modbaraban wrote:By the way, do you blame Clarke for killing Surtees?
How about that: had it been Alonso's wheel that killed Surtees, would you consider blaming Alonso and Renault for a tragedy that could have been avoided?
es. Not deliberately of course. But yes. The difference between Brawn's and Renault's 'failures' is that in Massa accident people are still guessing what really happened how and why that happened (the failure). In Renault's case even the TV viewers knew the wheel would surely come off
before it actually happened, therefore I assume competent people on the pitwall knew that even earlier and just took the risk.
I don't think that's the only difference. Another one would be that in Brawn's case an accident did happen, and someone got hurt, whereas in the Renault case it didn't. An obvious similarity is that in both cases, I'm 100% sure, there was no intent to cause any harm. Now I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure consequences of one's actions are taken into consideration when one decides on a possible penalty, whether there was an intention to cause harm or not.
Think about it this way: one drives while he is drunk, he knows he is drunk, and he gets off the road causing only some damage to his car. Should he be fined? Would he be fined?
One drives while he is drunk, he doesn't know he is drunk, but he knows he had a few more than he should have as he spent the best part of his day down the pub with his mates. He gets off the road and runs over a little baby boy, inflicting skull fractures and a severe concussion. Should he be fined? Would he be fined? Would he be more than fined?
I'm not saying here the FIA should have punished Brawn, as I don't know exactly what the regulations predict about such incidents. But it is schizophrenic, to say the least, to punish Renault and not Brawn!
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. H.P.Lovecraft