Jump to content


Photo

Why Ross Brawn has a clear consience


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#1 bond

bond
  • Member

  • 2,554 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 05 April 2009 - 14:35

From James Allen Blog:

Interested to see that Ross Brawn has started responding to the criticism levelled at him by Flavio Briatore that he has misused his position as chair of the technical working group by not declaring his hand on the diffuser issue whenthe rules for 2009 were being discussed. Brawn raised the subject early last year, he says and proposed that the rules be tightened up.

“In March 2008 that was offered. If I’m frank I didn’t say ‘look we are going to do this diffuser if you don’t accept this rule’ because I’m not going to tell people what we’re doing, but I explained that I felt that we should have a different set of rules to simplify what needs to be done,” he said.

“I offered them and they were rejected, so my conscience is very clear. And those rules that I put on the table would have stopped a lot of things. It would have stopped the diffuser, it would have stopped all those bargeboards around the front, and it would have cleaned the cars up.”

I’ve been told by a senior engineer from a non-trick diffuser team that Brawn came to one meeting and said, albeit not in so many words, “Look we need to change the rules here because we are going to be miles ahead next year.”

The others chuckled politely given how far back Honda were at the time. They are not chuckling now.

http://allenonf1.wor...clear-consience

Advertisement

#2 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 05 April 2009 - 14:47

Also here

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/74282

Briatore is pond life, always has been.

Kudos to Brawn for seeing the loopholes and offering to close them. I've mixed feelings about the affair, if some teams are nullifying the advantage of adjustable wings I'd like to see the loopholes closed; at the same time it appears the other teams haven't a leg to stand on.

#3 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 05 April 2009 - 14:52

Nice one Brawn.

Flavio is a strange chap, I remember reading that before he was put in charge of the Benneton team in the 80s he wasnt interested in motorsport whatsoever, he's just one of those people who likes making money.

#4 RoutariEnjinu

RoutariEnjinu
  • Member

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 05 April 2009 - 14:56

There's really no contest then. The most the FIA can surely do is just say from race X, all diffusers must be as per Y.

Then again, wasn't the Mass Damper classed as movable aero? :confused:

#5 Galko877

Galko877
  • Member

  • 4,173 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 05 April 2009 - 14:57

Well said, Ross! :up:

#6 quasi C

quasi C
  • Member

  • 2,013 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 05 April 2009 - 14:59

I’ve been told by a senior engineer from a non-trick diffuser team that Brawn came to one meeting and said, albeit not in so many words, “Look we need to change the rules here because we are going to be miles ahead next year.”

The others chuckled politely given how far back Honda were at the time. They are not chuckling now.

:lol: great stuff. Hope it's declared legal.

#7 Urawa

Urawa
  • Member

  • 1,135 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 05 April 2009 - 15:00

I’ve been told by a senior engineer from a non-trick diffuser team that Brawn came to one meeting and said, albeit not in so many words, “Look we need to change the rules here because we are going to be miles ahead next year.”

The others chuckled politely given how far back Honda were at the time. They are not chuckling now.


Owned :rotfl: :up:

#8 fed up

fed up
  • Member

  • 1,952 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 05 April 2009 - 15:05

"If I'm frank I didn't say 'look we are going to do this diffuser if you don't accept this rule' because I'm not going to tell people what we're doing, but I explained that I felt that we should have a different set of rules to simplify what needs to be done.

"I offered them and they were rejected, so my conscience is very clear. And those rules that I put on the table would have stopped a lot of things. It would have stopped the diffuser, it would have stopped all those bargeboards around the front, and it would have cleaned the cars up.

"Because it was clear that when we started to work on the regulations that there were things that you could do, and we needed to perhaps clean them up, but nobody was interested. They are interested now."


I see it differently. It seems that Brawn had already spotted a loop hole and offered, out of the kindness of his heart we are led to believe, to clarify the rules. But, he claims, it was rejected - Flavio begs to differ, claiming that Ross didn't advise his fellow colleagues.

My view is that Ross is being disingenuous. How are we to know exactly what he said that was subsequently rejected.

It now makes sense to me when Ross was claiming that they had a front running car for 2009. I'm also guessing that he took this knowledge to the Honda board when he was appointed which would explain why Honda spent fortunes in the last year - it's just a pity they didn't see it out.

Brawn was very clever, but I'm not sure it's cricket.

#9 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 05 April 2009 - 15:10

Originally posted by fed up


I see it differently. It seems that Brawn had already spotted a loop hole and offered, out of the kindness of his heart we are led to believe, to clarify the rules. But, he claims, it was rejected - Flavio begs to differ, claiming that Ross didn't advise his fellow colleagues.

My view is that Ross is being disingenuous. How are we to know exactly what he said that was subsequently rejected.

It now makes sense to me when Ross was claiming that they had a front running car for 2009. I'm also guessing that he took this knowledge to the Honda board when he was appointed which would explain why Honda spent fortunes in the last year - it's just a pity they didn't see it out.

Brawn was very clever, but I'm not sure it's cricket.


Honda spent fortunes every year. I really dont see your point, Brawn offered a tighter set of rules and the teams turned them down. If he'd explained why he was offering the rules and they'd still been turned down the other teams would know his design ideas. The other teams were stupid.

#10 VoidNT

VoidNT
  • Member

  • 1,561 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 05 April 2009 - 15:15

"I don't like some of the comments some of the other team principals are making but they are uneducated and uninformed so if they looked at the facts then they would realise that."


Nice dig, Ross. :lol:

#11 Galko877

Galko877
  • Member

  • 4,173 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 05 April 2009 - 15:15

Briatore uneducated :lol: And it's true! :rotfl:

#12 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 05 April 2009 - 15:17

Originally posted by Galko877
Briatore uneducated :lol: And it's true! :rotfl:


Someone ask him what a driveshaft boot is :lol:

#13 fed up

fed up
  • Member

  • 1,952 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 05 April 2009 - 15:25

Originally posted by Madras


Honda spent fortunes every year. I really dont see your point, Brawn offered a tighter set of rules and the teams turned them down. If he'd explained why he was offering the rules and they'd still been turned down the other teams would know his design ideas. The other teams were stupid.


My point is, Ross is the head of the Technical delegate and, as Flavio has said, is privy to information from the FIA that is not necessarily available to the other Technical directors. Brawn has withheld information from his peers to gain an advantage. Some will see it as fair game others will see it differently.

#14 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,819 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 05 April 2009 - 15:27

Originally posted by fed up

Brawn has withheld information from his peers to gain an advantage. Some will see it as fair game others will see it differently.


If you actually read James` blog post you would see that this is not the case.

:stoned:

#15 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 05 April 2009 - 15:28

Originally posted by fed up


My point is, Ross is the head of the Technical delegate and, as Flavio has said, is privy to information from the FIA that is not necessarily available to the other Technical directors. Brawn has withheld information from his peers to gain an advantage. Some will see it as fair game others will see it differently.


What information from the FIA did he hide from others? Quite frankly your two posts are full of spurious accusations and dodgy facts, and nothing more.

#16 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,528 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 05 April 2009 - 15:32

Originally posted by fed up


My point is, Ross is the head of the Technical delegate and, as Flavio has said, is privy to information from the FIA that is not necessarily available to the other Technical directors. Brawn has withheld information from his peers to gain an advantage. Some will see it as fair game others will see it differently.

:confused:

#17 fed up

fed up
  • Member

  • 1,952 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 05 April 2009 - 15:38

Originally posted by Madras


What information from the FIA did he hide from others? Quite frankly your two posts are full of spurious accusations and dodgy facts, and nothing more.


If you look at it Brawn and Flavio are actually saying the same thing.

The Renault boss told the Italian media: "We've known for two months that there was this problem and someone should have done something about it. I don't like the behaviour of the FOTA technical delegate, who should have reported this thing immediately.

"Brawn should have been fair. Three months ago he should have come to us to tell us there are two interpretations over the diffusers. When I go to the FIA or to [Bernie] Ecclestone, I go in the name of the FOTA, not Renault's. I don't like the fact that a FOTA representative didn't relate things transparently."

"With this solution you gain 14% aerodynamic load: give us a few months and we'll gain 30-40%, and the lap times will decrease by two seconds.

"The truth is that when Charlie Whiting was asked for an opinion over the legality of the solution, he wasn't told the entire truth. I think he got fooled by those bandits, the sporting directors.

"If 70% of the teams has followed an interpretation, and in this 70% there are all the teams that have won the titles in the last few years, then that must mean something, no?


It turns out that Ross knew this information over a year ago.

Ross has been clever in exploiting the loop hole, but I'm not sure he has been 100% transparent in his dealings with his peers. How, for example, can the head of a Technical delegate adopt a different interpretation to an issue as findamental as downforce than 70% of his colleagues that he has been appointed to represent.

#18 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 05 April 2009 - 15:41

Originally posted by fed up


If you look at it Brawn and Flavio are actually saying the same thing.



It turns out that Ross knew this information over a year ago.

Ross has been clever in exploiting the loop hole, but I'm not sure he has been 100% transparent in his dealings with his peers. How, for example, can the head of a Technical delegate adopt a different interpretation to an issue as findamental as downforce than 70% of his colleagues that he has been appointed to represent.


Ross knew what? That these diffusers were inside the rules? That's pretty obvious, and it was for the other teams to work out too. the fact that they failed to do that is their fault, not Ross's. two other teams came up with similar designs. Wjhat was Ross supposed to do - actually tell them about this design? Why should he?

#19 Hotwheels

Hotwheels
  • Member

  • 2,640 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 05 April 2009 - 15:41

I do think it's a conflict of interest. Also , if you look at Brawn's history - the Barge boards , cool fuel etc - he has always worked around the edges. Now , you are giving him the opportcunity to define the rules and interpret them "liberally"

Advertisement

#20 BorisTheBlade

BorisTheBlade
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 05 April 2009 - 15:43

How is it possible, that 2 other teams took the same loophole independently while being withheld the information about that loophole? :rotfl:

#21 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 05 April 2009 - 15:43

Originally posted by bond
From James Allen Blog:

Interested to see that Ross Brawn has started responding to the criticism levelled at him by Flavio Briatore that he has misused his position as chair of the technical working group by not declaring his hand on the diffuser issue whenthe rules for 2009 were being discussed. Brawn raised the subject early last year, he says and proposed that the rules be tightened up.

“In March 2008 that was offered. If I’m frank I didn’t say ‘look we are going to do this diffuser if you don’t accept this rule’ because I’m not going to tell people what we’re doing, but I explained that I felt that we should have a different set of rules to simplify what needs to be done,” he said.

“I offered them and they were rejected, so my conscience is very clear. And those rules that I put on the table would have stopped a lot of things. It would have stopped the diffuser, it would have stopped all those bargeboards around the front, and it would have cleaned the cars up.”

I’ve been told by a senior engineer from a non-trick diffuser team that Brawn came to one meeting and said, albeit not in so many words, “Look we need to change the rules here because we are going to be miles ahead next year.”

The others chuckled politely given how far back Honda were at the time. They are not chuckling now.

http://allenonf1.wor...clear-consience

Has Ross at that crucial moment explained to his peers his technical understanding how the ambiguous rules could be explored and what impact it could have on creation two tier racing groups? How we can judge it today, but I seriously doubt it. Think about it.

Conducting general talk, and be specific in your concerns are two different issues. While I was not in the room, as an engineer myslef I can appreciate one from the other. I take it that the technical people in the room Brawn was speaking were not exactly crowd of inferior inteligence, and I think had the point of concern was made sufficiently clear to be apppreciated, I think we would be in a different situation today. For Ross to come out and make such insinuation ("I told you so"), is rather suprising.

#22 fed up

fed up
  • Member

  • 1,952 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 05 April 2009 - 15:46

Originally posted by Hotwheels
I do think it's a conflict of interest. Also , if you look at Brawn's history - the Barge boards , cool fuel etc - he has always worked around the edges. Now , you are giving him the opportcunity to define the rules and interpret them "liberally"


Exactly.

You know, I really was confused when the Honda team were very confident that they had a front running car for 2009. Even Alonso said he had never known of a team going from the back of the grid to the front over the course of a season - I just didn't believe them because there was no way they could have simulated the performance of other teams when there was no data - As it turns out they had the trick diffuser up their sleeve and Ross knew that he peers hadn't spotted it.

#23 Dalton007

Dalton007
  • Member

  • 2,903 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 05 April 2009 - 15:58

Funny, the diffuser isn't giving all the performance. RB's diffuser was damaged [Aussie] and he was still quick. FIA declared it legal. Stewards declared it legal. Game over. This is sour grapes.

#24 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 05 April 2009 - 15:58

Originally posted by BorisTheBlade
How is it possible, that 2 other teams took the same loophole independently while being withheld the information about that loophole? :rotfl:


I heard in another post that an ex-honda engineer went to work at Toyota and from there it passed to Williams. Dont know if true or not.

#25 Jambo

Jambo
  • Member

  • 2,063 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 05 April 2009 - 16:00

Originally posted by Anomnader


I heard in another post that an ex-honda engineer went to work at Toyota and from there it passed to Williams. Dont know if true or not.


It was a couple of Super Aguri Engineers some of which went to Honda and some went to Toyota. Williams came up with it themselves.

Thats what I read a week ago or so anyway.

#26 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 05 April 2009 - 16:01

Originally posted by fed up


My view is that Ross is being disingenuous. How are we to know exactly what he said that was subsequently rejected.


Brawn was very clever, but I'm not sure it's cricket.


2 things, I believe his word over you and there is no "cricket" (spirit/moral of the rule) in F1, there is only the written rule. Once again it comes down to poorly written rules. One time Peter Brock went to court against CAMS - he took a Barrister and more importantly, a leading Professor of English with him who tore the rules apart as they were written in the book.

For a bit of fun heres an example, the SCCA has a class for F1000 open wheelers that clearly states in the engines rule section;

Engines: up to 1000cc motorcycle derived. - I wonder who is going to be the first to turn up with a twin engined car, hell, "Engines" is even plural! lol! A very poorly written rule which of course was meant to mean the use of a single common Hond/Yama/Suzu/Kawa 4 cylinder sports bike engine but you could even grab a Drysdale V8 1000 bike engine because nothing says you can't.

#27 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,892 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 April 2009 - 16:05

Originally posted by BorisTheBlade
How is it possible, that 2 other teams took the same loophole independently while being withheld the information about that loophole? :rotfl:


:up: +1


Originally posted by Jambo


It was a couple of Super Aguri Engineers some of which went to Honda and some went to Toyota. Williams came up with it themselves.

Thats what I read a week ago or so anyway.



So how would those engineers that worked at Super Aguri have been pre-informed already by Ross (with all the uncertainty if Honda would maintain the second team) at such an early point?
Those who went to Honda would have known from Ross, how would those who went from Super Aguri straight to Toyota have come to know about it?


More likely that Ross Brawn indicated it in March 2008 but only the engineers of two teams were alert (and humble) enough to listen...

#28 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 05 April 2009 - 16:07

I don't believe Ross has done anything wrong as such but again the FIA does seem to do things all wrong.

As said, there might be a conflict of interest with his position, but fia has never seemed to have minded this as we have seeing with Ferrari being allowed to have multiple representatives on the council, but then again there was only certain teams on the OWG, surly all teams should have being involved.

Its just typical day in FIA world.

#29 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 05 April 2009 - 16:08

Originally posted by aditya-now


:up: +1


Mentioned up above by Jambo.

#30 J2NH

J2NH
  • Member

  • 1,377 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 05 April 2009 - 16:10

Originally posted by fed up


If you look at it Brawn and Flavio are actually saying the same thing.



It turns out that Ross knew this information over a year ago.

Ross has been clever in exploiting the loop hole, but I'm not sure he has been 100% transparent in his dealings with his peers. How, for example, can the head of a Technical delegate adopt a different interpretation to an issue as findamental as downforce than 70% of his colleagues that he has been appointed to represent.


Clever?
That's what he gets PAID FOR!
Was he the only "clever" one? Toyota and Williams were "clever" also. Adrian Newey was "clever" as well. Newey KNEW the rules allowed for the diffuser and stated they looked at it and chose to go a different direction because they did not think it would pay off. Newey chose to extend the wing side plates down and back effectively adding an additional gate to his diffuser, and to better clean up the air he put in a pull rod rear suspension. PRETTY CLEVER.

Now replace "clever" with doing their jobs. Designers get paid to pen fast cars and that is what they do within the letter of the technical regulations. That McLaren and Ferrari were chasing last years tittle should not be a reason for penalizing those that did a good job.

The Rossinator
:up:

#31 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,819 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 05 April 2009 - 16:12

Originally posted by Anomnader
I don't believe Ross has done anything wrong as such but again the FIA does seem to do things all wrong.

As said, there might be a conflict of interest with his position, but fia has never seemed to have minded this as we have seeing with Ferrari being allowed to have multiple representatives on the council, but then again there was only certain teams on the OWG, surly all teams should have being involved.

Its just typical day in FIA world.


I don`t think there`s a conflict of interest at all.
He offered the teams a "rewrite" of the rules because he thought the rules were crap/poorly written.
Teams said "f*** off Ross, it`s fine" and now we are where we are.

#32 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,892 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 April 2009 - 16:15

Originally posted by Anomnader
I don't believe Ross has done anything wrong as such but again the FIA does seem to do things all wrong.

As said, there might be a conflict of interest with his position, but fia has never seemed to have minded this as we have seeing with Ferrari being allowed to have multiple representatives on the council, but then again there was only certain teams on the OWG, surly all teams should have being involved.

Its just typical day in FIA world.


I agree with you, Anomnader.

Then again, it is already progress that FIA has allowed the FOTA to work out a proposal of regulations instead of just dictating it on the teams without hearing them.
IMHO, a big progress by the FIA, to allow FOTA this, and now we are complaining about it.

Naturally, whoever were to head the FOTA would always be in the proximity of conflict of interest, so....?
Wording the regulations would then just go back to the governing body, and that is even worse.

#33 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,528 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 05 April 2009 - 16:15

Originally posted by peroa


I don`t think there`s a conflict of interest at all.
He offered the teams a "rewrite" of the rules because he thought the rules were crap/poorly written.
Teams said "f*** off Ross, it`s fine" and now we are where we are.

:up:

#34 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,892 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 April 2009 - 16:20

Originally posted by J2NH


Clever?
That's what he gets PAID FOR!
Was he the only "clever" one? Toyota and Williams were "clever" also. Adrian Newey was "clever" as well. Newey KNEW the rules allowed for the diffuser and stated they looked at it and chose to go a different direction because they did not think it would pay off. Newey chose to extend the wing side plates down and back effectively adding an additional gate to his diffuser, and to better clean up the air he put in a pull rod rear suspension. PRETTY CLEVER.

Now replace "clever" with doing their jobs. Designers get paid to pen fast cars and that is what they do within the letter of the technical regulations. That McLaren and Ferrari were chasing last years tittle should not be a reason for penalizing those that did a good job.


I second that.

It brings us back a little the feelings of technical ingenuity that was in F1 in the days of Colin Chapman. Man, I loved those days in the sport.
And Adrian Newey declining to go the way of the (double) diffuser and going his own route instead, with no mean results, is as commendable as Ross Brawn, although Red Bull is not as successful as Honda (excuses, Brawn GP).

This is what it should be, the formula one of motorsport.

#35 mursuka80

mursuka80
  • Member

  • 5,106 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 05 April 2009 - 16:24

Why should i believe a man who has a reputation to be a cheat? Remember Benetton with TC and Ferrari in 99 with illegal winglets.Really i dont trust anything that any manager in F1 says :D If Ross were still in ferrari and he had done this what he claimed,none of you would believe him.

#36 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 05 April 2009 - 16:25

I don't think Fed-ups argument had anything to do with how clever he has being or any other team.

That is misleading to what he was point out and that is that Ross is the Technical Delegate head.

Now Flav is complaining about information being withheld.

I don't think anyone on here has enough information available to form an opinion on that.
I assume that this will come out in the court case before China.

#37 Dalek Caan

Dalek Caan
  • Member

  • 460 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 05 April 2009 - 16:34

Originally posted by Urawa


Owned :rotfl: :up:


:up:

#38 Lukin83

Lukin83
  • Member

  • 753 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 05 April 2009 - 16:46

Originally posted by bond
From James Allen Blog:
I’ve been told by a senior engineer from a non-trick diffuser team that Brawn came to one meeting and said, albeit not in so many words, “Look we need to change the rules here because we are going to be miles ahead next year.”

The others chuckled politely given how far back Honda were at the time. They are not chuckling now.

http://allenonf1.wor...clear-consience


Sometimes the diffusor makes no difference, other times it's the reason why Brawn is "miles ahead". Probably somebody spiced up some facts to sell it as a colorful anecdote.

#39 Powersteer

Powersteer
  • Member

  • 2,460 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 05 April 2009 - 16:48

F1 governing body are turning into clowns.

:cool:

Advertisement

#40 mursuka80

mursuka80
  • Member

  • 5,106 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 05 April 2009 - 16:53

If TV viewing figures go down the diffusers will be banned,if they go up they dont.

#41 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 05 April 2009 - 17:17

None of us knows precisely what was said at those meetings.
I would take what Ross says here with a pinch of salt and what Flavio says (anything he says) with a bucket of salt.

Ultimately I don't think the actual facts will make much difference to how the ICA rules. This decision will be in line with whatever suits the FIAs political goals.

#42 Kompressor

Kompressor
  • Member

  • 546 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 05 April 2009 - 17:22

:rolleyes: Flavio's comment reeks of arrogance. It's as if he feels entitled to have one of his drivers on the podium after every race. It's probably that same type of arrogance that led Ferrari to sit Massa in qualifying. The same arrogance led the other members of the TWG to dismiss Ross Brawn's rule tightening suggestion. :blush:

#43 giltkid

giltkid
  • Member

  • 234 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 05 April 2009 - 17:34

Briatore's comments suggest to me that he and his co - protesters realise that they haven't a legal case so the next best route is to claim they were misled or hard done to. When Briatore says (which he won't) ' the diffusers are illegal and we will prove it' I'll listen to him, otherwise he's just farting above his arse as usual.

#44 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 05 April 2009 - 21:56

Originally posted by peroa


I don`t think there`s a conflict of interest at all.
He offered the teams a "rewrite" of the rules because he thought the rules were crap/poorly written.
Teams said "f*** off Ross, it`s fine" and now we are where we are.


That's how I read it too.

#45 red stick

red stick
  • Member

  • 2,288 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 05 April 2009 - 22:07

Good for Brawn. Living well really IS the best revenge.

#46 Paul McLucas

Paul McLucas
  • Member

  • 113 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 05 April 2009 - 22:49

Originally posted by Dunder

Ultimately I don't think the actual facts will make much difference to how the ICA rules. This decision will be in line with whatever suits the FIAs political goals.


And that is the truest thing said on this whole board. Facts are irrelevant, breaking FOTA is the ultimate goal.

#47 Racer Joe

Racer Joe
  • Member

  • 2,881 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 05 April 2009 - 23:28

Originally posted by Hotwheels
I do think it's a conflict of interest. Also , if you look at Brawn's history - the Barge boards , cool fuel etc - he has always worked around the edges. Now , you are giving him the opportcunity to define the rules and interpret them "liberally"


That is why cars designed and built under his technical leadership win races and champioinships. That is how races and championships have always been won - by operating right on the edge of the rules.

OF COURSE there is a conflict of interest when you get a bunch of technical guys currently operating within F1 to come up with technical regulations. Right from the very beginning and every single one of them working with the FIA.

#48 Terry Walker

Terry Walker
  • Member

  • 2,713 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 05 April 2009 - 23:46

FIA seems to think the purpose of a formula is to make everyone equal. Competitors want to do the opposite.

The result is a rule book the height of the tower of Big Ben, all badly written, attempting to plug every conceivable loophole. Catch is, nobody drafting a rule can conceive every possible interpretation of the rule when it's applied by others.

So when an interpretation they failed to think of pops up, the first instinct is to attack it as illegal, then add some more rules to plug the alleged loophole, but the more rules will provide scope for yet more possible interpretations the drafters of the rules didn't conceive, and the cycle continues.

It's a long time since I went to law school, but the basic lesson in reading written law is actual the words count, not the intent. It's not the fault of the competitors if the rules are badly written to the extent that they don't actually give effect to the intent.