Was Brawn allowed to remove Mclaren fuel rig?

[CHT]

I am just curious if Brawn GP should be penalized for removing Mclaren detached fuel hose. Just imagine what will happen to last year Singapore GP result if Massa got the same kind of assistance

[JamesS]

If media reports are to be believed Brawn owe their livelihoods to McLaren, so no, they shouldn't be penalised.

They obviously wouldn't have done it if they were fighting with McLaren for a championship.

[CHT]

If media reports are to be believed Brawn owe their livelihoods to McLaren, so no, they shouldn't be penalised.

They obviously wouldn't have done it if they were fighting with McLaren for a championship.

Mclaren? I thought it is Mercedes that will most likely be funding Brawn GP next season.

[segedunum]

Given what happened I think the Brawn guys did the right thing. There was fuel coming out all over the place.

[JamesS]

If media reports are to be believed Brawn owe their livelihoods to McLaren, so no, they shouldn't be penalised.

They obviously wouldn't have done it if they were fighting with McLaren for a championship.

Mclaren? I thought it is Mercedes that will most likely be funding Brawn GP next season.

Apparently Mclaren needed to agree also.

[Confused_Andy]

I thought it was just common decency. No way should they be penalised for that... Granted it was just stared at last year, but no one wants to help Ferrari

[CHT]

If media reports are to be believed Brawn owe their livelihoods to McLaren, so no, they shouldn't be penalised.

They obviously wouldn't have done it if they were fighting with McLaren for a championship.

Mclaren? I thought it is Mercedes that will most likely be funding Brawn GP next season.

Apparently Mclaren needed to agree also.

Thats something new to me. Why would Merc need to get Mclaren approval to buy into or supply engine to other teams?

[richard_leeds]

I thought it was just common decency. No way should they be penalised for that... Granted it was just stared at last year, but no one wants to help Ferrari

I think it is testament to Brawn's positive attitude. They started out as the whipping boys at the bottom of the pit lane, but they ended up helping the guys at the top of the pit lane.

A more cynical outfit would have done nothing on the basis that one less car on the track is better for their self interests. I'm glad the Brawn guys made the right choice, probably on an instinct for safety - both for fuel spillage and that Kovi was block the lane outside their pit.

[WhiteBlue]

Mclaren? I thought it is Mercedes that will most likely be funding Brawn GP next season.

Apparently Mclaren needed to agree also.

Thats something new to me. Why would Merc need to get Mclaren approval to buy into or supply engine to other teams?

According to sources Merc and McLaren have an exclusivity agreement until the end of the 2011 season. Under the agreement a new supply of engines needs the approval of McLaren. McLaren according to AMuS vetoed Merc engines to Red Bull next year.

There is also talk that this agreement may be terminated prematurely.

[Agerasia]

It's my understanding that because it was done in the interests of safety no action was taken.

[andartop]

..However, it's still not legitimate me thinks. Of course it shouldn't have been Brawn that got punished but Heikki and McLaren. It's not against regulations to offer external assistance, but I'm pretty damn sure it is to accept it. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the sporting code could enlighten us.
Why no one is crying foul at the stewards' decision to investigate this after the race is beyond me..surely, had it been a Ferrari car all the conspiracy theorists would be ranting about Fiarrari etc.
And didn't Massa serve a drive through penalty last year at Singapore? Why not Heikki???

[deus1066]

..However, it's still not legitimate me thinks. Of course it shouldn't have been Brawn that got punished but Heikki and McLaren. It's not against regulations to offer external assistance, but I'm pretty damn sure it is to accept it. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the sporting code could enlighten us.
Why no one is crying foul at the stewards' decision to investigate this after the race is beyond me..surely, had it been a Ferrari car all the conspiracy theorists would be ranting about Fiarrari etc.
And didn't Massa serve a drive through penalty last year at Singapore? Why not Heikki???

I agree, this happened very early in the race and should have been a drive through as that was what happened to Massa in Singapore last year. However, they do reserve the right to give a retrospective 25 second penalty which they deem as an equivalent to a drive through, like the penalty for Hamilton in Belgium last year.

From what I understand a 25 second loss is more than the time you'd lose with a drive through, but you have the advantage of running the race without interruption and added traffic so I guess it evens out to some extent.

Anyway, its irrelevent with Kovalainen finishing out of the points either way.

A summary of the various post-race investigations:

http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/ ... 10119.html

[Pup]

The difference with Massa is that the guys in the last stall last year (Force India?) were busy dealing with their own pit stop at the time, and couldn't have offered help.

I suppose they could have done so after their pit stop was over, but by then the Ferrari guys were headed that way. At least this time we were spared the comedy routine of the mechanics fighting over who gets to pull out the nozzle like we had with the Ferrari crew.

Another thing to consider is how closely Heikki stopped to the Brawn pits - practically in front, and certainly blocking their pit exit. They had to do something, either help or try to wave him on. Massa stopped further on, and looked to me at the time as if he'd called it a day.

[Rob W]

Thats something new to me. Why would Merc need to get Mclaren approval to buy into or supply engine to other teams?

I imagine it would be amongst one of the most routine points to have in such an arrangement as the McLaren-Merc partnership that neither organisation can conduct business with other teams without the blessing of the other partner.

It would be a pretty basic potential conflict-of-interest or counter to the aim of the partnership part of these sort of agreements.

[andartop]

You missed the point Pup!
The question is whether it is allowed under the regulations to accept external assistance or not, regardless of whether you really need it or not!