BrawnGP

[modbaraban]

Wurz's information (if we accept it as true) certainly sheds a new light on the Brawn's success.

Half a BILLION Euros; FIVE wind tunnels; THREE simultaneous design iterations! Let's stop the David and Goliath suggestions -- unless you want to call Brawn "Goliath". And Brawn (IMO) is NOT a case of creativity versus big budgets. Rather Brawn's enormous budget and expenditures are the opposite of the future most of us want to see.

There's one thing that makes it really hard to believe. Could Honda possibly be so astronomically stupid to pour all those resources and then not stay another year to see if it works and colect the laurels?

[pipex]

One thing is for sure, Brawn knew that the car they were going to use was great. Let the conspiracy theory begin!

[sinspawn1024]

Wurz's information (if we accept it as true) certainly sheds a new light on the Brawn's success.

Half a BILLION Euros; FIVE wind tunnels; THREE simultaneous design iterations! Let's stop the David and Goliath suggestions -- unless you want to call Brawn "Goliath". And Brawn (IMO) is NOT a case of creativity versus big budgets. Rather Brawn's enormous budget and expenditures are the opposite of the future most of us want to see.

Personally, I'd like to see F1 spend more money, and I'd love to see more design freedom... I love it when technologies designed for the track trickle down into mainstream cars. And since the auto manufacturers have to spend huge amounts of money to develop new technologies anyway, I'd just as soon see the ideas proven in a highly competitive, fast evolving environment before they hit the street.

[donskar]

Wurz's information (if we accept it as true) certainly sheds a new light on the Brawn's success.

Half a BILLION Euros; FIVE wind tunnels; THREE simultaneous design iterations! Let's stop the David and Goliath suggestions -- unless you want to call Brawn "Goliath". And Brawn (IMO) is NOT a case of creativity versus big budgets. Rather Brawn's enormous budget and expenditures are the opposite of the future most of us want to see.

Personally, I'd like to see F1 spend more money, and I'd love to see more design freedom... I love it when technologies designed for the track trickle down into mainstream cars. And since the auto manufacturers have to spend huge amounts of money to develop new technologies anyway, I'd just as soon see the ideas proven in a highly competitive, fast evolving environment before they hit the street.

I'd like to see some production car technology "trickle up" to F1. VVT, direct injection, variable intake and exhaust systems, and there is a lot more. Dare I even mention auto adjustable roll bars, VSC (and I'm only listing "advanced technology" available on Toyotas!)

[sinspawn1024]

I'd like to see some production car technology "trickle up" to F1. VVT, direct injection, variable intake and exhaust systems, and there is a lot more. Dare I even mention auto adjustable roll bars, VSC (and I'm only listing "advanced technology" available on Toyotas!)

See, that's the problem with F1 these days, if you ask me. It entirely stifles engineering creativity. Here's what I'd like to see allowed

• Desmodromic valves (<3)
• Variable valve timing
• Variable intake geometry
• Variable exhaust geometry
• Metal matrix composites
• Active suspension
• Variable aerodynamicsn
• Traction/stability control
• Supercharging
• ECU programming

I like the idea of having the rules come down to a single page of regulations... Have a budget cap of, say, $400M (which is just a little less than most teams are spending now), and a maximum engine capacity of, say, 1.0L (with supercharging, VVT, variable intake/exhaust, there'd be no trouble to crank 1000+ hp out of such capacity)

[Scotracer]

I'd like to see some production car technology "trickle up" to F1. VVT, direct injection, variable intake and exhaust systems, and there is a lot more. Dare I even mention auto adjustable roll bars, VSC (and I'm only listing "advanced technology" available on Toyotas!)

See, that's the problem with F1 these days, if you ask me. It entirely stifles engineering creativity. Here's what I'd like to see allowed

• Desmodromic valves (<3)
• Variable valve timing
• Variable intake geometry
• Variable exhaust geometry
• Metal matrix composites
• Active suspension
• Variable aerodynamicsn
• Traction/stability control
• Supercharging
• ECU programming

I like the idea of having the rules come down to a single page of regulations... Have a budget cap of, say, $400M (which is just a little less than most teams are spending now), and a maximum engine capacity of, say, 1.0L (with supercharging, VVT, variable intake/exhaust, there'd be no trouble to crank 1000+ hp out of such capacity)

They were banned on cost grounds.

[PlatinumZealot]

I think the VVT and Movable trumpets could be implemented.

[WhiteBlue]

traction/stability control

I like it fine, that we got rid of the driver aids.

I would also not approve with F1 going back to spending 1 billion € /a for engine development that benefits 26 race cars with no benefits for motorists. If the manufacturers are happy with an unfreeze I would prefer to see them much more compete with fixed power and on fuel saving technologies.

[donskar]

WB wrote (emphasis mine):

I would also not approve with F1 going back to spending 1 billion € /a for engine development that benefits 26 race cars with no benefits for motorists. If the manufacturers are happy with an unfreeze I would prefer to see them much more compete with fixed power and on fuel saving technologies.

I think you are missing the point. We are not saying that F1 should spend millions on technology that would not benefit production cars. We are advocating that F1 be allowed to use technology that is already being used in common production cars. Re-read my list. Everything there is standard equipment (no extra charge) on mass-produced cars and trucks available for as little as $15,000. Yes, 15 thousand.

[timbo]

WB wrote (emphasis mine):

I would also not approve with F1 going back to spending 1 billion € /a for engine development that benefits 26 race cars with no benefits for motorists. If the manufacturers are happy with an unfreeze I would prefer to see them much more compete with fixed power and on fuel saving technologies.

I think you are missing the point. We are not saying that F1 should spend millions on technology that would not benefit production cars. We are advocating that F1 be allowed to use technology that is already being used in common production cars. Re-read my list. Everything there is standard equipment (no extra charge) on mass-produced cars and trucks available for as little as $15,000. Yes, 15 thousand.

Unless you're talking of homologated solutions the price on mass-produced vehicles is irrelevant. Like, it is unheard of $2000 wheelnut on mass-produced cars.
Another thing is that many devices you've named pass as driver-aids and I agree with people who don't want to see driver-aids in F1.

[wesley123]

traction/stability control

I like it fine, that we got rid of the driver aids.

I would also not approve with F1 going back to spending 1 billion € /a for engine development that benefits 26 race cars with no benefits for motorists. If the manufacturers are happy with an unfreeze I would prefer to see them much more compete with fixed power and on fuel saving technologies.

i agree, but that 1 bill/year spending isnt much of a problem, the problem is that none of those investments will ifnd its way to road vehicles.
there are alot of fuelsaving things that can be done, like an electromotor, it will replace the engine for idle and pit work, it will save alot and is usefull for road vehicles too(although already used)

[WhiteBlue]

WB wrote (emphasis mine):

I would also not approve with F1 going back to spending 1 billion € /a for engine development that benefits 26 race cars with no benefits for motorists. If the manufacturers are happy with an unfreeze I would prefer to see them much more compete with fixed power and on fuel saving technologies.

I think you are missing the point. We are not saying that F1 should spend millions on technology that would not benefit production cars. We are advocating that F1 be allowed to use technology that is already being used in common production cars. Re-read my list. Everything there is standard equipment (no extra charge) on mass-produced cars and trucks available for as little as $15,000. Yes, 15 thousand.

What is the point of applying technologies that do not benefit the racing and do not benefit fuel saving? Just to increase engine power to slash it next year artificially by reducing the engine capacity again? I thought it is accepted that F1 cars need the top performance of open wheel road cars. Adding anything beyond that is only going to exceed the human envelope or the safety we have in F1.

[mx_tifoso]

Guys, what does all of this have to do with the Brawn GP team??

Please keep it on topic, or take it to the multiple threads about what you would like in a racing series or whatnot.

[PlatinumZealot]

VVT, VVL and movable inlet trumpets can save fuel!

[Giblet]

If you add too many things, the cost goes up, and F1 will have happen what is happening right now. The teams all know they need to spend more, any idea that the should is a pipe dream that can not work anymore in the sport, and has driven it into the ground.

The cars have too much differential year to year, and the only driver that will have a chance is the 2nd driver to the #1 i the top car of the year.

You need continuance in regulations so the cars can get a to close performance level. It's nice to dream but as mx_tifosi said, this thread is about Brawn so back on topic to the last actual post about Brawn, which was about how much they spent on their current car.

Regardless of what they did spend, they still did the thing that a team needs to do to win, they interpreted the rules better then anyone else at the time, and built a car for it.

Unfortunately, Ross Brawn was smart enough to bankrupt the Honda F1 team in their last year and got a corker of a car out of it. Maybe that is why the Honda shareholders are happy they got out of a sinking duck.