Adrian Newey to Ferrari? Is it possible?
Discussion
Leithen said:
suffolk009 said:
Sorry to repeat myself, but since 1992, with only a few exceptions, the serial championship winners have been: Schumacher, Hamilton, and Newey.
The common denominators are Brawn and Newey (Brawn has a claim on several of the Mercedes Championships). g4ry13 said:
Leithen said:
suffolk009 said:
Sorry to repeat myself, but since 1992, with only a few exceptions, the serial championship winners have been: Schumacher, Hamilton, and Newey.
The common denominators are Brawn and Newey (Brawn has a claim on several of the Mercedes Championships). 1992 Newey
1993 Newey
1994 Brawn
1995 Brawn
1996 Newey
1997 Newey (Legacy)
1998 Newey
1999 Newey
2000 Brawn
2001 Brawn
2002 Brawn
2003 Brawn
2004 Brawn
2005 Symonds
2006 Symonds
2007 Brawn (Legacy)
2008 Oatley or Newey (Legacy)?
2009 Brawn
2010 Newey
2011 Newey
2012 Newey
2013 Newey
2014 Brawn (Legacy)
2015 Brawn (Legacy)
2016 Lowe or Brawn (Legacy)?
2017 Lowe or Brawn (Legacy)?
2018 Allison
2019 Allison
2020 Allison
2021 Newey
2022 Newey
2023 Newey
2024 Newey
Leithen said:
He certainly did. But if you look at the years since 1992, Newey and Brawn keep managing to win championships. Obviously "et all" can be added to each entry. How far beyond 2014 was Brawn's legacy essential? I'd say at least one more, but arguably three. Equally Newey's legacy might have been crucial in 2008.
1992 Newey
1993 Newey
1994 Brawn
1995 Brawn
1996 Newey
1997 Newey (Legacy)
1998 Newey
1999 Newey
2000 Brawn
2001 Brawn
2002 Brawn
2003 Brawn
2004 Brawn
2005 Symonds
2006 Symonds
2007 Brawn (Legacy)
2008 Oatley or Newey (Legacy)?
2009 Brawn
2010 Newey
2011 Newey
2012 Newey
2013 Newey
2014 Brawn (Legacy)
2015 Brawn (Legacy)
2016 Lowe or Brawn (Legacy)?
2017 Lowe or Brawn (Legacy)?
2018 Allison
2019 Allison
2020 Allison
2021 Newey
2022 Newey
2023 Newey
2024 Newey
You seem to be saying the driver is irrelevant? Obviously this is not true, otherwise Ferrari would have won two championships during the recent Mercedes era.1992 Newey
1993 Newey
1994 Brawn
1995 Brawn
1996 Newey
1997 Newey (Legacy)
1998 Newey
1999 Newey
2000 Brawn
2001 Brawn
2002 Brawn
2003 Brawn
2004 Brawn
2005 Symonds
2006 Symonds
2007 Brawn (Legacy)
2008 Oatley or Newey (Legacy)?
2009 Brawn
2010 Newey
2011 Newey
2012 Newey
2013 Newey
2014 Brawn (Legacy)
2015 Brawn (Legacy)
2016 Lowe or Brawn (Legacy)?
2017 Lowe or Brawn (Legacy)?
2018 Allison
2019 Allison
2020 Allison
2021 Newey
2022 Newey
2023 Newey
2024 Newey
MustangGT said:
You seem to be saying the driver is irrelevant? Obviously this is not true, otherwise Ferrari would have won two championships during the recent Mercedes era.
Indeed, it's pointless trying to connect titles to one person.It doesn't need such analysis to state that Newey is very obviously a strong weapon when it comes to the potential to deliver a title winning car. He can't do it all himself but he can set the potential for success very high, assuming the team beneath him can deliver his vision without weakening it or compromise, and assuming the right driver, right PU, right strategy etc etc etc.
It's a big ol pie, lots of ingredients. Newey is a VERY significant one.
It's great he's off to Ferrari and it gives them a fantastic opportunity. I'm not however convinced that as a team they're able to bring all the ingredients together to make the most of them though - I hope they can, but recent years (or decades..) suggest they always have a few sizeable
s in their armour! They even managed to get beaten fairly whilst cheating 
Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 14th May 11:05
ETA: Well done swear filter - because '
s' is only ever racist 
Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 14th May 11:05
Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 14th May 11:06
MustangGT said:
You seem to be saying the driver is irrelevant? Obviously this is not true, otherwise Ferrari would have won two championships during the recent Mercedes era.
Not at all. Just observing that Brawn and Newey are obvious common denominators in the majority of Championship wins since '92. Plenty of variables that might impact that, but their influence should not be underestimated.The sport has changed radically since '92 and it stands to reason that one individual's ability to be transformative has greatly lessened since then. However, with a spec change imminent and the opportunity to just as easily get things wrongs as get them right, I know who I'd want in my camp, even in the most limited capacity.
Leithen said:
MustangGT said:
You seem to be saying the driver is irrelevant? Obviously this is not true, otherwise Ferrari would have won two championships during the recent Mercedes era.
Not at all. Just observing that Brawn and Newey are obvious common denominators in the majority of Championship wins since '92. Plenty of variables that might impact that, but their influence should not be underestimated.The sport has changed radically since '92 and it stands to reason that one individual's ability to be transformative has greatly lessened since then. However, with a spec change imminent and the opportunity to just as easily get things wrongs as get them right, I know who I'd want in my camp, even in the most limited capacity.
Adrian penning a red car may or may not work out for the start of the next regulation set, but fair play to John Elkann and Fred Vasseur for pulling out all the stops to make it happen, if indeed they’ve got a new superstar designer to go with their new superstar driver.
Sandpit Steve said:
Leithen said:
MustangGT said:
You seem to be saying the driver is irrelevant? Obviously this is not true, otherwise Ferrari would have won two championships during the recent Mercedes era.
Not at all. Just observing that Brawn and Newey are obvious common denominators in the majority of Championship wins since '92. Plenty of variables that might impact that, but their influence should not be underestimated.The sport has changed radically since '92 and it stands to reason that one individual's ability to be transformative has greatly lessened since then. However, with a spec change imminent and the opportunity to just as easily get things wrongs as get them right, I know who I'd want in my camp, even in the most limited capacity.
Adrian penning a red car may or may not work out for the start of the next regulation set, but fair play to John Elkann and Fred Vasseur for pulling out all the stops to make it happen, if indeed they’ve got a new superstar designer to go with their new superstar driver.
Leithen said:
The other takeaway is that we ought to be bloody thankful that Newey and Brawn never ended up on the same team!
They did briefly work together at the original Haas-Lola team (Carl Haas, not Gene Haas) in 1986, but the team folded at the end of that season, so the world never got to see a car designed by the pair of them together.thegreenhell said:
Leithen said:
The other takeaway is that we ought to be bloody thankful that Newey and Brawn never ended up on the same team!
They did briefly work together at the original Haas-Lola team (Carl Haas, not Gene Haas) in 1986, but the team folded at the end of that season, so the world never got to see a car designed by the pair of them together.
Leithen said:
The other takeaway is that we ought to be bloody thankful that Newey and Brawn never ended up on the same team!
In his book, whilst not stated explicitly, it seems that Newey isn't the biggest Brawn fan in the world.From what I could infer, it seems Newey believes the '94 Benetton was running traction control, and this illegal advantage pushed Senna into taking risks he otherwise wouldn't have, leading to Imola 1994. Thus Newey believes Brawn was deliberately cheating and bears some moral responsibility for Senna's death.
Newey comes across in his book as being quite sensitive to immoral behaviour (amazing he's lasted so long with Horny Horner at Red Bull really!
). You also get the impression that he doesn't work well as a subordinate/equal in the car design hierarchy. So I can't imagine him wanting to join forces with another 'big name' that he believes to be an immoral person. So I don't think it was ever on the cards that you'd have a Brawn/Newey 'superteam'.To me, the most interesting bit of Newey's book is the mental gymnastics that car designers (or at least Adrian) go through to justify the wafer thin difference between fully exploiting all the loopholes in the rules, and cheating. A lot seems to rest on placing more weight on your interpretation of the rules, and less weight on other people's interpretations. One man's loophole is another man's cheat ... but obviously in his book Adrian is judging his loopholes by his own standards, and everyone else's also by his own standards.
Rotary Potato said:
To me, the most interesting bit of Newey's book is the mental gymnastics that car designers (or at least Adrian) go through to justify the wafer thin difference between fully exploiting all the loopholes in the rules, and cheating. A lot seems to rest on placing more weight on your interpretation of the rules, and less weight on other people's interpretations. One man's loophole is another man's cheat ... but obviously in his book Adrian is judging his loopholes by his own standards, and everyone else's also by his own standards.
I think you've summed it up very well there. I see that there's a podcast where Eddie Jordan is apparently adamant that Brawn deceived him about the double diffuser. It was my understanding that Brawn explicitly forewarned the other teams that the rules had loop holes in them. But without being there, who knows. And what one person says to one and then to another...I don't see either Brawn or Newey as particularly duplicitous. Nor Gordon Murray who drove a cart and horses through the ride height regs.
I actually preferred Brawn's book to Newey's, perhaps because it had another angle with Adam Parr. But I also like John Barnard's book even more, because it was written by someone else, warts and all, with Barnards agreement.
Fascinating people. I'm sure one or two who have contributed to this thread could add personal anecdotes of their own interactions with them.
Leithen said:
Rotary Potato said:
To me, the most interesting bit of Newey's book is the mental gymnastics that car designers (or at least Adrian) go through to justify the wafer thin difference between fully exploiting all the loopholes in the rules, and cheating. A lot seems to rest on placing more weight on your interpretation of the rules, and less weight on other people's interpretations. One man's loophole is another man's cheat ... but obviously in his book Adrian is judging his loopholes by his own standards, and everyone else's also by his own standards.
I think you've summed it up very well there. I see that there's a podcast where Eddie Jordan is apparently adamant that Brawn deceived him about the double diffuser. It was my understanding that Brawn explicitly forewarned the other teams that the rules had loop holes in them. But without being there, who knows. And what one person says to one and then to another...I don't see either Brawn or Newey as particularly duplicitous. Nor Gordon Murray who drove a cart and horses through the ride height regs.
I actually preferred Brawn's book to Newey's, perhaps because it had another angle with Adam Parr. But I also like John Barnard's book even more, because it was written by someone else, warts and all, with Barnards agreement.
Fascinating people. I'm sure one or two who have contributed to this thread could add personal anecdotes of their own interactions with them.
The Brawn series on Disney+ is a good one too. https://www.disneyplus.com/en-gb/series/brawn-the-...
Montezemolo is stil fuming
Montezemolo is stil fuming
Edited by ajprice on Tuesday 14th May 14:04
Swervin_Mervin said:
My understanding was that Brawn is on record as saying that he wrote to the FIA several times to clarify the technical regs and even highlight the implications and what could be done (i.e. the double diffuser), with those communications being available to all the teams to view as part of the technical regs clarifications process that goes on.
There's also the slight issue that Toyota and Williams also had the double diffuser, but let's not digress too much. 
Leithen said:
...
I actually preferred Brawn's book to Newey's, perhaps because it had another angle with Adam Parr.
...
Ironically, I disliked Brawn's book for exactly the reason you preferred it. If I'd wanted to hear about Adam Parr's thoughts, I'd have looked for an Adam Parr book - I didn't particularly appreciate having them shoehorned into (what I saw as) a Ross Brawn book. I actually preferred Brawn's book to Newey's, perhaps because it had another angle with Adam Parr.
...
But horses for courses, and I'm glad you liked it. The world would be a boring place if we all thought exactly the same.Leithen said:
...
But I also like John Barnard's book even more, because it was written by someone else, warts and all, with Barnards agreement.
...
I've not read that one. Thanks for the recommendation. Only 6 months until my birthday - plenty of time to drop a few subtle hints to the other half! But I also like John Barnard's book even more, because it was written by someone else, warts and all, with Barnards agreement.
...
Leithen said:
I think you've summed it up very well there. I see that there's a podcast where Eddie Jordan is apparently adamant that Brawn deceived him about the double diffuser. It was my understanding that Brawn explicitly forewarned the other teams that the rules had loop holes in them. But without being there, who knows. And what one person says to one and then to another...
I don't see either Brawn or Newey as particularly duplicitous. Nor Gordon Murray who drove a cart and horses through the ride height regs.
I actually preferred Brawn's book to Newey's, perhaps because it had another angle with Adam Parr. But I also like John Barnard's book even more, because it was written by someone else, warts and all, with Barnards agreement.
Fascinating people. I'm sure one or two who have contributed to this thread could add personal anecdotes of their own interactions with them.
I also love Barnard's book, just brilliantly honest and fascinating when discussing his thought processes and how takes problems back to first principles.I don't see either Brawn or Newey as particularly duplicitous. Nor Gordon Murray who drove a cart and horses through the ride height regs.
I actually preferred Brawn's book to Newey's, perhaps because it had another angle with Adam Parr. But I also like John Barnard's book even more, because it was written by someone else, warts and all, with Barnards agreement.
Fascinating people. I'm sure one or two who have contributed to this thread could add personal anecdotes of their own interactions with them.
Leithen said:
I think you've summed it up very well there. I see that there's a podcast where Eddie Jordan is apparently adamant that Brawn deceived him about the double diffuser. It was my understanding that Brawn explicitly forewarned the other teams that the rules had loop holes in them. But without being there, who knows. And what one person says to one and then to another...
I don't see either Brawn or Newey as particularly duplicitous. Nor Gordon Murray who drove a cart and horses through the ride height regs.
I actually preferred Brawn's book to Newey's, perhaps because it had another angle with Adam Parr. But I also like John Barnard's book even more, because it was written by someone else, warts and all, with Barnards agreement.
Fascinating people. I'm sure one or two who have contributed to this thread could add personal anecdotes of their own interactions with them.
I’m not sure how Brawn deceived Jordan about the double diffuser given that he sold Jordan at the start of 2005 and it became MF Racing for 2006 and the double diffuser didn’t appear for another 3 years.I don't see either Brawn or Newey as particularly duplicitous. Nor Gordon Murray who drove a cart and horses through the ride height regs.
I actually preferred Brawn's book to Newey's, perhaps because it had another angle with Adam Parr. But I also like John Barnard's book even more, because it was written by someone else, warts and all, with Barnards agreement.
Fascinating people. I'm sure one or two who have contributed to this thread could add personal anecdotes of their own interactions with them.
Megaflow said:
I’m not sure how Brawn deceived Jordan about the double diffuser given that he sold Jordan at the start of 2005 and it became MF Racing for 2006 and the double diffuser didn’t appear for another 3 years.
https://youtube.com/shorts/x5Uf65OO88I?si=6JjmxUkN...Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff