Something I don't quite understand

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:

Lee Baldwin

jose vazquez

Arthur

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


Something I don't quite understand
Brian Lawrence 5 May 2005 21:56:00
	The International Court of Appeal (ICA) neither formulates nor amends the existing rules of competition. In it's judgment it says "WHEREAS the only interpretation possible which can give any guarantee in this regard should be, as is contained in Article 4.1., that the weight of the car with its fuel tank completely empty at the end of the race, must weigh at least 600 kg, and this interpretation flows from Articles 1.9, 4.1, 77-a, 77-b and 77-c of the Sporting and Technical Regulations above." So, Article 4.1 means that the car must weigh 600 kg when empty of fuel. Why then, when Jo Bauer and his team found that BAR #3 only weighed 594.6 kg, didn't the Technical Report say that the car didn't comply with Article 4.1 and should be disqualified? And why, when presented with the fact that the car didn't make the minimum weight, didn't the stewards disqualify it anyway? One might come to the conclusion that neither Jo Bauer, his technical team nor the three stewards were aware that Article 4.1 means what the judges interpret it to mean. Or perhaps not? -- Brian Lawrence Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com Wantage, Oxfordshire, UK
		Add comment


Bigbird 5 May 2005 22:18:55 [ permanent link ]
	Brian Lawrence wrote:> The International Court of Appeal (ICA) neither formulates nor amends> the existing rules of competition.> In it's judgment it says "WHEREAS the only interpretation possible> which can give any guarantee in this regard should be, as is> contained in Article 4.1., that the weight of the car with its fuel tank > completely empty> at the end of the race, must weigh at least 600 kg, and this> interpretation flows from Articles 1.9, 4.1, 77-a, 77-b and 77-c of> the Sporting and Technical Regulations above."> So, Article 4.1 means that the car must weigh 600 kg when empty of> fuel. Well that must now be the interpretation. Why then, when Jo Bauer and his team found that BAR #3 only weighed> 594.6 kg, didn't the Technical Report say that the car didn't comply> with Article 4.1 and should be disqualified?> And why, when presented with the fact that the car didn't make the> minimum weight, didn't the stewards disqualify it anyway?> One might come to the conclusion that neither Jo Bauer, his technical> team nor the three stewards were aware that Article 4.1 means what> the judges interpret it to mean.> Clearly the stewards have been overuled. BAR would appear to have satisified them but the judges appear to be saying they should not have been satisified in respect of : WHEREAS the defendant Lucky Strike BAR Honda was unable to satisfy the requirements of Article 2.6, which states that "It is the duty of each Competitor to satisfy the FIA technical delegate and the Stewards of the Meeting that his automobile complies with these regulations in their entirety at all times during an Event". WHEREAS, the presentation of the team of fuel consumption data cannot guarantee that the vehicle complied at all times with the minimum weight requirements of Article 4.1, Or perhaps not?
		Add comment


Phil Newnham 5 May 2005 22:46:46 [ permanent link ]
	Bigbird wrote:> Clearly the stewards have been overuled. BAR would appear to have satisified > them but the judges appear to be saying they should not have been satisified > in respect of :> WHEREAS the defendant Lucky Strike BAR Honda was unable to satisfy the > requirements of Article 2.6, which states that "It is the duty of each > Competitor to satisfy the FIA technical delegate and the Stewards of the > Meeting that his automobile complies with these regulations in their > entirety at all times during an Event". This was one point I didn't understand. Clearly they did satisfy the FIA technical delegate and the Stewards that the car complied, because the Stewards ruled it legal!?! -- Phil http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html
		Add comment


John Briggs 5 May 2005 22:50:44 [ permanent link ]
	Brian Lawrence wrote:> The International Court of Appeal (ICA) neither formulates nor amends> the existing rules of competition.> In it's judgment it says "WHEREAS the only interpretation possible> which can give any guarantee in this regard should be, as is> contained in Article 4.1., that the weight of the car with its fuel tank > completely empty> at the end of the race, must weigh at least 600 kg, and this> interpretation flows from Articles 1.9, 4.1, 77-a, 77-b and 77-c of> the Sporting and Technical Regulations above."> So, Article 4.1 means that the car must weigh 600 kg when empty of> fuel.> Why then, when Jo Bauer and his team found that BAR #3 only weighed> 594.6 kg, didn't the Technical Report say that the car didn't comply> with Article 4.1 and should be disqualified?> And why, when presented with the fact that the car didn't make the> minimum weight, didn't the stewards disqualify it anyway?> One might come to the conclusion that neither Jo Bauer, his technical> team nor the three stewards were aware that Article 4.1 means what> the judges interpret it to mean. Of course. And the only ways to be sure of that were (a) the FIA to issue a "rule clarification", or (b) the ICA to rule on it. In (a) the result would have stood, of course - which explain why route (b) was chosen. -- John Briggs
		Add comment


Da Frank 5 May 2005 23:42:56 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 05 May 2005 19:46:46 +0100, Phil Newnham <pnewnham@yahoo.com> wrote: Bigbird wrote:>> Clearly the stewards have been overuled. BAR would appear to have satisified >> them but the judges appear to be saying they should not have been satisified >> in respect of :>> WHEREAS the defendant Lucky Strike BAR Honda was unable to satisfy the >> requirements of Article 2.6, which states that "It is the duty of each >> Competitor to satisfy the FIA technical delegate and the Stewards of the >> Meeting that his automobile complies with these regulations in their >> entirety at all times during an Event".> This was one point I didn't understand. Clearly they did satisfy the FIA >technical delegate and the Stewards that the car complied, because the >Stewards ruled it legal!?!> The only thing i can think of is, that the stewards previously have overlooked the "required" fuel in tanks. That may indeed mean that some other cars have been running similarly underweight, but this time perhaps someone gave the FIA a gentle push to act.. Now <evil grin>, just on the weekend when the FIA decides to do a thorough weight check, all others comply. So, which fast improving team is known to be a whistle blower and would benefit the most from the exclusion of BAR ? -- Regards, Frank
		Add comment


Bigbird 5 May 2005 23:55:26 [ permanent link ]
	Phil Newnham wrote:> Bigbird wrote:> > Clearly the stewards have been overuled. BAR would appear to have> > satisified them but the judges appear to be saying they should not> > have been satisified in respect of :> > WHEREAS the defendant Lucky Strike BAR Honda was unable to satisfy> > the requirements of Article 2.6, which states that "It is the duty> > of each Competitor to satisfy the FIA technical delegate and the> > Stewards of the Meeting that his automobile complies with these> > regulations in their entirety at all times during an Event".> This was one point I didn't understand. Clearly they did satisfy the> FIA technical delegate and the Stewards that the car complied,> because the Stewards ruled it legal!?! As I understand it they provided fuel consumption data that satified the stewards (that the car never ran underweight) but clearly not some other FIA delegates and the judges have ruled it out as not "guaranteeing" compliance.
		Add comment


Bigbird 5 May 2005 23:57:03 [ permanent link ]
	Da Frank wrote:> On Thu, 05 May 2005 19:46:46 +0100, Phil Newnham <pnewnham@yahoo.com>> wrote:> Bigbird wrote:> > > Clearly the stewards have been overuled. BAR would appear to have> > > satisified them but the judges appear to be saying they should> > > not have been satisified in respect of :> > > WHEREAS the defendant Lucky Strike BAR Honda was unable to> > > satisfy the requirements of Article 2.6, which states that "It is> > > the duty of each Competitor to satisfy the FIA technical delegate> > > and the Stewards of the Meeting that his automobile complies with> > > these regulations in their entirety at all times during an Event".> > This was one point I didn't understand. Clearly they did satisfy> > the FIA technical delegate and the Stewards that the car complied,> > because the Stewards ruled it legal!?!> > The only thing i can think of is, that the stewards previously have> overlooked the "required" fuel in tanks. That may indeed mean that> some other cars have been running similarly underweight, but this time> perhaps someone gave the FIA a gentle push to act..> Now <evil grin>, just on the weekend when the FIA decides to do a> thorough weight check, all others comply. So, which fast improving> team is known to be a whistle blower and would benefit the most from> the exclusion of BAR ? I would have thought that both Ferrari and McLaren fit those criteria.
		Add comment


Geoff May 6 May 2005 00:20:42 [ permanent link ]
	Da Frank wrote:> [snipped]> Now <evil grin>, just on the weekend when the FIA decides to do a> thorough weight check, all others comply. So, which fast improving> team is known to be a whistle blower and would benefit the most from> the exclusion of BAR ? Williams gained the most points, 4 all together. MfG and innocent whistle regards Geoff. -- Unofficial F1 Database: http://glibs.ssmmdd.co.uk/ Update: 5th May, 2005 USENET Email address is a spam trap, send Emails to address in the DB
		Add comment


Phil Newnham 6 May 2005 00:22:13 [ permanent link ]
	Bigbird wrote:> Phil Newnham wrote:> Bigbird wrote:>> Clearly the stewards have been overuled. BAR would appear to have>>>satisified them but the judges appear to be saying they should not>>>have been satisified in respect of :>>>WHEREAS the defendant Lucky Strike BAR Honda was unable to satisfy>>>the requirements of Article 2.6, which states that "It is the duty>>>of each Competitor to satisfy the FIA technical delegate and the>>>Stewards of the Meeting that his automobile complies with these>>>regulations in their entirety at all times during an Event".>> This was one point I didn't understand. Clearly they did satisfy the>>FIA technical delegate and the Stewards that the car complied,>>because the Stewards ruled it legal!?!> As I understand it they provided fuel consumption data that satified the > stewards (that the car never ran underweight) but clearly not some other FIA > delegates and the judges have ruled it out as not "guaranteeing" compliance. The technical delegate at the event was Jo Bauer, and he and the Stewards are the only FIA representatives at the event who are supposed to have a say, during the event. They were satisfied with BAR's evidence as presented at the time, and they passed the car as legal. For it then to be stated in the FIA judgement that they did not, comes to me as a surprise, at the very least. -- Phil http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html
		Add comment


Da Frank 6 May 2005 01:58:00 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 05 May 2005 22:20:42 +0200, Geoff May <BeateUndGeoff@t-online.de> wrote: Da Frank wrote:>> [snipped]>> Now <evil grin>, just on the weekend when the FIA decides to do a>> thorough weight check, all others comply. So, which fast improving>> team is known to be a whistle blower and would benefit the most from>> the exclusion of BAR ? > Williams gained the most points, 4 all together.> Oi ! -- Regards, Frank
		Add comment


Geoff May 6 May 2005 03:27:06 [ permanent link ]
	Da Frank wrote:> On Thu, 05 May 2005 22:20:42 +0200, Geoff May> <BeateUndGeoff@t-online.de> wrote:> Da Frank wrote:>> [snipped]>>> Now <evil grin>, just on the weekend when the FIA decides to do a>>>thorough weight check, all others comply. So, which fast improving>>>team is known to be a whistle blower and would benefit the most from>>>the exclusion of BAR ? >> Williams gained the most points, 4 all together.> Oi ! > Who? Me? MfG and Geoff. -- Unofficial F1 Database: http://glibs.ssmmdd.co.uk/ Update: 5th May, 2005 USENET Email address is a spam trap, send Emails to address in the DB
		Add comment


CatharticF1 6 May 2005 08:20:40 [ permanent link ]
	"Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn.com> wrote in news:3dv51gFc9peU1@individual.net: The International Court of Appeal (ICA) neither formulates nor amends> the existing rules of competition.> In it's judgment it says "WHEREAS the only interpretation possible> which can give any guarantee in this regard should be, as is contained> in Article 4.1., that the weight of the car with its fuel tank> completely empty at the end of the race, must weigh at least 600 kg,> and this interpretation flows from Articles 1.9, 4.1, 77-a, 77-b and> 77-c of the Sporting and Technical Regulations above."> So, Article 4.1 means that the car must weigh 600 kg when empty of> fuel. > Why then, when Jo Bauer and his team found that BAR #3 only weighed> 594.6 > kg, didn't the Technical Report say that the car didn't comply with> Article 4.1 and should be disqualified?> And why, when presented with the fact that the car didn't make the> minimum weight, didn't the stewards disqualify it anyway?> One might come to the conclusion that neither Jo Bauer, his technical> team nor the three stewards were aware that Article 4.1 means what the> judges interpret it to mean.> Or perhaps not? The stewards made a mistake. The appeal by (I believe) Jo Bauer was almost instantaneous. It's very simple, the rule that no car may be underweight is ONLY policed by weighing it at race end. The ONLY test made found the BAR underweight. And lying about whether the fuel tank was empty to boot. It's really laughable, it's so straightforward - it's not like this has suddenly changed. It's happened in the past too, so there is even precedent! -- CatharticF1 'What you thought was freedom is just greed'
		Add comment


Bigbird 6 May 2005 14:44:53 [ permanent link ]
	CatharticF1 wrote:> "Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn.com> wrote in> news:3dv51gFc9peU1@individual.net:> The International Court of Appeal (ICA) neither formulates nor> > amends the existing rules of competition.> > In it's judgment it says "WHEREAS the only interpretation possible> > which can give any guarantee in this regard should be, as is> > contained in Article 4.1., that the weight of the car with its fuel> > tank completely empty at the end of the race, must weigh at least> > 600 kg, and this interpretation flows from Articles 1.9, 4.1, 77-a,> > 77-b and 77-c of the Sporting and Technical Regulations above."> > So, Article 4.1 means that the car must weigh 600 kg when empty of> > fuel.> > Why then, when Jo Bauer and his team found that BAR #3 only weighed> > 594.6> > kg, didn't the Technical Report say that the car didn't comply with> > Article 4.1 and should be disqualified?> > And why, when presented with the fact that the car didn't make the> > minimum weight, didn't the stewards disqualify it anyway?> > One might come to the conclusion that neither Jo Bauer, his> > technical team nor the three stewards were aware that Article 4.1> > means what the judges interpret it to mean.> > Or perhaps not?> The stewards made a mistake. The appeal by (I believe) Jo Bauer was> almost instantaneous.> It's very simple, the rule that no car may be underweight is ONLY> policed by weighing it at race end. The ONLY test made found the BAR> underweight. And lying about whether the fuel tank was empty to boot.> It's really laughable, it's so straightforward - it's not like this> has suddenly changed. It's happened in the past too, so there is even> precedent! Really. Strange you should keep it to yourself during all this. Where is it. Some people only see things in black and white. They don't know what they are missing.
		Add comment


CatharticF1 6 May 2005 17:11:39 [ permanent link ]
	"Bigbird" <BigBird.usenet@REMTHSgmail.com> wrote in news:242dnc2xoPQ41-bfRVnyhQ@pipex.net: CatharticF1 wrote:>> "Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn.com> wrote in>> news:3dv51gFc9peU1@individual.net:>> The International Court of Appeal (ICA) neither formulates nor>> > amends the existing rules of competition.>> > In it's judgment it says "WHEREAS the only interpretation possible>> > which can give any guarantee in this regard should be, as is>> > contained in Article 4.1., that the weight of the car with its fuel>> > tank completely empty at the end of the race, must weigh at least>> > 600 kg, and this interpretation flows from Articles 1.9, 4.1, 77-a,>> > 77-b and 77-c of the Sporting and Technical Regulations above.">> > So, Article 4.1 means that the car must weigh 600 kg when empty of>> > fuel.>> > Why then, when Jo Bauer and his team found that BAR #3 only>> > weighed 594.6>> > kg, didn't the Technical Report say that the car didn't comply with>> > Article 4.1 and should be disqualified?>> > And why, when presented with the fact that the car didn't make the>> > minimum weight, didn't the stewards disqualify it anyway?>> > One might come to the conclusion that neither Jo Bauer, his>> > technical team nor the three stewards were aware that Article 4.1>> > means what the judges interpret it to mean.>> > Or perhaps not?>> The stewards made a mistake. The appeal by (I believe) Jo Bauer was>> almost instantaneous.>> It's very simple, the rule that no car may be underweight is ONLY>> policed by weighing it at race end. The ONLY test made found the BAR>> underweight. And lying about whether the fuel tank was empty to boot.>> It's really laughable, it's so straightforward - it's not like this>> has suddenly changed. It's happened in the past too, so there is even>> precedent!> Really. Strange you should keep it to yourself during all this. Where> is it. > Some people only see things in black and white. They don't know what> they are missing. The testing procedure is well established, teams have been notified (outside of the regs we see). It's not a surprise. -- CatharticF1 'What you thought was freedom is just greed'
		Add comment


CatharticF1 6 May 2005 17:34:48 [ permanent link ]
	Phil Newnham <pnewnham@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3dvdjkFe0o3U1@individual.net: Bigbird wrote:>> Phil Newnham wrote:>> Bigbird wrote:>>> Clearly the stewards have been overuled. BAR would appear to have>>>>satisified them but the judges appear to be saying they should not>>>>have been satisified in respect of :>>>>WHEREAS the defendant Lucky Strike BAR Honda was unable to satisfy>>>>the requirements of Article 2.6, which states that "It is the duty>>>>of each Competitor to satisfy the FIA technical delegate and the>>>>Stewards of the Meeting that his automobile complies with these>>>>regulations in their entirety at all times during an Event".>>> This was one point I didn't understand. Clearly they did satisfy the>>>FIA technical delegate and the Stewards that the car complied,>>>because the Stewards ruled it legal!?!>> As I understand it they provided fuel consumption data that satified>> the stewards (that the car never ran underweight) but clearly not>> some other FIA delegates and the judges have ruled it out as not>> "guaranteeing" compliance. > The technical delegate at the event was Jo Bauer, and he and the > Stewards are the only FIA representatives at the event who are> supposed to have a say, during the event. They were satisfied with> BAR's evidence as presented at the time, and they passed the car as> legal. For it then to be stated in the FIA judgement that they did> not, comes to me as a surprise, at the very least. Well the first reason for this is that the regulations state that the team must be based on PHYSICAL evidence (i.e. inspection of the car itself). It wasn't. -- CatharticF1 'What you thought was freedom is just greed'
		Add comment


Clive Stonebridge 6 May 2005 20:33:59 [ permanent link ]
	In article <f2Kee.5021$31.3114@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, CatharticF1 <eferrari@heaven.net> wrote:>The testing procedure is well established, teams have been notified >(outside of the regs we see). It's not a surprise. and the appeal dossier released by the FIA today certainly states its been the practice since refuelling returned in 94. http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/330156603__06_05_2005_Statement_of_case. pdf the interesting thing is the focus has to this point has been on just the 6kg difference between the car being over or under the magic 600kg figure but the FIA actually found more than 11kg of fuel acting as "ballast" after the tank had been "emptied". so if the claim the collector only works with 6kg of fuel is true, theyve still got at least 5kg of fuel acting as ballast completely unaccounted for. I await with interest BAR's appeal dossier on this clive
		Add comment


Gd 6 May 2005 22:55:42 [ permanent link ]
	clive.stonebridge@attalk21dot.com (clive stonebridge) wrote in news:427b9c76$0$305$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com: so if the claim the collector only works with 6kg of fuel is true,> theyve still got at least 5kg of fuel acting as ballast completely> unaccounted for. I await with interest BAR's appeal dossier on this After reading that document it appears that: - since 1994, the only method ever used by the FIA to drain fuel from fuel tanks is the 'lifted pump' procedure. - the lifted pump procedure doesnt completely remove fuel from the collector (and apparently never has). - the lifted pump procedure doesnt completely remove fuel from the floor of the fuel tank (and apparently never has). - For the first time ever in F1, the FIA asked for an extra type of drain procedure to be performed, for the collector. - For the first time ever in F1, the FIA asked for an extra extra type of drain procedure to be performed, for the fuel tank floor. One wonders how many other 'legal' cars of the past few years would also be found to be illegal if these hitherto unknown draining procedures had been performed. Is there a list somewhere of car weights after the race? It would seem that any car weighing less than about 610kg in park ferme would also have fallen below 600 kg if these extra drain procedures had been performed.
		Add comment




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..

	see also: Low pressure port location on 96… 1994 Geo Prizm Problems Accord cranks, no start		pass tests:		see also: need answer 2002 VW Golf tdi (130bhp) 15% oil light...2007 Honda CRV won't…

Something I don't quite understand

Add new comment