BAR-Honda banned for 2 races

[labomba]

What i'm saying is that the general thought is that BAR were using this system last year.
If they weren't, then you have to remember that this car (007) will have been designed last summer / Autumn, when Richards was very much in charge.

What I'm saying is that I don't think Richards departure is the reason. BAR /Honda technical staff made an error of judgement.
Lucky for Richards that he wasn't here to take the fallout. I think this scandal on top of the Button to Williams affair wouldn't have done much for his credibility.

Now he will go and take the glory of Aston Martins' LeMans 24hour success.
(If they can beat the 'Vettes)

[henk4]

I was more thinking of the results of BAR since Richards' departure, nothing to write home about. Whether the car was already illegal last year does not matter, at least then they were able to score points with it

[labomba]

Too true... this years components don't seem to have the required durability
But I'll say it again. The main mechanical components have their roots set well into last year. The reason for the retirements so far seem to be more at Hondas feet.
You have to assume that they are pushing the envelope and just pushed too far. They are rumoured to currently have the most powerful engine on the grid. But the news that they are running such an incredibly high pressure fuel system it kind of gives the impression that they pushed too far.
When the BAR has run, it has run pretty quickly. The extra balast that they're gonna have to add has been estimated to cost 2tenths a lap... That won't drop them too far back, they will still be ahead of the Williams.

The worse thing to happen to them though is missing the Monaco GP. This is the most high profile event of the year. Its the event that they invite current sponsors, and its the event to which they invite potential sponsors. It is also the most televised GP of the year. Again report suggest that they could loose up to $10 million just from that race alone. Don't forget that this is the last year that Tobacco sponsorship will play a role in Motorsport. Not good news for BAR!!!
The ban also has the potential to loose them alot more money besides. They will loose a great deal in terms of championship position. And the TV money that is dealt out at the end of the year is proportional to the final standings.

[Matra et Alpine]

Labomba, I agree on the Richards ousting as being the root problems.

A successful race team isnt' the tacticians, designer, or the engineers or the mechanics. It's ALL of those. It takes an exceptional leader to make them all work to reach the optimal design and take the best actions.

Ferrari wre so good for so long because of Todt IMHO, he retained the best people and guided them to make the ebst choices.

Stewart Racing were mediocre till Paul accepted a more hands-on from Jackie, starte winning and went in free-fall when Ford decided they coudl do better.

WHEN you look back to the best teasm at the best times you always find a team leader at their peak. Ron Dennis, Frank Williams, Ken Tyrrell, Colin Chapman - all GREAT teams whilst their leaders wre on-form and lost it as they either were lsot to us or they themslevs lost interest, driven and focus.

[labomba]

Sorry, Richards was good, but not that good.

You cannot attribute Honda engines blowing up to Richards.
He was at the helm when all the design decisions were made, including the ill fated Fuel tank.
They don't design the new car the weekend before the 1st race

I think that Richards would have handled BARs latest troubles a little better than Fry.
But at the end of the day he was in charge when the decision was made to go down this route. Fuel tank / Ballast.
And his speciality is Management, and PR. Not F1 Engine fuel systems.

+ You have to remember that Fry wasn't new to the Team. He had been working under Richards for a number of years prior to Richards departure.

When the Honda has held together the BAR has been fast.
The decision that lead to the Fuel tank fiasco can probably be traced back to the Richards era.

[Matra et Alpine]

Sorry, Richards was good, but not that good.

let's see.

ProDrive Subaru World Rally champion
ProDrive GT winners

Sorry, Dave Richards has PROVEN himself to be exceptionally good at getting a team working to and achieving success
He was actualy being spoken of as a natural leader who coudl move F1 forward !!!

You cannot attribute Honda engines blowing up to Richards.
He was at the helm when all the design decisions were made, including the ill fated Fuel tank.
They don't design the new car the weekend before the 1st race

Jsut because I've asaid he was a great leader carries NO implication that an engine blow up can be attributed. That confuses the role of a leader

On the design, granted,but NEITHER IN F1 do they do it a year before like they USED to.
Modern methods are allowign MUCH faster decisions to be made and taken.
I woudl contend with YOU that Richards woudl have NOT allowed teh car to run below weight.
HOWEVER, that misses the MAIN POINT abotu THIS ISSUE...
ALL F1 cars are designed to be WELL BELOW the FIA limits and THEN they add ballast to fine tune the performance and hanlding, placing it perhaps forward or rear fo the centreline or even left/right to counter an out of balance countrer weight !!
So it was a team decision NOT to add the necessary weight.
That is a decision before EVERY practice, EVERY race, EVERY test session.
It is NOT something that is determined months earlier.

I think that Richards would have handled BARs latest troubles a little better than Fry.
But at the end of the day he was in charge when the decision was made to go down this route. Fuel tank / Ballast.

WRONG.
The fuel chamber is necessary to prevent fuel surge/starvation during cornering.
EVery F1 car has one.
The ISSUE was the WEIGHT of the car which was a day-to-day CURRENT choice by currnet managment !!

And his speciality is Management, and PR. Not F1 Engine fuel systems.

+ You have to remember that Fry wasn't new to the Team. He had been working under Richards for a number of years prior to Richards departure.

When the Honda has held together the BAR has been fast.
The decision that lead to the Fuel tank fiasco can probably be traced back to the Richards era.

oops, I think as you now realise that's 100% wrong.
IF you go to many of the F1 sites you'll get the full techiincal review on the weight issues and the extra fuel tank, they've all posted info on them.

Re Fry, personaly I don't think he was yet ready to take the helm.

and re technolocgy of cars, Dave Richards was runnign a successful business in car prep before he became rich and famous from it and entere the world stage of WRC and later F1. To think he is "only" management ( which ther is nothing wrong in being anyway ) or PR or doesnt' understand engineering lacks insight into his hostory. We're probably better informed in the UK as he has often been on TV adn in the press - espcielly the Motorsport press - for so many years we kidnof take for granted what he knows.

[labomba]

I live in Germany.... I'm not German, I am 100% British born on the North coast of Scotland.

I disagree with your assertions that they are taking less time to design their cars. If anything they are taking longer. It is a common trend that modern F1 teams have two teams of designers.
One team develops the current cars. Cars which as I'm sure you know develop to something unrecogniseable from their specification at the season start.
The other team will start somewhere around the beginning of the summer drawing together initial concepts for the next car.
Engines have an even longer development period. BAR have already tested (weeks ago at Paul Ricard) early versions of the V8 they will race next season. Cosworth who currently don't even have anywhere to put it, have their V8 on the dyno.

So as you can see F1 cars are a long time in gestation, and Richards was very much the father of the current car.

On the subject of British media. I am an Autosport subscriber and my Home page is set to Autosport-Atlas.com
...So please get down off your pedastal!

[Matra et Alpine]

I live in Germany.... I'm not German, I am 100% British born on the North coast of Scotland.

I disagree with your assertions that they are taking less time to design their cars. If anything they are taking longer.

[
Do you ahve evidence ?
EVERY announcement in the motiring press on new wind tunnels, new design centres, new software infrastructure, new materials ALL indicate the reason was to reduce the design time for the cars !

It is a common trend that modern F1 teams have two teams of designers.
One team develops the current cars. Cars which as I'm sure you know develop to something unrecogniseable from their specification at the season start.
The other team will start somewhere around the beginning of the summer drawing together initial concepts for the next car.

Correct, beginning of summer the cleansheet teams are starting for the car for testing in Autum/Wintrer adn first racing in march.
That's a 6 month design cycle, but I think we got mixed up over what each of us meant by a year to design. I remember back to the days when it DID take a year from concept to firt prototype to come up with a "new" car.
Back then "NEW" cars came along less often and most cars were derivatives of those before. This is near impossible with the use of c/f as the core monocoque structure.

Engines have an even longer development period. BAR have already tested (weeks ago at Paul Ricard) early versions of the V8 they will race next season. Cosworth who currently don't even have anywhere to put it, have their V8 on the dyno.

For sure a clean-sheet engine can be a longer task than a chassis or suspension geometry mod.

So as you can see F1 cars are a long time in gestation, and Richards was very much the father of the current car.

Well I disagree based on the reporst in Motorign News/Autosport etc.
BUT I concur on that parts of it woudl have been under development during Richards directinon.
BUT I though I had already covered the issue over ballast. It comes LAST for a team.
NOT something Richards would have had ANY say in as he was long gone by then !!!

On the subject of British media. I am an Autosport subscriber and my Home page is set to Autosport-Atlas.com
...So please get down off your pedastal!

Not on a pedestal.
I'm just reporting it as it's reported in the same mag you read.
If we see it differently I only tried to explain.
AS you see from the timelines comment I've realised where you were coming from "last year" being NOT during this calendar year ( as that woudl be a near impossible 2 month creation Jan-end Feb ) and that it is now NOT the full year even for a brand new car.

[labomba]

I wasn't aware the ballast issue needed explaining.

I'll say AGAIN... that Richards probably would have handled the Fuel tank situation better.... We can only speculate whether he would have run the cars at 600kg inc. the weight of the secondary tank fuel... we can speculate aswell that he was already doing that last year (As many others are asking)

Back to the original point being BARs form this season...
Do you honestly think somehow he would have magicaly prevented the Honda blow ups in Malaysia and the clutch and brake problems in Bahrain?

[Matra et Alpine]

I wasn't aware the ballast issue needed explaining.

In trying to suggest that it was a Richard choice I felt you were.
if you werent' all good

I'll say AGAIN... that Richards probably would have handled the Fuel tank situation better.... We can only speculate whether he would have run the cars at 600kg inc. the weight of the secondary tank fuel... we can speculate aswell that he was already doing that last year (As many others are asking)

Somehow we seem to be at cross swords over ballast understanding again
The car last year would have been below weight without ballast. The amount of ballast a team fits changes from race to race as different parts are fitted/removed. So no inference can every REALY be made without that additioanl information. If ballast is ignored then EVERY car in F1 measures below weight
So I'm not sure how anyone can suggest Richards would have been doing anything differetn to what he did on every race they WERE measured and no issues found. Conspircay theories are just that.
Generally those who 'cheat' are finally caught cheating, those who dont' arent' Richards has never been charged with cheating in any of the teasm I remember over the last 150 years !!
I have al ot of respect for they guy, prtly because he doenst' mind heling the "small" guy in the padock even as he was climbing the ladder to the heady heights of F1 !!

Back to the original point being BARs form this season...
Do you honestly think somehow he would have magicaly prevented the Honda blow ups in Malaysia and the clutch and brake problems in Bahrain?

That's mixing things together that have no connection per se.
BUT the point I was making abotu SUCCESSFUL teams is that you can see the dominant ones always had excellent leaders at their peak.
That doesn't mean in some reverse logic way that a failure means a bad leader or team !!
Good leaders make success most of the imte.
Bad leaders can make sucess too, usually not so consitentnly though.
As I'd said, comparing crednentials of Richards with the "greats" comes up poitive on his side - especially when you consider rallying and gt racing. NONE of the other greatrs managed it in such diverse fields.
He's not a god, but he is a damn site better than what BAR are stuck with.,
The politics of the Button situatino destroyed that team. They shoudl have backed Richards and woudl have ended up in a btter place IMHO.

[labomba]

The main difference this time being that the FIA were tipped off into checking for further fuel on board after the fuel tank was drained.

Is it possible that they didn't make these checks last season? And they were indeed using the fuel in this tank as part of their added ballast?

A lot of people are asking these questions about the BAR in 2004.

I too have a huge amount of respect for David Richards. But I think there are failures that have happened this season that could also have happened last season.
The mark of a successful leader could also be that they are in the right place at the right time to take the glory.

His time at Benetton certainly wasn't that.

[Matra et Alpine]

The main difference this time being that the FIA were tipped off into checking for further fuel on board after the fuel tank was drained.

but equally in "conspiracy theories" -- in the past they may always have emptied ALL the fuel.
That's the problem once cts start

Is it possible that they didn't make these checks last season? And they were indeed using the fuel in this tank as part of their added ballast?

Possibel , for sure, obviouly it is.
That was why I was saying that cheaters get caught at some time and non-cheaters never get caught. You cant' tell for use. Whcih "conspiracy" a person believes is personal. All I was pointing out was that he has had more years at the top and never cheated ( or at least caught, I know ) than current BAR members.

A lot of people are asking these questions about the BAR in 2004.

Of course they woudl. Probably led by Ferrari fans !!
Richards has enemies because he WAS successful in so many areas and called a spade a spade. he had little time for politics and BS. Some dont' liek that attitude. As I said he has a lot of respect in the service areas and paddocs all over the world. He earned that.

I too have a huge amount of respect for David Richards. But I think there are failures that have happened this season that could also have happened last season.

For sure, we aggre, that those failures coudl ahve happened to anyone.
That doesnt' make them good, bad or indifferent.
HOWEVER, there are some who say that ALL failures are to the team leader. IF a componnetn failes then it may not have been designed properly or may not have been installed properly or may not have been serviced properly. A GREAT manager/leader asks the right questions and seeks the correct assurance that allth eright thinkgs HAVE been done.

The mark of a successful leader could also be that they are in the right place at the right time to take the glory.

No that's the definition of a lucky b*****D
Or an evil conniving one - :cough: bernie :cough:

His time at Benetton certainly wasn't that.

? he wanted to do things with the team that the Beneton family didnt' want. They pushed him to put a Beneton family memner in charge.
How wasn't it ?
They DID finally learn that they needed to INVEST in development and stop seeing it as merely a portable advertising buillboard !!!

[labomba]

Benetton were pretty successful previously with Flavio Briatorre /Schumacher?

[Matra et Alpine]

Benetton were pretty successful previously with Flavio Briatorre /Schumacher?

yep, spot the key players in that mixture AND it took 4 YEARS to deliver it ?
By 95 that was all gone.
The struggled on a dowward spiral with Berger, Ales, Wurz and Fisi after that.

and with only a year on the post you're making a failry strong expectaion on ANYOEN given that as you belive a car take a year to develop

The Benetton team back ten was a political nightmare, I think anyeon was setup to fail who tried to lead that group. The removal of Richards and the replacement with a Benetton family memeber didnt' set the heather alight either Probably destroyed Wurz chances of a decent career !!!!

[labomba]

yep, spot the key players in that mixture AND it took 4 YEARS to deliver it ?
By 95 that was all gone.
The struggled on a dowward spiral with Berger, Ales, Wurz and Fisi after that.

So bad call by Richards in taking the job??

and with only a year on the post you're making a failry strong expectaion on ANYOEN given that as you belive a car take a year to develop !!!!

A year on the post??

I never said a car takes a year to develop. I suggested that your golden boy was around to oversee this years car.
If we're agreed that by summer they have started designing... until January when they begin to test the cars on the track that would be around 6-8 months??

The Benetton team back ten was a political nightmare, I think anyeon was setup to fail who tried to lead that group. The removal of Richards and the replacement with a Benetton family memeber didnt' set the heather alight either Probably destroyed Wurz chances of a decent career !!!!

Again bad call by Richards in taking the job.