to carry on], 'yes, we'll argue it with the stewards later', so they knew full well what they were doing was against the rules and not just against a directiveThey have the recording of red bull during the race saying they will argue it with the stewards....
Makes it even more puzzling then that they haven't been given been fined, banned or anything???
Edited by Doink on Saturday 19th April 08:18
Agent Orange said:
As Red Bull I'd be pretty annoyed if by mid-way through the season the Total cars still have issues and the FIA are effectively saying you were right back in Australia, at least in so far as the belief the sensor was problematic with your car, just the FIA sensor doesn't work well with your fuel - which by the way the fuel is fine as we've approved it.
In addition as Red Bull/Total I'd be lobbying hard to have the sensors upgraded to work with my perfectly legal fuel - either that or change the fuel approval to ban the substance that is causing the issue.
kind of missing the point.In addition as Red Bull/Total I'd be lobbying hard to have the sensors upgraded to work with my perfectly legal fuel - either that or change the fuel approval to ban the substance that is causing the issue.
FIA do not 'approve' their fuel, they have just layed down limits for XYZ on it and as long as it meets said limits, then OK.
Total would appear to be using an unusual additive, that appears to be attacking the O ring.
the obvious question is what is the additive and what material are the O rings?
I would assume Gill have used a std off the shelf fuel safe O ring, something like Nitrile-NBR or Viton-FKM etc.
Scuffers said:
kind of missing the point.
FIA do not 'approve' their fuel, they have just laid down limits for XYZ on it and as long as it meets said limits, then OK.
I'd disagree. The FIA have effectively approved the fuel otherwise they'd have fined Red Bull/Total for using illegal fuel.FIA do not 'approve' their fuel, they have just laid down limits for XYZ on it and as long as it meets said limits, then OK.
As they haven't fined them it's quite clear it meets the said limits in the eyes of the FIA. Therefore it's "approved" for use in F1 races.
zac510 said:
CraigyMc said:
I think the point he was making is that total supply the same fuel to caterham for use in their renault engines as they supply to RBR for their renault engines. THe gill sensor in each still gets exposed to the same stuff.
Are you sure? It could be different, to be cheaper for example.Developing two fuels rather than one would be a significant cost impact (or four fuels if you recon STR and Lotus were also getting a specific Total blend for their renault engines, as well as Redbull and Caterham).
CraigyMc said:
Yeah, sure. Most of the cost is in developing the fuel rather than supplying it.
Developing two fuels rather than one would be a significant cost impact (or four fuels if you recon STR and Lotus were also getting a specific Total blend for their renault engines, as well as Redbull and Caterham).
No I mean I'm asking for some kind of press release or confirmation about the fuel types rather than just what you think they're doing.Developing two fuels rather than one would be a significant cost impact (or four fuels if you recon STR and Lotus were also getting a specific Total blend for their renault engines, as well as Redbull and Caterham).
Developing fuel may be expensive but selling one you've already developed is not (well, if what you say about most of the cost being developing the fuel is true.) eg the newer developed fuel might have a more expensive ingredient which makes it more expensive both by the inclusion of that ingredient and to recuperate the development costs.
Agent Orange said:
Scuffers said:
kind of missing the point.
FIA do not 'approve' their fuel, they have just laid down limits for XYZ on it and as long as it meets said limits, then OK.
I'd disagree. The FIA have effectively approved the fuel otherwise they'd have fined Red Bull/Total for using illegal fuel.FIA do not 'approve' their fuel, they have just laid down limits for XYZ on it and as long as it meets said limits, then OK.
As they haven't fined them it's quite clear it meets the said limits in the eyes of the FIA. Therefore it's "approved" for use in F1 races.
Scuffers said:
have you actually read the fuel regs?
Yes and the Tech Regulations state the acceptable chemical compounds, characteristics and properties of the fuel.But the clincher for me is article 19.7:
19.7 Fuel approval :
19.7.1 Before any fuel may be used in an Event, two separate five litre samples, in suitable containers, must be submitted to the FIA for analysis and approval.
19.7.2 No fuel may be used in an Event without prior written approval of the FIA.
Seems clear to me. The FIA approve the fuel. If they don't approve the fuel and I've misunderstood the regs can you expand? But I'll be honest the regs seem pretty clear and concise to me.
not really no.
where does it list exhaustively what additives can be used?
all their 'approval' means is that they are not using something banned in the regs.
for all you know, it could have something really nasty in it, but it's not banned int he regs so it's legal, does not make it a great idea though...
and in this case, it would appear to have something in it that's in-compatable with whatever O rings are used in the flow sensor.
Now, as Renault make the rest of the fuel system, they must already be aware of this potential issue and if they were, would not not think they might have mentioned it to Gill/FAI at some point before now?
I am sure Gill have used a typical fuel-safe O ring material, but without knowing what exotic additives are used, how are they to know?
where does it list exhaustively what additives can be used?
all their 'approval' means is that they are not using something banned in the regs.
for all you know, it could have something really nasty in it, but it's not banned int he regs so it's legal, does not make it a great idea though...
and in this case, it would appear to have something in it that's in-compatable with whatever O rings are used in the flow sensor.
Now, as Renault make the rest of the fuel system, they must already be aware of this potential issue and if they were, would not not think they might have mentioned it to Gill/FAI at some point before now?
I am sure Gill have used a typical fuel-safe O ring material, but without knowing what exotic additives are used, how are they to know?
I'm sorry but something is either approved or not-approved. Can I at least now get your agreement that the FIA have approved Total's fuel?
Article 19 goes into great detail regarding the fuel make up including stating that the fuel should be made using compounds usually found in commercial fuels and should the fuel appear to have been formulated in order to subvert the purpose of the regulation it will be deemed to be outside it. ie - not approved.
So I'll say it again and then give up for fear of going round in circles with you.
Total are either using illegal fuel
or
FIA fuel sensors are not fit for purpose with FIA approved fuel
..or the rule is poor. Not a first for the FIA.
Article 19 goes into great detail regarding the fuel make up including stating that the fuel should be made using compounds usually found in commercial fuels and should the fuel appear to have been formulated in order to subvert the purpose of the regulation it will be deemed to be outside it. ie - not approved.
So I'll say it again and then give up for fear of going round in circles with you.
Total are either using illegal fuel
or
FIA fuel sensors are not fit for purpose with FIA approved fuel
..or the rule is poor. Not a first for the FIA.
Edited by Agent Orange on Tuesday 22 April 15:41
I wonder if this chemical only becomes "active" in a way that affects the O ring, when the fuel gets very hot...or conversely the O ring only becomes affected by the chemical when very hot. And the other teams using Renault/Total are cooler under the body.Agent Orange said:
I'm sorry but something is either approved or not-approved. Can I at least now get your agreement that the FIA have approved Total's fuel?
Article 19 goes into great detail regarding the fuel make up including stating that the fuel should be made using compounds usually found in commercial fuels and should the fuel appear to have been formulated in order to subvert the purpose of the regulation it will be deemed to be outside it. ie - not approved.
So I'll say it again and then give up for fear of going round in circles with you.
Total are either using illegal fuel
or
FIA fuel sensors are not fit for purpose with FIA approved fuel
..or the rule is poor. Not a first for the FIA.
What is it about you?Article 19 goes into great detail regarding the fuel make up including stating that the fuel should be made using compounds usually found in commercial fuels and should the fuel appear to have been formulated in order to subvert the purpose of the regulation it will be deemed to be outside it. ie - not approved.
So I'll say it again and then give up for fear of going round in circles with you.
Total are either using illegal fuel
or
FIA fuel sensors are not fit for purpose with FIA approved fuel
..or the rule is poor. Not a first for the FIA.
Edited by Agent Orange on Tuesday 22 April 15:41
It's not about the fia, fuel is formulated by total, and just because it's legal, makes no difference to the problem.
Total can reformulate a fuel, without this compound identified to be incompatible with the seal, no problem.
Few weeks to blend a new batch, week for analysis to make sure it passes all the regulations, and then they are good to use it. There's no limit on what fuel you use at a certain race, fuel companies test and adjust their formulations all the time, and it's not uncommon for an upgrade several times throughout the year.
It is unusual that a fuel compound would be causing an issue tho, as the fuel composition is heavily regulated. needs to be paraffins, olefins (and di-olefins), naphthenes, aromatics, and oxygenates (only paraffinic mono-alcohols and ethers). These are all conventional compounds and the seal material should not react badly to any of them, at least not in the concentration each are allowed in the fuel.
There is some wiggle room for some funky stuff in the groups 'styrene and alkyl derivatives', allowed at 1% of the total mass of the fuel, and also 'sum of compounds lying outside the definitions', allowed at 1% of the total mass. But if it is something in either of these two small groups, removing it won't have a massive impact on the fuel.
Having said that, still easier to change the spec of the seal material
Few weeks to blend a new batch, week for analysis to make sure it passes all the regulations, and then they are good to use it. There's no limit on what fuel you use at a certain race, fuel companies test and adjust their formulations all the time, and it's not uncommon for an upgrade several times throughout the year.
It is unusual that a fuel compound would be causing an issue tho, as the fuel composition is heavily regulated. needs to be paraffins, olefins (and di-olefins), naphthenes, aromatics, and oxygenates (only paraffinic mono-alcohols and ethers). These are all conventional compounds and the seal material should not react badly to any of them, at least not in the concentration each are allowed in the fuel.
There is some wiggle room for some funky stuff in the groups 'styrene and alkyl derivatives', allowed at 1% of the total mass of the fuel, and also 'sum of compounds lying outside the definitions', allowed at 1% of the total mass. But if it is something in either of these two small groups, removing it won't have a massive impact on the fuel.
Having said that, still easier to change the spec of the seal material
Agent Orange said:
I'm sorry but something is either approved or not-approved. Can I at least now get your agreement that the FIA have approved Total's fuel?
Article 19 goes into great detail regarding the fuel make up including stating that the fuel should be made using compounds usually found in commercial fuels and should the fuel appear to have been formulated in order to subvert the purpose of the regulation it will be deemed to be outside it. ie - not approved.
So I'll say it again and then give up for fear of going round in circles with you.
Total are either using illegal fuel
or
FIA fuel sensors are not fit for purpose with FIA approved fuel
..or the rule is poor. Not a first for the FIA.
OR...Article 19 goes into great detail regarding the fuel make up including stating that the fuel should be made using compounds usually found in commercial fuels and should the fuel appear to have been formulated in order to subvert the purpose of the regulation it will be deemed to be outside it. ie - not approved.
So I'll say it again and then give up for fear of going round in circles with you.
Total are either using illegal fuel
or
FIA fuel sensors are not fit for purpose with FIA approved fuel
..or the rule is poor. Not a first for the FIA.
Edited by Agent Orange on Tuesday 22 April 15:41
The modifications done by 3 of the Renault teams to the sensors have issues with something in the fuel. Which seems to be the case if Caterham have not been affected and are using the same fuel (unless it is something to do with temperature instead). Therefore both the FIA sensor and fuel are completely in the clear.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff