Last year two teams were allowed certain discrepencieson the rules. STR adopted a chassis definitely not of their construction, and STR managed to use a V-10, saying they couldn't afford a new V-8. Of course, STR put on a lavish show of budget excess with one of the most opulent chalets and media centers.
So now SA shows up with what is obviously last year's Honda. Guess who manufactured that chassis?
Over in Red Bull land, they have a Newey chassis, but going to be used with either a Ferrari or Renault engine. Basically same chassis, but used in two teams, two different powerplants. My simple mind tells me that all these Newey chassis were manufactured in one location, instead of in a separate Red Bull factory, and a STR factory. So if that makes Red Bull the chassis manifacturer, then to me, STR is just a customer who purchased chassis from RB.
I'm just a simple fan, and in my simple universe, each team is supposed to design and construct their own chassis. But instead we shall see the lawyers being trotted out and using legalise to rationalize their positions. Another confusing issue that clouds the integrity of F1 will be hammered out in the courts, and at the conclusion, someone is not going to be happy.
When Bill Clinton gave his deposition in the Paula Jones case, he said he had never had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky. But Lewinsky has reportedly testified to a number of acts that most people think of as sex. Can both statements somehow be true? Is it possible that the two of them had intimate contact, yet Clinton still did not perjure himself? In the intricate world of the law, a world of hairsplitting distinctions where the President is famously at home, it just may be so. Here's why.
At Clinton's deposition, Jones' legal team asked Judge Susan Webber Wright to approve a very precise, three-part definition of sexual relations. Clinton's attorney Robert Bennett objected to the whole definition, but to the last two parts especially, as being too broad. Wright agreed to disallow parts 2 and 3, leaving only the first, narrowest definition of sex in place.
With that, Clinton may have been given the room to offer a technically "true" denial to the question of whether he had sex with Lewinsky--even if she happened to perform fellatio on him. The truncated definition characterizes sex in terms of a checklist of body parts, including the genitals, breast and thigh. Oral sex would not necessarily require the President to touch anything on Lewinsky that appears on that list. Strange as it may sound, under one reading of the definition, Lewinsky could have been having sex with him (because she was "touching" the President's genitals) while at the same moment, he was not having sex with her. (At the deposition, Clinton wasn't asked if she had sexual relations with him, just if he had them with her.) Isn't the law a wonderfully intricate device?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/ ... inton.html
http://www.f1technical.net/gallery/v/To ... R2/Launch/
