Re: Daniel Ricardo disqualified from Australian F1 race
FIA should be taken outside and shot in the face. They 'enforce' a rule with equipment that has been proven to be faulty. There were inaccurate readings all through winter testing. The Mercs had too high readings in FP3 and limited their engines to 96 kg/h to satisfy the lying sensors. But that's an easy thing to do if you have a ridiculously superior engine, a luxury that Ferrari and Renault customers don't have.
How the hell can you enforce a rule that you can't gouvern reliably?? It's ridiculous.
Re: Daniel Ricardo disqualified from Australian F1 race
Quote:
Originally Posted by dj_bytedisaster
FIA should be taken outside and shot in the face. They 'enforce' a rule with equipment that has been proven to be faulty. There were inaccurate readings all through winter testing. The Mercs had too high readings in FP3 and limited their engines to 96 kg/h to satisfy the lying sensors. But that's an easy thing to do if you have a ridiculously superior engine, a luxury that Ferrari and Renault customers don't have.
How the hell can you enforce a rule that you can't gouvern reliably?? It's ridiculous.
Well said that man!
I feel sorry for Ricciardo, even when the dsq is overturned and he gets the place back, the moment is gone. He has joined an exclusive club of drivers who have scored a podium in their home GP. At the end of the day he did nothing wrong.
What confuses me a wee bit is this - if he was using more than the mandated maximum of 100kg of fuel per hour, how come he managed to get to the end of the race on 100kg of fuel, when the race was far longer than an hour long. I know someone will point out that this is a maximum reading, not an average, but still...
Re: Daniel Ricardo disqualified from Australian F1 race
Quote:
Originally Posted by anfield5
If what RBR are saying is correct, i.e that sensor failed in practice and a second one failed in qual, and they where instructed to re-intall the first faulty one and come up with an equation to offset the false readings, the dsq should be overturned.
nope
it is the teams fault the sensor failed twice
and the teams fault they gained an illegal advantage
it would be absurd to think the FIA would overturn a clear infringement because the "team" screwed up and could not produce decent parts?
I bet you the tight packaging, led to overheating, which lead to sensor failure.
There is nothing the fIA did wrong in this case
shoot, if they are in the business of overturning results, maybe they should give the race win to hamilton, because something malfunctioned in his car and had nothing to do with his driving. lol
Re: Daniel Ricardo disqualified from Australian F1 race
Quote:
Originally Posted by anfield5
What confuses me a wee bit is this - if he was using more than the mandated maximum of 100kg of fuel per hour, how come he managed to get to the end of the race on 100kg of fuel, when the race was far longer than an hour long. I know someone will point out that this is a maximum reading, not an average, but still...
100kg/hr is a rate whilst 100kg of fuel is a fixed amount of stuff.
How come it's possible to to 70mph on the motorway on a journey of only 9 miles? Same thing.
Re: Daniel Ricardo disqualified from Australian F1 race
IMO the FIA have made this more complicated than it needs to be, and could easily simply monitor fuel load for the race and deal with an average instead of an absolute flow rate. Less parts to question, more options for the teams, and it would also reward the best designs of aero efficiency as well as ERS energy use and recovery.
But regardless, RB shouldn't have screwed Daniel out of such a great drive.
Re: Daniel Ricardo disqualified from Australian F1 race
Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
Quote:
Originally Posted by anfield5
If what RBR are saying is correct, i.e that sensor failed in practice and a second one failed in qual, and they where instructed to re-intall the first faulty one and come up with an equation to offset the false readings, the dsq should be overturned.
nope
it is the
teams fault the sensor failed twice
and the
teams fault they gained an illegal advantage
it would be absurd to think the FIA would overturn a clear infringement because the
"team" screwed up and could not produce decent parts?
I bet you the tight packaging, led to overheating, which lead to sensor failure.
There is nothing the fIA did wrong in this case
shoot, if they are in the business of overturning results, maybe they should give the race win to hamilton, because something malfunctioned in his car and had nothing to do with his driving. lol
Your opinion is invalid, because your bum hurts because Lewis din't win and you'd have a go at everyone who dared to be ahead of your love interest.
Re: Daniel Ricardo disqualified from Australian F1 race
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Quote:
Originally Posted by anfield5
What confuses me a wee bit is this - if he was using more than the mandated maximum of 100kg of fuel per hour, how come he managed to get to the end of the race on 100kg of fuel, when the race was far longer than an hour long. I know someone will point out that this is a maximum reading, not an average, but still...
100kg/hr is a
rate whilst 100kg of fuel is a fixed amount of stuff.
How come it's possible to to 70mph on the motorway on a journey of only 9 miles? Same thing.
Yes I realise this, but simple maths says that if you are using fuel at the rate of over 100kg/hour, for an extended period of time and have 100kg of fuel on board it will run out before an hour lapses. Similarly if you are running a car at 12 mpg and drive 20 miles, you will run out of fuel.
My thought is this (please feel free to dusagree (said with Kiwi accent)) there is no need to regulate the fuel flow rate, as there is only 100kg of the stuff allowed, if you use too much you run out, why do things need to be complicated by the rule makers? The fact is Ricciardo got to the end of the race on his allotted fuel (but I digress), the rules are there and that is that, but
Re: Daniel Ricardo disqualified from Australian F1 race
Quote:
Originally Posted by dj_bytedisaster
Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
Quote:
Originally Posted by anfield5
If what RBR are saying is correct, i.e that sensor failed in practice and a second one failed in qual, and they where instructed to re-intall the first faulty one and come up with an equation to offset the false readings, the dsq should be overturned.
nope
it is the
teams fault the sensor failed twice
and the
teams fault they gained an illegal advantage
it would be absurd to think the FIA would overturn a clear infringement because the
"team" screwed up and could not produce decent parts?
I bet you the tight packaging, led to overheating, which lead to sensor failure.
There is nothing the fIA did wrong in this case
shoot, if they are in the business of overturning results, maybe they should give the race win to hamilton, because something malfunctioned in his car and had nothing to do with his driving. lol
Your opinion is invalid, because your bum hurts because Lewis din't win and you'd have a go at everyone who dared to be ahead of your love interest.
absolute rubbish
but lets play devil's advocate for a minute...
then what are you doing posting here since your golden boy got knocked out, your team got found out for cheating and thus you are having a go at other members.
this is 2014 DJ. I thought you would have grown up a bit ,but it is the same childish and rather colorful language pockmarking your posts throughout the forum. so off to ignore and report to the admins
cheers
Re: Daniel Ricardo disqualified from Australian F1 race
Quote:
Originally Posted by anfield5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Quote:
Originally Posted by anfield5
What confuses me a wee bit is this - if he was using more than the mandated maximum of 100kg of fuel per hour, how come he managed to get to the end of the race on 100kg of fuel, when the race was far longer than an hour long. I know someone will point out that this is a maximum reading, not an average, but still...
100kg/hr is a
rate whilst 100kg of fuel is a fixed amount of stuff.
How come it's possible to to 70mph on the motorway on a journey of only 9 miles? Same thing.
Yes I realise this, but simple maths says that if you are using fuel at the rate of over 100kg/hour, for an extended period of time and have 100kg of fuel on board it will run out before an hour lapses. Similarly if you are running a car at 12 mpg and drive 20 miles, you will run out of fuel.
My thought is this (please feel free to dusagree (said with Kiwi accent)) there is no need to regulate the fuel flow rate, as there is only 100kg of the stuff allowed, if you use too much you run out, why do things need to be complicated by the rule makers? The fact is Ricciardo got to the end of the race on his allotted fuel (but I digress), the rules are there and that is that, but
Anfield,
Of course I agree with you about the ridiculousness and over complication of the fuel regs. And said so much in another thread.
I agree. simplify it to the allotted fuel and if they run out, they run out.
but the rules are what they are and if everyone is abiding to one set of rules and one team is not and is given multiple opportunities to rectify the situation, even during the race and choose not too, then that is a problem. That fact remains that the increased fuel flow did provide an advantage for him because others were managing under restrictive levels and thus raced with a handicap as compared to the RBR.
I think the punishment is justified. a tough break fro Ricciardo, and perhaps they can do away with the rule going forward.
that is, if common sense hasn't completely left the FIA
Re: Daniel Ricardo disqualified from Australian F1 race
If they've only got 100kg of fuel what difference does it make how fast they use it? If they use it too fast they'll run out. Surely it should be up to the teams how much fuel they want to use as long as they don't exceed the maximum overall limit.
It's a shame for Ricciardo as he drove very well all weekend and put his much vaunted teammate in the shade.
