158 replies to this topic

[DutchQuicksilver]

So far it's a disastrous year for McLaren, and I find it remarkable that it's happing while Sam Michael is the team's sporting director. The last time Michael became an important figure at a team was at the end of 2004 when he replaced Patrick Head as technical director at Williams. We all know what happened with Williams in the years after and Michael left the team wounded in 2011.

It's looking like the same is happening at McLaren at the moment. So, my hard judgement is, Sam Michael left a pile of rubbish at Williams and he is close to doing the same at McLaren now.

[Clatter]

Does SM design the car?

[TheThirdTenor1]

Impossible to tell.

Edited by TheThirdTenor1, 10 June 2013 - 13:35.

[DutchQuicksilver]

Does SM design the car?

No, but as sporting director, I'm sure he has a supervising role of something. It's not fair that Whitmarsh is taking all the beating, whilst Michael is equally responsible. And I find it remarkable that Williams went downhill with Michael at the helm, and McLaren is not looking good either with Michael in a senior position.

[Spa One]

Saying Sam M is responsible for McLaren's poor form, because he worked for Williams while they struggled, is circumstantial at best.

He has left Williams now but they're still struggling.

I've never seen one of these Sam M witch hunts with any real evidence suggesting he's doing anything wrong.

[Burtros]

This is a hangover agrument based on Williams being strong last year, and even then I didnt think it was anything more than irony.

Falls apart quickly when you consider that Williams are currently on their worst start to a season ever.

[Kelateboy]

It takes more than 1 person to bring down an organization like McLaren.

[Jackmancer]

Slightly off-topic: Did Hamilton suspect this downfall, so he left for Merc? Or pure 'luck' for him?

[muramasa]

rent Sam to Ferrari or RedBull for couple years and we'll see

[Fastcake]

No, but as sporting director, I'm sure he has a supervising role of something. It's not fair that Whitmarsh is taking all the beating, whilst Michael is equally responsible. And I find it remarkable that Williams went downhill with Michael at the helm, and McLaren is not looking good either with Michael in a senior position.

So you don't actually know what Sam Michael does at the team, yet still think he's to blame? Indeed, I've heard him be credited with fixing McLaren's woeful pit stop problems last year, so he could possibly be thanked that the team aren't in an even worse position.

The problems at Williams are far more than one technical director. He took over just before BMW left the team - something he had absolutely no control over since Frank refused (quite rightly) to sell the team. There's not much you can do with an under-resourced team, you can't maintain a strong team of designers if you don't have the money to hire the best. There were rumours too of clashes between Patrick Head, Micheals, and other senior staff. While I have no idea whether or not any of that was true, we do know that Head still had a position within the team until he stepped back shortly before Micheal left.

[NotSoSilentBob]

I was considering this very topic yesterday when they showed a shot of Sam on the pitwall. My thoughts are that it cant be co-incidence that both teams dropped off the performance curve when Sam was in charge of the factory.

Perhaps people lose motivation working for Sam Michael? What's his man-management like?

[Dalton007]

LOL. No evidence to suggest Sam is anything to do with the problems McLaren are plagued with. The faults are elsewhere.

[Jackmancer]

No evidence to suggest Sam is anything to do with the problems McLaren are plagued with. The faults are elsewhere.

No evidence for that either.

[mattferg]

No, but as sporting director, I'm sure he has a supervising role of something. It's not fair that Whitmarsh is taking all the beating, whilst Michael is equally responsible. And I find it remarkable that Williams went downhill with Michael at the helm, and McLaren is not looking good either with Michael in a senior position.

Yep, and this downfall of Williams had nothing to do with the big financial backing of BMW pulling out, but everything to do with Sam Michael.

Note that McLaren has recently had the same happen to them with Mercedes.

Also see similarities between William's number one moving to their main competitor in 2005, and the same happening with McLaren this year.

Edited by mattferg, 10 June 2013 - 14:55.

[Atreiu]

They definitely miss Hamilton.

[trogggy]

I was considering this very topic yesterday when they showed a shot of Sam on the pitwall. My thoughts are that it cant be co-incidence that both teams dropped off the performance curve when Sam was in charge of the factory.

Perhaps people lose motivation working for Sam Michael? What's his man-management like?

Why not?

Maybe Sam Michael demotivated the designers?

[ZooL]

Probably indirectly.

Lets say if I was a genuis I would not aspire to work with or under Sam Michaels.

Or Whitmarsh for that matter.

Or Button for that matter.

Or Perez for that matter.

[trogggy]

Probably indirectly.

Lets say if I was a genuis I would not aspire to work with or under Sam Michaels.

Or Whitmarsh for that matter.

Or Button for that matter.

Or Perez for that matter.

How do you know?

[HaydenFan]

But hasn't McLaren been going through good and bad years since the early 2000's though?

2004: 1 win - 5th in Constructors Räikkönen: 7th Coulthard: 10th
2006: 0 wins - 3rd in Constructors Räikkönen: 6th Montoya: 8th de la Rosa: 11th
2013: 0 wins - 6th in Constructors Button: 10th Perez: 13th

Realistically, McLaren has had some bad years in between some good years. Car might be a dog, but looking at the team's bad years in the last 14 years, I'd argue they have the weakest lineup of drivers in that period. Right now, McLaren is in a hole for many reasons, not just Whitmarsh, or Sam Michaels, or the lack of Ron Dennis on a full time basis.

[nomi]

Just Sam's dull lame personality makes me want to throw up, imagine how that rubs off to the team in the garage, the positive energy will be zapped.
His vibe is as exciting as 50 year old grey paint.

[kedia990]

Slightly off-topic: Did Hamilton suspect this downfall, so he left for Merc? Or pure 'luck' for him?

Or, more likely, did the absence of Hamilton (and Paddy Lowe) create the downfall? Sam Michael was around even in 2012, they did fine (not great, considering the bullet of a car they had). Also, to be noted is that SM is credited for McLaren's record-setting pitstops (despite the early blunders in 2012).

[Force Ten]

I was considering this very topic yesterday when they showed a shot of Sam on the pitwall. My thoughts are that it cant be co-incidence that both teams dropped off the performance curve when Sam was in charge of the factory.

So when exactly was Sam in charge of McLaren factory? Curious minds need some information here!

[oldracer1957]

I dont think a “sporting director” can be the downfall of a big racing team. A sporting director is nothing else than a glorified name for team manager, with his role basically involving presenting a good public image, being an intermediary between team and fans and shareholders; ensuring that everything that happens off the race track goes smoothly. And when it comes to building a race car from scratch (which was a big mistake by the way), a sporting director ranks somewhere between 5th and 6th in the organisational chart.

Now... who is fault for the downfall? 1. Ron Dennis (I`m really sorry to say that even though I love Ron), 2. Martin Whitmarsh, 3. MD: Jon Neale; 4. Chief Designer: Neil Oatley and 5. TD: Tim Goss. As to Sam Michael on the pit wall... I never really understood why he`s always on the pit wall (that if he`s really a sporting director, but his role might also include some track operations so it seems for which he then 6. might share part of the responsibility for the downfall).

Now... since no one is mentioning the “elephant in the room”: 7. drivers! I honestly believe Jenson has been a big distraction with Jenson gaining more from McLaren than McLaren actually gaining from Jenson. Since Jenson has been at McLaren he hasn’t mounted one serious challenge at the WDC (with him never leading the WDC for longer than one single race). The next thing is: As long as he had Lewis as team mate he had a reference point to push him, to slipstream behind and creating the impression to be on par with Lewis.

With Lewis and his intellectual curiosity the engineers had something to work with and to motivate them, but at the moment (my impression) Jenson seems a bit lost without the Lewis reference point. Jenson was in a similar situation last year and studying Lewis` setup helped him get his grove back; and that seems to be missing at the moment.

Then there is this Perez thingy going on at McLaren... I never understood Whitmarsh hiring Perez other than him wanting to present a driver 30 minutes before Hamilton announced his leaving McLaren.



edit: Oh and to answer the question from the other thread I couldnt be bothered with... Is the car that bad? Yes and no. The car is certainly no Red Bull or Ferrari, but on the other hand the car is certainly better than Force India and on par with Lotus; the only difference being the Lotus no. driver being able to squeeze the last hundreth out of that car.

Edited by oldracer1957, 10 June 2013 - 16:20.

[Buttoneer]

No, but as sporting director, I'm sure he has a supervising role of something. It's not fair that Whitmarsh is taking all the beating, whilst Michael is equally responsible. And I find it remarkable that Williams went downhill with Michael at the helm, and McLaren is not looking good either with Michael in a senior position.

So you don't actually know what Sam Michael does at the team, yet still think he's to blame? Indeed, I've heard him be credited with fixing McLaren's woeful pit stop problems last year, so he could possibly be thanked that the team aren't in an even worse position.

Indeed.

This is what james Allen says about the role; http://www.jamesalle...rting-director/

Usually the Sporting Director is the senior person who is required to know the FIA Sporting Regulations rule book inside out and back to front. So when something happens in a race, where some interpretation is required, the Sporting Director will be the one liaising with the Race Director and arguing the toss. They need to have an understanding of all areas of the racing business, from engineering to strategy to rules to logistics.

His switch... to Sporting Director at McLaren will also take in responsibility for operational matters at the race track.

The team is not right at the moment, and clearly there's plenty of room for improvement on all sorts of areas. However, apportioning blame to Sam Michael here and now in ignorance of his responsibilities is witch hunting at its worst. Now, to the extent that the things that have gone wrong are related to the areas covered in James Allen's article (which in itself is only an informed opinion rather than absolute truth) then yes, let's blame Sam. But otherwise, what's the point?

[Lazy]

How do you know?

[ZooL]

I dont think a “sporting director” can be the downfall of a big racing team. A sporting director is nothing else than a glorified name for team manager, with his role basically involving presenting a good public image, being an intermediary between team and fans and shareholders; ensuring that everything that happens off the race track goes smoothly.

Now... who is fault for the downfall? 1. Ron Dennis (I`m really sorry to say that even though I love Ron), 2. Martin Whitmarsh, 3. MD: Jon Neale; 4. Chief Designer: Neil Oatley and 5. TD: Tim Goss. As to Sam Michael on the pit wall... I never really understood why he`s always on the pit wall (that if he`s really a sporting director, but his role might also include some track operations so it seems for which he then 6. might share part of the responsibility for the downfall).

Now... since no one is mentioning the “elephant in the room”: 7. drivers! I honestly believe Jenson has been a big distraction with Jenson gaining more from McLaren than McLaren actually gaining from Jenson. Since Jenson has been at McLaren he hasn’t mounted one serious challenge at the WDC (with him never leading the WDC for longer than one single race). The next thing is: As long as he had Lewis as team mate he had a reference point to push him, to slipstream behind and creating the impression to be on par with Lewis.

With Lewis and his intellectual curiosity the engineers had something to work with and to motivate them, but at the moment (my impression) Jenson seems a bit lost without the Lewis reference point. Jenson was in a similar situation last year and studying Lewis` setup helped him get his grove back; and that seems to be missing at the moment.

Then there is this Perez thingy going on at McLaren... I never understood Whitmarsh hiring Perez other than him wanting to present a driver 30 minutes before Hamilton announced his leaving McLaren.

I like this post but to be fair Ron Dennis does not deserve #1 because midway last year he tried a military coup to oust Whitmarsh and it didn't work - there were tidbit reports in the media about this. Ron has tried twice to get rid of Whitmarsh and failed both times, the 2nd time because their were murmurs that Mumtalakat holdings are annoyed with Dennis losing millions in McLaren Automotive. Dennis doesn't have the control at board level anymore, he's been ousted.

[Nycco]

No.

[ZooL]

How do you know?

I think its fair to say most people form an opinion based on what he has managed to achieve. His achievements don't inspire me. He was responsible for pitstops yet 7 out of the first 8 races last year Hamilton suffered from pit stop problems. It wasn't good enough. His etho's was going for peak time rather than being reliable and consistent. His ethos was responsible for losing more points than it gained.

Edited by ZooL, 10 June 2013 - 16:14.

[Buttoneer]

I think its fair to say most people form an opinion based on what he has managed to achieve. His achievements don't inspire me. He was responsible for pitstops yet 7 out of the first 8 races last year Hamilton suffered from pit stop problems. It wasn't good enough. His etho's was going for peak time rather than being reliable and consistent. His ethos was responsible for losing more points than it gained.

No, how do you know what you'd do if you were a genius?

Even if you were a genius (and it is your own opinion that you are not) you would need to be an informed one to even have an inkling about what Sam Michael has achieved, or not.

[EthanM]

I think McLaren are exactly were they were in early 90s when Honda pulled out of F1 and then they had to drop Marlboro. Back then they toyed with Fords and Peugeots and having to design a car to compete with some of the outright fastest cars in F1 history, took them a while to lure Merc in and restabilize the team. I think something similar is what is happening now. They lost a huge investor (Mercedes) they lost "works" status, they have lost good people and they are rebuilding. But I think they have depth enough to rebuild successfully.

[ZooL]

No, how do you know what you'd do if you were a genius?

Even if you were a genius (and it is your own opinion that you are not) you would need to be an informed one to even have an inkling about what Sam Michael has achieved, or not.

Michaels was given a very clear mandate to improve pitstops and in my opinion he did not and has not achieved it. The only achievement I can see is that under his watch McLaren made the fastest pitstop ever which McLaren were quite extrovert in willy-waving. It doesn't look like you noticed but while there was one super fast pitstop that shaved tenths the risk associated with it seemed so high that the other pitstops cost Hamilton track position time and time again. These points can be quantified. But the gains of gaining a track position I can only recall one.

To quote Brawn, he said they can pit that fast too but they wind it back a bit for more reliability.

I also think its very fair to say that Whitmarsh achieved so little in his Principle or Technical Director role at Williams that Sir Frank got rid of him and evidently could not even find a suitable position for him.

To be blunt, McLaren hired a Williams reject.

Just to be clear Michael's in the Sporting Director role keeps him well away from the development of the car which is good. I do not hold him directly responsible, that award goes to Whitmarsh.


It might be better to spin this topic and say:

What has Sam Michaels achieved at McLaren?
What has he bought to the team that fans can associate with?

If there's nothing positive to say, you may as well close the thread.

Edited by ZooL, 10 June 2013 - 16:43.

[oldracer1957]

I like this post but to be fair Ron Dennis does not deserve #1 because midway last year he tried a military coup to oust Whitmarsh and it didn't work - there were tidbit reports in the media about this. Ron has tried twice to get rid of Whitmarsh and failed both times, the 2nd time because their were murmurs that Mumtalakat holdings are annoyed with Dennis losing millions in McLaren Automotive. Dennis doesn't have the control at board level anymore, he's been ousted.

really I didnt know about that. If correct, then I am sorry and stand corrected.

[johnhen]

What does Sam Michael actually do ? Long before he went to McLaren I always had him pegged as a spoofer. A bluffer. Someone that can talk their way into jobs and say the right things to the right people.

I'd say though it's mainly down to Hamilton leaving. McLaren are missing a world class driver to pull out results and develop the car.

[Doughnut King]

A similar thought passed through my mind yesterday, Buttoneer. Still, it's all circumstantial.

[ray b]

have to wonder if they would be better off with 12 car that was fast
and junk the 13 piece of chit while working on 14 now

is the 12 car still legal under current rules ?

[muramasa]

What does Sam Michael actually do ?

read above

[MeatPopsicle]

hahaha wow.. seriously?

[chrcol]

no whitmarsh is.

downfall started in 2009.

[Buttoneer]

Michaels was given a very clear mandate to improve pitstops and in my opinion he did not and has not achieved it. The only achievement I can see is that under his watch McLaren made the fastest pitstop ever which McLaren were quite extrovert in willy-waving. It doesn't look like you noticed but while there was one super fast pitstop that shaved tenths the risk associated with it seemed so high that the other pitstops cost Hamilton track position time and time again. These points can be quantified. But the gains of gaining a track position I can only recall one.

To quote Brawn, he said they can pit that fast too but they wind it back a bit for more reliability.

Bit in bold; do we know this is true? Pitstops are a team effort for which they all ought to take responsibility. I would agree that if Sam was responsible and he chose not to dial back in the way that Brawn did for reliability, he did a poor job. But this is a thread investigating whether Sam is responsible and we're still having trouble working out exactly what his responsibilities were. Was it him or was it the next man down the chain assuring Sam they could be fast, doing it fine in practice, but failing in the races? Did he actually tell them to dial back but the intense pressure of having got it wrong so badly generate it's own errors? When people take time to think about what they are doing automatically, they often start to do things badly - it's the classic 'choke'. It wouldn't be right or fair to deal with that harshly.

It might be better to spin this topic and say:

What has Sam Michaels achieved at McLaren?
What has he bought to the team that fans can associate with?

I don't know. What has he done wrong?

[sopa]

The car is certainly no Red Bull or Ferrari, but on the other hand the car is certainly better than Force India and on par with Lotus; the only difference being the Lotus no. driver being able to squeeze the last hundreth out of that car.[/b]

Interesting comment. Does it mean that di Resta and Sutil are better drivers than Button and Perez if the McLaren is better than Force India?

Should McLaren, erm, offer Force India a driver swap for 2014?

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

No, it was Mclaren's 'radical' year on year philosophy that was part of their downfall.

They had a fantastic car in 2012....then went in a completely different design direction and you see the results now.

[EthanM]

Bit in bold; do we know this is true? Pitstops are a team effort for which they all ought to take responsibility.

This is from memory, but I think Sam Michael himself had said pitstops were one of the first things assigned to him, back when he first joined McLaren and Brundle and co were interviewing him. Obviously since this is from memory of a year and a half old tv transmission I can't offer a link.

[Buttoneer]

No it's fine, and I actually think you're right, and Zool is right, in that assumption. All I'm saying is that even if this were the case, he cannot possibly be responsible for every action that takes place.

[nosecone]

Just a question:
Could in a team one person cause a total downfall?

IMO not.

There are have to be more people making mistakes. Even if Michael did a mistake it wouldn't end up in that way we are experiencing it.

Edited by nosecone, 10 June 2013 - 18:14.

[HaydenFan]

Maybe Sam Michael just brings back luck to a team? Just doesn't develop a feeling of success for his team. But saying that, it seemed to me that prior to joining McLaren, the team was still discovering itself with the rules, and even though they've enjoyed success the last few years, they've always disappointed.

And maybe it's just a changing of the guard. McLaren has really in the way of the media and fans, struggled since Hamilton's title. Williams is in a place where they probably will never be even a glimpse of their former glory, and unless Honda captures their time in F1 from the 80's, rather than the 00's, McLaren could be going down the same road. Losing obviously one of their biggest talents; with no major backers stepping up to place their logos on the car, makes me believe the team isn't selling as well as before.

Edited by HaydenFan, 10 June 2013 - 18:26.

[maverick69]

Doubt it.

Unless he was the one to formally sign off a completely new concept that would last only one year due to the biggest technical changes for some time...... when they already had the fastest car.

Although I defo reckon he was in the room sipping a coffee munching on a Rich Tea* and when they did.......








*Obviously he dropped no crumbs as he is still at McLaren

[hogstar]

I'm no fan of Sam Michael and I don't think he is a particularly good addition to the McLaren team. He has all the personality of a condemned block of flats.

However, McLarens 'woes' start and end with Martin Whitmarsh. He just doesn't cut it.

Bring back Ron Dennis!

[oldracer1957]

I'm no fan of Sam Michael and I don't think he is a particularly good addition to the McLaren team. He has all the personality of a condemned block of flats.

However, McLarens 'woes' start and end with Martin Whitmarsh. He just doesn't cut it.

Bring back Ron Dennis!

Honestly. Ron Dennis is the only guy I can envision leading our team out of the current mess. But the sad thing is... its not going to happen. Seems Ron doesnt have a lobby at McLaren anymore.

[g1n]

I'm no fan of Sam Michael....He has all the personality of a condemned block of flats.

[packapoo]

IF he has any input into race strategy, that would be enough reason to show him the door?
Man they were crook in Canada.