104 replies to this topic

[walterb]

I knew I should have paid more attention in high school math class. The more I try to figure it out, the less I understand how BAR-Honda supposedly gained a weight advantage by carrying an extra fuel tank. Can someone please explain to me - slowly - exactly what BAR-Honda are alleged to have done? How does carrying more fuel make the car less heavy?

Thanks, and pardon my ignorance.

wb

[Engineguy]

For simplicity, let's assume it takes 3 full tanks of gas to run the race for Williams or BAR (and their main tanks are the same size).

Both cars with NO fuel are 20 kg under legal minimum weight.
Williams adds 20 kg of lead.
BAR adds an empty 2nd tank that weighs 1 kg and will hold 19 kg of fuel.


Start of Final Qualifying:
Williams Main Tank - full
BAR Main Tank - full
BAR 2nd Tank - empty

BAR runs Final Qualifying and the first stint of the race with a 19 kg advantage over Williams.


After first pitstop:
Williams Main Tank - full
BAR Main Tank - full
BAR 2nd Tank - empty

BAR runs 2nd stint of the race with a 19 kg advantage over Williams.


After second pitstop:
Williams Main Tank - full
BAR Main Tank - full
BAR 2nd Tank - full (19 kg fuel)

BAR runs 3rd stint of the race with same (not more) weight as Williams. Their pitstop took one extra second because they had to add more gas... but they had built a 15 second lead over Williams by running lighter for two-thirds of the race. BAR finishes 14 seconds ahead of Williams.


After race:
Williams Main Tank - empty
BAR Main Tank - empty
BAR 2nd Tank - full

Williams still has its 20 kg of lead, of course, so is legal weight.
BAR now has 19 kg of fuel in a 1 kg tank, so it is legal weight.

I'm not saying it happened, but that's the theory.

[jcbc3]

You should be a teacher!

[BRG]

Very clearly explained indeed, Engineguy. Of course, it implies that there must be a control mechanism that allows the 2nd fuel tank to be filled at the final pit-stop. Who might be responsible for activating that? If it is the driver, which it surely must be as I think that remote telemetry and control of cars from the pits is now banned (although if you are breaking one rule, why not another?), it becomes a larger conspiracy.

Mind you, you could tell the driver that the button (oops, sorry, no pun intended!) actually does something else – there are enough buttons on the modern F1 steering wheel to keep a legion of video gamers happy for a month! But the point is that someone has to activate some sort of valve to transfer the 19kg of fuel from the main tank to the 2nd tank. And the more people that know about a scam, the less likely it is to remain a secret, which may explain why the Imola scrutineers were looking so hard at the BAR.

[Hellas]

So logically there should be a difference in pace between 2/3 of the race and the final 1/3 of the race?

Can someone who has access to the timed laps verify this?

If it isn't the case there's always the possibility that they run less revs in the beginning thereby increasing the longevity of the engine. Then when they fill up the second tank, they up the revs to counter the loss of the weight benefit...

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by Engineguy


Start of Final Qualifying:
Williams Main Tank - full
BAR Main Tank - full
BAR 2nd Tank - empty

BAR runs Final Qualifying and the first stint of the race with a 19 kg advantage over Williams.

How do they pass pre or post-qual weight check?

[Ben]

Post 2nd qualifying they would have had race full in, which is the situation engineguy described, I can only assume that at all other times they put enough fuel in to finish any run with 20Kg of fuel (to use engineguy's hypothetical numbers)

BAR boss Nick Fry has been quoted referring to high pressure collection pots/tanks. I know you're not allowed a second fuel 'tank' but semantically collector pots and tanks are different things and there's no volume limit on the former (AFAIK) and this I believe is the loophole that makes what BAR have allegedly done 'legal' to the letter (if not the spirit) of the rules.

BTW, I don't feel the spirit of the rules can be used to objectively tech inspect cars. If the spirit has been broken, tighten the rule to prevent the technique in future, but don't blame or penalise BAR for exploiting a grey area - it's their job.

Ben

[Paul Ranson]

Both cars have their main tanks full with (say) 90l of fuel, or about 70kg. So the Williams weighs 605 + 70 and the BAR 605 + 70 - 19. The rule requires the car to be above 605 in qualifying and 600 in the race and so both are legal at all the weight checks.

I think engineguy's scenario is unlikely. It involves a deliberate breach of the rules, even if operated without an explicitly 'hidden fuel tank'.

More likely IMO is that BAR were exploiting the 605-600 difference. The rules require the car to be above 605 at all times in qualifying and 600 during the event. I presume the difference is to allow for tyre wear and oil burning, normal stuff, and to avoid arguments about topping off fluids before weighing.... It is permissable to add fuel and compressed gas during the event. If you run the car down to 600kg before the first stop you can burn 5kg more fuel, you carry a 5kg advantage all the way to the final stop where you add more fuel than you need to compensate for the expected tyre wear etc. The car stays above 600 all the way through, you only added fuel. I'm surprised if everybody isn't doing it.

Paul

[Ben]

Given the top story on Atlas today (which I read after posting) it seems that this may be exactly what they did. The article also explains why this may not technically be a breach of the rules.

Fantastic narrative to it as well regarding the post race development of the story and the fact that the mechanics of all the teams were effectively stuck at the cicuit until late into the evening.

Having read the Atlas story I still think the best course of action for the FIA is to accept that the loophole was found, not penalise BAR in this race but explicitly defining the minimum weight as a 'dry' weight with no fuel on board at all for all future races.

Saying that an unwritten 'agreement' as to what the rule meant was known to the teams from before BAR esxisted shows that the FIAs procedures are lax and that rules need to better defined than that.

Ben

[random]

Engineguy's very nice illustration clearly shows the advantage BAR would have had, had they used the extra fuel to illegally run 19kg underweight at various points in the race. But since the race stewards had all the fuel and weight data, the stewards would almost certainly have been able to deduct this after draining all of the BAR's fuel.

Consider that the car was weighed after final qualifying, and again at the start of the race. The amount of fuel dispensed at each of the pit stops is recorded in the rigs. The car was weighed again at the end of the race, with and without fuel.

With those facts in hand, the stewards should easily have been able to do the math necessary to figure almost exactly how much fuel was on board at the beginning of the race. They should also have known to a good deal of certainty how much fuel the car was burning each lap. And with that, the actual weight of the car at any given time.

Because the fuel mixture can be changed, I suppose there could be some small margin of error. But were the FIA to demand the telemetry, they could even figure mixture rates into their equations.

But even without the telemetry, if the car ever went as much as 19kg below the 600kg limit, the fuel and weight data should easily prove that out. I would think an infraction of that size would be well outside any margin of error.

[jcbc3]

Originally posted by Ben
...
Saying that an unwritten 'agreement' as to what the rule meant was known to the teams from before BAR esxisted shows that the FIAs procedures are lax and that rules need to better defined than that.

Ben

From the Autosport article:

It has always been understood that weighing the car without fuel is the only way to demonstrate that a car was legal throughout the race. The subject has been discussed many times in meetings of the FIA Technical Working Group and of team principals. As long ago as 1994, the FIA clarified that this was the case in response to questions from teams.

BAR bought Tyrells place in F1 and can thus NOT claim ignorance of the clarification of the weight rule that is mentioned here.

[random]

Originally posted by jcbc3
BAR bought Tyrells place in F1 and can thus NOT claim ignorance of the clarification of the weight rule that is mentioned here.

And yet in all that time, something as simple and fundamental as a definition of "minimum weight" never managed to make it into the official rule book...

Obviously the FIA race stewards felt that that minimum weight rule was not clearly defined as "Dry weight". And they should be far more familiar with all the secret rules and clarifications than any of us.

I imagine their decision was made in large part because "minimum weight" is never properly defined in the codified rules.

We've gone over this before, but the FIA purposefully keep the rules vague. This so that they may change the rules at a whim with their "clarifications". The fault of the awful state of the rules stands firmly at the feet of the FIA.

In my estimation, BAR found a loophole, one that will almost certainly be plugged in short order. By definition, a loophole is not illegal, it's a legal hole in the rules.

[Pioneer]

FIA Tech regs.


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.

I don't see any loopholes there... its quite plain. The car must weigh 600kg at ALL TIMES during the event.

[random]

Originally posted by Pioneer
FIA Tech regs.

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.

I don't see any loopholes there... its quite plain. The car must weigh 600kg at ALL TIMES during the event.

Yes, that's the rule. The point is, the rule doesn't specify whether that 600kg is dry weight, or weight with fuel.

What you're really missing is that by using fuel to make up that weight, the BAR could have kept above the 600kg weight at all times during the event (never, ever use that remaining 5kg of fuel) and still enjoy a substantial advantage from their weight strategy.

http://forums.atlasf...789#post2005789

[Wuzak]

If they never used that fuel, how can they gain an advantage?

And if it isn't used, doesn't that make that fuel ballast? Which is supposed to be fixed.

And if the wording on the published rules may not say the minimum is dry weight, but hasn't the FIA considered it to be so for the past 20 years? BAR can hardly claim ignorance on this, because tehy have been around for some time now, and I bet they haven't been secreting away an extra 5kg of fuel to be used as ballast since they took over from Tyrrell.

[random]

Originally posted by Wuzak
If they never used that fuel, how can they gain an advantage?

I think I described it pretty well in the link above. But to summarize:
All teams need to keep a bit of extra fuel on board at all times. This is to keep the fuel pump submerged. No F1 car can go into the pits on completely dry tanks. Fuel sloshing around under 5 or more G's would leave the fuel pump with no fuel. It's called "Fuel Starvation. 5 kilos of fuel is less than 2 gallons, not much at all.

BAR's strategy would seem to be one of always having that "extra fuel" on board at all times without having to incur a weight penalty. They would never actually burn that fuel. It would only serve to keep the fuel pump submerged.

It should be noted that some sources in the sport suggest any number of teams were using the same strategy.

And if it isn't used, doesn't that make that fuel ballast? Which is supposed to be fixed.

Fuel isn't ballast. Ballast is metal stuff that is fixed to the car. Still, using fuel to make up a car's minimum weight is not specifically prohibited by the rules.

And if the wording on the published rules may not say the minimum is dry weight, but hasn't the FIA considered it to be so for the past 20 years? BAR can hardly claim ignorance on this, because tehy have been around for some time now, and I bet they haven't been secreting away an extra 5kg of fuel to be used as ballast since they took over from Tyrrell.

It's not at all clear that the FIA have ever considered "minimum weight" as to be without fuel. A recent article in the Guardian suggests that including fuel in the overall minimum-weight is perfectly allowable.

The real question is why the FIA have never put a simple definition of something so fundamental as "minimum weight" in the rules.

This appeal is going before an arbitration comitted made of professional legal judges. Judges don't typically find defendants guilty because they violated an "accepted practice", they find guilt based on rules and law.

There are 19 pages of discussion on these points in the RC forum, link. All the topics you mention have been heavily discussed. Check the last 2 or 3 pages and you'll have a good idea of where things stand.

There was also a very informative article published in the Guardian today. It addresses (and dismisses) many of your points.

[Pioneer]

The rules say at all times the car must be over 600kg... obviously then ALL TIMES includes the times when it is low/empty of fuel. Everyone knows this and I can't honestly think BAR would have gotten away with it if its true. The cheating is far too blatant.

Its not a loophole its outright cheating.

[Dmitriy_Guller]

Originally posted by Pioneer
The rules say at all times the car must be over 600kg... obviously then ALL TIMES includes the times when it is low/empty of fuel. Everyone knows this and I can't honestly think BAR would have gotten away with it if its true. The cheating is far too blatant.

Its not a loophole its outright cheating.

I agree. "At all times" seems to make the issue of whether it's dry weight or not irrelevant.

[-RM-]

Pioneer, Dmitriy_Guller:
The term "dry weight" is not defined. The only thing that is defined is that the minimum weight of the car is 600 kg at all times during the event. Since the car cannot run without fuel, the weight of the car without fuel is irrelevant.

[Pioneer]

It could run out of fuel though. It would still as the regulation is written have to be over 600kg.

I don't see any wiggle room.

[Wuzak]

Originally posted by random

I think I described it pretty well in the link above. But to summarize:
All teams need to keep a bit of extra fuel on board at all times. This is to keep the fuel pump submerged. No F1 car can go into the pits on completely dry tanks. Fuel sloshing around under 5 or more G's would leave the fuel pump with no fuel. It's called "Fuel Starvation. 5 kilos of fuel is less than 2 gallons, not much at all.

I read your earlier explanation after I had posted.

Is 5kg of fuel necessary to keep a pump going? How much needs to be in the tank to stop the pump from "starving"?

The internals of the fuel tank are, no doubt, designed around the problem of g loadings, etc.

And surely a quantity of fuel required to bring the car up to minimum weight would constitute ballast? Even if it is there for a second purpose.

[paulm]

Originally posted by Dmitriy_Guller

I agree. "At all times" seems to make the issue of whether it's dry weight or not irrelevant.

It's at all times "during the Event".
Event is defined precisely as "An event shall consist of official practice and the race."
If a car is is empty of fuel during the Event it has problems unrelated to scrutineering!

Of course, having a fuel-free weight over the limit is a no-brainer way of showing that the car was above the weight limit for the entire event as it always weighed at least what it does empty of fuel at the end.

However, just because the fuel-free weight is under the limit doesn't mean the car was under the weight limit during the event.

It just means it is more difficult to work out whether it was or not.

[random]

There's still a lot of misunderstanding about BAR's strategy.

The point is, BAR would have had an advantage even without ever going below 600 kg at any time during the race. They would not have had to use that extra fuel to gain an advantage. It's as simple as this. A team has to pit when they still have some fuel in the tank. They can never come into the pits dead empty, or even close to dead empty. This because the massive gravitational forces in an F1 car would throw fuel away from the fuel pump.

BAR's extra fuel allowed them to run their fuel down to zero. The extra fuel was only used to insure the fuel pump remained submerged. It was never burned down to a level to put the car below 600 kg.

In today's hearing, the FIA didn't even bother to challenge that point. The 600 kg minimum weight would now seem to be a complete non-issue.

The crux of the FIA's case is a suggestion that a BAR mechanic purposefully lied to one of their scurteeners. They reported that this mechanic, when asked to drain a fuel tank, drained the tank. What he didn't do was drain a fuel trap.

All the teams have fuel traps. Many fuel traps, by design, cannot be drained! Fuel traps are designed to trap fuel form going anywhere but the fuel pump. The fuel form the main tank can enter, but it can never leave the way it came in. To remove fuel from this trap it could be burned by the engine, siphoned, or suctioned. Apparently in this case, it was suctioned.

As Jo Bauer himself admitted to the court today, the FIA had full knowledge of the fuel tank design, including the fuel trap. Those designs making it very clear that fuel could not be "drained" from said thank. Jo Bauer seemed to admit that the single, lowly, mechanic may have misinterpreted a vague instruction.

When Bernie today issued his proclamation of guilt, it confirmed a sneaking suspicion I've had since the start of this. I'm now fairly certain this was never about fuel. I'd bet a large sum that it is really about the GPWC.

The FIA and Bernie are trying to show the other teams what will happen to them if they continue down the separatist road. I read this as a political ploy, from start to end.

[red300zx99]

Anyone know where this tank was?

[Racer Joe]

Originally posted by red300zx99
Anyone know where this tank was?

It is a collector tank within the fuel tank.

[wegmann]

Two points:

1) BAR *could have* asked if their interpretation of the rules was correct at the beginning of the season. They failed to do so.

2) *Probably* not related, but ... Does anybody remember a qualifying session back in the 12-lap days when Jacques was weighed after his first run and the scrutineers told him they were something significant like 10kg overweight. Jacques went back to the garage and told them to remove some ballast. Is it possible that BAR was doing something similar then, but using the other interpretation of the rules (that they couldn't count the fuel in the catch tank as ballast) - and then when the scrutineers told them they were overweight they decided to change their reading of the rules? An admittedly tenuous connection ...

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by Racer Joe
It is a collector tank within the fuel tank.

Not really, if you've seen the FIA diagram, and read the FIA's complete account of BAR personels' deceptive answers to scrutineers' questions. It is a completely seperate sealed compartment, in addition to, and nothing like, physicaly or functionally, a collector. Very clearly a hidden ballast tank, and obviously used as such. Busted. Off with their heads!

[Paul Ranson]

It doesn't really matter what the BAR arrangement is or was. This ruling means the 600kg limit is raised to '600+any fuel circulating in the fuel system' so there is a now a clear premium on minimising the latter. The rules allow 2kg of fuel to be stored outside the fuel cell (this limit is a safety thing), add in the amount retained within the internal pipework and fuel pump systems, the total could reasonably be 5-10kg. Previously this was clearly part of the 'dry weight', latterly it is clearly not.

Paul

[wegmann]

Originally posted by Engineguy
Very clearly a hidden ballast tank, and obviously used as such.

To me, hidden implies secret. It was not secret to the FIA:

Jo Bauer, FIA technical delegate, was aware of collector tank

[random]

Originally posted by Engineguy
Not really, if you've seen the FIA diagram, and read the FIA's complete account of BAR personels' deceptive answers to scrutineers' questions. It is a completely seperate sealed compartment, in addition to, and nothing like, physicaly or functionally, a collector. Very clearly a hidden ballast tank, and obviously used as such. Busted. Off with their heads!

Your analysis doesn't jibe with the facts of the case. What you've said is little more than a regurgitation of the FIA's propaganda.

The facts are, the FIA had the full technical diagrams of the fuel cell, including the part you very disingenuously describe as a hidden ballast tank. In reality, it was nothing more than a fuel trap. The FIA knew about this fuel trap, including all of the technical details. The FIA knew that draining the main tank would never drain this fuel trap.

I think any who believe this affair was really about BAR's fuel levels is being naïve. This has all the earmarks of a political show of force against the rebel teams. I believe Max pounced on the first hint of infraction by one of those teams. BAR just happened to be the team that drew the short straw.

Don't believe me? Then if BAR are so singularly evil, why is the primary manufacturer of F1 fuel cells working non-stop to deliver tanks to a raft (perhaps all) of the other teams?

Why would all those other teams need new fuel cells if they were in compliance?

[Jhope]

Originally posted by random


Don't believe me? Then if BAR are so singularly evil, why is the primary manufacturer of F1 fuel cells working non-stop to deliver tanks to a raft (perhaps all) of the other teams?

Can you please elaborate on this?

[random]

Originally posted by Jhope
Can you please elaborate on this?

But of course link

That story gives the gist, there was also a more detailed article I'll try to find it again.

[Jhope]

[Renault4ever]

We can all argue 'till the cows come home, as to whether the secondary tank can consitute ballast, and frankly it does not really matter, unless BAR chose to use some or all of that fuel in the lead up to one or both of their pit stops, in which case the car would be underweight for a lap or two in the lead up to those stops and thus in clear breach of the rules.

Here are the final pit stop details for the podium finishers at Imola:

Alonso 7.9 seconds, with 20 laps remaining
Shui 6.1 seconds, with 13 laps remaining
Button 8.3 seconds, with 14 laps remaining

The above tells me that Button's BAR is either, EXTREMELY heavy on fuel compared with the Renault and Ferrari or, extra fuel intake was required to bring the car back to legal weight, in addition to that required to finish the race.

In other words, the Honda engine is roughy 25% thirstier than the Ferrari or Renault, OR they were running underweight in the lead up to the final pit stop ;) .

Draw your own conclusions.

[Timstr11]

Originally posted by Renault4ever
We can all argue 'till the cows come home, as to whether the secondary tank can consitute ballast, and frankly it does not really matter, unless BAR chose to use some or all of that fuel in the lead up to one or both of their pit stops, in which case the car would be underweight for a lap or two in the lead up to those stops and thus in clear breach of the rules.

Here are the final pit stop details for the podium finishers at Imola:

Alonso 7.9 seconds, with 20 laps remaining
Shui 6.1 seconds, with 13 laps remaining
Button 8.3 seconds, with 14 laps remaining

The above tells me that Button's BAR is either, EXTREMELY heavy on fuel compared with the Renault and Ferrari or, extra fuel intake was required to bring the car back to legal weight, in addition to that required to finish the race.

In other words, the Honda engine is roughy 25% thirstier than the Ferrari or Renault, OR they were running underweight in the lead up to the final pit stop ;) .

Draw your own conclusions.

The thing is that the FIA refused to look at fuel consumption telemetry data as well as fuel rig data to establish whether the car was above 600kg during the race. They state they only accept physical evidince. I find this odd, beacuse there is all sorts of other electronic data that the teams have to submit to the FIA to show their compliance....so why not for fuel?

To the letter the car was legal according to BAR. It is that the FIA and the court refused to look at the evidence presented by BAR. Totally not deserving a three race ban if you ask me.

And why do people keep talking about the collector tank itself when Whiting and Bauer (FIA) knew about the system since the malaysian and the Bahrain GP. It is not about the system, it is about the weight rules.

[jb_128]

As far as I can tell it isn't about if they were underweight during the race or not . There is no way to tell anyway.
Nor is it about wether the extra tank is legal or not. Formula.com says it is legal.

I think it is simply about the intent of BAR:
Did BAR intend to use fuel as ballast, which is clearly illegal?
Did BAR intentionally not drain the car of fuel completely when asked to do so?

The court and the FIA think yes in both cases.

The FIA knew that draining the main tank would never drain this fuel trap.

Can you elaborate? Are you saying it is normal practice to drain the cars of fuel after the races, but leave fuel in the catch tanks?

[Timstr11]

Originally posted by Engineguy
Not really, if you've seen the FIA diagram, and read the FIA's complete account of BAR personels' deceptive answers to scrutineers' questions. It is a completely seperate sealed compartment, in addition to, and nothing like, physicaly or functionally, a collector. Very clearly a hidden ballast tank, and obviously used as such. Busted. Off with their heads!

For your information

[Ben]

I feel great sympathy for BAR today. I think their statements are correct in that they didn't run underweight. Far from being gross cheating all they did was use the vague rules to run the 6Kg of fuel they needed for the engine to run safely without having a 6kg mass penalty.

It amazes me that the FIA think they can run F1 by saying - " look it's not in the regs, but we all had a friendly chat 11 years ago and everyone should know what was discussed even if you weren't there" That is not the way to run the sport. The rules are of course vague so that the FIA can ban anything they feel like as and when it suits them, it works both ways though.

Ben

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by Timstr11
For your information

That's not the FIA drawing, and what it shows is absolutely nothing like the FIA drawing labeled "BAR Fuel System Schematic." I'm talking about BARappendix_c.jpg that was part of the FIA case. What FIA referred to as the secret tank is not a typical tubular shape collector, it is an extreme forward wedge shaped section under the small of the driver's back. There is a clear plastic tube running from the top of the tubular vertical collector to the top of the secret tank to fill it when the main tank is filled above a certain point.

Read the FIA case, not some little obviously uninformed (or BAR informed) press blurb.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by Ben
I feel great sympathy for BAR today. I think their statements are correct in that they didn't run underweight. Far from being gross cheating all they did was use the vague rules to run the 6Kg of fuel they needed for the engine to run safely without having a 6kg mass penalty.

But what about the rule ballast has to be fixed, tool removeable or something, etc, blah blah?

[StephenJK]

In the spirit of providing even more useless information, the FIA Appendix D (report by Jo Bauer) provides some detail on the arrangement of the fuel bladder and other sub-assemblies.

The point I found interesting was that:

"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."

What's the chance that the collector also contained some fuel? I suppose that once the stewards determined the car was underweight, there was little purpose in looking any further.

[Paul Ranson]

That's not the FIA drawing, and what it shows is absolutely nothing like the FIA drawing labeled "BAR Fuel System Schematic." I'm talking about BARappendix_c.jpg that was part of the FIA case. What FIA referred to as the secret tank is not a typical tubular shape collector, it is an extreme forward wedge shaped section under the small of the driver's back. There is a clear plastic tube running from the top of the tubular vertical collector to the top of the secret tank to fill it when the main tank is filled above a certain point.

That drawing shows a low pressure pump filling the 'special compartment' and another moving fuel from the 'special compartment' to the collector. The 'clear tube' connects the collector to the 'special compartment'.

Your comment about the clear plastic tube makes no sense at all. The FIA diagram clearly shows that the 'special compartment' will be kept full by a pump, and implies that all fuel consumed by the engine will come from the 'special compartment'. A passage from the collector back to the 'special compartment' makes sense to return fuel to the 'special compartment' rather than the general tank.

I presume the purpose of the design is to maintain a constant level in the collector while allowing the level in the 'special compartment' to vary according to whether the first low pressure pump is actually seeing fuel or not, rather than allowing the level in the collector to vary or having a more complex fuel pick up system. But I'm not an expert.

Paul

[random]

To clear up the issue regarding the compartment in question, it couldn't have been a "secret" compartment. It was just a fuel "trap" or "collector".

The FIA had full knowledge of the tank and the collector/trap with diagrams and knowledge of its function. With such diagrams, they would have in their possession full knowledge that that to drain the main tank would not drain the collector/trap. No part of that tank was "secret" from the FIA.

Most interestingly, BAR just released some information that may explain the necessity for that extra fuel.

The BAR fuel cell is pressurized to 50 bar. (725 PSI)

BAR have also stated that they plan to release all of the documentation relating to the case. Including all of their confidential technical specifications relating to the parts in question. We could be in for a bonanza of diagrams and functional documentation on the current design and function of cutting edge F1 fuel tanks.

[StephenJK]

The BAR web site promised to have all documentation released "this afternoon". I'm assuming that will be with UK time at GMT. It's currently 12:06 at GMT -5, so it would appear the deadline has been missed. Is there a weasel factor involved here? Or is someone perhaps regretting a hasty decision to post documentation that is perhaps best kept confidential.

[Kalle_hopp]

The full document: http://195.147.246.4..._Submission.pdf

[flymo]

50 bar fuel pressure? That is very interesting.

Does anyone here have some insight into current fuel injection control practice in F1? Perhaps the high pressure is necessary to provide fuel control at extremely short injector open times.

[Timstr11]

Originally posted by Engineguy
That's not the FIA drawing, and what it shows is absolutely nothing like the FIA drawing labeled "BAR Fuel System Schematic." I'm talking about BARappendix_c.jpg that was part of the FIA case. What FIA referred to as the secret tank is not a typical tubular shape collector, it is an extreme forward wedge shaped section under the small of the driver's back. There is a clear plastic tube running from the top of the tubular vertical collector to the top of the secret tank to fill it when the main tank is filled above a certain point.

Read the FIA case, not some little obviously uninformed (or BAR informed) press blurb.

...and now Mosely has confirmed that other teams run "identical systems", so we are actually focusing on the wrong issue here. It is about how BAR interpreted the FIA weight rules, which unfortunately are open to a different interpretation.

[Paul Ranson]

So what we need now is evidence that other cars have had their tanks, collectors and accumulators vacuumed dry at the end of a race and remained over the minimum weight.

Paul

[McGuire]

Point of clarification... or rather a decimal point seems to have wandered off course. The injector rail (and everything upstream of the mechanical high-pressure pump) runs at 50 bar. There are also two in-tank low-pressure pickup pumps, and the accumulator inside the fuel cell is pressurized to .50 bar.

[Paul Ranson]

It's interesting stuff. Perhaps the FIA should get arbitrary with some other teams in other areas....

Paul