Mercedes GP - Inauguration and 1st season

[Raptor22]

Seg. I'm not sure you're getting it.

There are reasons why the BAR to Honda design team did not deliver. A lack of talent was not the problem.Go back and read my last post for an insight into the culture at Honda. Bar was not much different.
In order to design a good car, the engineering team needs co-ordination. When Honda partnered with BAR they quickly saw that the teams management were weak and Honda felt they need to take charge in order to get results. That created turmoil throughout the team. Who is the boss. As part of the engine deal, Honda wanted a greater say in the running of the team.
This situation only came under control when Ross Brawn joined the team. It is no accident that the best BAR/Honda cars where designed by Geoff Willis. He is a strong character and now works over at RedBull with Adrian Newey.

All the successful teams have a strong leader. BAR/ Honda lacked that, not engineering talent.
Once a strong leader was in place, performance improved. Honda's problems were management related, not engineering talent related. FACT

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

When the team became Brawn it £1 in the account for the running of the team throughout 2009.
This is why Hondas pumped in the £100 million to allow the team to survive through to the end of the year.
On top of this, with all the redundancies(around 300 people) came a hefty bill.

2 things spring from your statements that most people would have picked up on.
The first that getting shot of 300 people saves you £7.5 million. For 1 year perhaps, but what of the next 3 or 4? How does the team move forward without having manufacturer backing?
The FOM cash was indeed advanced to Brawn as another "emergency loan" to keep the outfit running. I remember Williams rejecting the idea...It was all about cash flow.[/b}

The secind is that the moment Honda signed off the team to Brawn and co, they made these men instantly rich. It was a case of keeping the ship going until the saviour come along.
The money these guys earned was from the sale of the team to Mercedes for the assets.

Do you suggest then, that Brawn and his "cronies" plundered cash from the business....then go for the double whammy and sell it to mercedes devoid of any real cashflow?

If you think Brawn is a fraud because of this, then I would keep it to myself until I could use substantiated figures with payments to and from individuals...Facts if you like.

[xpensive]

Two years ago, RB held the position as chair of FOTA's technical arm, in other words responsible for the rules on limitation on diffuser size, while at the same time working flat out at Honda with a loophole to circumvent the very same rules.

Sorry JET, but the above makes him forever a fraud in my book.

[Richard]

JET - redundancies tend not to release any savings in year 1 when you take into account severance pay,legal & admin costs, plus lost opportunity due to the disruption.

xpensive - you neglected to mention the Benetton fuel rig and the elusive option 13 on their ECU

[PNSD]

Two years ago, RB held the position as chair of FOTA's technical arm, in other words responsible for the rules on limitation on diffuser size, while at the same time working flat out at Honda with a loophole to circumvent the very same rules.

Sorry JET, but the above makes him forever a fraud in my book.

He also told the teams about the loophole! At least he informed the teams that there was a loophole, and if they wanted they would close it, but they refused, and what came next were the double diffusers.

It's their own fault. Brawns no fraud.

[xpensive]

...
He also told the teams about the loophole!
...

He did? My, what a sport, guess there's a FOTA memo somewhere to back that one up, like;

"Gentlemen, I know that the hour is late, but I have been working hard to penetrate my own rules, why I have finally
come up with the idea of calling a hole a slot, brilliant innit, what do you guys reckon, should we all use this loophole?"

[Raptor22]

correct, and to rub salt into the wounds, most of hte teams explored the loophole but decided it was illegal.
Brawn did what he needed to do as chairman, inform of the members of the possible loophole. He is not entitled to spell it out to them and place a design on the table. Grow up. His function as chairman was to faciliate the Technical Working Group, convene the meetings, and offer a line of mediation for dispute. He was not there to spill his own intellectual property.
That was a matter of interpretation and the rest is history.

Option 13 was found on the 1994 Mclaren, Ferrari and Williams cars.
They were quietly asked to remove the software because they, like Benetton were using it during testing to work on tyre setup. A case of 4 guilty parties but one being used as an example.
the explanation offered by Benetton was legitimate; it was almost impossible to remove the software without a complete ECU redesign hence it was disabled.

[xpensive]

Of course the rest of the F1 technical community are certified idiots, but most obviously, engineering a**holes such as Adrian Newey didn't realize that RB was in bed with MrM, who had no problems whatsoever with calling a hole a slot?

[Raptor22]

again, instead of spilling vitriol everywhere your angry little mind takes, try to focus on the facts.

Technical regulations are limited by definitions. Different people interpret definitions differently. If you chose to call people aholes without having justifiable cause then i guess its more indicative of your personality than theirs.
Liek I said, all read the same page, some saw opportunity while others saw limitation. Those who saw opportunity came up with the double diffuser. Those who saw limitation came up with nothing. One individual engineering group came up with innovation that comformed to teh spirit of the regualtions whilst still providing an advantage. Thats how rules interpretation works, undeniable fact.
So if calling people who see opportunity a'holes makes you feel better then maybe F1 is not for you? Maybe you should take up Boules or even Bowls maybe.

So how does your views on RB contribute to this thread again? Remind me because it must have gotten lost in translation somewhere

[marcush.]

the situation for RB is a bit smelly really as the ddd thing is Not in the spirit of the rules,nobody would deny this.The whole idea was to Reduce downforce not creating ways to create more than before.
So why it was allowed will remain Mosleys ,Bernies and Ross secret.

[xpensive]

Xcuse me, but getting personal is not really my bag, last time I checked, this thread was about MGP's first season, no?

In that context, and I belive that seg, marcush and even JET will agree with me, how this construction called MGP came about and why the Honda team was not simply deleted from the face of the earth, is still interesting.

When the chair of FOTA's technical arm is the only individual among the teams to be as bold as thinking both MrM an MrE's former spannerman will agree, you can go figure what was really happening. With a bit of imagination of course.

[PNSD]

...
He also told the teams about the loophole!
...

He did? My, what a sport, guess there's a FOTA memo somewhere to back that one up, like;

"Gentlemen, I know that the hour is late, but I have been working hard to penetrate my own rules, why I have finally
come up with the idea of calling a hole a slot, brilliant innit, what do you guys reckon, should we all use this loophole?"

http://www.patronisef1.com/index.php/f1 ... t-loophole

http://www.autosport.com/subs/login.php ... s&id=74282

http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?showtopic=107579

Brawn still a fraud for that reason or is it just that Mercedes bought the team now?

[xpensive]

There was no "grey area" whatsoever, it was pure semantics, calling a hole a slot, something the entire F1 community balked at, xcept for RB, MrM and MrE's former spannerman. My oh my, what might they have in common I wonder?

[marcush.]

maybe a taste for unusual pasttime...who knows...

[PNSD]

Except Williams and Toyota too??

What was the difference between this and Newey's flexy wings? None imo. Both were legal to the word of the regulation and passed the FIA's tests... Does that make Newey a fraud?

I see no logical reason for claiming Brawn is a fraud other than getting the upper hand on the other teams and saving an entire F1 operation from shutting down completley. He might have made money from the Mercedes buyout (as did the other shareholders) but he deserved it after what and the others achieved imo.

Im probably a little biased because I am a fan of Nico, and a fan of former BAR/Honda/Brawn team. Regardless of the car, to win save a team from extinction and to go on and win both championships is an amazing feat. When you consider the car, you have to recognize that for half the season it might have been quickest, but for the other half it was by no means the quickest car on track.

Sorry to go so off-topic!! It should be noted that I am by no means a fan of Brawn, and never have since his Ferrari days, but to call him a fraud? I prefer the term F1 genius.