How to make a photo smaller?
at all times during the EVENT
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
  • Ñîîáùåñòâà
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online
 
Register!

CarGuru > Formula-1 > at all times during the EVENT 10 May 2005 02:17:27

  Recent blog posts: 
  They have birthday today: 
  Forums:   
  Discuss: 
  Recent forum topics: 
  Recent forum comments:
  Ìîäåðàòîð:

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 Müller 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 Müller 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 Müller" <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 Müller 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
 

Add new comment

As:
Login:  Password:  
 
 
  
 
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..


CarGuru > Formula-1 > at all times during the EVENT 10 May 2005 02:17:27

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

  Copyright © 2001—2009 Car-Guru
Idea: Miñhael 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 .