-
jase thats an unfair statement. How can u say they cheated when even the fia and the court of appeal couldnt. They said that they used fuel as a ballast, but could not prove that the cars ran underweight, essentially, they couldnt say BAR cheated, but merely failed to seek clarity over whether or not that required 6kgs of pressurised fuel in the seperate tank amounted to ballast or could be classified as necessary to the car as a whoel and hence NOT ballast.
While they scathed and said that they lacked transparency, well cant u think of why theres no transparency over this? perhaps a lacking of want to show what they run in their cars?
-
Yeh fair call pornstar, but the way I did look at it was this dude:
"FIA gave BAR-Honda 1 race suspension + fine, then BAR-Honda had the choice of appeal to try and prove there innocence again but didn't bother, so they knew they were guilty"
Thats the way I looked at it, but I do see what your saying mate.
-
Yeah, I know what it seems like, but sometimes its better to take the consequence because the cost of getting the right decision etc is too high.
Take for example, a court case for a speeding fine for which you actually are not speeding. The cost is way too high and the risk unacceptable if you should lose. I reckon thats one major factor BAR would have to think about. Costing 10 million euros for not being at the nexst 2 races is a huge cost already, if the legal costs of hiring QC's and court costs were involved I could only imagine.
-
They said BAR will lose millions in sponsorship money, did anyone get a close figure on what they said?
-
-
Ok, BAR-Honda have been found guilty.
Please refer to this thread for discussion of this topic.
http://www.ozhonda.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19896
Thread closed.
