Red Bull Appeal..

[NRS]

Doink said:

I know its all totally acedemic now but were RBR actually arguing the same argument as the FIA? On one hand you have the FIA DQ'ing RBR for not obtaining permission to use their own readings, then you had RBR trying to prove the flow meters were faulty hence they used their own equipment

Surely this is 2 seperate arguments

If RBR had of waited a bit longer (it would appear) then the FIA would of given them permission to use their own readings, more fool RBR; act in haste - repent at leisure

By the sounds of it there was no problem with the actual sensors though (more than is described in their "booklet"). It's just RB wanted to claim that. Therefore the FIA would not have given them permission afterwards anyway.

[S0 What]

Scuffers said:

essentially, yes.

fine for RB to appeal the stewards, that's perfectly OK and winin their rights etc..

what is not is the public rhetoric and campaigning to trash Gill's rep and the FIA's staff and procedures.

I agree it's not so much the bending of or ignoring the regs that gets my goat (that is F1 after all) but the bad mouthing of the sensors and the FIA that need adressing as a seperate issue IMHO.
You could wrap all that up and lable it as arogance quite easyly.

[Doink]

I agree i doubt they would of because as i said before the FIA didn't deem the difference between theirs and RBRs reading as big enough, they said on record that if readings were massively different then they would allow other methods, seems RBR knew they wouldn't convince the FIA so they made an executive decision and took the plunge knowing they'd have probably have to prove it in court, it seem the renault engine needs lots of fuel to be competetive, fuel they are now effectively banned from using/drawing to quickly so the next few races or even the remainder of the season will be interesting.

Wonder if this will have any further effect on infinity, they're already talking about pulling out as RBR's title sponsor after this season

[Walford]

If the error is 1.5% then they should not be using them in F1

[Scuffers]

Walford said:

If the error is 1.5% then they should not be using them in F1

Where did you get that from?

[Mojocvh]

Scuffers said:

Walford said:

If the error is 1.5% then they should not be using them in F1

Where did you get that from?

You'll be waiting a long time for that...

[Crafty_]

Mojocvh said:

You'll be waiting a long time for that...

Which reminds me, where is RHY64E ?

[S0 What]

Doink said:

it seem the renault engine needs lots of fuel to be competetive, fuel they are now effectively banned from using/drawing to quickly so the next few races or even the remainder of the season will be interesting.

Didn't renault use the more fuel for cooling excuse as a reason for post homiligation changes a few years back when they were down on power ?
maybe it's a trait they can't shake even with this new design? worse this time cos the whole ethos of F1 is now against that very idea?

[thegreenhell]

rscott said:

Interesting reading here - http://bensweeneysf1blog.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/...


Including:-

Link above said:

Red Bull’s lawyer, Lazarus, then points out that although they exceeded the limit at times, overall they stayed below the required limit. Lom argued that this cannot be used as an acceptable justification, and that the teams must remain below 100kg/h at all times.

So RBR even admitted in the hearing that the exceeded the limit, but that they thought it was okay to do so?

Of course they stayed within the limit overall when averaged over the entire race. They only have 100kg of fuel to use for the race, which lasted 93 minutes, an average usage rate of only 64.5kg/hr. The problem of course is that mass flow, being an instantaneous parameter, is not the same as overall or average usage rate. The rules very clearly state the limit for this instantaneous mass flow rate.

Another point that nobody else has mentioned is the second fuel flow rule in the regs. The 100 kg/hr limit only applies upwards of 10,500 rpm. Below that is a sliding scale of fuel flow rate, to be calculated relative to engine speed. Do the FIA log fuel usage against engine speed as well, in order to enforce this? There has been no mention anywhere (that I have seen) that anybody has broken this rule, but if not monitored could allow a team to use more fuel than allowed, but still under the 100kg/hr limit that everyone is currently watching, to provide more power at lower engine speeds. We have already seen many of the cars short shifting, but everybody seems to be fixated only on the fuel flow limit that applies above 10,500 rpm.

[Jungles]

S0 What said:

Didn't renault use the more fuel for cooling excuse as a reason for post homiligation changes a few years back when they were down on power ?
maybe it's a trait they can't shake even with this new design? worse this time cos the whole ethos of F1 is now against that very idea?

That was in 2011. It wasn't about power, but about the behaviour of the engines when off-throttle. The FIA was investigating the blowing of hot exhaust gases onto the rear diffuser. They wanted to ban "hot blowing" from mid-season, and ban blown diffusers entirely for 2012.

Mercedes opposed the move, and Renault played tit-for-tat.

Mercedes needed to draw a little bit of fuel to fire four of their cylinders while off-throttle for reliability reasons. The FIA allowed them to open their throttle 10% and fire their cylinders when the driver is off-throttle. This essentially allowed Mercedes teams to continue limited "hot blowing" of their diffusers despite the ban.

Renault had a cooling issue, and needed to draw enough air while off-throttle to allow this. The FIA allowed them to open the throttle 50% without firing any cylinders. This prevented "hot blowing" but allowed them to "cold blow".

The discrepancy in throttle opening allowances caused a big argument between Horner and Whitmarsh. Horner claimed Mercedes teams would benefit greatly by hot blowing. Whitmarsh conceded that hot was better than cold, Renault teams made up for it by having more cold air anyway, and that might give the bigger advantage. Eventually they built their bridges and got over it.

[Jungles]

Dr Z said:

What's more, they admitted to gaining a 0.4sec/lap advantage by not using the FIA sensor

Pretty shocking. It would mean that if RBR complied with the regulations, Dan would have finished 4th at best, more likely 5th.

Disappointed for Dan, but RBR needs an attitude check.

[Crafty_]

Red Bull have been assigned all costs for the case, seems no action past that.

Got off very lightly imho.

[tank slapper]

thegreenhell said:

Another point that nobody else has mentioned is the second fuel flow rule in the regs. The 100 kg/hr limit only applies upwards of 10,500 rpm. Below that is a sliding scale of fuel flow rate, to be calculated relative to engine speed. Do the FIA log fuel usage against engine speed as well, in order to enforce this? There has been no mention anywhere (that I have seen) that anybody has broken this rule, but if not monitored could allow a team to use more fuel than allowed, but still under the 100kg/hr limit that everyone is currently watching, to provide more power at lower engine speeds. We have already seen many of the cars short shifting, but everybody seems to be fixated only on the fuel flow limit that applies above 10,500 rpm.

I would imagine it is monitored otherwise there isn't much point in there being a limit, but in comparison I don't think it is as big a problem. The cars don't spend much time out of the power band, and at the lower speeds they are likely to be traction limited anyway. A percent or so different from the linear fuel limit won't make as much difference as when running flat out since the electric motor will be providing proportionally more of the power. I don't know what the power delivery of the electric motor is like but they are limited by power output not by torque, so at lower engine speeds their torque could be very high.

[Scuffers]

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....

[Doink]

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 directive

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]

FIA "Red Bull's Total fuel causing sensor failures"

http://www.f1times.co.uk/news/display/08788

[i]The FIA's head of powertrain, Fabrice Lom, whilst giving evidence during the International Court of Appeal hearing, noted that a chemical used in Total's fuel, can damage a seal in the sensor, causing it to fail.
"We discovered and now we have identified the issue," said Lom. "It is an issue that is now understood well and we know that it only affects the reliability of the sensor.
"We discovered that there is a seam, an o-ring in the sensor, that doesn't support the Total fuel chemical composition so the seal is damaged by the fuel, which kills the sensor."[/i]

So once again when I hear a little bit more news I keep coming back to feeling just a tiny, little bit sorry for RB. Or at least I can see why they felt they were in the right and it wasn't down to pure arrogance.

The modification of the sensors is the one thing that leaves me with zero sympathy though. You just don't do that to a homologated part surely?

One would assume this fuel is approved for use by the FIA otherwise we'd have RB being punished for illegal fuel. How can FIA approved fuel be the cause of failure in FIA approved and supplied sensors? There's some joined up thinking not happening here.

Surely the fuel sensor can now be stated as "not fit for purpose"?

However it appears that rather than look at the o-ring if the sensors continue to fail at RB after the Spanish GP the FIA will instruct Total to change their fuel.

Could see RB and all Total teams performance drop from Monaco onwards?

Edited by Agent Orange on Monday 21st April 19:58

[ajprice]

Can Total be within the rules to alter their fuel mid season to remove the chemical, additive or whatever it is from the fuel to stop the sensor seal degrading? Whatever it is, it must be something not used by the other fuel suppliers, as their seals aren't breaking.

[zac510]

I guess this is just collective learning and a high profile team is suffering the most. It's a pretty new technology but in a very important position of governing the cars' performances.
Even Porsche are complaining publicly (in the latest RCE magazine) about the quality of the sensors - they use the same, but a pair of, on their 919 WEC car.

No doubt it will improve reliability and accuracy with time, like any new technology really.

[Scuffers]

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?

[Doink]

In order for the FIA to carry out fuel testing they will request a sample of the finished article fuel from the fuel supplier so they can approve it for use, they keep this fingerprint and compare it to fuel taken for testing at any stage of the season, any fuel drawn from the car should match the fingerprint fuel given as a sample pre season............if not theres trouble, if a remember rightly didn't shell and ferrari come a cropper recently i.e. fuel drawn did not match the sample given pre season, not sure of the outcome

So the FIA know totally (no pun intended) the make up of the fuel, they know every exact element of of the fuel, between the FIA, RBR and Total they'll work out whats causing the seal failures, removing that element may not be approved by the FIA as it could be classed as a fundemental change to the whole fuel make up, don't know if there are provisions within the rules to allow for changes for reliability or safety like there is for the engines, if it was every teams sensors being ruined by a shared/common chemical in the fuel then i could see the FIA allowing a mid season change but for it to only affect 1 make of fuel and 3 teams (caterham not affected) then i doubt it