• Home
  • formula-1
  • Interview with Ross Brawn: & # 34; We're slower than Red Bull & # 34;

Interview with Ross Brawn: & # 34; We're slower than Red Bull & # 34;

Interview with Ross Brawn
Subscriptions & booklets
Michael Schumacher and Mark Webber simultaneously reeled off a racing simulation in Barcelona. What is your insight?

B rawn: We are slower than Red Bull Our car was not well balanced. The positive finding is that our new car is reliable and doesn't eat up the tires. But we still have to find speed.

Michael lost to Webber, especially in the second part of his long runs.

Brawn: We're currently trying to figure out how best to divide up a race. Therefore, in the test phase, experiments are also carried out to determine in which phases of the race you are strong, in which you want to consolidate.

As Nico Rosberg the next day, also a race distance Had unwound, he was much closer to Webber. Did you find something there?

Brawn: Nico drove in the morning and the track was a bit cooler and faster. We also learned from the setup errors from the previous day. In that respect it was a step forward, but we are still not where we wanted to be.

Are there problem areas where you have to start?

Brawn: The breakdown of tires is a central issue. And to find a balance for the car that, if possible, does not change over the course of the race. If there was a race here next week, we would have to find something to take the load off the front left tire and improve traction.

Have you solved all the weaknesses of the previous year’s car or have some of them been improved transfer these problems to the new car?

Brawn: This car is a good evolution of last year's car. We have omitted some of the critical components, or we have gone in a different direction. The most important step was to strengthen the team in terms of capacity and experience. And there are fewer fundamental problems with the car than last year. Like the plague with cooling. Constant reworking stole a lot of time back then. There was less of it left to work on the car itself, and to make it faster and understand it. todaywe are at a stand where we can fully concentrate on getting the most out of the car.

What is the minimum goal?

Brawn: Third place, one better than last year. Any further improvement is of course welcome. Psychology also plays a major role here. The team is highly motivated, but it needs food. And those are good results.

How much risk in the design of the car was necessary to catch up with Red Bull?

Brawn: The art is to keep the balance between risk and improving what is tried and tested. Aggressive design is useless if it doesn't make the car faster. We have made great strides in the wind tunnel. We were aggressive in that relationship. But we haven't reinvented the racing car. Red Bull has the advantage of building on a very good foundation. That doesn't have to mean they're conservative. On the contrary. Red Bull aggressively pushes the basic parameters such as air resistance, efficiency, downforce to the limit.

Are restrictive rules a help in catching up or are they more of an obstacle?

Brawn: I'm not sure the rules are that much more restrictive than they were before. Since the days of the ground effect, we have seen a trend towards braking cars. It won't prevent people from inventing new technologies. The only thing that might change is the gaps between teams. It may be that the restrictions reduce a gap from three quarters of a second to half a second. But then you still have to catch up for half a second. There will still be differences between the teams that do a good job and a not so good job.

An important design goal was to reduce weight. Why is it so difficult today to fall below the weight limit of 640 kilograms when ten years ago cars with a minimum weight of 600 kilograms carried 60 kilograms of ballast?

Brawn: KERS immediately puts on 25 kilograms once. We have transmissions that have to last five races. That means weight. We have tougher crash tests that require more carbon mass. In terms of weight, cars were probably the absolute cutting edge of technology a decade ago. Since then, the regulations have given us weight. Since weight saving techniques haven't changed much, the cars are as heavy as they are. I think that's a good thing. It made absolutely no sense to carry around 60 kilograms of ballast.

You delayed the start of the test by two weeks. Would you haveDid the same thing if you had known in good time that there were only twelve instead of 15 test days before the season because a test was postponed to the season?

Brawn: It would have made the decision more difficult. When we passed the development program, we were still assuming 15 test days. We reconsidered this decision later, but stayed true to our route because it was the better way in our situation.

Is the new load test sufficient for the front wing, to stop the fluttering wings?

Brawn: The test is really very strict now. Our wing is as stiff as it can be. I don't think we will see as big a warping as before.

How much slower are the pit stops due to the impact wrench restriction?

Brawn: We did not use an automatic torque measuring system. Helium yes, but we do not notice that we do not use it. I don't think the pit stops will be slower this year.

Your conclusion?

Brawn: We're not where we wanted to be. But we are definitely much better than we were twelve months ago.


Leave a reply

Name *