To some degree, it isn't really relevant. The rule is that cars should have the FOA device, not a different one. If there were eleven different measuring devices, there would certainly be even less consistency.

It sounds to me as though RBR are actually challenging the FIA's decision not to implement the back-up fuel-flow measurement system when the sensor fitted to the car had already been shown to be somewhat shonky. In effect, they're saying the FIA were at fault for not switching to "Plan B" which is covered by the regulations. Obviously, a Team can't just take the law into their own hands, so they don't really have a leg to stand on, but I get the feeling that someone's trying to prove a point!

In fact, as an impartial observer, I'd love to know why the FIA instructed RBR to fit a dodgy sensor onto the car in the first place!

Yes I know. If they run a car at rate consistently of 100kg/hr or more then they're not going to finish the race assuming every race lasts longer than an hour.

However as cars are given only 100kg to complete a race, then surely this rule is self-policing? They must make that amount of fuel last until the end of the race which can be a maximum of two hours.

So I don't understand how this rule is being enforced. Over what period of time is the RB deemed to have exceeded this consumption? The engine was still running at the end of a 92 minute race and they were only given 100kg of fuel to complete that so by the laws of averages they must have used less than 100kg of fuel per hour.

But the stewards/FIA are saying their consumption exceeded this rate. Now if they ran from the green light at 100kg/hour then they'd have stopped on track on lap 38 or whatever, so they would have had to turned the mix down. So over what timescale does the FIA think the max rate was exceeded? Was it during an overtake? For more than five seconds? All the way down the main straight?

Because at peak power delivery, for example, when accelerating out of a pit lane, the flow rate will be at a maximum of 100kg/hr, but when cruising down the pit straight, it could, hypothetically, be at 40kg/hr. It is all about managing the fuel load and flow. This is why we hear discussions between the drivers and the pit lane, regarding their fuel consumption; different fuel strategies and settings etc.

The limits are imposed at these peak power requirements to level the playing field, so one team doesn't have an unfair advantage over another.

RBR would probably argue that they haven't broken any rule.

They've simply ignored a faulty device that the FIA installed to ensure their compliance and used a different source of data instead.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear... Ted Kravits covered this in one of the pre-season test note-books so I know this for a fact... the teams can run their cars with ANY amount of fuel they desire. In truth the limitation is set by the size of their fuel tanks which is around 120 litres because this is the upper limit of how much fuel they'll need for a race (100kg) plus the installation laps before a race, parade lap and return to pits after the race.

There is no measurement of how much fuel each car actually has in the tank at any point, only a measure of how much the engine is using so the FIA can measure instant flow rate and cumulative fuel consumption in order to make sure no-one uses more than 100kg during the actual race - green light to chequered flag. I'm not sure why they have restricted instantaneous fuel rate. Presumably it's to restrict engine power. Maybe the 1.6l V6 are theoretically capable of producing a lot more power so to restrict them to around 600bhp and make it a relatively level playing field in terms of power they have dictated both a race-long fuel limit and instant fuel rate limit.

RB are being done for a procedural infringement. Everyone needs to use the same flow rate meter. By ignoring that RB have broken the rules. I have sympathy for DR but none for the team. I'd be interested to know how inaccurate the bad sensor was compared with RB's figures. I bet it's not out by a lot. I find it odd that RB are the only ones to be having this issue despite it being apparently a common fault according to CH. I defo smell a rat.

Yes, one which hasn't been ratified by the FIA or will be consistent across the whole grid so is useless. They ignored the FIA device despite knowing full well they couldn't according to the rules.

It's like running a marathon and stopping 10 yards short of the finishing line because your GPS enabled pedometer tells you you've completed the distance. It doesn't matter if your measure is technically correct, if it's not the measure everyone else is using it's useless.

From my (rapidly failing!) memory, I'm fairly sure the formation lap is considered to be part of the "race". The reason I recall it is because at the infamous 2005 GP, the Michelin runners deliberately didn't withdraw prior to the race, but did the formation lap and then peeled off into the pits. If they'd withdrawn beforehand, they could technically have been fined for not fulfilling their contract to take part in the "race". Doing the formation lap meant that they did take part in the race, even if it was a dirty lowdown trick to play on the spectators!

However, I digress!


Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the "RBR response" to that would be that they'd already told the organisers that the equipment they were using to measure the course was faulty, so as the course wasn't the proper marathon distance, the result (assuming a championship race) should either be declared null and void, or that the first person to complete the specific marathon distance should be declared the winner. Either way, the only "winners" would be the lawyers!

That's not a particularly good analogy because, in that, each runner does have access to the same information about where the finish line is.

It's more like each marathon runner being fitted with a GPS tracker and one runner being told, half way around the course, that his tracker is faulty and it appears that he's been taking shortcuts.

In that sort of situation, would you expect that runner to run further that everybody else just to comply with what his GPS tracker demanded or do you think it'd be reasonable for the runner to stick to the course, finish the race and hope that the issue could be resolved afterwards?

Going back to F1 for another analogy, the rules say that each car must a maximum of 180cm wide.
What'd happen if the FIA got hold of a tape-measure made of elastic so it measured all the cars differently, depending on how tightly it was stretched?

Do you think it'd be acceptable that some cars were wider than others, depending on how much the elastic tape-measure had been stretched when it measured them?
Would it be sensible for every team to just comply with the FIA tape-measure and alter the width of their car to suit what the FIA tape-measure indicated?
Do you think it'd be fair to exclude a team who's car WAS 179cm wide because the FIA tape-measure said it was 185cm wide?

Or do you think the best course of action might be to stick to the measurements from your laser-alignment rig and try to convince the FIA that their dodgy tape-measure needed replacing?

And if they refused, and insisted on continuing to use their elastic tape-measure, do you think that every team should just capitulate and be prepared to alter the width of their car for each race or would you think the FIA was being a bit stubborn by continuing to use that tape-measure and that it really needed replacing with something more consistent?

Thing is, here, this is only one race.
I bet the FIA are bricking it about what's going to happen in Malaysia and China.
What happens when some of the teams who were in compliance with the fuel-flow reg's in Oz get told that they have to dial back their fuel flow in Malaysia and some get told that they can actually increase their fuel-flow if they want to?

How long is it gonna be before more teams start openly complaining about the consistency of these devices?


Trouble is, everybody isn't using the same flowmeter. They're all using different ones.
They're all supposed to be calibrated but there'll be some variation.

Must admit, this is where my sympathy for RBR starts to run out though.
As you say, chances are that what really happened here was that the f/ms said that a few drivers were running at 100.2kg/hr on the main straights and, upon being told that, everybody else simply dialed their fuel flow back by 0.3kg/hr whereas RBR decided to ignore the FIA advice and make a big deal about it and there probably is some deliberate reason why they're seeking to undermine the credibility of the f/ms.

Depending on the level of inaccuracy, though, the FIA have made the proverbial rod for their own backs.
Maybe the teams will do some experiments, conclude that anything up to, say, a 0.5kg/hr reduction doesn't make much difference to power and decide to just abide by whatever the FIA f/ms say or maybe this'll become a bigger deal as the season goes on.

I watch MotoGP when it's on, but don't really follow the sport in detail. However, don't those guys have fuel restrictions too which just involves a fixed-capacity fuel tank?

They do. But there is no shore to ship control and no time for the rider to make manual adjustments. The ECU automatically remaps the engine during the race to try and ensure the fuel lasts.

Thanks gomezz.

I thought that was the case, and it seems like a sensible way to do things. "There's your fuel. See you at the end of the race!"

There's already a restriction on the total amount of fuel they can use, so the additional restriction just seems like an over-complication. It would be like saying "There's your allocation of tyres and you have to use both compounds in the race ... oh, and you're not allowed to do more than 25 laps on any one set of tyres!"

Ah, well! MotoGP had that problem last year at Phillip Island when due to resurfacing the tyres were deemed not to be able to last more than 10 laps so the riders had to do a pit stop to change to their number 2 bike halfway through. Except the Marc Marquez pit crew miscounted and got the lad DQ'd for breaking the rule.

Yup ... I remember that one. However, it was a one-off with (as far as I recall) the only alternative being to abandon the race. As a fixed regulation for the whole season, it would be rather silly.

I struggle to see how they can effectively measure kg/hr fuel used by each car.

They measure whatever it is the measuring device actually measures. That is all the teams need to know and stick to.

Well, I'm sure the FIA would argue that's exactly what their officially sanctioned flowmeters do.

They're ultrasonic flowmeters which bounce a signal across a tube and then determine the speed of the flow by the time the signal takes.
They then use pressure and temperature sensors to calculate the density of the flow medium and use that to calculate the mass flow, in weight.

It's a decent enough technology, in theory, but stuff like pressure drops through the system due to friction and localised temperature changes can have a significant effect on the calculated reading.

Overall, it's the sort of thing where, if everybody was happy with them, the inaccuracies probably wouldn't be a big deal but if somebody does question their reliability, as RBR are doing, the FIA are probably going to have a hard time proving that they're accurate enough to be used to police a rule.

Going back to the analogy of the elastic tape-measure, it'd be kinda like if the FIA were using an elastic tape-measure to check the width of the cars; as long as they were happy to accept any measurement of around 180cm, you probably wouldn't get any of the teams complaining about it.
Once you get a team who is sure their car is 179.5cm wide being excluded on the basis of information from the FIA's elastic tape-measure, however, it's accuracy is going to be called into question and they're probably going to have a hard time justifying using it.

That's sort of what's happening here, I reckon.

These are the actual sensors, as supplied by Gill Sensors.

http://www.gillsensors.com/content/f...ow-sensor.html

I also note that the maximum fuel flow of 100kg/hr was introduced in order to shift development emphasis towards energy recovery systems. Perhaps one step too far in light of all the other changes?

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2014/0...nsors-in-2014/

It would also make it more expensive having double bikes set up every time just when costs are cut....as an add on fantastic evening on bt sport building up to Qatar this week a whole night of GP films and docs....more than beeb gave over whole year already....plus Mel Sykes in shorts astride a moto GP bike.....do you want a flake with that love?!

They always have two bikes but normally the second bike is set up for wet weather running on race day. It is called flag to flag racing where they have the option to pit and swap bikes in case of a change of weather rather than red flag and restart a shortened second part of the race which they used to do instead.

BE has asked the FIA to consider making changes to the power unit regulations immediately in order to increase the noise output of the engines after criticism of the new noise levels at the Australian GP. Apparently the organisers in Melbourne are threatening to sue over it?! I'd love to know under what grounds they can take legal action?

The only way I can see them increasing the volume of the engines without totally redisigning the cars (to change the exhausts) is to increase the power output ... by allowing a higher fuel rate and over-all fuel usage. What an increadible coincidence!!!

Who knows what's in the contracts they sign! It's essentially an entertainment industry and if the spectacle or experience is significantly diminished, there can be all sorts of repercussions for future income.

It'd be like going to see Spinal Tap and finding they'd turned the amps down to 5!

I know they do in this format, I'm guessing you're just flagging this up for others gomezz?
I meant running 2 specific race bikes for every team would be expensive...of course top team then have 2 dedicated and a spare each on top and it spirals out of control cost wise....

Rather disappointing for Bernie to be so backward IMO.

As dee_eff pointed out, above, it takes energy to make noise so the louder the noise, the more energy is being wasted.
Wasting energy shouldn't be what F1 is about so it seems a bit silly to want it to be the case.
What's next? Get the teams to waste fuel by injecting it into the exhausts to produce spectacular flames out of the exhausts? That's always a big crowd-pleaser at monster-truck derby's. (insert rolleyes smiley here).

People just need to get used to the new noise or get themselves an iphone app' which'll play the old noise into headphones for them.

I think the engines sound absolutely dreadful. It's not really that they are quieter - more that they sound like a cross between a scooter and a tractor. Absolutely awful sound.

I do like the loose rears. Means the drivers have tio use their carcontrol skills. SOme drivers seemed to be reporting oversteer and some understeer.

Fuel consumption is a bit of an issue but F1 drivers have never gone flat out all through a race anyway. I think it will be very difficult to overtake a Mercedes powered car this season though (unless you also have a Mercedes engine underneath you). That could be very costly for Ferrari and Red Bull as they are likely to get stuck behind Williams or Force India Cars fairly regularly.

Don;t think that first race was great entertainment overall. But allowing teams an extra set of dry tyres for final stage of qualifying has got to be a good move.