Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

The stewards' decision in full:

The Stewards, having received a report from the Technical Delegate, heard from the team representatives, have considered the following matter and determine a breach of the regulations has been committed by the competitor named below and impose the penalty referred to.

No/Driver: 3, Daniel Ricciardo

Competitor: Infiniti Red Bull Racing

Time: 20:17

Session: Race

Facts: Car #3 was not in compliance with article 5.1.4 of the FIA Formula 1 technical tegulations.

Offence: Breach of article 3.2 of the FIA Formula 1 sporting regulations and Article 5.1.4 of the FIA Formula 1 technical regulations.

Decision: Car #3 is excluded from the race results.

Reason:

1) The technical delegate reported to the stewards that car #3 exceeded the required fuel mass flow of 100kg/h. (article 5.1.4 of the Formula 1 technical regulations)

2) This parameter is outside of the control of the driver, Daniel Ricciardo.

3) The fuel flow is measured using the fuel flow sensor (Art. 5.10.3 & 5.10.4 of the technical regulations) which is homologated by the FIA and owned and operated by the team.

4) The stewards considered the history of the fitted fuel flow sensor, as described by the team and the technical delegate's representative who administers the programme. Their description of the history of the sensor matches.

a. During practice one a difference in reading between the first three and run four was detected. The same readings as Run 4 were observed throughout practice two.

b. The team used a different sensor on Saturday but did not get readings that were satisfactory to them or the FIA, so they were instructed to change the sensor within parc ferme on Saturday night.

c. They operated the original sensor during the race, which provided the same readings as run four of practice one, and practice two.

5) The stewards heard from the technical representative that when the sensor was installed on Saturday night, he instructed the team to apply an offset to their fuel flow such that the fuel flow would have been legal. He presented an email to the stewards that verified his instruction.

6) The technical representative stated to the stewards that there is variation in the sensors. However, the sensors fall within a known range, and are individually calibrated. They then become the standard which the teams must use for their fuel flow.

7) The team stated that based on the difference observed between the two readings in P1, they considered the fuel flow sensor to be unreliable. Therefore, for the start of the race they chose to use their internal fuel flow model, rather than the values provided by the sensor, with the required offset.

8) Technical directive 01614 (1 March 2014) provides the methodology by which the sensor will be used, and, should the sensor fail, the method by which the alternate model could be used.

a. The technical directive starts by stating: "The homologated fuel flow sensor will be the primary measurement of the fuel flow and will be used to check compliance with articles 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 of the F1 technical regulations..." This is in conformity with articles 5.10.3 and 5.10.4 of the technical regulations.

b. The technical directive goes on to state: "If at any time WE consider that the sensor has an issue which has not been detected by the system WE will communicate this to the team concerned and switch to a back-up system."

(emphasis added.)

c. The back-up system is the calculated fuel flow model with a correction factor decided by the FIA.

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.

10) Under Art. 3.2 of the sporting regulations it is the duty of the team to ensure compliance with the technical regulations throughout the event.

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/01614.

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.

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.

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.

The stewards find that car #3 was out of compliance with the technical regulations and is therefore excluded from the results of the race.

Power.

Not economy. The economy part is the fact they only have 100 litres to start and finish the race with.

Fuel flow restricts the maximum power available from the turbo motor. Otherwise with an unrestricted flow, you could run massive power to pass at will, then just trickle around to save fuel.

Power.

Not economy. The economy part is the fact they only have 100 litres to start and finish the race with.

Fuel flow restricts the maximum power available from the turbo motor. Otherwise with an unrestricted flow, you could run massive power to pass at will, then just trickle around to save fuel.

Yeah you have to laugh at the mainstream medias attemps to explain what the hell it was he got pinged for. Hopeless. Still brilliant effort by Dan none the less. He just needs to repeat it in a couple weeks and he is on his way to crushing Tool.*

Also good effort by Magnussen. Pretty young looking podium, all up.

*May have gone a bit early with that prediction.

It was a little strange seeing the McLaren not make much ground on the RB down the straight, when all the talk was about how slow the Renault was in a straight line.

Overall it's a sad state of affairs for a sport that revived such a PR boost in this country with Dans result. Not saying it could be over looked for the PR, but it's just sad.

I skimmed over that stewards report, makes me very uneasy about these fuel flow meters for "parity".

It was a little strange seeing the McLaren not make much ground on the RB down the straight, when all the talk was about how slow the Renault was in a straight line.

Overall it's a sad state of affairs for a sport that revived such a PR boost in this country with Dans result. Not saying it could be over looked for the PR, but it's just sad.

I skimmed over that stewards report, makes me very uneasy about these fuel flow meters for "parity".

Back in the eighties they used to have the same issues with the boost limiters (bovs basically if i remember correctly) they used to limit the turbo motors. FIA stuff was not up to scratch and the teams quickly figured out how to game them anyway.

Lets see Vettel get a good weekend in and see if Dan can ruffle feathers. It does look like being a race for the 3rd step between RBR, Williams and McLaren which will make for interesting racing. But Mercedes are clearly quicker much like Seb was in Singapore last year. Pace to burn.

RBR are probably, in leagalese, screwed; but we'll see

To clarify, it turns out not to be L/h fuel flow (volume) but rather mass flow (kg/h)

Depending on the specific gravity of the control fuel and the ambient temp, 100kg/h would probably be between 110-120L/h (?)

here's an excellent picture for all you Kobi fans out there

rajab knows why you're fans, but you deserve pics regardless

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000ZyJhCjP7Gb4/s/1000/I0000ZyJhCjP7Gb4.jpg

Great picture with a caption below it...

"WHAT DEFECT?"

here's an excellent picture for all you Kobi fans out there

rajab knows why you're fans, but you deserve pics regardless

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000ZyJhCjP7Gb4/s/1000/I0000ZyJhCjP7Gb4.jpg

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!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Who did you have do the installation? I actually know someone who is VERY familiar with the AVS gear. The main point of contact though would be your installer.   Where are you based in NZ?
    • Look, realistically, those are some fairly chunky connectors and wires so it is a reasonably fair bet that that loom was involved in the redirection of the fuel pump and/or ECU/ignition power for the immobiliser. It's also fair to be that the new immobiliser is essentially the same thing as the old one, and so it probably needs the same stuff done to make it do what it has to do. Given that you are talking about a car that no-one else here is familiar with (I mean your exact car) and an alarm that I've never heard of before and so probably not many others are familiar with, and that some wire monkey has been messing with it out of our sight, it seems reasonable that the wire monkey should be fixing this.
    • Wheel alignment immediately. Not "when I get around to it". And further to what Duncan said - you cannot just put camber arms on and shorten them. You will introduce bump steer far in excess of what the car had with stock arms. You need adjustable tension arms and they need to be shortened also. The simplest approach is to shorten them the same % as the stock ones. This will not be correct or optimal, but it will be better than any other guess. The correct way to set the lengths of both arms is to use a properly built/set up bump steer gauge and trial and error the adjustments until you hit the camber you need and want and have minimum bump steer in the range of motion that the wheel is expected to travel. And what Duncan said about toe is also very true. And you cannot change the camber arm without also affecting toe. So when you have adjustable arms on the back of a Skyline, the car either needs to go to a talented wheel aligner (not your local tyre shop dropout), or you need to be able to do this stuff yourself at home. Guess which approach I have taken? I have built my own gear for camber, toe and bump steer measurement and I do all this on the flattest bit of concrete I have, with some shims under the tyres on one side to level the car.
    • Thought I would get some advice from others on this situation.    Relevant info: R33 GTS25t Link G4x ECU Walbro 255LPH w/ OEM FP Relay (No relay mod) Scenario: I accidentally messed up my old AVS S5 (rev.1) at the start of the year and the cars been immobilised. Also the siren BBU has completely failed; so I decided to upgrade it.  I got a newer AVS S5 (rev.2?) installed on Friday. The guy removed the old one and its immobilisers. Tried to start it; the car cranks but doesnt start.  The new one was installed and all the alarm functions seem to be working as they should; still wouldn't start Went to bed; got up on Friday morning and decided to have a look into the no start problem. Found the car completely dead.  Charged the battery; plugged it back in and found the brake lights were stuck on.  Unplugging the brake pedal switch the lights turn off. Plug it back in and theyre stuck on again. I tested the switch (continuity test and resistance); all looks good (0-1kohm).  On talking to AVS; found its because of the rubber stopper on the brake pedal; sure enough the middle of it is missing so have ordered a new one. One of those wear items; which was confusing what was going on However when I try unplugging the STOP Light fuses (under the dash and under the hood) the brake light still stays on. Should those fuses not cut the brake light circuit?  I then checked the ECU; FP Speed Error.  Testing the pump again; I can hear the relay clicking every time I switch it to ON. I unplugged the pump and put the multimeter across the plug. No continuity; im seeing 0.6V (ECU signal?) and when it switches the relay I think its like 20mA or 200mA). Not seeing 12.4V / 7-9A. As far as I know; the Fuel Pump was wired through one of the immobiliser relays on the old alarm.  He pulled some thick gauged harness out with the old alarm wiring; which looks to me like it was to bridge connections into the immobilisers? Before it got immobilised it was running just fine.  Im at a loss to why the FP is getting no voltage; I thought maybe the FP was faulty (even though I havent even done 50km on the new pump) but no voltage at the harness plug.  Questions: Could it be he didnt reconnect the fuel pump when testing it after the old alarm removal (before installing the new alarm)?  Is this a case of bridging to the brake lights instead of the fuel pump circuit? It's a bit beyond me as I dont do a lot with electrical; so have tried my best to diagnose what I think seems to make sense.  Seeking advice if theres for sure an issue with the alarm install to get him back here; or if I do infact, need an auto electrician to diagnose it. 
    • Then, shorten them by 1cm, drop the car back down and have a visual look (or even better, use a spirit level across the wheel to see if you have less camber than before. You still want something like 1.5 for road use. Alternatively, if you have adjustable rear ride height (I assume you do if you have extreme camber wear), raise the suspension back to standard height until you can get it all aligned properly. Finally, keep in mind that wear on the inside of the tyre can be for incorrect toe, not just camber
×
×
  • Create New...