FIA vs BAR: El caso completo.

[elnuevo]

Transcribo todos los documentos que hay referentes al caso BAR. Si preferis que lo ponga en otro tema ya abierto decidmelo y lo moveré. Está en ingles. , aunque seguro que algún compañero nos puede ayudar con la traducción.


BEFORE THE FIA INTERNATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL
Hearing of 4 May 2004



APPEAL BY FIA (Sport)

This appeal is against the decision of the Stewards of the 2005 San Marino Grand Prix (Race Document 49 attached hereto as Appendix A) whereby the Stewards decided to take no further action against Car No 3 following a report to them by the Technical Delegate (Race Document 47 attached hereto as Appendix B)

Background

All Formula One World Championship races are run under the International Sporting Code (ISC), the 2005 Formula One Technical Regulations (FOTR) and the 2005 Formula One Sporting Regulations (FOSR).

During a race, a Formula One car together with its driver must never weigh less than 600kg (Article 2.6 FOTR and Article 4.1, FOTR). In order to ensure compliance, a driver is weighed when he steps out of the car after the race. The car is then drained of fuel and also weighed. The weights of the car and the driver are added together to ensure that they exceed 600kg in total (Article 77b FOSR).

This procedure has been followed since modern refuelling was introduced in 1994 and is well known, indeed absolutely familiar, to all competitors. If the weight of the car (plus driver) is less than 600kg, it is subject to exclusion (Article 77c FOSR).

The fuel is drained because it would otherwise be possible to run the car under the weight limit before the pit stops and then add enough fuel during the last pit stop to ensure that the car and driver together would weigh more than 600 kg when checked at the end of the race. Eliminating 10 kg of weight speeds the car up by about 3/10 of a second per lap on the average circuit.

The facts

In accordance with the above procedure, Car No 3 was drained of fuel after the San Marino Grand Prix. About 160g of fuel was recovered. The BAR representatives were asked if that was all the fuel in the car. They replied that it was. The car was then partially dismantled and the inside of its fuel tank examined using an endoscope. A further 8.92kg of fuel was found in a special compartment (Appendix C) and a further 2.46kg was removed from the floor of the main tank. When this fuel was removed, the car weighed 594.6kg, which is 5.4kg below the weight limit. Details are set out in the Technical Delegate's report (Appendix B), the statement of Jo Bauer, the FIA Formula One Technical Delegate (Appendix D) and the statement of Kris De Groot, a member of the FIA Formula One Technical Team (Appendix E).

All teams make repeated technical enquiries of the FIA under the terms of Article 2.4 FOTR. BAR made 14 such enquiries during 2004 and have made a further 4 during 2005 (Appendix F). At no time did BAR make an enquiry about their fuel system.

Grounds of Appeal

That the stewards of the meeting were mistaken in taking no further action in respect of Car No 3 (Appendix A) following the Technical Delegate's report (Appendix B) and oral representations from both the Technical Delegate and the Race Director, for the following reasons:

1. When completely drained of fuel the car (plus driver) weighed less than 600kg. The stewards should therefore have excluded the car from the results under Article 77c FOSR.

2. The stewards were wrong to accept the team's claim that their car (plus driver) weighed more than 600kg at all times during the race, because it was not possible to prove the truth of this claim by means of physical inspection of hardware or materials, as required by Article 2.6 FOTR.

3. Even if the car (plus driver) and fuel together never weighed less than 600kg during the race, the fuel needed to bring the weight of the car up to 600kg was being used as ballast. This is contrary to Article 4.2 FOTR, which requires that ballast must (i) be secured so that tools are necessary for its removal and (ii) be capable of being sealed in position. The fuel contained in the special compartment on Car No 3 did not meet either requirement.

4. The design of the fuel system of Car No 3 was such as to enable the car to run below the weight limit at certain times during an Event and thus to participate when ineligible, contrary to Article 151(b) ISC.

5. In failing voluntarily to reveal the design of their fuel system to the FIA, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 2.4 FOTR (and having regard to Articles 77b and 77c FOSR), the team demonstrated bad faith and an intention to secure the participation of a car known by them to be ineligible, contrary to Article 151(b) ISC.

6. In designing a fuel system calculated to deceive the scrutineers into thinking the car had been drained of fuel when in fact it had not, the team was guilty of fraudulent conduct contrary to Article 151(c) ISC.

7. By falsely claiming to the scrutineers at the San Marino Grand Prix that the car had no fuel left in it knowing that in truth the car still contained more than 11kg of fuel, the team was guilty of fraudulent conduct contrary to Article 151(c) ISC.

8. In arranging their car's fuel system so that a significant quantity of fuel would remain after the car had been drained, making the car appear to be above the minimum weight when in fact it was below, the team set out to deceive the scrutineers and prevent them reporting the car to the stewards under Article 77c FOSR when the team well knew the car should be so reported. In this way the team set out deliberately to gain an illegitimate and unfair advantage over other teams, an act prejudicial to the interests of the competition and to the interests of motor sport generally, contrary to Article 151(c) ISC.


The Penaity

The FIA (Sport) asks the Court to exclude the Lucky Strike BAR Honda team from the 2005 Formula One World Championship and to fine the team at least one million Euros.


Un saludo.

[elnuevo]

APENDICE A. La decisión de los comisarios.



Un saludo.

[elnuevo]

APENDICE B El informe del delegado técnico.



Un saludo.

[elnuevo]

APENDICE C. Esquema del deposito del BAR-HONDA.



Un saludo.

[elnuevo]

Report from Jo Bauer FIA F1 Technical Delegate


San Marino GP 24/04/05 Post Race Fuel Drain on Car 3 - Jenson Button

The BAR car number 3, driver Jenson Button, was weighed after the race with 606.1 kg. To confirm, that the car number 3 has respected the minimum weight of 600 kg at all times during the race, the team was asked to drain all remaining fuel out of the car.

For this procedure the car's front end was lifted to allow all remaining fuel within the fuel cell to be drained completely. With this method 0.16 kg of fuel could be drained. The team was asked, whether this was all fuel on board the car and they declared it as empty.

The team was then asked to open the fuel hatches on both sides of the car (on the RHS the race valve used during the race pit stops and on the LHS the service plate which the team uses to refuel and drain the car). This gave access to the internals of the fuel cell. The fuel cell consisted of two buffer floors (baffles) which we removed in order to see the bottom of the fuel cell. These buffer floors have been fixed by means of Velcro to the main structure of the fuel cell. On the bottom of the fuel cell there was still some fuel visible.

At the bottom front end of the fuel cell a further compartment was discovered which had a clear plastic tube connected to it. This tube was disconnected by the team's mechanics. By doing this the internals of this forward compartment could be inspected by means of an endoscope. This compartment was found full of fuel. This fuel was drained manually by feeding a hose, which was connected to a draining pump, into that compartment. With this manual method 8.92 kg of fuel could be drained.

After draining this forward compartment, the fuel on the bottom of the main fuel cell was drained using the same method and a further 2.46 kg of fuel could be recovered.

At the back end of the fuel cell was a cylindrical collector tank, made of carbon fibre, visible. We did not check the content and the internals of this tank.

All the above amount of fuel was measured by using the team's refuelling and draining equipment, which has a built in scale. According to this measurement the total amount of fuei still on board the car was 11.54 kg.

The car was refitted with all parts taken off and was weighed on the FIA scales again. The weight was 594.6 kg, a difference of 11.5 kg to the original weight after the race. This weight was confirmed in front of a team member (Craig Wilson). The accuracy of the F1A scales was also confirmed to the team member by putting 600 kg of calibrated weights onto the scales. The FIA scales have been reading 0.5 kg high (showing 600.5 kg with 600 kg weights on). The FIA scales are showing increments of 0.5 kg.

With these findings a report was made to the stewards of the meeting at 18:25 (Document 47)

Un saludo.

[elnuevo]

Report from Kris de Groot - FIA F1 Technical Team



San Marino GP 24/04/05 Post Race Fuel Drain on Car 3 - Jenson Button

After the finishing weight of the car of 606.1 kg had been established on the weighing platform, the car was then pushed into the Parc Ferme garage area.

A BAR Team member (four were present, chief mechanic, fuel operator and two further mechanics) was informed of our intention to perform a full drain-out on this car. This procedure involves raising the front of the car to allow as much fuel as possible to drain back to the main tank pick-ups, an external fuel pump is then connected so that the fuel may [be] removed and weighed. The team were also told that they would be required to open the top of the fuel tank for further inspection and that the use of an endoscope would probably be necessary to satisfy us that the car was indeed empty.

The car was lifted at the front by means of a pneumatic jack.

The team's fuel module lines were primed and start figures were recorded (start figure is the total in the fuel module tank). The scales were then zeroed and fuel draining commenced.

N.B. A fuel module is a device for loading or unloading fuel from a car's fuel tank via an external connection. The fuel cell of the module rests on scales and pre-programmed amounts may be pumped in or out of the car's fuel tank.

After a short while the fuel module pumps began to "suck air", an indication that the drain is nearing completion. The module was then stopped and a further 2 to 3 minutes were given to allow for any more fuel to drain to the rear of the car's fuel tank. The fuel module was then re-started and continued to drain for approximately another 30 seconds to 1 minute.

Lines were removed and re-primed, drain-out figures recorded and total figures recorded.

The fuel removed:

Start figure 6.96 kg
End figure 7.12 kg
Fuel removed from car 3 0.16 kg


The BAR fuel operator was then asked if he was happy the car was empty, to which the reply was "yes".

The mechanics were then asked to remove the race valve from one side and the normal service plate from the other side at the top of the car's fuel tank (top access holes), so that we could visually inspect the amount of fuel left internally after draining.

On initial inspection there was a small amount of fuel left in the bottom of the cars fuel tank.

On closer inspection we noticed that there was a clear plastic tube running into a bulkhead fitting on the bottom front wall of the fuel tank.

When queried, the team could offer no real explanation as to its purpose.

When asked what was behind the front wall and where the pipe led to, the team members again could offer no clear explanation.

They were then asked if the area behind this front wall would contain fuel and no one was prepared to give a definitive answer.

The team [were] then informed that pipe would have to be removed to allow further inspection by means of an endoscope.

The pipe was removed by the team, and an endoscope inserted through the hole on the front wall of the tank to reveal that there was indeed fuel within this compartment.

The team [were] then informed that the fuel in this compartment must be removed and weighed.

After a little head scratching and time wasting / stalling, a pipe was presented to us. One end of the pipe was small enough in diameter to enter through the hole in the front wall of the fuel tank and the other end had a fitting to connect directly to the team's fuel module (this is how they would normally drain it I suspect).

Once again the fuel figures on the teams fuel module were recorded and draining from the car's fuel tank commenced again.

A further 8.92 kg of fuel were removed from this compartment.

A further 2.46 kg of fuel was then removed from the floor of the main fuel tank by using the same method.

After we were satisfied that the car was indeed empty, the parts that were removed were then refitted. The front of the car was then lowered to enable the car to be pushed back to the FIA weighing platform.

The new weight of the car was found to be 594.6 kg, a difference of 11.5 kg to the original weight after the race. This weight was confirmed in front of a team member (Craig Wilson). The accuracy of the FIA scales was also confirmed to the team member by putting 600 kg of calibrated weighs onto the scales. The FIA scales read 0.5 kg high (showing 600.5 kg with 600 kg weights on). The FIA scales show increments of 0.5 kg.

With these findings a report was made to the stewards of the meeting at 18:25. (Document 47)


Un saludo.

[elnuevo]

Un saludo.

[elnuevo]

FIA Versus BAR: BAR's Defence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BEFORE THE FIA INTERNATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL

IN THE MATTER OF :
AN APPEAL BROUGHT BY THE FIA CONCERNING THE STEWARDS' DECISION IN RESPECT OF CAR NUMBER 3 AT THE SAN MARINO GRAND PRIX ON 24 APRIL 2005

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
LUCKY STRIKE B.A.R HONDA TEAM
Hearing in Paris on Wednesday 4 May 2005



Introduction

1 These Submissions are presented on behalf of The Lucky Strike B.A.R Honda Team ("the Team") in response to the appeal brought by the FIA against the Stewards' Decision to take no action in respect of Car No. 3 after the San Marino Grand Prix on 24 April 2005.

The background facts

2 The Technical Delegate's Report from Jo Bauer (FIA Formula One Technical Delegate) at 18.25 on 24 April 2005 (Document 47) stated that after the race, Car No. 3 and the driver (Jenson Button) were weighed :

(1) Jenson Button : 73.6 kg
The car : 532.5 kg

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total : 606.1 kg


(2) The car was drained of fuel (by lifted pump out and hoovering out of the fuel cell including the collector) and weighed again :

Jenson Button : 73.6 kg
The car : 521.0 kg

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total : 594.4 kg


3 Having been informed by the Technical Delegate in Document No. 48 (at 20.55) that the weight of Car No. 3 complied with the Technical Regulations (a conclusion reached by the Technical Delegate after conducting all meetings and inquiries which the Technical Delegate thought appropriate), the FIA Stewards of the Meeting reported at 21.30 on 24 April 2005 (Document 49) that the Stewards "after hearing the explanation of the Competitor's representatives and studying all available documentation decided that the matter requires no further action".

The relevant rules

4 The 2005 Formula One Technical Regulations state :

"1.8 Event :

An event shall consist of official practice and the race.

1.9 Weight :

Is the weight of the car with the driver, wearing his complete racing apparel, at all times during the event.

1.10 Racing weight :

Is the weight of the car in running order with the driver aboard and all fuel tanks full

. . .

2.4 Compliance with the regulations :

Automobiles must comply with these regulations in their entirety at all times during an Event.

Should a competitor feel that any aspect of these regulations is unclear, clarification may be sought from the FIA Formula One Technical Department. . . .

. . .

2.6 Duty of competitor

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.

The design of the car, its components and systems shall, with the exception of safety features, demonstrate their compliance with these regulations by means of physical inspection of hardware or materials.

No mechanical design may rely upon software inspection as a means of ensuring its compliance.

4.1 Minimum weight :

The weight of the car must not be less than 605 kg during the qualifying practice session and no less than 600 kg at all other times during the Event.

4.2 Ballast :

Ballast can be used provided it is secured in such a way that tools are required for its removal. It must be possible to fix seals if deemed necessary by the FIA technical delegate

4.3 Adding during the race :

With the exception of fuel and compressed gases, no substance may be added to the car during the race. If it becomes necessary to replace any part of the car during the race, the new part must not weigh any more than the original part".

5 The 2005 Formula One Sporting Regulations state :

"WEIGHING

77 a) During both qualifying practice sessions cars will be weighed as follows :

2) all cars which complete a flying lap will undergo the weighing procedure;

3) the driver will proceed directly to the FIA garage and stop his engine;

4) the car will then be weighed with driver (and without driver if necessary) and the result given to the driver in writing;

b) After the race every classified car will be weighed. If a driver wishes to leave his car before it is weighed he must ask the technical delegate to weigh him in order that this weight may be added to that of the car.

c) The relevant car may be excluded should its weight be less than that specified in Article 4.1 of the Technical Regulations when weighed under a) or b) above, save where the deficiency in weight results from the accidental loss of a component of the car.

d) No substance may be added to, or placed on, or removed from a car after it has been selected for weighing or has finished the race or during the weighing procedure. (Except by a scrutineer when acting in his official capacity)".

6 The International Sporting Code states :

"151 Breach of rules

Any of the following offences in addition to any offences specifically referred to previously shall be deemed to be a breach of these rules :

. . .

b) Any action having as its object the entry or participation in a competition of an automobile known to be ineligible therefor.

c) Any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally".

The Regulations governing the weight of the car

7 The FIA contend in their Statement of Case that the Regulations governing the weight of the car require the car to be weighed after fuel has been drained.

8 The Team respond that there was no breach of the Regulations governing the weight of the car because, on their proper interpretation, the Regulations do not require that the "minimum weight" is to be assessed after removing all fuel from the car, including fuel required for the operation of the fuel system.

9 The Team rely on the following matters :

(1) No provision of the Technical Regulations and no provision of the Sporting Regulations expressly states that the minimum weight must be assessed after removing all or any fuel from the car.

(2) Article 4.1 of the Technical Regulations is inconsistent with the FIA contention in that it links the minimum weight to the "qualifying practice session" and to the "Event" (defined in Article 1.8 to mean the official practice and the race). Because Article 4.1 states that the car must not be underweight during the "Event", the minimum weight must refer to the operation of the car in working order as it proceeds around the track in practice and during the race. By contrast, the FIA's approach would assess the weight of the car in a condition (absent fuel) which would prevent it from proceeding around the track. The Team's car could not operate with a fuel level significantly below a minimum weight of 6kg of fuel in the fuel system : paragraph 45 of the Witness Statement of Geoffrey Willis (Technical Director of the Team). As he points at paragraph 48 of his Witness Statement :

"the weight of the car is to be determined with the car in an operating condition because the Technical Regulations refer to its use during the 'Event', which means practice or race. The measurement which the Technical Delegate took at the end of the race with the fuel collector drained is a measurement which is not envisaged in the Technical Regulations as it is a measurement of the car in a condition in which it is unable to participate in either the practice or the race".

As Mr Willis adds at paragraph 49 of his Witness Statement, the dry weight measurement recorded by the Technical Delegate is meaningless in that it

"records the weight of the car in a condition in which it is unable to operate and in a condition not contemplated by the Technical Regulations".

(3) Article 77 of the Sporting Regulations is also inconsistent with the FIA contention in that it requires at d) that after the car has finished the race it must be weighed, and that

"No substance may be added to, or placed on, or removed from a car after it has been selected for weighing or has finished the race or during the weighing procedure. (Except by a scrutineer when acting in his official capacity)".

The FIA has to contend that a further exception must be written in "except for fuel". But that would be impermissibly to rewrite Article 77.

(4) Article 77 of the Sporting Regulations is further inconsistent with the FIA contention in that it requires at a) that during qualifying practice sessions,

"2) all cars which complete a flying lap will undergo the weighing procedure;

3) the driver will proceed directly to the FIA garage and stop his engine;

4) the car will then be weighed with driver (and without driver if necessary) ..."

Article 77a) 2) refers to "the weighing procedure" which is then identified in 3) and 4) The FIA has to contend that another step must be written in between 3) and 4) : that the car must be drained of fuel. But again that would be impermissibly to rewrite Article 77.

(5) Appendix J to the International Sporting Code specifies that in respect of defined cars, weighing must be carried out with fuel tanks empty :

(a) Article 254 in relation to Production Cars (Group N) states at Article 5 :

"MINIMUM WEIGHT . . . 5.1 All the liquid tanks ... must be at the normal level foreseen by the manufacturer, with the exception of fuel tanks which shall be empty ...".

(b) Article 258A in respect of Sports Cars states at Article 1.7 :

"Weight

1.7.1 Except for the weighing procedure used during the practice sessions, it is the weight of the car with no driver and no fuel on board".

By contrast, there is no such provision in relation to Formula One cars. The FIA is impermissibly seeking to write such a provision into the Regulations. See paragraph 44 of the Witness Statement of Geoffrey Willis.

10 The Team point out that, contrary to the FIA's Statement of Case, it is not correct that the car is always drained of fuel before being weighed. That is not routine practice. As Craig Wilson (Chief Race Engineer of the Team with 9 years of experience in Formula 1 for various teams) points out at paragraph 3 of his Witness Statement, it is not usual practice when weighing a car to require a lifted pump out (or any other procedure) to drain fuel from the fuel cell. He adds at paragraph 27 of his Witness Statement that the practice is that fuel forms part of the minimum weight when cars are weighed after qualifying. He has never in his experience known the FIA to require a car to be drained of fuel after qualifying via a lift pump procedure or otherwise, even when the cars were on or only just above the minimum weight limit.

This is also confirmed by the experience of both Geoff Willis (the Team Technical Director), and Mark Ellis (the Team Chief Test Engineer), both of whom have also worked for other teams (Williams and Jaguar). The FIA must have been aware that the cars still had fuel remaining in them as the cars arrived for weighing under their own power. See also, to similar effect, paragraph 42 of the Witness Statement of Geoffrey Willis; and paragraph 24 of the Witness Statement of Alastair Gibson (Race Team Chief Mechanic). In any event, the practice could not alter the content and proper interpretation of the Regulations as explained in paragraphs 8-9 above.

11 The Team did not seek clarification under Article 2.4 of the Technical Regulations because the content and proper interpretation of the Regulations is clear, as explained in paragraphs 8-9 above. See paragraphs 10-11 of the Witness Statement of Geoffrey Willis.

12 The FIA suggest that a Competitor can only satisfy the obligation under Article 2.6 of the Technical Regulations to comply with the Regulations if the car is weighed after fuel has been drained. The Team respond :

(1) The content and proper interpretation of the Regulations on weighing is clear, as explained in paragraphs 8-9 above.

(2) Contrary to the assertion by the FIA in its Statement of Case, the design of the fuel system of Car No. 3 did not enable the car to run below the minimum weight during the race :

(a) The Team produced data to show that at all times during the race, the car complied with the weighing requirements. The data show that unless the car and driver exceeded 600 kg at all times, the car would not be able to race. See the witness Statement of Geoffrey willis at paragraphs 20—23 and 27 and 32—36 :

(i) The Team supplied at a meeting with the 3 Stewards, Mr Charles Whiting (the Race Director) and Mr Jo Bauer (the Technical Delegate) the document contained at Appendix 3 to the Witness Statement of Mr willis.

(ii) The Team supplied at a further meeting attended by Mr Whiting, Mr Bauer and one of the Stewards (Mr Gutjahr) the total car weight plot set out at Appendix 4 to Mr Willis' Witness Statement.

(b) The Team also draws attention to the documents at Appendix 4 and Appendix 5 to the Witness Statement of Craig Wilson. Appendix 4 shows that using FIA data alone, the FIA could calculate that the car did not go below the minimum weight during the race. This is because the FIA know the weight of the car at the start of the race, know how much fuel is in the car at the end of the race, and they know how much fuel is put in the car at each pit stop. Appendix 5 uses the Team's data to clarify and prove this using the actual figures. See paragraph 17 of the Witness Statement of Craig Wilson.

(c) At paragraph 17 of his Witness Statement, Mr Craig Wilson explains that if the car had been run underweight it

"would have begun to physically malfunction before reaching the 600kg minimum because of the operating requirements of the car and its fuel system".

He points out at paragraph 13 of his Witness Statement that the Team explained in its meetings with the Stewards, Mr Bauer and Mr Whiting that in pre-season testing it was proved that

"in order to maintain both accumulator and engine fuel pressure we had to run with a minimum amount of fuel in the fuel collector system. ... This is why fuel was still remaining in the fuel system (as there would be with any other fuel system)".

Ron Meadows (Race Team Manager) points out at paragraphs 8-11 of his Witness Statement that the FIA representatives did not dispute any of the data presented to them.

(d) As Geoffrey Willis explains at paragraph 45 of his Witness Statement :

"The performance of the fuel system is such that the car cannot operate with a fuel level significantly below a minimum weight of 6kg of fuel in the fuel system. This has been verified by track testing and is used as a baseline when considering the car set up and weight calculations. This was proven when on the lap before the first stop the fuel system started to show signs of low fuel level. The car cannot then be operated to a point where the weight limit is breached".

Mr Willis refers to the chart at Appendix 5 to his Witness Statement. See also Appendix 1 to Craig Wilson's Witness Statement.

(3) The second and third paragraphs of Article 2.6 relate to the "design of the car, its components and systems". They are not concerned with the weight of the car, a matter concerned with the operation of the car. A car's weight is not determined by its design.

(4) The FIA cannot sustain a contention that weighing a car after fuel has been drained, and weighing the driver, will conclusively establish that the weighing requirements were met at all times during the race. The weight of the car will change during the race (for example, because of oil loss, brake wear, the consumption by the driver of water carried in the car), and the weight of the driver will change during the race (because of loss of fluids).

13 The FIA are wrong to suggest that the fuel was being used in Car No. 3 as "ballast" contrary to Article 4.2 of the Technical Regulations. The fuel was being used for its functional physical and calorific properties and not solely for its mass. Article 4.3 of the Technical Regulations states that fuel may be added to the car. See paragraph 47 of the Witness Statement of Geoffrey Willis.

14 For all these reasons, the Team contend that there was no breach of the Regulations governing the weight of the car.

15 In any event, Race Document No. 48 states that Car No. 3 was weighed after the race and the Technical Delegate found that the weight was in conformity with the Technical Regulations. This document was signed at 20.55 after the Technical Delegate's Report (Document No. 47) which sets out the car weights after the car was completely drained of fuel, and was produced after all investigations and meetings had been completed.

16 The Stewards were therefore correct

(1) not to exercise their discretion to exclude Car No. 3 from the results under Article 77c) of the Sporting regulations and

(2) to accept the Team's claim that Car No. 3 (plus driver) weighed more than 600 kg at all times during the race.

The allegation of bad faith and fraudulent conduct

17 Since (for the reasons set out in paragraphs 8-16 above) the Team satisfied the Regulations governing the minimum weight of the car, there is no question of bad faith or fraudulent conduct, as alleged by the FIA.

18 In any event, the allegation by the FIA of bad faith and fraudulent conduct is fundamentally misconceived :

(1) Paragraph 6 of the Witness Statement of Geoffrey Willis explains that the fuel system comprises a fuel cell, pumps, collector and accumulator which together supply fuel at high pressure to the engine. Electrical lift pumps take fuel from the fuel cell and fill the collector at the front of the fuel cell. Electrical lift pumps located in the collector feed fuel from the collector to supply and pressurise the accumulator at the back of the fuel cell.

The accumulator feeds fuel at pressure to the high-pressure mechanical pump which supplies the engine. All fuel placed in the car passes through the collector and the accumulator, as Geoffrey Willis notes at paragraph 8 of his Witness Statement. He adds at paragraph 28 of his Witness Statement that the forward fuel collector is an "integral part of our fuel system" and that the fuel collector needs a minimum fuel level in order to maintain pressure in the accumulator and hence avoid fuel pressure drop cuts, which would damage the mechanical pump and probably also the engine, and cause the engine to misfire. He comments at paragraph 15 of his Witness Statement that

"The purpose of the collector is to collect a small volume of fuel that will not 'slosh' around the fuel cell due (to] the movement of the car and so ensure that there will always be fuel to feed. the lift pumps that deliver fuel from the collector to the accumulator".

See also paragraphs 12-13 of the Witness Statement of Craig Wilson.

(2) As Geoffrey Willis explains at paragraphs 12-14 of his Witness Statement, the collector is not "a secret compartment". A brief inspection of the empty fuel cell without internal components fitted would clearly show a contained volume in the forward part. An inspection of the built system would immediately reveal the top plate that seals this volume together with pumps and, fuel transfer hoses that would confirm the installation as a conventional fuel collector. The collector is located at the front of the fuel cell for packaging reasons.

(3) The fuel cell was inspected by the FIA at the Malaysian Grand Prix and at the Bahrain Grand Prix in 2005. No questions were posed by the FIA as to its compliance with the Regulations. See paragraphs 26-32 of the Witness Statement of Alastair Gibson; paragraphs 19-21 of the Witness Statement of Darren Beacroft (No. 1 Mechanic); paragraphs 11, 19 and 37 of the Witness Statement of Geoffrey Willis; paragraphs 25-26 of the Witness Statement of Craig Wilson.

(4) The fuel system used by the Team is similar to that used by a number of other teams. See paragraph 5 of the Witness Statement of Geoffrey Willis, and paragraph 11 of his statement referring to Appendix 2 which contains an e-mail from ATL (the Team's fuel cell manufacturer which also supplies fuel cells to most Fl teams) which confirms that the design of the Team's fuel cell is not unusual. See also paragraph 13 of the Witness Statement of Ron Meadows.

(5) Team Members were completely open, honest and straightforward with the Race Director, Technical Delegate and Stewards. All questions were answered directly and additional information volunteered : paragraph 38 of the Witness Statement of Geoffrey Willis. At no time during the meetings of the Race Director, Technical Delegate and Stewards with Mr Willis, Mr Wilson and Mr Meadows was there any suggestion that any member of the Team had acted in bad faith or engaged in deception or fraud : see paragraph 21 of the Witness Statement of Craig Wilson.

The Race Director, Technical Delegate and the Stewards did not raise with Mr Willis, Mr Wilson and Mr Meadows any concerns about the conduct of the mechanics : see paragraph 39 of Mr Willis' Witness Statement. The Race Director referred to the collector as a "secret" tank in his first meeting with Mr Willis, Mr Wilson and Mr Meadows (which was not in the presence of the Stewards). After its purpose and effect had been explained to him, the Race Director did not again suggest that it was a "secret" tank. See paragraph 39 of the Witness Statement of Mr Willis.

The Technical Delegate and the Stewards made no suggestion (far less any allegation) of fraud, bad faith or deception in any of the Race Documents. Indeed, Race Documents 48 and 49 are inconsistent with any such suggestion or allegation.

(6) The FIA have now expressed concern that the car was not completely drained of fuel before being weighed. That was because Kris de Groot, one of the FIA Technical Delegates, asked for a normal lifted pump out. This was carried out by Chris Fry (the fuel bowser operator). When he had completed this task, Mr de Groot asked him, "Is that it?". Mr Fry replied, "Yes". That was an accurate answer : he had removed all the fuel capable of being removed from the car by the procedure specifically requested by Mr de Groot.

Mr Fry is not aware of the technical details and workings of the car's fuel system. If Mr de Groat had asked whether some fuel remained, Alastair Gibson (the Race Team Chief Mechanic) would have answered. But he understood Mr de Groot simply and expressly to have requested a lifted pump out procedure, the normal procedure for removing fuel from the fuel tank. See paragraphs 6-12 of the Witness Statement of Alastair Gibson and paragraphs 1-4 of the Witness Statement of Chris Fry. As Mr Gibson explains at paragraph 25 of his Witness Statement, he cannot recall any instance when the fuel has been drained from the collector or accumulator. See also paragraph 3 of the Witness Statement of Chris Fry. He adds at paragraph 4 of his Witness Statement that he followed the draining procedures of the Team.

(7) There is no basis for the allegations of fraudulent conduct and bad faith. See paragraph 40 of the Witness Statement of Geoffrey Willis.

(8) Integrity and the maintenance of the highest professional standards are of fundamental importance to the management and operation of the Team. Bad faith and fraud would not be tolerated by Geoffrey Willis as Technical Director (see paragraph 4 of his Witness Statement), Nicholas Fry as Chief Executive Officer (see his Witness Statement), Nicholas Brookes as director of the parent company of the Team (see his Witness Statement), Yasuhiro Wada as president of Honda Racing Development and a Board Member of the parent company of the Team (see his Witness Statement).

As Mr Wada comments at paragraph 6 of his Witness Statement, and is plain from all the other Witness Statements attesting to the professionalism and integrity of the Team and those who work for it (including the Witness Statement of Sir Frank Williams, Managing Director and Team Principal of the BMW Williams Fl team), there has been a serious misunderstanding here by the FIA which has led to them wrongly accusing the Team of acting in bad faith and in a fraudulent manner.

19 The Team therefore submits that even if (which is denied) there was here any breach of the Regulations, the sanction for which the FIA contends (exclusion from the 2005 Formula One World Championship and a fine of at least one million Euros) would be manifestly disproportionate, as would be any exclusion from future events.

Conclusion

20 For these reasons, the Team asks the Court of Appeal to dismiss the FIA's appeal.

Un saludo.

[riquii]

Gracias por el informe elnuevo, ya tengo algo interesante para leer esta tarde.
De momento y para abrir boca estoy estudiando el dibujo porque entiendo a bote pronto que en caso de ser ilegal ese sistema de depósitos, el sistema debería llevar algún mecanismo por el cual se pudiese regular exteriormente la entrada o salida de gasolina en el depósito auxiliar para poder jugar con el control de peso que interese tras el último repostaje.
Creo que es la clave para saber si hay intencionalidad o no.

[Madrid]

BAR HONDA ha sido expulsado por dos carreras.

El sistema de funcionamiento del depósito proporciona ventajas (ver ilustración presentada por elnuevo).-

1º.- Control 1. En la parte inferior del "collector" y del "special compartment" (en adelante SP.) figuran sendas bombas de fluidos identificadas como "fuel pumps". Con el coche en marcha y mediante la bomba de la izda. de la ilustración que SP esté siempre lleno. Esto hace que la masa correspondiente al combustible esté mas cercano al centro de gravedad del vehículo. Las ventajas de esto son tan obvias como importantes y no son el objeto de este análisis.

2º.- Decisiones. La F-1 tiene momentos en los que uno quisiera tener el combustible lleno. Con la normativa actual en la que no se cambian neumáticos y con una salida del SC se podría dar la situación de que la estrategia pasara de ser dos a una parada en boxes, suficiente (no para Button) para poder rodar delante durante las últimas vueltasen circuitos como Imola, Montecarlo, Hungaroring, etc. el coste de este sistema se reduciría a un par de segundos más en boxes para conseguir "llenar" de más el depósito.

Según figura en la ilustración el sistema de Bar-Honda proporciona unos 12-13 Kg de combustible extra gracias al SP, unas tres o cuatro vueltas en funcion del circuito, impulsadas el collector por la "fuel pump" que figura en la parte inferior derecha de la ilustración.


Cuestiones legales aparte la idea es cojonuda y más cuanto mayor sea este SP (Basta pensar en un SP capaz de contener como lastre el combustible necesario para todo un G.P..... NO NECESITARÍAN PASAR POR BOXES).



Madrid.

[waterparties]

The facts

In accordance with the above procedure, Car No 3 was drained of fuel after the San Marino Grand Prix. About 160g of fuel was recovered. The BAR representatives were asked if that was all the fuel in the car. They replied that it was. The car was then partially dismantled and the inside of its fuel tank examined using an endoscope. A further 8.92kg of fuel was found in a special compartment (Appendix C) and a further 2.46kg was removed from the floor of the main tank. When this fuel was removed, the car weighed 594.6kg, which is 5.4kg below the weight limit. Details are set out in the Technical Delegate's report (Appendix B), the statement of Jo Bauer, the FIA Formula One Technical Delegate (Appendix D) and the statement of Kris De Groot, a member of the FIA Formula One Technical Team (Appendix E).

All teams make repeated technical enquiries of the FIA under the terms of Article 2.4 FOTR. BAR made 14 such enquiries during 2004 and have made a further 4 during 2005 (Appendix F). At no time did BAR make an enquiry about their fuel system.

Traduzco rápidamente los hechos, que me tengo que ir.

De acuerdo con el procedimiento citado, el coche número 3 fue vaciado de carburante tras el Gran Premio de San Marino. Se recuperaron alrededor de 160g. Se preguntó a los representantes de BAR si ése era todo el carburante en el coche. Respondieron que lo era. El coche fue parcialmente desmantelado y se examinó el interior del depósito con un endoscopio. Se encontraron 8.92kg [uao!] más en un compartimento especial (Apéndice C) y se sustrajeron 2.46kg más del fondo del tanque. Extraído todo este combustible el coche pesaba 594.6k, lo que está 5.4kg por debajo del límite de peso.
Se muestran los detalles en el informe del Delegado Técnico (Apéndice B), el alegato de Jo Bauer, Delegado Técnico de la Fórmula 1 (Apéndice D) y alegato de Kris de Groot, miembro del equipo técnico de la Fórmula 1 (Apéndice E).

Todos los equipos hacen repetidamente indagaciones con la FIA [los equipos piden aclaración a la FIA sobre aspectos del reglamento técnico y sus coches] bajo los términos del Artículo 2.4 del reglamento técnico de la FIA. BAR planteó 14 pesquisas durante 2004 y 4 más durante 2005. En ningún momento ha hecho BAR inquisición alguna sobre su sistema de combustible.

5.4kg suponen alrededor de 0.150 segundos de ventaja por vuelta... vaya ojo clínico tiene el simpático bonachón que ilustra mi avatar para sospechar por 150 milésimas!!

Por cierto, acabo de ver la resolución. Expulsados durante dos carreras (España y Mónaco) y pierden los puntos de San Marino.

[bokerón]

Todo este caso me tiene patidifuso y me explico

Los comisarios de la FIA al pesar el coche en Imola se dan cuenta de que pesa menos de los permitido, pero ante las explicaciones de BAR se dan por satisfechos y no inician ningún proceso

La FIA acto seguido, recurre la decisión de sus propios comisarios ante el evidente edor a conducta antideportiva por parte de BAR.

La FIA propone que la sanción ha de ser la expulsión del campeonato del equipo implicado

...y finalmente el Tribunal de apelación de la FIA no se hace caso a sí mismo y deja la sanción en dos míseras carreras y la pérdida de los puntos acumulados (que tampoco son tantos)


...y yo pregunto ¿qué pasa en la FIA?
Esto sí que es dar mala imagen

[riquii]

La decisión de la FIA me parece muy salomónica y si se ha demostrado esa ilegalidad quizás un pelín suave.
La exclusión por todo un campeonato quizás fuese excesiva pero 1+2 carreras me parece que se queda algo corta si lo comparamos con el caso Tyrrell del 84.
Estando Honda detrás de BAR estaba claro que el castigo no podía ser demasiado severo y más habiendo tan pocos equipos en F1.

[Schumi nº1]

Excelente informe elnuevo . Me esperaba una decisión mucho más dura por parte de la FIA, aunque como dice riquii, hay muchos intereses que saldrían perjudicados si Bar fuese excluída del campeonato.
En Montmeló y Monaco tendremos 18 coches en parrilla. ¿Está permitido en circunstancias extraordinarias como estas que haya menos de 20 coches?

Saludos,
Schumi nº1

[Juanca]

Wow !!! Tenemos un espía en la FIA ! Es broma. A elnuevo mis felicitaciones por semejante trabajo investigativo, excelente !

Sin ser expertos en el tema queda claro que hubo algo truculento en el diseño de ese tanque y los pillaron. Estoy de acuerdo en que la sanción se queda corta para BAR, sin embargo, mirandolo desde otro punto de vista la decisión puede ser "conveniente" teniendo en cuenta que el número de autos en parrilla es actualmente de 20 y el que dos o más equipos tengan que poner un tercero da pie para que surjan más problemas: en este momento Ferrari, Renault, McLaren y Williams (Toyota y RedBull quizás ?) estarian en capacidad de poner el tercer auto ... cómo decidirán quienes serán los elegidos ? Esta situación les da ventaja sobre los demás porque serían como unos "tests" de regalo, pero otro lado representa más gastos. O será que llegan a un acuerdo para correr con 18 autos en España y Mónaco ... ? Difícil situación.

---------------
Edito porque se me quedó algo en el tintero: me pregunto qué pasará con los comisarios que aceptaron las explicaciones de BAR y terminaron diciendo que no habia nada ilegal ?

[Bandini]

Preguntas que quedan en el aire:

A) Si al parecer la filtración a la FIA procedía de ex - ingenieros de BAR que conocían la artimaña, ¿desde cuando BAR ha estado corriendo con esta ilegalidad?

B) ¿Qué pudo convencer a los comisarios de Imola para pasar el asunto sin sancionar?

C) ¿Cuánto ha pesado el hecho de que sólo tengamos 10 escuderías a la hora de imponer la leve sanción, sabiendo que se dejaba la parrilla en 18 coches?

D) ¿Hubiera sido la misma sanción de contarse con una nutrida y sobrada parrilla?

E) Como bien ha señalado algún forista por ahí, y conociendo el percal ¿planea el espíritu de Richard en todo esto?

F) ¿Quiénes tenían conocimiento de la ilegalidad en el equipo BAR? ¿pilotos?

G) N. Fry dijo que se alegraba de que ganase Renault ya que si hubiese ganado Ferrari, hubiera sido injusto ¿Qué calificativo se puede colocar a semejante personaje a la vista de “lo suyo”?

H) El precedente de Tyrrell en el pasado, es muy similar la de BAR ¿Por qué esa diferente sanción, tan atemperada en este caso?

I) ¿Se puede calcular el daño en la imagen que esta vergonzosa actuación causa a la Formula 1?

J) ¿Cambiará Honda su compromiso con BAR a la vista de lo sucedió y en el supuesto –que está por ver- de que la marca japonesa desconociese el doble depósito y su uso?

K) ¿Que atenuantes ha contemplado el tribunal de Apelación de la FIA para reducir la sanción inicial propuesta a sólo dos carreras?

Saludos, Bandini.
……..

[Madrid]

Y yo que estoy seguro de que esto sólo se va a quedar en la sanción sobre el G.P. de San Marino.


Madrid.

[elnuevo]

Full Verdict from the Court of Appeal

Thursday, 05 May 2005 12:58


Appeal submitted by the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile, on the grounds of Article 185 of the International Sporting Code.

CASE

Decision n° 49 taken by the Stewards of the Meeting concerning car n° 3, competitor Lucky Strike BAR Honda (driver Jenson Button), after the San Marino Grand Prix on 24 April 2005 counting towards the 2005 FIA Formula One World Championship

Hearing of Wednesday 4 May 2005 in Paris

The FIA INTERNATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL, composed of Mr Xavier CONESA (Spain), elected President, Mr Erich Sedelmayer (Austria), Mr Pierre Tourigny (Canada) and Mr Vassilis KOUSSIS (Greece),

Meeting in Paris on Wednesday 4 May 2005, at the headquarters of the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile, 8 place de la Concorde, 75008 Paris,

Ruling on the appeal brought by the FIA against decision n° 49 taken by the Stewards of the Meeting of the San Marino Grand Prix on 24 April 2005, having refused to take any action against the competitor Lucky Strike BAR Honda who they considered was not in breach of the FIA Regulations as regards the weight of the car,

Having heard:

For the FIA, appellant, represented by Mr Pierre de CONINCK, Secretary General of the Sport Division, assisted by Mr Sebastien BERNARD, Head of Legal Affairs, and Mr Charlie WHITING, Head of the Technical Department,

For the Respondent, the Motor Sports Association (MSA), represented by Mr Terry Lankshear, Secretary General, acting both for the MSA and for the competitor Lucky Strike BAR Honda, assisted by Mr David PANNICK QC, Lawyer at the London Bar, Mr Simon TAYLOR, Solicitor in London, and Ms Caroline McGRORY, Lawyer,

For the knowledgeable parties, Mr Geoff WILLIS, Technical Director, Lucky Strike BAR Honda, Mr Craig WILSON, Chief Engineer, Lucky Strike BAR Honda, Mr Nick FRY, Chief Executive Officer (Lucky Strike BAR Honda), Mr Ron MEADOWS, Race Team Manager (Lucky Strike BAR Honda), Mr Alistair GIBSON, Chief Mechanic (Lucky Strike BAR Honda), Mr Darren BEACROFT, N°1 Mechanic (Lucky Strike BAR Honda), Mr Chris FRY, Team Truck Driver (Lucky Strike BAR Honda), Mr Yasuhiro WADA, President Honda Racing Development, Mr Otmar SZAFNAUER, Vice-President Honda Racing Development, Mr Nick BROOKES, Director British American Tobacco, Mr Jo BAUER, FIA Formula One Technical Delegate, Mr Kris de GROOT, FIA Formula One Technical Team, and Mr Alan FULLER, FIA Formula One Technical Team,

Having acknowledged that the procedure was in order and the appeal admissible, the rights of each of the parties having been duly examined, both in the proceedings which preceded the hearing and during the hearing itself, the appellant, the competitor and the knowledgeable parties having been duly heard and having provided all the detailed explanations requested from them during the hearing and having received answer, with the help of a simultaneous translation system which did not provoke the slightest criticism on the part of the competitors,

WHEREAS the appellant the FIA has requested the International Court of Appeal to cancel the decision taken by the Stewards because it did not respect the technical and sporting regulations of Formula One as well as the rules of the International Sporting Code,

WHEREAS for its part the defendant argued that it conformed to all the relevant rules above,

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 600 kg, 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 N°3 of the Lucky Strike BAR Honda weighed 594.6 kg, 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 600 kg 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

Un saludo.

[chilenau]

Todos pueden ver de que parte de este caso soy yo, pero con todo el excelente trabajo de elnuevo no me queda duda de la trampa.

Me da pena y vergüenza , pero sigo siendo de BAR, ya que soy BARman, no "Fryista" jajajajjaja

Ojala no se vuelvan a dar cosas como esta....

[riquii]

¿Pero a quién se le ocurre dejar sólo 160 gramos de gasolina para el drenaje "normal" de la FIA?

La verdad es que si te lees la historia completa canta más que Bisbal en una gira estival.