Jump to content


Photo

Can a drive contribute to the development of his car?


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#51 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 28 May 2008 - 18:07

Originally posted by as65p

The point is, what does "came from Alex" really mean? I would take it that certain parts were inspired by his input, nothing more, nothing less.

If he really did design them with his own hands on a CAD workstation, I would be mightily impressed. Then again, he often enough drove like an engineer...;)

Nobody said that Wurz himself worked on the CAD workstation, neither Michael nor me. Compare my disclaimer in post #24.

I think that Michael meant that the original and basic idea for the mentioned updates came from Wurz; ideas the Williams engineers did not have before him.
And suchlike creative sparks are much more important for development than the mere craftmans work of their realization.

Advertisement

#52 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 4,820 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 28 May 2008 - 18:35

Originally posted by Risil


Are you suggesting that out of all the drivers Michael has ever worked with, only Wurz has been able to provide feedback on the car? Suddenly Williams's recent run of form begins to make sense... :lol:


That's not my suggestion, no. I wasn't making any suggestion come to think of it.

#53 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 4,820 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 28 May 2008 - 18:37

Originally posted by qvn


How about MS insisted on requesting Ferrari to focus on reliability first when he arrived Ferrari in 1996?
I think he has actively steered development of Ferrari's car, which resulted in a very reliable car for quite some time.


Asking the team to concentrate on reliability is a far cry from espousing knowledge or thoughts from a technical viewpoint. It's also not a great work of genius from any driver to ask for reliability, it's the bedrock of motorsport. It would be a serious worry for any driver to ask for the opposite...

#54 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 6,983 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 28 May 2008 - 18:54

One only has to ask Nigel Mansel...Why he couldn't drive a MacLaren! :lol:

#55 qvn

qvn
  • Member

  • 765 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 29 May 2008 - 14:09

Originally posted by Imperial


Asking the team to concentrate on reliability is a far cry from espousing knowledge or thoughts from a technical viewpoint. It's also not a great work of genius from any driver to ask for reliability, it's the bedrock of motorsport. It would be a serious worry for any driver to ask for the opposite...


I said "he has actively steered development of Ferrari's car" as a response to your previous post, which has nothing to do with 'technical knowledge'. You know the meaning of "Steer", don't you?

#56 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 4,820 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 30 May 2008 - 12:12

Originally posted by qvn


I said "he has actively steered development of Ferrari's car" as a response to your previous post, which has nothing to do with 'technical knowledge'. You know the meaning of "Steer", don't you?


Oh yeah, left and right and all that... ;)

#57 tikilounge

tikilounge
  • New Member

  • 20 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 30 May 2008 - 16:21

See what Alonso did with renault few years ago and McLaren.
Mclaren on 2006 was an iron with wheels. Let's see what happen with renault late this season. They must improve a lot and FAST

#58 tikilounge

tikilounge
  • New Member

  • 20 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 30 May 2008 - 16:23

and no forget what Macca's engineers said after Alonso left to renault... they said it'll be more difficult to develope the car without him.

#59 Imperial

Imperial
  • Member

  • 4,820 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 30 May 2008 - 17:16

Originally posted by qvn
I realize that beside driving a car he needs to be able to understand the technology to guide his engineers to develop a car suit his driving style and make his car faster.


Actually qvn, after replying to you a few hours ago (see above) I've just remembered this is your thread, and so I want to press the point home again.

I have selected your quote above to hopefully answer in a better way, as I am unsure if you misunderstand what I'm trying to say.

And what I am trying to say is, no a driver does not need to understand the technology to develop a car.

What value a driver brings in the realm of car-development is completely academic to addressing the quote above, because a driver does not have to have any understanding at all of the technicalities to be able to give feedback.

A good example is when drivers are tested (across all categories) you tend to find the team will send the driver out on one or more runs with the same set-up, then make at least one change without telling the driver they have done so. (He may be out of the car and out of the garage in a briefing or something, away form the car). The aim is to see if the driver comes back to the pits and tells the crew that the car was doing something different on the last run. It could be better, it could be worse. He doesn't need to know what adjustment the crew made to be able to say if the car handled any different on a run. That is something that shows a driver has nouse, when they can return to the garage and say "Hang on guys, did you change something?"

All drivers of course have at least a limited working knowledge of at least some active devices (engine, gearbox etc) and some that are static but can be adjusted (wings, springs etc) but they don't necessarily know the manual inside-out, so to speak. You'll often hear drivers suggest adding wing etc.

Correct me if I am wrong (I really don't think I am) but the opening gambit to this thread appears to be that you are querying the viability of a driver steering development of a car so that it is tailor-made to suit him and his driving style etc.

And that I seriously believe does not happen in 2008. Car development is not a matter of addressing the same issues as during a race weekend or driver-test session. Car development of course isn't about suggesting the car needs more wing (for example) to be more efficient etc. It's about real wholesale changes or philosophies. Development is about literally going back to the drawing board and modifying designs or going down a totally different route with the overall car package. A driver simply can't make this happen. Parts come from incredibly complex CAD design technology and spring into life and are then put through their paces in the wind-tunnel. Anything that looks poor in the tunnel will never make it as far as the car. There's really nothing a driver can do other than test a part that has been put on the car, which has given good results in the tunnel, and see if it correlates to on-track performance. How many times have we heard drivers saying they can't wait for a new part to be introduced at the next race as they hope the car will make a leap forward? You never hear a driver say they can't wait to use the new part they developed or got the team to build. Funnily enough Heinz-Harald Frentzen once begged Jordan to put a certain part on the car and they refused. He was adamant it would make the car betterand so offered to pay out of his own pocket to have a stock of the particular design built into a live part. Still the team flat refused to accomodate his request. That shows pretty much what the designers think of a drivers comments sometimes...

Another question really is as to whether drivers have ever really steered car development. Even looking back for example to the Colin Chapman era. His drivers may have shouted at him to make changes to the cars, especially when they were literally falling to pieces, but as far as I know there was never any suggestion that the drivers somehow influenced what path Chapman took - other than a demand the car could actually finish a race and in one piece!