Grand Prix 2014 Australian Grand Prix Practice, Qualifying & Race Discussion

24 years old. Apprenticeship fully served, and finally arrived in one of the two seats that you've been working towards sitting in for years; that of the quadruple reigning champions. And to start with, your home Grand Prix. All you need is for the car and engine combination to maintain its previous stratospheric standards...

At time of going to press, testing has shown little sign that Daniel Ricciardo's dream will be realised. Although, it has to be said, at time of going to press, testing has not been quite as indicative as it could have been. We don't know who is going to be fast and we won't know until the lights go out in Melbourne.

Ricciardo's team-mate, paradoxical pantomime villain and quadrakaiser Sebastian Vettel is going for his tenth race win in a row, although early suggestions are that his assault on double figures might not be as straightforward as some of the previous nine. At Jerez, getting to double figures in terms of laps was a struggle..

Ricciardo will have to make sure he performs well this season to make sure he keeps the dream seat ahead of Daniil Kvyat, presuming the young Russian puts Jean-Eric Vergne's F1 career to sleep in a dignified and respectful ceremony.

Lotus, meanwhile, have very little money, necessitating the parachuting in of Scrooge El Duck as their driver to back up 2012's other panel-beater Romain Grosjean. Their nose looks rather different to anything else out there, and is closest in design to Williams' 2004 walrus nose. Which doesn't save the fears.

McLaren and Mercedes will back up their silver cars with a British World Champion, a Mercedes engine and a plethora of team principals. Button is, of course, the Melbourne specialist. They've got some running in at Jerez; it is unknown whether either are quick, but neither are stationary.

Fernando Alonso's Ferrari hegemony is about to be challenged by Kimi Raikkonen's arrival. Raikkonen won in Australia last year, so he's got form, and this race will be the first to tell us if Ferrari team radio this year will be a story of two passionate racers abusing their engineers, or two old men moaning about their backs.

Sauber's driver line-up is the most boring thing in Formula One since the US Grand Prix of 2005.

Nico Hulkenburg gets ready for his third consecutive last year before he is signed by a big team. A poor Force India will lead to the Hulk crying himself to sleep, while team-mate Sergio Perez comforts him with stories about how McLaren isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Williams have an interesting partnership; Felipe Massa released from the suffocating stranglehold of the Alonso anaconda and partnered with an almost-ripe pretender in Valteri Bottas. They have a new old livery, a new sponsor and new hope. Williams-Mercedes still doesn't sound right.

And, hey, the 2014 Australian Grand Prix has to be the best chance for Marussia and Caterham to actually score a point; only 9 of the other teams' engines need fall apart and 6 of them are made by Renault! Race finishing expert Max Chilton could be the beneficiary. Although he could actually finish 11th if there are only 10 finishers.

So, all that's left to talk about is Melbourne itself. Despite the rugby and cricket last year, the Grand Prix itself has been quite Pommie friendly in the last several years! The yellow lines at the edge of the track bordered by green walls have been a sign of F1 starting for a number of years, and there has been good racing backed up by poor reliability. And, boy, do we expect poor reliability...
 
This is where F1 shoots itself in the foot. Why over complicate things? If the rules state they are only allowed to use 100kg during the race and the car can make it back to the pits on ERS power then why let the teams carry more than 100kg?

They restrict the tyres allocated to the team so why not make sure all cars are empty of fuel after qualifying and then just issue 100kg of fuel per car to the team before the race.

Fuel is a dangerous liquid so I'm sure that there are strict COSHH controls or equivalent in place so the teams know exactly how much fuel they have in their garage and where it is stored, especially after the Williams fire. This should be made available to the FIA so teams can't try and keep a spare bit to one side.

To make things even easier why don't the FIA issue a standard 100kg fuel tank to all the teams. Why have this fuel rate nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Why would a team put in more fuel than is absolutely necessary? More fuel means extra weight and extra weight means slower lap times and a larger fuel tank than needed would mean extra weight and wasted space, and I am fairly sure that the cooling down lap and the fuel sample is included in the 100kg but not absolutely certain, maybe someone could clarify that for me..

I didn't say they would I said they could(and have too in order to do the race) and I'm absolutely certain the rule is 100kg from lights to flag because the issue discussed before the season started was not that we were going to see the cars run out of fuel and out on track but that they'd finish as normal and we'd get told afterwards they'd gone over. Which we all rightly predicted would lead to post race DQ's just like we've had - only this one was of course about the fuel flow rate.

F1Yorkshire the FIA do now have a system in the cars so they can see, in live time, how much fuel is in the car. Its the same system that monitors the fuel rate. As I suggested before the season started if these systems are live time the easiest thing would be to make them avalible on the TV feed. That way as the race was on we could all see who had exceeded what and what fuel rate was kicking off. That way any DQs would be expected and not a shock 4 hours after the race. But F1 teams are naturally secretive.
 
Last edited:
teabagyokel and Mephistopheles I believe the warm up and cool down laps are not included in the 100kg, which is just for the race, but the regulations have also been changed this year to say you have to be able to complete the cool down lap and get back to the pits under your own steam. So when the cars leave the pits to go to the grid they have more than 100kg. I think...
 
Last edited:
There is also the pit to start lap which is using fuel, the cars are allowed to do a second lap, more fuel again. Adding fuel on the grid with all those hanger-on, whoops, vital people, milling around would not be safe. So more allowing than 100 kg is sensible.
 
In Australia there was an extra warm up lap too, so eventualities need to be catered for. It is also worth remembering that no-one was penalised for using more than 100kg of fuel.

Indeed, no one needed to have been penalised for using a higher than allowed flow rate, they simply had to FOLLOW A SIMPLE ****ING INSTRUCTION.

So in short, had Red Bull complied with the instruction from the FIA, no one would have been DQ'd for any fuel flow or total use contraventions.
 
Should be a short hearing.


Horner would not be resorting to such an extreme measure if he were not supremely confident in his data. Which tells me he has multiple reasons to trust in the accuracy of his fuel injector sensors.

First of all, at least two teams -- neither of them Red Bull -- identified the FMFS problem to the FIA prior to Melbourne. Ferrari informed them last year, while their engines still were on the test bench, noting that the devices were so temperamental the error rate fluctuated according to the fuel blend. And McLaren voiced the same opinion after the first day of winter testing. Both teams insist the device fails to meet homologation standards, which means the FIA itself are issuing a device that contravenes TR 5.10.4. But the FIA did not take their warnings to heart until too little time remained to the first race of the season to source a suitable replacement.

The fuel injector sensors were manufactured by Renault, for Renault, and Renault technicians are available to recalibrate them at team's request. The fuel mass flow sensor was manufactured by a FIA appointee, and the device receives neither recalibration nor adjustment once it leaves the factory.

Injector sensor data also is used to control the engine fuel/air mix. In such a highly-stressed engine (particularly one with forced induction), if fuel/air balance were not letter-perfect, every Renault-powered team would be lunching engines at an alarming rate.

The teams have developed techniques for estimating fuel burn to within 1% based on real-time suspension load telemetry data, tempered with historic fuel consumption rates. And they routinely weigh their cars, which is a direct measure of fuel consumption (adjusted, of course, with loss of other fluids and tyre tread). So they know to a certainty the weight of the fuel consumed.

It is at the teams' discretions to replace any suspect fuel injector sensor. Red Bull #3, OTOH, was being required by the FIA to operate using a known defective FMFS. The FIA directed that Red Bull apply a whimsical "offset" to correct proven false and randomly fluctuating readings from a known defective FMFS. The FIA even previously had agreed this particular device was defective. What could possibly go wrong?

And the FIA's entire annual operating budget is less than what Red Bull spends on bog supplies, so there can be no doubt which entity has the superior testing equipment.

So the teams have motive, opportunity and technical facility to keep their fuel injector sensors tuned and calibrated to within one-half the thickness of a blonde pubic hair.


According to their fuel injector sensor data, Red Bull already were operating 4kg/hr beneath TR 5.1.4's limit. Because they considered this a more than adequate margin, and because they were unwilling to suffer any further loss of performance, they disregarded the FIA's recommended offset, indirectly disregardingTechnical Directive 016-14 (issued only on the final day of winter testing).

But a TD is not a regulation. There is no regulation anointing TDs with force of law. A regulation is not contestable but a TD is. Red Bull are not contesting a reg, they are contesting a TD. They contend they remained entirely within 5.1.4 for the duration of the race.


If Red Bull are successful in proving to a certainty Ricciardo's fuel flow rate never exceeded 96kg/hr, then the charge of violating 5.1.4. is disproved. And without a violation of 5.1.4, there can be no breach of SR 3.2.

And the only question that would remain is what's to be done about TD016/4, and the wonky Gill sensors.


Gill Sensors are the new Pirelli. Welcome to 2014.
 
This is a tricky situation. If Red Bull are able to prove that they are innocent of all charges then F1 is going to look very silly. It's a shame that it has come to this so early in the season.

In my opinion Red Bull broke the rules in this race. I believe this even if they prove that the sensors are faulty and they are abandoned for the rest of the season. A rule is a rule, and they chose not to follow directives from the FIA. Blog Zbod showed that the team may get away with not following the FIA recommendation if the sensors are proven faulty. They broke a rule during the race, if the rule is changed after the race and Red Bull are awarded the points then everyone else is affected.

Other teams may have received the same warning from the FIA (if they didn't, then use this as a hypothetical) and not decided to ignore it. They then would have been driving around at a slower pace due to the fuel flow restrictions suggested by the FIA, their finishing position would have been lower and this punishment, for following a RULE I may add, would be irreversible despite any later rule changes.

It goes back to the adage - "it's better to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission."

In other words, screw the rules if you can come up with a good reason for doing so. This, as a rule follower, frustrates me. Those that follow the rules should be rewarded instead of being punished for not pushing the envelope.
 
I posted after the race that I believe Red Bull have a good chance of winning and the FIA have a case to answer.
Knowingly supplying defective components is not going to be good for their (the FIA's) defense.
 
Jonathan Noble writes today on various and sundry web sites that this is no different from the weighbridge scale being in error, and that the FIA is the final authority regarding accuracy. Mr. Noble apparently is unfamiliar with the term nonsequitir, because what he offers is a textbook example.

Every team uses the exact same weighbridge. Weighbridge error, if any, affects every team and driver equally. The wonky Gill sensors affect, not just every team, but every driver differentially.

The FIA did not create the kilogram, nor any accredited standard for measuring the kilogram. Their delusions of grandeur (nor Mr. Noble's apparent smittenness) notwithstanding, the FIA are not the final arbiters as to exactly what constitutes a kilogram.

I didn't think I would regret Matt Hughes leaving Autosport so quickly.


One frequent question I see posted in discussions of this topic around the Interwebs is, "The other teams all accepted the FIA's instructions. Why can't Red Bull?" But the more relevant question is, "Why can't all the other teams win a combined 40 races over the four most recent seasons?"

The answer to both questions is the same.


The sequence of events and the timing of the release of TD016/14 give me to believe this has nothing to do with regulations or with cheating. The FIA issued TD016/14 to obfuscate their own ineptitude in the sourcing of a 'supposedly' homologated device. They were dismissive of the superiority of Red Bull's test data and now Red Bull are taking them to task for it. This is a turf war, pure and simple. The FIA are arguing its boy-parts are bigger than Red Bull's, and TD016/14 is the yardstick.
 
That point seems to go completely over the top of some peoples heads gethinceri RedBull ignored the directive set by the stewards just like Benetton-Ford ignored the stewards at Silverstone 1994 and what went from a simple 5 second stop and go penalty ended up as a 500,000 dollar fine disqualification from the race and a two race ban, all because they would not accept the stewards instructions and argued the toss.

I think RB should think long and hard before persuading this any further because there is a distinct possibility that things could end up a lot worse for them..
 
Last edited:
Sequence of events
  • FIA Rule: Use max. 100kg/h of fuel at any time
  • FIA Enforcement: Use FIA sensors
  • Teams: Your sensors don't work
  • FIA: OK, fair enough, use these offsets, should give an accurate reading
  • Other Teams: We'll do that, and run a little under just to be safe
  • Red Bull Racing: Can we use our own readings?
  • No
  • Well, we're going to anyway
  • From your telemetry, it is clear you have breached the rules. Here's a chance to remedy that
  • No
  • We'll just make sure.
  • We've spent 3 hours testing, it is still clear you have breached the rules. You're disqualified.
  • That's not fair
 
  • FIA: OK, fair enough, use these offsets, should give an accurate reading
The offsets don't give an accurate reading.
They just provide enough leeway for the teams to be below the threshold.

I personally hope RBR win this case.
If it was a "normal" court they would.
As it's run by the FIA though...
 
How do we know Red Bulls sensors were more accurate? RB's may have given a more convenient reading say 98kg/h when the other one was reading 101kg/h but we don't know which one was more accurate.

I think the problem started when the teams were told they could not go over 100kg/h by even the smallest of margins as everything has a built in tolerance there is no such thing as spot on in engineering terms it is just impossible to achieve, and so the only way to make sure you don't go over is to allow for a margin of error on the safe side in other words it is perfectly logical to apply an offset, Red Bull for whatever reason did not want to do this even though they were warned time and time again that they were in breach of the rules...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom