hardingfv32 wrote: Ral wrote:
it must be clear from physical inspection that changes cannot be made without the use of tools.
How would you read that such that it would not make the possibility for manual adjustment illegal?
1) The use of the word clear: free from doubt or confusion; certain. In this case is it not possible that I could have a different opinion about what is 'clear' than say you? This is not a black and white word.
2) 'Possibility for manual adjustment', again is it illegal or wrong for me to have a different view of what is possible.
Both your points are essentially the same one: what is clear to one person might not be clear to someone else and what is possible for one person might not be possible to another.
But both points are also refuted the same way: if there is
doubt, that means it is not
clear and if someone
can do it, that means it is
And your point that
It was 'clear' to RB that the adjustment could only be done with a tool
is refuted by the fact that Horner is on the record saying that it was
possible, in other words while it was not
clear to the scrutineer, it was very much clear to RBR that the possibility existed.
Horner admitting that it was possible to make adjustments manually, also means he admits they broke the rules. Which takes me back to my original question: why was no penalty handed out, even if "only" a quiet, out of the limelights monetary one.