JB's car weight.

So what does 5.4 kg of fuel translate to for BAR in laps at Imola> and how close do cars normally run to out of fuel at refuel points?>

What about other cars -- how do they compare both for fuel> consumption and fuel removed weight at the end of race?

And BAR already said they provided information to show their car was above> the minimum at all points of the race. I guess the appeal from the FIA is> to ban cars that are *capable* of running under the minimum, not just ones> that actually run under.

Then shouldn't the law state that weight of a car + drive with an> empty tank should be 600?

Probably the fact that in order to exclude the car the FIA must prove> (and not surmise) it was below 600kg at any point during the event -> they therefore have to prove that it carried less than 5.4litres of> fuel at some point during the event.

Sorry - just using the old 1litre=1kg rule of thumb as an approximation. I'm > guessing you sussed me there though ;o)>

TC

Tony C wrote:>> "Bigbird" <lay@work.nest> wrote in message news:T4GdnQ5e9->>

3,1 kg per lap, (Brian Lawrence post from March 7th):>

Sorry - just using the old 1litre=1kg rule of thumb as an approximation. I'm >guessing you sussed me there though ;o)

In article <seye4ndr4ona$.16gd­mubeqgwsg.dlg@40tude­.net>, > briansullivan@WORMT­IREDcoursesbywire.co­m says...>

I seem to recall seeing drivers drink liquids PRIOR to being weighed> on their way to the podium in previous races. Anyone else remember > something like that? Seems like an easy way to cheat a bit on > weight.>

Why, they're just re-hydrating themselves.

Having a bad day?

He's obviously having a bad life.

Did you find the word "PRIOR" to be confusing?>

It should have said pre-hydrating.

Racers do fill up with fluids before the race,

In article <Id-dnZ2FiP-o6fDfRV­n-gw@rogers.com>, tim@nocomment.com > says...>

Did you find the word "PRIOR" to be confusing?>

In article <oi4r61hn26vev4dtr8­kd07mmerka09llch@4ax­.com>, > fajp@ooptushome.com­.au says...>

Well, that makes a bit more sense, >

I was referring to immediately after the race.>

Is your comment supposed to make any sense?

"Nick Beef" <tifosoREM@OVEcomca­st.net> wrote in message>> So.... What's the problem???>

Probably the fact that in order to exclude the car the FIA must prove (and > not surmise) it was below 600kg at any point during the event - they > therefore have to prove that it carried less than 5.4litres of fuel at > some point during the event. The race finishing weight exceeded the > minimum weight requirement (as stated in article 4.1 kindly quoted by > captain a few threads ago). Having said that, article 4.3 refers to fuel > separately so the FIA may say that in their opinion they deem fuel to be > something that was not meant to contribute to the overall weight of the > car - another classic case of bad wording and different peoples > interpretation leading to a 'clarification'>

Out of interest - how many laps of Imola does an F1 car do on 5.4 litres?

"Brian Sullivan" <briansullivan@WORM­TIREDcoursesbywire.c­om> wrote:

According to figures quoted at http://www.grandpri­x.com/ns/ns14679.htm­l this> equates to 7 litres of fuel, which would be enough for about 1.3 laps. I> suppose thats probably an acceptable margin of error, it depends on how> accurately the teams are able to keep track of how much fuel is in the tank.

You would think, but since when do the FIA write rules that exactly > specify what they are thinking?

"scott" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message> news:2ucbe.4446$wu2­.375@newsfe1-gui.ntl­i.net...> > "Vig" <gtg121p@mail.gatec­h.edu> wrote in message> > news:d4jj22$q73$2@n­ews-int2.gatech.edu>­ >> "scott" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message> >> news:i1cbe.4445$wu2­.884@newsfe1-gui.ntl­i.net...> >>

Certainly not much thinking in this case. The new weight reg is> unreasonably vague.>

Based on past experience, it often takes one team> > to exploit a "grey area" before the rule gets written properly.> >

BAR were certainly not the only team to field a sub-weight car. M.S.'s> incredible catch up before the first pitstop in contrast to his two> unimpressive qualifying runs would indicate use of a high rpm race

Nice try, but the stewards also drained the fuel from MS' and Alonso's cars> and unlike the BAR they were above the minimum weight.

Nice try, but the stewards also drained the fuel from MS' and Alonso's cars> and unlike the BAR they were above the minimum weight. You'll have to make> up some other fabrication about the ferrari.

Did they ?-- I handn't heard that report -- where was this reported?>

My understanding was that Button's car was specifically targeted as> suspicions had been raised earlier (in previous races).

"Brian Sullivan" <briansullivan@WORM­TIREDcoursesbywire.c­om> wrote in message> news:1u1c3c9o4ebba.­11b51mzd86jod$.dlg@4­0tude.net...>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:14:44 +1000, Vile Merchant wrote:>>

http://www.planet-f­1.com/news/story_193­23.shtml> "Some BAR team members, though, are crying foul.>

"While the scrutineers also wanted the fuel systems on Alonso's Renault and> Schumacher's Ferrari drained out, we couldn't help noticing that our car> seemed to attract much more attention than the other two," one told The> Guardian.">

LOL. They're the ones caught cheating and they're 'crying foul'?

Good idea. I just can't understand why some people feel excessive profanity >makes them appear more grown, important or indeed correct - mind you I guess >Eminem, Dr Dre and the other 'gangsta' rappas have something to answer for >over that one.

"Jago" <jago[remove]@istop.com> wrote in message> news:426ed8d9$1_1@1­27.0.0.1...>>

Nice try, but the stewards also drained the fuel from MS' and Alonso's > cars> and unlike the BAR they were above the minimum weight. You'll have to > make> up some other fabrication about the ferrari.>

That, combined with helium filled tires.>

Also, I think MS was constantly hopping off the seat so that while his> body was airborn his weight was not affecting the car performance ­

http://www.planet-f­1.com/news/story_193­23.shtml>"Some BAR team members, though, are crying foul.>

"While the scrutineers also wanted the fuel systems on Alonso's Renault and>Schumacher's Ferrari drained out, we couldn't help noticing that our car>seemed to attract much more attention than the other two," one told The>Guardian.">

LOL. They're the ones caught cheating and they're 'crying foul'?

It's a fair comment. Schumacher came from nowhere to 3rd place on tires >that he locked up and drove through gravel in qualifying. He didn't do >anything special for the first ten laps of the race. Then Woobens conked >and all of a sudden Schumacher finds turbo overdrive. A lighter fuel >composition, perhaps?

...You won't think so after you've learned to read.>

How is that fair? Ferrari work like red-headed stepchildren to get> their car competitive and your reflex is to accuse them of cheating to> deflect attention from a team that was actually caught cheating...

[Place your favorite disparagement of the cognitively disfunctional> here.]>

Read Article 4.1 (Minimum weight). The article, in typical FIA ambiguity, > includes: "at all other times during the event." FIA nowhere defines what > it means by "event."

Anyone can interpret the FIA's minimum weight > regulation as all cars can legally weigh less or more than 600kg when they > arrive back at Parc Ferme and get weighed by the scrutineers, as long as > they weighed 600kg crossing the finish line at race end. There's no clarity > to FIA's weight rule.

"F2005: 0 of 2" <Ron.Dennis@LyingCh­eatingSwine.com> wrote in message > news:kbh171psl404di­1ogmgvsdea75ukg4ijm2­@4ax.com...> > On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:44:00 -0400, "Jago" <jago[remove]@istop.com>> > wrote:> >>"Vile Merchant" <nospam@f1.com> wrote in message> >>> "Jago" <jago[remove]@istop.com> wrote in message> >>>> "scott" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message> >>>> > "Vig" <gtg121p@mail.gatec­h.edu> wrote in message> >>>> >> "scott" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message> >>>> >>> And BAR already said they provided information to show their car> >>>> >>> was above the minimum at all points of the race. I guess the> >>>> >>> appeal from the FIA is to ban cars that are *capable* of running> >>>> >>> under the minimum, not just ones that actually run under.> >>>> >>

The scrutineers passed Button's BAR after the race. Read the news. FIA is > appealing the scrutineers' ruling. This doesn't mean that BAR broke the > rules. There's no clearly defined rule that all cars must weight 600kg > minimum including driver when weighed by scrutineers after the race. > Drivers typically sweat and lose body weight during a race while burning > fuel on the cool down lap. How much weight is lost varies from driver to > driver. In Button's case it was about 12lb. Nothing abnormal.

It seems the FIA had been suspicious for some time - since last year.

But this is the first time a BAR has taken the chequered flag this > season.

But - and here's the simple way of assessing it: *the BAR was > underweight according to the prescribed check and is therefore illegal*. > You don't *need* to go any further. 20 years ago Alain Prost lost a > victory at the same track for being just 2 kg underweight.

But - and here's the simple way of assessing it: *the BAR was> underweight according to the prescribed check and is therefore> illegal*.

You are though being deliberately disingenuous,

as are BAR's officials >if they choose to stand by that tack. In AtlasF1's recent article they >point out that the BAR had a - let's say very difficult to find - part >of the fuel tank that still had fuel in it when the BAR representative >had already been asked if the car was empty of fuel and answered 'yes'.>

That's just a teeny bit suspicious, and when that was drained the weight >was as in the subject here.>

The intent of the rules is obviously to limit the minimum weight of the >cars, the checks simply the points at which that is tested. As with the >tyres in 2003. >

It seems the FIA had been suspicious for some time - since last year. >But this is the first time a BAR has taken the chequered flag this >season.>

But - and here's the simple way of assessing it: *the BAR was >underweight according to the prescribed check and is therefore illegal*. >You don't *need* to go any further. 20 years ago Alain Prost lost a >victory at the same track for being just 2 kg underweight.

Actually unless you can provide a contrary source the BAR passed the >prescribed check.

It was over the minimum weight when weighed. If you think >you can keep it simple than that is all there is to say.

Read Article 4.1 (Minimum weight). The article, in typical FIA ambiguity, >includes: "at all other times during the event." FIA nowhere defines what >it means by "event." Anyone can interpret the FIA's minimum weight >regulation as all cars can legally weigh less or more than 600kg when they >arrive back at Parc Ferme and get weighed by the scrutineers, as long as >they weighed 600kg crossing the finish line at race end. There's no clarity >to FIA's weight rule.

CatharticF1 wrote:>> But - and here's the simple way of assessing it: *the BAR was >> underweight according to the prescribed check and is therefore>> illegal*. >

Where in the rules does it say the car must be more than 600kg dry?>

Cheers> Graham

This is what is being missed. >The weight test is how the FIA police the rule. All the teams know it.>That is why BAR should be in trouble.>

Clarifications have been issued in the past on this and BAR are aware of >it.

Graham Hodgson wrote:>>

If provoked, I shall explain the difference between a red herring and a >kipper!

I don't think you would be easily provoked so I'll just ask, what is> the difference between a red herring and a kipper?