How long can Mike Gascoyne last at Lotus?

[CHT]

Looking at Mike Gascoyne career with Asian team like Toyota and Force India, do you think Mike will be able to stay at Malaysia government funded Lotus team for long?

[Rob W]

A similar thought had crossed my mind..

[WhiteBlue]

Gascoyne seems to be the Barnard of the 21st century. He got the type of personality that strives when F1 is more about the individual and less about corporate career schemes. For these kind of people to be successful there must be some entrepreneurial spirit and a system that rewards very tough commitments.

Jump starting a team in Cologne, India or Malaysia takes personal sacrifices that few people are prepared to make unless they are very well payed. The problem is that after several such episodes earnings become less enticing compared to a good shot at success. At Toyota the management structure wasn't favorable and at FI there was a clash of personalities with Colles. Both episodes show that Gascoyne isn't the most diplomatic type of character.

Things might change in a situation where a small team offers the opportunity of an unchallenged position where he is his own man. If it doesn't work out this time his chances of making it to the lofty heights of F1 engineering stardom may be finished.

[xpensive]

My sentiments precisely, Mike Gascoyne seems to be somewhat out of synch with the corporate environment, his pitbull personality is better suited to an entrepreneurial such. But he better make it work this time, being his own boss more or less.

[ESPImperium]

Same thoughts here as well. Lets look at his past record:

98-00 Jordan Grand Prix (Jordan 198, Jordan 199, Jordan EJ10/EJ10B) 2 Victories
00-01 Benneton F1 (B200, B201) 0 Victories
02-03 Renault F1 (R202, R23, R24) 2 Victories
04-06 Toyota Racing (TF104B, TF105/TF105B, TF106/TF106B) 0 Victories
07 Spyker (F8-VII & VJM/01) 0 Victories
08 Force India (F8-VII & VJM/01) 0 Victories
09 Gardening Leave/Sabattical
10 Team Lotus F1

I think that Gascgoyne has an amszing theory in getting results, even taking a car that has been designed by someone else in the case of the TF104 to mak its B spec go better, and with the F8-VII & VJM/01 car. He has a supreme ability to get a productive car out then refine it to results. But his methods may be what is his downfall. The terms of corperate atttitude was his downfall at Renault and Toyota and his prefered method of making small incremental adjustments then taking a half way point in the season to implement a full B Spec car that makes up then time on the feild then more or less totally haulting development to start on the new car is another reason. We know that if you arnt moving forward in F1 youre already going backward, with this i think that Gascogyne is ideally suited to start up guy for a team for a couple or three years, then switch to a guy that has the modren ethos of constant improvement each race, not semi constant improvement then a massive leap then stop.

Thats they way i read Gascogyne, i like they guy and the cars he has designed/co designed and modified, but its his methods that i worry about. Its the only chink in his otherwise impervious armour.

[raceman]

I too don't think he will last at Lotus too long.

IMO, he is a chief technical officer and shouldn't be involved in the management talks/decisions, but he seems to have his own comments on every point in any F1 team - be it Toyota, FIF1, and now Lotus! C'mon, you are not a PR person or management person..... Just develop the car and do your own job, that's it.



let's see how long we hear him by Lotus (or should I say, let's see how long Lotus can bear him and his rubbish talks ).

[noname]

IMO, he is a chief technical officer and shouldn't be involved in the management talks/decisions, but he seems to have his own comments on every point in any F1 team - be it Toyota, FIF1, and now Lotus! C'mon, you are not a PR person or management person..... Just develop the car and do your own job, that's it.

developing the design means setting up the path, defining resources needed to reach the goal and keeping process on track.

that's a management and that includes a hell lot of politics.

[raceman]

IMO, he is a chief technical officer and shouldn't be involved in the management talks/decisions, but he seems to have his own comments on every point in any F1 team - be it Toyota, FIF1, and now Lotus! C'mon, you are not a PR person or management person..... Just develop the car and do your own job, that's it.

developing the design means setting up the path, defining resources needed to reach the goal and keeping process on track.

that's a management and that includes a hell lot of politics.

with due respect, we hardly see any other teams' technical directors mouth-waffling in public this much..... aren't they doing their job then? why so often we see MG rattling so much when there is no need for him to talk on team issues?? we don't see Alco Costa, e.g., talking rubbish regarding Ferrari's technical developments or other things - similarly Bob Bell (now team boss of Renault F1, but a technical director in effect), Adrian Newey (Red Bull Racing), etc.

[RH1300S]

This is a naughty thread - I bet loads of people shared exactly the same thoughts.

I am not so sure that MG is actually as good as he is hyped to be. Certainly he has had some success, but take Renault - they had most success after he left and I suspect that is down to the team in place at the time (the mythology is that they inherited a great Gascoyne car), in fact they had a talented bunch of engineers working on the car after MG left. Toyota - he could hardly fail to make that car better - he was just bringing some up to date F1 thinking into the mix, again Toyota have produced a pretty handy car without him.

It's all too easy to use an aggressive attitude as an excuse for why he doesn't stay at teams. Likewise it is very easy to blame everyone who doesn't agree with you and make it appear that you are the only person who is right (i.e. the failure is everywhere else but you...) - people hear the guy who shouts loudest (they may not listen tho' )

The best technical directors get the best out of their technical teams and the team managers to achieve what they need. Newey, Bell, Costa etc.

Of course - I may be wrong.....

[noname]

with due respect, we hardly see any other teams' technical directors mouth-waffling in public this much..... aren't they doing their job then? why so often we see MG rattling so much when there is no need for him to talk on team issues?? we don't see Alco Costa, e.g., talking rubbish regarding Ferrari's technical developments or other things - similarly Bob Bell (now team boss of Renault F1, but a technical director in effect), Adrian Newey (Red Bull Racing), etc.

the fact the guys you've mentioned are not so loud does not mean they are not involved in managing, they just can achieve their goals by convincing others (including their bosses) to their ideas instead of relying on brute force. personally I rate them higher than MG not only as engineers but as a (technical) managers also.

my experience tells me behavior presented by MG is quite a common pattern in technical teams lead by poor engineers. they are trying to achieve the goals but their problem is they lacking understanding of the issues they are dealing with.

regards

[raceman]

okie

whatever


why are we fighting then? let MG talk and let Lotus think what to do with him

[noname]

why are we fighting then? let MG talk and let Lotus think what to do with him

I do not fight

Lotus is an F1 team and, as F1 fan, I would like it to be managed by someone better than MG as, I think, it would be better for F1.

[ISLAMATRON]

What iinovative or groundbreaking ideas has MG brought to car desin in any of his cars? Just asking/wondering because I dont remember any.

[CHT]

My guess is that the first crash between MG and the Malaysian bosses will be on driver selection. Since Lotus F1 is funded by state money (through state company proton) the politicians would definitely want to a Malaysia driver, Fauzy, in the driving seat in 2010, while MG will think otherwise.