Australian Grand Prix 2014, Melbourne - Race 1/19

From the looks of it they massaged just enough extra flow rate to keep Ricciardo in front of 'K-Mag'. I guess it wouldn't take much (as been said earlier) the cars were finding it tough to pass the 'train' drivers for some reason.

I do wish - for once - that RB would say 'Hey you're right we made an error' rather than acting like entitled, petulant, selfish brats who think they 'deserve' preferential treatment as they've 'contributed so much to the sport' (remind anyone of another team in the past?).
 
dannyjo22 said:
I'd rather they didn't care about the flow rate too. If you can build a car to win a race on 100kgs max you should be able to use whatever power you want and flow rate. The 100kgs will still limit them over the race.
Click to expand...

The flow rate limit IMO is more about capping qualifying than races, with an unlimited flow rate I expect the these engines would be knocking on the door of 1000hp plus KERS and despite the limited amount of engines I bet to some teams risk would be worth taking for a shot at P1 on the grid.
 
Yeah good point, the tolerances must be quite large with how often you can go over 100kg/h as they are hardly the most accurate of sensors. So I'm sure the teams will exploit that as close to the margin as they can.
 
FrankJH said:
As above - its being reported RBR were gaining 8 BHP (which in itself is nothing, but as these cars are difficult enough to over take even when the cars are level on performance - due to aero - .....)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure 8 bhp is "nothing". It's about 1% of the engine output power. Again, that sounds like nothing, but consider this: 1% of the laptime is a s/lap - that's the difference between 2nd place and 9th place.

Presumably there isn't a 1:1 relationship between the engine power output and the laptime but I don't think that a 1% power increase is insignificant in the context of a racing formula as tightly competed as F1.
 
I only got round to watching the race highlights last night, I have to say that it was a interesting opening race. So far I am:
Upset for Hamilton as he would most likely have won if his car held together,
Disappointed for Ferrari as I was hoping that they might be challenging for the lead,
Impressed by Bottas,
Curious about what Massa could have done had he not got rear ended,
Confused by red bull's antics, hopefully loosing so many points will make them wise up,
Wishing that there was more racing and less parading round in a line.

I think that's everything.
 
I thought something was up when Mag was told to "yellow g2" or something and back off to save fuel for 3 laps then attack on the final two laps whilst DR was told to "press the buttons" and keep up the pace.

Couldn't quite work out why RB could do that but Mclaren couldn't... I guess now we know why. It's a shame for DR, very cool guy who didn't deserve for RB to be underhand like that.

Shame for Mag as well though as he did really well to cut the gap between him and DR to less than a second. The Mclaren, as Brundle put it, looked "handy"... definitely had more outright pace than the RB at that stage.
 
Mr Jack said:
I'm not sure 8 bhp is "nothing". It's about 1% of the engine output power. Again, that sounds like nothing, but consider this: 1% of the laptime is a s/lap - that's the difference between 2nd place and 9th place.

Presumably there isn't a 1:1 relationship between the engine power output and the laptime but I don't think that a 1% power increase is insignificant in the context of a racing formula as tightly competed as F1.
Click to expand...

I guess you completely ignored what I insinuated in the brackets:)
 
smr said:
I thought something was up when Mag was told to "yellow g2" or something and back off to save fuel for 3 laps then attack on the final two laps whilst DR was told to "press the buttons" and keep up the pace.

Couldn't quite work out why RB could do that but Mclaren couldn't... I guess now we know why. It's a shame for DR, very cool guy who didn't deserve for RB to be underhand like that.

Shame for Mag as well though as he did really well to cut the gap between him and DR to less than a second. The Mclaren, as Brundle put it, looked "handy"... definitely had more outright pace than the RB at that stage.
Click to expand...

There is performance there to be had if the engineering team can keep pushing. I want to know when we will start to see teams adapting other teams noses.
 
FrankJH said:
Isnt there an "instant" black flag - ie pull off straight away? ie not even try and get back to the pits?
Click to expand...

Don't think so.
Solid black: naughty driver been DQd, think they have to pit and retire within 3 laps of the flag being shown.

Black with Orange dot: mechanical problem with car- i.e smoking or loose bodywork etc, deemed a possible danger to other cars. Think this has a 3-lap limit too, but teams will generally call their car in or off straight away in this instance. These are uncommon these days, as it's rare for the teams not to know of the problem. Happens a lot in lower classes but not F1...

Any incident requiring immediate pull-off would be dealt with over the team radio.
 
Once saw a 'Big boys' toys' VW Beetle race at Castle Combe.
The flourescent green one in the lead was mincing the entire field, but had an oil leak, and was power-sliding all the corners as it was all over his rear tyres.
The crowd were loving it until they black 'n' oranged him on the penultimate lap...
 
FrankJH said:
As above - its being reported RBR were gaining 8 BHP (which in itself is nothing, but as these cars are difficult enough to over take even when the cars are level on performance - due to aero - .....)
Click to expand...

How on earth the Daily Mail would know this when the information hasn't been divulged? Only Red Bull, Renault, the FIA and the event stewards would be privy to that information, possibly on Red Bull and Renault. I assume they've done what they normally do - pluck "facts" out of mid-air.

Keep in mind they weren't constantly over the flow limit, they were consistently over it, which is very different.

By the sounds of it, the flow readings said they were peaking above 100kg/h due to interference (something the units apparently suffered from in Melbourne), not that they were always above 100kg/h. From what I read yesterday, they perhaps didn't even break the rules, as that interference effected the FIA readings and Red Bull chose to stick with their own readings. The FIA warned them of their measurements during the race, but Red Bull continued. One other team chose to run at a lesser flow-rate to avoid these spikes in measurement. Whether they actually used more than 100kg/h might be perhaps up for debate, and maybe Red Bull's defense at their appeal?
 
Last edited:
this_is_gav said:
Keep in mind they weren't constantly over the flow limit, they were consistently over it, which is very different.
Click to expand...

Not really, they could be over it every time they accelerated hard in the lap where it mattered and below it when they weren't on full throttle. They would still be getting the max advantage when it counted.

It would probably be impossible to be over it constantly and finish 2/3rds of the race. :D
 
this_is_gav said:
From what I read yesterday, they perhaps didn't even break the rules, as that interference effected the FIA readings and Red Bull chose to stick with their own readings. The FIA warned them of their measurements during the race, but Red Bull continued. One other team chose to run at a lesser flow-rate to avoid these spikes in measurement. Whether they actually used more than 100kg/h might be perhaps up for debate, and maybe Red Bull's defense at their appeal?
Click to expand...

In an earlier post, Flibster kindly reproduced the opinion. I suggest you read it. Red Bull broke the rules laid out in Technical Directive 01614 in deciding to substitute their own (unverified by the FIA) model without consultation with the FIA. Regardless of whether they are right about the fuel flow rate they still broke the rules about how disputes over the fuel flow rate are to be resolved.

But this is F1, the results of appeals have little to do with the rules.
 
dannyjo22 said:
Not really, they could be over it every time they accelerated hard in the lap where it mattered and below it when they weren't on full throttle. They would still be getting the max advantage when it counted.

It would probably be impossible to be over it constantly and finish 2/3rds of the race. :D
Click to expand...

As I said, according to those in the paddock there had been issues all weekend with interference causing peaks in the FIA readings. Other teams weren't over the limit constantly when on full power, but were frequently. One engineer said they chose to run at something like 90kg/h (I can't remember the number now) to avoid peaking above the limit.

The issue seems to be that Red Bull chose to ignore the FIAs communications, use their own readings and argue later.
 
this_is_gav said:
How on earth the Daily Mail would know this when the information hasn't been divulged? Only Red Bull, Renault, the FIA and the event stewards would be privy to that information, possibly on Red Bull and Renault. I assume they've done what they normally do - pluck "facts" out of mid-air.
Click to expand...

Bit of a strange figure to "pluck out of the air " if you ask me

Just because you or I cant work it out , the FIA might (probably, should) be able to.


this_is_gav said:
Keep in mind they weren't constantly over the flow limit, they were consistently over it, which is very different.

By the sounds of it, the flow readings said they were peaking above 100kg/h due to interference (something the units apparently suffered from in Melbourne), not that they were always above 100kg/h. From what I read yesterday, they perhaps didn't even break the rules, as that interference effected the FIA readings and Red Bull chose to stick with their own readings. The FIA warned them of their measurements during the race, but Red Bull continued. One other team chose to run at a lesser flow-rate to avoid these spikes in measurement. Whether they actually used more than 100kg/h might be perhaps up for debate, and maybe Red Bull's defense at their appeal?
Click to expand...

No one has ever said they were over the flow rate permanently, its only in a few areas of the track that little bump in power might be necessary to stop anyone else overtaking.

Look at Hulk, keeping the Ferrari and McLaren behind him easily for lap after lap before dropping back considerably after the pitstops.

Due to teh query over the sensor I very much doubt the FIA would be quibbling over a minor amount over the limit. Remember , RBR were warned after qualifying and then during the race yet chose to go on regardless.
 
FrankJH said:
Bit of a strange figure to "pluck out of the air " if you ask me
Click to expand...
Have you only just heard of the Daily Mail? :eek:




FrankJH said:
No one has ever said they were over the flow rate permanently, its only in a few areas of the track that little bump in power might be necessary to stop anyone else overtaking.
Click to expand...
As I said, it wasn't sustained power for any length of time, it was a peaks in the readings caused by interference. I don't think anyone in the paddock was suggesting that Red Bull were running at over 100km/h, merely that they chose to ignore the unreliable readings, whereas other teams adjusted their flow to accommodate those spikes.

I'm not saying they were within or outside of the rules, as I'm not privy to that information, but they should have followed the FIAs advice as other teams did.
 
Was an interesting race. Not fond of how the engines sound but I guess it'll take some getting used to.

Also was funny to see Vettel given Ricciardo's car instead of his own ;) ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom