Max Mosley threatens to ban B.A.R.

[|Nuno|]

The 2005 season for BAR could come to an abrupt end on May 4th.
Aparently Geoff Willis has lied to the FIA stewards and if true, Max will ban the team.

The stats: Button weighed in at 73.6 Kg and the car at 532.5 Kg.
After Charlie Whiting ordered the fuel drain, the fuel weighed 11.5Kg.
After this, the car only weighed 521.0 Kg. which was a total weight of 594.6 Kg.
The minimum weight, including on-board camera is to be 605 Kg.
Thus, car number 3 was 10.4 Kg underweight.

Upond discovery, Charlie Witing asked Willis if the car had a secondary tank.
Willis denied this.
To BAR's surprise, the FIA stewards produced an Endoscope and examined the tank in detail.
The camera did indeed find another tank inside the original.

In general, all teams calculate their fuel consumption very accurately.
Most teams are so precise that the norm is 1.5 Kg of fuel remains after a race.
On Jenson's car it was 11.5 Kg. He carried an extra 13.5 Litres.
The amount of the hidden fuel is enough to extend the first pit stop by 3 extra laps.
While other teams need to add ballast weights, BAR could burn its extra weight.
This weight advantage amounts to about .4 seconds per lap.

Regulations do not prohibit the instalation of more tanks,but these must be clearly indicated in the technical drawings submitted to the FIA, which BAR had not done.
The car may not be underweight during any time during the competition.

Before May 4th, the FIA will now attempt to prove that BAR has deliberately and regularly cheated in this regard. They will examine; the times of the stops, the pumped volumes and the lap times of all past races, including 2004, where BAR was second in the constructors championship.

When Max was asked about the incident, he made it very clear that any infaction will be dealt with severly and there will be no compromise. BAR and Button will therefore lose much more than just 3rd place at Imola. "If anyone is caught, wilfuly and deliberately cheating, they will be expelled from the championship, no matter who it is" said Mosley.


http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/d/81743

[SPEEDKILLAR]

Wow, I'm glad they have been caught, if they did it many times, I will loose all respect for BAR, its such a shame.

[ZfrkS62]

:shock: holy fuck, this is serious :shock: i wonder if Jenson knew about this second tank or if maybe the endoscope produced an echo or something that got picked up as a second tank. i'll be JB is even more pissed now that he had to stay at BAR this year.

The hell with the testing issue, this is much more entertaining :D

[Anonymous]

If this proves to be true what a screw up!, not exactly a grey area as far as i can see, were used to teams pushing the rules but this is pure cheating if they run that much underweight regularly

[saadie]

wow ... never thought anything like this could happen ... :shock:
B(anned) AR(se) :mrgreen:

[zondaland]

Its certainly a very serious issue, and an extremely complex way of cheating. I must admit that having watched the live timing of both first and second qualifying I was expecting the BARs to pit early, as they were much quicker in 2nd quali than 1st relative to everybody else. Then in the race I was surprised when they ran fairly deep. I noticed it particularly with Sato as he was in the freight train behind Trulli. Perhaps this explains why.

[gucom]

hmmm it'd be sad but right if BAR were to be banned...it looked like BAR was pickin up the pace again in imola, and we might have a VERY interesting championship with 3 or 4 (or maybe even more) teams competing for wins regularly...but hey if they cheated they deserve to be banned :x

[|Nuno|]

Meh, I have mixed feelings about this...

In one hand, if they cheated then they should be banned; rules are rules. And it's not the first time that they have a different interpretation of the rules...

But on the other hand this would be pretty bad for the sport... Imagine a grid with only 18 cars... :?


However, there's something that bothers me. Why wasn't Sato's car in the same situation...?




EDIT: Another article.


The revelation that Jenson Button's BAR was underweight without fuel on board in post-race checks at Imola has prompted fresh speculation that teams could be trying to gain an unfair advantage by running their cars below the minimum weight limit at certain points of a Grand Prix.

According to documents seen by Autosport-Atlas, Button's car, including driver, weighed 606.1kg with its fuel on board after the San Marino Grand Prix - but only 594.6kg without the fuel. This is below the 600kg minimum weight limit laid down by the FIA and indicated almost 12kg of fuel and fluids on board.

Although the stewards accepted BAR's explanation for the discrepancy, the FIA believes that there is reason for further action - which is why the FIA Court of Appeal will meet on May 4.

There has been no official confirmation about why the FIA have chosen to examine the case further, but high level sources have claimed that the matter could revolve around the use of a secondary fuel tank.

This could be illegal on two counts. Article 6.1.1 of F1's technical regulations states that, 'a fuel tank must be a single rubber bladder', while there are ways of using that secondary fuel tank that would also go against the sport's rules.

One way would be for a secondary tank to be filled with fuel for the final stint of the race to allow the weight of the car to fall in line with the minimum weight limit at post-race checks - even if the main tank was emptied to check the weight of the car.

During the race itself, this tank could be run until empty and, when the car has little or no fuel on board at the end of stints during the race, then it would be theoretically running underweight. This would give it extra speed.

Teams are not allowed to use fuel as ballast and such use of a secondary fuel tank to provide extra ballast would be in contravention of the regulations and would almost certainly be deemed as an act of deliberate cheating.

Moreover, the FIA have long maintained that such a course of action by teams was impossible to get away with because the weight checks take place post-race both with fluids (including fuel) and without them.

Since 1982, the Formula One regulations require the cars to meet the minimum weight without any fluids at all. Furthermore, the regulations specifically state the car must be equal or above the minimum weight at any given point during the event.

Back in 1982, teams were permitted to refill their cars with cooling fluids in the parc ferme after the race. Brabham and Williams built pseudo-brake coolers into their vehicles and while the tanks were empty during the race - making the car lighter and under the minimum weight - they would refill them before scrutineering.

The FIA moved forward and officially outlawed the process that year, and since then cars are pumped out of all liquids during scrutineering and weighed empty and bare.

There is no ambiguity about the regulations where it comes to using fuel as weight, and it would therefore seem quite strange if BAR-Honda were to use fuel as weight. Most certainly, it seems inconceivable this was done deliberately.

Should the FIA find any evidence of deliberate cheating, then there would likely be severe consequences for the BAR-Honda team. The FIA showed in the past - when Toyota were banned from the 1996 World Rally Championship after they were found cheating, and Tyrrell were banned from the 1984 F1 World Championship for failing to meet the technical regulations - that they are not afraid to take harsh action against front-line teams.

Teams have, however, long known how harsh penalties are for cheating. The possibility of bans, and the negative publicity such a move would entail, have always been too much of a deterrent for teams to risk being caught breaking the rules.

Finally, even if BAR-Honda made a mistake without any cause for malice, should the FIA's Court of Appeal find that indeed the car was underweight without fuel - and therefore did not meet the technical regulations - the team are likely to lose their podium finish from the San Marino Grand Prix and possibly pay a fine.

In 1994, the FIA had appealed the British GP stewards' decision not to penalise Michael Schumacher for ignoring the black flag during that race. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal not only disqualified him from that race but also imposed two race bans on him.

A spokesman for the FIA refused to confirm any details about the BAR case. "It is inappropriate to comment on this matter at the moment," he said.

BAR-Honda were unavailable for comment.

Autosport Atlas

[Max Power]

this all sounds like speculation...but if they were cheating why only on JB car

[yg60m]

I wonder if they would say the same if it was Ferrari ... :roll:

[|Nuno|]

and nuno there wouldnt be 18 cars on the grid, teams would have to provide a 3rd car.

Yeah, but I'm not too fond on that idea... :|



I wonder if they would say the same if it was Ferrari ... :roll:

Oh yes, they would.

What I wonder is what the public would say. :wink: If there's so much bitching about smaller things, I can't imagine what would be like if Ferrari was caught cheating...

[phantomfocus]

BAR have obviously minipulated the system into their favor. If they have indeed cheated than they must suffer the consequences. But with it being as easy to do as it sounds, and having as much of effect as it supposedly has, I wonder if their hasn't been any other teams using this little trick? I would hope that they are all building new tanks as we speak, but it would interesting to know. You have to wonder why the team would allow themselves to make the mistake of letting the car finnish with too low fuel. This might turn into one EXPENSIVE brain fart. Think of all their sponsers, and even Honda their are probably thrilled!

[|Nuno|]

they say, Alonso had engine problems. but in all honestly i dont think so, they just want to add more drama to it and make Alonso look better.

Man, that's so true. When I heard that his engine was severely damaged I just had to laugh... Okay, he probably saved it during some time in the race, just like everyone else does, and I'm sure he had some minor troubles with it (common with Renault this year), but come on...!

If the engine was so damaged then how come he clocked 311.5 Kmh on the very last lap..? :roll: In some sites people were saying that his engine was limited to around 154000 rpms. Bunch of fools.

And by the way, by saying this I'm not trying to take away any credit from Alonso. He drove a very good race and I'd certainly love to see him behind the wheel of one of the 'red cars' when Michael retires, but this "ah, he's engine was severely damaged" bullshit pisses me off...



Back on topic: it seems that the rules aren't as clear as expected, so it's unclear what will happen to B.A.R.

[blah]

Funny even though they are cheating they cant seem to win. Did they blow their engine in the last race too?

[phantomfocus]

Somebody once told me that "in motorsport there are cheaters and there are losers" I always wanted to believe that wasn't true, I sure hope that's not what we've come to.

[Max Power]

everyone is assuming the worst based on some worseless 'reports'...its all bs...why would BAR install this 'double' tank only on JB car and only at Imola...because they didn't

[ae86_16v]

oh man this is great, i liked Button before that whole BMW debacle at the end of last season. i only feel bad for Sato and David Richards.

. . .

just for the hell of it i think they should check out the Renaults for traction gizmos. :idea:

Yeah, David Richards isn't with the team anymore. He got the boot last year after Honda brought controlling interest.

I agreed with you, if they were cheating then they should be banned. That has to be strict about things like this.

And yeah, hahah, they definitely need to check that traction at launch. :D

Man, I was so happy last year when BAR was 2nd. I like that team a lot, but resorting to this is kind of despicable.

[komotar]

Oh, come one man, I'm a bit dissapointed.

I like Bar Honda.

This will be interesting. I think they should get punshed. Not compleetlex expelled from the championship. Maybe a 3 or 4 race ban. Something like that.

It makes you wonder how many things we don't know about. Are any of the other teams cheating too, and nobody has caught them and so on....

[saadie]

i was talking to a friend ... he kinda mentioned that if bar gets owned ... then in their place .. 3 cars of the top running teams will come out ....
at first i didnt want BAR banned ... lol ... now i want them banned fer this season :lol: :mrgreen:

[Max Power]

The magazine claims


about alleged irregularities


FIA official Charlie Whiting is said to have become suspicious

...these cold hard facts really do mean that honda will be banned :roll:

[ae86_16v]

The magazine claims


about alleged irregularities


FIA official Charlie Whiting is said to have become suspicious

...these cold hard facts really do mean that honda will be banned :roll:

Well, of course it is "alleged" because it has not been proven yet. But there are these claims that are worth looking into.

We'll see.

[szumszer]

actually, BAR is a looser and a cheater (well perhaps nothing has been proven, yet), but who knows how other teams are "interpreting" the rules; hopefully BAR will be cleared of wrongdoing, but if they get disqualified then this will be a huge blow to Honda, as they have invested a lot of money into this

[Pimp Racer]

Damn why did they have to go and cheat? Damn bastards. And they were my favorite team in F1! :( Now its Toyota I suppose?

[kksh]

That's one clever way of running light. I mean if only they could hide the fuel somewhere else where it'd be hard to find. Or impossible to find. But if they were found cheating, it'll be sad to see them banned. I know rules are rules but I was hoping we'd have a 3 or 4 way fight for wins or titles.

And about Alonso having a damaged engine, it's just a bunch of bull. We'll see how Alonso goes at his home GP.

[|Nuno|]

BAR Special: Shaken, Not Stirred


This is a story befitting an Ian Fleming novel: a hidden compartment, officials on secret service, and a 007 in the middle. Cooper, Adam Cooper sheds light on the FIA's appeal against BAR-Honda and brings exclusive information from the paddock on events that led the San Marino stewards to overlook an infringement which, exactly 20 years ago, got a World Champion disqualified



After the finish of the 1985 San Marino Grand Prix, the McLaren of race winner Alain Prost was found to be 2kgs underweight. The Frenchman was of course disqualified - it was black and white, even if the discrepancy was a result of a genuine mistake by his team.

Jenson Button, BAR-HondaExactly 20 years on, Jenson Button's third placed BAR 007 was found to be almost 5.4kgs under the weight limit at the same event - a margin nearly three times the one that caught out Prost, and this in an era when the technical checks and weighing equipment are far more sophisticated. And yet on this occasion Button was not disqualified.

If many in the paddock found this strange, to say the least, the FIA itself was so flabbergasted by the decision made by the stewards on Sunday night at Imola that it has appealed against the judgement of the three wise men acting in its name. It's a move not totally without precedent in recent motor sport history, but a rare one all the same.

This is an unusual story, worthy of the secret agent who shares his name with the type number of the car. Many of the facts are yet to emerge, but having spoken to some well-informed people - although not from BAR, as no one is talking - Autosport-Atlas attempts to piece the basics together.

The Man with the Golden Endoscope

Things began to develop in the couple of hours after the end of the race. Post-race technical checks were a formality for most, and once the cars had been examined, they were pushed into the double garage that served as parc ferme. Normally, if there are no issues, the results are made official a little more than an hour after the race, at which point all the cars are then released back to the teams, and packed away in the transporters.

But last weekend there was a problem. Wandering past the FIA end of the pits, amid the usual noisy chaos that follows any race in Italy, one could sense that something wasn't quite right. At a time when usually everything was done and dusted, not only were most of the cars still parked forlornly in parc ferme, but one - Button's BAR 007 - was still in the FIA garage, sitting on the weighbridge. Officials surrounded it, while BAR race engineer Craig Wilson stood by its nose.

At times like this, information is thin on the ground. Nobody announces on the tannoy "there's a problem with car number three," and no paperwork is circulated. Things are done very discreetly until there is definite news. Only if you see it with your own eyes do you know that something is up.

Geoff WillisAmong those quick to spot that a drama was unfolding were Renault team manager Steve Nielsen and Williams's chief mechanic Carl Gaden, who stood on the pitlane side of the FIA garage and watched with some interest, ready to report back to their bosses on any developments. Although no information emerged, the fact that they could watch, albeit from a distance, gave the proceedings a degree of transparency.

When the car was pulled off the weighbridge and pushed back on, it was only too clear that this was a weight issue. And when FIA technical delegate Jo Bauer was seen with his arm inside the fuel tank, having a good feel around with his trusty endoscope, it was obvious that there was also a fuel element to the story.

With nothing coming out of the FIA, I decided to investigate. I bumped into Button himself down at Red Bull, where his pal David Coulthard was about to give him a tour of the new monstrous motorhome. "Is there a problem with the weight of your car?" I asked. He made it pretty clear that he thought there wasn't.

The best way to find out what's going on in situations like this, is to ask the other teams, and it was surprising how many important folk hadn't even realised that the BAR was still being checked. In fact, it was hard to miss from the paddock side, as the FIA garage door was open by a metre, and the 007's nose was clearly visible.

Later I came across Alex Wurz, celebrating his fourth place at Bernie Ecclestone's hospitality bus. "Don't celebrate yet," I said. "You might end up third..."

The Weight is Not Enough

There are in fact two minimum weight figures in Formula One's 2005 regulations. The first covers qualifying, when cars have to weigh more than 605kgs. They are measured at the end of each lap, with the driver on board.

Of course, under current regulations, the only figure that really matters is that measured after the first qualifying session, when you are not using race fuel. Obviously every team put the bare minimum into the car, and judge things finely so that after the out-lap, flying lap, and in-lap, they come in as close to 605kgs as they dare. That's why an engineer might tell a driver 'try to save fuel' on his in-lap on Saturday, even if it's not a question of saving it for the race.

On Sunday morning, the cars are again weighed with the driver. Of course, with race fuel now on board, there is no way anyone will be near the minimum limit. Nevertheless, those figures are crucial to the FIA because they are in effect the starting weights that have to be maintained for the start of the race.

The post-race check is different. For obvious reasons, there is no way to have the entire field queue up for weighing, so the drivers get out and are weighed on their own, before the cars are measured separately. The two figures are added together to produce a total.

Post-race, the required limit drops to 600kgs. This is a by-product of the race fuel/parc ferme rules. With the agreement of the teams, this 5kgs margin was introduced to allow for loss of weight due to consumption of oil, brakes, and other materials. Also factored in is loss of weight by the driver (although some of what he sweats off might be absorbed by his overalls, and is therefore still in the equation).

Jenson Button crosses the finish line in thirdIn theory, because of parc ferme, apart from the losses outlined, there is no other reason to account for a difference in weight from the end of first qualifying to the end of the race - apart, of course, from fuel.

At Imola, the BAR weighed 606.1kgs with its fuel on board, well above the limit and in fact a little higher than cars normally are at the finish. Teams would normally expect to be down around the 603kgs mark, allowing for the aforementioned loss of materials and finishing with the bare minimum of fuel on board. In fact, you have to have at least a litre in the car so that samples can be taken and tested by the FIA, or you could face disqualification.

This is where it gets interesting. Since refuelling was introduced in 1994, the FIA has reserved the right to do a more detailed weight check, involving draining the car of its fuel to determine its dry weight.

The logic is simple: if the fuel is pumped out and the car weighs less than 600kgs with no fuel on board, then the clear implication is that at various points during the race - i.e. immediately before its pitstops - the car could have been running at less than 600kgs. It has always been understood that weighing the car without fuel is the only way to demonstrate that a car was legal throughout the race. The subject has been discussed many times in meetings of the FIA Technical Working Group and of team principals. As long ago as 1994, the FIA clarified that this was the case in response to questions from teams.

One senior technical guy explained it thus this week: "There was a communication stating that the FIA would drain the car of all fuel, and the car had to comply to the weight limit in that condition. That was the only condition in which they could be sure that a team was legal during the race. And that's always been clearly understood. That's always been one of the key principles, and it's been mentioned many times. It's not strictly in the regulations, but it does say that the car must be legal at all times, and it also says that the FIA technical delegate must be satisfied that the car complies with the regulations."

But is a clarification issued several years ago still valid today? "I don't see why not, but BAR may claim they weren't in F1 then..."

Like random drug tests, fuel drain checks can happen without warning. At Imola, the top three cars were all drained, and all three were found still to be above the limit. Normally, that should have been the end of it. However, Jo Bauer was still interested in the BAR. He asked the team's representative if there was any more fuel in the car. He, apparently, said no.

It was a classic 'Colombo Question' - that last, subtle enquiry that leads to the unmasking of the villain.

It was then that Bauer began to take a close look at the inside of the 007 fuel tank. He found an extra compartment with fuel still in it. The compartment itself was not illegal - F1 tanks are not gaping caverns, they all have complex innards, and, it seems, what BAR had was acceptable in technical terms.

FIA technical delegate Jo BauerBut what mattered here was that the fuel inside it had not come out with the initial draining, and when asked, the team's representative had denied that there was any more on board. When this 'hidden' fuel was drained, the car tipped the scales at 594.6kgs. On the face of it, bearing in mind that dry weight has always been the only benchmark of whether a car could be running underweight, Bauer could come to no other conclusion - BAR literally had the capacity to cheat.

On Max Mosley's Secret Service

Bauer's pursuit of the truth was no accident. Over the off-season a story had done the rounds that BAR might have been doing something 'unusual' during last season. It seems that the tale emerged after a mechanic left and joined a rival (British) team. A leading technical person at that team shared this information with his opposite number at a rival outfit when they bumped into each other at a test (he may well have confided in others), and the matter was also discussed with the FIA.

Nothing could be done during the winter, so it was just a case of waiting for the season to start. In Australia, the BARs pulled out on the last lap to gain new engines for the second race, but they were still classified and thus eligible for scrutineering. But as the performance was so bad, they were not really of interest. Two double retirements followed in Malaysia and Bahrain. Then Button finished third in Imola, just 10 seconds behind the winner. It seemed like a pretty good time to do a check.

The FIA does not act on pitlane gossip alone, and disgruntled ex-employees are not always arbiters of truth. But the governing body also keeps a very close eye on what teams are doing with fuel, and runs software that makes use of two key pieces of information: the pre-race weights, which indicate how much fuel is in the cars for the start, and fully accurate fuel rig readings. The FIA delegates do not rely on the stop timings shown on TV, as observers like you and I have to. Their detailed data can be analysed, and any strange patterns are flagged.

You Only Refuel Twice

So what are BAR accused of doing, and what benefits might have accrued? First of all, consider that a lap of Imola requires around 3.0kgs of fuel - a number verified by more than one top team. We know that at the end of the race some 11.5kgs were pumped put of BAR - in other words, enough to run very nearly four laps. According to information from other teams, F1 cars rarely finish with more than a lap's worth of fuel in the tank. Yes, there has to be some left for the FIA to check, but saving fuel to pass a weight check is not an issue as there is that 5kgs built-in margin to play with.

Since the BAR weighed 606.1kgs at the end, we have concrete proof that the car could not have run below the limit for the last stint of the race. What the FIA is looking at, however, is the couple of laps prior to each of the team's two stops.

Bauer inspects Button's car on the Imola gridJenson Button stopped at the end of lap 24 and lap 48 of the San Marino Grand Prix. However, the first tank also included the lap to the grid, and the formation lap. As the drivers are in fuel saving mode, those add up to exactly one racing lap. So his stop schedule, including the slowing down lap, was roughly as follows:

25 laps - 24 laps - 14.5 laps

Or in fuel terms:

75kgs - 72kgs - 55kgs (43.5 'used', plus 11.5 pumped out)

The only times the car could have possibly run under 600kgs are laps 23-24, and 47-48. Did the team dip into that 6kgs 'reserve' or not? Did it genuinely pit with the cars at 600kgs rather than, say, 596kgs? The only proof that can answer that is the data provided by the team, and of course the fuel consumption figures are absolutely paramount. That is the heart of the argument.

If you think a couple of laps marginally under 600kgs are not worth worrying about, think again. In such a case, there are benefits to be gained for the whole of the first two stints, i.e. 48 laps.

The following figures need not apply in this case, but they explain why the FIA would take the matter very seriously. Let's assume the car was run down to 596kgs, leaving just enough to get it back to the pits safely. If we assume that everyone else has a dry weight of at least 605kgs, the qualifying minimum, then a car using this technique will in effect weigh 9kgs less than another car running to an identical pitstop strategy for the whole of those 48 laps. At Imola, 3kgs - or a lap of fuel - is worth exactly one tenth of a second. So the car concerned would gain 0.3 a lap for 48 laps - or a total of 14.4 seconds. That is a huge amount.

Another way to look at this is that for a given genuine starting weight, this car could run three laps longer to the first stop than a car of identical weight. At a time when even one lap means the difference between winning and losing, that's pretty handy.

In addition, in second qualifying the car would be carrying 9kgs less than any other car that plans to pit on the same lap, which equates to three tenths of a second benefit in the battle for grid position. Worth having, of course.

Even if the fuel is run down only to a legal 600kgs - something no other team would have the capability to do - there are similar, albeit smaller, benefits.

There is one other interesting aspect to qualifying. In effect, to meet the 605kgs limit the car would have to carry at least 11kgs of 'spare' fuel in that first session. There are restrictions as to where you can locate traditional ballast, but could this lump of fuel, located handily in the middle of the car, influence the handling balance over the one flying lap? Having weight further back in the car could be of specific help to a Michelin user.

Having said that, fuel is not very efficient as ballast. Says our technical source: "It's high volume and it moves around, and it's going to be high in the car. It wouldn't be our first choice."

Jenson Button pits at ImolaAnd there's yet another possible benefit. Did the team need to keep 6kgs (or more) of fuel permanently in the car to help the fuel system operate effectively, in terms of pressure and pick-up and so on?

That is not an uncommon problem, and indeed it happened to at least one leading team in the searing heat of Bahrain. They had no choice but to keep a certain minimum amount of fuel in the tank all the way to finish so that it didn't splutter to a halt before its pitstops or the chequered flag. Frustrating, but part of the game, and everyone accepts that. It could just be that BAR built in the 6kgs margin so that this fuel could be carried with no penalty in time and weight.

"How often have you heard a team say 'we're a bit heavy because we've got a fuel pick-up problem'?" says our technical guy. 'And they don't say 'we've got a permanent offset of 6-7kgs or whatever because we need that amount in reserve for the fuel system'..."

For Your Tank Size Only

Back to Sunday night. With the checking complete, the car was left alone on the weighbridge. The action now moved upstairs, to Charlie Whiting's office and that of the stewards, just along the corridor. Meanwhile, back in the engineering offices in the BAR transporter, technical director Geoff Willis was putting his evidence together. He emerged carrying some files and headed off to see the FIA, accompanied by Craig Wilson and team manager Ron Meadows. Jo Bauer presented his findings to the three race stewards, who consulted with Whiting and made a judgement after reviewing evidence from Willis.

For several hours, no information was released from the top floor. Darkness came and it began to rain, while up and down the paddock frustrated mechanics kicked their heels. If there is a problem with one car, then all cars have to stay in parc ferme. You don't just get a car back after the race and stick it in the truck - there's a list of jobs to run through, which often involves firing up the engine. They just had to wait.

Williams were in particular trouble, as BMW wanted its V10s out of the chassis for examination in Munich. Alas, everyone had to wait until the BAR business was sorted out. Team members booked on Sunday night flights realised that they had no chance of catching them, and there was much frantic rebooking for Monday. Legal or not, BAR wasn't about to win a popularity contest in the paddock...

Finally, some hard news emerged. The official results, unchanged, were declared and signed off at 10.10pm, and a document issued by the stewards was timed at 9.30pm, and counter signed by BAR's Ron Meadows at 9.42pm. It appeared to be very carefully worded, and created more questions than it answered.

It stated that in Jo Bauer's opinion "Jenson Button is able to run below the minimum weight limit" - as clear an accusation of cheating you are going to get, although the use of "able" was intriguing. But it went on to say that the stewards had decided that the matter "requires no further action."

FIA president Max MosleyUsually the stewards pretty much rubber stamp whatever they've been told, and their main job is to decide what the penalty should be. But on this occasion, the three - local Giuseppe Muscioni, Swiss Paul Gutjahr, and Japanese Katsutoshi Tamura - chose to side with the team, effectively ignoring the recommendations suggested by Bauer.

Not surprisingly, the decision caused some disappointment among those in the FIA whose job it is to seek out rule infractions. Even on Sunday night there were suggestions that the matter would go further, which could only mean an appeal by the FIA against the stewards' decision.

Nevertheless, it was surprising that as early as Monday morning the FIA announced that it was going to do exactly that, giving itself and BAR some nine days to put their respective cases together before meeting in Paris on Wednesday May 4. Quite simply, Whiting and Bauer had informed FIA president Max Mosley that they did not share the stewards' interpretation of the evidence, and that this was too important an issue to let go.

Disputes Are Forever

There are two related but distinctly different issues here, and BAR had to convince the stewards on both matters.

In effect, BAR's case was that A) The 'dry' weight is irrelevant as the rules are written; and B) the car never ran below 600kgs during the course of the event.

In case A, the team's behaviour seems to be based on a bit of lateral thinking by Willis, one of the smartest men you'll meet in an F1 paddock - in fact he had a hand in writing the rules that govern the design of America's Cup yachts.

He's clearly taken the view that, as written, the rules do not expressly say the car has to weigh 600kgs when drained of fuel, only that it has to be above 600kgs during the event. However, the FIA's position is a simple one: the only way to police this issue is to drain the car, and that's the way it has always been.

BAR may well be right to claim that nowhere in the 2005 rules does it explicitly say the car must weigh 600kgs without fuel. They may argue that just because it's always been understood that this is the method of checking, doesn't mean that it is sacrosanct.

But one could equally argue that there is nothing that specifies exactly how the FIA determines whether a car has a maximum of 10 cylinders, or indeed four wheels. The legal battle over such niceties promises to be an interesting one.

No one can possibly dispute that, as the Sunday night statement said, "Jenson Button is able to run below the minimum weight limit." But whether he did or not is another matter. Is being able to cheat illegal in itself? That's going to involve some serious debate over semantics, and views will undoubtedly be divided.

BAR CEO Nick FryIn case B, the team used their data to convince the stewards that at no time did the car fall below a weight of 600kgs. That in effect meant demonstrating that at each of the pit stops, there were at least 6kgs - or two laps - of fuel still in the car.

Of course, the FIA already knew how much went into the car at each stop, and how much was drained out at the end. But it did not have a precise figure for how much fuel was in the car at the start - only a guestimate based on starting weight and the drained weight that could not accurately allow for any loss of materials, as discussed earlier.

Crucially, BAR were also able to present fuel consumption figures. It was this information, provided by the team and not verified as such by the FIA, which convinced the stewards that the car never dipped below 600kgs.

So the bottom line is that the stewards must have agreed with BAR's unique interpretation of the rules, and believed that the car did at no point run below 600kgs. These are the two matters on which Whiting and Bauer did not share the opinion of the stewards, and caused them in effect to take the matter to Max Mosley. The same two points are what will be debated in the appeal on May 4.

But there is another issue. In effect, BAR are openly admitting that they were using fuel as ballast. Once again, they are pursuing a unique interpretation of the rules, which state that any ballast has to be fixed and require tools to remove it. If you pump fuel out, are you using tools?

Fry Another Day

In his press statement following the FIA's appeal, BAR-Honda CEO Nick Fry said that two blue chip companies like Honda and BAT would not expose themselves to something so potentially damaging as breaking the Formula One regulations. Such an argument is unlikely to stand up in court - it's a bit like OJ Simpson claiming he's a sporting legend so therefore he's obviously innocent - but nevertheless, Fry has a good point.

BAR have plenty of good, solid people - including Fry himself, technical director Geoff Willis, team manager Ron Meadows, chief mechanic Alistair Gibson, and the hard working guys on the race crew. But clearly something strange is going on.

What might have happened is that Willis has targeted what he sees as a loophole - i.e. that the car does not have to be 600kgs without fuel. It could well be that the car never dipped below 600kgs, either at Imola or prior to any of last year's many pitstops, and thus there has been no actual flouting of the minimum weight requirement.

But it's a dangerous game to rely on your own interpretation of a situation like that, without first checking with the FIA, and specifically Charlie Whiting. As our technical guy says: "If they had a special requirement, why didn't they spell it all out to the FIA before they started to use it, and get the whole thing cleared?"

FIA delegate Charlie WhitingBAR were reprimanded by the FIA last year for running a previously outlawed electronics system during Friday practice for the German Grand Prix, something which lead Ferrari's technical director Ross Brawn to state back then: "I guess Geoff [Willis] was not around in those days and he came up with a system that clearly contravened the clarifications that the FIA had given the teams a few years ago. We were a little bit shocked about it." Sounds familiar?

Two questions remain. Was the 6kgs in fact movable ballast and therefore illegal full stop? And most importantly, what was the story with the fuel that was in the now infamous 'secret compartment'? Why did the team's man on the spot claim there was no more fuel to be found?

One possible explanation is that, for whatever reason, the team hedged their bets. They came up with an interesting and quite possibly valid interpretation of the weight regulations, and they genuinely never ran less than 600kgs. But just to make sure that they would never have to face a tricky legal challenge, they ensured that the fuel used as ballast was not easily found in a spot check. If that is the case, being economical with the truth could prove to be a major error.

"It doesn't make any sense," says our technical guy. "If they had any grounds to do what they did, why did they deny that they had it? It has serious implications, really. It's not very often that blatant cheating is found in F1. Some issues are contentious because they're down to interpretation, and I guess that's what they're going to try and argue.

"But if I had a bottle of nitrous oxide on the car and told the FIA I never gave the instructions to put that into the engine, and I can prove it, it wouldn't be looked on very favourably! My guess at the moment is that they are trying to be smart on something or other that we don't understand, and it's going to have more serious implications for them than they probably thought about."

One strange thing is that the legality of Takuma Sato's car, which finished the San Marino Grand Prix in fifth place, was not questioned in that same post-race scrutineering. It would be stranger still if it turned out not to be built to the same spec as its sister car, of course.

So what are the possible penalties should BAR be found guilty to any degree? Comparisons with the Toyota disqualification from the 1996 season of WRC have been made, and indeed Max Mosley made it clear earlier this year that he will take a tough stance on any blatant F1 misdemeanours. It could get messy.

Those who confuse the focus by Bauer and Whiting on the BAR at Imola with the political atmosphere in the F1 paddock these days - with the FIA, FOM and Ferrari in one side, against the GPWC and their allied teams in the other - are misguided. Bauer and Whiting were doing their job. It would be just as silly to suggest that the Japanese steward, a man inevitably with some connections to Honda-owned Suzuka, would in any way be compromised. Having said all that, BAR and Honda do seem to have given Messrs Mosley and Ecclestone a ball that they can take up and run with, and they rarely waste such opportunities...

At the very least, we can expect the hearing in Paris next week to end with a clarification de facto of the 600kgs rule. Whatever else happens on May 4, the FIA is between a rock and a hard place. If the stewards are overruled, then their authority and that of the whole system is weakened. If the FIA loses, then the standing of Charlie Whiting and Jo Bauer will suffer - not to mention that of Mosley, who has backed their hunch.

Bring on the lawyers!

------------------------

Huge, but very informative.

[Max Power]

well if this 007 guy is right then perhaps BAR was cheating but I'm not convinced with these phantom sources.

[|Nuno|]

For the skeptics:

www.formula1.com



Check out the news. :wink:

[|Nuno|]

and not Alonso accuses Ferrari of cheating, what a joke LMAO
http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=84983


LOL! Boy...that was funny...

[racer_f50]

and not Alonso accuses Ferrari of cheating, what a joke LMAO
http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=84983


LOL! Boy...that was funny...
:lol:
He's basically saying "I'm really scared that Ferrari will break my winning streak in Spain since their car was so much faster at Imola. Please Mommy, tell them to stop testing so much, because all the other teams were dumb and agreed to not test more than 30 days. So anyone not agreeing with us is thereby cheating and naughty." :P

[yg60m]

and not Alonso accuses Ferrari of cheating, what a joke LMAO
http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=84983


LOL! Boy...that was funny...
:lol:
He's basically saying "I'm really scared that Ferrari will break my winning streak in Spain since their car was so much faster at Imola. Please Mommy, tell them to stop testing so much, because all the other teams were dumb and agreed to not test more than 30 days. So anyone not agreeing with us is thereby cheating and naughty." :P

Ferrari ask for a limitation of costs but they don't limit their tests. They don't think rules are for them, only for other team ...
If all the top teams are now wearing Michelins it's because Bridgestone was concentrated only on Ferrari :roll: Was it fair ?

[|Nuno|]

Ferrari ask for a limitation of costs but they don't limit their tests. They don't think rules are for them, only for other team ...
If all the top teams are now wearing Michelins it's because Bridgestone was concentrated only on Ferrari :roll: Was it fair ?

There's already another thread regarding that matter. :wink:

Ah, and just one thing: those "rules", I tought they were made by the FIA, and not by 9 (or should I say 7?) teams. I guess I was wrong, huh? :roll:


Also, it's kinda funny that you're saying that Ferrari doesn't think the rules are for them in a thread discussing B.A.R.'s possible ban due to cheating. :P

[yg60m]

Also, it's kinda funny that you're saying that Ferrari doesn't think the rules are for them in a thread discussing B.A.R.'s possible ban due to cheating.


Nuno : 1 ; yg60 : 0 :wink:

[|Nuno|]

Also, it's kinda funny that you're saying that Ferrari doesn't think the rules are for them in a thread discussing B.A.R.'s possible ban due to cheating.


Nuno : 1 ; yg60 : 0 :wink:

LOL! That wasn't the intention. :) :wink:

[yg60m]

:mrgreen: I know, I just think that if Ferrari was in BAR's place, the FIA wouldn't talk about banning them ...
I love Ferrari but I don't like their behavior, especially since Jean Todt is here (despite being french).

[|Nuno|]

:mrgreen: I know, I just think that if Ferrari was in BAR's place, the FIA wouldn't talk about banning them ...
I love Ferrari but I don't like their behavior, especially since Jean Todt is here (despite being french).

Fair enough, each one to its own. :D

[phantomfocus]

The FIA has officially requested that the BAR's be removed from the championship for the season, as well as a fine of 1million euros.

Here is the article.
http://www.formula1.com/news/2939.html

[|Nuno|]

From Atlas-F1:



Ecclestone: BAR Seem Guilty

Wednesday, 04 May 2005 15:46

Formula One commercial rights owner Bernie Ecclestone believes BAR-Honda will be found guilty in the case brought against them by the FIA today, at the Court of Appeal in Paris.

The FIA accused BAR with fraudulent conduct after additional fuel was found in the car during scrutineering for the San Marino Grand Prix despite the team allegedly claiming there is none left in the car.

And Ecclestone, who attended a lunch in London today to promote the French Grand Prix next month, said BAR seem to be on the losing side.

"From the information available, you have to assume they will be found guilty," Ecclestone said. "There is always a reason these things happen, it is never a mistake.

"I wouldn't have wanted to argue the BAR case."

Asked what kind of a penalty he expects the team to receive if found guilty, Ecclestone said: "There are a million things you could do.

"I suppose if they are not excluded from the Championship, you could say that the constructor cannot score points in the Championship, and maybe exclude any points the driver has now, and all the other ones [from here on] would count."

But Ecclestone was against a financial fine, saying it would not be a deterrent in the case of teams, and in fact could encourage teams to break the rules. "If you can do that, why don't the teams at the beginning of the season give over a cheque and say: 'if I am caught, cash the cheque'?

"That's what I would do."

[5vz-fe]

I highly doubt they will exclude BAR from the championshiop. They prolly strip the the points of Button at Imola or worse case, they are excluded from the constructors championship.

[5vz-fe]

I would really like to know how BAR defend this. To my understanding a second tank is a second tank...how are they gonna deny the cheating.

[Max Power]

well, BAR could say that they did not run JB car under the weight limit and that they simply had extra fuel because the fuel pump wouldn't work with low levels. Because fuel can be used as weight balast, so as long as they can prove they never ran under the legal limit they will be fine.

[kksh]

I don't think BAR can defend. It's just a matter of how harsh the penalities will be. Banning them from the championship is too harsh. Just take away the points etc.

Had ferrari done such a thing, they wouldn't ask for such a hard punishment.

and what about Sato? Was he running light as well or did they only check the weight of the podium finishers?

[mindgam3]

all these new rules and the "cost" cutting methods are a way of trying to bring Ferrari down. you know it, everyone knows it, the only difference is some people dont want to admit it.
but this is another story for another time.

There aren't any specific rules that say "ferrari must do this or that", the rules apply to everyone and seeing as though Ferrari has one of the biggest budgets, this is least going to effect them.

With regards to the BAR situation I don't think they should completely ban them.... give them a fine and say they're unable to gain any points in the next two races or similar. Obviously we don't know the complete details so its hard to comment

[yg60m]

My opinion is :
- If it was Ferrari, they wouldn't be so harsh
- had BAR join the Ferrari / FIA clan they wouldn't be so harsh

I am curious to see how interesting F1 championship will be in 2 or 3 years when Ferrari will compete against Jordan and Red Bull (if i am not wrong there are the only teams to be "with" FIA/ Ferrari) ... :lol:
What a good show it will be :roll:

[Sir_GT]

I'm surprised nobody actually saw this from another angle...

Keep in mind that BAR-Honda, and a host of other teams are the ones openly talking about the rival championship to Formula 1.

If anything, this seems more like an excuse from B&M (Bernie and Max) to remove BAR from TV coverage. Not only will this ruin the team's chances of winning the championship, but the biggest blow to BAR would be the problems they will face with their sponsors.

Looks more like a warning to the other teams to me. One slip up and you're dead... unless you sign up again with B&M.

[mindgam3]

BAR BANNED FOR TWO RACES:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/4514569.stm
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=32714

and had all points taken away.... ouch ;)

[Max Power]

so does this mean that Ralf gets 8th place at Imola :D

[dingo]

Fair penalty IMO, will be interesting to see what happens in these 2 races without them :D
Here is the revised finishing order for San Marino, Ralf still isn't in the points Max :wink: Its good to see Webber get some points out of this mess :D



1 5 Fernando Alonso Renault 62 1:27:41.921 2 10

2 1 Michael Schumacher Ferrari 62 +0.2 secs 13 8

3 10 Alexander Wurz McLaren-Mercedes 62 +27.5 secs 7 6

4 11 Jacques Villeneuve Sauber-Petronas 62 +64.4 secs 11 5

5 16 Jarno Trulli Toyota 62 +70.2 secs 5 4

6 8 Nick Heidfeld Williams-BMW 62 +71.2 secs 8 3

7 7 Mark Webber Williams-BMW 62 +83.2 secs 4 2

8 15 Vitantonio Liuzzi Red Bull Racing 62 +83.7 secs 15 1

9 17 Ralf Schumacher Toyota 62 +95.8 secs 10

10 12 Felipe Massa Sauber-Petronas 61 +1 Lap 18

11 14 David Coulthard Red Bull Racing 61 +1 Lap 14

12 19 Narain Karthikeyan Jordan-Toyota 61 +1 Lap 16

13 18 Tiago Monteiro Jordan-Toyota 60 +2 Laps 17

DSQ 3 Jenson Button BAR-Honda 62 +10.4 secs 3

DSQ 4 Takuma Sato BAR-Honda 62 +34.7 secs 6

Ret 21 Christijan Albers Minardi-Cosworth 20 Hydraulics 20

Ret 2 Rubens Barrichello Ferrari 18 Electrical 9

Ret 9 Kimi Räikkönen McLaren-Mercedes 9 Driveshaft 1

Ret 20 Patrick Friesacher Minardi-Cosworth 8 Clutch 19list][/list]

[|Nuno|]

Good, I hope they learn from this.

[jon_s]

I feel for Button. He was expecting the car to be on form over the next few races. I understand that teams fly close to the wind when it comes to rules. However, this is palin stupid. BAR plan on launching an appeal, I have serious doubts as to its success.

Furthermore, the sponsors will be livid that they will miss exposure at the most famous race of the season!

[mindgam3]

Seems like BAR are heading to a civil court to make their appeal

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=32722

[jenkF1]

What are BAR playing at? But still, it was blatently cheating, maybe this illegal ballast fuel tank was behind their recent turn in form.

But FUCK YOU who r slagging of Button! It wasn't anything to do with him. I very very much doubt he new anything about it, usually its just the technical team and the management that would know about such a thing.

Now Button has basically no chance in the championship. Thats bad, cus this year is wide open. :x :x

[dingo]

But FUCK YOU who r slagging of Button! .......

calm down mate, no need to talk like that to other members :roll:

[Gallardo_lover]

How disappointing... I suppose though, the best developments occur when the rules are pushed to the limtis! Imagine how many other tricks different teams have up their sleeves.

My finals lecturer always told us not to cheat, but if we were going to, we better make sure we didn't get caught! Hectic consequences.... :oops:

[|Nuno|]

Just for the record, here's a drawing of the secret fuel tank:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/ducksick_ang/F1%20Teams/BAR007FuelTank.jpg

[nthfinity]

This is a statement from Nick Fry, Chief Executive Officer of B.A.R Honda in relation to the ruling of the FIA International Court of Appeal, 5 May 2005:



"B.A.R Honda is appalled at the decision of the FIA International Court of Appeal and asserts that the judgement is contrary to all of the evidence heard yesterday. The team proved that it complied with the current regulations and the FIA now acknowledges that the regulations are unclear.

"We repeat that at no time did B.A.R Honda run underweight at the San Marino Grand Prix and this was also unchallenged by the FIA.

"While the International Court of Appeal rejected the FIA's original accusations of fraud and deception, B.A.R Honda says that this penalty is wholly and grossly disproportionate.

"The team is advised by its legal counsel that the judgement is plainly wrong based on the evidence presented and it is currently examining its options."



1030hrs, 6 May 2005, Barcelona, Spain: In the wake of the decision of the FIA’s International Court of Appeal yesterday and having considered the extraordinarily complex legal framework, a summary of the legal position is as follows.



B.A.R Honda has looked at all practical ways of immediately challenging the decision. The central issue is one of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in Europe is governed by European-wide rules, which say that a defendant party has a right to be sued in the territory in which it is based. Upon receiving the best legal advice in all relevant jurisdictions, the conclusion is that nothing can be done to enable the team to race this weekend.

B.A.R Honda has considered whether to pursue further action which might enable it to compete at Monaco. On balance, the team has decided that to challenge the sport’s governing body would cause a level of disruption and damage to the sport which would not serve the best interests of everyone involved. B.A.R will be discussing the ramifications of the Court of Appeal verdict with the other teams and manufacturers involved in the sport.

The FIA International Court of Appeal in its own judgement was unable to prove that the team acted in bad faith. B.A.R Honda therefore remains unclear as to the basis for such a severe penalty. The team vigorously contests any insinuation that could potentially tarnish its reputation and good record, something that is of fundamental importance to the whole organisation and its partners.

In an effort to provide the greatest possible visibility to the outside world of its case, B.A.R Honda today will publish its entire submission to the FIA International Court of Appeal on its website for anyone interested to examine it.

as much as BAR is unwillilng to admit they cheated... its looking like they wont fight the temporary ban.

i have to say, kudos to them for trying to push the rules... but two times in one season seem a little testy :roll:

[caneswell]

The punishment far outwieghs the crime.

On the ITV coverage they mentioned an interview with an ex F1 driver that said every team he worked for cheated in some way. It can't be proven that they actually broke any rules, as the minimum weight measurment didnt specify without fuel. So if they think they may have cheated or the rules are now specifiying without fuel, then banning them from using it in future is a fair punishment. Maybe removing the points they gained from when they alegegedly ran under weight too? It has happened throughout the history of F1, a team finds a loophole in the rules uses it for a few races then it gets banned. 6 wheels, massive fooking fans!

[saadie]

^^ FIA knows better then ITV ... :roll:

and anyway ... if they had given the blueprints fer the 2005 cars with the extra fueltank ... then they prolly wouldnt ahve any problem .. i think ...

[mindgam3]

From what I've been reading recently, the extra 4kg of fuel that is in debate is NECCESARY for the car to run; if the car doesen't have this extra fuel which is an integral part of the fuel system then the car will not run at all as fuel will not get to the engine. Therefore, seeing as the car did not stop and the car was found to be within the 600kg weight limit with the neccesary fuel then clearly BAR did not break the rules.

BAR gave the FIA proof from fuel consumption data at the hearing but the FIA refused to identify it as proof - how can it not be? If they can proof that they never used the extra fuel then they know the minimum weight was never 600kg

Also, the FIA knew about the tank for 2 races before this one - why take action now?

The final verdict from the FIA:
WHEREAS it is NOT POSSIBLE for the Court to find, on the basis of the evidence that it was provided with, that Lucky Strike BAR Honda deliberately committed fraud, their actions at the time of the emptying procedure of the vehicle after the event, and the fact that they did not use their right in accordance with Article 2.4, to address a request for clarification on the rules to the Technical Formula One Department of the FIA, show at the least a highly regrettable negligence and lack of transparency.

Innocent til proven guilty? Not in the FIA's courts :roll:


Giving a new RULING,

DECLARES and RULES that the Lucky Strike BAR Honda team failed to comply with Articles 1.9, 4.1, 4.2, 2.6 of the Sporting Regulations and also violates Article 151-c of the International Sporting Code,



1.9 Weight:
Is the weight of the carwith the driver, wearing his complete racing apparel, at all times during the event.

4.1 Minimum Weight:
The weight of the car must not be less than 605kg during the qualifying practice session and no less than 600kg at all other times during the event.

4.2 Ballast:
Ballast can be used provided it is secured in such a way that tools are required for removal. It must be possible to fix seals if deemed neccesary by the FIA technical delegate.

2.6 Duty of Competitor:
It is the duty of each Competitor to satisfy the FIA technical delegate and the Stewards of the Meeting that his automobile complies with these regulations in their entirety at all times during an Event.The design of the car, its components and systems shall, with the exception of safety features, demonstrate their compliance with these regulations by means of physical inspection of hardware or
materials.No mechanical design may rely upon software inspection as a
means of ensuring its compliance.


Definately didnt deserve the punishment they got thats for sure

[coombsie66]

^^ I totally agree, and i bet there were a lot of fuel tank re-designs going on in a other teams around the paddock.
Man some of you guys are so gullabal, as caneswell said, every team is exploiting loopholes as much as they possibly can, you think every other team has nothing to hide, pah this runs far deeper into the F1 power struggle, why did they only investigate buttons fuel tank with an endoscope.
Its all a load of bolloks, BAR proved that they were withing the regulations set, hence the reduction in charge, but the FIA dont want egg on face, so hence the punishment.
Max mosely is a tit.

[mindgam3]

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=32771

FIA claiming BAR are throwing the sport into disrepute? :roll:

This is now fucking ridiculous - basically FIA are thinking of throwing BAR out of the Championship completely due to comments by BAR representatives to the press...

Aren't BAR allowed to even have an opinion? Fucking out rage

What about when MS and Barrochello switched places on purpose in 2002 bringing the sport into disripute - didn't see much happening then :roll:

[5vz-fe]

I just love it when whenever there's a controversy about rules, ppl always drag Ferrari into this, when Williams or Mclaren do it, no one brings it up. Very interesting.

btw, back in 2002, there's no rules against letting ur teamate win.

[mindgam3]

I just love it when whenever there's a controversy about rules, ppl always drag Ferrari into this, when Williams or Mclaren do it, no one brings it up. Very interesting.

btw, back in 2002, there's no rules against letting ur teamate win.

lol, but it brought the sport into disripute and they made a rule DIRECTLY because of that incident.

Ferrari in in or not, FIA are taking this way to far.

The only reason it makes sense is if you consider the fact BAR are part of the GPWC group that are considering breaking away from F1.... The FIA are trying to flex their muscles but are actually doing way more harm to the sport than BAR themselves :roll:

The fact is, BAR did not break any rules yet the FIA are thinking of throwing them out? Fucking ridiculous

[coombsie66]

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=32771

FIA claiming BAR are throwing the sport into disrepute? :roll:

This is now fucking ridiculous - basically FIA are thinking of throwing BAR out of the Championship completely due to comments by BAR representatives to the press...

Aren't BAR allowed to even have an opinion? Fucking out rage

What about when MS and Barrochello switched places on purpose in 2002 bringing the sport into disripute - didn't see much happening then :roll:

If they continue to adopt an outlook like that mentioned in the article they're gunna end up with a one make championship, all red.

[5vz-fe]

I just love it when whenever there's a controversy about rules, ppl always drag Ferrari into this, when Williams or Mclaren do it, no one brings it up. Very interesting.

btw, back in 2002, there's no rules against letting ur teamate win.

lol, but it brought the sport into disripute and they made a rule DIRECTLY because of that incident.

Ferrari in in or not, FIA are taking this way to far.

The only reason it makes sense is if you consider the fact BAR are part of the GPWC group that are considering breaking away from F1.... The FIA are trying to flex their muscles but are actually doing way more harm to the sport than BAR themselves :roll:

The fact is, BAR did not break any rules yet the FIA are thinking of throwing them out? Fucking ridiculous

That I agree with you 100%, they are definitely taking it wayyyy to far, ppl got the right to moan. FIA, after all, hand down a very very severe penalty to BAR. Kicking them out of the championship will only do harm to F1.

[|Nuno|]

Yeah, I wonder then why when asked, B.A.R. said there wasn't any fuel left in the tank...

They used fuel as ballast, which is against the rules. Period.

Plus, B.A.R. is known for sometimes having a different interpretation of the rules. Just remember that many new ideas developed by them were considered illegal.



But yeah, I agree with you guys that as usual, the F.I.A. doesn't know how to handle the situation. Quite sad I'd say.

[mindgam3]

Yeah, I wonder then why when asked, B.A.R. said there wasn't any fuel left in the tank...

They used fuel as ballast, which is against the rules. Period.

Plus, B.A.R. is known for sometimes having a different imterpretation of the rules. Just remember that many new ideas developed by them were considered illegal.



Part one - fooling the marshalls i agree was wrong and they should have been punshed for that - taking their current points away for example?

Whether it is ballast or not is highly debatable - oil and engine fluids don't count as ballast as they are essential to the running of the car - so was this spare fuel.....

Either way, the rules don't distinguish so how can they be punished for that? BAR run the torque transfer shaft before and the FIA said it was illegal so they took it off without punishment, why can't they do the same with this? :? Why? Probly because the GPWC wasn't around when they implemented the otrque transfer shaft :P

How can you punish someone if they can't be proven guilty? :?

[|Nuno|]

Yeah, I wonder then why when asked, B.A.R. said there wasn't any fuel left in the tank...

They used fuel as ballast, which is against the rules. Period.

Plus, B.A.R. is known for sometimes having a different imterpretation of the rules. Just remember that many new ideas developed by them were considered illegal.



Part one - fooling the marshalls i agree was wrong and they should have been punshed for that - taking their current points away for example?

Whether it is ballast or not is highly debatable - oil and engine fluids don't count as ballast as they are essential to the running of the car - so was this spare fuel.....

Either way, the rules don't distinguish so how can they be punished for that? BAR run the torque transfer shaft before and the FIA said it was illegal so they took it off, why can't they do the same with this? :? Why? Probly because the GPWC wasn't around when they implemented the otrque transfer shaft :P


Yep, that's the problem. I'm 100% convinced that they cheated, but as always the rules are written in a way that almost invites the teams to have a "different interpretation"... The F.I.A. just doesn't know how to governate the sport...

But you can't compare this to the torque transfer system, completely different things... And I doubt this has anything to do with them being part of the GPWC or not; this isn't just bad for B.A.R. ya know...things like these don't do any good for the sport in general.

[mindgam3]

Yeah, I wonder then why when asked, B.A.R. said there wasn't any fuel left in the tank...

They used fuel as ballast, which is against the rules. Period.

Plus, B.A.R. is known for sometimes having a different imterpretation of the rules. Just remember that many new ideas developed by them were considered illegal.



Part one - fooling the marshalls i agree was wrong and they should have been punshed for that - taking their current points away for example?

Whether it is ballast or not is highly debatable - oil and engine fluids don't count as ballast as they are essential to the running of the car - so was this spare fuel.....

Either way, the rules don't distinguish so how can they be punished for that? BAR run the torque transfer shaft before and the FIA said it was illegal so they took it off, why can't they do the same with this? :? Why? Probly because the GPWC wasn't around when they implemented the otrque transfer shaft :P


Yep, that's the problem. I'm 100% convinced that they cheated, but as always the rules are written in a way that almost invites the teams to have a "different interpretation"... The F.I.A. just doesn't know how to governate the sport...

But you can't compare this to the torque transfer system, completely different things... And I doubt this has anything to do with them being part of the GPWC or not; this isn't just bad for B.A.R. ya know...things like these don't do any good for the sport in general.

I don't understand how you can say they cheated if they never broke any specific rule? The only thing they did do was lie to the stewards - which i said they should have had their points taken away from - but they never had any unfair advantage over any of the cars during the entire race.

Either way, it's only going to make GPWC more likely given the FIA's complete lack of governing ability

[|Nuno|]

I don't understand how you can say they cheated if they never broke any specific rule? The only thing they did do was lie to the stewards - which i said they should have had their points taken away from - but they never had any unfair advantage over any of the cars during the entire race.


Many factors combined, one of them being exacly that: the fact that they lied to the stewards. Why would they do it if they didn't have nothing to hide?

[mindgam3]

I don't understand how you can say they cheated if they never broke any specific rule? The only thing they did do was lie to the stewards - which i said they should have had their points taken away from - but they never had any unfair advantage over any of the cars during the entire race.


Many factors combined, one of them being exacly that: the fact that they lied to the stewards. Why would they do it if they didn't have nothing to hide?

Please explain these factors ;)

The FIA knew about the system for a few races before Barcelona, why have they just acted upon it now?

Regarding the fuel tank - please tell me which rules they have proven to have broken, excluding lying with the stewards?

[|Nuno|]

I don't understand how you can say they cheated if they never broke any specific rule? The only thing they did do was lie to the stewards - which i said they should have had their points taken away from - but they never had any unfair advantage over any of the cars during the entire race.


Many factors combined, one of them being exacly that: the fact that they lied to the stewards. Why would they do it if they didn't have nothing to hide?

Please explain these factors ;)

The FIA knew about the system for a few races before Barcelona, why have they just acted upon it now?

Regarding the fuel tank - please tell me which rules they have proven to have broken, excluding lying with the stewards?

The factors are explained in many articles in this thread. Lets just say that the sudden gain in performance is one of them, which also answers your second question. :wink:

The third question was also explained before in this thread.

[mindgam3]

I don't understand how you can say they cheated if they never broke any specific rule? The only thing they did do was lie to the stewards - which i said they should have had their points taken away from - but they never had any unfair advantage over any of the cars during the entire race.


Many factors combined, one of them being exacly that: the fact that they lied to the stewards. Why would they do it if they didn't have nothing to hide?

Please explain these factors ;)

The FIA knew about the system for a few races before Barcelona, why have they just acted upon it now?

Regarding the fuel tank - please tell me which rules they have proven to have broken, excluding lying with the stewards?

The factors are explained in many articles in this thread. Lets just say that the sudden gain in performance is one of them, which also answers your second question. :wink:

The third question was also explained before in this thread.

Can you please state them specifically again? Can't seem to find exactly what you mean...

Sudden gain in performance has nothing to with the fuel tank - as said, they've had the fuel system for the past few races....

[|Nuno|]

I don't understand how you can say they cheated if they never broke any specific rule? The only thing they did do was lie to the stewards - which i said they should have had their points taken away from - but they never had any unfair advantage over any of the cars during the entire race.


Many factors combined, one of them being exacly that: the fact that they lied to the stewards. Why would they do it if they didn't have nothing to hide?

Please explain these factors ;)

The FIA knew about the system for a few races before Barcelona, why have they just acted upon it now?

Regarding the fuel tank - please tell me which rules they have proven to have broken, excluding lying with the stewards?

The factors are explained in many articles in this thread. Lets just say that the sudden gain in performance is one of them, which also answers your second question. :wink:

The third question was also explained before in this thread.

Can you please state them specifically again? Can't seem to find exactly what you mean...

Sudden gain in performance has nothing to with the fuel tank - as said, they've had the fuel system for the past few races....


Look better, there are many articles over here explaining the situation. :wink:

And if you think they didn't cheat then good for you, everyone has a different opinion, which is in what this discussion has become; a my opinion vs. yours. So I'm done. :)

[coombsie66]

^^ Um yes its your oppinion, but that doesnt work in a factual debate!!! BAR proved that they obeyed the rules, they proved that at no point during the race were they under the minimum weight limit, which if they had dropped below would constitute 'cheating'.
So as has been stated 'by the articles' they did posses the ability to cheat, but proved that they didnt infact use the ability in the race. Hence why their charge was dropped and they werent thrown out of the championship.
How can you be 100% sure they cheated?!
Damn man dont make sweeping remarks on personal oppinion when its a fact based argument!

[|Nuno|]

^^ Um yes its your oppinion, but that doesnt work in a factual debate!!! BAR proved that they obeyed the rules, they proved that at no point during the race were they under the minimum weight limit, which if they had dropped below would constitute 'cheating'.
So as has been stated 'by the articles' they did posses the ability to cheat, but proved that they didnt infact use the ability in the race. Hence why their charge was dropped and they werent thrown out of the championship.
How can you be 100% sure they cheated?!
Damn man dont make sweeping remarks on personal oppinion when its a fact based argument!

I don't know I why still bother... When I say opinion vs. opinion I mean that I have a different interpretation of the facts than mindgam3. For me, the facts that I'll show next are more than enough to convince me that they cheated - for mindgam3 they're not. It's not like I'm making things up; they did brake the rules. Period. And breaking the rules = cheating.


And here are the facts:

Fact 1: B.A.R. lied to the stewards. This alone is enough for me - again, if they didn't have anything to hide, then why did they lie? And still no one answered this simple question...

Fact 2: Button's car was underweight. See: "The Court said that the only way the car could have met the 600kg requirement was by using fuel as ballast, which is not allowed under Formula One regulations. "

Fact 3: the tank by itself isn't illegal, but hiding its purpose form the F.I.A. is. Plus, if they had any doubts about the rules, then why didn't they aks for a clarification?



BAR proved that they obeyed the rules, they proved that at no point during the race were they under the minimum weight limit, which if they had dropped below would constitute 'cheating'.

"It also stated that BAR’s fuel consumption data could not guarantee that the car complied with the rules at all times during the race, hence the team neglected their duty to satisfy the FIA technical delegate of its legality throughout the event."

Whoops...


And it's not like I'd trust B.A.R. after they lied to the stweards...


Other thing: B.A.R. used fuel as a ballast, they insisted that the engine needed a minimum 6Kgs of fuel to run and this was found in the accumulator tank, many teams need to maintain a minimum fuel in the car in order for the engine to run.The difference is that they add the fuel on top of the minimum 600 Kg weight whereas BAR didn't.

And why all the secrecy if they weren't planning on cheating?


but proved that they didnt infact use the ability in the race.

It's not proven that they didn't use the the ability, as it's not proven that they did. It wasn't possible to prove both things.


Other tought: people say this is a G9 vs. F.I.A. thing, right?

Well, I don't see the other teams supporting B.A.R. As I have never heard from any G9 teams complaining that this case only happened because of the war between FIA and the G9s... In fact, they seem to agree with the F.I.A., so enough with the conspiracy theories.



...when its a fact based argument!

And if you're so worried about facts, then please post them, because I don't see any in your post.



And just for the record, B.A.R. was one of my favourite teams (after Ferrari and Mclaren) before this happened, but they disappointed me.

[mindgam3]

I don't know I why still bother... When I say opinion vs. opinion I mean that I have a different interpretation of the facts than mindgam3. For me, the facts that I'll show next are more than enough to convince me that they cheated - for mindgam3 they're not. It's not like I'm making things up; they did brake the rules. Period. And breaking the rules = cheating.


But it's not clear whether they broke any rules or not.... it's definately not absolutely crystal clear, so on that basis, how can you issue a punishment...

Given that the FIA reduced the charge from "fraud and deception" to just "lack of transparency" it would appear the FIA didn't think they were lying either....


Fact 1: B.A.R. lied to the stewards. This alone is enough for me - again, if they didn't have anything to hide, then why did they lie? And still no one answered this simple question...


Agreed, but they didn't have anything to hide, see below....


Fact 2: Button's car was underweight. See: "The Court said that the only way the car could have met the 600kg requirement was by using fuel as ballast, which is not allowed under Formula One regulations. "


How can it be classed as ballast if it's absolutely neccesary for the car to run? Like oil and other fluids? Even if it is ballast, please show me where in the rules it specificially states you cannot use liquid ballast....

Jo Bauer, the OFFICIAL FIA TECHNICAL DELEGATE inspected the system at Malaysia and said there was nothing wrong with using it how BAR were... why bring it up two races later, even though an official has clarified it?


Fact 3: the tank by itself isn't illegal, but hiding its purpose form the F.I.A. is. Plus, if they had any doubts about the rules, then why didn't they aks for a clarification?


Wrong again, as said, it was inspected 2 races before hand by an official....



"It also stated that BAR’s fuel consumption data could not guarantee that the car complied with the rules at all times during the race, hence the team neglected their duty to satisfy the FIA technical delegate of its legality throughout the event."


The fuel consumption proves a lot more than the FIA can prove against them...

The FIA know how much the car weighed at the beginning and end of both quali's and the race.... The FIA also know exactly how much fuel was put in at the pit stops.... Along with the fuel consumption data they can easily prove that they never went below 600kg. The FIA are just refusing to look at it as evidence




It's not proven that they didn't use the the ability, as it's not proven that they did. It wasn't possible to prove both things.


Exactly.

The equivalent in the "real world" would be to accuse someone of murder without evidence.... if you don't have an evidence how can you convict someone?

[|Nuno|]

But it's not clear whether they broke any rules or not.... it's definately not absolutely crystal clear, so on that basis, how can you issue a punishment... How can it be classed as ballast if it's absolutely neccesary for the car to run? Like oil and other fluids? Even if it is ballast, please show me where in the rules it specificially states you cannot use liquid ballast....


Okay, for the last time...

http://www.formula1.com/news/2947.html :

"The Court said that the only way the car could have met the 600kg requirement was by using fuel as ballast, which is not allowed under Formula One regulations."


How hard is this to understand?



Jo Bauer, the OFFICIAL FIA TECHNICAL DELEGATE inspected the system at Malaysia and said there was nothing wrong with using it how BAR were... why bring it up two races later, even though an official has clarified it?


At Malaysia the car wasn't underweight, now was it?

This case occured because BAR were underweight. Then, when caught underweight, they lied to the stewards. That was as blatant a cheating as it comes (at least for me and most of the people, F.I.A. and all the teams included). The collector fuel tank for itself has nothing to do with this.

Stewards told them to drain fuel out. They did, and said it was all left - guess what, it wasn't. Then they started to argue what does it mean to drain fuel out. Give me a break. Next time they will argue what car means, what fuel means, what draining means and what out means... :roll:


The equivalent in the "real world" would be to accuse someone of murder without evidence.... if you don't have an evidence how can you convict someone?

Terrible comparison, not even close.



For me and most people this is a very simple matter. If it isn't for you then fine, but this time this is really my last post on this thread, since I'm sick of repeating myself, and the questions still remain to be answered... Plus, the case has already been closed - the Court has decided, and B.A.R. didn't appeal after all. End.

[mindgam3]

Okay, for the last time...

http://www.formula1.com/news/2947.html :

"The Court said that the only way the car could have met the 600kg requirement was by using fuel as ballast, which is not allowed under Formula One regulations."


How hard is this to understand?


The FIA rules are exceedingly unclear about using fluids as ballast, thats if you can call this ballast....

Have you ever considered that the FIA may be wrong? Considering most of the bullshit that is spouted from Max, Bernie, the F1 organisation and the FIA, I wouldnt be suprised....




At Malaysia the car wasn't underweight, now was it?

This case occured because BAR were underweight. Then, when caught underweight, they lied to the stewards. That was as blatant a cheating as it comes (at least for me and most of the people, F.I.A. and all the teams included). The collector fuel tank for itself has nothing to do with this.


The Official stewards deemed the fuel system and the way BAR was using it as conforming to the rules....

According to fuel consumption and the FIA's own data, BAR could have no time throughout the weekend, when running the car on track be under weight.

If they weren't underweight on track then they gained no unfair advantage and hence did not cheat....


The equivalent in the "real world" would be to accuse someone of murder without evidence.... if you don't have an evidence how can you convict someone?

Terrible comparison, not even close.

[/quote]

Why is it?

Thats exactly what the FIA have done, accused BAR of cheating with no evidence what so ever.

The fact that the FIA actually changed their mind and dropped the charges from "fraud and deception" to just lack of "transparency" indicates to me that the FIA felt that BAR were not cheating with intent.

being accused of lack of transparency is not cheating - even the FIA who you seem to have the utmost faith take this view - otherwise why would they have dropped the charges?

Every team trys to exploit the rules as much as possible, but to say BAR had an unfair advantage over other teams is ridiculous given that BAR have proof from their own, and the FIA's data that they at no time went under the 600kg limit....

The torque transfer bars the BAR employed gained at least as much time as 6kg less fuel would have done... yet the FIA didnt kick up such a fuss about it then.....

F1 is just as much a business as a sport and to assume the FIA and the governing bodies are correct 100% of the time when so much money is flying about is damn naive....

Especially when their courts act on unsubstantial amounts of evidence

[mindgam3]

From what I've been reading recently, the extra 4kg of fuel that is in debate is NECCESARY for the car to run; if the car doesen't have this extra fuel which is an integral part of the fuel system then the car will not run at all as fuel will not get to the engine. Therefore, seeing as the car did not stop and the car was found to be within the 600kg weight limit with the neccesary fuel then clearly BAR did not break the rules.

BAR says the car needs the extra fuel to run. ok, with that being said, is it possible that BAR setup the car to NEED this extra fuel, so if they got caught with the extra tank they would have a EXCUSE for the extra tank which wasnt in the blue prints given to FIA which would seem like they were trying to HIDE something.

do you honestly think BAR cant have the car running without the extra fuel tank?? seems like after the ban is lifted they are going to have to run the car withou the extra tank. so if its possible to run the car after the ban without the fuel tank, im sure it was possible to run the car before without the fuel tank aswell.

so with all that being said, was the extra tank really needed??
i highly doubt it, a team spending MILLIONS of dollars on development cant find a solution for this "problem".




anyone think yet of who might of tipped off the stewards about the extra tank??

heres what it think might of gone down, and its not far fetched either.
when the whole Button wanting BMW thing went on, after it was all settled for this season, it was said that if Button scored a certain amount of points BAR would be able to retain him, though if he failed to get the certain amount of points then there would be nothing holding back BMW from signing Button. so with that being said, Button knew of the extra tank, knew it was illegal, told someone from outside F1, and they slipped that to the stewards, which then lead to a FIA appeal and the banning of the BAR for 2 races which means Button wont be getting the points needed for BAR to retain him which means he is FREE to go to BMW.

so if there is any truth to this whole thing, and Button ends with BMW. who do you think is going to partner Button?? now dont be so quick to say Webber, to be honest is hasnt proven himself yet. he might of looked good with the Jag, but he has yet to win my vote with BMW.

All very well, but an official steward inspected and said the tank was legal in Malaysia, there is nothing illegal about the tank at all, what is in debate is whether BAR used it in a legal way - in which case the rules are extremely unclear.

[coombsie66]

^^ Exactly, i think a lack of solid proof is deeming this debate endless. Which is why i question the scale of the penalty dished out, if it was clear cut 'cheating' then they deserve what they recieve, but there is that margin of uncertainty. Or in my books there is.
No clear cut ruling ---> Cant be certain of cheating.
Thats how i look at it, and i bet other teams were using a similar system prior to the 'infringement'.

[mindgam3]

^^ Exactly, i think a lack of solid proof is deeming this debate endless. Which is why i question the scale of the penalty dished out, if it was clear cut 'cheating' then they deserve what they recieve, but there is that margin of uncertainty. Or in my books there is.
No clear cut ruling ---> Cant be certain of cheating.
Thats how i look at it, and i bet other teams were using a similar system prior to the 'infringement'.

Indeed, in fact, if it weren't for the extremely ambiguous rules documentation and/or lack of common sense on the ruling board then BAR should have had no charge.

This is BAR's case they put forward, makes very interesting reading.

http://www.barhondaf1.com/pdf/submission.pdf

Many rules contradict each other and don't explicitly state about fueling and weighing - no where in the rules does it say the car has to be weighed without any fuel. In fact rules which state that the car must be weighed dry (i.e with no fluids what so ever) that are in every other single FIA championship ruling are not in the Formula 1 rule book.

The actual readouts from BAR's fuelling and the weight of the car with fuel in throughout the race produced from the FIA's own figures are in fact prrof that the car never went underweight at anytime during the race.

Also the person who apparently "lied" was just a fuel pump operator and knew nothing about BAR's fuel system - i'm not sure he was even a direct member of BAR's team.

Charlie wighting, the stewards and FIA technical delegates were all informed of the tank and the way in which it was used and had no problem with it what so ever.

Also, the supplier of the fuel tank, who also supplies many other F1 teams says that BAR's tank is in essence, no different from anyone elses and is pretty normal.

BAR has also been using the same tank since December 2004.....

[coombsie66]

^^ I read about as much of that as i could bare! And to me it is clearly obvious that they were NOT cheating. The 'secondary' tank is a friggin surge tank, as employed in all race car fuel systems.

'Well, I don't see the other teams supporting B.A.R. As I have never heard from any G9 teams complaining that this case only happened because of the war between FIA and the G9s... In fact, they seem to agree with the F.I.A., so enough with the conspiracy theories.'

Well Nuno i refer you to the fact that Sir Frank Williams put forward a witness statement in defence of BAR.
Just give that BAR case a read through and then tell me you find them 100% guilty.

[mindgam3]

^^ I read about as much of that as i could bare! And to me it is clearly obvious that they were NOT cheating. The 'secondary' tank is a friggin surge tank, as employed in all race car fuel systems.

'Well, I don't see the other teams supporting B.A.R. As I have never heard from any G9 teams complaining that this case only happened because of the war between FIA and the G9s... In fact, they seem to agree with the F.I.A., so enough with the conspiracy theories.'

Well Nuno i refer you to the fact that Sir Frank Williams put forward a witness statement in defence of BAR.
Just give that BAR case a read through and then tell me you find them 100% guilty.

Too right, they've even got graphs showing the fuel pressure drops that occured when the fuel ran near the claimed critical levels that prove that it is impossible for the car to run under the limit and still keep going.