F1 Melbourne P1 Fri 14 March 2014 11:00 AEDT ONE HD

[gary]

The stewards' decision in full:

Originally Posted by FIA Stewards

The Stewards, having received a report from the Technical Delegate, heard from the team representatives, have considered the following matter and determine a breach of the regulations has been committed by the competitor named below and impose the penalty referred to.

No/Driver: 3, Daniel Ricciardo
Competitor: Infiniti Red Bull Racing
Time: 20:17
Session: Race
Facts: Car #3 was not in compliance with article 5.1.4 of the FIA Formula 1 technical tegulations.
Offence: Breach of article 3.2 of the FIA Formula 1 sporting regulations and Article 5.1.4 of the FIA Formula 1 technical regulations.
Decision: Car #3 is excluded from the race results.
Reason:
1) The technical delegate reported to the stewards that car #3 exceeded the required fuel mass flow of 100kg/h. (article 5.1.4 of the Formula 1 technical regulations)

2) This parameter is outside of the control of the driver, Daniel Ricciardo.

3) The fuel flow is measured using the fuel flow sensor (Art. 5.10.3 & 5.10.4 of the technical regulations) which is homologated by the FIA and owned and operated by the team.

4) The stewards considered the history of the fitted fuel flow sensor, as described by the team and the technical delegate's representative who administers the programme. Their description of the history of the sensor matches.

a. During practice one a difference in reading between the first three and run four was detected. The same readings as Run 4 were observed throughout practice two.

b. The team used a different sensor on Saturday but did not get readings that were satisfactory to them or the FIA, so they were instructed to change the sensor within parc ferme on Saturday night.

c. They operated the original sensor during the race, which provided the same readings as run four of practice one, and practice two.

5) The stewards heard from the technical representative that when the sensor was installed on Saturday night, he instructed the team to apply an offset to their fuel flow such that the fuel flow would have been legal. He presented an email to the stewards that verified his instruction.

6) The technical representative stated to the stewards that there is variation in the sensors. However, the sensors fall within a known range, and are individually calibrated. They then become the standard which the teams must use for their fuel flow.

7) The team stated that based on the difference observed between the two readings in P1, they considered the fuel flow sensor to be unreliable. Therefore, for the start of the race they chose to use their internal fuel flow model, rather than the values provided by the sensor, with the required offset.

8) Technical directive 01614 (1 March 2014) provides the methodology by which the sensor will be used, and, should the sensor fail, the method by which the alternate model could be used.

a. The technical directive starts by stating: "The homologated fuel flow sensor will be the primary measurement of the fuel flow and will be used to check compliance with articles 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 of the F1 technical regulations..." This is in conformity with articles 5.10.3 and 5.10.4 of the technical regulations.

b. The technical directive goes on to state: "If at any time WE consider that the sensor has an issue which has not been detected by the system WE will communicate this to the team concerned and switch to a back-up system."
(emphasis added.)

c. The back-up system is the calculated fuel flow model with a correction factor decided by the FIA.

9) The FIA technical representative observed thought the telemetry during the race that the fuel flow was too high and contacted the team, giving them the opportunity to follow his previous instruction, and reduce the fuel flow such that it was within the limit, as measured by the homologated sensor - and thus gave the team the opportunity to be within compliance. The team chose not to make this correction.

10) Under Art. 3.2 of the sporting regulations it is the duty of the team to ensure compliance with the technical regulations throughout the event.

Thus the stewards find that:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Story here -
http://www.formula1.com/news/headlin...4/3/15579.html

[gary]

Andrew Benson at BBC F1 reports that "Red Bull will have their appeal against Daniel Ricciardo's disqualification from the Australian Grand Prix heard in Paris on 14 April."

Story here -
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/26664721

[astroron (Ron)]

I think Andrew Benson hits the nail on the head with this article, re engine noise.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/26666624
What do you think.
Cheers

[The_bluester (Paul)]

I reckon in that write up, the biggest message is this paragraph.

"Last year, the 2.4-litre V8s were producing around 760bhp and using in the region of 150kg of fuel to complete a race distance. This year's turbo hybrids pump out as much as 850bhp and use only 100kg of fuel in a race. That's an increase of efficiency in the region of 35% - for significantly more performance."

Knowing that lap times are up largely due to harder tyres (Which I prefer to the carpet of marbles last year that meant overtaking opportunities were reduced) and reduced aero downforce, which the boffins wil no doubt win back over the bodywork over the next year or two, really shows that despite the noise or lack thereof, the new powerplants are pretty amazing things.

I actually enjoyed the race as the cars were obviously much more of a handful to drive. I have not seen them squirming around under power so much since the first practice session at Melbourne after they re banned traction control.

[gary]

Originally Posted by astroron

I think Andrew Benson hits the nail on the head with this article, re engine noise.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/26666624
What do you think.
Cheers

Hi Ron,

I read that article.

The point Benson, yourself and others make with regards the engine sound is a good one.

Last Sunday I quickly became engrossed in the racing duels such as watching Ricciardo
keeping Magnussen at bay. When they changed to the in-car camera views, I found
myself listening to the engine noises more from the aspect of trying to hear if they
were experiencing a problem rather than purely for the aural spectacle.

For example there was that point early on where Lewis retired when the car
was firing only on five cylinders.

From a spectacle point of view, which is what Ecclestone will be concerned with,
I think there are two aspects.

The first is what you experience as a spectator at the track.
The second is what you experience as a member of the global TV audience.

The technical limits of sound reproduction being what they are, there was never any
way that television sets could reproduce that visceral wail of the previous V8's
running at 18,000 RPM. At around 150dB it was equivalent to being
10m from a running jet engine and it was well beyond the threshold of pain.

One had to be trackside to experience that.

The fans turning up at tracks are a hugely important part of F1 and many will miss
that sound. But I think they will still turn up at tracks for the racing spectacle and
over time they will simply reminisce on the sounds of the V8's during that era of the formula.
Just as many who have been following for longer remember how the turbos use
to sound. Now that sound is back.

What was interesting was how different the various engines sounded last weekend.
The Mercedes and Ferraris on the television had more of a turbo whine under
braking than the Renaults.

With those turbos turning at 2000 revs per second and some of their components
operating at 1000C, that is a technical marvel in itself.

Paul gave us that report from trackside and appears to have enjoyed it and reading between
the lines I suspect he and other fans will probably turn up at Melbourne again next
year.

Malaysia P1 in 4 days time. I will be at Coonabarabran over the weekend so will
need to program the recorder in Sydney before I head off.