at all times during the EVENT

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:

2005 nissan sentra
I removed the radio in my 2005 sentra to replace the tempature control knob and the radio won't turn on…

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…

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


at all times during the EVENT
Gd 6 May 2005 13:16:29
	Check my logic: * Technical Regulation 1.8: EVENT consists of official practise and the race. * The stuff that happens in park ferme is not part of the race: - Sporting regulation 152 speaks of an 'end of race' signal when the winner crosses the finish line. - Sporting regulation 153 says the race is finished (by other means) if the normal end of race signal is delayed. - Sporting regulations 154 and 155 speak of 'post race' park ferme. * Thus, the end of race park ferme is not part of the EVENT. * From the technical regulations, the car is only said to have to be legal during the EVENT. * Therefore, the car does not have to be legal during the post race park ferme. No technical regulation says the car has to be legal here. It does seem on inspection that the scrutineers can certainly examine the car to make sure it was legal during the RACE, but since the RACE finishes at the moment the winner crosses the finish line, from that moment on the cars do not have to be legal. If a car weighs 605kg at that moment, but 595kg in post ferme when drained of fuel, the only result is the car was still legal during the EVENT. Quite frankly, these laws need a complete rewrite.
		Add comment


CatharticF1 6 May 2005 14:52:23 [ permanent link ]
	GD <alfa@melb.something.au> wrote in news:Xns964EC764C7892alfamelbsomethingau@203.87.95.150: Quite frankly, these laws need a complete rewrite. It's simple. And all the teams know it. The FIA uses the post race weight check to determine if the car was legal during the event. They always have, and there have been clarifications issued in the past to the teams that BAR would have been given. The BAR failed that check. Therefore it was illegal. -- CatharticF1 'What you thought was freedom is just greed'
		Add comment


Jeff York 6 May 2005 15:57:59 [ permanent link ]
	CatharticF1 <eferrari@heaven.net> wrote: GD <alfa@melb.something.au> wrote in>news:Xns964EC764C7892alfamelbsomethingau@203.87.95.150: > Quite frankly, these laws need a complete rewrite.> It's simple. And all the teams know it. The FIA uses the post race weight >check to determine if the car was legal during the event. They always have, >and there have been clarifications issued in the past to the teams that BAR >would have been given.> The BAR failed that check. Therefore it was illegal. But it didn't though, did it? It was well over 600Kg when weighed post-race. It was only underweight once they'd completely drained the fuel system. And I can't see anything in the regs that says the car must be >600Kg dry.. -- Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K. jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address) and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. ... "There are few hours in life more agreeable than the hour dedicated to the ceremony known as afternoon tea.." Henry James, (1843 - 1916).
		Add comment


Greg Watson 6 May 2005 16:47:32 [ permanent link ]
	"Jeff York" <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:bqmm71tjjc5nkfj88vp401lf9thsgo5fr6@4ax.com...> CatharticF1 <eferrari@heaven.net> wrote:> GD <alfa@melb.something.au> wrote in>>news:Xns964EC764C7892alfamelbsomethingau@203.87.95.150:>> Quite frankly, these laws need a complete rewrite.>> It's simple. And all the teams know it. The FIA uses the post race weight>>check to determine if the car was legal during the event. They always >>have,>>and there have been clarifications issued in the past to the teams that >>BAR>>would have been given.>> The BAR failed that check. Therefore it was illegal.> But it didn't though, did it? It was well over 600Kg when weighed> post-race. It was only underweight once they'd completely drained the> fuel system. And I can't see anything in the regs that says the car> must be >600Kg dry..> -- > Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.> jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)> and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. > ... "There are few hours in life more agreeable> than the hour dedicated to the ceremony> known as afternoon tea.."> Henry James, (1843 - 1916).> We've been over this. Ballast must be fixed, a rule obviously written so that there can be no doubt that the ballast is fixed to the car the entire race. Fuel sure as hell isn't, therefore can't be included in the weight.
		Add comment


CatharticF1 6 May 2005 17:09:15 [ permanent link ]
	Jeff York <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote in news:bqmm71tjjc5nkfj88vp401lf9thsgo5fr6@4ax.com: It's simple. And all the teams know it. The FIA uses the post race>>weight check to determine if the car was legal during the event. They>>always have, and there have been clarifications issued in the past to>>the teams that BAR would have been given.>> The BAR failed that check. Therefore it was illegal.> But it didn't though, did it? It was well over 600Kg when weighed> post-race. It was only underweight once they'd completely drained the> fuel system. And I can't see anything in the regs that says the car> must be >600Kg dry..> No - but the (well established) testing procedure which all teams have been informed of does require it. Denial is simply being deliberately disenguous. This wasn't 'sprung' on them. -- CatharticF1 'What you thought was freedom is just greed'
		Add comment


Hans Mьller 6 May 2005 20:49:03 [ permanent link ]
	"Greg Watson" <unknown@unknown.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:427b6766$1@news1.veridas.net...> "Jeff York" <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:bqmm71tjjc5nkfj88vp401lf9thsgo5fr6@4ax.com...>> CatharticF1 <eferrari@heaven.net> wrote:>> GD <alfa@melb.something.au> wrote in>>>news:Xns964EC764C7892alfamelbsomethingau@203.87.95.150:>>> Quite frankly, these laws need a complete rewrite.>>> It's simple. And all the teams know it. The FIA uses the post race weight>>>check to determine if the car was legal during the event. They always >>>have,>>>and there have been clarifications issued in the past to the teams that >>>BAR>>>would have been given.>>> The BAR failed that check. Therefore it was illegal.>> But it didn't though, did it? It was well over 600Kg when weighed>> post-race. It was only underweight once they'd completely drained the>> fuel system. And I can't see anything in the regs that says the car>> must be >600Kg dry..>> We've been over this. Ballast must be fixed, a rule obviously written > so that there can be no doubt that the ballast is fixed to the car the > entire race. Fuel sure as hell isn't, therefore can't be included in the > weight.> Well and clearly explanation by Greg, there is no issue about dry or fuelled, if yes we are expecting teams throwing some ballast of the car during the race, in whatever form. And the discussion about what is to be defined during or after the event is really a non-topic.
		Add comment


Gd 6 May 2005 20:49:48 [ permanent link ]
	"Greg Watson" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in news:427b6766$1@news1.veridas.net: We've been over this. Ballast must be fixed, a rule obviously> written so that there can be no doubt that the ballast is fixed to the> car the entire race. Fuel sure as hell isn't, therefore can't be> included in the weight. Neither is oil or water. Clearly those should be drained also to ensure they arent ballast.
		Add comment


Hans Mьller 6 May 2005 21:14:19 [ permanent link ]
	"GD" <alfa@melb.something.au> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Xns964F201BBB6FEalfamelbsomethingau@203.87.95.150...> "Greg Watson" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in> news:427b6766$1@news1.veridas.net:> We've been over this. Ballast must be fixed, a rule obviously>> written so that there can be no doubt that the ballast is fixed to the>> car the entire race. Fuel sure as hell isn't, therefore can't be>> included in the weight.> Neither is oil or water. Clearly those should be drained also> to ensure they arent ballast. I suppose the amount of oil or cooling water is reglemented, so no need to drain
		Add comment


Scott 6 May 2005 21:51:01 [ permanent link ]
	But it didn't though, did it? It was well over 600Kg when weighed>> post-race. It was only underweight once they'd completely drained>> the fuel system. And I can't see anything in the regs that says>> the car must be >600Kg dry..> We've been over this. Ballast must be fixed, a rule obviously> written so that there can be no doubt that the ballast is fixed to> the car the entire race. Fuel sure as hell isn't, therefore can't> be included in the weight. Same goes for oil, water, hydraulics, drinking water etc then? All are needed to make the car functional, and are not fixed, exactly the same as the fuel.
		Add comment


Scott 6 May 2005 21:52:00 [ permanent link ]
	"Hans Mьller" <john_m@bluewin.ch> wrote in message news:427ba5ef$1_1@news.bluewin.ch> "GD" <alfa@melb.something.au> schrieb im Newsbeitrag> news:Xns964F201BBB6FEalfamelbsomethingau@203.87.95.150...>> "Greg Watson" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in>> news:427b6766$1@news1.veridas.net:>> We've been over this. Ballast must be fixed, a rule obviously>>> written so that there can be no doubt that the ballast is fixed>>> to the car the entire race. Fuel sure as hell isn't, therefore>>> can't be included in the weight.>> Neither is oil or water. Clearly those should be drained also>> to ensure they arent ballast.> I suppose the amount of oil or cooling water is reglemented, so no> need to drain Nope, AFAIK there is no rule saying how much oil, water, hydraulic fluid, drinking water etc you can use.
		Add comment


Richard Miller 6 May 2005 21:52:17 [ permanent link ]
	In message <427b6766$1@news1.veridas.net>, Greg Watson <unknown@unknown.com> writes>We've been over this. Ballast must be fixed, a rule obviously >written so that there can be no doubt that the ballast is fixed to the >car the entire race. Fuel sure as hell isn't, therefore can't be >included in the weight. And what about brake fluids, oil etc? Also fluid, also not fixed, therefore on your logic cannot be included in the weight - yet apparently they are. Why the difference? -- Richard Miller
		Add comment


Jeff York 6 May 2005 22:02:43 [ permanent link ]
	CatharticF1 <eferrari@heaven.net> wrote: Jeff York <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote in>news:bqmm71tjjc5nkfj88vp401lf9thsgo5fr6@4ax.com: > It's simple. And all the teams know it. The FIA uses the post race>>>weight check to determine if the car was legal during the event. They>>>always have, and there have been clarifications issued in the past to>>>the teams that BAR would have been given.>>> The BAR failed that check. Therefore it was illegal.>> But it didn't though, did it? It was well over 600Kg when weighed>> post-race. It was only underweight once they'd completely drained the>> fuel system. And I can't see anything in the regs that says the car>> must be >600Kg dry..>> No - but the (well established) testing procedure which all teams have >been informed of does require it. Denial is simply being deliberately >disenguous. This wasn't 'sprung' on them. Does "informed" = "written in the regs"? However, you're almost certainly correct.. I'm just playing advocatus diaboli. -- Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K. jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address) and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. ... "There are few hours in life more agreeable than the hour dedicated to the ceremony known as afternoon tea.." Henry James, (1843 - 1916).
		Add comment


Bigbird 6 May 2005 23:31:03 [ permanent link ]
	Hans Mьller wrote:> "GD" <alfa@melb.something.au> schrieb im Newsbeitrag> news:Xns964F201BBB6FEalfamelbsomethingau@203.87.95.150...> > "Greg Watson" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in> > news:427b6766$1@news1.veridas.net:> > We've been over this. Ballast must be fixed, a rule obviously> > > written so that there can be no doubt that the ballast is fixed> > > to the car the entire race. Fuel sure as hell isn't, therefore> > > can't be included in the weight.> > Neither is oil or water. Clearly those should be drained also> > to ensure they arent ballast.> I suppose Wrong. This is the FIA supposing something, especially based on logic or because it appears to be blindingly obvious is just asking for trouble. Ask BAR. the amount of oil or cooling water is reglemented, so no> need to drain
		Add comment


Da Frank 7 May 2005 02:25:56 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 06 May 2005 17:52:00 GMT, "scott" <spam@spam.com> wrote: I suppose the amount of oil or cooling water is reglemented, so no>> need to drain> Nope, AFAIK there is no rule saying how much oil, water, hydraulic fluid, >drinking water etc you can use.> Only the fuel is a significantly changable quantity. Oils and coolant levels can not be mucked with too much if the engine is to last two races. -- Regards, Frank
		Add comment


Brian Sullivan 7 May 2005 02:38:19 [ permanent link ]
	On Sat, 07 May 2005 08:25:56 +1000, Da Frank wrote: Nope, AFAIK there is no rule saying how much oil, water, hydraulic fluid, >>drinking water etc you can use.>> Only the fuel is a significantly changable quantity. Oils and coolant> levels can not be mucked with too much if the engine is to last two> races. AFAIK only the fuel amount can be changed by adding more during the race though. Can other fluids be topped up or removed? What about drinking water can it be added?
		Add comment


Brian Sullivan 7 May 2005 02:49:31 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 6 May 2005 23:42:46 +0100, Bumble Bee Boy 2 wrote: "Brian Sullivan" <brians@WORMTIREDmeetingbywire.com> wrote in message > news:18wrlrow2owuw.ba9pyzlljya.dlg@40tude.net...>> On Sat, 07 May 2005 08:25:56 +1000, Da Frank wrote:>> Nope, AFAIK there is no rule saying how much oil, water, hydraulic fluid,>>>>drinking water etc you can use.>>>> Only the fuel is a significantly changable quantity. Oils and coolant>>> levels can not be mucked with too much if the engine is to last two>>> races.>> AFAIK only the fuel amount can be changed by adding more during the race>> though. Can other fluids be topped up or removed? What about drinking >> water>> can it be added?> Not to 6kg's worth I reckon... An aspect of common sense has to prevail at > some point.> That would be 6 liters of water -- I read somewhere that driver loss of fluid in a race is 1-4 liters depending on the difficulty, temperature and individual I guess so 6 liters is outside that range.
		Add comment


Bumble Bee Boy 2 7 May 2005 02:55:17 [ permanent link ]
	"Brian Sullivan" <briansullivan@WORMTIREDcoursesbywire.com> wrote in message news:1b7wddti5mjia$.lf9fspcggfvo$.dlg@40tude.net...> On Fri, 6 May 2005 23:42:46 +0100, Bumble Bee Boy 2 wrote:>> Not to 6kg's worth I reckon... An aspect of common sense has to prevail >> at>> some point.>> That would be 6 liters of water -- I read somewhere that driver loss of> fluid in a race is 1-4 liters depending on the difficulty, temperature and> individual I guess so 6 liters is outside that range. I think believe most of the fluid they 'take on' (and subsequently lose) is before the race. I imagine they only have about a litre of water on board during the race. From what Martin Brundle said it's quite hard to drink anyway during a race... Brunble
		Add comment


Gd 7 May 2005 17:47:49 [ permanent link ]
	"Bob Dubery" <megapode@gmail.com> wrote in news:1115445295.311495.97110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: * Thus, the end of race park ferme is not part of the EVENT.> Thus any team can do anything it likes because once the chequered flag> has dropped the event is over and any findings of any inspections are> irrelevant.> I think not. I think not as well. I was just pointing out another example of the way that the regulations, as they are currently written, are bloody stupid and unclear. And just to be clear, as they are written, the regulations wouldnt let a team 'do anything it likes' after the event, because they still have to show the car was legal during the event. As an example, it means that once the winners car takes the chequered flag, any other car on the track can switch on turbo boosters, or rocket power, or NO2, or activate moveable aero devices, or whatever they like... and that draining the car of fuel in park ferme is a meaningless exercise. Like I said, the regs need a rewrite.
		Add comment


F2005: 0 of 2 7 May 2005 20:29:33 [ permanent link ]
	On 6 May 2005 19:06:29 +0950, GD <alfa@melb.something.au> wrote:>Check my logic: "Logic"?! ...You're a fucking imbecile.
		Add comment


Gd 8 May 2005 19:51:33 [ permanent link ]
	"MK IV" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in news:rMqdnRSrXKXYIeHfRVn-vA@igs.net: There is no need for a rule clarification. Cars must weigh 600kg> minimum; At all times during the race, yes. Not even the FIA are claiming that the BAR cars were below 600 kg. As pointed out in BAR submission, appendix 4 and 5 to the witness statement of Craig Wilson, you dont even need to trust BAR data on this point because the FIA data alone proves the case of > 600 kg. teams are not allowed to use fuel as ballast, end of discussion. Nobody except the FIA are claiming that a part of the car required for its normal functioning is ballast. I've looked up a number of definitions of 'ballast' in the last few days, and NONE of them could even remotely be used to say this fuel was 'ballast'. This is all in the rule book. After Imola BAR was asked to> drain out the remaining fuel from Button's car. Not an unusual> procedure, and not at all a new one: cars are randomly checked in this> way to keep the teams honest. OK, and the car+driver at this point was 606.1 Perfectly legal. After draining out the fuel, yet more fuel was found in an > undocumented reservoir. Not undocumented at all. This is a standard part of a standard fuel tank, as pointed out by ATL, and as inspected and seen by the FIA officials on numerous occasions. After this fuel was removed, the car was underweight. Sure it was, and also in a completely undrivable state, in a condition where it could not have done a lap. Not even the FIA are claiming that the on-track weight was in this de-fuelled state. Guilty as charged. But NOT of the below weight charge which you put. Not even the FIA said they were guilty of this. Of the charges you put, they only agree with you on article 4.2, that BAR didnt put an FIA seal on the supposed 'ballast'. Why do you insist on charging BAR with offences that not even the FIA are claiming? Why are you agreeing that a two (effectively three) race ban is ok for not tagging some ballast?
		Add comment


F/Fgeorge 9 May 2005 00:26:14 [ permanent link ]
	On 9 May 2005 01:41:33 +0950, GD <alfa@melb.something.au> wrote: "MK IV" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in news:rMqdnRSrXKXYIeHfRVn-vA@igs.net:> There is no need for a rule clarification. Cars must weigh 600kg>> minimum;> At all times during the race, yes. >Not even the FIA are claiming that the BAR cars were below 600 kg.> As pointed out in BAR submission, appendix 4 and 5 to the witness >statement of Craig Wilson, you dont even need to trust BAR data on>this point because the FIA data alone proves the case of > 600 kg.> teams are not allowed to use fuel as ballast, end of discussion.> Nobody except the FIA are claiming that a part of the car required >for its normal functioning is ballast. I've looked up a number of>definitions of 'ballast' in the last few days, and NONE of them could>even remotely be used to say this fuel was 'ballast'.> This is all in the rule book. After Imola BAR was asked to>> drain out the remaining fuel from Button's car. Not an unusual>> procedure, and not at all a new one: cars are randomly checked in this>> way to keep the teams honest.> OK, and the car+driver at this point was 606.1 Perfectly legal.> After draining out the fuel, yet more fuel was found in an >> undocumented reservoir.> Not undocumented at all. This is a standard part of a standard fuel >tank, as pointed out by ATL, and as inspected and seen by the FIA>officials on numerous occasions.> After this fuel was removed, the car was underweight. > Sure it was, and also in a completely undrivable state, in a>condition where it could not have done a lap. Not even the FIA>are claiming that the on-track weight was in this de-fuelled state.> Guilty as charged.>But NOT of the below weight charge which you put. Not even the FIA>said they were guilty of this. Of the charges you put, they only>agree with you on article 4.2, that BAR didnt put an FIA seal on>the supposed 'ballast'. >Why do you insist on charging BAR with offences that not even the FIA>are claiming?>Why are you agreeing that a two (effectively three) race ban is ok>for not tagging some ballast? If this is how you believe...then go tell BAR and ask them to let you take the case and appeal it on their behalf! They have admitted that they cannot PROVE that the car was never underweight! They have a fuel usage chart for the race but cannot PROVE that it is accurate. They then said that Sato's car was EXACTLY the same!!! That is why Sato also got excluded.
		Add comment


Jeff York 9 May 2005 02:01:21 [ permanent link ]
	f/fgeorge <ffgeorge@yourplace.com> wrote: On 9 May 2005 01:41:33 +0950, GD <alfa@melb.something.au> wrote:> "MK IV" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in news:rMqdnRSrXKXYIeHfRVn-vA@igs.net:>> There is no need for a rule clarification. Cars must weigh 600kg>>> minimum;>> At all times during the race, yes. >>Not even the FIA are claiming that the BAR cars were below 600 kg.>> As pointed out in BAR submission, appendix 4 and 5 to the witness >>statement of Craig Wilson, you dont even need to trust BAR data on>>this point because the FIA data alone proves the case of > 600 kg.>> teams are not allowed to use fuel as ballast, end of discussion.>> Nobody except the FIA are claiming that a part of the car required >>for its normal functioning is ballast. I've looked up a number of>>definitions of 'ballast' in the last few days, and NONE of them could>>even remotely be used to say this fuel was 'ballast'.>> This is all in the rule book. After Imola BAR was asked to>>> drain out the remaining fuel from Button's car. Not an unusual>>> procedure, and not at all a new one: cars are randomly checked in this>>> way to keep the teams honest.>> OK, and the car+driver at this point was 606.1 Perfectly legal.>> After draining out the fuel, yet more fuel was found in an >>> undocumented reservoir.>> Not undocumented at all. This is a standard part of a standard fuel >>tank, as pointed out by ATL, and as inspected and seen by the FIA>>officials on numerous occasions.>> After this fuel was removed, the car was underweight. >> Sure it was, and also in a completely undrivable state, in a>>condition where it could not have done a lap. Not even the FIA>>are claiming that the on-track weight was in this de-fuelled state.>> Guilty as charged.>>But NOT of the below weight charge which you put. Not even the FIA>>said they were guilty of this. Of the charges you put, they only>>agree with you on article 4.2, that BAR didnt put an FIA seal on>>the supposed 'ballast'. >>Why do you insist on charging BAR with offences that not even the FIA>>are claiming?>>Why are you agreeing that a two (effectively three) race ban is ok>>for not tagging some ballast?>If this is how you believe...then go tell BAR and ask them to let you>take the case and appeal it on their behalf!>They have admitted that they cannot PROVE that the car was never>underweight! They have a fuel usage chart for the race but cannot>PROVE that it is accurate. They then said that Sato's car was EXACTLY>the same!!! That is why Sato also got excluded. But that begs the question.. Who has to prove what? Is the onus on BAR to prove that the car was never underweight, or is it up to the FIA to prove that it was at certain times? Normal criminal law asks for the latter - the prosecution must prove its case, and as the charges against BAR are effectively "criminal", ie cheating, surely the FIA has to make the running.. FWIW, having read the some 103 pages of BAR's submission, I reckon they've been stitched-up. -- Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K. jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address) and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. ... "There are few hours in life more agreeable than the hour dedicated to the ceremony known as afternoon tea.." Henry James, (1843 - 1916).
		Add comment


Phil Newnham 9 May 2005 02:19:09 [ permanent link ]
	Jeff York wrote:> But that begs the question.. Who has to prove what? Is the onus> on BAR to prove that the car was never underweight, or is it up to the> FIA to prove that it was at certain times?> Normal criminal law asks for the latter - the prosecution must prove> its case, and as the charges against BAR are effectively "criminal",> ie cheating, surely the FIA has to make the running..> FWIW, having read the some 103 pages of BAR's submission, I reckon> they've been stitched-up. BAR say they told the FIA how their fuel system worked. I'm willing to bet they never suggested, at the start of the season, that the fuel that would be in the collector at all times would be counted by them as part of the 600kgs. If they had, they'd probably have been told they were having a laugh, but if they had been allowed officially, they could've sent the FIA a copy of a statement by Charlie Whiting that said "yes, I agree with your interpretation" and this wouldn't have happened. They may well have been stitched up to some extent - the penalty seems harsh given that in the end they were not accused of cheating or even deliberately intending to cheat - but hopefully they'll learn from that mistake. -- Phil http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html
		Add comment


Jeff York 9 May 2005 02:35:47 [ permanent link ]
	Phil Newnham <pnewnham@yahoo.com> wrote: Jeff York wrote:>> But that begs the question.. Who has to prove what? Is the onus>> on BAR to prove that the car was never underweight, or is it up to the>> FIA to prove that it was at certain times?>> Normal criminal law asks for the latter - the prosecution must prove>> its case, and as the charges against BAR are effectively "criminal",>> ie cheating, surely the FIA has to make the running..>> FWIW, having read the some 103 pages of BAR's submission, I reckon>> they've been stitched-up.> BAR say they told the FIA how their fuel system worked. I'm willing to >bet they never suggested, at the start of the season, that the fuel that >would be in the collector at all times would be counted by them as part >of the 600kgs. I'd have thought it difficult, if not impossible, for the collector to be "empty" at the end of a race. From what the email from ATL says, BAR's tank system is not significantly different from anyone else's, so any car with a finishing weight of <605 or so Kg is also going to be illegal under yhe "BAR definitions". .. If they had, they'd probably have been told they were >having a laugh, but if they had been allowed officially, they could've >sent the FIA a copy of a statement by Charlie Whiting that said "yes, I >agree with your interpretation" and this wouldn't have happened. They >may well have been stitched up to some extent - the penalty seems harsh >given that in the end they were not accused of cheating or even >deliberately intending to cheat - but hopefully they'll learn from that >mistake. Problem as I see it Phil, is that it would appear that the car never was underweight. If they need 6 kilos of fuel on board before the HP pumps stop cavitating, the car always was over 600Kg otherwise the damned-thing would have stopped. As BAR point out in their deposition, there is nothing in any of the F1 regs (unlike Appendix J for Sports and Touring cars) that says that the car must be 600Kg "dry". If it's >600 with the minimum amount of fuel to make it run, you cannot sensibly or logically try to re-class that fuel as "ballast", it isn't, it's as essential to the engine as the oil or water. The FIA seem to have done a 180 degree about-face vis-a-vis the "Benetton Option 13" case, and gone from "we know that you have it, but can't prove that you used it, Not Guilty" to "we can't prove that you did it but we're going to assume that you have anyway, Guilty". -- Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K. jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address) and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. ... "There are few hours in life more agreeable than the hour dedicated to the ceremony known as afternoon tea.." Henry James, (1843 - 1916).
		Add comment


F/Fgeorge 9 May 2005 05:13:38 [ permanent link ]
	On Sun, 08 May 2005 23:01:21 +0100, Jeff York <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote: f/fgeorge <ffgeorge@yourplace.com> wrote:> On 9 May 2005 01:41:33 +0950, GD <alfa@melb.something.au> wrote:>> "MK IV" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in news:rMqdnRSrXKXYIeHfRVn-vA@igs.net:>>> There is no need for a rule clarification. Cars must weigh 600kg>>>> minimum;>>> At all times during the race, yes. >>>Not even the FIA are claiming that the BAR cars were below 600 kg.>>> As pointed out in BAR submission, appendix 4 and 5 to the witness >>>statement of Craig Wilson, you dont even need to trust BAR data on>>>this point because the FIA data alone proves the case of > 600 kg.>>> teams are not allowed to use fuel as ballast, end of discussion.>>> Nobody except the FIA are claiming that a part of the car required >>>for its normal functioning is ballast. I've looked up a number of>>>definitions of 'ballast' in the last few days, and NONE of them could>>>even remotely be used to say this fuel was 'ballast'.>>> This is all in the rule book. After Imola BAR was asked to>>>> drain out the remaining fuel from Button's car. Not an unusual>>>> procedure, and not at all a new one: cars are randomly checked in this>>>> way to keep the teams honest.>>> OK, and the car+driver at this point was 606.1 Perfectly legal.>>> After draining out the fuel, yet more fuel was found in an >>>> undocumented reservoir.>>> Not undocumented at all. This is a standard part of a standard fuel >>>tank, as pointed out by ATL, and as inspected and seen by the FIA>>>officials on numerous occasions.>>> After this fuel was removed, the car was underweight. >>> Sure it was, and also in a completely undrivable state, in a>>>condition where it could not have done a lap. Not even the FIA>>>are claiming that the on-track weight was in this de-fuelled state.>>> Guilty as charged.>>>But NOT of the below weight charge which you put. Not even the FIA>>>said they were guilty of this. Of the charges you put, they only>>>agree with you on article 4.2, that BAR didnt put an FIA seal on>>>the supposed 'ballast'. >>>Why do you insist on charging BAR with offences that not even the FIA>>>are claiming?>>>Why are you agreeing that a two (effectively three) race ban is ok>>>for not tagging some ballast?>>If this is how you believe...then go tell BAR and ask them to let you>>take the case and appeal it on their behalf!>>They have admitted that they cannot PROVE that the car was never>>underweight! They have a fuel usage chart for the race but cannot>>PROVE that it is accurate. They then said that Sato's car was EXACTLY>>the same!!! That is why Sato also got excluded.> But that begs the question.. Who has to prove what? Is the onus>on BAR to prove that the car was never underweight, or is it up to the>FIA to prove that it was at certain times?> Normal criminal law asks for the latter - the prosecution must prove>its case, and as the charges against BAR are effectively "criminal",>ie cheating, surely the FIA has to make the running..> Section 2.6 of the Technical specs says: 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. The design of the car, its components and systems shall, with the exception of safety features, demonstrate their compliance with these regulations by means of physical inspection of hardware or materials. No mechanical design may rely upon software inspection as a means of ensuring its compliance. IOW, it is the responsibility of the Competitor to PROVE he is in compliance not the other way around.
		Add comment


Phil Newnham 9 May 2005 13:09:14 [ permanent link ]
	Jeff York wrote:> The FIA seem to have done a 180 degree about-face vis-a-vis the> "Benetton Option 13" case, and gone from "we know that you have it,> but can't prove that you used it, Not Guilty" to "we can't prove that> you did it but we're going to assume that you have anyway, Guilty". Point taken. -- Phil http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html
		Add comment


Jeff York 9 May 2005 21:32:57 [ permanent link ]
	f/fgeorge <ffgeorge@yourplace.com> wrote: On Sun, 08 May 2005 23:01:21 +0100, Jeff York <ralf4@btinternet.com>>wrote: But that begs the question.. Who has to prove what? Is the onus>>on BAR to prove that the car was never underweight, or is it up to the>>FIA to prove that it was at certain times?>> Normal criminal law asks for the latter - the prosecution must prove>>its case, and as the charges against BAR are effectively "criminal",>>ie cheating, surely the FIA has to make the running..>> Section 2.6 of the Technical specs says: 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. That's exactly what they did.. The design of the car, its components and systems shall, with the>exception of safety features, demonstrate their compliance with>these regulations by means of physical inspection of hardware or>materials.>No mechanical design may rely upon software inspection as a>means of ensuring its compliance.> IOW, it is the responsibility of the Competitor to PROVE he is in>compliance not the other way around. As I see it, they did.. Then, for some reason, the FIA decided to appeal against the findings of its own technical delegates and turn the affair into a three-ring political circus. -- Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K. jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address) and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. ... "There are few hours in life more agreeable than the hour dedicated to the ceremony known as afternoon tea.." Henry James, (1843 - 1916).
		Add comment


Richard Miller 9 May 2005 22:11:54 [ permanent link ]
	In message <27et711gq0nno8455qnbn1ubu743nqk881@4ax.com>, f/fgeorge <ffgeorge@yourplace.com> writes>Section 2.6 of the Technical specs says: 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. The design of the car, its >components and systems shall, with the exception of safety features, >demonstrate their compliance with these regulations by means of >physical inspection of hardware or materials. No mechanical design may >rely upon software inspection as a means of ensuring its compliance.> IOW, it is the responsibility of the Competitor to PROVE he is in >compliance not the other way around. One word: bargeboards. -- Richard Miller
		Add comment


F/Fgeorge 9 May 2005 22:36:14 [ permanent link ]
	On Mon, 09 May 2005 18:32:57 +0100, Jeff York <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote: f/fgeorge <ffgeorge@yourplace.com> wrote:> On Sun, 08 May 2005 23:01:21 +0100, Jeff York <ralf4@btinternet.com>>>wrote:> But that begs the question.. Who has to prove what? Is the onus>>>on BAR to prove that the car was never underweight, or is it up to the>>>FIA to prove that it was at certain times?>>> Normal criminal law asks for the latter - the prosecution must prove>>>its case, and as the charges against BAR are effectively "criminal",>>>ie cheating, surely the FIA has to make the running..>>> Section 2.6 of the Technical specs says: 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.> That's exactly what they did..> The design of the car, its components and systems shall, with the>>exception of safety features, demonstrate their compliance with>>these regulations by means of physical inspection of hardware or>>materials.>>No mechanical design may rely upon software inspection as a>>means of ensuring its compliance.>> IOW, it is the responsibility of the Competitor to PROVE he is in>>compliance not the other way around.> As I see it, they did.. Then, for some reason, the FIA decided to>appeal against the findings of its own technical delegates and turn>the affair into a three-ring political circus. That is why you and I are in here discussing it and the Judges are where they are! We have opinions, they have facts as presented. The facts said that BAR could not PROVE what they were trying to say.
		Add comment


Da Frank 10 May 2005 02:17:27 [ permanent link ]
	On Mon, 9 May 2005 19:11:54 +0100, Richard Miller <richard@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote: In message <27et711gq0nno8455qnbn1ubu743nqk881@4ax.com>, f/fgeorge ><ffgeorge@yourplace.com> writes>>Section 2.6 of the Technical specs says: 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. The design of the car, its >>components and systems shall, with the exception of safety features, >>demonstrate their compliance with these regulations by means of >>physical inspection of hardware or materials. No mechanical design may >>rely upon software inspection as a means of ensuring its compliance.>> IOW, it is the responsibility of the Competitor to PROVE he is in >>compliance not the other way around.> One word: bargeboards.> I thought Ferrari has managed to explain it in court and that's how they got off ? -- Regards, Frank
		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: ALMS: St. Pete: Warm-up times WRC: Rally Portugal SS10 results IRL: St. Pete: Starting lineup		pass tests:		see also: I have a 2000 Chevrolet Lumina, and... bravada airbag lights Remove car radio

at all times during the EVENT

Add new comment