BAR Honda BAN pending...

[Touring Mars]

On the official F1 site, it does say two race ban, but also this :

"On top of the two-race exclusion, BAR were given a further, suspended six-month ban, starting after the Monaco race."

Can someone clarify that for me?

Yes, the 6 month suspended ban simply means that any further infringement will see BAR banned for the rest of the season. But assuming they don't make any more blunders, they will only miss those two races... they also lose the points from Imola...

 

[DRT2RM]

Yes, the 6 month suspended ban simply means that any further infringement will see BAR banned for the rest of the season. But assuming they don't make any more blunders, they will only miss those two races... they also lose the points from Imola...

Ahh, I see, thanks for the clarification

This sucks though. I feel bad for Takuma Sato too.

 

[nitro_2005]

ALERT! ALERT! A decision has been reached! BAR have been disqualified form the San Marino GP AND have been banned for 2 races!

 

[DQuaN]

What will happen in those two races then? Will some teams field a 3rd driver?

 

[nitro_2005]

no i don't think so. i think the race will have to start with 18 cars.

 

[slackbladder]

F1 rules always stike me as being complicated yet open to interpretation...though that might be me being dumb!
Anyway, a ban is unlikely I think. Rather it may be an attempt yo get BAR to admit defeat and take the race disqualification and any other lower punishment.
Saying that, can FIA prove that BAR consciously tried to cheat. If they did isn't that reason to throw them out the championship?

No seems to be the answer... BBC News
As it says, "the appeal court panel ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove BAR "deliberately committed fraud"." If it HAD been proven the result may have been different.

 

[Touring Mars]

Ahh, I see, thanks for the clarification

This sucks though. I feel bad for Takuma Sato too.

Yeh, it really sucks... 👎 👎 When is Sato going to get some good luck

 

[Pupik]

Reminds me of the "water-injection" (read: ballast) in the 1984 Tyrrells.

2-race ban: Ouch.

So, who's going to supply a 3rd car for the race (if any)?

 

[Touring Mars]

They may well have three cars is practice, but they won't have three in the race surely... that would screw up the constructor's championship... 💡

 

[The359]

Ecclestone has already stated that they will run with 18 cars.

If this matter had come up before the start of the season, randomly chosen teams would have to field a 3rd car every GP, but since this is a temporary matter in the middle of the season it wont be required.

Had teams been forced to run a 3rd driver, the designated 3rd driver would not be allowed to score any points regardless of finishing position.

 

[Blake]

Teams being forced to field 3 cars has been ruled out, and I doubt anyone will opt to field 3 cars, if that's possible.

Oh well, at least they are not out for the season, but it is pretty crazy.

Blake

 

[Brett]

I think you may be wrong about that one Blake. I mean why wouldn't some of the bigger constructors, ie Ferrari and McLaren, not opt to take a third car into the race if they could? What could be better for data than actual race data? Having a third car would bring in a whole lot more information that could be look over for potential improvements. Plus its not like the 3rd car would actually have to go with the two weekends rule either, so the gained data could be very helpful to have.

 

[Blake]

I'm pretty sure the rules say that teams can only field 2 cars, however if at the start of the season their is less than 20 cars I think teams would have the option, but in the short period that we will only have 18 cars Bernie has stated that there will be no teams fielding 3 cars.

I think what I wrote before didn't make much sense

Blake

 

[Pupik]

You know what bugs me about this? The fact that someone tried someting different in F1 for a change, and the whole team gets penalized for two races. The only way innovative things happen in the sport is to bend the rules a little. In this case, BAR got caught, and I think the only thing the FIA should do is disqualify the points earned at the San Marino race, not ban them for two races. The field is desparately short of competitors as it is, especially when there's lots of drivers ready to step in. Yes, BAR cheated, the reasons against 3rd drivers is nonsence and to ban BAR for two races is absurd.

In the past, if you cheated, you lost whatever you gained in the race you got caught in. And then the team's checked out very carefully in the next couple of events. No ban, except when a team cheated all season long (okay, except Benetton in '94). Every team's been caught cheating at some point or another (save Ferrari, who's never been "caught"), so the ruling is a little strong.

Gee, suddenly my argument is falling flat on its face. But I still disagree with the FIA's ruling on 3rd cars.

 

[Blake]

Many teams have this 2nd fuel tank, but they don't use it for ballast. They are over the legal weight when the car is emtied of all fuel.

Blake

 

[Touring Mars]

You know what bugs me about this? The fact that someone tried someting different in F1 for a change, and the whole team gets penalized for two races. The only way innovative things happen in the sport is to bend the rules a little. In this case, BAR got caught, and I think the only thing the FIA should do is disqualify the points earned at the San Marino race, not ban them for two races. The field is desparately short of competitors as it is, especially when there's lots of drivers ready to step in. Yes, BAR cheated, the reasons against 3rd drivers is nonsence and to ban BAR for two races is absurd.

In the past, if you cheated, you lost whatever you gained in the race you got caught in. And then the team's checked out very carefully in the next couple of events. No ban, except when a team cheated all season long (okay, except Benetton in '94). Every team's been caught cheating at some point or another (save Ferrari, who's never been "caught"), so the ruling is a little strong.

Gee, suddenly my argument is falling flat on its face. But I still disagree with the FIA's ruling on 3rd cars.

I'm all for innovation, but BAR weren't innovating... as Blake says, the second fuel tank is common, it's just that BAR chose to use it illegally by making the car underweight and using the fuel in the second tank as ballast. It's debatable whether BAR got any benefit from doing it, but they did clearly break the rules..

Still, atleast the punishment is not too unreasonable... why the FIA wanted to chuck them out for the whole season is a different matter... I totally agree that the more cars that race, the better... and JUSTICE FOR TAKUMA SATO!

 

[Blake]

At least we don't have to worry about the kamikaze pilot at Monaco. But I don't think he'd have been as crazy at Monaco this year as he was last year.

Blake

 

[Roo]

Certainly makes the San Marino results interesting though... Wurz is up to 3rd, on his first race for Mclaren and his second podium, both Williams are into the points - from 9th and 10th to 6th and 7th - and Liuzzi has now scored a point on his debut, in 8th. (Don't forget Ralf Schumacher got penalised 25 seconds, meaning that some cars - i.e. the Williams and Liuzzi - moved up 3 places.)

Shame that BAR are out of the next 2 GPs, but then they should've been more subtle, if they were going to cheat at all; filling the car with 2 seconds worth of fuel at the final stop was bound to make people notice eventually.

Why didn't they just have a huge fuel tank? Is there a limit (in the rules) to the size of the tank? Then in places like Monaco and Hungrey, where overtaking is difficult, they could've just 1 stopped early on and held people up.

 

[Max_DC]

well I guess a two race ban is fair, but I don't think they should take away the points from Sato....

 

[SouL]

Benetton cheated in '94 as well. They used illegal traction control software during the '94 season when it was clearly banned. Even Senna was suspicious about the Benetton's ability off the line. At the end of the season it was found out that they did have the traction control software installed in the car. Benetton admitted it was there but was "never used." Still a violation of the rules... yet they were never punished. The Championship was not stricken... not even points.

So why the harsh punishment on BAR?

I really wouldn't call the use of the 2nd fuel tank as a ballast "innovation." Since it's clearly stated in the rules that fuel cannot be used as ballast.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Does anyone know what this fuel actualy did?

Someone said it was essential for the correct operation of the engine (but not in the usual sense). I saw a basic diagram in teh Telegraph but it didn't seem anywhere near the engine.

 

[SouL]

You know... I read this somewhere but how "secret" is a tank that holds 15 liters? You don't just stuff 15 liters of fluid in your pockets.
And it's not as if an F1 cars have spare room to hold such a tank. Not when the cars are design to have as tight a body work as posible.

 

[Sureboss]

This would never happen to Ferrari!

 

[zoxxy]

This would never happen to Ferrari!

Oh, would you please shut up about this whole "Ferrari is the evil boss behind it all"- thing.
Can someone tell me why Ferrari, and only Ferrari would cheat? I'm not a fan of them either, but give me a friggin' break!
I know why you think they cheat, it's because they win everything that's possible to win.
BUT!
Isn't the fact that especially Schumacher, but Barichello too, are great drivers possible?
Micheal won 2 of his first titles in a Benetton Ford '94, and a Benetton Renault '95. Not in a Ferrari!
And if they were to "control evrything", wouldn't they have won this years races too? The fact that they haven't had technical difficulties, except this year, since 2002 is also a sign that the car is top-notch. So, not only do they have great drivers, but also a phenomenal car.
It's strange, isn't it, that nobody ever complained about Ayrton Senna, in the early 90's (Don't you dare..), when he was winning everything. That's because F1 has become a commecrial sport. Everything, the losses, the victories, is affecting the sponsorhip to the team that's involved. If you win, the sponsor's like's you, if not, they leave you, and you're in deep shiznit. No money, no F1 as simple is that.
And this whole "Keeping cost's down"- thing. I mean, why keep the evolution running in circles?
First, and most important, the 2,8 litre V8 rule. It's an enormous change in a sport were 0,01 second can decide wether you start in 1st or 4th place.

Ok, ok, It might be good for the racing, as the no tyre change rule was/is.
But who don't miss the über exciting races at the 1970-1998 period ?


BTW, sorry for getting a bit off-topic there.

 

[Milliethemutt]

Go to the BAR website for a full response to the charges. Using FIA data they prove the car was never under weight during the race. It's very interesting. If you can be bothered to sift through 103 pages of pdf.

 

[Blake]

But the point isn't that they were never under weight, the point is that the car was illegal. The rules clearly state that the car cannot be under 600kg when all fuel is removed, sorry BAR, you were close to 5 kilo's under when all fuel was removed, good bye.

Plus they tried to decieve the stewards by saying that they had no more fuel on the car when there was 8 litres or so left in the other tank.

Blake

 

[kensei]

But the point isn't that they were never under weight, the point is that the car was illegal. The rules clearly state that the car cannot be under 600kg when all fuel is removed, sorry BAR, you were close to 5 kilo's under when all fuel was removed, good bye.

Plus they tried to decieve the stewards by saying that they had no more fuel on the car when there was 8 litres or so left in the other tank.

Blake

Actually the point (that the FIA is punishing BAR on) is that BAR wasn't upfront with their information. Weather they tried to hide something or not it is up to the team to present and do what is requested of them when the FIA officials/stewards ask.

BAR did not...

I think something like this even casts doubt on ALL of BAR's record, including last season. This type of thing isn't something "new". Maybe this is a reason JB wanted to jump ship so bad as he knew some of BAR's policies were less than above board.

Now with BAR hinting in the press that they are being made the scapegoat for this issue and lots of other teams "do things not so legal" it makes them look even more sad and pathetic.

The shred of respect I had left for BAR is now gone....

 

[Blake]

The shred of respect I had left for BAR is now gone....

You've said that alot in the past fortnight

Max said that he started hearing rumours about BAR cheating back in december, so it can't be anything terribly new.

Blake

 

[ixnay]

The rumours in other sports about BAR Honda and the fuel for ballast has been around since mid-2004. Bernie knew about it then too, but figured it was nothing until it was formally said to him in December. The speculation and rumours grew really large on the week of the GP, so Max and Bernie decided not to check the car because "they;d have to be stupid" to keep the fuel in there. But the team slipped up, and turns out they were stupid enough.

Bernie WAS going to have the car checked in Spain though. So I guess it's good they slipped up, but it doesn't really matter in the end.