He would have changed it from a "spaghetti culture" to a "wiener schnitzel" culture.

Hi Galko, sorry if my postings pinched a nerve of yours.

Indeed, Frans has a point when he says it is as much a matter of non-Schumacher fans wanting to prove that Schumacher was not as special as his fans believe, as it is a matter of the said Schumi fans being quite touchy on the subject and defending Michael beyond all reason. What I could read on the forum in terms of Schumacher veneration is as much over the top as the Senna veneration or indeed any driver veneration.

What separates the Schumi and Senna worshippers is their style, not their intensity. In this sense one can truly say that each driver has the fans he deserves...

For me, having followed F1 since 1970, there were two watersheds in the sport: when Nigel Mansell brought his hordes of fans into the sport, and when Michael Schumacher brought his type of fans to the sport. In both cases - not speaking about Nige and Schumi, whom I both admire as drivers - I was a little saddened, as these are not the people who are real F1 fans but they are following their driver for a different, psychological reason.

And, living in Germany, you can believe me that I had ample opportunity to experience the majority of Schumacher fans. In recent time, of course it has been the fans of Fernando who bring a certain touch to the sport that is debatable. Again, not the mistake of Fernando in this case.

Jenson has achieved in 2009 something momentous: to win six out of the first seven races. A feat only equalled by Jim Clark in 1965 and Michael Schumacher in 2004. Neither Ayrton nor Alain have ever achieved it. So I have to applaud Jenson for it, and I am really amazed about him, as he is not only super smooth, but also a genuinely likable guy.

And, had it not been for Juan Pablo Montoya in the tunnel of Monaco 2004, Michael would have won the first 13 GP's of the season, something that would stand for eternity.
Starting the "if-game", one could of course say, "if either Alain or Ayrton would have had Rubens (or a driver of his calibre) as a teammate in 1988, either of them would have won the first 11 races of the 1988 season".

Please take note, Galko, I am not saying Senna, I am saying either of them, Prost or Senna, would have taken all these victories with someone like Rubens as teammate.

Which brings up another subject, out of Clark 1965, Schumacher 2004 and Button 2009, Rubinho has been teammate of two of those three. Whatever this tells you (and it must be quite frustrating for Rubens...)

Besides Rubens there is another common element in Schumacher's 2004 success and Button's 2009 success: Ross Brawn.

And I think it is this fact that really pains the Schumacher hardliners.

Whether you say, Jenson was the one who won 6 out of the first 7 races, then it means, Schumi is not the only one in the modern era of F1 with this distinction.
Or you say, it was Ross Brawn as the common denominator of both Jenson in 2009 and Michael in 2004, Ross "made" Jenson win (with the same number 1b that Schumi had in 2004). With the same right you will have to say then that Ross "made" Schumi as well.

In both cases Schumacher does not stand on such a high pedestal above all others (the pedestal has shrunk a little...), and this obviously is hard to take for the hero worshippers.

The difference being, that Ross stood "behind" Schumi from 1992-1995 and 1997-2006, 14 full seasons! But Ross stood "behind" Jense only in 2008 and 2009 so far.
And that further Jenson was not lucky enough to be with Ross right from the beginning of his career (contrary to Schumi -save the one race at Jordan), but had to endure 8 full seasons without the Brawn backup.

When they were without Ross, neither Schumi was a slouch in 1996, nor Jenson was a slouch in 2004 and 2006.
Yet, it was Ferrari over BAR for Schumi, and I would go with Ferrari anytime over a team like BAR.

So take your conclusions what that means in terms of the Schumacher myth, that is defended so desperately by some posters here.

The statistics of Michael are beyond discussion, I have neither the intention to bring Alain Prost or Ayrton Senna into the picture here. Whatever one might think of Michael as a human being (and the same applies to Ayrton and Alain...), his record is legendary. As an aside, mentioning the person, the human being, most people would agree by the way, that Jenson Button is more likable than either Michael Schumacher or Ayrton Senna or Alain Prost.

Yet it is also beyond discussion that it was Ross who stood behind nearly all of Michael's superb statistics, save three GP victories in 1996.

So let us conclude this little essay with Ross.

For many years, I was under the impression that Ross Brawn was arrogant, as highly intelligent as he is. This season made me take a new look at Ross, and I have to say, I genuinely nice picture about him emerges.

Not only is he one of the true geniuses in the paddock, but he is decent, collected, humble and "as wise as an owl" (forgive me that pun).

I think, more than anything, it is the quality control that Ross implements that is one of the major reasons of his successes. If we compare Schumi/Ferrari in 1996 and thereafter, it is clear that the defects immediately decreased following Brawn's appearance at Ferrari. And if we look how he transformed BAR/Honda into what is Brawn GP now, we see quite clearly the mark he leaves upon a team.
I had the impression that Ross was genuinely peeved about the first technical retirement of the season that Rubens experienced in Turkey, the seventh gear having been translated too short. An avoidable mistake - something that really bothers Ross.

You can also make your conclusions from this interview:

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/06/10/...-title-chances/ :

"....I've been lucky enough to win world championships and perhaps winning it in a certain way is more important to me."


And then, speaking about the person that Ross is, not just as competitor, but as compassionate, if highly competitive human being:

http://www.worldcarfans.com/9090609.011/ve...or-title--press

"....I don't want to criticise my opponents, so all I will say is that they are behind in the championship, so it is logical that they have to take more risks."

Kuddos to Ross Brawn!

To finish this post, which is my # 1000: I voted option 3, Ross and Michael "made" each other. And I started this particular thread for exactly that reason, as there was a thread before that offered only two options, Brawn (who won by a landslide, 71% I believe), and Schumi (29%).

If I had voted in that earlier thread, which I refused, as the options were too limited for me.....I would have leaned towards Ross.

"But Ross stood "behind" Jense only in 2008 and 2009 so far."

yeah, but in 1 year he basically scrapped the car and focused on the next...something he was not allowed to do with ferrari

All the more Ross' genius. The authority to scrap a car totally and then come up with a total winner, or, better to say, annihilator, the year after. Look no further than to BMW to see how it should not be done.

But you are right, at Ferrari he was not allowed to do so, possibly also his standing was not on the same level back in 1997. If Brawn would have been able to do so, 1998 might have gone already Michael's way...

One of the first ever postings from aditya-now, done back in 2002:


http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?show...mp;#entry895062


The question if Schumacher would be a nobody without his pitwall people is preying on aditya-now's mind for some seven years now. Good to see people with a robust and solid agenda.

Vintage giacomo!

This time you really have me rotfl!!! An expert researcher, an accurate observer.

Thanks for your quality posts, as always. Even if we do not see eye to eye, I really like your style!

This, by the way, is the one thing that I cannot bring into coherence with all the rest of your utterings. You´re stretching out your tongue far too often...


Then again, maybe the range of smileys is limited and limiting....

Please forgive, it is in no way meant personally.

A person with dignity would be embarrassed for being owned in suchlike extent.

Please explain?

You own me? I thought the time of slavery has long passed since...
But then again, what dignity has someone who is being owned?

As we are talking about style now, I cannot resist to do one test post in your quality style.



Is Ayrton Senna a zero without the wealth of his dad?

That thought crossed my mind when following aditya-nows arguments concerning Michael Schumacher.

Whereas Schumacher's career was relying on his talent alone, often winning with used tyres binned by the richer opponents, the same is not so clear of Senna: Only supported by his fathers wealth did his real success come.
His one-race stint in sport cars did not say too much, and his record in karting is rather questionable.
If you look at the karting world championships, when Senna was beaten by guys like Peter Koene or Peter De Bruijn it was not clear at all that Senna is an outstanding driver.

Which leads me to put the question: What is Senna's value without dad Miltons money?



Amazing.

Again I cannot follow you, but you have a point, in the early years Senna´s family background was surely of more help, as compared to Schumacher´s.

Yet it does not explain the stellar heights they both reached. If anything, it only explains that whether someone comes from a wealthy or a humble background, what makes them stand out is their own application and dedication.

By the way, speaking of Senna being beaten in the lesser formulae, my former car mechanic, Mr.Hödlmoser, used to drive against Senna in F3 in the wet on the Österreichring. And he overtook him! So very clearly Senna was not even the genius in the wet that he became in later years.

I had real fun having Mr.Hödlmoser throw around my old Ford Sierra in the mountains surrounding Lake Fuschl, where, btw, the Red Bull headquarters is situated.

So you are saying that Senna would be a nobody, a zero without his fathers money?

That is debatable.

Also remember, that one year, when Senna was still with his former wife and returned to Brazil after the season (I think it was in 1981 or 1982) he nearly called it a day.

So I think there is only a very fine line that separates nothingness and eternity.

And, sorry for quoting myself, as this thread is about Brawn and, in a sense, Jenson Button, this very fine line again was shown this year.

Button and Brawn could well have given up. Yet, they persisted, Button accepting half the salary, and look what reward they got in the 2009 season!

Brawn is reaping yields from Honda funded program. Better question would be where Brawn would be without it, and without gifted Mercedes engine?

Second question really is whether Brawn and his boys are so much better than everyone else, or restriction on testing during racing season and fundamental dispute over car development set up a course for this season right from GetGo, put rest of them into inrecoverable handicap, and thus making this season results worthless for any comparisons?

Cannot remember Senna racing in a F3 race on the Osterreichring, no matter wet or not. He only competed in Macao, all his other F3 races happened in Britain.

Maybe the true name of your former mechanic is Mr Munchhausen.

But they were pretty shite in 2008. What does that tell us about their genius?

Exactly. Every comparison that doesn't lead to the desired result shall be deemed worthless.

Now the only thing left is for us all to agree what exactly is the desired result and piece and harmony will rule the board.

As far as I remember it was a F3 race in which also the Canadian Allan Berg competed. Given the fact that it is more than a quarter of a century ago, forgive if the category of the race was inaccurate.

I would not discount Thomas Hödlmoser as Baron Münchhausen.

I was thinking the same, as65p!

What is the purpose of the BB other than sharing our common love for motorsport?
Why do some people become so vitriolic when they cannot get their argument through?

Differences of opinions are okay, it would be a boring world without differences. But why become so bitter.....peace and harmony are surely the better alternative, as you indicate!

FFS Brawn started with the 2008 season, what do you expect, overnight success? Get a grip.

aditya-now, 7 years for such a conquest? You need help man.

Schumacher and his bro are claimed to be an Algerian, remember that!

source:http://atlasf1.autosport.com/98/jpn/mccann.html

Before we decide that Brawn is walking on watter, lets look at a few milestones this season.

I am not sure where did you manage to insert the "desired results" in, because all what I have done is remain all these honorable judges on this BB, that Brawn started with a design for which the other teams took him to court, and lost. Analysis of impact of that decision surely must take into consideration not only how much this differential contributed to disparities among individual equipment performances, but also whether the other teams have chance to recover at all. In some cases it is basic synthesis between diffuser design and how the car can adopt, second how changes can be validated, if at all in the field. Brawn was pre-season testing their diffuser in Barca. Red Bull was testing their diffuser on track on (Monaco, Thursday) Friday running a few restrictive laps. I do not know how anyone else feels on this BB about it, but that is an absolute advantage for Brawn.

It is not my intent to diminish RB' contributions, but lets wait a while after dust settles in.

You're getting ever more selective with you observations.

Brawn wasn't the only team whose diffusor design was questioned. Others had in parallel developed similar designs, remember? On top of that, nobody can say with certainty how much excatly of Brawns superiority is down to that part of the car. I imagine it's much less than many think, after all they are in front also of those teams that tested their DD version way before Brawn (Toyota, Williams) plus now that most teams have it, the pecking order hasn't changed at all.

"Blaming" the diffusor controversy looks like an all too easy explanation to me, the technical truth is likely quite a bit more complicated.

It's all a bit beside the point anyway. What we have is a team with roughly comparable superiority to the Ferraris of 2002 or 2004 - and I'm even being generous here, most would conclude that the margin Ferrari enjoyed was bigger than what Brawn has today. And, so far this season, we have a drive in JB who is able to exploit that car advantage in the same manner MS used to do. That much is hardly disputable.

So??whats ur point?

It was you who came along saying your mechanic overtook the divine Senna in a wet F3 race on the Osterreichring, and its well documentated that Senna never competed in a F3 race on that circuit.

I have no idea about the point behind that story. But it would be nice to know the truth. In which wet F3 race did Hödlmoser overtake Senna in the wet then, a race where Berg competed as well? Snetterton? Thruxton? Please tell us.

I expect an explanation from the thread opener who says Brawn and Button can walk on water, based on the current season 09, omitting everything not-that-devine in their CV, including Brawn's years with Arrows and Lola Haas, and Buttons many years of mediocrity before he finally lucked into the perfect circumstances.

Why so bitter, giacomo?

As I said already in a response to as65p, the point of the BB is surely a friendly exchange about the sport we all love, as posting here is basically a passtime for us.
Nothing to be gained, nothing to be lost. Sometimes smiles, sometimes information. Sometimes learning, sometimes wondering.

Surely we all have diverging opinions, and I hold no grudges against you for having your opinions.
It is true, like Schumi was less perfect in the 80s, so was Ross Brawn. And so was Jenson in the 90s and early 2000s.

But the points you made above hold no more value in 2009, as both Ross Brawn and Jenson Button have surely "graduated" in the sport.

Time passes on, giacomo.

Nicely put bullshit instead of answering the question.

If Brawn takes full credit for this year, he takes full credit for last year, easy math.

Well, as the internet unfortunately does not contain data on the "Rahmenprogramm" races of the Austrian F1 GP in 1982 and 1983, I will be unable to comply with your request in which category they actually raced. If, as you say, Senna never raced in an F3 race outside Great Britain, then I was at fault about the category, so again my excuses for that.

Maybe Hödlmoser was pulling a joke on me - I have however no reason to believe that he was lying. It was a race in which Allen Berg, Ayrton da Silva and Thomas Hödlmoser participated, the later thanks to his status as a local driver. It was a wet race, and he managed to overtake Senna once.

The point I was trying to make is that also Senna was never invincible and beaten quite often in lesser formulae - like Schumacher. No driver is invincible, if any of them I would still believe Juan Manuel Fangio was closest to this status, and as you well know, on certain days also Fangio was without a chance against Stirling Moss.

So you have to accept the fact that Schumacher's legend has been put into perspective by the results of the 2009 season and the exploits of Ross Brawn so far. I have no idea why you take this so personal.

What amuses me is you uttering the words "divine Senna".

Also, again I´d like to remind you that this thread is about Brawn and Schumacher and not about Senna. So please refrain from further deflecting from topic.

Exactly, as stated above, Ross sacrificed 2008 for 2009's sake, and I applaud him for that. The results speak for themselves. As we discussed a little earlier on, if Ross would have been able to do the same already at Ferrari in 1997, Schumacher might have become already WDC in 1998 instead of Hakkinen.

Either Brawn didn't have the stature or authority back then to make Ferrari scrap the 1997 season, or he didn't know back then himself. Maybe even he learned from 1997 with hindsight and used this experiential knowledge well for 2008/2009.

You keep talking about Brawn not having been able to do the same at Ferrari in 1997 and 1998 but you might have forgotten that Ferrari had no reason to abandon their hopes in those years to start working on next year's cars. In both those years, the title race went right down to the wire. In fact, had David Coulthard not have been ordered by McLaren to slow down on the racing line in a very wet Spa race in 1998, MS would have won that year's championship. I believe you're trying to compare apples and oranges if you equate Honda's condition last year to Ferrari's in the late 90's.

There's nothing magical about what Ross Brawn has done at Honda/BrawnGP. In fact, I suspect that the real reason for their success is somewhat mundane - simply the elimination of weaknesses in the car (and the organization of the team). There was plenty of talent on board when he got there (though he did manage to recruit a few more good people). Here's some of what we know...

Even before Ross got there, Rubens noticed a few glaring flaws in their 2006 car. It's not surprising that he was able to notice them while Button wasn't, simply because Jenson just hadn't driven a top car before. The best he'd had, the 2004 BAR, was likely flawed as well, though probably to a lesser extent than the others.

Addressing some of the issues Rubens noticed resulted in a lot of improvement in the car by the end of the season, and ironically a very strong points run by Jenson. At this point someone high up in the team (Nick Fry?) realized that there was probably a lot more that they didn't know about what they could do better. When Ross became available (because of Ferrari's unbelievably stupid unwillingness to promote him to Todt's position), they jumped at the chance to hire him. Who better than the former technical director (and strategist!) of the most successful dynasty in the history of F1? They guy knows exactly what a car and team need to be successful on the track (hint: like a chain, only as strong as the weakest link).

So Ross comes in and evaluates the team. He sees that they do a lot of things very well and have great facilities, but there are a few areas where they are deficient. The previous year's car, and the one they introduce for 2008 (designed before he arrived) are slow, and even worse, do not respond to adjustments and car revisions that work on the computer and in the tunnel. Ross probably knew instantly what the problem was (structural and torsional strength) but the car was finished so there was little to be done. Under normal circumstances they probably would have produced a B-spec car that addresses this issue (and whatever else Ross had immediately found). But there was a special opportunity to be had instead - a very different set of technical regulations was coming online the following year, so they just scrapped an entire season and began work on 2009. At the same time, Ross strengthens the areas the team in which the team is weak compared to the equivalent department he had built at Ferrari.

With additional time and a top-level budget they get a huge jump on the field for 2009, evaluating multiple design possibilities. Once settling on a design direction, they develop that concept to a level that would only matched by RBR at Melbourne. But well before that revelation, at the end of 2008, there was a weakness that Ross could do little about because of the current regulations - the Honda engine. Peaky and down on power (from what we have been able to infer), it is a major problem. Ross (and Flavio) lobby for a dispensation to "catch up", which was eventually granted. This would minimize their last remaining weakness...

But then he gets lucky and Honda pulls out (could he be devious enough to have planted the seed for this?). It's a crushing blow at first glance - all that work on a new car out the window. But then it starts to work in his favor. Honda agrees to continue funding the team, and then he secures a supply of Mercedes engines (which could be the best in the field). They must be disappointed to lose the Honda KERS, which was rumored to be one of the most advanced in development, but they make the most of things and focus on optomizing their car knowing that it will not be running KERS. This turns out to be an advantage as well, as the added weight of KERS makes balancing the weight distribution of the cars much more difficult (largely thanks to the return of slicks and the greater increase of grip at the front due to the removal of the grooves).

He's been good and he's been a bit lucky. But another potential weakness in Ross's eyes are the drivers. He knows they are good, but though he was impressed by Button in 2004-2006, seeing him struggle a bit first hand in 2008 left a few questions in his mind. He is aware that Jenson was disadvantaged by the car not suiting his style and the team's focus on 2009 prevented him from requesting changes to help him cope. But though others in the team tell him (and likely show him data) that Button really is a special driver, some questions remain that he can't shake. So back before Honda pulled out they make an effort to sign Alonso, who has proven he can win races and championships in the right car. It doesn't work out, and with no other sure things on the market (I'm wouldn't be surprised if an inquiry came Shumi's way at some point but was rejected), they stick with their current lineup after briefly evaluating Bruno Senna.

But still there is the question of making the grid for 2009. Suitors come and go, but finally Brawn himself, along with other senior members of Honda Racing, buy the team. This is great news for the squad, as Ross is certainly a permanent fixture now that his name is on the door. Even an offer by the Scuderia wouldn't entice him to move. The buyout comes very close to the season, as Ross and Co. hold out for the best possible deal knowing that Honda are desperate now that no other buyer has panned out and they are loathe to send the entire team in redundancy. All the while he is following winter testing and wondering why no one is able to set the kind of times that his team has projected for their new challenger. It is doubtful that he shared this information with Honda before buying the team.

Seven races into the 2009 season, and the team has shown no weakness. The aero is very good, the mechanicals are good, the engine is even better than they had hoped. And the concerns the team principal had about Jenson Button turn out to be unfounded, as the 29 year-old shows he is adaptable to strategy, quick in qualifying, easy on the tyres, and mistake free. This makes BrawnGP a team utterly without flaw. I'm certain Ross thinks they can improve in every area, but they have no glaring problems that prevent their success. This is how you win championships in F1. Ross knew it before he took the Honda job, and by the end of the year he'll have proven it.

Tony I have warned you before about factual well written posts in this forum, this is your last warning before the the next last warning.

I wonder if Honda has an option to return with the team next year, I imagine they would be very very good in the fuel management department.

Well, let's put aside your pointless little Hödlmoser fable, and let's put aside that you as the first one to bring Ayrton Senna into this thread has no right at all to tell me what to post and what not.

What amuses me is how you insist that Schumacher's legend has been put into perspective by the results of the 2009 season. It's bullshit de luxe; comparable with saying that the results of the 1978 season were putting Clark's legend into perspective.

And I'm amused about your constant little sideswipes about me being bitter, and me taking things personal, when the truth is that you are obsessed with downgrading Schumacher with hair-raising non-arguments, and the fact that you are posting the same drivel for some seven years now.

I fail to see the genius in sacrificing one whole year just for the vague and doubtful hope of being superior the next one. There was no way for Brawn to know in 08 that Honda would pull out their crap engines in 09, and without that piece of luck his team would not be superior now.


Do you think Theissen is a genius as well for sacrificing Kubicas 08 title chance in order to develop a superior 09 car?

that's not entirely precise. Honda was to be allowed some updates, a la Renault, and you can surely see they could work. I think the engine was the easy part to update
Plus, there were integration issues surely, this car was designed for another engine. They could have been even better


when you take a chance it'd better stick. you take this chance when you trust the team, yourself etc.
ross on the other hand had really nothing to lose in 2008. the alternative was not as in bmw's case a push for the titles but rather a push for what? top 10?

I am not sure what you are trying to say. That Brawns team would be even more superior with Honda engines? Based on what?


Well, aditya-now said it would have been genius for Ferrari to forsake the 1997 title chance in order to be superior in 1998. Theissen did exactly that in 2008. So according to aditya-now's logic, Theissens 2008 decision was a genius one.

If we firmly follow the aditya-now path of logic, the true 2009 geniusses may be Whitmarsh and Briatore; perhaps they are abandoning the current season in order to be annihilating in 2010. Now that would be something to put the Brawn legend into perspective.

you said "and without that piece of luck his team would not be superior now."
a) they were allowed an engine upgrade
b) the car was designed with a gearbox for THAT engine. packing another power plant in the back did not help.
how do you know how these 2 would have helped them?
it's simple..we don't



I don't think adytia staid thiessen was a genius last year. he took a chance and lost.
ditching 2008 was not the big mistake. this year's car is. he had the time/resources to pull something special. he failed, ross didn't

Whatever.
My point is that all that talks about the genius of sacrificing one year in order to be superior the next one is just bollocks, because if the rival teams happen to come along with a car of similar or even better quality - and that circumstance is out of the strategist's control and influence - the prior year was sacrificed in vain.

The target is to be competitive all the time. Not every second year.

I think a lot points to the engines only being a minor factor in overall car performance nowadays.

After Renault (and presumably Honda) were allowed a little catch-up they seem all pretty even in performance,
remaining differences probably in packaging and fuel consumption.

That's illustrated by the Mercedes engine being basically spread across the field, from best to worst car. Even if it
evidently performs well in the Brawn, it's not able to really make a difference at Force India or McLaren.
Same with Renault, running up front in Red Bulls and down the field in their own car.

I suspect even with the 2009 Honda engines in the Brawn they would be up there, but of course we'll never know for sure.

This is what I would call an excellent piece of investigative journalism, Tony.
Not only does it give us a constructive look at the totality, but it brings up two very interesting points:

1.) The role of Rubens: it is very probable that the value of Barrichello to the team is underestimated by me and others, as it seems difficult for him to consistently deliver on the track. Yet his insight into what makes a car really good or what are fatal flaws have given BAR/Honda a real push, a push that Jenson or also Jacques Villeneuve were unable to give all these years.

Ross must be quite aware of the value of Rubens, after all, as stated above, he has been the number 1b both behind Schumacher 2004 and Button 2009. The irony of fate is that Rubinho most probably gives a lot to the team, yet is unable to duly reap the fruits.

2.) The role of Ross in the Honda withdrawal ("could he be devious enough to have planted the seed for this?"): if we experience Ross as wise as an owl in other matters, it is probably not too far-fetched that he also played a role here, and not to his own detriment.

Of course, if there was anything going on we do not know of, it might be revealed only in years to come or even never be revealed. Still, to even think of these possibilities is intriguing.


Such posts as yours, Tony, are what makes the Autosport BB so worthwhile. I am aware of the fact that I am not able to provide such in-depth analysis, so I rather "stirr the pot" a bit in the hope it brings up some interesting points. On this occassion, it surely has, thanks to you taking your time to write this piece.

As answered already in post # 304:

I second you on trying to be competitive every year, if you have an inkling of a chance, at least. And presumably, Ross will be quite competitive in 2010 - let us wait and see - it will tell us more about the Brawn saga.

However, in the beginning of the 2009 season, there was a number of voices from other teams complaining that Brawn could focus already on 2009 (as early as from March 2008 onwards, when the DD was green-lighted), when they were still busy and had their resources bound up with their 2008 campaigns. So indirectly these complaints pay homage to Ross, as he could well have chosen the path giacomo proposes, to try to be competitive in 2008 already.

I am glad for the Brawn team that Ross did not follow the giacomo philosophy, and the results prove them right.

Cannot remember myself proposing a path and philosophy. Whatever, your troubles with accurate observation are well-known and evident in the meantime.

Whether you call it philosophy or target...
I am glad that Ross Brawn did not follow the target you proposed.



And despite your heroic and self-giving posts, the poll at the beginning of this thread with now 280 votes cast show also a very clear picture.

Your philosophy is pretty consistant. Senna sucked and was an asshole, Prost and MS are the only drivers to ever really know how to drive an F1 car. Any evidence to the contrary is from people who aren't as enlightened as you or are fans of other drivers who envy the choosen 2's success. Been that way for yrs.

This thread is stupid. It is obvious both are talented and contributed to each other's success and both with be successful without the other...potentially just not as successful.