47 replies to this topic

[Hellenic tifosi]

We all know that the car should weigh 600kg, with the driver inside. However, the teams build the cars lighter so that thay can reach the limit adding ballast at the desired places. Now, what happens if a team runs the car underweight at the start of the race and compensates at the last pitstop? How can this be controlled?
Please, this is a serious question and I wouldn't like some people throwing allegations here and there. Enough with that!
Thank you.

[JDeRosa]

I think they would find that difficult to achieve as the ballast is usually attached to the underside of the cars.....I think. So to add ballast, the pit stop would be longer and it would be obvious.

[Hellenic tifosi]

Of course I didn't mean that they would add ballast at the pit-stop, as adding fuel is much easier:).

[Garagiste]

Agreed.
They certainly couldn't add ballast during a pitstop, that would be way too visible, besides as you say it's probably a fiddly job that would take ages.
But what about a set of heavy wheels?
Remenicent of the "water cooled brakes" and Tyrells "special fuel"

[GerhardP]

Tyrrell tried this back in 1984 by filling heavy metal balls into the tank during the last refuelling stop. Finally some of the FIA officials who check the cars got the clou about that and Tyrrell were disqualified for the whole season, including that beautiful third place finish of Belloff in the pouring rain of Monaco behind Prost and Senna.
So, the tank method is too well-known today after the '84 Tyrrell affair, and I think, something else would be visible on TV and consequently not possible (e.g. add some ballast at the floor of car).

[Hellenic tifosi]

First of all, heavy wheels are a big problem, as they add a lot of unsprung weight, which is something that nobody wants!
Secondly, I don't think you understand my point: I said that they could start the race weighing for example 550kg, and at the last stop they just add more fuel, which means that the car will be perfectly legal at the end. The loss of about 4sec at the pits will be easily covered by the underweight car for the biggest part of the race.

[Manson]

Originally posted by Garagiste
But what about a set of heavy wheels?

Heavy wheels would really slow down the car. It's reciprocating weight. Braking distances would be significantly lengthened also. Remember the big advantage of the carbon brakes is the lighter weight, not the co-effecient of friction.

I think, but I'm not sure that all cars must pass the minimum weight limit at any point during the GP. This going back to the water cooled brakes and Tyrell fiasco as you mentioned.

[GerhardP]

But as far as I know the FIA controllers weigh the car after they have pumped all the fuel out of it. This way of cheating would be too simple!

[JDeRosa]

I also think that adding extra fuel would not be a good strategy as the car would have to be heavier and slower, thereby probably losing the advantage that would have been gained.

[Hellenic tifosi]

JDR, this would only make the cars as heavy as the other cars after the pitstop.

[Garagiste]

Manson,
You're right of course - I was thinking entirely of how to get away with it, rather than lose any advantage you had earlier.
As others have suggested, surely post race scrutineering is done dry?

[GerhardP]

Someone said last year after the Hungarian GP where the exhausted winner Häkkinen was given a shower of cold water poured down his overalls by one of his team members that this water in the overall would've been an extra 20 kilos before Mika was weight... I don't think that cheating is possible in this way and don't believe McLaren cheated or even wanted to back then, but what about the general idea: handing I don't know what - perhaps a heavy metal sheet to put under the overall or something like that to the driver in the general chaos of congratulations after the race.
I know it sounds a bit phantastic, but maybe it is a cleverer way of cheating than adding some weight to the car itself, because the driver is not checked as seriously as the car.... Just another idea:)

[tifosi]

Well I just looked through the technical and sporting regulations, and it doesn't mention removing the fuel and weighing the car. However for this to be effective I would assume you would go off with a very low weight meaning a pit stop in the first few laps, which would put you in last place and make your day miserable getting through the field. Then you would have a very late pit stop to fill it back up, which means to get from pit 1 to pit 2 you would be driving a VERY heavy car. Also the car can be weighed at any time, meaning if you built a 550kg car with the intention of filling it up a few laps from the end, and got checked in Sunday warm-up when you only had a few kilos in, then your day is going to miserable also. Really not sure how this would work.

How about putting some 50 kilogram non-functioning "aerodynamic" piece on the car that flies off at turn 1. Then you merely have an underweight car due to pieces flying off which is okay under the regulations:rolleyes:

[Hi Test]

Yeah, I thought they weighed the car dry of fuel, too. All other fluids (brake, gearoil, water, etc.) remain as these cannot be changed or added during the pitstops.
But now I wonder, how do they test the cars during qualifying. When they randomly select the cars during qualifying, do they also drain the fuel?

[Hellenic tifosi]

tifosi, I suggested that a team removes the ballast, and then drives for example a two-stop strategy. At the first stint they are 50kg lighter than anyone else, which gives them a huge advantage. Then they pit like anyone else, and they add the normal quantity of fuel. Again the car is 50kg lighter. At the last stop they add more fuel than normal and the car is legal at the end of the race!

[Hi Test]

One could also do a late run through the gravel trap to scoop up some extra weight.
Verstappen is trying to perfect this strategy.

[DEVO]

I don't think the weight of the fuel is part of the 600kg min. I think it is just the driver and the car, otherwise everybody will be below spec during qualifications.

[Hellenic tifosi]

DEVO, the cars are weighed randomly during qualifying, which means that this is not possible!

[tifosi]

See your point, still don't think it would work. How much extra fuel do you need to make up 50kg? The tanks only hold so much fuel due to other considerations. Also, I guess the one point we haven't figured out is if the cars are weighed dry or not. As has been pointed out (and is in the Sporting Regulations), a car can be weighed AT ANY TIME during the event. Looking at the Tyrell example, I feel sorry for the team who's car stops before that last minute pit stop and FIA decides to weigh it. A lot of suspicions would be raised when someone puts in a full tank a few laps from the end. If they pitted with everyone else, then they would burn off all that fuel (weight) and fail the weigh-in.
Although I could not find anything limiting the actual size of the fuel cell, it must fit into a certain area of the car, between the front of the engine and the back of the driver, and no further out than 400mm from the longitudal axis of the car. This pretty much limits the size of the fuel cell, so for your strategy to work a car would pretty much have to make an extra, last-minute pit stop and completely fill the cell.

[Hi Test]

Originally posted by tifosi
How about putting some 50 kilogram non-functioning "aerodynamic" piece on the car that flies off at turn 1. Then you merely have an underweight car due to pieces flying off which is okay under the regulations:rolleyes:

Didn't BAR try this out in their first race, Australia 99?
They stopped this strategy when they realized the rear wing was actually functional.

[Hellenic tifosi]

Tifosi, let's take imola for example: Most cars went for a two-stop strategy, but at the second stop they could have put an extra amount of fuel, as Ferrari showed that the car could go half the distance of the race without pitting.

[rasnual]

What if the stewarts check the cars weight before the start ?

[tifosi]

H...tifosi


I understand, I just don't think if you did the normal pit stops, even if you filled it up, you would "save/gain" enough weight to make it wothwhile. As I said, there is a structural limit to how large the tanks can be. Again, what if your car didn't make it to that second pit stop and you were weighed before you could "fill it up". Following the example of Tyrell, its the death penalty. Also, simply removing the ballast sounds easy but these cars are set up pretty precisely, which means you would have to dial in a set-up without the balance, assuming we are talking about enough weight to make a difference. Again you would be running a big risk of getting caught on Friday or Saturday. And to get the setup right you would have to dial it in without the "removed' ballast. I'm sure in this case the pitfalls outweigh the possible rewards. Still not sure how much "extra" fuel it would take to make a difference, but I doubt if the tank could hole enough "extra dead-weight" fuel under normal pit stops to make that much of a difference.

Hi Test, Yeah I remember that, was it really the weight or were they just trying to get rid of some drag and get those high straight-line speeds. Since JV ended up all right I can actually say that was pretty funny when it happened.

[HartleyHare]

This kind of cheating is going on already. Look at Mika and and DC before a race and after: they start off looking like rakes and climb the podium wobbling like Jean Todt's chin. Apparently they get pumped with lard, clotted cream and 10 litres of water on the final pit stop. This has caused them to be a bit sluggish in the final stint but that should all change with all the new driver controls. Watch those McLarens fly.

And Jordans cars and drivers' overalls are yellow so you can't detect the overspill from the custard-in-the-pants hose. You'll never see a Jordan driver do a victory leap on the podium (except DH's deliberately muted effort in '98).

This was all started by MS who weighed in at the official check 10kg heavier than he did after the race. He was punished in the usual way of course (i.e. nothing was done).... But the procedures were tightened up, so this can't be repeated. his method was to glug loads of water before weigh in then piss on the opposition through the race.

The other trick is to swap your steering wheel and helmet for depleted uranium copies at the last stop. Have you not noticed the strange shape of the heads of the joint leaders of the WDC? Radiation, mate. That's what it is.

One of the above is roughly true.....

[GraDee]

Guys, come on. Cars cannot be underweight.

600kg is the minimum weight a car can be, not the weight it is when full of fuel thus it is most lekly the "dry weight" of an F1 car.

A DQ can occur if a car weights in at 599kg's so there is no let off.
Pre and post race scrutiny makes sure cars are not illegal and spot checks occur all weekend meaning theres no escape.

If you are dumb enough to run without ballast and only use fuel as balast you will suffer.
You will be running with mroe fuel on oard which i not strategically placed like lead would be. You also cannot run to your full fiel potential because fi you run under 600kg's and still ahve half a ank of fuel you'll be found out after the race I imagine when cars are weighted and are full of fuel.
It also messes up pit strategy.

It makes for a poorly set up car as well as a very very minimal chance of acually getting away with it so I can't imagine anyone gain advantage from unnign underweight cars in a race. If they do gain advantage they'll be caught, if they don't it'll be because of an unbalanced car meaning a poor result.

[HartleyHare]

Tyrrell actually protested that their cars did not run underweight - the ballast was put in to compensate for fuel being burned off. And my understanding it was water with metal balls that was pumped into the car. If they had not stopped, the car WOULD have been underweight, but this method meant they could be closer to the minimum weight for a greater part of the race.

[gray_cat]

Originally posted by HartleyHare
Tyrrell actually protested that their cars did not run underweight - the ballast was put in to compensate for fuel being burned off. And my understanding it was water with metal balls that was pumped into the car. If they had not stopped, the car WOULD have been underweight, but this method meant they could be closer to the minimum weight for a greater part of the race.

Tyrrell could protest whatever they wanted - they knowingly cheated. Weight of a car is subject to min weight regulation, and it is " the weight of the car with the driver" as opposed to "Racing weight - the weight of the car in running order with the driver aboard and all fuel tanks full."

Tyrrell were simply looking for escape move (to provide their fans something to argue with afterwards, I suppose) - their car was within minimum weight with the tanks full, where it was supposed to be within minimum weight with the tanks empty. That what the metal balls were for - after fuel drained, the balls were still in the tank, so dry weight of the car after the race was greater than dry weight before the race.

I wonder, what would it take for HartleyHare to finally admit that Ken Tyrrell and his people knowingly broke the rules and developed procedure to hide it ?

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.

ARTICLE 4 : WEIGHT
4.1 Minimum weight :
The weight (see 1.9 vs 1.10) of the car must not be less than 600kg.
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, nitrogen and compressed air, 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.

[HartleyHare]

If those are the rules that applied at the time, and they are that clear cut, then it is pretty clear Tyrrell cheated. But they didn't get let off, did they?

So Tyrrell apparently broke the rules and were punished. Should not the same have been done when other teams were caught cheating? Illegal software? 3D engine maps? TC? Illegal aero parts? Stop go after the race? Etc, etc....

What will it take for GC to condemn Ferrari for cheating? Lightning strike, perhaps? Ho hum. Double standards? Surely not!

[Hi Test]

Originally posted by gray_cat
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.

ARTICLE 4 : WEIGHT
4.1 Minimum weight :
The weight (see 1.9 vs 1.10) of the car must not be less than 600kg.
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, nitrogen and compressed air, 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.

So, do you know when they randomly weigh the car/driver during qualifying, they drain the fuel tank?

[Hi Test]

Originally posted by HartleyHare
If those are the rules that applied at the time, and they are that clear cut, then it is pretty clear Tyrrell cheated. But they didn't get let off, did they?

So Tyrrell apparently broke the rules and were punished. Should not the same have been done when other teams were caught cheating? Illegal software? 3D engine maps? TC? Illegal aero parts? Stop go after the race? Etc, etc....

What will it take for GC to condemn Ferrari for cheating? Lightning strike, perhaps? Ho hum. Double standards? Surely not!

Tyrell should have scored some points for being so creative.

[gray_cat]

Originally posted by HartleyHare
So Tyrrell apparently broke the rules and were punished. Should not the same have been done when other teams were caught cheating? Illegal software? 3D engine maps? TC? Illegal aero parts? Stop go after the race? Etc, etc....

What will it take for GC to condemn Ferrari for cheating? Lightning strike, perhaps? Ho hum. Double standards? Surely not!

Let's hope we can do without lightning strikes ;)

Two things :

1. HH stops using these clever escape clauses, like apparently above, when 'admitting' things
2. HH provides some evidense, and I mean evidense which is acceptable in civilized society rather than an editorial from Sun paper

[gray_cat]

Originally posted by Hi Test
So, do you know when they randomly weigh the car/driver during qualifying, they drain the fuel tank?

Last time I had a chance to watch qualifying very close to the pits - which was in Monaco 2000 - the weighting station was about 20 meters directly in front of my seat. And I didn't see them drain the fuel. The car was rolled onto the weighting rails with the driver in it immediately after lap at the pit entrance, and five or six people applied several measuring devices to check the size. They also did something with the data port.

I guess, in qualifying, the amount of fuel is so low, the car considered 'dry'

[HartleyHare]

And GC goes back to the same old 'level of proof mullarkey' which means Ross Brawn with a ruler and the offending part ADMITTING guilt is not proof enough. Should I mention that the FIA technical chief said that the Benetton was illegal?

I use the word 'apparently' because I am not au fait with the rules of the day. I can hardly take your words at face value when we disagree so regularly, can I? You are notorious for your limited revelations of the facts to support a particular point.

But let's not cover the same old well worn territory. Or I will start my infamous raindance....;)

After all, can you prove the Tyrrell ballast was not there from the start? Or that it was not shaken loose in the race?

By your own standards, that must be a total exoneration, surely?

[Hi Test]

Originally posted by gray_cat

Last time I had a chance to watch qualifying very close to the pits - which was in Monaco 2000 - the weighting station was about 20 meters directly in front of my seat. And I didn't see them drain the fuel. The car was rolled onto the weighting rails with the driver in it immediately after lap at the pit entrance, and five or six people applied several measuring devices to check the size. They also did something with the data port.

I guess, in qualifying, the amount of fuel is so low, the car considered 'dry'

You are probably right. Or, they could hook up to a data port that supplies a fuel level and this is deducted from the weight reading.

Something like sticking a yard stick into the tank of my Triumph.

[gray_cat]

Originally posted by HartleyHare
I use the word 'apparently' because I am not au fait with the rules of the day. I can hardly take your words at face value when we disagree so regularly, can I? You are notorious for your limited revelations of the facts to support a particular point.

You confuse me with DangerMouse - he is the champion of 'creative quotations'

And GC goes back to the same old 'level of proof mullarkey' which means Ross Brawn with a ruler and the offending part ADMITTING guilt is not proof enough. Should I mention that the FIA technical chief said that the Benetton was illegal?

I actually think Brawn honestly believed that Ferrari produced illegal part - so he admitted that. He and others were later proven wrong by the court.

And wasn't that FIA technical chief, who publically confirmed Ferrari case correct in Sepang, the same who said that the Benetton was illegal some time before ? When should we honor his oppinion then ?

[HartleyHare]

He (Whiting) also said the McLaren brakes were illegal until the greater powers in the FIA dictated that this must not be so. He is the FIA's pawn in many ways. Says what he believes before the party line is established, then toes that line thereafter. Hence Sepang. But who can trust Ross Brawn, the master tactician who accidentally declares his own team's legal part illegal? Good grief. That was the clearest case of rigging since the days of the clippers.

Once again, a few choice facts with which to mislead the eye from the big picture. Vintage Grey Cat!

To paraphrase the Lincoln lookalike VP candidate (Bentsen?), I know DM, and let me tell you, you are no DM...

But enough of this banter.

[gray_cat]

And the big picture is, HH ?

Originally posted by HartleyHare
I know DM, and let me tell you, you are no DM...

I shall drink to that !

[HartleyHare]

In a nutshell, the big picture is.....






















....gotta go. Dinner, beer (drinking to that too) and TV.

Later, matey!;)

[gray_cat]

Originally posted by HartleyHare

I shall drink to that too !

[Pink Panther]

"Tyrrell tried this back in 1984 by filling heavy metal balls into the tank during the last refuelling stop. Finally some of the FIA officials who check the cars got the clou about that and Tyrrell were disqualified for the whole season, including that beautiful third place finish of Belloff in the pouring rain of Monaco behind Prost and Senna.
So, the tank method is too well-known today after the '84 Tyrrell affair, and I think, something else would be visible on TV and consequently not possible (e.g. add some ballast at the floor of car)."

As McLaren used the same techique that year, using empty tanks which were refilled with water after the race, I always wondoered why only Tyrrell got DSQed for their cheating while McLaren was left untouched..........are metal balls worst than water??????

[Williams]

Drivers will often deliberately drive their cars through gravel at the edge of a track after a race so that the tires picks up lots of stone, thereby marginally increasing the weight of the car. This isn't really cheating, it just helps edge the weight up a bit when the team is running particularly close to the limit on weight.

BTW great thread guys

[ray b]

can drivers be top up after race,befor they are weight

[HartleyHare]

Ferrari tried removing a wheel during the Spa '98 GP, but found that it upset the handling, although they were still able to overtake Ligiers on the brakes. EI famously refused to repeat the exercise in '99, perhaps costing him the title.

[lulup]

I had a similar through when I saw the "random" scrutineering in qualify.
From What I saw on TV,the scrutineer just do a simple "visible" check(measure car's weight and the size of front & rear wing/diffusor).

So,maybe these teams can do something in the engine/gearbox/air-intake/software (3.2L engine?bigger air-intake?)
Is it possible?

[ChrisUK]

When scrutineering in qualifying, it doesn't matter if the car has fuel in it or not, as long at it is over the 600kg limit with the driver. This is because the car is scrutineered directly after a qualifying run and so cannot physically gain any weight (via pit-stops etc). If the car is over 600kg at the end of a qualifying run, it MUST have been heavier when it left the pits at the start of the qualifying run, as it has no way to gain weight whilst out on track (exept the odd fly in the radiator ;)). If a team wishes to run a car underweight in qualifying, but bring it up to weight using fuel, then that is their choice, although ballast is an infinitely better way of providing this weight due to how it can be distributed around the car.
I believe in post-race scrutineering, cars are checked dry weight, as in contrast to qualifying, they DO physically have the opportunity during the race to run under weight, due to pit stops etc, as has been discussed before in this thread. I also think the post race scrutineering check is a full check as they have the time available, wheras the qualifying one is more of a random spot check.
Also in regards to the driver weigh-in, the way I thought it happened was that the drivers are officially weighed periodically(randomly though) throughout the season, and this weight is used for the minimum weight calculation, not the post-race weigh-in value. This helps the teams set up the cars for the race as it is a known quantity to work from, and as long as in the the post race weigh-in, the driver is not radically lighter (probably a percentage variation allowed) than his official recorded weight, then the car is deemed legal.
I think another train of thought by doing it this way is the health issue. Doing it this way stops drivers attempting crash weight loss (like boxers and jockeys sometimes do) just before a race to allow extra performance enhancing ballast to be used on his car (ballast weight is better than driver weight because it can be placed on the floor of the car to lower the centre of gravity, and can be positioned anywhere along the car to aid front/rear balance). If he is weighed periodically, then he would have to be dangerously underweight throughout the entire season for this to be of any advantage, and as this would be detrimental to his physical performance, it obviously discourages any such attempt.

Chris

[GerhardP]

Originally posted by Pink Panther
"Tyrrell tried this back in 1984 by filling heavy metal balls into the tank during the last refuelling stop. Finally some of the FIA officials who check the cars got the clou about that and Tyrrell were disqualified for the whole season, including that beautiful third place finish of Belloff in the pouring rain of Monaco behind Prost and Senna.
So, the tank method is too well-known today after the '84 Tyrrell affair, and I think, something else would be visible on TV and consequently not possible (e.g. add some ballast at the floor of car)."

As McLaren used the same techique that year, using empty tanks which were refilled with water after the race, I always wondoered why only Tyrrell got DSQed for their cheating while McLaren was left untouched..........are metal balls worst than water??????

PP, I think that filling (kind of cooling or so) water into special kinds of tanks - at least in "rewatering stop" d u r i n g the race wasn't illegal back in '84. I have also to correct my Tyrrell version a bit: As one of the others here said correctly, it wasn't a refuelling stop when they put in the metal balls as illegal ballast into the tank, but the "rewatering stop" mentionned above, as far as I think. (I hope that I'm really 100% right now... )

[Garagiste]

You were allowed at that time to top up fluid after the race to bring the cars back up to weight.
IIRC, the point was that the "water cooled brakes" thing was a total red herring - there were just huge water tanks that would dump their contents at the start of the race. They only existed to allow the cars to run underweight.
And I think (I'll dig out the books if anybody is interested), that Tyrrell's ball bearings were in the fuel, and may have been after the water cooling loophole was closed.

[GerhardP]

Originally posted by Garagiste
You were allowed at that time to top up fluid after the race to bring the cars back up to weight.
IIRC, the point was that the "water cooled brakes" thing was a total red herring - there were just huge water tanks that would dump their contents at the start of the race. They only existed to allow the cars to run underweight.
And I think (I'll dig out the books if anybody is interested), that Tyrrell's ball bearings were in the fuel, and may have been after the water cooling loophole was closed.

But I think I really read somewhere in an old book once that the balls were in the water tanks - it might be that I've just mixed up two different things in my memory, but it would be really great, if you could dig out the books to make sure you're right, Garagiste.
Thanks!
(Very interesting thread, this one!!! )