Daily Update Formula1 News

Race Resul GP Turkey
Pos Driver Team Time
1. Button Brawn GP-Mercedes (B) 1h26:24.848
2. Webber Red Bull-Renault (B) + 6.714
3. Vettel Red Bull-Renault (B) + 7.461
4. Trulli Toyota (B) + 27.843
5. Rosberg Williams-Toyota (B) + 31.539
6. Massa Ferrari (B) + 39.996
7. Kubica BMW Sauber (B) + 46.247
8. Glock Toyota (B) + 46.959
9. Raikkonen Ferrari (B) + 50.246
10. Alonso Renault (B) + 1:02.420
11. Heidfeld BMW Sauber (B) + 1:04.327
12. Nakajima Williams-Toyota (B) + 1:06.376
13. Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes (B) + 1:20.454
14. Kovalainen McLaren-Mercedes (B) + 1 lap
15. Buemi Toro Rosso-Ferrari (B) + 1 lap
16. Piquet Renault (B) + 1 lap
17. Sutil Force India-Mercedes (B) + 1 lap
18. Bourdais Toro Rosso-Ferrari (B) + 1 lap

Fastest lap: Button, 1:27.579

Not classified/retirements:

Driver Team On lap
Barrichello Brawn GP-Mercedes (B) 49
Fisichella Force India-Mercedes (B) 5

World Championship standings, round 7:

Drivers: Constructors:
1. Button 61 1. Brawn GP-Mercedes 96
2. Barrichello 35 2. Red Bull-Renault 56.5
3. Vettel 29 3. Toyota 32.5
4. Webber 27.5 4. Ferrari 20
5. Trulli 19.5 5. McLaren-Mercedes 13
6. Glock 13 6. Williams-Toyota 11.5
7. Rosberg 11.5 7. Renault 11
8. Massa 11 8. BMW Sauber 8
9. Alonso 11 9. Toro Rosso-Ferrari 5
10. Hamilton 9
11. Raikkonen 9
12. Heidfeld 6
13. Kovalainen 4
14. Buemi 3
15. Kubica 2
16. Bourdais 2

Jenson Button remained unstoppable in the Turkish Grand Prix - taking his sixth win from seven races in 2009 and extending his championship advantage to a mammoth 26 points.

Pole-sitter Sebastian Vettel lost the lead to Button on the opening lap and could only finish third behind his Red Bull team-mate Mark Webber, while Button's Brawn team-mate - and closest title rival - Rubens Barrichello had a disastrous afternoon and eventually retired.

The race fell into Button's hands on the opening lap. While Vettel stayed in front into the first corner, Barrichello stuttered off the line and tumbled back to 13th place.

That removed one of Button's main rivals from contention, and then Vettel ran wide in the Turn 9/10 chicane, allowing Button to take the lead and start charging away with relative ease.

The Briton soon had a four-second lead, which he maintained through the first pitstops. But Vettel then came back at him, moving to a three-stop strategy and benefiting from his much lighter fuel lead to charge back up behind the Brawn.

There was no way past, though, and after 13 fruitless laps in Button's wake, Vettel had to make his second stop, dropping him to third behind Webber and ought of contention.

Button duly cruised away to seal yet another win, while Vettel closed up on Webber in the final laps before the team radioed to inform him that Webber had pace in hand and he should back off and conserve his car. Vettel's speed barely decreased, but he dutifully came home in formation behind Webber.

Jarno Trulli took fourth for Toyota, losing the place to Williams's Nico Rosberg at the first stops but reclaiming it at the second pit sequence, although fifth was still a good result for Rosberg given his frustrations at earlier races.

Ferrari was never in the hunt, and Felipe Massa had to settle for a distant sixth rather than a fourth consecutive Istanbul win. Kimi Raikkonen lost ground on lap one, damaged his front wing slightly running into Fernando Alonso, and ended up ninth.

BMW's Robert Kubica finally opened his 2009 points account by beating Timo Glock (Toyota) to seventh, as the German came through the field using a very long first stint. Kazuki Nakajima did likewise for Williams, but fell back to finish 12th thanks to a slow second pitstop.

Short early stints dropped Alonso's Renault into traffic and left him 10th, while back in the midfield McLaren split its strategies but could not get the one-stopping Lewis Hamilton higher than 13th or two-stopper Heikki Kovalainen above 14th.

Most of the entertainment in an underwhelming race came from Barrichello's spirited early attempts to make up the ground lost at the start. Wheel to wheel action with Kovalainen's KERS-shod McLaren eventually ended in contact at Turn 9 and a quick spin for the Brawn, which then broke its front wing clashing with Adrian Sutil's Force India.

The consequent very early stop put paid to Barrichello's recovery charge, and he was firmly in the midfield when he eventually pulled out with a gearbox problem 11 laps from home.
[AS]
Read More......

Turkish GP Pole
Pos Driver Team Q1 Q2 Q3
1. Vettel Red Bull-Renault (B) 1:27.330 1:27.016 1:28.316
2. Button Brawn-Mercedes (B) 1:27.355 1:27.230 1:28.421
3. Barrichello Brawn-Mercedes (B) 1:27.371 1:27.418 1:28.579
4. Webber Red Bull-Renault (B) 1:27.466 1:27.416 1:28.613
5. Trulli Toyota (B) 1:27.529 1:27.195 1:28.666
6. Raikkonen Ferrari (B) 1:27.556 1:27.387 1:28.815
7. Massa Ferrari (B) 1:27.508 1:27.349 1:28.858
8. Alonso Renault (B) 1:27.988 1:27.473 1:29.075
9. Rosberg Williams-Toyota (B) 1:27.517 1:27.418 1:29.191
10. Kubica BMW-Sauber (B) 1:27.788 1:27.455 1:29.357
11. Heidfeld BMW-Sauber (B) 1:27.795 1:27.521
12. Nakajima Williams-Toyota (B) 1:27.691 1:27.629
13. Glock Toyota (B) 1:28.160 1:27.795
14. Kovalainen McLaren-Mercedes (B) 1:28.199 1:28.207
15. Sutil Force India-Mercedes (B) 1:28.278 1:28.391
16. Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes (B) 1:28.318
17. Piquet Renault (B) 1:28.582
18. Buemi Toro Rosso-Ferrari (B) 1:28.708
19. Fisichella Force India-Mercedes (B) 1:28.717
20. Bourdais Toro Rosso-Ferrari (B) 1:28.918

Sebastian Vettel denied Jenson Button pole position for the Turkish Grand Prix after winning a superb battle at the end of qualifying.

The result is a major boost for the Red Bull driver's fast-fading title hopes, with Vettel now 28 points behind Button in the standings after crashing in Monaco.

Sebastian Vettel denied Jenson Button pole position for the Turkish Grand Prix after winning a superb battle at the end of qualifying.

The result is a major boost for the Red Bull driver's fast-fading title hopes, with Vettel now 28 points behind Button in the standings after crashing in Monaco.
Read More......

Button Next Schumacher

Jason Button Dominated F1 GP This 2009 with new debut team Brawn GP. Ross Brawn the head of this Team Says "I worked with Michael for 15 years and this is only my second year with Jenson, so it is very difficult to make comparisons," said Brawn.

Ross Brawn has taken his hat off to the Michael Schumacher-type qualities that have helped Jenson Button emerge as the dominant force in Formula 1 this year.

With Button taking a brilliant last-gasp pole position for the Monaco Grand Prix, Brawn says that although the world championship leader has a different personality to Schumacher, they are showing remarkable similarities in their approach to the job in hand.

"I worked with Michael for 15 years and this is only my second year with Jenson, so it is very difficult to make comparisons," said Brawn.

"They are different types of character, but both are obviously highly talented. And I think this opportunity that Jenson has got has made him focus very hard on what is happening, what it is and why it is happening - so he is similar [to Michael] in that respect."

Brawn acknowledges that Button has upped his work ethic this year – with the Briton claiming earlier this weekend that success has turned him into a 'boring bastard'.

"Any competitive sportsperson, if he gets an opportunity, focuses on that opportunity," explained Brawn. "Of course it is like all of us – when you are at the sharp end and thinking about things, then it is in your thoughts all the time.

"Probably last year to be honest he was glad to forget about it, whereas this year he is enjoying thinking about it. I think both drivers do spend a lot of time discussing things with their engineers away from the track, so it is nice to hear – but it doesn't surprise me because last year he would be glad to forget what is going on. This year is different."

Brawn admitted he thought his team had lost the chance of pole position in the closing stages of qualifying – but that Button once again shocked him with his late effort.

When asked by AUTOSPORT if Button kept surprising him, Brawn said: "He does in a way. He kind of portrays an air of not going to do it, and then he does it. That is the thing that keeps surprising me.

"He just keeps doing it, and up until final qualifying I thought maybe first/second row of the grid, but the car did not look bad in race spec, so we could have an interesting race."

ref[AS]
Read More......

POLE POSITION GP MONTECARLO MONACO 2009
Pos Driver Team Q1 Q2 Q3
1. Button Brawn-Mercedes (B) 1:15.210 1:15.016 1:14.902
2. Raikkonen Ferrari (B) 1:15.746 1:14.514 1:14.927
3. Barrichello Brawn-Mercedes (B) 1:15.425 1:14.829 1:15.077
4. Vettel Red Bull-Renault (B) 1:15.915 1:14.879 1:15.271
5. Massa Ferrari (B) 1:15.340 1:15.001 1:15.437
6. Rosberg Williams-Toyota (B) 1:15.094 1:14.846 1:15.455
7. Kovalainen McLaren-Mercedes (B) 1:15.495 1:14.809 1:15.516
8. Webber Red Bull-Renault (B) 1:15.260 1:14.825 1:15.653
9. Alonso Renault (B) 1:15.898 1:15.200 1:16.009
10. Nakajima Williams-Toyota (B) 1:15.930 1:15.579 1:17.344
11. Buemi Toro Rosso-Ferrari (B) 1:15.834 1:15.833
12. Piquet Renault (B) 1:16.013 1:15.837
13. Fisichella Force India-Mercedes (B) 1:16.063 1:16.146
14. Bourdais Toro Rosso-Ferrari (B) 1:16.120 1:16.281
15. Sutil Force India-Mercedes (B) 1:16.248 1:16.545
16. Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes (B) 1:16.264
17. Heidfeld BMW-Sauber (B) 1:16.264
18. Kubica BMW-Sauber (B) 1:16.405
19. Trulli Toyota (B) 1:16.548
20. Glock Toyota (B) 1:16.788

Jenson Button took his fourth pole position of the season in a frenetic qualifying session for the Monaco Grand Prix.

The championship leader kept a relatively low profile for most of the hour, then charged to the front with his final Q3 lap, beating surprise front row man Kimi Raikkonen to the top spot by 0.025 seconds.

But there was disaster for last year's winner Lewis Hamilton, who had been tipped as a dark horse contender for pole given McLaren's faith in its Monaco package. The world champion crashed in Q1 and will start 16th.

Sebastian Vettel (Red Bull) and Nico Rosberg (Williams) both held provisional pole early in Q3, before Raikkonen showed Ferrari's resurgent form by producing a 1m14.927s in the closing seconds.

But even as the Finn completed the lap, Button was going even faster, crossing the line a few seconds later to snatch pole away and further strengthen his championship prospects.

His Brawn team-mate Rubens Barrichello will start third, with Vettel and Rosberg falling back to fourth and sixth, split by Ferrari's Felipe Massa. The Brazilian was fortunate to escape a spin at the start of Q1 that saw him break his front wing as he swiped the Swimming Pool barriers.

Heikki Kovalainen salvaged some McLaren pride with seventh place, ahead of Mark Webber in the second Red Bull, Renault's Fernando Alonso, and Williams's Kazuki Nakajima, the latter making his first Q3 appearance of the year.

Hamilton spun into the Mirabeau barriers on his fifth lap in Q1, smashing his McLaren's right rear suspension and causing a brief halt to the session. Seventh on the timing screens at the time, he tumbled to 16th on the grid by the end of the segment.

All five Q1 departures were big names. Given the team's weekend-long struggle, it was not a big surprise to see the BMW Saubers sharing row nine, but Toyota's 19th and 20th places were a greater shock. Jarno Trulli blamed Fernando Alonso for blocking him at the final corner, while Timo Glock spun at the Swimming Pool on his last run.

That meant a host of underdogs could celebrate reaching Q2 - in particular Force India, which finally achieved its aim of progressing in qualifying with both cars.

Giancarlo Fisichella and Adrian Sutil will start 13th and 15th, while Toro Rosso also enjoyed a good session with Sebastien Buemi and Sebastien Bourdais taking 11th and 14th, despite the latter having to rely on a very last minute effort to squeeze through to Q2.
Read More......

Formula 1 teams failed to reach an agreement with FIA president Max Mosley about the future of the sport on Friday, despite lengthy talks that ran into the early evening.

Following a series of discussions over the course of the day, the teams met with Mosley to try and find a resolution to their unhappiness about plans for a voluntary budget cap.

However, despite talking for almost three hours no agreement was reached meaning several teams remain poised to not lodge entries for 2010 by next weeks deadline.

Although most team principals refused to comment about the situation as they left the Automobile Club de Monaco, Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo revealed that more talks were needed.

"It was a long and constructive meeting," he said. "FOTA will have another meeting tomorrow, and then there will be another meeting with Mosley.

"What we want is that Formula 1 stays as Formula 1, that it doesn't become something different and go towards constant changes which confuse the public and all the others, that there should be stability and that we work over the next two years to arrive at a way of further reducing costs."

Despite the failure to reach an agreement on Friday, and with next weeks entry deadline looming, Mosley said he remained optimistic a deal could be reached.

"It was a good constructive meeting. The discussions are ongoing," he said.

When asked what the issues were, Mosley said: "They are the same issues. But I am hopeful there will be an agreement."

Ferrari, Red Bull, Toyota and Renault have all said that they will not enter the 2010 championship unless the rules are chaged.

Teams have until May 29 to lodge their entries to the championship with those missing the deadline likely to face a fine if they want to get back, providing there is space left on the grid.
ref[AS]
Read More......

Lewis Hamilton says he has emerged from his tumultuous start to the season a stronger man, after admitting the past few weeks have been 'very tough' for him.

Having faced troubles with his car on track, and criticism off it for his involvement in the lying controversy, the world champion has deliberately kept a low profile in recent races.

But he ended his self-imposed 'exile' in Monaco on Thursday when he sat down with the British press to chat through his feelings.

Speaking in a relaxed and friendly manner, no doubt buoyed by the strong on-track performance of his McLaren around the streets of Monte Carlo, Hamilton said he felt he had grown and learned from the events of the past few weeks.

"Yes, definitely," he said. "All these experiences I've had. I am not perfect, I am not a politician, I say things wrong every now and then. I'm sure everyone does.

"You try to learn from those experiences, carry them with you and try to grow. I've had a world championship which is something I am still very proud to have. I am trying just now to build on those bricks and keep getting better. I do feel as a driver if I had last year's car I'd be in a great position."

Hamilton apologised for not having maintained his usual media commitments in recent weeks, but explained that it had been important for him to get things straight in his head about all that had gone on.

"It's just taking some time to reflect on things, analyse it, and understand exactly what's gone on," he said. "And then to be able to grow from it. You can't just get on with things. You have to be able to analyse it so you don't make the same mistake again."

He added: "It hasn't been a great start to the year, but everyone knows that. It's been very, very tough. As we get more into the season it's getting more exciting for us. You may not see it so much from the outside but we've made huge steps forwards, even if not so huge here because of the type of circuit it is. But we've made some great steps. That's the exciting thing."

Hamilton admitted that he found it strange there had been so much attention on him since the start of the year.

"People don't realise that whilst we look like superstars we live pretty normal lives....every now and again we go on holiday and that's better, but our normal life is the same as yours.

"If anything your apartment may be bigger than mine. I've got a nice neat place, nothing special, nothing spectacular. I live a normal life in Geneva. Generally, away from everything I live a normal life. I am a normal person; a human being. People look at me and see a superstar and expect someone superhuman. But I'm a normal guy. I have made that mistake in the past with people in the hierarchy. They are humans at the end of the day."

Hamilton also praised the role of his father Anthony in helping get through the troubles of the past few weeks.

"Me and my dad have a fantastic relationship and it has not affected that in any way, if anything its strengthened it," he said. "Dad showed an ability to speak to me, and our communication has improved.

"Without my dad, first of all I wouldn't be here. He's the one that is the backbone. He has never ever failed. He has been to every single race through my whole career and I've been to a lot of races since I was eight years old. He has always backed me up.

"He always supported me whether I am right or wrong. And he's helped me get around it and everything. He plays a huge key role in my life."

And speaking about how things had changed with mentor Ron Dennis having stepped back from the F1 team, Hamilton said: "I miss Ron. It is not the same feeling as my dad because he has, literally, been by my side ever since the start.

"Ron got a lot more involved since I got into single-seaters, GP2, and F1. My relationship with Ron is still very strong. I miss having him around. The paddock feels a little bit empty without him here."
Read More......

Location

Monte Carlo
Population
30,000
Currency
Euro
First Grand Prix
1929
Timezone
GMT +1
Language
French, English, Italian, Monegasque
Religion
Christian 90%, other 10%
Visa / Passport Requirements

Why go?
More like ‘why not go?' Monaco at Grand Prix time epitomises everything that’s great about Formula One racing: speed, glamour, passion, noise and a hint of danger because the cars are never too far away from the barriers.

The Principality has a lot of history in its own right, with the Grimaldi Family having reigned supreme since 1297. In a Formula One context, the track is one of the greatest challenges on the calendar; it staged its first (pre championship) Grand Prix in 1929 and has remained largely unchanged ever since.

Celebrities flock to the race like bees to a honey pot because it’s the world’s most glamorous sporting event. To name a few that have visited in recent years: actors Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Hugh Grant and Liz Hurley, soccer star Roberto Carlos and Chelsea Football Club owner Roman Abramovich.

“There are too many things to do in Monaco to fit them into 24 hours,” says David Coulthard, who has been a resident in the Principality since 1994. “However, I can suggest a good night out.” (see ‘Where to Go?’ below)

Did you know? Monaco enjoys an average of 300 days' sunshine per year.

Transport

The nearest international airport is Nice in France. The most hassle-free way to enter the Principality from there is by train, with the journey taking around 40 minutes. Alternatively, it’s a 40-minute drive via the autoroute, or an hour if you take the more picturesque coastal road. Bear in mind, however, that parking in Monaco over the race weekend is very difficult, to say the least.

If you want to treat yourself, you could always catch a helicopter from Nice. The views are spectacular and 15 minutes after take off you can be dining by the harbour.
Book a Package

Useful tips

The first thing to remember is that the on-track action starts a day early. Unlike every other race on the Formula One calendar, the first day of practice at Monaco is on Thursday. Friday is traditionally a rest day - ideal for some leisurely sightseeing. There is no such thing as general admission in Monaco because it’s not possible to walk from corner-to-corner. You have to book a grandstand seat, with the cost reflecting the vantage point around the lap.

Unlike in neighbouring France, tipping (‘pourboire’) is not the norm because most restaurants and taxis add 10 percent onto their bills as a matter of routine.
Book Tickets

You can keep up to speed with all the action throughout the weekend by hiring a Kangaroo TV handset at the circuit, which offers access to several channels of live video, audio and data content.
Where to go?

You can take a stroll by the harbour, visit the Jardin Exotique (home to more than 7000 varieties of cacti alone) or walk around the Palais du Prince, the Grimaldi’s official residence for 700 years.

For more of a party weekend, try Colombus Hotel owner David Coulthard’s suggested itinerary: “Arrive into Nice airport in the evening and go straight to the Columbus. Once you’ve checked in, head for dinner at the SAS cafe and, from there, head to the Amber Lounge and dance your ass off. Knackered and hungry? Head for the Tip Top bar for one of their all-night breakfasts.

“In the morning, the Cafe de Paris does the best Bloody Marys around and, your hang-over cured, go to the Casino and lose whatever money you have left!”

Where to stay?

If you have the cash, nothing beats the glamour of staying in Monaco itself. The closer you are to the track, the higher the price and most hotels are booked out months in advance, so plan ahead. Coulthard’s Colombus Hotel is just one of the stylish options available. A more cost-effective choice is to stay along the coast in one of the quaint seaside towns such as Beaulieu Sur Mer. Hotel rooms often cost a fraction of those in Monaco and it is only a short commute by train into the Principality.
Book a Hotel

Extended stay

Sickly members of the English and French aristocracies used to travel to the south of France ‘to take the air and recuperate’. While the Cote D’Azur may no longer be the exclusive destination of the rich, there is still something magical - even medicinal - about the air and scenery.

Beaches and mountains are both within easy reach of Monaco. The Alpes Maritimes line the coast and are a great challenge for walkers and cyclists alike. Cannes is a stone’s throw to the west and Nice is linked to Paris by the high-speed TGV train, so you can be in the capital in no time.

“If I have a few days to kill,” says Coulthard, “I hire a boat and head for St Tropez. The beaches there are beautiful and there are some fantastic restaurants too.”
Book a Package

Enthusiasts only

If you fancy Monaco in January, don’t miss the Monte-Carlo Rally. If, however, you prefer circuit racing, Paul Ricard is only a couple of hours away. The former French Grand Prix venue is now used regularly for Formula One testing.

Or you can stay on the coast and watch some off-shore power boating, which takes place on a regular basis throughout the summer months.
Read More......

Renault boss Flavio Briatore believes a solution to the row over a two-tier Formula 1 must be achieved 'at all costs', ahead of showdown talks with the FIA in London tomorrow.
After a week in which Toyota, Red Bull, Ferrari and Renault all announced that they will quit F1 at the end of this year unless plans for a voluntary budget cap are scrapped, Briatore says that no one is keen for the situation to result in a breakaway series.

Speaking about the possibility of a rebel category, Briatore told Gazzetta dello Sport: "It is a remote hypothesis that everyone wants to avoid.
"We are living in a difficult moment and we must find a solution at all costs. I hope [Max] Mosley and his men will mend their ways, in order to start over in full harmony."
Briatore says that the teams are angry at both the rules that have been introduced for 2010, and the manner in which they were forced through without direct consultation with the teams.
"The teams are F1 and the international federation should simply be the referee, the rules should be written by us, they can't be imposed by Max without him speaking to anyone," he explained. "That's an unacceptable way to work.
"The FIA throws at us a new thing every week: we've gone from medals to diffusers with embarrassing thoughtlessness. We can't go on like this. We must protect the work of our employees."
He added: "It must be clear that we, Ferrari, and the others have no intention of breaking with FIA. We want to be there, to participate, and to preserve the future. We are setting logical conditions to Mosley."
Briatore also said that he believed the desire to attract new teams to the sport was misplaced, because manufacturers are ready to keep a full grid.
"We don't accept F1 to be distorted by a set of rules that has no reason to exist," he said. "The arrival of new teams that lack the characteristics to be admitted to a world championship is not acceptable either.
"Maybe he's [Mosley] had the support of some small teams and he got excited. However, what will happen with the championship he had the World Council voting for, is that the teams with the capped budget will be ahead of the ones that didn't accept that limit, thanks to more technical and design freedom.
"That can't be. That way you'd tarnish not just the image but also the value of who invests money in F1. A world championship with two sets of rules doesn't make sense."
Members of the Formula One Teams' Association will meet in London tomorrow morning, prior to their talks with Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone in the afternoon to discuss a way forward.
When asked if he was optimistic a solution could be found, Briatore said: "I must be."
Read More......

PROVISIONAL RACE RESULTS GP Catalunya 2009
Pos Driver Team Time
1. Button Brawn GP-Mercedes (B) 1h37:19.202
2. Barrichello Brawn GP-Mercedes (B) + 13.056
3. Webber Red Bull-Renault (B) + 13.924
4. Vettel Red Bull-Renault (B) + 18.941
5. Alonso Renault (B) + 43.166
6. Massa Ferrari (B) + 50.827
7. Heidfeld BMW Sauber (B) + 52.312
8. Rosberg Williams-Toyota (B) + 1:05.211
9. Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes (B) + 1 lap
10. Glock Toyota (B) + 1 lap
11. Kubica BMW Sauber (B) + 1 lap
12. Piquet Renault (B) + 1 lap
13. Nakajima Williams-Toyota (B) + 1 lap
14. Fisichella Force India-Mercedes (B) + 1 lap

Great GP Catalunya 2009 Spanish, GP Catalunya start in Sunny Weather circuit it will make the race very nice.
GP Catalunya In pole Jason Button, Vettel and Barichelo. From this pole we know Brawn GP will win ini GP Catalunya 2009 and it happen this day. Great start from Brawn GP Barichello leading the race follow by button and vettel. While all eyes were on Massa's KERS-shod car at the start, it was actually Barrichello who made the best getaway, sweeping around the outside of Button into Turn 1 as Massa squeezed past Vettel to take third.
GP Catalunya 1st lap some accident happen STR ferarri crash, safety car out and still brawn GP in 1st and 2nd. Further back, Jarno Trulli jinked to avoid Nico Rosberg in the first complex and ended up running wide into the gravel and spinning back across the circuit. The Toyota speared into Adrian Sutil's Force India, with the two Toro Rossos violently tangling in the background as Sebastien Buemi slowed in avoidance and was collected by team-mate Sebastien Bourdais.

This led to a four-lap safety car period, after which Barrichello and Button pulled away from Massa, Vettel and Webber in unison through the opening stint.
Although Button was the lighter car this stage, at the stops he took on a very large fuel load, while Barrichello stuck to a three-stop plan.
That meant the Brazilian rejoined with a clear lead - but now had to mount a charge to pull out enough of an advantage over his team-mate.
Barrichello proceeded to lap 0.7-1.1s quicker than Button, but the 12-lap run to his second stop was not sufficient, and he rejoined 8s behind.
There was another chance to try and strike back during the final pit sequence, when Button would be first to go onto the slower hard compound tyres. However Button had managed to pull 12s clear of Barrichello, who in any case stopped only two laps later.
Massa and Vettel pitted in unison at both their stops, and on each occasion Ferrari managed to stay ahead of the Red Bull. Having run close behind Button for most of the race, they lost touch with the Brawns - and get jumped by the late-stopping Webber - thanks to making relatively early final stops and then having to spend a long time on the hard tyres.
The Brawns and Webber were able to lap 2s quicker as they continued on softs, leaving Massa and Vettel a distant fourth and fifth.
Vettel finally made it ahead of Massa with four laps to go as the Ferrari had to back off and save fuel, too little having been delivered at its final stop. He eventually fell back to sixth.
Fernando Alonso (Renault) did well to take a quiet fifth given his light fuel load, passing the slowing Massa on the last lap. He had been involved in a wild battle with Webber at the restart that saw the Renault squeeze past the Red Bull using its KERS advantage, only for Webber to dive back ahead under braking at Turn 1.
BMW's Nick Heidfeld used a long middle stint to beat Williams's Nico Rosberg to seventh. The second BMW of Robert Kubica was only 11th after losing ground on lap one.
Lewis Hamilton (McLaren) dropped to last avoiding the first corner crash, then made good progress in the middle of the race before severe tyre wear saw him fall off the pace. He eventually beat Timo Glock to ninth, the Toyota never recovering from falling into the midfield thanks to an earlier first stop than most.
Kimi Raikkonen and Heikki Kovalainen's poor weekends failed to improve in the race. Both gained several places amid the first lap chaos until for their cars to crawl into retirement early in the race.

World Championship standings, round 5:
Drivers: Constructors:
1. Button 41 1. Brawn GP-Mercedes 68
2. Barrichello 27 2. Red Bull-Renault 38.5
3. Vettel 23 3. Toyota 26.5
4. Webber 15.5 4. McLaren-Mercedes 13
5. Trulli 14.5 5. Renault 9
6. Glock 12 6. BMW Sauber 6
7. Alonso 9 7. Ferrari 6
8. Hamilton 9 8. Williams-Toyota 4.5
9. Heidfeld 6 9. Toro Rosso-Ferrari 4
10. Rosberg 4.5
11. Kovalainen 4
12. Massa 3
13. Buemi 3
14. Raikkonen 3
15. Bourdais 1
ref[AS]
Read More......

Jenson Button beat Sebastian Vettel and Rubens Barrichello to pole position for the Spanish Grand Prix with a stunning late lap.
The championship leader had appeared to be struggling to match his Brawn team-mate Barrichello's pace for most of the build-up, and fell as low as eighth as others completed their final runs in Q3.
But Button crossed the line to start his last lap just as the chequered flag fell, and proceeded to snatch pole away from Vettel (Red Bull) by 0.133 seconds.

Barrichello briefly held provisional pole before Button and Vettel improved, leaving the Brazilian third.
Felipe Massa showed Ferrari's best form of the year to take fourth after being fastest in morning practice and Q1.
That made up for his team-mate Kimi Raikkonen's disastrous session. The Finn had a poor first Q1 lap - 0.8s slower than team-mate Massa's session-topping effort - but still felt safe enough not to go for a second run. That proved complacent, for he was then pushed down to 16th and out of qualifying.
Mark Webber put the second Red Bull fifth on the grid, with late gains from Toyota's Timo Glock and Jarno Trulli pushing home crowd favourite down Fernando Alonso down to eighth for Renault.
Friday pace-setter Nico Rosberg was correct in his prediction that he would not challenge for pole. The Williams driver was only ninth, ahead of BMW's Robert Kubica.
Nelson Piquet had his best qualifying performance of the year and was on course for a top ten start until the final seconds of Q2, when other drivers' improvements edged the Renault drivers back to 12th, between Kazuki Nakajima (Williams) and Nick Heidfeld's repaired BMW Sauber.
McLaren fell back after its promising Bahrain weekend. Lewis Hamilton could only manage 14th, while Heikki Kovalainen fared worse still and was only quick enough for 18th position.
Sebastien Buemi again outperformed his Toro Rosso team-mate Sebastien Bourdais as they took 15th and 17th on the grid, and the Force Indias remained on the back row, Adrian Sutil half a second quicker than Giancarlo Fisichella this time.
Pos Driver Team Q1 Q2 Q3
1. Button Brawn-Mercedes (B) 1:20.707 1:20.192 1:20.527
2. Vettel Red Bull-Renault (B) 1:20.715 1:20.220 1:20.660
3. Barrichello Brawn-Mercedes (B) 1:20.808 1:19.954 1:20.762
4. Massa Ferrari (B) 1:20.484 1:20.149 1:20.934
5. Webber Red Bull-Renault (B) 1:20.689 1:20.007 1:21.049
6. Glock Toyota (B) 1:20.877 1:20.107 1:21.247
7. Trulli Toyota (B) 1:21.189 1:20.420 1:21.254
8. Alonso Renault (B) 1:21.186 1:20.509 1:21.392
9. Rosberg Williams-Toyota (B) 1:20.745 1:20.256 1:22.558
10. Kubica BMW-Sauber (B) 1:20.931 1:20.408 1:22.685
11. Nakajima Williams-Toyota (B) 1:20.818 1:20.531
12. Piquet Renault (B) 1:21.128 1:20.604
13. Heidfeld BMW-Sauber (B) 1:21.095 1:20.676
14. Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes (B) 1:20.991 1:20.805
15. Buemi Toro Rosso-Ferrari (B) 1:21.033 1:21.067
16. Raikkonen Ferrari (B) 1:21.291
17. Bourdais Toro Rosso-Ferrari (B) 1:21.300
18. Kovalainen McLaren-Mercedes (B) 1:21.675
19. Sutil Force India-Mercedes (B) 1:21.742
20. Fisichella Force India-Mercedes (B) 1:22.204
ref[AS]
Read More......

Red Bull Racing technical chief Adrian Newey hopes that his team's hunger and desire to succeed this year will help overcome the financial might of the manufacturers in the fight for world championship glory.
Although Newey concedes that Red Bull does not have the resources to match the likes of Ferrari, McLaren and BMW Sauber, he thinks other factors could come into play.
When asked if he felt Red Bull was a top team now, Newey responded: "It is a team that has been a top team for the last four races. As we all know motor racing is a fast changing business so the challenge now is trying to keep it there."

"I think from a resource side then we are clearly smaller than some of our rivals, but from a hunger and drive side of it then we are going to keep pushing, so what can I say?" said Newey in Spain on Friday. "History will tell in the future."
Newey thinks it is inevitable that the manufacturer teams will keep throwing money at improving their cars over the course of the season, but reckons that the self-belief his team has now after triumphing in Shanghai could be more important.
"I suppose one of the things about getting a bit of success is it gives the team confidence," said Newey. "Red Bull Technology, we did win a race last year obviously at Monza, but I think when the cars are in the same place as the design office, it gives people a bit more confidence. It is more immediate.
"It is a funny thing about winning races. When you are not winning then it looks an impossible task and you can feel sometimes a bit deflated that you can't seem to win a race. If you do win a race, you don't feel you are doing anything differently.
"You have suddenly won a race and it is the old saying - it gets the monkey off your back. From the people at Milton Keynes, who were at Jaguar and are now at Red Bull, we shed that monkey in a way that perhaps they feel it more than when we won the race at Monza last year."
Although Red Bull's title chances will become clearer after it introduces its double-decker diffuser design, potentially at the Monaco Grand Prix, Newey drew short of making any firm predictions that Red Bull could go all the way to winning the world title.
"It's too early to think about that to be perfectly honest," he said. "My attitude in this position is always let's just keep our head down and not worry about what everyone else is doing. We will concentrate on doing the best job we can and see where it takes us."
Read More......

Nico Rosberg and Kazuki Nakajima gave Williams Formula One Racing Team one-two in the second free practice session for the Spanish Grand Prix at Catalunya.
The team held on to its commanding position despite pace-setter Rosberg pulling off the road with a mechanical problem on his final lap of the afternoon.
Local hero Fernando Alonso buoyed the Barcelona crowd with third place, with Rubens Barrichello and Jenson Button taking fourth and sixth for Brawn, split by Mark Webber's Red Bull.

Williams led the way for the majority of the session.
After the early flurry of quick times had ended with Renault's Nelson Piquet at the head of the field following a soft tyre run, Nakajima established himself in first place at the 25-minute mark.
He was briefly deposed by Sebastian Vettel's Red Bull, but only for a few minutes before returning to first place.
When Nakajima was finally beaten with a quarter of an hour remaining, it was his team-mate Rosberg who took the position with a time of 1m21.588s - 0.152s quicker than his Japanese team-mate.
Rosberg looked set to improve further on his last flying lap, only for the car to grind to a halt on the approach to Turn 10.
Alonso grabbed third late on, ahead of the Red Bulls and Brawns.
Following his initial strong form, Piquet had a difficult session. He slid through the gravel at Campsa and brushed the tyre wall, requiring assistance from the marshals to rejoin. Luckily his Renault was undamaged, but he paid a second visit to the gravel on his return to the track - this time spinning at Turn 3.
Despite these incidents, the Brazilian still ended the session in eighth.
Force India's Adrian Sutil missed the entire session due to a fuel cell problem, while Sebastien Buemi had to park his Toro Rosso with smoke coming from its brakes on its out-lap at the start of the afternoon, but was able to rejoin after repairs and take ninth ahead of Kimi Raikkonen's Ferrari.
After its strong challenge for the top spot in the morning, Toyota appeared to run a more conservative programme this afternoon. Timo Glock and Jarno Trulli were slowest of those running in the session, but completed nearly 50 laps each.

Pos Driver Team Time Laps
1. Rosberg Williams-Toyota (B) 1:21.588 43
2. Nakajima Williams-Toyota (B) 1:21.740 + 0.152 40
3. Alonso Renault (B) 1:21.781 + 0.193 36
4. Barrichello Brawn-Mercedes (B) 1:21.843 + 0.255 39
5. Webber Red Bull-Renault (B) 1:22.027 + 0.439 37
6. Button Brawn-Mercedes (B) 1:22.052 + 0.464 35
7. Vettel Red Bull-Renault (B) 1:22.082 + 0.494 45
8. Piquet Renault (B) 1:22.349 + 0.761 26
9. Buemi Toro Rosso-Ferrari (B) 1:22.571 + 0.983 17
10. Raikkonen Ferrari (B) 1:22.599 + 1.011 40
11. Bourdais Toro Rosso-Ferrari (B) 1:22.615 + 1.027 30
12. Fisichella Force India-Mercedes (B) 1:22.670 + 1.082 32
13. Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes (B) 1:22.809 + 1.221 31
14. Kovalainen McLaren-Mercedes (B) 1:22.876 + 1.288 29
15. Massa Ferrari (B) 1:22.878 + 1.290 35
16. Kubica BMW-Sauber (B) 1:22.948 + 1.360 40
17. Heidfeld BMW-Sauber (B) 1:23.173 + 1.585 39
18. Glock Toyota (B) 1:23.360 + 1.772 46
19. Trulli Toyota (B) 1:23.623 + 2.035 47
20. Sutil Force India-Mercedes (B)
ref[AS]

Read More......

BMW Sauber boss Mario Theissen has admitted that the team's version of the controversial double-decker diffuser will not be ready in time for this weekend's Spanish Grand Prix.
The team has been working flat-out on the design, but has opted not to introduce it as part of its new aerodynamic package because it would not have been able to exploit its performance benefit.
Theissen insisted that no date has been set for the diffuser to be introduced, although it is understood that the Monaco Grand Prix is a possibility.

Despite this, the team will have an interim diffuser modification in Spain that is expected to improve its rear-end grip as part of its raft of modifications.
"The Barcelona-spec aero package has long been in development," said Theissen. "Therefore a double diffuser introduced at short notice wouldn't have brought us any benefit.
"There is no time limit set for when we will introduce the double diffuser in our car."
"We will have an substantial update in Barcelona, from the front to the rear wing, affecting also the sidepods, there will be improvements in every detail."
Theissen added that the team has had to re-evaluate its performance targets after claiming only one points finish in the opening four races of 2009.
This season, BMW's fourth as a full-blown constructor in F1, it had been expecting to fight for the championship.
"We moved our season targets that we set in winter aside," he said. "We cannot win races at the moment, therefore we shifted our targets.
"But we won't accept the current situation. We will speed up, we will have a look at where we will end up, but we certainly will not give up on this season."
Barcelona will be the first time that the team has introduced development parts this season, something that Theissen admitted may have been a mistake.
"The main reason we turned down the chance of updates during the first races was the testing restriction," said Theissen. "The other reason was the interference with the aero package on the car.
"This approach looks to be wrong at the moment, but let's wait and see after a couple more races.
"Our performance in Melbourne was fine and it even worked in Sepang, but then the other teams passed us. That was based on a strategy: we always planned not to bring updates in the fly-away races.
"Our first target for an update was always Barcelona and this will happen."
ref[AS]
Read More......

Red Bull Racing team principal Christian Honer insists there is still much more to come from his outfit following its latest showings.
Sebastian Vettel has moved into third place in the standings after winning the Chinese Grand Prix and finishing second in Bahrain.

The Shanghai victory was the first for Red Bull Racing, but championship leader Jenson Button reckons the Milton Keynes-based squad is now the team to beat despite the Brawn driver having won the last race at Sakhir.
Red Bull is yet to introduce a double-decker diffuser, as well as other updates, and Horner reckons there is still a lot of potential to be realised.
"I think that we have got a good car," said Horner. "We have got a lot of developments to come and we still have the double-diffuser to look forward to.
"So it is still early days, but we have clearly demonstrated in wet and dry conditions now what our potential is."
Horner added that is convinced Vettel could have won the Bahrain Grand Prix last Sunday if he hadn't been stuck behind Lewis Hamilton and Jarno Trulli for several laps.
"You will see on the race plot that we would have followed Jenson, and we had the overlap of about three or four laps on each stint," he added. "So I think we would have jumped him at the stop. It was hard to follow other cars as well, as it was doing quite a lot of damage to the tyres.
"We could see we had the pace, but well done to Jenson for making his opportunity work for him."
He added: "Toyota tried a different strategy, but we were very happy on the option. Sebastian was trying to look after them the best he could, behind Trulli and Hamilton. He did a brilliant job of doing that, so he could exploit the benefit from them in free air.
"Then on the prime at the end we had no real problem. We went out the pits 14 seconds behind the Brawn and with three laps to go we had closed it down to about nine seconds. Then obviously they turned their engines down."
ref[AS]
Read More......

Jenson Button claimed his third win in four races as he took Brawn back to the front in the Bahrain Grand Prix.
Delays behind slower cars cost Sebastian Vettel dear and the Chinese GP winner had to settle for second for Red Bull, with pole-sitter Jarno Trulli (Toyota) third and Lewis Hamilton taking the best result of his title defence so far with fourth for McLaren.

A second lap pass on Hamilton proved critical to Button's victory. As the Toyotas led away, Hamilton had used his McLaren's KERS advantage to blast past both Button and Vettel off the line, with the Red Bull and the Brawn swapping places as Vettel tried to fight back against Hamilton.
Trulli lost out to team-mate Timo Glock into the first corner, and was also briefly passed by Hamilton - again thanks to KERS - further around the lap before reclaiming second place.
Button then drafted Hamilton on the pits straight and managed to out-brake the McLaren into Turn 1. This allowed the championship leader to lurk behind the lighter Toyotas throughout the first stint, while Vettel fell ever further behind due to his inability to pass Hamilton's slower McLaren.
Glock had led confidently in the early stages, but fell back into traffic when he pitted on lap 11 and also struggled with the medium tyres in his second stint, ending his chances of victory.
Trulli ran two laps further and then lost time having a spectacular battle with the yet-to-stop Fernando Alonso, all of which helped Button to pull out ahead when he rejoined after his first stop on lap 15.
Vettel ran right through to lap 19 before pitting, and although this vaulted him clear of Hamilton, it was not sufficient to get ahead of Trulli.
The Red Bull emerged from the pits right behind the Toyota, but with Trulli losing a second per lap to new leader Button while using medium tyres in the middle stint - and Vettel unable to get past the Italian - Button's position became ever more secure and he duly resumed his winning habit after the mild disappointment of China.
It was not until the final stops that Vettel managed to pass Trulli, and by that time he was 12s adrift of Button - and in any case Trulli proved faster in the final stint having saved a set of the preferable super-soft tyres for the end. He shadowed Vettel to the flag, before settling for third.
Hamilton dropped away from this contest but still took an encouraging fourth.
Rubens Barrichello came through to fifth in the second Brawn despite his three-stop strategy causing him a great deal of traffic frustration. He just pulled out enough of a margin before his final stop to beat Kimi Raikkonen, who finally opened Ferrari's points account for 2009, and Glock, who probably would have beaten Raikkonen had the Ferrari not activated KERS as they diced after their last pit visits.
Alonso beat Williams's Nico Rosberg to the final point, with Renault's second driver Nelson Piquet showing much better form to complete the top ten, resisting late pressure from Mark Webber as the Red Bull driver tried to recover from his qualifying frustrations.
The first few laps saw some ferocious three- and four-abreast racing in the midfield - and predictably a lot of damage.
All those involved managed to keep going, but Felipe Massa (Ferrari), Kazuki Nakajima (Williams) and both BMWs all needed new front wings, and McLaren's Heikki Kovalainen fell to the back of the field and also had to pit early to replace a flat-spotted tyre.

PROVISIONAL RACE RESULTS

The Bahrain Grand Prix
Bahrain International Circuit, Sakhir, Bahrain;
57 laps; 308.238km;
Weather: Sunny.

Classified:

Pos Driver Team Time
1. Button Brawn GP-Mercedes (B) 1h31:48.182
2. Vettel Red Bull-Renault (B) + 7.187
3. Trulli Toyota (B) + 9.170
4. Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes (B) + 22.096
5. Barrichello Brawn GP-Mercedes (B) + 37.779
6. Raikkonen Ferrari (B) + 42.057
7. Glock Toyota (B) + 42.880
8. Alonso Renault (B) + 52.775
9. Rosberg Williams-Toyota (B) + 58.198
10. Piquet Renault (B) + 1:05.149
11. Webber Red Bull-Renault (B) + 1:07.641
12. Kovalainen McLaren-Mercedes (B) + 1:17.824
13. Bourdais Toro Rosso-Ferrari (B) + 1:18.805
14. Massa Ferrari (B) + 1 lap
15. Fisichella Force India-Mercedes (B) + 1 lap
16. Sutil Force India-Mercedes (B) + 1 lap
17. Buemi Toro Rosso-Ferrari (B) + 1 lap
18. Kubica BMW Sauber (B) + 1 lap
19. Heidfeld BMW Sauber (B) + 1 lap


Fastest lap: Trulli, 1:34.556

Not classified/retirements:

Driver Team On lap
Nakajima Williams-Toyota (B) 49

World Championship standings, round 4:

Drivers: Constructors:
1. Button 31 1. Brawn GP-Mercedes 50
2. Barrichello 19 2. Red Bull-Renault 27.5
3. Vettel 18 3. Toyota 26.5
4. Trulli 14.5 4. McLaren-Mercedes 13
5. Glock 12 5. Renault 5
6. Webber 9.5 6. Toro Rosso-Ferrari 4
7. Hamilton 9 7. BMW Sauber 4
8. Alonso 5 8. Williams-Toyota 3.5
9. Heidfeld 4 9. Ferrari 3
10. Kovalainen 4
11. Rosberg 3.5
12. Buemi 3
13. Raikkonen 3
14. Bourdais 1
ref[AS]
Read More......

Jarno Trulli and Timo Glock claimed Toyota's first ever Formula 1 front row sweep as the Japanese manufacturer dominated Bahrain Grand Prix qualifying.
The result was Toyota's first pole since the 2005 Japanese GP, and came after increasingly impressive progress from the team in the opening rounds of the season.
Trulli and Glock held first and second after the early runs of Q3, and although Jenson Button (Brawn) and Lewis Hamilton (McLaren) briefly pushed them down the order - fleetingly making it an all-British front row - the Toyota duo moved back to the top with their final runs.

Pole ultimately went to Trulli by 0.3 seconds, with his team-mate Glock enjoying the same margin back to third-placed Sebastian Vettel, whose excellent qualifying form for Red Bull continued.
Championship leader Button had to settle for fourth, ahead of Hamilton and Rubens Barrichello in the second Brawn.
Fernando Alonso claimed seventh for Renault, with the Ferraris in eighth and 10th - Felipe Massa and Kimi Raikkonen split by Williams's Nico Rosberg.
Hamilton's progress actually knocked his McLaren team-mate Heikki Kovalainen outside the Q3 cut-off, leaving him 11th, alongside Kazuki Nakajima, who was closer to Williams team-mate Rosberg than at recent races but still not quick enough for the top ten.
The BMWs will share row seven after another disappointing performance, while Renault's Nelson Piquet finally reached Q2 for the first time in 2009, only for his error at the final corner to leave him 15th.
Last week's third-place qualifier and second place finisher Mark Webber is set to start from the back row of the grid in Bahrain - but through no fault of his own.
The Red Bull was on course to easily make the Q2 cut when Webber was impeded by Adrian Sutil's at the entry to the final corner, leaving the Australian in the bottom quarter of the grid along with the Force Indias and Toro Rossos.
Sutil managed a season-best 16th, although this will be in jeopardy if the stewards opt to issue any penalties over the Webber incident.

Pos Driver Team Q1 Q2 Q3
1. Trulli Toyota (B) 1:32.779 1:32.671 1:33.431
2. Glock Toyota (B) 1:33.165 1:32.613 1:33.712
3. Vettel Red Bull-Renault (B) 1:32.680 1:32.474 1:34.015
4. Button Brawn-Mercedes (B) 1:32.978 1:32.842 1:34.044
5. Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes (B) 1:32.851 1:32.877 1:34.196
6. Barrichello Brawn-Mercedes (B) 1:33.116 1:32.842 1:34.239
7. Alonso Renault (B) 1:33.627 1:32.860 1:34.578
8. Massa Ferrari (B) 1:33.297 1:33.014 1:34.818
9. Rosberg Williams-Toyota (B) 1:33.672 1:33.166 1:35.134
10. Raikkonen Ferrari (B) 1:33.117 1:32.827 1:35.380
11. Kovalainen McLaren-Mercedes (B) 1:33.479 1:33.242
12. Nakajima Williams-Toyota (B) 1:33.221 1:33.348
13. Kubica BMW-Sauber (B) 1:33.495 1:33.487
14. Heidfeld BMW-Sauber (B) 1:33.377 1:33.562
15. Piquet Renault (B) 1:33.608 1:33.941
16. Sutil Force India-Mercedes (B) 1:33.722
17. Buemi Toro Rosso-Ferrari (B) 1:33.753
18. Fisichella Force India-Mercedes (B) 1:33.910
19. Webber Red Bull-Renault (B) 1:34.038
20. Bourdais Toro Rosso-Ferrari (B) 1:34.159
[AS]
Read More......

The final practice session for the Bahrain Grand Prix provided a mix of emotions for Timo Glock, who set the fastest time of the weekend so far and then promptly stopped out on track with a technical problem.
The German's final flier on super-softs, a 1m32.605s, was enough to topple Lewis Hamilton's best up until that point by more than 0.3 seconds.
But on the following lap, with five minutes of the hour long session left to go, Glock's car appeared to suffer some kind of electrical fault and he was forced to coast to the side of the backstraight.
Ferrari's Felipe Massa improved to second fastest in the last minutes of the session, eclipsing this year's free practice star Nico Rosberg in the process.

Hamilton, who was fastest for much of the session, eventually tumbled down to fourth, while Kimi Raikkonen - who set the early pace - was fifth.
Nelson Piquet, who appears to be having a stronger weekend than of late, was sixth quickest ahead of BMW's Robert Kubica and Williams driver Kazuki Nakajima. Jarno Trulli didn't seem to go for a low-fuel run and ended up ninth, while Nick Heidfeld completed the top ten.
There were few incidents in the session, Heikki Kovalainen, who ended the session 12th behind Sebastian Vettel, had a throttle sensor problem early on.
Sebastien Bourdais also found himself pit-bound for much of the second half of the hour and ended practice in last place.

Pos Driver Team Time Laps
1. Glock Toyota (B) 1:32.605 16
2. Massa Ferrari (B) 1:32.728 + 0.123 20
3. Rosberg Williams-Toyota (B) 1:32.906 + 0.301 18
4. Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes (B) 1:32.975 + 0.370 16
5. Raikkonen Ferrari (B) 1:32.986 + 0.381 18
6. Piquet Renault (B) 1:33.176 + 0.571 19
7. Kubica BMW Sauber (B) 1:33.195 + 0.590 13
8. Nakajima Williams-Toyota (B) 1:33.302 + 0.697 17
9. Trulli Toyota (B) 1:33.397 + 0.792 19
10. Heidfeld BMW Sauber (B) 1:33.415 + 0.810 14
11. Vettel Red Bull-Renault (B) 1:33.443 + 0.838 16
12. Kovalainen McLaren-Mercedes (B) 1:33.478 + 0.873 12
13. Alonso Renault (B) 1:33.482 + 0.877 13
14. Sutil Force India-Mercedes (B) 1:33.534 + 0.929 17
15. Button Brawn GP-Mercedes (B) 1:33.586 + 0.981 17
16. Barrichello Brawn GP-Mercedes (B) 1:33.686 + 1.081 17
17. Buemi Toro Rosso-Ferrari (B) 1:33.720 + 1.115 15
18. Webber Red Bull-Renault (B) 1:33.726 + 1.121 14
19. Fisichella Force India-Mercedes (B) 1:33.962 + 1.357 15
20. Bourdais Toro Rosso-Ferrari (B) 1:34.990 + 2.385 7
ref[AS]
Read More......

World championship leader Jenson Button believes that the Brawn team is in better shape after Friday practice for the Bahrain Grand Prix than it was in China last weekend.
The 29-year-old is cautiously optimistic that he will be able to fight for victory in Sunday's race despite the team not having updated the car since the start of the season.
"It was good," said Button of the team's progress. "The first session was not the best and we struggled a bit for balance with the heat. But the afternoon was much better.

"We got a much better balance for the car over the longer runs. Over a single lap we've still got a bit of work. I'm much happier with the balance here than I was in China on Friday.
Button added that he was unsure of where he stood compared to his main rivals, and expects Williams, Toyota and Red Bull to all be strong contenders.
"Williams normally run with less fuel than us on Friday. Red Bull, I'm not so sure. I think they are competitive, but who knows where they stand. Same with Toyota.
"The McLaren looks quicker. I think they were on more fuel than probably the Williams and they're going to be quite competitive also."
Button also underlined the need for the team to take another strong points haul from this weekend, as for the next race in Spain in two weeks the competitive order could be shaken up by most teams bringing in major car updates.
"Hopefully we can have another good weekend here and go back to Europe with some good points," said Button. "Then it all starts getting very serious because a lot of people are going to improving there cars when we get to Barcelona and Monaco. So we've got to get the points on the board now.
"We'll have an update in Barcelona. We've just got to hope it's enough because a lot of teams are going to be updating their cars when they get back to Europe."
[AS]
Read More......

McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh has written to the FIA to apologise for his team's behaviour in the lying scandal.
Ahead of next week's FIA World Motor Sport Council hearing where McLaren will have to answer disrepute charges that it lied to stewards, and procured driver Lewis Hamilton to do so too, Whitmarsh is understood to have offered an 'unreserved apology' for what happened.
Whitmarsh is quoted as saying by news agency Reuters: "We are cooperating with the FIA, I have written to (President) Max (Mosley) but obviously before the 29th I can't say anything about it.

"It's a letter to them. Certainly, there's been no leak about it from us and I can't comment on it."
McLaren has been pushing hard to ensure it has done all it can prior to the WMSC hearing to show it has responded to the events of the Australian and Malaysian Grands Prix.
As well as dismissing sporting director Dave Ryan, who misled the stewards, the team and Hamilton have apologised in public for the events that took place. Whitmarsh also offered his resignation to McLaren's shareholders after the Malaysian GP, but this was rejected.
Furthermore, former McLaren boss Ron Dennis has stepped away completely from the F1 team - in a move that has been motivated to show how the team is embracing a new culture.
Whitmarsh said at the Chinese Grand Prix that it was important his team started a new era of cooperation with the FIA - with Dennis and Mosley having not enjoyed the best of relationships in the past.
"Well, I think anyone who has looked at the relationship between McLaren and the FIA over the last few years would have to conclude that it would be healthier for all of us to have a more positive, constructive relationship than perhaps we have had in the past," he said.
[AS]
Read More......

Lewis Hamilton set the pace in first free practice for the Bahrain Grand Prix on Friday.
The world champion was comfortably fastest for most of the session and even a late charge from BMW drivers Nick Heidfeld and Robert Kubica on the super-soft tyres was not enough to topple the Briton.
After the now seemingly obligatory 20-minute silence following the installation laps on Friday morning, Sebastien Bourdais was the first to lap the circuit properly. But very quickly his time was eclipsed by Nico Rosberg who put in a sequence of laps that culminated in a 1m34.363s best.

Lewis Hamilton set the pace in first free practice for the Bahrain Grand Prix on Friday.
The world champion was comfortably fastest for most of the session and even a late charge from BMW drivers Nick Heidfeld and Robert Kubica on the super-soft tyres was not enough to topple the Briton.
After the now seemingly obligatory 20-minute silence following the installation laps on Friday morning, Sebastien Bourdais was the first to lap the circuit properly. But very quickly his time was eclipsed by Nico Rosberg who put in a sequence of laps that culminated in a 1m34.363s best.
That was good enough to keep the German at the top of the times until just beyond the halfway mark when Hamilton moved ahead.
The McLaren man appeared to benefit from the latest modifications to the MP4-24 to produce a 1m34.189s lap time.
An interesting characteristic of the Bahrain circuit though was that it took drivers several laps to get the best out of the Bridgestone medium slicks - and so it was that Hamilton then improved again to go 0.716s faster than the Williams.
His 1m33.647s lap was not bettered by anyone for the rest of the session, but Rosberg would succumb to the soft-rubbered BMWs late-on. The Williams driver might have improved himself but for yellow flags at Turn 8 when Sebastian Buemi's Toro Rosso stopped on the exit of Turn 8 late-on.
Behind the top four, was world championship leader Jenson Button who struggled early in the session with an upshift problem in his gearbox.
Heikki Kovalainen was sixth for McLaren ahead of the second Brawn of Rubens Barrichello.
Felipe Massa and Mark Webber were next up, while Ferrari's Kimi Raikkonen was lucky to complete the session in tenth. The Finn was one of several drivers to have a moment, but his involved a lurid slide that saw him just miss the barriers at Turn 2 right at the start of practice.
Turn 10 saw more than its fair share of action as well, with Kovalainen, Fernando Alonso, Buemi, Fisichella, Heidfeld just some of the drivers to run wide at the tricky tight left-hander.

Pos Driver Team Time Laps
1. Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes (B) 1:33.647 + 19
2. Heidfeld BMW Sauber (B) 1:33.907 + 0.260 17
3. Kubica BMW Sauber (B) 1:33.938 + 0.291 17
4. Rosberg Williams-Toyota (B) 1:34.227 + 0.580 24
5. Button Brawn GP-Mercedes (B) 1:34.434 + 0.787 15
6. Kovalainen McLaren-Mercedes (B) 1:34.502 + 0.855 24
7. Barrichello Brawn GP-Mercedes (B) 1:34.531 + 0.884 18
8. Massa Ferrari (B) 1:34.589 + 0.942 17
9. Webber Red Bull-Renault (B) 1:34.827 + 1.180 21
10. Raikkonen Ferrari (B) 1:34.827 + 1.180 19
11. Nakajima Williams-Toyota (B) 1:34.880 + 1.233 24
12. Vettel Red Bull-Renault (B) 1:34.938 + 1.291 21
13. Piquet Renault (B) 1:34.974 + 1.327 21
14. Sutil Force India-Mercedes (B) 1:35.021 + 1.374 18
15. Trulli Toyota (B) 1:35.036 + 1.389 22
16. Fisichella Force India-Mercedes (B) 1:35.042 + 1.395 16
17. Glock Toyota (B) 1:35.333 + 1.686 20
18. Alonso Renault (B) 1:35.348 + 1.701 24
19. Bourdais Toro Rosso-Ferrari (B) 1:35.353 + 1.706 22
20. Buemi Toro Rosso-Ferrari (B) 1:35.369 + 1.722 15
ref[AS]
Read More......

"Bahrain is a technically interesting circuit. The layout means a lot of braking and a lot of accelerating out of low speed corners. Maximising traction out of the corners is the key to a good lap time, but if a car has less than ideal traction, additional unwanted heat can be created, and this will make matters more difficult for competitors. There is a lot of heavy braking here too, and it will be interesting to see how the different braking characteristics between the KERS and non-KERS cars affects lap times, and also the racing. Tyre management and minimising unnecessary tyre heat in what could be very hot conditions are very important considerations here. We have the medium and super soft tyres and we expect the medium tyre to be very durable. The super soft should present more of a challenge in terms of durability than the medium, however the data from the Bahrain pre-season tests show that this tyre can be managed well on this track if the correct set-up is found."
Hirohide Hamashima
ref[formula1.com]

Read More......

The FIA has released the full reasons behind its verdict in the appeal against Brawn, Toyota and Williams's diffuser designs.
The hearing, which took place in Paris last week, saw the three teams' diffuser solutions declared legal, and the protests lodged by Renault, Ferrari, Red Bull and BMW Sauber rejected.

THE FULL DECISION BY THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL

The parties presented oral arguments at the hearing, and answered questions put to them by the parties and by the Court. The hearing took place in accordance with the applicable rules, with the aid of simultaneous translation; no objection to any element of the simultaneous translation was raised. During the discussions, the adversarial principle was respected.

PROCEDURE AND FORMS OF ORDER SOUGHT BY THE PARTIES

1. ÖAMTC lodged appeals on behalf of its competitor Red Bull against Decisions No. 16, No. 17, and No. 18, respectively, taken by the Panel of Stewards on 26 March 2009 at the 2009 Grand Prix of Australia with the Court's Secretariat on 27 March 2009. These appeals were respectively assigned case numbers ICA 5 through 7/2009.

2. FFSA lodged appeals on behalf of its competitor Renault against Decisions No. 19, No. 20, and No. 21, respectively, taken by the Panel of Stewards on 26 March 2009 at the 2009 Grand Prix of Australia with the Court's Secretariat on 27 March 2009. These appeals were respectively assigned case numbers ICA 8 through 10/2009.

3. CSAI lodged appeals on behalf of its competitor Ferrari against Decisions No. 22, No. 23, and No. 24, respectively, taken by the Panel of Stewards on 26 March 2009 at the 2009 Grand Prix of Australia with the Court's Secretariat on 27 March 2009. These appeals were respectively assigned case numbers ICA 11 through 13/2009.

4. In this judgment, the Stewards' Decisions are referred to by their number. Where no numbering is indicated, the "Contested Decisions" collectively refers to the Stewards' Decisions numbered 16 through 24 inclusive. The parties submitting the appeals above are referred to as the "Appellants". The nine appeals that they have submitted are referred to collectively as the "Appeals".

5. Red Bull claims that the Court should:

- admit its Appeals;
- overturn Contested Decisions No. 16, 17, and 18;
- disqualify the cars entered by Williams, Brawn GP and Toyota for the 2009 Grand Prix of Australia and for any other race in which they may have participated using a Contested Design Concept device.

6. Renault claims that the Court should:

- admit its Appeals;
- overturn Contested Decisions No. 19, 20, and 21;
- find that the cars of the teams Williams, Brawn GP and Toyota did not comply with Article 3 of the 2009 FIA Formula One Technical Regulations;
- find that Williams, Brawn GP, and Toyota did not comply with Article 2.4 of the 2009 FIA Formula One Technical Regulations;
- disqualify the cars of Williams, Brawn GP and Toyota from the Grand Prix of Australia and remove the points awarded to these teams and their drivers;
- in the event these teams have competed in the Grand Prix of Malaysia using the contested diffusers, disqualify the cars of Williams, Brawn GP and Toyota from the Grand Prix of Malaysia and deduct points awarded to these teams and their drivers.

7. Ferrari claims that the Court should:

- admit its Appeals;
- overturn Contested Decisions No. 22, 23 and 24;
- disqualify the cars entered by Williams, Brawn GP and Toyota for the 2009
Grand Prix of Australia and for any other race in which they may have participated using a contested diffuser device;
- remove the points awarded to Williams, Brawn GP and Toyota and their drivers.

8. The FIA, in its defence, claims that the Court should:

- dismiss all of the arguments of all of the Appellants as unfounded;
- confirm the Contested Decisions.

APPLICATIONS BY AFFECTED PARTIES TO BE HEARD

9. The Court received applications to be heard in the present cases from McLaren and BMW, in support of the Appellants, and applications to be heard from Williams, Brawn GP, and Toyota, in support of the FIA.

Findings of the Court

10. Under Article 21 of the ICA Rules of Procedure, the Court may hear any competitor in a major FIA Championship who so requests and who could be directly and significantly affected by the decision to be taken. The 2009 FIA Formula One World Championship is a major Championship.

11. The Court is of the opinion that its decision is likely to have direct and significant effects upon McLaren, BMW, Williams, Brawn GP and Toyota and therefore granted these teams the right to be heard. 12. McLaren and BMW accordingly submitted memoranda in support of the submissions of Renault, Red Bull and Ferrari.

13. Williams, Brawn GP and Toyota accordingly submitted memoranda in support of the FIA's submissions. These three teams are hereafter referred to as the "Contested Design Teams".

ADMISSIBILITY AND JURISDICTION

14. The Court recognises that the Appeals were filed in a timely manner, that the Appeals are admissible and that the Court has jurisdiction in the matter.

REMINDER OF THE FACTS

15. The Appeals concern diffusers, being devices that manage the air flow underneath the car so as to lower the air pressure under the car, thereby maximizing downforce and hence performance.

16. The diffusers used by the Contested Design Teams may differ somewhat in design, but are all based on a similar concept that is contested in the current Appeals (the "Contested Design Concept").

17. Ferrari, Renault and Red Bull, believing the Contested Design Concept to be illegal, lodged protests with the Stewards at the 2009 Grand Prix of Australia, asking the Stewards to declare that the cars of the Contested Design Teams were ineligible to participate. The Stewards, having examined the cars and the deployment of the Contested Design Concept in some detail, declared the cars of the Contested Design Teams compliant and rejected the protests of Ferrari, Renault and Red Bull. The present Appeals were thereafter submitted.

18. The regulations relevant to this case are the 2009 FIA Formula One Technical Regulations ("TR"), and in particular:

2.4 Compliance with the regulations

Automobiles must comply with these regulations in their entirety at all times during an Event. Should a competitor introduce a new design or system or feel that any aspect of these regulations is unclear, clarification may be sought from the FIA Formula One Technical Department. If clarification relates to any new design or system, correspondence must include:

- a full description of the design or system;
- drawings or schematics where appropriate;
- the competitor's opinion concerning the immediate implications on other parts of the car of any proposed new design;
- the competitor's opinion concerning any possible long term consequences or new developments which may come from using any such new designs or systems;

- the precise way or ways in which the competitor feels the new design or system will enhance the performance of the car.

2.7 Duty of Competitor

It is the duty of each competitor to satisfy the FIA technical delegate and the stewards of the meeting that his automobile complies with these regulations in their entirety at all times during an Event.

3 Bodywork and dimensions

One of the purposes of the regulations under Article 3 is to minimize the detrimental effect that the wake of a car may have on a following car.

Furthermore, infinite precision can be assumed on certain dimensions provided it is clear that such an assumption is not being made in order to circumvent or subvert the intention of the relevant regulation.
[...]

3.12 Bodywork facing the ground

3.12.1: All sprung parts of the car situated from 330mm behind the front wheel centre line to the rear wheel centre line which are visible from underneath, must form surfaces which lie on one of two parallel planes, the reference plane or the step plane. […]

3.12.3: The surface lying on the reference plane must be joined around its periphery to the surfaces lying on the step plane by a vertical transition. If there is no surface visible on the step plane vertically above any point around the periphery of the reference plane, this transition is not necessary.
[…]

3.12.5: All parts lying on the reference and step planes, in addition to the transition between the two planes, must produce uniform, solid, hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances.

Fully enclosed holes are permitted in the surfaces lying on the reference and step planes provided no part of the car is visible through them when viewed from directly below. […]
[…]
3.12.7: No bodywork which is visible from beneath the car and which lies between the rear wheel centre line and a point 350mm rearward of it may be more than 175mm above the reference plane. […]

ON THE SUBSTANCE

19. The Court has considered the submissions and arguments of all parties, which it has grouped in a series of consolidated pleas.

20. In advance of the hearing, the Court indicated to the parties that it intended, to the extent possible, to resolve this case based on the principles underlying the Contested Design Concept to preserve the confidentiality of each team's particular design. For this reason, parties were invited to make submissions to the Court which addressed the Contested Design Concept but did not include confidential technical information. The Court indicated to the parties that, having heard submissions regarding the Contested Design Concept, it would, only if necessary, examine confidential information. During the hearing, no party argued that the Court would be able to resolve this case only by examining confidential information. Having considered the written and oral submissions, the Court has concluded that it is in a position to issue its ruling on the validity of the Contested Decisions based solely on the principles underlying the Contested Design Concept.

First Plea - The Contested Decisions are Insufficiently Motivated

a) Arguments of the parties

21. Ferrari contests the validity of the Contested Decisions on the grounds that they violate paragraph 6.10 of the Formula One Guidelines for Stewards, which, according to Ferrari, states that "decisions may be brief but must clearly state the reasons for the decision". Ferrari and Renault note that the Stewards failed to provide any reasons for their decisions or even to identify the relevant articles of the TR with which they had decided that the cars complied. 22. Brawn GP and Toyota submit that it is obvious from the context what the reasons for the Contested Decisions were and that those reasons were clear to the Appellants. Given the confidential nature of the material on which the Contested Decisions were based, the Stewards were correct to give their reasoning in broad terms only.

b) Findings of the Court

23. The Court notes that the "Guidelines for Stewards" were not submitted to it by any party and that this document does not form part of the regulations governing the 2009 FIA Formula One World Championship.

24. However, on the general principle, the Court finds that it is desirable to state reasons so that addressees of decisions can be put in a position to understand the decisions that affect them and to assert and defend their rights as necessary. While it may have been preferable in this case for the Stewards to give further reasons, the Court finds that in this specific case the addressees of the Contested Decisions were in a position to know precisely which arguments had been accepted or rejected by the Stewards given that detailed arguments and protests had been submitted, including arguments proposing specific interpretations of the applicable regulations, and these interpretations were rejected in clear terms by the Stewards. The Appellants were therefore in a position to assert their rights of defence and appeal. This is further evidenced by the comprehensive appeals they have in fact submitted. In light of the foregoing, the First Plea must be denied.

Second Plea – The Contested Design Teams Did Not Disclose the Possible Long Term Consequences from Using a New Design and Did Not Seek Clarification from the FIA Technical Department, in Breach of Article 2.4 TR

a) Arguments of the parties

25. The Appellants submit that Williams, Brawn GP, and Toyota breached Article 2.4 TR, which states:

Should a competitor introduce a new design or system or feel that any aspect of these regulations is unclear, clarification may be sought from the FIA Formula One Technical Department. If clarification relates to any new design or system, correspondence must include:

- a full description of the design or system;

- drawings or schematics where appropriate;
- the competitor's opinion concerning the immediate implications on other parts of the car of any proposed new design;

- the competitor's opinion concerning any possible long term consequences or new developments which may come from using any such new designs or systems;

- the precise way or ways in which the competitor feels the new design or system will enhance the performance of the car.

The Appellants state the Contested Design Concept constitutes a new design and that it is unlikely that such clarification was sought, or in case it was sought, it is unlikely to have included the information required by Art. 2.4 TR. The Appellants submit that the Stewards' conclusion that the contested designs are legal has been made without consideration of some or all of the items of correspondence required by Art. 2.4 TR. They express concern that, as a consequence, the Contested Decisions were based on misleading or incomplete information.

26. In this regard, Renault adds that notwithstanding the wording in Art. 2.4 TR that clarification "may be sought" from the FIA, in reality, it is a requirement under Art. 2.4 TR that clarification is sought from the FIA when it comes to new designs or systems that may be illegal. In support of this, Renault refers to a decision of this Court of 22 August 2006 regarding the legality of Renault's Tuned Mass Damper, in which the Court agreed with a statement by Mr. Whiting that Renault should have made a request for clarification under Art.

2.4. TR and held that:

[…] it is however necessary, for any future developments that might apply to similar devices, to refer to Article 2.4 of the Technical Regulations which allows competitors to justify the innovations which are suggested, and to obtain official clarification from the FIA in this respect […]

27. The FIA and the Contested Design Teams contest this argument on the basis that Art. 2.4 TR is voluntary – it only invites a team to seek the view of the FIA Technical Department as to the legality of a new design; it does not require a team to do so.

28. The FIA and the Contested Design Teams further submit that a clarification under Art. 2.4 TR would not have been appropriate as the Contested Design Concept is not new. While there may be novel aspects to the Contested Design Concept, secondary or central diffusers have been widely used by many teams in the past.

29. The FIA and Brawn GP argue that Renault's reliance upon the Tuned Mass Damper appeal is misconceived, as the "Tuned Mass Dampers" referred to in that appeal had not been seen on Formula One cars before (unlike diffuser devices) and hence there was a better argument for a clarification under Art. 2.4
TR in that case.

30. Brawn and Toyota further submit that, in any event, failure to obtain Art. 2.4 TR clarification does not render a compliant car non-compliant with the TR; what counts is satisfying the Technical Delegates at scrutineering and satisfying the Stewards at any protest, which has now been done twice.

b) Findings of the Court

31. The Court denies the Second Plea on the grounds that the wording of Art. 2.4 TR that "clarification may be sought" clearly indicates that there is no obligation, even in circumstances where a new design or system has been created, for competitors to seek a clarification from the FIA Technical Department. Rather, under Article 2.7 TR, it is the duty of each competitor to satisfy the FIA Technical Delegate and the Stewards that his car complies with the relevant regulations.

Third Plea – The Contested Design Concept is Inconsistent with the Preamble to Article 3 TR and with the Efforts of the FIA Overtaking Working Group and the FIA to Facilitate Overtaking

a) Arguments of the parties

32. The Appellants allege that the Contested Design Concept is not in compliance with either the conclusions of the FIA Overtaking Working Group (the "OWG") or the spirit of such conclusions, which are set out in the preamble to Article 3 TR.

33. The OWG was tasked with proposing a new set of regulations for the 2009 Formula One season in order to reduce the aerodynamic disadvantage (or "wake") suffered by a competitor's car when following another car during a race and accordingly, to make overtaking less difficult. The Appellants submit that the OWG had the stated aim to reduce downforce by up to 50% of 2006 levels. Based, inter alia, on advice from the OWG, the FIA amended Article 3 TR. Some of these amendments resulted in: changes to the front and rear wing; shifting the rear diffuser backwards by 330mm; limiting the height of the diffuser visible from below to 175mm; and extending the rear limit of the diffuser so as to prevent the rear wing and diffuser from working in combination. The changes to Article 3 TR also included the addition of a preamble, the first sentence of which states:

34. The Appellants argue that, by circumventing the TR, the cars of the Contested Design Teams produce levels of downforce that defeat the purpose of the OWG and undermine the intention and effect of the changes to Art. 3 TR. The Appellants further allege that the diffusers used by the Contested Design Teams will make overtaking harder – by making it more difficult to maintain performance in a wake and by increasing cornering speeds – contrary to the stated goals of the FIA, the OWG and the objectives of the changes to the rules concerning aerodynamics.

35. Ferrari submits that the first sentence of the preamble and the historical development and context of Art. 3 TR clearly demonstrate the intention of Art. 3 TR (namely, to facilitate overtaking and decrease the detrimental effect of the wake), and argue that in the event of any ambiguity this Article should be interpreted in accordance with its intention.

36. Toyota submits that Art. 3 TR is not ambiguous, implying that it is not necessary to turn to the preamble to interpret the various provisions of Art. 3 TR. Brawn GP and Williams, on their part, argue that the first sentence of the preamble and the intentions of the OWG cannot be used to override the TR, as the words used in the preamble cannot be enforced on their own nor can they overrule the precise wording used in the provisions of the TR themselves.

37. The Contested Design Teams further argue that, in any event, it has not been proven that the Contested Design Concept has a detrimental effect on the car's wake. They submit that the Contested Design Concept is not contrary to the intentions of Art. 3 TR.

38. The FIA argues that the preamble was not intended as an operative provision which could give rise to a penalty, but was added to explain the context so that the Technical Working Group ("TWG") might take action in the future if it agreed that previous levels of downforce were being regained. The FIA relies, in this regard, on minutes from a TWG meeting in March 2008 which state: Mr WHITING said that rather than an instrument for penalising offenders the paragraph was intended as a safeguard, which would allow the changing of the regulations if the F1TWG considered that 2006 levels of downforce were being regained.

b) Findings of the Court

39. With respect to the intentions of and the work done by the OWG, the Court holds that the OWG is merely an advisory body and that it does not have rulemaking authority.

40. The Court takes notice of the first sentence of the preamble to Article 3 TR. While it may be possible for the Court to seek to interpret an ambiguous text in light of this preamble, it is not possible for the Court to depart from or ignore the unambiguous text of the regulations to give effect to the general statement set out in the first sentence of the preamble. Nor is the first sentence of Art. 3

TR specific enough to be capable of enforcement on its own or of being
regarded as a rule which can conflict with the explicit terms of the remainder of Art. 3 TR.

41. Moreover, no party has submitted conclusive evidence demonstrating to the Court that the use of the Contested Design Concept increases the detrimental effect that the wake of a car may have on a following car, and indeed some evidence to the contrary was submitted.

42. Therefore, the Court takes account of the first sentence of the preamble to Art. 3 TR, the work of the OWG and the historical development of Art. 3 TR, though notes that doing so will have a limited effect on this case as the Court does not consider that it has conclusive evidence regarding the wake of cars using the Contested Design Concept. In addition, for the most part the text of Art. 3.12 is unambiguous and therefore interpretation will play a limited role.

43. Therefore, the Court denies the Third Plea.

Fourth Plea – The Design of the Bodywork violates Article 3.12 TR

44. The Contested Design Teams base the legality of the Contested Design Concept inter alia on Article 3.12.3 TR, which provides that:

The surface lying on the reference plane must be joined around its periphery to the surfaces lying on the step plane by a vertical transition. If there is no surface visible on the step plane vertically above any point around the periphery of the reference plane, this transition is not necessary.

45. The Contested Design Teams submit that they have shaped the step and reference planes to prevent them from overlapping at various points, so that vertically above these points on the reference plane, the step plane is not visible. As there is no surface visible on the step plane vertically above the periphery of the reference plane at these points, the transition is not necessary and has not been placed. There continue to be transitions joining the points where the step and reference planes overlap.

46. Thus, rather than having just one continuous transition, the Contested Design Concept involves the use of multiple vertical transitions between which air may pass (rather than a single continuous transition through which air may not pass). The spaces between these multiple vertical transitions allow air to be channeled towards an additional diffuser which is not visible from directly beneath the car (as it is placed above the visible lower diffuser).

47. The Contested Design Teams argue that there is no provision of the TR which prevents them from shaping the step and reference planes (provided each surface remains continuous), including by having 'cut-aways’ upon the peripheries of these surfaces. They point to examples of the cut-away or shaping used by all teams at the periphery of the step plane to accommodate the rear tires.

48. The Appellants argue that the Contested Design Concept contravenes Art. 3.12 of the TR for several reasons. First, the second sentence of Art. 3.12.3 TR is intended to refer only to the front of the car where the reference plane extends without a step plane anywhere above it. Second, the multiple transitions upon which the Contested Design Teams rely are not permitted. Third, that Art.

3.12.3 TR must be seen in the context of the rest of Art. 3 and in particular the preamble (noting that one of the purposes of the regulations is to minimize the detrimental effect that the wake of a car may have on a following car) and Art.

3.12.5 TR (requiring transitions to be solid, hard, continuous, rigid, impervious surfaces, thereby prohibiting the use of multiple transitions between which air may pass). They contend that the interpretation relied upon by Brawn GP, Toyota and Williams exploits a ‘loophole’ and is not what the regulation was intended to mean as it would permit the existence of what is, in their view, a ‘hole’ in the transitions towards the rear of the car, and permit diffuser devices which cause detrimental effects on the wake of the car which will in turn render overtaking more difficult. Fourth, the Appellants argue that the spaces through which air passes in the Contested Design Concept are holes and that the only holes permitted in the bodywork are the ‘fully enclosed holes’ described in Art.

3.12.5 TR (which these ‘holes’ do not comply with). Finally, the Appellants contend that the Contested Design Concept involves a diffuser which is in excess of 175mm in height above the reference plane and begins to direct air from a point forward of the rear wheel centre line in breach of Art. 3.12.7 TR.

49. The Court will address each of these arguments in turn. Article 3.12.3 TR was not intended to permit the absence of a transition towards the rear of the car

a) Arguments of the parties

50. The Appellants argue that the Contested Design Teams place reliance on Art.

3.12.3 TR for the validity of the Contested Design Concept at the rear of the car, while this provision was intended only to refer to the parts of the car where the reference plane extends without a step plane anywhere above it (i.e. the front of the car). The Appellants invite the Court to interpret Art. 3.12.3 TR in such a way as to give effect to the overall objective (noted in the first sentence of the preamble to Art. 3 TR) of facilitating overtaking by finding that this provision cannot be applied to bodywork towards the rear of the car.

51. The Contested Design Teams argue that Art. 3.12.3 TR contains no wording limiting its application to the front of the car.

b) Findings of the court

52. The Court finds no basis for the argument that Art. 3.12.3 TR applies only to the front of the car, and not the rear of the car. As noted in response to the Third Plea above, the Court may have regard to the overall objective as an aid to interpretation in circumstances where a text is ambiguous. However, this would not permit the Court to conclude that the scope of Art. 3.12.3 TR is limited to the front of the car when there is no support for such a conclusion in the text itself. In any case, as noted above, it has not been proven that the interpretation sought by the Appellants would in fact facilitate overtaking. This argument must therefore be rejected.

Multiple Transitions

a) Arguments of the parties

53. The Appellants submit that Articles 3.12.3 TR and 3.12.5 TR use the singular term “vertical transition”. This, the Appellants submit, shows that the TR envisage the existence of one single vertical transition joining the periphery of the surface lying on the reference plane to the surfaces of the step plane, and, where any of the Contested Design Teams have used additional vertical transitions in the rear of the car, this constitutes a breach of Art. 3.12.3 TR. 54. The Contested Design Teams submit that Art. 3.12.3 TR does not say there must be just one continuous transition that must run around the entirety of the periphery of the reference plane nor do they require the step plane to be vertically above every point of the reference plane. What is required is a transition at any point where the surface of the step plane is visible vertically above the reference plane. The possibility of using multiple transitions is moreover confirmed by the use of the plural “vertical transitions” in Art. 3.12.4 TR.

55. The FIA submits that, although Art. 3.12.3 TR refers in places to “transition” in the singular, each car in fact requires a minimum of two transitions to comply with the TR. The FIA Technical Department has, therefore, always taken the view that more than one transition is not only permitted, but is in fact required. 56. The FIA and the Contested Design Teams refer to the existence of several examples (from previous seasons) of multiple vertical transitions being used by teams, including each of the Appellants.

57. At the hearing, Ferrari acknowledged that multiple vertical transitions had been used by many teams in the past, including Ferrari itself, and argued that all such prior uses (including its own) had constituted a technical violation of the TR which had been tolerated. However, it argued that where multiple transitions had been used at the front of the car, rather than the rear, this constituted only a minor breach which could have been easily remedied, had it been necessary to do so, without a significant detriment to performance. Ferrari contends that multiple vertical transitions at the rear of the car have not been seen before and constitute a more serious violation which should not be tolerated.

b) Findings of the Court

58. The Court concludes that the language used in Art. 3.12 TR does not explicitly restrict the number of vertical transitions to one. Several teams, including the Appellants have themselves used multiple vertical transitions in the past. Art. 3.12.4 TR refers to “vertical transitions” in the plural. Moreover, it appears that the idea that only one single transition must be used, if accepted, would mean that it would not be possible to have a transition on each of the two sides of the car.

59. The Court therefore finds that, in concept, having more than one vertical transition between the step and reference planes is not prohibited by the TR.

Article 3.12.3 TR must be seen in the context of the rest of Article 3 TR and Article 3.12.5 TR, requiring transitions to be solid, hard, continuous, rigid, impervious surfaces, thereby prohibiting the use of multiple transitions between which air may pass

a) Arguments of the parties

60. The Appellants submit that the Contested Design Concept contravenes the first sentence of Art. 3.12.5 TR because the presence of airways on the underbody of the car (i.e. between the vertical transitions used) necessarily means that the relevant surfaces cannot be solid, hard, continuous, rigid, impervious surfaces. They argue that any interpretation which would allow such airways cannot give effect to the purpose of the regulations as described in the first sentence of the preamble to Art. 3 TR.

61. The Contested Design Teams argue that the first sentence of Art. 3.12.5 TR is fully complied with, as all parts lying on the reference and step planes, in addition to each individual one of the transitions between the two planes are solid, hard, continuous, rigid and impervious (though there may be spaces between these separate individual surfaces).

62. The Contested Design Teams argue that the terms of Art. 3.12.5 TR, including the terms “continuous” and “impervious”, refer to each separate surface, including each separate vertical transition as they connect the reference plane and step plane, and does not mean that all surfaces of all transitions must be considered together as a single surface which is continuous and impervious. 63. Brawn GP also submits that the correct analysis is that surfaces lying on different planes can be “continuously” connected by a line that goes through different geometric planes.

64. The FIA contends that each of the transition surfaces must be continuous and impervious, but that there is no requirement for separate transitions to be regarded as a single continuous and impervious surface. The FIA accepts that if the reference plane, the step plane, and the transitions were to be treated as a single surface, then the spaces between them (together with any adjacent cut outs to the surfaces of the step or reference planes) would not be continuous or impervious. Indeed, these surfaces have been designed in such a way as to allow air to pass through the spaces between them. However, the FIA argues that these surfaces have always been treated individually; there is no reference in the TR to the surfaces being treated as one; and an expression such as “…the surface thus formed…” would have been used in Art. 3.12.5 TR if continuity between the surfaces (the FIA notes that the various references to “surfaces” are plural) were required or intended.

b) Findings of the Court

65. The Court does not accept the argument by Brawn GP that surfaces lying on different planes can be “continuously” connected by a line that goes through different geometric planes. If this were correct, then every part of the car and everything in physical contact with it could be deemed “continuous” and the term would serve no purpose.

66. However, the Court finds that the first sentence of Art. 3.12.5 TR does not state that it is necessary to view the reference plane, step plane and the transition as one single surface. Therefore, as long as each individual step plane, reference plane, and transition fulfils the criteria set out under Art. 3.12.5. TR (namely “solid”, “hard”, “continuous”, “rigid” and “impervious”), Art. 3.12.5 TR is complied with.

67. The fact that multiple vertical transitions are permitted necessarily implies that such transitions might not be joined to each other and therefore that there may be spaces between those transitions.

68. The Court accepts that this leads to the result that a single transition including, for example, a fully enclosed hole, would not be permitted as this single transition would not be continuous and impervious, though two transitions with a space between them would be permitted. This is the necessary result of the TR as written.

69. In reaching the conclusion that the first sentence of Art. 3.12.5 TR applies to each surface individually (and not the surfaces collectively), the Court is mindful of the first sentence of the preamble to Art. 3 TR. However, as noted above, the text of 3.12.5 is unambiguous and it has not been proven that this interpretation of Art. 3.12.5 TR (or indeed the entire Contested Design Concept) has effects detrimental to overtaking. Therefore, the first sentence of the preamble to Art. 3 TR is of limited assistance in this regard.

Fully Enclosed Holes

a) Arguments of the parties

70. The Appellants submit that the Contested Design Concept contravenes Art. 3.12.5 TR because the space that exists between the surfaces of the different transitions constitutes a “hole” and, under the second sentence of Art. 3.12.5 TR, holes are permitted as exceptions only if they meet two conditions: (i) that they are “fully enclosed” and (ii) that they appear on the surfaces of either the step or reference planes.

71. The Contested Design Teams and the FIA submit that, while there may be spaces between different surfaces, the surfaces themselves do not have holes in them. They contend that the spaces between different surfaces are not holes within the very specific meaning of Art. 3.12.5 TR, and that their arguments do not rely on the exception contained therein.

b) Findings of the Court

72. The Court confirms that “fully enclosed holes” are permitted only on the step plane or reference plane under Art 3.12.5 TR. Holes in the transitions are not addressed by this article of the TR. In any event, the Court finds that the spaces arising between the separate surfaces of different transitions are not “holes” in those surfaces (fully enclosed or otherwise) within the specific meaning of Art. 3.12.5 TR. Therefore, the Court considers that the compliance or otherwise of the Contested Design Concept does not turn on the exception contained in the second paragraph of Art. 3.12.5 TR.

The contested diffuser is in excess of 175mm in height above the reference plane and begins to direct air from a point forward of the rear wheel centre line in breach of Article 3.12.7 TR

a) Arguments of the parties

73. The Appellants submit that the Contested Design Concept breaches Art. 3.12.7 TR because it is in excess of 175mm in height above the reference plane. The Appellants further submit that the Contested Design Concept contravenes Art. 3.12.7 TR as it directs air upwards at a point which is forward of the rear wheel centre line.

74. The Contested Design Teams point out that Art. 3.12.7 TR states that: No bodywork which is visible from beneath the car and which lies between the rear wheel centre line and a point 350mm rearward of it may be more than 175mm above the reference plane. They argue that Art. 3.12.7 TR does not constrain the design of bodywork unless it is visible from directly beneath the car. They submit that, regardless of whether their Contested Design Concept might be in excess of 175mm in height above the reference plane, it is not visible from beneath and therefore not
constrained by this measurement.

75. Further they argue that there is no regulation which prohibits their diffusers from beginning to direct air upwards at a point which is forward of the rear wheel centre line.

b) Findings of the court

76. The Court finds that Art. 3.12.7 TR clearly applies only to “bodywork which is visible from beneath the car”. Parts which are not visible from directly beneath are not required to comply with the measurements in Art. 3.12.7 TR. In this case, no party submitted proof that any part of the Contested Design Concept which is visible from below lies more than 175mm above the reference plane.

77. The Court confirms that Art. 3.12.7 TR does not explicitly prohibit diffusers from beginning to direct air upwards at a point which is forward of the rear wheel centre line.

78. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court denies the Fourth Plea.

Fifth Plea - Infinite Precision Has Been Used to Circumvent the Intention of the TR

a) Arguments of the parties

79. Red Bull submits that at least one Respondent, Brawn GP, relied on “infinite precision” in contravention of the second sentence of Article 3 TR, which states that:

[…] infinite precision can be assumed on certain dimensions provided it is clear that such an assumption is not being made in order to circumvent the intention of the relevant regulation. 80. The FIA submitted that its Technical Department, following careful examination of all cars, concluded that none of the contested cars make use of infinite precision to comply with the TR.

b) Findings of the court

81. As no party has submitted proof that infinite precision was relied upon and, to the contrary, the Court has heard submissions from the FIA stating that infinite precision was not relied upon, the Court denies the Fifth Plea.

Sixth Plea – The Decision of the Stewards is Inconsistent with Previous
Statements Rendered by the FIA

a) Arguments of the parties

82. Renault alleges that the FIA has previously rendered opinions to it, stating that designs similar to those used by the Contested Design Teams in the Contested Design Concept were contrary to the TR.

83. Red Bull submits that it asked the FIA in January 2007 to clarify its position as regards any discontinuity in the reference plane, and the response from the FIA clearly stated that such a discontinuity would be illegal.

84. The FIA argues that in no previous statement did it deal with the Contested Design Concept. The questions put to it in previous cases were different and answered correctly and in a manner consistent with its present position.

b) Findings of the Court

85. The Court observes that opinions of the Technical Department, while performing a vital role, are advisory in nature and are not Technical Regulations. Teams are obliged to comply with the TR as written. It is for the Stewards, and ultimately this Court, to offer binding interpretations of the TR. Even if the Contested Decisions were inconsistent with any opinion of the FIA Technical Department (which has not been established), this would not give rise to the invalidity of the Contested Decisions. The Court therefore denies the Sixth Plea.

Seventh Plea – Denying the Appeals Will Contravene the FIA’s Stated Objectives of Reducing the Costs of Formula One and Making it More Viable in the Long Term

a) Arguments of the parties

86. The Appellants submit a series of arguments in which they claim that disallowing the Appeals will add considerably to the required budgets of the teams at a time when efforts are being made to reduce the costs in Formula One.

87. The Appellants submit that if the Court declares the Contested Design Concept to be legal then the teams without such a design will have little choice other than to develop it, since the Contested Design Concept potentially results in notable performance gains. The Appellants argue that this means that the costs of competing will increase substantially.

88. The Contested Design Teams argue that any such cost is not relevant to the question of whether the Contested Design Concept complies with the TR.

b) Findings of the Court

89. The Court finds that it is for the FIA to determine how best to achieve its objectives, including any objective to reduce the cost of participation in Formula One by adopting regulations to achieve such aims. However, the possibility of teams not presently using the Contested Design Concept incurring future development costs is not a factor relevant to the legal assessment of whether the Contested Decisions comply with the TR or not. The Court therefore denies the Seventh Plea.

On those grounds,

THE FIA INTERNATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL

Hereby:

1. Finds the Appeals to be admissible;

2. Rejects the Appeals against Decisions No. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 taken by the Panel of Stewards on 26 March 2009 at the 2009 Grand Prix of Australia;

3. Orders the Appellants to pay the costs of the present Appeals, in accordance with Article 24 of the Rules of the International Court of Appeal.
Read More......