Could BAR miss the rest of the season?

Found these links in another forum about the recent Imola GP, questioning the likelihood of BAR being cut from the rest of the F1 season for an infringment on the cars found after the race.
http://www.formula1.com/news/2937.html
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns14734.html
Discuss.

boy do they get pissy, from a series that cant keep the ferrari's from dominating.specially over a third place

Result: two race suspesnion and 6 month suspensded sentence. A bit harsh, but appropriate, as they had likely had been doing it all season, and just didn't get caught until Imola. With these types of systems and how they had it set up, it is very likely that the car was underweight at least for some of the race.

As for Ferrari dominance, have you seen this year's results?

I think the sentence was quite fair if the accusations are indeed true. I wonder how long BAR have been using this particular "fuel as balast" trick? Good on the FIA for enforcing the rules. If only they could always be so consistent.

And I guess that means Alex Wurz moves up to third place in the final standings of Imola - lucky him! :) Pending any further appeal BAR may make. Good for Toyota and Williams too.

well being so pissy about weight in a sport where 90% of the car is carbon fiber, shoot i mean just the tire wear could reduce the weight by end of a race...specially with all those GREAT rule changes, to honest these things arent even cars, theyre "driving machings"

Actually having read the FIA statement I am now much less impressed. Nowhere in the statement does it specifically state where BAR have infringed the rules. A quick search of the Sporting and Technical Regs don't show up any obvious place where it is specifically stated that the car must be weighed with all fluids drained. It may be in there somewhere but the FIA sure ain't pointing to it. BAR may have pulled a swifty but the FIA's crap rules may be the real culprit. In fact the only part that has any credence is the rule that states ballast must be fitted so it can be removed with tools or have seals fitted, same rule used aginst Tyrrell in 1984 when the FIA needed a political problem solved.

I wonder how the FIA would have interpreted things if BAR were signatories to the new Concorde Agreement...

well being so pissy about weight in a sport where 90% of the car is carbon fiber, shoot i mean just the tire wear could reduce the weight by end of a race...specially with all those GREAT rule changes, to honest these things arent even cars, theyre "driving machings"

A limit must be set and enforced so that the reduction of weight doesn't lead to structual compromises and therefore unsafe cars. If the weight limit was removed where would it end?

Tyre wear and fuel comsumption do affect weight. Drivers attempt to pick up debris on the tyres during the cool down lap to increase weight. In the past divers have been disqualified because their tanks ran dry on the cool down lap, leading to them being underweight at post race scrutineering.

As for calling them driving machines, they're more speed machines. Making them easy to drive is not a priority!

Another thing, the FIA don't even mention Sato's car. Was it legal or is the team being punished for fielding a legal car? I like this can of worms less and less...

This was a load of complete and utter bullshit, just an example of the FIA being pissy-assed pricks. They KNEW before the season that BAR was carrying the "secret" fuel tank, the Stewards accepted that the BAR car was never underweight at any one stage, yet the FIA still accused them of deception? Even when they're the ones with the murky rules in the first place?

Why would they even bother cheating? They were the second placed team last year, it's hardly like they're Minardi or Jordan.

I am not the biggest fan of BAR-Honda by any means, I found thier logic in making Jensen Button stay with them to be completely flawed, but this is wholly unjust, just because the car had the capacity to run underweight, doesn't mean it did.

LOL
Ferrari would have been crucified by the press and the majority of the English-speaking public.

BAR got off lightly. The fuel compartment is not illegal, but it's illegal for the car to be under 600 kg with all the fuel drained. BAR were asked to drain all the fuel. They said they did. After that more than 11 kg of fuel were found on board the car. Even if, as BAR said, it was a misunderstanding, which I don't believe it was, it's just as illegal to use fuel as ballast. But hey, it's not Ferrari or Toyota and the golden boy is one of the drivers, so why throw them out of the championship like they deserve? :rolleyes: And don't underestimate the importance of a 6 kg weight advantage - it means that the first two stints could either be longer or the car lighter than the other cars stopping on the same laps, it also affects qualifying and it affects the first two stints in their entirety, not just the couple of laps when the car is capable of running underweight. I'll post the ruling by the ICA and an article from Autosport written before the decision of the court.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL (I.C.A.)
of the
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE L'AUTOMOBILE
05.05.2005


Appeal submitted by the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile, on the grounds of Article 185 of the International Sporting Code

CASE

Decision n° 49 taken by the Stewards of the Meeting concerning car n° 3, competitor Lucky Strike BAR Honda (driver Jenson Button),
after the San Marino Grand Prix on 24 April 2005 counting towards the 2005 FIA Formula One World Championship

Hearing of Wednesday 4 May 2005 in Paris


The FIA INTERNATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL, composed of Mr Xavier CONESA (Spain), elected President, Mr Erich Sedelmayer (Austria), Mr Pierre Tourigny (Canada) and Mr Vassilis KOUSSIS (Greece),

Meeting in Paris on Wednesday 4 May 2005, at the headquarters of the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile, 8 place de la Concorde, 75008 Paris,

Ruling on the appeal brought by the FIA against decision n° 49 taken by the Stewards of the Meeting of the San Marino Grand Prix on 24 April 2005, having refused to take any action against the competitor Lucky Strike BAR Honda who they considered was not in breach of the FIA Regulations as regards the weight of the car,

Having heard:

For the FIA, appellant, represented by Mr Pierre de CONINCK, Secretary General of the Sport Division, assisted by Mr Sébastien BERNARD, Head of Legal Affairs, and Mr Charlie WHITING, Head of the Technical Department,

For the Respondent, the Motor Sports Association (MSA), represented by Mr Terry Lankshear, Secretary General, acting both for the MSA and for the competitor Lucky Strike BAR Honda, assisted by Mr David PANNICK QC, Lawyer at the London Bar, Mr Simon TAYLOR, Solicitor in London, and Ms Caroline McGRORY, Lawyer,

For the knowledgeable parties, Mr Geoff WILLIS, Technical Director, Lucky Strike BAR Honda, Mr Craig WILSON, Chief Engineer, Lucky Strike BAR Honda, Mr Nick FRY, Chief Executive Officer (Lucky Strike BAR Honda), Mr Ron MEADOWS, Race Team Manager (Lucky Strike BAR Honda), Mr Alistair GIBSON, Chief Mechanic (Lucky Strike BAR Honda), Mr Darren BEACROFT, N°1 Mechanic (Lucky Strike BAR Honda), Mr Chris FRY, Team Truck Driver (Lucky Strike BAR Honda), Mr Yasuhiro WADA, President Honda Racing Development, Mr Otmar SZAFNAUER, Vice-President Honda Racing Development, Mr Nick BROOKES, Director British American Tobacco, Mr Jo BAUER, FIA Formula One Technical Delegate, Mr Kris de GROOT, FIA Formula One Technical Team, and Mr Alan FULLER, FIA Formula One Technical Team,

Having acknowledged that the procedure was in order and the appeal admissible, the rights of each of the parties having been duly examined, both in the proceedings which preceded the hearing and during the hearing itself, the appellant, the competitor and the knowledgeable parties having been duly heard and having provided all the detailed explanations requested from them during the hearing and having received answer, with the help of a simultaneous translation system which did not provoke the slightest criticism on the part of the competitors,

WHEREAS the appellant the FIA has requested the International Court of Appeal to cancel the decision taken by the Stewards because it did not respect the technical and sporting regulations of Formula One as well as the rules of the International Sporting Code,

WHEREAS for its part the defendant argued that it conformed to all the relevant rules above,

WHEREAS Article 1.9 of the same Technical Regulations stipulates that the weight of the car “is the weight of the car with the driver wearing his complete racing apparel, at all times during the event”, and must not be related with the weight of the car in ‘running order’ as defined in article 1.10.

WHEREAS with regard to the weight of the car, Article 4.1. of the Technical Regulations, without mentioning the fuel, requires that at all times during the event, whether or not the driver is weighed separately, the weight must not be less than 600 kg,

WHEREAS in this regard, the requirements of these regulations are supported by Art 77-a-4 and 77-b of the Sporting Regulations of Formula One which anticipate that the car must be weighed with the driver at the time of the practice, and that after the race every car crossing the line shall be weighed with the weight of its driver added, with paragraph c of the same article specifying that if the weight of the car is less than the minimum weight required by Article 4.1. of the Technical Regulations, the car will be excluded from the event, save where the deficiency in weight results from the accidental loss of a component of the car,

WHEREAS, taking into account these requirements, the car, at all times of the event, must weigh with the driver a minimum of 600 kg and that Lucky Strike BAR Honda tried to argue that the car must be weighed with the remaining fuel in the tank after the race, which is not supported by any rules of the Code and Regulations, and leaves the FIA as well the competitors in a regrettable state of uncertainty,

WHEREAS the only interpretation possible which can give any guarantee in this regard should be, as is contained in Article 4.1., that the weight of the car with its fuel tank completely empty at the end of the race, must weigh at least 600 kg, and this interpretation flows from Articles 1.9, 4.1, 77-a, 77-b and 77-c of the Sporting and Technical Regulations above,

WHEREAS the defendant Lucky Strike BAR Honda was unable to satisfy the requirements of Article 2.6, which states that “It is the duty of each Competitor to satisfy the FIA technical delegate and the Stewards of the Meeting that his automobile complies with these regulations in their entirety at all times during an Event”.

WHEREAS, the presentation of the team of fuel consumption data cannot guarantee that the vehicle complied at all times with the minimum weight requirements of Article 4.1,

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,

On these grounds

As to the form,

DECLARES and RULES that the appeal brought by the FIA is admissible

As to the content,

INVALIDATES the decision N°49 of the Stewards at the San Marino Grand Prix on 24 April 2005,

Giving a new RULING,

DECLARES and RULES that the Lucky Strike BAR Honda team failed to comply with Articles 1.9, 4.1, 4.2, 2.6 of the Sporting Regulations and also violates Article 151-c of the International Sporting Code,

EXCLUDES Lucky Strike BAR Honda team from the event in question,

SUSPENDS the Lucky Strike BAR Honda team from the next two events in the FIA Formula One Championship,

SUSPENDS the team for a period of six months after the above-mentioned two events, with this penalty suspended for a period of one year,

LEAVES it to the sporting authority to draw the consequences of the present decision while rectifying the classification of the event accordingly,

LEAVES it to the Lucky Strike BAR Honda team to pay the costs, which will be calculated in accordance with Article 190 of the International Sporting Code,

The PRESIDENT

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Pres.../050505-01.html



Article from Autosport.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAR Special: Shaken, Not Stirred

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Adam Cooper, England
Autosport-Atlas Contributing Writer
This is a story befitting an Ian Fleming novel: a hidden compartment, officials on secret service, and a 007 in the middle. Cooper, Adam Cooper sheds light on the FIA's appeal against BAR-Honda and brings exclusive information from the paddock on events that led the San Marino stewards to overlook an infringement which, exactly 20 years ago, got a World Champion disqualified



After the finish of the 1985 San Marino Grand Prix, the McLaren of race winner Alain Prost was found to be 2kgs underweight. The Frenchman was of course disqualified - it was black and white, even if the discrepancy was a result of a genuine mistake by his team.

Exactly 20 years on, Jenson Button's third placed BAR 007 was found to be almost 5.4kgs under the weight limit at the same event - a margin nearly three times the one that caught out Prost, and this in an era when the technical checks and weighing equipment are far more sophisticated. And yet on this occasion Button was not disqualified.

If many in the paddock found this strange, to say the least, the FIA itself was so flabbergasted by the decision made by the stewards on Sunday night at Imola that it has appealed against the judgement of the three wise men acting in its name. It's a move not totally without precedent in recent motor sport history, but a rare one all the same.

This is an unusual story, worthy of the secret agent who shares his name with the type number of the car. Many of the facts are yet to emerge, but having spoken to some well-informed people - although not from BAR, as no one is talking - Autosport-Atlas attempts to piece the basics together.

The Man with the Golden Endoscope

Things began to develop in the couple of hours after the end of the race. Post-race technical checks were a formality for most, and once the cars had been examined, they were pushed into the double garage that served as parc ferme. Normally, if there are no issues, the results are made official a little more than an hour after the race, at which point all the cars are then released back to the teams, and packed away in the transporters.

But last weekend there was a problem. Wandering past the FIA end of the pits, amid the usual noisy chaos that follows any race in Italy, one could sense that something wasn't quite right. At a time when usually everything was done and dusted, not only were most of the cars still parked forlornly in parc ferme, but one - Button's BAR 007 - was still in the FIA garage, sitting on the weighbridge. Officials surrounded it, while BAR race engineer Craig Wilson stood by its nose.

At times like this, information is thin on the ground. Nobody announces on the tannoy "there's a problem with car number three," and no paperwork is circulated. Things are done very discreetly until there is definite news. Only if you see it with your own eyes do you know that something is up.

Among those quick to spot that a drama was unfolding were Renault team manager Steve Nielsen and Williams's chief mechanic Carl Gaden, who stood on the pitlane side of the FIA garage and watched with some interest, ready to report back to their bosses on any developments. Although no information emerged, the fact that they could watch, albeit from a distance, gave the proceedings a degree of transparency.

When the car was pulled off the weighbridge and pushed back on, it was only too clear that this was a weight issue. And when FIA technical delegate Jo Bauer was seen with his arm inside the fuel tank, having a good feel around with his trusty endoscope, it was obvious that there was also a fuel element to the story.

With nothing coming out of the FIA, I decided to investigate. I bumped into Button himself down at Red Bull, where his pal David Coulthard was about to give him a tour of the new monstrous motorhome. "Is there a problem with the weight of your car?" I asked. He made it pretty clear that he thought there wasn't.

The best way to find out what's going on in situations like this, is to ask the other teams, and it was surprising how many important folk hadn't even realised that the BAR was still being checked. In fact, it was hard to miss from the paddock side, as the FIA garage door was open by a metre, and the 007's nose was clearly visible.

Later I came across Alex Wurz, celebrating his fourth place at Bernie Ecclestone's hospitality bus. "Don't celebrate yet," I said. "You might end up third..."

The Weight is Not Enough

There are in fact two minimum weight figures in Formula One's 2005 regulations. The first covers qualifying, when cars have to weigh more than 605kgs. They are measured at the end of each lap, with the driver on board.

Of course, under current regulations, the only figure that really matters is that measured after the first qualifying session, when you are not using race fuel. Obviously every team put the bare minimum into the car, and judge things finely so that after the out-lap, flying lap, and in-lap, they come in as close to 605kgs as they dare. That's why an engineer might tell a driver 'try to save fuel' on his in-lap on Saturday, even if it's not a question of saving it for the race.

On Sunday morning, the cars are again weighed with the driver. Of course, with race fuel now on board, there is no way anyone will be near the minimum limit. Nevertheless, those figures are crucial to the FIA because they are in effect the starting weights that have to be maintained for the start of the race.

The post-race check is different. For obvious reasons, there is no way to have the entire field queue up for weighing, so the drivers get out and are weighed on their own, before the cars are measured separately. The two figures are added together to produce a total.

Post-race, the required limit drops to 600kgs. This is a by-product of the race fuel/parc ferme rules. With the agreement of the teams, this 5kgs margin was introduced to allow for loss of weight due to consumption of oil, brakes, and other materials. Also factored in is loss of weight by the driver (although some of what he sweats off might be absorbed by his overalls, and is therefore still in the equation).

In theory, because of parc ferme, apart from the losses outlined, there is no other reason to account for a difference in weight from the end of first qualifying to the end of the race - apart, of course, from fuel.

At Imola, the BAR weighed 606.1kgs with its fuel on board, well above the limit and in fact a little higher than cars normally are at the finish. Teams would normally expect to be down around the 603kgs mark, allowing for the aforementioned loss of materials and finishing with the bare minimum of fuel on board. In fact, you have to have at least a litre in the car so that samples can be taken and tested by the FIA, or you could face disqualification.

This is where it gets interesting. Since refuelling was introduced in 1994, the FIA has reserved the right to do a more detailed weight check, involving draining the car of its fuel to determine its dry weight.

The logic is simple: if the fuel is pumped out and the car weighs less than 600kgs with no fuel on board, then the clear implication is that at various points during the race - i.e. immediately before its pitstops - the car could have been running at less than 600kgs. It has always been understood that weighing the car without fuel is the only way to demonstrate that a car was legal throughout the race. The subject has been discussed many times in meetings of the FIA Technical Working Group and of team principals. As long ago as 1994, the FIA clarified that this was the case in response to questions from teams.

One senior technical guy explained it thus this week: "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. That was the only condition in which they could be sure that a team was legal during the race. And that's always been clearly understood. That's always been one of the key principles, and it's been mentioned many times. It's not strictly in the regulations, but it does say that the car must be legal at all times, and it also says that the FIA technical delegate must be satisfied that the car complies with the regulations."

But is a clarification issued several years ago still valid today? "I don't see why not, but BAR may claim they weren't in F1 then..."

Like random drug tests, fuel drain checks can happen without warning. At Imola, the top three cars were all drained, and all three were found still to be above the limit. Normally, that should have been the end of it. However, Jo Bauer was still interested in the BAR. He asked the team's representative if there was any more fuel in the car. He, apparently, said no.

It was a classic 'Colombo Question' - that last, subtle enquiry that leads to the unmasking of the villain.

It was then that Bauer began to take a close look at the inside of the 007 fuel tank. He found an extra compartment with fuel still in it. The compartment itself was not illegal - F1 tanks are not gaping caverns, they all have complex innards, and, it seems, what BAR had was acceptable in technical terms.

But what mattered here was that the fuel inside it had not come out with the initial draining, and when asked, the team's representative had denied that there was any more on board. When this 'hidden' fuel was drained, the car tipped the scales at 594.6kgs. On the face of it, bearing in mind that dry weight has always been the only benchmark of whether a car could be running underweight, Bauer could come to no other conclusion - BAR literally had the capacity to cheat.

On Max Mosley's Secret Service

Bauer's pursuit of the truth was no accident. Over the off-season a story had done the rounds that BAR might have been doing something 'unusual' during last season. It seems that the tale emerged after a mechanic left and joined a rival (British) team. A leading technical person at that team shared this information with his opposite number at a rival outfit when they bumped into each other at a test (he may well have confided in others), and the matter was also discussed with the FIA.

Nothing could be done during the winter, so it was just a case of waiting for the season to start. In Australia, the BARs pulled out on the last lap to gain new engines for the second race, but they were still classified and thus eligible for scrutineering. But as the performance was so bad, they were not really of interest. Two double retirements followed in Malaysia and Bahrain. Then Button finished third in Imola, just 10 seconds behind the winner. It seemed like a pretty good time to do a check.

The FIA does not act on pitlane gossip alone, and disgruntled ex-employees are not always arbiters of truth. But the governing body also keeps a very close eye on what teams are doing with fuel, and runs software that makes use of two key pieces of information: the pre-race weights, which indicate how much fuel is in the cars for the start, and fully accurate fuel rig readings. The FIA delegates do not rely on the stop timings shown on TV, as observers like you and I have to. Their detailed data can be analysed, and any strange patterns are flagged.

You Only Refuel Twice

So what are BAR accused of doing, and what benefits might have accrued? First of all, consider that a lap of Imola requires around 3.0kgs of fuel - a number verified by more than one top team. We know that at the end of the race some 11.5kgs were pumped put of BAR - in other words, enough to run very nearly four laps. According to information from other teams, F1 cars rarely finish with more than a lap's worth of fuel in the tank. Yes, there has to be some left for the FIA to check, but saving fuel to pass a weight check is not an issue as there is that 5kgs built-in margin to play with.

Since the BAR weighed 606.1kgs at the end, we have concrete proof that the car could not have run below the limit for the last stint of the race. What the FIA is looking at, however, is the couple of laps prior to each of the team's two stops.

Jenson Button stopped at the end of lap 24 and lap 48 of the San Marino Grand Prix. However, the first tank also included the lap to the grid, and the formation lap. As the drivers are in fuel saving mode, those add up to exactly one racing lap. So his stop schedule, including the slowing down lap, was roughly as follows:

25 laps - 24 laps - 14.5 laps

Or in fuel terms:

75kgs - 72kgs - 55kgs (43.5 'used', plus 11.5 pumped out)

The only times the car could have possible run under 600kgs are laps 23-24, and 47-48. Did the team dip into that 6kgs 'reserve' or not? Did it genuinely pit with the cars at 600kgs rather than, say, 596kgs? The only proof that can answer that is the data provided by the team, and of course the fuel consumption figures are absolutely paramount. That is the heart of the argument.

If you think a couple of laps marginally under 600kgs are not worth worrying about, think again. In such a case, there are benefits to be gained for the whole of the first two stints, i.e. 48 laps.

The following figures need not apply in this case, but they explain why the FIA would take the matter very seriously. Let's assume the car was run down to 596kgs, leaving just enough to get it back to the pits safely. If we assume that everyone else has a dry weight of at least 605kgs, the qualifying minimum, then a car using this technique will in effect weigh 9kgs less than another car running to an identical pitstop strategy for the whole of those 48 laps. At Imola, 3kgs - or a lap of fuel - is worth exactly one tenth of a second. So the car concerned would gain 0.3 a lap for 48 laps - or a total of 14.4 seconds. That is a huge amount.

Another way to look at this is that for a given genuine starting weight, this car could run three laps longer to the first stop than a car of identical weight. At a time when even one lap means the difference between winning and losing, that's pretty handy.

In addition, in second qualifying the car would be carrying 9kgs less than any other car that plans to pit on the same lap, which equates to three tenths of a second benefit in the battle for grid position. Worth having, of course.

Even if the fuel is run down only to a legal 600kgs - something no other team would have the capability to do - there are similar, albeit smaller, benefits.

There is one other interesting aspect to qualifying. In effect, to meet the 605kgs limit the car would have to carry at least 11kgs of 'spare' fuel in that first session. There are restrictions as to where you can locate traditional ballast, but could this lump of fuel, located handily in the middle of the car, influence the handling balance over the one flying lap? Having weight further back in the car could be of specific help to a Michelin user.

Having said that, fuel is not very efficient as ballast. Says our technical source: "It's high volume and it moves around, and it's going to be high in the car. It wouldn't be our first choice."

And there's yet another possible benefit. Did the team need to keep 6kgs (or more) of fuel permanently in the car to help the fuel system operate effectively, in terms of pressure and pick-up and so on?

That is not an uncommon problem, and indeed it happened to at least one leading team in the searing heat of Bahrain. They had no choice but to keep a certain minimum amount of fuel in the tank all the way to finish so that it didn't splutter to a halt before its pitstops or the chequered flag. Frustrating, but part of the game, and everyone accepts that. It could just be that BAR built in the 6kgs margin so that this fuel could be carried with no penalty in time and weight.

"How often have you heard a team say 'we're a bit heavy because we've got a fuel pick-up problem'?" says our technical guy. 'And they don't say 'we've got a permanent offset of 6-7kgs or whatever because we need that amount in reserve for the fuel system'..."

For Your Tank Size Only

Back to Sunday night. With the checking complete, the car was left alone on the weighbridge. The action now moved upstairs, to Charlie Whiting's office and that of the stewards, just along the corridor. Meanwhile, back in the engineering offices in the BAR transporter, technical director Geoff Willis was putting his evidence together. He emerged carrying some files and headed off to see the FIA, accompanied by Craig Wilson and team manager Ron Meadows. Jo Bauer presented his findings to the three race stewards, who consulted with Whiting and made a judgement after reviewing evidence from Willis.

For several hours, no information was released from the top floor. Darkness came and it began to rain, while up and down the paddock frustrated mechanics kicked their heels. If there is a problem with one car, then all cars have to stay in parc ferme. You don't just get a car back after the race and stick it in the truck - there's a list of jobs to run through, which often involves firing up the engine. They just had to wait.

Williams were in particular trouble, as BMW wanted its V10s out of the chassis for examination in Munich. Alas, everyone had to wait until the BAR business was sorted out. Team members booked on Sunday night flights realised that they had no chance of catching them, and there was much frantic rebooking for Monday. Legal or not, BAR wasn't about to win a popularity contest in the paddock...

Finally, some hard news emerged. The official results, unchanged, were declared and signed off at 10.10pm, and a document issued by the stewards was timed at 9.30pm, and counter signed by BAR's Ron Meadows at 9.42pm. It appeared to be very carefully worded, and created more questions than it answered.

It stated that in Jo Bauer's opinion "Jenson Button is able to run below the minimum weight limit" - as clear an accusation of cheating you are going to get, although the use of "able" was intriguing. But it went on to say that the stewards had decide that the matter "requires no further action."

Usually the stewards pretty much rubber stamp whatever they've been told, and their main job is to decide what the penalty should be. But on this occasion, the three - local Giuseppe Muscioni, Swiss Paul Gutjahr, and Japanese Katsutoshi Tamura - chose to side with the team, effectively ignoring the recommendations suggested by Bauer.

Not surprisingly, the decision caused some disappointment among those in the FIA whose job it is to seek out rule infractions. Even on Sunday night there were suggestions that the matter would go further, which could only mean an appeal by the FIA against the stewards' decision.

Nevertheless, it was surprising that as early as Monday morning the FIA announced that it was going to do exactly that, giving itself and BAR some nine days to put their respective cases together before meeting in Paris on Wednesday May 4. Quite simply, Whiting and Bauer had informed FIA president Max Mosley that they did not share the stewards' interpretation of the evidence, and that this was too important an issue to let go.

Disputes Are Forever

There are two related but distinctly different issues here, and BAR had to convince the stewards on both matters.

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.

In case A, the team's behaviour seems to be based on a bit of lateral thinking by Willis, one of the smartest men you'll meet in an F1 paddock - in fact he had a hand in writing the rules that govern the design of America's Cup yachts.

He's clearly taken the view that, as written, the rules do not expressly say the car has to weigh 600kgs when drained of fuel, only that it has to be above 600kgs during the event. However, the FIA's position is a simple one: the only way to police this issue is to drain the car, and that's the way it has always been.

BAR may well be right to claim that nowhere in the 2005 rules does it explicitly say the car must weigh 600kgs without fuel. They may argue that just because it's always been understood that this is the method of checking, doesn't mean that it is sacrosanct.

But one could equally argue that there is nothing that specifies exactly how the FIA determines whether a car has a maximum of 10 cylinders, or indeed four wheels. The legal battle over such niceties promises to be an interesting one.

No one can possibly dispute that, as the Sunday night statement said, "Jenson Button is able to run below the minimum weight limit." But whether he did or not is another matter. Is being able to cheat illegal in itself? That's going to involve some serious debate over semantics, and views will undoubtedly be divided.

In case B, the team used their data to convince the stewards that at no time did the car fall below a weight of 600kgs. That in effect meant demonstrating that at each of the pit stops, there were at least 6kgs - or two laps - of fuel still in the car.

Of course, the FIA already knew how much went into the car at each stop, and how much was drained out at the end. But it did not have a precise figure for how much fuel was in the car at the start - only a guestimate based on starting weight and the drained weight that could not accurately allow for any loss of materials, as discussed earlier.

Crucially, BAR were also able to present fuel consumption figures. It was this information, provided by the team and not verified as such by the FIA, which convinced the stewards that the car never dipped below 600kgs.

So the bottom line is that the stewards must have agreed with BAR's unique interpretation of the rules, and believed that the car did at no point run below 600kgs. These are the two matters on which Whiting and Bauer did not share the opinion of the stewards, and caused them in effect to take the matter to Max Mosley. The same two points are what will be debated in the appeal on May 4.

But there is another issue. In effect, BAR are openly admitting that they were using fuel as ballast. Once again, they are pursuing a unique interpretation of the rules, which state that any ballast has to be fixed and require tools to remove it. If you pump fuel out, are you using tools?

Fry Another Day

In his press statement following the FIA's appeal, BAR-Honda CEO Nick Fry said that two blue chip companies like Honda and BAT would not expose themselves to something so potentially damaging as breaking the Formula One regulations. Such an argument is unlikely to stand up in court - it's a bit like OJ Simpson claiming he's a sporting legend so therefore he's obviously innocent - but nevertheless, Fry has a good point.

BAR have plenty of good, solid people - including Fry himself, technical director Geoff Willis, team manager Ron Meadows, chief mechanic Alistair Gibson, and the hard working guys on the race crew. But clearly something strange is going on.

What might have happened is that Willis has targeted what he sees as a loophole - i.e. that the car does not have to be 600kgs without fuel. It could well be that the car never dipped below 600kgs, either at Imola or prior to any of last year's many pitstops, and thus there has been no actual flouting of the minimum weight requirement.

But it's a dangerous game to rely on your own interpretation of a situation like that, without first checking with the FIA, and specifically Charlie Whiting. As our technical guy says: "If they had a special requirement, why didn't they spell it all out to the FIA before they started to use it, and get the whole thing cleared?"

BAR were reprimanded by the FIA last year for running a previously outlawed electronics system during Friday practice for the German Grand Prix, something which lead Ferrari's technical director Ross Brawn to state back then: "I guess Geoff [Willis] was not around in those days and he came up with a system that clearly contravened the clarifications that the FIA had given the teams a few years ago. We were a little bit shocked about it." Sounds familiar?

Two questions remain. Was the 6kgs in fact movable ballast and therefore illegal full stop? And most importantly, what was the story with the fuel that was in the now infamous 'secret compartment'? Why did the team's man on the spot claim there was no more fuel to be found?

One possible explanation is that, for whatever reason, the team hedged their bets. They came up with an interesting and quite possibly valid interpretation of the weight regulations, and they genuinely never ran less than 600kgs. But just to make sure that they would never have to face a tricky legal challenge, they ensured that the fuel used as ballast was not easily found in a spot check. If that is the case, being economical with the truth could prove to be a major error.

"It doesn't make any sense," says our technical guy. "If they had any grounds to do what they did, why did they deny that they had it? It has serious implications, really. It's not very often that blatant cheating is found in F1. Some issues are contentious because they're down to interpretation, and I guess that's what they're going to try and argue.

"But if I had a bottle of nitrous oxide on the car and told the FIA I never gave the instructions to put that into the engine, and I can prove it, it wouldn't be looked on very favourably! My guess at the moment is that they are trying to be smart on something or other that we don't understand, and it's going to have more serious implications for them than they probably thought about."

One strange thing is that the legality of Takuma Sato's car, which finished the San Marino Grand Prix in fifth place, was not questioned in that same post-race scrutineering. It would be stranger still if it turned out not to be built to the same spec as its sister car, of course.

So what are the possible penalties should BAR be found guilty to any degree? Comparisons with the Toyota disqualification from the 1996 season of WRC have been made, and indeed Max Mosley made it clear earlier this year that he will take a tough stance on any blatant F1 misdemeanours. It could get messy.

Those who confuse the focus by Bauer and Whiting on the BAR at Imola with the political atmosphere in the F1 paddock these days - with the FIA, FOM and Ferrari in one side, against the GPWC and their allied teams in the other - are misguided. Bauer and Whiting were doing their job. It would be just as silly to suggest that the Japanese steward, a man inevitably with some connections to Honda-owned Suzuka, would in any way be compromised. Having said all that, BAR and Honda do seem to have given Messrs Mosley and Ecclestone a ball that they can take up and run with, and they rarely waste such opportunities...

At the very least, we can expect the hearing in Paris next week to end with a clarification de facto of the 600kgs rule. Whatever else happens on May 4, the FIA is between a rock and a hard place. If the stewards are overruled, then their authority and that of the whole system is weakened. If the FIA loses, then the standing of Charlie Whiting and Jo Bauer will suffer - not to mention that of Mosley, who has backed their hunch.

Ales, if BAR were found to be underweight then they should be disqualified from the race in question. No argument here. If they were implicitly cheating then a heavier penalty is required, such as the ban and suspended sentence. The FIA have not explained how the latter is the case as far as I'm concerned. Was the fuel really used as ballast, or was it an error? What about Sato's car, why was he disqualified? I don't know the answers - the FIA should be telling us. Ironic that they boiled BAR’s offence down to "a highly regrettable negligence and lack of transparency" - sounds like SOP for the FIA!

As for a comparison to Ferrari - who gives a rats, this is not about them. But since you started it, your memory is very short - Sepang 1999. That is the difference in how Ferrari are accommodated. Especially when a rating friendly championship showdown is in the offering. Ferrari NEVER come off second best where shady rules are concerned!!!!!!!!

Rallyraider, no doubt about it, and even though the FIA stewards disqualified Ferrari fom the race in question, and even though they were later able to present a case in the ICA compelling enough for the court to overule the stewards' decision, there's still plenty of talk of the FIA favouring Ferrari and as much talk about Ferrari cheating at Spain. The ones talking include you - thanks for proving my point.

Back to BAR: after huffing and puffing and big words about how unjust the decision of the COA was and speaking of taking the matter further, BAR backed off and accepted the two-race ban. Could be they were afraid the overly lenient punishment would be increased.

So you point has changed then? From the original one concerning the FIAt backed team I mean. Because I sure as hell did nothing to prove your original statement concerning the press and public. Not giving a rats is anything but analogous to crucifying in my book. This is a thread about BAR, you opened the account talking rubbish about Ferrari – paranoia? :lol:

The FIA must like having hazy rules so they can apply them as they see fit. Rule clarification on the run is a pitiful state of affairs for a supposedly billion dollar sport. There must be a reason for that continued state of affairs don't you think?

Perhaps, but that's not quite applicable in this case. The rule about weighing the car with all the fuel drained out was clarified back in 1994 from what I understand, as the only way to ensure comliance to the minimum weight rule. It is also one of the logical rules/procedures that the FIA have made.

What is not applicable? Agreed the FIA have previously stated that they reserve the right to weigh cars dry, but it is only a clarification, i.e. it is not in the rule book per se. Look, I fully accept BAR appear to have run an illegal car in this instance, but why can't the FIA release a statement stating exactly what occurred? Instead we are left once again with speculation. With the rule book as it stands at the moment, the FIA could quite easily turn around this weekend and declare the BAR system legal, if doing so served their purposes. That is a quite ridiculous state of affairs.

I don't know the answers to those questions, but, like you, I'd like to.

So BAR backed off and took the penality? I think the could have made a fairly good stand on the fact the FIA knew bout the sytem but just now suddenly are saying its illegal. If its illegal now it should have been illegal then correct? See this is why ppl get pissed off at sactioning *sp* bodies are rule changes,descions that should have been talked about b4 and weren't to out of nowhere they decide. *if my whole interpation of this is right*

Doesn't anyone know how to read or do you just not care? The system is not illegal, the things that were illegal was the car as it was underweight after all the fuel was drained out of it and the fact that the team personell told the stewards that all the fuel had been drained out of it when in reality there was more than 10 kg of it still inside.

yah but the fuel was part of the system. that is the reason i'm asking bout it. BAR is kind iffy on the fact of the fuel is part of the car cause it is needed for the engine to run *i think that is what they were trying to say* but the fact the FIA allowed it b4 and now decideds that it is wrong is what bothers me.

The FIA never allowed that before, where did you get that information?

I mean allowed the system in which they believed/accused them of cheating with.

This whole thing is rediculious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SO MAD! they take away the points to cause some FAT slob who has money has to bitch!! 2 race suspention there goes the chances!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH CANT F1 FOR ONCE NOT BE ABOUT THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

+ THE FACT THEY WERENT UNDERWEIGHT BECAUSE THEY HAD THE WING ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So mad right now this whole thing is BS.

Money? Wing? Am I missing something here?

The wing supposedly balanced out the weight so that the car wasnt running under wieght. Money? because fineing BAR an how greedy the head masters are (not stewarts).

LOL :lol2:
Are you serious about the wing? You really should read up on things before making statements that, well, are nothing less than ridiculous. And secondly, there is no fine involved, read the court ruling above. Where do you guys get this stuff? :banghead:

2 Race suspension = millions lost...

I mean allowed the system in which they believed/accused them of cheating with.
The FIA had not approved the system, that was part of the problem.

It hadn't been caught in the prior races because if you don't finish in the points, you usually don't have to go through post race tech.