The most influential factor for Brawn GP pace would be...
#1
Posted 08 April 2009 - 23:32
Advertisement
#2
Posted 08 April 2009 - 23:46
#3
Posted 08 April 2009 - 23:52
#4
Posted 09 April 2009 - 00:13
#5
Posted 09 April 2009 - 00:28
#6
Posted 09 April 2009 - 00:35
#7
Posted 09 April 2009 - 01:27
#8
Posted 09 April 2009 - 02:19
There is no one factor.
Other cars are not running KERS, other cars developed early, other teams have good budget, other teams have trick diffuser.. but no team is as quick. It's the sum of all parts.
#9
Posted 09 April 2009 - 02:39
This is all true but all 3 teams with trick diffusers are at the front, whereas they were at the back of the grid last year. But not all teams with advanced development or lacking KERS or with big budgets are at the front. Clearly, the single most important (which is how the question was put) factor in Brawn GP's pace is their diffuser.Originally posted by HoldenRT
Diffuser + no KERS + Early development time + Honda budget + Ross Brawn.
There is no one factor.
Other cars are not running KERS, other cars developed early, other teams have good budget, other teams have trick diffuser.. but no team is as quick. It's the sum of all parts.
#10
Posted 09 April 2009 - 04:18
Originally posted by imaginesix
This is all true but all 3 teams with trick diffusers are at the front, whereas they were at the back of the grid last year. But not all teams with advanced development or lacking KERS or with big budgets are at the front. Clearly, the single most important (which is how the question was put) factor in Brawn GP's pace is their diffuser.
The rule changes + early switch of focus to developing 2009 car is almost certainly worth more than the 2-3 tenths the diffuser is conservatively worth at most tracks. Williams and BrawnGP were the earliest to switch to the 09 cars dev, and Toyota undoubtedly had a decent size group working on the 09 cars early with a then large budget fuelled by rivalry with Honda (Toyota claim 09 dev started in Oct 07, which to be fair, is probably the same as all teams to some degree, given that's the time of the formalisation of 09 rules).
I find myself getting a little bored of the "cars sucked last year, so they should suck this year" type arguments. This may normally be relevant, and perhaps a long term history of failure would be relevant, but last years performance alone is mostly negligible when there's such a significant change in the rules.
#11
Posted 09 April 2009 - 05:10
Not to diminish Ross's influence nor the design skills of the team at Honda, but that's possibly the most developed car ever to hit an F1 grid on opening day. To be honest the most astonishing thing about it is how easily they slotted a Merc engine in the back.
#12
Posted 09 April 2009 - 06:01
How do you get 2-3 tenths?Originally posted by BootLace
The rule changes + early switch of focus to developing 2009 car is almost certainly worth more than the 2-3 tenths the diffuser is conservatively worth at most tracks.
#13
Posted 09 April 2009 - 06:28
At the MST-BB someone said that back in his Toyota time Zander had the idea of some ground breaking differential gear. But back then he didn't realize the project. So it was mentioned that at Brawn he did. Could be an explanation of the great mechanical grip of the cars.
#14
Posted 09 April 2009 - 06:33
Originally posted by BorisTheBlade
Another suggestion:
At the MST-BB someone said that back in his Toyota time Zander had the idea of some ground breaking differential gear. But back then he didn't realize the project. So it was mentioned that at Brawn he did. Could be an explanation of the great mechanical grip of the cars.
Do you have more info on this?
It would seem to fit in with them keeping their own gear cluster and working round the lubrication problems that they are having with it.
#15
Posted 09 April 2009 - 06:37
On the meeting with Alonso about contract he scetched few things for them and said ''be ready with this when I come'' but he changed his mind.
#16
Posted 09 April 2009 - 06:57
Originally posted by Ricardo F1
It's what, about a $300m car? I'd say that was a pretty big factor in it. People have this obscure romantic construct that Brawn is a little independent team when they've actually got the most expensive car on the grid by a country mile.
Not to diminish Ross's influence nor the design skills of the team at Honda, but that's possibly the most developed car ever to hit an F1 grid on opening day. To be honest the most astonishing thing about it is how easily they slotted a Merc engine in the back.
With a Honda Gearbox and compromising the magical diffuser quite astonishing I agree.
#17
Posted 09 April 2009 - 07:00
Ross says they still have to fit the engine optimally, and they will be improving the aero and reducing the weight throughout the season.
#18
Posted 09 April 2009 - 07:30
Originally posted by HaydenFan
They've spent almost a year developing the car. Any team that does that would be that quick.
Obviously, Honda didn't buy into that so I don't think it is something overly complex. I put most of it down to the diffusor. This is confirmed by the impressive pace of the cars using this type of diffusor and Brawns assertion that the red and silver cars will soon catch up.
BTW Brawn is a manager not a designer and the best of these are at Mclaren and Ferrari.
#19
Posted 09 April 2009 - 07:39
Originally posted by femi
BTW Brawn is a manager not a designer and the best of these are at Mclaren and Ferrari.
You obviously know nothing about Ross Brawn.
A brief resume of his working life.
March 2009 Team Principal, Brawn GP Formula One Team
November 2007 Team Principal, Honda Racing F1 Team
1997 Technical Director, Scuderia Ferrari
1991 Technical Director, Benetton F1
1989 Technical Director TWR / Jaguar Racing
1986 Chief Designer, Arrows F1
1984 Chief Aerodynamicist, Force/Beatrice F1
1979 R&D Manager and Senior Aerodynamicist, Williams GP
1978 Mechanic, Williams GP
1977 Mechanic, March Engineering
1976 Machinist, Williams F1
1971 Trainee Engineer, United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
Advertisement
#20
Posted 09 April 2009 - 07:41
Originally posted by femi
......... designer and the best of these are at Mclaren and Ferrari.
What crap.
Just because Ferrari and Mclaren have the biggest resources doesn't mean they have the best designers. They have probably got the largest engineering teams with the most money and the most equipment. They have the money to experiment with a new engine cover as it may give a 0.01% improvement, while the others may have thought of it but can't afford to do it. Unfortunately great ideas don't always some to fruitition due to cost.
A good example of great engineers with limited resources was Super Aguri (rumoured to be the designers of the Brawn diffuser).
I think most would agree that one of, if not the best designer is at Red Bull.
#21
Posted 09 April 2009 - 08:24
#22
Posted 09 April 2009 - 08:26
#23
Posted 09 April 2009 - 08:31
#24
Posted 09 April 2009 - 08:32
Originally posted by ForeverF1
You obviously know nothing about Ross Brawn.
A brief resume of his working life.
Technical Director = Manager ... He used to design cars, that's true but he hasn't designed one since he moved to benetton. His job was to oversee the process not actually be hands on involved in it, so the other dude was right.
#25
Posted 09 April 2009 - 08:41
#26
Posted 09 April 2009 - 08:42
Okay, it's just a translation of what one of the members said:Originally posted by ForeverF1
Do you have more info on this?
It would seem to fit in with them keeping their own gear cluster and working round the lubrication problems that they are having with it.
"Several years ago Jörg Zander also worked at an austrian carbon processing company for a couple of months whose co-founder is a friend of mine. While they were working on a project for Toyota F1, Zander mentioned an interesting idea, which he wanted to realize for Toyota. It turned out that that idea was rejected for several reasins. It was about a kind of a mechanical differential lock which would not go against the rules."
Source: http://forum.motorsp...014770/p/1.html
I tend to believe that there are some true parts in that story.
#27
Posted 09 April 2009 - 08:53
#28
Posted 09 April 2009 - 08:53
#29
Posted 09 April 2009 - 08:56
Originally posted by alg7_munif
I just want to know what is your opinion on the most influential factor for the Brawn GP pace.
The genius of Ross Brawn.
#30
Posted 09 April 2009 - 09:00
#31
Posted 09 April 2009 - 09:02
Must have been about that infamous FTT System he developed at BAR-Honda, which helped to make them the quickest car after the Ferrari in 2004.Originally posted by BorisTheBlade
Okay, it's just a translation of what one of the members said:
"Several years ago Jörg Zander also worked at an austrian carbon processing company for a couple of months whose co-founder is a friend of mine. While they were working on a project for Toyota F1, Zander mentioned an interesting idea, which he wanted to realize for Toyota. It turned out that that idea was rejected for several reasins. It was about a kind of a mechanical differential lock which would not go against the rules."
Source: http://forum.motorsp...014770/p/1.html
I tend to believe that there are some true parts in that story.
#32
Posted 09 April 2009 - 09:05
He can be a galvanising force, so yes.Originally posted by alg7_munif
Can one man really make a difference be it a driver or a manager?
#33
Posted 09 April 2009 - 09:16
#34
Posted 09 April 2009 - 09:18
Originally posted by HaydenFan
They've spent almost a year developing the car. Any team that does that would be that quick.
Doesnt matter how long you develop the car for if your initial base concept is off. There have been plenty of examples of teams giving up on a season early to develop for the following year, only for it to still go wrong.
#35
Posted 09 April 2009 - 09:32
#36
Posted 09 April 2009 - 10:23
Sure there are plenty of other teams not using it, but the difference is the other cars are designed to use it *at some stage*. They are thus effectively running a kers car with the kers unit un-mounted.
Brawn OTOH are uniquely running a car *designed* not to use kers - which means they have less requirement for cooling, smaller sidepods, centralisation of other heavy components in the space other teams have used for their kers. It makes a big difference.
This design decision was brought about by (a) Honda money and (b) early start to development, which meant that they were able (this time last year) to build 2 different development platforms (one using kers, one not). The "not" is the car that Brawn took over from Honda.
#37
Posted 09 April 2009 - 10:30
Rules allow complex aero devices under nose which Brawn have used well (so to Williams) unlike teams like McLaren with cars that are clearly far too basic and primitive in areas aside from the diffuser.
BMW, Ferrari and McLaren have far too literal interpretation of regulations everywhere (not just at the diffuser). They assumed Toyota/the recent Williams etc would similarly basic cars, so that at Ferrari/BMW/McLaren their superior balance would have them as the fastest just like in the 90s when the cars all had fairly basic aero. Obviously not the case as the other teams caught up in non-aero areas and have been behind only due to the cumulative multiple season-upon-season worth of aero advantage of the top teams that previously gave them a "better" base.
#38
Posted 09 April 2009 - 10:33
Originally posted by Clatter
Doesnt matter how long you develop the car for if your initial base concept is off. There have been plenty of examples of teams giving up on a season early to develop for the following year, only for it to still go wrong.
Honda in particular.
But let's say that was because their wind tunnel(s) were still calibrated wrong (their wind tunnel aero work and the numbers produced by that may have been great even if not as much as their current car, and they could have been let down due to incorrect correlation to the actual track) and engine was still rubbish.
#39
Posted 09 April 2009 - 10:49
#41
Posted 09 April 2009 - 10:55
Originally posted by MichaelPM
Without the diffuser RBR would be faster.
Please provide data that will back up that assumption. :
#42
Posted 09 April 2009 - 10:59
#43
Posted 09 April 2009 - 11:07
It's pointless having the fastest car on the track if the driver keeps going off.
#44
Posted 09 April 2009 - 11:12
Originally posted by Owen
Another suggested answer: Honda's cash that bankrolled the (extensive) development of this car and ensured the team survived to become Brawn GP.
Actually, I agree with that.
Honda could not continue in the present financial crisis to fund a complete F1 team, but, I feel sure that if they could they would.
They knew that they had produced a car that was a world beater but finances would not allow them to continue in Formula 1, but, knowing that they had penned a car that was so good they did not want to let it go to waste, so, they had to pull out, but, they had the foresight to keep the team alive. It may be called "Brawn GP", but everyone knows it is really Honda, who through their mistakes in the past, have bankrolled the development of the BGP001/RA--- and that saves face for them.
#45
Posted 09 April 2009 - 11:12
Originally posted by Owen
Another suggested answer: Honda's cash that bankrolled the (extensive) development of this car and ensured the team survived to become Brawn GP.
I would second that - it's also Honda's cash that paid (and still pays) for Ross Brawn...
#46
Posted 09 April 2009 - 11:21
#47
Posted 09 April 2009 - 11:23
Fanboi.Originally posted by Gareth
Where's the "Rubens" option in the poll?
#48
Posted 09 April 2009 - 11:31
Originally posted by Buttoneer
Fanboi.
#49
Posted 09 April 2009 - 11:40
Originally posted by alg7_munif
Can one man really make a difference be it a driver or a manager?
I know what you mean, but I hope you realise how absurd that comment is. If nobody made a difference nothing would change!!!
#50
Posted 09 April 2009 - 16:12
Originally posted by imaginesix
How do you get 2-3 tenths?
Cynical supposition based on the expectation that the claims of 0.5s would be exaggerated best case scenarios rather than realistic average for the imaginary typical track that such a number would be meaningful to, in the interest of strengthening the claim for illegality/a ban.
I also have vague recollections of at least one team designer claiming that the diffuser in itself only adds a tenth, maybe two, and that it's the aero design of the whole car feeding the diffuser that makes it work significantly better on the Brawn. It'd be interesting to know if there would be any benefit from this whole car aero even without the rear diffuser. ie. Would Brawn lose the full alleged 0.5s without the diffuser?