Discussion
TheDeuce said:
Celebrating the 15th place finish is just silly. The fastest Williams was 6 tenths off the pace of the p18 car in qualifying, that's the reality - and as such is no closer to p18 than before. The other cars just couldn't get past - all credit to Russell for ensuring they couldn't but c'mon... That's just him being a good and sensible driver, not exactly a sign of progress with the car.
He did such a good job of blocking that the next car was 12 seconds behind at the flag.thegreenhell said:
TheDeuce said:
Celebrating the 15th place finish is just silly. The fastest Williams was 6 tenths off the pace of the p18 car in qualifying, that's the reality - and as such is no closer to p18 than before. The other cars just couldn't get past - all credit to Russell for ensuring they couldn't but c'mon... That's just him being a good and sensible driver, not exactly a sign of progress with the car.
He did such a good job of blocking that the next car was 12 seconds behind at the flag.Lets see in Canada if they can do better than p20 & p19 - barring any DNF's etc. I very much doubt it.
janesmith1950 said:
George Russell looks like a tidy young driver. Hopefully he'll get the chance to show his skills in something better than the Williams.
He did - in the Mercedes test. He did very well :https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.russell-fastest-for-mercedes-as-schumacher-samples-alfa-on-day-2-of-bahrain.5xYzJPjrzHqFAh5FHbKqu2.htmlFastest time of the 2 day test in fact. Certainly very promising.
mk1coopers said:
It's no good saying in press articles that you are 'bringing performance to the car at every race' over a two year plan if you get to the end of 2020 with a car that's only as fast as the others were at the start of 2019, you will still be dead last....
And what exactly is the performance they have bought so far? There haven't been any updates (unless I have missed something). Are they referring to improvements by learning more about the car and setting it up slightly better each race? I suppose that's an improvement, but other teams wouldn't shout about it - it's just setup. Or was finally replacing the floor they damaged in pre-season testing an 'improvement'? Again, I guess technically it was, but it's also just repair and maintenance...And yes, you're right - no improvement is an actual improvement unless they develop and improve at a faster rate to their rivals. Each qualifying they have been approx 4-6 seconds off p1 pace. Factoring for different tracks and good/bad luck, that situation hasn't changed. Perhaps an analyst could prove there has been a mild improvement somehow, but certainly not enough to put out a press release to celebrate.
On a different note, interesting to get a bit of an overview of what WAE are up to.
https://www.sports.ru/tribuna/blogs/wrongturn/2441...
(In Russian, but Google does a reasonable job of sorting it out)
https://www.sports.ru/tribuna/blogs/wrongturn/2441...
(In Russian, but Google does a reasonable job of sorting it out)
In the latest Motor Sport magazine/Lunch With... Rob Smedley says "Williams never invested enough in R&D"
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/news/f1/rob-sme...
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/news/f1/rob-sme...
entropy said:
In the latest Motor Sport magazine/Lunch With... Rob Smedley says "Williams never invested enough in R&D"
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/news/f1/rob-sme...
Just look at their car compared to the others - the aero is so basic, almost like an indycar. Then look at the what the competitive cars have going on...https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/news/f1/rob-sme...
Rob is right I think!
They got too caught up in the corporate and fundraising side of the business. The car almost exists now to enter races, to be in F1, to get sponsorship to keep the team going. Therefore, the cheaper the car, the easier it is for them to raise enough money to survive another year.
You don't have to stand a chance in F1 to build a car that meets the regs and can enter - and if you do, you just have to cover costs via sponsorship and you have a reason to exist. A fairly pathetic reason... But nonetheless, it's obviously working. For now at least. I think this second consecutive season of zero performance might somewhat dent their ability to get sufficient sponsorship for a third go.
TheDeuce said:
entropy said:
In the latest Motor Sport magazine/Lunch With... Rob Smedley says "Williams never invested enough in R&D"
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/news/f1/rob-sme...
Just look at their car compared to the others - the aero is so basic, almost like an indycar. Then look at the what the competitive cars have going on...https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/news/f1/rob-sme...
Rob is right I think!
They got too caught up in the corporate and fundraising side of the business. The car almost exists now to enter races, to be in F1, to get sponsorship to keep the team going. Therefore, the cheaper the car, the easier it is for them to raise enough money to survive another year.
You don't have to stand a chance in F1 to build a car that meets the regs and can enter - and if you do, you just have to cover costs via sponsorship and you have a reason to exist. A fairly pathetic reason... But nonetheless, it's obviously working. For now at least. I think this second consecutive season of zero performance might somewhat dent their ability to get sufficient sponsorship for a third go.
That would fit with the Smedley comments - the investment in the tool chain has simply not been made, with inevitable results.
skwdenyer said:
From various pieces I've read, it seems that Lowe came in and said something like "the aero concept is wrong and too simplistic; we need to change that" without first challenging whether the Williams tools (CFD, internal design codes, etc.) were up to the job. It is suggested that he just assumed the "tech" was up to scratch. The problems with the '18 car were (it seems) down to a fundamental disconnect between the design output and the real world. Given the limited wind tunnel testing available, I can imagine a scenario in which the more "simple" scenarios were tested in the tunnel (and found to correlate moderately well), but the more complex flow structures simply didn't exist in reality when the (flawed) toolchain said they would. That problem wasn't fixable quickly, leading to the current situation.
That would fit with the Smedley comments - the investment in the tool chain has simply not been made, with inevitable results.
It would fit with a team that has cut development budget and lost track of where modern F1 is at technology-wise. I can quite imagine that if the general knowledge in the factory was sub-par, that Lowe would have had nothing real to work with. Tooling is also probably under-invested in too. As a team they have a large operation and a tiny budget, everything must be compromised.That would fit with the Smedley comments - the investment in the tool chain has simply not been made, with inevitable results.
I suppose we could debate the exact symptoms of insufficient car development budget over the recent years - but it's almost irrelevant. Several sources have said there isn't a realistic budget for the car, it's clear the size of the team is disproportionate to their budget, the car has to be compromised. Aero is one part but I get the distinct impression that everything that should be 99% perfect is now more like 90% perfect. Not very F1. Not very Williams really. This is why I maintain that they should sell the team - it's nice that the family get to make a profit each year even if the car is crap, but at some point the money will stop coming in. Better to sell now - it's clear that Claire is more interested in spinning results than creating impressive results.
entropy said:
In the latest Motor Sport magazine/Lunch With... Rob Smedley says "Williams never invested enough in R&D"
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/news/f1/rob-sme...
"We’re really looking at 2019 and ’20 very much as almost two seasons" https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/news/f1/rob-sme...
Dynamic Space Wizard said:
entropy said:
In the latest Motor Sport magazine/Lunch With... Rob Smedley says "Williams never invested enough in R&D"
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/news/f1/rob-sme...
"We’re really looking at 2019 and ’20 very much as almost two seasons" https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/news/f1/rob-sme...
I feel for her, I really do. She’s coming across as both clueless and inept, two things I’m pretty certain she isn’t.
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Dynamic Space Wizard said:
entropy said:
In the latest Motor Sport magazine/Lunch With... Rob Smedley says "Williams never invested enough in R&D"
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/news/f1/rob-sme...
"We’re really looking at 2019 and ’20 very much as almost two seasons" https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/news/f1/rob-sme...
I feel for her, I really do. She’s coming across as both clueless and inept, two things I’m pretty certain she isn’t.
“We’re really looking at 2019 and ’20 very much as almost two seasons, where it’s just evolution and development.....”
Remove the comma and it makes more sense.
Not that I think she’s knows what she’s looking at, in all honesty.
REALIST123 said:
To be fair what she said was:
“We’re really looking at 2019 and ’20 very much as almost two seasons, where it’s just evolution and development.....”
Remove the comma and it makes more sense.
Not that I think she’s knows what she’s looking at, in all honesty.
Remove the 'almost' and it makes even more sense “We’re really looking at 2019 and ’20 very much as almost two seasons, where it’s just evolution and development.....”
Remove the comma and it makes more sense.
Not that I think she’s knows what she’s looking at, in all honesty.
It's not almost 2 seasons, Claire. It is two seasons. And good luck getting sponsorship for a next years season, having just confirmed you have no plan to do anything competitive at all next year.
TheDeuce said:
janesmith1950 said:
Replace "almost 2 seasons" with "1 season" and you get the intended meaning.
How do you read it that way? Why would she say 2 seasons, and specify which two she was talking about if she intended to refer to just one?Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff