lap "leak", or use a large quantity of fuel to lighten a car and permit a faster lap. The FIA decided to only count laps that are within 110% of the driver's fastest time, and allow teams to top up with the amount of fuel used for those laps. Only one free practice session was held on Saturdays, for one hour, and it ended no less than two hours before qualifying begins, usually between 11.00 and 12.00, replacing the old system of two 45-minute sessions. Friday remained unchanged, with two one-hour sessions, starting three hours apart. The tuned mass damper system was used by several teams, notably Renault, during the latter part of 2005 and the 2006 seasons. The devices were located in the nosecone, and were particularly effective in corners and over kerbs to keep the tyres in closer contact to the track surface than they would otherwise be. After the French Grand Prix, the FIA announced that the system would be outlawed. This had a particularly significant effect on Renault, as the team had effectively built their cars around the devices, and had introduced them as long ago as the 2005 Brazilian Grand Prix. At the German Grand Prix the Renault team submitted one of their cars for scrutineering by the race stewards, who ruled that the devices were acceptable. The FIA launched an appeal against this decision, and on 23 August 2006 the FIA International Court of Appeal issued a statement upholding this appeal and rejecting the stewards' decision. The Court of Appeal stated that the system infringed part of the bodywork section (Article 3.15) of the Formula One Technical Regulations, which stated that any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance had to: comply with the rules relating to bodywork, be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom), and remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car. The central argument was whether the mass dampers function as aerodynamic devices or as a part of the suspension system. The FIA reasoned that because the devices did not "remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car", they were illegal. But the FIA failed to explain how the damper, which was entirely enclosed with the car can be counted as bodywork when article 1.4 of the regulations defined bodywork