Talk:Brawn BGP 001

Translation
Hello readers and authors, I made a rough translation for the german wikipedia: de:Brawn BGP 001 - thank you for this very good article. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Too much information about races
I think there might be too much information/commentary about the qualification position and race results in this article. I think the article should focus on the design features of the car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.164.203 (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, though some of the car / driver information is already part of motor sport history, the article does drift into too much (trivial) driver detail - however valiant their efforts!


 * Totally agree, I'm actually a bit tempted to delete the whole "2009 season" section. Can't quite bring myself to do it in one fell swoop, but it needs some serious pruning. All the race information belongs in the articles for those races.Tubefurnace (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Have decided to be bold and done a major edit. I've cut down the 2009 season section to facts about the car only, not detail about the races. I'm sorry to be removing so much text, no doubt added in good faith. The race reports would be a better place for such material, which really doesn't belong here. Tubefurnace (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a bit too much, in my opinion. Sure the race reports are the best place for detail, but there's no reason why a reasonable level of detail can't be carried here. It's relevant to the topic, and puts the car updates into context, therefore there's no need to send readers elsewhere for information. I suggest restoring it and carrying out a less serious prune. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree it could be expanded slightly, but reckon my version is closer to reasonable.Tubefurnace (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll add that some of the detail is better suited here because the race reports should be about the progress of the races, and should not contain lengthy analysis of the progress of individual teams. That info is better suited to articles such as this one. A race report with this level of detail about each team would be too long. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But this article isn't about the team, or even the drivers, it's about the car. I'd say it should be facts about the car (technical, development, etc.) with a brief summary of how it performed in competition. Could you point me in the direction of a good f1 car article which you regard as having an appropriate level of info?Tubefurnace (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the car's performance merits a more than brief summary, given that its performance is the only way in which a reader can decide whether the thing was a success or not, and in what ways. Here, since the BGP001 won the Championships, it's more obvious. But for other, less successful cars, performance description is important. Otherwise the article becomes a technical description of a car and little else. We have a lot of F1 car articles that carry very little analysis of the car's life, and consist of technical data with a brief paragraph on results. At the other extreme we have articles like Red Bull RB6, which is verging on drivel. I'm not familiar enough with car articles to link to a decent one, but someone else may know of one. Given that an F1 car's life only lasts for one season these days, there's no excuse for not mentioning most or all of the races in moderated detail. Currently there are races which this car won, yet there is no mention of those wins in the text at all - that won't do. Winning is the whole point of the car's existence, and some wins are ignored. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest Brabham BT46, a "good article", strikes a good balance and about what I'd be aiming at.Tubefurnace (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly that's a good article, but I think it's too short on race history. There isn't even a results table. The Brawn BGP001 won eight races and we currently mention two, one in the briefest of passing mentions. How is that informative? We're telling the reader all about the background to the car's existence, and it's technical make-up, but very little about what the thing actually did. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What i think should be added (in new revised text) is a summary of how it performed in the different stages of the season, in qualifying and race pace, and some general trends, drawing on specific results as examples and to make a complete story. I don't think we need a paragraph about each race. Could mention the wins I suppose, but the car's results are listed in table form already.Tubefurnace (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Having just read the old version of the article, there was far too much chat about other drivers and the general progress of the races than was required. But there was plenty of information there about the Brawns and their successes and failures throughout the season. Whether it's in the form of a race-by-race story or a more general season progression doesn't really matter, but the information should be there. The wins are essential, I'm afraid, they cannot be omitted. It is ludicrous in an article about a racing car to not mention its victories in moderate detail, and I'm surprised you're even deliberating about it. The table is absolutely not a replacement for text - that's not what tables are for - like the infobox, they are an overview. Right now we have trivial information about how Barrichello performed on day 2 of some fairly irrelevant test, but nothing on his race wins. That alone is quite obviously unacceptable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we'll end up with a reasonable compromise in the end. The previous versions did have way too much detail. Agree there should be a mention of how a race was won where it's relevant to the car's performance (e.g. high top speed made it diffiuclt to overtake, little tyre degradation in relation to compettitors, good qualifying perfomance, etc.), but as for who overtook who, on what exact lap every pit stop occurred, I don't see that's relevant.Tubefurnace (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm definitely not advocating a race commentary of any kind, more a brief sentence or two on the performance of the Brawns where that performance was notable (good or bad), and for the wins, just an explanation of why the car won. For some wins there'll be the same reasoning, e.g. tyre performance, good strategy or whatever, so no need for a blow-by-blow account of each win. But each win should be covered in some way. I don't think anyone really cares about sixth or seventh places, but a note on why Barrichello's pole in Brazil came to nothing might be an idea, for example, and why the car's performance in Hungary was so poor (the only occasion when a Brawn finished a race but did not score points). It would also shed a bit of light and context on the car's performance drop-off during the second half of the season. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, think we're thinking along similar lines.Tubefurnace (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Brabham BT19 is a featured article, probably the only Formula One car FA. I think it has a decent level of detail of the racing itself. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do quite like the approach of Brabham BT19, but in some cases there's irrelevant information, like "the Nürburgring Nordschleife, which Brabham described as "Brands Hatch on steroids"", "the Italian car was delayed by a broken throttle cable on lap 32,", things which don't relate to the BT19 at all. We should avoid this kind of thing in my opinion.Tubefurnace (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Chassis paragraph
I question the use of the word Chassis in the article. This is an outdated word, and does not actually refer to any part or parts of the car, and is a poor inaccurate anachronism generally used by non technical people such as Top Gear presenters. F1 teams rarely (if ever) use the word chassis other than in press conferences, the cars having long been of monocoque design. The designers refer to the main structure of the car a "The Tub" or as Ross Brawn "The Safety Cell". Everything else bolted to the tub, such as the front aero package, front suspension plus the engine / gearbox. The rear suspension and rear "aero" hangs off the the power train. There is no chassis, the term is rubbish!

I also updated the syntax and improved the English in the last sentence of the Chassis paragraph, which had become dated (referring to the 2009 season in the wrong tense), also made the wording flow better without changing the meaning.


 * Um, no. The chassis is the collective term for the sprung structural elements of the vehicle. The safety cell and the powertrain form parts of the chassis, as do the sidepods, airbox and nosecone. Monocoque is a type of chassis design, not an entity in itself, and "tub" is a colloquial term for this. It is far from rubbish. Just because you don't hear them using the term doesn't mean it is obsolete.  Pyrop e  22:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Pyrope - use of the word is a long, long way from rubbish. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC) I might add that the changes to the first two sentences were utterly ungrammatical. Sentences have to have verbs in them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Brawn GP BGP 001 title incorrect.
(transferred from User talk:DH85868993)

The full name of the car is Brawn GP BGP 001. NOT Brawn BGP 001. Many shorten it to this, but it is incorrect. I have a 2009 F1 season review DVD and Ross Brawn says it himself. Plus, here are some links showing that it needs to have the GP added...

Possibly the most respected motorsports magazine: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73700

One of the largest F1 stat sites: http://www.statsf1.com/en/brawn-gp-bgp-001.aspx

Very popular racing site: http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/brawn-gp-bgp-001-mercedes-f1-22-jenson-button-2009.300411/

A fully licensed model from Minichamps: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Minichamps-Brawn-Winner-Malaysian-2009/dp/B0035WY9HU

Another respected motorsports site: http://www.gptoday.com/details/view/296245/

On the 'Rings own gift shop: http://www.nuerburgring-shop.de/fanartikel/brawn-gp-bgp-001-r-barrichello-2009-366036200999.html?___store=en&___from_store=de

On F1 Buzz: http://www.f1buzz.net/2009/03/06/brawn-gp-bgp-001-shakedown-pictures/

Those are just a few showing what I mean. I rarely correct things on here, but when I notice a error like this I feel the need to get it corrected. :-)

PS, also noticed in a few places when referring to the team, it was refereed to as just Brawn, not Brawn GP. I updated that as well. I assume I do not need to post links for that, as we all know the team is officially is called Brawn GP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.125.115 (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!


 * If that is the full name of the car the page will have to be renamed, even if it is a bit of a mouthful. However, referring to the team as Brawn instead of Brawn GP in the prose is perfectly acceptable, unless a distinction needs to be made between the team and Ross Brawn. We don't go around saying Scuderia Ferrari after all. QueenCake (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

--- Not quite the same thing though. Brawn GP is how the team AND the cars are refereed to as. Scuderia Ferrari is the team, the cars are just Ferrari to match up with the road cars. Look at the nose cone (which is where a team usually writes the "brand" of the car) of a BGP 001, it says Brawn GP, not just Brawn where a Ferrari just says Ferrari. Just an example...


 * To be fair, the team is officially called "Brawn GP Formula One Team", and Brawn GP is just as much of a shortening as Brawn. There should be no need to make that change if it is clear what the use of Brawn is referring to.  The359  ( Talk ) 19:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

--- That is NOT the official name actually, it is the "entry/trading name", those are always different. We can thank the FIA for that. Technically the file name for the team is Brawn GP Limited, just like Ferrari is Scuderia Ferrari SpA. But that is not what this is all about, we are talking about the name of the car itself..


 * To add further, I cannot get the archive of Brawn GP's website to work properly so I cannot see what they refer to the car as, other than a slight reference to "Brawn GP team's BGP 001 car." I would however point out the FIA entry list for 2009 which lists the team as Brawn GP Formula One team, and the constructor as Brawn-Mercedes, not Brawn GP.  The359  ( Talk ) 19:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

--- Again, as mentioned before, you can not go buy that FIA stuff when talking about the CAR, as we are. The team stuff is different, especially on the entry lists where they must list the engine supplier on there as well. Take a look at almost any team that doesn't make their own engine and you will see that.
 * I believe you have the trading name and team name backwards. Brawn GP Limited is the trading name, Brawn GP Formula One Team is the name of the team, as that is their entry in the championship.  Scuderia Ferrari SpA is the trading name of their team, but their entry in the World Championship is as Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro.  Your entire argument has been that the car is called the "Brawn GP BGP 001" because the team name is "Brawn GP", which is patently false, that is simply a shortening of their true team name.  So how is Brawn GP any more correct than just Brawn?


 * As for the second half of your original statement that instances of "Brawn" need to be changed to "Brawn GP", that is incorrect. The FIA recognizes the constructor as "Brawn".  And keep in mind that constructors build the cars, not teams.  If the FIA reconizes the constructor as "Brawn", has is Brawn BGP 001 incorrect?  And you think we cannot go by the FIA's source, but instead go by a webforum and fansite?  Please take a look at WP:RS for more understanding of reliable sources.   The359  ( Talk ) 21:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * A quick google hits comparison produces 67,100 for "Brawn GP BGP001" and 53,300 for "Brawn BGP001". Hardly decisive. FORIX goes with the latter, and I consider that to be the best source for this kind of thing. The general rule is that names of cars follow the basic 'constructor + model name' format, in this case Brawn BGP001. As far as I am aware, the constructor is Brawn, rather than Brawn GP. In any case, I don't think this is clear enough to go around renaming pages. A simple explanation in the text that both names are used would suffice. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Adding in the space between the BGP and the 001, and you get 133,000 hits for "Brawn BGP 001" and only 73,000 hits for "Brawn GP BGP 001". That's almost a 2:1 ratio, so looks pretty one-sided to me. Also, when you look at what a lot of those "Brawn GP" listings are, you see that a surprisingly large number of them are chatroom hits or articles in magazines that date from before the start of the 2009 season. Indeed, if you look at the early season press release headlines (sadly the full text entries seem to have disappeared from view) you can see that the team themselves migrated from "Brawn GP" to simply "Brawn" as the 2009 season progressed. Respected media sources such as the BBC, Eurosport, The Telegraph, Racecar Engineering, Autosport and others also show this shift as common usage changed through familiarity. In Nigel Roebuck's in-depth interview with Ross Brawn in Motor Sport in early 2010, reviewing the momentous year that had been 2009, the car is referred to as the "Brawn BGP 001", and Ross himself only ever calls it "the car"! (As far as I am aware, that magazine, staffed by some of the most ardent and knowledgeable F1 people that exist, have never used the term "Brawn GP BGP 001".) In their first tech specs release referring to the car Brawn simply called it the "BGP 001", without a constructor prefix. It is far from clear that there was ever an official designation for the whole car name beyond "BGP 001", and as the organisation that constructed it was by far and away dominantly known simply as "Brawn" by very early in the 2009 season and the official FIA entry list gives the car make as "Brawn Mercedes", I think that you need a lot more convincing evidence for arguing Wikipedia is wrong. The received wisdom of the fanboy hive mind is notoriously unreliable. That is why Wikipedia as a whole does not consider chatroom and blog entries to be at all credible as sources of information.  Pyrop e  16:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This is precisely why Wikipedia is not considered a good source of info on F1, and why F1 forums I am on always state that there is incorrect info on here. Then when I read "The team doesn't build the cars, the constructors do" I see why. I will just give up and move on...by the way, the official F1 site recognizes the team/constructor as Brawn GP as well... http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/teams/189/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.239.127.128 (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In a technical sense and according to the rules, yes, the constructors build the cars and not the teams. They are generally the same entity, but not inherently.  Many teams in F1 history have run cars that they did not build.  In the modern era that hasn't happened since the early 90s, but the fact is that this is still something that is specified in the rules.


 * As for things not being a good source of info, formula1.com is definitely high on that list. You entire argument is that "Brawn is incorrect, Brawn GP is correct."  "Brawn GP Formula One Team" is the correct team name, any use of Brawn or Brawn GP is simply shortening for the sake of brevity.  Calling one more correct than the other is a useless argument; both instances are used interchangably.  If we were to take your suggestion to other cars, it would be the "Red Bull Racing RB10" and not the "Red Bull RB10".  The359  ( Talk ) 08:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, if has happened rather recently that a team drove a car they did not build. During 2010 HRT drove a car that was build by Dallara. Tvx1 (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I was more referring to an actual points eligible constructor like the various Dallaras and Lolas of the late 80s/early 90s. The359  ( Talk ) 01:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Brawn BGP 001. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.brawngp.com/readstory.asp?bgp=j%C1%AA%C0rX
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=45791

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Brawn.GP.4.Spain.09.jpg