If Brawn GP still had Honda Engines?

That is the $60m question!! We'll obviously never know, but without doubt their chassis is the pick of the bunch....and Honda doesn't build bad engines.

 

Honda management must be feeling sick....not to mention the humiliation of seeing Toyota doing so well at the same time. Talk about short sighted.

 

I think the Mercedes motor is the class of the field. We should all be thankful Brawn chose that unit over the Ferrari piece. There's no question in my mind those motors would suddenly become unreliable if Brawn beat the factory Ferrari team too many times.

 

There's the basis of another very good question. If Honda thought they would do exceptionally well this year, would they have stayed in F1? If it was all about the dollars/budgets, then possibly not.

If it was just because they were sick of losing, then they'd be kicking themselves now.

 

I think they will be. Just remember, Ross designed this car for a Honda engine, not a Merc. Just look at how Force India and Mclaren themselves struggling.

 

Yea they would've been as fast. Honda and Renault were underpowered last year, but for 09 the FIA allowed Renault to make changes to boost their engine's output. Honda would've been given the same opportunity.

 

Button said (Auto Hebdo April 1, 2009) that the Mercedes engine has a much better power curve than the Honda.

 

Obviously no, and yes.

 

What he said.

I was near the pit exit at the Canadian GP last year and you could tell the Honda cars from a mile away: Their engine sputtered and coughed like it was running only on half the cylinders. I'm no expert on engines (or anything mechanical), but that was not the sound of a potent F1 lump.

 

I remember reading (maybe from jamesallenonf1.com?) that the then-Honda engineers were very happy to get the Mercedes engine. Apparently the 2009 spec Honda engine was significantly behind the Merc engine. I recall comments complaining it was difficult to work with the Japanese (how did Honda supply those Mclaren Honda engines back in the pre-internet 80's then?!?!).

Somewhere in my mind recalls a comment saying the 2009 spec Honda engine was short around 40-60hp from the Merc engine.

IMHO, I think BrawnGP is still significantly sandbagging. That smile when Jenson commented about the lack of front grip at the post-Melbourne press conference (and his come-back to Trulli saying he might have a chance to win) gave it away. That car could easily be a second faster than the rest of the field ...

 

Don't let anyone fool you: There is less difference between F1 engines under the current specification than there is between NASCAR engines.

Formula One ceased to exist years ago.

 

That's an odd statement to make based on the apparent similarity between the engines.

Ever watched F1 in the seventies when almost everybody had the same Cosworth engine?

 

I tend to think this also, why: IIRC Rubino with a damaged car rear and front wing damage and a failed start, still clinched in 2nd Aus.

Ok Vettel and Kubica helped clashing but...

Hard to say to the original question, but it's quite plain the whole package seems bang on, probably a bit of and luck and Brawn's sheer brillance, and it's fantastic to have them in this sport amongst all the other crap.

 

~ 50 hp

 

+1 Spot on Brian. Anyone who thinks their competitiveness comes solely from the engine is fooling themselves.

 

or solely from their rear diffuser too.

 

I seem to remember in the mid-80's the Renault (turbo) didn't finish too well, but stuck in a Lotus the car came to life.
By the same token, a Renault stuck in a Tyrrell didn't do so hot.

Was it Williams-Renault that was bloody fast also ? I forget when Renault, Honda jumped on Williams..

Same thing with BMW turbo - awesome in a Brabham, not so good in the ATS or Arrows.

You need the entire package - chassis, motor, driver and - TIRES.

Can you even imagine F1 today if we also had Goodyear and Michelin in it ?

 

of course! its the chasis that Brawn designed thats winning...if it were only the engine than Ron Dennis would have won both races ! Honda are bloody fools for not giving a few engines to Brawn..he begged them to no avail....poor fools..they could have won 2 GP in 2 weeks !hahahah!!haha

 

Honda, for all their success they've had in the past in all forms of motorsport, have really made some stupid mistakes. Specially now that the old man, Soichiro Honda, is gone. I think he passed away in the early 90's, shortly after releasing the NSX. That man was all about racing. Now they have bean counters running the company, and it shows in their performance/decisions.

 

+1

My guess is that the aero package is producing more results than the engine. So to answer the question, yes Brawn would be competitive with Honda.

 

In the early days of the Renault turbos, they were called the tea kettles for their inveitable eruptions of steam. Honda left Williams after the 87 season IIRC and then they were stuck with the Judd motors for a season or two. Then in 1990, they partnered with Williams and went on to dominate the WDC and WCC with the active suspension FW-14B in 1992 with Sir Nige.

The BMW turbos were fantastic in the Brabhams, but the qualifying motors were a molten lump of aluminium after 3 laps.

Whisky is right about needing the whole package, but it does show how much of a genius Ross Brawn is to take a chassis designed for the performance (or lack thereof) of the Honda engine and transplant a Mercedes engine in the chassis and the car just comes alive.

 

Then, with all things being equal, why wasn't the Honda competitive in prior years ?
When all chassis were supposedly 'equal' ?
I'm not even sure Honda was in the top-half of the field in prior years.

 

*sigh*

Honda was not competitive, specially last year, they had a terrible chassis. In their infinite wisdom, Honda decided to bring in a MotoGP engineer to design their car for 2008 or was it 2007. Not only that, but their wind tunnel was not properly calibrated, whatever development they were doing was giving them wrong data/results. They also had some mechanical problems, the rest was due to spinning out or crashing.

So no, not all chassis were equal. Some cars had better engines as well. Bottom line, they had a crappy car the last few years.

Honda stopped further development of their 2008 car WAY early in the season to focus on their car for 2009. I think they may have even started sooner than that since we all knew the rules would be changing for this season. Fast forward to Australia 09, and we are seeing the results of all those months of development that they had ahead of anyone else. Add Ross Brawn to the mix and we have a winning combination.

People keep insisting that it's their rear diffuser that gives them some kind of super magical advantage. It's not. We have seen Rubens Barichello finish in 2nd with a destroyed rear diffuser, and he drove a fair amount of the race with a damaged front wing.

What's is it so hard to admit BrawnGP has a better designed car so far? Are Ferrari/McLaren the only ones that are allowed to have a superior car? First it was "They're running light" during their limited testing a couple weeks before Aus GP and then at Practice 1&2, and Qual. Then it was "Ferrari/McLaren/etc.., are sand bagging", Now it's the "super diffuser that's giving them an unfair advantage"