Comparing RB & Merc ....

This forum contains threads to discuss teams themselves. Anything not technical about the cars, including restructuring, performances etc belongs here.

Post Thu Dec 13, 2012 7:44 pm

gato azul wrote:Interesting logic here FoxHound, back in 2008 wasn't that Toro Rosso designed by Adrian Newey and his gang at RBT?
So why would you fire the guy or call for his resignation when the car he pend just won a race?


So it is your view that Mateschitz paid Newey to pen winning Torro Rosso's? That is a most interesting logic in itself.
The fashion of the world is to avoid cost, and they encounter it. -WS
FoxHound
 
Joined: 23 Aug 2012

Post Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:17 pm

FoxHound wrote:
gato azul wrote:Interesting logic here FoxHound, back in 2008 wasn't that Toro Rosso designed by Adrian Newey and his gang at RBT?
So why would you fire the guy or call for his resignation when the car he pend just won a race?


So it is your view that Mateschitz paid Newey to pen winning Torro Rosso's? That is a most interesting logic in itself.

He penned both the STR and the RBR to be winning machines,

"You don´t design cars to come third fourth or fifth.
You design to win, and if you no longer go for a winning design, you´r no longer a designer"

:)
"Il Phenomeno" - The one they fear the most!

"2% of the world's population own 50% of the world's wealth."
Nando
 
Joined: 10 Mar 2012

Post Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:45 pm

Nando wrote:
FoxHound wrote:
gato azul wrote:Interesting logic here FoxHound, back in 2008 wasn't that Toro Rosso designed by Adrian Newey and his gang at RBT?
So why would you fire the guy or call for his resignation when the car he pend just won a race?


So it is your view that Mateschitz paid Newey to pen winning Torro Rosso's? That is a most interesting logic in itself.

He penned both the STR and the RBR to be winning machines,

"You don´t design cars to come third fourth or fifth.
You design to win, and if you no longer go for a winning design, you´r no longer a designer"

:)


I don't think the aim was ever to have the junior team outperform the senior one though. Interestingly, the only time that occurred was Vettel's first full season there. :wink:

As for Haug, sad to see him go after seeing him in motorsport for so long. I'd say getting rid of him is only a sideways move.
Forza Ferrari
SilverArrow
 
Joined: 27 Nov 2012

Post Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:22 pm

SilverArrow wrote:I don't think the aim was ever to have the junior team outperform the senior one though. Interestingly, the only time that occurred was Vettel's first full season there.


Exactly. Can you imagine the long faces at Red Bull?
Being usurped by the junior team was never going to help the cause...and yet no heads rolled at Red Bull. Hence why calling for heads to roll is no guarantee for anything.
The fashion of the world is to avoid cost, and they encounter it. -WS
FoxHound
 
Joined: 23 Aug 2012

Post Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:57 pm

FoxHound wrote:
SilverArrow wrote:I don't think the aim was ever to have the junior team outperform the senior one though. Interestingly, the only time that occurred was Vettel's first full season there.


Exactly. Can you imagine the long faces at Red Bull?
Being usurped by the junior team was never going to help the cause...and yet no heads rolled at Red Bull. Hence why calling for heads to roll is no guarantee for anything.


Spot on.
Forza Ferrari
SilverArrow
 
Joined: 27 Nov 2012

Post Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:12 pm

gato azul wrote:No it's not. He hired him to provide race winning designs, and that's what he did, so why would you want to fire him?


Gato, I didnt call for Newey to be fired.
I was linking the similarities in Red Bull and Mercedes initial years, and how Red Bull actually went backwards in year 4 with no heads rolling so to speak.
The same posters(shall go unamed) have asked for a blood letting at the team, and I'm using the Red Bull comparison to show that sackings don't mean anything and guarantee even less.

And paint the Torro Rosso situation how you like, but I can imagine the unhappy people from Red Bull at Torro Rosso winning was Newey and second Mateschitz.

gato azul wrote:It will not have help his (Haugs) position, that BMW just took them to the cleaners in DTM this year as well.

Mercedes led the standings for the entire season until the last race. How do you equate this to being "taken to the cleaners"?
The fashion of the world is to avoid cost, and they encounter it. -WS
FoxHound
 
Joined: 23 Aug 2012

Post Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:11 pm

FoxHound wrote:but I can imagine the unhappy people from Red Bull at Torro Rosso winning was Newey and second Mateschitz.

Newey designed both cars, are you implying he would be mad when one of HIS designs won a race?

He works for RBT right? So he´s as unbiased as they come since he supplied both teams with his design.
"Il Phenomeno" - The one they fear the most!

"2% of the world's population own 50% of the world's wealth."
Nando
 
Joined: 10 Mar 2012

Post Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:49 pm

FoxHound wrote:
gato azul wrote:No it's not. He hired him to provide race winning designs, and that's what he did, so why would you want to fire him?


Gato, I didnt call for Newey to be fired.
I was linking the similarities in Red Bull and Mercedes initial years, and how Red Bull actually went backwards in year 4 with no heads rolling so to speak.
The same posters(shall go unamed) have asked for a blood letting at the team, and I'm using the Red Bull comparison to show that sackings don't mean anything and guarantee even less.

And paint the Torro Rosso situation how you like, but I can imagine the unhappy people from Red Bull at Torro Rosso winning was Newey and second Mateschitz.

gato azul wrote:It will not have help his (Haugs) position, that BMW just took them to the cleaners in DTM this year as well.

Mercedes led the standings for the entire season until the last race. How do you equate this to being "taken to the cleaners"?


No you have ask Marcus if he would call for Neweys head, after Toro Rosso won a race, why RBR did not.
Why would you ask for the head of the guy, who got his job done? I could understand if you would ask for Horners head.

You are free to think, and imagine whatever you like, that does not make it a fact/reality.
So why try to bully your opinion onto everybody else.
Maybe you are right, but it"s legit to ask why would Newey be unhappy when one of his creations wins a race - could be worse, same goes for Mateschitz, I'm sure he will see the upside first. Why have two teams if you only be happy if one wins. From a marketing/brand exposure point, this win against the odds was probably better in terms of exposure then, a Coulhard win in an RBR car.

If Toro Rosso winning against RBR would be such a drama, what you think will happen at Mercedes when customers McLaren & Force India upstage the works team, showing that at least the engine is up to the task.
How does this made the guy, who sold "the let's buy Brawn GP" idea to the board look? Must have been as painful to see the customer teams "kick ass" then it supposedly was for Mateschitz and Newey to see STR win. Don"t you think?

As for the DTM result, depends on what your metrics is, and I seem to remember from our last conversation about the topic, that you prefer the team&manufacturer standings. And in the manufacturer standing Mercedes did not lead until the last race, and in fact finished last at the end of the year. Maybe you prefer your " get handed their ass to them" expression, but it does not take away from the fact that Mercedes finished dead last in the standings.
But I'm not surprised that you prefer to change your metrics now.
Anyway, Haug will have to answer for this, just comes with his job, he has a say in the driver lineup and will have to face up to the fact, that he may made some questionable ( some would say dumb) decisions, when it comes to the DTM cockpits.
gato azul
 
Joined: 2 Feb 2012

Post Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:56 pm

Nando wrote:
FoxHound wrote:but I can imagine the unhappy people from Red Bull at Torro Rosso winning was Newey and second Mateschitz.

Newey designed both cars, are you implying he would be mad when one of HIS designs won a race?

He works for RBT right? So he´s as unbiased as they come since he supplied both teams with his design.


Yea I'm sure Newey went to Red Bull to design Torro Rosso's.

They are/were a B team. Beating the A-team is an embarassment. No 2 ways about it.
The fashion of the world is to avoid cost, and they encounter it. -WS
FoxHound
 
Joined: 23 Aug 2012

Post Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:42 am

gato azul wrote:No you have ask Marcus if he would call for Neweys head, after Toro Rosso won a race, why RBR did not.
Why would you ask for the head of the guy, who got his job done? I could understand if you would ask for Horners head.


It will take a long time, but please read the Mercedes team threads of 2011 and 2012. The amount of criticism this team had was astonishing. Some of it was merited I have to agree.
But the majority of post's where people logging in to replicate the previous days posts in a even more gratuitous fashion.

No I have no problem with stinging criticisms. But it's a double edged sword Gato. You cannot have it both ways is what I mean, hence why I draw up the comparison with Red Bull. Of course Mercedes are nowhere near Red Bull...but we must admit Red Bull went backwards in year 4 too.

gato azul wrote:How does this made the guy, who sold "the let's buy Brawn GP" idea to the board look? Must have been as painful to see the customer teams "kick ass" then it supposedly was for Mateschitz and Newey to see STR win. Don"t you think?.


Of course it is.

gato azul wrote: Why have two teams if you only be happy if one wins. From a marketing/brand exposure point, this win against the odds was probably better in terms of exposure then, a Coulhard win in an RBR car.


You don't think it crossed Mateshitz mind what he was paying 2 times less for doing better than his spearhead?

gato azul wrote:So why try to bully your opinion onto everybody else.


You have lost me now Gato :wtf:
The fashion of the world is to avoid cost, and they encounter it. -WS
FoxHound
 
Joined: 23 Aug 2012

Post Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:08 am

FoxHound wrote:Yea I'm sure Newey went to Red Bull to design Torro Rosso's.

They are/were a B team. Beating the A-team is an embarassment. No 2 ways about it.

The 2007-2009 Toro Rossos were the same designs as their RBR sisters. So in 2007-2009 he did go to Red Bull to design Toro Rossos as well.

That in 2008 the Toro Rosso team made better use of an identical design is not related to Newey in any way.
失败者找理由,成功者找方法
raymondu999
 
Joined: 4 Feb 2010

Post Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:17 am

raymondu999 wrote:That in 2008 the Toro Rosso team made better use of an identical design is not related to Newey in any way.


Of course not, if you look at it in such a tortured fashion. That in 2008 Red Bull got beaten by Torro Rosso in it's 4th year IS related to Newey in ALL ways.

Now if we can keep it on topic please.
The fashion of the world is to avoid cost, and they encounter it. -WS
FoxHound
 
Joined: 23 Aug 2012

Post Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:28 am

FoxHound wrote:
raymondu999 wrote:That in 2008 the Toro Rosso team made better use of an identical design is not related to Newey in any way.


Of course not, if you look at it in such a tortured fashion. That in 2008 Red Bull got beaten by Torro Rosso in it's 4th year IS related to Newey in ALL ways.

Now if we can keep it on topic please.

How? "Newey just proved he can still design winning cars." Then what? Newey's job is just to design the best car he can - and it was proved that the RB4/STR3 chassis was a winner. I am honestly struggling to see how the failure of RBR's racing team/drivers to capitalise on a winning design while Vettel + Toro Rosso's racing team could is a failure of Newey's. It's a failure of RBR racing team + drivers at the operational level.
失败者找理由,成功者找方法
raymondu999
 
Joined: 4 Feb 2010

Post Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:57 am

raymondu999 wrote:How? "Newey just proved he can still design winning cars." Then what? Newey's job is just to design the best car he can



You still don't grasp it do you? Newey was not employed by Mateschitz to make Torro Rosso win. His over riding responsibility was Red Bull.
I will repeat this again and again....If you think pouring 2 and a half times more money into Red Bull(and by extension the design of the RB4) and getting beat by the cheaper team(and by extension the STR 3) and you cannot see failings within a design team who spend most of their time and effort on Red Bull, then fair play to you Ray.

from Grandprix.com
The fact that Toro Rosso beat Red Bull Racing will be seen by many as an embarrassment for the "factory" Red Bull team

I must be crazy along with alot of other people then.... :?

raymondu999 wrote:I am honestly struggling to see how the failure of RBR's racing team/drivers to capitalise on a winning design while Vettel + Toro Rosso's racing team could is a failure of Newey's. It's a failure of RBR racing team + drivers at the operational level.


Did he pen the car's or not? Yes. Which did he spend more time doing? Red Bull of course. Why? Mateschitz paid him to head design at Red Bull, Torro Rosso was never a priority for Newey AND Torro Rosso was also up for sale at the time.
Getting beat by your own part time design will sting a bit. It will ask questions of what you are doing full time....

Now if you have anything further to add, inbox me or set up a new thread I will not respond on this thread anymore.
Last edited by FoxHound on Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
The fashion of the world is to avoid cost, and they encounter it. -WS
FoxHound
 
Joined: 23 Aug 2012

Post Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:27 am

For me I think they should make 2013 the bedding in year for all the changes they've recently made, and then once it's all working nicely throw everything at 2014. They've recently made big changes at their wind tunnel, the personnel at the top have been shuffled a bit, Lewis is now on board, etc.

Red Bull's rise to the top in 2009 was largely because they weren't having to fight for the 2008 title allowing them to devote much more time to the 2009 car. The design decisions they made then have carried through to the current car, where as McLaren and Ferrari have had to try to reinvent their designs several times to try and overhaul the deficit they started 2009 with and have carried even since.

2012 was the first time Red Bull had to go back to the drawing board and the others had a chance to catch up, and arguably McLaren built the faster car - they just utterly failed to support it operationally.

If Mercedes are going to have an impact then they will throw everything at 2014. Red Bull will lose their exhaust blowing advantages in that year, so the aerodynamics will be more traditional. And the engines are likely to play a larger part in differentiating the cars.

The trap Mercedes have to make sure they avoid is the one BMW fell in to in 2009 where they had thrown everything at that car with the new regulations, launched it early to get data on it, but then lost focus and failed to bring updates to the car for the beginning of the year. To be fair they also missed out on that years aero gimmick, which did bring a lot of downforce to the cars, but in 2014 if someone does come up with a rule bending trick it is less likely to be a game changer than the double diffuser.
myurr
 
Joined: 20 Mar 2008

Next

Return to Formula One teams

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Thunders and 8 guests