FIA wants to exclude BAR from F1 championship

[iGav]

Holy ******!!! :eek:

I've been reading a lot about this case on the various F1 sites and in the F1 mags, I know that exclusion was one of the options that has been suggested by the press, but now it's confirmed that the FIA want BAR-Honda to be excluded from the 2005 Championship, with a hefty €1 million fine as well!! :eek:

Rinky dinky link (http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=84948)

[anonymous161]

Did anyone actually find said hidden fuel tank? because if they did, then BAR cheated. But I think suspending them for the season may be a little harsh.
Since the grid has to have 20 cars, who would get to run 3 cars if BAR were dropped?

[iGav]

Did anyone actually find said hidden fuel tank? because if they did, then BAR cheated.

As far as I'm aware, having a second tank isn't an issue and isn't in itself illegal.

The problem is how they've interpreted the rules, it would seem that BAR-Honda believe that fuel can be used as a ballast, whereas the FIA disagree.

But I think suspending them for the season may be a little harsh.

Harsh certainly, but the FIA have already set a precedent when the Toyota WRC team were banned because they used an ingeniously illegal turbo.

Since the grid has to have 20 cars, who would get to run 3 cars if BAR were dropped?

I have no idea, maybe a system where two different teams provide 2 extra cars at each race in the order of last years WCC maybe?

[Don't panic]

for what I understand, part of the issue is that when requested to drain the car at imola, they said they did, but left the fuel in the secondary "secret" tank, thus showing, according to FIA, bad faith.
I think the fine, redisigning the car and being out of 4 GPs (as many as they raced so far) should be enough.

[Lord Blackadder]

Wow, this is rough!

BAR obviously acted in bad faith, but tossing the team this year is a pretty stiff penalty. And for once, Button is not entirely to blame. :rolleyes:

I didn't expect such a reaction from the FIA.

EDIT: OT, but I hear now that Stoddart wants to keep his V10 after everyone switches to V8s. Seems like a typical move.

[anonymous161]

I believe the rules specify a single rubber bladder- but having a second tank doesn't necessarily break the rules. However, using fuel as ballast is clearly an attempt to circumvent the rules, that much is obvious. This is what the FIA is claiming, I was just curious as to whether the second tank was actually found or just hinted at.

If BAR were suspended for 4 races they might as well be suspended for the whole season since they would be so far behind in the championship it would hardly be worth the effort to run at all.

[iGav]

I was just curious as to whether the second tank was actually found or just hinted at.

Yep, a second 'collector' tank was found inside the main tank.

Rinky dink link (http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns14734.html)

Especially interesting...

It was clear from this that De Groot's interpretation of events was different to that of BAR and that the contention was over what the team was asked to do. Asked whether there was an allegation that the team had defied the request, he replied: "I asked for a full drain out and afterwards I found more fuel." He added that "most teams take it as a matter of course that the collector will be drained." BAR clearly interpreted his instruction as being to do what is called a "lifted pump", a procedure by which the front of the car is raised and the fuel in the tank is pumped out and the car weighed.

[anonymous161]

After how many grand prixs and BAR suddenly misunderstand what "drain the fuel from the car" means.
Sometimes I think people go race purely to play semantics.

[Lord Blackadder]

It looks like BAR may scoot with just a fine though. If they manage to convince the court that the FIA's "established practices" for weighing a car do not equate to binding "rules", they could preserve their points, suffering only a slap on the wrist.

I also found it interesting that the FIA implied that other (all?) teams used the "collectors" as well, but drained them before the cars were weighed. BAR chose to keep theirs full because their car was underweight, and figured that the rules were sufficiently vague that they could be challenged. They claim that the extra fuel is not subject to be drained, since it constitutes an integral part of the car's engine.

"One must at the very least include in the minimum weight the amount of fuel which is needed to ensure that the cars engine can operate without a technical malfunction," he said. "And you have heard evidence from Mr Willis that this car simply cannot operate without a minimum of six kgs of fuel."

In essence they are claiming that the extra fuel is not, in fact, to be treated as fuel? Hmmm....

[MOFS]

EDIT: OT, but I hear now that Stoddart wants to keep his V10 after everyone switches to V8s. Seems like a typical move.

The BBC website says that the engine is illegal, as long as it is tuned down so it isn't as fast as the other engines. Seems fair to me - Cosworth are struggling for funds, they get an extra year to develop a V8.

Seems a bit harsh on BAR anyway. I'm sure many teams have done this (Benetton spring to mind) and got away with this. My feeling about this is just that BAR will lose the points but Button will keep them, just as what happenned when Williams and Benetton used dodgy petrol a few years ago.

[iGav]

In essence they are claiming that the extra fuel is not, in fact, to be treated as fuel? Hmmm....

Yep... their car is underweight, and so they always have that advantage over other teams.

BAR claim that the car requires 6kg of fuel at all times, and only with that 6kg in the car is it over the minimum weight, yet other teams cars when completely drained of fuel including the collector tanks (which one would presume would also need a similar amount of fuel as the BAR to be effective) still comply with the minimum weight regulations.

BAR always have an advantage.

[Lord Blackadder]

The BBC website says that the engine is illegal, as long as it is tuned down so it isn't as fast as the other engines. Seems fair to me - Cosworth are struggling for funds, they get an extra year to develop a V8.

You mean legal, right? ;)

from what I gather it is up to the FIA's dicretion whether to allow it. Cosworth should be fine if BMW buys Sauber as rumored, and Williams switches to Cosworth. But nothing's for certain.

My question: How is this BAR incident worse than Ferrari's testing transgressions? Sure, the teams are supposed to work out testing limits but shouldn't the FIA step in when somebody chooses to ignore the limits?

[anonymous161]

Fuel is fuel is fuel. The tech regs, at least from what I can remember specify a pretty clear "dry weight" of car and driver at 600 kg. No car would run without fuel in it, obviously, but fuel is not part of the racing weight requirements. The car must weigh at least this much during the entire grand prix. Obviously if you use fuel as weight ballast, your intention is to burn it off because gasoline doesn't make good ballast, being a liquid and all. BAR got caught with their pants down and are going to try and weasel their way out of it. I would hate to see them excluded, but I hate cheaters even more. "Tolerances" and grey areas are one thing, but lying to an FIA official by arguing that you didn't understand what " drain the fuel from the car" means and then arguing that it is an integral part of your engine is just dumb. Air is a vital component to combustion too but I don't see anybody trying to argue the "integral" nature of a turbo charger.

No matter how much they test, the F2005 weighs 600 kg when it lines up on the grid, that's the difference.
Ferrari's testing is not something that is regulated by the FIA, that was simply a good faith gentleman's agreement that to my understanding Ferrari was not initially invited to sign. Good faith and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. Ferrari should have probably played ball on the testing agreement, but it is certainly not a rule of law.

[virividox]

It's rather stiff penalty lets hope it doesnt push through

[Lord Blackadder]

No matter how much they test, the F2005 weighs 600 kg when it lines up on the grid, that's the difference.
Ferrari's testing is not something that is regulated by the FIA, that was simply a good faith gentleman's agreement that to my understanding Ferrari was not initially invited to sign. Good faith and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. Ferrari should have probably played ball on the testing agreement, but it is certainly not a rule of law.

What you say makes sense, but BAR are in essence arguing that what they are doing is no worse than Ferrari - bad faith, maybe, but no rules broken. They are trying to convince the court that the rules allow the collector with fuel to be considered part of the empty weight of the car.

My opinion (which is remarkably similar to Alonso's ;) ) is that BAR is cheating - and so is Scuderia. But I still can't see tossing them for the season...

[anonymous161]

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. Bernie has weighed in and he feels that BAR are guilty and they should be excluded for the rest of the season. He also says that 18 cars would run so that no team would have to run 3, so much for what I knew about the Concorde Agreement. Link (http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=24309)

[iGav]

My opinion (which is remarkably similar to Alonso's ;) ) is that BAR is cheating - and so is Scuderia.

Just a thought... how can Ferrari be cheating when they were never part of the testing agreement? an agreement that so it would seem has already been broken by several teams in the last couple of weeks?

The so called Testing Agreement was implemented for one reason and one reason only, to disadvantage Ferrari. Nothing more.

They're not cheating, because they're not breaking the rules. :)

Anyway... I eagerly await the Courts decision sometime today. :)

[MOFS]

You mean legal, right? ;)

from what I gather it is up to the FIA's dicretion whether to allow it. Cosworth should be fine if BMW buys Sauber as rumored, and Williams switches to Cosworth. But nothing's for certain.

My question: How is this BAR incident worse than Ferrari's testing transgressions? Sure, the teams are supposed to work out testing limits but shouldn't the FIA step in when somebody chooses to ignore the limits?

Ummm...yeah...legal. :o

The Ferrari testing transgressions are technically not testing transgressions at all. The limit is self-imposed, but because the FIA and Bernie need a 100% agreeance on the issue (ie all the teams have to vote for this issue), Ferrari have basically used their veto to prevent this going through, claiming that they need this testing because of the lack of tyre testing data Bridgestone left. This makes you realise how important that one tyre supplier for the entire field is...

[iGav]

It's out... BAR Honda have had their results from the Imola GP stripped, and have been banned for the next 2 races.

Rinky dink link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/4514569.stm)

Dirty cheats. :mad:

[barneygumble]

It's out... BAR Honda have had their results from the Imola GP stripped, and have been banned for the next 2 races.

Rinky dink link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/4514569.stm)

Dirty cheats. :mad:

I think this is a sufficient penalty, t hope they don't transgress any further i really enjoyed the ride last year with them

[iGav]

I think this is a sufficient penalty, t hope they don't transgress any further i really enjoyed the ride last year with them

There's now suggestions on some of the F1 sites that BAR Honda possibly ran the same system last year, and have only just been picked up on it.

According to the FIA Statement (http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2005/May/050505-01.html) a further 11.38kg of fuel was found in the car after BAR stated that "That's it" after they initially emptied the car.

IMHO, they should've been kicked out for the season, with a 12 month suspended ban for 2006.

Can you imagine the uproar this would have caused if it had been Ferrari?

[anonymous161]

11 kilos is a lot more than a "collector" tank would need to hold to prime the fuel system, at least in my understanding, that is a fuel second's worth of fuel at a pit stop. Like you said iGav, dirty cheats. If Ferrari had done this, the other teams would have been asking to exclude them from last year's championship as well as this one.

On another note, I read on grandprix.com that BAR Honda ran a record test distance and set fastest lap at Mugello last week with their 2006 spec V8!!! They should just put that sucker in when they come back.

[iGav]

11 kilos is a lot more than a "collector" tank would need to hold to prime the fuel system, at least in my understanding, that is a fuel second's worth of fuel at a pit stop. Like you said iGav, dirty cheats. If Ferrari had done this, the other teams would have been asking to exclude them from last year's championship as well as this one.

Heads will roll at BAR Honda after this one. ;)

They should never have let Dave Richards go. :rolleyes:

On another note, I read on grandprix.com that BAR Honda ran a record test distance and set fastest lap at Mugello last week with their 2006 spec V8!!! They should just put that sucker in when they come back.

I read that the V8 was 4 seconds off the lap record, that said, this is BAR we're talking about so they might have found a way to conceal a couple of hidden cylinders in the engine. heheh

BAR have stated they weren't trying to set the best time, so I suspect that on a full bore run, they'll probably be 2 to 2.5 seconds off the pace of the current V10's.

To be honest I wouldn't be at all surprised if by the end of '06 start of '07 season the V8's aren't already matching the current V10 times.

[Lord Blackadder]

Heads will roll at BAR Honda after this one. ;)

They should never have let Dave Richards go. :rolleyes:

But if they were doing this last year, the implication is that Richards may have been in on the plot. Of ,course, his quick departure may have been the result of an argument over whether to do this....



I read that the V8 was 4 seconds off the lap record, that said, this is BAR we're talking about so they might have found a way to conceal a couple of hidden cylinders in the engine. heheh

BAR have stated they weren't trying to set the best time, so I suspect that on a full bore run, they'll probably be 2 to 2.5 seconds off the pace of the current V10's.

To be honest I wouldn't be at all surprised if by the end of '06 start of '07 season the V8's aren't already matching the current V10 times.

The lighter weight of the engine is probably a factor for starters.

I really can't imagine what would have happened if this went down with Ferrari instead of BAR. Pandemonium. :eek:

Way to go, BAR. :mad:

[anonymous161]

Not a record time, but I believe the fastest time of the day.

All these changes do is make everyone spend more money. At some point the FIA needs to realize that they can't slow the cars down by regulation.
A control tire is a necessity, but only to even the playing field, not to actually slow the cars down. How about 1 tire compound for crying out loud? How is the fan supposed to know whether they are running a soft, soft-medium, medium, medium-hard, or hard tire?
They could always switch the cars to methanol or some bio derivative with a lower energy to weight ratio- that would be fun and it would have an environmental angle. I think the IRL is doing that next year.

[iGav]

But if they were doing this last year, the implication is that Richards may have been in on the plot.

indeed... but he at least got away with it though whilst he was in charge. heheheh

Of ,course, his quick departure may have been the result of an argument over whether to do this....

possibly... BAR-Honda have a habit of trying stuff, such as the electro, then mechanical torque transfer device last season, which is always on the edge of the written regulation, but purposely having a car 6kg short of the minimal weight... :eek: :eek: :eek:

Richards is massively successful with Prodrive though, I can't imagine that he'd purposely have done the same.

But BAR-Honda were suspiciously fast last season... considering that before they'd never even scored a podium.

That said, they've sucked big time this year... hmmmmmmm.

I really can't imagine what would have happened if this went down with Ferrari instead of BAR. Pandemonium. :eek:

Exactly... ;) that said, just incase anyone has any doubts... :eek: :p I'd have wanted to see Ferrari's arse kicked out of the championship as well in the same circumstances.

I'm wondering if we'll see Honda buy BAT out completely sooner rather than later because of this... BAR's name has certainly been heavily tarnished.

I bet Jense is pi$$ed!!! :p :p :p

[devman]

There's now suggestions on some of the F1 sites that BAR Honda possibly ran the same system last year, and have only just been picked up on it.

According to the FIA Statement (http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2005/May/050505-01.html) a further 11.38kg of fuel was found in the car after BAR stated that "That's it" after they initially emptied the car.

IMHO, they should've been kicked out for the season, with a 12 month suspended ban for 2006.

Can you imagine the uproar this would have caused if it had been Ferrari?

Exactly! And I'm not sure it's possible to imagine how big an uproar it would have been... (meaning - it would have been HUGE)

[R.Youden]

OK I am a big F1 fan (going to Silverstone this year). As far as I can make out BAR have not broken the rules, they gave themself the oportunity to break them but they didn't. Under the new regs engines have to last two races. Say that is 10-12 times when they where on low fuel. If they did not have a constant supply of fuel going into the engine it would cause excessive wear to the enigne. BAR claim that they need 9kg of fuel to make the engine run effectively. That can not be disputed, only Honda and BAR know the characteristics of the car. At Imola BAR where asked to do a "lift and drain" of the main fuel tank. They lift the front of the car to drain the main tanks. The steward drained the tank and asked if the main tank was empty which is what it was. At no point did they ask if there was any more fuel in the car, all they asked is was the main tank empty.

The regulations state that you cannot use fuel as balast and they clearly were not doing that.

Go back to 1999, Malaysian Grand Prix. Eddie Irvine in with a chance of the championship. His barge boards where too big. The rules stated they where allowed XXmm with 5% tolerance. This 5% was designed to be for manufacturing tolerance but Ferrari went above that 5% limit. They claimed that this was due to manufacturing and that it should be allowed to have a manufactring tolerance on top of the stated 5% tolerance that was designed for manufacture but not explicitly stated. The FIA really do need to look at how the rules are written as there are so many gray areas.

As for the 2 race ban, what is that. OK the FIA said they cheated and should be thrown out and the court said they probably didnt cheat. So if they didn't cheat what did they do? You can not ban people because they had the ability to cheat, do you ban an athlete if he has drugs in his house but urine samples are clear? Go back to 1994 and the Benetton traction control! That was the worst bit of blatent cheating, but the FIA could not prove they used the system so they could not impose a fine.

This system has undermined the race stewards who now are just yes men for the FIA. It needs to be sorted.

Anyway Button off to Williams now next year.

That was good to get off my chest!

[iGav]

As far as I can make out BAR have not broken the rules, they gave themself the oportunity to break them but they didn't.

This event has certainly been an issue of semantics that's for sure.

Now from my understanding, BAR-Honda did break the minimum weight rule. The regulations clearly state the minimum weight.

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

And weight is defined as...

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

My understanding is that it was clarified back in 1994 that the minimum weight does not include any fuel onboard the car and comments by members of other teams, and the FIA's Charlie Whiting supports this.

Now when the BAR-Honda was drained of fuel the car (remember weight is defined as car + driver) was under the 600kg minimum weight at 594.6kg. It required a minimum of 5.4kg of fuel onboard to bring the car up to the minimum weight. In which case BAR-Honda were using fuel as ballast.

If they did not have a constant supply of fuel going into the engine it would cause excessive wear to the enigne. BAR claim that they need 9kg of fuel to make the engine run effectively. That can not be disputed, only Honda and BAR know the characteristics of the car.

If the Honda engine needs 9kg of fuel then it needs 9kg of fuel, indeed no one can dispute that. According to Jo Bauer other teams use a similar 'collector' system, so the Honda engine is not unique in this respect.

However, fuel cannot be used as a ballast and when the onboard fuel was drained the car was found to be underweight. If fuel cannot be used as ballast when the car was drained of fuel it should have met or exceeded the minimum weight of 600kg, but it didn't.

At Imola BAR where asked to do a "lift and drain" of the main fuel tank. They lift the front of the car to drain the main tanks. The steward drained the tank and asked if the main tank was empty which is what it was. At no point did they ask if there was any more fuel in the car, all they asked is was the main tank empty.

From comments I have read from transcripts of the FIA Court. BAR-Honda were requested to do a "full drain" by Kris de Groot. But BAR-Honda interpreted this as a "Lifted Pump" procedure. This appears to be the main area of contentions.

The regulations state that you cannot use fuel as balast and they clearly were not doing that.

Indeed the regulations do... "In order to ensure that fluids are not being used as ballast... "

In which case the BAR-Honda should have met or exceeded the 600kg minimum weight limit when it was submitted to a "full drain", it did not, because it required at least 5.4kg of fuel to conform to the minimum weight regulations.

BAR-Honda ALWAYS had at least a 5.4kg advantage over the other teams, which is obviously unfair.

The FIA really do need to look at how the rules are written as there are so many gray areas.

Absolutely agree with you there... ;)

As for the 2 race ban, what is that. OK the FIA said they cheated and should be thrown out and the court said they probably didnt cheat. So if they didn't cheat what did they do?

It couldn't be proved that they deliberately cheated, however that doesn't excuse the fact that the car didn't conform to the regulations. It is up to the team to prove that their car conforms (Article 2.6). But BAR-Honda couldn't and thus they have been penalised.

Also, the way in which BAR-Honda handled the "full drain" procedure, and that they didn't seek clarification on the matter before hand certainly had an impact on the penalty they received.

[iGav]

Wowser :eek: the FIA really want to hand BAR-Honda a slap down don't they! :eek:

FIA Statement (http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2005/May/090505-01.html)

Statements attributed to the management of BAR Honda are currently under investigation in the light of the team’s obligation to do nothing “prejudicial to the image and dignity of Formula One racing” or “prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally”.

Article about Honda statement (http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=32767)

[iGav]

The BAR-Honda Formula 1 team has accepted full responsibility for its two-race ban and subsequent disqualification.

Rinky dink link (http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=32804)

Rinky dinky link too (http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=86019)