FIA Wants BAR Excluded
Discussion
They kicked Tyrrell out of one year back in the 80's for, allegedly, using some form of coolant system to enhance the fuel mix during a race.
Something like that anyway.
I can't see the point in running fuel as weight ballast unless you plan to use it at some point. The only beneoft of a fluid ballast is that you can potentially relocate it within the car for more consistent balance on a fluctuating fuel load. I can;t ssee that running an average of a couple of kilo's lighter for a few laps in the middle of a race will make a serious difference. If so one should only employ midget drivers.
Oh well, I guess we find out soon.
Wonder if Jenson has a get out clause in his contract? Maybe take over from Webber?
Something like that anyway.
I can't see the point in running fuel as weight ballast unless you plan to use it at some point. The only beneoft of a fluid ballast is that you can potentially relocate it within the car for more consistent balance on a fluctuating fuel load. I can;t ssee that running an average of a couple of kilo's lighter for a few laps in the middle of a race will make a serious difference. If so one should only employ midget drivers.
Oh well, I guess we find out soon.
Wonder if Jenson has a get out clause in his contract? Maybe take over from Webber?
i think 5kg on a formula 1 car is quite significant, it would amount to about 0.4 seconds per lap
[url] www.sportnetwork.net/boards/read/s85.php?f=85&i=56682&t=56682 [/url]
[url] www.sportnetwork.net/boards/read/s85.php?f=85&i=56682&t=56682 [/url]
macca8419 said:
i think 5kg on a formula 1 car is quite significant, it would amount to about 0.4 seconds per lap
www.sportnetwork.net/boards/read/s85.php?f=85&i=56682&t=56682
Yes it is a lot, teams spend millions to gain tenths
I smell a rat. Toyota and Honda both announced that they were joining the GPWC a while ago.
Since then Toyota have delivered some really good results but for some reason they seem to get very little coverage on TV even when they are getting second place in GP's. The TV feed is controlled by the F1 administration so maybe this is a way of showing them how much power they have over the relative TV exposure for sponsors.
Now it looks like BAR has made a small slip up and the FIA are pushing to get them excluded from the F1 championship. I would be happy to bet that this would be dropped if Honda withdrew from the GPWC. It's just another way of the F1 administration throwing their weight around to try and force manufacturers to sign up to a new concorde agreement.
Since then Toyota have delivered some really good results but for some reason they seem to get very little coverage on TV even when they are getting second place in GP's. The TV feed is controlled by the F1 administration so maybe this is a way of showing them how much power they have over the relative TV exposure for sponsors.
Now it looks like BAR has made a small slip up and the FIA are pushing to get them excluded from the F1 championship. I would be happy to bet that this would be dropped if Honda withdrew from the GPWC. It's just another way of the F1 administration throwing their weight around to try and force manufacturers to sign up to a new concorde agreement.
As discussed below ... the correct details etc ..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/4508543.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/4508543.stm
fast&furious said:Indeed. If Ferrari had been in this position, er, actually they have been in this position a number of times, the FIA wouldn't have peeped.
Now it looks like BAR has made a small slip up and the FIA are pushing to get them excluded from the F1 championship. I would be happy to bet that this would be dropped if Honda withdrew from the GPWC. It's just another way of the F1 administration throwing their weight around to try and force manufacturers to sign up to a new concorde agreement.
Fidgits said:
the car was about 5kg underweight, they weighed it with the fuel and it was fine, they then drained the car of fuel and it was under weight. the car must meet the weight restrictions regardless of whether there is fuel in the car. i wouldnt be surprised if they kicked them out, they did the same to toyota in rallying years ago
The toyota thing was slightly different though...
The german boys at TTE engineered a very special turbo intake, which looked like it conformed from the outside - but actually let about 50% more air in than the regulations allowed.
It also had a nice little mechanism on the inside, so if you took the intake off to inspect, it had a spring to close it off, so it appeared legal...
Toyota were banned, not because their car was illegal, but because the had manufactured it purposely to be illegal and attempt to trick the inspectors..
Whereas, it seems BAR is more like that 'oops' that Ferrari had with the barge boards, and i dont remember them being banned for a year?
I found the actual article, incase your interested:
http://homepage.virgin.net/shalco.com/tte_ban.htm
Eric Mc said:
Tyrrell raced for the whole of the 1984 season. They had all their points taken away when the season had ended.
I have to admit I thought it was a mid season thing. The BBC report of the BAR fiasco linked on this thread says they were using lead shot as ballast (? how does that work then?) and were banned from the last 3 races of the season and stripped of all points for the year.
When this all started there was a report that the FIA had been tipped off but this was the first time they had had an opportunity to check the cars post-race.
Now, who would be in a position to know about BAR's alleged secrets and might wish to make trouble?
A good summary of the case is on www.grandprix.com and it's a complete non-case.
The rules do not specify that there should be no fuel in the car when weighed (suggested by the TWG but never written in the rules), only that the car should be weighed in a condition where it is capable of racing. BAR have claimed that the 'secret' collector tank needs to be charged to run the high pressure fuel system. Their method of calculating weight includes the small amount of fuel needed to do this (otherwise the car cannot race) - this part of the argument has not been challenged. Their design is not just legal to the letter of the rules, but accurate to them (not an interpretation). The FIA failed to write the rules properly, simple as that. They could have quietly issued a rule clarification and left it at that, but for whatever reason (presumably the bigger GPWC thing) they decided to press a weak case.
Ironically, the Ferrari 'flat-bottom' case, where some felt the FIA were complicit, strengthens the case. Ferrari's interpretation was just that, therefore required written approval from Charlie Whiting (which they didn't get, and therefore it was illegal). By allowing that, the FIA set a precedent that has to clear BAR.
On the remote chance that the Appeal Court find against BAR, they will have the FIA over a barrel. If Button is disqualified from the results, BAR could have the race removed from the championship. If they are disqualified from the championship, they could easily get the whole championship annulled for 2005. And either way, sue the FIA for millions, even hundreds of millions. The FIA's case is just that weak
The rules do not specify that there should be no fuel in the car when weighed (suggested by the TWG but never written in the rules), only that the car should be weighed in a condition where it is capable of racing. BAR have claimed that the 'secret' collector tank needs to be charged to run the high pressure fuel system. Their method of calculating weight includes the small amount of fuel needed to do this (otherwise the car cannot race) - this part of the argument has not been challenged. Their design is not just legal to the letter of the rules, but accurate to them (not an interpretation). The FIA failed to write the rules properly, simple as that. They could have quietly issued a rule clarification and left it at that, but for whatever reason (presumably the bigger GPWC thing) they decided to press a weak case.
Ironically, the Ferrari 'flat-bottom' case, where some felt the FIA were complicit, strengthens the case. Ferrari's interpretation was just that, therefore required written approval from Charlie Whiting (which they didn't get, and therefore it was illegal). By allowing that, the FIA set a precedent that has to clear BAR.
On the remote chance that the Appeal Court find against BAR, they will have the FIA over a barrel. If Button is disqualified from the results, BAR could have the race removed from the championship. If they are disqualified from the championship, they could easily get the whole championship annulled for 2005. And either way, sue the FIA for millions, even hundreds of millions. The FIA's case is just that weak
Not a secret fuel tank!
It's a "collector" and all F1 cars have them. Their purpose is to prevent fuel starvation when cornering - just an anti fuel-surge device.
The collector is a small container (or "tank") within the main fuel tank, fed by scavenge pumps which suck the fuel from either side of the main tank, and keep the collector full irrespective of cornering forces.
Question is - why was the BAR collector so big (apparently 6 litres) when aroung 2 litres is usually enough?
Strange thing is the FIA knew all about it, and yet they waited until Imola before taking action. Something very fishy/very political here, as others have said.
It's a "collector" and all F1 cars have them. Their purpose is to prevent fuel starvation when cornering - just an anti fuel-surge device.
The collector is a small container (or "tank") within the main fuel tank, fed by scavenge pumps which suck the fuel from either side of the main tank, and keep the collector full irrespective of cornering forces.
Question is - why was the BAR collector so big (apparently 6 litres) when aroung 2 litres is usually enough?
Strange thing is the FIA knew all about it, and yet they waited until Imola before taking action. Something very fishy/very political here, as others have said.
BAR believe they have the technology to show the car was never run under weight during the race, with the amount of data they have this should be quite straight forward.
Also does anyone know why this doesn't include Sato's car? Surely they are both the same. Also doesn't this make the FIA look even more stupid, appealing against their own stewards who found nothing untoward with BAR?
Whole thing seems a load of c**p, very bad move by the FIA still trying to ruin F1.
Also does anyone know why this doesn't include Sato's car? Surely they are both the same. Also doesn't this make the FIA look even more stupid, appealing against their own stewards who found nothing untoward with BAR?
Whole thing seems a load of c**p, very bad move by the FIA still trying to ruin F1.
While both BARs are probably the same, I think Sato's car wasn't checked in the same way during scrutineering after the race, so there is no way to prove it was the same.
I expect we'll most likely see a situation similar to the Michelin tyres in 2003 - the FIA will 'clarify' the rules midway through the season and make the way the BAR ran at Imola illegal in future.
Banning them completely or continuing to accuse them of cheating would be incredibly destructive and I can't believe the FIA would be that stupid, I don't see how a long drawn out legal dispute would help their position over the future of F1.
I expect we'll most likely see a situation similar to the Michelin tyres in 2003 - the FIA will 'clarify' the rules midway through the season and make the way the BAR ran at Imola illegal in future.
Banning them completely or continuing to accuse them of cheating would be incredibly destructive and I can't believe the FIA would be that stupid, I don't see how a long drawn out legal dispute would help their position over the future of F1.
steviebee said:
Now, who would be in a position to know about BAR's alleged secrets and might wish to make trouble?
Two former BAR employees now working for a rival team.
Or even a former team principal dumped at the end of last year so that a certain Japanese company could install its' own people at the helm??? The bloke who now runs Aston Martin's in ALMS and Subaru in the WRC???
GarrettMacD said:
LongQ said:
Now, who would be in a position to know about BAR's alleged secrets and might wish to make trouble?
Two former BAR employees now working for a rival team.
Or even a former team principal dumped at the end of last year so that a certain Japanese company could install its' own people at the helm??? The bloke who now runs Aston Martin's in ALMS and Subaru in the WRC???
Hmm. So a handful of candidates. Of course the design may simply have been advised to the FIA in advance (since it seems a common way to go and I assume that BAR would still get things like tanks made by external specialist suppliers.)
Now, of the candidates, were any of them recently rumoured to be in line as successor to Mr. F1 when he finally departs for the great grid in the sky? (presuming prior retirement is an unlikely option)
And if they were, how might that fit into the current sequence of events?
LongQ said:I should think so, but I believe that in most circumstances they make damn sure that each individual supplier never makes all of one assembly. So I'd have thought that in this situation, the tank would be made by one co and the collector tank or whatever it is by another.
I assume that BAR would still get things like tanks made by external specialist suppliers.
The FIA might still get their wish. They are now going after BAR for bringing the sport in to disrepute for comments made by BAR management during the Spanish GP weekend. If found guilty the maximum penalty is exclusion from the World Championship.
Stange that they never went after Ferrari for bringing the sport in to disrepute with their Austrian GP switch-a-roo in 2002...
Stange that they never went after Ferrari for bringing the sport in to disrepute with their Austrian GP switch-a-roo in 2002...
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff