Australian Grand Prix 2014, Melbourne - Race 1/19
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
Fell asleep at some point, just finished it. that mercy is incredible. He didn't have to push at any point and he had his massive lead destroyed by the SC and built it up again without trying.
DR awesome drive, very happy for him.
KM stunning drive as well, and just in a different league to the over rated Pérez.
Decent Drive by JB
And I expect Bottas to school Massa with that performance.
what for? @DR
DR awesome drive, very happy for him.
KM stunning drive as well, and just in a different league to the over rated Pérez.
Decent Drive by JB
And I expect Bottas to school Massa with that performance.
what for? @DR
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Peak fuel flow was over the maximum allowed 100kg per hour
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 One 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 program. Their description of the history of the sensor matches.
a. During Practice 1 a difference in reading between the first three and Run 4 was detected. The same readings as Run 4 were observed throughout Practice 2.
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 4 of Practice 1, and Practice 2.
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 backup system”
c. The backup 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.
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 program. Their description of the history of the sensor matches.
a. During Practice 1 a difference in reading between the first three and Run 4 was detected. The same readings as Run 4 were observed throughout Practice 2.
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 4 of Practice 1, and Practice 2.
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 backup system”
c. The backup 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.
Last edited:
Well how come a lot of people on here have been saying, as lomg as peopel finish they will get points.
I was just confirming the misconception, so no need to be a smartass
I wonder how far he exceeded fuel flow by.
Renault & RBR are contending that their fuel usage is fully legal/compliant
If they did break the rules, I do wonder why RBR took such a risk. If the FIA can measure fuel flow, then I'm sure so can RBR. My guess is that the fuel flow infringement is marginal and RBR were "chancing it".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/26601418
Renault & RBR are contending that their fuel usage is fully legal/compliant
If they did break the rules, I do wonder why RBR took such a risk. If the FIA can measure fuel flow, then I'm sure so can RBR. My guess is that the fuel flow infringement is marginal and RBR were "chancing it".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/26601418
Well would it matter if it was as little as 0.1kilo?
A line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere, it's unfortunate for DR however if the tests showed Redbull were over then DQ was the only option. They need to show they are serious about penalties for it or all the teams would be pushing slightly over the limit all season.
Redbull should have gone extra safe if they were worried at all about it, even if it cost them a place or two.
A line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere, it's unfortunate for DR however if the tests showed Redbull were over then DQ was the only option. They need to show they are serious about penalties for it or all the teams would be pushing slightly over the limit all season.
Redbull should have gone extra safe if they were worried at all about it, even if it cost them a place or two.
