Williams F1

[tigerkoi]

skwdenyer said:

The process of considering - and taking-on - a new role is a two-way street. If Paddy was successful in talking his way into a role he was unsuited for or unable to carry out then it isn't "poor Paddy" but "poor Williams" for being taken-in.

There's no magic "assessment machine" by which Williams can guarantee that he has / has not the right abilities - these thing are mutual. It is not as if they promoted him to a role "he might not have been cut out for" (having had years to assess him).

This reflects badly on both sides. I think Paddy knew it was coming - he admitted in public to (paraphrasing) allowing himself to adapt to the prevailing Williams culture rather than getting a firm grasp on it early on. He sounds like he acted like an employee, not a leader, when a leader was needed. I'm sure he tried to make up time, butt possibly too little too late. First 100 days and all that...

That’s a fair look at it. Lowe was only ever going to say “yes” to a job that was higher up the food chain in his industry, regardless if he knew deep inside he might come up short. And Williams could conceivably have hoped he had enough prior knowledge that the growth role would be a natural progression for him.

I totally agree with you on the “employee, not leader” bit. That was obvious.

[TheDeuce]

skwdenyer said:

The process of considering - and taking-on - a new role is a two-way street. If Paddy was successful in talking his way into a role he was unsuited for or unable to carry out then it isn't "poor Paddy" but "poor Williams" for being taken-in.

There's no magic "assessment machine" by which Williams can guarantee that he has / has not the right abilities - these thing are mutual. It is not as if they promoted him to a role "he might not have been cut out for" (having had years to assess him).

This reflects badly on both sides. I think Paddy knew it was coming - he admitted in public to (paraphrasing) allowing himself to adapt to the prevailing Williams culture rather than getting a firm grasp on it early on. He sounds like he acted like an employee, not a leader, when a leader was needed. I'm sure he tried to make up time, butt possibly too little too late. First 100 days and all that...

To an extent I agree. He has his own responsibility to assess what he's saying yes to.

But even if blame can be split, the scale of the effects are far larger for Williams than for Lowe. I think he cost £11m. That's a lot but Williams chose to gamble a much larger amount overall, their entire season in all likelihood.

If the technical leaders chief role is to a deliver a winning car, then it must follow that the it's the role of the team principal to identify the correct leader to do that job. And in fact to identify all key team members to do the work required to remain competitive. It's not an easy job, that's why it's the top job. And they won't always get it right, but it seems Williams are getting such decisions mostly wrong. Whether it's down to a poor choice in Lowe, or inadequate support, or missing cogs in the team, it's all ultimately the job of the team principal to identify what missing, what's wrong, and get the machine working smoothly.

I think they're just not used (historically) to having a relatively tight budget and they're not very good at assembling an overall team to make the most of that budget. And is Claire one of the handful of people in the world who are truly team principal material?

[TheDeuce]

HighwayStar said:

Autosport, the parts Williams changed to be legit
https://youtu.be/nAzFWsd8ylo

Good video explanation, but all that info has been around for quite some time.

I think the wing mirrors were sort of borderline regs wise, but also so clearly useless as mirrors that the FIA were always going to take issue.

As for the seventh suspension element.. cmon guys, the rulebook says six. Not seven. That was never going to go unnoticed!!

[Europa1]

TheDeuce said:

HighwayStar said:

Autosport, the parts Williams changed to be legit
https://youtu.be/nAzFWsd8ylo

Good video explanation, but all that info has been around for quite some time.

I think the wing mirrors were sort of borderline regs wise, but also so clearly useless as mirrors that the FIA were always going to take issue.

As for the seventh suspension element.. cmon guys, the rulebook says six. Not seven. That was never going to go unnoticed!!

On the basis that all of the separate aerodynamic components are designed to work together as an optimised complete package, presumably the likelihood is that having to change these components at this stage means that the Williams will be even further off the pace in Melbourne.

[TheDeuce]

Europa1 said:

On the basis that all of the separate aerodynamic components are designed to work together as an optimised complete package, presumably the likelihood is that having to change these components at this stage means that the Williams will be even further off the pace in Melbourne.

I suppose it depends on why they chose to try and bend the rules in the first place. If it was just a cheeky attempt to get a fractional performance gain, then the difference of having them removed will also be fractional. But, perhaps they added them as a sticking plaster to address airflow problems around parts of the car - so it could be a bigger impact. I doubt we'll ever know. I think the wing mirrors could genuinely have added an extra few mph top end on a long enough straight. The extra aero foil on the suspension member, that does kinda look like a bodge to direct air in a way the basic design of the car needed to achieve, but failed to.

A bigger issue is that the complete aero package apparently wasn't ready by the time they had ceased testing, and very little testing was actually managed. So some stuff changed, some stuff added not tested, and what was there not tested very thoroughly. Somewhere in that mess, performance has to have been sacrificed.

And in the end, no one, even at Williams knows the cars race pace as they never ran a race worth of laps during testing, not even close. That makes it impossible to know if pace is better or worse come Melbourne. We just know the pace won't be good

[HighwayStar]

TheDeuce said:

Europa1 said:

On the basis that all of the separate aerodynamic components are designed to work together as an optimised complete package, presumably the likelihood is that having to change these components at this stage means that the Williams will be even further off the pace in Melbourne.

I suppose it depends on why they chose to try and bend the rules in the first place. If it was just a cheeky attempt to get a fractional performance gain, then the difference of having them removed will also be fractional. But, perhaps they added them as a sticking plaster to address airflow problems around parts of the car - so it could be a bigger impact. I doubt we'll ever know. I think the wing mirrors could genuinely have added an extra few mph top end on a long enough straight. The extra aero foil on the suspension member, that does kinda look like a bodge to direct air in a way the basic design of the car needed to achieve, but failed to.

A bigger issue is that the complete aero package apparently wasn't ready by the time they had ceased testing, and very little testing was actually managed. So some stuff changed, some stuff added not tested, and what was there not tested very thoroughly. Somewhere in that mess, performance has to have been sacrificed.

And in the end, no one, even at Williams knows the cars race pace as they never ran a race worth of laps during testing, not even close. That makes it impossible to know if pace is better or worse come Melbourne. We just know the pace won't be good

I'm a big fan of Williams but they've seriously dropped the ball with the iffy parts... as has been pointed it everything is part of the whole aero philosophy, how much redesigned parts will compromise that philosophy is anyone's guess. we've seen cars lose end plates, barge boards fly off, with damaged floors and in some case performance has barely dropped off.

Williams won't have any idea of what they really have now so the FP1 is when they actually start testing in earnest. I hope they are at least respectable 5 or 6 races in. To be even worse than they were last season for a whole season... well it would be sad to see Claire out front defending the team while everyone glazes over.

[TheDeuce]

HighwayStar said:

I'm a big fan of Williams but they've seriously dropped the ball with the iffy parts... as has been pointed it everything is part of the whole aero philosophy, how much redesigned parts will compromise that philosophy is anyone's guess. we've seen cars lose end plates, barge boards fly off, with damaged floors and in some case performance has barely dropped off.

Williams won't have any idea of what they really have now so the FP1 is when they actually start testing in earnest. I hope they are at least respectable 5 or 6 races in. To be even worse than they were last season for a whole season... well it would be sad to see Claire out front defending the team while everyone glazes over.

I'm sure they will improve but of course, so will everyone else.

Im equally sure that they won't be in good shape at all come qualifying, and if I had to bet a tenner I'd bet on them being slower than last seasons qualifying.

Actually fp1 is at 1am (GMT) tomorrow morning, so anyone interested in getting an early glimpse of them running the cars just has to stay awake until then

[The Moose]

I seem to remember somewhere in the Netflix documentary that Sauber couldn’t afford to run their wind tunnel for 2 consecutive years. That being the case and they are now coming back from beyond the back of the grid. I don’t see why Williams can’t turn it around. But I do think Claire is a potential road block that needs to blown through.

[TheDeuce]

The Moose said:

I seem to remember somewhere in the Netflix documentary that Sauber couldn’t afford to run their wind tunnel for 2 consecutive years. That being the case and they are now coming back from beyond the back of the grid. I don’t see why Williams can’t turn it around. But I do think Claire is a potential road block that needs to blown through.

They must have used a wind tunnel still. I don't see how it's possible to have a remotely driveable F1 car if not. Can we believe that they just trusted computer modelling and then crossed fingers at pre season testing hoping the downforce would appear at turn one, at 120mph?

In the age of aero over tyres, these cars have no grip at speed at all without downforce. And when all the grip comes from downforce, it has to be almost perfectly balanced to avoid catastrophic oversteer/understeer.

Something is very fishy about the claim they had no wind tunnel testing for two seasons.

[robbieduncan]

TheDeuce said:

They must have used a wind tunnel still. I don't see how it's possible to have a remotely driveable F1 car if not. Can we believe that they just trusted computer modelling and then crossed fingers at pre season testing hoping the downforce would appear at turn one, at 120mph?

In the age of aero over tyres, these cars have no grip at speed at all without downforce. And when all the grip comes from downforce, it has to be almost perfectly balanced to avoid catastrophic oversteer/understeer.

Something is very fishy about the claim they had no wind tunnel testing for two seasons.

Did one of the recent failed F1 teams not do just that? No windtunnel, all CFD? Virgin Racing I think

[TheDeuce]

robbieduncan said:

Did one of the recent failed F1 teams not do just that? No windtunnel, all CFD? Virgin Racing I think

Maybe, I don't know. If you have a source would be very interesting.

An F1 car is far from a basic shape though, so the tiniest inaccuracies in the simulation could give unexpected results in real life.

[tigerkoi]

@The Deuce: I don’t know if you’ve mentioned it before or I’ve missed something, but you sound extremely knowledgeable on F1. Are you in the sport as such?

I enjoy reading your posts, alongside a number of other contributors on this forum - makes it one of the more pleasant places on pistonheads to be honest.

No agenda behind the question, just interested.

[thegreenhell]

TheDeuce said:

robbieduncan said:

Did one of the recent failed F1 teams not do just that? No windtunnel, all CFD? Virgin Racing I think

Maybe, I don't know. If you have a source would be very interesting.

An F1 car is far from a basic shape though, so the tiniest inaccuracies in the simulation could give unexpected results in real life.

Yes, it was Virgin. They were using Nick Wirth's CFD company.

[C Lee Farquar]

robbieduncan said:

Did one of the recent failed F1 teams not do just that? No windtunnel, all CFD? Virgin Racing I think

Yes, Nick Worth for Virgin Racing

[anonymous-user]

C Lee Farquar said:

robbieduncan said:

Did one of the recent failed F1 teams not do just that? No windtunnel, all CFD? Virgin Racing I think

Yes, Nick Worth for Virgin Racing

Yes, that went well..................

[TheDeuce]

REALIST123 said:

C Lee Farquar said:

robbieduncan said:

Did one of the recent failed F1 teams not do just that? No windtunnel, all CFD? Virgin Racing I think

Yes, Nick Worth for Virgin Racing

Yes, that went well..................

Haha! So the point was it's possible.. so long as a crappy result counts as a pass!?

Back to the original question, did they really go two whole seasons with no wind tunnel time at all? Or did they perhaps rent the odd few days at another tunnel?

Wouldnt be the first time a team gave a slightly disingenuous view of how hard times are for them, especially when discussions of how revenue is shared in F1 are on the table, or whatever else they were begging for.

Edited by TheDeuce on Thursday 14th March 20:29

[TheDeuce]

tigerkoi said:

@The Deuce: I don’t know if you’ve mentioned it before or I’ve missed something, but you sound extremely knowledgeable on F1. Are you in the sport as such?

I enjoy reading your posts, alongside a number of other contributors on this forum - makes it one of the more pleasant places on pistonheads to be honest.

No agenda behind the question, just interested.

I'm an engineer, I design and build one off automated displays for large events, TV/films and such. Mostly involving water as a display element.

I just happen to work in between hall & hall (ex BRM guys now selling recon historic cars) and the guy that does all their bodywork repair for them. I first got heavily into F1 when during a chat about cars for TV/film, he told me that between the two of them they had sourced and prepared the cars for the movie Rush. Then a short while later he had 2 of Lauda's cars in the shop, and I was examining the engineering, I fell in love.

So my only relevance really is an engineers mindset. The rest is just seeking knowledge, driven by passion as I'm sandwiched between those two companies

We also get more modern stuff here too. No hybrid era just yet but apparently they're virtually impossible to even start without half a geared up F1 team standing by.. so much for their classic race future.

[anonymous-user]

TheDeuce said:

REALIST123 said:

C Lee Farquar said:

robbieduncan said:

Did one of the recent failed F1 teams not do just that? No windtunnel, all CFD? Virgin Racing I think

Yes, Nick Worth for Virgin Racing

Yes, that went well..................

Haha! So the point was it's possible.. so long as a crappy result counts as a pass!?

Not only that, IIRC, they designed the car with a fuel tank too small to complete races at full pace and needed special permission to redesign it during the season.

That very poor start probably led to the chaotic and not very successful life of the team in the round. Owner/staff changes, little continuity, funding shortages etc.

[Fortitude]

TheDeuce said:

I'm an engineer, I design and build one off automated displays for large events, TV/films and such. Mostly involving water as a display element.

I just happen to work in between hall & hall (ex BRM guys now selling recon historic cars) and the guy that does all their bodywork repair for them. I first got heavily into F1 when during a chat about cars for TV/film, he told me that between the two of them they had sourced and prepared the cars for the movie Rush. Then a short while later he had 2 of Lauda's cars in the shop, and I was examining the engineering, I fell in love.

So my only relevance really is an engineers mindset. The rest is just seeking knowledge, driven by passion as I'm sandwiched between those two companies

We also get more modern stuff here too. No hybrid era just yet but apparently they're virtually impossible to even start without half a geared up F1 team standing by.. so much for their classic race future.

...then we are ALL lucky to have you writing on this message board, for your insightful comments.

[C Lee Farquar]

REALIST123 said:

Not only that, IIRC, they designed the car with a fuel tank too small to complete races at full pace and needed special permission to redesign it during the season.

That very poor start probably led to the chaotic and not very successful life of the team in the round. Owner/staff changes, little continuity, funding shortages etc.

I'd forgotten that!

I was reading about Nick recently, same age as me and based nearby still.

In partnership with Spanky in his early 20s, starting Simtek in his late 20s. Still owns Wirth research. Quite a life.