Re: FIA vs. BAR / Спорт / Авто-мото / Формула 1

ако някой не е разбрал след малко може вече да нямаме БАР във Ф1 този сезон. На който му е интересно пускам в оригинал доводите на ФИА пред съда и тези на БАР.

FIA Versus BAR: the FIA's Case

STATEMENT OF CASE PRESENTED BY THE FIA WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE APPEAL BROUGHT BY THE FIA CONCERNING THE SAN MARINO EVENT OF 24 APRIL 2005 COUNTING TOWARDS THE 2005 FIA FORMULA 1 CHAMPIONSHIP

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.
Appendix A: The decision of the Stewards
Appendix B: Technical Delegate's Report
Appendix C: BAR Fuel System Schematic
Appendix D: Report from Jo Bauer
Appendix E: Report from Kris de Groot
Appendix F: Communications with BAR

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.

In the middle of the Paris courtroom, once the scene of Gestapo interrogations in WWII, stood the bone of contention between the FIA and BAR-Honda, awaiting to be exposed like a Pandora Box that will change the future of Formula One. As Technical Director Geoff Willis bickered with Technical Delegate Charlie Whiting, and while BAR's lawyer David Pannick cross-examined Jo Bauer, the now famous BAR007 fuel tank remained untouched and under covers. In the end, it turns out, Exhibit A was never really the issue. Jonathan Noble returned from Paris with the arguments and contentions made by both sides, in the matter of the FIA versus BAR

They walked, Reservoir Dogs style, into the FIA Headquarters at 8 Place de la Concorde with their heads held high and a confident swagger to their step. Yet behind the bullish smiles and declarations of confidence of what lay ahead, it was clear for every one of the dark-suited members of BAR present in Paris on Wednesday that this was a big deal.

For a team that has yet to win a Formula One Grand Prix, there was no hiding away from the fact that they simply cannot afford to lose this week's FIA Court of Appeal hearing into the legality of Jenson Button's BAR at the San Marino Grand Prix. Hence the nervous shuffling, the last-minute checking of documents and the hushed conversations as they waited to enter the court room.

And if the team had been under any illusions about the severity with which the FIA were taking this case, it was delivered a major wake-up call in the final paragraph of the dossier the team were sent in the week after the San Marino event.

After putting out their case, the FIA had simply said: "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."

No wonder, then, that BAR's chief executives had not wished to take any risks in putting their legal case across. A call went out to leading barrister David Pannick, one of the top legal men in England and a man referred to by one of the team's big wigs as: "The Mount Olympus of Sports Lawyers."

Pannick is no stranger to high profile cases. He worked on the 'Spycatcher' trial, has represented the Queen and tennis player Greg Rusedski - and was clearly not a budget option for the team. But with millions at stake, no price was too much for BAR.

After what must have been a crash-course in Formula One fuel and weight regulations for BAR's legal team, the battle lines were clearly drawn as the two sides shuffled quietly into the courtroom - apparently the scene of SS and Gestapo interrogations in World War II to flush out French collaborators.

In front of the judges, three rectangular tables were laid out across the room. To their left, Pannick held court with his legal assistants, while on the right the FIA general secretary Pierre de Coninck sat with his legal assistant and F1's technical delegate and race director Charlie Whiting. Bang in the middle, in front of a row of chairs where witnesses from the BAR team and FIA sat, was an empty table that would be used for cross examination. The fight was drawn over the next two-and-a-half hours.

Those expecting a no-holds barred explanation of the much talked-about secondary fuel tank and full analysis of lap times, pit-stops and refuelling tactics to reveal BAR's innermost secrets were to be disappointed. Instead, much of the debate was turned over to legal arguments and niceties.

Some of the questioning was pretty obvious, friendly stuff - the favourite moment for many being when technical director Geoff Willis sat down and was asked by Pannick: "Are you Geoffrey Willis?"

Some of the legal talk was clearly designed to ease tensions. In his opening statement, Pannick went out of his way to make sure he would not bore the judges with repetitive statements. "I will only address you once sir, that is enough," he remarked. "There is a limit to your patience."

But there were times when the questioning had an edge to it too - most notably when F1 technical delegate Jo Bauer certainly appeared uncomfortable as Pannick nit-picked his way through the procedures and paperwork the FIA produced at Imola.

Ultimately, though, this wasn't about show - it was about either BAR or the FIA proving their case over Button's car.

And although the arguments did not answer all of the speculation that has been thrown about ever since it became clear that all was not right with the BAR007 after the San Marino Grand Prix, the session in Paris did allow us at least to get a grip on what the issues actually were.

Running Underweight

After BAR had successfully managed to convince the FIA's race stewards at the San Marino Grand Prix that their car had never run under the 600kg minimum weight limit during the race, much of the post-event speculation focused on whether the team had actually breached the regulations in this area.

The inference was clear: BAR could have gained an advantage at Imola by using up the fuel in the 'secondary tank' prior to the first and second stops, to allow the car the benefit of extra speed for being illegally light, before filling the car up at the second stop so it would pass any post-race inspection.

Although this matter was believed to be crux to much analysis, proceedings at the Court of Appeal's hearing hardly touched on this matter at all - and there was no specific investigation or suggestion that BAR had run under the 600kg at any point of the race.

Team boss Nick Fry was quick to point this out afterwards. "It was never challenged that the car was below the minimum weight limit," he told reporters straight after the hearing. "That wasn't even raised and I think that is a good point to start with - that we were above the 600kg, which of course we have always maintained."

Yet although both the FIA and BAR are happy to concur on the fact that the BAR weighed above 600kg during the entire San Marino Grand Prix, the hearing was not as clear cut as Button's BAR007 simply being above the legal weight. It went much, much deeper than that.

Defining the Minimum Weight Limit

FIA race director and technical delegate Charlie Whiting is no fool when it comes to uncovering teams trying to get around Formula One's regulations. His time as a team manager in F1 means he is in effect a 'poacher-turned-gamekeeper' - and more than ready to close off potential loopholes in a sport where regulations change frequently.

The return of refuelling to Formula One at the start of 1994 obviously opened up the possibility of teams adopting the tactic of running their cars light prior to their final stop, to benefit from a lack of weight, before filling them up with extra fuel at the final stop to ensure that they came in above the minimum weight limit at the end of a race.

To close off the possibility of such an obvious advantage, the FIA made it clear in 1994 that cars would be weighed after the race without fuel on board. This action caught out the Footwork team at that year's Canadian Grand Prix when Christian Fittipaldi was disqualified from his sixth placed finish in that race for being underweight.

Several days after that race, F1 think tank, the Technical Working Group, held one of their regular meetings and one item up for discussion was the 'minimum weight issue'. According to Whiting, it was agreed that F1's minimum weight limit would be set without fuel on board. He said: "This was discussed, so the practice was well known."

BAR obviously did not exist in 1994, and Willis was not a technical director at that time, but it has been widely accepted in F1 since that the FIA ensures teams do not run underweight by weighing the cars at the end of races without fuel. In fact, Bauer said during witness questioning that BAR had been subject to that 'fuel drained' test five times during 2004 and three times in 2003 - and they had never previously fallen below the 600kg limit.

Whiting and the FIA's definition of a minimum weight limit is completely different to what BAR feel it is, however - and the Court of Appeal hearing went into great philosophical debate at the actual definition of 'minimum weight'.

The TWG's understanding of defining minimum weight was not followed through into an actual technical or sporting regulation that states clearly 'weight will be judged of the car with no fuel.'

Pannick openly pointed out that such strict wording exists in sportscars and production car racing, but does not exist anywhere in the Formula One regulations.

F1 regulations are notoriously vague, however, and often open to interpretation (as was well witnessed over the 'Michelin-gate' tyre controversy in 2003), and the FIA's response to the lack of a definitive regulation over the dry weight of cars comes from how the FIA have decided they get absolute proof teams do not run underweight.

It is no good, according to the FIA, that the team can prove with data and software that their car was above the 600kg minimum weight limit - because the sport's regulations demand that teams can prove only through 'physical' examination that they comply with the regulations. That means a dry weight check is the only way to guarantee teams did not run underweight.

Whiting said about BAR's proof that they did not run underweight: "They produced a lot of data but parts of that which we can substantiate without referring to the data produced by the team is the start weight, finish weight and the amount of fuel in the car. The team need to satisfy the [scrutineers] and technical delegate by physical inspection, which they are unable to do."

Yet BAR's view of the minimum weight limit itself is completely different. Willis himself was at pains to point out that the definition of minimum weight was not the same as its 'dry weight'.

"If you want to determine the dry weight of the car, then you need to pump out the fuel - but that is not stated in the regulations," he said. "We only have to ensure that the car is above 600kg during the race and 605kg in qualifying."

BAR are convinced their philosophical view of the minimum weight limit stands - and from the outside it certainly appears to be just the kind of 'clever' interpretation of the regulations that allows teams to try and bend rules in their favour. Is the argument good enough to convince the judges, though?

The 'Secret' Fuel Tank

When rumours about the so-called 'secret compartment' in the BAR fuel tank first surfaced, it seemed like something out of a science fiction movie.

No-one other than the parties involved could be completely sure about whether this extra tank actually existed, but the court hearing confirmed its existence - and made it evident that the tank itself was not actually illegal.

Although there was no official word on rumours that the FIA got a tip-off from ex-BAR employees about the fuel tank, Bauer confirmed that he had first become aware of this extra compartment at the Malaysian Grand Prix after all teams' fuel tanks were checked for materials and size after a request from the Technical Working Group.

So what was the tank for? The FIA's assertion was that is existed to hide fuel from the scrutineers so it could be used as ballast to help the car come in above the 600kg weight limit at the end of the race.

The 9kg capacity of the tank, with that weight not counted by BAR as any form of ballast, would in effect mean the team had no penalty from the need to have quite a lot of fuel on board for their engine to run faultlessly. It could give the team a couple of kilos' weight advantage over their rivals in races, as well as the possibility of using extra fuel to stay out on the track longer.

BAR's view of it is completely different. They claimed that the tank was so big simply because that is the minimum amount of fuel the BAR007 needed for the engine to run perfectly - which is vitally important with the switch to two-race engines this year. Most teams run similar collector tanks to ensure efficient pumping of the fuel into the engine - although not all of these are as big as 9kg.

Bauer said the existence of the tank itself in Malaysia was not grounds for any specific concern in itself, which is why he somewhat crucially said he did not believe the tank to be 'secret' when questioned by Pannick. "It is not a secret mechanism," he said. "It is an additional tank and we are aware of it."

The FIA decided to keep an eye on potential use of the second compartment as a place for fuel storage - but that check could only happen when BAR finished a race. The early race disasters in Malaysia and the late retirements in Bahrain, meant Imola was the first opportunity for a closer post-race look.

As Bauer said: "The thought was that if we had to drain the fuel then we would have to have a closer look to see if there was fuel in it or not."

Have Other Teams Got the Same Thing?

One of the more interesting aspects of the BAR defence is that they believe their fuel system is not unique. Bauer himself refused to expand on whether that was the case when questioned by Pannick. He said: "I won't answer this question because of commercial [confidentiality]."

The inference from Pannick was that BAR are not alone in using a separate collector tank - and the team's readiness to bring a typical example of the tank to the court showed how willing they were to prove it - even if the tank stayed in its cover.

But the argument about BAR being alone reaches a dead end amid the realisation that it is the team's use of the tank that is the issue here, not necessarily the existence of the secondary tank.

A rival team, or even BAR themselves, could quite legally use their secondary collector tank to store that minimum amount of fuel needed to keep the car functioning, providing that that fuel was not included in the 'dry weight' calculation at the end of the race.

As Bauer himself said in court, when asked by one of the judges whether the system itself was illegal: "The system as a system is fine."

Fuel as Ballast

So although the second fuel tank itself was not illegal in the eyes of either BAR or the FIA, there were ways of using the secondary fuel tank that would be in breach of the regulations.

Bauer's knowledge of the compartment from Malaysia guaranteed a closer examination in BAR's post-race check at Imola - and meant the team would be required to empty their main tank and this secondary tank of fuel to ensure that there was no extra fuel in it after the race.

Usually most post-race checks of the fuel tank involve merely what is called a 'lifted pump drain' - where the front of the car is lifted to tip up the remaining petrol in the tank to allow it to be easily removed.

In BAR's case, however, a 'lifted pump drain' was not enough to get the fuel out of the second tank. That required a special 'hoover' device - and BAR were at pains to suggest that the use of such a device to remove fuel not in the main tank was not normal.

Willis said: "We are aware of, from time-to-time, fuel tanks being pumped out of competitors' cars. I am not aware of pumping out of the entire fuel system of the car.

"It is normally my experience that when you pump out the main fuel tank you leave fuel in the collector. The only time we pump out the full tank and collector is when we want to remove the bag from the car itself."

One source close to a major team has suggested that collector tanks are not normally drained of fuel because the amount of petrol in them is negligible when it comes to cars getting over that 600kg weight limit.

This prompts the suggestion that BAR may have been aware of the secondary tank not getting inspected and somehow decided to push a possible 'loophole' in the rules by making it excessively large.

One of the key clashes from the Court of Appeal hearing came between Willis and Whiting - separated by just a few feet and, barely making eye contact.

Charlie Whiting: "Can you confirm the FIA relies on the team to drain fuel?"

Geoff Willis: "The request we had to do was a lifted pump out."

Whiting: "So did you feel duty bound to take all fuel out?"

Willis: "The instruction was for a lifted pump-out..."

Then came one of the key arguments from BAR - that the extra fuel in the collector tank should not count as 'fuel ballast' as such and should count as actual weight on the car.

Whiting: "Do you believe fuel in the collector should be left in the car (after the tank is emptied)?"

Willis: "The car required fuel in the collector to work; that is the position we use for our own weight calculations."

Whiting: "Do you consider the weight of the fuel in the collector to be part of the car?"

Willis: "Yes."

Whiting: "So why did you not object to it being drained?"

Willis: "We had no objections - if the FIA is asking us to drain the fuel from all systems, then we are duty bound to follow the request of the FIA."

Whiting then pushed Willis on one of the big arguments against teams being allowed to count fuel in their collectors tanks as weight of the car. If BAR could count the 9kg of fuel in their collector at Imola, is there a limit to how much fuel could be stored in one? Would teams then be able to build collector tanks with 50kg of fuel?

Whiting: "How big can a collector be if you say it shouldn't be drained?"

Willis: "Our collector is 9kg, because it was designed in response to the introduction of our high pressure fuel system. Track testing has suggested we need a minimum of 6kg in the tank, those tests conducted pre-season there may be circuits in the calendar that require more than that so we needed more than that."

Deliberate or Accidental?

The single incident that lays central to moving the BAR case from that of a simple breach of the regulations to an act of 'fraudulent conduct' as the FIA claim, is of the allegation that the team declared the BAR007 was empty of fuel at its inspection, prior to the extra fuel being found in the secondary tank.

The FIA's submissions state: "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."

This conversation had been rumoured since the San Marino Grand Prix but it was not completely clear as to which member of the FIA spoke to which member of the BAR team.

The Court of Appeal hearing cleared up the fact that FIA technical team member Kris de Groot asked BAR truckie and fuel filler Chris Fry about the fuel - although the exact specifics of the conversation differ between the two parties.

The team claim that they were not asked to remove all the fuel from the car - only to do a 'lifted pump out'.

BAR team truck driver Chris Fry, who also acts as their fuel man, took the witness stand and disputed the FIA's version of events.

"He (de Groot) asked me to do a lifted drain, which we did. He asked 'Is that all?' So I said 'Yes'."

But de Groot, who submitted his report after the San Marino Grand Prix, is insistent that he requested a complete drain of fuel from the car. Here is how the conversation between Pannick and de Groot clashed over what was said:

David Pannick: "I would like to ask some questions about when car was drained of fuel. You specifically asked for a lifted pump out?"

Kris de Groot: "No, I asked for a full drain."

Pannick: "There is a conflict of evidence here, what is said by BAR is that you asked for a lifted pump out."

de Groot: "No, I asked for a full drain."

Pannik: "Would you say that on no other occasions you have asked for a lifted pump out?"

de Groot: "No, I asked for a full drain."

Pannick kept pushing on the specifics of de Groot's demand - and in a deadpan response to further probing he cheekily hit back: "most of the teams understand the term 'full drain'."

De Groot also appears to have been non-plussed by alleged delays in getting to the bottom of the contents of that secondary tank after the Imola race. In his report he states there was 'head scratching', and in his testimoney he even remarks at one point: "I wanted it out to get weighed. I said, 'If need be we will get a syringe and a measuring jug'."

The step from a breach of the regulations to the act of deliberate cheating is one that BAR most strongly refuted.

As Pannick emphasised: "My concern is what BAR-Honda faces in this case is not simply an allegation that we acted in breach of the rules. I want my witnesses to assure you that whatever view you take on the meaning of the regulations, there is no question of fraud, bad faith or deception because that is the matter of highest importance to them as men of integrity."

Willis equally insisted that there was no act of bad faith from the team - even though their interpretation of the weight rules is clearly in contradiction to the FIA's.

"We have a culture of safety and integrity," he said. "At no point would I allow the team to do anything illegal and I have made this clear in several meetings with the team."

But BAR's stance of acting in completely good faith is questioned by the fact that they never asked for clarification from the FIA over the use of the tank - even though it is common practice in F1 for teams to get approval from Whiting before pressing ahead with possible items of contention.

"It is normal for teams to ask whether things would comply," said Whiting. "BAR asked 14 questions last year about relatively minor points but this is something of great significance. I think it is unusual for them not to have asked. I think that is important to note."

The Implications

Whatever the ruling of the judges from the Court of Appeal, there are widespread implications from this case that will have an effect on Formula One - and perhaps change the sport from this weekend's Spanish Grand Prix.

Obviously BAR's very future as a successful F1 team is at stake here. A ban from the Championship will affect staff and reputations, and could have long-lasting implications for team sponsors and engine partner Honda, who have just bought a stake in the team. There would also be the possibility of civil court action, racing under appeal, and a lengthy summer of legal arguments.

Such a harsh outcome is unlikely, indeed, but even the more likely disqualification from Imola and multi-race ban will cause a major shake-up at the team. The lack of points - potentially leaving it with zero from the first half of the year - would severely damage their Constructors' Championship hopes, leaving them down the ranks, which will hurt them financially.

BAR's possible absence from races would then open up the possibility of the grid falling to just 18 cars temporarily - which could then require some teams to run third cars, despite commercial rights holder Bernie Ecclestone stating it won't be necessary. Should a ban start this weekend, then Marc Gene and Pedro de la Rosa would almost certainly put pressure on their bosses at Ferrari and McLaren to allow them to race at their home Grand Prix.

Longer term for BAR, any punishment that results in a loss of points will likely cost them Jenson Button. The Briton has the option to join Williams in 2006 if he has not achieved 75 percent of the World Championship leader's points by the Turkish Grand Prix - a feat that looks difficult now and would be impossible if the team miss races.

A simple disqualification from Imola, or even a slap over the wrist and a 'don't do it again' verdict would still lead to the team facing a performance handicap for the rest of the year. If, as Willis claims, the BAR cannot operate without less than 6kg of fuel in the collector tank, then it will never be able to run a car that is anywhere near the 600kg limit during races because they cannot count that fuel as car weight.

Victory for BAR on Thursday, however, would cause a major shake-up in F1 garages. Those teams that do count all fuel as ballast will be forced to change their stance and start playing around with the use of 'collector' tanks to get their weight down. Those teams who are forced to currently race with the penalty of extra fuel weight, because of their engine's needs, will no longer face a handicap.

BAR clearly are not going to be alone on Thursday in waiting by the fax machine for the judges' verdict.