BAR News?

When are blogs deleted from the list of the blogs I've read?

Hello Guest

• Login
• Register…
• Start blog

• Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels

• Polls
• Avatars
• Interests

• Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search

• Search
• Games
• Tests
• CarGuru

• Сообщества
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online

CarGuru > Formula-1 > BAR News? 5 May 2005 21:36:31

Recent blog posts:

95 mirage
I have a 95 mirage and this is the second time the injector in number 3 cylinder has gone bad. Anything…

1988 Ford F-150 Truck
I would like to remove the pollution control system from my 1988 F-150, 4.9L I6 300 4x4. Can anyone…

my 99 M chrysler has started to…
my 99 M chrysler has started to cool and then starts to give off heat in the ac vents and then cool…

dodge 2000 intrepid
bought this car right off the show room floor in Bartow fl to this date I have not had any work done on…

starting issue, 2002 dodge…
My 2002 Dodge Caravan wouldn't crank. I tested some things, replaced the battery. After installing the…

;-)
;-)

stereo pin
I put a new battery in my girl friends 94 900 and it wants a code for the radio. There is nothing in the…

Coolant temp on Saturn Sky
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. As I was driving yesterday I happen to have the info set on…

Saturn Sky Red Line
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. I noticed will driving yesterday that when I turned on the…

Que pour la place trange
Que pour la place trange

They have birthday today:

Esther

all >>

Forums:

topic feeds

• CarGuru all topics, blogs and comments

• Driving

• Formula-1

• Indycar

• Nascar

• Other sport

• Technology

• 4 x 4

• Volkswagen

• Mercedes

• Acura

• Alfa-romeo

• Audi

• BMW

• Chrysler

• Dodge

• Ford

• General Motors

• Jeep Willys

• Honda

• Hyundai

• Mazda

• Nissan

• Peugeot

• Pontiac

• Porsche

• Saab

• Saturn

• Toyota

• Volvo

• Buy / Sell

• Open discussion

• Anonymous

Discuss:

Donington gets planning…
That's about it, really. Wonder if they still think they can get the money? The story's on the BBC…

New F1 Website
Please take a look at my F1 website It is fairly new, so i would really appreciate some visitors…

A buck?
I have a twenty in my pocket right now. Could I have gotten the team? -- - dillon I am not invalid…

Recent forum topics:

Brake Lights won't work
brake lights on 1996 Grand Am won't work. Fuse and lights are fine. Suggestions?

honda civic 87 model problem
i would like some information on why my honda civic wont start at times after its hot when running it…

mazda premacy glowplug lights…
i have a mazda premacy 2litre diesel . have a problem at the moment ,glowplug light flashing with loss…

I have a 96 chrysler new york…
I have a 96 chrysler new york lhs but no owners manuel and on the message center there is a light that i…

Recent forum comments:

RE: Ask How To Replace Headlight…
how do I release the locking ring on the headlamp bulb in a 99 dodge ram 2500?

RE: Re: Transmission shudder when…
who are you speaking to

RE: Re: Transmission shudder when…
I can feel something like a kick when I first hit the gas pedal when I take off.

RE: stuck hatchback
on the rear gate that is

RE: stuck hatchback
just my latch is stuck and the door wont close on my 2000 sub outback limited

RE: 1999 Chrysler T&C - Speed…
I am reading all of this and am amazed at how bad I am getting ripped off by my Chrysler dealership....4…

RE: How to duplicate Navtech CD’s
where can i buy nav cd's for a 2003 s class mercedes also the latest version for a 2005 sl?

RE: Heating problem in 1988 Honda…
well thats no always true!!! my husband replaced the thermostat/thermometer..... and the water…

RE: Mitsubishi Diamante ECU faults…
how did you read the codes

RE: 98 Dodge Grand Caravan Problems
I had the same problem with the instrument panel, after about a months worth of greif, and dollars…

Модератор:

Administrator


BAR News?
Nick Beef 3 May 2005 18:18:21
	Any ruling on their illegal ballast yet? -Bob -- FERRARI - 14 Time World Champions SCHUMACHER - 7 Time World Champion FORZA FERRARI!!!
		Add comment


Alan Gauton 3 May 2005 18:54:05 [ permanent link ]
	In article <MPG.1ce1442d1cf4c6539896ef@news-40.giganews.com>, tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net says...> Any ruling on their illegal ballast yet? Nope - the FIA meeting was set for the 4th of May - so maybe by this time tomorrow. -- AG Remove removes from address to remove anti-spam measures. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Gauton E-Mail agauton @ postmaster.co.uk Never for me the lowered banner, never the last endeavour! (Damon Hill - 16th June 1999)
		Add comment


Graham Hodgson 3 May 2005 18:55:59 [ permanent link ]
	Nick Beef wrote:> Any ruling on their illegal ballast yet? The matter about BAR's legality is being decided tomorrow I believe. Cheers Graham -- Make a little birdhouse in your soul.
		Add comment


Sharknose 3 May 2005 19:49:38 [ permanent link ]
	"Nick Beef" <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote in message news:MPG.1ce1442d1cf4c6539896ef@news-40.giganews.com...> Any ruling on their illegal ballast yet?> What are the technicalities on this? I heard something about a second fuel tank? SN
		Add comment


Nick Beef 3 May 2005 19:52:17 [ permanent link ]
	In article <1115135367.5afd2c82a133239375d935bfa7b867a6@teranews>, nospam.sharknose156@hotmail.com says...> "Nick Beef" <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote in message > news:MPG.1ce1442d1cf4c6539896ef@news-40.giganews.com...> > Any ruling on their illegal ballast yet?> > What are the technicalities on this? I heard something about a second fuel > tank?> SN > Not much to it really. They were under weight. It's really that simple... -Bob
		Add comment


Graham Hodgson 3 May 2005 19:56:39 [ permanent link ]
	Nick Beef wrote:> In article <1115135367.5afd2c82a133239375d935bfa7b867a6@teranews>, > nospam.sharknose156@hotmail.com says...> "Nick Beef" <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote in message >>news:MPG.1ce1442d1cf4c6539896ef@news-40.giganews.com...>> Any ruling on their illegal ballast yet?>>> What are the technicalities on this? I heard something about a second fuel >>tank?>>SN >> Not much to it really. They were under weight. It's really that > simple... When during the event were they underweight? Cheers Graham -- Make a little birdhouse in your soul.
		Add comment


Nick Beef 3 May 2005 21:28:36 [ permanent link ]
	In article <3dpl9nF6virh9U1@individual.net>, ttgmh@hotmail.com says...> Nick Beef wrote:> > In article <1115135367.5afd2c82a133239375d935bfa7b867a6@teranews>, > > nospam.sharknose156@hotmail.com says...> > "Nick Beef" <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote in message > >>news:MPG.1ce1442d1cf4c6539896ef@news-40.giganews.com...> >> Any ruling on their illegal ballast yet?> >>> What are the technicalities on this? I heard something about a second fuel > >>tank?> >>SN > >> Not much to it really. They were under weight. It's really that > > simple...> When during the event were they underweight? When they were weighed. -Bob
		Add comment


Brian Lawrence 3 May 2005 21:56:32 [ permanent link ]
	"Nick Beef" <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote: In article <3dpl9nF6virh9U1@individual.net>, ttgmh@hotmail.com says...>> Nick Beef wrote:>> > In article <1115135367.5afd2c82a133239375d935bfa7b867a6@teranews>,>> > nospam.sharknose156@hotmail.com says...>> > "Nick Beef" <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote in message>> >>news:MPG.1ce1442d1cf4c6539896ef@news-40.giganews.com...>> >> Any ruling on their illegal ballast yet?>> >>> What are the technicalities on this? I heard something about a second fuel>> >>tank?>> >>SN>> >> Not much to it really. They were under weight. It's really that>> > simple...>> When during the event were they underweight?> When they were weighed. Which was after the event. -- Brian
		Add comment


Nick Beef 3 May 2005 22:13:48 [ permanent link ]
	In article <3dpsagF6s8eugU1@individual.net>, Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn.com says...> "Nick Beef" <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote:> In article <3dpl9nF6virh9U1@individual.net>, ttgmh@hotmail.com says...> >> Nick Beef wrote:> >> > In article <1115135367.5afd2c82a133239375d935bfa7b867a6@teranews>,> >> > nospam.sharknose156@hotmail.com says...> >> > "Nick Beef" <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote in message> >> >>news:MPG.1ce1442d1cf4c6539896ef@news-40.giganews.com...> >> >> Any ruling on their illegal ballast yet?> >> >>> What are the technicalities on this? I heard something about a second fuel> >> >>tank?> >> >>SN> >> >> Not much to it really. They were under weight. It's really that> >> > simple...> >> When during the event were they underweight?> > When they were weighed.> Which was after the event.> I consider the post race scrutineering to be one of the most important parts of the 'event.' I'm quite sure the FIA would agree with me... Or, we're sure to see teams breaking more rules, then claiming that they weren't 'measured' or 'checked' during the 'event'... -Bob
		Add comment


Iain Miller 3 May 2005 23:02:39 [ permanent link ]
	I consider the post race scrutineering to be one of the most important> parts of the 'event.'> I'm quite sure the FIA would agree with me...> Or, we're sure to see teams breaking more rules, then claiming that they> weren't 'measured' or 'checked' during the 'event'...> Yer absolutely right - its when they find all sorts of oddities - oversize brake ducts, dodgy bargeboards etc etc etc. I.
		Add comment


Lcd 3 May 2005 23:48:12 [ permanent link ]
	Maybe a little naive but why not check before the race? "Iain Miller" <donot@spam.me> wrote in message news:jVPde.5427$%K6.1447@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...> > I consider the post race scrutineering to be one of the most important>> parts of the 'event.'>> I'm quite sure the FIA would agree with me...>> Or, we're sure to see teams breaking more rules, then claiming that they>> weren't 'measured' or 'checked' during the 'event'...>> Yer absolutely right - its when they find all sorts of oddities - oversize > brake ducts, dodgy bargeboards etc etc etc.> I.>
		Add comment


Vig 4 May 2005 00:08:15 [ permanent link ]
	"LCD" <photonistry@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:4277d580$0$83057$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net... Maybe a little naive but why not check before the race? It's too time-consuming to check for cars maybe? Minardi could probably run a car with NO2 and no one would know... -- Vig
		Add comment


Richard Miller 4 May 2005 01:16:26 [ permanent link ]
	In message <MPG.1ce170c340c00e379896f1@news-40.giganews.com>, Nick Beef <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> writes>In article <3dpl9nF6virh9U1@individual.net>, ttgmh@hotmail.com says...>> When during the event were they underweight?> When they were weighed.> And presumably that explains why the scrutineers passed them as legal? -- Richard Miller
		Add comment


Bumble Bee Boy 2 4 May 2005 01:24:07 [ permanent link ]
	"LCD" <photonistry@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:4277d580$0$83057$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...> Maybe a little naive but why not check before the race?> Well in this instance they couldn't really, as the cars are fuelled for the race, so it was legal before the race (I presume)... It wasn't until the fuel tank(s) was/were drained that they found the car to be underweight, AFAIK. Now the rumour goes BAR were running a 'secret' fuel tank, that could be filled at the final stop, or in part at both stops... A BAR insider allegedly said that there's nothing secret about this tank, the FIA approved their designs and it's just something to do with their engine's fuel intake (or somethang)... It would certainly explain why young Button is so quick early on in races but then appears to drop off as the race goes on... That and wings that flex 3 times more than permitted. Bumble
		Add comment


Bumble Bee Boy 2 4 May 2005 01:31:05 [ permanent link ]
	"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:ETywgU5qo+dCFw6Q@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...> In message <MPG.1ce170c340c00e379896f1@news-40.giganews.com>, Nick Beef > <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> writes>>In article <3dpl9nF6virh9U1@individual.net>, ttgmh@hotmail.com says...>>> When during the event were they underweight?>> When they were weighed.>> And presumably that explains why the scrutineers passed them as legal? After hearing BAR's explaination IIRC? They were found to be underweight... Hence the FIA appeal. -- > Richard Miller Bumble
		Add comment


Benjamin Bluemchen 4 May 2005 02:11:39 [ permanent link ]
	LCD wrote:> Maybe a little naive but why not check before the race? Yeah, why not simply allow improbability drives?
		Add comment


Geoff May 4 May 2005 02:34:04 [ permanent link ]
	Benjamin Bluemchen wrote:> LCD wrote:> Maybe a little naive but why not check before the race?> Yeah, why not simply allow improbability drives? If you are paying, I'd prefer Bistromathematics. MfG Geoff. -- Unofficial F1 Database: http://glibs.ssmmdd.co.uk/ Update: 1st May, 2005 USENET Email address is a spam trap, send Emails to address in the DB
		Add comment


Nick Beef 4 May 2005 03:19:22 [ permanent link ]
	In article <d58qid$su7$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, bumble@it.it says...> "Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:ETywgU5qo+dCFw6Q@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...> > In message <MPG.1ce170c340c00e379896f1@news-40.giganews.com>, Nick Beef > > <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> writes> >>In article <3dpl9nF6virh9U1@individual.net>, ttgmh@hotmail.com says...> >>> When during the event were they underweight?> >> When they were weighed.> >> And presumably that explains why the scrutineers passed them as legal?> After hearing BAR's explaination IIRC? They were found to be > underweight... Hence the FIA appeal. I think you might be over-simplifying it for the tinfoil hat brigade... -Bob -- > > Richard Miller> Bumble >
		Add comment


Herbert Meyr 4 May 2005 03:20:49 [ permanent link ]
	Nick Beef wrote: Not much to it really. They were under weight. It's really that> simple... It were simple when the rules would be simple, but the ruleset is unnesessarily complex.
		Add comment


CatharticF1 4 May 2005 09:12:13 [ permanent link ]
	Nick Beef <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote in news:MPG.1ce1442d1cf4c6539896ef@news-40.giganews.com: Any ruling on their illegal ballast yet?> -Bob> Illegal? Surely not. You see BAR just reserved the right to run the car illegally if they so desired by using fuel as ballast. That doesn't mean they did. They just wanted the option - and I'm sure it's for a very good reason. No idea what, but I'm sure they have one. Certainly there was found to be an extra compartment with more fuel in it after the BAR representative said the fuel tank was empty - but F1 cars are quite complex. He just forgot: "Oh - that fuel!" And yes, technically the point at which the car was weighed - for the apparently connected purpose of checking for underweight cars - it was found to be very much lighter than according to the rules of cricket. Or F1. So it seems the only way to catch out people running underweight cars is to weigh them as they make each pitstop. But there is no rule allowing that, so apparently it is not allowable to detect and then declare if a car is running underweight. Ever. Well .. at least according to some... -- CatharticF1 'What you thought was freedom is just greed'
		Add comment


Brian Lawrence 4 May 2005 10:24:56 [ permanent link ]
	"Nick Beef" <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote: When during the event were they underweight?>> > When they were weighed.>> Which was after the event.>> I consider the post race scrutineering to be one of the most important> parts of the 'event.'> I'm quite sure the FIA would agree with me...> Or, we're sure to see teams breaking more rules, then claiming that they> weren't 'measured' or 'checked' during the 'event'... Post-race scrutineering is vitally important, but is not now and never has been considered "part of the Event". It takes place after "the Event" has finished. The Event ends when the cars reach parc ferme. Any weighing and measuring that is undertaken is performed on the car "in the condition that it finished the race". BAR #3 was weighed in that condition and found to weigh 606.1 kg. If it had been underweight it would have been disqualified - no argument, no appeal. It wasn't underweight. Jo Bauer and his team - apparently having been tipped off - then drained the fuel and reweighed the car. Sans fuel it weighed in at 594.6 kg, but since that weighing was made "after the Event" and the car was no longer in race condition there is no requirement for it to be above the 600kg minimum. However, the fact that it was "light" indicates the potential for it to have been illegally light during the Event. The scrutineers are not able to determine whether it might have been light during the Event so they make the facts known to the Stewards in an official report. The stewards review the facts and ask questions of the team. BAR were able to show that the weight of fuel on board at all times was sufficient to keep the weight above 600 kg. BAR car #3 was never below 600 kg "during the Event", the data shows that - much of it is measured by the FIA. The car had the potential to be racing right on the 600 kg limit for approx. two laps at the end of each of the first two stints, and as such had an advantage when compared to cars with the same notional fuel load. The FIA clearly want to close this "loop hole", so who knows what the Court of Appeal will decide. -- Brian
		Add comment


Richard Miller 4 May 2005 11:57:50 [ permanent link ]
	In message <d58qid$su7$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Bumble Bee Boy 2 <bumble@it.it> writes>"Richard Miller" <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message>news:ETywgU5qo+dCFw6Q@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...>> In message <MPG.1ce170c340c00e379896f1@news-40.giganews.com>, Nick Beef>> <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> writes>>>In article <3dpl9nF6virh9U1@individual.net>, ttgmh@hotmail.com says...>>>> When during the event were they underweight?>>> When they were weighed.>>> And presumably that explains why the scrutineers passed them as legal?> After hearing BAR's explaination IIRC? Which means that it was not underweight during the event. If it had been found to be underweight, it would have been excluded. They were found to be>underweight... Not during the event; only after the scrutineers had performed operations on the car that could not be performed during the race. Hence the FIA appeal.> That could go either way. So assuming it goes in BAR's favour, presumably you will retract your allegation. But at the moment, the official position is that the car is legal. That will only change if the appeal finds otherwise. I do find it odd that effectively the referee is allowed to appeal against its own scrutineers. I could understand it if another team was appealing the decision, but I don't get this at all. -- Richard Miller
		Add comment


Ian Dalziel 4 May 2005 11:58:18 [ permanent link ]
	On 3 May 2005 13:38:18 -0700, "ajames54" <ajames54@hotmail.com> wrote: Always?>since the min weight is supposedly less fuel ... Who supposed that? -- Ian
		Add comment


Bigbird 4 May 2005 13:23:16 [ permanent link ]
	Bumble Bee Boy 2 wrote:> "LCD" <photonistry@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message> news:4277d580$0$83057$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...> > Maybe a little naive but why not check before the race?> > Well in this instance they couldn't really, as the cars are fuelled> for the race, so it was legal before the race (I presume)... It> wasn't until the fuel tank(s) was/were drained that they found the> car to be underweight, AFAIK.> Now the rumour goes BAR were running a 'secret' fuel tank, that could> be filled at the final stop, or in part at both stops... A BAR insider> allegedly said that there's nothing secret about this tank, the FIA> approved their designs and it's just something to do with their> engine's fuel intake (or somethang)... It would certainly explain why> young Button is so quick early on in races but then appears to drop> off as the race goes on... That and wings that flex 3 times more than> permitted. You really must try to keep up. Does it explain qualifying pace too? Was race pace so inconsistent with qualifying. If you think so you need to take a lot closer look at Ferraris performance too. Of course the wing reference is just ignorance. Try reading a couple of articles now and again or do you have a source suggesting that the wing was illegal at Imola.
		Add comment


Bigbird 4 May 2005 13:26:28 [ permanent link ]
	ajames54 wrote:> Always?> since the min weight is supposedly less fuel ... YOU suppose, but YOU are wrong.
		Add comment


Bigbird 4 May 2005 13:32:03 [ permanent link ]
	Herbert Meyr wrote:> Nick Beef wrote:> Not much to it really. They were under weight. It's really that> > simple...> It were simple when the rules would be simple, but the ruleset is> unnesessarily complex. The rules are simple, too simple, which is what leads to these problems. According to the rules the car was overweight. NB is simply wrong which is often the case with simpletons.
		Add comment


Greg Watson 4 May 2005 14:14:09 [ permanent link ]
	"Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn.com> wrote in message news:3dr85oF6ukqv5U1@individual.net...> "Nick Beef" <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote:> When during the event were they underweight?>>> > When they were weighed.>>> Which was after the event.>>> I consider the post race scrutineering to be one of the most important>> parts of the 'event.'>> I'm quite sure the FIA would agree with me...>> Or, we're sure to see teams breaking more rules, then claiming that they>> weren't 'measured' or 'checked' during the 'event'...> Post-race scrutineering is vitally important, but is not now and never has> been considered "part of the Event". It takes place after "the Event" has> finished. The Event ends when the cars reach parc ferme. Any weighing and> measuring that is undertaken is performed on the car "in the condition > that> it finished the race".> BAR #3 was weighed in that condition and found to weigh 606.1 kg. If it > had> been underweight it would have been disqualified - no argument, no appeal.> It wasn't underweight.> Jo Bauer and his team - apparently having been tipped off - then drained > the> fuel and reweighed the car. Sans fuel it weighed in at 594.6 kg, but since> that weighing was made "after the Event" and the car was no longer in race> condition there is no requirement for it to be above the 600kg minimum.> However, the fact that it was "light" indicates the potential for it to > have> been illegally light during the Event. The scrutineers are not able to> determine whether it might have been light during the Event so they make> the facts known to the Stewards in an official report. The stewards review> the facts and ask questions of the team. BAR were able to show that the> weight of fuel on board at all times was sufficient to keep the weight> above 600 kg.> BAR car #3 was never below 600 kg "during the Event", the data shows > that -> much of it is measured by the FIA.> The car had the potential to be racing right on the 600 kg limit for > approx.> two laps at the end of each of the first two stints, and as such had an> advantage when compared to cars with the same notional fuel load.> The FIA clearly want to close this "loop hole", so who knows what the > Court of> Appeal will decide.> -- > Brian> Ah, but if they were carrying around a few kilos of fuel at the bottom of their tank that never got used and kept them above 600kg, then that is 'illegal ballast' since it is not fixed to the frame of the car. There is no loophole, the FIA rules seem to be fairly clear on the matter.
		Add comment


Bigbird 4 May 2005 14:27:44 [ permanent link ]
	Greg Watson wrote:> "Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn.com> wrote in message> news:3dr85oF6ukqv5U1@individual.net...> > "Nick Beef" <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote:> > When during the event were they underweight?> > > > > When they were weighed.> > > > Which was after the event.> > > > I consider the post race scrutineering to be one of the most> > > important parts of the 'event.'> > > I'm quite sure the FIA would agree with me...> > > Or, we're sure to see teams breaking more rules, then claiming> > > that they weren't 'measured' or 'checked' during the 'event'...> > Post-race scrutineering is vitally important, but is not now and> > never has been considered "part of the Event". It takes place after> > "the Event" has finished. The Event ends when the cars reach parc> > ferme. Any weighing and measuring that is undertaken is performed> > on the car "in the condition that> > it finished the race".> > BAR #3 was weighed in that condition and found to weigh 606.1 kg.> > If it had> > been underweight it would have been disqualified - no argument, no> > appeal. It wasn't underweight.> > Jo Bauer and his team - apparently having been tipped off - then> > drained the> > fuel and reweighed the car. Sans fuel it weighed in at 594.6 kg,> > but since that weighing was made "after the Event" and the car was> > no longer in race condition there is no requirement for it to be> > above the 600kg minimum. However, the fact that it was "light"> > indicates the potential for it to have> > been illegally light during the Event. The scrutineers are not able> > to determine whether it might have been light during the Event so> > they make the facts known to the Stewards in an official report.> > The stewards review the facts and ask questions of the team. BAR> > were able to show that the weight of fuel on board at all times was> > sufficient to keep the weight above 600 kg.> > BAR car #3 was never below 600 kg "during the Event", the data shows> > that -> > much of it is measured by the FIA.> > The car had the potential to be racing right on the 600 kg limit for> > approx.> > two laps at the end of each of the first two stints, and as such> > had an advantage when compared to cars with the same notional fuel> > load. The FIA clearly want to close this "loop hole", so who knows what> > the Court of> > Appeal will decide.> > --> > Brian> > Ah, but if they were carrying around a few kilos of fuel at the> bottom of their tank that never got used and kept them above 600kg,> then that is 'illegal ballast' since it is not fixed to the frame of> the car. There is no loophole, the FIA rules seem to be fairly clear> on the matter. Give it 24 hours.
		Add comment


Greg Watson 4 May 2005 14:52:43 [ permanent link ]
	"Ian Dalziel" <iandalziel@lineone.net> wrote in message news:e40h715v0r1k26cb96fqdcqmd8deqkf348@4ax.com...> On 3 May 2005 13:38:18 -0700, "ajames54" <ajames54@hotmail.com> wrote:> Always?>>since the min weight is supposedly less fuel ...> Who supposed that?> --> Ian It follows logically. 1) The car is supposed to be above 600kg at all times during the event, and 2) any ballast to get you up to weight must be fixed to the car (i.e. you can't use anything that possibly could be removed from the car and then replaced, to prevent just this sort of underhand trickery). So think of it this way, if I have a car that weighs 580kg and has 40kg of fuel, in order to satisfy (1) I must only ever use the top 20kgs of fuel in the tank. Logically then, the bottom 20kgs of fuel isn't fuel but ballast. QED, you have either violated (1) or (2). So effectively, the minimum weight is less fuel. BAR broke the rules.
		Add comment


Ian Dalziel 4 May 2005 16:53:34 [ permanent link ]
	On Wed, 4 May 2005 20:52:43 +1000, "Greg Watson" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote: "Ian Dalziel" <iandalziel@lineone.net> wrote in message >news:e40h715v0r1k26cb96fqdcqmd8deqkf348@4ax.com...>> On 3 May 2005 13:38:18 -0700, "ajames54" <ajames54@hotmail.com> wrote:>> Always?>>>since the min weight is supposedly less fuel ...>> Who supposed that?>> -->> It follows logically. 1) The car is supposed to be above 600kg at all times >during the event, and 2) any ballast to get you up to weight must be fixed >to the car (i.e. you can't use anything that possibly could be removed from >the car and then replaced, to prevent just this sort of underhand trickery).> So think of it this way, if I have a car that weighs 580kg and has 40kg of >fuel, in order to satisfy (1) I must only ever use the top 20kgs of fuel in >the tank. Logically then, the bottom 20kgs of fuel isn't fuel but ballast. >QED, you have either violated (1) or (2).> So effectively, the minimum weight is less fuel.> BAR broke the rules. > It's not that clear-cut. You CAN argue that the extra fuel is ballast, but then why isn't the bodywork ballast? And even if the fuel is ballast, it IS fixed, and it can't be removed without tools. One of those tools (i.e. the engine!) is available to the driver during the race, but the rule doesn't say anything about availability of the tools. Ambiguous rule. -- Ian
		Add comment


Ian Dalziel 4 May 2005 17:45:01 [ permanent link ]
	On 4 May 2005 06:41:35 -0700, "ajames54" <ajames54@hotmail.com> wrote: show me how something that is normally consumed during a race can be>fixed to the car and I will stipulate that you may not be an idiot. Tyres? Idiot? -- Ian
		Add comment


Geoff May 4 May 2005 17:46:53 [ permanent link ]
	ajames54 wrote:> show me how something that is normally consumed during a race can be> fixed to the car and I will stipulate that you may not be an idiot. Honda engines? MfG Geoff. -- Unofficial F1 Database: http://glibs.ssmmdd.co.uk/ Update: 1st May, 2005 USENET Email address is a spam trap, send Emails to address in the DB
		Add comment


Ian Dalziel 4 May 2005 17:53:16 [ permanent link ]
	On 4 May 2005 06:48:52 -0700, "ajames54" <ajames54@hotmail.com> wrote: tires are weighed.. if a car comes in underweight because of tire wear>it's underweight.. are tires now balast?> meet my friend Mr. Kettle Did I mention weight? "show me how something that is normally consumed during a race can be fixed to the car" Are tyres normally consumed during a race? Are they fixed to the car? Are you shown yet? -- Ian
		Add comment


Geoff May 4 May 2005 18:26:27 [ permanent link ]
	ajames54 wrote:> Now that is funny!> but I don't think a car needs to be weighed if it doesn't finish.. and> aren't there exceptions if a car is damaged due to an accident?> JB should have creamed that wall on the rounout lap...> Any team using my loop hole owes me a dollar! James, please leave some of the previous post in so we to whom you are replying. Actually, I was taking the wee-wee 'cos of the exploding Hondas (Malaysia). MfG Geoff. -- Unofficial F1 Database: http://glibs.ssmmdd.co.uk/ Update: 1st May, 2005 USENET Email address is a spam trap, send Emails to address in the DB
		Add comment


Phil Newnham 4 May 2005 18:56:20 [ permanent link ]
	ajames54 wrote:> D'oh.. I didn't know we were playing semantics ..> I thought we were talking about car weights> but I was using the word this way..> from M-W> 1 : to do away with completely : DESTROY <fire consumed several> buildings>> can't do that with tyres You can't do that with fuel either, unless you think that the fuel pickup system can get absolutely all the fuel out of the tank while running, or the fuel pump works when there's more air than fuel in it... -- Phil http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html
		Add comment


Bigbird 4 May 2005 19:02:57 [ permanent link ]
	ajames54 wrote:> show me how something that is normally consumed during a race can be> fixed to the car and I will stipulate that you may not be an idiot. Were you replying to me? Try quoting, it's not a difficult concept. If you were. Isn't it for you to show the rule which unambiguously supports your supposition?
		Add comment


Geoff May 4 May 2005 19:14:11 [ permanent link ]
	Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:> Bigbird wrote:> Herbert Meyr wrote:>> Nick Beef wrote:>>> Not much to it really. They were under weight. It's really that>>>>simple...>>> It were simple when the rules would be simple, but the ruleset is>>>unnesessarily complex.>> The rules are simple, too simple, which is what leads to these> problems.> According to the rules the car was overweight. NB is simply wrong> which is> often the case with simpletons.> OVERweight?> Now I'm confused by the simplicity of it all. Hmmm... A new market niche available here... Diet4Cars[tm](r)(c) or CarDietsRUs[tm](r)(c)... MfG and Geoff -- Unofficial F1 Database: http://glibs.ssmmdd.co.uk/ Update: 1st May, 2005 USENET Email address is a spam trap, send Emails to address in the DB
		Add comment


Bigbird 4 May 2005 20:38:25 [ permanent link ]
	ajames54 wrote:> Geoff May wrote:> > ajames54 wrote:> > > Now that is funny!> > > but I don't think a car needs to be weighed if it doesn't> > > finish.. and aren't there exceptions if a car is damaged due to> > > an accident?> > > JB should have creamed that wall on the rounout lap...> > > Any team using my loop hole owes me a dollar!> > James, please leave some of the previous post in so we to whom you> > are replying.> using google 2 I don't even see it... I'm trying to do better...> Click "show options" then "reply" IIRC
		Add comment


Bigbird 4 May 2005 20:46:21 [ permanent link ]
	Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:> Bigbird wrote:> > Herbert Meyr wrote:> > > Nick Beef wrote:> > > Not much to it really. They were under weight. It's really> > > > that simple...> > > It were simple when the rules would be simple, but the ruleset is> > > unnesessarily complex.> > The rules are simple, too simple, which is what leads to these> > problems. According to the rules the car was overweight. NB is> > simply wrong which is often the case with simpletons.> OVERweight? Over the minimum weight. Now I'm confused by the simplicity of it all.> My apologies for adding to the general confloption.
		Add comment


Bigbird 4 May 2005 21:01:53 [ permanent link ]
	Geoff May wrote:> Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:> > Bigbird wrote:> > Herbert Meyr wrote:> > > Nick Beef wrote:> > > > Not much to it really. They were under weight. It's really> > > > > that simple...> > > > It were simple when the rules would be simple, but the ruleset> > > > is unnesessarily complex.> > > The rules are simple, too simple, which is what leads to these> > problems.> > According to the rules the car was overweight. NB is simply wrong> > which is> > often the case with simpletons.> > OVERweight?> > Now I'm confused by the simplicity of it all.> Hmmm... A new market niche available here... Diet4Cars[tm](r)(c) or> CarDietsRUs[tm](r)(c)...> Too late 'r'us has been tm'ed for some time.
		Add comment


Scott 4 May 2005 22:14:49 [ permanent link ]
	"Nick Beef" <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote in message news:MPG.1ce170c340c00e379896f1@news-40.giganews.com> In article <3dpl9nF6virh9U1@individual.net>, ttgmh@hotmail.com> says...>> Nick Beef wrote:>>> In article <1115135367.5afd2c82a133239375d935bfa7b867a6@teranews>,>>> nospam.sharknose156@hotmail.com says...>>> "Nick Beef" <tifosoREM@OVEcomcast.net> wrote in message>>>> news:MPG.1ce1442d1cf4c6539896ef@news-40.giganews.com...>>>> Any ruling on their illegal ballast yet?>>>>> What are the technicalities on this? I heard something about a>>>> second fuel tank?>>>> SN>>>> Not much to it really. They were under weight. It's really that>>> simple...>> When during the event were they underweight?> When they were weighed. No they weren't. It was only after the stewards told BAR to take out all the fuel (which apparently makes their car non-functional according to another thread) that it was underweight. If BAR can prove that their car won't work while running with less than 5.3 kg fuel, I think they'll be fine. Seems a bit funny that they weighed in at 594.6 kg with no fuel, and they're claiming that they need to have at least 5.3 kg of fuel for their car to function, and 6 kg for it to run smoothly. Seems like a pretty good design to me, to design the car to become non-functional at 599.9 kg. I suspect that in an event it never got below 600 kg. I guess if BAR can show designs from before Imola that clearly state the 5.3 kg limit, they will be ok.
		Add comment


Phil Newnham 5 May 2005 02:43:44 [ permanent link ]
	ajames54 wrote:> So way back when refueling was banned those cars didn't actually run> out of fuel ... there was some median level between enough to continue> and not enough to continue, of interest to someone other than a> semanticist. > If true I'll buy the argument that the fuel was essential to the> operation of the engine, but it was never legal balast. There is always an amount of fuel left over when an engine stops running. How much depends on the design of the fuel system (and of course whether it works - IIRC Minardis have been known to stop running with a fair quantity of fuel in the tank because the pickup hose end moved above the level of fuel - doh). In BAR's case, they claim that at least 5.29kgs is required - which sounds like a lot, but if it means that they can supply fuel more consistently, with fewer or no air bubbles, then they are entitled to do so, and the fuel is essential fluids, not ballast. I believe I suggested that argument here before their defense became public, and lo and behold, that appears to be their defense, or at least part of it. -- Phil http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html
		Add comment


Bumble Bee Boy 2 5 May 2005 14:31:22 [ permanent link ]
	"Bigbird" <BigBird.usenet@REMTHSgmail.com> wrote in message news:xLadnScuaZPVCOXfRVnyjw@pipex.net...> You really must try to keep up.> No. Does it explain qualifying pace too? Was race pace so inconsistent with > qualifying. If you think so you need to take a lot closer look at Ferraris Yes. performance too. Of course the wing reference is just ignorance. Try > reading a couple of articles now and again or do you have a source > suggesting that the wing was illegal at Imola. When was it illegal? They were certainly told to sort it as it was flexing up to 3 times too much, the article I read didn't say when they were told to change it (along with Renault). BigBirdBumbleBeeWillEatYou
		Add comment


Bigbird 5 May 2005 21:36:31 [ permanent link ]
	Bumble Bee Boy 2 wrote:> "Bigbird" <BigBird.usenet@REMTHSgmail.com> wrote in message> news:xLadnScuaZPVCOXfRVnyjw@pipex.net...> > You really must try to keep up.> > No.> Does it explain qualifying pace too? Was race pace so inconsistent> > with qualifying. If you think so you need to take a lot closer look> > at Ferraris> Yes.> Good well do report back when you have. performance too. Of course the wing reference is just ignorance. Try> > reading a couple of articles now and again or do you have a source> > suggesting that the wing was illegal at Imola.> When was it illegal? Never AFAIK. You suggest otherwise. They were certainly told to sort it as it was> flexing up to 3 times too much, the article I read didn't say when> they were told to change it (along with Renault).> The FIA decided to toughen up the rear wing deflection tests for Imola.
		Add comment

CarGuru > Formula-1 > BAR News? 5 May 2005 21:36:31

	see also: ALMS: Risi Competizione adds sponsor NASCAR-GRAND: BES: NDS Motorsports… F1: Speed happy to be back at home		pass tests:		see also: ok 1990 Jeep wagoner "woody" PLEASE HELP!!!

Copyright © 2001—2009 Car-Guru
Idea: Miсhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.car-guru.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.car-guru.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.car-guru.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:

If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .




Get comments by e-mail Add to favourites

respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..

BAR News?

Add new comment