Could BAR miss the rest of the season? - Page 2

RallyRaider · #16 05-06-2005, 10:52 PM

What is not applicable? Agreed the FIA have previously stated that they reserve the right to weigh cars dry, but it is only a clarification, i.e. it is not in the rule book per se. Look, I fully accept BAR appear to have run an illegal car in this instance, but why can't the FIA release a statement stating exactly what occurred? Instead we are left once again with speculation. With the rule book as it stands at the moment, the FIA could quite easily turn around this weekend and declare the BAR system legal, if doing so served their purposes. That is a quite ridiculous state of affairs.

ales · #17 05-07-2005, 01:02 AM

I don't know the answers to those questions, but, like you, I'd like to.

Dreamspawn · #18 05-07-2005, 11:19 AM

So BAR backed off and took the penality? I think the could have made a fairly good stand on the fact the FIA knew bout the sytem but just now suddenly are saying its illegal. If its illegal now it should have been illegal then correct? See this is why ppl get pissed off at sactioning *sp* bodies are rule changes,descions that should have been talked about b4 and weren't to out of nowhere they decide. *if my whole interpation of this is right*

ales · #19 05-07-2005, 11:46 AM

Doesn't anyone know how to read or do you just not care? The system is not illegal, the things that were illegal was the car as it was underweight after all the fuel was drained out of it and the fact that the team personell told the stewards that all the fuel had been drained out of it when in reality there was more than 10 kg of it still inside.

Dreamspawn · #20 05-07-2005, 12:15 PM

yah but the fuel was part of the system. that is the reason i'm asking bout it. BAR is kind iffy on the fact of the fuel is part of the car cause it is needed for the engine to run *i think that is what they were trying to say* but the fact the FIA allowed it b4 and now decideds that it is wrong is what bothers me.

ales · #21 05-07-2005, 12:31 PM

The FIA never allowed that before, where did you get that information?

Dreamspawn · #22 05-07-2005, 12:49 PM

I mean allowed the system in which they believed/accused them of cheating with.

jcsaleen · #23 05-07-2005, 02:07 PM

This whole thing is rediculious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SO MAD! they take away the points to cause some FAT slob who has money has to bitch!! 2 race suspention there goes the chances!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH CANT F1 FOR ONCE NOT BE ABOUT THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

+ THE FACT THEY WERENT UNDERWEIGHT BECAUSE THEY HAD THE WING ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So mad right now this whole thing is BS.

ales · #24 05-07-2005, 03:44 PM

Money? Wing? Am I missing something here?

jcsaleen · #25 05-07-2005, 05:32 PM

The wing supposedly balanced out the weight so that the car wasnt running under wieght. Money? because fineing BAR an how greedy the head masters are (not stewarts).

ales · #26 05-07-2005, 11:41 PM

LOL

Are you serious about the wing? You really should read up on things before making statements that, well, are nothing less than ridiculous. And secondly, there is no fine involved, read the court ruling above. Where do you guys get this stuff?

jcsaleen · #27 05-08-2005, 10:32 AM

2 Race suspension = millions lost...

kfoote · #28 05-09-2005, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreamspawn

I mean allowed the system in which they believed/accused them of cheating with.

The FIA had not approved the system, that was part of the problem.

It hadn't been caught in the prior races because if you don't finish in the points, you usually don't have to go through post race tech.

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD