Current Page: 2 of 2
Re: Monaco GP: Thursday
Posted by: GPL (IP Logged)
Date: 24 May, 2019 08:23

We can write this year off as well.

Even if some of these updates work we are still going to be trailing around
at the back of the pack.

Clean sheet of paper please not rehash.

Re: Monaco GP: Thursday
Posted by: Mehryar (IP Logged)
Date: 24 May, 2019 10:35

They do need a major upgrade to work.Not to save this season but to learn who to not F... it up with a design or else you can give them 100 clean sheets for new designs and they will come out with 100 new FW42s! Abit better or abit worse.



http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/1095/mehryarsigyo7.gif

Dylan's Together Through Life Hits The Stores.

Re: Monaco GP: Thursday
Posted by: Gwanni (IP Logged)
Date: 24 May, 2019 11:03

So in a nutshell, what we are saying here is this: Our car lacks downforce big time! i think, is it the 3rd year in a row?

Re: Monaco GP: Thursday
Posted by: Mehryar (IP Logged)
Date: 24 May, 2019 11:13

In fact it's 7th year in a row! even in 2014 and 2015 we were lacking downforce.



http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/1095/mehryarsigyo7.gif

Dylan's Together Through Life Hits The Stores.

Re: Monaco GP: Thursday
Posted by: WilliamsF1Fan (IP Logged)
Date: 24 May, 2019 12:42

Quote:
IanSmithISA
Good morning,
Most of the discussions about Williams' recent problems focus on is Claire doing a good/bad job as well as did Paddy Lowe.

I've never fully understood why these two are singled out and Mike O'Driscoll (CEO), Doug Lafferty (CFO) and Brad Hollinger (big shareholder) always get omitted.

Possibly even Nick Rose (chairman) Mark Biddle (Secretary/Legal Counsel) but these may be more figurehead/statutory roles.

I get that these are names that are less well known and it is possible to say that the Williams Group was run by Claire and Paddy and the rest just provide support and fulfil legal roles.

It is also possible to say that MO'D, DL and BH run the group and effectively assigned resources and tasks to CW and PL.

Having seen lots of interviews with CW and read a lot of driver interviews it does seem plausible that the bias is more towards the second scenario.

If this is the case then maybe nothing will ever improve until that is changed, in this scenario bringing on board Bob Fernley as suggested would not work as his powers and responsibilities would be limited.

If we consider Stewart, Jaguar and Red Bull we see a start up that made a lot of progress and even won a race, become managed by a large company and fail and then go on to success as Red Bull.

Which is why I believe that Patrick Head is the only person who has the understanding of how an F1 team needs to operate and the credibility to recommend changes to Sir Frank.

Patrick may possibly need a little bit of advice in the areas that he may be slightly out of date on and this could be an issue if he doesn't believe that.

As some may have come to know from other posts I believe that the F1 team is of equal or lesser importance to the group than growing WAE.

Assuming that I am right in this and if PH's recommendations were to restructure the group putting the F1 team first and under the control of CW and PLs replacement with the group CEO/CFO mainly there to service this goal then they may be a lot of toys thrown out the pram. :-)

Bye

Ian

Well put Ian. Williams F1 team smacks of being run by committee, something it avoided to great effect in the 80's and 90's when those that did, spectacularly failed. Being a PLC may be the problem because they can't just spend money of course, like some of the other teams may have done in the hope that a big sponsor or owner will come along later and bale them out.

Mercedes probably learnt that if you manage by committee then there needs to be someone in overall charge (Wolff), and you need racers not accountants (sorry accountants!). RIP Niki Lauda.

Re: Monaco GP: Thursday
Posted by: WilliamsF1Fan (IP Logged)
Date: 24 May, 2019 12:56

Quote:
Mehryar
In fact it's 7th year in a row! even in 2014 and 2015 we were lacking downforce.

I think the low downforce direction was a reaction to failing to get to grips with exhaust blown diffusers, and blown front stub axles etc. Someone (Symonds?) probably realised that the tools weren't effective so simplified the aero strategy to make a car effective on low downforce circuits. Money was probably tight as well coming off the back of losing most of the sponsors.

I'm guessing, but I suspect we don't have great aero competency in the team, poor aero "tools" (I'm thinking CFD), and poor or inconsistent technical leadership because of the constant change in technical leader.

I can understand the car being slow on normal circuits, but Monaco isn't a circuit where aero is that influential so this may suggest a mechanical issue(s) as well, albeit ones that date back to 2014. Could this be gearbox related? I'm assuming weight distribution, fixed suspension locations etc all play a valuable part, and perhaps someone thought they could work round the issues to save money.

I should caveat my comments by saying I'm no expert, its all pure guess work!

Re: Monaco GP: Thursday
Posted by: Mikef1 (IP Logged)
Date: 24 May, 2019 13:26

Quote:
WilliamsF1Fan
Quote:
Mehryar
In fact it's 7th year in a row! even in 2014 and 2015 we were lacking downforce.

I think the low downforce direction was a reaction to failing to get to grips with exhaust blown diffusers, and blown front stub axles etc. Someone (Symonds?) probably realised that the tools weren't effective so simplified the aero strategy to make a car effective on low downforce circuits. Money was probably tight as well coming off the back of losing most of the sponsors.

I'm guessing, but I suspect we don't have great aero competency in the team, poor aero "tools" (I'm thinking CFD), and poor or inconsistent technical leadership because of the constant change in technical leader.

I can understand the car being slow on normal circuits, but Monaco isn't a circuit where aero is that influential so this may suggest a mechanical issue(s) as well, albeit ones that date back to 2014. Could this be gearbox related? I'm assuming weight distribution, fixed suspension locations etc all play a valuable part, and perhaps someone thought they could work round the issues to save money.

I should caveat my comments by saying I'm no expert, its all pure guess work!

I think you're somewhat over analysing it. The change to the 2014 engines meant moving to the single exhaust which meant there was no longer any way to blow the floor. Other changes such as the lack of a beam wing upset the aerodynamic balance of the car so the team did the best possible job they could. The 2014 car did not actually lack downforce compared to anyone but the top 3 based on some of the podiums it achieved. Its bigger issue was mechanical grip which showed throughout every wet session and at tracks like Monaco.

The lack of downforce only bred as the team was conservative with its design and clearly lacks the capability to understand complex aero structures. They just stayed comfortably in their bubble and did what they could, meanwhile other teams were gaining downforce every day and the engines were catching up too.

Re: Monaco GP: Thursday
Posted by: WilliamsF1Fan (IP Logged)
Date: 24 May, 2019 20:41

Quote:
Mikef1
Quote:
WilliamsF1Fan
Quote:
Mehryar
In fact it's 7th year in a row! even in 2014 and 2015 we were lacking downforce.

I think the low downforce direction was a reaction to failing to get to grips with exhaust blown diffusers, and blown front stub axles etc. Someone (Symonds?) probably realised that the tools weren't effective so simplified the aero strategy to make a car effective on low downforce circuits. Money was probably tight as well coming off the back of losing most of the sponsors.

I'm guessing, but I suspect we don't have great aero competency in the team, poor aero "tools" (I'm thinking CFD), and poor or inconsistent technical leadership because of the constant change in technical leader.

I can understand the car being slow on normal circuits, but Monaco isn't a circuit where aero is that influential so this may suggest a mechanical issue(s) as well, albeit ones that date back to 2014. Could this be gearbox related? I'm assuming weight distribution, fixed suspension locations etc all play a valuable part, and perhaps someone thought they could work round the issues to save money.

I should caveat my comments by saying I'm no expert, its all pure guess work!

I think you're somewhat over analysing it. The change to the 2014 engines meant moving to the single exhaust which meant there was no longer any way to blow the floor. Other changes such as the lack of a beam wing upset the aerodynamic balance of the car so the team did the best possible job they could. The 2014 car did not actually lack downforce compared to anyone but the top 3 based on some of the podiums it achieved. Its bigger issue was mechanical grip which showed throughout every wet session and at tracks like Monaco.

The lack of downforce only bred as the team was conservative with its design and clearly lacks the capability to understand complex aero structures. They just stayed comfortably in their bubble and did what they could, meanwhile other teams were gaining downforce every day and the engines were catching up too.

Much better put than me MikeF1, your last paragraph was what I was getting at. Do you think that F1 is suffering from a lack of design talent because of the proliferation of Dallara based one make single seater chassis formula?

Re: Monaco GP: Thursday
Posted by: Mikef1 (IP Logged)
Date: 24 May, 2019 22:30

[quote WilliamsF1Fan][quote Mikef1][quote WilliamsF1Fan][quote Mehryar]In fact it's 7th year in a row! even in 2014 and 2015 we were lacking downforce.[/quote]

I think the low downforce direction was a reaction to failing to get to grips with exhaust blown diffusers, and blown front stub axles etc. Someone (Symonds?) probably realised that the tools weren't effective so simplified the aero strategy to make a car effective on low downforce circuits. Money was probably tight as well coming off the back of losing most of the sponsors.

I'm guessing, but I suspect we don't have great aero competency in the team, poor aero "tools" (I'm thinking CFD), and poor or inconsistent technical leadership because of the constant change in technical leader.

I can understand the car being slow on normal circuits, but Monaco isn't a circuit where aero is that influential so this may suggest a mechanical issue(s) as well, albeit ones that date back to 2014. Could this be gearbox related? I'm assuming weight distribution, fixed suspension locations etc all play a valuable part, and perhaps someone thought they could work round the issues to save money.

I should caveat my comments by saying I'm no expert, its all pure guess work![/quote]

I think you're somewhat over analysing it. The change to the 2014 engines meant moving to the single exhaust which meant there was no longer any way to blow the floor. Other changes such as the lack of a beam wing upset the aerodynamic balance of the car so the team did the best possible job they could. The 2014 car did not actually lack downforce compared to anyone but the top 3 based on some of the podiums it achieved. Its bigger issue was mechanical grip which showed throughout every wet session and at tracks like Monaco.

The lack of downforce only bred as the team was conservative with its design and clearly lacks the capability to understand complex aero structures. They just stayed comfortably in their bubble and did what they could, meanwhile other teams were gaining downforce every day and the engines were catching up too.[/quote]

That's a pretty deep rooted question and I'm sadly too long gone from the industry now to hazard a true idea, but my belief is as you say. The complexity of the cars has evolved rapidly and is ever dependant on CFD. It seems to he a race of computers rather than engineers at present and the car is only a byproduct of an obsession with CFD. That in itself is fine because there are teams who clearly get it right and teams who clearly get it wrong

Current Page: 2 of 2
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net