Current Red Bull Racing

Red Bull Racing

FIA Entry: Red Bull Racing Renault
Car 1: Sebastien Vettel
Car 2: Mark Webber
Engine: Renault V8
Team Owner: Dietrich Mateschitz
Team Principal: Christian Horner
Chief Technical: Office Adrian Newey
Chief Designer: Rob Marshall
Race Engineer Car 1: Guillaume “Rocky” Rocquelin
Race Engineer Car 2: Ciaron Pilbeam

Stats as of end 2010

First Entered 2005
Races Entered 107
Race Wins 15
Pole Positions 20
Fastest Laps 12
Driver World Championships 1
Constructor World Championships 1

Team History

Before Red Bull

In 1997 Paul Stewart, aided by his father Jackie and the Ford Motor Company, made the leap from F3000 to F1 as an entrant. Jonny Herbert won 1 race for the Stewart team before it was sold off to Ford who re-branded the cars as Jaguar.

Ford stuck with it through thick and thin (mainly thin) through to the end of 2004 before selling the team to Dietrich Mateschitz, who owns the Red Bull drinks brand, for $1 on the understanding he invested $400 million over 3 years

Red Bull Racing

With Christian Horner installed as team principal, McLaren refugee David Coulthard and Christian Klien as the drivers Red Bull went racing. Their first season was certainly more successful than Jaguar had managed, even with the same Cosworth power plant, with Coulthard managing a 4th place at the European Grand Prix and the team finishing 7th in the Constructors Championship.

Adrian Newey joined from McLaren as chief designer for 2006 and Red Bull swapped to Ferrari engines. Coulthard managed a podium at his "home" race in Monaco prompting Christian Horner to jump naked, other than wearing a red cape, into a swimming pool.

Christian Klien, who shared the car with Vitantonio Liuzzi in 2005 and Robert Doornbos in 2006, departed the team for 2007 and was replaced by Mark Webber. The RB3 was the first full "Newey" car and was coupled with a Renault motor. The car was very unreliable, suffering from a variety of different problems but Webber managed a podium at the European Grand Prix and the team finished 5th in the WCC.

Retaining the same engine and drivers for 2008 Red Bull slipped back to 7th in the WCC and again only managed a single podium, for Coulthard in Canada, but the reliability issues which plagued the car the previous season were mainly resolved.

2009 was Red Bull's break through year. With Coulthard having retired Webber was joined by Red Bull junior driver Sebastien Vettel. The new rules allowed Newey to design a car which challenged for both the Drivers and Constructors Championship. Webber won 2 races, Vettel 4 and the team climbed to 2nd in WCC taking 3 pole positions en-route.

In 2010 Red Bull justified Mateschitz's investment winning the Constructors title and Vettel the Drivers Championship. They won 9 races through the season, 5 for Vettel and 4 for Webber and took 10 poles. Webber led the title race for much of the season but it was the 23 year old Vettel who stole the title in the last race of the season and became the youngest Champion as a result.

2011 sees the team retain the same driver line up as 2010 and continue with Renault engine power in the new RB7 car.

 

[KekeTheKing]

So I presume that 4% offset only applied to their own piece of kit, not the FIA mandated one, right? If so then I don't think these figures really mean anything. RBR are feeling pretty big for their britches right now though. I can't wait to see what sensor they run in Malaysia.

 

[sushifiesta]

I'm pretty sure Blog Zbod means that Red Bull were asked to reduce their fuel consumption by 4% based on the measurements from the FIA sensor. Well, to be clear I think we should say based on the calibrated measurements from the sensor, because what I've read suggests it's the calibration and not the sensors themselves that is at fault (4% error in the sensor would mean the measurements fluctuate by 4% for a constant fuel flow rate, a calibration error of 4% means the sensor always gives the same reading for a constant fuel flow rate, but it is offset from the actual rate by 4%). Either way the FIA have to fix it because 4%, if that is indeed the case, is just huge in F1 terms (though so is 1.5%).

This is kind of beside the point though because the whole thing could have been avoided if the FIA wrote the technical regulations properly:

• Fuel mass flow must not exceed 100kg/h as measured by the homologated sensor

With 6 words I have removed any valid case Red Bull would have to appeal...

Writing this I've just realised something - there are a lot of limits/restrictions in F1, how are they all measured in an accurate and trustworthy way? Like the rev limit for example.

 

[Plutus]

sushifiesta
-> http://www.mclarenelectronics.com/Systems/CaseStudy/Formula One

 

[teabagyokel]

sushifiesta - Or the front wing deflection regulations. For example.

 

[The Artist.....]

After all, the regulations state that there must be no movable aerodynamic devices, but it is only a technical directive that means that the way the deflection is tested!

 

[Mephistopheles]

Except DRS that's a movable aerodynamic device, and the F duct has never been banned so I'm surprised some teams don't have it on their cars to be honest...

 

[Blog Zbod]

Autosprint online takes issue with Michael Schmidt's claims that the 4% peak fuel flow the FIA were trying to deny to Red Bull cost only 7-8 PS. They contend each 1% is worth 6 bhp, and the 4% would have cost Red Bull nearer 25 bhp.

Autosprint also opine that politics, not the facts, will guide the tribunal's decision.

 

[Greenlantern101]

So cars are only allow to have four wheels. Where does it say that wheels need to be counted by an FIA approved device.

Redbull could run a 6 wheeled car but claim it only has 4 wheels as that's all that shows up on there own measuring device.

 

[ZakspeedYakspeed]

Quintessentially ... don't get me wrong here ... I HATE with a passion "results" that are provisional ... pending appeal ... etc etc ... I cannot blame RBR for taking this to appeal ... if it turns out be considered frivolous fine the bejesus out of them .... dress Horner and Marko up in court jester suits for their press conferences for the next few months ...


RBR were only charged with not being compliant with 5.1.4 on the fuel flow limits ... they were not assessed to be out of compliance with 5.10.3 ... because they were not out of compliance with 5.10.3 ...

5.10.3 states "Homologated 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."

The sensor was the homologated sensor (i.e. that all teams use ... see below) ... it measured the pressure, temp and flow of fuel and sent that data to the FIA data logger ...

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news/2014-f1-fuel-flow-meter-finally-homologated/
"All of the fuel flow meters will have to be calibrated by Calibra Technology which will also help the FIA enforce the new rules by providing random checks of flow meters throughout the season." (this was the intent ... unfortunately not the reality).
The homologated sensor was approved around 9th January 2014 ... and the FIA Technical Regulations were released dated 23rd January 2014 ...

The stewards findings:

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.
=> Correct ... they were requested to provide the offset adjustment and they did not ... 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.
=> Sensors used by RBR over the weekend were all homologated sensors ... but this was not the required sensor that the FIA requested they use



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.
=> Even though the sensor was not the "required" sensor, FIA accepts that applying the offset adjustment would have brought them back in compliance with the FIA data logger data and 5.1.4



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.
=> Back to the their fuel map vs the FIA fuel map ... TD/01614 ...



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


So the upshot is .... you exceeded the fuel flow by using a fuel map that is covered under TD/01614 ...


Some previous comments to use an football analogy ... about the ref ... red cards ... yellow cards misses the point ...

The correct football analogy is ... you are a central midfielder ... the work horse of your team ... a tyro ... can defend and score (the FIA ) ... everyone knows you are carring an right ankle / achilles injury (TD/01614 ) but you have no real choice but to play each weekend ... and the first thing the young England hopeful (Christian Wise Jones Ruddock Keane Marko ) you face on opening weekend who plays as a holding midfielder does is slam 17 Predator boot studs into your right achilles when he gets a chance ... the ref (the court of appeal) has a choice to make ... (blind without a cane, warning, yellow or red) ....

 

[ZakspeedYakspeed]

So cars are only allow to have four wheels. Where does it say that wheels need to be counted by an FIA approved device.

Redbull could run a 6 wheeled car but claim it only has 4 wheels as that is all that shows up on there own measuring device.

they can if they want ...

1.2 Automobile :
A land vehicle running on at least four non-aligned complete wheels, of which at least two are used for steering and at least two for propulsion.

 

[Quintessentially]

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.
=> Sensors used by RBR over the weekend were all homologated sensors ... but this was not the required sensor that the FIA requested they use

Let's call the sensors A, B and C

FP1 (Runs 1,2 and 3) - Sensor A
FP1 (Run 4) - Sensor B
FP2 - Sensor B
FP3 and Quali - Sensor C

Sensor B gave the most consistent readings and FIA were happy with it subject to the application of an offset. RB on the other hand had other ideas and installed a new sensor (Sensor C) in a clear attempt to eek out more engine power. This would explain Horner's recent assertion that teams (I'm not sure the Mercedes powered teams would agree) will just buy a load of homologated sensors in an endeavor to find one that gave the most favourable reading. The lucky sensor if you will.

In any case, sensor C turned out to be unreliable and almost certainly would've required a larger offset to bring the readings back into compliance limits, so FIA allowed Redbull to revert back to sensor B under Parc Femme conditions and also instructed them to apply the offset as previously advised. During the race however, they failed to heed to FIA advice and choose to take readings from the car's fuel rail (this is effectively a pipe that feeds fuel to the injectors). This approach was neither agreed by the FIA nor does the fuel rail deliver any data via telemetry so FIA can monitor compliance with the 100kg/hr stipulation.

Yes by failing to heed readings from the sensor, they were out of compliance with 5.10.3 and the stewards said as much in the reasons (Point 3) for their ruling. The overarching regulation is Article 5 and should be reach as such.

 

[Jen]

I have heard a rumour that RBR will do exactly the same again this weekend!

 

[gethinceri]

Well, you know what they say about Rumours Jen

 

[gethinceri]

It's a great album.

 

[Jen]

Yes, indeedy, nice album.

Re RBR, we will have to wait and see.

 

[ZakspeedYakspeed]

During the race however, they failed to heed to FIA advice and choose to take readings from the car's fuel rail (this is effectively a pipe that feeds fuel to the injectors). This approach was neither agreed by the FIA nor does the fuel rail deliver any data via telemetry so FIA can monitor compliance with the 100kg/hr stipulation.

Yes by failing to heed readings from the sensor, they were out of compliance with 5.10.3 and the stewards said as much in the reasons (Point 3) for their ruling. The overarching regulation is Article 5 and should be reach as such.

I am struggling to see how they were out of compliance with 5.10.3 ... the sensor was fitted ... it was homologated and it provided readings back to the FIA data logger ...

They chose to manage the fuel flow using their own map as you state based off of the fuel rail ... the FIA homologated sensor was telling the FIA something different hence the repeated requests for the offset adjustment ... otherwise how could the FIA have known to tell them to apply an offset ? If the FIA was getting a reading off of the fuel rail then it would show (according to RBR) no issues .... to be in contravention of 5.10.3 they would need to have either not fitted a homologated sensor and/or modified it so as not to send data back to the FIA data logger ? The sensor was fitted ... it was from the homologated Gill family ... and it provided data back to the FIA ... and that data told the FIA they were exceeding the 100 kg/hr regulation ...


There were only two sensors discussed in the findings

FP1 (Runs 1,2 and 3) - Sensor A - performed / seemed ok
FP1 (Run 4) - Sensor A - started to give out variable readings
FP2 - Sensor A continues to give out the same variable readings
FP3 and Quali - Sensor B - both RBR and the FIA didn't like this ... replaced on Saturday night with Sensor A
Race - Sensor A - giving out the same variable readings during race - offset required by FIA tech del. ... not adhered to by RBR

It is a messy situation ... one that the FIA could do without ...

 

[teabagyokel]

The FIA could do without it like the FA could do without footballers diving; it'd all be so simple if no-one broke the rules.

 

[Quintessentially]

They were not in compliance with 5.10.3 because they ignored the readings provided by the sensor. This is not my opinion. It's there in the stewards Reasons for excluding car 3. By Installing the device and beaming the readings back to Charlie's screen, they satisfied mandatory procedures but not the test. Anyway I think the point is a bit of a red herring because the Regs are written in such a way that they are interlinked so 5.1.4 if you want. Only the readings from the sensors count. The fuel rail is not at the same measurement point as the sensor and whatever readings Redbull took off the former is not recognised by FIA or the TRs. It was cheating and as Graeme Lowdon said, Redbull only did so to make their car go faster at a time when the rest of the field were limping around. If slower teams like Marussia were willing to apply the required offset to ensure compliance, why couldn't Redbull with a seemingly faster car? Ted Kravitz mentioned on the F1 show that had they applied the offset, Ricciardo would've finished 5th, although how credible this information is is anyone's guess.

Also I don't understand why you keep blaming the FIA and not Redbull, especially considering other teams had similar issues but reached an acceptable resolution by working with Authorities. FIA has come a long way since the dictatorial regime administered under Max and the majority of the problems we see in the sport today were caused by the teams themselves. They effectively wrote the TRs and signed up to how they should be enforced.

 

[ZakspeedYakspeed]

We agree to disagree ... for me 5.10.3 provides the means of how the data is captured and transfered ... it doesn't provide the reference points against how the data is to be measured ... and against what it is measured ... that is clealy provided in 5.1.4 ... which the FIA has adjudged they failed to ahere to.

As with any legalese ... the broad view of reg's ("Section 5") will be pitted against the narrow view of the reg's (taking each sub-section and sub-sub-section on merit, literally, etc). You know how that goes ...

I don't think the FIA could have forseen the volume of issues that this sensor and its calibration couldn have given them ... but they were not as prepared as they could have been. Each team will push the rules and their case depending on what is at stake ... if DR crashed out on lap 44 ... or finished 8th ... we wouldn't be discussing this because RBR wouldn't be appealing ... and clearly the Renault powered teams are the ones most likely to push their case ...

For mine, some issues at the FIA over this are:

* Sensor receives homologation status 2 weeks prior the release of the TR's (maybe I am off base here ... maybe there are a bunch of parts that this happens to ... it just seems waaaaaay too short of time ...)
* Only one sensor ... when aviation uses more than one ... other forms of racing use 2 sometimes 3 for diesel powered vehicles ...(where averages or outliers are able to be managed or readings averaged)
* Look at how 5.2.5 (Other means of propulsion and energy recvovery) is written "Cars must be fitted with homologated sensors which provide all necessary signals to the FIA data logger in order to verify the requirements above are being respected" ... if that language existed in 5.10.3 referencing the fuel flow in 5.1.4 there would be no argument imho. So the FIA will likely argue the intent of 5.10.3 ... and RBR will argue show me where this is stated ... and pull out 5.2.5 as to an example where the intent and language flanged up ... and on and on it goes... maybe 5.10.3 was written without that language in anticipation of events like this ...

I think RBR will (should) be excluded from the result ... a TD issued to instruct the teams to bring at least a bakers dozen of sensors to each GP weekend ...

 

[teabagyokel]

Did the FIA mandate one sensor, or did Red Bull decide to use one sensor?