Well then, let's see Vettel qualifying there each week for some good excitement!

It will be interesting to see how he copes with an 'uncompetitive' car in the middle of the grid. 

I wonder how he feels about his new Australian 'team mate' being second on the grid?

That was an interesting session I think. Probably could have done with it staying dry, to get a truer idea of the running order, rather than who's good in the wet. Raikkonen surprised me, I didn't expect that. Maybe he was distracted by the Force India.

Started off with a correct pick for pole in the fantasy league, but then I reckon everyone made that decision.

The race was a bit of a let down to be honest.

 

I reckon it will be a good season though once everyone knows how to operate their cars properly, and it seems Red Bull are a lot quicker than people thought so I guess Vettel is very much a title contendor still.

I thought it was a great race. Some great rookies like Bottas and Magnussen really shone through. Magnussen has loads of potential and very humble too. If Ricciardo gets DSQ because of a fuel flow issue it means he gets 2nd on his debut and Button gets 3rd. The engines aren't as loud but all sound different. At the moment we now have less downforce so it's more down to the driver.

I thought it was a great race. Some great rookies like Bottas and Magnussen really shone through. Magnussen has loads of potential and very humble too.

 

Agree on that.. but at the front there was no real battle this time. Looks like Mercedes have the edge but Red Bull, McLaren, Ferrari, Williams all in the scrap behind so lots to look forward to.

 

I don't have a problem with the sound, only time I noticed it was on the grid waiting for lights out you could barely hear them!

 

Red Bull's pace may have been exaggerated if they were indeed running illegally, would be a real shame if Ricciardo loses that home podium because he did a great job all weekend. Made Seb quite stroppy too which is a bonus

As things stand he's been excluded from the results: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/26601418

 

I have a feeling this is going to be an argument about the way the regulation is worded, and what the sample rate is in order to be compliant with it. In essence, you could have a flow rate for 10 seconds which when extrapolated would be over 100kg/h but for the rest of the 95-100 second lap have a flow rate which is way way below that, meaning you could legitimately argue that you are compliant with the regulation.

 

Otherwise known as burst rate.

Not a fan of the new engine sounds. If this was 2013 you'd be waiting for white smoke and an oil patch.

And the pace is visually much slower. I think it's a backwards step.

As for Ricciardo, from what horner said and from what I've read on various F1 sites the sensors have played up in every outing since testing began. Sometimes registering no fuel use, other times ridiculous fuel rates.

I read one comment that to use that fuel rate, he wouldn't have made the finish line let alone lap 50.

Nice to see 'Kobykrashi' doing what he does best after all of 500 yards !

Am just thankful he don't live near me or I'd be taking the bus everywhere

Probably safer

All in all a good weekend though and I actually like the new engine note

A growl rather than a scream maybe

As for Ricciardo, from what horner said and from what I've read on various F1 sites the sensors have played up in every outing since testing began. Sometimes registering no fuel use, other times ridiculous fuel rates.

 

I read a piece regarding the fuel flow sensor on the Red Bull saying that the FIA sensor had 'played up' on Friday, it was changed on Saturday and that one was faulty so the FIA told Red Bull to put the first sensor back on an use an 'offset'. Red Bull decided to use the 'fuel flow model' rather than the sensor readings for the race. During the race the FIA told Red Bull that the car was running over the limit of 100kg/h Red bull ignored this and carried on saying that the fuel flow was correct.

Not heard any other teams having problems with these sensors. Is it another case Red Bull pushing the rules to the limit and a little bit more? 

A total anti climax......A complete let down...What were they thinking of?

Pace lower, no racing car sound. Next they'll be putting sound generator boxes in the cars!!

It was a good race, there is still some work to be done and remember for the majority of teams (and drivers) they are still getting to know the car, what it can do and what the electronics can do.

 

Excellent performances from Williams and Bottas, Magnussen had a great debut race and despite their problems it would RB still have a very competitive car.

 

Can see RB being successful in their appeal ref the fuel flow sensor - there have been issues with them across the grid. The FIA's decision is here: http://184.106.145.74/f1-championship/f1-2014/f1-2014-01/Formula%20One%20Australian%20Grand%20Prix%202014%20Document%20-%2056.pdf

 

No action is being taken against Kobayashi - was deemed a serious technical failure and outside the control of the driver.

Does anyone know the 2014 tech regs well enough to quote the fuel flow regs? All I've heard is "max flow rate under 100kg/hr" which RB obviously had, since the race was more like 90 minutes and they didn't run out after 38 laps!

Does anyone know the 2014 tech regs well enough to quote the fuel flow regs? All I've heard is "max flow rate under 100kg/hr" which RB obviously had, since the race was more like 90 minutes and they didn't run out after 38 laps!

 

That's exactly my point about the sample rate above, if the RB did go above that threshold how long does it have to do so to be deemed illegal? tenth of a second? half? one full second? hmmm.

From the 2014 Technical Regulations:

 

ARTICLE 5 : POWER UNIT

5.1 Engine specification :

5.1.1 Only 4-stroke engines with reciprocating pistons are permitted.

5.1.2 Engine cubic capacity must be 1600cc (+0/-10cc).

5.1.3 Crankshaft rotational speed must not exceed 15000rpm.

5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.

5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5.

 

Still searching for more info though

Can see RB being successful in their appeal ref the fuel flow sensor - there have been issues with them across the grid. The FIA's decision is here: http://184.106.145.74/f1-championship/f1-2014/f1-2014-01/Formula%20One%20Australian%20Grand%20Prix%202014%20Document%20-%2056.pdf

 

Reading the FIA's decision I would say that TB won't be successful with their appeal because they failed to follow the FIA's back up procedure, see items 7, 8 and 9, e.g. they failed to follow Technical Directive 016­14.

 

It looks fairly clear cut and whether the sensors are unreliable or not is irrelevant. RB were advised by the FIA during the race of the discrepancy and chose to ignore it and not follow FIA instructions.

 

Pity for Riccardo as he drove a good race, but I suspect Vettel will be smiling.

 

All in all I thought the race a bit dull and was a bit surprised that the DRS seemed to have less of an effect this year, though that could be viewed as a positive or a negative.

But 9 says that the FIA told them to follow the sensor, or that they (fia) use this to determine flow rate when it was agreed that the sensor had had issues in p1, was swapped out, but swapped back because the replacement failed.

Personally I think they'll be OK this time, but it'll be a warning shot to teams.

Any info on how the sensor actually works? Is it a turbine flow meter?

Does anyone know the 2014 tech regs well enough to quote the fuel flow regs? All I've heard is "max flow rate under 100kg/hr" which RB obviously had, since the race was more like 90 minutes and they didn't run out after 38 laps!

A car would only run out of fuel if it the fuel was continually delivered at high flow rates, but the driver will lift and brake throughout the race distance, so the average fuel rate might only be 60kg/h.

 

That's exactly my point about the sample rate above, if the RB did go above that threshold how long does it have to do so to be deemed illegal? tenth of a second? half? one full second? hmmm.

The maximum rate that the fuel is allowed to be delivered to the engine is 100kg/h, so if the fuel is delivered at a higher rate at any time the rule has been breached. The same as driving down the pit lane at 81kph.

Red Bull were warned by the stewards that they were consistently exceeding the 100kg/h rule.

The maximum rate that the fuel is allowed to be delivered to the engine is 100kg/h, so if the fuel is delivered at a higher rate at any time the rule has been breached. The same as driving down the pit lane at 81kph.

Red Bull were warned by the stewards that they were consistently exceeding the 100kg/h rule.

Thanks for the clarification, it does seem pretty clear from the post above that the flow rate limit is absolute rather than an average over a given sample period.

I'm guessing RB's argument will centre entirely on their mistrust of the readings from the FIA device, discredit the witness to make their testimony untrustworthy in essence.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 no racing car sound. Next they'll be putting sound generator boxes in the cars!!

Bernie is onto that already.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=noisier+f1+cars&espv=210&es_sm=122&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=Z-QnU6bPCsLQ7AbdyIDoBQ&ved=0CDQQqAI

From the 2014 Technical Regulations:

 

ARTICLE 5 : POWER UNIT

5.1 Engine specification :

5.1.1 Only 4-stroke engines with reciprocating pistons are permitted.

5.1.2 Engine cubic capacity must be 1600cc (+0/-10cc).

5.1.3 Crankshaft rotational speed must not exceed 15000rpm.

5.1.4 Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h.

5.1.5 Below 10500rpm the fuel mass flow must not exceed Q (kg/h) = 0.009 N(rpm)+ 5.5.

 

Still searching for more info though

Thanks Coops.

 

5.1.4 says that you must not flow more than 100kg of fuel in a period of 60 minutes. It does not say that you may not flow 1.1kg for a period of 36s. If the intent of the rule had been that you must not flow more than 1kg for any period of 36s, or 100g for any period of 3.6s or whatever trickier combination of mass and time you want, then the rule should have cited that unit time period and the relevant mass.

Agree Ken - it is very "wishy washy" and needs further definition. But as moley states above, the 100kg/h is the maximum rate allowed, if it goes over they are in breach.

 

The maximum rate that the fuel is allowed to be delivered to the engine is 100kg/h, so if the fuel is delivered at a higher rate at any time the rule has been breached.

 

On a site like this, at least some of us will be familiar with concepts like fuel rails, unit injectors, and returns.

 

The fuel flowed to the fuel rail (which AIUI the FIA meter measures, however inaccurately) is not the same thing as the fuel flowed by the injectors (which you can bet the engine telemetry reports back to the pits); some of the fuel can be returned to the tank. So if I'm right, the FIA aren't necessarily even measuring what they think they're measuring, and what the rules seem to require them to measure in order to claim a breach on any basis other than a car running out of fuel.

 

Off-topic, but is anyone else getting an advert for an RC model RB7?

No, no advert for an r/c RB7!

 

 

The regs (appear to) state that the measurement is taken on the fuel rail and as such the rate is the rate to the injectors, and therefore will be different to the "actual" flow rate of the injectors themselves.

 

Homoglated sensors must be fitted which directly measure the pressure, the temperature and the flow of the fuel supplied to the injectors, these signals must be supplied to the FIA data logger

 

 

So it is perfectly perceivable that RB are running a higher pressure on the rail to account for losses and then meet the 100kg/h flow rate at the injectors. But there are enough bods clever enough to know what the FIA sensor is measuring and that it will be different.

 

 

The regs that I have seen don't seem to go into too much more detail - it does explicitly state "Any device, system or procedure the purpose and/or effect of which is to increase the flow rate after the measurement point is prohibited. "

 

No, no advert for an r/c RB7!

 

 

The regs (appear to) state that the measurement is taken on the fuel rail and as such the rate is the rate to the injectors, and therefore will be different to the "actual" flow rate of the injectors themselves.

 

 

So it is perfectly perceivable that RB are running a higher pressure on the rail to account for losses and then meet the 100kg/h flow rate at the injectors. But there are enough bods clever enough to know what the FIA sensor is measuring and that it will be different.

 

 

The regs that I have seen don't seem to go into too much more detail - it does explicitly state "Any device, system or procedure the purpose and/or effect of which is to increase the flow rate after the measurement point is prohibited. "

 

I suppose it doesn't matter which part the FIA are monitoring if it is the same for all teams. Doesn't surprise me that RB are taking the rules to the very limit though and claiming their own sensors in a different place are the ones they want to use... If every other team (and renault engine) can meet the requirements then why can't RB?

 

Any news if this was just isolated to RB or did Lotus/Caterham also exceed the limit but were not penalised as they didn't finish?

I suppose it doesn't matter which part the FIA are monitoring if it is the same for all teams. Doesn't surprise me that RB are taking the rules to the very limit though and claiming their own sensors in a different place are the ones they want to use... If every other team (and renault engine) can meet the requirements then why can't RB?

Any news if this was just isolated to RB or did Lotus/Caterham also exceed the limit but were not penalised as they didn't finish?

I guess RB know the Renault engine is not as good as the Mercedes so they are probably looking to get as much out of the engine as possible. Whether the sensor is accurate or not is irrelevant, they will calibrated within a tolerance and that is the same for all the teams. It would be interesting to know how many seconds the fuel flow was over the 100kg/h per lap and if it was under the limit what loss in lap times would there have been?