hrd-hr30

that's the way, don't let facts cloud your opinion!

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong? Thats wrong Harry It is straight from the FIA's Steward's Decision; "8) Technical Directive 01614 (1 March 2014) provides the methodology by which the sensor will be used..." Umm...still wrong. It is exactly what happened. RBR ignored the Technical Directive and they got disqualified. Refer to the Stewards' findings. "Thus the Stewards find that: A) The team chose to run the car using their fuel flow model, without direction from the FIA. This is a violation of the procedure within TD/ 016-14 B) That although the sensor showed a difference in readings between runs in P1, it remains the homologated and required sensor against which the team is obliged to measure their fuel flow, unless given permission by the FIA to do otherwise. (guess where that permission comes from? Yep, the Technical Directive) C) The Stewards were satisfied by the explanation of the technical representative that by making an adjustment as instructed, the team could have run within the allowable fuel flow. (that adjustment procedure is outlined in the Technical Directive) 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. (that permission comes from the Technical Directive too btw)" There is no doubt whatsoever the reason they were disqualified is that they ignored Technical Directive 01614. And if you end up disqualified because you didn't comply with something, guess what - you were bound to comply with it! You can say I'm wrong as often as you like, it doesn't make it so...

You have a strange definition of "not binding". RBR were disqualified for not complying with it FFS. Doesn't get any more binding than that. It's like saying being found guilty of murder is not binding, because I can appeal it.

well, we're about to find out just how confident RBR are about their method being more accurate than the FIA's sensor + offsets. If they truly believe they are in the right, they will continue run both cars based on their fuel flow calculations this weekend and probably be disqualified from both qualy and race results... If they fall into line with all the other teams and comply with the Technical Directive, we'll know they aren't at all sure they're going to win the appeal.

yes that's what I quoted from the technical regulations earlier. NB "5.10.3 Homologated sensors must be fitted which directly measure...the flow of the fuel". The homologated sensor is the only method for measuring fuel flow permitted or recognised under the Technical Regulations, the other method RBR used without permission is the one outlined in the Technical Directive to be used when the sensor fails. FIA Technical Directives are just that - directives issued by the governing body. They have always been used to enforce rules. * EBD's were banned under an FIA Technical Directive. * Off throttle blowing was banned under an FIA Technical Directive. I could go on and on, but the picture is pretty obvious - FIA Technical Directives are binding and a legitimate part of the regulations governing the sport. If you ignore them, you get disqualified...

Firstly, it's 100kg/hr at 10,500rpm and above. below that the fuel flow limits are lower. So there are times where even if you are flowing 100kg/hr you could be breaking the rules. Secondly, the Technical Regulations do stipulate that the homologated sensor to measure the temp, pressure and flow must be fitted and must log to the FIA data logger, as per my previous quote from the Technical Regulations. Finally, regarding the validity and role of Technical Directives, according to JAonF1: Not just one blokes opinion that teams may choose whether or not they bother listening to. But even if what you say was accurate, the problem you have is that the only method for measuring fuel flow mentioned in the Technical Regulations is the homologated sensor, which RBR totally ignored. There's nothing in the Technical Regulations to say they can choose an alternate method of measurement - that's only in the Technical Directive, which you say means nothing! In reality the Technical Directives are exactly what they say they are - an official, authoritative instruction from the FIA.

Not good news. it would be totally unfair to the teams that have done the best development work under the engine regulations over the past 3yrs! To make them louder would mean opening wastegates, changing the characteristics of the powertrain and especially the MGU-H energy recovery. To allow them to use more fuel also just helps those who haven't done as good a job of making their engies fast and efficient. 100kg per race was the concensus limit they were working to. It should remain. Australia is the 2nd highest fuel consumption track on the calendar (Canada is No1 in terms of kg/lap) and no teams had real problems making it to the end even in the very first race under these rules - even the ones who were using excessive fuel flow at times mad eit no worries IMO the fuel limit is not a problem.

Fuel flow meter is in the technical regulations: Technical Directive 01614 provides the methodology by which the sensor will be used. It is not "just Charlie's opinion on things", it is a binding part of the regulation framework.

huh? who said anything about letting the teams decide themselves? The FIA would still be monitoring in real time and telling the teams to apply offsets if required - just using a different method to monitor fuel flow. Which, by the way, is already in the regs as the backup method... So it is not a very big change to make. They already have all the procedures in place. It's just RBR wanting to bring the issue of the questionable fuel sensors to a head IMO

The issue isn't whether Red Bull had any extra power or not. The issue isn't really even whether they exceeded the fuel flow limits or not. The real issue is RBR chose not to follow the FIA's directions regarding fuel flow throughout the race as required under the rules (Every other team followed their instructions, btw). RBR decided to rely on their alternate measurements for fuel flow without following the process outlined in the rules. So regardless of whether their measurments were more accurate than the sensor or not, they broke the rules. Clearly they are doing it to highlight the issue of the fuel flow sensors and get the sensors, or the method of monitoring changed. I don't think they can win the appeal, but they will probably get the rules changed regarding the fuel flow monitoring.

lol exactly! Did you factor that in when saying 'The fact Nico just ran away from Dan doesn't suggest Ricciado had any extra power"???

also don't assume too much of what RBR is saying is true... according to RBR, everyone up and down pitlane was having issues with the meters all weekend. But only RBR refused to follow the FIA's directions... How about the fact he was the fastest Renault by far?

I don't really understand all the focus ont he sound all over the interwebs. Sure they don't sound as good, no argument there, but that is very secondary to the spectacle of motorsport to me. There was way more to like than dislike about the new cars imo. less aero grip = more driving more grunt = more driving tyres that actually work was a very welcome sight! You can see the drivers are having to actually pedal the things again. That hasn't been the case for decades. It was awesome! That's what the World DRIVERS Championship should be about. Noise? meh - who cares...

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2014/03/16/kobayashi-responsible-massa-crash-stewards/

That's the way it goes when things fail. The lap before they fail, they work. Fancy that...

yeah bag him because his rear brakes didn't work. fans because a Caterham has never been far enough up the grid to crash into anyone before!

if you can't power oversteer, it's worse. The end. Porsche and BMW know the deal. FWD is for grocery getters.

dick and a strap-on - that martini livery is a Forza mock up on a Lotus. I think the WIlliams look good as they are in blue. Hopefully they do a good job with the Martini livery. They look like being contenders at the start of the season. Reliable and good pace. I'd love to see Massa get some wins! Looking forward to the world hypermiling championship starting next weekend!

I think they're very soft. Should be good for hillclimbs if you're in a class that allows slicks.

they're probably not going to ever hit the redline except in qualy. An article I read ages ago suggested that the fuel flow limit and power delivery characteristics of forced induction mean 12,000rpm is more likely to be the operational ceiling rather than the mandated 15,000rpm limit. They also have significantly less engines to use this year, so lower revs seems likely. But having heard a few more videos, I'm starting to think they sound alright anyway. Sure, they're no V10, but those days are long gone... I'm liking the looks of the cars too. Eg Force India looked crap in photos with that big black dong out the front, but it looks pretty good on the track. At least there's variety and innovation being shown which is interesting, and to me they all look better than the stepped noses from last year. Well, maybe not the Zoidberg Lotus... It's very unlikely I know, but there's potential for a smaller budget team to have jagged a design edge thanks to these regs. Also hoping the William livery isn't just for testing - it looks good in blue.

pretty dull...

Mercedes looks alright too

The Ferrari looks like a bleedin dustbuster.

I used standard suspension on the Reliant Robin, I mean R35 GTR just be careful of kerbs! Also standard torque split, standard gearing. I gave it full power mods, min weight and a 'flat floor'. That's about it.