72 replies to this topic

[Pets22]

He may have been the person to have in the nineties, but if Ferrari wipes the floor with Mac as they did last year or if Mac fail to make significant inroads in Ferrari domination, Newey officially becomes a "has been" Any thoughts?

[Arrow]

Newey is still the man and always has been.He cant work wonders with a weak engine and David coulthard part of the equation.
And its a bit general of you to say "if ferrari wipe the floor with mac".It should read "if schumacher wipes the floor with mac".
Michael would wipe the floor with DC in equal cars so him doing it int he ferrari wont mean much.

[mwalshe]

I'm not sure that he's a has-been. He can still produce a race winning car.

He took his eye off the ball last year with the Jaguar fiasco and the proposed yacht design project, and I think that this has affected him to a large extent.

I'm not sure that he is fully happy in the glare of the spotlight at each race meeting, he is probably far more comfortable in his design studio or at the wind tunnel.

He will still be a force to be reckoned with, if they can get two decent drivers in the cars, and by that, I mean get rid of DC.....

[Mr. Bean]

Any further news on his boat building efforts? I thought Uncle Ron was going to let him off the leash pretty soon. I think this years Mclaren is going to be a force to be reckoned with - it will be down to tyres between Ferrari and Mclaren.

Bean

[Mrv]

Newey is still very good, however he his is no longer the #1 designer in F1. That title belongs to Rory at the moment.

[Mrv]

Originally posted by Mr. Bean
Any further news on his boat building efforts? I thought Uncle Ron was going to let him off the leash pretty soon. I think this years Mclaren is going to be a force to be reckoned with - it will be down to tyres between Ferrari and Mclaren.

Bean

The Mp17 creation.

[BARnone]

McLaren had a horrible year in 2001 - engine and gearbox failures, software failures, Mika losing the will to drive after Melbourne, upset at Ilmor and Ron Dennis' ill-advised commentary all year. I don't think Newey can be held responsible for these things. Add to this the Jaguar fiasco.

Rory Bryne has the better team behind him at the moment - but that doesn't make Newey a has been.

BARnone.

[The_Z_Man]

Originally posted by Arrow
Newey is still the man and always has been.He cant work wonders with a weak engine and David coulthard part of the equation.

Heh, may be you should put MH in the equation too, considering that he was not that much faster than Coulthard.

And its a bit general of you to say "if ferrari wipe the floor with mac".It should read "if schumacher wipes the floor with mac".

A driver can't wipe the floor with a car.

Michael would wipe the floor with DC in equal cars so him doing it int he ferrari wont mean much.

Maybe, maybe not, but MS thinks that DC is a "strong competitor".

The_Z_Man

[The_Z_Man]

Originally posted by mwalshe
He will still be a force to be reckoned with, if they can get two decent drivers in the cars, and by that, I mean get rid of DC.....

Was MH a decent driver ? If yes, according to you how much better was he than DC ?

The_Z_Man

[Arrow]

How can bryne be the best designer when all his success and titles are Dependant on one driver????

It just doesnt work.

[mwalshe]

Mika was a decent driver, and a better driver than DC, but it seems that he now has other priorities that keep him away from the racetrack.

In terms of driver ability, Mika better than average, DC average.

[Mrv]

Originally posted by Arrow
How can bryne be the best designer when all his success and titles are Dependant on one driver????

It just doesnt work.

Maybe Rubens isn't good enough? Take 3 or 4 other drivers on the grid and they would have put that Ferrari 1 &2 in most of the races and would have mopped the floor ahead of DC in the WDC.

Neweys car last year had problems. Severe understeer and it took them awhile to rectify there problems. Surely wasn't Neweys best creation of his career.

[The_Z_Man]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mwalshe
Mika was a decent driver, and a better driver than DC[/QUOTE] Agreed.
[QUOTE]but it seems that he now has other priorities that keep him away from the racetrack.
[QUOTE][B] In terms of driver ability, Mika better than average, DC average. [/QUOTE] How much better ? Can't you quantify it ?

BTW, maybe we could restrict that discussion to this already existing thread and leave this one alone ?

The_Z_Man

[SeanValen]

Newey is good, but likely needs more from Mercedes, power and some ideas from them into the chassic etc. Excellent

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Mrv


Maybe Rubens isn't good enough? Take 3 or 4 other drivers on the grid and they would have put that Ferrari 1 &2 in most of the races and would have mopped the floor ahead of DC in the WDC.

Neweys car last year had problems. Severe understeer and it took them awhile to rectify there problems. Surely wasn't Neweys best creation of his career.

Was eddie good enough?
Was herbert good enough?
Was patrase good enough?(he was good enough in 92)

Rubens is closer to michael than they were.

If it happens once or twice you can argue the point but when it happens for a decade you cant.
Fact is that the only driver who was successful in a bryne car(not the odd fluke win)was michael..ONE driver.
Do you really beleive that brynes had a succession of crap drivers sit in his car over his design career?
Thats not being realistic at all.
A designers skill cant be that great when he NEEDS arguably the best of all time to be effective.

[mwalshe]

I'm not sure there's an exact answer to that question.

I mean you can look at each driver in terms of wins/podium finishes/points scored etc. But I sometimes think that those kind of comparisons don't tell the whole story?

I think that Mika has been mentally stronger, until last year, when possibly the birth
of his son affected his outlook, where David, it seems to me has always been a bit
behind in these terms.

I'm not really a statistician, I don't really like to make direct comparisons on the basis
of cold hard facts. In general, my conclusions would be drawn based on my observations
of the drivers over the course of a season or more????

I know this probably will not satisfy you, but I don't like to say that Mika is 50% better
than DC..........

[The_Z_Man]

Mwalshe, I answer to you in the other thread.

The_Z_Man

[Jumboexpress]

So Arrows I thought that any driver could just drive the Newey mobile and win championships? I think that AN is very good but hes not that good that most of you think of him. AN always jump ship to other teams when he knows its time to go, like what happened to Williams, he knew that Renault would not be the engine for next year so he said farewell. Even without his technical input in 97 still JVILL managed to win 7 races and 10 poles and win the championship. David Coulthard is not as bad as you might think, I think hes a very capable driver but just lacks the key ingredient you see among the champions such as Michael Schumacher or JVILL.

[6Addict]

I don't know which designer is the best, but it seems that Byrne is more prolific and innovative than Newey as of late.

Externaly, the Ferrari has been through pretty dramatic evolutions over the past few seasons and many teams seem to emulate (periscope exhaust, ant-eater nose...). In contrast, the McLaren has not evolved externally much since 98.

Also, although the McLaren had stunning handling during the 98, 99 season, the Ferrari seems to be dominant by far in that categoty at the present.

Finally, the reliability of the Ferrari, which is in part attributable to the desinger, has to keep you in awe: they've been on the podium every race since some time in 99 ( ).

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by 6Addict
I don't know which designer is the best, but it seems that Byrne is more prolific and innovative than Newey as of late.

Externaly, the Ferrari has been through pretty dramatic evolutions over the past few seasons that many teams seem to emulate (periscope exhaust, ant-eater nose...). In contrast, the McLaren has not evolved externally much since 98.

Part of that is perceptionof course, Newey is more "new school" fluid aerodynamics, while Byrne is more of the old school curvy bits thinking ;)
But I agree that Byrne has been on a roll for some time now, while Newey seems to suffer from the "McLaren-syndrome" of letting adversity get to him...

ps. I am not sure who is the no1 designer of the moment, but I do know who made the best looking car

[Ricardo F1]

A designers skill cant be that great when he NEEDS arguably the best of all time to be effective.

Can a driver be the best of all time if he needs the best designer to build a car around him??? Just curious.

And a big hearty welcome to mwalshe ; DC bashers are rampant on this board but there's always another that can be shot down with reality.

[Todd]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
Can a driver be the best of all time if he needs the best designer to build a car around him??? Just curious.

http://www.formula1....2/02/s8362.html :
Byrne also put a stop to rumours that the car was designed around Michael Schumacher. "We don't design a car for the driver," he said. "We design the car which we think is the best one. It is true that Michael gets more out of it because regarding the stability of the car he is more to the limit than others."

Time for a new line of bullshit.

As to Byrne being the best designer, you might want to think about the fact that his career didn't start in 2000. Neither did Adrian Newey's. If Byrne's career path hadn't crossed paths with Michael Schumacher, he might be as revered as Eghibal Hammidy today. When Jean Todt and Luca diMontezemolo hired Ross Brawn for the 1997 season, they didn't even know that Rory Byrne was the designer at Benetton. If the F1 community had considered him to be particularly special, he wouldn't have been ignored by Ferrari.

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
And a big hearty welcome to mwalshe ; DC bashers are rampant on this board but there's always another that can be shot down with reality.

What reality is that? DC may or may not be a decent driver, but it has never hurt anyone to assume that he can't win a meaningful percentage of the races while driving the best cars. I'll admit that I was surprised that he finally made it to second in the WDC, but that only seems to emphasize the fact that Mika Hakkinen wasn't a factor, not that Adrian Newey didn't turn out another excellent chassis.

[The_Z_Man]

Originally posted by Todd
Time for a new line of bullshit.

As to Byrne being the best designer, you might want to think about the fact that his career didn't start in 2000. Neither did Adrian Newey's. If Byrne's career path hadn't crossed paths with Michael Schumacher, he might be as revered as Eghibal Hammidy today. When Jean Todt and Luca diMontezemolo hired Ross Brawn for the 1997 season, they didn't even know that Rory Byrne was the designer at Benetton. If the F1 community had considered him to be particularly special, he wouldn't have been ignored by Ferrari.

His car nevertheless won many WDC AND WCCs. BTW, the same could also be theorized about Schumacher, since Byrne has always been here when he won his titles.

IOW, unless they win some titles without one another, one cannot say for sure.

What reality is that? DC may or may not be a decent driver, but it has never hurt anyone to assume that he can't win a meaningful percentage of the races while driving the best cars.

So you'll understand that it doesn't hurt me to assume that if DC's winning percentage becomes meaningful (whatever that may mean), you won't be part of the "it's the car" crowd.

I'll admit that I was surprised that he finally made it to second in the WDC, but that only seems to emphasize the fact that Mika Hakkinen wasn't a factor, not that Adrian Newey didn't turn out another excellent chassis.

The MP4/16 wasn't that bad once the glaring front-wing problem, got fixed. It was quite competitive on high and medium downforce tracks in race trim. The qualifying pace, the low downforce power tracks and reliability were its Achilles heels.

The_Z_Man

[berge]

When someone other than MS wins a WDC in a Byrne designed car or a Byrne designed car has its drivers finish 1-2 in the WDC, THEN AND ONLY THEN can we start discussing Rory Byrne as being better than Adrian Newey.

Sorry, but, MS, just like Senna, flatters the cars he's driving.

[AD]

Since the new regulations in '98, the McLaren has been the best car in '98, '99, and '00. Second best chassis in '01. The Ferrari was better in '01, and second best in '98, '99, '00. What does that say? Well, both Newey and Byrne are very good car designers, but Newey seems to be a constant. Any car he has designed since 1991 has finished either first or second in the WCC. Byrne? In '93 and '96 he "only" finished 3rd, and '97 had a 4th place finish... Yes he's a good designer, but Newey is a constant, and who's to say that last years McLaren (after they got their early season problems sorted out) wasn't the best chassis? The Ferrari engine was much better than the Mercedes. When will Mercedes start building engines in Germany like BMW? The English are pretty good at building chassis, but the Germans are particularly special at engines.

[LeTurc]

McLaren chassis was the best in 2001. Newey recently said that he had 98 level engine in 2001. Mika who usually has 30-40 secs a race gap to David and in 2001 he was nowhere. Put all those together and calculate what would the same car do with the Ferrari engine and 2000 Mika.

[Ricardo F1]

Where's the **cough** bullshit smilie???

[clipper]

shouldn't the comparison be between ross brawn and adrian newey rather than newey v Byrne???

both newey and brawn have the title of technical director, whereas byrne and neil oatlely???? are the designers of ferrari and mclaren respectively???


maybe this is going too indepth but i'll ask it anyway.... is it up to the tech director to demand what is required of the car and oversee it and the designer to produce the results????


i know the role of tech director varies between each team as newey would be a chief areo guy as well for mclaren, but the tech director role doesn't only involve the car itself, look at what ross brawn and adrian newey does for the team at race weekends as well, it the entire package that matters

therefore I think brawn is better


I remember in 97 seeing a report from the british grand ri about ross brawn and his philosphy of dedveloping a car, in that instead of going for a whole chunk of improvement in one test, he rathered the approach of finding a tenth here and a tenth there, and after 5 test days you'd have found half a second.

I would see newey as a better creator of a car, whereas brawn would be a better developer.


Remember last year the first time with mclaren newey had produced an inferior car. Which was incidently an entire new design (clean sheet of paper) whereas the design of the f2001 car was an evolution of the previous years, and before that design philosphies.

[Mr. Bean]

Originally posted by clipper
shouldn't the comparison be between ross brawn and adrian newey rather than newey v Byrne???

Newey is technical director at Mclaren, as is Brawn at Ferrari. However, during his Williams years he was under P. Head who was technical director. So, yes and no. Have to say though, Brawn and Newey appear to be so different in the roles they play - Brawn more big picture, management and organization oriented and Newey more design oriented. I think to most people on the outside Newey and Byrne play the same sort of role despite their diferent current designations.

BTW, good post Clipper, and I think this discussion of varying design/development/management philosophies is fascinating and deserves a separate thread - I suppose it means a compilation of quotes from different tech. directors and designers.

Bean

[The Voice of Reason]

Newey's undoubtedly a hugely talented designer but sometimes it seems his cars aren't very flexible. If the team gets the setup just right the car flies, if the setup is not absolutely perfect the car becomes unstable/difficult to drive/slower than it should be.

By contrast, another team might have a car that in ideal circumstances is a little slower but the car is more forgiving and not so critical. That team realise more of the potential of their car on a consistent basis. This first came to my attention in '95 when Williams had a faster car than Benetton but too often couldn't unlock it's speed. I've head similar stories at times about his McLarens.

[Oho]

Ave !!!

On what basis would you argue that the McLaren 2k was better than its Ferrari counter part? For my taste performance wise the cars were about as equally footed as cars can be but at least as far as the leading drivers are concerned Ferrari had better reliability than McLaren with Mika suffering three total failures and two go slow problems or glicthes, while Michael had two failures and one go slow problem. In this light I would say Ferrari had the better car over the seasons duration.

Before any statistically educated Schumcaher fan brings up the notion of confidence intervals and statistical significance I would like to point out that with 17 races we are are not talking of a sample in infinite population, we are talking of the entire population, hence such considerations are irrelevant, there is no uncertainty. On the other hand if they argue how one more total failure did not make any difference do consider the alterantive scenario where Mika had one less total failures than Michael,in other words had his car not failed in two of the three races there is a good chance that Mika would have taken his third title, please also note that collissions are not reliability problems, not on cars part at least.

It has turned out exactly as I predicted back in 2000. It hardly took any time at all to transform Schumcahers great perfromance over the season into epic proportions by arguing how once again he did it in inferior machinery against all odds. Gee...

- Oho -

[LeTurc]

Why are you playing with the words? I said McLaren chassis was the best , which was obvious since it won 4.99 race with an unmotivated Hakkinen and Cubehead you know and 98 level engine.

[Oho]

Originally posted by LeTurc
Why are you playing with the words? I said McLaren chassis was the best , which was obvious since it won 4.99 race with an unmotivated Hakkinen and Cubehead you know and 98 level engine.

Ave !!!

Wasn't refering to you, I was referin to AD. Wasn't also referin to 2001 was refering to 2000.

- Oho -

[MuMu]

Byrne is da man.
Newey's success was primarily due to the Renault engines. Once Byrne got his hands on the Renaults, he beat Newey.
In 98, it was the tyres. Once Byrne got the same tyres, he won the WCC three times in a row (and counting). Hell, even Eddie Irvine almost won a championship in the Byrne car!

Byrne is more innovative - Newey regularly copies him.
Newey is good, but Byrne is on a different level to anyone.

[LeTurc]

Originally posted by Oho


Ave !!!

Wasn't refering to you, I was referin to AD. Wasn't also referin to 2001 was refering to 2000.

- Oho -

Sorry.



Mumu you mean Hakkinen and Mclaren almost lost to Irvine i am sure.

[MuMu]

Same thing

[Arrow]

Originally posted by MuMu
Byrne is da man.
Newey's success was primarily due to the Renault engines. Once Byrne got his hands on the Renaults, he beat Newey.

Like in 96/97?

Same tyres,same engines those years.

Newey 20wins
Bryne 1 win


Those years are brilliant examples because michael schumcher was removed from the equation.
You couldnt ask for a better head to head match up,and i think the results are quite telling.

[MuMu]

In 97 Byrne was at Ferrari, challenging for the championship in his first year there...

You're not gonna win anything with a slow and demotivated Berger and underperforming Alesi, are you?

[Fudman]

I think one obvious conclusion is that the Newey/Oatley? & Byrne/Brawn combo's are way ahead of the rest. Obviosly other designers do produce some very good cars, but when was the last time the WDC was won by a car not designed by one of the above? On reading this thread no other names have been mentioned as being superior alternatives to Newey other than B&B.

Newey may or may not be THE MAN but he surely is one of very very few capable of designing F1 cars that win on a regular basis. Furthermore, is it a coincidence that all the above work for the 2 best funded teams?



Perhaps if Newey is no longer THE MAN I suggest someone ring Nikki Lauda for his opinion, I hear there's a job going there...

[Arrow]

Originally posted by MuMu
In 97 Byrne was at Ferrari, challenging for the championship in his first year there...

Bryne designed the 97 benetton and was with them for 97.
John barnard designed the 97 ferrari which michael challended for the WC in.
Is barnard also as good as newey?
Where is barnard now?

Originally posted by MuMu

You're not gonna win anything with a slow and demotivated Berger and underperforming Alesi, are you?

In 96/97 berger and alesi were one of the strongest pairings you could get.
certainly just as good as damon hill/frentzen or JV(rookie in 96).

The massive disparity in wins is not explainable by the benetton drivers.

[HSJ]

Originally posted by The_Z_Man
Agreed.
How much better ? Can't you quantify it ?

BTW, maybe we could restrict that discussion to this already existing thread and leave this one alone ?

The_Z_Man

I can quantify it! See my theory.

[The_Z_Man]

Originally posted by HSJ
I can quantify it! See my theory.

And boy, did you, and probably still will, take some stick for that one.;)

The_Z_Man

[HSJ]

Originally posted by The Voice of Reason
Newey's undoubtedly a hugely talented designer but sometimes it seems his cars aren't very flexible. If the team gets the setup just right the car flies, if the setup is not absolutely perfect the car becomes unstable/difficult to drive/slower than it should be.

By contrast, another team might have a car that in ideal circumstances is a little slower but the car is more forgiving and not so critical. That team realise more of the potential of their car on a consistent basis. This first came to my attention in '95 when Williams had a faster car than Benetton but too often couldn't unlock it's speed. I've head similar stories at times about his McLarens.

...and that's why you can't judge a car by its ultimate potential, but only by the potential that can be unlocked on average during the season. Something that escapes people here again and again.

[HSJ]

Originally posted by Oho
Ave !!!

On what basis would you argue that the McLaren 2k was better than its Ferrari counter part? For my taste performance wise the cars were about as equally footed as cars can be but at least as far as the leading drivers are concerned Ferrari had better reliability than McLaren with Mika suffering three total failures and two go slow problems or glicthes, while Michael had two failures and one go slow problem. In this light I would say Ferrari had the better car over the seasons duration.

Before any statistically educated Schumcaher fan brings up the notion of confidence intervals and statistical significance I would like to point out that with 17 races we are are not talking of a sample in infinite population, we are talking of the entire population, hence such considerations are irrelevant, there is no uncertainty. On the other hand if they argue how one more total failure did not make any difference do consider the alterantive scenario where Mika had one less total failures than Michael,in other words had his car not failed in two of the three races there is a good chance that Mika would have taken his third title, please also note that collissions are not reliability problems, not on cars part at least.

It has turned out exactly as I predicted back in 2000. It hardly took any time at all to transform Schumcahers great perfromance over the season into epic proportions by arguing how once again he did it in inferior machinery against all odds. Gee...

- Oho -

[HSJ]

Originally posted by MuMu
Byrne is da man.
Newey's success was primarily due to the Renault engines. Once Byrne got his hands on the Renaults, he beat Newey.
In 98, it was the tyres. Once Byrne got the same tyres, he won the WCC three times in a row (and counting). Hell, even Eddie Irvine almost won a championship in the Byrne car!

Byrne is more innovative - Newey regularly copies him.
Newey is good, but Byrne is on a different level to anyone.

Good points. Especially I've been wondering for quite a while now about AN copying Byrne. When was the last time Byrne copied Newey? I don't recall since 98 at least that happening.

[HSJ]

Originally posted by The_Z_Man
And boy, did you, and probably still will, take some stick for that one.;)

The_Z_Man

Yes, and to people's dismay there's another version coming up quite soon, and now I'm giving computer all the power to decide the weights, i.e. I can no longer be accused of any significant bias.

[Foxbat]

Guys, Ron Dennis still thinks Newey is "the man" as does probably every other team manager. Do their opinions count?

As for Byrne, he is obviously one of the top designers but he is obviously more succesful as part of the all-star team than as a designer in his own right.
And personally I think this is a major part of the succes of the Byrne-Brawn-Schumacher-Todt all-star team, they fight on their strengths and know their weaknesses and work around them. As opposed to Neweys "perfect car" approach.

[Todd]

Originally posted by HSJ
...and that's why you can't judge a car by its ultimate potential, but only by the potential that can be unlocked on average during the season. Something that escapes people here again and again.

Too bad you must have missed the '96, '97, '98 and '99 seasons. Byrne's car was competitive at a couple of tracks in '96 and '97, and a handful of tracks in '98 and '99. Newey's cars were fast every where those years, and you would be leaving our solar system to suggest better drivers in the Newey cars as an explanation for this in every year. In 1995, Newey's car was faster at every track, but the Byrne team had better execution under Brawn and better driving from Schumacher. All you need to do is look at the grids to tell how much of Newey's cars' potentials is always realized. Their potential isn't difficult to unlock. His cars have just never had the luxury of a locksmith like Michael Schumacher.

[Oho]

Originally posted by Todd

All you need to do is look at the grids to tell how much of Newey's cars' potentials is always realized. Their potential isn't difficult to unlock. His cars have just never had the luxury of a locksmith like Michael Schumacher.

Ave !!

Let me get this straight. You know that something that has never been done is actually easy. You really do walk into these situations dont you.

- Oho -

[Todd]

Originally posted by Oho
Ave !!

Let me get this straight. You know that something that has never been done is actually easy. You really do walk into these situations dont you.

- Oho -

At the point where the Newey cars take almost every pole position, their potential is unlocked. It isn't some hypothetical goodness, it is right there for the stop watch to measure. The fact that some the various drivers failed to utilize all the potential during every lap of the races doesn't mean that it wasn't unleashed. It just means that the drivers weren't up to the task of driving at the cars limits for more than a few laps at a time.

How can you say that their potential wasn't realized when Newey's designs had 15 pole positions in 92', 15 pole positions in '93, 12 pole positions in 1995, 12 pole positions in 1996, 11 pole positions in 1997, 12 pole positions in 1998, and 11 pole positions in 1999? Does that sound like the record of cars that had untapped potential?

If Byrne's cars don't have hard to tap potential, than some of them have had no potential at all. Look at how the Ferrari's grid positions were all but random in 1999, while only a single wet qualifying session prevented the McLarens from starting every race from the front two rows. This "unlocked potential" excuse is desparation incarnate. Mistakes have been made on many a Sunday by the boobs that campaign Newey cars, but the performance is there for the taking.

The 2001 car wasn't up to his usual standards, but I suspect that this is because the Ilmor engine is no longer top flight and working for Ron Dennis took its toll after a few years. A motivated Hakkinen might have helped too.