Totally Hypothetical / Cheating

[SetikX]

Ok, just to make sure Ten-tenths doesnt get in trouble for such wild 'accusations', all the following statements in this thread is going to be hypoeticals and are not based on any fact.


That said;

If BAR's car is found illegal and its found that Ferrari / Renault / Mclaren are all shown to be running the same system - what will happen? I dont know much about f1 history, but if blatant abuse of the rules occurs are the teams DQ'd from the total season? Those races they scored points?

Another hypothetical if Ferrari and Renault are also guilty of abusing the rules, or spirit of the rules; how far back will ferraris DQ go? Will last years cars be under inspection?

How do you think this will work out?

[Don K]

*If* one of BAR's cars has been found underweight, I think the only thing they can do is to disqualify that particular car - unless they can *prove* that the other car was also underweight.

If other teams have been underweight without being caught, I can't see how they can prove that. As far as I know, that is what scrutineering is for.

If it turns out there was some grey area in the rules, they might decide to just publish a rule clarification.
Or they might decide to publish a rule clarification plus disqualify the (single) car that was found (=proven) to be underweight - but if other teams say that they *also* misunderstood, I would expect *no* cars to be disqualified (because that *proofs* that the rule was indeed unclear at this point.

[alfasud]

Originally Posted by SetikX

Another hypothetical if Ferrari and Renault are also guilty of abusing the rules, or spirit of the rules; how far back will ferraris DQ go? Will last years cars be under inspection?

I think the most blatant example of cheating in a recent FIA championship, was the 'special' turbocharger setup used by the WRC Celica back in 1995. All points for the team (and drivers) were removed for that year... and they were banned from competing for the following year:

http://www.gt4wrc.co.uk/GT4WRC/RallyHistory.asp

No points were removed from previous years results.

[Skam85]

And in F1 Tyrrell was DQ'ed from the year in...84 was it? Brundle and Bellof were driving. Can't remember what it was for...Illegal TC? Not sure.

[ASCII Man]

The cause of their ban stemmed from water samples taken from the car that Martin Brundle drove home to a second place finish in the Detroit Grand Prix. The water in question was pumped from its tank to a spraying mechanism over the engine air intake trumpets. FISA (the fore-runner of the FIA) claimed that the water contained 27.5 per cent Aromatics, which would have been illegal as it would have been a performance aid.

Tyrrell successfully disproved this, whereupon FISA simply switched to three other charges, all of which were highly dubious. Amongst these other charges were now having hydrocarbons in the water, unsecured ballast in the form of lead weights also in the water and holes in the underside of the car's flat bottom.

Strangely Tyrrell had been in dispute with FISA over purposed changes in the fuel capacity regulations, the only team then holding out against them. When they were excluded from the championship they were not allowed to vote and the changes went through unopposed.

(from www.atlasf1.com)

[JeremySmith]

If the car in question spent six hours being looked at by the stewards what are the FIA talking about? Six hours would be enough time for them to take the car apart I would have thought..This is something else, this has a bad smell about it altogether

[marcush.]

hm .where´s the nett advantage?
ok you could run the car underweight during the first stint of the race and before the last stop of the race.
But then you´d get heavily punished inthe last stint,as you´d have to put in enough fuel to make it to the finish and to stay legal after crossing the line.
obviously that would require long to fill (the later you´d stop the more obvious the long tanking would be!)up as well with corresponding slow laps with the big fuel load....i doubt this would justify being illegal and the main gain would be to look more competitive in the first half of the race.....

[Glen]

Er, no. In your last stint you would only have the same weight as everyone else - ie 600kg car & driver, plus whatever fuel you need to get to the end. It is true that fnal stop might be slightly longer getting the gas in, but we're talking a whole one second.

[marcush.]

your bloody right,mate...
but you´d still have to explain why you´d need that much time to fill her up.
and:you don´t believe 10kilos of fuel make a big difference in lap time do you?
The kilos do actually hurt most when they raise the centre of gravity or change the front rear bias .Noone can explain to me why a car with 600 kilos of weight and 900 horses on equally strong brakes could suffer from 10 kilos of weight plus or minus near the centre of gravity.
So to actually gain something really useful we´d talk about 15 to 20 kilos and that is something you don´t easily hide in terms of a fueltank.....

[Glen]

Think about it - ten kilos is nearly two per cent of the total weight. There certainly is a decent enough performance advantage just there. More crucially though, this strategy would let you be more flexible with your pit-stop windows - you can decide to run longer and dip into the extra fuel if conditions require.

[Kempi]

Seeing that we only have 20 cars on the grid as it is, I strongly doubt we would see a full season DQ. Bernie would have a say or two about that.

[Marbot]

If the car is underweight, it's underweight.Including its driver and without fluids it should weigh no less than 600KGs.So unless Jense lost an arm or something,i don't think BAR have a leg to stand on(unless it's the one Jense lost).

[Kicking-back]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

If the car is underweight, it's underweight.Including its driver and without fluids it should weigh no less than 600KGs.So unless Jense lost an arm or something,i don't think BAR have a leg to stand on(unless it's the one Jense lost).

There is nothing specifically in the letter of the regulations saying that.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

There is nothing specifically in the letter of the regulations saying that.

So it's another loophole then?

[Adam43]

If you have access read Adam Cooper's take on all this on autosport.com. http://www.autosport-atlas.com/journ...cle.aspx?id=69

For instance in reference to the above point it was pointed out that "There was a communication stating that the FIA would drain the car of all fuel, and the car had to comply to the weight limit in that condition.". This was from a 'senior technical guy'. It has been the case since refueling was re-introuced in '94. It is oft discussed at the Technical Working Group meetings and the FIA had clarified the situation.

Cooper also goes on to explain all the obvious advantages of using fuel to bring the car up to weight. As discussed above. From the ability to run lighter than others on each lap, go longer or simply get round any fuel pick-up issues.

He also sums up what BAR need to argue:

In effect, BAR's case was that A) The 'dry' weight is irrelevant as the rules are written; and B) the car never ran below 600kgs during the course of the event.

I feel they achieved B at Imola, but A is the sticking point and one the the FIA has clarified in the past.

Another thing to consider is that to get the car over the 600kgs they need fuel in the car. Here is the FIA rule on ballast.

Originally Posted by FIA tech rules 2005

4.2 Ballast :
Ballast can be used provided it is secured in such a way that tools are required for its removal. It must be possible to fix seals if deemed necessary by the FIA technical delegate.

On another point, I agree with those that think that 3.4kg underweight is significant. The cars don't weigh that much and there is potential to be that much lighter than other during qualifying and most laps of the race.

We'll see what the courts decide, but the effect could be significant and should be investigated.

[strider]

That article is brilliant. 3.4kg or possibly more is a very significant advantage. Make no mistake about that.

[Tye]

It sure is foxy mole.

Originally Posted by foxy mole

That article is brilliant. 3.4kg or possibly more is a very significant advantage. Make no mistake about that.

I would suggest a ban of at least the remainder of the season. I think that if a team was found to be deliberately cheating their way to success, then they should be banned for as many races as the current season.

It is no secret that BAR want a win desperately and I'm just hoping that they aren't going to the extremes to achieve their goal. If they are found to be in breach of the rules, then I just wonder when this first started and whom is responsible? I wonder if Dave Richards have anything to do with this current situation the team finds itself in?

Tye

[Adam43]

Before this thread gets destroyed by random accusations, let us stick to how you would potentially achieve the light running and what advantages it brings. Thank you.

[Marbot]

So whats the definition of ballast.Does it have to be a solid material,or can it be a liquid in a container.Whether liquid or solid you would need some sort of tool to remove it.Unless of course the substance is allowed to detatch itself from the car by some other means.

If a lead weight was found to have vacated a car during the race,no doubt the car would be declared illegal.I would have thought that any ballast attatched to a car would have to be marked with its weight and then remain at that weight throughout the race.

Since ballast isn't allowed to move it shouldn't be possible for it to lose weight.

[JeremySmith]

Adam is there a regulation concerning the minimum DRY weight of the car? Thank's Jeremy

[Valve Bounce]

Originally Posted by SetikX

Ok, just to make sure Ten-tenths doesnt get in trouble for such wild 'accusations', all the following statements in this thread is going to be hypoeticals and are not based on any fact.


That said;

If BAR's car is found illegal and its found that Ferrari / Renault / Mclaren are all shown to be running the same system - what will happen? I dont know much about f1 history, but if blatant abuse of the rules occurs are the teams DQ'd from the total season? Those races they scored points?

Another hypothetical if Ferrari and Renault are also guilty of abusing the rules, or spirit of the rules; how far back will ferraris DQ go? Will last years cars be under inspection?

How do you think this will work out?

Well, first of all I would sack the stewards and anyone else who responsible for draining the Ferrari and Renault tanks and didn't get teh weight below 600kg. The I would sack Jo Bauer who didn't insert his endoscope into the Ferrari or Renault, or if he did, found nothing.

Then I would report all three teams to the AFL Tribunal who are 100% meticulous in their dealings with wayward players.

[XJR14/WSC95]

Could this possibly explain why Button was unable to catch the Ferrari and Renault when they were lapping in 2:24s for about ten laps. If anything they were still pulling away from Button whom was running at a reasonable pace (catching Alonso) before his second pit stop.

[marcush.]

sorry chaps ,the interesting thing is power to weight ratio and that is not an issue with 600 or 597 kgs if you got 900horses.
the intersting bit is the height of theCG centre ,and weight distribution.
but everything helps of course ,if someone feels able to quantify the seconds won by running 3 kilos lighter ,I ´m asking if there´s a difference if I place those kilos on top of the rollhoop or into the plank of the car....

[Adam43]

Power to weight ratio: hp/weight. Therefore it doesn't matter what the hp is the percentage change to weight still produces the same percentage change in power to weight. However you can argue that if you have a 0-100 time of only 3s then knocking 1% off that is less important than knocking off 1% from a 0-100 time of 6s. However we are dealing with small gaps in F1. The times are very competetive though.

The c.o.g is important and I also agree that everything helps.

It is also not just the gains over a race. If you can gain a postition, say in Q, or after staying out longer.

[Glen]

If there were no advantage to being a few kilos under the weight, then the car would not be a couple of kilos under. Nothing at all happens by accident when you a spending several hundred million dollars on building two cars.

Good point about the ballast - you cannot argue that a minimum amount of fuel was in the car at all times and therefore it was ballasted up to at least 600kg because that would mean that some of your ballast weight was liquid - by definition, liquid moves.