Gutted for DR. 
If there was any question over the accuracy of the fuel flowmeters, you'd think the FIA would have held off on the decision until it could be clarified.
Must say, I've got quite a bit of experience with flow-metering systems and their reliability is almost always questionable.
They're really best for showing trends rather than absolute measurements and it's almost always better to rely on absolute measurements taken over a period of time rather than relying on the flow rate as displayed by a flowmeter.
Thing is, there's all sorts of things to consider.
Just cos you're measuring flow in l/hr, what's the actually criteria for conformity?
Does any reading greater than 100 l/hr mean non-compliance or does it only become non-compliance if you actually use more than 100 litres in an hour or when you use more than 1.6 litres in a minute or when you use more than 28ml per second?
I mean, if RBR's telemetry shows that DR actually used 1.5 litres in one minute while the flowmeter says he was using >100 l/hr at certain points during that minute, which data do you give more credibility to?
If the flowmeter is reading in l/hr and RBRs telemetry can show fuel usage per minute then really the RBR data should be considered more accurate.
The other thing to bear in mind is that the fuel system is pressurised and that screws up flowmeter readings too.
I can pump water into a pipe with a closed end and a flowmeter will, obviously, show that there's a flow and, of course, there is a flow because there's water going into the pipe to pressurise it.
And yet, there's a closed end at the other end of a pipe so the actual flow-rate is obviously zero.
Seems, to me, that surges in the pressure of the fuel system could easily account for spurious excess readings even when the actual flow remains within tolerances, especially at such low flow rates, under such extreme conditions.
If I was RBR I'd be getting the boffins to put together a little test rig which proves that the FIA flowmeters can produce spurious readings and, that being the case, they're unreliable.

If there was any question over the accuracy of the fuel flowmeters, you'd think the FIA would have held off on the decision until it could be clarified.
Must say, I've got quite a bit of experience with flow-metering systems and their reliability is almost always questionable.
They're really best for showing trends rather than absolute measurements and it's almost always better to rely on absolute measurements taken over a period of time rather than relying on the flow rate as displayed by a flowmeter.
Thing is, there's all sorts of things to consider.
Just cos you're measuring flow in l/hr, what's the actually criteria for conformity?
Does any reading greater than 100 l/hr mean non-compliance or does it only become non-compliance if you actually use more than 100 litres in an hour or when you use more than 1.6 litres in a minute or when you use more than 28ml per second?
I mean, if RBR's telemetry shows that DR actually used 1.5 litres in one minute while the flowmeter says he was using >100 l/hr at certain points during that minute, which data do you give more credibility to?
If the flowmeter is reading in l/hr and RBRs telemetry can show fuel usage per minute then really the RBR data should be considered more accurate.
The other thing to bear in mind is that the fuel system is pressurised and that screws up flowmeter readings too.
I can pump water into a pipe with a closed end and a flowmeter will, obviously, show that there's a flow and, of course, there is a flow because there's water going into the pipe to pressurise it.
And yet, there's a closed end at the other end of a pipe so the actual flow-rate is obviously zero.
Seems, to me, that surges in the pressure of the fuel system could easily account for spurious excess readings even when the actual flow remains within tolerances, especially at such low flow rates, under such extreme conditions.
If I was RBR I'd be getting the boffins to put together a little test rig which proves that the FIA flowmeters can produce spurious readings and, that being the case, they're unreliable.




