Red Bull finally caught cheating ???
Discussion
First Race of the season and Red Bull have been caught pushing the rules a little too far!!
Shame..............NOT!
I still don't know how Vettal managed to get a 1 second plus gap within 1 lap at the start of most of the races last year, when everyone around him were trying their hardest to keep up
bit too cosy for him I think!
will watch this season with interest to see what happens.
Very nice to see it all mixed up at last
Bet Webber had a chuckle to himself. don't think it would happen to his new team
Shame..............NOT!
I still don't know how Vettal managed to get a 1 second plus gap within 1 lap at the start of most of the races last year, when everyone around him were trying their hardest to keep up
bit too cosy for him I think!
will watch this season with interest to see what happens.
Very nice to see it all mixed up at last
Bet Webber had a chuckle to himself. don't think it would happen to his new team
I'm certainly not a Red bull fan but I do think the penalty is harsh.
To be honest I have difficulty rationalising why the fuel flow limit even exists.
All the cars have a maximum fuel capacity for the race of 100 kg so I'd they ran at 100 kg/hour Constantly then they would very likely run out of fuel before the end of the race so bad luck for them.
All the best
Richard
To be honest I have difficulty rationalising why the fuel flow limit even exists.
All the cars have a maximum fuel capacity for the race of 100 kg so I'd they ran at 100 kg/hour Constantly then they would very likely run out of fuel before the end of the race so bad luck for them.
All the best
Richard
Penalty is not harsh IMHO.
The downfall here is with arrogance.
The teams were warned after qualifying about fuel flow.
Red Bull were warned during the race that RIC's car was exceeding the limit more than once and it was made clear to them the consequences if they did not resolve the problem.
They did nothing.
Their appeal will be based on the fact that the FIA were measuring the fuel flow in a different, inaccurate way (or so they claim).
I don't think it will wash - everyone got monitored the same way, so if their car was over the limit and no-one else was they were still using too much.
The downfall here is with arrogance.
The teams were warned after qualifying about fuel flow.
Red Bull were warned during the race that RIC's car was exceeding the limit more than once and it was made clear to them the consequences if they did not resolve the problem.
They did nothing.
Their appeal will be based on the fact that the FIA were measuring the fuel flow in a different, inaccurate way (or so they claim).
I don't think it will wash - everyone got monitored the same way, so if their car was over the limit and no-one else was they were still using too much.
I would guess that the miracle last-minute software update from the Renault engineers richened the mixture somewhat to help the heat problems they've been having. In other engine technologies, ( aircraft piston engines for example )deliberate over-richening is a tried and tested method to cool the engine. Using the fuel burn as an extra way to dissipate heat in simple terms. It looks like they calculated that, as they had fuel to spare, they could use it to solve thermic problems. Shame they seem to've cocked up the max fuel flow calculations..
The rule with fuel flow is f
king stupid anyway: If the maximum amount is limited, the only thing that should matter is the minimum amount that has to be in the tank after the race for control puposes, the actual fuel flow should be left up to the engine engineers.
The rule with fuel flow is f
king stupid anyway: If the maximum amount is limited, the only thing that should matter is the minimum amount that has to be in the tank after the race for control puposes, the actual fuel flow should be left up to the engine engineers. GuitarTech said:
I would guess that the miracle last-minute software update from the Renault engineers richened the mixture somewhat to help the heat problems they've been having. In other engine technologies, ( aircraft piston engines for example )deliberate over-richening is a tried and tested method to cool the engine. Using the fuel burn as an extra way to dissipate heat in simple terms. It looks like they calculated that, as they had fuel to spare, they could use it to solve thermic problems. Shame they seem to've cocked up the max fuel flow calculations..
The rule with fuel flow is fking stupid anyway: If the maximum amount is limited, the only thing that should matter is the minimum amount that has to be in the tank after the race for control puposes, the actual fuel flow should be left up to the engine engineers.
They cool high boost turbo cars in the same way, they allways run rich on full boost to cool the piston crowns. TBH i see it as RB arogance rather than cheating outright, they thought they knew better?The rule with fuel flow is f
king stupid anyway: If the maximum amount is limited, the only thing that should matter is the minimum amount that has to be in the tank after the race for control puposes, the actual fuel flow should be left up to the engine engineers. S0 What said:
They cool high boost turbo cars in the same way, they allways run rich on full boost to cool the piston crowns. TBH i see it as RB arogance rather than cheating outright, they thought they knew better?
yep, I'm lucky enough to be able to speak fluent German, so I understand what that arrogant Austrian Helmut Marko is saying: a wker of the first order 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAh6C4RCaas
Does Horner not say that he's ignored the measuring device and gone his own way?
This is like the 'moveable' tests of the past. It doesn't matter whether items moved or not, it is whether they could pass the testing methods. Now the FIA are saying, it appears to me, that the testing device says RB was wrong.
In days of yore, when turbo boost was limited, Honda ran with a limiting device that ran lower than that of the FIA device, but that was lower and the FIA thingy was kept in line.
RB have always run the regs 'close', many - or at least I - think that this is a major part of their edge in the past.
If they didn't like the FIA limiter then when didn't they obtain permission for their own one?
As a previous poster suggested, the cooling problems might well have been the motivator behind this rather than outright power.
The FIA, at least under the bloke who hired women in order to beat them (no wonder he wanted the videos taken down off the internet), used to increase the penalty following an appeal. I hope this is not the case here should the appeal be rejected.
Half of 'me' wants Riccai to be reinstated as I enjoyed the drive, but the other half feels that RB are, if Honer is to be believed, did try to outflank the rules. Again.
It seems they were warned. How silly was it not to heed the warnings?
Does Horner not say that he's ignored the measuring device and gone his own way?
This is like the 'moveable' tests of the past. It doesn't matter whether items moved or not, it is whether they could pass the testing methods. Now the FIA are saying, it appears to me, that the testing device says RB was wrong.
In days of yore, when turbo boost was limited, Honda ran with a limiting device that ran lower than that of the FIA device, but that was lower and the FIA thingy was kept in line.
RB have always run the regs 'close', many - or at least I - think that this is a major part of their edge in the past.
If they didn't like the FIA limiter then when didn't they obtain permission for their own one?
As a previous poster suggested, the cooling problems might well have been the motivator behind this rather than outright power.
The FIA, at least under the bloke who hired women in order to beat them (no wonder he wanted the videos taken down off the internet), used to increase the penalty following an appeal. I hope this is not the case here should the appeal be rejected.
Half of 'me' wants Riccai to be reinstated as I enjoyed the drive, but the other half feels that RB are, if Honer is to be believed, did try to outflank the rules. Again.
It seems they were warned. How silly was it not to heed the warnings?
Derek Smith said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAh6C4RCaas
Does Horner not say that he's ignored the measuring device and gone his own way?
He also seems to suggest other teams had issues and even removed their FIA flow sensors - it would be interesting to find out either way if this is right - in any case, if they had so little faith in the flow sensors, surely they should have highlighted this BEFORE the race, rather than do what they felt like, ignored FIA warnings and then whinged when they got caught! Does Horner not say that he's ignored the measuring device and gone his own way?
The FIA ruling states that the teams are allowed to run at a higher fuel flow rate than the sensor indicates provided the FIA agree to it, presumably to cover for errors with the sensor. The FIA were not asked for permission by Red Bull, and Red Bull were told that they were exceeding the flow and to reduce it but did not do so. Seems pretty clear cut that a penalty is deserved and I assume the one they got is what the rules state.
I feel sorry for Riciardo but hope the FIA throw out the appeal from the team as it seems to be that Red Bull expect special privileges in the way Ferrari used to - there has to be a level playing field with the FIA applying the rules correctly. Saying that other teams were having the same problem doesn't mean much without proof, but maybe they got the permission RB chose not to request, or heeded the warnings they were given.
I feel sorry for Riciardo but hope the FIA throw out the appeal from the team as it seems to be that Red Bull expect special privileges in the way Ferrari used to - there has to be a level playing field with the FIA applying the rules correctly. Saying that other teams were having the same problem doesn't mean much without proof, but maybe they got the permission RB chose not to request, or heeded the warnings they were given.
majordad said:
Why were we the viewing public not informed that Red Bull were being warned during the race, or were we and I missed it ? IIRC all I remember was a pit to car radio message saying dont worry you have lots of fuel .
There is lots going on in a race you won't hear on TV, teams are pretty much constantly in touch with Charlie, their drivers and their HQ.dr_gn said:
'Course, it's important becasue all this fuel flow rate and economy bks is really relevant to the average F1 spectator.
Right?
Just give them a fuel weight limit (if it makes the FIA happy) and let the teams get on with it FFS.
I guess it is a fuel flow rather than an intake restrictor which has been used before to regulate turbo engines. It may not be relevant to the average spectator but it is clear in the rules and part of what makes F1 relevant to manufacturers who supply the engines which enable F1 to happen so it is important. And if rules are broken, seen to be broken, pointed out to those who break them and that pointing out ignored, the team can't just get on with and and get away with it.ks is really relevant to the average F1 spectator.Right?
Just give them a fuel weight limit (if it makes the FIA happy) and let the teams get on with it FFS.
dr_gn said:
'Course, it's important becasue all this fuel flow rate and economy bks is really relevant to the average F1 spectator.
Right?
Just give them a fuel weight limit (if it makes the FIA happy) and let the teams get on with it FFS.
They are actually planning on showing fuel flow telemetry on TV this year during races.ks is really relevant to the average F1 spectator.Right?
Just give them a fuel weight limit (if it makes the FIA happy) and let the teams get on with it FFS.
Silent1 said:
dr_gn said:
'Course, it's important becasue all this fuel flow rate and economy bks is really relevant to the average F1 spectator.
Right?
Just give them a fuel weight limit (if it makes the FIA happy) and let the teams get on with it FFS.
They are actually planning on showing fuel flow telemetry on TV this year during races.ks is really relevant to the average F1 spectator.Right?
Just give them a fuel weight limit (if it makes the FIA happy) and let the teams get on with it FFS.
andyps said:
dr_gn said:
'Course, it's important becasue all this fuel flow rate and economy bks is really relevant to the average F1 spectator.
Right?
Just give them a fuel weight limit (if it makes the FIA happy) and let the teams get on with it FFS.
I guess it is a fuel flow rather than an intake restrictor which has been used before to regulate turbo engines. It may not be relevant to the average spectator but it is clear in the rules and part of what makes F1 relevant to manufacturers who supply the engines which enable F1 to happen so it is important. And if rules are broken, seen to be broken, pointed out to those who break them and that pointing out ignored, the team can't just get on with and and get away with it.ks is really relevant to the average F1 spectator.Right?
Just give them a fuel weight limit (if it makes the FIA happy) and let the teams get on with it FFS.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff