25 replies to this topic

[SeanValen]

http://www.itv-f1.co...ews_story/15045

Very interesting, some points made, which might be a interest for some.

"He [Newey] needed Patrick at Williams to anchor him. Patrick has got the kind of depth of F1 experience that I’ve got. Patrick kept an eye on him and stabilised Newey’s brilliance.

[lanius]

I read it and laughed. Total crap if you ask me.

My favourite part is: "So when Adrian left Williams for McLaren, he carried some of Patrick’s influence with him – as a result of which his first McLaren was an extremely competitive car. But then, as Patrick’s influence gradually wore off, Adrian didn’t have an anchor and his cars became less competitive "

[KinetiK]

Quote

Originally posted by lanius
I read it and laughed. Total crap if you ask me.

It's certainly not total crap but some of it is spurious. Anderson is an outsider with respect to the Head-Newey relationship but compared to our position, he's on the inside. Interesting nonetheless!

[lanius]

Quote

Originally posted by KinetiK


It's certainly not total crap but some of it is spurious. Anderson is an outsider with respect to the Head-Newey relationship but compared to our position, he's on the inside. Interesting nonetheless!

"But then, as Patrick's influence gradually wore off, Adrian didn’t have an anchor and his cars became less competitive"

That sounds ridiculous to me, like it's out of LOTR or something.

[Nikolas Garth]

Quote

Originally posted by lanius


"But then, as Patrick's influence gradually wore off, Adrian didn’t have an anchor and his cars became less competitive"

That sounds ridiculous to me, like it's out of LOTR or something.

Just like Smeagol/Gollum's sanity improved the more he was away from the Ring.

[Amir_S]

Quote

Originally posted by lanius
I read it and laughed. Total crap if you ask me.

My favourite part is: "So when Adrian left Williams for McLaren, he carried some of Patrick’s influence with him – as a result of which his first McLaren was an extremely competitive car. But then, as Patrick’s influence gradually wore off, Adrian didn’t have an anchor and his cars became less competitive "

I agree. Andrians 99 Mclaren actually had a bigger margin to the ferrari than the 98 modell had. It was 1.5 sec ahead in aussi qualifying whereas the 98 car only had a 0.7 sec advantage. It's problem was reability. That was the factor that opened the door for Ferrari. So performance wise it was an excellent car.

The 2000 car was even better . It was a brilliant car as well. It's just that Ferrari upped their game and improved more from their 99 car because they had more areas to improve since their 99 car was lacking more than the 99 mclaren was. Again som reability issues were there with the Mclaren, but it had nothing to do with Adrian. It was due to the mercedes engine.

The 2001 car was the first and only poor car he designed in a decade. Hey, nobody is perfect. Everybody fails once in a while. The guy had been brilliant since 1991. Give the man a break!

The 2002 car, again was aerodynamicaly a very good car. The weak point was the Engine. It was ****. Again, nothing to do with Adrian.

So to sum things up. Gary is talking out off his arse

[John]

Newey's brilliance....

Let's not forget the effects of the tyre situation. Ilmor-Mercedes lost out due to the death of a major player, and the regulations against further use of Al-Be compounds. They were due to take a step down with these challenges. Plus Newey's distraction of wanting to play with racing boats, and an offer from Bobby Rahal to go to Jag. Legal squabbles ....... the rest is history.

Where McLaren lost out, and Newey had to pick up slack, was the fact that they lost influence on a partnership with Bridgestone. That balance clearly tipped to Ferrari, and Bridgestone was focussed on providing a tyre formula which suited them best. So that was a year of less than 100% compatable rubber. Williams was the first to sign up with Michelin, and they were clearly the front runner of that pack. McLaren had to come into a partnership with a tyre manufacturer who was already developing a relationship with another lead team. What happened? As we saw the past two years, the Michelin teams were not at the front (due to Ferrari) but took up the "best of the rest" spots. You might recall that despite the incredible power of the BMW engine, McLaren had figured out how to keep in the game and limit the pre-mature wear on the rear tyres that Williams was prone to experience. That difference was squarely placed on a superior design of rear suspension, and better aerodynamic efficiency. So that was another year of less than 100% optimum rubber. Michelin appear to have done well this year, except for wet tyres. So this might be the begining of a level playing field in the dry.

Of course, this difference (and a dozen others) was contributing to McLaren's troubles, but their design, and Newey's influence, has been obscured by the distractions. McLaren's chassis designs are still competitive with Ferrari, and ahead of anything from Williams.

[Ricardo F1]

Quote

Originally posted by Amir_S


The 2001 car was the first and only poor car he designed in a decade. Hey, nobody is perfect. Everybody fails once in a while. The guy had been brilliant since 1991. Give the man a break!

The 2002 car, again was aerodynamicaly a very good car. The weak point was the Engine. It was ****. Again, nothing to do with Adrian.

I'd argue that, the 2001 car was fine design wise. Ferrari moved ahead again but McLaren was lacking engine power badly in 01 as well as 02 - it still poled in Monaco among other things.

[taran]

Damn, don't you just love it when a bunch of saturday night specialists crap on a real F1 designer .

You'd almost believe they knew what they were talking about.

Almost...

What Anderson is saying is merely what most F1 insiders have been saying. Patrick Head is considered one of the foremost engineers regarding mechanical design and engineering, the chassis and its layout if you will. Aerodynamics was never his forte.

Adrian Newey was famous for his aerodynamic innovations but equally famous for not understanding that his cars also needed a driver and stuff like suspension parts and an engine. His March cars were usually poorly designed with not enough space for the drivers or a poor layout of the mechanical elements. Newey somehow didn't grasp that the car needed to be a compromise of both fields. This has been mentioned in numerous magazine reviews over the years.

When Head and Newey got together in 1990, they perfectly complemented each other's talents.

At McLaren, Newey has built some excellent cars but they have consistently suffered from poor mechanical layout. The German magazines often mention this because they get info from Mercedes Benz and over the last few years it has usually been a McLaren-Mercedes vs. Schumacher so their season reviews often focus on the Newey car.

And they all applaud the car's aerodynamic performance but often criticize the chassis because Newey does not allocate enough space for certain auxiliaries or ignores the ease in which the car can be tuned. A famous example from 99 is the front suspension & barge boards. These were integrated so every time the mechanics had to change the settings, they had to disassemble the entire suspension and barge board before they could work on it. For 2000, they actually demanded Newey make a more user-friendly system.

Newey seems to be predisposed to always go for the outer edge of the (aerodynamic) envelope to the exclusion of all else. Head could force him to consider the other elements. Without Head, Newey is free to let his mind roam. This leads to fast but fragile cars.


Anderson might have a point after all.

[Fastcar]

What a load of complete bollox, Adrian wasn't stimulated enough when he was considering leaving for another team or doing a Boat or something but he has never designed anything short of excellent, the only reason McLaren haven't won is because of the engine.

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

Quote

Originally posted by taran
Damn, don't you just love it when a bunch of saturday night specialists crap on a real F1 designer .

You'd almost believe they knew what they were talking about.

Almost...

What Anderson is saying is merely what most F1 insiders have been saying. Patrick Head is considered one of the foremost engineers regarding mechanical design and engineering, the chassis and its layout if you will. Aerodynamics was never his forte.

Adrian Newey was famous for his aerodynamic innovations but equally famous for not understanding that his cars also needed a driver and stuff like suspension parts and an engine. His March cars were usually poorly designed with not enough space for the drivers or a poor layout of the mechanical elements. Newey somehow didn't grasp that the car needed to be a compromise of both fields. This has been mentioned in numerous magazine reviews over the years.

When Head and Newey got together in 1990, they perfectly complemented each other's talents.

At McLaren, Newey has built some excellent cars but they have consistently suffered from poor mechanical layout. The German magazines often mention this because they get info from Mercedes Benz and over the last few years it has usually been a McLaren-Mercedes vs. Schumacher so their season reviews often focus on the Newey car.

And they all applaud the car's aerodynamic performance but often criticize the chassis because Newey does not allocate enough space for certain auxiliaries or ignores the ease in which the car can be tuned. A famous example from 99 is the front suspension & barge boards. These were integrated so every time the mechanics had to change the settings, they had to disassemble the entire suspension and barge board before they could work on it. For 2000, they actually demanded Newey make a more user-friendly system.

Newey seems to be predisposed to always go for the outer edge of the (aerodynamic) envelope to the exclusion of all else. Head could force him to consider the other elements. Without Head, Newey is free to let his mind roam. This leads to fast but fragile cars.


Anderson might have a point after all.

Good post! I've learned quite alot from that!
Cheers mate

[mclarensmps]

Its not like Patrick Head is the only person Newey would listen to :

[Wouter]

Quote

Originally posted by Ricardo F1


I'd argue that, the 2001 car was fine design wise. Ferrari moved ahead again but McLaren was lacking engine power badly in 01 as well as 02 - it still poled in Monaco among other things.

I'll second that, the MP4/16 was not as good as its 1998-2000 predecessors, but a "poor" car would not have been so comptetitive at Brazil, Monaco, Silverstone, and some others. The 2001 engine was hurt severely by the Beryllium ban, the main reason form Mac's problems that year.

[HSJ]

Quote

Originally posted by taran
Damn, don't you just love it when a bunch of saturday night specialists crap on a real F1 designer .

You'd almost believe they knew what they were talking about.

Almost...

What Anderson is saying is merely what most F1 insiders have been saying. Patrick Head is considered one of the foremost engineers regarding mechanical design and engineering, the chassis and its layout if you will. Aerodynamics was never his forte.

Adrian Newey was famous for his aerodynamic innovations but equally famous for not understanding that his cars also needed a driver and stuff like suspension parts and an engine. His March cars were usually poorly designed with not enough space for the drivers or a poor layout of the mechanical elements. Newey somehow didn't grasp that the car needed to be a compromise of both fields. This has been mentioned in numerous magazine reviews over the years.

When Head and Newey got together in 1990, they perfectly complemented each other's talents.

At McLaren, Newey has built some excellent cars but they have consistently suffered from poor mechanical layout. The German magazines often mention this because they get info from Mercedes Benz and over the last few years it has usually been a McLaren-Mercedes vs. Schumacher so their season reviews often focus on the Newey car.

And they all applaud the car's aerodynamic performance but often criticize the chassis because Newey does not allocate enough space for certain auxiliaries or ignores the ease in which the car can be tuned. A famous example from 99 is the front suspension & barge boards. These were integrated so every time the mechanics had to change the settings, they had to disassemble the entire suspension and barge board before they could work on it. For 2000, they actually demanded Newey make a more user-friendly system.

Newey seems to be predisposed to always go for the outer edge of the (aerodynamic) envelope to the exclusion of all else. Head could force him to consider the other elements. Without Head, Newey is free to let his mind roam. This leads to fast but fragile cars.


Anderson might have a point after all.

Absolutely, right on the money.

Newey is brilliant, but he isn't perfect. The above outlined it very nicely. Lately AN has been lacking also in his specialty, the aerodynamics, at least in comparison to Ferrari, and Gascoyne/Renault seem to have caught up as well, while Williams have dropped the ball for the moment. Apparently John Sutton (ex-Ferrari man) has said that in 2000 Ferrari had better aero efficiency than Mac, and we know they also had the better (stronger) engine. McL's (Newey's?) downhill really started already in 99 for the reasons taran mentioned above. However now McL's fortunes have improved, AN is no longer so much responsible for the car, he's just the name most often quoted, but really guys like Coughlan, Sutton, and whomever work on the mechanical aspects have at least as much influence nowadays. They are not as famous though, that's why saying it's a Newey car comes much more easily to journos.

I don't think the MP4-18 is a Newey car anymore, and it's probably a good thing.

[HSJ]

Quote

Originally posted by The Big Guns
Its not like Patrick Head is the only person Newey would listen to :

One of the reasons Newey went to McLaren was so that he could have a greater influence over the car's design, that he'd be more a 'dictator', not so much working for someone (Head). It would have been a lot harder to make AN listen up at McLaren, he had (still has?) a totally different position there.

[Amir_S]

Quote

Originally posted by HSJ



Apparently John Sutton (ex-Ferrari man) has said that in 2000 Ferrari had better aero efficiency than Mac, and we know they also had the better (stronger) engine.

Bullshit.... The aero was pretty equal, and probably Mclaren held a small advantage there. And the engine was just fine. They were pretty equal. The berelium ban came for 2001 and although Ferrari conformed a year early(2000) mercedes ran their berelium engines in 2000 and they lacked nothing in horsepower. The 2000 Mclaren was a brilliant car ( may I add beautiful also). In the begining of the seasson it was certainly slightly the quicker off the two ( albeit less reliable), although the difference leveled out throughout the year. All in all probably the most equally matched duell carwise since a long time back.

[mclarensmps]

oh so you know more than John Sutton, Amir? I remember reading the article where he said that and he was comparing it directly to the wind tunnel numbers he knew from Ferrari...

[Amir_S]

Quote

Originally posted by The Big Guns
oh so you know more than John Sutton, Amir? I remember reading the article where he said that and he was comparing it directly to the wind tunnel numbers he knew from Ferrari...

And his new employer is Mclaren......

[SeanValen]

Quote

Originally posted by Amir_S


Bullshit.... The aero was pretty equal, and probably Mclaren held a small advantage there. And the engine was just fine. They were pretty equal. The berelium ban came for 2001 and although Ferrari conformed a year early(2000) mercedes ran their berelium engines in 2000 and they lacked nothing in horsepower. The 2000 Mclaren was a brilliant car ( may I add beautiful also). In the begining of the seasson it was certainly slightly the quicker off the two ( albeit less reliable), although the difference leveled out throughout the year. All in all probably the most equally matched duell carwise since a long time back.

f1-racing's car of the year in 2000- McLaren.

HSJ wants to make all the mclaren drivers look like Senna or better, loads of seconds in the McLaren drivers, fighting the car, left/right

[Amir_S]

Quote

Originally posted by SeanValen


f1-racing's car of the year in 2000- McLaren.

HSJ wants to make all the mclaren drivers look like Senna or better, loads of seconds in the McLaren drivers, fighting the car, left/right

Yes. always in a hurry to point out the terrible weakpoints of the Mclaren. Not a word about the speed it had during the 3 first races, that summer offensive ( france, germany, Hungary, Spa) and not a word about the the Ferraris chewing their tires to pieces while the Mclarens danced ever so lightly around the tracks..... Strange that....

[gerry nassar]

The 2000 Ferrari and McLaren were in all fairness very equal cars. Sometimes the McLAren had the edge - other times the Ferrari did - and they were on the same tyres. Great Battle

[mclarensmps]

Quote

Originally posted by Amir_S


And his new employer is Mclaren......

and your arguement amounts to nothing :yawn:

[Amir_S]

Quote

Originally posted by The Big Guns


and your arguement amounts to nothing :yawn:

I have enough information to satisfy me that there was not much or anything separating those cars performance wise over the whole year. A comment made by an ex Ferrari employe now working for Mclaren wont change my position.

[mclarensmps]

Alright

[taran]

Quote

Originally posted by Amir_S


I have enough information to satisfy me that there was not much or anything separating those cars performance wise over the whole year. A comment made by an ex Ferrari employe now working for Mclaren wont change my position.

I for one would love to hear where you get your information that is apparently good enough to dismiss the words of a respected engineer who worked for Ferrari at the time and now works for McLaren and would probably be able to compare the aero numbers....

The Ferrari had a more aggressive aero and mechanical setup which allowed the tyres to generate heat quickly. This enabled Ferrari to do well in qualifying but in the races they had trouble making the tyres last in long runs.

McLaren on the other hand was very easy on the tyres but could not generate enough heat in the short qualifying runs, leaving them behind the Ferrari's in qualifying on speed.

As gerry nassar says, both cars were very equal in overal performance although they achieved this in different ways. Sometimes the McLaren had the edge and sometimes the Ferrari did.

[mclarensmps]

yeah that seems about right taran, you could see the way the mclaren was gliding (and bouncing) around the curbs at imola today too. If indeed what Ron was saying is true, I would think the fastest lap from a McLaren has yet to come over the weekend, and that will probably be on a Sunday!