PK Carsport exclusion + appeal.

[minimangler]

I think this now deserves a seperate thread, as it is starting to get confused in the race thread. If someone could transfer the stuff from the first thread, that is relevant?

Basically, they got excluded after winning the Oschersleben round of the FIA GT Championship, for having an illegal fuel cell. However, this fuel cell is the original (verified by Pratt and Miller) and has been scrutineered and cleared by FIA officials before. PK are now off to civil court, in a very serious manner.

http://www.planetlemans.com/cmsv2/in...=2997&Itemid=2

What do we think?
Should they be reinstated?

Personally, I think yes, because they have proof etc that the decision is WRONG.

Cheers.

[The Badger]

Fuel cell is actually a bag tank , which "might" stretch over time from pressure ..... does that sound possible ?

[geeteeone]

This is all very odd. It's clear that the fuel cell in the car is the same as the car was originally built with, and remains unmodified to this day. Quite why the car should now suddenly be unable to pass scrutineering when the same car has already managed to do so with no problems over a full FIA season in 2005 and a Belcar season in 2006 is beyond me.

A big shame, considering that Longin/Kumpen were leading the driver's championship before this happened, and would have extended their lead considerably if the result had been allowed to stand.

[cptkablamo]

I can't remember but aren't FIA GT competitors to make a mandatory amount of pit stops in a 2 hour window which would make a larger tank virtually a mute point anyway...

...And I can't quite understand why such an irregularity would only be discovered now - I don't understand how such a thing could be missed for so long if it was used all year as claimed

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Fuel cell is actually a bag tank , which "might" stretch over time from pressure ..... does that sound possible ?

Fuel cells do not stretch. and not really a bag, but a very ridged almost unbrakeable tank. The fuel cell is filled with a "foam' for lack of a better word to prevent fuel spills if the tank is cracked or broken in an accident.

[Svierge]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Fuel cells do not stretch. and not really a bag, but a very ridged almost unbrakeable tank. The fuel cell is filled with a "foam' for lack of a better word to prevent fuel spills if the tank is cracked or broken in an accident.

They are bags and they do stretch - at least the regular FIA style tanks are. Some cars have used rigid plastic tanks, but these tend to be brittle, prone to cracking and not, to my knowledge, FIA or ACO approved. If you fuel a car in the shade and then leave it in the sun the bag tank will inflate. I've experienced it many times in the past, which is why you have to use plastic balls to reduce the volume slightly occasionally.

The foam is in the tank to prevent the fuel surging around under braking and cornering. The foam is more like a sponge that you use to wash your car, but coarser and more open. If the tank splits, the fuel will come out regardless.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Fuel cells do not stretch. and not really a bag, but a very ridged almost unbrakeable tank. The fuel cell is filled with a "foam' for lack of a better word to prevent fuel spills if the tank is cracked or broken in an accident.

Ha ..... know all !!!

[dxk1]

PK Carsport's car is C5R-011 purchased from Corvette Racing after the 2004 Season. This car was driven by Ron Fellows, Johnny O'Connell and Max Papis for the entire 2004 season in the ALMS and at Le Mans, where it finished 8th overall and 2nd in class. One would think that this car was expertly scrutineered there as well as after it won the GTS class at Sebring (4th overall), Mid-Ohio (3rd overall), Sonoma (4th overall), Portland (3rd overall), & Laguna Seca (4th overall) during the ALMS season. In addition, this car won at Imola and Zhuhai during the 2005 FIA-Gt Season for PK Carsport and numerous Belcar races in 2006. One would think if a gas tank issue was going to come up it would have come up at one of those places.

Kumpin & Longin dominated the weekend at Oschersleben and were the fastest car during practice, qualifying and during the race. One gets the feeling that the FIA disqualifyed the car because they embarrased their favorite stepchild the Maserati MC-12, which they alone allow to race for points!! I guess it must be embarrasing when a 4 year-old over-used racecar from accross the pond beats your favorite child in a big way!

[JimW]

You don't say in what respect the fuel "tank" has been found illegal. Capacity, life-expired, specification, specific series requirements or what?

Regards

Jim

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by Svierge

They are bags and they do stretch - at least the regular FIA style tanks are. Some cars have used rigid plastic tanks, but these tend to be brittle, prone to cracking and not, to my knowledge, FIA or ACO approved. If you fuel a car in the shade and then leave it in the sun the bag tank will inflate. I've experienced it many times in the past, which is why you have to use plastic balls to reduce the volume slightly occasionally.

The foam is in the tank to prevent the fuel surging around under braking and cornering. The foam is more like a sponge that you use to wash your car, but coarser and more open. If the tank splits, the fuel will come out regardless.

Those are the OLD ridged tanks no longer produced and used.

The "bag" type fuel cell can be inserted into the OEM fuel tank.

[Svierge]

Originally Posted by AU N EGL

Those are the OLD ridged tanks no longer produced and used.

The "bag" type fuel cell can be inserted into the OEM fuel tank.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here: are you agreeing with me about them being bags?

Which ones are the old ridged tanks? The plastic ones that I referred to?

With regard to inserting them into the OEM tank, there's little point in doing that unless the original tank is bigger than 100 litres. Generally, you'd also try to move the tank into the most advantageous position for weight distribution.

[TWK]

The finding was that the cell was oversized, based on the amount of fuel it held, measured post-race. However, the temperature at which the test was done was at 32 degrees C, not the 20 degrees C specified by the rules. It is a fact that fuel expands greater than the measured "oversize" (of less than 2 liters, I believe) between 20 and 32. The FIA refused to consider that bit of evidence also.

[dxk1]

Isn't it interesting that there is no mention of the appeal finding at the FIA web-site (as of 4:20 pm EST)! Perhaps they are too embarassed to state it. It's clear that this was a ridiculous outcome. This finding is certainly not within the spirit of the rule. PK certainly received no benefit from the infraction, if there really was one. All indications are the rule was not appropriately applied as has been pointed out in previous posts.

David

[canam]

Originally Posted by TWK

The finding was that the cell was oversized, based on the amount of fuel it held, measured post-race. However, the temperature at which the test was done was at 32 degrees C, not the 20 degrees C specified by the rules. It is a fact that fuel expands greater than the measured "oversize" (of less than 2 liters, I believe) between 20 and 32. The FIA refused to consider that bit of evidence also.

Was this the ambient temperature or the temperature of the fuel (I would presume that the fuel is a lot cooler and, therefore, would have lowered the temparature of the bag)?

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by canam

Was this the ambient temperature or the temperature of the fuel (I would presume that the fuel is a lot cooler and, therefore, would have lowered the temparature of the bag)?

So are you implying that the fuel cooled it to 20 degrees and therefore the reading was correct? or what?
If the fuel, when measured, was warmer than 20 degrees it will not be the same volume, it would have expanded (physics=thermodynamics).

L.P.

[dxk1]

Post # 122 from the Oschersleben thread provides the entire protest filed by Kumpin & Longin/PK Carsport. In essence, they argue they measure the fuel temperature at 34 degrees C when the rule states measurement should be taken at 20 degrees C. The official was made aware of this and did not take it into account. They provided an affadavit from the fuel provider, which stated that at 34 degrees C the fuel could expand by 2%, so 100 litres would be 102!

The post from #122 is added here:

FIA INTERNATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL -GROUNDS OF APPEAL

For:
Royal Automobile Club of Belgium ASBL (RACB)
For account of their licensee PK Racing
Limited Liability company according to Belgian law
Registered office in Hasselt, 17 Bedrijfsstraat, Belgium
Competitors licence n°903066

Concerned event

FIA GT 2007 Oschersleben (Round n°5 on Sunday 08/07/07)

1. Contested decision

Decision n°7 of the Stewards of the Meeting (Document n°34) published on 08/07/07 at 20h05, notified at 20h33 pronouncing the exclusion of the competitor from the race results.

2. Material basis


a. Measurement

The measurement has been performed by means of a 20L vessel carrying the mention « 20 litres at 20° centigrades ».

No measure has been taken by the technical delegate to verify if the measured fuel had a temperature of 20°C.

The competitor measured the temperature using a digital thermometer. The fuel temperature was 34°C.

The technical delegate, Manuel Leal, noted the result of this measurement in his notebook, but this fact was not acknowledged to the competitor.

During the hearing of the competitor by the Stewards of the Meeting a document titled "Method for checking the amount of fuel taken in" was communicated to the competitor by the technical delegate, Manuel Leal.

This document was never before communicated to the competitor, nor is it part of any publication.

It therefore is no part of the applied regulations.

b. Regulatory provisions

The contested decision followed the application of Appendix J Article 258.6.5.

The regulations forbid every artificial way (2nd alinea of article 258.6.5.1) to increase the total volume of fuel above 100L.

The regulations do not foresee any correction in function of the natural increase of the temperature.

According to article 6.4.10 of Article 258 Appendix J, it is forbidden to cool the fuel below the ambient temperature.

It is evident that it is necessary to take into account the actual temperature of the fuel at the moment of the checks and the influences it can have on the measured volume.

The importance of the mention on the vessel of 20 litres, used for the measurement, guaranteeing a correct measurement on the condition that the measurement takes place at a fuel temperature of 20°C, is hereby confirmed.

4. Chronological inversions

The decisions of the Stewards of the Meeting was taken at 20h05 and notified to the competitor at 20h33.

The document of the technical delegate (technical report n°04) has only been presented to the Stewards of the Meeting at 20h40.

5. Scientific data

Technical list N°2, being the list of fuel analysis laboratories recognized by the FIA (Published 01/01/07), recognizes the competence of NV SGS De Pauw & Stokoe in Antwerp.

This laboratory confirms that the fuel density varies more than 2 percent for a temperature increase from 15°C to 34°C.

So, 100L at 15°C will become more than 102L at 34°C.

The Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering of the University of Leuven (Louvain) confirms this physical reality.

Finally, the official fuel supplier of the fuel authorised during the FIA GT races confirms also that 10L of fuel at 15°C will become more than 10,2L at 40°C.

From the previous results that, with the check of the fueltank volume, as measured at 101,26L, without taking into account the thermal dilatation of the fuel, it cannot be established if any infraction on the regulations has been made.

Article 257.6.5.1 of Appendix J, which is only applicable to the GT2 category and not to the GT1, states that the maximum amount of fuel is 100L whatever the ambient temperature and atmospheric pressure.

This provision is not applyable to the GT1 category.

The thermal dilatation of the fuel in itself explains the measurement difference.

6. Constant use of the same fueltank

Since Imola 2005 the competitor uses the same vehicle, without modifying or replacing the fueltank reservoir.

The fueltank contents have been checked by the FIA on various occasions without ever establishing a measurement in contradiction with the regulations.

The scientific data presented allow to understand that the measured fueltank volume is more than 100L at 34°C but not more than 100L at the ambient temperature.

In other words, the fuel used for the measurement was warmed up in the fueltank by residual heat in the vehicle.

7. Bona fide – in good faith

A difference of 1,29% doesn't present any performance benefit nor any reliability benefit.

It is so that the 2-hour races impose 2 regulatory pitstops.

Whatever the decision of the Court of Appeal, it is asked to consider the good faith of the competitor.

Therefore without any prejudice pleases to the FIA International Court of Appeal to decide that the appeal is accepted and founded.

That the decision contested is reversed for lack of reason to exclude vehicle #4 entered by PK Carsport, driven by Anthony Kumpen and Bert Longin.

State that they acquired the victory in the FIA GT race in Oscherschleben.

Order the restitution of the appeal fee.

For the appellants,
Their council,

Christian BOUMON

List of material evidence
1. document entitled « Method for checking the amount of fuel taken in » used by the technical delegate, Manuel Leal
2. List of fuel analysis laboratories recognised by the FIA (publication of 01/01/07)
3. Report of SGS Belgium NV
4. Letter from 17/07/2007 of the Department of Metallurgy and materials Engineering of the University of Leuven (Louvain)
5. Certificate by the Centre de Recherche of TOTAL-ELF
6. Certificate by the manufacturer of the Corvette C5R

[dxk1]

I was just wondering, did PK Carsport use the same "fuel cell" for Spa that they used for Oschersleben? Why didn't they get DQ'd this time if they did? Wouldn't the fact that the fuel cell passed inspection this time imply it should have passed last time? Inquiring minds want to know!!

DK

[NightStalk3r]

Originally Posted by dxk1

I was just wondering, did PK Carsport use the same "fuel cell" for Spa that they used for Oschersleben? Why didn't they get DQ'd this time if they did? Wouldn't the fact that the fuel cell passed inspection this time imply it should have passed last time? Inquiring minds want to know!!

DK

same cell, reason for not getting DQ id guess the tech inspection of the cell was done under the correct conditions this time.

[minimangler]

So surely the oschersleben result should stand?
this is ridiculous!

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by minimangler

So surely the oschersleben result should stand?
this is ridiculous!

Yes it is ridiculous! The farther this absurdity plays out the more apparent it is that the FIA GT Series officials need to extract their heads from their bums!! With the inaction of the hierarchy this is seemingly an effort to manipulate the points race by the SRO.

L.P.

[minimangler]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

With the inaction of the hierarchy this is seemingly an effort to manipulate the points race by the SRO.

i think that is a pretty strong allegation- one that i would refute, personally. But i do think it is ridiculous, and unexplainable in a normal and reasonable manner.

[HORNDAWG]

Originally Posted by minimangler

i think that is a pretty strong allegation- one that i would refute, personally. But i do think it is ridiculous, and unexplainable in a normal and reasonable manner.

Probably a little over the top.
But the inaction to correct it speaks volumes!

L.P.

[minimangler]

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

Probably a little over the top.
But the inaction to correct it speaks volumes!

L.P.

For the first time ever, i 100% agree with you. (but let's keep it quiet )

maybe we should bully Stephane Ratel

[dxk1]

It seems everyone here can see how misguided the FIA stand is on the PK DQ at Oschersleben except for they themselves. This is based on the same fuel cell passing previous and post technical inspections. Why don't they just reinstate PK's victory at Oschersleben and save themselves the embarassment of being dragged to court?!!

DK

[Chaos81]

Originally Posted by dxk1

Why don't they just reinstate PK's victory at Oschersleben and save themselves the embarassment of being dragged to court?!!

Probably because they don't want to embarrass themselves by overturning what they had already ruled.