2014 Australian Grand Prix Thread - A New Dawn?

[noiceinmydrink]

On second thoughts, maybe he'll just moan and wail inside the Red Bull garage, thinking of what could have been.

Are you sure?

[ryangregg12345]

On second thoughts, maybe he'll just moan and wail inside the Red Bull garage, thinking of what could have been.

Are you sure?

I see
The Cheshire Cat of Australia whatever happens

[noiceinmydrink]

This man will be kicked in the nads and he'll still be grinning. I love him.

[IceG]

Well.....http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/9217066/FIA-explanation-for-Riccardo-exclusion

[Salamander]

Well.....http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/9217066/FIA-explanation-for-Riccardo-exclusion

Was just about to post that... it seems that the FIA informed Red Bull during the race of the issue, and they ignored it. Well done, guys.

[go_Rubens]

Well bathplugging done, Red Bull. Well done.

There isn't much Red Bull can do. Ricciardo's drive will still be up there with the best in recent years, but Red Bull are surely ROTR now for that stupid decision. They disappoint me, and in normal situations I wouldn't say that.

[noiceinmydrink]

Well.....http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/9217066/FIA-explanation-for-Riccardo-exclusion

Wow. Wretched.

[good_Ralf]

A bit late but this how I interpret Red Bull's fail:

[pasta_maldonado]

A bit late but this how I interpret Red Bull's fail:

[CoopsII]

Mark who?

[mario]

Damn you stewards.
Australia is officially cursed. The stewards have officially sodded up history again.
And, that's right, good_Ralf, Red Bull score zero points, both drivers not classified, and Australia's home drought continues, with Ricciardo being the first driver to be disqualified from a Grand Prix since the same race three years ago with the Sauber fiasco.

But look on the bright side, McLaren have a double podium finish and Button is on the podium for the first time in 20 races!
And Magnussen's third becomes second, still the highest-ever finish for a Dane in F1. This extend's McLaren points lead to 8.
And Force India gets double points, with Perez pushed into the top 10.
This is also Chilton's best career finish with thirteenth, maintaining his perfect record from last year.

Ricciardo will be throwing a huge meltdown right now.

Given that the stewards are now saying that Red Bull deliberately ignored the instructions of the FIA and the independent supplier to recalibrate the fuel flow meter during the race and decided to use their own model instead - a model which is not approved by the FIA - then it would appear that Red Bull were given the opportunity to avoid a penalty and intentionally chose not to accept it.
I have to say that, if the team were explicitly warned about the fuel flow readings and ignored it, then I can understand why the FIA is being harsh (a bit like Massa complaining about being penalised in Brazil last year for cutting the pit lane until it turned out that he'd already received three warnings over the radio for cutting the pit lane before he was hit with a penalty). We will have to see if Red Bull can persuade the FIA to overturn the decision, but in light of the warnings given to Red Bull I suspect that they will struggle to get their way.

[andrew]

Am I the only person that does not understand this, fuel flow is limited to 100kgh but they are only allowed 100kg, of Riccardo exceeded the fuel flow how did he have enough fuel to finish? Secondly how can the flow be above 100 when there is only 100kg of fuel?

[FullMetalJack]

Just a quick question. Assuming Ricciardo keeps his podium, when was the last time we had two unrejectifications in one race?

Thread for driver unrejectifications

The 2005 USGP, which of course, was a farce. The drivers in question were Monteiro and Karthikeyan.

Of course, although there's only 1 unrejectification now. Still more than last year.

[andrew2209]

Am I the only person that does not understand this, fuel flow is limited to 100kgh but they are only allowed 100kg, of Riccardo exceeded the fuel flow how did he have enough fuel to finish? Secondly how can the flow be above 100 when there is only 100kg of fuel?

I could be completely wrong, but the average fuel flow rate may be less than 100kg/h, but at some points Ricciardo could've exceeded that. That's how I seem to interpret it.

[andrew]

Am I the only person that does not understand this, fuel flow is limited to 100kgh but they are only allowed 100kg, of Riccardo exceeded the fuel flow how did he have enough fuel to finish? Secondly how can the flow be above 100 when there is only 100kg of fuel?

I could be completely wrong, but the average fuel flow rate may be less than 100kg/h, but at some points Ricciardo could've exceeded that. That's how I seem to interpret it.

Hmmm that could make sense

[go_Rubens]

Am I the only person that does not understand this, fuel flow is limited to 100kgh but they are only allowed 100kg, of Riccardo exceeded the fuel flow how did he have enough fuel to finish? Secondly how can the flow be above 100 when there is only 100kg of fuel?

I could be completely wrong, but the average fuel flow rate may be less than 100kg/h, but at some points Ricciardo could've exceeded that. That's how I seem to interpret it.

Hmmm that could make sense

I believe the 100 kg/h fuel flow limit only counts for when the driver is using full power, if I'm not mistaken.

[mario]

Am I the only person that does not understand this, fuel flow is limited to 100kgh but they are only allowed 100kg, of Riccardo exceeded the fuel flow how did he have enough fuel to finish? Secondly how can the flow be above 100 when there is only 100kg of fuel?

I could be completely wrong, but the average fuel flow rate may be less than 100kg/h, but at some points Ricciardo could've exceeded that. That's how I seem to interpret it.

The way it works is that the maximum instantaneous rate at which fuel can be delivered to the engine is 100kg/hour, which equates to about 28 grams a second. That is one reason why, although the engines can rev to 15,000rpm, most drivers only rev the engines to about 13,000rpm at most - once the fuel flow cap kicks in, there is a rapidly decreasing benefit in increasing the revs (which increases pumping and frictional losses) when you cannot burn any more fuel to increase the power output of the engine.

Given that limiting the fuel flow also ultimately limits the power, that is why the FIA is treating the fuel flow issue so strictly - even a small increase in fuel flow rate could give a driver a not insignificant power advantage, hence Adam Cooper's Twitter message that one team was so concerned about accidentally going over the 100kg/hour rate due to background "noise" in the data logging that they restricted their fuel flow rate to 96kg/hour even though it did cost them in terms of power. [Incidentally, I do wonder which team that was - given Ferrari made mention of being slightly short on peak power due to electrical issues, there is a small part of me that is wondering whether or not the two are connected.]

However, the driver is not going to be able to use full power at all times, which in turn means that the average fuel flow rate is going to be below 100kg/hour - the question then changes from an instantaneous flow rate to the cumulative amount of fuel used.

This is where the second limitation on fuel use (that specifies that the maximum quantity of fuel which can be used during the race is 100kg) kicks in. That places a different fuel consumption restriction on the teams - if we take Nico Rosberg as an example, the maximum rate at which fuel could enter his engine would have been 100kg/hour (or 28g/s), but his average fuel consumption in the race would have had to have been below about 64.5kg/hour in order to prevent him from using more than 100kg in total over the full race distance.

[Paul Hayes]

So, we're into the brave new world...

I thought it was a good start to the season. It was a shame that Rosberg was able to run and hide from the field quite so easily, but I don't see this being a repeat of last year with him in the place of Vettel and Mercedes in the place of Red Bull. For one thing, Rosberg should have Hamilton up there battling with him most of the time, and for another I just can't see Mercedes being as bulletproof, either reliability or strategy wise, as Red Bull have been in recent years. (Especially, on the latter front, now they have got rid of Ross Brawn).

Some of the gloomier prophets were predicting that Mercedes would lap the field, and that was nowhere near happening, so I'm sure the likes of Williams, Ferrari, McLaren and even Red Bull will give them a closer fight as the season goes on. (Let's not forget that Mercedes have tended to do poorly in the development race in recent years, too, and often fallen further down the field as the season has gone on).

Obviously the teams will get more on top of the new regulations as time goes on, but I enjoyed the element of unpredictability that seems to have been introduced into the driving. The engine noise factor has never been something I have particularly cared about, and indeed here I thought it was nice that they were quieter - I loved being able to hear the tyre squeals on the lock-ups. There was a spectacular one from Hulkenberg about halfway through which really made me jump, as I thought it was a woman screaming!

I do feel sorry for Ricciardo, but at the end of the day rules are rules. A post-race disqualification for a fuel irregularity even has a pleasingly retro, 1980s feel to it...

[Salamander]

Given that limiting the fuel flow also ultimately limits the power, that is why the FIA is treating the fuel flow issue so strictly - even a small increase in fuel flow rate could give a driver a not insignificant power advantage, hence Adam Cooper's Twitter message that one team was so concerned about accidentally going over the 100kg/hour rate due to background "noise" in the data logging that they restricted their fuel flow rate to 96kg/hour even though it did cost them in terms of power. [Incidentally, I do wonder which team that was - given Ferrari made mention of being slightly short on peak power due to electrical issues, there is a small part of me that is wondering whether or not the two are connected.]

I think that might've been Mercedes actually... I recall Toto Wolff saying something about voluntarily reducing their fuel intake, costing them about half a second.

[mario]

Given that limiting the fuel flow also ultimately limits the power, that is why the FIA is treating the fuel flow issue so strictly - even a small increase in fuel flow rate could give a driver a not insignificant power advantage, hence Adam Cooper's Twitter message that one team was so concerned about accidentally going over the 100kg/hour rate due to background "noise" in the data logging that they restricted their fuel flow rate to 96kg/hour even though it did cost them in terms of power. [Incidentally, I do wonder which team that was - given Ferrari made mention of being slightly short on peak power due to electrical issues, there is a small part of me that is wondering whether or not the two are connected.]

I think that might've been Mercedes actually... I recall Toto Wolff saying something about voluntarily reducing their fuel intake, costing them about half a second.

It could be them actually, now that you mention that - which might be even more worrying for their rivals if Mercedes were that dominant despite slightly detuning the engine.

[Divina_Galica]

Am I the only person that does not understand this, fuel flow is limited to 100kgh but they are only allowed 100kg, of Riccardo exceeded the fuel flow how did he have enough fuel to finish? Secondly how can the flow be above 100 when there is only 100kg of fuel?

Well, you'd only use the 100kg of fuel at a rate of 100kg/hour if you were using full throttle 100% of the time.

Given that significant proportions of time are spent each lap braking or part throttle, or you may be running an engine map that doesn't deliver maximum power, the 100kg/hr is the effective limit on the power the engine can produce

[dr-baker]

Mario, I love the fact that the nice, round 100 kg/hr (easy to remember) equates to the nice, round, equally easy to remember, exactly 1 oz/sec!

[TomWazzleshaw]

A wild potential lawsuit appears!

[the Masked Lapwing]

A wild potential lawsuit appears!

Every year. Every year the Victorians find something to complain about
Bernie, please just move the race to NSW. We actually want it.

[Jocke1]

A wild potential lawsuit appears!

This just in: Andrew Westacott, what did you expect?

[Waris]

Crikey, what a bummer. Oh well, Ricciardo, you will always be remembered for being the first F1 driver to say "I'm tripping BALLS" in the post-race interview.

[Ferrim]

Am I the only person that does not understand this, fuel flow is limited to 100kgh but they are only allowed 100kg, of Riccardo exceeded the fuel flow how did he have enough fuel to finish? Secondly how can the flow be above 100 when there is only 100kg of fuel?

Well, you'd only use the 100kg of fuel at a rate of 100kg/hour if you were using full throttle 100% of the time.

Then you would run out of fuel: races last longer than an hour!

[Jocke1]

Haven't seen this mentioned in the thread (if it is already posted, sorry).
Vettel lost an F1 record yesterday. The new youngest points scorer in F1 history is now Daniil Kvyat.

1. Daniil Kvyat - 19 years 10m 18d - Australia 2014
2. Sebastian Vettel - 19 years 11m 14d - U.S.A. 2007
3. Jaime Alguersuari - 20 years 00m 12d - Malaysia 2010
4. Jenson Button - 20 years 02m 07d - Brazil 2000
5. Ricardo Rodriguez - 20 years 04m 03d - Belgium 1962

[IceG]

So presumably Vettel will be telling the FIA that Kvyat's car had the same fuel sensor calibration as Ricciardo's

On a serious note, were Vettel and Ricciardo running the same software set-ups? Some of the comments seem to suggest otherwise; that Vettel had a modified version to try and ameliorate some of the drivability issues (can't find source to cite - sorry). Perhaps Vettel's car was as potentially illegal as Ricciardo's?

[CoopsII]

On a serious note, were Vettel and Ricciardo running the same software set-ups? Some of the comments seem to suggest otherwise; that Vettel had a modified version to try and ameliorate some of the drivability issues (can't find source to cite - sorry). Perhaps Vettel's car was as potentially illegal as Ricciardo's?

Not sure but I read up until it retired it wasnt pulling more fuel than it should unlike Ricciardos which appears to have been doing so all afternoon.

If only the team had been informed!

[Rusujuur]

I still don't understand why they have the 100kg/h limit when they already have the 100kg/race limit. I mean, all races last longer than 1h so your average flow has to be well below the 100kg/h limit anyways. So Ricciardo had more flow at times but then he had to save all the more on other occasions, should that average out to 0 net gain or is there some kind of wichcraft where you gain more by spending and lose less by conserving?

And they also have the RPM limit, which should limit maximum power on it own, if I am not mistaken.

[madmark1974]

I still don't understand why they have the 100kg/h limit when they already have the 100kg/race limit. I mean, all races last longer than 1h so your average flow has to be well below the 100kg/h limit anyways. So Ricciardo had more flow at times but then he had to save all the more on other occasions, should that average out to 0 net gain or is there some kind of wichcraft where you gain more by spending and lose less by conserving?

And they also have the RPM limit, which should limit maximum power on it own, if I am not mistaken.

Mario has already explained this several times on this thread, including on this very same page! 5 mouse clicks on the scroll bar ...

[DanielPT]

A wild potential lawsuit appears!

Was not this a good point due to previous noise problems F1 in the past, including at this same venue? Go figure...

[Rusujuur]

I still don't understand why they have the 100kg/h limit when they already have the 100kg/race limit. I mean, all races last longer than 1h so your average flow has to be well below the 100kg/h limit anyways. So Ricciardo had more flow at times but then he had to save all the more on other occasions, should that average out to 0 net gain or is there some kind of wichcraft where you gain more by spending and lose less by conserving?

And they also have the RPM limit, which should limit maximum power on it own, if I am not mistaken.

Mario has already explained this several times on this thread, including on this very same page! 5 mouse clicks on the scroll bar ...

From Marios postst I understand that flow limits power but so does the RPM limit and it has been in effect for many seasons, why add the flow limit if you already have the total consumption limit?

[Salamander]

Unfortunately for Raikkonen fans, you shouldn't expect Kimi's fortunes to improve anytime soon, it seems.

[dr-baker]

From Marios postst I understand that flow limits power but so does the RPM limit and it has been in effect for many seasons, why add the flow limit if you already have the total consumption limit?

OK, so from what I understand, it's not just the average that matters but peak. If you used 150 kg/hr (1.5 oz/sec!) for the first two laps, then backed off the rest of the race, you would have gained significant advanage during those two laps if noone else was doing it (look at how Bottas was cutting through the field!).

[Rusujuur]

From Marios postst I understand that flow limits power but so does the RPM limit and it has been in effect for many seasons, why add the flow limit if you already have the total consumption limit?

OK, so from what I understand, it's not just the average that matters but peak. If you used 150 kg/hr (1.5 oz/sec!) for the first two laps, then backed off the rest of the race, you would have gained significant advanage during those two laps if noone else was doing it (look at how Bottas was cutting through the field!).

Well yes, but if everybody could do it then what's the difference? Nobody can go over the RPM and they all have the same fuel so why restrict flow? If you want to have less power just bring the RPM down even more.

[FMecha]

Exceuses flew again from Red Bull: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... ostpopular

Stoddart defends them: http://au.sports.yahoo.com/motorsport/n ... -stoddart/

[andrew2209]

The real reason Ricciardo was disqualified:

[LionZoo]

http://en.espnf1.com/australia/motorspo ... 49613.html

"Having heard from the driver and the technical representatives of the team, and especially reviewing the technical data, the stewards determine that the incident was caused by a serious technical failure completely outside the control of the driver," the stewards' statement read.

Uh oh. Can brake by wire be a source of future problems? Will it lead to more conspiracy theories?