Code: Select all
2010 - 109 Points - 4th in WCC
BHR AUS MAL CHN ESP MON TUR CAN EUR
6 10 Ret 10 4 12 4 11 15
5 5 3 3 13 7 5 6 10
2011 - 68 Points - 4th in WCC
AUS MAL CHN ESP MON TUR CAN EUR GBR
Ret 9 8 12 6 Ret 4 17 9
Ret 12 5 5 7 11 11 7 6
That is a big question Marcus. Did it come out of the blue?marcush. wrote:Mercedes have put themselves in a disastrous position with Brawn.
He has grabbed the Honda remains for almost nothing laid of a lot of people to cut the personal risk and sailed home with the championship BUT the real feat was to sell the hole shebang to Norbert for a lot of money ..
But then ..why didn´t he call it quits when selling to MB? Was it perhaps MB thinking he is the key to success ? Having him financially involved would motivate him to stay successful ...maybe that was the line of thought ..Or ross believe his troop was really that good...and had to find out the hard way how far from reality his dream was.
MB has bought out Brawn and the other shareholders..clearly in a first step to have free hands to get rid of them .But why did they retain Fry and Brawn after that first year disaster is not clear to me.Brawn and Norbert had promised championship contenders and delivered second string and sometimes also ran and look what Mercedes left behind for this..
Brawn is there because of old sentiments he wants to emulate his success with Schumacher a third time.Having won a worldchampionship to his own name he must believe he is the key to success but now he needs to find explanations for not performing ..like john Owen carrying design responsibility for the car first time -who was responsible for the concept of BGP001 and W01 -Zander?-
IIRC Merc had a clause in the sale contract saying that he had to stay onboard as TP... no?marcush. wrote:But then ..why didn´t he call it quits when selling to MB? Was it perhaps MB thinking he is the key to success ?
raymondu999 wrote:IIRC Merc had a clause in the sale contract saying that he had to stay onboard as TP... no?marcush. wrote:But then ..why didn´t he call it quits when selling to MB? Was it perhaps MB thinking he is the key to success ?
xpensive wrote:I'm afraid this might have caused hard feelings, why perhaps the people inolved have less of a market value than xpected.
But Toyota and Williams had double deck diffusers too, so rule bending is a contributing factor but not the major reason IMO. I think it was all the money that went into developing thexpensive wrote:I think the entire pit-lane, including Jenson Button, is aware that Brawn's 2009 season was a result of rule-bending, stemming from an outrageous collusion between Ross Brawn and his former top-boss, MrM, who wanted to upset the FOTA applecart.
Remember how MrM called the case himself as early as January, without even bothering to consult Charlie Whiting?
I'm afraid this might have caused hard feelings, why perhaps the people inolved have less of a market value than xpected.
Unfounded dross.xpensive wrote:
Without MrM, they would never had one either.
+1 agreed. Whether or not Ross contributes to the design of a car, it doesn't matter. Ross' position and technique as a team head and coodinator is what has won championships in the past making his technical knowledge or contributions irrelevant. The number of championships he has won also shows it doesn't so much matter who is under him (although it helps), as if that were the case he would be no more than a 1 or 2 hit wonder.JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:Unfounded dross.xpensive wrote:
Without MrM, they would never had one either.
You can label that accusation to any winning team over the last 20 years, they all have bits that dont truly conform to the regs.
Red bull with Flexing wings, Ferrari with Barge boards and Mclaren with traction control 3rd pedals.