Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 58,680
Likes: 2
From: West Henrietta UPSTATE NY
Lame facts...
Well if they can't say for certain the uel was too cold, why do we have all this crap going on with McLaren appeals???
Stewards: temperature issues too unclear
By Jonathan Noble
Monday, October 22nd 2007, 00:07 GMT
BMW Sauber and Williams were not punished for the fuel temperature discrepancy at the Brazilian Grand Prix because the FIA stewards could not prove that their petrol was outside the permitted limit.
A statement issued by the stewards at Interlagos on Sunday night said that they could not say for certain that the fuel in the cars was below the 10-degree maximum limit allowed in the regulations.
The stewards said that there was a discrepancy between the Formula One Management temperature of 37 degrees and that provided by the FIA and team-contracted meteorologists Meteo France, which was a few degrees cooler.
Furthermore, they made it clear that they did not have certain data in their possession that would have helped prove the teams were in breach of the regulations.
In particular, their statement said they lacked: "a precise reading of the temperature of 'fuel on board the car' which shows fuel at more than 10 degrees centigrade below ambient temperature"; and "a regulation stating in clear terms that for the purposes of Article [6.5.5] the definitive ambient temperature shall be indicated on the FOM timing monitors alone."
The statement added: "In view of the matters referred to above, the stewards consider that not withstanding the presumptions referred to above there must be sufficient doubt as to both the temperature of the fuel actually 'on board the car' and also as to the true ambient temperature as to render it inappropriate to impose a penalty."
By Jonathan Noble
Monday, October 22nd 2007, 00:07 GMT
BMW Sauber and Williams were not punished for the fuel temperature discrepancy at the Brazilian Grand Prix because the FIA stewards could not prove that their petrol was outside the permitted limit.
A statement issued by the stewards at Interlagos on Sunday night said that they could not say for certain that the fuel in the cars was below the 10-degree maximum limit allowed in the regulations.
The stewards said that there was a discrepancy between the Formula One Management temperature of 37 degrees and that provided by the FIA and team-contracted meteorologists Meteo France, which was a few degrees cooler.
Furthermore, they made it clear that they did not have certain data in their possession that would have helped prove the teams were in breach of the regulations.
In particular, their statement said they lacked: "a precise reading of the temperature of 'fuel on board the car' which shows fuel at more than 10 degrees centigrade below ambient temperature"; and "a regulation stating in clear terms that for the purposes of Article [6.5.5] the definitive ambient temperature shall be indicated on the FOM timing monitors alone."
The statement added: "In view of the matters referred to above, the stewards consider that not withstanding the presumptions referred to above there must be sufficient doubt as to both the temperature of the fuel actually 'on board the car' and also as to the true ambient temperature as to render it inappropriate to impose a penalty."
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,323
Likes: 28
From: Longmont, CO
Originally Posted by Triple-H,Oct 23 2007, 09:28 AM
Lame facts...
Well if they can't say for certain the uel was too cold, why do we have all this crap going on with McLaren appeals???
Well if they can't say for certain the uel was too cold, why do we have all this crap going on with McLaren appeals???
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,323
Likes: 28
From: Longmont, CO
Honda got banned from a few races by having a fuel pickup configuration that technically broke the rules but supposedly never gave a competitive advantage. I have no idea what sort of advantage fuel that's 4C too cold would give, but if true it's certainly a rules violation and a DQ is not out of the question. Given the marshals' initial statement, regardless of any subsequent retractions, it certainly seems reasonable to me for McLaren to protest.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 6,592
Likes: 0
From: Yorba Linda, CA
One possible advantage to cool fuel is the effect of thermal expansion: you can fit more cool fuel into a fuel tank of fixed capacity than you can warm fuel. There may be more advantages than this - this one seems almost negligible - but I'm not sure what they would be.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 58,680
Likes: 2
From: West Henrietta UPSTATE NY
Originally Posted by Elistan,Oct 23 2007, 10:53 AM
it certainly seems reasonable to me for McLaren to protest.
Do you want me to go on, I'm sure I could generate 100 more questions as fast as I can tuype them. This is total BS for everybody. Who the hell is the Drivers Champion?
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 58,680
Likes: 2
From: West Henrietta UPSTATE NY
Finally, an official statement, but still no real facts...
The FIA has yet to announce a date for the appeal.
http://www.formula1.com/news/headlin...7/10/7032.html
With this concerning the oputcome of the whole season there is no way it should have taken them nearly 3 full days to get this out. The FIA is pathetic.
The FIA has yet to announce a date for the appeal.
http://www.formula1.com/news/headlin...7/10/7032.html
With this concerning the oputcome of the whole season there is no way it should have taken them nearly 3 full days to get this out. The FIA is pathetic.