How crap do the new F1 cars sound

[seldo]

From what I read, Red Bull found the fuel flow sensor provided by the authorities to be reading too high, so they used their own sensors to regulate the fuel flow to below 100kg/h.

This will be the basis for the appeal, since they were complaining about it prior to the race.

It'd be like if you were driving along at a verified 100km/h and a Cop looked in your drivers window to see your speedo reading 120km/h so booked you for that speed based on the inaccurate speedo reading.

But it seems that the FIA, in their infinite wisdom and superiority, have decided that because they glanced in the window and saw 120kph on the speedo, are going to pinch them, even though they acknowledged that the sensor was faulty in practise, and ordered it changed, only to find the next one was even worse, so ordered that they go back to the original faulty sensor, plus applying an adjustment factor to take up the faulty reading....
Unfortunately, I think that even though RBR may be correct in that they did actually stay below the mandated 100kg/hr limit according to their calculations, they will probably go down because they didn't stick to the mandated faulty FIA sensor, which is legislated by FIA as the agreed standard.
Lawyers at 30 paces....ready...aim....Fire!....

[planetdavo]

The world just hasn't been the same since they cancelled "The Sullivans" all those years ago.

Anyway back to 2014...... Red Bull wouldn't knowingly break the rule if they weren't confident they were in the right. Let's hope their lawyers don't take a long lunch ;-)

And no one in the past ever knew how to entertain themselves each day, before the advent of 24/7 "connected" personal pc's/smartphones/tablets saved us all from eternal boredom...
Yep, back to 2014. Red Bull, with this fuel flow foot stomping, are trying to control F1 in the same way they always have. Shift the blame to someone else to gain an advantage.

[planetdavo]

But it seems that the FIA, in their infinite wisdom and superiority, have decided that because they glanced in the window and saw 120kph on the speedo, are going to pinch them, even though they acknowledged that the sensor was faulty in practise, and ordered it changed, only to find the next one was even worse, so ordered that they go back to the original faulty sensor, plus applying an adjustment factor to take up the faulty reading....
Unfortunately, I think that even though RBR may be correct in that they did actually stay below the mandated 100kg/hr limit according to their calculations, they will probably go down because they didn't stick to the mandated faulty FIA sensor, which is legislated by FIA as the agreed standard.
Lawyers at 30 paces....ready...aim....Fire!....

The sensor "may" be faulty, but if the FIA mandated "adjustment" percentage is accurate and hence can provide a figure that is reliable, the car would actually be doing 100km/h rather than 120km/h once this is factored in...unless you choose to ignore it...
Red Bull are going to try to turn this into a sh!tfight so that it gets so super messy they "win" by default. Even if they are as guilty as hell. What's to guarantee their own sensors are 100% accurate???

[C4B]

But it seems that the FIA, in their infinite wisdom and superiority, have decided that because they glanced in the window and saw 120kph on the speedo, are going to pinch them, even though they acknowledged that the sensor was faulty in practise, and ordered it changed, only to find the next one was even worse, so ordered that they go back to the original faulty sensor, plus applying an adjustment factor to take up the faulty reading....
Unfortunately, I think that even though RBR may be correct in that they did actually stay below the mandated 100kg/hr limit according to their calculations, they will probably go down because they didn't stick to the mandated faulty FIA sensor, which is legislated by FIA as the agreed standard.
Lawyers at 30 paces....ready...aim....Fire!....

As a racing team you've got two options.

1. Stick to the readings from the faulty sensor knowing full well you're going to behind the eight ball before the flag even drops.

or

2. Document that it's incorrect and be open about the fact that you're not going to rely on its inaccurate readings and have your Lawyers working on the Appeal before the race even starts.

When sponsorship is in the 10's of Millions of dollars I'd go with option 2 and give my sponsors the best possible exposure and deal with the idiots afterwards....

[V28VX37]

Here's another sound comparison:

[SSer]

Here's another sound comparison:

Look up the thread a bit.

[planetdavo]

As a racing team you've got two options.

1. Stick to the readings from the faulty sensor knowing full well you're going to behind the eight ball before the flag even drops.

or

2. Document that it's incorrect and be open about the fact that you're not going to rely on its inaccurate readings and have your Lawyers working on the Appeal before the race even starts.

When sponsorship is in the 10's of Millions of dollars I'd go with option 2 and give my sponsors the best possible exposure and deal with the idiots afterwards....

Again, this works on the ASSUMPTION that the FIA's adjustment percentage is STILL incorrect.
Sponsors will eventually take their money elsewhere rather than be associated with an organisation that's "perceived" to be regularly cheating/wont accept the umpires decision by many, so there can also be much to lose by being associated with (allegedly) "sporting" companies that like to fight just a little bit dirty/unsportsman like...
If it's proven that the FIA provided an accurate offset, then really, what have Red Bull got left to "prove" to back their case? They are trying to "win" by turning it into a sh!tfight, rather than acknowledge they simply refused to accept the umpires decision and got busted big time for doing so.
*
Anyhoo, all this is a distraction from the title of the thread. New F1 is a pale shadow of its former self in purely "emotional" terms, because it no longer provides something unique from many other forms of motorsport around the world.
I'd be surprised if ANY previous F1 car returns next year for a demonstration run (or for much of the rest of this season elsewhere in the world). It simply reminds everyone that "new F1" has taken a massive step backwards in raw emotion. At least in the past, during the dull periods that will always inevitably occur in motorsport, it still slapped your body like a b!tch and spat you out the other side...

[C4B]

Again, this works on the ASSUMPTION that the FIA's adjustment percentage is STILL incorrect.

Thank you for pointing out what was blatantly obvious...... They wouldn't have done it if they didn't believe the adjustment percentage was incorrect.....

It's not like they got caught out. The FIA were aware of the fact they'd chosen to go with their own flow rate measurements.

[Woodchukka]

All a bit like the cops saying ha ha we caught you when the crook hands themselves in. I like the sound of the old V8's more however the tech aspect of the new cars is something I also find appealing. I'll be more likely to watch the newer cars as they are something different and it will be interesting to see how the reliability plays out over the season. However like anything it will take some time for it to filter down. As they say you can't please everyone.

[seldo]

Thank you for pointing out what was blatantly obvious...... They wouldn't have done it if they didn't believe the adjustment percentage was incorrect.....

It's not like they got caught out. The FIA were aware of the fact they'd chosen to go with their own flow rate measurements.

Agreed! Especially if they could see that by applying the FIA's error-compensation factor, that they'd be down on power by X% and therefore at a distinct disadvantage to the competition who perhaps weren't having an issue with their fuel-sensor.
And Davo obviously hasn't ever been close to the pointy end in motor sport, or maybe any competition, where the people who win do so because they don't just accept the easy, near-enough is good enough path - they try to use every parameter to the maximum, however small or insignificant it may be.
There are always so many who claim that someone who is a consistent winner must be cheating, without looking to see how they also can improve their own results by just trying a bit harder, by exploring the rules to the absolute maximum, (I didn't say breaking the rules), and by not backing away from a fight.
RBR would have known, would have been formally advised that by not following the directive to back-off the fuel flow, that they were leaving themselves open to penalty/exclusion, yet they chose to proceed on the basis that they were sure that they were right, and would be proved so in a court of appeal.
I'm not too sure that I share their optimism, but anyone who suggests they were cheating is naïve. They would not risk their multi million dollar enterprise by doing so. But they are, in every area of their designs and actions, pushing the rules to the limit, as they should!
If they are not pushing the envelope to the absolute limit they are selling their sponsors short and not trying to achieve maximum results in every effort.

[duke5700]

Red Bull would know down to the 100 of a gram how much fuel that engine was consuming..

[jc_sv8]

The flow rate is a dumb rule and should be removed.
They all get 100Kg of fuel and should be able to use it how they like.
The teams at the back can crank up the fuel and lead the race for a couple of laps before running out 10 laps from the end, at least they can share in some of the glory.
Those that manage their fuel loads the most efficiently will finish and make the last 10 laps very exciting.
They say it's a green initiative to improve fuel economy, but thats a joke, if I went through 100L per 300kms I'd be walking a hell of a lot!

[C4B]

Agreed! Especially if they could see that by applying the FIA's error-compensation factor, that they'd be down on power by X% and therefore at a distinct disadvantage to the competition who perhaps weren't having an issue with their fuel-sensor.
And Davo obviously hasn't ever been close to the pointy end in motor sport, or maybe any competition, where the people who win do so because they don't just accept the easy, near-enough is good enough path - they try to use every parameter to the maximum, however small or insignificant it may be.
There are always so many who claim that someone who is a consistent winner must be cheating, without looking to see how they also can improve their own results by just trying a bit harder, by exploring the rules to the absolute maximum, (I didn't say breaking the rules), and by not backing away from a fight.
RBR would have known, would have been formally advised that by not following the directive to back-off the fuel flow, that they were leaving themselves open to penalty/exclusion, yet they chose to proceed on the basis that they were sure that they were right, and would be proved so in a court of appeal.
I'm not too sure that I share their optimism, but anyone who suggests they were cheating is naïve. They would not risk their multi million dollar enterprise by doing so. But they are, in every area of their designs and actions, pushing the rules to the limit, as they should!
If they are not pushing the envelope to the absolute limit they are selling their sponsors short and not trying to achieve maximum results in every effort.

I remember back when Mark Skaife was racing the Winfield Commodore he got a series of brilliant starts and the rumour going around was his car was fitted with some kind of launch control because he was better than everyone else.

The suggestion they were trying to cheat is just laughable..... If you're going to cheat, you don't tell the authorities about it, and especially not before you even do it!

As mentioned above, the team would know to the gram how much fuel the car consumes at any point, the fact the FIA is sourcing their flow meters from the Bunnings plumbing section is something which will no doubt be addressed in future races

I still doubt they will have the placing reinstated, because hey it's the FIA, but I reckon if it happens again (especially with another team) the shit will hit the fan.....

[goofafidamedes]

maybe they made a typo, maybe they meant 100 litres,
coz depending how cold your fuel is , 100kg could be 130 litres or 150 litres ,
so flow might come into it, coz ya know how anal these F1 tech people are.

Isn't it the other way around - 100kg of fuel is 100kg of fuel, no matter the temperature. The volume (litres) is what changes with temperature. Someone with servo experience will know - what is the standard temp for fuel volume calculation across our country? (EDIT: This is so the servo's don't sell us hot or warm fuel which has expanded and takes up more volume)


Now, I'm no petro-chemical engineer, so I may have some of this arse about, but...

A theory I've read online as to the reason for the flow-rate limiter is the potential for the fuel suppliers for each team to invent a lighter petroleum, which gives more litres to weight at temp X when compared to a rival. (The theory being that a lighter fuel with the same energy density means you have more energy in your 100kg than your rivals.)

Now, the flow-rate limiter is to discourage teams going down this path with their fuel suppliers - if a team was able to create a lighter, but equally voluminous fuel then the flow-rate would be restricted, so there is, in-effect, an energy cap on how much energy you can get into your engine.
As for the likelihood of this occurring, I've got no idea. My initial thoughts were that if you somehow made the fuel lighter but retaining the energy density, then you'd likely reduce the volume too - then the flow-rate limiter is useless. But then I thought that surely by now fuel has had all of "non-essentials" removed, especially racing fuel in use in Formula 1.

F1 is now a mindf!@% for the casual F1 fan, let alone someone who like to try to understand a bit more.

[El Narros]

sponsors won't leave, they will stick around. Look at Tour De France, MLB etc. Full of drug cheats yet still receive 100s of millions of dollars a year in sponsorship.