Williams in the dog house - again

Williams in the dog house - again

Post by News » Wed, 26 Aug 2009 05:19:26


Quote:



>>> Parr says Williams would not be using their flywheel system if Kers
>>> was  allowed in F1 next year, so would not benefit commercially
>>> from such a  decision, even if they are selling the flywheel
>>> technology for application  outside F1.
>> I'm reading between the lines - does he mean it's a failure as an F1
>> system?

> Maybe they can't get it to shutdown in 2 seconds.

It'll no doubt shut down in a few milliseconds, if you count grenading.
 
 
 

Williams in the dog house - again

Post by Chad » Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:07:52

Quote:





>>>>> Ferrari invested in KERS and is still using it.  If they're happy
>>>>> to dump it, FW should shut the *** up.

>>>> Ferrari are happy to dump KERS because they believe that McLarens
>>>> system is way better...same applies to all the other Non-Mac FOTA
>>>> teams. The question is why are McLaren prepared to give up their
>>>> big dollar
>>>> spent advantage?  Its not like they can get their money back.
>>>> If Williams want to keep it then good for them, its their
>>>> prerogative...all the FOTA teams (except McLaren) want to dump KERS
>>>> for their own benefit, why should Williams be expected to act in
>>>> any other fashion?
>>> I reckon Williams flywheel KERS might be way better than McLaren's
>>> or Ferrari's battery system -  should it ever hit the track.
>>> Naturally Frank would want to keep it for 2010.

>> There is a very interesting follow up post by the author of that
>> article. Check out the line that says Williams will _not_ be using the
>> flywheel system in their F1 car!!


>> After I wrote this article, Williams chief executive Adam Parr was
>> keen to expand on the team's stance on Kers. His points make
>> interesting reading. "We have always been behind Kers and our view is it
>> would be quite
>> wrong for F1 to ban it.
>> "There are three different broader issues, in no particular order.
>> "The first is the environment. F1 is a fantastic sport but there is
>> always the criticism that we are burning fossil fuels for fun. That
>> issue is not going away. The concept behind Kers was to unleash F1
>> thinking on energy efficiency and power trains. It was a very smart
>> move because F1 is a fantastic place to develop new technology fast.
>> Now, the whole world is taking the motor car in that direction, and
>> we are going to say, well, it didn't really work and that has
>> implications for our partners, the attractiveness of our sport, etc.
>> "The second is that F1 is about technology. One of the arguments
>> I've heard, which I find ridiculous, is the fans don't understand
>> it, or can't understand why some people have it and some haven't.
>> Well, some people have been clever in developing a system and
>> putting it into a car and good for them. It's not us. I'm jealous.
>> If we ban it, it sends a message of Ludditism that is completely
>> inconsistent with everything we stand for. "The third thing is I
>> think the more Kers impacts on the race itself, the more it will add
>> and I think it will add more next year because it will make a bigger
>> impact. "Everyone has spent their money on Kers. The sport has spent
>> getting on for ???150m on it. We've got systems that work. Williams
>> could fit Kers next year for probably ???1.5m. That's not even the
>> cost of a gearbox programme. I just can't see any reason to go back
>> on something we have put so much into." Parr says Williams would not be
>> using their flywheel system if Kers
>> was allowed in F1 next year, so would not benefit commercially from
>> such a decision, even if they are selling the flywheel technology
>> for application outside F1.

> I'm reading between the lines - does he mean it's a failure as an F1
> system?

The same thought crossed my mind, but who knows?! Certainly seems like a
surprising comment, without further explanation from Parr.

--
Chad

 
 
 

Williams in the dog house - again

Post by CatharticF » Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:41:23


Quote:





>> http://SportToday.org/
>> de >> cide_t.html

>> >> FOTA had a vote on dumping KERS.  Williams - alone - want it
>> retained >> for next season.  Why?  Because their sponsors like it.

>> >> I reckon FW is losing it.

>> > not really... this is a good threat to pull on the FOTA group... on
>> > top of that, it is a smart move in some ways... its allowed by the
>> > rules, and it would seem that no one else is going to use it... it
>> > has proven it can be advantagious... seems like a sound choice to
>> > me.

>> Yes but you're playing the Williams song, you could just as easily
>> view it as disreputable. McLaren and Ferrari have the most to lose on
>> this one and agreed to bin it, so we have two very clear examples of
>> teams losing their advantage while one looks to take advantage of
>> simply not being party to the agreement.

>> "Oh - you've all agreed not to use a turbo? Well we just might then.."

>> As I've said already - were Ferrari or McLaren the ones doing this
>> their opponents would be slinging the mud. I think on balance I
>> believe Williams would be advised that it's in their best interests
>> financially and politically to not spend any more dollars and rock
>> the boat.

>> But go ahead. Pull the trigger Frank - Ferrari and McLaren are too
>> quick on the draw and you're going to look foolish.

> There is an important principal here. FOTA are not the F1 commission.
> It is not their place to decide the rules for the whole grid. How many
> teams does it take to get an agreement like this in FOTA?; how many
> teams on the grid next year?

> I also think it highlights a flaw in the FOTA procedures. It is one
> thing to go by majority decisions when every team is a member but
> McLaren and whoever else it was that wanted to keep KERS have shot
> themselves in the foot by making an agreement to which it appears 5 or
> more teams that could be on the grid next season are not a party.

> Simply blaming Williams is naive.

> Let's see what the commission have to say.

Yes - FOTA isn't the governing body and what Williams may choose to do
isn't 'wrong' but rather unwise imo.

Politically they oppose the consensus of the FOTA teams. This is
different to being tossed out of FOTA when they had to re-sign with the
FIA. They didn't feel they could run the risk with the other teams. And
then I expect there was felt to be a reasonable justification of their
position, being the minnow.

Secondly, also as I mentioned, they presumably believe they will gain
some advantage doing so. I don't think this is likely though of course
they have all the facts that we don't. I don't think McLaren and
Ferrari's season long experience will be lost when it comes to the
effectiveness of the solutions next season.

Thirdly, Williams *must* know that if they run KERS, then given McLaren
and Ferrari's current form and endor***t of it, EVERYONE will have to
run it. More money spent by all and no competitive advantage for WIlliams
(of being one of the few who do run it). This then leads back to my first
point - the other teams will be justifiably annoyed because they're
having to devote time and resources that they'd rather just ignore.

I don't think Williams will do this, I think it more likely to be a ploy.

--
CatharticF1

"What you thought was freedom is just greed."

 
 
 

Williams in the dog house - again

Post by Bigbir » Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:28:20

Quote:








> http://SportToday.org/
> >> de >> cide_t.html >> > >
> >> >> FOTA had a vote on dumping KERS.  Williams - alone - want it
> >> retained >> for next season.  Why?  Because their sponsors like it.

> >> >> I reckon FW is losing it.

> >> > not really... this is a good threat to pull on the FOTA group...
> on >> > top of that, it is a smart move in some ways... its allowed
> by the >> > rules, and it would seem that no one else is going to use
> it... it >> > has proven it can be advantagious... seems like a sound
> choice to >> > me.

> >> Yes but you're playing the Williams song, you could just as easily
> >> view it as disreputable. McLaren and Ferrari have the most to lose
> on >> this one and agreed to bin it, so we have two very clear
> examples of >> teams losing their advantage while one looks to take
> advantage of >> simply not being party to the agreement.

> >> "Oh - you've all agreed not to use a turbo? Well we just might
> then.." >>
> >> As I've said already - were Ferrari or McLaren the ones doing this
> >> their opponents would be slinging the mud. I think on balance I
> >> believe Williams would be advised that it's in their best interests
> >> financially and politically to not spend any more dollars and rock
> >> the boat.

> >> But go ahead. Pull the trigger Frank - Ferrari and McLaren are too
> >> quick on the draw and you're going to look foolish.

> > There is an important principal here. FOTA are not the F1
> > commission.  It is not their place to decide the rules for the
> > whole grid. How many teams does it take to get an agreement like
> > this in FOTA?; how many teams on the grid next year?

> > I also think it highlights a flaw in the FOTA procedures. It is one
> > thing to go by majority decisions when every team is a member but
> > McLaren and whoever else it was that wanted to keep KERS have shot
> > themselves in the foot by making an agreement to which it appears 5
> > or more teams that could be on the grid next season are not a party.

> > Simply blaming Williams is naive.

> > Let's see what the commission have to say.

> Yes - FOTA isn't the governing body and what Williams may choose to
> do isn't 'wrong' but rather unwise imo.

> Politically they oppose the consensus of the FOTA teams. This is
> different to being tossed out of FOTA when they had to re-sign with
> the FIA. They didn't feel they could run the risk with the other
> teams. And then I expect there was felt to be a reasonable
> justification of their position, being the minnow.

> Secondly, also as I mentioned, they presumably believe they will gain
> some advantage doing so. I don't think this is likely though of
> course they have all the facts that we don't. I don't think McLaren
> and Ferrari's season long experience will be lost when it comes to
> the effectiveness of the solutions next season.

> Thirdly, Williams must know that if they run KERS, then given McLaren
> and Ferrari's current form and endor***t of it, EVERYONE will have
> to run it. More money spent by all and no competitive advantage for
> WIlliams (of being one of the few who do run it). This then leads
> back to my first point - the other teams will be justifiably annoyed
> because they're having to devote time and resources that they'd
> rather just ignore.

> I don't think Williams will do this, I think it more likely to be a
> ploy.

Well it surely creates some uncertainty which may translate to
resources being wasted on projects which will never see fruition.

Were Williams part of FOTA when the "gentleman's agreement" was made?
If so is there any justification for McLaren and/or Ferrari to declare
it null and void should Williams break the agreement.

Of course they would have to wait for Williams to actually use KERS in
order to do that. So will they be designing two different cars for next
season?

What happens next hinges on the F1 commission.

--
Bigbird
#

 
 
 

Williams in the dog house - again

Post by Bigbir » Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:32:45

Quote:

> Bigbird wrote...







http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/andrewbenson/2009/08/costs_and_politics_to_

Quote:
> > > de >> cide_t.html

> > > >> FOTA had a vote on dumping KERS.  Williams - alone - want it
> > > retained >> for next season.  Why?  Because their sponsors like
> > > it.

> > > >> I reckon FW is losing it.

> > > > not really... this is a good threat to pull on the FOTA
> > > > group... on top of that, it is a smart move in some ways... its
> > > > allowed by the rules, and it would seem that no one else is
> > > > going to use it... it has proven it can be advantagious...
> > > > seems like a sound choice to me.

> > > Yes but you're playing the Williams song, you could just as easily
> > > view it as disreputable. McLaren and Ferrari have the most to
> > > lose on this one and agreed to bin it, so we have two very clear
> > > examples of teams losing their advantage while one looks to take
> > > advantage of simply not being party to the agreement.

> > > "Oh - you've all agreed not to use a turbo? Well we just might
> > > then.."

> > > As I've said already - were Ferrari or McLaren the ones doing this
> > > their opponents would be slinging the mud. I think on balance I
> > > believe Williams would be advised that it's in their best
> > > interests financially and politically to not spend any more
> > > dollars and rock the boat.

> > > But go ahead. Pull the trigger Frank - Ferrari and McLaren are too
> > > quick on the draw and you're going to look foolish.

> > There is an important principal here. FOTA are not the F1
> > commission.  It is not their place to decide the rules for the
> > whole grid. How many teams does it take to get an agreement like
> > this in FOTA?; how many teams on the grid next year?

> > I also think it highlights a flaw in the FOTA procedures. It is one
> > thing to go by majority decisions when every team is a member but
> > McLaren and whoever else it was that wanted to keep KERS have shot
> > themselves in the foot by making an agreement to which it appears 5
> > or more teams that could be on the grid next season are not a party.

> > Simply blaming Williams is naive.

> > Let's see what the commission have to say.

> All next years teams attended a meeting at Valencia.  Who knows what
> was discussed.

Anyone who read the article linked above.

--
Bigbird
#

 
 
 

Williams in the dog house - again

Post by CatharticF » Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:43:28



Quote:
> Well it surely creates some uncertainty which may translate to
> resources being wasted on projects which will never see fruition.

> Were Williams part of FOTA when the "gentleman's agreement" was made?
> If so is there any justification for McLaren and/or Ferrari to declare
> it null and void should Williams break the agreement.

It seems Williams had been booted out before the announcement regarding
KERS was made:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/75646
Williams team suspended by FOTA - May 27

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/75945
FOTA agrees to drop KERS in 2010 - June 7th

Quote:
> Of course they would have to wait for Williams to actually use KERS in
> order to do that. So will they be designing two different cars for next
> season?

Exactly - the uncertainty means teams have to treat it as if it's 'in'
effectively for fear of falling behind.

Quote:
> What happens next hinges on the F1 commission.

How so..?

--
CatharticF1

"What you thought was freedom is just greed."