Ferrari Accuse Brawn of 'supreme Arrogance' in Diffuser Appeal Hearing
Ferrari have accused Brawn of 'supreme arrogance' in FIA appeal hearing over the use of double diffusers
An official ruling over the legality of Jenson Button's Brawn-Mercedes, the winner of the first two races this season in Australia and Malaysia, was expected tomorrow after an uncharacteristically turbulent meeting of the FIA's international court of appeal in Paris today.
Most formula one insiders believe that the Brawn's so-called "double diffuser" – a key aerodynamic accessory which dramatically enhances tyre grip at the rear of the car – will be decreed to be legal. But even if the verdict does go against Button and the Brawn team, it is expected that the formal verdict will amount to no more than a "rule clarification", prohibiting its use in the future but leaving the results so far this season to stand.
Certainlytoday's court of appeal hearing combined emotionally passionate outbursts and strong words in equal measure – unusual for debates about technical issues which usually grind away with a degree of formality bordering on the dull. However, when Ferrari's lawyer, Nigel Tozzi QC, opened the proceedings with an electrifying attack on Ross Brawn, accusing the team principal of being "a person of supreme arrogance", it was clear that this was going to be an unusually feisty exchange.
Ferrari, Red Bull Racing, Renault and BMW Sauber were all appealing against a decision by the stewards at the Australian grand prix last month rejecting their protest that the diffusers on the Brawn – and the new Toyota and Williams as well – did not conform to the regulations. They claimed that if the diffusers were deemed to be legal, the FIA would effectively be creating a "two tier" formula one with three teams in a position where they could consolidate a significant performance edge while the end of the field were left catching up.
Tozzi's opening address brought wry smiles to the faces of many who recalled that the British engineer was the key technical driving force behind the five of Michael Schumacher's seven world championship titles which were won with the famous Italian team. Tozzi eventually concluded his 90-minute speech by returning to his original theme. "Only a person of supreme arrogance would think he is right when so many of his esteemed colleagues would disagree," he said of Brawn.
The arcane technical arguments relating to the legality of the diffusers centered on the positioning of certain apertures in the under trays of the cars in question. But Tozzi railed: "Anyone with a command of English will tell you it's a hole, so do not let someone attempting to be clever with words defeat the express purpose of the rules. The appeal is not because we have not made the most of an opportunity, but because Brawn, Toyota and Williams have not acted within the regulations."
The Ferrari lawyer's argument was backed up by the contention of the Renault team representative Andrew Ford who claimed that the French formula one team had abandoned such a diffuser design last year when the FIA deemed it illegal. Back came Tozzi, still not mincing his words. "The position of the FIA is baffling," he told the panel of judges. "We urge you to save the FIA from itself."
He also criticized the FIA race director, Charlie Whiting, for "getting it wrong" and "not understanding the point". Tozzi argued that the credibility of Max Mosley, the FIA president, would be badly damaged in the event of the court dismissing the appeals. "If the appeal is dismissed, then the claims by the FIA that they want to make the sport more attractive and reduce costs will sound hollow," he said.
But a defiant Brawn said: "We didn't consider this to be a radical new design. It was an innovative approach of an existing idea, and formula one is all about innovative design. It's a cornerstone and objective of the sport."
Despite the appeal, all the protesting teams admit they have been developing their own "double diffuser" just in case its legality is upheld. "We are developing a similar solution despite thinking it does not comply with the idea of the rules and it costs a lot of money," said Mario Theissen, the BMW motorsport president."We don't want to go down this path, but we have no choice. We have to develop it in case it is declared legal."
Most formula one insiders believe that the Brawn's so-called "double diffuser" – a key aerodynamic accessory which dramatically enhances tyre grip at the rear of the car – will be decreed to be legal. But even if the verdict does go against Button and the Brawn team, it is expected that the formal verdict will amount to no more than a "rule clarification", prohibiting its use in the future but leaving the results so far this season to stand.
Certainlytoday's court of appeal hearing combined emotionally passionate outbursts and strong words in equal measure – unusual for debates about technical issues which usually grind away with a degree of formality bordering on the dull. However, when Ferrari's lawyer, Nigel Tozzi QC, opened the proceedings with an electrifying attack on Ross Brawn, accusing the team principal of being "a person of supreme arrogance", it was clear that this was going to be an unusually feisty exchange.
Ferrari, Red Bull Racing, Renault and BMW Sauber were all appealing against a decision by the stewards at the Australian grand prix last month rejecting their protest that the diffusers on the Brawn – and the new Toyota and Williams as well – did not conform to the regulations. They claimed that if the diffusers were deemed to be legal, the FIA would effectively be creating a "two tier" formula one with three teams in a position where they could consolidate a significant performance edge while the end of the field were left catching up.
Tozzi's opening address brought wry smiles to the faces of many who recalled that the British engineer was the key technical driving force behind the five of Michael Schumacher's seven world championship titles which were won with the famous Italian team. Tozzi eventually concluded his 90-minute speech by returning to his original theme. "Only a person of supreme arrogance would think he is right when so many of his esteemed colleagues would disagree," he said of Brawn.
The arcane technical arguments relating to the legality of the diffusers centered on the positioning of certain apertures in the under trays of the cars in question. But Tozzi railed: "Anyone with a command of English will tell you it's a hole, so do not let someone attempting to be clever with words defeat the express purpose of the rules. The appeal is not because we have not made the most of an opportunity, but because Brawn, Toyota and Williams have not acted within the regulations."
The Ferrari lawyer's argument was backed up by the contention of the Renault team representative Andrew Ford who claimed that the French formula one team had abandoned such a diffuser design last year when the FIA deemed it illegal. Back came Tozzi, still not mincing his words. "The position of the FIA is baffling," he told the panel of judges. "We urge you to save the FIA from itself."
He also criticized the FIA race director, Charlie Whiting, for "getting it wrong" and "not understanding the point". Tozzi argued that the credibility of Max Mosley, the FIA president, would be badly damaged in the event of the court dismissing the appeals. "If the appeal is dismissed, then the claims by the FIA that they want to make the sport more attractive and reduce costs will sound hollow," he said.
But a defiant Brawn said: "We didn't consider this to be a radical new design. It was an innovative approach of an existing idea, and formula one is all about innovative design. It's a cornerstone and objective of the sport."
Despite the appeal, all the protesting teams admit they have been developing their own "double diffuser" just in case its legality is upheld. "We are developing a similar solution despite thinking it does not comply with the idea of the rules and it costs a lot of money," said Mario Theissen, the BMW motorsport president."We don't want to go down this path, but we have no choice. We have to develop it in case it is declared legal."
Use the feedback form below to submit your comments.
Use the form below to email this article to your friends.
- Niki Lauda Fears Return to 'spaghetti Culture' for Ferrari
- Short on Points and Ideas, Ferrari Must Battle on With Red Faces
- Enter New Ferrari With Promise of More Excitement
- A Risk Too Far: Ronaldo's Ferrari Crash May Cost Him Dear, Say Insurers
- First Blood to Ferrari and Massa
- Ferrari Hope to Turn Up the Heat But Hamilton Prays for Rain
- Ferrari President's Men Play the Clowns in Singapore's Night Circus
- Ferrari Show Faith in Raikkonen With Contract Extension to Leave Alonso in Limbo
- Ferrari End Mclaren Feud But Keep Heat on Stepney
- Ferrari Stand By Massa Leaving Alonso at Renault
- Ferrari Fly Back Failing Engines to Italy for Instant Analysis
- Ferrari Move Up a Gear to Hand Raikkonen Glory
- Hamilton Leads 'thanks to Ferrari'
- Ferrari Occupy Front-row Seats for Spa Thriller
- Ferrari Rage at Mclaren's Great Escape
- Motor Sport: Coughlan 'told Mclaren Team Colleagues' of Ferrari Data
- Motor Racing: Ferrari 'spy' Flees Italy in Fear
- Motor Racing: Ferrari Accuse Englishman of Sabotage
- Motor Racing: Ferrari Stake a Claim After Honda Go for Brawn's Brains
- Formula One: Ferrari Icon Dies in Car Crash