Brawn Gp Tiltle contenders??!!

matty55

After this weeks test in Barcellona alot of pundits and even some top drivers are sayin brawn gp cud make a real impact dis year wit some even sayin dey could win da championship! do you tink barcellona showed their true pace or is it just every other tean tryin out a different strategy or somethin?!

amacachi

matty55 wrote: »

After this weeks test in Barcellona alot of pundits and even some top drivers are sayin brawn gp cud make a real impact dis year wit some even sayin dey could win da championship! do you tink barcellona showed their true pace or is it just every other tean tryin out a different strategy or somethin?!

Jesus, type properly.

I think they'll struggle to score points. At best they may get a few podiums.

As everyone has said, they're desperate for sponsorship so they have to get some attention on themselves, in this case by running light and topping the timesheets.

EvilMonkey

They have been working on that car since brawn joined Honda i think its a shame they didn't get to do more testing. Even if it is light its still quick, i don't think they will be title contenders but they will be an improvement on where they were any way, we know brawn can build a good car.

vectra

matty55 wrote: »

After this weeks test in Barcellona alot of pundits and even some top drivers are sayin brawn gp cud make a real impact dis year wit some even sayin dey could win da championship! do you tink barcellona showed their true pace or is it just every other tean tryin out a different strategy or somethin?!

A couple of fast laps doesnt add up to winning a race :rolleyes:

Frank Bullitt

They weren't running KERS either so they could play with weight distribution as well, which also means it could be under 605kg.

We will have to wait and see how they go, i reckon they will do relatively ok but im not so sure about title contenders.

If, however, they did mount a challenge, i would go for Rubens over Jenson.

I'll be surprised if Jenson out performs Rubens.

Ghost Train

would be nice to see them make some sort of impact on the season

having a mclaren engine is a big boost for them and will bring them a bit closer to the rest of the field

wouldn't be too surprised if they got one or two podiums, because the team is a pretty solid group.

G-Money

I think it would be great if they were genuinely that fast and not using trickery to grab headlines. With McLaren openly struggling and probably going to do so for the first race at least, it would be good to have another team in the mix. I also think it would be nice for everyone at the team who had to sit through the winter wondering about their jobs and everything. Button seems like a decent fella as well, as does Rubens so I'd like to see them do well.

I guess we will know this time 2 weeks what their real pace is as qualifying will be over!

Robbo

Autosport's technical analysis of the car. They note a number of nice features on it.

Oblomov

The old saying, One swallow does not a summer make.

Excellent marketing job, fastest lap, clean white aerodynamics... woow...

Lets get down to the real thing and see what happens.

matty55

I guess their pace was genuine!!! Massa sais they could win the championship by June!!!

Ghost Train

kind of a pity if the whole defuser thing overshadows things

will be interesting to see what the final ruling on it is

for the moment though they're a in a good position, would be suprised if one or two of the other teams don't close in on them in a few races time

Oblomov

Well, qualifying looks good, new sponsor, and one and two on the grid.

Hmmm

As an aside and possible a portent of things to come, Toyota's times cancelled and placed on the back of the grid, even behind Hamilton.

matty55

Ye but Toyota got penalised because of a rear wing infringment

Oblomov

Ye but Toyota got penalised because of a rear wing infringment

With all the finger pointing, and appeals, just maybe there will be a form of standardisation with the rear diffuser.......The original idea ws to slow the cars down, greater equality and less dominance by a single team.

Well, that was the idea. The intention by the FIA seems to be divide and rule. Allow some teams to design an alternative and create some unrest amongst the teams. The power of the FOTA must be worrying Spanky.

Grim.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Well its looking like I may have to eat my own words!

amacachi

Oblomov wrote: »

With all the finger pointing, and appeals, just maybe there will be a form of standardisation with the rear diffuser.......The original idea ws to slow the cars down, greater equality and less dominance by a single team.

Well, that was the idea. The intention by the FIA seems to be divide and rule. Allow some teams to design an alternative and create some unrest amongst the teams. The power of the FOTA must be worrying Spanky.

:rolleyes:

How long have you been watching Formula 1? There's always pissing and moaning about other teams who make big leaps in pace. It's just how it is, I don't think the new rules were brought in just to make the teams dislike each other.

vectra

amacachi wrote: »

:rolleyes:

How long have you been watching Formula 1? There's always pissing and moaning about other teams who make big leaps in pace. It's just how it is, I don't think the new rules were brought in just to make the teams dislike each other.

Its not the big leaps they made but it is HOW they bent the rules to get there.:mad:

amacachi

vectra wrote: »

Its not the big leaps they made but it is HOW they bent the rules to get there.:mad:

Yeah but there's always question marks raised about any team who make big leaps in pace. Benetton in 94 when Senna claimed they were using traction control, they may well have been.

Whether you like it or not, bending the rules is what formula 1 is all about. And if the diffusers ARE illegal then they'll be taken off, at the moment it looks like the rest of the teams just weren't clever enough to realise what they could have done.

Running Bing

vectra wrote: »

Its not the big leaps they made but it is HOW they bent the rules to get there.:mad:

and how exactly did they do that?.....or are you just in a pissy mood because your beloved team (let me guess one of McClaren or Ferrari) are propping up the point places:D

vectra

amacachi wrote: »

Yeah but there's always question marks raised about any team who make big leaps in pace. Benetton in 94 when Senna claimed they were using traction control, they may well have been.

Whether you like it or not, bending the rules is what formula 1 is all about. And if the diffusers ARE illegal then they'll be taken off, at the moment it looks like the rest of the teams just weren't clever enough to realise what they could have done.

I thought there was to be a STRAIGHT edge along the top of the diffuser??

amacachi

vectra wrote: »

I thought there was to be a STRAIGHT edge along the top of the diffuser??

I haven't read the regulations. If you have a link with the regulations and photos demonstrating the problem it would help. All I'm saying is that the stewards say that the diffuser is legal and only 3 of the 7 teams have actually complained and all 7 teams are now working on a similar diffuser showing that none of them are expecting it to be declared illegal.

*EDIT* Not sure if it's the relevant part of the regulations, but bodywork behind the "rear wheel centre line" must "be arranged so that any curvature occurs only in a horizontal plane".

Also the word "edge" is found nowhere in the relevant parts of the regulation. So the diffuser team's interpretation must be that the edges can be curved. Although in this photo http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01373/diffuser_1373507c.jpg I can only see two curved vertical edges.

This is my first time reading the regs so I'm not claiming to know the rules inside out.

Oblomov

How long have I been watching F1...more years than I care to remember.

Let me clarify something, the teams, call them the seven, asked the FIA technical diredtor Mr Charles Whiting about the legality of their individual designs... now CW remit is not to assit but just to answer the question, so when asked was it legal, of course the answer was yes.... this question was also asked by other teams with similar designs.. answer.. the question has now arisen, why didn't CW tell them..... that's not his job. The three, also approached CW and asked the same question, and recieved the same answer... because CW will leave the final decision to the Scrutineers when the ideas etc have become a reality.

The regulations, clearly state the need to have the diffuser design to meet specific measurements and a loosely worded statement about the floor and adjacent area. Very loosely ... Spanky was interviewed by the Daily Telegraph and his answers were ridiculous in avoiding the question, either that or he just did not know.

The normal procedure is to have a qualified and judgemental opinion from the F1 scrutineering team. These guys check all the measurements, lasers and formers to quickly and easily check dimensions.... now after it is found that it meets the prelimary checks, it becomes an issue for the appeals court in Paris.

The rules and regulations are there to be obeyed, if any team or team member feels agrieved, they make the appeal through the correct channels.

If you would like the regs and drawings they can be supplied.

Oblomov

I', sure you will feel a lot better when you have deciphered that lot.


Any vertical cross section of bodywork normal to the car centre line situated in the volumes defined below must form one tangent continuous curve on its external surface. This tangent continuous curve may not contain any radius less than 75mm:

* the volume between 50mm forward of the rear wheel centre line and 300mm rearward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 25mm from the car centre line and more than 100mm above the reference plane ;
* the volume between 300mm rearward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template and the rear face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 125mm from the car centre line and more than 100mm above the reference plane
* the volume between the rear face of the cockpit entry template and 450mm forward of the rear face of the cockpit entry template, which is more than 350mm from the car centre line and more than 100mm above the reference plane.


The surfaces lying within these volumes, which are situated more than 55mm forward of the rear wheel centre line, must not contain any apertures (other than those permitted by Article 3.8.5) or contain any vertical surfaces which lie normal to the centre line of the car.

3.8.5 : Once the relevant bodywork surfaces are defined in accordance with Article 3.8.4, apertures may be added for the following purposes only :

* single apertures either side of the car centre line for the purpose of exhaust exits. These apertures may have a combined area of no more than 50,000mm² when projected onto the surface itself.
* apertures either side of the car centre line for the purpose of allowing suspension members and driveshafts to protrude through the bodywork. No such aperture may have an area greater than 12,000mm² when projected onto the surface itself.

Oblomov

or


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTkVKPdyWs0

The key issue:

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. Any intersection of the surfaces in this area with a lateral or longitudinal vertical plane should form one continuous line which is visible from beneath the car. A single break in the surface is permitted solely for the engine starter device (5.15).

Additionally, any bodywork in this area must produce uniform, solid, hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances.

amacachi

Oblomov wrote: »

How long have I been watching F1...more years than I care to remember.

Let me clarify something, the teams, call them the seven, asked the FIA technical diredtor Mr Charles Whiting about the legality of their individual designs... now CW remit is not to assit but just to answer the question, so when asked was it legal, of course the answer was yes.... this question was also asked by other teams with similar designs.. answer.. the question has now arisen, why didn't CW tell them..... that's not his job. The three, also approached CW and asked the same question, and recieved the same answer... because CW will leave the final decision to the Scrutineers when the ideas etc have become a reality.

The regulations, clearly state the need to have the diffuser design to meet specific measurements and a loosely worded statement about the floor and adjacent area. Very loosely ... Spanky was interviewed by the Daily Telegraph and his answers were ridiculous in avoiding the question, either that or he just did not know.

The normal procedure is to have a qualified and judgemental opinion from the F1 scrutineering team. These guys check all the measurements, lasers and formers to quickly and easily check dimensions.... now after it is found that it meets the prelimary checks, it becomes an issue for the appeals court in Paris.

The rules and regulations are there to be obeyed, if any team or team member feels agrieved, they make the appeal through the correct channels.

If you would like the regs and drawings they can be supplied.

Fair enough, but why give out about the finger-pointing etc. when it's been an integral part of the sport for ages and everyone knows it.

Those regulations are indecphirable to me TBH, it seems however that the procedure you described has been followed as usual, and the appeal will come along and the rule specified. Don't know where you're getting the divide and conquer bit from.

Oblomov

Spanky's comments:


"It's a very clever device and you can make a very good case for saying that it's legal and a very good case for saying that it's illegal," Mosley told the Daily Telegraph.

"It's going to be difficult.

"What's actually happened is that teams are saying 'We think it's illegal for this and this reason.'"

He said there was no longer time to resolve the issue before the first race.

"If there had been more time before the detailed objections to the system were sent in, I would probably have sent it to the FIA Court of Appeal before Australia, and actually I have given thought to that this week," Mosley said.

"But there isn't time. It wouldn't be fair.

"I think the thing will probably come to some sort of a head in Australia.

"One possibility is that all the teams agree that it is illegal, and therefore all the teams shouldn't have it from Barcelona.

"But then those teams who say it is legal will say 'Why should we do that?' And those that say it's illegal will say 'Why should we lose an advantage for four races?'

"And so probably what will happen is it will end up going to the stewards, who will make a decision.

"That will almost certainly be appealed by whichever side is disadvantaged, and then that will go to our Court of Appeal and be hammered out."

Mosley said he had no inkling whether the diffusers would ultimately be declared legal or not.

"It's not straightforward," he said.

"I have an open mind on it at the moment - I can see it going either way. I really can.

"But somebody has to make their mind up and fortunately it's not my job."

Oblomov

Don't know where you're getting the divide and conquer bit from.

It's all about lots of money and politics. Any thing that Max and Berbie are involved in is never plain and straight forward. The large number of investigations into the various holding commpanies etc that Bernie has been involved in and the deal of the FIA selling the right to F1 to Bernies holding companies.. then the amount of money owed to the teams from as long ago 2007, the FOTA suddenly appeared to present a united front...

Classic example.. Jordan sent to Japan to sort engine supply with Toyota and while he was away, Schumacher signed with Benetton... who told Eddy to go to Japan... Bernie was doing him a favour......Yer right. .. why did Schumacher sign with benetton.. German TV wanted a German star in.. and who later sold F1 copyright to MTV the german TV comapny not the Music channel... and later bought it back for a lot less money... but, all that's history

Consider, the Brawn GP car was very late in appearing and did not allow sufficient time for the normal appeal process to take part... but Toyota and Williams have been present and comments by more than one team re the legality.

Max and Bernie were the instigators of a driver strike before a South African GP ...

amacachi

I know Formula 1 is all about money and politics, but do you think that Max and/or Bernie said to the people drawing up the regulations "Hey lads, could you do me a favour and put in one rule that some teams won't notice and take advantage of and then we can get all the teams fighting?"? There's always going to be different interpretations of rules, otherwise Formula 1 would be like A1GP with no development of the cars.

Oblomov

If you have a group of people and you know them all very well. The same as knowing what everyone drinks when you go out with friends. You present a set of rules and you know which way each is going to read it... and you let the ball roll.. Allowing the predictable to take place. If the rules defined, specifically, the dimensions, no problem. but......

Just as Williams introduced water cooled brakes, the car was weighed before the race, the driver of the day let the water out and.. hey presto.. it went quicker. Then rules was changed. Vehicles weighed at race end.. Oppss no water.

The reference to A1GP, yes, that could happen, the rule of one engine supplier or all engines manufactured to a pre-defined set of drawings. Yep, for F1

amacachi

The only way to have teams not argue is to either have virtually no rules at all or have everything completely standardised.

What the hell do the "water cooled brakes" have to do with this? It's 2009. There's new rules, and so far no team has been found to be contravening them in relation to the rear diffuser.

Oblomov

so far no team has been found to be contravening them in relation to the rear diffuser.

Yet

But, Toyota sent to the back of the grid for an contravention.

I would say that was number one.

vectra

Renault engineering director Pat Symonds told BBC Sport that teams had been expressing their concerns on the issue to the FIA for "a number of weeks".

The diffuser is the rear part of the floor of the car between the rear wheels and under the rear wing.

It is crucial to the aerodynamics of the car, and small changes can have a big impact on the amount of downforce - and therefore grip and speed - the car can produce.

Rivals believe the controversial diffusers create more downforce and give a lap-time benefit of as much as 0.5 seconds.

They say the diffusers in question contravene a rule that demands that the diffuser has an upper edge that runs in a horizontal straight line.

They also believe that the parts go against the aim of a huge raft of new rules that were introduced this year in an attempt to make it easier to overtake.

amacachi

Oblomov wrote: »

Yet

But, Toyota sent to the back of the grid for an contravention.

I would say that was number one.

And if it happens, it happens.

I'd also say it was no. 1 , I'm sure there are contraventions in several cars, it happens, especially when new rules are introduced. From what I've read the contravention has little to do with the new rules, as it's a flexible piece of bodywork which has been outlawed for some time as I understand.

amacachi

vectra wrote: »

Renault engineering director Pat Symonds told BBC Sport that teams had been expressing their concerns on the issue to the FIA for "a number of weeks".

The diffuser is the rear part of the floor of the car between the rear wheels and under the rear wing.

It is crucial to the aerodynamics of the car, and small changes can have a big impact on the amount of downforce - and therefore grip and speed - the car can produce.

Rivals believe the controversial diffusers create more downforce and give a lap-time benefit of as much as 0.5 seconds.

They say the diffusers in question contravene a rule that demands that the diffuser has an upper edge that runs in a horizontal straight line.

They also believe that the parts go against the aim of a huge raft of new rules that were introduced this year in an attempt to make it easier to overtake.

Again, he says the diffuser has to run in a horizontal straight line. If we accept what he says as fact then it depends on what part of the diffuser is determined to be the "top" and also if you look at the line from a horizontal viewpoint and the edge curves away from you, it depends on interpretation which horizontal axis you look from as to whether or not its technically a horizontal curve.

vectra

I dont see very much straight about this one??

amacachi

vectra wrote: »

I dont see very much straight about this one??

Most the top edge other than the centre is horizontal, so it could be argued that the edge at the top is straight.

vectra

amacachi wrote: »

Most the top edge other than the centre is horizontal, so it could be argued that the edge at the top is straight.

I thought the "Top edge" would be the horizontal line across the top.
What you are saying is the "Top Corner" ??

amacachi

The top edge as far as when there is a corner and the curve starts. the bit under that isn't the top edge and doesn't have to be horizontal.

I haven't slept so I don't know how well I'm explaining it but I'm not arsed trying harder til I get some kip. All I'm saying is that I can come up with a justification for it so I'm sure the clever-arses in Formula 1 can come up with a better one

EvilMonkey

vectra wrote: »

I thought the "Top edge" would be the horizontal line across the top.
What you are saying is the "Top Corner" ??

I'm no expert and haven't read the entire regulations but I think its ok. Heres why and i think its what amacachi is saying.

And judging by the amount of people looking at the Brawn GP car at the start of the race today, i think the teams believe it will be ruled legal in court and getting a good luck so they can copy it.

As for Toyota's wing i think they knew that their wing could be illegal because they had a second reinforced wing ready for the race.

Oblomov

The FOTA alliance insists unity remains, but formula one teams were locked in disputes as the paddock disbanded after midnight on Saturday. Melbourne qualifying over, stewards - who had already sent Toyota to the back of the grid for using "extremely flexible" rear wings - were poring over the legality of a bodywork detail on the Ferrari and Red Bull cars, following a protest by Williams.

The Oxfordshire based team is one of the 'diffuser 3' gang, accused by Ferrari, Red Bull, Renault and BMW of using aerodynamic treatments that contravene the spirit of the rules.

Williams ultimately dropped its protest very late on Saturday night, but the feeling was strong that it is all part of a growing sense of competitive animosity.

"Williams recognises the possibility that in this area there could be more than one interpretation of the rules and therefore does not feel it appropriate to continue with the protests," the Grove team said in a statement issued in the dead of the Australian night.

Another rumour on Saturday night was that McLaren is set to join those teams who are stridently pushing for the outlawing of the Williams, Toyota and Brawn diffusers.

According to the whisper, the Mercedes-powered team has told the FIA it intends to give backing to the plaintiffs at the Court of Appeal's April 14 hearing.

It seems the dissenting teams intend to argue that while the diffuser concept slips through a rule loophole, it strikes at the heart of the intention of the aerodynamic regulations.

Renault boss Flavio Briatore on Saturday likened FIA delegate Charlie Whiting's pre-season approval of the diffusers, paving the way for the Melbourne stewards' agreement, to "one policeman surrounded by lots of bandits".

It is believed part of their Court of Appeal argument will be based on safety, given the faster laptimes in Melbourne this year compared with one year ago, and also that the 'double-decker diffusers' create more air wake, contrary to the intention to make overtaking easier.

Oblomov

For a better understanding:

amacachi

EvilMonkey wrote: »

I'm no expert and haven't read the entire regulations but I think its ok. Heres why and i think its what amacachi is saying.

And judging by the amount of people looking at the Brawn GP car at the start of the race today, i think the teams believe it will be ruled legal in court and getting a good luck so they can copy it.

As for Toyota's wing i think they knew that their wing could be illegal because they had a second reinforced wing ready for the race.

That's exactly what I was on about, cheers