Willis leaves Honda
Discussion
stockhatcher said:
Willis was considered by Williams as to be 'not quite up to the task' of replacing Newey.
With Honda (BAR) having produced a succession of not quite good enough cars, It seems Williams were right.
What price Gascoyne at Honda by year end?
With Honda (BAR) having produced a succession of not quite good enough cars, It seems Williams were right.
What price Gascoyne at Honda by year end?
I'd take issue with that statement. Willis and Fisher were both left high and dry when Newey left. What's accepted is that they are not "leaders" per se. But they were very much the grassroots designers of the Newey era cars and contributed a great deal to his success, much as Mike Coghlan had a lot to do with Newey's success at McLaren and as Mark Smith will at Red Bull.
You'd have thought that if Honda wanted Gascoyne, they'd have brought him in to oversee Willis who is the sort of individual to be happy to step out of the limelight....but will Honda take the risk on Gascoyne - after all if they fail with him, Toyota are going to make a lot of mileage out of that.
i was quoting a comment from montoya, in 2004 who said ( after seeing honda's success that year) that it was thought that honda had poached the wrong engineer in willis and that it was fisher who was the better one, and yet that year bar had the better car.
however you can't argue that willis did not think that he was the superstar designer with or without newey's help, his cars at honda haven't done the job, he was also recruited as chief designer, so you'd have to think that willis himself thought that he was good enough, if he was prepared to take on the job in the first place.
however you can't argue that willis did not think that he was the superstar designer with or without newey's help, his cars at honda haven't done the job, he was also recruited as chief designer, so you'd have to think that willis himself thought that he was good enough, if he was prepared to take on the job in the first place.
But Fisher got the boot from Williams after the tusk wing fiasco. He was more of a maverick than Willis who struck/strikes me as a more logical methodical individual.
There's some talk of Willis going back to Williams and equally he might find a good berth at Prodrive with DR who knows how to harness his talents.
There's some talk of Willis going back to Williams and equally he might find a good berth at Prodrive with DR who knows how to harness his talents.
The 2004 car wasn't that bad.
Or did DR design that!
Honda are up the creek, without a paddle and they are doing it without a mainstream F1 man.
Good for them. We need more people in F1 to show us how not to do it.
Toyota don't know what they are doing and Honda are following thier lead.
I never thought I'd say it, but maybe Max is right!
Or did DR design that!
Honda are up the creek, without a paddle and they are doing it without a mainstream F1 man.
Good for them. We need more people in F1 to show us how not to do it.
Toyota don't know what they are doing and Honda are following thier lead.
I never thought I'd say it, but maybe Max is right!
robbiemeister said:
The 2004 car wasn't that bad.
Or did DR design that!
Honda are up the creek, without a paddle and they are doing it without a mainstream F1 man.
Good for them. We need more people in F1 to show us how not to do it.
Toyota don't know what they are doing and Honda are following thier lead.
I never thought I'd say it, but maybe Max is right!
Or did DR design that!
Honda are up the creek, without a paddle and they are doing it without a mainstream F1 man.
Good for them. We need more people in F1 to show us how not to do it.
Toyota don't know what they are doing and Honda are following thier lead.
I never thought I'd say it, but maybe Max is right!
I didn't say he was a bad designer - I think that he lacks someone who can steer him in the right direction - eg DR...hence the reason why he'd be a good fit at Prodrive.
I totally agree with what your comments though - it irritates the hell out of me to see Honda and Toyota taking such an arrogant stance and throwing vast amounts of cash at the problem without thinking it through.
Matt Bishop hypothesises that Briatore is what Toyota needs - his Renault contract is up at the end of this year isn't it?....
Honda have been fiddling with the management which seems to have taken them backwards. It looks like they have a wish to place "their" technical people in place despite their lack of experience in this field. Two problems then occur. The first is that they are percieved as not having the experience by the rest of the team, the second is that they have a "corporate" mentality that does not fit in Formula 1. I don't see Honda or Toyota being able to continue in F1 successfully with this attitude.
telecat said:
Honda have been fiddling with the management which seems to have taken them backwards. It looks like they have a wish to place "their" technical people in place despite their lack of experience in this field. Two problems then occur. The first is that they are percieved as not having the experience by the rest of the team, the second is that they have a "corporate" mentality that does not fit in Formula 1. I don't see Honda or Toyota being able to continue in F1 successfully with this attitude.
It would be fair to say that Honda haven't put together a management team they are happy with yet, and this is hurting their performance - they need a period of stability if they are to progress.
However, the guy they have put in at senior technical director has been with the team a few years and was previously responsible for some of their motorcycle racing activities so he knows what it's all about. Also, I don't think the contrast between Honda and Toyota could be more different - Honda are exceptionally engineering lead compared to most car companies and have always realised the value of racing. For example, for many years they have sent engineers into their race programs from the main factory as a form of rapid training.
Honda have what it takes to make it in F1 but I'm not so sure about Toyota...
egomeister said:
telecat said:
Honda have been fiddling with the management which seems to have taken them backwards. It looks like they have a wish to place "their" technical people in place despite their lack of experience in this field. Two problems then occur. The first is that they are percieved as not having the experience by the rest of the team, the second is that they have a "corporate" mentality that does not fit in Formula 1. I don't see Honda or Toyota being able to continue in F1 successfully with this attitude.
It would be fair to say that Honda haven't put together a management team they are happy with yet, and this is hurting their performance - they need a period of stability if they are to progress.
However, the guy they have put in at senior technical director has been with the team a few years and was previously responsible for some of their motorcycle racing activities so he knows what it's all about. Also, I don't think the contrast between Honda and Toyota could be more different - Honda are exceptionally engineering lead compared to most car companies and have always realised the value of racing. For example, for many years they have sent engineers into their race programs from the main factory as a form of rapid training.
Honda have what it takes to make it in F1 but I'm not so sure about Toyota...
Honda have proved they have the Engineering expertise in Engines, however they don't have the Chassis and Aero experience. That will cost them. I don't expect that any amount of Motorcycle racing experiencewill translate to F1. Efforts by Car racing designers have not been that successful in Motorcycling
telecat said:
Honda have proved they have the Engineering expertise in Engines, however they don't have the Chassis and Aero experience. That will cost them. I don't expect that any amount of Motorcycle racing experiencewill translate to F1. Efforts by Car racing designers have not been that successful in Motorcycling
Exactly!...same goes for Toyota - excellent at engines, know eff all about chassis...which is why I just can't see them doing anything. A real shame as I do think that Honda have the character that Toyota so desperately lack...and their TV ads are sooo cool
davidd said:
But toyota have raced at le mans (I think they came second one year when I was there). So they obviously have a clue about racing the aero stuff.
I'd love honda to do well, I know its been a while but they are a great F1 name.
D
I'd love honda to do well, I know its been a while but they are a great F1 name.
D
That was a fully enclosed car which finished only twice Once in Ninth place and a second place. The Toyota efforts always seem to be based in Germany. Some thing I have stated on other threads that seems to be a drawback in Modern F1.
telecat said:
davidd said:
But toyota have raced at le mans (I think they came second one year when I was there). So they obviously have a clue about racing the aero stuff.
I'd love honda to do well, I know its been a while but they are a great F1 name.
D
I'd love honda to do well, I know its been a while but they are a great F1 name.
D
That was a fully enclosed car which finished only twice Once in Ninth place and a second place. The Toyota efforts always seem to be based in Germany. Some thing I have stated on other threads that seems to be a drawback in Modern F1.
Yes, the aero challenges of Le Mans don't translate to those of F1, although IIRC Ross Brawn did work on Jaguar's Group C cars with Tony Southgate in the '80s.
rubystone said:
Yes, the aero challenges of Le Mans don't translate to those of F1, although IIRC Ross Brawn did work on Jaguar's Group C cars with Tony Southgate in the '80s.
I'm not questioning that you're correct, but why is that? I realise that the specifics of doing the aero' on sportscars and F1 cars are different but I would have thought the basic premise is the same: get as much downforce with as little drag as possible.
Bit of Toyota Le Mans info.
As well as the GT-One Toyota also raced at Le Mans during the last Group C years of the early 90's with the 90CV, 92CV, 93CV and the TOM's TS010 cars. In 1994 a SARD entered 94CV (updated 92CV) took 2nd place. Le Mans that year was only weeks after Roland Ratzenberg's death at Imola and Roland's name was still on the car he was to share with Eddie Irvine, Mauro Martini and Jeff Krosnov.
Of course in 1999 the Ukyou Katayama, Toshio Suzuki and Keiichi Tsuchiya car finished again 2nd, despite a high speed blowout captured on the in car camera and handled swiftly and brilliantly by Katayama.
As well as the GT-One Toyota also raced at Le Mans during the last Group C years of the early 90's with the 90CV, 92CV, 93CV and the TOM's TS010 cars. In 1994 a SARD entered 94CV (updated 92CV) took 2nd place. Le Mans that year was only weeks after Roland Ratzenberg's death at Imola and Roland's name was still on the car he was to share with Eddie Irvine, Mauro Martini and Jeff Krosnov.
Of course in 1999 the Ukyou Katayama, Toshio Suzuki and Keiichi Tsuchiya car finished again 2nd, despite a high speed blowout captured on the in car camera and handled swiftly and brilliantly by Katayama.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff