Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2018 2:06:41 GMT
Lucio,
I totally agree about management failures at McLaren. Martin Whitmarsh was too sensible for Ron Dennis' expanding egomania. I had an amazing encounter a couple of years ago on Motorsport.com when I criticized Dennis, along with Ecclestone, for the decline of status in Formula One. What I can only describe as a rabid attack specialist soon replied with extreme venom. I was an "Amerikan" and not entitled to have a view, in this idiot's lower intestinal opinion. I believe it was Ron Dennis. We went back and forth, I responded with equal contempt, and he/she/it soon left.
A point about Dallara: Yes, IndyCar is considerably less interesting now that the chassis are spec/Dallara, probably a consequence of the financial trauma caused by the attempt of another reckless ego, that of Tony George, to seize the throne. Before the uncivil war between CART and IRL, when most teams had their own chassis designs, the series held much greater interest that longtime fans of Champ Car and CART still miss. Nonetheless, current IndyCar is a big step ahead of Formula One in recognizing the drawbacks of extreme downforce. Until F1 can do the same, IndyCar provides closer and better racing. If you can, enjoy the IndyCar race June 24 at one of the great road courses anywhere, Road America! Cheers, Carl Amazing, would love to read that exchange. Of course, they - The F1 people, former drivers etc - must be reading the comments on MS. Obviously, I have nothing against Dallara, quite the contrary. My point was that Zak must really be mentally challenged if he thought he was selling the Andretti car as a McLaren. He was missing the fundamental point: anything that does not help the F1 effort is a waste and hence damaging the F1 team. That is clear like the sun, he doesn't need a PhD to understand that. Alonso is only a driver, at the end of the day. What matters, if it matters to them, is McLaren F1 team. They don't get back to the top with nonsensical side shows like Alonso at Indy last year (nonsensical from McLaren pov). When F1 became "modern", Ferrari ditched the sportscar programme from one day to the other, and concentrated on F1 only. For Ferrari, hate or love him, there never was a driver bigger than the interests of the marque and the Scuderia. Full stop.
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Jun 15, 2018 4:00:08 GMT
Lucio,
I totally agree about management failures at McLaren. Martin Whitmarsh was too sensible for Ron Dennis' expanding egomania. I had an amazing encounter a couple of years ago on Motorsport.com when I criticized Dennis, along with Ecclestone, for the decline of status in Formula One. What I can only describe as a rabid attack specialist soon replied with extreme venom. I was an "Amerikan" and not entitled to have a view, in this idiot's lower intestinal opinion. I believe it was Ron Dennis. We went back and forth, I responded with equal contempt, and he/she/it soon left.
A point about Dallara: Yes, IndyCar is considerably less interesting now that the chassis are spec/Dallara, probably a consequence of the financial trauma caused by the attempt of another reckless ego, that of Tony George, to seize the throne. Before the uncivil war between CART and IRL, when most teams had their own chassis designs, the series held much greater interest that longtime fans of Champ Car and CART still miss. Nonetheless, current IndyCar is a big step ahead of Formula One in recognizing the drawbacks of extreme downforce. Until F1 can do the same, IndyCar provides closer and better racing. If you can, enjoy the IndyCar race June 24 at one of the great road courses anywhere, Road America! Cheers, Carl Amazing, would love to read that exchange. Of course, they - The F1 people, former drivers etc - must be reading the comments on MS. Obviously, I have nothing against Dallara, quite the contrary. My point was that Zak must really be mentally challenged if he thought he was selling the Andretti car as a McLaren. He was missing the fundamental point: anything that does not help the F1 effort is a waste and hence damaging the F1 team. That is clear like the sun, he doesn't need a PhD to understand that. Alonso is only a driver, at the end of the day. What matters, if it matters to them, is McLaren F1 team. They don't get back to the top with nonsensical side shows like Alonso at Indy last year (nonsensical from McLaren pov). When F1 became "modern", Ferrari ditched the sportscar programme from one day to the other, and concentrated on F1 only. For Ferrari, hate or love him, there never was a driver bigger than the interests of the marque and the Scuderia. Full stop. Lucio, Good point about Alonso at Indy being a serious distraction from more pressing matters for McLaren, although it was great for the fans of both series.
I remember the basics of that exchange. I imagine Ron Dennis may have been told by a subordinate that he'd been insulted. Someone had clearly perused my profile, because the enraged respondent knew I was American and used my nationality somehow to mean I should leave the website! I had insulted both Ecclestone and Dennis in my earlier comment, on the basis of greed (Ecclestone) and the hyper-infusion of corporate money into the sport (both men). Whoever responded was apoplectic, which led me to speculate whether this nearly hysterical person was one I had insulted.
After a minute or two, I began to enjoy the back and forth. After guessing who it was, I began to comment about his impression of Ron Dennis. I told him he had the rudeness and arrogance just about right, but needed to amplify the character defects. Soon after, he either had a meeting scheduled or realized he wasn't intimidating me, and left.
Cheers, Carl
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2018 10:04:50 GMT
Carl, me too I enjoyed following Alonso at Indy. But I always thought that as an under contract F1 driver he should have been at Monaco on the McLaren, not at Indy. Dennis would never have allowed it, and he would have been right. Withmarsh too.
The upshot of all that is that Alonso it seems is pondering whether to carry on in F1 or switch to IndyCar come next year, in particular if he wins Le Mans this weekend. McLaren, in the meanwhile, are still far away to solve their problems. I say, get rid of Alonso - and of Zak - and get their priorities right, first, to start the long way back to the top.
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Jun 15, 2018 15:55:57 GMT
Carl, me too I enjoyed following Alonso at Indy. But I always thought that as an under contract F1 driver he should have been at Monaco on the McLaren, not at Indy. Dennis would never have allowed it, and he would have been right. Withmarsh too. The upshot of all that is that Alonso it seems is pondering whether to carry on in F1 or switch to IndyCar come next year, in particular if he wins Le Mans this weekend. McLaren, in the meanwhile, are still far away to solve their problems. I say, get rid of Alonso - and of Zak - and get their priorities right, first, to start the long way back to the top. Lucio, Apparently Alonso was on the edge of mutiny and demanded some serious coddling from the team. To me, the unresolved mystery is about the division of blame between McLaren and Honda and Red Bull and Renault. Were they collectively trying too hard and too fast to equal the carefully developed hybrid-engine leadership of Mercedes? Has it been a confederancy of dunces all falling down, were Honda/Renault or the teams mainly to blame?
Ferrari had a similar challenge, rose to it and succeeded.
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Jun 15, 2018 21:11:22 GMT
i have just been re-reading Mark H's article on the demise of McLaren and it is quite interesting reading, basically how the 3 top engineers didn't work as a team but as separate enitities and implies that the 'blame' or responsibility for that is Boulier, the more i read the article the more it made me think of a dictator [Ron] whose belief in his personal power - which is generally what happens with power - caused the riff with the Bahraini's and ended his reign, and thus created the territorial management style that has caused the problems,
For me, i would question both Zak and Boulier's ability to manage the complexity that has been created, whereas sometimes to go forward one has to step backwards first and in this instance, Whitmarsh
I have never really made up my mind on Alonso, i thought he was great at Renault but subsequently, to me anyway, he has strived too hard to emulate Michael and create his own team as opposed to just driving the bloody car and he would have been champion again - i do think what happened at Honda was that Alonso just got so frustrated by it all and as you say Carl, edge of mutiny caused change
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2018 3:26:25 GMT
Carl, me too I enjoyed following Alonso at Indy. But I always thought that as an under contract F1 driver he should have been at Monaco on the McLaren, not at Indy. Dennis would never have allowed it, and he would have been right. Withmarsh too. The upshot of all that is that Alonso it seems is pondering whether to carry on in F1 or switch to IndyCar come next year, in particular if he wins Le Mans this weekend. McLaren, in the meanwhile, are still far away to solve their problems. I say, get rid of Alonso - and of Zak - and get their priorities right, first, to start the long way back to the top. Lucio, Apparently Alonso was on the edge of mutiny and demanded some serious coddling from the team. To me, the unresolved mystery is about the division of blame between McLaren and Honda and Red Bull and Renault. Were they collectively trying too hard and too fast to equal the carefully developed hybrid-engine leadership of Mercedes? Has it been a confederancy of dunces all falling down, were Honda/Renault or the teams mainly to blame?
Ferrari had a similar challenge, rose to it and succeeded.
Mutiny?? That is where the watershed was and everyone who would have had McLaren’s priorities right – Dennis and Withmarsh, no doubt – would have realized and never budged. Zak was just in the job, didn’t (doesn’t) know a thing about it and, most of all, didn’t have a clue of what it meant “to be McLaren”, of their ethos, and what their history – second only to Ferrari – demands. They set a precedent, let Alonso dictate his terms to the team, to running the team, most likely influenced decisively the decision to ditch Honda. They are in deep, deep s..t, and it doesn’t seem they realize it. Ferrari had similar predicaments at least in two occasions - with key differences - although they never ever let a driver dictate conditions or run the team. In 1973, due mainly to Ferrari having been seriously ill most of the year, and after his passing, particularly before Montezemolo was appointed chairman of the whole company. In both situations, mediocre Fiat managers (Fusaro, Lombardi, except Fiorio) weren’t up to the task of running a successful F1 team. In both situations, it was racing people – Enzo himself, Montezemolo – who knew where their priorities were and eventually turned things around. Beside the personnel not up to the task, one issue with McLaren and Williams – and Lotus, before – is that they are independent, not linked to or part-owned by a major manufacturer. They either find people up to the task to take them up – Wright, Warr (and Ducarouge) had pedigree, but ultimately weren’t capable to turn the tide, also without an external manufacturer support – or sell to a big manufacturer at least to keep them going before eventually, hopefully, set the team system right. The stark reality for non-manufacturer’s teams is either they are and keep successful – Red Bull, which have the competitive advantage of Newey, which won't last forever – or in due course they will disappear. As the sport is set today, there is no middle ground.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2018 3:49:08 GMT
I have been a lifelong passionate of American literature - Melville, Faulkner, Hawthorne, Roth, you name it - and I have that book high up on my list, but still can't get around to read it.
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Jun 16, 2018 4:16:40 GMT
I have been a lifelong passionate of American literature - Melville, Faulkner, Hawthorne, Roth, you name it - and I have that book high up on my list, but still can't get around to read it. Lucio,
It's a wonderful book about remarkably bizarre people in New Orleans, published posthumously many years after the author had despaired of success and taken his own life. It won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction. I am postponing reading it again, after many years, with a fresh hardcover edition silently calling from my bookshelf.
“When a true genius appears in the world, You may know him by this sign, that the dunces Are all in confederacy against him.” –Jonathan Swift
Cheers, Carl
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2018 4:45:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Jun 16, 2018 4:46:27 GMT
Lucio, Apparently Alonso was on the edge of mutiny and demanded some serious coddling from the team. To me, the unresolved mystery is about the division of blame between McLaren and Honda and Red Bull and Renault. Were they collectively trying too hard and too fast to equal the carefully developed hybrid-engine leadership of Mercedes? Has it been a confederancy of dunces all falling down, were Honda/Renault or the teams mainly to blame?
Ferrari had a similar challenge, rose to it and succeeded.
Mutiny?? That is where the watershed was and everyone who would have had McLaren’s priorities right – Dennis and Withmarsh, no doubt – would have realized and never budged. Zak was just in the job, didn’t (doesn’t) know a thing about it and, most of all, didn’t have a clue of what it meant “to be McLaren”, of their ethos, and what their history – second only to Ferrari – demands. They set a precedent, let Alonso dictate his terms to the team, to running the team, most likely influenced decisively the decision to ditch Honda. They are in deep, deep s..t, and it doesn’t seem they realize it. Ferrari had similar predicaments at least in two occasions - with key differences - although they never ever let a driver dictate conditions or run the team. In 1973, due mainly to Ferrari having been seriously ill most of the year, and after his passing, particularly before Montezemolo was appointed chairman of the whole company. In both situations, mediocre Fiat managers (Fusaro, Lombardi, except Fiorio) weren’t up to the task of running a successful F1 team. In both situations, it was racing people – Enzo himself, Montezemolo – who knew where their priorities were and eventually turned things around. Beside the personnel not up to the task, one issue with McLaren and Williams – and Lotus, before – is that they are independent, not linked to or part-owned by a major manufacturer. They either find people up to the task to take them up – Wright, Warr (and Ducarouge) had pedigree, but ultimately weren’t capable to turn the tide, also without an external manufacturer support – or sell to a big manufacturer at least to keep them going before eventually, hopefully, set the team system right. The stark reality for non-manufacturer’s teams is either they are and keep successful – Red Bull, which have the competitive advantage of Newey, which won't last forever – or in due course they will disappear. As the sport is set today, there is no middle ground. Lucio, All true and insightful. One effect of corporate money is corporate control and the erosion of team identity that can lead to a slow collapse. I suppose Red Bull will continue to have near unlimited resources from the popularity of Dieter's mystery caffeinated brew. A strange place, Red Bull, treating Sebastian Vettel as a rock star for years not enough to inspire his loyalty after a single embarrassing year. Red Bull's billions and Adrian Newey's genius keep the team successful despite Helmut Marko's grandiosity.
I wonder if Formula One will end up a spec series when the massive corporations lose interest and take their money elsewhere...every car a Red Bull!
Cheers, Carl
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2018 5:01:03 GMT
Corporate control and erosion of team identity - I agree, it has been going on for quite a while.
Vettel knew he was racing a fizz drink label, not a marque with history and aura, that is what he went looking for.
I suppose there are not many options left for F1, and I certainly don't know them, but it seems the spec series is one serious possibility. It will be the final singularity - the big crunch. Stephen Hawking would have been vindicated - in motorsport, not in astrophysics!!
PS: I have never, not a single time, tasted Red Bull. And I will never, I may add.
|
|
|
Post by robmarsh on Jun 16, 2018 6:39:42 GMT
I had a Red Bull once on a management course on the advice of a colleague to stay awake. Sickly taste and the only reason I stayed awake was I was constantly going to the loo to pee. Never again.
On a lighter note , I wonder if Adrian Newey has assessed the aerodynamic properties of a Red Bull can. Red Bull pour a lot of money into motorsport, almost like Marlboro and Camel in years gone by.
|
|
|
Post by mikael on Jun 16, 2018 9:07:09 GMT
New batteries
|
|
|
Post by René on Jun 16, 2018 10:12:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mikael on Jun 16, 2018 11:29:51 GMT
In whatever way, how fortunate that Mr. Dietrich Mateschitz is a motor racing fan! The American "Monster Energy" is a generous supporter of motorsport as well.
But generally, there's not a very clear picture of what type of companies will be the next "big money" sponsors after the "downfall" of tobacco ...
|
|