Max Mosley threatens to ban B.A.R.

[mindgam3]

Originally Posted by |Nuno| 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]

Originally Posted by |Nuno| 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]

Originally Posted by Ronin005 Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by 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'.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.