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

[dsg]

Originally Posted by LongJohnSilver

As I read the granprix.com summary, I dont see how BAR can be found guilty.

As I read it, case closed...

Ergo is this then an admission that fuel was being used as ballast?

[Valve Bounce]

Originally Posted by 903cc

Wrex:

Mate, Disagree totally. The driver is a key team member. He knows what is going on. These guys just do not turn up at the race track, they are part of the corporate structure. Saying Button does not know what is going on is like saying the CFO of Enron was in the dark about the financial trouble of his organisation.


Even if it was a secret do you not think one of the mechanics would know and let slip. I would need a lot of convincing that Jensen did not know anything about this. I have nothing against the guy but "Thick as Thieves"..

A big bird told me this, and I quote: " I don't think JB would have the IQ to remotely understand the complexities of either the regs or that level of engineering counter thinking. I reckon it's one of those 'On a need to know basis only' situations and the the driver in this case is just 'the NUT behind the wheel'. It's not as if it's a mechanical gizmo where the driver needed to give feed back, just drive his heart out, and push on and be consistant, which he does well."

So you can take that anyway you want.

[Valve Bounce]

By the way, can anyone explain to me why the 9kg of fuel in the collector tank cannot be used?

[Wrex]

VB, did'nt your 'little bird' (Rennen) post that earlier in the thread?

Also to relieve some confusion, there is no issue as to if this device is legal or not. The device is not the problem.

The issue is about minimum weight. The regs say the car must be at least 600kg after fuel is removed. Initially the car was over 600kg after the main tank was drained, but after this 'catchment' was emptied, it was found underweight.

So the real questions are:

1. Why did BAR say the car was emptied of fuel with this excess still in there?

2. Is the fuel in this 'catchment' part of the fuel system (I assume when the drain the car of fuel they dont drain the fuel lines etc as well) or the fuel tank?

3. If it is part of the fuel system, why is it so large?

I'm starting to think BAR have pushed the interpritation of the rules too far. It is clearly understood that teams should submit blueprints of anything that might need clarification in advance. It is the teams burden to stay within the rules, or seek clarification in advance if they are not sure.

I think they have pushed it too far this time, and while banned from the championship is too harsh, they should be stripped of all points recieved to date and heavily fined.

[Valve Bounce]

Originally Posted by Wrex

VB, did'nt your 'little bird' (Rennen) post that earlier in the thread?

Also to relieve some confusion, there is no issue as to if this device is legal or not. The device is not the problem.

The issue is about minimum weight. The regs say the car must be at least 600kg after fuel is removed. Initially the car was over 600kg after the main tank was drained, but after this 'catchment' was emptied, it was found underweight.

So the real questions are:

1. Why did BAR say the car was emptied of fuel with this excess still in there?

2. Is the fuel in this 'catchment' part of the fuel system (I assume when the drain the car of fuel they dont drain the fuel lines etc as well) or the fuel tank?

3. If it is part of the fuel system, why is it so large?

I'm starting to think BAR have pushed the interpritation of the rules too far. It is clearly understood that teams should submit blueprints of anything that might need clarification in advance. It is the teams burden to stay within the rules, or seek clarification in advance if they are not sure.

I think they have pushed it too far this time, and while banned from the championship is too harsh, they should be stripped of all points recieved to date and heavily fined.

Hey WREX, I'm with you. I agree with every point you have made, and I probably posted the same somewhere. This is what I proposed and let me know what you think:

This is what I would see as being appropriate punishment for BAR.

1. d/q both BAR cars for the Imola race.
2. Fine the team 10 thousand dollars.
3. Ban Geoff Willis from all F1 activities for 2 years. This includes all F1 tracks, including testing, and any venues where work is carried out on all F1 cars, especially the Brackly headquarters.

So, what do you guys think?

[Don K]

If it is only a case of BAR pushing the interpretation of the rules too far, I would say a penalty consisting of a disqualification (for that race) plus a (small) fine should be enough.
No reason to punsih Willis excessively.
Especially since BAR seems to have informed FIA before the start of the season.


If BAR has informed FIA before the start of the season, it looks to me as if BAR thought the decive (and the way they planned to use it) might be legal. So they probably were hoping to hear a "yes" or "no" (from FIA) before the first race...

[Marbot]

Dq both cars from Imola? Hardly a punishment,a podium and a few points.Fine them 10,000 dollars?"Wait i think i have that in my wallet" cries a BAR boss.Ban Geoff Willis? Maybe it's actually not his fault!

[PaulSands]

Given Bernie Ecclestones record on allowing...errrrrm "innovation" (Brabham Fan Car anybody?) I think he's got more than a nerve to make any sort of comment. It's all the politics of the GPWC v's BE/FIA coming to a head and it looks like BAR will be the fall guys

[Adam43]

I think it is more likely that someone asked him about the case and he gave his assessment, which was reasonable. What he said was quite considered on the subject IMHO, especially the "there are a millions things they could do" with respect to any punishment. On whether they are guilty he said it doesn't look good, which it doesn't. He has not really commented on what he would do if he decided. A no win situation for him really, if he had said let them off then it would have been 'well he would have said that - remember the fan car'

Overall I think this is less political than some think. It seems as if Renault raised the awareness of this potential problem to the FIA. Well BAR and Renault (Honda and Renault) are meant to be on the same side against the FIA! So unless they have got all confused about the politics I don't really see much politics in this.

[grandprixdiary]

Superstitious thoughts, bear with me on this Today's date is 5/5/5. BAR are sponsored by 555. In China the numbers 555 are associated with the words Wu wu wu (sobbing sound). Wonder if they'll be sobbing in Brackley this afternoon !

Rob

[ss_collins]

perhaps it should be noted that talk of being kicked out of the rest of the championship is not far fetched - remember what happened with the Toyota Celica...

[Adam43]

The outome of the appeal is now known:
http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=68748

Thread closed.