BAR banned for two races /FIA further warnings (merged again)

[Osella]

sad though it may seem, I really enjoy the political intrigue in F1- in sportscars it's a bit of a drag- and I respect the creative thinking behind the fuel ballast! pity it's not legal- but is there any walk of life where the law is applied equally to all???

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by johnw

I'm not sure that Max was in the vicinity when the team was asked, so who knows what was specifically said?

No, but the FIA was. I don't see the relevance so of this. The point is still valid.

Originally Posted by hgmonaro

Anyone saying that Honda will be mad/upset have surely got it wrong... who would be responsible for the fuel delivery requirements... Honda. They are in this as much as the BAR component of a BAR-Honda IMO.

On this little point, I feel we have to consider the whole team, Honda are only a part. The choice to run the car underweight (or not run enough legal ballast) was not Honda's as such, but they are a part of the team. The 'secret' tank didn't help aid the defence of intent, but that was not really why the car was illegal. Honda doesn't supply the tanks either.

Gt_R I agree with your post.

[Super Tourer]

Lets consider what's at stake for BAR by going to appeal.

1. They are believed to be talking to two major sponsors with a view to 2006, appearing to be breaking the rules questions BAR's character and may effect those negotiations.

Risk factor - Low, the deals may not come off anyway and Honda largely fund the team.

2. Appeals that fail often result in a more severe punishment for questioning the original judgement. For example, it could be that they are banned for more races.

Risk factor-High, to be banned for more races will cost the team millions of dollars and could question the future of the team in it's current form.

3. By not appealing BAR cannot regain it's reputation, key players like Geoff Willis are inevitably tainted and their reputations affected.

Risk - Medium - an apparant loss of integrity will hurt the team in the short term, but past experience shows that teams that have faced bans do recover and regroup.

So what would you do, roll the dice and appeal gambling that you win and if you lose the penalty is not increased?

Or take the judgement on the chin?

Or take the route of accepting the DSQ for Imola and the fine, only appealing against the race ban?

[Adam43]

ST, good post. I like the last suggestion, a part appeal. It would interesting if they could swing that. However there is an element of admitting an error there. However the big issue has never really been whether the cars were legal, more was there intent to run them illegally. The illegal bit gets you the Imola DSQ, the intent bit gets you banned for two races.

BAR seem to be arguing the overal legality of the car from there statements, so if they do appeal (take it to civil court) then are taking your first option and rolling those dice for the double six!

IMO, they should take it on the chin and try to come back with a quick car and grab a podium.

[Gt_R]

Quote mabs-nsx:"I think this is to much. They could have just disqualified them from the last race."

I was one of those who cheered for BAR and Button and Sato, and was impressed with Willis and Honda's ability last year when they improved in form. This cheating allegations hurt and shock me. But to just "disqualify them from the last race" is simply sending a completely wrong signal to teams. If so, teams would all run illegal cars that are cleverly hidden, knowing that there's a good chance it will go undetected and score good results, and even if found, would only cost them one race worth of points. While the previous few races they may have already reaped enough "rewards".

I think the current punishment is a good balance between fair-&-just/welfare of the sports vs welfare of the fans. BAR should take the honorable route, admit they made a mistake, and move on. People would probably forget most things if BAR won in say Monza. To appeal and drag this issue would only make the reputation of all those involved suffer more than it already had

[Don K]

Originally Posted by jj2728

This is a quote from GRAND PRIX .com: "BAR continues to protest its innocence of all charges. It contends that its interpretation of the rules may not have been correct but argues that "it proved that it complied with the current regulations".

now either i'm a bit dense or there is a bit of double talk going on here. if they interpreted the rules incorrectly, how could they think that they were complying with the regulations?...

It's really two different things.

BAR claims they have proven that the car complied with the regulations.
The regulations state that the car has to be 600 kg or more, at any point during the race. So BAR claims that prove has been provided that they actually were above 600 kg during that entire race.

The problem with the interpretation seems to be either "whether or not fuel can be used to stay above 600 kg" or "whether or not some device in the car was illegal".
The first part seems to have been decided in some old "rule clarification". If I remember correctly, when BAR took over Tyrrell they did not buy everything (for instance: they did not buy the cars). So it could verywell be, that they did not have any information about that particular rule clarification.
The second part of course is a completely new problem.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by Gt_R

... But to just "disqualify them from the last race" is simply sending a completely wrong signal to teams. If so, teams would all run illegal cars that are cleverly hidden, ...

I'm not sure about that.

As far as I understood, the device was build in a way which ensures that the car will either stay above 600kg, or stop running.
In that case, the device was not there to "hide" a rule infringement;
The device was (supposedly) there to prevent a rule infringement (under BAR's interpretation of the rules).

[Adam43]

The cars were run illegally even if they never went below 600kg. They needed the fuel to be in the system to bring it over the minimum weight. Hence it was used as ballast - that is specifically not allowed.

On a separate point, BARs eveidence that it ran over 600kg is inadmissable in the regulations. The rule clarifications about dry race that happened in the past serve to show BAR should really have known about the situation, they are not required on there on own to prove illegality.

The car was illegal. The potential to hide it only served to help prove an intent to be illegal.

[mabs_nsx]

I may still watch the next 2 races even though there is absolutely no point of watching without my favorite team. Then I may not becaue I don't see the point in staying up till 1:30 Monday morning to watch a race I know I will not enjoy. The next 2 races are going to be very boring for me and all the other BAR fans. BAR are not the only ones being punished. The fans are being punished to. Being disqualified from the last race would have been enough. You really think that was a good idea baning BAR from the next 2 races? I may not even bother watching the next 2 races and I won't be the only one.

you FIA

[Super Tourer]

BAR Honda have decided not to appeal and will accept the 2 race ban.


"BAR-Honda has looked at all practical ways of immediately challenging the decision. The central issue is one of jurisdiction," the team said in a statement. "Jurisdiction in Europe is governed by European rules, which say that the defendant party has the right to be sued in the territory in which it is based.

"Upon receiving legal advised in all relevant jurisdictions, the conclusion is that nothing can be done to enable the team to race this weekend.

"BAR-Honda has considered whether to pursue further action which might enable it to compete at Monaco. On balance, the team has decided that challenge the sport's governing body would cause a level of disruption and damage to the sport which is not in the best interest of everyone involved.

From www.autosport.com

I would imagine that some of the other teams would have been interested to witness a civil challenge to this ruling, with some notable ones disliking the way the FIA, makes, interprets and implements some of the regulations.

However, such a case would set a precedent for any FIA rulings to be challenged and the implications that brings, as witnessed by the FIA's action in Melbourne when Minardi tried to use civil proceedings to enable it to run cars not fully complying with the 2005 regulatons.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by mabs_nsx

you FIA

er, it was BAR that ran an illegal car, not the FIA.
I agree with this:

Originally Posted by Gt_R

But if the breach is deliberate, FIA should be strong enough to put justice before race-fans welfare as priority.

Originally Posted by ST

BAR Honda have decided not to appeal and will accept the 2 race ban.

A good move and a dignified one.

Originally Posted by ST

I would imagine that some of the other teams would have been interested to witness a civil challenge to this ruling...

I bet they would. That would make the situation more political, but not in any of the ways suggested.

I am pleased that it won't go that far. The FIA appeal was interesting and good because it investigated the situation. However the civil court would have been messy and inappropriate IMHO.

[mabs_nsx]

[QUOTE=Super Tourer]BAR Honda have decided not to appeal and will accept the 2 race ban.

It is all over for BAR. The best they will do in the championship is 6th. Idiots you have nothing to lose.

[Adam43]

They have a lot to lose. A longer ban and their reputation.

[BootsOntheSide]

I think tehy've already lost their reputation. Not appealing strikes me as an admission of guilt. If they truly felt that all they'd done wrong was misinterpreting the rules they would have been well within their rights to appeal the ban. The reality seems to be that they knew that fuel oculd not be used as ballast, yet they used fuel as ballast. They were asked to drain the car for scrutineerring presence, claiemd that they had, and they hadn't. They're the ones who've treated the sport with contempt, and if it means we get less of the deluded fanboy posturing from certain posters for the next month, that's a bonus. I'm disappointed that Jenson and Taku won't be be invovled, especially as neither are really at fault, but overall justice has been done.

[Knowlesy]

I think the punishment for this is about right. Two races missed will hurt them a lot. The fact that Monaco, a race they would have fancied themselves at, rubs it in. They are also rooted on 0 points again and their reputation is accordingly damaged. I think this is punishment enough.

However, I feel the current political climate has brought this on to some extent. I think if this happened a year or two ago, then only the Imola results would have been scrubbed. Others have cheated in the past and got away extremely lightly and I think the fact that BAR are, in effect, against the FIA by being in the "gang of nine (seven)" hasn't helped their situation!

[Super Tourer]

Max Mosley fires a warning shot across the bows of the other teams.

"We are now considering whether to select one car at random of the points scorers at every race," he said on Thursday, "and stripping it to the last nut and bolt. That will give a seven-to-one chance that if you are cheating and finish in the points, you will get caught."

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns14772.html

[ASCII Man]

Why not select every points scoring car and 'strip it to the last nut and bolt'?
Max seems to have a russian roulette fetish of some sorts...

[Gt_R]

If they strip every car down, you can be sure that every mechanic can only leave the circuit on monday noon.

[JohnSSC]

ST, GT_R and Adam - thanks for summing up the situation and providing the salient points from the regs - it has kept this conversation focused. I appreciate that as there is little coverage of F1 here!

[ASCII Man]

Originally Posted by Gt_R

If they strip every car down, you can be sure that every mechanic can only leave the circuit on monday noon.

And the problem being...?

[Knowlesy]

But what would happen, ASCII, if the top 8 cars were all stripped down and disqualified? Would you then have to strip down the cars that moved into the points as a result of these disqualifications?

They could be there until the next GP!

[Gt_R]

Hmmm... ask the mechanics how they'd feel?

In short. It is inefficient and extremely time consuming. The "simple" act of draining and weighing and checking the BAR alone has delayed the whole paddock. I believe Max is only saying this to make any teams who try to push the rules to think twice. FIA has been doing random checks on cars for a long time, and it hasn't been proved inadequate so far. When teams know they run a high risk of being caught, and being heavily punished, they would be less likely to cheat.

BAR might have thought they could get away with their latest breach because it is so rare that FIA insist of draining the car absolutely dry for a weight test.

[Glen]

There is an interesting snippet on Pitpass about a supplier of F1 fuel tank bags being suddenly very busy... perhaps BAR aren't the only team to have a creative approach to fuel collector devices...

[Lonicera]

F1 has a history of teams pushing the rules to their limits and making interpretations to their advantage. We all know that fractions of a second per lap win or lose races.

In cases where there is an issue, the onus is on the rule makers to clarify the rules, only after that can they impose penalties. In this case, BAR have been found to be on the wrong side of the rules, intentionally or otherwise and have to pay the penalty.

I don't believe there is any team that works to the 'spirit' of the rules - remember the issues regarding traction control - stripping cars all the way down will take time and is not good for PR - we could have to wait hours for a winner to be confirmed, that's not going to be good for PR - something BE willl not be happy about.

Either way, this all has to be placed in the context of the politics of F1, there's a lot of sabre rattling going on at the moment and I don't think the BAR situation happened out of the blue. Like him or not, Max is a very hrewd operator and does not pick fights without reason, or a long term plan. I guess we'll have to wait and see how things map out.....

[Red]

I don't really buy that story from Pitpass. If some other teams use that fuel tank, they could simply add a couple kilos of ballast and they'd be legal. IF there are other teams using it.