Chinese Grand Prix - Sunday

FIA publishes full diffuser decision

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. [&ldots;] 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. [&ldots;] 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. [&ldots;] [&ldots;] 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. [&ldots;] 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: [&ldots;] 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 [&ldots;] 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 “&ldots;the surface thus formed&ldots;” 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:   [&ldots;] 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.

FIA post-race press conference - China

1st Sebastian Vettel (Red Bull), 1h57m43.485s; 2nd Mark Webber (Red Bull), 1h57m54.455s; 3rd Jenson Button (Brawn GP), 1h58m28.460s. Q: Sebastian, a very incident packed race. Talk us through that pace car start and the conditions that faced you. Sebastian Vettel: It was the right decision to start under the safety car. Basically it was okay at some points but at some corners on every lap you were having a lot of aquaplaning. Sometimes less, sometimes more, depending on the rain. It was very, very difficult throughout the whole race. I think we both knew, Mark and I, that we were on the short strategy, so we had to push at the beginning to get away from the pack which we succeeded. And yeah, it was a very difficult race. As I said, a lot of aquaplaning and sometimes you were just catching the car and just keeping it on the circuit. You tried to push and tried to get away from the car lap by lap. I think I had the best conditions because I had no car running in front of me more or less for the whole race, so that was quite comfortable but still it was really difficult with the aquaplaning especially in the last corner. It is going a bit uphill and the water goes down and there is some place where basically you have no control, so you just try not to touch the car there, don’t downshift, don’t brake too much and every lap you had to be cautious. But what should I say. I am extremely happy, second time now in the wet I have won a grand prix. Now we can have some more rain. The car was fantastic. It is definitely necessary to mention that the team did a really, really good job in preparing the car. Yesterday in qualifying we did a good job but nevertheless we were struggling a bit with the reliability but we were able to fix it overnight. We found the problem and that speaks for the quality of our team and everybody was just trying to fix it. We succeeded. Both cars just finished the race and even having a top two. A double win for Red Bull is incredible and I am extremely happy. Q: Mark, you have been with this team for a long time. This must mean a lot to you to? Mark Webber: A huge amount. Our team has been through a lot and a lot of results have slipped through our fingers. And today Sebastian and I could capitalize on a car that worked very well. We pushed each other quite hard in the race. It was very, very tough conditions for the whole grand prix. It got a little bit better in the middle of the race, then at the end again it got a little bit interesting. And also when you lose the edges off the wets they don’t cut the water as well. It was a very tough race, extremely rewarding to get this result. Personally for myself it is obviously the best result of my career. I hope to go one step better in the future and this is a long way towards it. I think it is an incredible result for Red Bull. If you think what Dietrich (Mateschitz) has done over the last five or six years in Formula One to get his first one-two is an absolute credit to him, so it is good. Q: Jenson, a great race for you with lots going on. Obviously some problem with the car as the conditions worsened? Jenson Button: Well, I think everyone was struggling with the aquaplaning out there. It was pretty crazy conditions into the last corner. As Sebastian said it was a just a lake and you couldn’t actually brake for the corner. A few other places were the same. I was just really struggling with the tyres. They were shuddering. They shudder because you can’t get temperature into them, front and rears. It was a difficult race and every lap you thought you were going to throw the car off. You really did, so to finish the race is an achievement and to come home on the podium is also great. We couldn’t challenge these two guys today, they were immensely quick. But it is great to get six points on the board and that’s important to keep the consistency. Q: Sebastian, it was also an incredibly strong car. Let’s have a look at lap 19. Can you talk us through this incident on the back straight? I don’t know if Jarno Trulli was going slower than you but you got a nasty punt from the rear from Sébastien Buemi. SV: Yeah, I mean I was surprised. I thought this car was Rubens (Barrichello) as I knew he was in front of me. I was just going off throttle to check if everything was alright, I passed him and I really didn’t see that Sébastien was coming. I am very sorry for what happened. To be honest I was just taking care. I didn’t want to run into the car in front of me. Obviously it is impossible to see anything in the mirrors as there is a lot of spray, so I moved to the right, checked if everything was alright and then I realised it was a Toyota and not Rubens and then I continued. And unfortunately Sébastien hit me already. It is a shame for his race but on the other hand I am very lucky to have finished mine. Q: And it didn’t affect your car at all? SV: No, it didn’t. After that I was quite happy that nothing happened. I could continue in a normal way, still it was difficult enough with the conditions, a lot of aquaplaning and I am just extremely proud and happy to sit here now. Q: Mark and Jenson. Some fun and games mid-race. Quite a lot going on between you. Maybe I should let both of you now describe the action. You can fight amongst yourselves about who wants to do the commentary on the clips we are going to see next? JB: For me I was pretty much just always out of control. I was just waiting for Mark to appear, well not appear in my mirrors, but appear in the front. I locked up the fronts in that corner. I was struggling there with locking up the tyres. MW: I hit the river there and had to catch and straighten the car and open the steering and get onto the astroturf. Also I was worried about that. I didn’t have a clue where Jenson was as I had just come back on. I only looked at my pit board every few laps, so I knew he was somewhere there but I didn’t know how close. Q: What is going on here Jenson? JB: I was just trying to get some heat in the tyres. I am not trying to weave and keep people behind. I was really struggling with that. I don’t think they have shown Mark going past me around the outside at turn seven. I didn’t have a clue where he was and he was alongside at turn eight and it was such a shock as you can’t see anything when it is raining. Then he just cut across the front and made the move stick. For me it was impossible to do anything about it. As soon as these guys get near you or alongside you, you cannot challenge them and it would have been silly to have tried. Q: It looks from that if you had more problems getting the tyres to work than the two Red Bull drivers? JB: Well, I don’t know if everyone else did. Rubens and myself struggled quite a bit. I don’t know what the reason for that is. Obviously the car is working in a different way but I hope we will solve those problems in the future because we cannot let these guys be that far in front. Q: Sebastian, let’s have a look at you crossing the line to win your second grand prix. A nice moment? SV: Yeah, unbelievable. Some 10 laps from the end I obviously tried to observe the gap to the car behind, which was Mark, and was trying to adapt more or less to his pace. Just trying to have everything in control but it is extremely difficult. At some point I tried to bring the car home but then I realised ‘don’t do that as you lose the focus,’ so I tried to be really focussed corner by corner and not looking too far ahead. Then at the end, in the last two laps, I backed off a little bit as I didn’t want to risk going over the lakes in a stupid way anymore. So, just fantastic. Winning the second race having won one for Toro Rosso and now one for Red Bull is fantastic. I am extremely happy and hope we can continue working in this direction. PRESS CONFERENCE Q: Sebastian, what a fantastic drive. Just give us some indication of what sort of concentration and mental effort is required. SV: A lot. It was a long race. I don’t know how long it was. Basically we finished the 56 laps but in terms of time I don’t know. It felt quite long. I think first of all it was the right decision to start behind the safety car. There was a lot of water already on the lap to the grid. I was surprised at how much standing water there was in places and throughout the whole race I think everyone was struggling with some aquaplaning. In some places more and in some places less. I knew we had a short middle stint and an aggressive strategy, so every lap earlier the safety car pulled in would give us more chance to open a gap to the guys at the back. At the point the safety car came in I just tried to push and basically tried to get as much gap to the guys behind as possible which I think was the key to success in the end. Also in the second stint I think we did the right thing. Fantastic strategy, extremely good effort by the team to get both cars reliable after the trouble we had yesterday. To be honest we were quite confident going into the race that nothing should happen but obviously you never know and especially the last couple of laps when I was in the lead and quite comfortable I was just hoping and nursing the car back to the finish line but on the other hand you also always have to keep the focus and not to do any silly mistake as with these conditions having a lot of aquaplaning in some places, especially the last corner, it was absolutely necessary to keep your head up and watch out what the conditions were like. When it started to rain a bit more there was also more aquaplaning and the tyres basically had a peak at the beginning and then it was difficult to keep the tyres alive and towards the end of the stint it was always getting more difficult to get rid of all of the standing water and obviously to come back with the result I am extremely happy to have won the race. I think it is an enormous job by the whole of Red Bull. Greetings to Austria and we are both very happy and very pleased. Q: You had the advantage of a clear track having started on pole but were there disadvantages as well? SV: Yeah, when I was not in the lead, basically, especially when I was trying to catch Jenson. It is extremely difficult to see the car in front of you which we all know and that makes it so difficult to get the race started in wet conditions. Sometimes I knew I was behind him as I could see the spray but I did not exactly know where he was, so it is extremely difficult first of all to get close and then stay close and even pass. I think Mark and Jenson had a bit more exciting race in terms of overtaking each other. For me I was quite happy that I always had clear vision to the front similar to last year’s race in Monza, so for sure I had the best chance to do well and at the end it was close sometimes to keep the car on the track especially entering turn one. Sometimes there was kind of a river running down the track and you just lost the car on snap oversteer. You just caught it and you were hoping for the car and the tyres to stick again. In 100 per cent of the cases it did, so it doesn’t feel comfortable to have this kind of situation. Q: You had the incident with Sébastien Buemi. Any other major moments we might have missed on television? SV: There were a couple of moments I would say. But obviously that was extremely important that there was no damage to my car. Basically what happened I was going down the main straight, the safety car was already out, not yet in front of us, so you stay in your target time and try to catch up with the safety car. What happened is I saw a car slowing down all of a sudden on the left side and saw the spray and thought initially it was Rubens (Barrichello). I was not sure if he had a problem or was just slowing down because of the cars in front of him, maybe we had caught up and already there was a queue. You cannot see that far. I was slowing down and it turned out to be a Toyota, not Rubens, so I was just looking cautiously. He had a problem. He had no rear wing. Then I passed him and at the same moment I got a hit from behind by Sébastien. I am sorry to ruin his race but in these conditions you could basically run without mirrors because you cannot see a lot, you cannot see much because of all the spray. So sorry for him and extremely lucky to keep going in the race.

Q: Mark, as you said, your best ever result – and you were in the spray! MW: Yeah, it was challenging at times. Of course, Sebastian deserved a clear gap because he got pole. Once Fernando rolled away in terms of pitting under the safety car, I thought OK, we knew we were quite short, we need to make the most of getting away from potential two-stoppers or people who had more flexibility with their strategy. The first few laps it was impossible to stay close to Seb, I could hardly see anything. I was in and out of the throttle in some of the blind crests, and having so many moments while trying to stay close. And then it started to settle a little bit and then I thought OK, I can start to come a little bit closer. I hit a river in turn one, went a bit wide, lost some time and then unfortunately it put me back into the clutches - a little bit of the gap after the next safety car. I then had to come back through Jenson which was a good scrap and then again, when Jenson slightly locked a front right into the hairpin, I had an opportunity to go past. And when it’s your first (clear) lap, it’s ‘my God, I can see everything, it’s beautiful.’ Then pushing like hell, again trying to put as much as I could into that part of the race. Another little mistake. Just playing with the rivers, you know, just playing with them, how aggressive you can be with the rivers and how much you can get away with. Sometimes I won, sometimes I lost. It was a fantastic challenge. Then when Jenson got back past me again, I knew it was&ldots; not do or die but I was still quite keen to try and win the race myself and I passed him around the outside of turn seven because I knew the car was quite good there and also he would not know I would be there as well, so he could not defend. It was one of the best moves of my career and that started to then build me for the next part of the race. And then it was basically a formality. I was just watching Jenson’s gap. Sebastian and I were just on the pace, bringing it to the end but it is an incredible day for the team. You’ve got no idea what the guys went through last night. We were absolutely sh*tting ourselves that the cars wouldn’t finish the race because every time we ran yesterday the cars stopped in three laps. Basically my driveshaft boot was destroyed as well after qualifying, so it was incredible to get the cars home. To get maximum points, for us, after the missed opportunities in Australia, and also with Sebastian’s and my missed opportunities in Malaysia, it’s a great day for the team, at Milton Keynes and also in Austria. Q: Jenson, tell us about your battle with Mark. JB: I knew that the Red Bulls obviously had very good pace, we saw that in the first stint and when the safety car came in, they seemed to be very strong from the word go. Our pace could get closer to them but when we’re on cold tyres, they could really get their car working which is very impressive. But after the first stop, I was back in front of Mark, due to the difference in stop laps and really it was all going OK. I felt like I was really slow, because I was trying to miss every river, but the problem with that is that it changes every lap, the conditions are changing every lap and the position of the rivers is changing every lap, so it makes it very, very difficult and when I saw that myself and Mark were pulling away from the people behind, I was reasonably happy with the pace then, I could just sort of settle into a pace. And then I got to the second to last corner and locked up the fronts, Mark went through, I tried to stay with him but there was no chance and then he made a mistake in the last corner where I jumped back past him again. The problem was, for everyone who was racing, you can’t see the car in front, where he is and when you’re in front you can’t see the car behind. It makes it quite dangerous. You might say it’s more fun, but it’s not, it’s quite dangerous. Mark did a great move round turn seven, round the outside. It seemed that they could run on the really wet parts of the circuit and actually break through the water on the circuit, whereas we just seemed to float over the top. I don’t know if that was because we were running the car too low or what but that’s where he made the move, made it stick and from then on really it was just holding on and getting to the end of the race, because for all of us, however quick or slow you drive, it’s just as dangerous and it was so easy to throw the car off (the track) as we saw with Sutil, a pretty fast part of the circuit. It could have easily have happened to any of us. I’m very thankful that we got to the end of the race with both cars and I was able to get on the podium. It’s a great result for me but you’ve got to say ‘well done’ to these guys because they drove well and obviously their car is working well as well. Q: To all three of you, to what extent were you expecting these conditions today, all the way through the race? JB: I didn’t expect so much aquaplaning. If it’s wet, it’s wet. You can normally master the line and try and find an area on the circuit where it’s dry or where you’re not aquaplaning, but here it’s very, very difficult. You’re aquaplaning as you come onto the main straight, as you go down the dip across the start and finish line and in that condition there’s nothing you can do and it’s very, very scary in a way. So getting to the end of the race, in spite of being third and not being on the top step, it’s such a relief and such a great feeling that we’ve been able to come away with these points. Q: Were you expecting these conditions though? JB: We thought it would be raining today but it’s amazing the amount of water build-up considering it hasn’t been raining that hard, compared to Sepang. MW: When I got out of bed this morning, driving to the track, I was thinking maybe intermediates today and if we’re unlucky a little bit of work on the extremes but to do a whole Grand Prix on a set of extremes is not often the case. I think there are a few sections of drainage on the track which definitely need to be improved because some sections are not bad and on other sections you really are aquaplaning, so you are totally on top of the water. I don’t know if Adrian (Sutil) was on inters but where he went off, through there we had several moments where you were just trying to keep the wheel straight and feather the throttle and wait for the movement because it was very, very treacherous. I must say, an incredibly challenging Grand Prix for the drivers and one that was right on the limit for safety. It was a massive challenge. We all want challenges as drivers, at this level we should be able to test ourselves to the maximum and that’s what Formula One is about, but that one was right up there with Fuji, right on the edge and we cannot take much more than that. Visibility is one thing but also aquaplaning is another, it’s not down to&ldots; Anyway, we got a great result, so that’s good. SV: Basically on Friday they said that it might rain on Sunday night. Saturday they said maybe Sunday afternoon and I really started to believe this morning when it started to drizzle that we were going to have a wet race or some rain during the race. I was surprised that it kept going continuously, so there was rain throughout the whole race. At some stage it stopped raining, the rain got less and the circuit improved and I thought OK, maybe now we have to pit too early, maybe in a couple of laps after the stop the track will be ready for inters but then it started raining again and also a couple of guys tried to make the inters work but obviously there was so much water, as Mark said, especially in the last corner, also turn six, basically that’s just an easy right kink, but it’s a bit of a crest. For some reason there’s a lot of water and you never know if you can stay flat or not and every lap the car was very light, going sideways and you were hoping, ‘yeah, everything is OK,’ and the next lap it was the same again, so every lap you had the same kind of scenario. As Mark said, it was extremely challenging but also on the edge, so if it had just started to rain heavier at some point, then in some places it would have been impossible and the person who got there first possibly would have lost the car. JB: The scary thing was that normally when you follow a car you see the two lines in the water and you know exactly where they’ve been and you can follow that line because there’s less water there but I never saw any lines on the circuit. That was the amazing thing. The water doesn’t seem to clear and that was the worst thing about it, I think. QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR Q: (Mike Doodson) Mark, you must have been very relieved to see the rain at the start from the driveshaft point of view. Were you able to modify the driveshafts to make them better or were you really worried that if it had been dry they might have only lasted for three laps at a time? MW: Yes, we were able to modify the driveshafts, well, the small boot that contains the grease, to keep all the lubrication in there, so that was a spec change overnight, obviously within the regulations from parc ferme to be able to do that. There was some work done at the factory to understand the problem at this particular circuit. Of course, we might have been a bit more nervous in the dry with more loading and things like that but it turned out to be an inspired change from what the technical guys in that department had done. I must say that normally when I’m in that position, to gain positions, I like to see the guy in front have a problem and blow up but today of course, I would like to win but to get one-two, for us two, for the team&ldots; of course if it was Jenson, I would like to see him blow up but if it was Sebastian it was a bit different, so it was an incredible result for our team in the circumstances. Q: (Flavio Vanetti – Corriere della Sera) To Sebastian and Mark, I know that Adrian Newey is projecting a new car with the diffuser. Do you believe you really need it as the one you are using proved to be very competitive? SV: Well, first of all I didn’t know you are friends with Adrian. I think it’s the same for all the teams. We all have a diffuser, if you have this kind or this kind&ldots; As Fernando said yesterday, this is what is extremely interesting about this championship. I think these cars are new, they look different and you are just at the beginning of their development, so basically the curve continues to go up and you are able to find newer and newer bits, other than the diffuser, and an update here or there, smaller or bigger can make a huge difference because the championship is very tight. Three or four tenths up or down can have a big impact in terms of position in qualifying. You can be on top or midfield or at the back. I think every team is pushing. We are pushing extremely hard to make the car faster. I’m very happy that the car is fast already and able to compete with the best teams so far and yeah, hoping that it gets better and better throughout the season. Basically we will try and stay on top and make the final step to be the best team on the grid. Q: (Michael Schmidt – Auto Motor und Sport) Jenson, you’ve been around for a little while already. When we have wet races, they seem to be started behind the safety car and you’ve mentioned the problems with visibility; what is different from the past, are the cars too fast for wet races, are they producing too much spray? JB: That’s a difficult one. I haven’t been around that long, maybe longer than these two! There’s always been a lot of spray in Formula One. I don’t think that has changed. For some reason we seem to be having a lot of wet races over the last couple of years which I think stick in our memories more. The problem with getting temperature into the tyres is more of a new issue for me, anyway. You know we didn’t have that so much in the past. The tyres don’t seem to work as well as previously in the very wet conditions. We don’t seem to be able to break through the water. Obviously these guys could get it to work, so it wasn’t such a bad problem for them but it’s something that’s very strange, that we’re struggling so much with aquaplaning and tyre shuddering which we didn’t use to have four or five years ago. It’s very difficult to remember that far back but I don’t remember having such big issues. The wet is always difficult but this year and Fuji two years ago and a couple of wet races in between have for me been a lot more difficult and challenging for sure, because of the aquaplaning and just not getting heat in the tyres. MW: If you look at the Spa race whatever it was, ten years ago or something, when one of the McLarens lost it on the exit of La Source, when you’ve got a car out of control – OK, it can happen from a rolling start as well – but I think we’ve seen the safety car work quite well on releasing the field in a much more controlled fashion. If you have different speeds off the start, the spray has always been high. I think that we’ve learned a lot in ten years in Formula One that there’s no real need to&ldots; today, to have a standing start is not really necessary. We can use the safety car and it works quite well. Once we’re under way, I think the conditions are the same as they were in ’93 or ’92 when the guys used to do it (conventionally). It’s the same thing but now we just have different methods to maybe make the race a bit safer to start. SV: It also depends a lot on if you have guys running at the front all the time they might say yes, we could have started the race in the normal way but I think especially for the guys at the back it’s much more comfortable because you have no idea where you’re going – I’ve been there – and you can see, like today, I was extremely lucky to continue, you’re not braking, nothing, you just lift the throttle a little bit, I was cautious in case it was Rubens (Barrichello), in that case it was a Toyota. You know there were three cars involved and you can see that one hit the other and that shows how difficult it is and even starting in a normal way up to turn one there was no chance to see the car in front. We all have a flashing red light but you don’t see anything when you follow each other.

Brawn GP

Brawn GP’s Jenson Button took his third consecutive podium of the 2009 Formula One season at the end of a rain-soaked Chinese Grand Prix at the Shanghai International Circuit today. Team-mate Rubens Barrichello finished in fourth position to secure further valuable points for the team’s championship challenge. For the second race in succession, the weather had a major impact as heavy rain showers led to the race starting under the safety car with all drivers fitting wet tyres. The racing got underway on lap nine with Rubens and Jenson lying in third and fourth places respectively behind the two Red Bulls cars. Suffering from a brake warm-up issue throughout his first stint, Rubens ran wide on lap eleven giving Jenson the opportunity to move up into third place. In very tricky conditions, the pair largely kept their Brawn-Mercedes cars on the track, successfully negotiating two pit-stops and a further safety car period, to cross the line with Jenson in third position and Rubens taking fourth place. After the first three races of the season, the Brawn GP team leads the Constructors’ Championship with 36 points with Jenson leading the Drivers’ Championship with 21 points and Rubens in second place with 15 points. RESULTS Drivers Car No. Chassis No. Race Result / Fastest Lap Jenson Button 22 BGP 001-02 P3 01:53.546 Rubens Barrichello 23 BGP 001-01 P4 01:52.592 Weather Wet throughout the race Temperatures Air: 19-20°C Track: 18-19°C JENSON BUTTON “A very difficult race today and I am so pleased that we got both cars to the end of 56 laps and scored as many points as possible. The conditions were pretty crazy with rivers of water all over the circuit which changed every time you encountered them. The last turn particularly was like a lake and you just couldn’t brake for the corner. I struggled with the car aquaplaning and the tyres shuddering as we couldn’t get the temperatures high enough to make them work properly. Mark Webber and I had a good fight for a few laps but I just couldn’t stay with him. However to finish the race today is an achievement in itself and to be on the podium is fantastic. We couldn’t have beaten the Red Bulls and congratulations to Sebastian and Mark on a great result.” RUBENS BARRICHELLO “It was a tough race in very challenging conditions out there today. I only had three brake discs working on my car for the first 19 laps which made it even more difficult for me to keep the car on the road. Thankfully the problem resolved itself when the brakes heated up during my first pit stop and I had a good pace from then but unfortunately it was a bit too late. However we got the car to the end of the race in difficult circumstances and I scored as many points as I could have done, so we have to be happy with that.” ROSS BRAWN “Another dramatic race today to continue what is turning out to be a very exciting 2009 Formula One season. Jenson and Rubens did an excellent job to bring the cars home in the difficult conditions which combined with a solid team performance over the whole weekend enabled us to score as many points as possible. We had a good strategy with both drivers fuelled long for their first stints which allowed us to bridge the gap to the leaders. However on similar fuel, Vettel and Webber were then able to pull away. Congratulations to Red Bull for their one-two performance today. We know from Australia what a fantastic feeling that achievement is and I’m sure they will enjoy every minute of it. Our focus now turns to Bahrain next weekend for what will hopefully be a dry race.”

Red Bull

Sebastian Vettel (1st): "It's unbelievable - I'm so, so happy. Ten laps from the end I tried to control the gap between me and the car behind and adapt my pace. I was trying to have everything under control, but it was difficult. At some points I was trying to bring the car home, but that meant I lost focus, so then I just tried to take it corner by corner, not looking too far ahead. On the last two laps I backed off a bit, as I didn't want to risk aquaplaning on the water at the side of the track. And then... well it's just fantastic. Winning my second race, one with Toro Rosso and one with Red Bull, makes me extremely happy and I hope we can continue working in this direction! I'm extremely proud and happy. I'm so happy to have won the race, it was an enormous and great job by the whole of Red Bull. I want to say a massive thank you to them all, everyone has worked so hard, so thanks to the team and also to Red Bull. Greetings to Austria!" Mark Webber: "It's such an incredible day for the team - you have no idea what the guys went through last night. We were absolutely sh*tting ourselves that the cars wouldn't finish the race because every time we ran yesterday, they stopped. So, it's incredible to get the cars home and to get maximum points. This comes after the near misses in Australia for Sebastian and for myself in Malaysia. It's a great day for the team in Milton Keynes, well done and thank you to them, and also to everyone in Austria. It was a challenging race at times! It was hard to follow the cars in the beginning due to the spray, but then further into the race, it started to settle a bit. After the second safety car stint, I had a good scrap with Jenson. On my official lap at the front, I couldn't believe how clear it was - I thought 'Oh my God, it's beautiful!' I then pushed like hell to make up as much time as possible - it was fantastic. When Jenson (Button) re-passed me, I was very keen to try win the race, so I passed him around Turn seven as I knew he wouldn't know I would be there, it was one of the best moves of my career. I'm happy today!" Christian Horner, team principal: "A great result for the team and Red Bull. It's testimony to all the effort and hard work that Red Bull and Mr Mateschitz has committed to Formula One. I want to thank Red Bull and everyone in Milton Keynes, who have worked so hard for this. It's just an unbelievable result. We've got a great car, a great team, great drivers, a single diffuser and we have a double one to come, so we're looking good. The whole team and company can be very proud of this moment." Fabrice Lom, Renault, Principal Engineer, Track Support: "What a result, we have a magic pair of drivers. Sebastian and Mark are very strong, very cool, and it's a pleasure to work with them. On behalf of all the Renault team, I would like to say that we are very proud to work with them both and be part of this Red Bull F1 adventure. I was also like to thank all the guys back at the factories in Milton Keynes, Viry and Mecachrome."

Bridgestone

Hirohide Hamashima, Tyre Development Director “Once more in 2009 we have seen an exciting race. Congratulations to Red Bull Racing for their first race win and Sebastian Vettel for his second win. I think our tyre allocation was interesting for this weekend and qualifying was exciting, whilst the race was another demonstration of our wet tyres working well in the correct conditions. Interestingly of the front-runners, we saw Rubens Barrichello opt to stay on his existing wet tyres in his final pit stop, rather than change to new ones. Also, we saw Nico Rosberg use the intermediate, but the track surface was never quite dry enough for these tyres.” “The wet tyres have worked well here. Obviously, the 2009 specification cars have less downforce than before. In the dry, there is more mechanical grip to compensate for the lack of aerodynamic grip, whereas in the wet there is not that compensation. Despite this, our wet tyres worked very well in very difficult conditions. Of course, some parts of the track had very deep puddles, and we saw drivers struggle with aquaplaning, but overall we can be satisfied. Today I think we watched many demonstrations of excellent driving throughout the field.”

Ferrari

After Australia and Malaysia it was pretty clear that while the Ferrari F60 challenger was no race winner, errors in strategy combined with reliability issues had resulted in the team’s disastrous start to the season. Today in the Chinese Grand Prix Kimi Raikkonen ran as high as fifth before taking his one and only pitstop. The strategy would prove wrong as the Finn took the chequered flag in tenth position having been unable to regain so much lost ground. Felipe Massa meanwhile pulled his F60 to a halt early in the race with an electrical problem. Kimi Raikkonen “In the early stages, it wasn’t too bad but then, after my stop, I lost grip from the tyres and I was no longer able to push as hard as I wanted, because it meant the car was sliding a lot. A few times, the engine seemed to lose power, especially when I found myself close behind other cars, but then the problem went away on its own." "Clearly the championship situation looks very difficult. We have made mistakes and we are not quick enough. In Barcelona, when we will have new aero parts, we should be able to pick up some of the grip we are lacking now. I am sure we can be competitive enough to win again but this work will take time. The team is motivated, I’m sure of that and we will all do our bit. Now it is easy to criticize, but we know how to turn things round.” Felipe Massa “Obviously, I’m very disappointed and a bit upset but my motivation is still intact. All of us must work together to get out of this situation. The team is united and there is a real will to turn things round as soon as possible. We should quickly be getting some significant aerodynamic developments, but it’s true we also have to sort out as soon as possible our reliability problems, because if we want to win, first we have to finish the races." "Today, I was in with a good chance of getting on the podium. I was third and lapping in the same times as the leaders, even though I had enough fuel on board to go for a one stop. The car was going well, except when running behind the Safety Car: at those times, there were a few moments when the power seemed to drop. Then, without warning, the accelerator would not work and the car went quiet. I would say to our fans that they should not give up on us, as this is a difficult moment, but the championship is still long.” Chris Dyer “We embarked on the race with the two drivers on different strategies and with the rain and the safety car periods, we managed to get ourselves into a good position, especially with Felipe, who at one point was third with a lot of fuel on board. Unfortunately, a software management problem meant the engine cut out and forced him to retire. It’s a real shame, because we could have got a good result." "Right from the start, Kimi complained about the lack of visibility when following others and several times that the engine power was dropping due to the water, but above all he suffered with a lack of grip after his stop. In the meantime, we changed his strategy and he was unable to get any higher than tenth. Once again we’ve had reliability problems which prevented us from picking up valuable points.” Stefano Domenicali “Today, we are very annoyed about what happened to Felipe. He was driving an amazing race, when an electrical problem saw the engine die. He was third at the time and even though he had a heavy fuel load, he was lapping in the same time as the fastest and he would have almost certainly finished the race on the podium." "Kimi switched his strategy, going from a two to a one stop, but he could not get higher than tenth. On his first set of tyres, his pace was reasonable, but with the second he suffered constantly from a lack of grip which kept him out of the points. The great shame is that at a time when technically we are not at our best, once again we failed to capitalise on circumstances." "Now we look towards next weekend’s race in Bahrain in a realistic frame of mind: the car will be the same as here, even though we will look at running the KERS again. In the meantime, we have to work intensively on getting the new aerodynamic components to the race track, when the European part of the season gets underway in Barcelona.”

Renault

It was an afternoon of unrealised potential for Renault as both Fernando Alonso and Nelson Piquet ended the Chinese Grand Prix outside the points. Wet conditions saw the race start under the safety car, which impacted on the team’s strategy and meant the team spent the afternoon fighting through the field. Alonso’s eventful race saw him finish in ninth after running as high as fifth, while Piquet suffered several spins and came home a distant 16th. Fernando Alonso “It’s a disappointing end to a weekend where we showed a lot of potential. The team have done a great job to improve the car, which was very competitive, especially yesterday when we qualified on the front row. However, today we were unlucky and I think it’s one of those days when you take decisions at the wrong moment and everything seems to turn against you. We thought that the safety car would be out for the next 10 or 15 laps so we came in to get fuel and at the same time the safety car came in so we found ourselves starting the race last. We were on the first row on the grid and all of a sudden we were last so this was the end of our race. Bahrain will be another big test and then we have Barcelona so we need to keep improving.” Nelson Piquet “The conditions were so difficult today with really poor visibility and aquaplaning so just keeping the car on the track wasn’t easy. I had a few moments during the race, but managed to keep the car going, although I lost a lot of time and dropped to the back of the pack. So it was a disappointing weekend, but I’m now looking forward to Bahrain where hopefully we will have a dry race and some developments on the car.” Flavio Briatore, Managing Director “This was not a normal race and it’s a pity that we couldn’t really see the potential of the car. The conditions were difficult and everyone seemed to struggle, except for the top three. Fernando has shown with his qualifying performance that the car is improving, but unfortunately we were penalised by the bad weather. The car is getting better and more competitive, and by Bahrain we will have new parts on both cars. Already this week we have seen a great effort by the team both here and back at the factory to get the new improvements on Fernando’s car this weekend. The championship is long and I’m confident that from Bahrain things will get better for us.” Pat Symonds, Executive Director of Engineering “It is a disappointing result today. We took an aggressive strategy expecting the rain to start later in the afternoon. The early start of the rain compromised us and the safety car start even more so. We didn’t make best use of what was available to us today.” Remi Taffin, Head of Engine Operations “We have not finished the race where we wanted to based on the performance we showed yesterday. With rain you can never be sure what will happen, but those who were fast yesterday were the fastest today. I feel we deserved to finish fifth at least. It isn’t a good result but we will take what we have learned to be stronger at next week’s race”

Williams

Nico Rosberg, Williams (15th): “The main problem I had today was drops sticking to my visor which wouldn’t run off making it virtually impossible to see. It’s a problem related to my visor’s anti-fog system which I’ve had in the past but haven’t been able to resolve. 15 laps before the end of the race we were not in a good position so I asked to be switched onto intermediates as I thought we had to try something. For the first few laps, they were good. It looked like the way to go so I was quite pleased, but then unfortunately more rain came and it was all over again. Bahrain is only a week away and a good result, which everyone in the team deserves, is overdue.” Kazuki Nakajima, Williams (DNF): “I had a transmission problem today so unfortunately I couldn’t carry on with the race. It was very difficult out there with really poor visibility. There was a lot of standing water and it was hard to keep the car on the track, particularly on the exit of the last corner. I made some mistakes but it was the same for everybody.” Patrick Head, Williams director of engineering: “We thought the safety car would stay out for longer than it did at the start of the race so we decided to pull Nico in early to fuel him up. It turned out to be the wrong call as the safety car came in just one lap later. We then struggled for pace against Alonso who had done the same as us. We had what appears to be a gearbox failure on Kazuki’s car which forced us to retire him. It was not a good performance by us today. We made some wrong calls and we will have to look at the circumstances and improve for the future. It’s also very unusual for us to have a retirement for a technical failure. We will now look forward to a much better performance in Bahrain. On a separate note, the team is saddened by the unexpected death of Jim Douglas. With Williams since the early days, Jim was a stalwart in our machine shop for 28 years.”

Force India

Giancarlo Fisichella (14th): “It was a difficult race. The rain was really hard at the beginning, but my main problem was the graining on the tyres. With both sets we had a lot of wear and the car was sliding on four wheels through some corners. It was very hard just to keep the car on the ground and many times I had a huge moment. The strategy was good though and I think we can be pleased with the performance today. It's a disappointment that Adrian came so close to scoring the team's first points today, but we all know how hard it was out there.” Adrian Sutil (17th): “I had prepared myself for a hard race and that's exactly what it was. We took a risk with the strategy with a very early stop and it was a long way to go with one set of tyres. Then it started to rain again and it was very hard to keep the car on the circuit. Sometimes even in a straight line in fourth or fifth gear I was struggling with aquaplaning and I was very lucky to keep the car on the circuit for so long. It's a shame - you focus so much and think you can do it, but the car was just out of control at the end. I had the same feeling as Monaco - it's hard to believe when you are in the car and then suddenly you lose it and it's all over from such a great position. But you have to get over it, we had a great performance today. It's good for the team and I think we deserved the points, I just feel bad for everyone here. It was a very good strategy call, but that's what we had to do: take a risk.” Dr Vijay Mallya, chairman and team principal: “What a phenomenal race and yet what heartbreak. We can all be very proud of Adrian and the team's achievements today. He has proved yet again that he has a genuine flair in the wet and came desperately close to scoring those elusive points once more. We made all the right calls in the race and functioned very well as a team: it was just such a shame we couldn't translate it to the points at the end of the race. Although we know we have much work remaining, both Adrian and Giancarlo's performances give us a shot in the arm and shows that, if and when, the conditions allow we can be right up there. I must also extend my warm congratulations to Red Bull for a well-deserved first win.”

BMW Sauber

Nick Heidfeld (12th): "Of course I'm disappointed with the outcome of today's race, but at the same time I feel I should be grateful I was able to finish it at all. The conditions in terms of visibility and aquaplaning were disastrous. In the beginning, after the safety car pulled off, my tyre pressures were too low so I struggled a lot. On lap 13 Timo Glock hit me, which caused damage to the car and certainly didn't help. However, close to the end of the race I had the chance to score one or two points, but then there was a lot of debris on the track, including a wheel, from Adrian Sutil's accident. I tried to find a way around it, but it was unpredictable which way it would go and it hit me. Afterwards the car felt very strange and I lost four places." Robert Kubica (13th): "Driving was very dangerous today. We had aquaplaning nearly everywhere and the lack of visibility was a disaster. There were quite a lot of situations when I couldn't see anything. All this also caused my heavy accident with Jarno Trulli. When Jarno braked into the corner I hit some standing water. Although I hit the brakes very hard the car still accelerated. I went quite high into the air after hitting his rear tyre, but fortunately nobody was hurt. After coming to the pits we had to change the front wing a second time as I felt some vibration and massively lost grip. This ruined my race." Mario Theissen, BMW Motorsport director: "There is not much to say about this Grand Prix. From bad starting positions both our drivers were involved in collisions under these rainy conditions. The result is zero points. All we can do is put this race behind us and concentrate on Bahrain." Willy Rampf, BMW Sauber head of engineering: "That was a very disappointing race. Our only chance to get into the points was in a wet race, but we didn't score at all. We have to improve as quickly as possible."

Toro Rosso

Sebastien Buemi (8th): “I am very happy as the team did a super job so that we got another point to take away from here. I am pleased that in three races, I have scored twice. Maybe I could have done a little bit better, but I'm happy all the same. We were very competitive in the early stages and I got past Raikkonen and Hamilton, but after that I struggled a bit. I think it was one of my hardest races ever. As for the incident with Vettel, it happened under safety car conditions: I didn't see him and I tried to swerve to the right, but it was not enough to avoid him. We changed the wing on my car and I'm glad I didn't spoil his race.” Sebastien Bourdais (11th): “I started fifteenth and finished eleventh, even with a couple of spins. I've got mixed feelings, because I don't think we should have raced as there was so much aquaplaning. The fact the cars have a lot less downforce this year, aggravates the situation as it's hard to get the car down onto the track surface. I could have spun 15 or 20 times and Sutil's crash showed what could have happened. The one positive thing is that it was probably a good show for the fans.” Franz Tost, Toro Rosso team principal: “First, well done to Red Bull Racing. Congratulations on doing a fantastic job with a one-two finish thanks to Sebastian and Mark. On our side, we picked up another point thanks to Buemi, who drove a good race, given the difficult conditions today, in what is only his third F1 race. Overall, it means we can head to Bahrain in an optimistic frame of mind.”

Toyota

Timo Glock (7th): "In the end we picked up more points from the pit lane so we have to be happy with that. But it was a very hard race, especially at the beginning. I was quite surprised when we started the race. When you're at the back of the field there is no chance to see anything and it's like driving blind. I made up some ground but I damaged my front wing when I touched Nick (Heidfeld). It was so difficult to see, I misjudged my braking point and hit him on the back. That meant we had to bring our pit stop forward by a few laps to fix the damage. Later when I had a clear run for five or six laps I was pretty quick and on the pace but as soon as I caught Kimi (Raikkonen) I was stuck behind him. I couldn't see the standing water so I had to back off, particularly in the areas where you could overtake. In the end I got past and we were able to bring it home seventh." Jarno Trulli (DNF): "That was not a good day for me. The conditions were very difficult, there was a lot of standing water and lots of aquaplaning. When the safety car came in I made a solid start and my pace was okay in the early laps. But then I started struggling for grip, the pace just wasn't there and the longer it went on themore ground I lost. On lap 17 I just felt a big hit from behind and I lost my rear wing. I made it back to the pits but we couldn't continue. Still, my pace yesterday shows we're close the front so now we must hope for better fortunes in Bahrain next weekend." Tadashi Yamashina, Toyota team principal: "Timo didn't quite put together his last qualifying run yesterday but he never gave up. Today he twice found himself at the back of the field but he showed great spirit to overtake so many cars and bring home two points. Jarno struggled to make the most of his strong grid position today so we will have to check the data to find out what went wrong. Still, his qualifying performance was good so I'm sure he will do his best to make the podium again at the next race. We still have our spirit to win and we will fight again in Bahrain next week."

McLaren

Heikki Kovalainen (5th): “The visibility was unbelievably poor especially during the first few laps after the Safety Car came in. But our pace was good and, during the last laps of the race, I could get close to Rubens - just not enough to start an attack. Our strategy was spot on: finishing higher than fifth was not possible today and I’m very pleased to have scored four solid points without making a single mistake - despite some massive moments!” Lewis Hamilton (6th): “It was almost too difficult to drive at the beginning of the race. But I found a good pace and had some fun in the opening laps, but unfortunately I destroyed my tyres quite early on. I made a few too many mistakes today. It was very slippery and my front-left tyre was finished long before the end but I still gave it my best. This afternoon was a real struggle but I’m glad I got some points for the team.” Martin Whitmarsh, McLaren team principal; “First of all, I want to offer our hearty congratulations to all at Red Bull Racing on the occasion of their first grand prix win. Sebastian drove a great race - and well done, too, to our old friend Adrian Newey. As for our team, Heikki scored a very well deserved four points for an impressive fifth place. It isn’t at all easy to drive a faultless race in conditions like those we faced today, but Heikki did just that. Lewis pressed hard all afternoon - and, when you do that, occasionally you run wide or spin. Lewis duly did so - but, in truth, his was a great drive, too. “We were never going to be able to live with the Red Bulls or the Brawns today, which is why we chose a one-stop strategy. The track was wet throughout the race, and the longer stints that our strategy dictated inevitably caused more wet-tyre wear than that experienced by the two-stoppers; but, despite the challenges posed by that extra wet-tyre wear, our drivers both coped very well. So, overall, an encouraging result: getting two cars into the points shows that we’re making good progress, but there’s more to come and we’re working flat-out to develop the improvements that will deliver it.” Norbert Haug, vice-president, Mercedes-Benz Motorsport: “More than fifth and sixth places are not possible for us at the moment and this has to change. Congratulations to Sebastian Vettel and Red Bull Racing for a faultless race - hats off. Again everybody experienced difficult conditions like in Malaysia. At least, seven points are better than nothing, but our speed has to improve significantly. We had four cars with Mercedes-Benz engines in the top six, so thanks to all our engine guys in Brixworth and Stuttgart for the good job.”

China GP - Results

Pos No Driver Team Laps Time/Retired Grid Pts 1 15 Sebastian Vettel RBR-Renault 56 1:57:43.485 1 10 2 14 Mark Webber RBR-Renault 56 +10.9 secs 3 8 3 22 Jenson Button Brawn-Mercedes 56 +44.9 secs 5 6 4 23 Rubens Barrichello Brawn-Mercedes 56 +63.7 secs 4 5 5 2 Heikki Kovalainen McLaren-Mercedes 56 +65.1 secs 12 4 6 1 Lewis Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes 56 +71.8 secs 9 3 7 10 Timo Glock Toyota 56 +74.4 secs 19 2 8 12 Sebastien Buemi STR-Ferrari 56 +76.4 secs 10 1 9 7 Fernando Alonso Renault 56 +84.3 secs 2 10 4 Kimi Raikkonen Ferrari 56 +91.7 secs 8 11 11 Sebastien Bourdais STR-Ferrari 56 +94.1 secs 15 12 6 Nick Heidfeld BMW Sauber 56 +95.8 secs 11 13 5 Robert Kubica BMW Sauber 56 + 106.8 secs 17 14 21 Giancarlo Fisichella Force India-Mercedes 55 +1 Lap 20 15 16 Nico Rosberg Williams-Toyota 55 +1 Lap 7 16 8 Nelsinho Piquet Renault 53 +2 Laps 16 17 20 Adrian Sutil Force India-Mercedes 50 +6 Laps 18 Ret 17 Kazuki Nakajima Williams-Toyota 43 +13 Laps 14 Ret 3 Felipe Massa Ferrari 20 +36 Laps 13 Ret 9 Jarno Trulli Toyota 18 +38 Laps 6