Thanks for using kg. There's too much unconverted lbs on TH-cam so it's nice not to have to convert _and_ give the Americans a taste of what we've to put up with.
@@AidanMillward much easier, but living in the us forces me to be familiar with imperial units, science forces me to be familiar with metric. trust me metric is so much easier, but I have to be familiar with both, so that isn’t too easy tbh
Michael made a mistake in Q2 in Imola, which is why his Q2 time is 4 seconds off the pace. He was fuelled heavily, but should still have been in the top 5.
10:43 awesome trick I read about a while ago for anyone doing anything with video editing: if you make a mistake reading your script, clap in your hands so you can recognize the blip on your audio track when you start editing. Alternatively, you can shout really loud to get your frustration out about the horrible process that is video editing.
The closest would be that Ferrari engine that wasn’t allowed to race again, after its ability to “predict” the cycle of the FIA’s fuel flow checking mechanism was designated “unsporting”. You know that agreement never made public & what you talking about guv? No race ban as such, but Ferrari went from challenging Mercedes to 5th, instantly because “our aero engineers had relied too much on this engine configuration” or car go slower when you give it less fuel per second 😹
The story of Jenson wanting to leave BAR for Williams, and then soon after wanting to stay at BAR after already signing for Williams is a good one too.
Cost him like 18million or something like that Drivers salaries before the tobacco ban was truly wild lol, the drivers salaries today haven't caught up to them yet 18 years later
@@RANDOMZBOSSMAN1 Makes you realize just how much more Tobacco money fueled Motorsport for as long as it did. No one, not even the massive explosion of energy drink companies, have come remotely close despite the likes of Red Bull being the closest we've gotten to having the sort of multi series reach Marlboro had then.
@@RACECAR oh 100 percent you're right to Motorsport industry at one point was a proxy industry for the tobacco industry Marlboro would be spending big money on the factory teams in Ferrari Ducati Team Penske Peugeot having their own driver academy sponsoring drivers and races around the world Then you had the likes of West/Mild seven/Benson and Hedges/Rothmans/Lucky strike x 555/Fortuna/Gauloises and more having similar structures Shame we lost all of them but that's life
This whole controversy only came out after a former mechanic at BAR left the team after the 2004 season, and then acted as a whistleblower, telling the FIA that they had found ways of running underweight. Of course, they couldn't prove that it had taken place, and San Marino was the first time that a BAR had finished - and so was the first real opportunity to go for a full scrutineering post-race. I seem to remember that they used gravity to empty the fuel tank (rather than a pump), and it was one of the Truck drivers who said that the car was empty. The principle that the car was weighed after removal of fuel came after 1984, and one of the arguments that BAR made was that the TD (not a regulation) was issued well before BAR ever entered the championship, and so they weren't aware of it. That doesn't really butter any parsnips.
Speaking of the 2005 San Marino Grand Prix... Anybody else remember ITV thinking it was a grand idea to go to an ad break 3 laps before the end, as the lead battle was reaching it's climax?
Yeah ITV still were contracted to take 3 further minutes of adverts and tried to hold it off until the last possible moment. So for Spain and Monaco they went the other way, and I think Monaco did the last 20-25 laps uninterrupted.
I was just about to post a comment about until I saw yours lol. To say I was angry would be an understatement, 3laps to go in an awesome battle and......ad break......and we're back for the final lap. Iirc I think they had to show the last 3laps again after the race was over. It's the only time I've ever complained to a TV channel.
3:16 From memory, Schumacher locked up and ran wide at a corner (possibly Rivazza?) in the Sunday qualifying session putting him well down the grid. He was heavier fuelled but would likely have qualified in the top 5 without the mistake.
In 2009, Renault was supposed to be banned from the European GP after Alonso lost a wheel during the Hungarian GP a day after Massa's accident. But that got overturned but they were very very close to a ban.
The 2005 tyre rule where cars were only allowed to use 1 set of tyres in the race has to be one of the daftest ideas in the history of F1 sporting regulations
The only problem is, although the FIA scrutineers had always proceeded on the basis that the cars have to comply with the weight limit after all the fuel has been drained out, that's not actually what the regulations at the time said. They just said "The car must weigh at least 600KG at all times during the event". So I thought BAR had a good argument to say that, after you've drained the tanks, any fuel lines or reservoirs that can only function when they're full of fuel under pressure, should not be drained for scrutineering. Because without that fuel, the car can't run. So it's a bit like the scrutineers taking off a wheel and saying "aha!". It was a poorly written rule. It's not actually clear why wheels were not removed for scrutineering, since there would have been times during the event when the car did not have any wheels fitted (i.e. during the pitstops), so on a strict interpretation, that is a breach. Every car could have been thrown out of every race for that one. More or less every other category (e.g. F3000, F3, DTM) had a regulation that the cars had to comply with the weight limit and that fuel didn't count.
Having extra fuel on board but arguing that it isn't used during the race but only to start the engine is a load of BS. It's like telling the cop that sees an illegal weapon lying in your car "yes, it's there, but I don't ever use it, it's just there to balance out my car." The problem with FIA is that they always want to please all teams and many suspect because the same FIA deliberately creates some loopholes for teams to exploit, so you get these weirdly formulated rules. Because creating rules that vague simply doesn't make any sense otherwise.
Interesting, very poor wording by the FIA. Foolish by BAR too. Not just declaring the car to be drained of fuel then it wasn't. But if they weren't cheating, in effect they were using fuel as ballast. Which opens up the questions of 'unsecured ballast', which was part of the case against Tyrrell in 1984 - Ken arguing the lead ballast was secured within the water tank, which the FIA/FISA didn't accept.
Lance Armstrong cheating on the Tour de France was just greed in the end. Considering the guy had just come back from his cancer recovery, just FINISHING the race would have been enough for most people, including me. But no he had to cheat his way to seven consecutive wins
They were cheating cos he was. They all knew what they were doing. Thing is Armstrong threw Floyd Landis and the others on his team under the bus so as to take any heat off him. It’s a bit like a corrupt politician or mob boss (or both as the same time kekw) having his people sent to prison on his behalf.
I've always believed Ferrari were doing something similar, but they weren't caught. If you remember back to the Ferrari "light fuel" with Shell because the cars would have a lower starting weight, yet go on to only pit at the same time as others. Their last stop was always very long. The commentators would say that the mechanics were just being careful, but I think they had to load up the ballast. If I recall correctly, I think Renault figured out what Ferrari was doing because they also came up with "light fuel" at some stage. I would think that BAR had realised what Ferrari were doing and either didn't implement it as well as the others or were unlucky to be caught.
And lest we not forget when the rule makers help you circumvent the rules...DAS.... James Allison's interview saying how DAS was originally button operated and the FIA told them no...only if it's done X way, in a belief they couldn't achieve it. We all know they did.
I've seen teams commit worse offences and get more lenient punishments. Benetton in 94, Ferrari at 99 Malaysia, Ferrari's 2019 engine, Merc's 2013 secret test... and then there's Michelin being forced to change their tyres in 03 despite tyres only being measured pre-race needing to pass scruntineering thanks to the boys in red struggling.
Ferrari in 99 was the FIA taking the measurements from a different point of the barge board than it really should, and the 2013 tyre test was at Pirelli’s request. Which were mitigating enough to be “let off” as it were.
The dumbest part of the 1 set of tyres for the race rule was that somehow there were still a billion mechanics around the car during the pitstop, instead of just the lollipop guy and two for the fuel hose
to be fair there is no high level endurance sports without doping thre are things they used 20 years ago that arent even on the list today and im sure there are plenty more things that you can use today without getting caught. the believe that doping is a thing of the past is just wishful thinking. sry for my rant it just makes me sad ppl cant see the truth back to f1 cars ^^
I think the reason they are very reluctant to ban a team is there is a lot more ramifications from that than banning a driver. Firstly the obvious is that you are penalising drivers for the actions of teams (which obviously you touched on with Belof and Brundle). While yes the team may be doing shady shit, the drivers would not necessarily know this. Secondly, banning a team runs the risk of serious financial losses to the team with them no longer able to fulfill sponsor obligations. We have seen before the ramifications of team/sponsor fallout when obligations are not met. So while yes the team took that risk, you have to think about all the employees who are probably innocent in all of this and could potentially find themselves out of a job if the team folds due to financial losses. And then there is of course the big one, the fans. If you ban a popular team you risk losing viewing figures because their favourite team and/or drivers are not on the grid for the rest of the season and potentially beyond. Banning a driver is so much easier. Yes there will be upset fans, and maybe a bit of sponsor unrest, but as long as a team can stick another driver in the seat at least the car is running to fulfill sponsor obligations and keep team fans happy (well as happy as F1 fans get). Back in the day of the Tyrrell banning they did not have social media and TV time was so much less, so they could get away with it. Today, it's just too much risk.
Just on the teams receiving a ban/hot water, Renault received a race ban during the 2009 season as a result of Alonso's wheel coming off in Hungary, but this was later reduced to a suspended ban.
If DRS was in play at Imola in 2005, there would not have been that brilliant demonstration of defensive driving by 'Nando on The Michael. Gotta say, I miss that aspect of racing.
@@detectivepayne3773 I betcha you'd say the same after a nil-nil footy match, eh? What's 'tedious' to you is worth watching to others. It's not like F1 in the 70s, 80s, and 90s was living on a shoestring; it was one of the world's biggest sports in terms of TV viewership. Racecraft shouldn't depend on gimmicks like DRS or KERS [remember that?]. Time was, if you couldn't figure a way past the driver ahead, it's because they're ace at defending their position. Today? Get within one second of them, and it's DRS, bay-beh. Outta my way, sitting duck. I, for one, prefer the tedium of having to endure watching a driver defend. I got Jarama '81 on repeat, here. Oh, the tediousity!
I think Ali Daei cheating Graeme Souness and Southampton Football club into believing that he was George Weah's cousin and, well could actually play top level football in England, was one of the funniest examples of cheating in sport!! Hilarious!!
Hit up Qxir - on his channel he's got a video about a guy who got an entire football career without playing any games. IIRC it was in Brazil. Awesome story (great channel too!)
I don't understand why Bellof's drive is still remembered as something legendary, as is Senna's, but Brundle's at Detroit, where he actually came close to winning, is forgotten. Those other two finished many seconds off Prost even at half distance (at least one of whom likely wouldn't have finished at all), whereas Brundle was right on Piquet's tail at the end of a full race distance.
I’d forgotten all about the dumb tyre rules. I do remember though Martin Brundle painfully apologising to viewers as ITV hadn’t fulfilled their ad break quote by the time the charge was on with Schumi chasing down Alonso and so they had to keep cutting away from the epic battle to make way for another Pizza Hut promo.
At least if Sunday taught us anything it's that those proclaiming "endless Quali laps" is the way forward have seen a glimpse of their tedious future. Zero strategy F1 is miserable.
this makes me really want to know how ferarri cheated with that whole fuel flow shenanigans now. and how they heck they got away with it all being super hush hush
I remember that. It was a big deal at the time of the ban. But it should have been a bigger deal but (true for you) for the way BAR served the punishment and got on with it and other dramas that year. Fun useless facts: I watched that year's Monaco Grand Prix in a hotel by the beach in Mombasa, Kenya. It was a South African sports channel covering the race with ITV commentary and no commercial breaks during the race. I think the commentary went silent when itv must have taken a commercial break, had minimal commentary during for the purpose of replays of incidents and silence again before the welcome back.
Funnily enough L’equipe broke the Lance Armstrong story a couple years before he got truly caught. They recently broke a story about Welsh Rugby possibly doing the Dope. Interesting.
A tad harsh on cycling there... Professional cycling is often used as the scapegoat for other sports where doping is concerned, because (a) it is one of hardest endurance sports on the body, (b) they do actually have rigourous anti-doping protocols, and (c) there isn't much money in it, meaning it's still susceptible to corruption, but isn't higher than the law like, say, football is. Cases in point: Operation Puerto, who ONLY cyclists were named and the remaining evidence (including the blood of many football and tennis players) was ordered destroyed (as it would likely bring much of Spain's late 00's sporting achievements into disrepute); Arsene Wenger's comments on purchased players medical results indicating past doping, and Gary Neville stating injections (of unknown substance) were widespread in the England camp at France 98. At the highest level of sport, it is safest to assume that EVERYONE is cheating one way or another. Take the results with a pinch of salt and enjoy the theatre.
I agree completely with everything you said Cycling has the image they have because they somewhat test more than others and have more in depth tests If the premier League/NBA/NFL etc had to test like they do in cycling we would have a crisis lol
Baseball went through it pretty publicly a while back, as well. Which is ironic because to me it requires the lesser of the fitness levels that the other "major" sports require (football ⚽, football 🏈, ice hockey, basketball, etc)
Due to this disqualification of Button, Alex Wurz got 3rd place on his one-off stand-in gig after not racing for 5 years. That guy is also now co-head of GPDA.
This might be a record for the number of times anyone has mentioned a 2005 European Grand Prix without bringing up Kimi Räikkönen’s suspension blowing up.
Aidan, I love these types of stories. you could do a whole hour each on Ray Evernham and Chad Knaus clever ideas in Nascar. And if you haven't watched Ray video of "racing around the rules" I highly suggest it. It's a fascinating 20 minutes of clever text ideas that eventually got banned.
Now we need a vid going through doping cases in motorsport. Tomas Enge, the puff to pass guy himself, is the one that instantly leaps to mind. I had no clue Nitro Nori Haga got done for ephedra either, and I still to this day think there was something very fishy about the NHRA and the Dodge Boys with Alderman's enforced absence realy...then again that whole team could be a mini series on its own with all the allegations, rumors, and plain weird shit that happened, and that's even before you get to the rabbit hole that is the break in and everything around that... EDIT: Okay no, Nitro Nori didn't get done for that. Somehow got he an Leeds footballers mixed up, whoopsfor
Glad the edit's there, I loved Haga and this would be the first I heard of such a thing. If you want a motorcycle racing doping scandal, look no further than Andrea Iannone. His ban is set to end soon.
After Foggy retired Haga was my fave in WSBK indeed. I got him and a few football players mixed up so hence the edit. Somehow I got Mark Bosnich mixed up with him. Mark was the one who got busted for cocaine and then went all in on it. Ianone, I have mixed feelings on. I do think there's more to it and he was made an example of. But. I do think he has not knowingly cheated, but he's cheated none the less. If it really was meat contamination like he claims, wouldn't more athletes get flagged up in tests?
100% BAR tried to pull one over the FIA and the stewards. . a couple of topics you can talk about. rubens barrichello being allowed to race withou the HANS device for the first few races of... 04? forgot now. or torro rosso running with V10 engines in 2006. mike gascoyne turning jordan into a race winning team from 1998.
Those V10s in the Toro Rosso in 2006 were detuned so there was no power advantage, just cheaper for Minardi (Red Bull had not yet bought Minardi when the FIA grandfathered them)
I did not know sato got disqualified for the 2005 Japan race and i kinda wonder how racing penalties have evolved over the years (especially since penalties that involve a crash or contact hasnt been done or i/many forget it due to track limits ) It also begs the question (for me formula 1 2 and 3 fan and follows indycat) how harsh stupid or just weird f1 is or not as an outlier
I'll never be able to prove it but I remain convinced that teams have been caught explicitly breaching the rules, but to avoid the spectre of race bans or even disqualification they've been ordered to sandbag for a while.
Cycling has always been a dope-riddled sport, and when you read into the history of cycling, it comes as no surprise. The bicycle gave doctors a reliable tool for testing the limits of human endurance and performance, so inevitably people started trying to find ways to...enhance that performance.
Michael would have sent it, but he thought, that Kimi would be his championship rival that year, so he rather took the points for P2 instead of risking it all.
I think the most recent time I can remember an F1 team being threatened with a race ban is Caterham for Abu Dhabi 2014 because they missed more than the allowed number of races in a row.
The Metric System is an official measuring system within the US, and it is widely used in many places within the US. The old plans to push a migration towards Metric just never happened.
Launch control was legal till the end of 2003 so I'm sure there was some wild things going on In the 90s teams used to intercept the starting signal before it was used so they could have effective launch control. This was caught by the FIA at the 1999 European GP when they aborted the start yet cars still tried to start, this was at a time LC was banned
I ask this because I’m fascinated by English dialects. You very often append a “the” to days of the week and named months where it’s already very clear which day or month you are referencing, e.g. “the Sunday” (in this video) or “the February.” Is this something common to your dialect? I know Englishmen won’t say “I’m going to the THE hospital” rather you all say “I’m going to hospital.” So I guess I’m wondering if my question above identifies another common difference between American and the King’s English.
I don't recall the exact sentences or context, but generally when someone says something like "the Sunday" or "the February" it generally refers to a _specific_ Sunday or February, akin to saying "that Sunday" or "that February" but with a bit less emphasis.
For some reason, F1 has the best names for the cheating scandals. Honestly, these just scream "Prime Suspense and Drama perfect for Netflix": "Option 13" "Spygate" "Crashgate" There's likely more I don't immediately remember, but tell those aren't begging for a TC drama series or at the least a novel...that then becomes a Netflix series. Also, rather ironic that the BAR team (which was the Tyrrell team that had said BAN) was the one that incurred that last banning of a team from a season or race.
Seems a bit strange We're disqualifying you because we think but cannot prove that you have done X, and because you never asked if you could do X even though it is not actually against any rules, that means you must be guilty of doing it. Plus, if my understanding of this right, it only "helped" them (assuming they did X) in one qualifying session of the weekend, correct?
Ferrari were 'done' a few years ago for cheating with the fuel flow metre. When the FiA investigated it was behind closed doors and, although found guilty, no fine or disqualification was imposed and the team had to sign a Non Disclosure form to keep what they had done from the rest of the grid. That suggests that what they had done was not actually against the rules but broke the 'spirit' of the rules, giving a false fuel usage reading. The fuel flow metres were modified for the following season to close the loophole. Ferrari's form suddenly dropped for the rest of the season.
@@mikehipperson they absolutely broke the rules. The fuel flow limit is explicitly set and any excess is illegal, regardless of how it's accomplished. What they did was find a way to avoid detection by the FIA sensors. The fuel flow meters were not modified to "close the loophole" because there was no loophole, they were modified to prevent the specific exploit that Ferrari were using to fool the sensors. The reason for the hush-hush is the same reason Ferrari used to get paid more than everybody else "just because": politics and money.
I have a question, and that is about Sauber since 1994 but has been quite well "Mid" except when BMW was running the team and almost joined the top and what the Audi will bring?
For me this was one of that list of bonkers things about '05, rather than overshadowed by the others, because it's a team ban, not a driver, which most of us had or have never seen. But then I could also say it would be huge to me, because it was as my knowledge and fandom of F1 was still growing and I was still a teenager at the time. I grew up through this period, so I remember it, if that makes sense. Martin Brundle getting deleted from resuts, meh, no great loss. Bellof, though, that hurts.
"Doesn't say I can't, so I will" is innovation. Coming up with ways to break and explicit law in a creative way or figuring a method to avoid getting caught, is cheating. There is a difference.
@@jsquared1013 very true, often in f1 though the line is often crossed and cars run "illegally" for a while after a rule change comes in... Flexy parts is a prime example. They categorically said no flexibility in aero parts... but they can only test so much. In that case its cheating I.m.o. I have no doubt that in the passed 20 years the championship winning car has had something technically illegal but wasn't part of the scrutineering checks.
So in the Background I see A Tele, possibly a Strat (although cant see head stock properly) , Blackstar 2x12, and I am guessing a Marshall 4x12, and I'm guessing a Blackstar Head (an only see the bottom right corner) What music do you play? and was I right about your gear?
@@AidanMillward nice I have a G&L tribute ASAT Special, a Hohner TE custom (basically a Tele with a "shreddy" neck), and a Squire Jazzmaster (dual Humbuckers), Amps wise, I use a 90's vs100 4x12, a mid 80's JCM800 50 watt combo, a Peavey 5150 (block letter) and a Jet City JCA50. Loves me some Tele action and a nice loud tube amp.
@@AidanMillward As an American, I can confirm, and I'm even stuck only being able to use American baked beans on highly buttered sourdough toast. Not quite the same as the authentic Brit stuff, but it still works.
The idea that F1 engineers designed the engine fuel system such that it required excess fuel to be carried in the car at all time, is blatantly ridiculous. Every ounce of weight on an F1 car is only there because it must be. No constructor would allow such a setup on their car.
@@AidanMillward The explanation from BAR was a set amount of fuel in the second tank is never sent to the engine. The fuel system just needs that minimum amount of fuel to function. As I said above, nobody would design an F1 fuel system like that.
@@GoatTheGoat there *IS* a minimum amount of fuel that has to be in the tank for the engine to run (has to do with how pump pickups work and avoiding cavitation), but to need 6kg or more for it is the ridiculous part. I don't know what that legitimate amount is for an F1 car, but I imagine it's more like 0.5kg or something.
@@jsquared1013 Yes, of coarse it is impossible for the fuel pump to extract every last drop of fuel from the tank. But like you said, in this case the amount of extra fuel sounds excessive.
![[TH] FS vs BME - VCT Ascension Pacific - Lower Bracket Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wnygqsR2Fig/mqdefault.jpg)
Max Verstappen Champion Merch now on the F1 Store. Use link in description if you want to support le channel.
Nah thanks... ain't ready to go to bed yet
Thanks for using kg. There's too much unconverted lbs on TH-cam so it's nice not to have to convert _and_ give the Americans a taste of what we've to put up with.
@@eamonahern7495 it isnt that hard to convert in your head, i do it all the time
@@charliemaybe much easier to just divide by ten tho.
@@AidanMillward much easier, but living in the us forces me to be familiar with imperial units, science forces me to be familiar with metric. trust me metric is so much easier, but I have to be familiar with both, so that isn’t too easy tbh
Michael made a mistake in Q2 in Imola, which is why his Q2 time is 4 seconds off the pace. He was fuelled heavily, but should still have been in the top 5.
10:43 awesome trick I read about a while ago for anyone doing anything with video editing: if you make a mistake reading your script, clap in your hands so you can recognize the blip on your audio track when you start editing.
Alternatively, you can shout really loud to get your frustration out about the horrible process that is video editing.
You didnt even mention that this scandal led to the Honda takeover of BAR.
The closest would be that Ferrari engine that wasn’t allowed to race again, after its ability to “predict” the cycle of the FIA’s fuel flow checking mechanism was designated “unsporting”. You know that agreement never made public & what you talking about guv? No race ban as such, but Ferrari went from challenging Mercedes to 5th, instantly because “our aero engineers had relied too much on this engine configuration” or car go slower when you give it less fuel per second 😹
The story of Jenson wanting to leave BAR for Williams, and then soon after wanting to stay at BAR after already signing for Williams is a good one too.
Cost him like 18million or something like that
Drivers salaries before the tobacco ban was truly wild lol, the drivers salaries today haven't caught up to them yet 18 years later
Sounds like Alex Palou
@@RANDOMZBOSSMAN1 Makes you realize just how much more Tobacco money fueled Motorsport for as long as it did. No one, not even the massive explosion of energy drink companies, have come remotely close despite the likes of Red Bull being the closest we've gotten to having the sort of multi series reach Marlboro had then.
@@RACECAR oh 100 percent you're right to Motorsport industry at one point was a proxy industry for the tobacco industry
Marlboro would be spending big money on the factory teams in Ferrari Ducati Team Penske Peugeot having their own driver academy sponsoring drivers and races around the world
Then you had the likes of West/Mild seven/Benson and Hedges/Rothmans/Lucky strike x 555/Fortuna/Gauloises and more having similar structures
Shame we lost all of them but that's life
This whole controversy only came out after a former mechanic at BAR left the team after the 2004 season, and then acted as a whistleblower, telling the FIA that they had found ways of running underweight.
Of course, they couldn't prove that it had taken place, and San Marino was the first time that a BAR had finished - and so was the first real opportunity to go for a full scrutineering post-race.
I seem to remember that they used gravity to empty the fuel tank (rather than a pump), and it was one of the Truck drivers who said that the car was empty.
The principle that the car was weighed after removal of fuel came after 1984, and one of the arguments that BAR made was that the TD (not a regulation) was issued well before BAR ever entered the championship, and so they weren't aware of it. That doesn't really butter any parsnips.
As a Schumacher fan 2005 is a legitimate farce season, it took stupid qualifying and dangerous race rules to make him do badly
Speaking of the 2005 San Marino Grand Prix... Anybody else remember ITV thinking it was a grand idea to go to an ad break 3 laps before the end, as the lead battle was reaching it's climax?
Yes. I'm still bitter about it.
Yeah ITV still were contracted to take 3 further minutes of adverts and tried to hold it off until the last possible moment. So for Spain and Monaco they went the other way, and I think Monaco did the last 20-25 laps uninterrupted.
I was just about to post a comment about until I saw yours lol. To say I was angry would be an understatement, 3laps to go in an awesome battle and......ad break......and we're back for the final lap. Iirc I think they had to show the last 3laps again after the race was over. It's the only time I've ever complained to a TV channel.
Ted was a twat even back then
they did that because Button was leading earlier with an illegal car and they didn't want to go to commercial
3:16 From memory, Schumacher locked up and ran wide at a corner (possibly Rivazza?) in the Sunday qualifying session putting him well down the grid. He was heavier fuelled but would likely have qualified in the top 5 without the mistake.
That makes sense. Couldn’t find a reasoning anywhere.
have you done a video on Karl Wendlinger before? i think it would make for a good what if or career overview video
its amazing that some drivers are great 1 moment forced out of their teams and next trying to pre-qualify. JJ Lehto only scored 4 times amazing
Schumacher made a mistake in the 2nd Qualifying session, which is why he started so far down. He would have been Top 10 otherwise.
If i recall correctly, Schumacher was down in 14th at Imola 2005 because he messed up his qualifying run
He did, on his 2nd run
True. It was probably the only race that year in which Schumacher was quick in both qualifying and the race.
In 2009, Renault was supposed to be banned from the European GP after Alonso lost a wheel during the Hungarian GP a day after Massa's accident. But that got overturned but they were very very close to a ban.
Aidan Michael Schumacher started 14th at Imola because he made a mistake by running wide in Q2 .
The 2005 tyre rule where cars were only allowed to use 1 set of tyres in the race has to be one of the daftest ideas in the history of F1 sporting regulations
Completely agree, I just wonder what was going on in the head of the person who suggested that, and the other ones who approved of that.
At least it stopped Ferrari
Think of the money and logistical savings…
Fuck tyre changes unrelated to changing weather.
Killed racing tyre changes n refueling stops
Why? I thought it was actually quite interesting, as the tires could drop off at the end of the race.
The only problem is, although the FIA scrutineers had always proceeded on the basis that the cars have to comply with the weight limit after all the fuel has been drained out, that's not actually what the regulations at the time said. They just said "The car must weigh at least 600KG at all times during the event". So I thought BAR had a good argument to say that, after you've drained the tanks, any fuel lines or reservoirs that can only function when they're full of fuel under pressure, should not be drained for scrutineering. Because without that fuel, the car can't run. So it's a bit like the scrutineers taking off a wheel and saying "aha!".
It was a poorly written rule. It's not actually clear why wheels were not removed for scrutineering, since there would have been times during the event when the car did not have any wheels fitted (i.e. during the pitstops), so on a strict interpretation, that is a breach. Every car could have been thrown out of every race for that one. More or less every other category (e.g. F3000, F3, DTM) had a regulation that the cars had to comply with the weight limit and that fuel didn't count.
Having extra fuel on board but arguing that it isn't used during the race but only to start the engine is a load of BS.
It's like telling the cop that sees an illegal weapon lying in your car "yes, it's there, but I don't ever use it, it's just there to balance out my car."
The problem with FIA is that they always want to please all teams and many suspect because the same FIA deliberately creates some loopholes for teams to exploit, so you get these weirdly formulated rules. Because creating rules that vague simply doesn't make any sense otherwise.
Interesting, very poor wording by the FIA.
Foolish by BAR too. Not just declaring the car to be drained of fuel then it wasn't. But if they weren't cheating, in effect they were using fuel as ballast. Which opens up the questions of 'unsecured ballast', which was part of the case against Tyrrell in 1984 - Ken arguing the lead ballast was secured within the water tank, which the FIA/FISA didn't accept.
Lance Armstrong cheating on the Tour de France was just greed in the end. Considering the guy had just come back from his cancer recovery, just FINISHING the race would have been enough for most people, including me. But no he had to cheat his way to seven consecutive wins
I find it difficult to criticize Armstrong too harshly...when all the competitors to a man were "cheating". It's inherently a dirty sport.
He was cheating before the cancer. He could just up the game using cancer mets as a cover
They were cheating cos he was. They all knew what they were doing.
Thing is Armstrong threw Floyd Landis and the others on his team under the bus so as to take any heat off him. It’s a bit like a corrupt politician or mob boss (or both as the same time kekw) having his people sent to prison on his behalf.
He beat fellow dopers , woops oh dear nevermind
It helps to have an ego the size of texas…
I've always believed Ferrari were doing something similar, but they weren't caught. If you remember back to the Ferrari "light fuel" with Shell because the cars would have a lower starting weight, yet go on to only pit at the same time as others. Their last stop was always very long. The commentators would say that the mechanics were just being careful, but I think they had to load up the ballast.
If I recall correctly, I think Renault figured out what Ferrari was doing because they also came up with "light fuel" at some stage.
I would think that BAR had realised what Ferrari were doing and either didn't implement it as well as the others or were unlucky to be caught.
And lest we not forget when the rule makers help you circumvent the rules...DAS....
James Allison's interview saying how DAS was originally button operated and the FIA told them no...only if it's done X way, in a belief they couldn't achieve it. We all know they did.
Absolutely correct, because beans on toast is DISGUSTING
:)
I've seen teams commit worse offences and get more lenient punishments. Benetton in 94, Ferrari at 99 Malaysia, Ferrari's 2019 engine, Merc's 2013 secret test... and then there's Michelin being forced to change their tyres in 03 despite tyres only being measured pre-race needing to pass scruntineering thanks to the boys in red struggling.
Ferrari in 99 was the FIA taking the measurements from a different point of the barge board than it really should, and the 2013 tyre test was at Pirelli’s request. Which were mitigating enough to be “let off” as it were.
The dumbest part of the 1 set of tyres for the race rule was that somehow there were still a billion mechanics around the car during the pitstop, instead of just the lollipop guy and two for the fuel hose
the idea to stop ferrari winning
Yup they only needed 6people Max
2 for the jacks 1 for the lollypop person and 3 for the fuel
@@RANDOMZBOSSMAN1 how many were in the small teams of the late 80's etc
to be fair there is no high level endurance sports without doping thre are things they used 20 years ago that arent even on the list today and im sure there are plenty more things that you can use today without getting caught. the believe that doping is a thing of the past is just wishful thinking. sry for my rant it just makes me sad ppl cant see the truth back to f1 cars ^^
Only 6K to go until Roberto Moreno!
Come on 100k subs!!
Though it shouldn't be possible, we are inching to 100k subs, even slower than Roberto drove around at the back of grids :(
The Crashgate penalty was, similarly, Renault given a suspended-for-two-years permanent ban from F1.
6k left until the magic 100 keep pushing Aidan 👍
Roberto, here we come!
@@GregBrownsWorldORacing oh my sweet summer child… 😉
No idea why, but I read that in a team radio voice and it was that much better.
I think the reason they are very reluctant to ban a team is there is a lot more ramifications from that than banning a driver.
Firstly the obvious is that you are penalising drivers for the actions of teams (which obviously you touched on with Belof and Brundle). While yes the team may be doing shady shit, the drivers would not necessarily know this.
Secondly, banning a team runs the risk of serious financial losses to the team with them no longer able to fulfill sponsor obligations. We have seen before the ramifications of team/sponsor fallout when obligations are not met. So while yes the team took that risk, you have to think about all the employees who are probably innocent in all of this and could potentially find themselves out of a job if the team folds due to financial losses.
And then there is of course the big one, the fans. If you ban a popular team you risk losing viewing figures because their favourite team and/or drivers are not on the grid for the rest of the season and potentially beyond.
Banning a driver is so much easier. Yes there will be upset fans, and maybe a bit of sponsor unrest, but as long as a team can stick another driver in the seat at least the car is running to fulfill sponsor obligations and keep team fans happy (well as happy as F1 fans get).
Back in the day of the Tyrrell banning they did not have social media and TV time was so much less, so they could get away with it. Today, it's just too much risk.
Just on the teams receiving a ban/hot water, Renault received a race ban during the 2009 season as a result of Alonso's wheel coming off in Hungary, but this was later reduced to a suspended ban.
If DRS was in play at Imola in 2005, there would not have been that brilliant demonstration of defensive driving by 'Nando on The Michael. Gotta say, I miss that aspect of racing.
Overtakes are two cheap now. Previously it could take a lot of work and a lot of laps to get passed someone.
@@MrLaughinggrass Or a race-ending duel of place-swapping. Think Dijon, '79. Probably the most intense battle for second place, like, ever.
rose tinted glasses, the racing back then was so tedious
@@detectivepayne3773 I betcha you'd say the same after a nil-nil footy match, eh? What's 'tedious' to you is worth watching to others. It's not like F1 in the 70s, 80s, and 90s was living on a shoestring; it was one of the world's biggest sports in terms of TV viewership.
Racecraft shouldn't depend on gimmicks like DRS or KERS [remember that?]. Time was, if you couldn't figure a way past the driver ahead, it's because they're ace at defending their position. Today? Get within one second of them, and it's DRS, bay-beh. Outta my way, sitting duck.
I, for one, prefer the tedium of having to endure watching a driver defend. I got Jarama '81 on repeat, here. Oh, the tediousity!
@@billmcdonald4335if you had played the F1 games you'd know the DRS isn't an overtake button
I think Ali Daei cheating Graeme Souness and Southampton Football club into believing that he was George Weah's cousin and, well could actually play top level football in England, was one of the funniest examples of cheating in sport!! Hilarious!!
Hit up Qxir - on his channel he's got a video about a guy who got an entire football career without playing any games. IIRC it was in Brazil. Awesome story (great channel too!)
Ali Dia. Ali Daei was an Iranian player, who until recently had scored the most international goals in footballing history.
I don't understand why Bellof's drive is still remembered as something legendary, as is Senna's, but Brundle's at Detroit, where he actually came close to winning, is forgotten. Those other two finished many seconds off Prost even at half distance (at least one of whom likely wouldn't have finished at all), whereas Brundle was right on Piquet's tail at the end of a full race distance.
I’d forgotten all about the dumb tyre rules. I do remember though Martin Brundle painfully apologising to viewers as ITV hadn’t fulfilled their ad break quote by the time the charge was on with Schumi chasing down Alonso and so they had to keep cutting away from the epic battle to make way for another Pizza Hut promo.
Using kilos & litres? ::: Lobbing Budweiserz & cheeseburgers in your general direction:::
What? Sato wrecked someone? Mr. “no attack, no chance.”
Do a video about the Honda front differential in the mid-2000's..
Oh I remember that but not why they had it. Good idea for a video.
At least if Sunday taught us anything it's that those proclaiming "endless Quali laps" is the way forward have seen a glimpse of their tedious future. Zero strategy F1 is miserable.
Ferrari International Assistance and also French International Assistance with the rubber. Don't get me started!
this makes me really want to know how ferarri cheated with that whole fuel flow shenanigans now. and how they heck they got away with it all being super hush hush
BAR.
Ferrari.
Can you see the difference? It's tough to make out but it's definitely there.
I remember that. It was a big deal at the time of the ban. But it should have been a bigger deal but (true for you) for the way BAR served the punishment and got on with it and other dramas that year. Fun useless facts: I watched that year's Monaco Grand Prix in a hotel by the beach in Mombasa, Kenya. It was a South African sports channel covering the race with ITV commentary and no commercial breaks during the race. I think the commentary went silent when itv must have taken a commercial break, had minimal commentary during for the purpose of replays of incidents and silence again before the welcome back.
Funnily enough L’equipe broke the Lance Armstrong story a couple years before he got truly caught.
They recently broke a story about Welsh Rugby possibly doing the Dope. Interesting.
A tad harsh on cycling there... Professional cycling is often used as the scapegoat for other sports where doping is concerned, because (a) it is one of hardest endurance sports on the body, (b) they do actually have rigourous anti-doping protocols, and (c) there isn't much money in it, meaning it's still susceptible to corruption, but isn't higher than the law like, say, football is.
Cases in point: Operation Puerto, who ONLY cyclists were named and the remaining evidence (including the blood of many football and tennis players) was ordered destroyed (as it would likely bring much of Spain's late 00's sporting achievements into disrepute); Arsene Wenger's comments on purchased players medical results indicating past doping, and Gary Neville stating injections (of unknown substance) were widespread in the England camp at France 98.
At the highest level of sport, it is safest to assume that EVERYONE is cheating one way or another. Take the results with a pinch of salt and enjoy the theatre.
I agree completely with everything you said
Cycling has the image they have because they somewhat test more than others and have more in depth tests
If the premier League/NBA/NFL etc had to test like they do in cycling we would have a crisis lol
Baseball went through it pretty publicly a while back, as well. Which is ironic because to me it requires the lesser of the fitness levels that the other "major" sports require (football ⚽, football 🏈, ice hockey, basketball, etc)
Due to this disqualification of Button, Alex Wurz got 3rd place on his one-off stand-in gig after not racing for 5 years. That guy is also now co-head of GPDA.
I do find interesting when you talk about cheating though. Like Dale Earnhardt says it's not cheating it's being innovative
This might be a record for the number of times anyone has mentioned a 2005 European Grand Prix without bringing up Kimi Räikkönen’s suspension blowing up.
they dont it again tyrrell 1984 dq for fuel
Did you just do Häkkinen impression with The Michael?👍
You diiid!
Aidan, I love these types of stories. you could do a whole hour each on Ray Evernham and Chad Knaus clever ideas in Nascar. And if you haven't watched Ray video of "racing around the rules" I highly suggest it. It's a fascinating 20 minutes of clever text ideas that eventually got banned.
But beans on toast DONT mix
BAR was of course born out of the Tyrrell team. In fact even now in it's Mercedes guise it does have the same company number.
The fact the BAR was illegal but way slower than Schumacher's Ferrari at Imola is embarrassing .
Same way it’s hilarious that Vettel and Leclerc had an illegal engine yet only won three races (same as Max) in 2019.
Now we need a vid going through doping cases in motorsport. Tomas Enge, the puff to pass guy himself, is the one that instantly leaps to mind. I had no clue Nitro Nori Haga got done for ephedra either, and I still to this day think there was something very fishy about the NHRA and the Dodge Boys with Alderman's enforced absence realy...then again that whole team could be a mini series on its own with all the allegations, rumors, and plain weird shit that happened, and that's even before you get to the rabbit hole that is the break in and everything around that...
EDIT: Okay no, Nitro Nori didn't get done for that. Somehow got he an Leeds footballers mixed up, whoopsfor
Barrichello and Papis got done for ephedrine and the IOC wanted them banned.
Watkins told them to do one
Glad the edit's there, I loved Haga and this would be the first I heard of such a thing. If you want a motorcycle racing doping scandal, look no further than Andrea Iannone. His ban is set to end soon.
After Foggy retired Haga was my fave in WSBK indeed. I got him and a few football players mixed up so hence the edit. Somehow I got Mark Bosnich mixed up with him. Mark was the one who got busted for cocaine and then went all in on it.
Ianone, I have mixed feelings on. I do think there's more to it and he was made an example of.
But.
I do think he has not knowingly cheated, but he's cheated none the less. If it really was meat contamination like he claims, wouldn't more athletes get flagged up in tests?
100% BAR tried to pull one over the FIA and the stewards. . a couple of topics you can talk about. rubens barrichello being allowed to race withou the HANS device for the first few races of... 04? forgot now. or torro rosso running with V10 engines in 2006. mike gascoyne turning jordan into a race winning team from 1998.
Those V10s in the Toro Rosso in 2006 were detuned so there was no power advantage, just cheaper for Minardi (Red Bull had not yet bought Minardi when the FIA grandfathered them)
@@PaperBanjo64 i know, but it's a good topic for Aidan to make a video on.
I did not know sato got disqualified for the 2005 Japan race and i kinda wonder how racing penalties have evolved over the years (especially since penalties that involve a crash or contact hasnt been done or i/many forget it due to track limits )
It also begs the question (for me formula 1 2 and 3 fan and follows indycat) how harsh stupid or just weird f1 is or not as an outlier
It’s ridiculous that so many years have passed and we still don’t seem to have consistent rules in F1.
I'll never be able to prove it but I remain convinced that teams have been caught explicitly breaching the rules, but to avoid the spectre of race bans or even disqualification they've been ordered to sandbag for a while.
Cycling has always been a dope-riddled sport, and when you read into the history of cycling, it comes as no surprise. The bicycle gave doctors a reliable tool for testing the limits of human endurance and performance, so inevitably people started trying to find ways to...enhance that performance.
Michael would have sent it, but he thought, that Kimi would be his championship rival that year, so he rather took the points for P2 instead of risking it all.
I think the most recent time I can remember an F1 team being threatened with a race ban is Caterham for Abu Dhabi 2014 because they missed more than the allowed number of races in a row.
Not America, just the United States. The other 40 countries in the Americas use metric
Znmd vs 🆚 milkha space bar 🍻 singh vs the great khali.. U people have tried chappan bhog? What is so special about lee roy?
There are two kinds of countries…those that use the metric system…and those that have landed on the moon.
Awkward moment when NASA uses metric…
Also Russia, China and India use metric and they’ve landed on the moon too kekw.
The Metric System is an official measuring system within the US, and it is widely used in many places within the US. The old plans to push a migration towards Metric just never happened.
Had already clicked on the little X to close the browser tab, but opened it again just to say congrats for "Stafan Bell on" 😄
Was there launch control operated from the pit wall in 2003 and if so can you please do a video about it?
Launch control was legal till the end of 2003 so I'm sure there was some wild things going on
In the 90s teams used to intercept the starting signal before it was used so they could have effective launch control. This was caught by the FIA at the 1999 European GP when they aborted the start yet cars still tried to start, this was at a time LC was banned
Remember me? Saw your videos when you were at 500 subscribers!
Also, you made a slight audio production error.
6k to go!
McLaren's reliability in 2005 was just terrible.
You mean to tell me that the tour is filmed from a motorcycle, I thought it was 2 guys on a tandem! 😂
The dirty ferrai Fairies were doing the same thing as B.A.R. The fia hate british driver's.
I ask this because I’m fascinated by English dialects. You very often append a “the” to days of the week and named months where it’s already very clear which day or month you are referencing, e.g. “the Sunday” (in this video) or “the February.” Is this something common to your dialect?
I know Englishmen won’t say “I’m going to the THE hospital” rather you all say “I’m going to hospital.” So I guess I’m wondering if my question above identifies another common difference between American and the King’s English.
We do say “I’m going to the hospital” but I don’t know if it’s a regional thing or not.
I don't recall the exact sentences or context, but generally when someone says something like "the Sunday" or "the February" it generally refers to a _specific_ Sunday or February, akin to saying "that Sunday" or "that February" but with a bit less emphasis.
Black Country flag is awesome.
Cyclings greatest winners are the chemists
Wait... how the hell do beans go with toast?
eat at richard's, pom. I'll use kilo's when you start driving on the CORRECT side of the road. You know. Like the rest of the world.
Might want to start writing stuff that starts with a coherent sentence before learning the metric system.
Who was the nascar team owner who said "if you ain't cheating you aint racing"?
junior johnson
For some reason, F1 has the best names for the cheating scandals. Honestly, these just scream "Prime Suspense and Drama perfect for Netflix":
"Option 13"
"Spygate"
"Crashgate"
There's likely more I don't immediately remember, but tell those aren't begging for a TC drama series or at the least a novel...that then becomes a Netflix series.
Also, rather ironic that the BAR team (which was the Tyrrell team that had said BAN) was the one that incurred that last banning of a team from a season or race.
Crashgate and Spygate just take the gate suffix from Watergate. There was bloodgate in rugby around the same time.
Thanks Aidan. "Stefan Bellon" had me chuckling!
Seems a bit strange
We're disqualifying you because we think but cannot prove that you have done X, and because you never asked if you could do X even though it is not actually against any rules, that means you must be guilty of doing it.
Plus, if my understanding of this right, it only "helped" them (assuming they did X) in one qualifying session of the weekend, correct?
Ferrari were 'done' a few years ago for cheating with the fuel flow metre. When the FiA investigated it was behind closed doors and, although found guilty, no fine or disqualification was imposed and the team had to sign a Non Disclosure form to keep what they had done from the rest of the grid. That suggests that what they had done was not actually against the rules but broke the 'spirit' of the rules, giving a false fuel usage reading. The fuel flow metres were modified for the following season to close the loophole. Ferrari's form suddenly dropped for the rest of the season.
@@mikehipperson they absolutely broke the rules. The fuel flow limit is explicitly set and any excess is illegal, regardless of how it's accomplished. What they did was find a way to avoid detection by the FIA sensors. The fuel flow meters were not modified to "close the loophole" because there was no loophole, they were modified to prevent the specific exploit that Ferrari were using to fool the sensors.
The reason for the hush-hush is the same reason Ferrari used to get paid more than everybody else "just because": politics and money.
Thank you!
Now explain the Keating Ford advantage of a coke can of fuel at Le Mans. Nothing but ballast fuel.
Adrian, you are a real talent. Your format is smplistic but unique and you have a great voice. Great stories and a marriana trench depth of knowledge.
I have a question, and that is about Sauber since 1994 but has been quite well "Mid" except when BMW was running the team and almost joined the top and what the Audi will bring?
And who drove the Andrea Moda - you know who hehe - FGS - 6k to go
Perry McCarthy.
Been watching videos here for year, waited until now to subscribe to get you to 100K Go Go Go!
awesome video. Remeber this well. weird to think it's nearly 20 years ago now
For me this was one of that list of bonkers things about '05, rather than overshadowed by the others, because it's a team ban, not a driver, which most of us had or have never seen. But then I could also say it would be huge to me, because it was as my knowledge and fandom of F1 was still growing and I was still a teenager at the time. I grew up through this period, so I remember it, if that makes sense.
Martin Brundle getting deleted from resuts, meh, no great loss. Bellof, though, that hurts.
I still think that BAR Lucky Strike had the best looking race suit.
Will u EVER bring back the Senna video?
Road cycling isnt any better. Its still as dirty as a mr universe podium.
BAR-red from racing eh eh
Thats whats great about f1 for me... cheating is almsot part of the game... a perfect example of it doesnt say i cant so i will.
"Doesn't say I can't, so I will" is innovation. Coming up with ways to break and explicit law in a creative way or figuring a method to avoid getting caught, is cheating. There is a difference.
@@jsquared1013 I kinda agree but it's still cheating(however innovative it is) getting caught is just proof of it.
@@jsquared1013 very true, often in f1 though the line is often crossed and cars run "illegally" for a while after a rule change comes in... Flexy parts is a prime example. They categorically said no flexibility in aero parts... but they can only test so much. In that case its cheating I.m.o. I have no doubt that in the passed 20 years the championship winning car has had something technically illegal but wasn't part of the scrutineering checks.
What's wrong with your wrist?
Does it matter?
@@AidanMillward Just looked strange. Hope you're okay.
Just look up Smokie Yunick, he's worth a few videos on his history of cheating, and some hilarious stories...
Did that years ago.
Stefen Bell-On in the end 😂😂
Stefan *Bellon* - Nice one Aidan
So in the Background I see A Tele, possibly a Strat (although cant see head stock properly) , Blackstar 2x12, and I am guessing a Marshall 4x12, and I'm guessing a Blackstar Head (an only see the bottom right corner)
What music do you play? and was I right about your gear?
It’s a Mexican Tele, home built Strat, Marshall 4x12 and Blackstar 2x12. Got a Gibson Les Paul in the case next to it.
Head’s a DSL50
@@AidanMillward nice I have a G&L tribute ASAT Special, a Hohner TE custom (basically a Tele with a "shreddy" neck), and a Squire Jazzmaster (dual Humbuckers), Amps wise, I use a 90's vs100 4x12, a mid 80's JCM800 50 watt combo, a Peavey 5150 (block letter) and a Jet City JCA50. Loves me some Tele action and a nice loud tube amp.
nice flag of the black country best flag out
All walsall ay we.
How do you drive with your wheel that close to the wall??
Easily. Because it’s a good foot and a half away.
"cheating and sports combine like beans on toast", as in, only the Brits do it? but Aidan, cheating in sports happens everywhere else too!
Beans on toast is amazing and people that say otherwise have never tried it.
@@AidanMillward As an American, I can confirm, and I'm even stuck only being able to use American baked beans on highly buttered sourdough toast. Not quite the same as the authentic Brit stuff, but it still works.
2005 all race tyre rule was rubbish. Little wonder why the tyre fracas happened.
Michelin wasn’t going to design a tyre for one corner at one track.
@AidanMillward
It contributed to it though... come on
The idea that F1 engineers designed the engine fuel system such that it required excess fuel to be carried in the car at all time, is blatantly ridiculous. Every ounce of weight on an F1 car is only there because it must be. No constructor would allow such a setup on their car.
It carried the same amount of fuel, spread across two tanks.
@@AidanMillward The explanation from BAR was a set amount of fuel in the second tank is never sent to the engine. The fuel system just needs that minimum amount of fuel to function. As I said above, nobody would design an F1 fuel system like that.
@@GoatTheGoat there *IS* a minimum amount of fuel that has to be in the tank for the engine to run (has to do with how pump pickups work and avoiding cavitation), but to need 6kg or more for it is the ridiculous part. I don't know what that legitimate amount is for an F1 car, but I imagine it's more like 0.5kg or something.
@@jsquared1013 Yes, of coarse it is impossible for the fuel pump to extract every last drop of fuel from the tank. But like you said, in this case the amount of extra fuel sounds excessive.