F1 links: RML cancel F1 2010 entry

Posted on

| Written by

Here’s a round-up of F1 news and other interesting links I’ve found today.

If you’ve spotted a hot news story, interesting new website or just something funny from the world of F1, please share your links in the comments below.

RML Grand Prix Update

"The recent uncertainty regarding the details of the application of the budget cap and participation of the other teams and manufacturers has meant that we were not in a position to lodge an entry prior to the 29th May deadline. Nevertheless, RML remain open to participating in Formula 1 in the future and will monitor developments closely. In the meantime, we wish to express our appreciation for the efforts of the FIA and Formula One Management to create the conditions for a new approach to Grand Prix racing and secure the future of the sport."

Brawn illegitimately?

"There are many people out there who simply do not buy the idea that Brawn have become so dominant on merit. There are a number of reasons."

Is F1 on the path to Armageddon?

"Over the past few weeks it has been difficult to discern precisely who is in the driving seat as far as this dispute is concerned. The only thing that has become clear to me is that costs in this business have now well and truly spiralled so far out of control that even the FIA’s recent, seemingly sane, initiative on the matter is in danger of going down the pan. Taken just as a temporary measure for a single year a 100m euro budget cap is utterly ludicrous. Have FOTA and the FIA both been spending too much time out in the sun?"

These are links I’ve bookmarked using Delicious. You can see my Delicious profile here.

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.

18 comments on “F1 links: RML cancel F1 2010 entry”

  1. Brawn illegitimately?

    overall, a nice piece, but i’ll take issue with this:

    This nasty impression could have been avoided had the FIA simply declared that the diffuser was fully legal before the season started, but petty political interests yet again got in the way of common sense.

    the diffuser spec, as interpreted by brawn, williams and toyota, was declared legal before the start of the season. it was most of the other teams, whose engineers were caught napping, that chose to appeal that decision just to prove a point. they never had any belief the appeal would succeed.

    these are the same teams that claim to be at wit’s end with rules changes, over-officiating, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

    like many masochists, i’ve loved f1 for many years. but honestly, if they continue to hop, skip and jump into oblivion, i will not shed a tear.

    1. ‘apparantly Renault had the diffuser built but never got an answer back from the FIA so didn’t proceed ahead with it.’

      that was the rumour I heard that crept out during the FIA hearing, it would be interesting to know if anyone dug up more information about their claims?

      1. ‘apparantly Renault had the diffuser built but never got an answer back from the FIA so didn’t proceed ahead with it.’

        We’ve seen this quoted, along with similar statements from Red Bull, quite often however the thing with this is that Williams & Toyota also went to the FIA and asked “is this legal?”. Now, this could be read a number of ways…

        1. Inconsistency on the part of the FIA… a lot of people would see this as yet another example of inconsistency by the FIA. I don’t agree with this theory because I have yet to see the FIA be inconsistent in any example that is raised, because the different situations are blindingly obviously different to me. Which leads me to point 2.

        2. The designs of the different Diffusers were different enough for some to be declared legal and others to be illegal. The FIA can’t exactly say “your’s is illegal because of this, but the Williams designed one we saw last week isn’t because they did this to get round that” that is unfair to Williams and against any ethical sporting code you can muster. However, Renault may have been too short sighted to continue to look for the solution and decided to drop the Diffuser themselves.

    2. Prisoner Monkeys
      2nd June 2009, 5:11

      I think people are raising doubts over Brawn’s letigimacy simply because they’re doing so well. In reality, they’ve actually done a lot of hard work; early in 2008, Ross Brawn advised Honda to scrap its RA108 program and concentrate on what would have been the RA109. It was a huge risk, but Brawn considered it to be worth it because the massive overhaul of technical regulations meant that any data gathered in 2008 would be useless for this year. As they were in such a unique position, they got rid of the RA108 and Shuhei Nakamoto and started on the RA109, which eventually became the BGP-001. They’d been working on it since last March-April, whereas everyone else focused on their 2008 cars and didn’t stat their ’09 challengers until much later. Some probably didn’t start until the season had ended.

      1. Texas F1 Fan
        2nd June 2009, 18:37

        One thing is for sure, F1 is full of drama.

        Remember, cheating…I mean interpretation of the rules is paramount to squeezing every ounce of performance out of a race car. I applaud the teams that “thought outside of the box” on the rear diffusers. The risk paid off…

        Go Team Brawn!!!!!

  2. The FIA did not say that the double deck diffusers were legal before the season began, though Max Mosley did hint that they would be OK. However, at the same time he basically invited the other teams to question the decision, which is how the whole issue ended up being spun out for so long when it could have been resolved pretty easily.


  3. HounslowBusGarage
    2nd June 2009, 8:38

    I don’t like DoctorVee’s article ‘Brawn illegitimately’.
    A few days ago, on this blog he used the headline “Have the 2009 tyre rules gifted Button the world drivers’ championship?”. The word ‘gifted’ implies prejudice as does ‘illegimately’.
    DoctorVee may or may not have a personal problem with Brawn’s success, but raising the possibility of bias or illegitimacy in a headline and then writing this in the body of the piece

    I think it’s a shame that people should find it so difficult to come to terms with Brawn’s success. There is no real suspicion that Brawn have cheated their way to the top.

    is not helping the situation at all. It’s like someone who announces “There is no truth in the rumour that . . .” There, you’ve started a rumour.

    1. here here

  4. F1 finds itself in a mess cos max mosley and FIA adhoc way of running the sport. They have been changing rules so many times in reaction to events (stop schumacher winning etc), but every rule change has huge financial implications. Infact this is one very reason why small cannot compete in F1.

  5. Accidentalmick
    2nd June 2009, 10:28

    @ Hounslowbusgarage
    You’re writing for me. I agree wholeheartedly. I dislike this type of article and the type of converstaion that includes “I’m don’t believe it but some people are saying…..” If you don’t believe it don’t raise it just to show how clever you are.

  6. I’m not the one who raised it. I’ve heard Brawn’s success being questioned time and again by those who don’t follow the sport so closely. Whether the tyre rule is increasing their legitimate advantage is a separate matter.

    1. HounslowBusGarage
      2nd June 2009, 21:21

      Are you DoctorVee then?
      Frankly, I wouldn’t place much store in the opinions of those “who don’t follow the sport so much” when they start to talk about racing. They are hardly likey to be knowledgable experts, are they?

  7. People like conspiracy theories. How often has someone here posted about how the FIA loves Ferrari and is doing everything it can to stop Lewis Hamilton?

    It’s just like yelling at a referee. Part of sport.

    1. They always try and make the championship as close as possible really and giving ridiculous penalties to help Massa catch Lewis was just what they did. Shame they aren’t doing it this year :-P

  8. I agree with F1Yankee the double diffuser was declared legal before the start of the season – I think. I was of the understanding that the diffuser was declared legal by the stewards before any action took place at Melbourne? Melbourne is the 1st race of the season so by default that means the diffuser was declared legal before the season started?

    1. I agree with F1Yankee the double diffuser was declared legal before the start of the season

      It was… see my response to Rabi above.

  9. The diffusers had to be scrutinised before they could actually be passed as legal/illegal.
    This actually took place at Melbourne as stated on the F1 site here

  10. That should have been scrutineered. Brainfade or Freudian slip of the grossly short-sighted, I`m not sure which.

Comments are closed.