BAR Penalty/FIA appeal (merged ,split, merged again!)

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

For example, if the engine capacity was over 3 litres, but to check this the engine had to be taken apart, the car can't run in that state either, but I doubt anyoneone would dispute the cars illegality.

But they get around that by sealing the engine within a time limit. Then they can open it up at any time.

[Dixie Flatline]

Originally Posted by Glen

You're getting the concepts of being illegal and passing scrutineering mixed up - same as the tyre thing. The rules don't specify that the car has to pass a scrutineering test - the rules say what the rules are, and then scrutineering procedures are devised to attempt to verify legality. If those procedures are lacking it is still possible to prove an illegal car. In the case of flexing wings it is slightly different, because it is physically impossible to make a wing with no flex at all - but a weight limit is a weight limit.

I don't know where all this "purest sporting interests" on the part of the FIA comes from - having a secret stash of fuel as ballast doesn't sound very sporting to me!

Scrutineering rules extracted from the FIA F1 Sporting Regulations:

65) Between 10.00 and 16.00 on the day before first practice initial scrutineering of all cars will take place in the garage assigned to each team.

66) Unless a waiver is granted by the stewards, competitors who do not keep to these time limits will not be allowed to take part in the Event.

67) No car may take part in the Event until it has been passed by the scrutineers.

68) The scrutineers may:

a) check the eligibility of a car or a competitor at any time during an Event,

b) require a car to be dismantled by the competitor to make sure that the conditions of eligibility or conformity are fully satisfied,

c) require a competitor to pay the reasonable expenses which exercise of the powers mentioned in this Article may entail,

d) require a competitor to supply them with such parts or samples as they may deem necessary.

69) Any car which, after being passed by the scrutineers, is dismantled or modified in a way which might affect its safety or call into question its eligibility, or which is involved in an accident with similar consequences, must be re-presented for scrutineering approval.

70) The race dierctor or the clerk of the course may require that any car involved in an accident be stopped and checked.

71) Checks and scrutineering shall be carried out by duly appointed officials who shall also be responsible for the operation of the parc ferme and who alone are authorised to give instructions to the competitors.

72) The stewards will publish the findings of the scrutineers each time cars are checked during the Event. These results will not include any specific figure except when a car is found to be in breach of the Technical Regulations.

Article 67 seems to me to provide that unless and until the car is passed by the scrutineers, it cannot compete in the Grand Prix. Indeed, this was at the heart of the Minardi controversy, because notwithstanding that Stoddart claimed he had collected the signatures to his petition to allow him to race cars that did not comply with the Regulations, the stewards refused to allow his cars to compete on the grounds that they did not comply with the regulations:

It is the view of the stewards that it is inappropriate and unacceptable to alter the technical regulations with which all other competitors comply in order to suit the individual needs of one competitor. For Minardi to participate further, their cars must comply with all the requirements of the 2005 technical regulations.

[Glen]

Very interesting, in a dry sort of way, Dixie… none of that contradicts what I was saying, which is that the rules exist in themselves, and the scrutineering exists to uphold those rules - a car has the be over the weight limit at all times, regardless of the technique of measuring the weight, for example.

[Dixie Flatline]

I thought it did! In the quote I took from the previous quote, you said:

"rules don't specify that the car has to pass a scrutineering test - the rules say what the rules are, and then scrutineering procedures are devised to attempt to verify legality."

As far as I can see, the Articles do require the car to pass a scrutineering test, in order to ensure that the car is eligible under the Articles to race.

But what you have just said is more to the mark, I think.

[Glen]

Aah, I see what you're saying - what I meant was not that the rules don't mention scrutineering, rather that the spirit of a rule exists independently of the scrutineering devised to enforce it.

[rameire]

Throw them out of the championship, and get rid of Cadbury Boy Button.

[Adam43]

This is a discussion forum and this thread is discussing the potential penalty for BAR. Please read our FAQ. http://tentenths.com/forum/faq.php?f..._rules_content

[Marbot]

Rule 67 states that the car cannot take part unless it passes scrutineering,which it obviously will.But i suppose after that BAR can configure the car any way they like.

Scrutineering is just the same as an M.O.T.certificate.It can only vouch for the cars legality at the time of inspection.

[Marbot]

The FIA must be pretty sure of its evidence to overrule scrutineering,they must be sure of what they've found.If they are wrong,it doesn't look good for them,because once again it means that they have stuck their nose into something that didn't need it.If they are right,then how incompetent are their own scrutineers.

I mean how many other infringements have gotten passed scrutineering and are still doing so.

Of course it will look very bad for BAR if the car is found to be illegal,afterall it did run underweight throughout the whole race.

5.6KGs may not seem a lot,but it is approximately 1% of total weight.Many F1 teams(including BAR) will spend millions to gain 1% in performance.

But of course the big loser will be the sport in general.

[Valve Bounce]

What is most interesting is the fact that the Stewards of the Meeting took 6 hours to discuss/determine what BAR's setup was and how it did or did not affect the outcome of the race.
I just wonder whether the findings of the May 4th hearing will be made public.

[Sodemo]

Remember Malaysia 1999? The FIA changed the result then too...

[Adam43]

Ultimately, the important thing is that they establish the correct ruling? Was the BAR illegal or not?

[Dixie Flatline]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Rule 67 states that the car cannot take part unless it passes scrutineering,which it obviously will.But i suppose after that BAR can configure the car any way they like.

Scrutineering is just the same as an M.O.T.certificate.It can only vouch for the cars legality at the time of inspection.

What you say about Rule 67 is correct. Rule 68(a) permits the stewards to put the car through scrutineering at any time during an Event (as defined), which is interpreted as meaning when the cars are returned to parc ferme after the race has finished.

[Dixie Flatline]

Originally Posted by The Monster

Remember Malaysia 1999? The FIA changed the result then too...

IIRC, Ferrari lost its points in the constructors championship, but the drivers kept their points?

If the FIA wins the appeal, I suspect that something similar might happen.

[Adam43]

Ferrari kept their constructor's points for Malaysia 1999. It think you are thinking of Brazil '95 when Schumacher and Coulthard kept their points, but Benetton and Williams lost their constructor's points for fuel irregularities.

[Dixie Flatline]

Thanks for the correction, Adam!

[Dixie Flatline]

BAR denies that they are cheats (reported by PlanetF1.com)

PlanetF1.com carries a story quoting BAR boss Nick Fry, who insists that they are not cheats:

This team is owned by two blue-chip international corporations with huge integrity. Does anyone really think that we would deliberately do anything against the rules? We've hidden nothing. The FIA has seen the device and inspected it several times before. They are fully familiar with the system.

Fry hinted that the FIA's appeal is politically motivated:

Given the political situation in the sport we are concerned about everything. We are hanging on to the basic belief that right will prevail in the end. At no time was the car light and I don't think that we've done anything wrong.

Full story here.

[Marbot]

Some how i get the feeling that the FIA have been waiting for this opportunity from the beginning of the season.Only now with a BAR on the podium have they moved to do anything about it.

It seems it's now up to BAR to convince the FIA as to where 5.6KGs of solid material went missing.

BAR seem to be basing their defence on the fact that the car was not light at any time during the race.However there was the potential for it to run light and also the potential to vary fuel strategy to a greater degree.

[browney]

I'd love to know what the argument that convinced the scrutineers was and what they talked about for 6 hours. I assume BAR had independent data to show they were never underweight not just their own data (otherwise I doubt the scrutineers would have listened to there argument). I also would like to know what the justification was for having that much extra fuel was? Is it possible that the fuel system with the tank empty still has 5.6 litres of fuel in it (in the fuel lines ect.) so they reasoned that this weight should be included in the car weight? If not it seem suspicous to have a car that can run underweight easily but they just didn't do it, sort of like a athlete with a room full of steriods claiming he just had them too look at.

If there car was in breach of the rules BAR can't say 'well I know our car is illegal but the FIA only caught us 'cos they had political reasons too'.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Some how i get the feeling that the FIA have been waiting for this opportunity from the beginning of the season.Only now with a BAR on the podium have they moved to do anything about it..

They have. Apparently a BAR mechanic moved to another team and mentioned what was going on. The FIA got very interested.

Originally Posted by martyn bott

However there was the potential for it to run light and also the potential to vary fuel strategy to a greater degree.

And what was Benetton's punishment for the potential for it to run traction control software?

[Valve Bounce]

Originally Posted by ensign14

They have. Apparently a BAR mechanic moved to another team and mentioned what was going on. The FIA got very interested.

LINK PLEASE!!

[ensign14]

Autosport-Atlas, it's subscription.

[Valve Bounce]

Originally Posted by ensign14

Autosport-Atlas, it's subscription.

OhDang!! I only frequent free websites.

[Marbot]

More thoughts Here

Or go to www.pitpass.com entitled "scandal or farce" if above link not ok.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

OhDang!! I only frequent free websites.

It is on Adam Cooper's review of the situation. A very good read.