Bahrain Scrutineering Report

mark_l · 5 Apr 2004, 05:24 (Ref:930528)

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press...4/bahrain.html

The scrutineers report, which is usually filed soon after the race, has not yet been posted.

Has Jo Bauer found something illegal and subject to penalty/appeal?

Mr V · 5 Apr 2004, 06:15 (Ref:930558)

I heard a rumour that the top 12 cars were all found to be under-weight

avsfan733 · 5 Apr 2004, 14:16 (Ref:931087)

is sandblasting covered in the tech regs?

EDIT: it appears to be up but clicking on it accomplishes nothing

**Bononi** · 5 Apr 2004, 14:27 (Ref:931105)

Quote:

Originally posted by avsfan733
is sandblasting covered in the tech regs?

They will have to change the rules for Bahrain then...

Quote:

Originally posted by avsfan733
EDIT: it appears to be up but clicking on it accomplishes nothing

Same here

Jordi · 5 Apr 2004, 16:58 (Ref:931246)

It doesn't seem to be up yet, or maybe it's a broken link.

Hugh Jarce · 5 Apr 2004, 21:04 (Ref:931546)

Maybe he was walking past the McLaren garage on his way to file the report and it caught fire.

garcon · 5 Apr 2004, 21:43 (Ref:931589)

**Adam43** · 5 Apr 2004, 21:45 (Ref:931595)

An electrics fire, presumably.

RWC · 6 Apr 2004, 01:03 (Ref:931706)

Lol.The ferarris were maybe found to be illegal BEFORE the race and the fia is trying to work out how on earth they'll get out of THAT one, ROTFLMAO

avsfan733 · 6 Apr 2004, 01:28 (Ref:931715)

....and it begins

grumpy1 · 6 Apr 2004, 03:17 (Ref:931769)

The longer it takes the more unfounded speculation will rise.

The Grumpy1

Mr V · 6 Apr 2004, 06:21 (Ref:931852)

Quote:

Originally posted by avsfan733
....and it begins

Chill avs, just a little fun from the looks of it.

Great sig btw, i love that song

avsfan733 · 8 Apr 2004, 22:38 (Ref:934810)

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr V
Chill avs, just a little fun from the looks of it.

Great sig btw, i love that song

Just having alittle good natured ribbing at the conspiracy boys

Thanks on the sig yours ain't to shabby neither

It appears to be up now so i guess that ends that

Rennen · 13 Apr 2004, 13:45 (Ref:938312)

I heard details of one of the cars being underweight...but it was ignored as the parts lost where as a result of a racing incident!...That never worked ever for us in Junior British or in International karting! Underweight even by a gram!...was exclusion, no appeal! In fact in British karting you were expected to have a minimum of 2 litres of fuel left after a race in the karts tiny fuel tank for checking purposes!..."One rule for one etc....

**Adam43** · 13 Apr 2004, 14:14 (Ref:938343)

I've heard that reason for being underweight used before (and successfully). Nothing to worry about IMHO.

(not that it makes any difference), but which car? *tries to think who had contact* Sato?

**Peter Mallett** · 13 Apr 2004, 14:16 (Ref:938347)

Sato lost a part and so did JPM when his gearbox let go.

Red · 13 Apr 2004, 14:27 (Ref:938362)

Hmm, well, I've heard similar reasons too, and to no avail. Coulthard had a faulty bodywork (front wing) in Brazil a couple years back, and was promptly DQed. The reason given was that Macs should've called him and replace the faulty part.

This is rather stupid actually, the rules clearly say that the car shall comply to the rules at every given moment during the weekend. I agree that they DQed Coulthard in 2000, I do not agree that they let those ones go. And since we're at it, I do believe that they should scrutineer all cars that classify, not only the point scorers. What if someone is DQed for a minor offense (like losing a bit of a wing; by the way, BAR seem to regularily lose the "gurneys" from the rear wing, or at least have them loose), the 9th placed car is promoted in points? But since noone bothered to check the car he/they might be blatant cheaters and we'd never know.

**Adam43** · 13 Apr 2004, 14:41 (Ref:938373)

I remember that DC one, at the time I was suprised. Perhaps it depends on how it was lost? Comedy, I agree!

As for checking all of them yes they should do. Also, you never know, a 9th place may be used in a countback when teams or drivers were on the same points.

shiny side up! · 13 Apr 2004, 14:46 (Ref:938382)

I would think that the weight rule is one of the only regs in the FIA rulebook that is not open to interpretation and is easy to enforce! If you put 'em on the scales and they are light, it's a DQ! Shouldn't matter if it was because a part fell off, the driver used the toilet, or the refueling rig didn't dump enough lead BBs in at the last stop... If you're light you're light!

Red · 13 Apr 2004, 14:47 (Ref:938385)

Actually all point scorer cars were not Ok, bar Fissichellas's. All of them had much too worn undertray planks.

**Adam43** · 13 Apr 2004, 14:51 (Ref:938394)

Fisi's second win then!

Red · 13 Apr 2004, 14:52 (Ref:938396)

In Brazil too!

mark_l · 13 Apr 2004, 14:57 (Ref:938400)

What about Micheal Schumacher shedding Barge Boards at OZ last year?

Blash, Whiting and Bauer suddenly go blind

**Adam43** · 13 Apr 2004, 15:00 (Ref:938405)

Was Michael underweight in Australia 2003 then?

I'm not sure we need another Ferrari consipiracy bash thread...

Red · 13 Apr 2004, 15:01 (Ref:938409)

They called him in, they removed the bargeboards (subject to DQ if not a black flag suring the race) and filled him a bit more fuel though it wasn't neccesary. (Hmm, I still think that the car should be weighted without any single drop of fuel, oil or whatever other fluid.)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pre scrutineering scrutineering	bradenc	Marshals Forum	4	24 Jun 2003 21:23
Pics from LM PQ & Scrutineering	Tim Northcutt	Sportscar & GT Racing	5	2 May 2003 18:26