Who's got it right?
2016 New Car Launches
Ricciardo disqualified from Australia podium, Red Bull to appeal
News
XPB.cc
Posted By: James Allen  |  16 Mar 2014   |  2:36 pm GMT  |  882 comments

Daniel Ricciardo’s breakthrough result of second place in the Australian Grand Prix has been taken away by FIA stewards as the 24 year old was disqualified for a fuel flow irregularity. Red Bull immediately responded that it would appeal the decision which robs the 24 year old Australian of his first F1 trophy after 51 races.

The outcome is also set to be badly received in Australia, with one local newspaper preparing a front page headline “Grand Farce”. Race organisers are working hard to secure an extension to the contract to host the race, which expires after next year’s event. THe new rules for 2014 have made the sport far more complex and although technical exclusions have happened throughout the sport’s history, it is highly regrettable that it should happen to at the opening round of the new formula and to a popular Australian on home soil on a breakthrough day.

The stewards issued a statement after four hours of investigation and deliberation, advising that Red Bull had been notified during the race that the flow rate was exceeding 100kg/hour, which is the maximum in the regulations. The statement added that the team was asked to turn the rate down but declined to do so.

It is a very complex matter, but it revolves around the new flow rate sensors which are supplied to all teams by the FIA, they are an approved part.

Sources within other teams indicated that all weekend there has been a lot of to-and-fro between teams, engine makers and the FIA over the sensors and Red Bull had twice changed the sensor on Ricciardo’s car after being unhappy with readings during practice. The unit fitted to his car during the race is the original one he used in Friday practice which was subsequently swapped out. The replacement unit did not give satisfactory readings to the team or the FIA and the team was instructed to remove this sensor on Saturday night in parc ferme.

The nub of it is that Red Bull decided that the sensors were unreliable and applied its own offset rather than the one that the FIA included in its calibration. The FIA observed that it is up to them – not the team – to give instructions on what measures to follow in the event that wrong readings are suspected.

Featured News
Editor's Picks
Share This:
Posted by:
Category:
882 Comments
  1. DB4Tim says:

    What about this.

    F1 – Mercedes breached fuel flow rules in Melbourne – report at http://motorsport.nextgen-auto.com

    Total votes:
    0

    1. mtm says:

      I can’t see one. Do you have a direct link to the article?

      Total votes:
      0

    2. Bryce says:

      I don’t know why they have flow meters in the first place.

      They are limited to 100kg of fuel already, it should be up to the teams when and how they choose to use it, just like they have the option to go light on fuel and hope for safety cars.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Mark says:

        What the heck is FIA doing installing fuel flow sensors in the cars? The teams get 100kg of fuel and if they run out before the end of the race, then they obviously didn’t get the flow right did they? I’m getting sick and tired of these rule makers contriving the finishes of the races with dumb rules. I finally understand what FIA really stands for. Fools In Action. Coming soon to an F1 track near you.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. 4 German Fingers says:

        +1 Thank you!

        Total votes:
        0

      3. Olive says:

        +1

        Total votes:
        0

      4. ManOnWheels says:

        So you want to have cars that can go like a rocket on a simple button press? Because that’s what will happen, if you ditch the fuel flow limit.
        One could argue that may be a limit on the boost pressure would be better than a fuel flow limit, but that would arguably limit the creativity of the engineers.

        Total votes:
        0

      5. All revved-up says:

        I don’t understand your comment. Was there a fuel flow limit last year under the old rules? If not why couldn’t the cars have a go like a rocket push to pass fuel button?

        I ask because I’m genuinely puzzled by the need for the fuel flow sensor. Happy to learn.

        Total votes:
        0

      6. Bryce says:

        Limit whatever you like, feel free to see my reply to Charlie on the same post.

        Total votes:
        0

      7. ManOnWheels says:

        Last year you had normally aspirated engines, today you’ve got turbos, so in contrast to last year, where the athmosperic pressure and some RAM air effect from the air intake was limiting the gas pressure, now you could in theory press an insane amount of gas into the cylinders to get more performance. The amount (and therefore the maximum performance) could be limited by a pop off valve that limits the pressure of the turbo charger, but instead the engine manufacturers agreed on a limiting the fuel flow, so higher boost pressures won’t bring more fuel in, just more air. I guess one reason is that pop off valves could be more inefficient than controlling the fuel flow and the turbo speed.

        Total votes:
        0

      8. Charlie says:

        Using an FIA fuel flow sensor is unavoidable. The FIA need to see what the flow rates are and it is the same homologated sensor on every car. The teams can use UP TO 100kg of fuel during the race but that is from lights out to the flag. They have to use additional fuel prior to lights out so THEY DON’T JUST PUT 100KG IN THE CAR AND FORGET IT. Red Bull were told to use the FIA sensor and they chose not to. Red Bull were also told by the FIA to reduce their fuel flow during the race and again chose not to listen.

        As a result Redbull’s appeal has no chance at all.

        Total votes:
        0

      9. Bryce says:

        So what you are trying to tell us is that the FIA has no idea how much fuel is put in the cars, has no idea how much is needed for the out lap, nor has a requirement for the sample, and/or can’t calculate the volume of a fuel tank?

        The teams are limited to 100kg of fuel for the race, that is it. They don’t want to put an extra 10kg in an oversized tank that takes up space that affects the aerodynamics and weight that costs them some two to three seconds a lap.

        We have the H and K unit limits that can be used as desired, and the fuel should be the same.

        Total votes:
        0

      10. Charlie says:

        Not at all. The FIA know exactly how much fuel is used by each team and they monitor their levels live from the pit wall during the race. Of course they need more than 100kg of fuel in total for race day.

        How would they complete the lap prior to lights out if they did not have additional fuel? I’ll repeat myself. They have 100kg for the race, NOT the entire race day. Red Bull did not have the approval to use their own equipment in place of the fuel flow sensor no matter how accurate their kit is. Other teams were told to reduce fuel consumption during the race by the FIA and did so. Red Bull refused to listen to the FIA which was always going to end in a disqualification. Ricciardo’s performance must have been boosted by using fuel at a faster rate than was allowed too. Fuel flow corrected Kevin probably would have beaten him to 2nd on track.

        Total votes:
        0

      11. Alan Green says:

        Thanks for the clarification, at least you sound as if you know what you are talking about unlike 90% of the comments on here.

        F1 is hugely complicated.
        How many of the hundreds of highly qualified engineers working in F1 have said,
        “Just bung in 100kg of fuel and let them run”?

        Is it just possible they know more about it than us armchair experts?

        Total votes:
        0

    3. grat says:

      Digging through to find the article, and relying on automated translation, it appears that Mercedes and Ferrari were warned, and complied with the FIA’s warning.

      Red Bull was warned, ignored the warning, applied their own correction to the flow rate without the FIA’s approval, and Ricciardo suffered as a result. It’s a shame– He’s a good guy, and drove a fantastic race.

      Total votes:
      0

    4. Optimaximal says:

      You don’t link to an

      Total votes:
      0

    5. Optimaximal says:

      You don’t link to an article, so I cannot comment whether it’s a genuine issue or a tinpot theory.

      The word on the grapevine is a few teams were all notified of passing the limit. The rest accepted the FIAs word and clocked their cars down, whereas Red Bull just assumed they knew better and persevered – we don’t genuinely know what they were reading (the lack of FOM graphics for the race didn’t help) but their ignoring of the request to comply with the homologated sensor reading was just foolish.

      Total votes:
      0

    6. **Paul** says:

      Pretty sure its Merc and not RBR that Luca was talking about in his open letter. After all Merc are the team who have a second a lap in hand and according to Wolff have another .5s when they run the fuel at what they believe is the correct flow rather than the FIA sensor.

      If we get the two Mercs racing each other then perhaps we’ll see how much faster they are than the rest of the field.

      Total votes:
      0

    7. Gudien says:

      “We must at all costs stop Red Bull. It’s Mercedes turn.”

      Total votes:
      0

  2. jmv says:

    Wondering if this a Renault problem.. or Red Bull?

    But interesting is that if Red Bull don´t like the FIA sensor.. it could be that that sensor tells them to consume less fuel.. hence less performance out of the box.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Sebee says:

      There is real potential for FIA to have full control over fuel flow and thus performance of a car or team. They know how they are calibrated, and we know nothing about how random the handout of this sensor is or of specific know sensor is handed to specific team..

      It doesn’t pass the smell test. Why is it even needed?

      “Here is your 100kg of fuel for the race. Make the most of it.” And that should be all really. KISS…no need to explain this fuel sensor crap to fans either.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Folkdisco says:

        The rules are clearly laid out. Total race fuel usage, and fuel flow. If DR’s car was driving faster by breaking rules, it should be excluded. End of. If Red Bull had complied with the rules, like all other teams, they would have turned down the fuel flow, DR would have driven slower, and probably finished further down the results. Maybe 5th, maybe 10th. We don’t know. Just ignoring FIA instructions seems bizarre, and possibly arrogant.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Matthew Cheshire says:

        I’m thinking it’s not that simple. They have to restrict flow to ensure the race doesn’t become an endurance plod with a crazy sprint at the end. Think of a cycling velodrome sprint- weird races where they pace each other at a crawl then sprint away when they have position. It’s because they have a massive potential speed that can’t be maintained over the full distance.

        F1 would be the same with no flow restriction. We would get a couple of cars together at the front and on the last lap, or even the last straight, the guy with slightly more fuel would floor it and win. 60.9 laps of mind numbing crawl then 100m of one sided race.

        So no. Not a great idea!

        Total votes:
        0

      3. ErikT says:

        I guess you are right about that. If you used fuel to build a lead in the beginning and there was a safety car you’d be left for dead.

        Total votes:
        0

      4. bob says:

        Even without the risk of a SC, you’d still want to use your fuel late, as you are driving a lighter car. Pushing on a lighter car will get you more time than pushing in a very heavy one, which will wear down more.

        If we have a race, and the half is done with 30kg on our back, would you be sprinting on the time with the extra weight, or the time with no weight added?

        Total votes:
        0

      5. Sebee says:

        Matthew,

        What you say is EXACTLY what FOM and FIA want. Exciting finishes to a GP.

        Total votes:
        0

    2. AuraF1 says:

      It sounds as if the team is responsible for the flow rate according to the full stewards ruling. But if it’s a part that was failing from the FIA it does seem incredibly harsh but then we’ve had unpopular exclusions before for what sound like the pettiest infractions. Shame for Ricciardo as clearly it was nothing to do with him and didn’t offer him an advantage if as RBR are saying the FIA sensor was just wrong.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Tyemz says:

        You don’t quite get it do you? The ruling says the sensors are owned and managed by the teams and homologated by the FIA, not given to them by the FIA. It’s the FIA’s job to ensure they comply with the regulations hence the warnings which RBR chose to ignore

        Total votes:
        0

      2. AuraF1 says:

        Sorry I was reading the ruling where it says the FIA supply the sensors and it’s then the teams responsibility.

        Total votes:
        0

      3. Adam says:

        At the heart of the row is a tiny sensor supplied by the FIA to monitor fuel flow. Put simply, the greater the flow, the more power to the engine.

        Read more at http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/149767.html#ROUm9HGSi4ym7AVc.99

        Total votes:
        0

      4. chrisralph says:

        Surely points should be taken from the team, not the driver if there indeed be fault attributed in that area.

        Total votes:
        0

      5. Sigismundus says:

        The driver benefited from the increased fuel flow. It gave him raw performance advantage. Thus his result was boosted by the infingment. DR should be excluded if his car was having illegal power boost.

        Total votes:
        0

      6. BM says:

        That’s like saying doping is ok as long as the athlete doesn’t know he’s doped.

        Total votes:
        0

      7. aveli says:

        the fia made it very clear at the start of the weekend that they would be strict on fuel flow rate. i guess red bull were just testing the rules. their flow rate may be within the limits but they refused to follow instructions from the fia. it’s a shame ricciardo worked so hard for the fans only to be denied his second place finish after the podium celebrations.

        Total votes:
        0

      8. Chris H says:

        Quote from Christian Horner….we faced a situation where we would have been reducing significant amounts of power into the engine.
        So if they had run to FIA spec like all the other teams, they would not have been so quick.

        Total votes:
        0

    3. bob says:

      The next thing you know the FIA will admit that their weighing scales are also incorrect but will disqualify cars for being underweight after being weighed on said scales.

      The FIA look more and more a joke every race!

      Why not just ditch the stupid flow limit and let the teams spend their 100kg however they want?

      I honestly cannot understand the need for both regulations. What possible purpose can it serve? Let the teams go for it – if they go too hard early in the race they’ll have to back off later in the race.

      The amount of fuel is already restricted, why the hell restrict the flow also???

      Total votes:
      0

      1. J.Danek says:

        nonetheless, they do, and RBR knew this, and they flat-out refused to comply w/ FIA’s enforceable request – and now DR pays the price.

        Shameful behavior on part of RBR.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. OscarF1 says:

        “The nub of it is that Red Bull decided that the sensors were unreliable and applied its own offset”

        In this case, only RBR claim FIA’s measurement is wrong.

        It is like saying “FIA, your scale is wrong, in RBR we use a much more accurate one, since we calibrated it ourselves, so we’re not obeying”.

        Total votes:
        0

    4. Gerard says:

      The flow sensor is a strange piece of kit, why do the FIA need to regulate fuel flow when they regulate the amount of fuel that can be consumed during a race ?

      Total votes:
      0

      1. aveli says:

        it’s called a double inspection. knowing the flow rate confirms that no fuel was added or taken out after it was weighed and put in the car. i think those involved with quality control don’t only inspect quality at the start and end of production. they have inspections during many stages of the production stage to ensure quality at the end. they call it quality assurance.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. ALL4IT says:

        I’m in the same boat here too, after reading why, someone here explaining with the Velodrome cycling sprint example where they sprint at the end but it makes no sense at all to have this fuel flow complication. No chance of 22 cars doing the same thing, as track position will warrant good racing, why make this such a critical issue that result in such heavy penalty when there already 100kg of fuel limit rule, “put it simply” just let teams race with what they given, the 100kg in the tank. if they park their car before the last lap then too bad (don’t think they do), if teams want to finish then manage your fuel wisely, this rule just put me off as a new fan trying to understand the sport, it is unnecessarily complicating thing, and may I say a there not much logic or need to doing so. the fuel flow rule that is. or someone please convince me that this is wise that FIA needs Fuel Flow rule!?

        Total votes:
        0

  3. Razorsedge says:

    ‘The statement added that the team was asked to turn the rate down but declined to do so.’

    Bugger.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Sebee says:

      So…do teams have 100kg of fuel to use per GP or not? Did RBR exceed the amount used?

      I know safety car and other scenarios impact fuel usage. But this needs to be simplified. 100kg per race, use it as you like. Fuel sensor looks too flaky and could mean scandal. Actually, we already have a bit of one.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. [MISTER] says:

        It doesn’t matter how much fuel was used for the race. The rules state there is a max fuel flow which need to be respected. That’s because there are tracks with very high fuel usage, while other tracks have a low one.

        The problem is with the fuel flow measurement used by RBR.

        Even if those sensors provided by the FIA are not accurate, all teams have to use them.

        I find it ridiculous that the FIA allowed RBR to start the race knowing they were using a different measurement for the fuel flow.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Richard says:

        I don’t think they did know!

        Total votes:
        0

      3. OscarF1 says:

        I see some people claiming the rule is nonsensical and thus should not be there (in order to defend a ‘not complying team’).

        – Engines will be 1.6 litre v6 turbocharged, limited to 15,000 rpm.
        – In Melbourne and Monaco, speed limit in the pits is 60km/h, while elsewhere is 80.
        – Abu Dhabi will grant double points.

        The rules apply for every team and driver.

        As for the need of a fuel limit/fuel rate limit there may, after all, be a logical explanation, being F1 a developing field for innovations and fuel consumption, efficiency and carbon footprint some of the most desired targets in the car industry.

        Total votes:
        0

      4. All revved-up says:

        I tend to be anti-establishment as I come from a culture where rule makers and those in authority make mistakes all the time.

        If the rule makers got their evidence wrong – the competitor should have every right to defend themselves. Whether its fuel rate, steroids, or evidence of murder.

        Best to have an open mind and learn the truth of the matter than to accept at face value what the authorities tell us.

        The question is – did RB IN FACT run the engines at a higher fuel rate.

        If the sensor got it wrong – let us all learn from it and for those talented engineers to try to improve the technology. Don’t close our minds to what “the authorities” tell us. They too are fallible human beings.

        Total votes:
        0

      5. OscarF1 says:

        Rule #1 to live in any society. Abide the rules or be ready for punishment.

        RBR decided on their own to disregard a direct command. They haven’t proved to be in the right, only claimed to be so.

        If FIA’s sensors were right, RBR breached the regulations on their own benefit.

        Even if FIA’s sensors were wrong, the teams which were instructed to tune consumption down and obeyed would be wronged, greatly, should the offender keep the results.

        I don’t quite see any field of discussion here.

        Total votes:
        0

    2. Peter Scandlyn says:

      Bugger is right – can’t be surprised by the disqual then, can we?

      Total votes:
      0

    3. Nick says:

      If a team were asked to make alterations to the dimensions of the car after it was measured by a dodgy FIA measuring tape, should the team just go and do it, or should they say, “No. The car is right. Jam it”?

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Tyemz says:

        It was RBR’s sensor, homologated by the FIA

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Nick says:

        From what I understand the sensors are supplied to the F1 teams by Gill Sensors. Approved and homologated by the FIA, but the sensors belong to the teams. They don’t design their own and have it approved, it’s a spec component.

        Total votes:
        0

    4. Michael says:

      If they were told and didn’t listen. They deserve what they got. I guess the RB10 isn’t
      that fast after all.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Dimitar Kadrinski says:

        No wonder Vettel was complaining from low power. His can had the right sensor!

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Spinodontosaurus says:

        Judging from the on-board shots of Vettel during qualifying, the car looked to have about as much grip as a ‘can’ to!

        Total votes:
        0

      3. Richard says:

        Ha ha maybe!

        Total votes:
        0

    5. Mike84 says:

      Seems like FIA was being maybe too generous – they could have gotten away with an illegal flow rate at the crucial start (and maybe also in qualifying, apparently, from FIA’s report) as long as they turned it down later when asked?

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Grant says:

        😀

        Total votes:
        0

    6. neilmurg says:

      yes a huge shame for RIC after a terrific performance. But RB, or any team, are not the arbiters of what is legal in F1. RB appear arrogant in ignoring and contradicting the scrutineers, and fuel use is a critical performance parameter.

      Total votes:
      0

    7. gareth says:

      Ok so fia calibration is incorrect. Thats all good, we will fix it to make it work properly. Cool. Now during the race they are monitoring fuel flow, which is 100% correct because red bull fixed the calibration errors. then, red bulls own “correctly” calibrated sensor shows they are going over the maximum fuel flow allowed. They are warned. They ignore the warning. They are fined. What exactly are they going to appeal????

      Total votes:
      0

      1. aveli says:

        to safe face i guess. if the judge tells you how to avoid being found guilty in court and you refuse to follow his/her advice who do you blame when the verdict is given?

        Total votes:
        0

  4. Colster says:

    Perhaps constructors points taken away and team fine/ penalty at next gp. Once trophies distributed on the podium drivers points should stand.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Grant H says:

      Disagree rules are rules, why not let them have a v10 instead of a v6, no team should have a performance advantage beyond others, if other teams have the same issue they should also be penalised

      Total votes:
      0

    2. rvd says:

      ^this^

      Total votes:
      0

    3. PeterG says:

      So basically your saying that a team should be allowed to not comply to the regulations in order to get there driver/s points?

      Under your proposal what happens if at the final race a car is illegal, the driver gets points & therefore wins the drivers championship with said illegal car because you believe only the team should be punished & drivers should not have points/podiums taken away?

      the driver is a part of the team, teams lose points by driver errors & the same is true the other way round.

      Total votes:
      0

    4. aezy_doc says:

      Of course they shouldn’t. If the car is illegal then the driver gained those points illegally and should therefore lose them. In this instance it’s like a football team fielding twelve players, being asked by the ref to take one off, refusing to do so and then being surprised that they are disqualified. Sad for Ricciardo, but that’s, as they say, motor racing.

      Total votes:
      0

    5. Jonathan says:

      that will never work. TV demands to see the podium ceremony…. they will not wait 4 hours to give out a provisional result!

      The only check they can easily make before the podium is the total weight – but they only check the driver…

      One has to feel for DC – he did his bit handsomely. Red Bull had no excuse for not complying with the instruction given. If this had happened to Vettel there would have been massive celebrations now!

      Total votes:
      0

    6. Tim Burgess says:

      So if a team blatantly cheats but the offence cannot be found in the time between the checkered flag and the trophy presentation (let’s say the engine is too large) they get to keep the win? Or do we delay the trophy presentation until all checks have taken place?

      What if it’s the final race of the season and there is no “next race”??

      Note: I am NOT saying RB blatantly cheated here – I’m talking hypotheticals.

      Total votes:
      0

    7. Andrew M says:

      That’s never going to happen, they’re never going to be able to scrutinise every single aspect of legality of every car in time.

      Total votes:
      0

    8. christhebiglad says:

      Why?
      Breaking rules = unfair advantage. McLaren deserve P2 and P3, not a driver with an unfair advantage.

      Total votes:
      0

    9. ann pantal says:

      I agree. A grid penalty maybe at the next race.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. aveli says:

        the rules and sanctions were agreed to before the season opener.

        Total votes:
        0

    10. Variable says:

      Much agreed. Level the drivers alone and punish the team even heavier for making a mockery of the sport

      Total votes:
      0

    11. Kramgp says:

      I here you

      Total votes:
      0

    12. Multi 21 says:

      There is a precedent for this action: 1995 Brazilian GP. Michael Schumacher (Benetton) and Gerhard Berger (Ferrari) were excluded for fuel irregularities after the race. Upon appeal their WDC points were reinstated but Constructors points were lost.

      The difference here is that Red Bull were given warnings DURING the race. In the 1995 incident it isn’t possible to test a fuel sample during the race.

      Total votes:
      0

    13. bobster says:

      If the car is illegal then the result cannot be allowed to stand – even if the driver is not at fault. By exceeding the fuel flow limit the car had a power advantage and it can be argued that, for example, Magnussen could have passed Ricciardo but for the illegal advantage that Ricciardo gained, albeit unknowingly. It is harsh, but in cases like this it is impossible to punish the team without punishing the driver.

      Total votes:
      0

    14. Yes, I think you’ve got it just about right.

      The system is cumbersome though. It needs to be seamless.

      If the RBR appeal were to be upheld, it would open the flood gates for all the teams to ignore the FIA device calibrations, which presumably are the same for everyone….

      Total votes:
      0

  5. herald says:

    After the jeering comes the silence

    Total votes:
    0

  6. Kingszito says:

    I’m really sorry for Daniel Ricciardo, the guy drove superbly today. Though on the second thought I’m glad RBR is disqualified, their trickery software to mask fuel flow must have failed them. Just Saying!

    Total votes:
    0

  7. Dmitry says:

    Autosport has a full FIA ruling on that.

    Even if RBR appeals, I think point number 9 will destroy anything they can come up with:
    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.

    They ignored FIA more than once and even during the race itself. Even if RBR were within rule-limits, these offences undoubtly will keep the decision of disqualification in place.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Dave P says:

      Ageed… At the end of the day, Red Bull cannot just go and do their ‘own thing’ How would other teams feel about just trusting Red Bull… it would not be accepted. You have to comply and then discuss later…. If you loose performance for that race its tough… but you have to comply…

      Total votes:
      0

    2. Sebee says:

      You don’t think the little FIA power trip about WE, WE, WE is a bit funny? What is a team to do if the fuel sensor setting suggested is preventing their ability to use the 100kg of fuel they are allowed?

      Did RBR use more than 100kg of fuel?

      I know it’s RBR here, but this sensor has the potential to impact any team. Also, if FIA is at all incorrect or slightly off will they re-run the GP to allow the team to make up time lost? This is basically FIA mid race telling team to turn it down. They better be 100%. 99% doesn’t really cut it when we measure pole down to 0.001s.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. aezy_doc says:

        Sebee, that’s a little naive. I expect better of you. Your ‘what if’ is a silly example and the accusation is not that they used over the allotted amount of fuel but that they disregarded the FIA instruction after being repeatedly told they were infringing the rules. The stewards didn’t like either of those things so rbr were disqualified. Other teams were told the same and complied and hence were not disqualified. It’s simple.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Sebee says:

        Infringing a rule with what appears to have huge holes in it? Perhaps.

        Total votes:
        0

      3. Barbara says:

        I agree.If it was something with another team Red Bull thought was dodgy they would be the first to kick off.If they had done as the FIA had asked they would not have been disqualified they maynot have been on the podium but any points they did get they would not have lost

        Total votes:
        0

      4. aezy_doc says:

        Holes in it just like the floor of the rb7! Look, the point is that they were infringing the rules, disregarded a repeated instruction and were duly punished. Reminds me off James Hunt being disqualified for having a car marginally too wide. Was it petty, yes it was, but rules are rules irrespective of whether you agree with them, like them or see the point of them or disagree that the rule has been broken. ‘referee, that was never a penalty!’

        Total votes:
        0

      5. Ed says:

        It’s not whether they are right or not, it’s whether the teams comply. Even if they are wrong, if Kevin was turned down and Dan wasn’t, they are clearly in breach. The flow limit is needed to ensure the race doesn’t go crazy at the start and a funeral march at the end, that’s entertainment…

        Total votes:
        0

      6. [MISTER] says:

        It’s the same for every team Sebee. Same sensor, same measurement, same RULES. We don’t live in a perfect world, and you should not expect 100% from FIA when the teams are not doing 100%.

        If everything would be perfect, there wouldn’t be flying loose wheels hitting people in the pitlane, there wouldn’t be cars flying down in the first turn taking out other cars, etc.

        What you don’t seem to grasp, is that FIA even asked RBR to rectify the fuel flow during the race. RBR decided not to do it. This seems to me a very kind move from FIA, but RBR chose to ignore it. They got what they deserve imo.

        Total votes:
        0

      7. Sebee says:

        That’s the problem, it appears it is not the same sensor. It appears this sensor can be a bit of a lottery and there is variance.

        As for FIA telling RBR to rectify the fuel flow mid GP, how is this different than a team being told to turn it down by an “outside” party – in effect impacting race strategy?

        Engine can’t rev past 15000RPM, 100KG of fuel allowed. X number of laps in a GP. Leave the rest to the team.

        Total votes:
        0

      8. aezy_doc says:

        Yes Sebee, there is variance in the sensors and that is taken into account because they work to a margin of error/ tolerance level. That is the same for every team. Other teams were told to turn adjust the flow to the engine and did so. RBR did not, thus they got a deserved penalty.
        As for the FIA telling RBR to rectify the fuel flow mid GP – this is clearly better than simply black flagging them. Much like a driver would receive a warning for cutting corners repeatedly to gain an advantage. The FIA and stewards gave leeway to RBR but RBR chose to continue ‘cutting the corner’. They ran with a car that did not comply with the current ‘formula’ and got disqualified. Deservedly so. You may not like the rule, but you just have to suck it up.

        Total votes:
        0

      9. Kingszito says:

        That’s exactly the comment I expected from Sebee when it comes to RBR. Please say it as it’s for once Mr. Sebee. RBR was given the opportunity to comply (and I believe they were not the only team warned), yet they chose to ignore it knowing fully well that the consequence is worst than losing a bit of performance. It has always been RBR way of cheating in the past. The break the law knowingly yet pretending that they don’t know. All the get for breaking the law in the past is just warning while keeping the points they gained with illegal parts (innovation). I am very happy they were punished, though I pity Dan.

        Total votes:
        0

      10. Sebee says:

        So you are saying that FIA cannot be wrong? Or to word it more clearly for you that FIA is always right?

        Look, it’s been clearly demonstrated that the sensors leave something to be desired. It was RBR in this case and at least they have the resourced to appeal. Other teams may take it on the chin and not expose a flaw, if there is one.

        We need more facts about this sensor, and more importantly on why this flow rule is in place beside fear that a team will cost at the end. There are so many scenarios for this fuel flow rule to present a very “Non F1” way to race. Here is a few.
        1. Multiple safety cars deployed. So now the 100KG of fule given to teams cannot be used because of 12 laps under safety car? You’re telling me I have to finish with 10KG of fuel on board for no reason and I can’t use it to race, even if I’m allowed to use 100KG per GP?
        2. FIA basically dictating to teams when to “turn it down”. You go ahead and turn your engine down racing for P2 because FIA said so.
        3. Can I go and demand the McLaren flow sensor be given to me at any time to make sure they are really same? Are there just a bunch of sensors in a box that I can pick from randomly?

        Look Kingszito, it’s RBR so you’re suspicious. But this has the potential to impact any team. And how the heck do we know exactly that a team or an engine maker isn’t getting “better flow sensors”?

        I don’t think the process is transparent enough, and it has way too much potential impact on team/car performance. If safety is a rule, wouldn’t it be easier and cheaper to put a 5 place qualy panalty on next GP if you run out of fuel?

        Total votes:
        0

      11. OscarF1 says:

        @Sebee:

        FIA isn’t always right, as no one is.

        In case of doubt, if the authority gives an instruction, it has to be obeyed or penalties might be produced.

        Should such instruction be disregarded, there has to be proof that the behaviour complied with the regulations, and just not with a faulty piece of equipment.

        Verbal claims by any team (as other arguments exposed here) are naive at best.

        Total votes:
        0

      12. Kingszito says:

        If the fuel flow regulation is not transparent enough, teams would have voiced their concern from the unset, but for the fact that most of us (F1 enthusiast) haven’t heard of the fuel flow regulation until now means that it was accepted by all teams without any controversies.

        The same fuel flow mechanism was provided to all teams. Although teams complained of the inconsistency during the Jarez/Bahrain Test as I heard but it was the same for every team.

        The main reason that I was in 120% support of the FIA’s stance on this one was that they were given the opportunity to turn it down during the race (which means that they were allowed to keep the performance they gained by racing an illegal fuel flow meter before the warning) yet the ignored it. This is not the first time RBR has used illegal parts/innovation to gain performance/points, but this is the first time they were punished for it. Good for them!!

        Total votes:
        0

      13. Ahmed says:

        Sebee,
        100% agree with you on this.
        FIA acknowledged there was an issue with Fridays sensor, so they replaced it for Sat practice, which again resulted in incorrect readings (FIA acknowledged this fact). RBR was instructed to re-use Fridays sensor, which was known to be faulty!
        The FIA then instructs RBR to turn down fuel flow rate according to readings from a faulty sensor??? If RBR can prove that they did not go over 100kg/hr they have every right to appeal as if they used the readings from incorrect sensor readings it would put them at a performance disadvantage.
        Nothing has been mentioned from any other team about sensor failures/incorrect readings during practice sessions…
        Let’s let the facts not personal bias speak the truth…

        Total votes:
        0

      14. Sebee says:

        Kingszito,

        There is a reason why we have theory and application.

        This is the first time these sensors were used in competition. There are issues. Surely you can see that in a scenario where a GP will be ran only once, the rulling issue can be resolved at later time. Something this complex can’t be solved mid GP on the fly.

        Total votes:
        0

      15. C63 says:

        I have to say Sebee, you are being a little hypocritical here. When it was Mercedes who were in the dock over that tyre test business you were very clear on the offence and punishment required, rules are rules etc… Now it’s your favourites , Red bull, you seem to be a little less clear on your stance.Double standards, perchance ?

        Total votes:
        0

      16. Sebee says:

        C63,

        I agree that I do cheer on RBR, but I am not blind nor always go with RBR. If you recall for example I was very much against tires being changed mid season. This change many say, benefited RBR in the end. I wanted RBR to figure out the tires, not get new ones.

        Look around. Teams are reporting issues with the sensor. It may impact another team next GP. There is a real issue to address here with these sensors.

        Total votes:
        0

      17. MISTER says:

        “As for FIA telling RBR to rectify the fuel flow mid GP, how is this different than a team being told to turn it down by an “outside” party – in effect impacting race strategy?”

        That outside party is like a referee, someone who sets the rules and who was appointed to enforce any penalties. You should know by now who FIA is and what they are empowered to do Sebee.

        Calling FIA an “outside party” is hillarious and sad in the same time. I would expect that from someone watching F1 for the first time, not from you.

        To summarise it, FIA provides the sensors, they check the sensors and hand the penalties.

        Total votes:
        0

      18. Sebee says:

        FIA being outside party, by that I mean outside of the team. Their interest are not the same.

        We don’t know the details fully. Actually, we don’t even know if RBR appealed. They said they would, but did they? Let’s get the RBR side of this one with their facts. All we have is the FIA letter.

        Total votes:
        0

      19. [MISTER] says:

        “1. Multiple safety cars deployed. So now the 100KG of fule given to teams cannot be used because of 12 laps under safety car? You’re telling me I have to finish with 10KG of fuel on board for no reason and I can’t use it to race, even if I’m allowed to use 100KG per GP?”

        Sebee, you are missing one important aspect of this fuel flow rate. The max fuel flow rate is 100kg/hour. Some races are 1.5h long or even 2 hours. Even if a team would be running at 99kg/h fuel rate, they would still need 200kg of fuel for a 2 hour race.

        I believe on average the teams are running at around 60-70 kg/h fuel rate, but can turn it up to a max of 100 kg/h for periods of time, but are not allowed to go over the 100kg/h.

        In this case, RBR have run at above 100kg/h fuel rate, therefore prompting FIA to ask them to turn it down. They declined and got disqualified.

        Seems pretty simple to me.

        “2. FIA basically dictating to teams when to “turn it down”. You go ahead and turn your engine down racing for P2 because FIA said so.”

        The FIA asked RBR to turn it down after noticing their car was running above the max rate of 100. How is that wrong?

        “3. Can I go and demand the McLaren flow sensor be given to me at any time to make sure they are really same? Are there just a bunch of sensors in a box that I can pick from randomly?”

        No part is identical. None. Engines, turbos, tyres, etc. Don’t demand a silly fuel sensor to be perfect when damn engines are breaking down on 1st lap like it happened to Vettel and Lewis. Seriously!

        Total votes:
        0

    3. In Lycoming and Continental aircraft engines (and presumably other makes) used in domestic service (here in the U.S. anyway) fuel flow (richer vs. leaner) is used to help in cooling of the engines. Might that be a “reason” to keep the flow rate higher, especially with the turbo assist? Just wondering.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. j says:

        Interesting point. Would be great to consult with a turbo engine expert for the answer there.

        I assumed that they wanted more power but their problem in testing was overheating rather than speed.

        The sensors are brand new and everyone knows they have failed at times so perhaps they thought they could blame the sensor and get away with something.

        They did switch out a working sensor for another one before the race and were told to put the original one back in the car.

        Total votes:
        0

    4. bob says:

      But the point is the FIA based their decision on information gained from a component that they readily agree was faulty and showing high readings.

      It’s ridiculous.

      RedBull nor any other team are required to listen to or follow any direction from the FIA – they are only required to abide by the regulations.

      Why should RedBull or any other team run their cars lean just because the FIA is using faulty equipment?

      Total votes:
      0

      1. aezy_doc says:

        I’m not sure FIA admitted it was faulty, just that it was showing a different reading to RBRs (and indeed other teams) own measurements.
        ‘RedBull nor any other team are required to listen to or follow any direction from the FIA – they are only required to abide by the regulations.’.
        True, but they didn’t abide by the regulations and were punished by the stewards who made the decision based on the fact that RBR were running a car that sat outside the regulations.

        Total votes:
        0

    5. Charith says:

      It’s a shame for Ricciardo, but Red Bull had this coming. Effectively they wanted to do what was necessary to hold on to the 2nd place. Had they done as they were told and played it safe, they could have came home with likely a 3rd place and having the result stand.

      They got greedy, it’s their own fault and they need to accept that.

      Total votes:
      0

    6. Rob Ducker says:

      Dmitry you are 100% correct. And it is not complicated at all as some writers have claimed: is is very simple. At least 2 other teams were notified by the FIA and complied with their wishes, even though, in the case of Mercedes they believed they were right and the Mass Flow Meter was wrong. The fact is they complied and RBR did not. This is incredibly arrogant and disrespectful to all other teams. But RBR don’t care in the arrogant belief that they are right. The fact is they may well be, but they directly disobeyed the ruing bodies instructions.
      One cannot have 12 different standards – for each team and 1 for the FIA. The only standard that counts is the ruling bodies: the FIA. If the FIA should back track on this (and it seems that they have been given the hard word by Luca dM well in advance)then chaos will rule. What about Mercedes and Ferrari and any others that complied with the request? Toto Wolf is on record saying it cost them about .5 sec a lap.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. C63 says:

        +1
        Very concise and well written post :-)

        Total votes:
        0

    7. grat says:

      Yeah– reading the FIA decision, it’s obvious Red Bull received multiple warnings, and then disregarded the official procedure for a faulty sensor.

      It’s going to be difficult to get this one overturned.

      Total votes:
      0

    8. WSH says:

      +1 Agree. Red Bull indeed showed neglect for the authority of the FIA in this matter. An appeal won’t make IMHO.

      Total votes:
      0

    9. Alex says:

      It is the same to what happened to Massa last year in Brazil, Massa was furious and blamed FIA, but he was told not to touch the white line, others did it, were warned and corrected it, but he didn’t, therefore, penalty.

      Total votes:
      0

    10. Rishi says:

      Have to agree with this; FIA rightly deliberated but ultimately had to disqualify him. Gutted for Ricciardo though; such a strong weekend and it was nice to see two new faces on the podium.

      Total votes:
      0

  8. Gary Honey says:

    I feared this would happen, F1 and FIA are essentially telling fans not to bother watching the race live, because new rules are so complicated that the final results will be announced during the highlights show. Being limited on fuel consumption is a good idea, but why also impose a limit on how quickly the fuel can flow, that’s up to the team to manage surely?

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Juzh says:

      It’s to stop 1000+ bhp engines which we would get with an unlimited fuel flow.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Voodoopunk says:

        They only have 100Kg of fuel, if you have unlimited fuel flow what do you think would happen?

        Total votes:
        0

      2. stoic says:

        It’s for safety and efficiency reason I guess. Imagine a race where there is a long safety car period at the start. They would have saved a lot of fuel early on that they would have 1000+ hp at their disposal later.

        Total votes:
        0

      3. NickH says:

        Does everyone not want 1000hp +? Get rid of the fuel limit all together, just another stupid rule that acheives nothing other than more slow driving.

        Total votes:
        0

    2. Grant H says:

      Rules are rules so RB should be punished, but i agree what is the point of the fuel flow rate rule? I agree why cant the teams sort it, i believe the fuel flow rule is not applicable in qually so why bother in the race

      Total votes:
      0

    3. AuraF1 says:

      You could argue that but it’s also in the rules and they contacted the team before and during the race to bring it within the rules. I agree if things takes hours after the race to sort out it can become a farce but if the team are given the chance to avoid it during the race and choose to ignore advice it’s their fault not the FIAs. I know red bull are saying the FIA sensor didn’t match up to their sensors but sometimes you just have to play within the rules even if you think the ruling is unfair.

      Total votes:
      0

    4. aezy_doc says:

      Well, it’s not complicated to do what the fia official instructed. Rbr didn’t and suffer the consequences. Self inflicted.

      Total votes:
      0

    5. wellerfan says:

      You seem to be missing the point. The maximum fuel allowed is 100kg for the race. The fuel flow is 100kg per hour max. This has been set to give a competitive lap time over the entire race distance. If there was no fuel flow limit then the drivers would race very hard for the first few laps then they would all be doing 60kmh for the last half of the race to get to the end. The FIA want a good spectacle for the fans so hence the fuel flow meter.
      If one team runs at a higher flow rate than the others then they can use this advantage to overtake then break the tow so the car they have passed cannot get into the DRS zone to re take them. The car with the fuel flow advantage can then fuel save in the knowledge that they will not be re passed and will still complete the race using the 100kg of fuel allowed. Quite simple really.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Max Smoot says:

        Thanks for this.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. graham bowman says:

        This makes no sense. The car behind could just do the same.

        Total votes:
        0

      3. wellerfan says:

        No. The car behind would be restricted to 100kg per hour so limiting his performance below that of the illegal car who would have more horsepower while his fuel flow was above 100kg per hour

        Total votes:
        0

    6. Steve Dalby says:

      I do not think that all fans need to understand the technology but I am sure that all fans understand that there are rules and rules can be broken.

      If you break the rules then you must pay the penalty. In this case Red Bull are saying that their Sensor is more accurate than the FIA and they are right but the rules say you must use the FIA sensor.

      They had the chance but ignored the advice. Why is the FIA assuming people need to understand all the technology. This was a great start to the season and I am sorry RIC got caught by the Red Bull attitude to push the rules to the limit… it has happened before and will again.

      This is F1 and fans do understand…

      Total votes:
      0

      1. j says:

        Agree Steve. I’m not confused at all by the regulations and I don’t think many other fans are either.

        Total votes:
        0

    7. Rockman says:

      I agree, what’s the point of limiting fuel limit to 100kg per race and limit fuel flow rate?

      Just doesn’t make any sense. Teams should be able to use up fuel as fast or as slow as they want as long as they comply with the starting fuel.

      Rubbish rule this one…

      Total votes:
      0

    8. Alexis says:

      The whole point of the FIA supplied sensor is to prevent cheating.

      Total votes:
      0

    9. Rob Ducker says:

      Its the same for everyone Gary. While the Mass Flow Meters are sensitive and complicated, they are THE standard. Ferrari and Mercedes for one complied with the FIA request to reduce their fuel flow…Mercedes say it cost them 0.5 secs a lap, but they nevertheless complied.

      RBR have total belief that their measurements are 100% accurate and so they chose to disobey an FIA directive, even while showing paperwork that indicated they had complied. How much more arrogant can they get? They will get zero support from the rest of the teams.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Veteran says:

        Too bad you are wrong. These sensors have too much variability. Some sensors report lower than actual fuel flow rate, while other report higher than actual fuel flow rate. Do we really want to give teams -4% to +4% performance based on luck of the draw? These sensors are crap. Right now, teams are not fighting with equal weapons.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Rob Ducker says:

        Oh dear. ALL sensors are +/- it’s just a fact of life. Just the way ALL F1 teams must use the Gill sensor. Your figures are wildly inaccurate….the Gill señor is at least accurate to 0.25% ie 10 times better than you say.
        Many of the teams are disputing the readings but only one ignored a directive, Red Bull. Mercedes were also warned the previous day, they contested the Reading But they complied with the directive, saying that it cost them 0.5 sec a lap. Assuming RBR were in the same position they obviously didn’t want to loose 0.5 sec a lap so they used their own fuel measurement – how convenient!! RBR can say what they like but they put the finger up to the FIA and every other team competing. Their actions are simply unconscionable. Look it up.

        Total votes:
        0

    10. Mike84 says:

      What are they supposed to do, allow someone to cheat? Do we want to watch cheaters win?

      Anyone here trust Red Bull to police themselves?

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Veteran says:

        Wrong again. They used this sensor in FP on friday. Redbull and the FIA noticed wrong readings on it. So they used a new sensor in FP3. This sensor was also faulty. The FIA asked them to use the sensor of FP on Friday again with an offset. This offset was wrong according to RBR. So bacially the sensors are crap and the FIA tries to regulate it in a not so intelligent way.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. aezy_doc says:

        Wrong again. The FIA noted readings that were inconsistent with RBR’s own readings and told them to recalibrate their settings to match the homologated sensor. Other teams had the same issue which suggests to me the sensors are consistent with each other. The teams may get different readings of their own, but that doesn’t mean that the FIA approved standard sensors are inconsistent with each other.

        Total votes:
        0

      3. C63 says:

        Out of interest, how are you so sure Red Bull sensors are accurate?

        Total votes:
        0

    11. Ahmad says:

      I agree. I don’t really understand why the FIA felt the need to regulate the fuel flow.

      If a team could manage to save more fuel than the minimum required to finish the race (e.g. due to a safety car period, rain, engine management, or higher level of energy recovery) and then decided to attack the final laps with a higher fuel flow, what is wrong with that? This could have surely added another element of unpredictability and competition between the teams up to the end of the race.

      Total votes:
      0

    12. Steve Zodiac says:

      Too complex, will never be reliable and if road car technology is anything to go by, any savings made(ie environmentaly or cost wise)will be lost on costly replacement parts. Most modern cars do loads of MPG saving the owner money only to throw it, and more, away due the ridiculous cost of repairing this stuff. The most environmentaly friendly cars are the really old ones as the majority of pollution is generated during manufacture, plus old cars have always been re-cycled long before it became a latter day watchword.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. warley says:

        +1 agree 100%

        Total votes:
        0

  9. Bjornar Simonsen says:

    I have no sympathies for Red Bull. Ricciardo however, I do feel for.

    It is also worth noting that Red Bull seems to be in similar situations more often than other teams. Eventually you stop believing in chance.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Bjornar Simonsen says:

      Could I dare say it is Red Bull who let Ricciardo down? They were warned, but with their cocky attitude they decided they were in charge.

      Too bad for RIC.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. zootrees says:

        This is how I felt the moment I heard. Any debating RBR does is mute. It’s their problem. They let him down, not the FIA who are sticking by the rules.
        I am so disappointed for Daniel

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Dimitar Kadrinski says:

        +1

        Total votes:
        0

      3. NickH says:

        Do feel bad for Riccardio, although it’s possible he may not have got on the podium if they had complied

        Total votes:
        0

    2. David says:

      +1.

      Total votes:
      0

    3. Veteran says:

      Wrong again. They used this sensor in FP on friday. Redbull and the FIA noticed wrong readings on it. So they used a new sensor in FP3. This sensor was also faulty. The FIA asked them to use the sensor of FP on Friday again with an offset. This offset was wrong according to RBR. So bacially the sensors are crap and the FIA tries to regulate it in a not so intelligent way. Saying this is RBR fault is way to easy.

      Total votes:
      0

  10. jmv says:

    … and Luca warned us! Stop the trickery! If FIA sensors should be used.. then there is no excuse. If the sensors are a bit.. innaccurate.. then is the same for everyone.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Michael in Seattle says:

      It is not the same for everyone if the unit-to-unit variance is not consistent. In other words, malfunctioning units could all be reporting different rates to different teams. This is what RBR has been saying since practice began.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. aezy_doc says:

        I’m not sure there is unit-to-unit variance. Two sensors provided to RBR and both gave the same readings. Other teams complained of the same issue. It seems to me that there is no variance in the standard sensor, but just that they take readings that differ from what the teams felt they are able to achieve.

        Total votes:
        0

    2. Lindsay says:

      If it’s a systematic error in the sensors, it may turn out to be “the same” for everyone, but it contradicts the FIA’s own regulations.

      If it’s a random error, one team could get a sensor that over-reports the fuel flow and another team could get one that under-reports the fuel flow. That’s certainly not “the same” for everyone, and as soon as that happens it’s a complete lottery.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Jonathan says:

        Nothing is that simple. The units are calibrated. That means they are ALL placed in a system that is set to flow at 100kg /hour and the output reading from the sensor is given as the datum reading for that sensor. The units might not be identical but the datum output reading for each unit will still give the 100kg/hour.

        I would imagine the differences we are seeing is down to the differing pipework either side of the sensors. A different layout could induce a change in flow turbulence causing a change in the sensor reading. I guess the only real way to perfect the set up would be for the calibration rig to use each team’s whole pipework set.

        Total votes:
        0

  11. Doobs says:

    Oops RB caught with hands in the till.. Too bad for DR but at least Seb has inherited Mark Webber’s reliability gremlins.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Michael Grievson says:

      Unless they gave Daniel Sebs car by mistake lol

      Total votes:
      0

    2. VSI says:

      One can only hope 😉

      After last yrs’ 9-race marathon snooze-fest, any change in order is a welcome relief.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Sasidharan says:

        You are going to witness a 18-race “marathon snooze fest” by another team. 1 over, 17 to go!

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Voodoopunk says:

        You cab bet people won’t be moaning about it.

        It’s not what they did, it’s who did it.

        Total votes:
        0

      3. NickH says:

        Yeah they will dominate no question, but Rosberg V Lewis will be great stuff to watch as they both badly want the title and are much closer in performance than Vettel and Webber. Lewis will already by annoyed by being 25 points down to the only guy whose got an identical car, fireworks to come

        Total votes:
        0

    3. LightHorse says:

      part way through the race I was imagining Seb jumping up and down, demanding he be given Dan’s car at the next GP :)

      Total votes:
      0

      1. oddball says:

        +1lol

        Total votes:
        0

    4. Andre says:

      Doesn’t become true by repetition. Vettel Bad bis fair share oft reliability issues. And bis Werke mostly in far better positions than those oft Webber…

      Total votes:
      0

    5. manz says:

      and thats such a great relief for you yeah ? 😀
      his reliability problems will end soon hopefully

      Total votes:
      0

  12. Daniel Bodley says:

    Robbed by the FIA and its incompetence. So sorry Dan.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. MISTER says:

      You mean RBR’s incompetence. RBR were warned during the race to turn the fuel flow down, but they ignored that. DR was let down by the team, not FIA.
      If they would’ve listed to the FIA, DR might have gotten a 3rd, 4th or 5th, but this way he got disqualified.

      I’m glad this happened, but I am convinced RBR decided to ignore FIA because they thought they will be forgiven given its the 1st race.
      The rules are there for a reason!

      Total votes:
      0

    2. Tom Greene says:

      How is this a robbery?
      The below was extracted from the steward’s ruling

      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.

      to sum it up, you listen to what the stewards tell you to do! It is almost like ignoring a drive-through penalty because you do not agree with it, seems like Red Bull was doing it just to see how far they can push the FIA

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Aaron Noronha says:

        +1

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Alex Ward says:

        Well if the drive thru was issued for crashing into car#2, then you would be a fool to take the penalty when you have very clear evidence to the contrary, you would continue to the chequered flag and hope that the FIA would realise they were silly and back down, or hope the court of arbitration would reverse the DQ issued by the FIA based on the evidence that #2 Webber was not even in the race!

        Total votes:
        0

    3. Flying_Scotsman says:

      Dont you mean robbed by Redbull and its inability to follow the rules laid out by the governing body?

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Aaron Noronha says:

        You fail to get the point. F1 is about pushing the boundaries while staying in the confines of the rules. Like the mass dampeners of Renault which were legal until they were banned The moveable floor of the Ferrari in 2007 Or the double diffuser of Brawn Gp team which were protested and than adapted by every team once it was declared legal. Or the F duct introduced by Mclaren and than copied by most teams, the blown diffuser was reintroduced by Redbull and adapted by others and when it was banned it was Mclaren and not Redbull who perfected the downwash effect to blow their diffuser(unlike Redbulls and Sabaur that used the less effective Coanda effect) but it was later exploited and copied by the others with Redbull mastering it in 2013 and Mclaren squandering its opportunity by starting 2013 with a brand new car instead of an evolution of what was the fastest car 2/3 of 2012. Take the FRIC suspension used by Mercedes and Lotus. This years Redbulls camera placement and the innovative suspension blocker used by Mclaren plus every team exploiting the loopholes in the rules to come up with different solution to the front wing with lotus having a solution that is too extreme. There are numerous other which i have left out. My point is to call Redbull cheaters just because they are innovators is kinda immature and silly. If they cheated i am sure they would have been thrown out of the champtionship

        I must add that Ferrari is very conservative when it comes to new concepts or exploiting/reintroducing old one. You never heard Ferrari bringing in something new. I think it really needed a shakeup of its technical department. Maybe in the long run James Allison may be able to infuse some revolutionary or evolutionary ideas that other teams may want to copy.

        Coming to this latest case involving the Redbull i am pretty sure they did break the law. The rules are pretty clear and they were warned at least 3 times. As far as it is evident they were the only car having sensor issues(or the only team that reported such issues so far. I hope they lose their appeal. Although i am sure their lawyers will argue very well but i doubt their case will hold any water. Feel really bad for Riccardo he did a fine job yesterday.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. NickH says:

        Ferrari 2007 moveable floor was never declared legal. It was banned after Ferari was way faster than the others in the first race

        Total votes:
        0

      3. Aaron Noronha says:

        Nick you fail to get the point. It was legal for the first race it was subsequently banned as the results still stand. I.e Kimi wasnt stripped of his victory.

        Total votes:
        0

    4. Sebee says:

      There is truth here. Their own rule seems to have more gray in it than a gray-ramp!

      Total votes:
      0

    5. aezy_doc says:

      Robbed by their own arrogance.

      Total votes:
      0

    6. F1 Badger says:

      FIA competence and RB in-competence I’d say. Either way though the poor fellas been robbed, gutted for him!

      Total votes:
      0

    7. quattro says:

      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.

      [mod]

      Total votes:
      0

    8. Rene says:

      +1 the FIA is useless!

      Total votes:
      0

    9. super seven says:

      Robbed by Red Bull’s arrogance, more like. They knew the rules, and we’re even given a final chance to come into compliance during the race, but chose to ignore it. They brought it on themselves.

      McLaren have to be the happiest after Mercedes following the first race. Two strong drivers, a good car, and leading the constructors’ championship by 18 points after the first race. No wonder even Ron was smiling.

      Total votes:
      0

    10. grat says:

      “Robbed by Red Bull and it’s arrogance. So sorry Dan.”–

      There, fixed it for you.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Voodoopunk says:

        How does that work?

        Robbed by Red Bull and it is arrogance?

        Total votes:
        0

      2. grat says:

        There’s a procedure for dealing with the faulty sensor– The FIA determines the correction value to apply. Red Bull didn’t like that value, so they made up their own (which can, apparently, be done, but only if the FIA approves. Which it didn’t).

        Then, during the race, multiple teams were told they were exceeding the fuel flow limits– all but one complied with the warning(s). Red Bull.

        So they ignored the established procedure, ignored multiple warnings, and as a result, Ricciardo lost his points.

        Total votes:
        0

    11. Mike84 says:

      More likely IMO that the Renault engine is providing bad data than that sensor, hasn’t the Renault engine been the most unreliable piece of equipment up and down the pitlane throughout testing and this race weekend?

      So Red Bull’s argument that the sensors have been unreliable goes out the window. Their alternate method of measuring is less reliable.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. j says:

        Good point.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Alex Ward says:

        The injectors and Mclaren ECU controller are not bespoke parts, they are standardised. If the engine was erratic, sure, but car #3 was running fine.

        Total votes:
        0

  13. Justabloke says:

    Gutted for RIC, but I bet VET is happy not be going into round two down on points against his team mate. I can’t imagine why Red Bull thought it was ever going to end well if they blatantly disregarded a request from the FiA./Stewards..

    Total votes:
    0

    1. manz says:

      and how r u sure about ur bet??? i guess you know seb personally i guess

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Just a bloke says:

        Nope of course I don’t know him, its a PERSONAL OPINION, based on nothing more than my interpretation of his attitude and approach over the last few years……..I Could of course be very wrong?

        Total votes:
        0

  14. bazzer says:

    Redbull don’t like it up them…

    Total votes:
    0

  15. TBP says:

    Absolutely gutted by the news. Hope the appeal is successful.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Barbara says:

      I don’t you break the rules ,you p[ay the price sorry for Daniel tho he had a good race but would he still have got the 2nd place if hte fuel flow was correct

      Total votes:
      0

      1. aezy_doc says:

        Punctuation is very important. A comma here or a full stop there makes all the difference.

        Total votes:
        0

      1. TBP says:

        I know all the teams try to bend the rules as much as possible and I don’t like cheats either. But, I was really hoping that Daniel gets to keep the points as he’ll need the psycological advantage over Vettel.

        My disappointment is more from Daniel’s perspective rather than for team Red Bull.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Voodoopunk says:

        And you think this is unique to Red Bull?

        Total votes:
        0

  16. Anne Elk (Miss) says:

    It’s strange that RBR’s statement claims that the fuel is in compliance with regulations rather than arguing against the reason for which they were disqualified (using an unapproved measurement method and ignoring the instruction on the correction factor). Are they in a complete flap? It sounds like they haven’t read the stewards’ decision.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Dmitry says:

      They are in its own distorted reality and even after penalty dare to question FIA.
      I really doubt they have any chances with appeal.

      Total votes:
      0

    2. WSH says:

      I had the same thought: The fuel itself is in compliance, the fuel-flow rate wasn’t, which is a completely different thing. Could also be that the quote was incorrect, as it seemed quite a sloppy mistake, unless it was just done for PR reasons to give a counterargument where there is none.

      Total votes:
      0

    3. Hutch says:

      I can’t understand what Red Bull were thinking in disobeying an FIA directive. There must be more to this and I look forward to hearing their story in more depth.

      Total votes:
      0

    4. Luke says:

      You must also remember that Mercedes, FIA & Pirelli all gave out some rather “interesting” media statements after Mercedes illegal test last year. That was more blatant than this from RBR and they received 2 lashes of a lettuce leaf in punishment. RBR might just be trying to play the same sort of game.

      Total votes:
      0

  17. AlexD says:

    Strange….sorry for Ricciardo.

    Total votes:
    0

  18. Hoggy says:

    I really hate it when the results change after the race.

    Have to admit that I didn’t realise that the cars were fitted with flow rate sensors.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. C63 says:

      The flow rate sensors are the way in which the FIA police the fuel usage, eg a 2 hour race would require an average maximum flow rate of 50kg/hour. It’s because the out , in and warm up lap are not part of the race distance and therefore not subject to the maximum fuel weight regulation. Otherwise the cars would need to be weighed on the grid, after the warm up lap and then at the end of the race immediately after crossing the finishing line. Obviously not practical.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Voodoopunk says:

        “Otherwise the cars would need to be weighed on the grid, after the warm up lap and then at the end of the race immediately after crossing the finishing line. Obviously not practical.”

        Ridiculous idea, 100Kg should cover everything on race day.

        Total votes:
        0

    2. Gaz Boy says:

      It is annoying to read a few hours later on the net that the results have changed, you’re right.
      However…………..rules are rules, because as Al Murray says if we didn’t have rules, where would we be? That’s right………France- where Renault and the FIA are based, ironically….

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Gaz Boy says:

        As grounds keeper Willy might say: “[The FIA are] Cheese eating confusing monkeys!”

        Total votes:
        0

      2. ManOnWheels says:

        Breate less Gaz Boy, France is full of rules.

        Total votes:
        0

  19. aveli says:

    unlucky ricciardo.

    Total votes:
    0

  20. DEANO says:

    The cars are much to complicated, I doubt that this will be the first technical glitch that results in the altered placement of a driver. Imagine getting this info 4 hours after the race. Too bad for a driver who raced his heart out in front of his home crowed. I guess we will see if the teams appeal will be upheld?

    Total votes:
    0

    1. neilmurg says:

      they got the info before AND during the race

      Total votes:
      0

  21. SteveS says:

    Sounds like RB is in the right here. If the fuel flow rate constantly exceeded 100kg/hour, as the FIA claims, and the race lasted an hour and a half (as it did) then DR’s car would have had to be carrying close to 200kg of fuel. I’m sure it’s physically impossible to put that much fuel in the car.

    Instead of a maximum fuel flow rate they should load 100kg of fuel into each car and let them burn it as they see fit.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Craig D says:

      They’d only be using above 100kg/h when running the engine in its max settings. They obviously wouldn’t be using that when fuel conversing and behind a SC, etc.

      The reason there’s a mass flow rate limit for fuel is to place a restriction on development of engine performance. If there was no limit then a manufacturer might design their engine to have a “super mode”, burning a huge rate of fuel with a big power gain! So it’s to put a cap on stopping engines being too extreme!

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Craig D says:

        *conserving I meant (obviously)!

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Voodoopunk says:

        But then they’d run out of their 100Kg of fuel.

        Total votes:
        0

      3. Craig D says:

        No, they’d just be a much greater variance in lap times across the race. They’d be using the “super performance” mode early in the race and to make “easy overtakes” when another car is saving fuel, and then be crawling to the finish line in super lean at the end (exactly the fears of how the racing would be).

        A fuel flow limit allows for more consistent lap times and racing across the whole field for throughout the whole and stops engines being potential designed to be 1000bhp beasts for quali, etc.

        Total votes:
        0

      4. Voodoopunk says:

        “They’d be using the “super performance” mode early in the race and to make “easy overtakes” when another car is saving fuel, and then be crawling to the finish line in super lean at the end (exactly the fears of how the racing would be).”

        What’s the problem with that?

        Not entertaining enough I guess.

        Total votes:
        0

    2. Nedder says:

      I agree. It seems odd that BOTH a limit on fuel weight and a limit on flow rate are necessary… Maybe the FIA are trying to prevent some trickery that hasn’t occurred to me yet? But having said that, they WERE told. Dumb decision by the team I reckon, that’s destroyed a really impressive debut.

      Total votes:
      0

    3. Andy says:

      The 100kg/hr is the maximun flow rate allowed, so the actual flow will be regularly below that.

      What you can’t have is the FIA issuing instructions and a team blatently ignoring them.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Voodoopunk says:

        “What you can’t have is the FIA issuing instructions and a team blatently ignoring them.”

        Cause that’s never happened before?

        Total votes:
        0

    4. Tyemz says:

      I assume 100kg/hr is the maximum flow rate but that doesn’t mean cars are expected to run for exactly one hour with 100kg of fuel. For a start, cars don’t run flat out from start to finish and the MGU-K accounts for part of the power

      Total votes:
      0

    5. C63 says:

      Polite correction. 1.5×100=150 . Last season the cars routinely started a race with that amount (or more) of fuel on board, so no problems there! What I can’t get my head round is the idea of Red Bull cheating. I mean, who would have thought that nice Mr Horner would cheat. Especially after he made such a fuss about Pirelli in season tyre test. Just goes to show you never can be sure about someone.

      Total votes:
      0

    6. Jamie says:

      200kg? Even last year they didn’t have maximum consumption rates the cars only had about 150kg. It states that it was the maximum full rate, therefore most of the time it would have not been at max consumption. In addition to that at Melbourne, the cars are only at full throttle 61% of the time, so they could easily exceed 100 kg/hour but use less than 100kg in total.

      Total votes:
      0

    7. Jonathan says:

      No!

      RB were warned, then told but chose to ignore an instruction.

      The cars do not travel for the whole race at full throttle! 100Kg/h is a regulated MAX flow rate. No team would build a fuel tank to take significantly more than the 100Kg – so at least you got that bit right!

      Having said that I do not really see the necessity for the flow rate rule. Mercedes reckon they could have been half a second quicker in quali without the restriction – but I don’t think any team would make a significant quali only power increase without being worried about the PU lasting the distance.

      Total votes:
      0

    8. Carlos says:

      The FIA meant that the car was exceeding 100kg/hr frequently – not continuously.

      I agree with your last point, though. Give them 100kg and let them use it as they’d like.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. ManOnWheels says:

        So the cars will be rockets on the straight and overtaking was just a matter of who has more boost? Or Qualifying will be hugely different from races? Or on less fuel critical tracks they would always use the max 100 kg of fuel, because they could turn them into horsepower by just increasing the boost?

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Voodoopunk says:

        “Or on less fuel critical tracks they would always use the max 100 kg of fuel, because they could turn them into horsepower by just increasing the boost?”

        Exactly, what’s the problem with that?

        Total votes:
        0

      3. ManOnWheels says:

        The manufacturers want Formula-1 to display the capability to mix high performance with low consumption – a formula like that would be rather sluggish on the consumption side.
        Is it really good to have the cars running the most power on tracks like Monaco, where fuel is not a problem?
        And aren’t high speed differences on the straights a recipe for desaster? Because that’s would could happen as well: If the driver in Front is in eco mode, trying to save a set of tires and the driver behind in full attack mode trying to get the most out of a short stint, you’ll get a recipe for desaster..
        Obviously one reason why there is a fuel flow limit is that the performance differences at any time on the track should not grow too large.

        Total votes:
        0

      4. Voodoopunk says:

        @ManOnWheels

        If they’re going to be regulated to that degree then give them all the same chassis and engines and be done with it.

        Total votes:
        0

    9. Andrew M says:

      Because the fuel rate could have exceeded 100kg for a specific portion of every lap, say 20% of the time the car was at full throttle (or whatever it was). If the rate was 110kg then but significantly less for the rest of the lap (tending towards virtually zero during braking) then it could happen quite easily mathematically.

      Having said that, I don’t really see why this limit is in place, if cars can deliver the fuel more quickly than the fuel rate but still get the fuel to last then what’s the harm? I guess to make sure the cars are greener?

      Total votes:
      0

    10. Barbara says:

      the fuel limit for the race is 100k 135 litres

      Total votes:
      0

    11. I imagine the fuel flow rate is not constant – for example when you’re braking you’re using less fuel than when you’re accelerating. It’s like saying the speed limit between A and B is 100km/h. You can consistently go over 100km/h but still end up driving 100km in 1 hour.

      Total votes:
      0

    12. aezy_doc says:

      The fuel flow rate may have regularly exceeded the allowed rate rather than constantly and rbr would still be in the wrong.

      Total votes:
      0

    13. Martin says:

      The statement didn’t say “constantly”, it said “consistently”, there’s a big difference which makes your reasoning incorrect

      Total votes:
      0

    14. Byron Lamarque says:

      I’d love to learn more about these devices. My understanding is that they are designed to prevent the teams from running very lean all race and then blowing all their fuel at the end. So I take it that no if you exceed the flow rate you will not run out of gas. It simply means your fuel air mixture is above the allowable limit. Again I’m not sure exactly why this is the case.

      James any further details available on this?

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Byron Lamarque says:

        … It’s just occurred to me perhaps why this is important. You wouldn’t want a situation where a driver put his car in extra lean mode on the track where or when he knew he couldn’t be passed and then used a very rich mix for the bits where he needed to stay ahead. This would make for a very frustrating race. Perhaps we saw that a bit with Red Bull today. Daniel was holding back everyone and appeared to be quite slow but then we he needed to be he was fast. Perhaps that was what was happening which would ruin the spectacle for everyone and frustrate the hell out of your competitors!

        Total votes:
        0

      2. James Allen says:

        We are preparing an item from Mark Gillan on this

        Total votes:
        0

      3. Chris says:

        Maybe it’s top late, I’m getting a headache. ..

        Total votes:
        0

      4. graham bowman says:

        I have a flow rate meter on my solar water heater,pretty simple piece of equipment really . If red bull would like to borrow it feel free to pass on my e-mail address.

        Total votes:
        0

    15. George says:

      Hey.. what this is about is fuel flow rate exceeding the maximum allowed. I’ve never heard the frequency at which it’s measured but at other times while fuel saving the rate would have been well below 100kg/ hr so it seems they used the legal amount too rapidly rather than busting the max total allowed.
      Bummer for Ric & us lot but we saw it coming I recon.

      Total votes:
      0

    16. mtm says:

      The word used was “consistently”, not constantly.

      Also 100kg/h is the max flow rate at 10000+ rpm’s. It drops down as the rpm’s go lower.

      Total votes:
      0

    17. yellowbelly says:

      That would only be the case if they were on full throttle for the whole lap, which clearly they are not.

      Total votes:
      0

    18. haj says:

      Cars are constantly accelerating throughout the race. Corners, braking zones, pit stops and safety cars all play a part. In addition the statement said regularly not constantly.

      Total votes:
      0

    19. Anthony says:

      No, this isn’t right. It’s just the maximum fuel flow rate that can’t exceed 100kg/hr. That isn’t inconsistent with the average flow rate for the whole race being c65kg/hr, based on <100kg divided by 1hr 32min.

      There are plenty of parts of the circuit, particularly under braking, where the flow rate is lower, so the average will be less than the maximum.

      Total votes:
      0

    20. quattro says:

      The exact wording was
      “during the race car 03 consistently exceeded the maximum allowed fuel flow rate of 100kg/h”

      A big difference between “constantly” and “consistently”. “consistently exceeding” must be a number of spikes on the trace rather than running over 100kg/h constantly. Still this probably gives (an unfair) performance advantage over those not doing it.

      Total votes:
      0

    21. warley says:

      I believe that the flow rate constraint is to stop teams from having special ‘qualifying’ settings with large amounts of fuel being used which would set off an ‘arms race’ for grid places.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. SteveS says:

        I see a number of people making that claim. And yet there was no fuel flow rate constraint for the last several years. Why was there no “arms race”?

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Jake says:

        Perhaps because engine development was not permitted…

        Total votes:
        0

      3. Alex says:

        But engines had a rev limit no?, this is almost the same in my non technical view.

        Total votes:
        0

      4. CJD says:

        actually i thought, during qualifing there is NO flowrate restriction. so then the merc maybe really has 900+ bhp. maybe we see it next race

        its a little bit like the turbo pressure limits in former days, or the restictor plates in nascar.

        flow control to stop extrem performances a good build turbo engine is possible to give…

        greetings

        Total votes:
        0

    22. Mike says:

      The car would need to carry 150kg of fuel. But that would only be required if Riccardo had his right foot pinned to the floor for the full race, which obviously he didn’t. He has to brake for corners.

      In simple terms more fuel means more energy input resulting in more energy output. This would allow Riccardo to accelerate more quickly and achieve a higher top speed. Both of which contribute to a faster lap time, so he would have benefitted from more fuel flow.

      This will likely end up in the courts where Red Bull will have prove the sensor was unreliable and back up their offset calculations to demonstrate they didn’t exceed a flow rate of 100kg/h. The reliability of the flow sensors will be questioned, if Red Bull wins the appeal a potentially dangerous precedent could be set by allowing other teams to calculate their own offsets. Then it won’t just be the result of the Australian GP in doubt.

      Total votes:
      0

    23. franed says:

      No its the maximum instantaneous flow rate at any point, but obviously mainly when the throttle is fully open. They are allowed to use 100kg of fuel but can carry more if they want (though it is unlikely they would).

      Total votes:
      0

    24. super seven says:

      The 100kg/hr requirement is a peak limit, not an average.

      Total votes:
      0

    25. GP says:

      I don’t think the FIA is saying they did it for the whole race. RIC or his engineers may have gone over as a defensive move against MAG.

      Near the end of the race, MAG got really close but then RIC was able to build another gap, could the FIA see he was going over his legal consumption to do it?

      Total votes:
      0

    26. Nathan says:

      They are not under peak power the whole lap and have different maps they can run so they are not always using maximum fuel pressure (and fuel flow). They would only use more than 100l in an hour if they were constantly using full fuel pressure.

      Total votes:
      0

    27. Auq says:

      consistently =/= constantly…

      Total votes:
      0

    28. photozen says:

      this is wrong, there are 2 points here, first the flow rate at 100kg/h and 100kg total fuel for the race. no car runs at max fuel flow, only for a bit of time here or there per lap but not constantly, that is impossible to be flat out all the time.

      Total votes:
      0

    29. Dimitar Kadrinski says:

      before making your calculations, I think you should first get your facts right. They might have had it bellow 100ks/h for 3/4 of the lap, and then when the overtaking opportunity for the opposition comes close, they let it go over 100 kg/h, so in the overall lap average they are still well bellow the limit of 100 kg/h. Also there were enough laps when Magnusen was saving fuel and they had comfortable gap to him so they can have the flow well below the limit for that time.
      I though it was very clear for all the followers of the sport how it works…

      Total votes:
      0

    30. Alex Parkin says:

      Sorry, but the regs are quite clear:

      a) maximum fuel load of 100kg, AND
      b) maximum flow rate of 100kg/hour

      Disappointed for Daniel but as has been said “you win as a team, lose as a team”.

      Having said that, whoever decided within RB/Renault to disregard the FIA telling them that they were exceeding the permitted rate needs sorting out.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Pedanticoldgit says:

        The max flow rate is specified as 100kg/hr. As far as I can see, nowhere in the regs is the time over which the flow rate is measured, hours? Minutes? Miliseconds” If RBR were warned after only 5 laps it appears that the FIA have their own interpretation of this rule. The homologated sensors appear to be able to measure the flow rate 10000 times a second, At 15000 rpm the injectors are firing at 750 times a second so we must assume that the homologated sensors are performing some form of integration to remove the spikes when the injectors fire, but I can’t find any spec. For this. RBR wil have a record of how many gms of fuel the EMU has ordered to be delivered to the injectors, so presumably can give their view of what the flow rate was, over any given time period. During practice they found that this did not correspond with the homologated flow meter readings, as I believe did other teams.
        So, it all boils down to the fact that the FIA have issued an imprecise rule and, it appears, have forced the teams to use a flakey flow meter to try and enforce it.

        Total votes:
        0

    31. Brian says:

      Give them the right amount of fuel – that’s so simple and sensible. What a good idea.

      Total votes:
      0

    32. Mazdafarian says:

      Exactly. Why have all this artificial gimmickry to create a momentary speed differential (DRS, ERS, and flaky tyres) and then mandate a maximum fuel flow!?

      Even then, a control fuel pump and restrictor is much better idea than a meter. I suspect that the Renault engineers will already know exactly why the module reads wrong and will be giving the FIA a fluid dynamics lesson this week.

      Total votes:
      0

    33. SteveH says:

      Do you really believe the engine is constantly running at maximum power? Geez…….

      Total votes:
      0

    34. Ross Dixon says:

      That’s assuming tht the car uses 100kg/hour at all times.

      The rule says maximum fuel flow rate. Not average. So braking and half throttle would not deliver 100kg/hour but if the rule is maximum and they used 101kg/hour then that breaks the rules.
      The FIA even gave them a chance to sort it and they declined!!

      Total votes:
      0

    35. Keith says:

      You have misunderstood this. The flow rate is a maximum. Thus they will only be anywhere near it at max revs under full throttle. Maybe once or twice a lap. Consistently to me implies they were going over the 100kg/hr for a few seconds a lap but it was happening repeatedly.

      This rule is so easy to break and needs to be very strictly applied or teams will try there luck just to stay ahead or even pass that car in front. Does sound like the sensors need to be better though.

      Total votes:
      0

    36. Mark V says:

      Your assumption would be correct if it was a simple case of the throttle being constantly on and at 100%. But of course that is not the case with any circuit, (the Albert Park circuit being something like 61% full throttle). Add in the time to do pit stops and the added power via the Energy Recovery Systems (ERS), and this is how 100kg of fuel at a fuel flow rate of 100kg/hr can last more than 1 hour.

      Total votes:
      0

    37. Glennb says:

      Your thinking is a little bit wrong in your first paragraph. Too hard to exlplain.

      +1 with your 2nd paragraph 😉

      Total votes:
      0

    38. Han says:

      Agreed in principle but you would also have to take into account less fuel usage during the safety car also right? I don’t think its as straight forward as multiplying 100kg/hr by 90 min to get more than 100kg of fuel as you obviously would consume less during coasting, braking, ERS/DRS usage?

      Total votes:
      0

    39. JC says:

      With no flow limit these PU could be on 1200 hp (no turbo boost limit) like they were in the previous turbo era. Could be fun but huge hp difference through the race to make it to the end with 100kg. Such a diff between cars at diff times could be really dangerous …
      Flow meters: An imperfect solution to the current PU s … The small tolerance on the measuring devices may be the reason for winning or losing

      Total votes:
      0

      1. SteveS says:

        “With no flow limit these PU could be on 1200 hp”

        Last years larger engines had no fuel flow limit and yet somehow failed to make 1200HP.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. JC says:

        Hp potential on NA ENGINES is lower and given by max rpm and engine capacity, fuel will have the limit of oxygen needed for combustion. Those limits are expanded with forced induction – turbo. Look at historical data of f1 turbos, then they were 1.5. Now 1.6….
        Hp 1.6 turbo no boost limit >>> NA 2.4. @19000rpm

        Total votes:
        0

      3. Robert says:

        What is it about tubrochargers you don’t understand? In the days of Senna, their very small turbo engines produced up to 1500 hp in qualifying trim…

        That is why road-going supercars have nearly all moved to turbocharged engines (Mercedes AMG, McLaren, Lambo, etc.) – massive hp for a given displacement. Only Ferrari are really resisting that – while making turbo engines for Maserati to use nonetheless.

        Total votes:
        0

    40. neilmurg says:

      you have misunderstood the rule, the adjudication and the transgression.

      Total votes:
      0

    41. Variable says:

      Agreed. Well said

      Total votes:
      0

    42. WSH says:

      It is the fuel-flow rate, not the overall consumption that matters. It is like speeding but overall on a certain distance your average is on the legal max, but you have broken the rules nevertheless.

      Total votes:
      0

    43. Derek Nickels says:

      Exactly!!!! I thought the same thing & in the preview show explaining the rules they said they were down from 140kg of fuel to 100kg as the maximum amount of fuel,so HOW THE F*** could the car flow more than 100kg/hr and still make it home.
      The way i see it is that the issue is the crap FIA sensors,not RBR.With all the reliability issues & the limit on power units reduced to 5,all the teams would do the same so they would finish. If the FIA wants to mandate control parts,they need to make sure they are accurate & reliable,otherwise this sort of thing will have a lot of fans switching off,or over to NASCAR or something.The FIA’s reaction is like a PETULANT child carrying on because his brother won’t use his cricket bat because it has no grip on it!!!!

      Total votes:
      0

      1. graham bowman says:

        You just don’t get it do you. It was just when he was accelerating out of Corners on full throttle that the fuel flow was exceeding 100!! Thus giving a unfair advantage, Mercedes got told that they were exceeding the flow rate too but wisely reduced the rate to satisfy the fia. This was on-going all weekend so why red bull didn’t listen to the warnings is there problem.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Dimitar Kadrinski says:

        More like at the end of the straits when he was close to full RPM.

        Total votes:
        0

      3. Ticketyboo says:

        [mod] clearly unable to draw distinction between ‘consistently’ and ‘constantly’ – the other teams cautioned during the race about max flow rate were able to take that input and respond accordingly and pick up their points, RBR on the other hand decided they knew best; they have their just reward for it unlike the floor they used to win with which was found to be illegal and they still kept their points – it’s about time that they were put back in their box.

        Total votes:
        0

      4. aezy_doc says:

        [mod]. It’s a MAXIMUM flow rate, meaning the AVERAGE flow rate is not 100kg/h but more like 60kg/h.
        The example of speeding WSH gives above is perfect. “Did you realise sir that you were doing 45mph in a 30 back there?” “Oh yes officer, but you see I was only doing 12mph for the first half of my journey so on average I was actually under the limit.”

        Total votes:
        0

      5. James Allen says:

        Moderators’ note -Please do not insult other posters.

        If you do your comment with be deleted

        Total votes:
        0

    44. Christos Pallis says:

      They didn’t say it constantly exceeded just that at points it did

      Total votes:
      0

    45. j says:

      I know you are a RBR fan but I doubt many people are going to take your dodgy math seriously.

      I’m sure that you are aware that the 1.5 hour long race is not run on an open road under constant acceleration.

      Periods of high accel only occur for approximately a third of the lap. I’m sure someone can provide more accurate numbers regarding amount of time on full throttle at Melbourne.

      It is easily conceivable that exceeding 100kg/hour of flow would help temporarily boost the power of the Renault if it is down on power to the Mercedes.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Ticketyboo says:

        +1 but it does seems too much for some to comprehend.

        Total votes:
        0

    46. Ahmad says:

      The safety car period allowed the teams to save fuel. Others complied with the maximum flow even when they had fuel in reserve but RBR chose not to.

      I agree though that I don’t understand the need for the FIA to regulate the fuel flow.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Nigel W says:

        Ahmad, I agree that at first it seems strange to regulate fuel flow when they have already limited the amount of fuel to 100kg.

        From what I understand it would be purely a safety issue.

        If you run fuel systems at high pressure and therefore high flow rates you increase the risk when there is a problem. A fuel line could burst or a fitting could fail, especially under racing conditions where the cars can get very hot.

        Petrol is about 740grams per litre, so 100kg of fuel = 135litres (not sure of exactly what blend of fuel F1 run but it would be about that, however don’t forget that fuel volume changes with temperature, that is why they calculate by weight not by volume).

        If you run that at 100kg/h that means the fuel flow is 2.25lt a minute. If a hose burst or the car was involved in a crash which cause a fuel leak but the engine was still running, the fuel system would be pumping 2.25lt of fuel a minute onto the track, or the car, or the hot exhaust etc. Now increase the fuel flow to 200kg/h. that’s 4.5lt per minute flow.

        That’s a real risk, so I can understand why they want to regulate the flow. Personally regulating fuel pressure is much easier and more reliable, so they should have done that.

        Also higher pressure and flow means parts are under greater strain, so reliability would also be a factor.

        Total votes:
        0

    47. Nigel W says:

      Unfortunately Steve S, that’s not quite how it works.

      You’re assuming flow rate is flow consumption and the two don’t operate like that.

      The issue in question is the flow rate. Most fuel injection systems on modern cars (I just fitted fuel injection to my bigblock muscle car so have first hand experience with the systems) is they run a fuel return system. That allows you to pump fuel through the system at whatever rate you wish, any fuel not used by the injectors is simply returned to the tank. The fuel being cycled like this has a few benefits in what I can see.

      Firstly it means more fuel is available to the injectors if/when they need it. That means the injectors could operate at a higher duty rate when required. I see no indication of what the injector flow rates are or if they are even covered in the regulations, but the ones I just fitted are rated at 88lb/h at 60psi ( that’s only 40kg/h but in a dual quad setup (8 injectors in 2 throttle bodies) this is enough to support 1,200hp).

      Secondly with the fuel cycling constantly it *could* help weight distribution as the total fuel load isn’t constantly sitting in the tank.

      Finally it *could* also help keep the fuel cooler if they pass the fuel through other systems to reduce heat soak.

      Flow rate is not proportional to fuel consumption. It’s only relational to the amount of fuel available at any given time to the injectors, so the instant they are off the throttle, the fuel injector duty cycle would drop to very low and any fuel not used is simply returned to the fuel tank where it would be ready to be recycled through the system by the fuel pumps.

      Personally I don’t know why the FIA didn’t just run fuel pressure regulators instead of flow meters. Limit the pressure the fuel system operates at I think would be more reliable.

      The final thought is that we don’t know by how much they exceeded the 100kg/h limit. Was it 105kg/h or 150kg/h?

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Alex says:

        Very well explained, but I have a question, the flow rate has a directly relation to the engine rpm? this could be seen as a variation of limiting the rpm of the engine? that restriction has always existed, what I see is just an extended regulation due to the advantages you just mentioned.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Nigel W says:

        Hi Alex, Thanks for your reply and question.

        The fuel flow (or more relevantly the fuel pressure) isn’t directly relational to the engine RPM, it’s more relational with the Manifold Vacuum. However the relationship is inverse. So at low throttle there is high manifold vacuum and at high throttle there’s often low vacuum, but that is only proportional to the load on the engine, so yes there is a relationship between RPM and manifold vacuum. So an engine that constantly runs with low manifold vacuum will be using more fuel as it’s operating less efficiently. Increase RPM will increase the injector duty cycle though.

        On a modern EFI system if you set your fuel pressure to say 30psi via a Fuel Pressure Regulator, the Fuel Pressure Regulator will then vary the pressure in relation to the manifold vacuum. So if you have 10psi of manifold vacuum, then the Fuel Pressure Regulator will also increase 10psi, so now your fuel system is operating at 40psi. This ensures the engine is receiving a constant 30psi irrespective of the vacuum/load it is operating at. There’s nothing else that I’m aware of which could effect fuel flow, other than any governing regulators, the injector flow rate and the fuel pump flow rate.

        The Fuel injection system will be using a Manifold Absolute Pressure (MAP) sensor for its calculation of air mass flow rate which it will use to determine the fuel metering to obtain the desired air fuel ratio for the current throttle position.

        The fuel flow could be used to govern the engine, but the issue is though that could be mitigated by other means. An example using an old carby. Mechanical fuel pumps usually operate at very low pressure (4 – 9 psi). your carby to compensate for this has fuel bowls so that when you are at WOT (Wide Open Throttle), the mechanical fuel pump would not be able to supply the required fuel to sustain that throttle position, so the carby draws fuel from the fuel bowls, if you have a high horsepower engine and you remain at WOT for long enough and they run dry, then your engine either leans out and detonates, or it cuts out. That’s not a nice feeling believe me. So with this type of system there would be nothing stopping them having surge tanks which they pressurize via the fuel system mounted in parallel with the injector rails, so if the fuel flow from the pump had reached its maximum the system could draw on these surge tanks. I have no idea if they do this, or if it’s allowed, but it’s just one of the reasons why measuring / governing fuel flow is ridiculously complicated. That is what I do on my car. I have a 3lt billet alloy surge tank in the engine bay which the EFI fuel pumps can scavenge fuel from, rather than having to draw it all the way from the fuel tank, so any unused fuel from the injector rails is first returned to the surge tank in the engine bay, once this tank is full it returns to the main fuel tank. The efi pumps can draw directly from the surge tank. This system also ensures no air is trapped in the fuel system either as that’s bad. Also on a side note to this have a look at drag cars. Their fuel cell is always in front of the engine. That way under heavy load (ie g-force acceleration) the fuel pump doesn’t have to work against that by drawing fuel from the rear of the car. at the front they have the benefit of that acceleration to keep the fuel system primed. Where is the fuel tank in an F1 car? Directly behind the driver, so it’s in front of the engine. That alone would cause variations with fuel flow metering.

        The other unknown though with these engines is they are running forced induction so that adds a whole new level of complexity because they will generate increased pressure (vacuum) and provide a greater quantity of air to the engine.

        Personally I feel that F1 took a turn for the worst when they removed refueling. Refueling allowed so much more strategy with pitstops and meant the cars didn’t have to carry so much fuel in the car for most of the race, plus it played a huge benefit to tyre life and lap time. If they want to increase fuel efficiency the first thing you do is stop carrying around unnecessary weight. That being a full fuel tank. They don’t qualify the cars with a full fuel tank for a reason, so why subject us to that during the race. I don’t want to see just a sprint to the finish, I want to see cars sprinting through out the race if a team chooses a 3 stop strategy (light fuel load per stint) versus someone on a 1 or 2 stop strategy. Now pitstops are only governed by tyre life and the mandatory requirement to run two compounds, which is no where near as interesting.

        Total votes:
        0

    48. Hayden says:

      Think of it this way.

      Highway allows 100kmoh

      The rule restricts you to 100kmph but it doesn’t mean if you drove slow for first30 minutes, then go beyond 100kmph to catch it all up.

      Yes 100kg is the size of the tank but the cars will not be at full throttle all race.

      i am no engineer but i assume this max consumption is to restrict engine performance to a certain limit.

      Total votes:
      0

  22. Martin (England) says:

    RBR cheating again, six race ban for the team please FIA.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. C63 says:

      I know, the very idea of it, and they made such a fuss about the Pirelli in season test last year :-)

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Voodoopunk says:

        “and they made such a fuss about the Pirelli in season test last year”

        Because it was illegal…

        Total votes:
        0

      2. C63 says:

        Indeed it was and so was the conduct of Red Bull at the Australian GP. At the very least they didn’t follow laid down procedure for dealing with a sensor they believed was faulty. Mind you there is a difference between the Pirelli episode and this one, Ross had a get out of jail card signed by Charlie Whiting. I wonder, do you think Christian has one of those too? 😉

        Total votes:
        0

      3. Voodoopunk says:

        @C63

        If the sensor can be proved to be inaccurate, then yes.

        Total votes:
        0

    2. Dimitar Kadrinski says:

      I think those kinds of problems come from Adrian Newey. In his whole time in F1 he was known for always trying to bend the rules (having a wrong interpretation / not interpret the rules in the spirit of them, but knowingly trying to bend them to take an advantage).
      He is a (quite obviously) a great engineer, but this has always been his mark.

      Total votes:
      0

    3. manz says:

      they cant put that ban to please you…soyy…lol

      Total votes:
      0

  23. deane says:

    Using their own fuel flow calculations huh?

    ”Team Hubris” in action once again.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. CC says:

      One of the oddities about this situation is that Melbourne is not particularly marginal on fuel consumption – there are no long straights so the cars are hardly on maximum revs for a long time. Also, the cool and overcast air and track temperatures would give the engines better “charge”, which helps with an engine’s efficiency, giving better mileage anyway. Add a reduced race distance by a lap and a safety car period, it does seem odd that this situation has come about on the Red Bull – every other car has been passed legal.
      Wait for the court case is the only solution.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Andrew M says:

        On the Sky commentary it was said that Melbourne is the second most critical in terms if fuel, due to all the braking/acceleration zones, first was Canada.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. CC says:

        I find that odd analysis on Sky F1 with regard to Melbourne – I agree with Canada though, as it has a long back straight with cars at full revs/throttle for a long time. I would say the hardest races on fuel consumption will be tracks with long fast corners or long straights such as Montreal Silverstone, Spa and Monza. Silverstone will be also be challenging for oil pressure as the long fast corners promote oil surge, which affects fuel economy.
        In the previous 80s turbo era, the hardest circuits on fuel consumption was the original flat-out blasts at Imola (1985 and 1986 races when practically every finisher ran out of fuel in those two years), Silverstone (1987 and 1988 were very marginal, Nigel Mansell ran out of fuel after winning in 87) and Hockenhiem (the notorious 1986 race).
        Likewise, slow speed tracks such as Monaco, Jerez and Hungary saw hardly anyone running out fuel during the turbo 80s.

        Total votes:
        0

    2. AJSenior says:

      Remember that it is possible FIA is incorrect but are hiding behind the ‘do what we say’ statement. If you’re looking for hubris, look no further than the FIA.

      If they identified it during the race why not do something during the race rather than 5hours later. The sport needed a clean start to the season. The sport failed.

      This seems like an unnecessary rule anyway. Why not just drain the cars and give each car 100kg fuel for the race. How they burn it is up to them.

      Gutted for RIC.

      Total votes:
      0

    3. Mike84 says:

      Right, it’s like a cop flashes his lights at you to slow down and you wave a finger out the window because you want to go by your own speedometer rather than his radar. You’re going to get pulled over and have to argue it in court, where you’re probably going to lose.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Alex Ward says:

        if the cops radar says you were doing 101 in a 100 zone and you have GPS telemetary to say you were doing 100 you might win in court no matter how scary the cop is.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Mike84 says:

        Not if the judge had recently warned you that the radar would be the measurement the law goes by unless he tells you otherwise in advance.

        Red Bull could have asked FIA to let them ignore the sensor and use the alternate method, and why did they not? Because they knew what FIA would say in this case. So they ignored FIA putting them in a position where they have to make an example of RB otherwise everyone will ignore FIA.

        This is nothing short of a test of who is in authority in this sport — FIA or the Big Teams.

        Total votes:
        0

  24. German Samurai says:

    Fair enough. Red Bull have to take their medicine if they willfully broke the rules. Thankfully it has happened in round 1 and not round 19.

    If the Melbourne race contract isn’t renewed by the Melbourne organisers it will have nothing to do with the complexity of the rules or Red Bull being disqualified from a race for breaking the rules.

    It will be because no-one wants to spend $50 million to hold a glorified GP2 race. Actually that might be unfair to the GP2 series. A glorified Indy Car street race.

    The Indy Car series might be as underwhelming as F1 in 2014 but at least those teams are able to operate on budgets of $10 million rather than $400 million a year.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. GP says:

      You bring up a good point about it being round one. The same penalty at the end of the season will be twice as costly.

      Total votes:
      0

    2. DonSimon says:

      Wow. So you’re not a fan of 2014 regs? Maybe give it another race or two haha.

      Total votes:
      0

    3. WSH says:

      But double points are waiting at the end of the season, hopefully not for them to compensate this screw up.

      Total votes:
      0

  25. Craig D says:

    It is a shame this but you can’t be sentimental with rules and if they aren’t adhered to then you open grey area issues in the future.

    Perhaps there is cause for appeal in this case though. It’s never good when results get changed afterwards.

    If Red Bull were warned however and they just arrogantly refused to listen (a la camber angles with Pirelli’s tyres last year), then they only have themselves to blame.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Dimitar Kadrinski says:

      I can not agree with you more! BUT having said that, if FIA asked the team number of times during the race to change it, and the team did not react, then they should have BLACK-FLAGGED their car DURING the race. The way they do it now, makes them all look like clowns!

      Total votes:
      0

      1. James Allen says:

        You have a point there

        I will ask FIA about that

        Total votes:
        0

      2. [MISTER] says:

        James, I believe the FIA did not BLACK-FLAGGED Daniel because even if they were running at a high flow fuel rate, RBR could still turn the fuel flow down considerably towards the end of the race, so the average fuel flow would be below 100kg/h.

        In the end, it seems RBR didn’t do this, and their average was above the 100kg/h. That is what I suspect being the reason for not getting black-flagged. Could this be it?

        Total votes:
        0

      3. George Debenham says:

        Probably too concerned that any marshal waving a black flag would have been lynched by an angry crowd. Much safer to take the decision after the crowd has gone home!

        Total votes:
        0

      4. superda27 says:

        The FIA will need to be able to prove (in court?) that their flow-meters are accurate else they will look even more incompetent.

        The responsibility of the F! teams is to push the rules as far as they can.

        The responsibility of FIA should put in place process and or rules that do not need post race scrutiny or they will continue to look incompetent.

        Total votes:
        0

      5. dimitar kadrinski says:

        Thank you James.
        It is also very interesting no one has mentioned qualifying.
        The sensor they used on Saturday did not get satisfactory readings, but he kept his first row position for the race.
        As many people have mentioned it is a very grey area….

        Total votes:
        0

      6. Tyemz says:

        That would be a good idea but they would want to be cautious with that rule. What if RBR could prove that they were right and the FIA was wrong, and the car had already been black-flagged!

        Total votes:
        0

      7. Jota180 says:

        Do the FIA have the ability to do that?

        As far as I understand it, all they could do would be report them to the stewards and let them make the decision.
        I didn’t think the FIA had the authority to police things on the ground?

        I stand to be corrected though :)

        Total votes:
        0

      8. dimitar kadrinski says:

        Then they say to the marshals “Car No 3 does not comply with the rules” and the marshals HAVE TO black-flag it, or I should think so…. (and they don’t have to explain why the car is illegal either(at that stage)… in the end of the day they are the rule makers, and if they say it is illegal then it is, as far as the marshals are concerned :)

        Total votes:
        0

      9. dimitar kadrinski says:

        feel free to replace marshals with stewards on the post above…. (blushing)

        Total votes:
        0

      10. Ticketyboo says:

        Agreed, they should have brought out the black flag.

        Total votes:
        0

      11. Alex Ward says:

        Flag marshalls were aussies, if the order went out they would have hidden the flag!

        Total votes:
        0

  26. abashrawi says:

    Is that what Montezemolo was referring to?

    “Ferrari urges FIA to be on its guard over ‘grey areas’ of new F1”
    http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/148891.html

    Total votes:
    0

    1. mtm says:

      I think that was aimed at Mercedes specifically, there were comments from Ferrari in the second test at Bahrain about how Merc shouldn’t be getting that much power unless they were going over the fuel flow limits. The Renaults hadn’t done much running in testing.

      Same ball park though.

      Total votes:
      0

    2. **Paul** says:

      99% sure he’s talking about Mercedes.

      Total votes:
      0

  27. Bones says:

    Were Red Bull the only team with these kind of problems with the flow sensors?

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Anthony says:

      No, or at least I doubt it. But they do seem to be the only team that ignored the FIA’s instruction on the fix, and then declined to change their minds even when offered the chance to do so during the race.

      I’m on the FIA’s side on this one. There are very good reasons for their disqualification.

      Total votes:
      0

  28. Truth or Lies says:

    It’s all very clumsy and unsatisfactory.

    F1 should be much better organised than this and the sensors fitted to the cars utterly reliable, such flow sensors are hardly new, even if the application is.

    It’s very disappointing for Ricciardo and for fans around the world who shared in his great result.

    Another fine mess and plenty of negative coverage for F1.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Dimitar Kadrinski says:

      I did not read anywhere that red bull is claiming the sensor was inaccurate. They simply ignored the rule.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Steven says:

        Then you’ve not actually read the stewards report have you? How are you commenting without having read it?

        “The team stated that based on the difference observed between the two readings in P1, they considered the fuel flow sensor to be unreliable.”
        and
        “…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.”

        Total votes:
        0

      2. dimitar kadrinski says:

        I miss-typed it on my post sadly, my mind was running faster than my fingers :). What I meant was that they did not say the sensor was faulty, but inaccurate. The FIA told them to use the working(but inaccurate) sensor with an offset they recommended. However RB as they are, simply decided to ignore FIA and play the game by their own rules.. Or at least that is my understanding …

        Total votes:
        0

      3. kenneth chapman says:

        perhaps you might like to widen your search. the RBR defence as stated by CH is that the saturday,’sensor 1, was inaccurate and they changed to sensor 2 and that was also inaccurate so they reverted back to sensor 1. this again proved faulty so they went onto their own sensor system which they state as being accurate as it measures 100% accurately the amount of fuel passing through the injectors.

        to reduce the fuel flow on the FIA sensor would be agreeing to run less than efficiently in a competetive sense with an otherwise internal fuel flow system. based on this explanation it appears that ‘prima facie’ RBR have a legitimate reason for not complying with FIA race control demands.

        people are rushing to judgement by slating RBR as cheats. it would be far better to get the facts first then say what you will.

        Total votes:
        0

      4. dimitar kadrinski says:

        the facts say the sensor was not faulty, but inaccurate. That is a big point i guess…

        Total votes:
        0

      5. kenneth chapman says:

        @ dimitar. if a component which sole purpose is to provide an accurate measurement within a defined limit fails to do that, then by simple extrapolation it is faulty, no?

        Total votes:
        0

    2. j says:

      Flow sensors don’t seem to be new but ones that measure flow at these types of speeds were not available on the market and had to be specially developed.

      Agree that it’s a disappointing result but it was well known before the season that these sensors are on the cutting edge and have a lot of problems.

      Could be in this case that the sensor is at fault. Could be that the Renault engine was mapped to use more fuel flow than allowed (in some engine modes) knowing the bad reputation of the sensors used to enforce the rules.

      We have seen this type of thing before where for example a part was not allowed to flex and the FIA allowed a margin of error for manufacturing tolerances. Some teams seemed to use up the maximum of that allowed tolerance on every copy of the part they built. Then the FIA tightened up the rules and magically the teams have no trouble meeting the new stricter tolerances.

      Total votes:
      0

    3. Ahmad says:

      Agree.

      Since this issue was known since Friday, the FIA should have been able to make a decision on the sensors by the end of quali on how to punish RBR there and then.

      5 hours after the race is ridiculous and damaging to the sport.

      Total votes:
      0

  29. Matt says:

    It will be a shame if the FIA requested that Red Bull refit a different fuel flow sensor and Red Bull refused to make the switch. Ricciardo drove a cracking race. His enthusiasm is so appreciated. I do hope everything is resolved in a reasonable matter.

    If the fuel flow was too high then obviously they need to hand back the position. Shame it comes to rule debates after such a fun Grand Prix.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Voodoopunk says:

      If the fuel flow was too high why didn’t they run out of fuel?

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Tyemz says:

        I’m sure you would have answered your own question by now but if by any chance you haven’t, read the responses to SteveS’ comments. Goodluck

        Total votes:
        0

    2. kenneth chapman says:

      who says the FIA sensor was accurate? RBR say that their measurement at the injectors will prove that they didn’t exceed the maximum flow rates!

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Jake says:

        Who is to say the Red Bull flow measurement is accurate. What about Mercedes, do they get to devise their own measuring technique?
        There has to be one system for everybody to ensure fair play, it may have some flaws but that does not excuse Red Bull completely ignoring it and doing their own thing.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. kenneth chapman says:

        @ jake, forget the other teams for a moment as this is a singular action between the FIA and red bull.

        if red bull say that they have at no time exceeded the limits of fuel flow then why would they accept any other ruling? they will now have to prove that point in an appeal court. if they cannot then they will have to wear the decision but if they can prove that they did at no time exceed the FIA limit then that should be grounds for a successful result.

        Total votes:
        0

      3. jake says:

        OK Kenneth, tell me how you retrospectively prove the accuracy of your fuel flow measurement, particularly since the car is with Red Bull and they could have changed any settings they used to determine the flow rate.
        This is not even the point, there is a device fitted to the car that is the approved flow measuring device, no other method of measuring the flow has been approved by the FIA. Any reading from a device that is not approved is meaningless as far as complying with the fuel flow restriction rule.

        Total votes:
        0

  30. Peter says:

    OK, I know some are going to say “rules are rules” but what does fuel flow really matter? As far as I am aware no-one has suggested that Red Bull used more than the permitted 100kg of fuel for the race so, as there was a lot of talk that this would be marginal, how on earth does it make any difference to the result if the fuel was used quicker? Please not more fuel used but simply the rate at which it was consumed.

    If the FIA want to make this year a farce then they’ve made a damned good start!

    Total votes:
    0

    1. PM says:

      Ya I agree. I always saw the fuel flow rate to be unnecessary. I think the maximum fuel load is enough. Why control the fuel management for the teams so much?

      Total votes:
      0

    2. Pete says:

      +1
      Total agree…. If the FIA say that you can only use 100kg of fuel during a race, that’s perfectly fine. But to limit the fuel flow is a joke………. The teams should be given the flexibility to use the fuel flow at their own discretion. Put simply if the safety car is out for a number of laps or where a car is following close to another for a long period and they manage to save fuel, during this time, they should be allowed when possible to run at full pelt… At least the fans can see some real action…….!!

      Total votes:
      0

    3. aezy_doc says:

      It means they can go faster at different points and defend their position/overtake more easily.

      Total votes:
      0

    4. gpfan says:

      Do you understand how an engine works?

      “Okay, DR, Kevin is behind you and wants
      to pass. Don’t worry. By having a fuel
      flow of over 100kg/hr flow-rate you have
      a much higher top speed and power. Do you
      understand?”

      “But, Christian, what if I use over 100kgs
      of fuel during the race?”

      “You won’t. When you can, you go into fuel
      savings mode and also save fuel when in places
      where Kevin can’t pass you. Do you understand?”

      “Ah! The old ‘Multi-twenty-one’ trick!”

      Total votes:
      0

      1. SteveS says:

        The trouble with all that is, there is not a shred of evidence that DR’s car ever went over 100kg/hr. And the stewards were careful not to claim otherwise. Their case is much more lawyerly.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. dimitar kadrinski says:

        I think that is exactly what they are claiming…

        http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2014/3/15579.html

        They don’t say the car went over 100kg for the whole race, but do claim the flow rate was over 100kg/h number of times during the race (and practice in that matter)

        Total votes:
        0

      3. kenneth chapman says:

        @ dimitar. yes, the FIA did say that the fuel flow did exceed the limit at times. that is because the sensor was faulty. maybe red bull can prove that point in which case they should not be penalised.

        Total votes:
        0

    5. Drew says:

      +1

      Total votes:
      0

    6. Adam says:

      Here Here!!!!!

      If the FIA approved part had to be changed, only for the FIA to mandate another change back, and for that sensor to give ‘errors’…then why is it being used. Mercedes also had issues, not to mention the other teams reporting inconsistent readings, FROM A CONTROLLED PART. Fuel flow is BS. Theyre using a 1/3 less fuel this year, the rules are getting beyond a joke

      Total votes:
      0

      1. jake says:

        All sensors have errors. it’s a fact of life. The FIA applied an offset to the sensor in order to correct for the error, this is standard practice with sensors. Red Bull did not agree with the offset value applied by the FIA and unilaterally decided to ignore the approved flow sensor and use their own measurement system.

        Total votes:
        0

    7. Bob says:

      Fuel flow matters because in theory The driver can get more power out of his engine during acceleration out of a corner and down the straight which a) decreases lap time and b) could be the difference between being over taken or not by a following car which is complying to the fuel flow regulation.

      The commentators were saying during the race that they didn’t think the cars were hitting their 15000 rpm limit during the race due to the fuel flow limitation so clear advantage gained.

      I do feel sorry for Riccardo but RB should’ve turned the fuel down when they were warned during the race. They may have lost a couple of places but they’d probably still have scored some decent points.

      Total votes:
      0

    8. C63 says:

      I think you may have missed the point. :-(
      The flow rate, is the way in which the fuel usage is monitored by the FIA – eg 100kg fuel allowance for a 2 hour race is 50kg/hour fuel flow. In other words, it’s very important!
      If Red Bull exceeded the fuel flow rate they have also exceeded the fuel allowance.
      More fuel = more power = naughty Red Bull!
      Who’d of though it, Red Bull cheating? And to think, there hasn’t even been a suggestion of Red Bull cheating before today!! 😉

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Voodoopunk says:

        If they exceeded the fuel allowance then why didn’t they run out of fuel?

        Total votes:
        0

    9. quattro says:

      The “boost button” when pressed by a RB car (for defence or overtaking) providing THE biggest boost among all cars – is that fair you think?

      Total votes:
      0

    10. Dimitar Kadrinski says:

      Because the rules should be the same for ALL the competitors. Perhaps RB don’t like it this way…
      I will give you an example:
      If McLaren were allowed to up the flow limit for Magnusen for only a quarter of the lap in which he was within DRS range of DR then the result would have been very different. Don’t you think so..?

      Total votes:
      0

    11. Keith says:

      What if RB exceeded the max flow rate rule every time the K Mag got in the DRS zone? That is a very black and white case of cheating. That is why it matters how quickly they were using it at any given point. I don’t see how that is a farce if they have found repeated evidence of such cheating?

      Total votes:
      0

    12. WSH says:

      I disagree with you as fuel-flow rate is one way to force teams into more fuel-efficient cars. And why is RedBull, apparently, the only one that managed to upset the FIA.
      I would like to know the interactions of the FIA with all the teams during the race, that would make this situation much clearer for us, but that will not happen, unfortunately. Too much transparency for the FIA.

      Total votes:
      0

    13. Matty says:

      Higher instantaneous fuel ratee = more power/greater acceleration. This would be absolutely crucial at the start line.

      Punishing excessive fuel consumption means the onus is on engine manufacturers to produce powerful, but efficient, engines.

      Remember, teams can always turn down the engines later in the race to save fuel.

      Total votes:
      0

    14. j says:

      Agree totally. Discussing whether the rule was broken is one thing but I totally agree that this rule, and most of these power unit rules, are awful and take away what was historically the best part of F1, diversity, cars that look different and sound different from each other.

      Why they didn’t just drain the tanks before the race, give them all 100Kg of fuel and let them figure it out. Watching a V12 VS a flat-4 turbo VS a hybrid and seeing what the engineers figure out as the fuel per race is reduced each year would have been brilliant.

      Total votes:
      0

  31. Quade says:

    So Red Bulls miracle improvement came via cheating? Shame.

    I feel for Ricciardo though, he dove strongly and added so much to the race.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Sebee says:

      You don’t think these rules and sensors leave a bit to be desired? These fuel sensors aren’t F1 standards worthy. Especially since fuel attributes aren’t standardized in F1 and we measure down to 0.001s.

      Total votes:
      0

  32. Richard says:

    Would’ve been funny had it happend to Vettel. However, now its not. Felt so happy for Dan on the podium and now he is robbed. But then again, rules are rules and should be applied at all times.

    Total votes:
    0

  33. danny11 says:

    I feel sorry for Ricciardo but I really hope this one sticks because RBR team has been constantly breaking, bending and twisting rules last couple of years which was, apart from Newey’s brilliance, main reason for wining four consecutive championships! They have to finally learn the lesson; You break the rules you get punished, period!

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Voodoopunk says:

      If you think they’re the only team to bend the rules then you haven’t been watching F1 for very long.

      Total votes:
      0

    2. Sebee says:

      So you’re saying this a good rule and you’re satisfied with the methodology?

      Total votes:
      0

    3. manz says:

      lol ….such a sentimental statement to nullify all their achievement in one go ….redbull isnt different from newey as he design car, show his brilliance, twist, bend the rules and work on the limit to make the car go fast ..
      agree they or any other team should be punish for breach of any rule or atleast REPRIMANDID like merecedes were when they conducted an illeal test and were just allowed not to participate in young driver test

      Total votes:
      0

  34. Anne says:

    Good lord! Last season it was the tyres,and now the fuel. I feel very sad for Ricciardo. But it does look like RB broke the rules.

    Total votes:
    0

  35. Sebee says:

    If telemetry can prove that sensor is unreliable, I don’t see how it can be used as an enforcing factor.

    It’s like being found guilty of speeding with a laser that’s unreliable or not calibrated.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Tim Burgess says:

      Totally agree. The problem for RB, though, is that they chose to ignore the “referee” because they (RB) believed the flow rate was, actually, legal.

      Imagine a football/soccer team deciding to ignore the ref and taking a goal-kick because the defender didn’t really touch the ball when the ref gave a corner…

      Doesn’t work, does it?

      Total votes:
      0

    2. Actually it’s more like 22 cars going by a speeding laser and ONE getting caught going over the speed limit. The sensors are the same for everyone.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Sebee says:

        Clearly the issues prove the sensors are not 100%. In a sport where we measure down to 0.001s, 100% is what is needed from a sensor that has direct impact on performance.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Aaron says:

        These sensors use a new technology, it is not that accurate.

        Sensor supplier Gill Sensors claims that 52 per cent of its meters are with a 0.1 per cent accuracy reading, with 92 per cent within 0.25 per cent.

        http://au.eurosport.com/formula-1/red-bull-rivals-followed-fia-sensors_sto4177517/story.shtml

        Total votes:
        0

      3. Robert says:

        The sensors had a known variance in pre-season of up to 1.5% according to their manufacturer Gill Technology, but are then calibrated and a correction factor applied to supposedly even them out. RBR is claiming that they don’t believe their calibration was correct, and that their ECU data shows differently. Hard to say, but it is clear the parts are not 100% identical. However, I am in the camp that if the FIA says DO something to stay legal, then compliance is not optional.

        Total votes:
        0

    3. Sid says:

      Absolutely agree sebee. N a perfect example.

      Total votes:
      0

    4. C63 says:

      How do you know the Red Bull flow sensor is accurate? Besides, the regulations clearly state the procedure for dealing with any discrepancy or inaccuracy the team believes they have discovered. Red Bull failed to comply with the regulations, end of. Or slam dunk if you prefer the vernacular :-)

      Total votes:
      0

    5. quattro says:

      True, but if the SAME car is time and time again caught “speeding” while the majority of the other cars are NOT, you have at some point stop scrutinizing (to death) the “laser” and start taking a look at the background of the owner of that car as well!

      http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2012/06/red-bull-allowed-to-keep-bahrain-and-monaco-wins-but-forced-to-modify-car/

      http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2012/07/the-red-bull-renault-engine-map-controversy/

      Standard police procedure.

      Total votes:
      0

    6. Cliff says:

      Agree up to the point, but no team should be allowed to disobey the governing body and its rules. Has for the part, it was homologated which suggests that all the teams were forced to use it. RBR are at best, asking for an exemption from this rule, or at worst sticking two fingers up the FIA.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Sebee says:

        If the law is flawed, you have to demonstrate that flaw to have the law stricken down. Same with a flawed rule perhaps. RBR have the resources to do it. I wonder with the fuel limit, what is the logic for the flow rule in the first place?

        Total votes:
        0

      2. C63 says:

        It’s the way in which the FIA monitor fuel usage. No one seems to have grasped this point, although a quick Google reveals all. The max fuel flow rate is 100kg/hour for the duration of the GP. So for Australia, which ran for just over 1.5 hours, the max average flow rate allowed would be around 66kg/hour,, ie 1.5 x 66 = approx 100.. The fuel allowance is for GP distance only, not out, in and warm up lap. That being the case, the cars cannot be weighed prior to the start of the race or just as they cross the finish line so this is how the FIA monitor fuel allowance. Hope that helps :-)

        Total votes:
        0

      3. Kimee says:

        For the life of me I don’t know why people can’t understand the concept of having to limit the rate of of flow of fuel. If it wasn’t done the racing would cease to be competitive at all with those engines able to produce the most top end power being able to fend off all the others simply by using it at the right times!

        Total votes:
        0

    7. Matty says:

      The sensor is approved by the FIA – the team’s can’t supersede it by using their own calculations which will always show that they’re using less fuel.

      The real problem is:
      1) RB used their own fuel calc. method (not in compliance with regs)
      2) RB were given the opportunity to apply the FIA mandated offset to ensure compliance and chose not to.

      Everyone needs to play by the same rules – it’s a farce for the FIA to say ‘OK, RB you can use your calculations – everyone else, use our sensor’

      Total votes:
      0

    8. Torchwood Five says:

      It looks like Red Bull re-installed the clearly faulty sensor for the race.

      That sounds like something used to create an alibi.

      It was faulty and we didn’t trust it.

      Okay, you took it off, then you put it back…what was that about?

      Total votes:
      0

      1. DML says:

        I read that they were instructed by the FIA to put the original sensor back in.

        Total votes:
        0

  36. MISTER says:

    James, any info about how much fuel did DR used in the rest compared to others?

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Juzh says:

      Total amount of fuel used is not in question.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. C63 says:

        Polite correction, but total amount of fuel used is in question. That’s the point. Red Bull average fuel flow rate has exceeded the limit allowed which, by definition, means they used more fuel than permissible.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Juzh says:

        C63, no, you got it wrong. Ricciardo’s PEAK fuel rate surpassed 100kg/h on some occasions, but overall race consumption was less or equal to 100kg. Average fuel flow for a 90 minute race is around 66 kg/h.

        Total votes:
        0

      3. [MISTER] says:

        Thanks Juzh. Realized that after my comment. It seems the regulations state that there is a max fuel flow allowed.

        Total votes:
        0

  37. Tim from Perth says:

    This type of rule, where we are now squabbling over a procedure is stupid and pointless. Surely the requirement to get by with only 100kg fuel per race is enough, and easily measurable.

    So a sensor fails, and in the heat of a race the FIA penalises the team for it? Ridiculous.

    I am glad the V8 supercars make for such great racing, because F1, you are losing your fans ….

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Voodoopunk says:

      “Surely the requirement to get by with only 100kg fuel per race is enough, and easily measurable.”

      So simple…

      Total votes:
      0

      1. C63 says:

        Typical Barrack Room Lawyer mentality. How do you propose the FIA would simply measure the fuel? Bear in mind the fuel allowance is for race distance only, not the lap to the grid, the warm up lap or the in lap at the end of the race. So to simply measure this would require the FIA to weigh every car immediately prior to the start (after warm up) and then again the instant the cars cross the finishing line (remember the amount of fuel used on the in lap doesn’t count).
        Not quite as simple as you thought is it?

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Voodoopunk says:

        It is as simple as I thought, 100Kg. If you run out tough.

        Where’s the problem?

        Total votes:
        0

      3. C63 says:

        The 100kg limit applies to the race distance only. How do you propose to measure that usage when the cars have to get to the grid, run a warm up lap and then an in lap? How much extra should they be allowed for the 3 extra laps, or maybe more than that if the do a couple of installation laps on the way to the grid?

        Total votes:
        0

      4. Voodoopunk says:

        @C63

        Why should they be allowed any extra for those laps?

        Total votes:
        0

      5. C63 says:

        @Voodopunk
        I don’t know why you keep asking me to justify the 2014 F1 Technical Regulations, they are what they are and I am merely reporting them to you as they stand. The FIA and the teams (I assume) composed and agreed upon them and the fuel limit was set at 100kg to last the GP distance. If you don’t like them, write to the FIA. They might be interested in what you have to say. Lol.

        Total votes:
        0

      6. Voodoopunk says:

        @C63

        I’m not asking you to justify anything, you can tell me to go forth, I wouldn’t care.

        But then, you keep justifying them.

        Total votes:
        0

      7. C63 says:

        @Voodoopunk
        I’m not asking you to justify anything…

        It appears that I may owe you an apology as I misunderstood you. But first, please let me explain how my confusion arose. Twice in this thread you replied to my comment with a question (you know, the sentences ending with a ?). I, understandably, mistook that as a query directed at me – who wouldn’t?
        Now, in the light of my explanation, I think it would be harsh to place all of the blame for this misunderstanding on me and I hope you will accept that you played a significant part too.

        tell me to go forth, I wouldn’t care…

        Why would I do that? I enjoy our little exchanges. They provide a mildly amusing diversion from some of the more mundane tasks of daily life :-)

        Total votes:
        0

      8. Voodoopunk says:

        They were more in the way of rhetorical questions, fair enough they were directed at you but I’m sure you know as much about these things as I do, which isn’t much.

        “They provide a mildly amusing diversion from some of the more mundane tasks of daily life”

        I’m with you on that.

        Total votes:
        0

    2. aezy_doc says:

      They weren’t penalised in the heat of the race. It was in the cool aftermath. If a v8 supercar ran a v10 instead, they would be punished. Surely if a team breaks the rules and ISN’T punished it’s greater reason for people to leave the sport.

      Total votes:
      0

    3. WSH says:

      Why ridiculous? The teams knew all this, they agreed on this when the rules changed, the FIA has told them they would police this very strict…. and now the FIA’s does there are complaints everywhere.

      The FIA would do a better job with keeping us informed of these things – showing the fuel flow-rate live with the live- timing. for example, but the FIA has chosen the path to keep the fans ignorant of crucial info. The whole live timing page on Formula1.com is a joke now. They stripped away all the tabs with additional info (weather, speed traps etc) and the sector times are gone, replaced by stupid coloured bullets that has no additional value at all. I have not bought the new app for tablet or phone, as the complaints about that thing are massive. I had it last year, and it worked fine, but why stripping down the free version.

      I have not pity with the teams on the matter of the sensors etc, as they all signed up for it, so accept the rules Red Bull or leave the field.

      Total votes:
      0

  38. Luke says:

    Don’t get this. Why don’t the FIA just drain all cars of fuel in parc fermé and fill them up with 100kg of fuel? Then the car would either finish with 100kg or not finish and we wouldn’t have to rely on these ridiculous sensors that may or may not be right.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. TimF says:

      …they are talking about fuel flow rate, not fuel quantity.

      Total votes:
      0

    2. Sid says:

      Exactly, some ridiculous rules by the FIA. this is a complete farce n FIA have only themselves to blame.

      Total votes:
      0

    3. Lindsay says:

      That’s a different issue. The sensor is not there to prevent the cars from using more than 100 kg of fuel during the race. You’ll notice the rule allows flow rates of up to 100 kg/hr. Presumably to limit “trickery”.

      Total votes:
      0

    4. AJSenior says:

      Agree completely.

      To quote beardy Branson:

      Complexity is your enemy. Any fool can make something complicated. It is hard to make something simple.

      100kg each is simple. Added fuel flow rate limits using sensors that need correction is unnecessarily complex. FIA are fools.

      Total votes:
      0

    5. Matty says:

      You’re missing the point. Read up ^

      More instantaneous fuel consumed = more power = higher acceleration

      This would be insanely helpful in starts or out of slow corners.

      Limiting fuel consumption means that engine makers must produce efficient engines if they want a chance to win. Teams can, and will, turn down the engines at the end of the race when the result is already a given – that’s how they make the 100kg limit.

      It’s a decent rule – don’t get cross at the FIA if you’re missing the point of it..

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Tim says:

        And your saying that the reduction by 50% oh the fuel available to the cars did nothing to help improve efficiency? Gee, tough crowd.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Jake says:

        Really, 150 down to 100 is 50% reduction… :-)

        Total votes:
        0

      3. Voodoopunk says:

        It’s a daft rule, just limit the fuel, couldn’t be simpler.

        Total votes:
        0

      4. Luke says:

        I would argue that no rule is decent if it causes the result to be changed 5 hours after the race…

        Total votes:
        0

      5. Jake says:

        So you would argue for no scrutineering after the race, no fuel testing etc because it takes time, basically a free for all, teams doing whatever they like. That will be fun.

        Total votes:
        0

    6. Multi 21 says:

      You’ve missed another important point:

      Cars can carry more than 100kg of fuel in their tanks, they just cannot use more than 100kg for the race (from lights out to the chequered flag).

      In addition to the race distance (i.e. 58 laps yesterday), the cars must also complete laps from the pit lane to get to the grid, a formation lap and a lap to parc ferme at the conclusion of the race AND they must still have 1L left in the tank for a post-race fuel sample.

      That means they leave the pits on race day with more than 100kg of fuel on board.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Luke says:

        I have not missed that point.

        It would be perfectly possible to construct the rule so that the car had to manage with 100kg (or 102kg to cope with your extra few slow laps) from leaving parc fermé to getting back to it after the race.

        Also, if the FIA filled the cars up themselves in parc fermé, they wouldn’t need the extra litre at the end because they’d know what had been put in the tank.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Voodoopunk says:

        They should be able to do the whole race day on 100Kg of fuel, if they run out… tough.

        I don’t see why it can’t be that simple.

        Total votes:
        0

    7. quattro says:

      As C63 and others eloquently describe above, the 100KG restriction is for the race distance, excluding the run to the starting grid, warm up lap and in lap. But following what you suggest, it should be way more robust to set a max amount of fuel for each car to start the race with, e g to max 105KG, and put it in (by “FIA”) right before the race starts – than using hard-to-police fuel flow limit.

      Having said this, I feel a limit on fuel weight/flow at all, in what should be THE king of formulas, is wrong to say the least (especially for those despising the mention of “lifting off and coasting for big part of the lap” in F1.6).

      Total votes:
      0

  39. Sylvester says:

    Such a heartbreaking decision for Dan and all Aussie Fans out there..

    But James…
    Do we “The Fans” have to endure this inconsistency in regulations and loopholes forever ??

    Who or what needs to be set right ??

    Total votes:
    0

    1. OffCourse says:

      How is this an “inconsistency in regulations and loopholes”. A team ignored the FIAs direction when they were advised that they were out of specification, and are subsequently punished.

      It’s not the complexity of the rules that has done the damage here. It is RBR’s attitude towards the rule that has caused the problem.

      Total votes:
      0

    2. Cliff says:

      There is no inconsistency in regulations. The sensor is homologated, so on this occasion RBR have to use the part as prescribed. The FIA had no choice, their authority was being challenged. Other teams questioned the sensors, if the FIA can demonstrate that there were no issues with the remaining teams RBR will have to accept their punishment.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Voodoopunk says:

        “The sensor is homologated, so on this occasion RBR have to use the part as prescribed.”

        So they had to use the sensor as provided, that didn’t work properly and had to change it for another that didn’t work properly.

        Total votes:
        0

    3. DonSimon says:

      What is inconsistent here? It’s the first time the rule has come up. They acted on it.

      Total votes:
      0

    4. j says:

      Sad for Daniel but this is not an “inconsistent” decision. What this situation seems like is RBR trying to bully the FIA… Betting that with an Aussie on the podium and a sensor that has been faulty in the past as a scapegoat that the FIA wouldn’t dare enforce the rule this time.

      I’m not super surprised simply because every other Renault car was rubbish on the back straight. Look at the results by engine manufacturer, it’s really clear:

      M, R (disqualified), M, M, F, M, M, F, R, R. Toro Rosso did beat Perez but other than that they only came in front of the Saubers, Marussias and cars that DNF’d.

      Total votes:
      0

  40. Goob says:

    So this is how F1 WDCs are going to be decided/controlled now… almost makes the double diffuser WDC less manipulated.

    Total votes:
    0

  41. Brent says:

    I feel sorry for Ricciardo and the Aussie’s but it sounds like Red Bull new there was a problem and ignored it.
    I don’t really understand why an accurate, dependable fuel flow meter would be tough to design/build. Put the meter between the fuel cell and the engine, send real time flow rates back to race control and when the car runs over 100kg per hour a red light comes on. How much over is irrelevant. Over is over.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Voodoopunk says:

      Sounds too complicated.

      Give them 100kg, if they run out, they’ve used too much.

      Total votes:
      0

    2. Steve says:

      Of course it also sounds like the FIA knew there was a problem with their sensors all weekend…

      Total votes:
      0

    3. Kinkas says:

      Brent,

      As far as I am aware, the sensors were approved end of last year / early this year, because they were not providing readings within the approved tolerance (reliable readings).

      During testing and on practice sessions, some teams and FIA were unhappy with the accuracy of the sensors readings, hence they fitted a couple of sensors on Ric’s car, until they reverted to the first one they used during Friday.

      I guess that on this game of F1, you try to explore the limit all the time, which means that on instances were you try to run at maximum flow, you don’t want to give in the 0.5% (or whatever the tolerance might be) of variance that comes with the official meter. RBR have developed their own flow meter, which they believe is more accurate then the one provided by FIA, and they checked their “real” flow using their own control systems. Important to notice that the decision was made based on the readings of this Friday sensor (which was deemed unreliable, at some point over the weekend), and I am sure that if the consistent readings exceeding the maximum allowed are to be judged by, then RIC might have ended up with no fuel.

      Without making any judgements of whom is wrong or right, I believe that this debacle could have been avoided. Leave the flow rate to the driver / team to sort. The cars are already very quiet, and if the pattern of today’s race is kept, this will be a year of processional races.

      I heard the pundits stating that Australia was a bit hard on fuel consumption, but already before the mid point of the race, the drivers were being told that they were now “safe” on the fuel side (except that they are limited on the flow…). So if the coming tracks are more easier, then why impose this flow rate?

      Total votes:
      0

  42. Texas T says:

    A major frustration with F1 is that you get adjustments to the standings hours (or days with appeals) after the race has finished.

    F1 has identified this as a problem and made strides to fix it, but the fuel infringement is a tricky one and we’ll likely get more situations like this during the season.

    From James’ article, the fuel infringement was flagged as an issue to Red Bull during the race and Red Bull chose to ignore the FIA. So, could the FIA not have imposed a drive thru penalty or a time penalty so that the result is fixed at the end of the race and the guys on the podium are rightfully there?

    Total votes:
    0

  43. JAWA hs-f1 says:

    I feel sad for Ricciardo. He drove brilliantly.

    But as far as RedBull is concerned, I can not sympathize. It is clear now, they were warned and even then chose to go by their own model to calculate flow rate!!! Amazing..

    Imagine if every team started doing that.

    I think the “Grand Farce” will be if this ruling somehow gets overturned..

    Total votes:
    0

  44. Anthony says:

    Red Bull seem to be the new Ferrari.

    Awful situation for Ricciardo, but you ignore FIA instructions at your own peril.

    Total votes:
    0

  45. f1finn says:

    Taken away by stewards….robs of trophy…
    Biased reporting much?

    Broke the rules, gained advantage, got caught.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. rasbob says:

      “Broke the rules, gained advantage, got caught.”

      Biased reporting much?

      Total votes:
      0

    2. Robbed Steward says:

      Im sorry but you have no idea what a good journalism or a good headline is:) I mean…Glad to see that someone is not afraid to bring it up.

      I think RB should have stayed straight and not play along this game, hand in a protest before the race or boycott the whole event. But if there really were inconsistencies with the unit supplied by FIA, then FIA should take the blame for not doing their homework, again. Instead, by changing the flow meter with an illegal one, RB became the criminals. Sad story, no matter how you look at it.

      Total votes:
      0

  46. Peter Freeman says:

    James what I don’t understand is how then, did the not run out of fuel? If they are restricted to 100kg’s of fuel and his car was using it at a rate that was above the allowed limit, surely he would run out all by himself?

    Could you or Mark explain this all to us in a bit more detail so that we can get a better understanding of what the issue is?

    Total votes:
    0

    1. James Allen says:

      You don’t run at that rate for long, of course!

      Total votes:
      0

      1. MrNed says:

        This being so, what’s the point of the 100kg/hour limit? Nobody could run at this rate for long anyway (or not if they wanted to see the chequered flag), so why have the additional restriction?

        Total votes:
        0

      2. j says:

        What about quali? Do you want to see HAM out there with 1000+ HP grabbing pole at every race?

        The flow limit means they don’t get much power after 10,000 RPMs and some claim that the Merc engine already has 700 HP before the adding the 160 HP electric motor. With no flow limit they could use up the full RPM range and boost the power and top speed massively.

        Total votes:
        0

      3. Aaron says:

        A lot of people seem to be misunderstand the problem here and confusing flow rate with the amount of fuel burnt. Fuel doesn’t just go from the tank to the engine. It is constantly cycled round under pressure, with any fuel that is not used by the injectors being sent back to the tank. This is done to ensure that fuel is instantly available to the injectors should they require more (ie when the engine goes to full power). The flow rate governs this cycling of fuel, not how much is being used by the engine.

        Total votes:
        0

      4. Sylvester says:

        James,

        It would be great if you could explain this
        “Super Rule” in detail.

        Still unable to get a hang of it..

        Total votes:
        0

      5. Erik says:

        For long?
        Can it ever in any instant go over 100kg/ hour?
        For 1/100s of a second? Or how is it applied?

        Fuel expand when heated but weigh the same.
        But they measure the fuel by flow, milliliter, not weight. So if they overheat the fuel where it is measured it will then flow more than the limit even though the weight flow is the same.

        How is the flow meters calibrated? How large is the allowed discrepancy? One tiny amount of difference will make a huge difference.

        If FIA cannot police it nor measure it reliably they need to find a better system.

        Does the mercs run with a different kind of fuel compared to the other engines?

        Total votes:
        0

      6. jake says:

        “Fuel expand when heated but weigh the same.
        But they measure the fuel by flow, milliliter, not weight. So if they overheat the fuel where it is measured it will then flow more than the limit even though the weight flow is the same.”
        Correct,however a correction factor can be applied to the measured flow rate in relation to the fuel temperature. Thus the flow sensor would be temperature compensated.

        Total votes:
        0

      7. Robert says:

        The Gill Technology meter used by the FIA measures flow and temperature of the fuel as it is delivered…according to the press statements issued when it was approved. Try Google…

        Total votes:
        0

      8. Chris says:

        OK, I get that, so what does the “consistently” in the ruling mean? Is there an intention in the new regs that extra power, to fight for position etc can only come from ERS?

        Total votes:
        0

      9. Neil says:

        it means that because RB chose to ignore the FIA sensor and trust their own equipment, the effectively chose to cap their fuel consumption at 101kg/hr. I think the ruling means then that DR was hitting this rate everytime he was at full throttle, in an appropriate rev range.

        I imagine that after a certain amount of revs is reached, the flow rate will be flattened and limited to that rate by the ECU. Clearly the engine builders need to hit this rate early, and use the lower revs to get a better fuel / rev ratio, which is why those things are so Torquey

        I guess the FIA is being clear here and are not saying that they occasionally exceeded this rate (e.g. on over-rev, or at the rev limit etc, or other unusual circumstance). it seems to be a straight up disagreement by RB on how to measure peak fuelflow rate.

        Total votes:
        0

    2. C63 says:

      The maximum fuel flow rate allowed, is an average of 100kg/hour for the duration of the race. So, for instance, a 2 hour race will require a maximum average flow rate of 50kg/hour or the limit will be exceeded. As the Australian GP lasted for just over 1.5 hours, the maximum average flow rate would need to have been around 66kg/hour.
      Hope that helps :-)

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Voodoopunk says:

        That makes no sense at all, what’s the point of restricting the flow?

        Just have the fuel limit.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. C63 says:

        Measuring the flow is the way the FIA have decided to measure fuel usage – I didn’t invent the idea. Complain to the FIA if you don’t like what they are doing. 😉

        Total votes:
        0

      3. Voodoopunk says:

        Seems crazy to me, but then I’m not a casual viewer they’re trying to attract, I’m one of the viewers they’re losing.

        Total votes:
        0

    3. yellowbelly says:

      You don’t run the whole lap on full throttle, therefore you are not burning fuel at the maximum allowable rate for 100% of the time.

      Total votes:
      0

    4. Baktru says:

      I’m baffled there’s so many comments asking this very same question when it should be utterly obvious.

      Maximum amount of fuel per race: 100kg.

      Fastest speed at which it can be used ever under full throttle etc.: 100kg/h.

      Of course it works out, they don’t spend the entire race on full throttle… It’s a simple difference between average (which is the 100kg rule) and maximum (which is 100kg/h).

      Total votes:
      0

    5. kenneth chapman says:

      my initial understanding is that the FIA sensor was giving misreadings and RB changed it back to another FIA sensor which was not accurate. they then proceeded to use their own internal sensor which is calibrated to 100% perfection as it monitors the exact amount of fuel passing through the injectors.

      during the race they were instructed to reduce the fuel flow but if their own ‘injector’data was proving accurate then to turn the fuel flow rate down would have been uncompetitive.

      as others have said, usage of in excess of the 100kg would have stopped the car. some three months ago i flagged this very problem based on an article in racecar engineering by the makers of the ‘in line’ fuel sensor being homologated for the FIA. in that article the makers indirectly expressed an opinion that getting 100% accuracy 100% of the time was proving problematic.

      if it can be proved that RB blatantly cheated then they deserve to be penalised. horner has publicly stated that other teams suffered also which would bear witness to the problems. the outcome of all this will be interesting to hear as it will no doubt have a bearing on the championship results. my sympathies lie 100% with ricciardo. after such a super drive, to have his second place unceremoniously stripped from him must be quite a blow.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Voodoopunk says:

        It seems to me as if they need to get rid of the flow rate side of the rule, just stick with the limit.

        Just like in the old days when if they left the turbo boost turned up for too long they ran out of fuel.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. jake says:

        No such thing as 100% accurate sensors. They all have an accuracy defined within certain limits. The more accurate the sensor the smaller the limits.

        Total votes:
        0

      3. kenneth chapman says:

        @jake. are you saying that injector pump calibrations are not as accurate as the FIA approved sensors? why did the FIA agree to the changing the sensor from friday to saturday and then when that sensor was unreliable and didn’t work, order red bull to revert to the friday sensor that they had instructed red bull to remove because it was inaccurate?

        red bull have stated that they were of the opinion that to have followed the FIA instructions that it would penalise them unfairly. i shall await the court of appeal decision with anxiety as it is totally unfair to strip ricciardo from the results. if red bull have cheated and it is proved conclusively so then by all means strip the team of WCC points but leave ricciardo out of it. the FIA have absolved him of any misdemeanour if you read the published stewards report.

        Total votes:
        0

  47. Ronspeak says:

    Surely they haven’t got a leg to stand on?! If Redbull get away with using they’re own equipment then they’re just laughing in the FIA’s face. How do the FIA police anything after this unless they stick to they’re guns? I can’t think what grounds Redbull think they can appeal?

    Total votes:
    0

    1. SteveS says:

      “I can’t think what grounds Redbull think they can appeal?”

      This is an elementary exercise in mathematics. If the mathematics is on RB’s side then they have excellent grounds to appeal. Either the FIA has the correct understanding of what the fuel flow rate was in DR’s car, or they do not. It can’t be difficult to discover the truth. I’m not prejudging the outcome but there are obviously grounds for an appeal.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Ronspeak says:

        That’s ok but they where already asked to change the sensor to a homologated one and refused. Every team has said they had the same problem but accepted the rules and FIA’s judgement. They were using an illegal sensor and were still given the chance to correct the fuel flow rate during the race. I’m sorry but I still don’t understand how they feel they have a right to appeal. If they do and win it will be the same as the old Ferrari days of doing what they like and that is a standered formula 1 doesn’t need.

        Total votes:
        0

    2. Rene says:

      The FIA’s rubbish sensors aren’t reliable. Why would you listen to such a useless and indecisive bunch of bureaucrats?

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Robert says:

        What, you mean the sensors built by a wholly independent manufacturer in the UK, and merely selected and approved by the FIA?

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Rene says:

        If it your job to ‘select and approve’ you should select and approve something that works, no? Otherwise you are just there for the donuts…

        Total votes:
        0

      3. Robert says:

        It does work…within a range of error, as all sensors have.

        There is a correction factor that is applied to nullify that error, or at least make it insignificant.

        Total votes:
        0

    3. warley says:

      They could try logic but its the FIA they are dealing with!!

      Total votes:
      0

  48. ffcunha says:

    I´m even more confused, so they completed the race with de 100 kg but they are not allowed to exceed a rate of maximum 100kg/hour?? Are they trying to normalize de fuel comsuption between all engines?? F1 is looking more and more like a formula renault or gp3. Give everybody the same engine , fuel and tyres at least we weren´t beind deceived.
    Also all the doubts about the sensors,ludacris.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Bob says:

      Without getting onto the whole whose fault was it discussion, just reading that FIA explanation illustrates how complex this whole thing has been made for fans. Yes, F1 is the pinacle of racing, but when fans see results being changed and can’t truly understand why, that’s when the sport loses appeal. I am sure most fans in this site probably get it, as they are pretty sophisticated, but what about the average guy/gal that tunes in just to watch some good racing?

      If anything the FIA should have a plain English version of what happened….

      Total votes:
      0

    2. SteveH says:

      They’re trying to keep the power down. Maximum fuel flow (100 kg/hr) starts at 10,500 rpm and is constant at that rate to the rev limit, 15,000 rpm.

      Total votes:
      0

    3. David in Sydney says:

      The 100kgh is a maximum flow rate – over a lap the car would not be using maximum fuel flow otherwise, as has been pointed out, a car would theoretically use 100kg of fuel per hour.

      Going over the maximum would give you a peak engine advantage over another with the same engine not going over the maximum limit – it’s a rule linked to fuel usage but not necessarily linked with the 100kg fuel limit – gear and tune your engine to work best at 90kgh fuel and you’ll never have to hit the limit.

      Let’s hope the sensor was erratic and faulty proving that Red Bull was right to rely on it’s own data to avoid technically going over the 100kgh fuel flow rate.

      Total votes:
      0

  49. Rick says:

    The cars sound like my lawnmower, the noses are ugly as sin, and now Ricciardo is disqualified for a fuel flow issue ? Something which does not even belong in F1 regulations. They’re racing cars.

    After 44 years of dedicated F1 watching, I may have to sit this year out.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Voodoopunk says:

      Same here.

      Total votes:
      0

    2. C63 says:

      The cars sound like my lawnmower..

      Really? Where can I get a lawnmower like yours? :-)

      Total votes:
      0

    3. Paul Kirk says:

      Hay Rick, I’d love to hear your lawnmower! If it sounded like these cars I’d offer to mow your lawn every day! I reckon the cars sounded great! Reminded me of almost the sound Cris Amon’s V6 Ferrari made going past the hangers at Wigram (NZ) decades ago, it was like music to my ears.
      PK.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Rick says:

        Hey Paul, I don’t know if you were there and got to hear them in person, but at full song on TV, they sounded awful to my ears. And the majority of fans will be hearing them on TV, not live at a race. I thought the Turbo’s in the 80’s sounded much better. The aural impact of an F1 car is a huge part of the experience.

        Maybe I will post a recording of my lawnmower !

        I am quite envious of your hearing Chris Amon in a V6 !

        Total votes:
        0

  50. Olivier says:

    This is so cruel on Ricciardo … can’t they just punish Red Bull by stripping them from the Constructor Championship points? Ricciardo can keep his second place and Driver Championship points?

    It is quite arrogant from Red Bull to ignore the warnings from the FIA. Basically Red Bull decided that FIA was wrong and decided to carry on despite the FIA warnings during the race?

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Grant H says:

      I feel for DR but his car had a performance advantage those behind did not, imagine if they dont punish him every other team on grid will be doing the same next race, rules are rules in the end

      Total votes:
      0

    2. MrNed says:

      “It is quite arrogant from Red Bull to ignore the warnings from the FIA. Basically Red Bull decided that FIA was wrong and decided to carry on despite the FIA warnings during the race?”

      Which is kinda the point: Ricciardo couldn’t do anything about it (the stewards judgement says as much) so it was for RB to tell him to turn down the engine / save more fuel. The infringement is pretty clear (even if the reason for the rule is not), and Ricciardo (and his fans) should be angry with RB for being so arrogant in ignoring the FIA, not angry with the FIA for applying the same rules to everyone.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. C63 says:

        +1
        Don’t blame the FIA for policing the rules, blame Red Bull for breaking them.

        Total votes:
        0

    3. Kev says:

      The car’s pace is illegal without which he wouldn’t have stuck to 2nd place. How can he be left to keep his points?

      Consequences of an action, they call this.

      Total votes:
      0

    4. aezy_doc says:

      It’s the last lap. The driver in second place takes a short cut and gains the lead and wins the race. Surely that’s not the constructor’s fault. Let them keep the win but punish the driver. Er, no. Win as a team, lose as a team, be disqualified as a team.

      Total votes:
      0

    5. Adrian Newey Jnr says:

      So according to your rules, RB could keep building cheater cars and Ric or Vet would win the WDC? Don’t think that would work….

      Total votes:
      0

    6. Stephen says:

      RBR obviously feel strongly that they have grounds for appeal based on faulty fuel flow readings. They could just as easily argue that the fuel flow reading from the standard sensor was disadvantaging them, if it was giving a reading much higher than they were actually using. I’m no RBR fan, but some have to take biased views out of this: All cars get the same fuel and the same amount of fuel, so unless RBR have blatantly used more fuel (impossible) or had an elevated fuel flow rate for extended periods (factoring in errors with sensors that could give false readings which FIA already acknowledge), then the appeal will be successful.

      Total votes:
      0

  51. Ikki says:

    Extract from FIA statement: “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.” – The team were given an opportunity to correct their irrational mistake, but still they ignore it thinking they can get away with their lame excuse. This in itself calls for the punishment. But they should spare Driver’s points.. Poor lad.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. McHarg123 says:

      As much as I am massively gutted for Dan, it’s clear cut. You can’t just Punish the team and let the driver off. RedBull it seems were given the opportunity to correct it and failed to do so! Hard to swallow for Dan I know, but cop it on the chin and move on. Look at the positives he can take out of this weekend. Beating a quadrupole world champion comprehensively over the course of the weekend, in his first race with RedBull. Very impressive!!

      Total votes:
      0

    2. Tim Burgess says:

      If the fuel flow was above the allowed rate (ignoring allegations of inaccuracy for a moment), the engine would be running with higher power than is allowed under the rules.

      This would mean Dan was second because he had an illegal amount of power. Why should he not be disqualified?

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Voodoopunk says:

        Shouldn’t he have run out of fuel, what’s the point in having a fuel limit if they’re going to limit the fuel flow?

        Total votes:
        0

    3. C63 says:

      I feel dory for Dan, after all it wasn’t his fault, or within his control. But, if he was driving a car that had an advantage (ie more power) due to a technical infringement then that is not fair on the rest of the field. Sorry, but if Red Bull are guilty, he loses his points as well as the team being penalised.

      Total votes:
      0

    4. Stephen says:

      So let’s say you turn down the fuel rate (even though your own data is saying you comply) and fall way down through the field. Then at the end of the race you find the fuel flow meter is faulty… a “sorry” from the FIA is not really a compensation. I can understand why you don’t follow the FIA instruction when you are convinced the fuel flow meter is once again faulty. Better to get the placing and debate the facts later

      Total votes:
      0

    5. kenneth chapman says:

      before you rush to judgement i think you should peruse the RB statements re the ‘injector fuel flow monitoring’. if this system was accurate then why would you revert to another system that is flawed?

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Kev says:

        So RB suddenly have this magical instrument that makes the right decisions while Merc/Macca/Ferrari don’t have one?

        Merc were required to make some offset and they did so. Only RB chose to think that the law didn’t apply to them.

        The rule may not be 100% accurate but it is consistent for all of the teams. So eventually they are all fighting the same fight. RB should have done the same but decided to get a unfair advantage.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. kenneth chapman says:

        @kev, if red bull’s data was showing that they were not exceeding the limit and at no time did they exceed the limit, then why would they accept a directive to change their settings to an uncompetetive level? how can you assume an ‘unfair advantage’ if what red bull says turns out to be the truth. yes, they did not accept the ‘directive’ and they have admitted such but at no time did they breach the flow rate settings.

        until the hearings we are all just commenting on the published commentary and there are many interpretations. i am avoiding any politics here just trying to see the technical problems and the ramifications of same.

        Total votes:
        0

      3. C63 says:

        The technical regulations clearly define the procedure that should be followed when a team believes the flow rate sensor is inaccurate. Red Bull decided not to follow the procedure, which is not their prerogative and, in itself, is also an offence. Incidentally, an offence which Red Bull admit to committing.

        Total votes:
        0

  52. Mike Hessey says:

    Well, if all the other teams accepted the sensors, and Red Bull did not, and recalibrated them as they felt fit, I’d think they deserve a penalty – if not, where will it end when teams see fit to alter standard components? Whether RIC does deserve a penalty and how much seems to me more debatable. Of course the rules don’t allow this, but RB losing all their constructors points might be right, but surely RIC, who drove brilliantly, should only get a time penalty, or a places penalty, or points penalty?

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Anthony says:

      But you don’t know how much advantage DR gained by using an excessively high max fuel rate (if indeed he did). If the sensor was correct, it could be that DR didn’t actually drive as well as we thought, and was on the podium only as a result of having an unfair advantage.

      Total votes:
      0

  53. SteveS says:

    It should not be difficult to discover who is right and who is wrong here. They know how much fuel was put in the car, and how much was in it at the end of the race. They have telemetry describing the fuel flow rate at every instant during the race. In fact, they have two different and conflicting models of the fuel burn telemetry … the FIA’s, and RB’s.

    Given the above data it should be quite straight-forward to work out whether the FIA or RB has the correct understanding of the fuel flow rate.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Querfeldein says:

      It’s not so simple. Weighing the car before and after the race only gives you the average fuel flow rate, and clearly, that is well below the limit. The FIA and RB fuel flow measurements may well agree in terms of the total amount of fuel consumed. The key question is the time interval over which the fuel flow rate is measured by either system, and if that differs, the peak fuel flow rate will be higher in the system that has the shortest interval.

      Total votes:
      0

    2. C63 says:

      They know how much fuel was put in the car..

      How does the FIA know how much fuel was put in the car at the start of the race?

      Total votes:
      0

    3. Tim Burgess says:

      “They” know how much fuel was put in the car…? That would be RB, not the FIA. IF (and that’s quite an “if”) RB were cheating deliberately, why would they tell the truth about the starting amount of fuel?

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Bryce says:

        There is a 100kg maximum that is policed.

        Total votes:
        0

      2. Tim Burgess says:

        Fair point.

        Total votes:
        0

    4. MrNed says:

      Unfortunately, the decision to use a backup reading is for the FIA to make, not the team, so RB had no right to decide – carte blanche – to ignore the official sensor and use their own calculations. So yes, it would be easy enough to demonstrate whether-or-not RIC’s car exceeded the flow rate, but the rules will still have been broken by RB because it was not up to them to decide that they’d use their reading instead of the official reading of the FIA-supplied sensor. They also ignored the FIA’s warnings during the race that they were infringing the fuel flow rate. FIA warned they were going to police this harshly. Put simply, RB could have easily avoided a disqualification.

      Total votes:
      0

    5. KARTRACE says:

      Greater flow would yield more horse power when needed. We are talking here of the maximum fuel flow that is allowed. Ultimately would not affect overall fuel consumption as they could turn down fuel consumption when in “costing” mode. It would be similar as if they , lets say, have their turbo charger delivering 1.6 bar instead 1.4 bar when needed. That explains why Ricardo’s car was so agile/lively throughout the race when accelerating.

      Total votes:
      0

    6. Bradley says:

      That depends on whether the two were systematically different – or randomly different. As a test it works in the former case but not the latter. And while it’s a test that appeals to engineers, try convincing the lawyers.
      If the FIA sensor measures ‘correctly’ but with a lot of noise on top, it might give false signals above 100kg/s now and then.
      Or their sensor might be fine and RB broke the rules.

      Total votes:
      0

    7. Bryce says:

      I actually agree with you on something.

      Even allowing for your usual one-eyed view of the VET/team bull (F1) world, you might be right on this one.

      Total votes:
      0

    8. KRB says:

      The FIA doesn’t know how much fuel was in the car to start with. I believe they should weigh the cars before they leave for the grid on Sunday, but they don’t do that. Of course, they can look at the fuel tank capacity, to find a maximum fuel load.

      Charlie Whiting said they could and would also correlate what the sensor was saying, to a check of the injectors. Still, why would RBR refuse the FIA’s request? That’s just asking for trouble. I know they thought the sensor was bad, and that slowing down would’ve cost them position. It was a total double-down, going all-in with Ricciardo’s chips as it were. I wonder if they would’ve done that if it had been Vettel instead?

      Total votes:
      0

      1. C63 says:

        @KRB
        I believe they should weigh the cars before they leave for the grid on Sunday…

        The fuel allowance is for the race distance only, not the lap to the grid, warm up or in lap at the end. The average flow rate is the way in which the FIA police the usage. For example a 2 hour race would require an average max flow rate of 50kg/hour to remain within the max limit of 100kg for the race.

        It was a total double-down, going all-in with Ricciardo’s chips as it were. I wonder if they would’ve done that if it had been Vettel instead?…

        I had the exact same thought, Red Bull would, I suspect, have been more cautious had it been the golden child’s points that were at risk.

        Total votes:
        0

    9. John R says:

      Referee is always right.

      Period.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Voodoopunk says:

        Rubbish…

        Total votes:
        0

      2. KRB says:

        Ok, the saying John R has used is not meant to be taken literally (i.e. of course the referee isn’t always right, they’re human!). Instead it’s meant to convey that it’s usually a waste of energy to try to convince a referee that they’ve made the wrong decision. The decision has been made, it won’t be reversed, so get on with the game. Control the things you can control, let go of those you can’t.

        It’s a football saying … maybe the second universal phrase learned. First would be “unlucky, lad!” 😀

        Total votes:
        0

  54. mofs says:

    Not sure what Red Bull can defend here – they’re the same senors for all the teams so just do what the FIA say and they’ll be fine.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Juzh says:

      and those sensors have been malfunctioning for all the teams to some degree.

      Total votes:
      0

    2. Yak says:

      The problem is, while they’re the same sensors for all the teams, the sensors seem to be inaccurate and inconsistent. The accuracy of the fuel flow sensors could effectively give one car/team an advantage over the others.

      If car A can run at 100kg/h and their FIA sensor says its 100kg/h, they can run at that rate. If car B’s sensor reads 100kg/h when they’re actually only running at 90kg/h… according to the rules, they can only run at 90kg/h. Does that sound fair? If you were spending hundreds of millions to go racing, would you just say, “Well, all of our own data says this is wrong, but we just have to do what the FIA says”?

      If the sensors really are flawed as is being claimed, it’s better for the sport that Red Bull are challenging it. We can’t have races where enforcement of one of the big regulations is essentially done by lucky dip. They need to either get it right, or get rid of it.

      Total votes:
      0

  55. Michael Prestia says:

    I believe Red Bull were relying on the fact that Riccardo is Aussie and it would not look good on the sport to disqualify him at his home race. Case and point: “the team was asked to turn the rate down but declined to do so.” They believed they were immune!

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Michael says:

      Immune? Who the hell does Redbull think they are? Ferrari? lol

      Total votes:
      0

    2. Yak says:

      OR, they were relying on the fact that they know they’re right.

      From memory though, the regulations state that the teams have to comply with the fuel flow limit, and specifically that it’s according to what the FIA’s sensors determine. So in that case, they’d just be wrong even if their actual fuel flow was within the limit.

      But if that’s the case, and the sensors really are dodgy and inconsistent from one to the next, then the whole thing is a joke. RB reportedly changed the sensor because it gave different readings on their 4th FP1 run and then continued to do so in FP2. So it’s not even like they can just test 1000 of the things at the factory until they find a spot-on accurate one to put in the car, coz an hour later it might give a different reading.

      So they’re just supposed to go along with whatever the FIA’s sensors say, even though they’re known to be inaccurate and inconsistent?

      Total votes:
      0

    3. Stephen says:

      They didn’t just ignore the FIA directive – they are arguing that the sensor was faulty and giving an incorrect reading (which had they followed the directive would have meant they were possibly disadvantaged. Regardless of whether a standard homologated sensor is issued to all teams, any piece of equipment or sensor can have faults, be damaged etc. The case in point is that they were instructed on Friday to change it by the FIA already because it was obviously faulty? The FIA won’t have a leg to stand on in appeal if the sensor was faulty. RBR are the most professional outfit in the paddock, does anyone really think they would be so ignorant on a FIA directive unless they had strong grounds to defend their position?

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Grant says:

        Are teams allowed to defy instructions based on strong grounds?

        That sounds like opening a can of worms.

        Total votes:
        0

  56. Don says:

    Poor Daniel – His dream debut messed up by Red Bull’s usual shenanigans!

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Voodoopunk says:

      Messed up by the incompetence of the FIA.

      Get it right.

      Total votes:
      0

  57. Joe B says:

    RBR continuing its quest to become the least popular team down under, I see. Massive shame for Ricciardo, that was a popular result. What kind of advantage would that fuel flow have given him?

    Total votes:
    0

    1. JB says:

      FIA is at fault here. Red Bull and Ricciardo are all victims.

      Total votes:
      0

    2. Paul Kirk says:

      It allows the engine to produce more power, Joe B.
      PK.

      Total votes:
      0

    3. KARTRACE says:

      That is the amount of the fuel that he could use at any given time under the engines load thus yielding extra power = performance, greater top end.

      Total votes:
      0

    4. mtm says:

      More horsepower, higher speed, better acceleration.

      Total votes:
      0

    5. Brent says:

      It may have kept him ahead of the McLarens.

      Total votes:
      0

    6. Alex Parkin says:

      Err, just the ability to turn teh wick up at the end and stop Magnussen getting past….

      Total votes:
      0

    7. Michael says:

      What kind of advantage? Kevin Magnussen was on his gearbox and probably would’ve passed him.

      Total votes:
      0

    8. Joe B says:

      Thanks for clarifying that, everyone! That makes perfect sense to me now, I don’t think I had my thinking cap on when I read this yesterday…

      During the race I thought it odd that Magnusson couldn’t close the gap even with the richer fuel mix in the last two laps, but just figured Ricciardo had also been fuel saving at earlier points in the race. I was also surprised by the speed of the Red Bull, but this was measured against a McLaren being driven by a rookie – not the most readable yardstick in the first race.

      That puts the RB10’s magic pace improvement into perspective then. If the appeal is unsuccessful, then we’ll see where they truly sit in the pecking order next race.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. Michael says:

        Doesn’t this also show how dominant the W05 is? Mercedes won this race by 25 seconds. The only thing that will stop them from winning both championships is the weather conditions and reliability.

        Total votes:
        0

  58. Dane says:

    Gutted for Ricciardo. Can Red Bull really be blamed if the FIA have them a part that wasn’t working correctly? Still they should’ve adjusted the fuel flow when asked.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. SteveS says:

      No, if RB are correct in their measurements then they should not have slowed their car down when asked.

      Were they correct? We don’t know that yet, but they’re more likely to be correct than the FIA technical representative. We should know shortly who did their sums right and who did not.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. C63 says:

        No, if RB are correct in their measurements then they should not have slowed their car down when asked…

        Actually SteveS you are wrong when you say that. There is a laid down procedure the teams have to follow when they believe the FIA flow rate sensor is not functioning correctly. Red Bull ignored that as well, which, in itself, is another offence.

        Total votes:
        0

  59. KenC says:

    “flow rate was exceeding 100kg/hour, which is the maximum in the regulations. The statement added that the team was asked to turn the rate down but declined to do so.”

    Hmmm…refusing an order is risky.

    “Red Bull had twice changed the sensor on Ricciardo’s car after being unhappy with readings during practice. The unit fitted to his car during the race is the original one he used in Friday practice”

    It’s too bad they didn’t try to get another one, rather than using one that was already giving them unhappy readings.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. mtm says:

      There not a team for taking chances though. They must believe they can prove the sensor was faulty and their readings are correct otherwise they wouldn’t attempt it.

      I’m assuming they can back it up with actual before and after amounts of fuel in the car.

      Total votes:
      0

      1. C63 says:

        Red Bull not a team for taking chances!!! What???
        Are you a new viewer to F1?

        Total votes:
        0

      2. mtm says:

        Been watching it for about 20 years. I’ve always seen them to take the ‘bring home the points’ approach and make decisions based on data.

        Total votes:
        0

      3. C63 says:

        You must have been watching something different to me then:-) It’s self evident, on this occasion at least, they did not adopt the conservative approach which you claim to have detected. If they had, they would have taken heed of the FIA warning and settled for a potentially lower, but still points scoring, position. As it is, they have got nothing. Incidentally, proving how much fuel was used during the race (even if they could) won’t help them on this occasion. They are not being accused of exceeding the 100kg/race limit but exceeding the 100kg/hour flow rate – two entirely different things.

        Total votes:
        0

    2. Brent says:

      Or file a grievance before the race.

      Total votes:
      0

  60. Jorge says:

    Oh my.. imagine if this happened to Vettel.

    Good thing Dan is so likeable.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. John R says:

      If it hapenned to Vettel we’d all be cheering!

      Pity Dan is so likeable as makes us think for a moment that – perhaps – following the rules and doing what the stewards tell you is possibly not the right way to go. Which of course it isn’t.

      Total votes:
      0

  61. Jose Sanchez kowalsky says:

    I feel sorry for the Australian fans. If only the fia would have given free fuel flow for the first year, and slowly reduce it over the years, the formula would be more appealing to the fans, and the very unpopular diqualification of ricciardo wouldn’t have happened.
    Nevertheless, I thought it was going to be even worse. On TV its OK. I would just wait a few year to go to a race track to watch them live.

    Total votes:
    0

    1. Voodoopunk says:

      Why restrict fuel flow, just restrict fuel limit, if you turn the wick up and burn too much you run out.

      Simple.

      Total votes:
      0