Adam Cooper ‏@adamcooperF1 1h Interesting briefing from Christian Horner who is adamant that RBR's appeal case is strong. He says 100kg/h limit should be dropped Does he now.....
But whiting hits back! The FIA’s Charlie Whiting is confident that the rules regarding the measurement of fuel flow are clear, despite Red Bull’s assertion to the contrary. In Australia Daniel Ricciardo was found guilty of breaching Article 5.1.4 of the 2014 Technical Regulations, which says simply: “Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.” It does not say how that figure is to be measured, and Red Bull sees that as a key element of its case. The team also says that technical directives issued by Whiting, and which refer to the sensors, have no regulatory value. However, later in the Technical Regulations there is a clear reference to the FIA sensor. Article 5.10.3 reads: “Homologated sensors must be fitted which directly measure the pressure, the temperature and the flow of the fuel supplied to the injectors, these signals must be supplied to the FIA data logger.” The following 5.10.4 adds: “Only one homologated FIA fuel flow sensor may be fitted to the car which must be placed wholly within the fuel tank.” Asked by this writer in a media briefing whether he felt that this compensates for the fact that the actual 100kg/h rule makes no specific reference to measurement, Whiting was adamant. “Absolutely,” he said. “Article 5.10 makes it quite clear in my view that the only way that the fuel flow will be measured is with the homologated sensor. As you probably know Gill is the only sensor that is homologated by the FIA. So for me it’s perfectly clear.” Earlier this writer had asked Christian Horner about the reference to the sensor, and intriguingly he appeared not to know about it. “There isn’t [one]. Which rule is that? There’s nothing that makes reference to the FIA sensor, it’s purely technical directives. There a regulation 8.2.4 that I think you are referring to, that is a sensor is anyway invalid it’s the team’s responsibility to run within the regulations.” For the record 8.2.4 reads: “If sensor faults or errors are detected by the driver or by the on-board software, back-up sensors may be used and different settings may be manually or automatically selected. However, any back-up sensor or new setting chosen in this way must not enhance the performance of the car. Any driver default turned on during the start lockout period may not be turned off before the end of that period.” And some more from the Judge FIA offensive on fuel flow sensors The FIA and Charlie Whiting have made an almost unprecedented move and provided an instructional briefing for the media on the issue of fuel flow sensors. Clearly Red Bull’s attempt to rubbish these devices in the media and possibly see the fuel flow rate restrictions abandoned is something the FIA are refusing to contemplate. Fabrice Lom of the FIA took to the stage with whiteboard and pen in hand, to explain the reason for fuel flow restrictions and the nature of the difficulty they have been experiencing with the sensors. Lom is the FIA’s specialist on powertrains and interestingly an ex-Renault employee. An experienced paddock commentator found it necessary to observe that Lom’s parting from his former employer had not been sweetness and light. Disappointingly, one female BBC presenter whose gravitas is questionable anyway, tweeted, “Wow, #F1 is confusing this season but the FIA have done their best to clarify what the rules are and now sensors work.My head’s reeling from the technical jargon & white-board, a bit like being back at school. Some there having a sensor-humour failure!#F1”. Of course the gossip in the paddock is interesting, and TJ13 reports more than its fair share, yet we expect those employed in the media specialising in F1 to at least attempt to promote the sport in a positive manner, rather than infer it is now a spectacle for boffins and scientists only. The reason the measurement and restriction of the fuel flow is critical to the FIA’s new engine regulations, is that it prevents the development of the new power trains heading off in the realms of periods of excessive fuel burning, and the even more irrelevant mapping of the engines as we have seen in recent years. It appears Renault do have a vested interest in being able to consume fuel at a higher rate than currently legislated for because when Remi Taffin was questioned about engine noise, his response suggested it could be improved with more revs and higher fuel flows – a tad obvious maybe? The FIA today have pretty much indicated it will be their way or the highway over the fuel flow sensor issue, and that Red Bull have no chance of winning their appeal against their DQ in Australia. It has been interesting though to see the more engaged members of the paddock media, understand the reasons behind the fuel flow regulations and accept it is crucial for the FIA to deliver engine development focused around the electric aspects of the powertrain. Sebastian Vettel’s crass comments that ‘batteries belong in mobile phones’ [ ] appear most ill advised and set him at odds against a force which is far greater than he. And when you consider that the total investment in the V6 turbo’s is in excess of $750m. There is no turning back, whatever Marko or Vettel have to say.
Horner appeared to not now the rules eh? I mean come off it there are only a few rules on the subject of fuel meters. If you are going to make a protest you would have to do your homework to check the facts. also calling out this rule: that would go against this rule So you wont be allowed a backup on board a running Car in this instance 'Switched on by the driver' Did the driver switch the red bull sensor on? So rule does not apply to them Christian Horner in a Corner please log in to view this image Throw the book at him Charlie!
Keeps on going - http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2014/...horner-as-fia-go-public-to-defend-themselves/ FIA briefing notes, from Fabrice Lom Why is there a fuel flow limit? Because with a turbo engine you have to limit the power otherwise you would have drivers using over 1,000hp at times, while others were fuel saving, the speed differential would be enormous and dangerous. Additionally the message from the new hybrid F1 rules is efficiency, 35% more performance from a drop of fuel than the old V8s. It’s not about monster power for short bursts. How are the sensors calibrated? The FIA takes steps to ensure that the sensors are accurate and the same for all teams. Team X gives its sensors and a sample of it’s fuel to the FIA and they contract a company called Calibra to calibrate the sensors to the fuel, by placing them in series and checking each against a known reference sensor. This is carried out in various conditions and at five different temperatures. During the race weekend the teams tell the FIA which sensor they are using. Each sensor is bought and owned by the team, at a cost of £4,500 each and is regulated by the FIA. Where does the fuel flow sensor sit? Inside the fuel cell, in the low pressure area. What is the limit the FIA will accept for a car going over the 100kg/hour limit before they act against the team? If a car goes 1% over the 100kg/limit for 10 seconds in any given lap, they are warned by the FIA and asked to make an offset or switch to a back up. This adds up to 3 grammes of fuel per lap above the limit, which is the cut off for intervention (NB The FIA contends that the Red Bull sensor was not faulty and had not broken on Ricciardo’s car in Australia) What happens if a car hits that limit? If the FIA feels that a sensor is drifting in its reading (which it contends is very obvious) it reverts to the back up, which has been planned for and the back up has been calibrated against an official sensor. They cannot accept an alternative system for measurement because it has not been calibrated against a known sensor. Article 5.10 of the technical regulations says that the fuel can only be measured by a homologated sensor and there is only one sensor, which is made by Gill Sensors. How long do sensors last? They need to be recalibrated after 100 hours and their life is 400 hours. It should be theoretically possible to do the F1 season on two sensors.
Interesting that Horner is saying that what Charlie says is not regulations and doesn't need to be adhered to. But in a statement today he says he is going to have a chat with Charlie to work out what to do if Red Bull disagree with the FIA fuel flow sensor!!! Horner can't have it both ways, either what Charlie says is valid or it's not.
Whiting seemed to think a secret mid season test for Mercedes was okay last season, so my faith in his reading of the rules is pretty non-existent.
I agree with you re Charlie, just interesting that Red Bull say that what Charlie says didn't matter in Aus but want to talk to him in Malay to work out a solution! So Red Bull want to use Charlie's rulings if it suits them!
When Daniel Ricciardo was announced as the 2014 Red Bull driver everyone seemed to welcome that and then question whether Red Bull would actually be sporting enough to let him challenge Sebastian Vettel. Now we have the answer with fuelflowgate. Red Bull were prepared to use Daniel Ricciardo as a guinea pig in order to get the fuel rate rule thrown out. The sensors are not allocated to the teams. The teams buy them from Gill Sensors. They can buy as many as they want and test each one against their own standards. The fuel sensor of Sebastian Vettel was never challenged. Equal treatment?
That might have something to do with the fact that Vettel's fuel flow could be measured in thimbles rather than kg/h. You might be on to something though... Give Vettel the unreliable car so that they can make Ricciardo the villain while Vettel stays squeaky clean. Seems legit.
ah, ok, I see where this is going, they deliberately sabotaged Vettel so they could use Ricciardo's car to get a DSQ'd as a way to make Vettel look good? Have I got that right? How sporty we are, we have F1's Martin Brundle and Coventry City FC's David Icke.
it was in reply, to the above, and as tongue in cheek as I hope theirs were. As to the Fuel flow, Coulthard gave his take on it, and if that is their case then they can **** ***.
Wow. Do you guys actually want new members? Seriously? Are they welcome? Let us look at the responses to my posts which contained opinions and facts. “That might have something to do with the fact that Vettel's fuel flow could be measured in thimbles rather than kg/h.” Before the race vettel completed as many laps as anyone else. On thimbles? “You might be on to something though... Give Vettel the unreliable car so that they can make Ricciardo the villain while Vettel stays squeaky clean. Seems legit.” I never posted that his car was deliberately unreliable I simply pointed out that his sensor was not challenged or replaced. “ah, ok, I see where this is going, they deliberately sabotaged Vettel so they could use Ricciardo's car to get a DSQ'd as a way to make Vettel look good? Have I got that right? How sporty we are, we have F1's Martin Brundle and Coventry City FC's David Icke The points I raised were legitimate personal views and quoted some facts. David Icke has suffered from mental illness. Not really fair is it to bring his name into a debate in order to discredit another persons opinion.
I think you might be taking some of the responses a bit personal, some of the controversies that have been bought up for years and years have all been debatable to being possible, but the vast majority that have been thought up (just for us anyway) seem laughable and easily explained but some just refuse to accept it. It was the same with Minardi saying Seb had Traction control all through the Singapore GP so don't try to think it of a personal dig if some find it funny you might well be right in the end. In my opinion I felt they saw a loophole to exploit and a chance to see how their car would run if the engine wasn't at a deficit. It worked though didn't i don't you think? The performance has improved quite a bit since Australia so I consider fuel gate more of testing chance than a reason to make vettel look good. I do remember seeing a technical report on saturday saying Vettels fuel flow sensor was replaced in FP3 and after qualifying but probably why his wasn't checked on Sunday because he didn't have a chance to any running at the speed of Ricciardo to warrant the equal treatment card IMO. With regards to miggins don't get him wrong he just doesn't like double standards coming up with all the controversies being applied to Red Bull and Vettel while the others walk scot free almost. If you stay round a bit longer he will likely see you differently and you'll understand why. I also believe miggins and a few others like myself do groan when a new conspiracy comes around by any member.
Hi Sporti ! Just a little time to respond. Firstly, I agree with you! (and Miggins, who followed your post). What you say is sound. However, I hope that you will see that it is a subtly different point to that which I was addressing and that they are parallel rather than opposed. The point I was trying to make was twofold: 1/ â That all rules and laws are the result of an underlying ideology: an original idea to define right and wrong such that those subject to them understand both what is required of them and the consequences of transgression. 2/ â That to "â¦follow the legal route of following the letter of the lawâ¦" will always be open to interpretation (because it requires 'understanding'), and that the extent to how much this happens is dependant upon the tightness of the definition and what is intended to be understood by it.*⦠I hope it will be seen that what I was saying incorporated your point; but that I wished to explore the reason behind it. * This is why judges are needed and why they must make judgements; and why they must take account of the underlying purpose of the rule (or law) in order to be able to do so.
I apologize GramP if I came across as completely disregarding your post. My response was entirely tounge-in-cheek. I just think that sometimes it's really easy to look for an explanation for something beyond what might be the most obvious. Had Vettel's car been operating properly, and was actually able to race, then he'd probably been in the same boat as Ricciardo. Considering he only made 3 laps and likely never managed to exceed any fuel flow limits, he's not likely to face any sanction.. and if there was a reason to do so, the worst they could have done was dump him to the back with Ricciardo... With a net result of nothing.
