Mclaren heading for trouble next year?
-
Here's what Steve Matchett has had to say in 2004's "The Chariot Makers" about communications between drivers and engineers. Just in case you don't know about Matchett, he's the technical editor of F1 Racing magazine and a former Benetton mechanic.
How often have you seen the driver lift his hand out of the cockpit and perform a little mime while talking to his engineer over the radio? It happens all the time, they all do it. The driver, gloved hand held parallel to the ground, uses it to indicate how the car is reacting over the bumps, dips and corners of the circuit; stabbing his fingers forward to indicate the front of the car, swinging his wrist side to side to explain how the rear of the car is working.
This passage was written two years ago, not twenty. What does it say about the communications between the driver and the engineer?
These actions are always accompanied by a stampede of vocal explanations too, thoughts stream from the driver like water bursting from a dam, his brain still computating quick enough to handle decision-making where information is arriving at speeds in excess of a hundred metres per second. The more urgent his hand signals, the wider the driver's eyes, the worse the car is handling. You don't need to hear the conversation, his body language speaks volumes.
While the driver is in full flow, gesticulating and downloading his impressions of the car, his patient, long-suffering engineer will be watching, listening, nodding, scribbling notes, translating jabbed fingers and wide eyes into a potential set-up changes to camber, ride-height, suspension and front wing. But not only that, the engineer will also be working to keep his driver's confidence on a high; keep him motivated, keep things moving forward. Lose the driver's confidence in the car (its predictable handling and its ability to only improve) and the whole house of cards collapses.
1) The driver has to describe how the car is handling at various parts of the track - as Matchett describes, "the bumps, dips and corners of the circuit".
2) The engineer has to listen to what the driver says about how th car is handling.
3) The engineer also has to keep the driver motivated and confident.
So how's any of the above changed with technology? If a car's understeering at a corner, the driver would have said it twenty years ago as he would have today, and the engineer would have taken notes back then as he does today.
Now Matchett talks about "camber, ride-height, suspension and front wing", all of which have been around for a lot longer than twenty years, but I won't go into that - the key issue here is that his job is to translate the driver's feedback into changes in the car's setup.
Sure, these days the mechanic may have to turn the screw up 180 degrees instead of 360 degrees to get the same increase in downforce, but between the driver and the engineer, what has changed? The driver says the car's understeering, the engineer works out that the front wing anlge needs to be increased, and the mechanics receive instructions to make the adjustment before sending the driver out again.
So what happens when a driver and engineer start working together? If the car's understeering and the driver says so, why should the engineer understand that feedback any differently? Does any new technology change that? -
Hey dude, there are several key elements which you need to win in F1. What we are discussion here is ONLY the driver and engineer working relationship (NOT JUST TALKING).Originally posted by Gedanken:So why carry on about KEY engineers then?
What you're saying here is that Sam Michael at Williams doesn't count, but Adrian Newey at McLaren does. Not very consistent, is it?
As for AN, the topic is about his contribution in aero design of the car so please dont try to confuse things just for the sake of arguement. -
Of course they do, in toaday F1, the engineers has a much bigger influence on the outcome of the race than it was 20 years ago. That is why Max Mosley is trying to restrict technology in F1 so that race will emphasis more on driver than race strategy and electronic driver's aid.Originally posted by Gedanken:Does that change the way they talk to each other?
It is not HOW they talk, it is WHAT they talk that is important. -
Exactly. Even discounting the issue of communication, if you're talking about key changes, it doesn't get any more key than an entire department changing, does it?Originally posted by Gazelle:Hey dude, there are several key elements which you need to win in F1.
That being the case, Sauber ought to be doing really horridly right now, compared to last year when they were using Ferrari engines like they had for the past few years.
But whoops, at this point in the season, they're on 17 points instead of the 12 they had last year.
Either way you cut it, it shows you're wrong. -
Ooh. race strategy. Yeah, like a driver twenty years ago would not have understood, "Come in on the next lap".Originally posted by Gazelle:Of course they do, in toaday F1, the engineers has a much bigger influence on the outcome of the race than it was 20 years ago. That is why Max Mosley is trying to restrict technology in F1 so that race will emphasis more on driver than race strategy and electronic driver's aid.
It is not HOW they talk, it is WHAT they talk that is important.
The only difference is whether he came in for tyres, or for fuel and tyres.
So you're saying the empahsis is "more on driver than race strategy and electronic driver's aid". Well and good. If things are so dependent on non-driver factors, the change of both drivers at the same time will have diminished, if any, effect.
Once again, a self-contradiction. -
Ged, I think you are getting off topic here. Our discussion here right now is about engineers working with a 2 new drivers vs a team working with at least 1 familiar driver. And my argument is that Mclaren will suffer a temparary setback if they loss Kimi and JPM at the same time and replace by alonso and Lewis Hamilton. I have also quoted you a statement saying that Mclaren is desperate to get Alonso currently race engineers to join Mclaren next year because Alonso would prefer to working with engineers whom he is comfortable.Originally posted by Gedanken:Exactly. Even discounting the issue of communication, if you're talking about key changes, it doesn't get any more key than an entire department changing, does it?
That being the case, Sauber ought to be doing really horridly right now, compared to last year when they were using Ferrari engines like they had for the past few years.
But whoops, at this point in the season, they're on 17 points instead of the 12 they had last year.
Either way you cut it, it shows you're wrong.
Beside that, what I am doing right now is to question your statement. "None of that has changed over the past 20 years, regardless of regulations, budgets or windtunnels"
My arguement here is that communication technology in F1 has advance so much over the past 20 years and that is why I complete disagree with you statement.
http://www.f1express.com/news-020602.shtml
http://www.f1technical.net/features/685
I personally dont see a point for you to quote things which are irrelavent to our discussion. -
We are not discussing about weather technology are good for F1 are we?Originally posted by Gedanken:Ooh. race strategy. Yeah, like a driver twenty years ago would not have understood, "Come in on the next lap". The only difference is whether he came in for tyres, or for fuel and tyres.
So you're saying the empahsis is "more on driver than race strategy and electronic driver's aid". Well and good. If things are so dependent on non-driver factors, the change of both drivers at the same time will have diminished, if any, effect.
Once again, a self-contradiction. -
Fair enough, Gaz. However, look at what we have discussed up to this point. You argue that it's better for the engineers and drivers to have an established relationship, but I'm asking why that needs to be so. In terms of the work needed to be done to get the best performance out of the driver and car, I've put forward examples of how a new driver can get into the car, drive around a few laps and immediately get down to work with an engineer he's never worked with before.Originally posted by Gazelle:Ged, I think you are getting off topic here. Our discussion here right now is about engineers working with a 2 new drivers vs a team working with at least 1 familiar driver. And my argument is that Mclaren will suffer a temparary setback if they loss Kimi and JPM at the same time and replace by alonso and Lewis Hamilton. I have also quoted you a statement saying that Mclaren is desperate to get Alonso currently race engineers to join Mclaren next year because Alonso would prefer to working with engineers whom he is comfortable.
Now, going bacl to what I've said in the first part of this post, your response to my examples of new drivers immediately getting results from the team is that things have changed over the past twenty years.Originally posted by Gazelle:Beside that, what I am doing right now is to question your statement. "None of that has changed over the past 20 years, regardless of regulations, budgets or windtunnels"
My arguement here is that communication technology in F1 has advance so much over the past 20 years and that is why I complete disagree with you statement.
http://www.f1express.com/news-020602.shtml
http://www.f1technical.net/features/685
I personally dont see a point for you to quote things which are irrelavent to our discussion.
I'm not debating that the technology has changed over the last few decades.
I'm saying that despite the changes, the relationship between the driver and the engineer remains the same, and the Matchett quote supports my assertion.
As for the links you've provided, let's take it to your key assertion. If say next year, Mclaren indeed change to Alonso and Hamilton, how will that change things in light of those articles posted?
If anything, the effect of bidirectional telemetry is to take the driver out of the equation. It wouldn't matter if it was Alonso, Hamilton or any other driver driving, the engineer would see that (taking the McLaren example you put forward) the oil tank was causing smoking, and that turning off the tank would not cause any problems, and so turn off the tank without any involvement from the driver whatsoever.
In other words, with new technology like bidirectional technology, it wouldn't matter if the driver had been with the team for years, of if the driver was new, since he's in no way a necessary part of the process.
In fact, since the mechanical functions are by and large generic, it wouldn't even make a difference if the engineer was new, since any similarly-trained engineer could see the data, amke the same conclusions and take the same action. -
I'm not. Why are you bringing it up?Originally posted by Gazelle:We are not discussing about weather technology are good for F1 are we?
I was disagreeing with you that WHAT they are saying is different in light of race strategy and driver aids, which you brought up. Driver aids don't perform any fundamentally different function from suspension or aerodynamics - they all work to keep the car stuck to the ground as firmly as possible. Race strategy still comes down to deciding when to come in and how hard to push at any given point of the race - pre-1994 it was a case of working out how much fuel was left in the car and how the weight affected tyre wear. Post 1994 it was a case of how much fuel was left in the car and when to come in for a top-up. Either way, the drivers and the engineers would to some extent have a say on when to come in, and the driver could receive the instruction to come in on a given lap and choose to either comply or stay out if he saw some advantage to that. Regardless of the rules, that hasn't changed. -
Yes, but I didnt stop there, i did mentioned that car development will suffer because the engineers has to deal to 2 completely new drivers and it will take time for the engineers to know what is best for the drivers and how the driver can make the BEST of our the car. Not just limited to making minor adjusting during the race.Originally posted by Gedanken:Fair enough, Gaz. However, look at what we have discussed up to this point. You argue that it's better for the engineers and drivers to have an established relationship, but I'm asking why that needs to be so. In terms of the work needed to be done to get the best performance out of the driver and car, I've put forward examples of how a new driver can get into the car, drive around a few laps and immediately get down to work with an engineer he's never worked with before.
I also mentioned that for a new driver driving a completely new car design by a completely new team, the driver will have to go through the additional learning curve of unstandling how the car will react to every circuit on the race calender even though he has won the race with other team before. I believe I did highlighted Ruben as an example because he was to struggling in the first few race of this season because of car set up. -
What Matchett quote is only one area of the working relationship of drivers and race engineers. What he didnt mentioned is how engineers could help or influence the drivers by providing them more specific information about their cars and offer advice for them to push harder or go slower. And in order to do this, the engineers will require a good understanding of his driving approach and his character and his limit, which could varies from race to race.Originally posted by Gedanken:Now, going bacl to what I've said in the first part of this post, your response to my examples of new drivers immediately getting results from the team is that things have changed over the past twenty years.
I'm not debating that the technology has changed over the last few decades.
I'm saying that despite the changes, the relationship between the driver and the engineer remains the same, and the Matchett quote supports my assertion. .
This article is to counter your statement that communication between the driver and engineers has not changed over the the past 20 years. What I am trying to show you is that the engineers of today are equiped with so much information and they have a bigger influence on the outcome of the race than before. And that change the way drivers and engineers work with one another as compare to 20 years ago.Originally posted by Gedanken:As for the links you've provided, let's take it to your key assertion. If say next year, Mclaren indeed change to Alonso and Hamilton, how will that change things in light of those articles posted?.
Again this is to counter your claim that nothing has change over the past 20 years with regards to communication in F1. Isnt telemetry all about communication?Originally posted by Gedanken:If anything, the effect of bidirectional telemetry is to take the driver out of the equation. It wouldn't matter if it was Alonso, Hamilton or any other driver driving, the engineer would see that (taking the McLaren example you put forward) the oil tank was causing smoking, and that turning off the tank would not cause any problems, and so turn off the tank without any involvement from the driver whatsoever.
In other words, with new technology like bidirectional technology, it wouldn't matter if the driver had been with the team for years, of if the driver was new, since he's in no way a necessary part of the process.?Originally posted by Gedanken:
If you are talking about building a mass production road car, I would agree with you that this approach will be acceptable. For F1, that is approach is going to lead you nowhere, especially if you are talking about championship.
In fact, since the mechanical functions are by and large generic, it wouldn't even make a difference if the engineer was new, since any similarly-trained engineer could see the data, amke the same conclusions and take the same action. -
Good points both, Gaz. I'll adress them in turn.
Over and above what we have discussed, what examples can you put forward of this? Let's say that drivers have differing preferences for the chassis' stiffness (I personally don't believe so, but let's go with that for argument's sake). The new driver says, "It feels like the chassis is flexing too much when I go around at flat chat on turn 5, and it's jumping all over the place. I could go faster if the car stuck to the ground better there". Unless the chassis was carried over from the previous year - and these days a chassis design is lucky to last one full season - the input would be the same from the driver whether he's new or he's been there for years, would it not?Originally posted by Gazelle:Yes, but I didnt stop there, i did mentioned that car development will suffer because the engineers has to deal to 2 completely new drivers and it will take time for the engineers to know what is best for the drivers and how the driver can make the BEST of our the car. Not just limited to making minor adjusting during the race.
Yes, and Rubens is new to Honda. What happened last year when he and Schumacher had been there for years and still couldn't make the car work satisfactorily all season? If anything, the new driver brings in new input and informationt hat will help the team move ahead.Originally posted by Gazelle:I also mentioned that for a new driver driving a completely new car design by a completely new team, the driver will have to go through the additional learning curve of unstandling how the car will react to every circuit on the race calender even though he has won the race with other team before. I believe I did highlighted Ruben as an example because he was to struggling in the first few race of this season because of car set up. -
Well, the specific information about the cars remains the same regardless of who's driving it. The driver may be made aware that the car tends to be sensitive to crosswinds (as in the case of the FW26), or if it's tiwtchy at the back end (like the MP4-18 ). All the engineer has to do is to make the driver aware of such idiosyncracies and let the driver adapt to it, and possibly assure him that the problem is being worked on as they speak. Regardless of whether the driver is new or has been with the engineers for a long time, such information does not change and the drivers will still have to adapt. As I've mentioned before, unless the driver's followed the chassis to a low-budget team, each driver will have to get adjusted to a new car with new characteristics at the beginning of the season.Originally posted by Gazelle:What Matchett quote is only one area of the working relationship of drivers and race engineers. What he didnt mentioned is how engineers could help or influence the drivers by providing them more specific information about their cars and offer advice for them to push harder or go slower. And in order to do this, the engineers will require a good understanding of his driving approach and his character and his limit, which could varies from race to race.
Yes, but communication between what? If you're talking telemetry, especially with bidirectional telemetry being allowed again, the driver is cut out of the communications loop altogether, because the engineer can work directly with the car. Using the article you posted as an example, the full extent of the communication between the driver and engineer is the engineer saying, "Okay, David, we've fixed the smoking problem - feel free to push now", with the driver thanking the engineer if he's not too busy.Originally posted by Gazelle:This article is to counter your statement that communication between the driver and engineers has not changed over the the past 20 years. What I am trying to show you is that the engineers of today are equiped with so much information and they have a bigger influence on the outcome of the race than before. And that change the way drivers and engineers work with one another as compare to 20 years ago.
.....
Again this is to counter your claim that nothing has change over the past 20 years with regards to communication in F1. Isnt telemetry all about communication?
I'll disagree with that. The working principles in each car apply to all the others. All the cars now have semi-suto gearboxes, bidirectional telemetry , traction and launch control, and variable engine maps. While each team may make their own version of these things, the working principles remain the same. Once, years ago, a team may have been allowed to introduce new technology like semi-auto gearboxes and active suspension, but as you have pointed out the regulations these days minimise that, and besides, if it worked, it wouldn't be long before other teams followed suit and it became the norm on the grid.Originally posted by Gazelle:If you are talking about building a mass production road car, I would agree with you that this approach will be acceptable. For F1, that is approach is going to lead you nowhere, especially if you are talking about championship.
I hope you don't take this as being patronising because I mean no such disrespect, but if you can write in the way you did in the last two posts, I'll be more than happy to discuss points with you without being abrasive.
-
Was that a toyota infront of kimi? What a fcking joke!!
-
wtfeck
-
there are even rumour that flavio is trying to get alonso out of the mclaren contract..
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gazelle:
The objective of a manufacture is to sell more cars. By having fans is good, but that alone is not enough to pay for the investment car manufactures have invested into the sport. Fan is good, but customer is King.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey dude, go get yourself a copy of the Sep06 F1racing magazine and please read what car manufacturer has to say about F1 success and car sales.Originally posted by Gedanken:That weasel LDM probably agrees with that, but old Enzo would have smacked anyone who suggested that to him.
Besides, how much have guys like Frank Williams, Eddie Jordan, Paul Stoddart, Dietrich Mateschitz and Alex Shnaider made from selling cars? -
I am not sure if you have heard the team radio asking their drivers to warm up their brake because the engineers at the pit could see that the brakes are still not up to the optimal race temp. On some occasion, the pit crew may also ask the driver to return to pit even before the engine blew up. On some other occasions, the race engineer will tell the driver to push harder on certain sector of the track because his team mate is faster around certain corners, I wonder if such communication between engineers and drivers happen 20 years ago?Originally posted by Gedanken:Well, the specific information about the cars remains the same regardless of who's driving it. The driver may be made aware that the car tends to be sensitive to crosswinds (as in the case of the FW26), or if it's tiwtchy at the back end (like the MP4-18 ). All the engineer has to do is to make the driver aware of such idiosyncracies and let the driver adapt to it, and possibly assure him that the problem is being worked on as they speak. Regardless of whether the driver is new or has been with the engineers for a long time, such information does not change and the drivers will still have to adapt. As I've mentioned before, unless the driver's followed the chassis to a low-budget team, each driver will have to get adjusted to a new car with new characteristics at the beginning of the season.
With regards to what you said that is it not a big issue for a team to change both drivers and challenge championship at the same time, Flavio has openly say that reasons for keeping Fisi and offering Heikki the race seats is about maintaining STABILITY in the team. If what you say about new drivers and new team is a non issue, then I suppose Flavio should be sacked and replace by Dr. JT isnt it? -
OMFG, are you STILL hung up on this topic?Originally posted by Gazelle:I am not sure if you have heard the team radio asking their drivers to warm up their brake because the engineers at the pit could see that the brakes are still not up to the optimal race temp. On some occasion, the pit crew may also ask the driver to return to pit even before the engine blew up. On some other occasions, the race engineer will tell the driver to push harder on certain sector of the track because his team mate is faster around certain corners, I wonder if such communication between engineers and drivers happen 20 years ago?
And yeah, there is a difference. In the old days, the drivers had to work out for themselves if the brakes are warm enough and get a feel of the engine's state. They would have to read pit boards to see where they stand in relation to other drivers.
Bottom line: it's gotten EASIER for the new drivers and if anything, they'll need less time to settle in.
So what's YOUR point? -
Don't have to - it still won't change the answer to how much guys like Frank Williams, Eddie Jordan, Paul Stoddart, Dietrich Mateschitz and Alex Shnaider have made from selling cars. May as well be discussing the price of tea in China.Originally posted by Gazelle:Hey dude, go get yourself a copy of the Sep06 F1racing magazine and please read what car manufacturer has to say about F1 success and car sales. -
then you better open your eyes and read. I said MANUFACTURER.Originally posted by Gedanken:Don't have to - it still won't change the answer to how much guys like Frank Williams, Eddie Jordan, Paul Stoddart, Dietrich Mateschitz and Alex Shnaider have made from selling cars. May as well be discussing the price of tea in China. -
Then why did you said that the way engineers and driver communicate hasnt change for the last 20 years?Originally posted by Gedanken:OMFG, are you STILL hung up on this topic?
And yeah, there is a difference. In the old days, the drivers had to work out for themselves if the brakes are warm enough and get a feel of the engine's state. They would have to read pit boards to see where they stand in relation to other drivers.
Bottom line: it's gotten EASIER for the new drivers and if anything, they'll need less time to settle in.
So what's YOUR point? -
Because drivers don't use any different language to tell their engineers how the car is handling. "Come in to the pits" in 1986 doesn't mean anything different from "Come in to the pits" in 2006. It's that simple.Originally posted by Gazelle:Then why did you said that the way engineers and driver communicate hasnt change for the last 20 years?
Like I said, if anything, it's gotten easier so drivers these days have even less excuse to not fit into a new team quickly.
Sorry, wasn't your point that things have gotten harder? -
Oh, so only manufacturers take part in F1? I think you'd better open your eyes and watch F1.Originally posted by Gazelle:then you better open your eyes and read. I said MANUFACTURER. -
Sorry, I didnt know that it is so interesting to talk about things such as what launguage driver and engineers speaks to one another.Originally posted by Gedanken:Because drivers don't use any different language to tell their engineers how the car is handling. "Come in to the pits" in 1986 doesn't mean anything different from "Come in to the pits" in 2006. It's that simple.
Like I said, if anything, it's gotten easier so drivers these days have even less excuse to not fit into a new team quickly.
Sorry, wasn't your point that things have gotten harder?
Sorry, I think you arguement is abit off. It is just like saying, cars today is the same as the first cars that roll out of Henry Ford's factory, because they are still running on 4 wheels.