Are you really that stupid? Divebomb? DUDE. His rear brakes were not working, do you understand that? And you know, if your brakes are not working you can't stop the car. Blame it on the Japanese people, oh right! Who's insulting who now?
We take plenty about torque and having trouble putting the power down, but I feel like a lot of drivers were having even more trouble slowing the cars down. Tons of lock ups and missed apexes, allowing for some intense battles and legitimate passing.
Oh, yeah.. F-1 car just has rear brakes. Suure... Ok, obviously he did not know about his rear brakes' condition, it doesn't change the fact he should have acted more cautiously during very busy traffic at T1. As far I am concerned rear brakes aren't that effective as front ones, anyways. It's just a big shame he ruined Felipe's debut with Williams.
We all know japanese driving mentality. I don't isult japanese drivers, it's just the way they drive. They earned that image. No need to mix the colors.
And no, I did not overreact. Is that hard to start a normal objective conversation, starting 'sorry I disagree' and statement continues. No, of course, need to put some drama here, as in any LFSForum thread and start shooting at people, that later leads to a couple of new thread pages conversation.
@Pringles, yes it might be. Before I've made a statement, I did not see anywhere Kamui's apologise and further explanation on the case. After a while, I've noticed a leaked photo of his twitter in one of F-1 fan pages on facebook.
Do you know what happens when you start braking normally and only front brakes are working? Of course they lock up. After that you have no change to stop the car before is too late...
And in my opinion Kobayashi was better driver in Sauber than Perez
Kamui is a fine driver and it must be remembered that he has spent some time outside F1. All the tecniques are different from the last time he appeared in an F1 car and it will be a while before everyone is fully up to speed. To slag someone off like has been done here is infantile and defies all logic. Remember to read responses without inferring a particular slant and we will all get more out of this thread.
Honesetly the fuel flow rate bs is a really stupid rule, but if your going to inforce it, it should be done under one system therefore there can't be discrepancies.
It IS done under one system. Even if the sensor is faulty, the FIA must agree that is it and then a predetermined system with correction factor is used. The teams ARE NOT allowed to use their own fuel flow models. Please ACTUALLY read the FIA report. As in the words.
If there is a limit for the entire race, then I don't see the point of having a flow limit. Having no flow limit would allow more wide variety of engine strategy.
Don't think Red Bull have a leg to stand on, which is a shame because it was a great moment for Ricciardo and the Aussie fans that is now taken away from them, especially if it is not actually the fuel flow exceeding the limit that caused the issue but rather how the faulty sensor was handled by the team - although that is the team's fault.
Anyone know what is the +- varation of the sensors after calibration and what was the % difference before and after the "switch" that occurred during FP ?
I don't see how they can win that appeal. Even if the sensor was faulty there is a procedure for that and they chose not to follow it.
I think this is just the beginning...if the sensors aren't operating at absolute perfection we will have those kind of irregularites all season long.
Without the flow limit they would have had the option to build an engine that outputs a million hp in Q and turn it down in the race. Those engines would have cost a shitload of money to develop. Fuel flow limit is a cost saving measure.
3 page report summed it up nicely. Is it really that hard to read?
Fuel flow limit forces the teams into investing heavily in building more thermally efficient engines which will hopefully trickle down into road cars. F1 cars operate 30-40% thermal efficiency when on track (40% is target for near future) while a road car with a downsized engine runs at <=20-25% efficiency when running anything over 3500rpm. Whether this was the main intent or a side effect of the rule is uncertain.
I'm just wondering why we never heard loads of stories from the pre-season testing about these terrible sensors. Obviously I understand Horner has to play things up, but if there's any truth to his comments (that the sensors were so faulty some were running without them in the race) it just seems like we'd have had those kinds of problems in Jerez and Bahrain already. It seems like the best time to highlight these problems to the FIA is during pre-season testing rather than at the first race when you've got points on the line.
Exactly. Horner can't be trusted. Typical Red Bull politics. But I'm sure he had many things to worry about between Jerez and now other than the FIA hardware.
Thanks for the numbers Tristan. 0.25% is about 1.75 hp @ 700 hp nominal value. I'm not sure if teams find this acceptable but it seems good enough to me.
Why should we hear stories from testing? They weren't being scrutineered, and flow rate validation is hardly newsworthy. We don't hear that the pitot tubes for 2014 are 0.1% inaccurate. It's only a problem when the Gill sensors say you're using too much fuel against a legal limit, but the engine is actually injecting less than the legal amount. And that's only a news issue when someone fails scrutineering.
I had heard rumours that teams were struggling to get a match, both in F1 and in WEC, which use the same sensor.
I'm glad you included the pitot tube example. The reason why I'm glad is that the pitot tube doesn't really have an impact from a legality point (as far as I'm aware they aren't homologated FIA parts and their readings aren't used in an official capacity), but the fuel flow sensor most certainly does, in a very critical fashion. We've already seen Red Bull lose a 2nd place position and a chunk of points (pending appeal) and it's only the first race. If Red Bull (and many other teams, as Horner suggests) were struggling with these sensors from pre-season testing they obviously knew the importance they were going to play in the season and they should have forced the issue with the FIA. If they truly believed they weren't accurate/consistent/reliable enough to be used in the championship races they definitely should have made more of a point about it.
The reason why we should have heard stories from testing is that we heard lots of stories about other technical/legality aspects (e.g. the Ferrari turbo ballistic shield, the Lotus 'twin' nose (staggered tips) and McLaren's rear suspension). In the past when teams have perceived legality issues they've been quick to involve the media as a means of applying additional pressure to the FIA (think back to a couple of years ago when the FIA were forced to change the wing deflection tests after a 'flexi' front wing "scandal" got coverage in the press).
Instead of pitot tubes then, how about the injectors (which I think are an FIA defined part) - we haven't heard F1 teams talking openly about how good/accurate/poor/inaccurate they are. Even though someone could be disqualified over them, until there is an actual problem then it's a non-issue.
But the issues you raised were the ones the fans could see, from photos. They were discussed in the fan domain. The teams/FIA discuss a lot more than we ever know about. If the FIA sensors were good enough, it wouldn't be an issue. But they're not good enough for F1 as a legality control. And unless you can guarantee the measurements, I don't think the FIA should be using them as a go-no-go check.
Now it's a known issue (publicly) we'll hear a lot more from other teams about these, and I expect the FIA/Gill/the calibrators to revise the sensors soon, or put in place a better backup method.
RB weren't excluded for using too much fuel, but for not following "the procedure" if a sensor isn't working properly. No doubt RB won't use the same tecnique again, and other teams will be hastily revising their other backup plans and maps so that they can't fall into the same trap.
I don't think this is a fair comparison because of the emphasised section in the quote above. If we're to believe Horner then the fuel flow sensor was indeed a problem before the first race. The fact that the sensor was replaced (changed for a different one then changed again back to the original sensor) during the weekend is further evidence of this. In effect the teams were going into the race knowing that a critical measuring device (ho hyperbole) was unraliable (according to Horner).
This is different from, for example, the injectors, which (again, according to Horner) were reliable:
I take your wider point about other controlled items, but what's important to note is that the mandated fuel flow sensor appears (again, according to Horner) to have been a problem for numerous teams, both in pre-season testing and during the race weekend at Melbourne.
I'm not sure about the validity of this point with regards to the ballistic shield, but it's certainly true for the Lotus nose and McLaren rear suspension.
Sure, the teams are obviously going to have more contact with the FIA than we know about.
Right, but if the sensors really aren't reliable across the pitlane why would the teams agree to race? They're effectively putting their time, effort and huge budgets in the hands of a faulty sensor. If it really was such a big issue the teams surely would have got together and lobbied the FIA en masse (exploiting the media, if necessary) to get changes made before the first race.
I'll be interested to follow the story going forward. I want to know how many of the other teams believe the sensors are unreliable, and when they first formed that opinion.
