Red Bull will protest Brawn GP diffuser

Posted on

| Written by

Brawn GP face a protest threat at the Australian Grand Prix

Red Bull have confirmed they will protest against Brawn GP’s BGP001 if it is passed legal to race.

The cars will be scrutineered by the Australian Grand Prix stewards in Melbourne on Thursday.

Williams and Toyota’s diffuser designs have also been called into question. But Red Bull’s Helmut Marko focused his claim on Brawn’s diffuser which Marko claims makes the car half a second faster per lap:

It’s illegal: we’ll make a protest on Thursday if the component isn’t modified to conform to the regulations, because that diffuser guarantees a five-tenths-advantage per lap. Seven teams are certain it’s illegal.

Marko claims seven teams support the protest, which presumably include both the Red Bull-backed outfits.

As Toby Bushby pointed out in the comments here earlier today the FIA have failed to clarify the diffuser regulations and missed chances to prevent the row dragging into the first race of the year:

February 5th, Max Mosley: "The current FIA view is that Williams and Toyota have been clever and have exploited the wording of the rules in a clever way??." and "??.The view of our technical people is that it is okay, we will wait and see if someone challenges it."

March 18th, Amendment to technical regulations states: "One of the purposes of the regulations under Article 3 below is to minimize the detrimental effect that the wake of a car may have on a following car.

Furthermore, infinite precision can be assumed on certain dimensions provided it is clear that such an assumption is not being made in order to circumvent or subvert the intention of the relevant regulation."

March 21st, Max Mosley: "And so probably what will happen is it will end up going to the stewards, who will make a decision. That will almost certainly be appealed by whichever side is disadvantaged. And then that will go to our Court of Appeal and be hammered out."

And most importantly "I have an open mind on it at the moment – I can see it going either way. I really can. But somebody has to make their mind up and fortunately it’s not my job."

Although the FIA could have cleared up the regulations sooner they may have been caught out by the late debut of the Brawn GP car.

But it’s frustrating to see a new F1 season begin under fresh controversy that might have been avoided. Once again we have to think of the FIA’s radical budget caps proposal, which would involve F1 cars running to two different sets of technical regulations, and marvel at how the governing body thinks they could get two sets of rules right when they can’t handle one.

For more on this read John Beamer’s excellent piece on the new diffuser regulations and how different teams have interpreted them: F1 2009 Technology: Rear wings, diffusers – and the inevitable controversy.

You can also find the full 2009 technical regulations on the F1 Fanatic

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

82 comments on “Red Bull will protest Brawn GP diffuser”

  1. As I said in the forum, this feels like another attempt to undermine FOTA by dividing the teams.

  2. It’s just sour grapes from Red Bull I’m afraid. The three teams in question have not broken any rules, Helmut Marko is merely jealous that his boffins didn’t think of it as well. Anyway, this issue has been up in the air for about six weeks, so as far as I’m concerned the FIA has missed its chance to rule against the diffusers – If there was a problem, they should have dealt with it ASAP.

  3. Not to open the conspiracy floodgates….

    But do you think it’s possible the FIA and Formula One may be allowing Brawn to run a questionable diffuser to help them achieve success and sponsorship and stay on the F1 grid?

    I don’t think it’s the case. Ultimately, this sounds like sour grapes from a team getting left in the dust.

  4. You gotta love Max “Pain in the @$$” Mosley.

    Well part of me thinks Red Bull should have just copied what the others were doing but yeah it has been completely avoidable which begs the question did the FIA really want to avoid it?

  5. Whoever is going to succeed Max has a heck a lot of things to undo and establish that they higher-ups indeed care for the sport; and not politics.

    Max has proved that he has absolutely no concern for the sport! I think it’s time for him to go.

  6. That diffuser must really work, Jenson Button is the favorite to win on bodog.

  7. Toby Thwaites 93
    24th March 2009, 20:36

    WELL DONE RED BULL, although you could follow it up and protest Toyota’s and Williams’ diffusers aswell.

    The thing i find funny is that Mclaren have just adopted this “illegal diffuser” idea to make up for the lost time on their crappy car, haha :)

    1. No, it’s still below the critical line I think. Just a different shape.

  8. theRoswellite
    24th March 2009, 20:43

    Keith: Can clear up the most probable scenario: (or add your own)

    1) Protest takes place at/after the pre-race check, and BGP can’t run with “the” diffuser.

    2) Race is run, protest takes place, BGP us disqualified, results don’t count.

    3) Race is run, protest takes place, BGP can’t run same set up in the next race. (with possible fine or points loss…but, not victory loss??????????)

    4) Other……

    Thanks, I haven’t heard anyone really spell out HOW a protest will take place and what the FIA options are.

  9. I hope not… I’ve already probably lost money backing Lewis Hamilton and McLaren at the TAB. Please don’t take the money I’ve put on Toyota and Brawn GP to get race wins as well :(

  10. Funny that, andrian newey stated the diffusser was perfectly legal.

    1. where did you read that? i’d be interested in reading that interview, newey is smarter and knows more about it than redbull ‘management’

    2. Sush Meerkat
      25th March 2009, 8:13

      Q: What is your opinion about Toyota’s interpretation of the diffuser?

      AN: I haven’t seen any pictures that are detailed enough to know exactly how they’ve done it, but if what they’ve done is what I think they’ve done then that’s completely legal.

      Q: Because the spirit of the regulations…

      AN: There’s no such thing as the spirit of the regulations, luckily


  11. Toby Thwaites 93
    24th March 2009, 21:10

    Well seen as though it gives Brawn GP a half second advantage it should be illegal.
    Its just down to where the FIA will draw the line between illegal and legal
    Hopefully right under Brawn GP, Toyota and Williams, so that there is a more even grid
    I mean thats what this seasons about right?

    1. If something is worth half a seconds advantage that doesn’t automatically make it illegal, it is a competitive sport or so I’m led to believe. Some might even find it refreshing to see Toyota, Williams and Brawn fighting it out for the championship instead of Ferrari and McLaren.

    2. Toby Thwaites 93
      24th March 2009, 21:38

      Well read my comment below, the FIA need the rules to be clearer. BECAUSE every single team has interpreted the rules differently, and it WILL give teams like Brawn GP unfair advantages. Now they can either say its legal and other teams will follow suit or its illegal and Brawn GP/others will have to get rid of their diffuser

    3. So because something makes them faster you think it should be illegal? Think your logic’s gone awry there, mon ami.

    4. @ Toby Thwaites 93

      So if a team works hard to come up with a unique solution that makes their car in this sport where the idea is to build the fastest car then it gives them an unfair advantage?

      If it’s legal then it’s legal. The only unfair thing is that this whole row threatens to overshadow what should be a fantastic weekend of racing…

    5. My technical knowledge is very limited – I dont know whether or not the thing is illegal just by looking – I’m lucky if i even know what to be looking at – but to me the fact the three teams chose to go the same way suggests that it is possibly not illegal, just a different interpretation of the rules – although that is based on assumption.

      Also, i read another team or two is trying to copy the design – so does that not contradict the ‘seven teams are against it’ comment from Red Bull – if they were so sure it was illegal – other teams would not be copying no?

      If it gives the teams with it an advantage then great – its what it is all about, building the better car then your rivals – the fact that three of them have found something that gives them that much of an advatage should be commendable should it prove legal.

      I sincerely hope all three cars are legal – it would be nice to see them all doing well this year.

      Whichever way though i wish they would sort it out – you dont want a race where six people are taken out afterwards – should they all finish and in the points, you could have the guys placed down to fourteenth then scoring points. You could, theoretically, have someone from say fifth or sixth eventually taking the win – as if F1 needs anything else to make it look like a joke at the minute!

  12. eh? a development isn’t illegal because it gives advantage!

  13. Toby Thwaites 93
    24th March 2009, 21:33

    Tts not a development though, its just an abnormal diffuser that the rules should have clearly outlawed before this controversy started

    1. yep. Should have been outlawed when the toyota was released, not hailed (as described on the official website) as a clever interpretation of the rules.

      I’m all for innovation in F1, but these bits are clearly acting as part of the diffuser – it’s seems pretty clear IMHO.

  14. I was hoping to see a race to the chequered flag, not the court of appeal.

  15. If the rules were written better, this loophole would not have existed. But if scrutinnering recognises the car as legal – then the result should count.

    Fair enough that the other teams protest and get the rule changed, but whatever results the concerned teams get at Melbourne and probably Malaysia as well should stay valid.

  16. Toby Thwaites 93
    24th March 2009, 21:55

    Yeah the rules should of been written better, but Brawn GP is the main culprit and because they started testing late their car wasnt properly looked over, well thats what Bernie said.

    How exactly are Redbull and the 7 other teams going to protest if the diffusers are passed as legal?

  17. Two thoughts.
    The more strict, nailed-down and precise they write the rules, the more that creative engineers will try to circumvent them.
    And wouldn’t it be funny if Brawn turned up to scrutineering in Australia with a perfectly vanilla diffuser and still wiped the floor with everyone.

  18. Finding a little loophole or something like it is what F1 is and was about, got to love it!
    And if you can defend it you are allowed to use it untill it’s banned. That’s how F1 works!

    Or they say it’s legal, let’s copy it.
    Or they say it will become illegal from Barcelona, and the 3teams need to get it fixed by then.

    That are the only options I think.

  19. Toby Thwaites 93
    24th March 2009, 22:07

    haha yeah. I definatly think its more than the diffuser that makes the Brawn car so quick, i mean its one of the better looking 09 cars. HOWEVER i said that about the Mclaren and its absolutly rubbish :)

    1. haha yeah congrats too everyone who said the mclaren looks the quickest when they launched it. *claps*

  20. were any of the best lap test times set with the use of KERS? (ferrari, bmw etc). i mean if all the times for all teams were set with no use of KERS then once teams do use them in a race that 1/2 sec margin will be closed.

    1. hard to know, but i did remember reading that massa’s ferrari was 8kmph faster over the start finish (on hot laps) than brawngp because of KERS.

  21. BTW….i would design Brawn’s livery for FREE! i would prefer to see anything (besides that ING garbage) on the grid march 29th! given their lack of sponsors is acceptable….but a black and creamy yellow stripe on an off white body? come onnnnnn! please donate to the Brawn livery fund so they can come up with something better

    1. Creamy yellow? It’s fluro, and the white looks pretty white to me. I like it.

    2. The white should help with keeping the engine cool, since it deflects heat from the sun.

  22. Rules have to be written in black and white, clearly. Anything that falls within the letter of the rules should be allowed. Do people honestly think that the world’s best automotive engineers arent going to exploit grey areas? Applying a rule by its intent is totally subjective. The only “intent” that matters to an F1 competitor is the intent to win. Good on them for pushing the development envelope, I certainly wont complain if Toyota, Williams, or Brawn beat Ferrari (my favorite team actually) due to exploiting loopholes. All this controversy is ridiculous.

  23. all cars are illegal anyway,
    look at all those little spoilers in front of the side pods…all against the spirit of the new rules of cleaning up these cars in aid of overtaking…
    talking about cleaning up,
    has Max and co ever made a aerodynamic rule without loop holes?
    there should be a,no stupid bits rule!

    1. You only say that because simple cars are easier to paint :-)

  24. France has a law that says a motorcyclist must be with his helmet. What that means is, he may have it hanging on his wrist while driving or his back. The law doesn’t say it must be on his head.

    Loop holes have always existed in rules and laws. Its left for the rule writers to be explicit in their interpretation to prevent ambiguity.
    The cars cannot be found illegal until they have amended the rules.

    1. Never knew about the French helmet law- there was a flap for years about that here in Pennsylvania until it was changed a few years ago. Not exactly F1, but thanks for the insight :)

    2. yeah but no one likes the french.

  25. Looks like everybody will be bringing another set of different diffusers after Thursday. ;)

  26. Bernie Ecclestone’s been stirring things up even more. Here’s what he said to The Times:

    Can I put something in your mind. Ross Brawn is the guy that runs the teams’ technical committee and probably knows what’s going to happen before other people, or is in a position to guide things. There’s a massive conflict of interest.

    1. Well, like him or not, Bernie is right – he may actually have a point there.

    2. I love the:

      “Can I put something in you mind”

      “Yes Bernie what were you thinking of”

      “A poison enema filled with rancid rectal fluid”

      Ross Brawn isn’t the only team member in the Technical Working Group and I’m sure the so called “Ring Master” wasn’t complaining when he was appointed as it’s head. Strange that the official F1 web site’s main picture is of the BGP 001 and carries the headline 2009… A Year For Dark Horses. Funny that I could have sworn I just heard the sound of a cash register.

  27. I dont get this fracas. Like John Beamer stated in his article, the rules state how the diffuser must look from ground level, anything behind that, it not in the rule book. So if you’re a smart designer, its place to exploit, which they did of course.

    I think the rest of the teams are just bitter that they didn’t think about it. It’s not in the rule book, so how can it be illegal? I think the FIA should stand by their rule book. They should just lay the matter to rest and change the rules for next season or something. If they deem that the diffusers on these 3 teams are illegal, what are they going to do? There is no in-season testing, so how are they going to fit a re-designed part to part and get it to work well? Just put it together and hope it goes well?

    And what the heck to the stewards know? They’re probably the biggest pricks in the sport, in my experience, they’ve rarely made any good calls. I will be ****** if they deem the diffuser to be illegal in Melbourne…@#$%!

  28. the problem with the argument redbull is posing is that it gives them 5 tenths per lap.

    that’s really not an issue, that’s an advantage by intelligent design, anyone can have that advantage.

    the rules regarding the diffuser were in place for 2 reasons, A) to ensure the rear crash structure remains in tact and B) to allow car chasing to come close enough without losing down force to enable an overtaking maneuver. (correct me if i’m wrong please).

    IF their diffuser doesn’t disrupt the air any worse than another standard diffuser, than the time gained by their better design is a non issue.

  29. for anyone interested, there’s great photos of the RBR and BGP rear diffusers and forum topic over at f1technical

  30. Just a thought. If the diffusers are deemed legal at scrutineering, & the 3 teams using them finish way ahead of the others, the way i see it there’s no justification for an appeal, wheres the evidence of disrupted airflow for the following cars. I can remember seasons with other teams having a massive advantage, but not having all this bitching about it, seems like there are a lot of bad losers about.

  31. the Sri lankan
    25th March 2009, 4:40

    i hope people get over this loophole thing and re-design their cars if they are being disadvantged. this is a cruicial year for Toyota and if they loose the device which may help them fight for podiums and wins, they may pack up and leave. then we’ll be looking at a blimming 18 car grid in 2010.

  32. theRoswellite
    25th March 2009, 5:17

    Does anyone actually know what the procedure will be for the protest, and what the FIA options are?

    1. Any of the teams (and the FIA for that matter) can bring a protest against the stewards. The cars are scrutineered at the start of the meeting tomorrow and Marko’s said if the stewards say they’re legal he will protest that decision.

      In which case I think it’s unlikely the matter would be resolved before the weekend. The cars would race under appeal and the matter would be decided by a Court of Appeal. Terrible way to start the season.

  33. I’ll tell you another thing that is frustrating – when you say something and you get ignored!
    oh well, I’ll say what I said in the other thread again.

    The above offending paragraph (the one we have been discussing), in fact, most of the regs have remain unchanged. The trouble is people have been fooled by the pink highlighted writing and come to the conclusion that the pink highlights are amendments: they are not!

    If you still don’t believe me, here’s a link to a ‘print screen’ of the ‘old’ 2009 regs next to the ‘new’ March regs. Spot the difference:

    if you want me to send you a copy of each, just ask.

    1. not sure what you’re trying to get at, i don’t think anyone is disputing that the rules have not been changed.

      I’ve never seen that pink highlighted version before.

      either way it seems brawns diffuser is legal more than toyotas and williams – or, to put it another way, brawns is not an issue, toyotas and williams is questionable as far as the tech specs go.

      regarding the turbulence created by the diffuser, brawns design ‘may’ produce more low pressure, but that’s yet to be seen or tested. that’s the only grounds they could make them modify it on IMO.

    2. I thought the purpose of the highlighting was to show the differences between the 2008 and 2009 regulations, not different versions of the 2009 regulations?

    3. yeah, I think you’re probably right, although why they’ve only just decided to do that in March is strange.

      Anyways. That’s no excuse for my rather curt post earlier, my emotions are back in check and I’m looking forward to this weekend. I’ll be able to hear the cars from my bedroom window – it’s going to be great.

  34. As soon as BrawnGP, Toyota, Williams …..diffusers legal…. we will see the others seven team copied it…in the next race….:))

  35. The point here is Regrdless of whether Brawns diffuser is legal or illegal.. If it gives them 5 tnths advantage they will only have this advantage for 2 races. there after they will have to change it or the other teams will change theirs, and brawn will loose 5 tenths either way.

    1. well there is a point to legality.

      and a diffuser is a large aero part, they cant just change their diffuser to the same as brawns without re-designing the front-mid-rear above and below airflow since it all travels along the car to the rear wing and diffuser, not to mention the exhaust airflow.

      its not a shark fin that does little, it delivers a huge amount of force to the car, a diffuser redesign would require other redesigns to the car.

      airflow re-designs aside, there’s balance issues as well, that rear diffuser probably provides a lot more downforce than the other typical diffusers, other teams are getting their rear down force by other means such as weight, rear wing and rear car shape, by using a new diffuser with more downforce (or less) they’re going to end up with huge under or over steer problems, again forcing a whole car re-design.

      tricky issue

  36. I assume that the teams who are protesting about the diffusers have only seen them attached to the cars in question? What will decide their legality or otherwise will be a man with a ruler climbing under the car. Let’s hope that Ross Brawn still has his special Ferrari “barge board” ruler which seemed to give whatever measurement was required a few years back.

  37. Sush Meerkat
    25th March 2009, 8:15

    I know its Toyota’s but they are similar

    Andrian Newey on the clever diffuser

    Q: What is your opinion about Toyota’s interpretation of the diffuser?

    AN: I haven’t seen any pictures that are detailed enough to know exactly how they’ve done it, but if what they’ve done is what I think they’ve done then that’s completely legal.


  38. If all these ‘banned’ bargeboards and fins jutting from the front of the sidepods are legal, then so too are the diffusers.

    1. barge boards and fins aren’t banned in the rules, but only in certain places.

  39. here is food for thought. Ferrari are pretty quick with the basic diffuser. if the FIA say that it is legal and Ferrari adopt it how fast do you think it will take for it to then become

  40. Whatever the outcome the fact that this issue has been in the public domain for so long and yet the outcome of the first race could well be decided in the courts shows yet again that the FIA are incompetent. Even if you subscribe to the view that they are playing politics trying to split FOTA or some other theory, the FIA would then obviously not be acting in the best interests of Formula 1, which is probably even worse.

    If the diffusers are legal by the letter of the law then the spirit of the law doesn’t matter, as a previous comment pointed out things such as the sidepod deflectors are against the spirit of the law and yet they won’t be banned at the first race.

    My memory may be playing tricks on me but did something similar happen when the rules changed so the area around the cockpit had to be increased to protect the driver more, I think the rule came into force for the 1996 cars.
    Teams interpreted the rules differently and some like Ferrari thought it had to be bigger overall than others, such as Williams, did. Williams interpretation wasn’t illegal and it is the style other teams later used.

    The Ferrari F310

    The Williams FW18

  41. What a suprise, a lawyer fails to clarify a point of ‘law’ – thus guaranteeing more ‘work’ for himself and his kind, whilst keeping both sides at each others throats. The FIA could have made a decision weeks ago, it’s all about undermining FOTA as someone else has observed.

  42. KEITH SOS. Any chance you can call a ban on these whingers. Im sick of everything wrong in F1 being related back to the FIA or Bernie & Max personally. Im no great fan of there’s but its getting REALLY REALLY BORING!

    You may or may not care (or be able to care) about individual users, but if in 30 days these tedious chip on shoulder bloggers are still dominating every blog with their tired responses then i am sadly off.

    1. how ironic of you.

    2. Back to the Guardian?

      Considering how much they’ve done to shape the sport if something is wrong with it surely Max Pain and the other smaller one are usually culpable in some way.

  43. antonyob, I totally agree. I’m over it. Give it a rest, people.

    Don’t think Keith can do much about it, though.

  44. I’m neither a lawyer nor an automotive engineer so I can’t bring any special expertise to interpreting the rules and whether Brawn GP has violated them. However, I do see scope for ambiguity in the way they are written.

    The key phrases in the rule book is “No bodywork which is visible from beneath the car”.
    This makes intuitive sense, because the diffuser is obviously on the bottom of the car, so if you specify a maximum height for the ‘visible bodywork’ you thereby specify a maximum height for the diffuser. As I understand it, Brawn GP has circumvented this with a double decker diffuser, in which the extra high part is not visible from beneath the car because the lower deck is in the way.

    Here’s how I would challenge Brawn GP’s interpretation:
    (1) Challenge the meaning of ‘visible from beneath the car’ – this can mean visible from anywhere beneath, not just directly beneath. Air has to get into (and out of) the diffuser top deck somehow, and unless the airflow is sufficiently contorted, it might be that there is a straight path that allows part of the upper deck to be visible from somwhere under the car. This challenge fails if the upper part of the diffuser is completely invisible from beneath. But from the few pictures I have seen of the Brawn car, I’m pretty certain that from beneath the flashing red light thing that sticks out the back of the car (what’s that called?), you could see into the upper diffuser, which on this interpretation would make it illegal.

    (2) Challenge the meaning of ‘bodywork’ – the diffuser is part of the bodywork visible from beneath the car, ergo no part of the diffuser can be more than 175mm high, whether or not that part is visible from beneath. This challenge fails if the upper part of the diffuser is completely separate from the lower part and is effectively a second diffuser.

    If Brawn has genuinely exploited the rule book, however, that’s fine by me. It’s up to the rule makers to be more explicit.

    1. ok… the rule regarding the not visible

      3.12.7 No bodywork which is visible from beneath the car and which lies between the rear wheel centre line and a point 350mm rearward of it may be more than 175mm above the reference plane. Any intersection of the surfaces in this area with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car. A single break in the surface is permitted solely to allow the minimum required access for the device referred to in Article 5.15.
      Additionally, any bodywork in this area must produce uniform, solid, hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances.

      so your challenge 2 is not a challenge. the 2nd layer is not the issue with that point, the height is, and it is within the hight limits. HOWEVER the toyota diffuser is 90% 175mm, but the center element extends up to the diffuser exceeding 175mm.

      and your challenge 1 is not a challenge since your interpretation of what been said doesn’t encapsulate the whole ruling – you’re missing the point, they are trying to say that no parts behind the rear wheels can exceed a height. it’s not about ‘visibility’ but about is there a part under there and is it too big.

      The vertical planes on the diffuser – the brawngp one scoops down and back up does form a continuous line that is visible from beneath the car.

      here’s a good explanation from shir0 at forums

      The green line on top of the Brawn diffuser is not really part of the diffuser. It’s a widened and sculpted base of the rear crash structure. The Brawn diffuser surface edge is made up by (L-R, based on the image): the left most light blue edge, the top-left yellow line, the curvy-middle red line, the top-right yellow line, and; the right most light blue line. So essentially, this is the single continuous line that is created when the diffuser surface is intersected by a lateral, perpendicular plane (perpendicular to the reference plane).

      The Williams’ diffuser, however, is a different matter. if you remove the 8 vertical strakes from the diffuser and once a perpendicular plane intersects what remains, you are left with an irregular shape instead of a continuous line. The same is true of the Toyota’s diffuser.

  45. Obviously a case of jealousy. Red Bull won’t be able to touch the BGP with their slow car so they protest the legality of the opposition. Hmmmm….

  46. Just a thought – would there be quite so much protest about it if it had been say Ferrari or Mclaren that had the Brawn style diffuser and was topping the testing as expected, rather than the Brawn – who has shocked everyone by making a humungous step forward – and therefore ‘must’ have something illegal about it?

    Possibly, possibly not – it does seem like people/teams were looking for reason why the Brawn is so fast. The main focus is on Brawn, rather than the Williams and Toyota – even though they are all under scrutiny about it – but the Williams and Toyota havent been huge steps ahead in testing. If the three teams have been down the back end of testing times would there have been quite so much protest…

  47. Keith says:
    You only say that because simple cars are easier to paint

    hehe you know where i come from keith,maybe i should paint bob sleighs

    anyway first 09 car is painted/posted.
    thought i do the most ugly one first,then things can only get better…

  48. Who says one of the seven won’t turn up with a copy or different interpretation of the rules at scrutineering.

    I bet they haven’t been sitting around on their hands for weeks.

    1. They certainly have’t been sitting on their hands for weeks, but it takes quite a long time to freight bits over to Melbourne, so I should imagine any changes that are ready today, won’t be on a car for a fortnight or so – certainly not if they would require such an extensive redesign of complementary features such as rear wings as has been suggested earlier in this thread.

  49. This part of the regulation is very misleading because it is based entirely on interpretation

    “Furthermore, infinite precision can be assumed on certain dimensions provided it is clear that such an assumption is not being made in order to circumvent or subvert the intention of the relevant regulation”

    Like Newey said, “There is no spirit of the regulations” otherwise all the engineers can just read a FIA “blueprint” and be done with it. Or better yet, let Ferrari make all the cars and teams just set them up and race.

  50. It’s all hilarious to me. Sam Michael and Ross Brawn were both on the technical committee and both know what the intent was and what was stated. Charlie Whiting examined the BrawnGP element design and pronounced it within the regulations. Toyota also seized on the opportunity, and the other teams did not.

    If this goes to an appeal is there any doubt in anyone’s mind that the FIA (steered by Spanky) will find in favor of Brawn, Williams and Toyota? Why you ask? Just to twist the noses of Ferrari, McLaren, and BMW for calling for Max’s resignation, and in Ferrari’s case for Luca’s leadership of FOTA and wanting more of Bernie’s money.

  51. I’m sure they will rule in whatever way benefits Ferrari the most. They prefer is Ferrari win every champion ship till the end of time.

    Go Timo Glock!

  52. Apparently they’re now given the all-clear….though no doubt they’ll appeal…

  53. Brawn and co will go down!

    They will be removed from this year F1

    I comes from the inside,
    scream, laugh or cry.

    15 Evening you will read and lisen the same as here

    Have a nice F1 year

Comments are closed.