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

[BootsOntheSide]

If they did indeed lie about teh car having been fully drained of fuel, then the disqualification for Imola is certianly fair. If this is part of a systematic attempt to cheat, then the ban they've recieved is quite lenient. The entire team should be ashamed of themselves, as they've brought the entire sport into disrrepute and played the officials for fools.

I'm not sure whether Jenson or Taku can join another team for the next 2 races, but it would be interesting. Not sure what the third car situation will be, as to whether they need to find another 2 cars to fill the grid. This will sure;y be played out soon.

[pole2pole]

The one thing we can take from this is the FIA are not messing about here. What BAR want to do now is throw this daft testing agreement out the window and get as much testing done as they can before there back

[Adam43]

The ban is more lenient than the maximum, certainly. However is it lenient. A two race ban is pretty drastic IMHO.

[Cameron Winton]

Here's a thought - Are BAR the unlucky ones that got caught cheating (eg how many other cars have a 2nd tank or some other weight saving cheat)? Or is it that BAR have a culture that tries to fly too close to the sun on the rules?

[avsfan733]

Originally Posted by pole2pole

The one thing we can take from this is the FIA are not messing about here. What BAR want to do now is throw this daft testing agreement out the window and get as much testing done as they can before there back

I like that idea a lot...but if they aren't competing can they really vilate the testban? hehe

[Super Tourer]

I would doubt they will appeal on the grounds that cases lost on appeal often attract an even more severe punishment.

It does look lenient in light of the FIA's pre-season comments on the penalty for cheating, but as Adam says, a two race ban is bad enough to explain away to their sponsors, drivers and other partners....

[mixxer]

FIA has been very lenient, BAR should buy a lotto ticket.

[Dixie Flatline]

From the FIA website:

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 600kg 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 No. 3 of the Lucky Strike BAR Honda weighed 594.6kg, 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 600kg 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

Link to the full release is here: http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press...050505-01.html

[grandprixdiary]

This is a joke. It would appear, though I have not yet read the full judgement, that BAR are guilty as charged. To then ban them from the next two races is just a slap on the wrist, although I expect the sponsors won't be too happy, bobbing about on their Monaco yachts with no team to cheer on. This smacks as a bit of sabre rattling by the FIA, scare the teams silly and show a bit of muscle, they never had any intention of seeing BAR kicked out for the season, and whatever BAR have done this is just bad news for the image of F1 full stop.

Rob

[Nicholosophy]

Basically the Court of Appeal agreed with the FIA that BAR had broken the rules, but they disagreed that they "deliberately committed fraud", but only found that they "show(ed) at the least a highly regrettable negligence and lack of transparency".

So the Court didn't fully agree that it was intentional, so they didn't kick them out for the year.

[Inigo Montoya]

I wonder how many other teams are now scrambling to make changes to their "collector tanks." In the hearing yesterday, all we got was a "no-comment" from the FIA rep when asked if other teams had similar systems.

[Super Tourer]

So who will put the extra cars on the grid to make up the numbers or will Bernie claim 'force majeure' and have just 18 cars on the grid?

[Gt_R]

I'm quite two way about it.

Frankly, it would be sad if F1 loses one competitive team for the remaining of the season. Hence, i'm relieved that BAR isn't thrown out of the championship. Having more cars is always a good thing.

However, taking the whole sports into context, BAR is really lucky to get out lightly. 2 race bans is quite insignificant when compared to the type of punishment that could possibly be held in such events (ie exclusion). In any case, it is indeed disgraceful for BAR-Honda to violate the rules. And i guess that the race bans would suffice to send the message across to the public that BAR cheated, or at least ran illegal cars, and a message to other teams that no cheating is tolerated in F1. I think this would force all teams to run a tighter ship making doubly sure that their cars comply with the rules.

Unlike a mistake, it can hardly be "mistaken" if a car run a design that is against the logical understanding of rules, even if it is not clearly stated. Moreover, to "hide" such a system, and trying to cover it up, shows signs that the team is aware that such a system is indeed pushing rules to (and over) the limit. To insist and deny the charge, and counter blame FIA for doing it for political reasons is almost disgraceful.

There is always the route of clarification of any design if the team is unsure whether the system is legal or not. Unfortunately, BAR doesn't seek to clarify their doubts, and put themselves in this position. In fact, this brings us back to Germany last year, where once again, BAR was found to push regulation limits without consulting FIA before hand, running "illegal" FTT system (?or software, or wadever..correct me if i'm wrong), and FIA had to tell BAR to change the system for the next race, and subsequently ban it this year. Willis should be more aware of prior clarifications and avoid similar problems, consulting FIA if in doubt.

But there it is, although the penalty is light, from a racing point of view and moral grounds, the result is good. We'd have BAR back in June racing (phew), everyone knows BAR made a bad move, BAR suffers for cheating, and FIA wins it's case.

[Dixie Flatline]

Originally Posted by Super Tourer

So who will put the extra cars on the grid to make up the numbers or will Bernie claim 'force majeure' and have just 18 cars on the grid?

Well, 'force majeure' typically means an act of God, civil commotion, and the like, so it typically refers to events beyond the reasonable control of the parties.

Having said that, I would not be surprised to see only 18 cars on the grid come Sunday.

[Inigo Montoya]

I say put Badoer or Gene in a Ferrari, and De La Rosa in a Mac

[Gt_R]

Anyway, just an additional thought, but sorry if somebody already mentioned...

But if BAR could run longer stints and underweight due to this illegal design, think back to Imola the 2 laps that Button held Michael up before his last pit. In effect, BAR's cheat cost Michael the race win!... Ouch

But Spain's up..let's get back to the racing.

[Gt_R]

There's only 18 cars on the grid. Bernie has stated it's unreasonably to expect other teams to suddenly run a third car, because some other guys decide to break the rules.

Although BAR should be relieved that they are let of lightly, the implications on the people working with the team, the reputation, the sponsors, would be huge and long lasting after their ban ended.

[Rich R]

well in the past at monaco less cars were allowed to start than the norm at other circuits, plus the track would look busy there with just 10 cars going round, so i don't see it as a problem having only 18 in the race at monaco. also running extra cars there could mean an increased risk of damage, that you wouldn't get on a usual circuit. and spain is a bit short notice now for anyone to enter extra cars, so i don't see anyone stepping up to fill the grid

[BootsOntheSide]

Michael cost Michael the Imola win by going off in qualifying.

[mabs_nsx]

[Red]

It is to my understanding that the Appeal Court's decissions are final and can't be appealed once again.

[chillibowl]

i would like to agree that the penalty is too light, but i was worried that a stiffer penalty would have permanently left us one team short on the grid and that had to be a concern for FIA when handing down the verdict. I dont think honda has much choice now but to go at it alone or leave F1.

[esorniloc]

With BAR not at the next two races, that makes McLaren the 4th best team there. Does that then mean they can't run a 3rd car on Fridays?

[f1_carzy]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

Michael cost Michael the Imola win by going off in qualifying.

Thats one way to look at it. In retrospect, with all these revelations, I tend to agree with Gt_R; if Michael had got off Button 2 laps earlier than he did, he would have won at Imola; after all Alonso passed him by a whisker at the pistop exit.

[Kicking-back]

Originally Posted by esorniloc

With BAR not at the next two races, that makes McLaren the 4th best team there. Does that then mean they can't run a 3rd car on Fridays?

No, because they finished outwith the top four in last year's world championship.

Incidentally, Bernie said a couple of days ago that if BAR is banned we will have 18 cars on the grid, because the "three car" scenario would only have been invoked if less than 20 cars entered the championship - BAR are entered, it's just that they've been prevented from taking part.