Ecclestone and Fuel Legality

[mark69sheer]

jellison said:

10 Pence Short said:

jellison said:

I'm with Bernie - he know more about F1 than the rest of the pits put together. A few degree of fuel is going to make sod all difference (and like he says it id not something that can be measured - i.e. how long that fuel will take to be within the strict temp limits - but not very long) - the max is a small fine (that would be in line with the crime) - not like they have found the fuel to be several Octane points higher.

Get over IT. JESUS.

I'll tell you what, while we're at at it, what's wrong with 'losing' a couple of KGs or adding a few tiny mm onto the barge boards. Or even illegally running traction control. Or having floors which break the regulations. Not as if it'll make any difference, is it?

Do you know better tha Bernie - Er NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

They are all pushing the rules in F1 - the fuel temp is Nothing compared to different composition of fuels they all used in the turbo era - Nothing.

The fuels used in the turbo era were for a reason and it wasn't due to gaining performance but simply to keep the engines working.
They actually used data from world war two and the meschersmit mE109 fighters because they were having the same fuelling problems. The wartime fuel recipe worked for the turbo era BMW's (same company).
The problems of starvation and atomisation , cooling and lubricating were corrected by going back to the solutions found in the war with spitfires etc using superchargers.

[r5gttgaz]

In the Turbo era the Fuel was heated by running the fuel lines over the back of the radiators IIRC, was it was placed in the tank at a very low temperature to get more fuel in?

[williamp]

sory but the were not the same compnay. The Messeschmitt Bf109 had a Mercedes Benz engine. The Fokke-Wolf 190 had a radial BMW engine.

I remember a lovely tale from one of the journalists back talking about the fuel back in the 80s. He wasnt a motoring journalist, so he didnt have a lot of car knowledge, but he said something like

"I dont know what they put in those cars, but if you were behind them when they blipped their engines your eyes watered"

Potent stuff indeed...

Edited by williamp on Thursday 15th November 16:51

[mark69sheer]

williamp said:

sory but the were not the same compnay. The Messeschmitt Bf109 had a Mercedes Benz engine. The Fokke-Wolf 190 had a radial BMW engine.

I remember a lovely tale from one of the journalists back talking about the fuel back in the 80s. He wasnt a motoring journalist, so he didnt have a lot of car knoeeldge, but he sid somethign like

"I dont know what they put in those cars, but if you were behind them when tbhey blipped their engines your eyes watered. Potent stuff indeed...

I stand corrected , sorry I meant the Fokke Wolfe 190 not the ME190 my brain just didn't think of the name for me so I guessed it must have been the 109 not the 190.. my bad

[WilliBetz]

The biggest problem in the Turbo era, with no refuelling, was to get the cars to the finish. Cooling the fuel, along with some trick formulations, helped.

These days, that's no longer an issue. And the fuel is so tightly regulated that there's not nearly so much difference between the formulation or performance of fuels provided by different suppliers. But conformance testing is more frequent and rigorous than ever (a few drops of a chemical in a 200 litre drum of fuel will probably get you a mention in Monday's papers) and any infringement is dealt with harshly.

That said, this isn't really a fuel issue at all. And while the operating temperature requirements are well known to all the teams and fuel suppliers, it appears that this aspect of the regulations isn't so well tried and tested.

What surprises me is McLaren's assertion that they aren't after the points for the driver's championship. Surely they aren't just trying to sling a little muck back at the FIA? You have to wonder if they're picking a sensible fight...

WilliBetz

[flemke]

WilliBetz said:

The biggest problem in the Turbo era, with no refuelling, was to get the cars to the finish. Cooling the fuel, along with some trick formulations, helped.

These days, that's no longer an issue. And the fuel is so tightly regulated that there's not nearly so much difference between the formulation or performance of fuels provided by different suppliers. But conformance testing is more frequent and rigorous than ever (a few drops of a chemical in a 200 litre drum of fuel will probably get you a mention in Monday's papers) and any infringement is dealt with harshly.

That said, this isn't really a fuel issue at all. And while the operating temperature requirements are well known to all the teams and fuel suppliers, it appears that this aspect of the regulations isn't so well tried and tested.

What surprises me is McLaren's assertion that they aren't after the points for the driver's championship. Surely they aren't just trying to sling a little muck back at the FIA? You have to wonder if they're picking a sensible fight...

WilliBetz

I depends on how one defines "sensible fight".
If you're McLaren, I'm not sure that there is such a thing as a sensible fight, in the sense that it is a fair fight in which justice and common sense in their own right will prevail.

Recently I had dinner with a chap whose name would be well known to everyone on this thread. He has a long history in F1 at a senior level (but has not been involved with any of this year's controversies).

Me: "Is the FIA as corrupt as it appears to be?"
Him: "Yes."

I'm just reporting what the man said.

[jamieboy]

flemke said:

Recently I had dinner with a chap whose name would be well known to everyone on this thread. He has a long history in F1 at a senior level (but has not been involved with any of this year's controversies).

Me: "Is the FIA as corrupt as it appears to be?"
Him: "Yes."

I'm just reporting what the man said.

Did you ask him if he has stopped beating his wife?


edit - just in case it's not abundantly clear I have no idea who this man is, and I am absolutely not asserting that he has ever beaten his wife.

Edited by jamieboy on Thursday 15th November 15:25

[classiccooper]

It's one of those "grey areas" that unless someone protests, there will never be clarification on it.

Simply put if Willy's & BMW do not get penalised they will all be cooling their fuel more next year.

[jellison]

jamieboy said:

flemke said:

Recently I had dinner with a chap whose name would be well known to everyone on this thread. He has a long history in F1 at a senior level (but has not been involved with any of this year's controversies).

Me: "Is the FIA as corrupt as it appears to be?"
Him: "Yes."

I'm just reporting what the man said.

Did you ask him if he has stopped beating his wife?


edit - just in case it's not abundantly clear I have no idea who this man is, and I am absolutely not asserting that he has ever beaten his wife.

Edited by jamieboy on Thursday 15th November 15:25

Come on spill it.

fia - FROG - Nuff said!

[flemke]

jamieboy said:

flemke said:

Recently I had dinner with a chap whose name would be well known to everyone on this thread. He has a long history in F1 at a senior level (but has not been involved with any of this year's controversies).

Me: "Is the FIA as corrupt as it appears to be?"
Him: "Yes."

I'm just reporting what the man said.

Did you ask him if he has stopped beating his wife?

The classic "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question relates to exploiting a semantic anomaly in order to induce someone to incriminate themselves. That's got nothing to do with the subject at hand. I think what you had in mind is asking a rhetorical question which implies its own answer.
The man in question is a personal friend and has got nothing to gain by misleading me or playing games. He could just as easily have said, "Actually, people don't understand what's been going on. Sure, the FIA have made mistakes, but generally they try to do the right thing."
That's not what he said.
I'm not trying to start a new thread here, just commenting on what one single, highly-knowledgable person said, because it seems apposite to WilliBetz's comment about picking a sensible fight.

Shall we get back to either "Ecclestone" or "Fuel Legality"?

[jamieboy]

flemke said:

Sorry for any confusion. The meaning of his answer ("Yes" ) is tied directly to his interpretation of your question:

Is the FIA as corrupt as it appears?

If he believes that the FIA appears to be corrupt, he answers "Yes"
If he does not believe that the FIA appears corrupt, he answers "Yes"

Apologies for taking the thread off-topic (if indeed I did so) - it was intended as a light-hearted comment, hence the smiley icon.

edit to fix " + ) bug.

Edited by jamieboy on Thursday 15th November 16:34

[Joe911]

You won't believe this (from autosport.com) ...

(Tozzi is Ferrari's lawyer)


"It would be a serious injustice to Mr Raikkonen were the championship to be taken away from him," Nigel Tozzi told a hearing of the governing FIA's independent International Court of Appeal.
...
"It would be highly damaging for the sport if the title were to won this way with the fans probably feeling it was more about grubby manoeuvring by the lawyers than by skill behind the wheel," said Tozzi.

"As McLaren have always said, the championship should be decided on the racetrack and not in the courtroom."

[Joe911]

There's more ...

Ferrari's lawyer Nigel Tozzi was highly critical of McLaren during the hearing, saying comments from the team's F1 CEO Martin Whitmarsh that the team are only seeking clarification of the rules were of "shameless hypocrites devoid of any integrity".

[jellison]

Joe911 said:

There's more ...

Ferrari's lawyer Nigel Tozzi was highly critical of McLaren during the hearing, saying comments from the team's F1 CEO Martin Whitmarsh that the team are only seeking clarification of the rules were of "shameless hypocrites devoid of any integrity".

Ferrari are the hypocrites - they are the one that moan about anything and anything to the fia until they always get it resolved in there favour - like spoilt kids - toys out of prams...........

[rude-boy]

I still want to know what the hell Farrari are doing there in an active role in the first place?

Fair enough, their man's WDC is at stake (well we all know it isn't really but let's just imagine it is shall we) but still they didn't lodge the protest, they were not a part of the original decision and none of their drivers finishing positions are going to be influenced by this.

So I ask again. WHY THE HELL DO THEY HAVE A VOICE?

[VladD]

rude-boy said:

I still want to know what the hell Farrari are doing there in an active role in the first place?

Fair enough, their man's WDC is at stake (well we all know it isn't really but let's just imagine it is shall we) but still they didn't lodge the protest, they were not a part of the original decision and none of their drivers finishing positions are going to be influenced by this.

So I ask again. WHY THE HELL DO THEY HAVE A VOICE?

A subsidiary of Scuderia Ferrari

Edited by VladD on Thursday 15th November 17:07

[flemke]

rude-boy said:

I still want to know what the hell Farrari are doing there in an active role in the first place?

Fair enough, their man's WDC is at stake (well we all know it isn't really but let's just imagine it is shall we) but still they didn't lodge the protest, they were not a part of the original decision and none of their drivers finishing positions are going to be influenced by this.

Ludicrous and outrageous. In other words, FIA business as usual.
If the argument to justify Ferrari's active role in the hearing - they're not merely spectators here - is that they could be affected by the Court's ruling, then the same applies to every other team, which would all be affected if the four cars in question were to be taken out of the results.
Why aren't the other seven teams allowed the same privileges as Ferrari? Is it only because, in Mosley's opinion, Ferrari are "more important" than all the others?

[andyps]

flemke said:

Why aren't the other seven teams allowed the same privileges as Ferrari? Is it only because, in Mosley's opinion, Ferrari are "more important" than all the others?

I can't think of, but would love to hear, an alternative explanation. And I don't suppose I am the only one.

[flemke]

andyps said:

flemke said:

Why aren't the other seven teams allowed the same privileges as Ferrari? Is it only because, in Mosley's opinion, Ferrari are "more important" than all the others?

I can't think of, but would love to hear, an alternative explanation. And I don't suppose I am the only one.

You can be sure that, from the FIA, there will not be a credible explanation.
You can be equally sure that there will be an excuse.

[jellison]

ther will be a fine of about <50,000. End of story.