Jump to content


Photo

The most influential factor for Brawn GP pace would be...


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

Poll: The most influential factor for Brawn GP pace would be... (239 member(s) have cast votes)

  1. Their diffusor (38 votes [15.90%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.90%

  2. The strong Mercedes engine (8 votes [3.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.35%

  3. Early developement by Honda (165 votes [69.04%])

    Percentage of vote: 69.04%

  4. Just a pure luck (6 votes [2.51%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.51%

  5. Lack of KERS (4 votes [1.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.67%

  6. Other (18 votes [7.53%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.53%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 alg7_munif

alg7_munif
  • Member

  • 1,619 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 08 April 2009 - 23:32

I just want to know what is your opinion on the most influential factor for the Brawn GP pace. I know that their pace is a result of all factors combined but what do you think is the biggest factor?

Advertisement

#2 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,580 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 08 April 2009 - 23:46

I've had to go for early development, they had the time to explore all the avenues of aero with multiple wind tunnel testing and of course the direction and leadership of Ross Brawn. :)

#3 HaydenFan

HaydenFan
  • Member

  • 2,107 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 08 April 2009 - 23:52

They've spent almost a year developing the car. Any team that does that would be that quick.

#4 alg7_munif

alg7_munif
  • Member

  • 1,619 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 09 April 2009 - 00:13

The person who voted other, what would the factor be? Don't tell me that the factor is a driver who brought 0.6s to the pace :rotfl:

#5 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,361 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 09 April 2009 - 00:28

Probably just Ross. That thing looks and behaves like the dominant Ferraris used to when MS drove them. The diffuser being so good is a result of early development. The lack of KERs probably helped the diffuser to be even better as well as optimising ballast.

#6 JSDSKI

JSDSKI
  • Member

  • 1,439 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 09 April 2009 - 00:35

Ross Brawn himself. This is the third F1 team he's taken to the front. I'd never to take anything away from the designers, engineers, and techs, but the guy is just magical at creating a race car.

#7 mclarensmps

mclarensmps
  • Member

  • 3,902 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 09 April 2009 - 01:27

Ross Brawn should be listed there as a factor.

#8 HoldenRT

HoldenRT
  • Member

  • 5,625 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 09 April 2009 - 02:19

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.

#9 imaginesix

imaginesix
  • Member

  • 5,848 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 09 April 2009 - 02:39

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.

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.

#10 BootLace

BootLace
  • Member

  • 177 posts
  • Joined: October 07

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 Ricardo F1

Ricardo F1
  • Member

  • 38,850 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 09 April 2009 - 05:10

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.

#12 imaginesix

imaginesix
  • Member

  • 5,848 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 09 April 2009 - 06:01

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.

How do you get 2-3 tenths?

#13 BorisTheBlade

BorisTheBlade
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 09 April 2009 - 06:28

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.

#14 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,580 posts
  • Joined: February 09

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 bogi

bogi
  • Member

  • 3,161 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 April 2009 - 06:37

Alonso


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 PassWind

PassWind
  • Member

  • 5,034 posts
  • Joined: February 05

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 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 09 April 2009 - 07:00

Early development, 2 wind tunnels, Ross Brawn

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 femi

femi
  • Member

  • 6,496 posts
  • Joined: March 04

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 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,580 posts
  • Joined: February 09

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 Mark A

Mark A
  • Member

  • 1,128 posts
  • Joined: December 02

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 travbrad

travbrad
  • Member

  • 691 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 April 2009 - 08:24

I have to go with "early development", since that basically encompasses the whole car. They had plenty of time to figure out the optimum package (including the diffuser)

#22 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 09 April 2009 - 08:26

My answer is not there. My factor is called Ross Brawn. :)

#23 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 09 April 2009 - 08:31

Newey is as impressive as Ross, Gazza is as impressive, in my humble opinion, yet the dfference between the three are huge. So points taken Honda's early development, a whole team efforts, that counts.

#24 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

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 Frans

Frans
  • Member

  • 7,701 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 09 April 2009 - 08:41

Maybe the biggest influence what stopped them from winning has just left; "Honda" itself. :lol:

#26 BorisTheBlade

BorisTheBlade
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 09 April 2009 - 08:42

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.

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.

#27 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 09 April 2009 - 08:53

An extra year in the wind tunnel tweaking a long-gestated car would not have much difference without the trick diffuser, which could potentially be the work of a single moment of genius. However early Honda had started, I couldn't see them being anything more than 'competitive' this year - certainly not dominant - without the diffuser.

#28 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 April 2009 - 08:53

Jenson Button.

#29 djellison

djellison
  • Member

  • 1,726 posts
  • Joined: September 04

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 alg7_munif

alg7_munif
  • Member

  • 1,619 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 09 April 2009 - 09:00

Can one man really make a difference be it a driver or a manager?

#31 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,973 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 09 April 2009 - 09:02

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.

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.

#32 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 09 April 2009 - 09:05

Originally posted by alg7_munif
Can one man really make a difference be it a driver or a manager?

He can be a galvanising force, so yes.

#33 Chongfl

Chongfl
  • New Member

  • 1 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 09 April 2009 - 09:16

combination of ross brawn expertise, the screw up of other teams' car with KERS and rear diffuser

#34 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,695 posts
  • Joined: February 00

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 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,361 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 09 April 2009 - 09:32

What is designing the car? Is it being the CAD operator? Is it having the ideas? Is it materials knowledge? Or is it just knowing what works and getting the rest of the team to acheive it? Its irrelevant wether Ross actually designed the car, as long as he set the goals got the guys to acheive it he's done an amazing job. He may or may not have come up with any of the core components of the design (it would be fascinating to know) but its obvious he has brought the team together to achieve their potential.

#36 howardt

howardt
  • Member

  • 2,102 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 09 April 2009 - 10:23

For me it's not using KERS.
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 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,560 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 09 April 2009 - 10:30

I'd say AERO not just diffuser or extra development.

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 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
  • Member

  • 5,560 posts
  • Joined: June 06

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 MichaelPM

MichaelPM
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 April 2009 - 10:49

Without the diffuser RBR would be faster.

Advertisement

#40 Welsh

Welsh
  • Member

  • 599 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 09 April 2009 - 10:53

Early development led by Ross Brawn.

#41 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,580 posts
  • Joined: February 09

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 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 10,774 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 09 April 2009 - 10:59

Another suggested answer: Honda's cash that bankrolled the (extensive) development of this car and ensured the team survived to become Brawn GP.

#43 Welsh

Welsh
  • Member

  • 599 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 09 April 2009 - 11:07

Also the guys driving the cars do help alot too -esp if they can keep it on the track ahead of everyone.

It's pointless having the fastest car on the track if the driver keeps going off.

#44 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,580 posts
  • Joined: February 09

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 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 5,612 posts
  • Joined: August 08

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.


:up:

I would second that - it's also Honda's cash that paid (and still pays) for Ross Brawn...

#46 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,026 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 09 April 2009 - 11:21

Where's the "Rubens" option in the poll? :confused:

#47 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 09 April 2009 - 11:23

Originally posted by Gareth
Where's the "Rubens" option in the poll? :confused:

Fanboi.

#48 krapmeister

krapmeister
  • Member

  • 5,612 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 09 April 2009 - 11:31

Originally posted by Buttoneer
Fanboi.


:lol:

#49 Traction

Traction
  • Member

  • 59 posts
  • Joined: October 07

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!!! :stoned:

#50 BootLace

BootLace
  • Member

  • 177 posts
  • Joined: October 07

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?