Brundle accuses the FIA of double standards

PSk · Dec 9, 2007

Brundle is now my new hero , and I mean that!

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/071209101749.shtml said:

Martin Brundle has hit back at the FIA for legally pursuing a newspaper column he wrote earlier in 2007.

The former Grand Prix driver turned F1 pundit fears his FIA accreditation credentials may now be under threat, but remains adamant that the FIA is guilty of "blatant double standards" over the McLaren and Renault spy cases.

In Monaco last Friday, the World Motor Sport Council cleared the path for the FIA to pursue the Sunday Times, a British newspaper, for libel.

Brundle had described the Stepneygate espionage scandal as a McLaren 'witch hunt' waged by the FIA.

In a new column, he now says the decision to not penalise Renault for a similar or worse case of spying "makes no sense."

Brundle also described the French writ for his earlier article as "a warning sign to other journalists and publications to choose their words carefully" over the Renault verdict.

"The timing of the writ is significant, in my view, given the FIA's decision to find Renault guilty of having significant McLaren designs and information within their systems, but not administering any penalty," Brundle, who raced 158 times in Formula One, wrote.

"I expect my accreditation pass for next year will be hindered in some way to make my coverage of F1 more difficult and to punish me.

"Or they will write to ITV again to say that my commentary is not up to standard despite my unprecedented six Royal Television Society Awards for sports broadcasting. So be it," he added.
Click to expand...

Bravo Brundle, somebody that is prepared to say it how it is and take the consequences.

Pete
ps: I tripped over this as I search for evidence that Renault did indeed copy McLaren's radiator design as I said in a couple of other posts.

Mr Payne · Dec 9, 2007

Brundle is quality. I enjoy his commentating for ITV.

PSk · Dec 9, 2007

... in proving double standards:

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/071206092504.shtml said:

The statement described how McLaren's case against Renault had been exaggerated, such as the fact that nine - not 18 - Renault employees have admitting to viewing and discussing the stolen McLaren information.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, probably when designing the 2007 Renault ...

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/071128142303.shtml said:

Ecclestone recently bought the London football club Queens Park Rangers with Flavio Briatore, Renault's Formula One boss.
Click to expand...

I guess Ron needs to join in ...

Unfortunately I cannot access the archived news doco's ... but I am very sure I read Flavio Briatore admitting that they basically copied the McLaren radiator design. This was in the very early days when he was sort of supporting McLaren in their case. Ofcourse once they got involved, things changed.
Pete

Senna1994 · Dec 9, 2007

PSk said: ↑

Brundle is now my new hero , and I mean that!

Bravo Brundle, somebody that is prepared to say it how it is and take the consequences.

Pete
ps: I tripped over this as I search for evidence that Renault did indeed copy McLaren's radiator design as I said in a couple of other posts.
Click to expand...

+1 Brundle is a class act, have you watched him on the World's Fastest Car DVD?

PhilNotHill · Dec 9, 2007

David vs Goliath.

Let's hope David (Brundle) prevails. Unless GB has some really eccentric libel laws this is not libel IMVHO.

kraftwerk · Dec 10, 2007

PSk said: ↑

Brundle is now my new hero , and I mean that!

Bravo Brundle, somebody that is prepared to say it how it is and take the consequences.

Pete
ps: I tripped over this as I search for evidence that Renault did indeed copy McLaren's radiator design as I said in a couple of other posts.
Click to expand...

Hell!! Pete I agree again

Lets hope the FIA take on the media and lose.

ianjem · Dec 10, 2007

Sunday Times is owned by News Corporation isn't it? Revenue last year of US$28.655 billion. They've got much deeper pockets than Max.

ian

PhilNotHill said: ↑

David vs Goliath.

Let's hope David (Brundle) prevails. Unless GB has some really eccentric libel laws this is not libel IMVHO.
Click to expand...

Redline Drift · Dec 10, 2007

I still wanna know why Brundle was shut down midway through his gridwalk in China?

greyboxer · Dec 10, 2007

PhilNotHill said: ↑

David vs Goliath.

Let's hope David (Brundle) prevails. Unless GB has some really eccentric libel laws this is not libel IMVHO.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct however I believe I read somewhere that the FIA are issuing or have issued the writ in French courts presumably as that is where they are domiciled

I have a fear that this story could get very very big & bad for F1 as it is fundamentally linked to the future of the sport and its succession

PSk · Dec 10, 2007

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19924.html said:

The FIA announced on Thursday that it is taking legal action against The Sunday Times newspaper over comments made in September by the paper's columnist Martin Brundle. The former F1 driver, World Sports Car Champion and influential television pundit is not about to back down and in his column on Sunday attacked the World Council decision in the Renault espionage case and the legal action against the newspaper.

"As a former Formula 1 driver, I have earnt the right to have an opinion about the sport, and probably know as much about it as anybody else," he wrote. "I have attended approaching 400 Grands Prix, 158 as a driver. I have spilt blood, broken bones, shed tears, generated tanker loads of sweat, tasted the champagne glories and plumbed the depths of misery. I have never been more passionate about F1 and will always share my opinions in an honest and open way, knowing readers will make up their own minds."

Brundle went on to underline that many people in F1 are unhappy with the way the sport is being governed but do not want to say anything publicly. Brundle is a man who has no axe to grind. He is a down-to-earth and sensible analyst of F1. A serious player. He is saying something that many others in the sport believe: that the punishment against McLaren was unfair. It seems all the more so now that Renault has escaped punishment when the charges against the team appeared much worse than those against McLaren.

Before the Renault decision on Thursday Sir Jackie Stewart made a speech to the Motorsport Business Forum in Monaco suggesting that it was time for a major rethink at the FIA with a structure that would better suit the needs for corporate governance in modern F1. The sub-text of his remarks was very clear. On Sunday The Scotsman newspaper pulled no punches, saying that after the Renault decision FIA President Max Mosley should resign. The story was written by someone who never attends F1 races. Someone with nothing to lose.

The FIA usually shrugs off criticism by saying that it does a job that requires unpopular decisions.

The fact that the FIA is taking legal action against a major mainstream publication is slightly worrying because back in 1997 Mosley gave an interview with F1 Racing magazine in which he remarked that "the day you start being offended by criticism is the day you're getting too old or going crackers or something of that kind."

Ten years on is that still true?

Thus far we have seen only untouchables such as Stewart and Damon Hill publicly attacking Mosley. The doyen of the F1 media Alan Henry wrote in the October issue of F1 Racing that perhaps it was time for Mosley to retire, given "his heavy-handed observations" about Stewart. F1 veteran Ian Phillips said at the Motorsport Business Forum that he has never been as frightened about the future of the sport because of the way it is being governed. Others hinted at the same thing.

In F1 circles almost everyone is saying the same, but no-one wants to be quoted. The FIA says this is not the case but that is certainly our experience. Brundle agrees. Whether Martin is right about the FIA writ being a warning to F1 journalists not to attack the federation is a matter of opinion which cannot be proved one way or the other but there is no doubt that the F1 media - including this website - are choosing their words very carefully. Are we all paranoid? If we write "Mosley must resign!" will the FIA really hound us? One must hope that this is not the case as it would be a sorry state of affairs for the sport to be in. A free media is the cornerstone of any form of democratic society. There should be legal protections, but that should not stop journalists being able to express their opinions, based on the facts before them. Government in all its forms - be it political or sporting - is accountable for its actions and the press has a duty to ask questions when decisions do not make sense.

If F1 is free, open and democratic why are we all careful about what we are writing?

Do we want Mosley to resign? Not if he can sensibly explain why one team was punished and another was not. Comparisons of the two cases simply do not stack up. We want to know why allegations made about Ferrari were never followed up when every hint of trouble with McLaren has been put beneath the microscope. We want to know why McLaren is still being hounded about its 2008 car and yet the same is not being done to Renault.

The FIA does not have to answer these questions, but as long as they remain unanswered the discontent will continue to bubble just under the surface.
Click to expand...

Pete

barbazza · Dec 10, 2007

PSk said: ↑

Brundle is now my new hero , and I mean that!
Click to expand...

What??? An Englishman is YOUR hero??

62 250 GTO · Dec 10, 2007

Mr Payne said: ↑

Brundle is quality. I enjoy his commentating for ITV.
Click to expand...

He covers the race along with another chap in the Canadian coverage of the races.

Good on him, fight the machine Mr. Brundle the world of F1 needs you.

LightGuy · Dec 10, 2007

Bernie and Flavster bought a Soccer team together !?
Total conflict of interest.
But Bernie has Ron by the short ones. Can you imagine how RDs life would be if he sued the guy that puts on his show.

The statement that F1 is free, open, and democratic is laughable.
Its a Monopoly.

Senna1994 · Dec 10, 2007

Like previous Posters, too bad the GPMA did not succeed.

ferraridude615 · Dec 10, 2007

LightGuy said: ↑

Bernie and Flavster bought a Soccer team together !?
Total conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

I'm still trying to figure out how they bought Queens Park Rangers together without Jean Todt having a heart attack, its unbelievable. The sport is supposed to be unbiased, but you then you join in on a multi-million dollar venture with a team principle, good job Bernie.

senna21 · Dec 11, 2007

Senna1994 said: ↑

Like previous Posters, too bad the GPMA did not succeed.
Click to expand...

+1 But, like so many other things here, because Ferrari was with Bernie and Max most of this board was on their side.

kraftwerk · Dec 11, 2007

barbazza said: ↑

What??? An Englishman is YOUR hero??
Click to expand...

LOL I spent all year disagreeing with pete I don't no whats got into him. He is ok in my book now a true all black in AUS..

kraftwerk · Dec 11, 2007

LightGuy said: ↑

The statement that F1 is free, open, and democratic is laughable.
Its a Monopoly.
Click to expand...

And that point has been proved without doubt this year, manifested by an appropriate agent Mad Max.

kraftwerk · Dec 11, 2007

62 250 GTO said: ↑

Good on him, fight the machine Mr. Brundle the world of F1 needs you.
Click to expand...

+100

PSk · Dec 11, 2007

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19856.html said:

Oh, what a tangled web
Back in September we wrote a story saying that the sport was going to have trouble as a result of the FIA World Council's decision relating to McLaren having brought the sport into disrepute. It was called "Holding down the lid of Pandora's Box". The announcement that Renault is now up before the council and has admitted to some of the charges means that the lid has come clean off. No amount of spin-doctoring nor smokescreen creation can obscure the fact that the situation is already worse than the one that led to McLaren's penalty in September. The McLaren precedent means that, in theory at least, the FIA has no real choice but to apply the same processes as were applied in September. And it would have to apply the same kind of penalty.

Flavio Briatore may tell anyone who cares to listen that there is no comparison to the case of McLaren and that it is different because the passage of information in McLaren's case was ongoing and on a bigger scale, but the FIA rules do not quantify what brings the sport into disrepute. You either do it or you do not do it. And it would be interesting to hear Briatore explaining the actions of Phil Mackereth without sounding an awful lot like Ron Dennis trying to explain Mike Coughlan.

The question is really only over the punishment. The key point is that Renault is admitting that McLaren data was loaded into its computers and that "some" engineers saw that data. They may say that they did not use it but that is no different to what the McLaren people said.

Thus there is an argument that the punishment would have to be at least as harsh, perhaps harsher, than that given to McLaren. At the same time everyone knows that Renault boss Carlos Ghosn has said several times that his company is only interested in being in Formula 1 if it brings the firm commercial benefits. This is not going to do that. It is entirely possible that Renault could walk away and one can imagine that this possibility might help to sway the decision-making process of the World Council.

The FIA could try to to give Renault a lesser punishment and brazen it out but such a course of action will lead not only to merciless criticism of the governing body for inconsistent decision-making but will also increase the perception that McLaren is being treated unfairly. That would not help to fix the problems, it would drive the sport deeper into trouble.

Fans, media, manufacturers and sponsors might all start to turn their backs and walk away.

Perceptions are often reality in F1 these days but not always. The reality is that if Renault were to get off with a lighter punishment than McLaren, then the Woking team would be entirely within its rights to claim that the federation has not been fair in punishing one team and allowing other teams to get away with similar offences with a lesser punishment. In the worst case scenario this could lead to a complaint to the European Union and a threat to the FIA's position as the regulatory body of the sport. The member states of the European Union agreed in the Nice Declaration of 2000 that they would support "the independence of sports organisations and their right to organise themselves through appropriate associative structures" but only if this was done, "with due regard for national and community legislation and on the basis of a democratic and transparent method of operation".

The FIA later joined forces with the European Olympic Committee to declare in the "Statement of Good Governance Principles" that sports governing bodies should be "fair, transparent, accessible and efficient".

The "Statement of Good Governance Principles" includes another clause which offers the federation an opportunity to get itself out of the current mess. It states that that: "No person sitting in any decision-making capacity on an arbitration or appeal board or panel should have any interest in the outcome of any dispute". How then can there be an FIA Fund set up using the McLaren money that will benefit FIA member clubs when the World Council is made up of representatives of those same member clubs? One can argue that only those clubs who did not have members on the World Council would be eligible for the cash, but that is scraping the barrel.

Probably the best idea for the FIA would be to decide that there cannot be an FIA Fund and to declare that the McLaren decision was improper.

McLaren was found guilty of Article 151c of the FIA International Sporting Code which states that competitors must not be involved in "any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally". There is an argument that McLaren cannot be found guilty of fraudulent conduct without first being found guilty of such charges in a court of law. The World Council is not a court of law and there is an argument as to whether it has the legal right "with due regard for national and community legislation" to decide whether someone has stolen intellectual property or not.

If the FIA was to admit that it overstepped the mark when it decided to rule on the McLaren case, the problems would be solved. The McLaren and Renault cases could both be referred to civil courts and when those cases were over the FIA could then decide if either team was guilty of Article 151c. Beating a retreat from the current position is probably not something that those in power at the FIA wish to do but it is really up to the FIA General Assembly to decide. If the alternative course of action is to put the FIA's position in jeopardy, the General Assembly has the power to make changes.

This is all speculation at the moment but one thing that has emerged is that the times are changing and the sport must change with them.

Gone are buccaneering days when everyone was copying everyone else, when problems could be solved by banging heads together. The bosses in F1 must either adapt to the modern ways or disappear. Today there is too much money involved in the sport to avoid the need for proper transparent governance and accountability. It is a new corporate era and we are seeing more and more that the old ways simply do not work. We saw that first at Indianapolis in 2005 and we are seeing it again now.

One day this era of F1 history will be seen as a transition period when attitudes were forced to change. All the stakeholders in F1 should - and must - look ahead, accept the necessary changes and then push onward and upward.
Click to expand...

Pete

Whisky · Dec 11, 2007

LightGuy said: ↑

Bernie and Flavster bought a Soccer team together !?
Total conflict of interest.
But Bernie has Ron by the short ones. Can you imagine how RDs life would be if he sued the guy that puts on his show.

The statement that F1 is free, open, and democratic is laughable.
Its a Monopoly.
Click to expand...

Which one is a bigger monopoly, F1 or nascar ?

PSk · Dec 11, 2007

http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/28616/ said:

The flexi-wing scandal that erupted in Bahrain at the beginning of the season emphasized how hawkish F1 techies have become. And theyre quite open about it; everyone in the pit lane is eagerly copying the next guy, and thats why a good idea spreads quickly.

The first thing youve got to do in F1 is get over any feelings of pride that your designs are better than anyone elses, says Williamss technical director, Sam Michael. If you look at other teams work, youre basically multiplying your wind-tunnel program 10-fold.

We look at the cars every single day they run. We check the Internet and photographic agencies for detailed pictures, too. Its all part of the aero teams job. Typically, 50 percent of ideas come from your own brain-storming sessions and 50 percent from looking at other teams.

You can see quite a lot, adds Honda technical director Geoff Willis. From a photograph, you can reverse-engineer an idea. The clues are there, and most of the time we know what were looking at.

However, it isnt as simple as merely cutting and pasting an idea from one car to another. The complexities of aero mean that new ideas rarely transfer easily; they need to be adapted to gel sympathetically with each teams overall design.

Very few things will give you a result straight away, says Red Bull Racings head of aerodynamics, Ben Agathangelou. Everything on the cars is so refined. Fitting a new idea onto your car could disrupt the harmony of your own flow structure.

Willis agrees: Its generally very disappointing when you copy something blindly. Its the little details that make an idea work and you have to work those out for yourself.

But theres another reason for teams to avoid rushing out and mindlessly copying other cars, according to Toyotas former technical director, Mike Gascoyne: Copying someone elses idea may take a month of work and gain you one percent, but you might have gained two percent if youd kept to your original path.

Once an idea has been validated, the initial concept can be off the computer screen and in the wind tunnel in seven to 10 days. Further wind-tunnel iterations may add several weeks to development, but the big teams can usually get a brand-new component signed off to test within three to four weeks.

Once its been copied by one team, an idea generally snowballs. Just check out the modern grid to see that, in F1, theres rarely such a thing as a new idea...

1. ZERO-KEEL
The neatest and most sophisticated solution for attaching the suspension to the chassis. The raised nose initially prompted keeled suspension housings bulbous fins beneath the chassis to house suspension mountings but these adversely affected underbody airflow. For 2005, McLarens Adrian Newey reconfigured the front wishbones and streamlined the whole nose-section. A hugely influential move, McLarens lead has been adopted by four other teams this year.

Origin 2005 McLaren MP4-20
Used by McLaren MP4-21,
Toyota TF106, Williams FW28,
Honda RA106, BMW-Sauber F1.06
Michael Andretti at the wheel of the 1993 McLaren MP4/8 that introduced sidepod air deflectors, commonly known as bargeboards. (LAT photo)

2. V-KEEL
Just as McLaren opted for the elegant zero-keel layout, Renaults technical director, Bob Bell, created the V-keel, a bracket beneath the car to house the lower wishbones. Simpler and lighter than the zero-keel, it was also more aerodynamically efficient than a single-keel or heavier twin-keel design. It was shamelessly copied by Red Bull Racing for 2006. Meanwhile, Ferrari and Scuderia Toro Rosso have stuck with the tried-and-trusted single-keel approach. Midland and Super Aguri use twin-keel cars, the latter a throwback to the 2002 A23 Arrows that was one of the first twin-keelers.
Origin 2005 Renault R25
Used by Renault R26, Red Bull RB2

3. LOUVERS
Another design mod first seen on the heavily influential Ferrari F2003-GA (see also Sculpted Sidepods, below). The design earned the 2003 car its red shark nickname, a respectful nod to the distinctive 1961 shark nose Ferrari 156. Chief designer Rory Byrnes team were the first to start adding slatted fins to the sidepods to improve radiator cooling without adversely affecting the aero. More recently, Renault F1s acknowledged aero leader pushed the design, adding heavily slatted bodywork that has been copied by other teams. These are gradually going out of fashion as more refined cooling techniques are developed.
Origin 2003 Ferrari F2003-GA
Used by Renault R26, Toyota TF106, Honda RA106, Williams FW28,
Midland M16, Super Aguri SA105

4. MID-WING
The ungainly mid-wing first appeared on McLarens 1995 MP4/10, a leading contender for ugliest car of the 1990s. Like the X-wing (see below), it was another aero device that took advantage of the regulatory box at the top of the roll-hoop. Adopted sporadically for the rest of the decade by several teams, it became more commonplace this century. Most teams have adopted a mid-wing over the roll-hoop as a flow-straightener ahead of the rear wing. Uniquely, McLaren has adopted distinctive horns a feature that it seems only that team believes is beneficial.
Origin 1995 McLaren MP4/10
Used by Every team except BMW

5. T-WINGS
Tyrrell initially pioneered the original X-wing on their 1997 025 to take advantage of an unregulated aerodynamic box the term used to discuss the dimensions stipulated by the regulations. By 1998, many teams had aped the device, only for them quickly to be banned by a disgruntled Bernie Ecclestone, officially on safety grounds but reportedly because he thought they simply looked too ugly on TV. By 2001, teams had once again started to exploit the aero rules, and the T-wings have grown progressively bigger ever since.
Origin 1997 Tyrrell 025
Used by Every team although Red Bull Racing, notably, mounts its T-wing directly to the trailing edge of the chimney
Tyrrell ushered in the raised nose era with its 019 model in 1990. (LAT photo)

6. BARGEBOARDS
McLaren was the first to run bargeboards on its 1993 MP4/8. Originally they were large and slab-like, but have since been refined over the years. Nowadays, though, theyve become optional and depend largely on the aero bias preferred by a team. Toyota and Williams, for example, choose not to run front bargeboards, while Renault and McLaren have fitted them in tandem with heavily contoured sidepods.
Origin 1993 McLaren MP4/8
Used by Renault R26, McLaren MP4-21, Ferrari 248, Red Bull RB2, BMW-Sauber F1.06, Toro Rosso STR01, Super Aguri SA105 e

7. SIDEPOD EXHAUSTS
Engine exhaust pipes used to stick out from below the rear diffuser. However, they became progressively shorter in the late 1990s, to the extent that if they were run out beneath the rear suspension they were likely to overheat the components. The gases varying output over a lap could also adversely affect both aero and balance.

Ferraris Rory Byrne was the first in the modern era to reconfigure the exhaust pipes successfully (cars in the ground-effect era typically ran top-exiting exhausts), routing them out of the sidepods where the exhaust flow would positively influence the rear wing. This initially caused a minor safety concern; the worry was that hot exhausts might ignite any fuel spilled on them. Ferrari eliminated the risk by manually positioning a shield between the pipes and the fuel nozzle during pit stops.
Origin 1999 Ferrari F399
Used by Every team
No one has rushed to copy McLaren's "horn" wings on its engine cover. (LAT photo)

8. SCULPTED SIDEPODS
This was another influential design feature pioneered by Ferrari. Back in 2003, Rory Byrnes F2003-GA was the first car to run remodeled radiators in order to maximize the airflow that spills from the sidepod mouth its an area that substantially disrupts flow. The idea was quickly copied and by 2004, all the big-hitters had responded with their own variations. By 2006, it had become a design staple.
Origin 2003 Ferrari F2003-GA
Used by Every team except Super Aguri

9. RAISED NOSE
Harvey Postlethwaites design group at Tyrrell in the late 1980s was one of two small outfits (the other was Adrian Neweys at March) significantly to raise the aero bar in F1. He introduced the Tyrrell 018 in 1989, a beautifully neat and compact little car that allowed Jean Alesi to demonstrate huge potential in his early races. Postlethwaite went one better in 1990 when aerodynamicist Jean-Claude Migeot helped to develop what was originally called the anhedral nose the raised monocoque with lowered front wing. In an instant, it revolutionized the shape of the F1 car.
Origin 1990 Tyrrell 019
Used by Every team

10. CHIMNEYS
As the aero-packaging of sidepods became more important, efficient new ways of cooling became paramount (to check advances, compare a typical box-like sidepod of five years ago with its heavily contoured and flap-heavy modern counterpart). McLaren introduced the chimney to its MP4-15 in 2000 and it has become an integral part of both cooling and aero ever since. Some teams even run the chimneys blanked off, because they still offer slight aero improvements by helping to control and steer airflow around the rear wheels.
Origin 2000 McLaren MP4-15
Used by Every team

-Steve Cooper/F1 Racing
Click to expand...

Pete

kraftwerk · Dec 12, 2007

Interesting articles pete: just confirms what I assumed.

This made me laugh out loud:

The fact that the FIA is taking legal action against a major mainstream publication is slightly worrying because back in 1997 Mosley gave an interview with F1 Racing magazine in which he remarked that "the day you start being offended by criticism is the day you're getting too old or going crackers or something of that kind."

Ten years on is that still true?

Conversations

Alerts

Brundle accuses the FIA of double standards

PSk F1 World Champ

Mr Payne F1 Rookie

PSk F1 World Champ

Senna1994 F1 World Champ

PhilNotHill Two Time F1 World Champ
Owner

kraftwerk Two Time F1 World Champ

ianjem Karting

Redline Drift Rookie

greyboxer F1 World Champ

PSk F1 World Champ

barbazza Formula 3
Rossa Subscribed

62 250 GTO F1 Veteran

LightGuy Four Time F1 World Champ
Silver Subscribed

Senna1994 F1 World Champ

ferraridude615 F1 Veteran

senna21 F1 Rookie

kraftwerk Two Time F1 World Champ

kraftwerk Two Time F1 World Champ

kraftwerk Two Time F1 World Champ

PSk F1 World Champ

Whisky Three Time F1 World Champ
Silver Subscribed

PSk F1 World Champ

kraftwerk Two Time F1 World Champ

Share This Page

Brundle accuses the FIA of double standards

PSk F1 World Champ

Mr Payne F1 Rookie

PSk F1 World Champ

Senna1994 F1 World Champ

PhilNotHill Two Time F1 World Champ Owner

kraftwerk Two Time F1 World Champ

ianjem Karting

Redline Drift Rookie

greyboxer F1 World Champ

PSk F1 World Champ

barbazza Formula 3 Rossa Subscribed

62 250 GTO F1 Veteran

LightGuy Four Time F1 World Champ Silver Subscribed

Senna1994 F1 World Champ

ferraridude615 F1 Veteran

senna21 F1 Rookie

kraftwerk Two Time F1 World Champ

kraftwerk Two Time F1 World Champ

kraftwerk Two Time F1 World Champ

PSk F1 World Champ

Whisky Three Time F1 World Champ Silver Subscribed

PSk F1 World Champ

kraftwerk Two Time F1 World Champ

Share This Page

PhilNotHill Two Time F1 World Champ
Owner

barbazza Formula 3
Rossa Subscribed

LightGuy Four Time F1 World Champ
Silver Subscribed

Whisky Three Time F1 World Champ
Silver Subscribed