Was Brawn allowed to remove Mclaren fuel rig?

[CHT]

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.

Merc relationship with Mclaren is not a simple supplier customer partnership, Merc is the single largest shareholder of Mclaren and I am sure they would have their own appointed directors.

If Mclaren can launch MP4-12C without using a Merc engine, I dont see why Merc cant supply other teams with Merc engine.

[CHT]

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!

thats exactly my point, because external assistance can most definitely influence the result of the race or even the championship. Hence how are we going to say what is legitimate and whats not?

For this case, if Brawn guys didnt remove the rig, it will probably take Mclaren guys about 60 sec to run across the entire pit lane (from first to last) before they can remove the rig and that I am sure will be a lot longer than say a drive through penalty.

[Paul]

From Sporting Regulations:

30.4 If a car stops on the track it shall be the duty of the marshals to remove it as quickly as possible so that its presence does not constitute a danger or hinder other competitors. If any mechanical assistance received during the race results in the car rejoining the stewards may exclude him from the race (other than under Articles 30.9(d) or 41.3.

Pit lane is officially not track so assistance is permitted by anyone who has access to the pit lane during the race.

[axle]

From Sporting Regulations:

30.4 If a car stops on the track it shall be the duty of the marshals to remove it as quickly as possible so that its presence does not constitute a danger or hinder other competitors. If any mechanical assistance received during the race results in the car rejoining the stewards may exclude him from the race (other than under Articles 30.9(d) or 41.3.

Pit lane is officially not track so assistance is permitted by anyone who has access to the pit lane during the race.

Excellent work on digging that up

I thought it was very sporting and good of Brawn to assist. And that should be enough. Can't believe it's being discussed like it was a bad thing.

It was in the best interests of the sport, safety, pit crews, drivers etc to remove the hose from the car as soon as possible.

[Rob W]

Merc relationship with Mclaren is not a simple supplier customer partnership, Merc is the single largest shareholder of Mclaren and I am sure they would have their own appointed directors.

If Mclaren can launch MP4-12C without using a Merc engine, I dont see why Merc cant supply other teams with Merc engine.

I hear you and see what you're getting at but their shareholding is sort of besides the point in this case. Absolutely no-one other than a complete idiot enters into collaborative partnerships without first having an intended framework within which they operate and define the obligations to each other other. Maybe this case is that from day one Mercedes retained the right to work with other teams (even then, they would have to let McLaren know). They haven't just upped and said: we're working with other teams now in contradiction to some arrangement not to.

It is just plain, first week level legal practice.

[komninosm]

..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???

How can Heikki get punished for something another team's member does to his car? Your bias shows clearly. If it's ok to offer assistance (and it is in the pits) how can it be wrong to accept it? What can Heikki do? Run over the person who is helping him to deny their help? Do you remember when Schumacher was helped by marshals inside the track because of "safety concerns" (yeah right) not long ago? In the pits it was definitely OK.
Also there was a SC (like with Massa) and Heikki wouldn't lose anything if he waited a few more seconds like Massa. And Massa was released right next to another car (they were side by side ffs) hence the unsafe release penalty. Heikki was released well in front of Rai so why the penalty? It makes less sense. So yes, we are right not to rant about conspiracy of FIA-McLaren now and guess what, a penalty was given to Heikki after all. So your point is moot. In fact it is reversed as I showed.

[andartop]

I thought the pit lane was officially considered part of the track: if it is not does that mean that drivers can do whatever they want while in the pit lane?
Is it ridiculous that in the WRC no one is allowed to even touch the car outside the service area and if they do then the crew get a time penalty?
Is it ridiculous that in marathons you're not even allowed to get some water outside the allocated points?
Of course the Brawn mechanics acted in the interest of safety, and of course Heikki couldn't and shouldn't stop them, but their actions resulted in a car from a competitive team being able to rejoin the race sooner than it would otherwise. Whether Heikki did benefit from it or not in this particular incident is completely irrelevant.

The above posted regulation refers to assistance from the race stewards. What about mechanics from other teams? According to fellow forum member Paul anyone who has access in the pit lane can interfere! I just find this hard to believe. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Rob W]

andertop... from Sporting Regulations:

30.4 ....the stewards may exclude him from the race (other than under Articles 30.9(d) or 41.3.

This might the key word here. Maybe, in the interest of safety and considering the hazards around pit lane, it is open to stewards' discretion based on the situation.

It may be that McLaren radioed to Brawn and asked them to help out... Whereas last year in Ferrari's case, maybe they didn't think to.

I also thought the pit lane was considered part of the race track. Surely it is? For a start you can cross the start-finish line in the pit lane so I'd say it is.

[Richard]

- Brawn did the right thing to avoid further burning fuel,and to remove a blockage from the pit lane. Safety first.

- Heiki was penalised, although nicer to have been done during the race

- AFAIK the car can be worked on anywhere in the pit lane. It is not unknown for mechanics to run down to fix a car that has had a fault/stalled/got stuck.

What is there to argue about?

There is a line on the ground that defines where the pit lane starts and stops. Not just on the track, but around the back too. We saw in quali earlier this year that a car was brought back to the back of the pits after going off track and the waiting mechanics couldn't touch it until it had crossed that line. They then pushed it back their garage. We have also seen cars founder on the entrance to the pit and the mechanics unable to help. No different to WRC and many other sports events.

[astracrazy]

If Mclaren can launch MP4-12C without using a Merc engine, I dont see why Merc cant supply other teams with Merc engine.

I understood that this was an agreement between both sides that they would not work in partership for road cars and work seperatly. I don't think that agreement is for f1.

[Pup]

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!

No, what the Brawn team did was perfectly legal, and it would have been perfectly legal for another team to have helped Massa. Anything goes between the pit entrance and exit, as far as mechanical aid is concerned. Would you really want a rule saying that one team can't aid in putting out a fire, or clearing debris from an accident, etc.?

The only question is why the Brawn guys offered help, while the Force India guys did not - a question which I think I answered.

[andartop]

- AFAIK the car can be worked on anywhere in the pit lane. It is not unknown for mechanics to run down to fix a car that has had a fault/stalled/got stuck.

What is there to argue about?

The problem with this would not be where was the fuel hose removed but rather by whom. I thought F1 was a team sport, with drivers and teams fighting each other out for the two distinct world titles. If one team's mechanics are free to work on another team's car that would/should/could be considered external assistance..

Do you think it would be ok for Alonso at Hungary then to stop at Toyota's garage and have a new wheel on??? It just doesn't make sense to me, that's all.

[ISLAMATRON]

after seeing that fireball I dont care whose team I worked for I would not have approached that car without a fire suit and an extinguisher

[CHT]

If Mclaren can launch MP4-12C without using a Merc engine, I dont see why Merc cant supply other teams with Merc engine.

I understood that this was an agreement between both sides that they would not work in partership for road cars and work seperatly. I don't think that agreement is for f1.

I thought the merc SLR road car was built and developed by Mclaren with Merc engine?

[CHT]

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!

No, what the Brawn team did was perfectly legal, and it would have been perfectly legal for another team to have helped Massa. Anything goes between the pit entrance and exit, as far as mechanical aid is concerned. Would you really want a rule saying that one team can't aid in putting out a fire, or clearing debris from an accident, etc.?

The only question is why the Brawn guys offered help, while the Force India guys did not - a question which I think I answered.

If thats the case, then I would presume that in future, if any driver who have trouble with their refueling rig or tires will be able pit in front of any team to ask for assistance? And big team that supply engine will generally receive more assistance than smaller independent team?

Then again, if anything goes in the pit lane, then why does FIA want to limit the no, of mechanic during pit stop?