Red Bull to focus appeal on fuel sensor rule

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Daniel Ricciardo, Red Bull, Albert Park, 2014In the round-up: Red Bull will make a question of interpretation over the rules regarding fuel flow rate a focus of their appeal against Daniel Ricciardo’s disqualification.

Links

Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Red Bull reveal case argument (Sky)

“The world champions’ argument centres on the wording of the FIA’s Technical Regulations with Article 5.1.4 stating ‘Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h’. However, as it does not say that this reading has to come from the FIA’s sensor Red Bull feel they can use their own measurements to prove they did not breach the regulations.”

Further issues ‘anticipated’ by Renault (ESPN)

“We had several issues across the cars in Melbourne but we have recreated the problems in the dyno at Viry. Most are fixed and the remaining will be under control by Friday in Sepang.”

Mercedes wary of Red Bull threat (Autosport)

Toto Wolff: “We haven’t seen Sebastian [Vettel] running with a reliable car and a fast car and you would expect him with his experience to go even faster.”

Former F1 doctor says he knows of ‘serious lapses of judgement’ in Schumacher’s care and he is now unlikely to ever recover (Daily Mail)

“Gary Hartstein, F1 sport’s chief doctor between 2005 and 2012, says he had heard from ‘usually impeccable sources’ to say that these lapses ‘could, and almost certainly did, worsen the outcome in Michael’s case.’ But he does not explain what this medical mismanagement was.”

Mediapro Plans 24-Hour Formula 1 Channel for Latin America (Bloomberg)

“Spanish television-production company Mediapro plans to start a regional 24-hour Formula One channel after acquiring the series’ rights for most of Central and South America and the Caribbean.”

F1 warned it is facing fan revolt over ‘silent’ engines – ‘the sound is a disgrace’ (The Independent)

Australian Grand Prix promoter Ron Walker: “We haven’t signed a new contract with Bernie, so this is going to put a lot of pressure on the FIA. It doesn’t have the right to destroy this sport. It will ruin the sport that Bernie built over this. Out of any single problem, this is the one that will kill the golden goose. It is hard enough to sell tickets now but this is arrogance at the worst from Jean Todt.”

Formula One needs new solution before total revolt (The Telegraph)

“The idea that a ‘fans’ revolt’ is sufficient to precipitate a major change in the regulations is also frankly laughable, given how the imposition of double points is at odds with the view of the overwhelming majority of fans, as well as drivers.”

Bernie Ecclestone must find a way to silence F1′s great noise debate (The Guardian)

Derek Warwick: “These cars are more difficult to drive and we’re going to see a massive difference between the good drivers and the average drivers.”

FIA knew seven years ago that V6 sound would be “unappealing” (Adam Cooper’s F1 Blog)

“The noise of high rpm is to be replaced, by what we don’t know, but it will be quieter. The view is that the risk of this new noise being unappealing is a risk worth taking.”

Tosh in the papers (Joe Saward)

“One might speculate that such a story is designed to frighten investors looking to buy Formula One from CVC Capital Partners.”

Tweets

Comment of the day

Dietrich Mateschitz isn’t happy with the new Formula One rules but @JayMenon10 reckons they’ve got it right:

I think everyone who has been complaining about the apparent lack of noise and the fact that the cars are lapping slower need to take a step back and look at the big picture.

F1 was once sold as the breeding grounds for new automotive technology. A lot of F1 technology pioneered in the 80s and 90s are common place in our road cars now. Over the last ten years, innovation has been stifled by regressive rules. The arrival of the new formula is the shot in the arm we needed in F1. More than anything else, it is relevant to the current market. LMP1 and WEC were more road relevant than F1. This is probably why it has thrived over the same period where F1 has remained stale.

Yes it doesn’t sound as great, and it does take some of the thrill away, but we need to be progressive. The pace will come, and it will be back to F1 speeds very soon.

The change to the new formula has probably safeguarded the long term future of the sport. I’m being optimistic, but the return of Honda could herald the beginning of a new constructor era. I say this because, if the Porsche 918 and McLaren P1 are anything to go by, this new high performance hybrid technology will be what every car manufacturer is coveting!

Would love to see BMW and Toyota back as engine suppliers!
@JayMenon10

Snapshot

Jarno Trulli, Formula E, 2014

Jarno Trulli has become the latest driver to sample a Formula E car. See video and more images from his test here:

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Alianora La Canta, Fallon, Henrique Pinheiro, Jake and Jorge H.!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Nigel Mansell took a surprise win in his first race for Ferrari at Brazil 25 years ago today.

The new Ferrari 640′s semi-automatic gearbox had given the team endless grief in testing and Mansell even had to pit for a replacement wheel at one point in the race.

But with Ayrton Senna eliminating himself in a first-corner collision with Mansell’s team mate Gerhard Berger, and the other McLaren of Alain Prost suffered clutch trouble, Mansell claimed a win few had predicted.

On the podium the race promoters presented Mansell with his hard-won trophy – which the unfortunate driver then cut his hands on…

http://youtu.be/lCG-_nTT6Ws?t=6m9s

Image © Red Bull/Getty

Advert | Go Ad-free

185 comments on Red Bull to focus appeal on fuel sensor rule

  1. GeeMac (@geemac) said on 26th March 2014, 5:42

    The show is suffering is the argument but the fastest cars at the Le Mans 24 Hours of recent years have also been the quietest – the diesel-hybrids of Audi – and that race’s popularity is only growing.

    This is the key quote of the day for me. WEC is undergoing a resurgence in popularity and they have been running relatively quiet powertrains in LMP1 for years now, not a soul is complaining about lack of noise in that series. The F1 noise naysayers (who really only seem to be Bernie, a few of his well heeled mates and a group of fickle fans) really need to get over this now.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 26th March 2014, 7:14

      It was nice to see so many never fans comment on Keiths piece doing the race report from Brazil ’94, that they hadn’t realised that at the time F1 was far from being as loud as it has been with the V8s/V10s in the last decade @geemac.

      To me its fascinating to see these cars get more out of the energy they have, and for F1, I really like to see the cars are harder to control now, because it makes the driver stand out more when they have to think where they can apply the throttle.

    • Timothy Katz (@timothykatz) said on 26th March 2014, 20:26

      @geemac Even though there were a few critics of the Audi’s when they were first introduced, I broadly agree with you. And I certainly agree with @bascb concerning the absolute joy of seeing a driver having to control a car which doesn’t look as though it’s on rails.
      I *do* wonder if Bernie (and one or two other) is just unable to accept change that he has not proposed himself (It looks a little like the dinosaur mentality that the Indy 500 people displayed in the ‘Offenhauser and front engine’ days) and I also wonder if this is part of a power struggle for the soul of F1 between FOM and the FIA.

  2. Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 26th March 2014, 6:19

    Gary Hartstein is disputing the angle which has been put on his comments, though here he is referring to a different but similar article:

    https://twitter.com/former_f1doc/status/448694968706945024

  3. quads said on 26th March 2014, 6:39

    I think putting all focus on the (lack of) engine sound, when discussing the new formula, is wrong. A more relevant question should be regarding the racing aspect.
    “How do you like the fact that the driver of the new formula will have to “lift off and coast” a significant part of the lap, on many laps of the race, in order to SAVE FUEL to make it to the checkered flag?”.

    • Optimaximal (@optimaximal) said on 26th March 2014, 9:29

      To be honest, will you notice? Such a line of thinking ignores the fact that most teams have been doing this since 2010 because the lack of refuelling has meant all the cars have been fuelled as slightly as possible to eek out 1-2 ms advantage. The only reason you didn’t really hear the lift & coast was because of the general engine noise, even at idle.

  4. I think the fan revolt is much more worrying than first thought. The f1f shows that enthusiasts are split but people with less praise for the spport are bound to see the lack of “wow” as a deal breaker and forget f1. What this tells us is that f1 needs its particularities to address new fans, making the argument that people needed to be fooled by the engine capacity and layout to be drawn to f1 the opposite of reality. Nevertheless from a fan point of view f1 is better now for some reasons but its acceptable that the viewership is lacking interest what’s not acceptable is for ron walker to use the sound as a barganing chip considering the Uncertanty and support they’ve had throughout the years.

    • Optimaximal (@optimaximal) said on 26th March 2014, 9:31

      people with less praise for the spport are bound to see the lack of “wow” as a deal breaker and forget f1.

      But there’s still a significant amount of ‘wow’. It’s just not all concentrated around your ear drums anymore.

  5. Girts (@girts) said on 26th March 2014, 9:46

    I believe that Ron Walker’s outrage is just a load of nonsense. If someone wants to sue F1 for not being loud enough, then you’re welcome to go on, the court will have a good laugh.

    This whole debate reminds me of what we had after the 2010 Bahrain GP. After one dull race there were people, who called for a revolution and turning back time to the 1970s. Then a few exciting races followed but some people still claimed that F1 was “broken”. Then we saw one of the best seasons ever. It made the rule makers decide that F1 needed DRS to prevent the sport from a total collapse.

    You could say the same thing about changes to the points system since 2002. After Schumacher (God bless him!) clinched his fifth title on July 21, the points system became bad and had to be changed to make the difference between the first and the other places less significant. After several down-to-the-wire championships it turned out that winning had to be rewarded (again). Then Vettel wiped the floor with his competitors last year and double points were suddenly the way to go even though F1 had survived the previous 64 years without even thinking about such obscenities.

    Seriously, there is nothing wrong about having a healthy debate and I’m glad to read the thoughtful comments on F1 Fanatic but F1 has to be run by grown-ups, who should make mature and reasonable decisions.

  6. Several readers have posted long lists of issues with the current F1 regulations. To me the main problem is that FIA seems to be in a state of “over fixing” which has produced multiple solutions to the same problems; consequently creating a non-transparent mess that again is most likely to repel the casual viewer.

    - DRS / ERS:
    Two completely different systems but with the same intent and effect: a boost to the speed or acceleration. As most here I disagree with DRS and especially in combination with the more powerful ERS system of this year. ERS is great because it is always equal for all and has a very strategic element as well. But how is the casual viewer expected to understand which “overtake” button is pressed when?

    - Degrading tires / fuel saving:
    Again I disagree that racing shouldn’t be about pushing to the max but I also accept that these factors provide strategic elements and at least the fuel part has manufacturer/road relevance. But why do we need two factors of the same effect? Of course; the drivers can save on both at the same time but even for the seasoned viewer it will be hard to convey which one is the the determining factor unless the radio messages directly states it.

    - Smaller turbo engine / lower revs:
    Though it obviously dampens the sound I think the turbos are the correct way to go as far as keeping manufacturers interested. Indeed the bonus of the added torque is a welcome new element. But why did FIA need to limit the revs so significantly at the same time? I doubt that the actual decibel levels are the main sound problem but much rather the pitch; the lack of the hair raising drama from the high pitch squeal which is not even related to cylinder count or volume.

    - Reduced down-force / double points bonanza:
    You might not immediately see these as two sides of the same coin but I will argue that both have originated from the same issue: One certain team being too dominant in the aero department and consequently as a whole. Reduced down force could also be coupled with DRS in this argumentation and a lot of us have been hoping for a reduction in down force for a long time. We finally see things going in the right direction, only to get our beloved sport ridiculed by the travesty of the hyper irrational double points bogus coincidence finale!

    You can probably find more double fixes than mentioned here but my main point is just that even though I appreciate FIA being somewhat more proactive than in the past, it is lacking the clear vision and proper leadership to focus in detail on each issue at hand as well as the determination and clarity of the goal at hand to get things solved right before moving on to something else.

    I always loved racing for being a pure sport with the clear goal of taking the checkered flag first. Though I also love the technical complexity of F1 it shouldn’t effect the beautiful simplicity of what racing was supposed to be in the first place and unfortunately F1 anno 2014 is nothing short of a mess.

    • Optimaximal (@optimaximal) said on 26th March 2014, 10:26

      - DRS / ERS:
      Two completely different systems but with the same intent and effect: a boost to the speed or acceleration. As most here I disagree with DRS and especially in combination with the more powerful ERS system of this year. ERS is great because it is always equal for all and has a very strategic element as well. But how is the casual viewer expected to understand which “overtake” button is pressed when?

      *BZZT* No, they’re completely different beasts. DRS came about as a response to driver-controlled rear-wing stalling, pioneered by McLaren – they knew that they couldn’t make the engineers ‘unlearn’ that it worked, so they made it a limited-use driver tool. The trade off was they also lost their adjustable front wing.
      ERS (under the guise of KERS) was a push-to-pass tool, but that was to make sure teams used & developed it. First-gen KERS came with a weight/balance trade-off. It’s been getting smaller ever since. New ERS is completely passive – the ECU/PU uses it to seemlessly increase fuel economy.

      Again I disagree that racing shouldn’t be about pushing to the max but I also accept that these factors provide strategic elements and at least the fuel part has manufacturer/road relevance. But why do we need two factors of the same effect? Of course; the drivers can save on both at the same time but even for the seasoned viewer it will be hard to convey which one is the the determining factor unless the radio messages directly states it.

      The tyres *are* a ‘for show’ thing. The idea hit the drawing board following Canada 2010. Pirelli are in the CRH’s pocket, although the FIA handled the tender. If it was about road-relevance, we’d have Michellin’s low-profile ‘slick wets’.

      - Smaller turbo engine / lower revs:
      Though it obviously dampens the sound I think the turbos are the correct way to go as far as keeping manufacturers interested. Indeed the bonus of the added torque is a welcome new element. But why did FIA need to limit the revs so significantly at the same time? I doubt that the actual decibel levels are the main sound problem but much rather the pitch; the lack of the hair raising drama from the high pitch squeal which is not even related to cylinder count or volume.

      Lower revolutions are part of the road-relevance campaign – the higher an engine revs, the more stress is put on it, the more noise it makes and (generally) the less reliable it is. Naturally aspirated engines develop most of their power at higher revs, which explains why the previous engines screamed – it also shows how good they were, given they were basically bulletproof.
      The turbo engines probably will make a lot of noise if they ever hit their 15k RPM (don’t forget, it’s still twice as fast as the majority of road engines at redline) but the MO will be short-shifting because all the power is delivered lower down the range, meaning running to the limiter is just wasting fuel.

      - Reduced down-force / double points bonanza:
      You might not immediately see these as two sides of the same coin but I will argue that both have originated from the same issue: One certain team being too dominant in the aero department and consequently as a whole. Reduced down force could also be coupled with DRS in this argumentation and a lot of us have been hoping for a reduction in down force for a long time. We finally see things going in the right direction, only to get our beloved sport ridiculed by the travesty of the hyper irrational double points bogus coincidence finale!

      The reduction in downforce is not (just) about defeating one team, but about several things.
      1 – Slowing the cars down: cornering speeds are once again too high (and they always are towards the end of a regulation period because the engineers understand the cars so well)
      2 – Reducing costs: limiting aero development prevents teams entering into an arms race, spending millions on tiny iterations of the same wing.
      3 – Road/Eco Relevance: Most road cars don’t derive their performance purely from aero aids. One engine manufacturer (driven by one team) basically made a mockery of any efficiency by running their engine with the throttle open, even when the car was under braking, to derive aero performance. The other manufacturers followed suit.

      Double Points is just a massive overeaction to a problem that doesn’t actually exist.

      Food for thought – Red Bull probably wouldn’t have dominated 2013 if the new engine spec hadn’t been delayed into 2014 through lobbying.

      • Timothy Katz (@timothykatz) said on 26th March 2014, 20:30

        but the MO will be short-shifting because all the power is delivered lower down the range

        Is that correct? I’m not challenging your knowledge, just interested to understand.

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 26th March 2014, 21:08

          @timothykatz, the fuel flow regulation,which you may have heard something about restricts max fuel flow to a rate of 100kgph and that flow rate is to occur at 10,000 or 10,500 rpm (to many changes to keep up with) so, as the maximum amount of fuel is being burnt at around 10,000 rpm no additional power is gained by exceeding that rpm but friction loss and engine stress do increase.

      • @Otimaximal Thanks, but I certainly never compared DRS and ERS technically, yet the effect is easily comparable.

        The problem with “foam” tires as a show thing is that FIA clearly missed the definition of a good racing show when the idea was derived.

        Surely the lower revs have better road relevance as do the 1.6 turbos in the first place. However, we will probably never see a 1.6 V6 in any real mass production vehicle anyway. The trend is towards less and less cylinders. As for the turbo it can be designed to work in whichever rev range is desired and the first turbos didn’t kick in until they reached a certain rev count. Even now the revs are beyond (non-exotic) road relevance and since a road car engine is expected to last a little bit longer than an F1 engine I doubt that higher rev limits would destroy manufacturer interest if it greatly enhanced the show. @hohum I completely agree that the rev limit can not be raised without a total re-design most likely not happen because it will extremely difficult and expensive but my point is that they could have set with a higher limit from the outset and lowered it from there if needed.

        I agree (and @jerseyf1 is also making this point) that there are many reasons to reduce aero and that it has been expected for a long time but you could argue that might have been extended due to single team dominance.

    • JerseyF1 (@jerseyf1) said on 26th March 2014, 14:24

      @poul The point I would disagree on is that reduced down-force is intended as a fix to single team dominance. Plans to cut downforce predate any Red Bull championships and are a factor every time regulations are updated because of the ability of engineers to constantly find more downforce.

      That said I still disagree with double points, I just don’t see if as the same issue.

  7. Arnold Triyudho Wardono (@ernietheracefan) said on 26th March 2014, 10:20

    Today is Didier Pironi & Elio de Angelis birthday..

  8. nidzovski (@nidzovski) said on 26th March 2014, 10:48

    The sound of the new engines is not down solely to the arrangement of the cylinders. I mean Indycar uses V6 engines and they have a “proper” engine noise. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZZ4ASnRVug

    • PeterG said on 26th March 2014, 13:07

      Indycar = 2.2Ltrs, Twin-Turbo’s (Although manufacturers can run a single as Honda did in 2012/13) with 2 exhaust exits out the top of the sidepods.
      F1 = 1.6Ltrs, Single (Big) turbo with a single central exhaust exit out the back of the engine cover.

      Believe the reason F1 went with 1.6Ltr engines is because of all the energy recovery systems.
      F1 went with the single turbo with the single exhaust exit where it is to get rid of all the exhaust blowing & the using of exhaust gasses to give extra downforce as we have seen the past few years.

      Been a spec series Indycar didn’t have to worry about the exhaust blowing & all that as everyone is running the same exhaust layout & rear bodywork so there’s no advantage to it.

    • Optimaximal (@optimaximal) said on 27th March 2014, 10:03

      Indycars generally run with two tailpipes, which means the harmonics will always be different, but the main reason for F1 cars sounding so quiet is the turbo is absorbing a lot of the exhaust energy, meaning less sound escapes (and it’s slower when it leaves too).

  9. Keith Campbell (@keithedin) said on 26th March 2014, 12:04

    One question on the fuel consumption fiasco that i haven’t seen answered anywhere – Did Vettel’s car also have a RedBull sensor installed or was it just on Ricciardo’s? And if not, was that because they were satisfied that Vettel’s sensor was giving an accurate reading?

    • drmouse (@drmouse) said on 26th March 2014, 14:26

      @keithedin

      Did Vettel’s car also have a RedBull sensor installed or was it just on Ricciardo’s?

      As far as I am aware, there is no “RedBull sensor”. Red Bull used their own data from the engine control electronics, like fuel injector timings. From these the teams can (and do, or even must) calculate how much fuel is going in in order to get the best out of the engine. It is accurate, but pretty useless in terms of the FIA controlling the flow rate, as there are far too many variables involved, making it possible for a team to cheat.

    • JerseyF1 (@jerseyf1) said on 26th March 2014, 14:26

      @keithedin it’s not about the sensor installed, it’s about the rate of fuel flow during the race and Vettel’s race may not have lasted long enough for the issue to arise.

      • Keith Campbell (@keithedin) said on 26th March 2014, 14:39

        Well Redbull have some way of measuring the fuel flow without using the FIA approved sensor, since their defence hinges on being able to prove they never broke the 100kg/hr rule. So whatever method they are using, i was wondering if they also used it on Vettel’s car.

        You are right that the issue never came up for him, but i was curious anyway.

        • MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 26th March 2014, 14:57

          It seems to be a common mistake people are making. Red Bull didn’t have some alternative device fitted to the car, like a different fuel flow sensor. They have made calculations from other systems on the car, most likely from the fuel pressure, injector pulse timing/duration, and so on, which should all have a decent fidelity and be a relatively accurate measurement of how much fuel is being used.

          The issue is that they believe that during the race, the FIA fuel flow sensor on Ricciardos car wasn’t functioning properly and was giving a higher reading that it should have done, outside of the accepted tolerance of the sensor. They came to this belief because the readings coming from the FIA sensor didn’t match their own observations on fuel flow as described above, and since the sensor had already proven to be faulty through previous sessions, it seemed like a pretty fair assumption that it was the sensor itself which was at fault.

          I’m glad they took the decision to push on and then fight it afterwards when the car was DSQ. Because basically what we have here is a challenge which posits that the mandated FIA fuel flow sensor is not accurate/reliable enough to be used as the sole metric for checking compliance with the rules. If RBR can prove that the sensor was wrong, then the implications are pretty big, as it’ll mean that in future either a different technical solution will need to be found, or we will see a lot of teams disputing the readings the FIA are using.

          • Keith Campbell (@keithedin) said on 26th March 2014, 15:41

            Fair enough, guess that would explain why i haven’t seen Vettel’s car discussed. But i agree it’s good that this issue came up in the first race so that hopefully a solution is found quickly and we have no further disputes on this (resolving during testing would be better ofc) . I’m sure they will find other contentious issues during the year ;)

          • Optimaximal (@optimaximal) said on 27th March 2014, 10:06

            It would never have been resolved during testing because the Renault cars did not do enough running at full performance to generate sufficient data on their engine performance at various flow rates.

            We don’t actually know if there’s a fuel consumption issue with the Renault engines, nor do we know if the Renault is slightly down on power for the given fuel flow mandated by the regulations – we (nor Renault/the teams) probably won’t get an accurate picture for a few races.

  10. Joey-Poey (@joey-poey) said on 26th March 2014, 12:43

    Next poll: do you feel like Bernie is listening to your concerns and speaking for you?
    A)no
    B)no
    C)sprinklers!

  11. GeorgeTuk (@georgetuk) said on 26th March 2014, 12:54

    I really wish Gary Hartstein would go away and keep quiet about everything. Twitter has made him way more vocal than he should be.

  12. eefay kerr said on 26th March 2014, 17:30

    I don’t care about the politics of double points and drs etc. They are set in stone&i like the innovation& i like the incentive of double points. F1 is brilliant however any fan who has ever been at a race knows that wen the pack of v8 or v10 powered cars passes u in the grand stand it was an experience u cannot replicate.You felt all that power tingling on ur body and shaking ur teeth then u heard it propperly as it passed like a mini concord. Im lucky to have experienced this. The tv car noise is not the same, the noise of the car comes via a digital sound system.It never replicated the v8′s or v10′s well at all. I feel sorry for every person who has been robbed of that spectacular feeling the first time u hear all the cars at high revs in ur life.
    They can make a v6 noisy so easily and increase the revs a bit.
    2014 the year of 15,000revs&QUIET f1 cars! WHY? Its noise not pollution&its once per year at any track. Bernie is correct to be annoyed and the ozzy’s are not happy.The guy sed no contract has been signed to race at albert park nxt year. Something has to and will change. Its one of the worlds biggest sporting events (an f1 season) look at the world cup and olympics they are every four years. An f1 season is every year and just as globally successful and well known as football or the olympics.
    I just want thunderous noise as duz mrB
    It’s part of the spectacle. We’ve been robbed.

  13. OneBHK (@onebhk) said on 26th March 2014, 17:35

    Congratulations to Sebastian Vettel for winning the prestigious Laureus World Sportsman of the Year award

  14. Here’s a partial list of things we’d don’t know about the fuel flow sensors. I don’t claim it’s complete, feel free to add your own.

    1) There are reports that Gill offers only a 30 day warranty on each sensor. Is this true? If it is, are the sensors being replaced by the FIA every 30 days?

    2) What is the claimed degree of accuracy for the sensors being installed in the cars? If it is really 0.1% as some sources say than there should be no reason to apply “offsets” to any of them.

    3) We’ve heard that some (but not all) sensors are having an “offset” applied to them which supposedly brings their readings “into compliance”. This raises the question of what outside standard of measurement is being used to calculate the “offset” and to determine the accuracy of the sensors.

    4) According to Whiting: “We know, for example, what the fuel used at the end of lap 24 was. And that will be the starting point for our new calculation.”

    That claim implies an FIA process very, very different from simply installing a Gill fuel flow sensor before the race and accepting its readings as final. It says that the FIA are constantly making “new calculations” throughout the race to try to determine if the sensors are accurate or not. As with the “offsets” this again suggests that the FIA have recourse to some other method of measurement outside of the sensors themselves which is used to determine sensor accuracy during the course of the race. What is that method?

    I’ll append an observation to these questions. It’s hard not to suspect that the FIA are using the teams own internal fuel flow data to calibrate the FIA fuel flow sensors.

    • Optimaximal (@optimaximal) said on 27th March 2014, 10:13

      Gill offer a 30-day window where they say the sensor will maintain it’s compliance with their advised tolerance (which I – it can probably be returned for recalibration or tuning. The specsheet for the sensor (here) says the following:

      52% of meters are within ± 0.1% accuracy
      of reading
      92% of meters are within ± 0.25% accuracy
      of reading

      I don’t think there’s enough public information about what factors can cause it to run outside of tolerance, but all sensing devices, specifically passive ones, can only be so accurate.

  15. SauberS1 (@saubers1) said on 26th March 2014, 19:26

    This is a good idea!

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.