Red Bull Unhappy

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

All the teams have to use the same FIA-approved sensor, therfefore it IS a level playing field. If RBR are finding the sensors fail on their cars more than other teams then they need to look elsewhere in their car for the reason.
I suspect they have done this, know the reason and cannot see an easy fix therefore are whining and procrastinating and trying every which way they can to circumvent the issue. Where is the proof of your assertion their fuel rate is legal? If said sensor fails in the race it would be the same as any other component failure governed by the regs, either carry on and risk being pulled up for contravention, or box the car and spend the extra time working on a fix.

No it is not a level playing field, because the FIA exercises some discretion in whether or not the limit is exceeded and by how much.
If the sensor shows it is over the limit but within the margin of error no action is taken. You may regard that as the same but it is possible for one team to be restricted in fuel usage and another to be marginally over and gain a small advantage.

In Red Bull's case they followed the instruction for a few laps but realised it was affecting their performance and the data they had on the other source indicated it was OK, so they went back up but stayed within their data limits and no one is actually coming forth at this point and insisting that they actually did break the fuel flow regulation amount of 100kg per hour.

That means Ricciardo has been penalised 18 points for a fuel flow infringement that did not break the regulatory amount.....

So it may be possible for someone to exceed the limit marginally and not be penalised if the sensor correction amount calculated by the FIA is within the margin of error. So some may marginally ride the margin of error in the negative and get away with it.

Ricciardo may have lost 18 points in a car that did not violate the limit at all but because his team had the temerity to challenge what the FIA was doing with the sensors he was disqualified, even though the stewards acknowledged he was not responsible. Their argument that they did not break the actual regulatory amount has been dismissed.

Ed Straw in his Autosport analysis says:
"This is why the verdict was probably the best one for F1"

An imperfect science.

[MCWB]

Originally Posted by miatanut

Thanks!

That is pretty significant.

One thing I definitely remember is that both Mercedes and RBR agree that applying the specified offset to Ricciardo's car was costing him 0.4 s per lap (relative to no offset being applied).

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

AFIK this is exactly the position that RBR adopted!

To keep my reply short I didn't quote all the rules. The rules also don't let the teams decide as to when to use the backup. That is at the discretion of the stewards and is likely done in conjunction with the team.

We are rehashing stuff that has already been discussed ad nauseam.

Richard

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by wnut

AFIK this is exactly the position that RBR adopted!

So a sensor that has already been deemed faulty, then substituted back for another more faulty substitute, then showing a reading that is 1.3% beneath the 100 kg/h limit and gradually drifting to 1.8% below, is deemed not faulty by the officials!

When is the unit faulty?

When the FIA decides it is faulty.
Then they will let you in on their plan.
But if you take it into your own hands and go on your own information you are breaking another rule, even if you don't actually break the actual fuel flow limit, and they can take your points away or DQ you.

Which basically means they can DQ you for not breaking the fuel flow limit, just for not following their instructions. This is what RBR objected to and was the key point for the FIA in the appeal.

So they could tell you to turn it down because that was the reading they had from the sensor when in fact you weren't under the limit and thus change the outcome of the race.... but they couldn't reinstate your original place....

Until we see the full appeal reply we won't know if RBR were really under the limit the whole time by their data or not, and we may not even be told then.

[Casper]

I would not be surprised if RB ran the protest as a test case to see what happens, this is often done in civil courts in matters that concern both parties and on which a legal ruling is needed to clarify the matter in dispute. It seems unfair that it is possible to have two sensors, one reading maximum and one reading minumum and perhaps in the same team cars. To have a rule that can be applied in a number of ways at the whim of the keeper of sensors seems ludicrous in the extreme and open to questions on all sorts of levels. I can see a big hoopla over the entire thing if Mercedes and McLaren get sensors they do not like when other teams are threatening to be competitive with or beating them. All internet speculation but I like a good conspiracy theory.

[NinnyMan]

Originally Posted by MCWB

IIRC Adrian Newey was quoted earlier in the week as testifying that it was 1.3% out, rising to 1.8% out later in the race.

And I read somewhere (can't remember exactly where) that Adrian said that Dan wouldn't have finished 2nd if they had followed the FIA's directions.

[Lancsbreaker]

However he might have finished second, or third or wherever, and have those points in the bag. RB took a conscious decision to disregard the rules, in the belief that they would get away with it. They didn't. They appear to have accepted it, now - how come everybody else doesn't?

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

An imperfect science.

All science is imperfect. But the alternatives are a whole lot worse.

[wnut]

In Law, innocence is no defense!

RBR looked at this problem as engineers, not lawyers!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

In Law, innocence is no defense!

RBR looked at this problem as engineers, not lawyers!

This is about the craziest thing I have seen posted in awhile.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Until we see the full appeal reply we won't know if RBR were really under the limit the whole time by their data or not, and we may not even be told then.

This is quite sensible.

Until we get more details, most of this continues to be pure speculation. The amount of "I heard somewhere...", cherry picking of actual facts and outright misunderstanding of the rules, etc. to justify arguments is insane. Baby Jesus and almighty Bieber please help me!

I for one am going to hold off on further comments until the details from the appeal are released. I don't expect it to settle things to everyone's satisfaction, but it should at least be something concrete to discuss.

Richard

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

All science is imperfect. But the alternatives are a whole lot worse.

Totally agree with the "All science is imperfect" but not so sure about the second part..... I think I'll reserve my judgement on that.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by wnut

In Law, innocence is no defense!

RBR looked at this problem as engineers, not lawyers!

Engineers understand tolerances, uncertainty and distribution.

[Mike Harte]

Having now read the full judgement from the appeal, I don't think that, in my inexpert opinion, that Red Bull really had a leg to stand on.

Having sped-read the PDF, it would seem that they claimed that their flow model showed that the fuel flow rate was less than that being recorded by the sanctioned sensor. However, they also agreed that the sensor was more accurate than their computor model, so this really contradicted their own argument.

RBR brought, as evidence, graphs produced by their engine management software to try to show that the flow rate was in accordance with the 100 kg per hour as mandated, but were unable to demonstrate the parameters used to produce the graphs. The court, therefore, couldn't judge their accuracy, so they were seen to be credible.

But all that aside, the reason that the appeal failed was because Red Bull didn't follow the rules which all the other teams were doing.

Also, the judgement states that there is an acceptable tolerance of +/- 0.5% with the sensors.

[Mike Harte]

As an addendum to my post above, Red Bull were ordered to pay for the costs for the appeal.

I think that is a message to all the teams along the pit-lane; don't make frivolous appeals or appeal because you, as a team, choose to ignore rules, regulations, directives from the FIA or direction from the FIA appointed technical delagates.

[Richard C]

Here is the link to the details of the appeal (with link to English and French PDF copies) ...

http://www.fia.com/international-cou...-14-april-2014

I personally think it should be read in its entirety by anyone who has strong opinions one way or another. It has some interesting information. My take away...

* Many pre appeal facts (such as those documented in the original stewards decision) seem to be true or at least not challenged. For example, that RBR never applied the offset as required.

* Part of the RBR strategy was that the technical directives are not legal (as they are not technical regulations) and can't be enforced.

* I wasn't aware that RBR did in fact turn down the engine after the race was under way to try to comply with the stewards requests, but then decided to abandon that approach. While it is not discussed in the appeal, I have to wonder if the adjustment that Ricciardo made in the car was the 1.5% offset as originally requested by the stewards, or maybe some other type of normal engine management adjustment available on the steering wheel (which maybe had a larger impact than the FIA requested offset). I could be wrong, but I don't see RBR having something pre-programmed in the wheel to allow Ricciardo to turn on/off the FIA offset. But who knows.

* RBR appears to have only had three sensors on hand. They appeal mentions two were available for Ricciardo's car. An unmentioned third would have been in Vettels car.

* The second sensor tried in Ricciardo's car just outright didn't work. Previously it had been hinted at that it was significantly less accurate (I guess that is a true statement, but it is less about accuracy than about reliability).

* There is an automatic method for adjusting for sensor failure. So given RBR used a failed sensor in FP3 and Qual, they would have been using their fuel flow model for those sessions. But, given that the sensor had failed, the FIA didn't want them to purposefully use a failed sensor for the race. I assume that the FIA let them use the failed sensor for Qualification as they may not have had time to swap it out between FP3 and Qualification (speculation on my part)

* While a number of teams were present as third parties or observers, Mercedes did provide information that was hostile to the information that RBR presented (no surprise here).

* RBR presented a particularly flimsy case. Especially around the validity of the numbers produced by their fuel flow model. As much as I have my own doubts about the accuracy of the flow model it sounds like they likely could have presented a better case toward the validity of that concept.

* The amount of difference between the flow model and sensor during FP1 and FP2 were not as great as many speculated. It sounds like about a 1% overage (101 kg/hr vs 100 kg/hr) at the high end of what was measured.

* While the sensor values was trending toward indicating a higher flow rate (i.e. creep), RBRs own data showed that they were also adjusting various flow parameters during that same time period. So it may be difficult or impossible to say that any trend existed. There is the potential that these adjustments might even explain much of the measured variability.

I am sure many will continue to see those in dark cloaks hiding in the shadows. But overall, I think RBR rolled the dice on this and lost. As Mercedes mentioned, given RBRs arguments, if the appeal was turned over, it would mean that all sorts of things could be effectively ignored by the teams. Including pre and post race inspections, etc.

Richard

[Teretonga]

If RBR had been able to prove clearly that they had not violated the fuel flow rate (100kg per hour) then they may have had a case to argue against the stewards ruling.

Without that clear proof there was no proof that they had conformed to the regulation so it was bound to fall over and probably a complete waste of everyone's time.
The either had the proof they conformed to the limit or they didn't.
They didn't produce it or present it in a manner that could be clearly resolved so it was over. That's it.
Appeal board decision could be nothing else.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I am sure many will continue to see those in dark cloaks hiding in the shadows. But overall, I think RBR rolled the dice on this and lost. As Mercedes mentioned, given RBRs arguments, if the appeal was turned over, it would mean that all sorts of things could be effectively ignored by the teams. Including pre and post race inspections, etc.

Yep.

End of story. Nothing more to see here. Time to move on.

[Knowlesy]

But... but... it is the FIA's fault!

I see RBR had another fuel flow problem in qualifying today. Everyone else seems to be managing alright though, so maybe they should try harder.

[321Go]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

Everyone else seems to be managing alright though, so maybe they should try harder.

RBR have been told to stop modifying the connections to the fuel-flow meter. RBR are one of a few teams to fit their own connection designs to the flow meter.

This will be banned from Spain onwards. And if RBR are still having issues after that, their fuel will need to be modified as the FIA have identified a chemical composition in the Total fuel used is having an effect on the 'O' rings of the sensor.

Same goes for all the other teams using Total fuel.

[wolfhound]

Do I detect more robust ways to the relations between Red Bull and the rest of the paddock?
First was there did not seem to be any support for them over the fuel flow controversy in fact Mercedes asked for tough sanctions for the regulation breach. Next we have the possible court case with McLaren.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113542

[Mystery]

I would imagine the car people and manufacturers would quite like a fizzy pop maker out of their sport so I'm not surprised.

[nobster]

The stupid remarks often made by Dr Marko surely don't help

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Do I detect more robust ways to the relations between Red Bull and the rest of the paddock?
First was there did not seem to be any support for them over the fuel flow controversy in fact Mercedes asked for tough sanctions for the regulation breach. Next we have the possible court case with McLaren.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/113542

That's very odd. Surely Mclaren should be taking Fallows to court, not RBR. After all, their contract was with him, not Red Bull.

And they probably need to be a bit careful, employment law is complicated business, and forcing someone to work for you isn't the greatest of ideas either.

[Tucky]

I doubt he'd be working with Mclaren. Most likely it is just to stop Fallows working for RBR for a set period of time, more like a forced gardening leave than actually working for Mclaren

[JamesH]

Are you allowed to volunteer? As long as someone is not being paid, pretty sure they can volunteer for whoever they want.