Now a certain female driver in that shirt would attract Wolff whistles :thumbsup:
F1 in 2014.
- Thread starter David Morton
- Start date
Now a certain female driver in that shirt would attract Wolff whistles :thumbsup:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
A new star is born?
Yep , cracking young man with Buttonesk interview skills. Where has all the noise gone? its not quite the same without all the racket:sad: Upside is the field is all upside down and a race is on. As they say when the green flag drops and all that
Bob
Hi guys
My son and i flew down to Melbourne yesterday and watched practice and qualifying. The cars sound crap; you can have a conversation as the go past you. The V8 stupidcars sounded fantastic after the F1 practice. I hope the racing is great with the new cars as I feel the sport has lost a major part of the spectacle. That’s my 2 cents worth.
Well done to Recardo, loudest cheer from the crowd was his qualifying effort, second loudest cheer and only by a little was Vetal missing qualifying. that us Aussies for you.
Darrell
DRB G50
LS1
My son and i flew down to Melbourne yesterday and watched practice and qualifying. The cars sound crap; you can have a conversation as the go past you. The V8 stupidcars sounded fantastic after the F1 practice. I hope the racing is great with the new cars as I feel the sport has lost a major part of the spectacle. That’s my 2 cents worth.
Well done to Recardo, loudest cheer from the crowd was his qualifying effort, second loudest cheer and only by a little was Vetal missing qualifying. that us Aussies for you.
Darrell
DRB G50
LS1
The cars are ugly (again) and from what is said here it is not poor microphone sound pick up as to why they sound pathetic on TV. Makes the whole show look anything but the pinnacle of motorsport. Long live Le Mans. Now not only do they have to preserve tyres they have to preserve fuel as well. Good grief! There was even reference made to having to coast to save fuel! Excuse me? They should only have one pedal. A throttle. When not on it flat out automatic maximum braking should kick in!
Hmmmmmm..
Daniel Ricciardo is under investigation by the FIA stewards for a potential breach of the fuel flow limit rules.
FIA technical delegate Jo Bauer reported Ricciardo’s car “exceeded consistently the maximum allowed fuel flow of 100kg/h”.
“As this is not in compliance with Article 5.1.4 of the 2014 Formula One Technical Regulations, I am referring this matter to the stewards for their consideration.”
Jury is out.
Daniel Ricciardo is under investigation by the FIA stewards for a potential breach of the fuel flow limit rules.
FIA technical delegate Jo Bauer reported Ricciardo’s car “exceeded consistently the maximum allowed fuel flow of 100kg/h”.
“As this is not in compliance with Article 5.1.4 of the 2014 Formula One Technical Regulations, I am referring this matter to the stewards for their consideration.”
Jury is out.
Its become a yawnathon. Christian Horner pointed out that the FIA fuel monitors have proved to be unreliable so I dont understand the need to disqualify the poor kid until this unit has at the very least been checked out. Its bollocks.
Bob
Bob
Funnily enough and by strange coincidence, these fuel flow sensors are made by Gill Instruments which is a mere 300 metres from my door. I regularly used to drink with a couple of the blokes that work there and they make some very cool stuff. (Hint: had a, erm, Gill wind sensor on my boat)
Most of the wind sensors for major road and rail crossings, such as suspension bridges, are made by these people.
Have no idea what is wrong there though but the stewards did say that the fuel flow "was consistently outside of the permitted flow rate" whilst Horner said that according to their precise injection equipment, they monitored the fuel flow as within permitted parameters. He looked pretty ashen faced and very annoyed.
They will appeal and if they can prove their case, I'm sure their epic result will be reinstated.
However, Red Bull Racing in particular have always been very creative with the rules, so, who knows?
Larry, the F1 rules have been pretty much static since the EBD ban, what, 3 years? with no major changes. It was just stagnating. Frankly, creative engineering rule interpretations is just one of the most fascinating aspects of F1 to me, and especially in this new era.
This is one reason why teams do not want 'customer' chassis. It takes the creativity out of it and is one step closer to a spec series.
Dallara anyone?
At last, it's returned to be more of an engine formula rather than the gobbledegook aero squaddlies, and I really like it.
Most of the wind sensors for major road and rail crossings, such as suspension bridges, are made by these people.
Have no idea what is wrong there though but the stewards did say that the fuel flow "was consistently outside of the permitted flow rate" whilst Horner said that according to their precise injection equipment, they monitored the fuel flow as within permitted parameters. He looked pretty ashen faced and very annoyed.
They will appeal and if they can prove their case, I'm sure their epic result will be reinstated.
However, Red Bull Racing in particular have always been very creative with the rules, so, who knows?
Larry, the F1 rules have been pretty much static since the EBD ban, what, 3 years? with no major changes. It was just stagnating. Frankly, creative engineering rule interpretations is just one of the most fascinating aspects of F1 to me, and especially in this new era.
This is one reason why teams do not want 'customer' chassis. It takes the creativity out of it and is one step closer to a spec series.
Dallara anyone?
At last, it's returned to be more of an engine formula rather than the gobbledegook aero squaddlies, and I really like it.
The full story if anyone is interested.
Gotta love F1 - it never disappoints!
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 One 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 program. Their description of the history of the sensor matches.
a. During Practice 1 a difference in reading between the first three and Run 4 was detected. The same readings as Run 4 were observed throughout Practice 2.
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 4 of Practice 1, and Practice 2.
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 backup system" (emphasis added.)
c. The backup 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.
Paras 5, 6 & 7 would seem to be relevant ones. Red Bull were told to fit the sensor applying the recommended offset to bring the flow into legal parameters but the team apparently chose to ignore the stewards suggestion and used their own flow rate system.
Gotta love F1 - it never disappoints!
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 One 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 program. Their description of the history of the sensor matches.
a. During Practice 1 a difference in reading between the first three and Run 4 was detected. The same readings as Run 4 were observed throughout Practice 2.
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 4 of Practice 1, and Practice 2.
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 backup system" (emphasis added.)
c. The backup 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.
Paras 5, 6 & 7 would seem to be relevant ones. Red Bull were told to fit the sensor applying the recommended offset to bring the flow into legal parameters but the team apparently chose to ignore the stewards suggestion and used their own flow rate system.
Update: Several other teams had the same issue and when contacted by the FIA pointing out that their homologated sensor indicated they were flowing in excess of the mandated rate of 100 kg/hr. they adjusted the flow to show a rate just below the legal maximum to the satisfaction of the FIA.
THAT, was the way to do it Mr Horner.
On second thoughts, he didn't actually look shocked, he looked afraid.
This is what Luca di Montezemolo must have meant last week when he said:
"Such an important set of changes to the regulations is bringing some grey areas, for example fuel, software, consumption," wrote Montezemolo.
"In these I am fully expecting the FIA to be vigilant - as I'm sure they will be - to avoid any trickery, which has also taken place in the recent past but must not happen any more for the good of this sport."
Then, intriguingly:.....
"The drivers will have to take care that they do not wear out the tyres and save fuel... I hope they don't turn into taxi drivers and I say that with the greatest respect to taxi drivers, but they obviously do a different job."
Oh the chicanery! What do taxi drivers do? (especially Italian ones)
Fiddle the Meters! Clever comment.
THAT, was the way to do it Mr Horner.
On second thoughts, he didn't actually look shocked, he looked afraid.
This is what Luca di Montezemolo must have meant last week when he said:
"Such an important set of changes to the regulations is bringing some grey areas, for example fuel, software, consumption," wrote Montezemolo.
"In these I am fully expecting the FIA to be vigilant - as I'm sure they will be - to avoid any trickery, which has also taken place in the recent past but must not happen any more for the good of this sport."
Then, intriguingly:.....
"The drivers will have to take care that they do not wear out the tyres and save fuel... I hope they don't turn into taxi drivers and I say that with the greatest respect to taxi drivers, but they obviously do a different job."
Oh the chicanery! What do taxi drivers do? (especially Italian ones)
Fiddle the Meters! Clever comment.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
What I don't get is if fuel flow exceeded the maximum, would that not put RB at a disadvantage as everyone was trying to conserve fuel?
Also as the driver has no control over this why take his points why not just penalise the constructors points.
I also agree with previous comments if F1 is to become an economy run pandering to the green lobby I will quickly lose interest.
I also agree with Clive channel tens broadcast of the event was abysmal with one mental heavyweight gushing "because the cars are direct injected they don't have spark plugs".
They 10, spent hours on self promotion of their upcoming shows and interviews with hasbeen sports people totally unrelated to motor sport,who just wanted to be seen.
Fortunately they handed over the broadcast of the actual race to the Brits.
Also as the driver has no control over this why take his points why not just penalise the constructors points.
I also agree with previous comments if F1 is to become an economy run pandering to the green lobby I will quickly lose interest.
I also agree with Clive channel tens broadcast of the event was abysmal with one mental heavyweight gushing "because the cars are direct injected they don't have spark plugs".
They 10, spent hours on self promotion of their upcoming shows and interviews with hasbeen sports people totally unrelated to motor sport,who just wanted to be seen.
Fortunately they handed over the broadcast of the actual race to the Brits.
Not necessarily Pete as there are two fuel restrictions. The 100kg race limit and the 100kg/hr flow rate limit. The latter has been brought in to contain the power outputs. These motors are quite capable of putting out 1,000 hp in turbo trim, so that all they would have to do is cruise around in 500 hp mode with a 'push to pass' facility of another 500 hp and the fuel flow rate maximum mandated by the FIA prevents this and the attendant high costs involved.
It also makes sure they have to continually harvest and use hybrid power to be competitive.
We don't know the exact efficiency of these engines, but I believe Rosberg achieved the victory running at 96 kg/hr so you can imagine that if the thing was tweaked to over 100 kg/hr it might give you a major power advantage with the caveat that you might not reach the end of the race. The other Merc teams didn't seem to have to go into fuel save mode that much, but it was noticeable that Torro Rosso did.
It just shows the efficiency of these engines that they achieved this race distance on 30kgs less fuel than last year, and it's only a beginning.
Rosberg only went into fuel save mode a couple of times and that shows the advantage they have.
To be honest, it's a software engineers dream series now...
I feel really sorry for DR as he put on a greatly mature show and didn't put a wheel wrong, but, I do think RB made the wrong call and that the penalty will stick.
Edit: The driver shouldn't be seen to benefit from what might be considered a deliberate infringement of the rules, but accidental is another matter. They may, just leave his points and take Red Bulls. I don't know if that is possible though.
It also makes sure they have to continually harvest and use hybrid power to be competitive.
We don't know the exact efficiency of these engines, but I believe Rosberg achieved the victory running at 96 kg/hr so you can imagine that if the thing was tweaked to over 100 kg/hr it might give you a major power advantage with the caveat that you might not reach the end of the race. The other Merc teams didn't seem to have to go into fuel save mode that much, but it was noticeable that Torro Rosso did.
It just shows the efficiency of these engines that they achieved this race distance on 30kgs less fuel than last year, and it's only a beginning.
Rosberg only went into fuel save mode a couple of times and that shows the advantage they have.
To be honest, it's a software engineers dream series now...
I feel really sorry for DR as he put on a greatly mature show and didn't put a wheel wrong, but, I do think RB made the wrong call and that the penalty will stick.
Edit: The driver shouldn't be seen to benefit from what might be considered a deliberate infringement of the rules, but accidental is another matter. They may, just leave his points and take Red Bulls. I don't know if that is possible though.
They were able to coast to the braking point of a corner and then take the corner normally without losing any time over a more conventional approach. It's a whole different ball game with these cars.
But, constant changes ARE constant changes, my friend. The thought I was trying to convey is much the same as my view with regard to drivers driving down a 4-lane road or a hiway - PICK A DARNED LANE AND A DARNED SPEED AND MAINTAIN IT for Pete's sake...and keep the gallopin' clang out of everybody else's way. Change just for the sake of change (or, God FORBID, to bow to the 'greenies') is a pain in the butt plain and simple IMHO...)
Yeah, I know that view isn't "p.c.". Tryyyyyyyyy to imagine how little I care...
I'm going to my room now...
