Restoration of the F1 Pecking Order
From what I've read, heard and seen up until now, it is apparent that the rear diffuser issue is currently the most controversial on the grid as of this moment. Toyota, Williams, and especially Brawn GP are no doubt feeling pretty good about themselves for such an ingenious invention.
It is the belief of Ferrari team principal, Stefano Domenicali, that the "pecking order" of f1 has been completely turned on it's head at the moment. Not particularly hard to see why he thinks this, a brief glance at the starting grid for tomorrow would explain his thinking.
Brawn GP, in case you have not been informed yet (which would be quite miraculous), have taken the first two slots for tomorrows season opener at Australia. It is the belief of many on the circuit that the ingenious diffuser has been the reasoning for such an unexpected result.
However, come Apr. 14, this rear diffuser which currently adorns the back of the Williams', Brawn GP's and Toyota's, will have it's legality on the Formula One circuits announced.
Scenario One: The diffuser is banned.
Williams, Toyota and Brawn GP add around another half a second to their lap times - Advantage lost.
Scenario Two: The diffuser is declared legal.
Anybody unfamiliar with the acronym wysiwyg, please allow me to explain. In F1, what you see is what you get (most of the time anyway), but the problem is, what you see, other teams see, too.
The teams whose cars are currently running without these cunning diffusers are probably designing one as we speak, or are simply waiting for the verdict on their legality.
Either way, if the diffuser is rendered legal, each of the teams not running it right now will be soon.
So for each team is on the same footing-advantage lost.
It seems to be that everything hinges on this day, April 14th. So come d-day, do you think Brawn GP, Williams and Toyota will be able to hold their own against the big dogs without their advantage?
I hate to be cynical, but I don't think they can—the pecking order is restored.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?