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

Super Tourer · 24 Apr 2005, 17:03 (Ref:1285992)

Ralf Schumacher has been penalised following an incident with Nick Heidfeld during the race. He has been awarded a 25 second penalty which see's Ralf losing his 8th place finish. Toyota will appeal.

The Toyota driver, who finished in eighth place, was summoned by the race stewards at the end of race following an incident with Williams driver Heidfeld which occurred following his second pitstop.

Having reviewed the evidence, the stewards considered that it was an unsafe manoeuvre and applied a 25-second penalty that will relegate Schumacher out of the points.
from www.autosport.com

If the penalty is upheld, ironically the beneficiary will be Heidfeld who was classified as 9th pre Ralf's penalty.

It's also reported that Jenson Button's car has been held back in the scrutineering bay.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns14678.html

As night was falling in Imola word went around the F1 paddock that there might be a problem with the BAR-Honda of Jenson Button. The car remains in the scrutineering area at the moment.

**Adam43** · 24 Apr 2005, 20:38 (Ref:1286241)

Button will not be receiving a penalty: http://www.autosport-atlas.com/news.aspx?id=43727&s=9

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIA

Immediately following the end of the race the car was weighed in the configuration it had finished and was above the minimum weight limit.

It was subsequently drained of fuel and then re-weighed and found to be underweight.

The stewards after hearing the explanation of the competitor's representatives and studying all the available documentation decided that the matter requires no further action.

Wrex · 25 Apr 2005, 02:14 (Ref:1286451)

I'm confused here. If the car was drained of fuel and found underweight, why was'nt the penalised?

supermagnet · 25 Apr 2005, 02:41 (Ref:1286460)

I'm just speculating, but maybe he lost some bodywork at some point?

Wrex · 25 Apr 2005, 02:59 (Ref:1286469)

Ahhh, yes that would explain it

So does anyone know if that was the case?

Glen · 25 Apr 2005, 10:39 (Ref:1286749)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wrex

I'm confused here. If the car was drained of fuel and found underweight, why was'nt the penalised?

I don't think that in itself is illegal - they would have to prove that at some point during the race the car had been running with less fuel than it finished with. Still pretty dodgy though.

BootsOntheSide · 25 Apr 2005, 10:50 (Ref:1286757)

Remind me of the timing of Button's pitstops. Unless his final stint was at least one lap shorter than the others, it's not possible that the car was ever underweight - also, we don't know how many laps worth of fuel were in the car when it pitted each time, or how many laps of fuel the deficit related to. In any case, he wouldn't've been udnerweight for more than 1 or 2 laps, so there's no justification for a penalty. As for Webber failing to see Jenson, turning across his path and gifting the position to Michael....

Glen · 25 Apr 2005, 11:45 (Ref:1286818)

All of that you only assume, Boots - you don't know how much gas goes in at each stop, only how long the hose is in the car. All they have to do is give it a few extras kgs at the last stop and there you have it.

Inigo Montoya · 25 Apr 2005, 12:19 (Ref:1286848)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Button will not be receiving a penalty: http://www.autosport-atlas.com/news.aspx?id=43727&s=9

But the FIA is appealing the steward's decision!:
http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press...250405-01.html

Super Tourer · 25 Apr 2005, 12:53 (Ref:1286881)

Yep - the fat lady hasn't sung on this one yet. The case will be heard in Paris on the 4th of May.

Tone · 25 Apr 2005, 13:29 (Ref:1286915)

Quote:

In a sensational move the FIA has announced that it is to appeal against the decision of the Stewards at the 2005 San Marino Grand Prix to take no further action in respect of car no. 3 Jenson Button

The International Court of Appeal is scheduled (subject to confirmation) to hear the case in Paris on May 4

Quote:

The FIA's decision to appeal the decision is bound to send shockwaves along the pitlane as there are now rumours that the car was found to be running a secret fuel tank

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitp...es_art_id=24233

Secret Fuel tank?

Raglanparade · 25 Apr 2005, 13:34 (Ref:1286920)

wats wrong with a secret fuel tank ?

Tone · 25 Apr 2005, 13:42 (Ref:1286927)

I suppose you could use it as balast tank and run an underwieght car during the race..

Nicholosophy · 25 Apr 2005, 13:51 (Ref:1286936)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tone

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitp...es_art_id=24233

Secret Fuel tank?

You'll find that this link will work better...

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpa...s_art_id=24233

Nicholosophy · 25 Apr 2005, 13:54 (Ref:1286940)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonhill9884

wats wrong with a secret fuel tank ?

I think the point of the arguement is that BAR have had a "secret" fuel tank which they have let run dry during the races, but when the cars have been weighed they had fuel (or some other substance perhaps) in it. So basically the cars have been underweight on the race track for part of the race, giving an unfair advantage, but by the time they get back to the pits the weight should be right so no worries.

That's the arguement anyway, I don't know if it's true or not... If it is true it should be interesting to see what happens though... Why, in the past, hasn't it been picked up if it's been used for the last year (at the article suggests)?

Happy Snapper · 25 Apr 2005, 14:00 (Ref:1286944)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tone

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitp...es_art_id=24233

Secret Fuel tank?

Did not Tyrrell have water tanks which were used in a similar way? or was that "water injection" to cool engines and increase power...

Glen · 25 Apr 2005, 14:01 (Ref:1286946)

Tyrell had "water cooled" brakes, I think.

Tone · 25 Apr 2005, 14:03 (Ref:1286949)

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickoGP

Why, in the past, hasn't it been picked up if it's been used for the last year (at the article suggests)?

If true it looks like they underfilled the secret tank, this is what alerted the stewards

**Stephen Green** · 25 Apr 2005, 14:19 (Ref:1286959)

Surely whether its secret or not its impossible to increase or decrease the weight of the car without adding/subtracting fluid, which can only be done once the car is in the garage. The car goes straight to Parc Ferme and so I don't see how the weight can change from the end of the race?

ensign14 · 25 Apr 2005, 14:23 (Ref:1286962)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Snapper

Did not Tyrrell have water tanks which were used in a similar way? or was that "water injection" to cool engines and increase power...

It was a stitch-up. They added ballast - ballbearings suspended in water - to the car during the race to enable it to make the minimum weight limit.

Ballast is allowed if you need tools to remove it from the car (or it was in 1984). As Tyrrell's did. FISA charged them with illegal ballast.

When it came to the hearing, the charge had been changed to illegal refuelling. FISA claimed that fluorocarbons had been found in the tank and 25% of the "water" was fuel.

On appeal, FISA admitted that it was something like 0.000025% and was a residue from the water tank in the pits having formerly held fuel.

But when Tyrrell was expelled from the Championship, FISA and the teams agreed to a new rule on fuel limits. It needed the teams' unanimous approval. And which team had opposed it throughout? Go on, guess.

***

With BAR, maybe they have spotted a loophole. Certainly the stewards were happy with the car despite scruting it for 6 hours. If they were running illegally however they'd be slung out of the championship (perhaps) and Buttongate would re-open - BAR in breach of his contract by breaching the regs.

I note with interest the FIA did not appeal the stewards' decision on Jerez 1997. Or Malaysia 1999.

Inigo Montoya · 25 Apr 2005, 14:41 (Ref:1286973)

This is already being discussed in another thread. Merged.

Glen · 25 Apr 2005, 14:43 (Ref:1286976)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Green

Surely whether its secret or not its impossible to increase or decrease the weight of the car without adding/subtracting fluid, which can only be done once the car is in the garage. The car goes straight to Parc Ferme and so I don't see how the weight can change from the end of the race?

I think the idea is that the car is underweight for some of the time before the final stop, when it is refuelled with enough gas to not be under at the end.

Glen · 25 Apr 2005, 14:47 (Ref:1286979)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ensign14

With BAR, maybe they have spotted a loophole.

It isn't a loophole - it's illegal! (If they do indeed have a secret tank, and the ability to run underweight.)

Kirk · 25 Apr 2005, 15:00 (Ref:1286994)

Yes, and if true, should be penalized accordingly. Those hot laps near the end of each fuel stint have been the key to success in todays F1, so I would classify this as a severe breach.

DSM · 25 Apr 2005, 15:34 (Ref:1287017)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirk

Yes, and if true, should be penalized accordingly. Those hot laps near the end of each fuel stint have been the key to success in todays F1, so I would classify this as a severe breach.

You're right but its very ingenious isn't it? Secret tank that is empty for the first two stints then is filled during the final pitstop and is left full at race end to show the car on weight. It would only need to be 15 litres to give a good reduction in lap times for 2/3 of the race.

Was Button any less competitive in the 3rd stint yesterday?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Trulli and Montoya - No Penalty (merged)	Wrex	Formula One	68	6 Sep 2004 18:46
Ambrose Penalty? Is it Real? (Merged)	Rowdy	Australasian Touring Cars.	288	10 Jul 2004 09:55