| Oglethorpe | 05-04-2005 07:38 PM |
BAR in trouble BIG?
�
�
Obviously this isn't new news, but I just found this on the ITV F1 website today..
"BAR-Honda�s fate hangs in the balance this evening following today�s FIA Court of Appeal hearing in Paris over the legality of the fuel system it used in the San Marino Grand Prix.
The court sat for nearly three hours and then adjourned to consider the evidence prior to delivering its verdict tomorrow.
The stakes could not be higher with the FIA having urged the judges to throw BAR out of the 2005 world championship and impose a fine of at least one million euros.
The FIA claimed that BAR �set out deliberately to gain an illegitimate and unfair advantage over other teams, an act prejudicial to the interests of the competition and to the interests of motor sports generally�.
BAR denied any wrongdoing and vehemently rejected the accusation of foul play."
Any thoughts as to the implications of such a ruling against BAR? An exclusion from the championship seems a bit steep doesn't it?
What would have happened had it been another team? (i.e. Ferrari)
I'm interested to hear the opinions of other F1 fans..
"BAR-Honda�s fate hangs in the balance this evening following today�s FIA Court of Appeal hearing in Paris over the legality of the fuel system it used in the San Marino Grand Prix.
The court sat for nearly three hours and then adjourned to consider the evidence prior to delivering its verdict tomorrow.
The stakes could not be higher with the FIA having urged the judges to throw BAR out of the 2005 world championship and impose a fine of at least one million euros.
The FIA claimed that BAR �set out deliberately to gain an illegitimate and unfair advantage over other teams, an act prejudicial to the interests of the competition and to the interests of motor sports generally�.
BAR denied any wrongdoing and vehemently rejected the accusation of foul play."
Any thoughts as to the implications of such a ruling against BAR? An exclusion from the championship seems a bit steep doesn't it?
What would have happened had it been another team? (i.e. Ferrari)
I'm interested to hear the opinions of other F1 fans..
| speedyHAM | 05-04-2005 10:30 PM |
Seems like they came up with something that they didn' think violated the rules, and someone else thought it did violate the rules. Had to give them some advantage or it probably wouldn't be a big deal. If they violated the rules- take away all points from that race- for drivers and manufacturer, and fine them. Kicking them out of the whole year of competition would be stupid and would probably lose F1 another team. Not something anyone wants to happen.
| BriDrive | 05-04-2005 10:52 PM |
I'm against throwing them out for the season...STRONGLY.
I do however, believe that, if the allegations hold, they should be penalised heavily...afterall, that is the tradition of FIA...the penalty $$$ they have assessed in the past have been staggering...that is indeed a really good deterrent...
What I really want to know is this: If BAR claims the secondary fuel cell is "actually necessary" to the operation of the engine (re. some kind of fuel scavenge)...how did they not know that when FIA did a full drain of post-race fuel for minimum weight requirement, that would need to be taken into account.
It does seem rather blatant...and quite honestly, rather SCCA SOLO II like... :lol:
I do however, believe that, if the allegations hold, they should be penalised heavily...afterall, that is the tradition of FIA...the penalty $$$ they have assessed in the past have been staggering...that is indeed a really good deterrent...
What I really want to know is this: If BAR claims the secondary fuel cell is "actually necessary" to the operation of the engine (re. some kind of fuel scavenge)...how did they not know that when FIA did a full drain of post-race fuel for minimum weight requirement, that would need to be taken into account.
It does seem rather blatant...and quite honestly, rather SCCA SOLO II like... :lol:
| artkevin | 05-04-2005 11:22 PM |
I don't get that they passed several FIA inspections after the race and were set free afterwards but now the FIA is saying that the inspections aren't good enough. It doesn't make sense to me. Where would you put a extra fuel tank in a moern F1 car? From what I heard its said to be inside the "real" fuel tank which seems non productive to me.
Bernie said that they are pushing for exclusion becuase if they don't, it would be like a team at the beging of the season saying "heres a check, we are going to do what we like." If BAR did dilbertly do wrong then I will stand behind the FIA on this one.
kp
Bernie said that they are pushing for exclusion becuase if they don't, it would be like a team at the beging of the season saying "heres a check, we are going to do what we like." If BAR did dilbertly do wrong then I will stand behind the FIA on this one.
kp
| XT6Wagon | 05-05-2005 12:25 AM |
Eh, see the problem isn't that they cheated, but that they are not Ferrari.
Seriously if Ferrari was discovered doing this exact thing then well... They would have just taken a liberal interpertation of the rule, and while "pushing it" is still legal.
Seriously if Ferrari was discovered doing this exact thing then well... They would have just taken a liberal interpertation of the rule, and while "pushing it" is still legal.
| Wr4wrX | 05-05-2005 12:49 AM |
[QUOTE=BriDrive]What I really want to know is this: If BAR claims the secondary fuel cell is "actually necessary" to the operation of the engine (re. some kind of fuel scavenge)...how did they not know that when FIA did a full drain of post-race fuel for minimum weight requirement, that would need to be taken into account.[/QUOTE]
ITV reported:
"Kris de Groot, the man responsible for carrying out the fuel check at Imola, suggested that BAR had not complied adequately with his request for the car to be completely drained of fuel.
'I asked for a full drain-out and afterwards I found more fuel,' he said.
Willis [BAR's technical director] disputed this description of the procedure his team was asked to perform, saying that 'the request we had was to do a lifted pump out; we have never been asked to do a full pump out.'"
ITV reported:
"Kris de Groot, the man responsible for carrying out the fuel check at Imola, suggested that BAR had not complied adequately with his request for the car to be completely drained of fuel.
'I asked for a full drain-out and afterwards I found more fuel,' he said.
Willis [BAR's technical director] disputed this description of the procedure his team was asked to perform, saying that 'the request we had was to do a lifted pump out; we have never been asked to do a full pump out.'"
| Wr4wrX | 05-05-2005 08:55 AM |
The FIA court of appeals has banned BAR Honda from the next two races and stripped the team of the 10 points won at Imola.
[URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/4514569.stm]Ruh roh for BAR.[/URL]
[URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/4514569.stm]Ruh roh for BAR.[/URL]
| Don P | 05-05-2005 10:55 AM |
that's some ******G *****, that money hungry FCUKER Bernie, I need to see pic's of this "extra fuel cell" :furious: and if this was Ferrari, we would see a slap on the wrist :mad:
| asquaredrex | 05-05-2005 10:58 AM |
Not sure what Jenson knew of all this, but I'll bet he's longing even more for that BMW cockpit right about now...
| amp5 | 05-05-2005 10:59 AM |
Just saw this now on CNN.com. Craziness! I don't know enough to make a judgement but something to do with a potential 'secret fuel tank' or something?
| Don P | 05-05-2005 11:01 AM |
[QUOTE=asquaredrex]Not sure what Jenson knew of all this, but I'll bet he's longing even more for that BMW cockpit right about now...[/QUOTE]
very true, who would think that crazy contract would be a god sent, but who will get the boot if he does go to BMW??
very true, who would think that crazy contract would be a god sent, but who will get the boot if he does go to BMW??
| amp5 | 05-05-2005 11:07 AM |
Well, on the plus side, that means a podium finish for Wurz!
| BriDrive | 05-05-2005 11:14 AM |
In this short thread: Oglethorpe, XT6Wagon, DonP have already convicted and then set free Ferrari :rolleyes:
I love how some people are so stuck on their own perceptions of the way things are that: no matter what issue at hand, no matter what the current controversy is, they IMMEDIATELY spring into a torrent of " If it was Ferrari...BS".....
I know , Ferrari is guilty already of every infraction that already has or will occur in the future...."Ain't nothing like mob justice"
Forget Ferrari folks..."this 'uns 'bout BAR"
BriDrive
I love how some people are so stuck on their own perceptions of the way things are that: no matter what issue at hand, no matter what the current controversy is, they IMMEDIATELY spring into a torrent of " If it was Ferrari...BS".....
I know , Ferrari is guilty already of every infraction that already has or will occur in the future...."Ain't nothing like mob justice"
Forget Ferrari folks..."this 'uns 'bout BAR"
BriDrive
| artkevin | 05-05-2005 11:26 AM |
I still don't see how an extra fuel tank in side a fuel tank could help. Can someone please explain this to me? Is it that you can keep fuel in it to look like you have enough weight? Why not throw some extra balast on it? Why not make Jenson eat an extra Sinkers on the way to the podium? Couldn't they throw some extra weight in during their final pit stop instead if they were going to add extra fuel in anyways?
I blame Gil de Ferran!
kp
I blame Gil de Ferran!
kp
| joey1313 | 05-05-2005 11:36 AM |
[QUOTE=BriDrive]In this short thread: Oglethorpe, XT6Wagon, DonP have already convicted and then set free Ferrari :rolleyes:
I love how some people are so stuck on their own perceptions of the way things are that: no matter what issue at hand, no matter what the current controversy is, they IMMEDIATELY spring into a torrent of " If it was Ferrari...BS".....
I know , Ferrari is guilty already of every infraction that already has or will occur in the future...."Ain't nothing like mob justice"
Forget Ferrari folks..."this 'uns 'bout BAR"
BriDrive[/QUOTE]
Maybe Ferrari and the Yankees should merge.
I love how some people are so stuck on their own perceptions of the way things are that: no matter what issue at hand, no matter what the current controversy is, they IMMEDIATELY spring into a torrent of " If it was Ferrari...BS".....
I know , Ferrari is guilty already of every infraction that already has or will occur in the future...."Ain't nothing like mob justice"
Forget Ferrari folks..."this 'uns 'bout BAR"
BriDrive[/QUOTE]
Maybe Ferrari and the Yankees should merge.
| artkevin | 05-05-2005 11:38 AM |
[QUOTE=joey1313]Maybe Ferrari and the Yankees should merge.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget Manchester United.
Don't forget Manchester United.
| Cbakey | 05-05-2005 11:54 AM |
i second the explanation on what the second fuel tank would be good for?????:huh:
| amp5 | 05-05-2005 11:55 AM |
[QUOTE=artkevin]I still don't see how an extra fuel tank in side a fuel tank could help. Can someone please explain this to me? Is it that you can keep fuel in it to look like you have enough weight? Why not throw some extra balast on it? Why not make Jenson eat an extra Sinkers on the way to the podium? Couldn't they throw some extra weight in during their final pit stop instead if they were going to add extra fuel in anyways?
I blame Gil de Ferran!
kp[/QUOTE]
From what I understand, they left 15 litres of fuel in the car while telling the Stewards/FIA that the tanks were empty. The charge is that this would allow the car the pass weight minimums because of the fuel weight. Also, the driver's weight doesn't matter, if they had a fat person driving, they would reduce the ballast accordingly.
I blame Gil de Ferran!
kp[/QUOTE]
From what I understand, they left 15 litres of fuel in the car while telling the Stewards/FIA that the tanks were empty. The charge is that this would allow the car the pass weight minimums because of the fuel weight. Also, the driver's weight doesn't matter, if they had a fat person driving, they would reduce the ballast accordingly.
| artkevin | 05-05-2005 12:00 PM |
But why have the scond tank? Why not just leave 15 liters in the main fuel cell? If you hear fuel slooshing around seems like it wouldn't matter if it was in a big fuel tank, a secondary fuel tank or a plastic bag.
| dwx | 05-05-2005 01:08 PM |
They published the finding which is pretty short. Basically after the race the car has to weigh 600kg with the fuel tank empty, but the rule probably does not state...which tank... They were asked to drain the fuel and did so and then the car was underweight, so either way they were going to get excluded from the race. The tech people did more digging and found they had a secondary fuel tank that still had fuel in it. Now if they had some technical reason for using the secondary fuel tank, I'm sure they would have gotten away with it. However due to the findings and the penalty, I would guess they didn't have a real good reason for having it, so the only real purpose of it was to hide fuel that was being used as ballast, or so the FIA thought.
[quote]WHEREAS, after having been drained of all its fuel, vehicle N�3 of the Lucky Strike BAR Honda weighed 594.6 kg, and therefore did not conform to Article 4.1 of the Technical Regulations, the only way in which the vehicle could meet the requirement of the minimum weight of 600 kg was to have used fuel as ballast, which does not conform to the requirements of Article 4.2,
WHEREAS the evidence submitted to the Court confirmed that both vehicles competing for Lucky Strike BAR Honda in the event concerned had the same specification fuel tanks,
WHEREAS the inspection revealed that on top of the 160 grams of fuel that was emptied, 8.92 kg of fuel still remained in a special compartment within the fuel tank and a further 2.46 kg remained in the bottom of the fuel tank. These quantities remained in the vehicle after the BAR Honda team had confirmed �That�s it� when asked if the draining process was completed,
WHEREAS it is not possible for the Court to find, on the basis of the evidence that it was provided with, that Lucky Strike BAR Honda deliberately committed fraud, their actions at the time of the emptying procedure of the vehicle after the event, and the fact that they did not use their right in accordance with Article 2.4, to address a request for clarification on the rules to the Technical Formula One Department of the FIA, show at the least a highly regrettable negligence and lack of transparency,
[/quote]
[quote]WHEREAS, after having been drained of all its fuel, vehicle N�3 of the Lucky Strike BAR Honda weighed 594.6 kg, and therefore did not conform to Article 4.1 of the Technical Regulations, the only way in which the vehicle could meet the requirement of the minimum weight of 600 kg was to have used fuel as ballast, which does not conform to the requirements of Article 4.2,
WHEREAS the evidence submitted to the Court confirmed that both vehicles competing for Lucky Strike BAR Honda in the event concerned had the same specification fuel tanks,
WHEREAS the inspection revealed that on top of the 160 grams of fuel that was emptied, 8.92 kg of fuel still remained in a special compartment within the fuel tank and a further 2.46 kg remained in the bottom of the fuel tank. These quantities remained in the vehicle after the BAR Honda team had confirmed �That�s it� when asked if the draining process was completed,
WHEREAS it is not possible for the Court to find, on the basis of the evidence that it was provided with, that Lucky Strike BAR Honda deliberately committed fraud, their actions at the time of the emptying procedure of the vehicle after the event, and the fact that they did not use their right in accordance with Article 2.4, to address a request for clarification on the rules to the Technical Formula One Department of the FIA, show at the least a highly regrettable negligence and lack of transparency,
[/quote]
| Cbakey | 05-05-2005 01:20 PM |
so if they were underweight any way whats the big deal?
| dwx | 05-05-2005 01:22 PM |
The FIA saw the "special compartment" as cheating and if they can't give a good technical reason for it being there...is cheating.
| artkevin | 05-05-2005 03:13 PM |
If they did cheat I am for them having the book thrown at them. I have not heard BARs counter yet. The whole thing has been strangely out in the open and kept quite at the same time.
kp
kp
| Student Driver | 05-05-2005 03:17 PM |
Think of it this way: if the fuel pickup for the engine can drain both "tanks", then the car can be under weight while running low on fuel. The point of measuring the weight of a car dry is to make sure that the car can never exceed the minimum weight at any point in the race. This way, you can fill up both tanks before fininshing, making sure that you have some fuel left in the main tank at the end of the race (inspection). At this point, you empty the car of fuel (well, the remainder of the main tank) and the extra fuel that wasn't used will keep your car above the minimum weight. Looking at it like this, I can't see how there could be any confusion on the matter. The car was designed to be under the minimum when completely empty of fuel.
| GPMoto1 | 05-05-2005 03:24 PM |
Ok, so "I'm biased" because I've noted in the past that Ferrari got away with cheating a clear cut rule. but BAR can't even get a "don't do it again" statement, when the FIA says the rule is unclear, and... they can prove that the car was never underwieght.
More over its not unheard of to "have a tank within a tank". Its called a surge tank. My 88 *TOPAZ* had one. So if something like a Topaz can find enough of a technical use for them that Ford would spend all that extra $$$ on a $15K car....
More over its not unheard of to "have a tank within a tank". Its called a surge tank. My 88 *TOPAZ* had one. So if something like a Topaz can find enough of a technical use for them that Ford would spend all that extra $$$ on a $15K car....
| AndyRoo | 05-05-2005 03:37 PM |
[QUOTE=BriDrive]In this short thread: Oglethorpe, XT6Wagon, DonP have already convicted and then set free Ferrari :rolleyes:
I love how some people are so stuck on their own perceptions of the way things are that: no matter what issue at hand, no matter what the current controversy is, they IMMEDIATELY spring into a torrent of " If it was Ferrari...BS".....
I know , Ferrari is guilty already of every infraction that already has or will occur in the future...."Ain't nothing like mob justice"
Forget Ferrari folks..."this 'uns 'bout BAR"
BriDrive[/QUOTE]
for real...this has nothing to do with ferrari...
Has BAR made a statement about the ruling yet?
- andrew
I love how some people are so stuck on their own perceptions of the way things are that: no matter what issue at hand, no matter what the current controversy is, they IMMEDIATELY spring into a torrent of " If it was Ferrari...BS".....
I know , Ferrari is guilty already of every infraction that already has or will occur in the future...."Ain't nothing like mob justice"
Forget Ferrari folks..."this 'uns 'bout BAR"
BriDrive[/QUOTE]
for real...this has nothing to do with ferrari...
Has BAR made a statement about the ruling yet?
- andrew
| artkevin | 05-05-2005 03:41 PM |
Why would BAR design only Button's car like this? Sato's was found to be within regulations but was disqualified anways becuase of the team. It does not make snse that they would go to all that trouble for 1 car to save 6.4kgs of weight illegally.
kp
kp
| Student Driver | 05-05-2005 03:51 PM |
A prime example of the lengths that a company would go through to save weight would be Ferrari's carbon fibre transmission. So, I would imagine that weight savings is very valuable.
It would seem that BAR is pulling all the stops this year though. They developed a tranmission that shifted so fast (something like 25ms IIRC) that the FIA deemed it "seemless", and asked them to slow it down. Then, they pulled their cars on the last lap of a race so they could run fresh engines for the next one, only to blow both on the 3rd lap.
It would seem that BAR is pulling all the stops this year though. They developed a tranmission that shifted so fast (something like 25ms IIRC) that the FIA deemed it "seemless", and asked them to slow it down. Then, they pulled their cars on the last lap of a race so they could run fresh engines for the next one, only to blow both on the 3rd lap.
| bemani | 05-05-2005 05:15 PM |
[QUOTE=artkevin]Why would BAR design only Button's car like this? Sato's was found to be within regulations but was disqualified anways becuase of the team. It does not make snse that they would go to all that trouble for 1 car to save 6.4kgs of weight illegally.
kp[/QUOTE]
Because Sato winning would make people really suspicious? :banana:
kp[/QUOTE]
Because Sato winning would make people really suspicious? :banana:
| artkevin | 05-05-2005 05:24 PM |
But why not Sato's car. I know that a drivers helmet is only painted with one layer of paint (no overlap)to save wieght so I know a pound can be huge. But to outright cheat seems like it would not be worth it. I guess I am wrong but it feels strange from were I am standing.
kp
edit: Dammit Bemani! You posted before did.
kp
edit: Dammit Bemani! You posted before did.
| Oglethorpe | 05-05-2005 07:16 PM |
[QUOTE=BriDrive]In this short thread: Oglethorpe, XT6Wagon, DonP have already convicted and then set free Ferrari :rolleyes:
I love how some people are so stuck on their own perceptions of the way things are that: no matter what issue at hand, no matter what the current controversy is, they IMMEDIATELY spring into a torrent of " If it was Ferrari...BS".....
I know , Ferrari is guilty already of every infraction that already has or will occur in the future...."Ain't nothing like mob justice"
Forget Ferrari folks..."this 'uns 'bout BAR"
BriDrive[/QUOTE]
Sorry I didn't reply to this earlier.. I didn't intend for my comment to come across quite like that.. I simply posed the question for the sake of discussion, there was no intent to accuse anyone of anything. You could have inserted "Mclaren" or "Renault" in place of Ferrari, but Ferrari usually provokes the strongest responses. I am probably one of the biggest Ferrari fans you'll ever meet, and I have been since the early 90's when they couldn't buy a win if they wanted to.. However, there's no denying that Ferrari does get treated a little differently.. honestly, would they have gotten suspended for two races? I personally doubt it. I understand that it has no bearing whatsoever on the current situation with BAR, I just threw that in to ellicit a response. Guess what? It worked.. That "F word" always gets people riled up.
I love how some people are so stuck on their own perceptions of the way things are that: no matter what issue at hand, no matter what the current controversy is, they IMMEDIATELY spring into a torrent of " If it was Ferrari...BS".....
I know , Ferrari is guilty already of every infraction that already has or will occur in the future...."Ain't nothing like mob justice"
Forget Ferrari folks..."this 'uns 'bout BAR"
BriDrive[/QUOTE]
Sorry I didn't reply to this earlier.. I didn't intend for my comment to come across quite like that.. I simply posed the question for the sake of discussion, there was no intent to accuse anyone of anything. You could have inserted "Mclaren" or "Renault" in place of Ferrari, but Ferrari usually provokes the strongest responses. I am probably one of the biggest Ferrari fans you'll ever meet, and I have been since the early 90's when they couldn't buy a win if they wanted to.. However, there's no denying that Ferrari does get treated a little differently.. honestly, would they have gotten suspended for two races? I personally doubt it. I understand that it has no bearing whatsoever on the current situation with BAR, I just threw that in to ellicit a response. Guess what? It worked.. That "F word" always gets people riled up.
| OnTheGas | 05-05-2005 10:53 PM |
Seems like an easy question...
�
�
[QUOTE=Don P]...but who will get the boot if he does go to BMW??[/QUOTE]First name starts with "N", last name starts "Heidfeld".
| Oglethorpe | 05-05-2005 11:01 PM |
I don't know, it seems that Nick has been doing a better job so far than Marko.. But obviously they wouldn't give their #1 driver the boot.. Is it just me or does the Williams organization seem a little misguided?.. Frank should have been figuring out how to get Mika in that car instead of fighting a losing battle with David Richards and BAR. Hakkinen back in F1? Now that would make for a really exciting season..
| OnTheGas | 05-05-2005 11:31 PM |
Why indeed!
�
�
Some pretty good questions in this thread... Such as exactly what is the second fuel container? Is it really secret? How many other teams have them? Was BAR running under weight during the race?
For those you who are really curious, this issue is being discussed in some detail on a couple of threads over at AtlasF1's forums, and there is some enlightenment to be found...
[URL=http://forums.atlasf1.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78601]A short(er) thread in the technical forum[/URL], and a [URL=http://forums.atlasf1.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78505]longer, 32 page thread[/URL] in their Racing Comments forum. And there are currently around half dozen other threads in that same forum on BAR. (Higher noise ratios there sometimes though.)
Hope that helps you curious F1 fans!
For those you who are really curious, this issue is being discussed in some detail on a couple of threads over at AtlasF1's forums, and there is some enlightenment to be found...
[URL=http://forums.atlasf1.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78601]A short(er) thread in the technical forum[/URL], and a [URL=http://forums.atlasf1.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78505]longer, 32 page thread[/URL] in their Racing Comments forum. And there are currently around half dozen other threads in that same forum on BAR. (Higher noise ratios there sometimes though.)
Hope that helps you curious F1 fans!
| Wr4wrX | 05-06-2005 04:08 AM |
Here's a good [URL=http://www.planet-f1.com/features/editorial/story_19408.shtml]editorial[/URL] about this whole deal.
| TimStevens | 05-06-2005 08:08 AM |
[QUOTE=Wr4wrX]Here's a good [URL=http://www.planet-f1.com/features/editorial/story_19408.shtml]editorial[/URL] about this whole deal.[/QUOTE]
Great read.
Great read.
| BillT | 05-06-2005 08:18 AM |
It appears that BAR has decided to drop any appeal and just accept penalty.
| JVEC | 05-06-2005 09:31 AM |
This is a good argument and one that seems to have us all thinking!
There are two seperate issues here. The first, being why create the additional fuel tank. GPMOTO1 had the same idea I did. I think they may have developed a tank within a tank. This could allow a smaller portion of fuel to be enclosed in a pouch and placed, say, low and closer to the center of the car in the main tank. This would help with weight transfer as the car slides around the track. If you can manipulate where the weight is placed, you can better adjust the cars' handling. It could be filled initially and used when the fuel in the main tank has been exhausted. And, visually, from the outside, it would look no different than the stock tank. It would also act as a baffle in the main tank to prevent fuel 'sloshing'.
As for the second issue, the idea that they knew whether the car was underweight when completely empty.....I think they knew. I think they didn't anticipate the FIA doing additional checks to the fuel tank as they did. Even one of BAR's members said that they've never had to do a 'full drain out'. In racing, it's only cheating if you get caught. I'm convinced, though, that they're not the only teams 'bending' the rules. They're just the ones that got caught.
I seem to be wholy unpleased with many of the new regulations inposed on F1 This year. It seems the tide has turned from the days of the gutsiest driver who brakes the latest in the corner and the constant recalculations of fuel strategy for pitstops to being able to limp your car to the finish and into the next race witout blowing it up. Moreso, this tire rule is just plain idiotic. On the surface, the FIA wants to 'cut down' the costs of Formula One. I can sympathize. But how much development needs to be done in order to create an engine to last for two races? Rest assured, you don't just pull the engine out of the 2004 car and just assume it'll make it. And as for the tires? Bridgestone and Michelin have been diligently working to create longer-lasting tires with infinte compound choices. Where do the costs of those development hours go? Just as in any other big business, they get passed on to the consumer. I think they'd have been better off imposing one rule or the other. But not both.
I realize in the long run, this will cut down costs. But honestly, hasn't F1 always been at the forefront of racing technology? Always on the edge, looking for that extra tenth no matter what the sacrifice? This is what racing is all about. And lets face fact, if you have the means to lug three race cars (with spares, crew, equipment, not to mention drivers) to countless countries around the globe every other weekend, you can pay for product development. How I long for the days of tooth-and-nail fighting between Mika Hakkinen and Michael Schumacher!
Just a thought.
JVEC
tifosi
There are two seperate issues here. The first, being why create the additional fuel tank. GPMOTO1 had the same idea I did. I think they may have developed a tank within a tank. This could allow a smaller portion of fuel to be enclosed in a pouch and placed, say, low and closer to the center of the car in the main tank. This would help with weight transfer as the car slides around the track. If you can manipulate where the weight is placed, you can better adjust the cars' handling. It could be filled initially and used when the fuel in the main tank has been exhausted. And, visually, from the outside, it would look no different than the stock tank. It would also act as a baffle in the main tank to prevent fuel 'sloshing'.
As for the second issue, the idea that they knew whether the car was underweight when completely empty.....I think they knew. I think they didn't anticipate the FIA doing additional checks to the fuel tank as they did. Even one of BAR's members said that they've never had to do a 'full drain out'. In racing, it's only cheating if you get caught. I'm convinced, though, that they're not the only teams 'bending' the rules. They're just the ones that got caught.
I seem to be wholy unpleased with many of the new regulations inposed on F1 This year. It seems the tide has turned from the days of the gutsiest driver who brakes the latest in the corner and the constant recalculations of fuel strategy for pitstops to being able to limp your car to the finish and into the next race witout blowing it up. Moreso, this tire rule is just plain idiotic. On the surface, the FIA wants to 'cut down' the costs of Formula One. I can sympathize. But how much development needs to be done in order to create an engine to last for two races? Rest assured, you don't just pull the engine out of the 2004 car and just assume it'll make it. And as for the tires? Bridgestone and Michelin have been diligently working to create longer-lasting tires with infinte compound choices. Where do the costs of those development hours go? Just as in any other big business, they get passed on to the consumer. I think they'd have been better off imposing one rule or the other. But not both.
I realize in the long run, this will cut down costs. But honestly, hasn't F1 always been at the forefront of racing technology? Always on the edge, looking for that extra tenth no matter what the sacrifice? This is what racing is all about. And lets face fact, if you have the means to lug three race cars (with spares, crew, equipment, not to mention drivers) to countless countries around the globe every other weekend, you can pay for product development. How I long for the days of tooth-and-nail fighting between Mika Hakkinen and Michael Schumacher!
Just a thought.
JVEC
tifosi
| BillT | 05-06-2005 09:57 AM |
Here's a small article with illustration on the 2nd fuel tank on the BAR - [url]http://www.formula1.com/insight/technical_analysis/team/2005/2/111.html[/url]
| Dark | 05-06-2005 12:04 PM |
I dont think BAR's illegally under weight is intentional, knowing that in such a world event sport there is no possible way to get away without getting caught. However the engineering of the F1 car is so precise, I doubt Honda engineer never realize they were illegally under weight. So I dont know, I just counter my own statement but what ever happen I hope FIA dont suspend BAR for the whole season, because I want to see Toyota kick their @ss.
| GravelRash | 05-06-2005 01:28 PM |
[QUOTE=JVEC]And as for the tires? Bridgestone and Michelin have been diligently working to create longer-lasting tires...[/QUOTE]
I agree that the new rules don't really do much to contain costs, especially initially; the same, or even more, money just gets spent on different development priorities. E.g., fuel flow/movement control, assuming that's the intent of BARs inner tank.
That said, I think the tire rule is really interesting - or rather the results of it are. With the exception of all the historical changes among completely different engine specs over the years this is one of the biggest changes to ever hit F1.
Pre season: massive amounts of whining, dire forecasts, predictions of tire saving parades with a few laps of actual racing at best...etc.
Reality: new lap records, the most competition we've seen in years, astounding tire performance compared to what anyone (out here in the viewing masses at least) would have thought possible a year ago.
Of course the records aren't due solely to the tires, but given the same weight car the tires are the critical factor. All the power and aero loads still get fed through the tires to the track...
What I find really interesting is that the general consensus for years has seemed to be that the tire companies were constantly tweaking the ragged edges of techology and science to come up with the latest competitive tires. All the commonly accepted "truths" about tradeoffs between grip and tire life, and even "hard" tires maybe making it through one extra pit stop...and now this.
This has the possibility of being the root of a major "racing improves the breed" scenario. Think street tires with the grip of R compounds, and the life of "touring" tires. Let the trickle down begin :D
I agree that the new rules don't really do much to contain costs, especially initially; the same, or even more, money just gets spent on different development priorities. E.g., fuel flow/movement control, assuming that's the intent of BARs inner tank.
That said, I think the tire rule is really interesting - or rather the results of it are. With the exception of all the historical changes among completely different engine specs over the years this is one of the biggest changes to ever hit F1.
Pre season: massive amounts of whining, dire forecasts, predictions of tire saving parades with a few laps of actual racing at best...etc.
Reality: new lap records, the most competition we've seen in years, astounding tire performance compared to what anyone (out here in the viewing masses at least) would have thought possible a year ago.
Of course the records aren't due solely to the tires, but given the same weight car the tires are the critical factor. All the power and aero loads still get fed through the tires to the track...
What I find really interesting is that the general consensus for years has seemed to be that the tire companies were constantly tweaking the ragged edges of techology and science to come up with the latest competitive tires. All the commonly accepted "truths" about tradeoffs between grip and tire life, and even "hard" tires maybe making it through one extra pit stop...and now this.
This has the possibility of being the root of a major "racing improves the breed" scenario. Think street tires with the grip of R compounds, and the life of "touring" tires. Let the trickle down begin :D
| TimStevens | 05-06-2005 01:56 PM |
[QUOTE=GravelRash]This has the possibility of being the root of a major "racing improves the breed" scenario. Think street tires with the grip of R compounds, and the life of "touring" tires. Let the trickle down begin :D[/QUOTE]
I'm sure tire co's could do that now if they wanted to... but that'd just ultimately cost them more $$ in the long run because you wouldn't be buying new tires so frequently :)
I'm sure tire co's could do that now if they wanted to... but that'd just ultimately cost them more $$ in the long run because you wouldn't be buying new tires so frequently :)
| BillT | 05-06-2005 01:58 PM |
I would think that one would argue that any major rule change/technical specification change ends up costing big $$$ as the teams then refocus and double-up on the efforts to regain whatever they lost due to the change
| artkevin | 05-06-2005 02:30 PM |
Ferrari said at one point they were testing a short life V-10 engine, a long life V-10 engine and a V-8 during the off season. Can't be cheap.
| OnTheGas | 05-06-2005 02:33 PM |
Why the additional fuel tank?
�
�
[QUOTE=JVEC]...why create the additional fuel tank...[/QUOTE]I'm noticing a fair amount of ignorance, and speculation here... Perhaps the following exchange will help with one of the more basic questions. This morning at the Catalunya track, in a Q&A with some journalists, B�A�R Honda's CEO, Nick Fry was asked the following two questions:
[b]A journalist[/b]:
The inference is that you seem to have [b]a much bigger collector tank[/b] than strictly necessary. What's your technical justification for that?
[b]Nick Fry[/b]:
What you will find, and I don't think there's any secrets now, is that our fuel system runs at [b]50 bar pressure (725psi!)[/b]. A road car runs at about two bar. Many of the other teams are running at much lower pressure than us and I know that other teams that have tried to run at the pressures that we run at, have encountered exactly the same problem that we have, which is that you need a large amount of fuel pressurising the system. Our car has to carry 6kgs of fuel in the tank and, without that, the first thing that happens is that the fuel pump starts to get air into it and very shortly thereafter, the engine starts to see air going into it instead of pure fuel and obviously that starts to damage the engine very quickly. In the environment where we have got to last two races, we can't have that happen. It's almost like a home central heating system. We need a header tank of fuel to push pressure against the pump to make sure that the fuel pump and the engine only see fuel, and not air. So we need to carry fuel. That, in our view, is not ballast, it is like oil or water or any of the other fluids in the car. It's necessary. The car would not be able to go into parc ferme or run in the event without that fuel in it. And, in our case, its 6kgs. That's just the fact of our system and I'm absolutely certain that other teams, if they do advance to very high pressure systems, are going to find exactly the same problems. This is a pure engineering issue.
[b]Journalist[/b]:
That being the case, how do you design it out of the car?
[b]Nick Fry[/b]:
We will be doing two things in the next couple of weeks. Number one is that we will either design our system so that we don't need to carry as much fuel to prime the system or, two, we are going to have to carry yet more fuel so that effectively at all times we will be 6kgs over the weight limit. That's something our engineers will have to grapple with over the next two or three weeks.
[b]me[/b]:
From what I've read elsewhere, the collector tanks on other teams are smaller, and hold ~2.5kgs. So, while Honda has done an impressive thing to engineer their fuel system to run @ 50 bar, their system requires a much larger collector tank... Can they afford to run carry this extra weight? For some perspective as to how much of a penalty the extra 4kgs would cost, Michelin estimates that at this particular circuit (Catalunya), "10kg equates to about 0.4s per lap". The nature of this circuit (many fast sweepers) exacts a higher weight penalty than other circuits.
Hope this helps...
Ken
[b]A journalist[/b]:
The inference is that you seem to have [b]a much bigger collector tank[/b] than strictly necessary. What's your technical justification for that?
[b]Nick Fry[/b]:
What you will find, and I don't think there's any secrets now, is that our fuel system runs at [b]50 bar pressure (725psi!)[/b]. A road car runs at about two bar. Many of the other teams are running at much lower pressure than us and I know that other teams that have tried to run at the pressures that we run at, have encountered exactly the same problem that we have, which is that you need a large amount of fuel pressurising the system. Our car has to carry 6kgs of fuel in the tank and, without that, the first thing that happens is that the fuel pump starts to get air into it and very shortly thereafter, the engine starts to see air going into it instead of pure fuel and obviously that starts to damage the engine very quickly. In the environment where we have got to last two races, we can't have that happen. It's almost like a home central heating system. We need a header tank of fuel to push pressure against the pump to make sure that the fuel pump and the engine only see fuel, and not air. So we need to carry fuel. That, in our view, is not ballast, it is like oil or water or any of the other fluids in the car. It's necessary. The car would not be able to go into parc ferme or run in the event without that fuel in it. And, in our case, its 6kgs. That's just the fact of our system and I'm absolutely certain that other teams, if they do advance to very high pressure systems, are going to find exactly the same problems. This is a pure engineering issue.
[b]Journalist[/b]:
That being the case, how do you design it out of the car?
[b]Nick Fry[/b]:
We will be doing two things in the next couple of weeks. Number one is that we will either design our system so that we don't need to carry as much fuel to prime the system or, two, we are going to have to carry yet more fuel so that effectively at all times we will be 6kgs over the weight limit. That's something our engineers will have to grapple with over the next two or three weeks.
[b]me[/b]:
From what I've read elsewhere, the collector tanks on other teams are smaller, and hold ~2.5kgs. So, while Honda has done an impressive thing to engineer their fuel system to run @ 50 bar, their system requires a much larger collector tank... Can they afford to run carry this extra weight? For some perspective as to how much of a penalty the extra 4kgs would cost, Michelin estimates that at this particular circuit (Catalunya), "10kg equates to about 0.4s per lap". The nature of this circuit (many fast sweepers) exacts a higher weight penalty than other circuits.
Hope this helps...
Ken
| ShockWave | 05-06-2005 03:26 PM |
I read a story somewhere, but now I can't find the article so let's just say there's a rumor I came across, that the officials were tipped off that the car was out of regs. Supposedly an employee of BAR that had moved to Renault let slip some info about the tank and Renault tipped off the officials which is why BAR ended up subject to the full drain.
Keep in mind that a lot of the rules being cited, espeically about the balast has to be anchored in a way that tools have to be used to remove it (i.e. you can't 'pour' it out of the car) are from an infaction against Tyrell that saw them banned for the season and loosing all their points. In light of that this penelty isn't so bad.
Keep in mind that a lot of the rules being cited, espeically about the balast has to be anchored in a way that tools have to be used to remove it (i.e. you can't 'pour' it out of the car) are from an infaction against Tyrell that saw them banned for the season and loosing all their points. In light of that this penelty isn't so bad.
| tt_ttf | 05-06-2005 04:52 PM |
[QUOTE=Dark]I dont think BAR's illegally under weight is intentional, knowing that in such a world event sport there is no possible way to get away without getting caught. However the engineering of the F1 car is so precise, I doubt Honda engineer never realize they were illegally under weight. So I dont know, I just counter my own statement but what ever happen I hope FIA dont suspend BAR for the whole season, because I want to see Toyota kick their @ss.[/QUOTE]
Sorry but I just don't believe that for a second and the fact that they are not going to contest the fine/penalty makes me think they knew it.
When you are designing for a class with a minimum dry weight requirement, you would be checking that with an actual weigh in multiple times and your CAD system would have the weights of all the components down to the gram. You are also keeping an eye on making sure you don't weigh anymore than minimum either!
You cannot for a second tell me that team as well funded and engineered as an F1 team didn't know they were under the dry weight minimum.....
(let's talk about Toyota and WRC......Yeah they didn't know they were cheating either I supose?)
Sorry but I just don't believe that for a second and the fact that they are not going to contest the fine/penalty makes me think they knew it.
When you are designing for a class with a minimum dry weight requirement, you would be checking that with an actual weigh in multiple times and your CAD system would have the weights of all the components down to the gram. You are also keeping an eye on making sure you don't weigh anymore than minimum either!
You cannot for a second tell me that team as well funded and engineered as an F1 team didn't know they were under the dry weight minimum.....
(let's talk about Toyota and WRC......Yeah they didn't know they were cheating either I supose?)
| artkevin | 05-06-2005 05:04 PM |
From the diagram that someone posted before the ONLY defense they could have is that the rules were unclear. From everything I have heard and read, the rules are very clear. Saying that, the penalty is pretty light. I still can't figure out why they would only do that to Button's car. If they really thought it was within the rules, why not put the "wea tank" in both machines?
kp
kp
| tt_ttf | 05-06-2005 05:50 PM |
[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/4520621.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/4520621.stm[/url]
[size=2][quote]BAR argued that they did not break the rules because nowhere is it explicitly written that a car must weigh 600kg or more when drained of fuel. [/size]
[size=2]But they said they had decided not to try to overturn the two-race ban in order to avoid damaging Formula One.[/quote] [/size]
Hey BAR, If you weren't sure about the minimum weight issue, then you should have asked for a clarification rather than try to be pit lane lawyers.
They got caught plain and simple
[size=2][quote]BAR argued that they did not break the rules because nowhere is it explicitly written that a car must weigh 600kg or more when drained of fuel. [/size]
[size=2]But they said they had decided not to try to overturn the two-race ban in order to avoid damaging Formula One.[/quote] [/size]
Hey BAR, If you weren't sure about the minimum weight issue, then you should have asked for a clarification rather than try to be pit lane lawyers.
They got caught plain and simple
| johnfelstead | 05-07-2005 08:28 AM |
The rules dont state the car has to be weighed dry, BAR interpreted the rules as the car has to always weigh more than 600Kg during the race, and at least 605Kg during qualifying, and it does meet that criteria.
The problem here is the rules are poorly written, BAR did not cheat and the FIA should be called to account for the fact they have written the rules poorly.
The secondary tank system is required on all serious race cars that pull high G, i ran this setup on my westfield cosworth track car, it's something race cars from the start of the use of fuel injection have always used.
The way the systems work is pretty simple, you have a main tank to carry the majority of the fuel, you then have a collector area in the tank which houses a low pressure lift pump, this low presure lift pump feeds fuel into a secondary fuel tank and presurises this fuel tank by a few psi, the outlet of this secondary fuel tank then feeds the high presure fuel pump for the fuel injector rail. You use a secondary presurised fuel tank to ensure the main injector pump inlet is slightly presurised to prevent cavitation, this guarantees the main fuel pump can never see air which would lead to a low presure spike on the fuel rail which can damage the engine.
There is nothing secret about this second fuel tank, every single F1 car on the grid has one. The issue is the fact that BAR ran the fuel in the second tank as ballast, which if you read the regulations is technically legal. The FIA are saying in 1994 they clarified the meaning of their rules to mean the car should be dry, but that isnt in the current regulations and BAR were not in F1 when that "clarification" was made.
BAR have been screwed over and the FIA once again make the rules up as they go along.
The problem here is the rules are poorly written, BAR did not cheat and the FIA should be called to account for the fact they have written the rules poorly.
The secondary tank system is required on all serious race cars that pull high G, i ran this setup on my westfield cosworth track car, it's something race cars from the start of the use of fuel injection have always used.
The way the systems work is pretty simple, you have a main tank to carry the majority of the fuel, you then have a collector area in the tank which houses a low pressure lift pump, this low presure lift pump feeds fuel into a secondary fuel tank and presurises this fuel tank by a few psi, the outlet of this secondary fuel tank then feeds the high presure fuel pump for the fuel injector rail. You use a secondary presurised fuel tank to ensure the main injector pump inlet is slightly presurised to prevent cavitation, this guarantees the main fuel pump can never see air which would lead to a low presure spike on the fuel rail which can damage the engine.
There is nothing secret about this second fuel tank, every single F1 car on the grid has one. The issue is the fact that BAR ran the fuel in the second tank as ballast, which if you read the regulations is technically legal. The FIA are saying in 1994 they clarified the meaning of their rules to mean the car should be dry, but that isnt in the current regulations and BAR were not in F1 when that "clarification" was made.
BAR have been screwed over and the FIA once again make the rules up as they go along.
| RRR-K2 | 05-07-2005 10:29 AM |
[QUOTE=johnfelstead]<SNIP>
The problem here is the rules are poorly written, BAR did not cheat and the FIA should be called to account for the fact they have written the rules poorly.
<SNIP>
BAR have been screwed over and the FIA once again make the rules up as they go along.[/QUOTE]
Didn't we just go through this [B]very same[/B] thing a few years ago: Ferrari/Bridgestone vs. Michelin.
Geeze, the FIA is getting to be as bad as SCCA! :lol:
Oops, did I say that out loud :p
Matt Kennedy
[URL=http://www.RockyRoadRacing.com][B][COLOR=DarkRed]www.RockyRoadRacing.com[/COLOR][/B][/URL]
The problem here is the rules are poorly written, BAR did not cheat and the FIA should be called to account for the fact they have written the rules poorly.
<SNIP>
BAR have been screwed over and the FIA once again make the rules up as they go along.[/QUOTE]
Didn't we just go through this [B]very same[/B] thing a few years ago: Ferrari/Bridgestone vs. Michelin.
Geeze, the FIA is getting to be as bad as SCCA! :lol:
Oops, did I say that out loud :p
Matt Kennedy
[URL=http://www.RockyRoadRacing.com][B][COLOR=DarkRed]www.RockyRoadRacing.com[/COLOR][/B][/URL]
| meebs | 05-07-2005 10:33 AM |
BAR/BAT... banned on 05-05-05???!! OMG that is just precious...
| TimStevens | 05-07-2005 12:06 PM |
[QUOTE=meebs]BAR/BAT... banned on 05-05-05???!! OMG that is just precious...[/QUOTE]
:lol:
:lol:
| artkevin | 05-07-2005 12:25 PM |
[QUOTE=johnfelstead]The rules dont state the car has to be weighed dry, BAR interpreted the rules as the car has to always weigh more than 600Kg during the race, and at least 605Kg during qualifying, and it does meet that criteria.
The problem here is the rules are poorly written, BAR did not cheat and the FIA should be called to account for the fact they have written the rules poorly.
The secondary tank system is required on all serious race cars that pull high G, i ran this setup on my westfield cosworth track car, it's something race cars from the start of the use of fuel injection have always used.
The way the systems work is pretty simple, you have a main tank to carry the majority of the fuel, you then have a collector area in the tank which houses a low pressure lift pump, this low presure lift pump feeds fuel into a secondary fuel tank and presurises this fuel tank by a few psi, the outlet of this secondary fuel tank then feeds the high presure fuel pump for the fuel injector rail. You use a secondary presurised fuel tank to ensure the main injector pump inlet is slightly presurised to prevent cavitation, this guarantees the main fuel pump can never see air which would lead to a low presure spike on the fuel rail which can damage the engine.
There is nothing secret about this second fuel tank, every single F1 car on the grid has one. The issue is the fact that BAR ran the fuel in the second tank as ballast, which if you read the regulations is technically legal. The FIA are saying in 1994 they clarified the meaning of their rules to mean the car should be dry, but that isnt in the current regulations and BAR were not in F1 when that "clarification" was made.
BAR have been screwed over and the FIA once again make the rules up as they go along.[/QUOTE]
Damn John. Very well put. From the quali this morning and your explination I now know how the system works but I guess the missing piece is what the rules actually say and what they actually mean. I agree that the FIA writes rules broadly and then defines them as they go along. The Michelin issues still pisses me off. I do think that if BAR was running a system that would be in question they should have checked first but if the system is as common as John says it is in high G load cars then the FIA should check its ego at the door.
kp
The problem here is the rules are poorly written, BAR did not cheat and the FIA should be called to account for the fact they have written the rules poorly.
The secondary tank system is required on all serious race cars that pull high G, i ran this setup on my westfield cosworth track car, it's something race cars from the start of the use of fuel injection have always used.
The way the systems work is pretty simple, you have a main tank to carry the majority of the fuel, you then have a collector area in the tank which houses a low pressure lift pump, this low presure lift pump feeds fuel into a secondary fuel tank and presurises this fuel tank by a few psi, the outlet of this secondary fuel tank then feeds the high presure fuel pump for the fuel injector rail. You use a secondary presurised fuel tank to ensure the main injector pump inlet is slightly presurised to prevent cavitation, this guarantees the main fuel pump can never see air which would lead to a low presure spike on the fuel rail which can damage the engine.
There is nothing secret about this second fuel tank, every single F1 car on the grid has one. The issue is the fact that BAR ran the fuel in the second tank as ballast, which if you read the regulations is technically legal. The FIA are saying in 1994 they clarified the meaning of their rules to mean the car should be dry, but that isnt in the current regulations and BAR were not in F1 when that "clarification" was made.
BAR have been screwed over and the FIA once again make the rules up as they go along.[/QUOTE]
Damn John. Very well put. From the quali this morning and your explination I now know how the system works but I guess the missing piece is what the rules actually say and what they actually mean. I agree that the FIA writes rules broadly and then defines them as they go along. The Michelin issues still pisses me off. I do think that if BAR was running a system that would be in question they should have checked first but if the system is as common as John says it is in high G load cars then the FIA should check its ego at the door.
kp
| tt_ttf | 05-07-2005 01:09 PM |
John,
The issue is that we really only have BAR's word on the fact that they cannot go below 600kg and that ALL of that fuel has to remain in the fuel system before they get surge - Would you design a system with that sort of tolerance and given the immense PSI they have in that system, I have a hard time believing they need the entire amount for that not to happen as you can baffle, manage the pick up etc to manage that.
I understand perfectly the concept of header/surge tanks but in this case I get the impression they are doing something very different from the norm and I also have a hard time believing when your max fuel load is regulated, they would take 15+ litres out of that allowance as ballast unless they had a significant edge handed them by doing so. You don't give that much of your total fuel for nothing!
Something just does not add up to their explaination and they should have checked - They are not building in a vaccum and not being around in '96 does not mean they didn't know about that clarification - F1 is not that large a engineering pool.
If they really believed they had a solid case, they would at least look at appealing, given how much this will cost them. The fact they are not (despite all the "we are releasing everything" line) seems to indicate they know they were in a very grey area.
There is also the issue of the pump out - They are even trying to split hairs on what they were told to do - Why? Because I suspect they knew there would be an issue if they did and the fact they were asked to check makes me suspicious about what happened during that process to make the scruitineer suspicious.
[QUOTE]Kris de Groot, the man responsible for carrying out the fuel check at Imola, suggested that BAR had not complied adequately with his request for the car to be completely drained of fuel.
'I asked for a full drain-out and afterwards I found more fuel,' he said.
Willis [BAR's technical director] disputed this description of the procedure his team was asked to perform, saying that 'the request we had was to do a lifted pump out; we have never been asked to do a full pump out.'"[\QUOTE]
The issue is that we really only have BAR's word on the fact that they cannot go below 600kg and that ALL of that fuel has to remain in the fuel system before they get surge - Would you design a system with that sort of tolerance and given the immense PSI they have in that system, I have a hard time believing they need the entire amount for that not to happen as you can baffle, manage the pick up etc to manage that.
I understand perfectly the concept of header/surge tanks but in this case I get the impression they are doing something very different from the norm and I also have a hard time believing when your max fuel load is regulated, they would take 15+ litres out of that allowance as ballast unless they had a significant edge handed them by doing so. You don't give that much of your total fuel for nothing!
Something just does not add up to their explaination and they should have checked - They are not building in a vaccum and not being around in '96 does not mean they didn't know about that clarification - F1 is not that large a engineering pool.
If they really believed they had a solid case, they would at least look at appealing, given how much this will cost them. The fact they are not (despite all the "we are releasing everything" line) seems to indicate they know they were in a very grey area.
There is also the issue of the pump out - They are even trying to split hairs on what they were told to do - Why? Because I suspect they knew there would be an issue if they did and the fact they were asked to check makes me suspicious about what happened during that process to make the scruitineer suspicious.
[QUOTE]Kris de Groot, the man responsible for carrying out the fuel check at Imola, suggested that BAR had not complied adequately with his request for the car to be completely drained of fuel.
'I asked for a full drain-out and afterwards I found more fuel,' he said.
Willis [BAR's technical director] disputed this description of the procedure his team was asked to perform, saying that 'the request we had was to do a lifted pump out; we have never been asked to do a full pump out.'"[\QUOTE]
| Penguinking | 05-07-2005 01:36 PM |
two things:
if you goto the BAR f1 homepage they have available for download their full submission to the FIA - some 100 long page document w/ diagrams and telemetry data from the race, really neat stuff! cool read.
and finally, maybe the teams should start showing up to FIA meetings so they can clarify the rules :lol:
EDIT: on page 80something there are pictures of the fuel cell and the collector inside the cell. cool :cool:
if you goto the BAR f1 homepage they have available for download their full submission to the FIA - some 100 long page document w/ diagrams and telemetry data from the race, really neat stuff! cool read.
and finally, maybe the teams should start showing up to FIA meetings so they can clarify the rules :lol:
EDIT: on page 80something there are pictures of the fuel cell and the collector inside the cell. cool :cool:
| XT6Wagon | 05-07-2005 01:37 PM |
Yes, in fact I do believe them that the secondary tank has to remain pressurised for the motor to run correctly. And as far as it being stupid... well you drive everyday with a system that pressurises to a thousand PSI or so, and you seem to be satisfied with thin stainless tubing running everywhere on the car when a simple pinhole leak would cause that system to fail, and potentialy KILL you. Yup your brakes are hardly super redundant or overbuilt and yet for some reason they last decades with such a "bad" design.
| tt_ttf | 05-07-2005 01:56 PM |
[QUOTE=XT6Wagon]Yes, in fact I do believe them that the secondary tank has to remain pressurised for the motor to run correctly. And as far as it being stupid... well you drive everyday with a system that pressurises to a thousand PSI or so, and you seem to be satisfied with thin stainless tubing running everywhere on the car when a simple pinhole leak would cause that system to fail, and potentialy KILL you. Yup your brakes are hardly super redundant or overbuilt and yet for some reason they last decades with such a "bad" design.[/QUOTE]
XT6 -Read again - I am not saying it doesn't have to remain pressurised (I said I understand header/surge tanks).....nor am I arguing against pressurised systems so I have no idea where you got that from. :huh: :rolleyes:
What I am saying is....
1. Does it need to have that entire amount of "ballast" fuel they can claim that keeps it above 600kg so the car does really never go below 600kg or is it possible (accidently)/designed (delibrately) to allow it go below 600 kg. The second scenario is quite possible and in fact it could be that is what BAR designed in.
2. Given fuel limit rules, there is a very grey area about just how much fuel is on board and again I point out that is a significant amount of fuel to take out of your usable load - that is a passing move or similar you give up for that!
3. Why did they not pump it dry the first time..........unless they knew/suspected it would cause an issue.
When teams push the rules or like Toyota did in WRC, decide to cheat (what they did with the restrictor is nothing else but cheating), they are making a gamble and they all profess to be innocent even when caught.
Some might have pushed a grey area looking for an advantage and others know full well what they are doing is beyond grey
Yes F1 has had issues with rules and who/what gets affected but that does not immediately write off anything they do against them teams is not valid either
XT6 -Read again - I am not saying it doesn't have to remain pressurised (I said I understand header/surge tanks).....nor am I arguing against pressurised systems so I have no idea where you got that from. :huh: :rolleyes:
What I am saying is....
1. Does it need to have that entire amount of "ballast" fuel they can claim that keeps it above 600kg so the car does really never go below 600kg or is it possible (accidently)/designed (delibrately) to allow it go below 600 kg. The second scenario is quite possible and in fact it could be that is what BAR designed in.
2. Given fuel limit rules, there is a very grey area about just how much fuel is on board and again I point out that is a significant amount of fuel to take out of your usable load - that is a passing move or similar you give up for that!
3. Why did they not pump it dry the first time..........unless they knew/suspected it would cause an issue.
When teams push the rules or like Toyota did in WRC, decide to cheat (what they did with the restrictor is nothing else but cheating), they are making a gamble and they all profess to be innocent even when caught.
Some might have pushed a grey area looking for an advantage and others know full well what they are doing is beyond grey
Yes F1 has had issues with rules and who/what gets affected but that does not immediately write off anything they do against them teams is not valid either
| XT6Wagon | 05-07-2005 02:15 PM |
No you clearly don't understand that this isn't an issue of BAR cheating, its an issue of the FIA and the ego's of a few people. The tech inspector was obviously acting like a spoiled 5 year old who just had his toy taken away... The FIA staff can NEVER be wrong, and NEVER writes vauge rules.
To me this ruling smacks of "**** the rules, the rules are what we say they are whenever we say they are". When a team is punished for a system on a car that is technicly required, and legal based on a common sense approch to reading the rules...
Even when they PROVE that they never broke the rule they were charged with..
honestly whats next? deciding after a race that all cars must meet the minimum hieght requirement even with a flat tire? Then slapping all teh teams around because thats not how everyone else reads the rules?
To me this ruling smacks of "**** the rules, the rules are what we say they are whenever we say they are". When a team is punished for a system on a car that is technicly required, and legal based on a common sense approch to reading the rules...
Even when they PROVE that they never broke the rule they were charged with..
honestly whats next? deciding after a race that all cars must meet the minimum hieght requirement even with a flat tire? Then slapping all teh teams around because thats not how everyone else reads the rules?
| johnfelstead | 05-07-2005 08:08 PM |
XT has it about right. BAR didnt break the rules as they are written, and the only way any technically based sport should be governed is by the letter of the regulations, end of story. I dont care if BAR are using this system as a weight benefit or not (which they proved they were not at Imola), they havnt broken the rules as they are written so should not be banned and have their names dragged through the mud.
They will carry a system of that design if it gives a technical advantage and the advantage outweighs the costs, thats what F1 and racing is all about. One of the race cars i am working on has 2 bag tanks, 3 collector tanks and 5 fuel pumps, all esential to allow the car to run flat out, so if BAR say they need to carry that level of fuel for running such high presure fuel rails i'll believe them, what sounds OTT to some people doesnt mean it is. BAR have been quite open about the fact the car cant run without failure on a smaller system. You have to remember the engine failures they experienced whilst perfecting the high presure fuel delivery system, Geof says he needs that quantity of fuel supply to be reliable and i have no reason to not believe him.
Write the rules properly and there wouldn't be a problem, the FIA are incapable of this and that is why you get teams that think on their feet taking advantage, just as BAR did when retiring their cars in Melbourne due to stupidly written regulations setup by a very nieve Max Mosley.
They will carry a system of that design if it gives a technical advantage and the advantage outweighs the costs, thats what F1 and racing is all about. One of the race cars i am working on has 2 bag tanks, 3 collector tanks and 5 fuel pumps, all esential to allow the car to run flat out, so if BAR say they need to carry that level of fuel for running such high presure fuel rails i'll believe them, what sounds OTT to some people doesnt mean it is. BAR have been quite open about the fact the car cant run without failure on a smaller system. You have to remember the engine failures they experienced whilst perfecting the high presure fuel delivery system, Geof says he needs that quantity of fuel supply to be reliable and i have no reason to not believe him.
Write the rules properly and there wouldn't be a problem, the FIA are incapable of this and that is why you get teams that think on their feet taking advantage, just as BAR did when retiring their cars in Melbourne due to stupidly written regulations setup by a very nieve Max Mosley.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét