|
But it's not clear whether they broke any rules or not.... it's definately not absolutely crystal clear, so on that basis, how can you issue a punishment...
|
|
How can it be classed as ballast if it's absolutely neccesary for the car to run? Like oil and other fluids? Even if it is ballast, please show me where in the rules it specificially states you cannot use liquid ballast....
|
Okay, for the last time...
http://www.formula1.com/news/2947.html :
"The Court said that
the only way the car could have met the 600kg requirement was by using fuel as ballast, which is not allowed under Formula One regulations."
How hard is this to understand?
|
Jo Bauer, the OFFICIAL FIA TECHNICAL DELEGATE inspected the system at Malaysia and said there was nothing wrong with using it how BAR were... why bring it up two races later, even though an official has clarified it?
|
At Malaysia the car wasn't underweight, now was it?
This case occured because BAR were underweight. Then, when caught underweight, they lied to the stewards. That was as blatant a cheating as it comes (at least for me and most of the people, F.I.A. and all the teams included). The collector fuel tank for itself has nothing to do with this.
Stewards told them to drain fuel out. They did, and said it was all left - guess what, it wasn't. Then they started to argue what does it mean to drain fuel out. Give me a break. Next time they will argue what car means, what fuel means, what draining means and what out means... :roll:
|
The equivalent in the "real world" would be to accuse someone of murder without evidence.... if you don't have an evidence how can you convict someone?
|
Terrible comparison, not even close.
For me and most people this is a very simple matter. If it isn't for you then fine, but this time this is really my last post on this thread, since I'm sick of repeating myself, and the questions still remain to be answered... Plus, the case has already been closed - the Court has decided, and B.A.R. didn't appeal after all. End.