Legality of Brawn exhausts questioned

By on

Apart from the double deck exhaust, the Brawn BGP001 now appears to be under fire for its exhausts. Racecar engineering have discovered that Brawn adapted (right) its car after the Australian GP at Melbourne after its exhausts were seen protruding the design (left). It is believed the change was fuelled by informal requests of other teams. Earlier on, in winter testing Ferrari faces the same problem and adapted its bodywork and exhaust system to comply with the strict letter of the regulations.

Article 3.8.5 states that after the bodywork is in compliance with every other regulation, one aperture on each side of the car is allowed for the engine exhausts. The question is now whether the exhausts are then considered part of the bodywork or not.

As far as we know however, no formal complaint has been made by rival teams for the BGP 001's configuration at Melbourne, so the team may well be concentrating on the upcoming appeal handling relating to its diffuser.


By wesley123 on 07-04-2009 at 15:24

i think they should change it, ferrari wasnt allowed so brawn isnt either. Allthough here they are protuding less then at ferrari it is still illegal in my opinion.

By newskiller on 07-04-2009 at 15:48

They already have. Re-read the article.

By wesley123 on 07-04-2009 at 17:34

o.O really?

lol, then i understood the article wrong

By mx_tifoso on 07-04-2009 at 20:08

Maybe the images should be labeled 'before' and 'after' to prevent misunderstandings?
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
And should the BGP cars be DQ'd from Australian results? Yes? No? I'm just kidding don't worry. =)

By blobslosak on 07-04-2009 at 20:40

Seemed obvious to me ;)

By DaBeast on 16-04-2009 at 19:42

Tomba, What was the FIA's intent by limiting protrusion of the exhaust. To what extent can an engineer find advantage if the exhaust is extended? What was the FIA trying to prevent?

Add comment

Please register or log in with your account to comment on this article