Australian Grand Prix 2014, Melbourne - Race 1/19

Syla5 said:
The FIA never stipulated that the fuel flow mass readings must be taken from the homolgated sensor, that needs clearing up and that is the point that Redull/Horner will want to get clarity on.
Click to expand...

Yes, it did. Moreover, it laid out an explicit series of steps for dealing with problems and alternative measurement arrangements. Red Bull ignored this system and directly contravened FIA rules on how to handle it in favour of its own measurements.

Did you even read the FIA judgement?
 
Syla5 said:
Acutally the whole reason RBR said no to the FIA about turning down the wick is because they didnt agree with the FIA technical directive about the sensors and applied offsets that were handed out at the Aus GP.
Click to expand...


Other teams were having problems(as horner said) but the difference is that the other teams done as they was told
and changed it when needed.
 
I am surprised that there is not some wording, somewhere in the rules that says "If the FIA tell you to do something, you do it, or face a penalty".
It is a bit like when a driver passes whilst off track. Charlie normally calls the team up and says give the position back or else. If the driver does, he is fine. If he doesn't he is penalised.

I can see if future, drivers passing off track by a few millimetres and then crying like RBR after the race when they are penalised, purely because the stewards made an opinion that it was off track, but a more accurate GPS system would show them to be still on track :rolleyes:
 
This won't succeed.
Otherwise all the other teams will have valid grounds for counter-claims. Many other teams were experiencing 'variable' readings from the fuel-flow sensor, yet they all chose to comply with the FIA request.

Besides, part of RB's claim is that their own calibrated sensor was showing correct fuel flow ratings. Excuse me if we won't take those figures at face value - there's a good reason there's a single, homologated sensor.
 
Syla5 said:
Actually it was more like this:
FIA: turn your fuel flow down our inaccurate reading with an offset applied to it is saying your to high
RB no we are not over the limit as we have been telling you all weekend your reading is wrong, and you know it is because you have applied an offset to each team.

.
Click to expand...

Lol, what utter nonsense.
The sensors can't be adjusted, hence they are calibrated and an offset applied. Nothing wring with that at all.
 
Mr Jack said:
Yes, it did. Moreover, it laid out an explicit series of steps for dealing with problems and alternative measurement arrangements. Red Bull ignored this system and directly contravened FIA rules on how to handle it in favour of its own measurements.

Did you even read the FIA judgement?
Click to expand...

Sorry yes i was wrong about the regulations not covering the use of the fuel flow sensor as the first point of review for the rule 5.4.1.

However, the offset applied to the sensor was still just a technical directive, not a rule. The only rule that the FIA are saying Rredbull breached was 5.4.1 nothing else.

The FIA even admit that the sensors have a known range of operation, and that the sensor fitted to the car showed differing readings between sessions and the second sensor was not running to the FIA’s satisfaction.

It is questionable why the FIA didn’t allow the backup reading if they knew that the sensor was already not showing a reading that was within tolerance (hence the offset). It was arrogant of Redbull to use a backup reading and think that would be fine when they were not instructed to.

Roll on April when this is all cleared up. Either way I will support the judgement, but I am looking for a clearer indication of what the teams/FIA need to do in this situation as it is clearly a grey area.

Glaucus said:
Lol, what utter nonsense.
The sensors can't be adjusted, hence they are calibrated and an offset applied. Nothing wring with that at all.
Click to expand...

I never said the sensor was adjusted, i said they were applying an offset to the data. There is nothing wrong with that if everyone agrees with it. The offset was applied after P2 to a sensor that the FIA had looked to replace, yet the replacement was even more fubar so they went with sensor 1 that was less fubar and applied the offset, this is post calibration and an on the spot adjustment specific to the redbull sensor made after on track running, not a calibration of the sensor on a standardised bench.
For Redbull to not be happy with that is understandable when they can show that their readings were stable all weekend. I would be very suprised if the FIA didnt have the very same access to the Redbull measurements anyway.
 
Last edited:
No the offset is due to acceptable limits :rolleyes:

You get sensors all within the limits, but those limits are plus or -x
So you calibrate the limit, see exactly what the offset is and apply it. Making it a calibrated unit.

Say the acceptable limit is 1%, senora above this are scrapped, you then calibrate the sensor and say you find it is 0.4% off, a 0.4% offset is applied, making the sensor as close as possible exact and hence calibrated.

So the offset is part of the process. Not some random added in thing, it is part of the calibration.

Some ones already posted the acceptable limits.
 
Last edited:
Syla5 said:
if the sensor is inconsistent with itself how can it be calibrated properly?
Click to expand...

Depends on the calibration accuracy - it's statistically unlikely to be 100.000000000000000%. Manufacturer have stated that 92% of the sensors are within +/-0.25% accurate. I'd call that highly accurate.

If it was 5% then I might concede Red Bull had a point. It's not, so they don't. It's a couple of bhp difference on an engine putting out 600 not taking into account variance for mileage etc.
 
JeditOjanen said:
Are you seriously white knighting for Red Bull after they threatened to quit F1 if they were not allowed to break the rules?
Click to expand...

Yea, because pointing out that pretty much everyone on the grid has broken a rule somewhen means I'm saying RBR are squeeky clean :rolleyes:.

Of course I'm not defending them. Threatening to quit is pathetic, but nothing new really. But your wild over reaction that cheats should be banned from F1 is rather missguided given that a core part of F1 has always been to stretch the rules. If you banned everyone who broke a rule there would be nobody left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom