Williams F1

[anonymous-user]

Norfolkit said:

dgmx5 said:

Norfolkit said:

But who is the real problem Frank or Claire (or both).
It's easy to see how Frank could think, I turned a back of the grid, flat broke team into the best team in the world. I've done it once so I can do it again. Maybe he could, I don't think he can but maybe he does. Not being an insider it's impossible to know what influence Frank still has.

But was Frank, himself, responsible for turning a back of the grid, flat broke team into the best in the world?

I will let others on here with far better knowledge of the era comment, but watching the Williams' film made me feel that Frank is undoubtedly passionate and obsessive about F1, but he founded one team that was back of the grid that only picked up in performance when Wolf bought it and then started again to found another largely unremarkable team until Patrick Head came on board. Although the start of my time following F1 coincided with Williams being a giant, how much of that was Frank's influence and how much was that of others?

Undoubtedly Patrick Head was a huge part of Williams's success (as were Adrian Newey, Neil Oatley, Ross Brawn, Frank Dernie, Paddy Lowe, Geoff Willis) but Frank was the head of that organisation and must be in part responsible for the success they had, whether Frank should still be at the sharp end (if in fact he is) is a different question, as I said it's difficult to know how much influence he has these days.
Maybe Claire would be a good team principal if left to get on with it or maybe she is left to get on with it but just doesn't have the skill set needed. Impossible to judge from the outside

You’re right, we don’t know if either of those scenarios is the case, though I’m not aware of any relevant skill or experience Claire has that would suggest the latter isn’t the case.

[stevesuk]

So this morning, Williams gave their newly upgraded car to Kubica and he was six tenths quicker than Russell (in the old car). Given the relative performance differences between the two of them so far this year, I wonder how much quicker Russell would have been with the upgraded car

[skwdenyer]

stevesuk said:

So this morning, Williams gave their newly upgraded car to Kubica and he six tenths quicker than Russell (in the old car). Given the relative performance differences between the two of them so far this year, I wonder how much quicker Russell would have been with the upgraded car

We will find out tomorrow - the same kit is going on GR's car overnight.

Assuming all other things being equal, 6/10ths is a big upgrade.

[Lebo44]

"We had a problem that changed our entire action plan. Already on the first lap, the ride schedule was changed. It was not a good day for us. The results of training are of little importance. " RK (translated by Google)

George confirmed it too (that Today's times are of little importance)

""We have to do something to keep all the things in the car in place. This is the second such weekend in a row "RK.

Edited by Lebo44 on Friday 26th July 15:46

[Fortitude]

New evidence? Polish media accuses Claire Williams of lying

July 23, 2019 · by thejudge13 · in Daily F1 News and Comment.

In a rather unsavoury manner, the Polish media (namely wrc.net) recently accused team principle of Williams of ‘lying’ about differences of specification between Kubica’s car and Russells.

https://thejudge13.com/2019/07/23/new-evidence-pol...

[Frimley111R]

Williams F1 seasons described in my favourite Blackadder quote 'It started badly, tailed off in the middle and the less said about the end the better'

[HustleRussell]

Fortitude said:

New evidence? Polish media accuses Claire Williams of lying

July 23, 2019 · by thejudge13 · in Daily F1 News and Comment.

In a rather unsavoury manner, the Polish media (namely wrc.net) recently accused team principle of Williams of ‘lying’ about differences of specification between Kubica’s car and Russells.

https://thejudge13.com/2019/07/23/new-evidence-pol...

Claim dispelled the very next day if you read the full article

[slipstream 1985]

Is rain along with a couple of crashes Williams only chance of getting a point this season?

[Lebo44]

It looks like upgrades actually work but the problem is their fragility:
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.kubica-...

[TheDeuce]

slipstream 1985 said:

Is rain along with a couple of crashes Williams only chance of getting a point this season?

More than a couple...

[TheDeuce]

Lebo44 said:

It looks like upgrades actually work but the problem is their fragility:
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.kubica-...

Hard to know how to feel about this. On the one hand it looks like the upgrades are technically effective - on the other hand, pieces being more fragile than expected is a concern. If they're designing new aero pieces, to get the shape right they must have calculated the airflow more or less correctly. Those same calculations would equally accurately reveal the forces on each surface - so it's odd for the pieces to not be strong enough... They knew how strong they would need to be before beginning fabrication.

Hopefully it's just a single Achilles heel letting down the entire upgrade and a quick fix to make when they make replacements.

[marine boy]

TheDeuce said:

Hard to know how to feel about this. On the one hand it looks like the upgrades are technically effective - on the other hand, pieces being more fragile than expected is a concern. If they're designing new aero pieces, to get the shape right they must have calculated the airflow more or less correctly. Those same calculations would equally accurately reveal the forces on each surface - so it's odd for the pieces to not be strong enough... They knew how strong they would need to be before beginning fabrication.

Hopefully it's just a single Achilles heel letting down the entire upgrade and a quick fix to make when they make replacements.

I'd take it as a big positive as the team appears to have added a much needed performance upgrade to their car

All looks easy from the comfort of an armchair but getting F1 aero parts from the wind tunnel to the track in a timely manner is a difficult achievement, especially harder with the added pressure of playing catch up

Been there, done it many times, only takes one tiny mistake or oversight or one short cut too many for it all to go wrong

[TheDeuce]

marine boy said:

TheDeuce said:

Hard to know how to feel about this. On the one hand it looks like the upgrades are technically effective - on the other hand, pieces being more fragile than expected is a concern. If they're designing new aero pieces, to get the shape right they must have calculated the airflow more or less correctly. Those same calculations would equally accurately reveal the forces on each surface - so it's odd for the pieces to not be strong enough... They knew how strong they would need to be before beginning fabrication.

Hopefully it's just a single Achilles heel letting down the entire upgrade and a quick fix to make when they make replacements.

I'd take it as a big positive as the team appears to have added a much needed performance upgrade to their car

All looks easy from the comfort of an armchair but getting F1 aero parts from the wind tunnel to the track in a timely manner is a difficult achievement, especially harder with the added pressure of playing catch up

Been there, done it many times, only takes one tiny mistake or oversight or one short cut too many for it all to go wrong

I appreciate all that. My point is that the parts work, so their R&D and tunnel testing was correct. And that same data would have revealed the forces imposed on each new surface, so the required strength would have been know pre-fabrication.

With your experience, what are potential reasons for the unexpected fragility? The have QC at each stage of fabrication to identify the small mistakes don't they?

I think it's an interesting thing to consider because, if you recall, at pre-season testing the cars also suffered unexpected deterioration of some parts.

[rscott]

TheDeuce said:

I appreciate all that. My point is that the parts work, so their R&D and tunnel testing was correct. And that same data would have revealed the forces imposed on each new surface, so the required strength would have been know pre-fabrication.

With your experience, what are potential reasons for the unexpected fragility? The have QC at each stage of fabrication to identify the small mistakes don't they?

I think it's an interesting thing to consider because, if you recall, at pre-season testing the cars also suffered unexpected deterioration of some parts.

Calculating the airflow correctly doesn't give the full picture of stresses and loads though - it completely ignores the impact of running over kerbs (for example) or vibrations from other sources.

[TheDeuce]

rscott said:

Calculating the airflow correctly doesn't give the full picture of stresses and loads though - it completely ignores the impact of running over kerbs (for example) or vibrations from other sources.

Well, they have endless data for the impact of running over kerbs, it's collected during every lap. Vibration could be a genuine problem though, it would explain their general issues with fragility and perhaps also the reportedly unpredictable nature of the car on the limit.

So much we don't know of course. I hope they can sort the issues with fragility in general - it's a bit depressing when drivers are told to avoid kerbs!! If the issues continue, it would point to a fundamental issue with car - time will tell on that front I guess.

[TheDeuce]

Only just caught up with this part of the story as I've been watching FP3: https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.damage-...

It is the floor again...

It's odd that RK is quoted as saying he thought the new elements were 'too fragile' ahead of even running them.. theories?

[marine boy]

TheDeuce said:

I appreciate all that. My point is that the parts work, so their R&D and tunnel testing was correct. And that same data would have revealed the forces imposed on each new surface, so the required strength would have been know pre-fabrication.

With your experience, what are potential reasons for the unexpected fragility? The have QC at each stage of fabrication to identify the small mistakes don't they?

I think it's an interesting thing to consider because, if you recall, at pre-season testing the cars also suffered unexpected deterioration of some parts.

Not sure you appreciate all of what goes on

I've not really followed whIch part fell off, if you can post up what part it was then I'll try to list the numerous different ways in which it may have failed

Could be anything from poor manufacturing, incorrect FEA loads, bad design, natural frequency resonance etc

[TheDeuce]

marine boy said:

Not sure you appreciate all of what goes on

I've not really followed whIch part fell off, if you can post up what part it was then I'll try to list the numerous different ways in which it may have failed

Could be anything from poor manufacturing, incorrect FEA loads, bad design, natural frequency resonance etc

See my most recent post and link, seems it was the new floor degrading - which could compromise anything else attached to it in numerous ways. As such, no particular reason to think the parts that fell of had themselves an inherent issue - although none of us know of course.

All we know for sure is that their first floor design was too fragile, and that tend has continued to the revised design.

[Lebo44]

Russell leaves track
https://twitter.com/i/status/1155532160905994241

Kubica's spin during SC
https://twitter.com/i/status/1155518572069818369

[A15]

A great job by both drivers to bring the cars home in one piece. A shame Russell spun. Great job by Kubica, his first wet single seater race since 2010. Alfa's 30 second penalty means Kubica scores his first point this year.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.alfa-ro...