By Phil Huff
May 3 2005

Today is the day that BAR Honda put their case to the FIA, defending themselves against a disqualification amidst rumours of hidden fuel tanks and underweight cars. The facts that have come out are clear cut. After the fuel was drained from Jenson Button's podium finishing car at San Marino, it was underweight. There's no argument over that detail at all.

Also known is that BAR managed to convince the stewards at the race that the car was legal, and the results stood.

Finally, the FIA, in an unprecedented move, have appealed against the decision of their own race stewards and are effectively trying to have BAR disqualified from the results of the San Marino Grand Prix.

Trying to speak to BAR representatives about this issue can best be likened to trying to stop Michael Schumacher's Ferrari in a Vauxhall Vectra - it's not happening, and it's obvious that it never will happen. We had to go elsewhere.

we spoke to a number of reliable sources in the Oxford area, and what we've been told makes interesting reading and, above all else, makes sense. BAR's problems seem to stem from a collection tank located inside the safety cell of the car. This tank holds fuel to feed under pressure to the engine so that the car can continue under power in high-G situations.

The collection tank is fed from the regular fuel tank. When the main tank is drained, we understand that the collection tank still retains some 6kg of fuel. This fuel us unusable. It's dead weight but is vital to the running of the car - without that fuel in the collection tank, the fuel system simply won't work.

BAR Honda appear to have interpreted the rules to suit their own developments, something that they've done on a number of occasions in recent years. They have assumed that the minimum weight of the car includes the fuel stored in the collection tank, as this is a vital and integral part of the cars design.

If that is the case, then the car can never be underweight. The stewards of the meeting seemingly agreed with this point of view, and allowed the results to stand.

However, after draining the fuel in the collector tank, the car was naturally found underweight. The FIA maintains that, being fuel, it cannot be used as ballast and must be able to be removed.

As ever, the FIA's own rules are vague, an intentional situation that is intended to allow for a degree of innovation in the design of the cars, but a situation that does lead to occasional problems over definitions.

We feel that BAR Honda will be able to argue that the fuel is stored permanently, and therefore the car cannot possibly be underweight during the race weekend.

However, life isn't that simple. By using this interpretation of the rules, BAR have had a 5kg advantage over the rest of the F1 field, as their collection tanks (which every car has a version of) have been storing fuel above and beyond the minimum weight. As such, the FIA are likely to find some area to argue legality over.

One such area may be the rule that allows for 2 litres of fuel to be left outside of the safety cell, intended to allow for fuel feed pipes, fuel pumps, etc.

The FIA may well argue that, in holding this fuel in the collection tank, they have far more than the permitted 2 litres. However, as the collection tank itself is within the safety cell, it will come down to how much of that fuel drains outside of the cell and, indeed, may redefine quite what constitutes 'inside' the safety cell.

Much like the Ferrari bargeboard situation from Malaysia 1999, we feel that BAR will escape any immediate punishment from the FIA by basing their argument over the ambiguities of the regulations. As well as that defence, there's also the evidence from Jo Bauer, the FIA's scrutineer, and the three race stewards (two of which are appointed by the FIA), who all passed the car as legal nearly two weeks ago.

The case is heard today, and the result should be out tomorrow, so stay tuned.