Brawn had made clear that there was no preferential treatment given to either of the drivers at this point in the season, although this is not even something he should have needed to say. At this point in the season it would have been very foolhardy to favour one driver, as Button could easily have had a horrific crash and been injured for half the season.

Also as someone else previously pointed out both drivers were put on a three stop as this is the fastest strategy. If you look at the graphs that Keith has kindly uploaded you can see clearly that Rubens was over 1 second per lap quicker than Jenson in stint 2 building up a 13 second lead that he hadn’t been able to when they were on identical strategies.

If he had continued this pace after his second stop with fresh tires and equal fuel to Jenson then he would have been right on Button’s tail a few laps before Jenson’s second stop and his third. Having caught button he could have conserved fuel behind him and then would then have had 1-2 laps on his far better soft tires while Jenson had switched to the hard. Had Rubens finished his third stint with high 1:22s rather than mid 1:23s it would then have given him 2-4 seconds over Button between the pit stops and thus given him track position with fresher tires for the final stint, which would have been the best position to be in.

So Brawn had no reason to believe that Button’s strategy would give him an advantage to Barrichello, instead it was merely a good way of achieving a 1-2 finish with Button behind Rubens as Rosberg was a potential problem for a three stop srtrategy, as he explained clearly after the race and was evident when Rubens came out with no track behind him after his first stop.

I see no reason to doubt Brawn’s intentions. I imagine were I a team leader/head of strategy and the optimum strategy for both my drivers wasn’t working for the one behind, then it would make sense to try to avoid problems by switching the second driver to an inferior strategy. Even if, as was the case, that it is not the optimum one and is likely to lose him some time compared to a three stop on an open track.

Why then would I trouble my driver who is leading the GP saying, “We had to switch your teammate to an inferior two stop because three stop wouldn’t work for him with other cars on the track?” If you thought three stop was faster before the race, which before the first stops they did (and until after Rubens’ second stop where his lap times were pretty poor looked to have been vindicated) surely the best option for Rubens was to keep him on the three stop, rather than confuse him with an unnecessary information or option to switch to a new and clearly inferior strategy that he wasn’t expecting and that wasn’t necessary?

Why switch Rubens to an inferior strategy that would increase the chances of him being on the same part of the track to Button and increase the chances of the drivers colliding?

If anything by switching Jenson to an inferior strategy as well as optimising the opportunity for a 1-2 the strategist had given the drivers the fairest chance to win on merit. As Jenson had the opportunity to beat Rubens if he was consistently faster on a weaker strategy, equally Rubens had the perfect opportunity to beat Jenson comfortably without any need to overtake him again on track and with a slight advantage in terms of strategy.

All the data shows that if Rubens had done a good third stint, that the car was capable of he would have won the race comfortably without needing to be a faster driver than Jenson.

People who wish to think otherwise are in my opinion rather over skeptical and perhaps should realise that Rubens is ageing and so it is probable that his stamina and focus throughout an endurance race may not be what it once was. Also Jenson is a far better diver than he is given credit for.

If you still don’t believe me, or haven’t bothered to read what I wrote. This should make it clear to you in two lines that Rubens was outperformed. On an identical fuel load and 12 lap fresher soft tires tires he averaged 1-2 tenths of a second slower than Button in the second stint and the same is true of the harder tires.

These are the only points in the race where you can compare the two drivers pace as before they were together on track or on different fuel loads and so Rubens was faster because he was lighter or because he was holding Jenson up.

Basically Jenson was consistently faster than Rubens throughout the weekend, and had he not had the average start and been slipstreamed by Rubens down to turn one this foolish debate would not even be happening. Jenson deserved to win and Rubens did not he was the slower driver and was clearly holding Jenson up in the first stint.

I urge you all doubters to look at the data you have been provided and realise the clear facts.

JP

Now if you don’t like my comments, don’t read and reply mate.

BRAWN CHEETED RUBENS OF HIS CONTACT RIGHTS AND HE TOOK IT ON THE CHIN AS HE IS A GENTLEMAN and TOTALLY UNSELFISH.

Now, where do I always see the opposite? 

Ali

They ‘had to split the strategy’ because the track situation did not allow for a three stopp strategy for both drivers, because otherwise Button woudlve lost too much time…
Barrichello would not have wanted the 2-stop strategy because it would have locked him away right behind Rosberg for a couple of laps, AND because it was slower in the first place.
Saying that the team hid Buttons two stop strategy switch from Barrichello until after his stopp, in order to get Button to win the race, is paranoid. But suggestin that they vetoed Rubens’ request for the same switch is quite simply an insane assumption.
IF they’d said ‘NO’ to a RB request for a two stopper, you think he would react like that after the race? and do you think we wouldnt have heard some talk of it over the radio on tv?

Now do you really think that of all the Brawn ppl that weve seen talking to the press, it would be Nick Fry who would be the bad liar? Come on.

If F1 is really that bad and evil etc. according to you, stop watching, stop reading, stop bothering us.

How do you explain Nick Fry saying “We had to split the strategies” emphasis on the word “split”. This vetoed Ruben desire to do 2 stops.

And why would Ruben has to stop so soon after button.

All this reminds me of when Ferrari “mis-placed” one of Irvie’s tyres in 1999 so he doesn’t win the chapionship.

And yes indeed this site is for truth tellers not for truth coverers.

SleepSheep
———-
Falsehood’s become true … and chaos has spread
Liars are upheld … and good mouths are well weld

Wisdom deserted all … but a sleepless few
Trance became the norm … and to reality blindness wed

No freethinking is left … so long as they were fed
Sleeping most became … in a rented bed

Wake up and uphold … what God’s always said:
Don’t step over others … to reach a higher end
Love each other so … to the Truth you’d be led

Ali Adams 2006
http://www.geocities.com/aliadams