Just been reading the appeal full verdict on autosport, some assorted gems:
The teams, or some if them, who wanted Brawn etc kicked out appeared to use as one of their reasons that anything which increases downforce back towards 2006 levels is illegal by definition! Presumably those teams are selling their windtunnels??
The fia claim noone got round to showing them evidence overtaking would be adversley affected. Cock up by Ferrari/Renault etc, or fia stitch up??
Ferrari's argument made their own car from previous years illegal, which they said was a "tolerable" illegality while Brawns wasn't!? Worst legal argument ever??
Corker of a terrible argument from Brawn is in there too!!
Most of the claims made by Ferrari etc were laughable, only 1 or 2 made any coherent argument at all. But presumably it's how these things work, make up ten arguments to create a momentum? Would they not have been better sticking to the ones which made sense??
|