Peter Windsor back in the F1 circus

[andrew]

Windy's latest ramblings:

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/162461/1/w ... again.html

Maybe if he crosses Bernie's (and MrM's) palm with enough silver, he will be allowed in again.

[WhiteBlue]

This interview on GPWeek.com confirms exactly what I thought about the USF1 effort. Their objective to do it without a core management team which had recent experience from a UK project and used a basic set of resources from the F1 hub in England was their undoing together with critical changes in the business environment. If they had used the shortcuts other teams did (like buying the Toyotas) they may have got away with the plan for the second year to build their own car. But sadly Windsor himself was too incompetent to see that the project wasn't viable under the conditions. At least he doesn't come across as a crook who embezzled money from a scheme.

[aral]

This interview on GPWeek.com confirms exactly what I thought about the USF1 effort. Their objective to do it without a core management team which had recent experience from a UK project and used a basic set of resources from the F1 hub in England was their undoing together with critical changes in the business environment. If they had used the shortcuts other teams did (like buying the Toyotas) they may have got away with the plan for the second year to build their own car. But sadly Windsor himself was too incompetent to see that the project wasn't viable under the conditions. At least he doesn't come across as a crook who embezzled money from a scheme.

Nobody bought the Toyotas. Not even Stefan who claimed they had, when they only had an option to lease, should they have gotten an entry.

And why should USF1 have needed shortcuts. They were, according to Windsor, FIVE years in the planning, whereas the likes of Lotus, and to a lesser extent, Manor and HRT, were able to get up and go, in a shorter timescale, AND with no shortcuts.

[Pup]

This interview on GPWeek.com confirms exactly what I thought about the USF1 effort.

As we knew it would.

Their objective to do it without a core management team which had recent experience from a UK project and used a basic set of resources from the F1 hub in England was their undoing together with critical changes in the business environment. If they had used the shortcuts other teams did (like buying the Toyotas) they may have got away with the plan for the second year to build their own car. But sadly Windsor himself was too incompetent to see that the project wasn't viable under the conditions. At least he doesn't come across as a crook who embezzled money from a scheme.

So it was all down to incompetent management then. Ken and Peter.

The "It's all Ken and Peters fault" theory was never very plausible to me.

[Richard]

An exciting new e-magazine.... formatted in A4/letter page, wtf? A Ken Anderson production?

Edit to add:

Windsor claims that "McLaren Project 4" is evidence that McLaren took 3 attempts before getting it right. Oh dear. Project 4 wasn't founded by McLaren. It was founded by Ron Dennis and ended up buying McLaren. Projects 1 (Rondel) & 3 raced cars with success in other formulas. Project 2 was scuppered by fincanes, but even that project built a car that was raced by other.

[Richard]

Gosh I couldn't make this up. Tried to send an email to the ed to correct the McLaren MP4 comment. This is what came back:

Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.

Subject: Windsor interview
Sent: 17/08/2010 18:23

The following recipient(s) cannot be reached:

will@gpweek.com on 17/08/2010 18:24
The e-mail account does not exist at the organization this message was sent to. Check the e-mail address, or contact the recipient directly to find out the correct address.

[andrew]

Ok, so Ron Dennis took 4 attempts.

Likely their e-mail system is playing up or you made a mistake in sending? I woulldn't jump to any conspirocy theories just yet.

[strad]

He was a smarmy bastard before all this USF1 crap and he still is a smarmy bastard.
No one in F1 would talk to him on his so called grid walks..Everyone they have used since on Speed has done a much better job.
No one in F1 likes him!

[andrew]

He's a smarmy bar steward in a sea of smarmy bar stewards.

[WhiteBlue]

Their objective to do it without a core management team which had recent experience from a UK project and used a basic set of resources from the F1 hub in England was their undoing together with critical changes in the business environment. If they had used the shortcuts other teams did (like buying the Toyotas) they may have got away with the plan for the second year to build their own car. But sadly Windsor himself was too incompetent to see that the project wasn't viable under the conditions. At least he doesn't come across as a crook who embezzled money from a scheme.

So it was all down to incompetent management then. Ken and Peter.

That is your rather simplifying conclusion and not what I have said. Both Anderson and Windsor obviously did not have the skills to pull it off in the way they wanted it done, but the project failure had other contributing factors outside of their control. They have been mentioned often enough. So it is not all Ken's and Peter's fault. They failed and have to carry the responsibility for their failure. I think the chances are very slim they will ever get back in a position where they are entrusted with the money to do something similar. On the other hand I do not see why Windsor should not continue to work in F1.

[xpensive]

Windsor's own story is such a jambalaya of fiction, xcuses and a lttle bit of reality, that it's really difficult to judge wether USF1 even was a serious effort to begin with, or if the plan was simply to sell their spot on the grid?

When they finally got started, they didn't seem to have a clue on how to go about it, all they managed was a broken nose?

[strad]

[ So it is not all Ken's and Peter's fault.

Yes it is..This ain't longshoring..crap doesn't run downhill this time. It starts and stays at the top. It all falls on the top guys heads.
DId they have a tough row to hoe? Yes.
Did other have the same start-up problems but overcome them? YES!
Much as I don't like to admit it..They lost from the get go..But then heck,,they never were really a United States F1 team anyway.

[RH1300S]

An exciting new e-magazine.... formatted in A4/letter page, wtf? A Ken Anderson production?

Edit to add:

Windsor claims that "McLaren Project 4" is evidence that McLaren took 3 attempts before getting it right. Oh dear. Project 4 wasn't founded by McLaren. It was founded by Ron Dennis and ended up buying McLaren. Projects 1 (Rondel) & 3 raced cars with success in other formulas. Project 2 was scuppered by fincanes, but even that project built a car that was raced by other.

Crikey! That's delusional......honestly how can he say that, there's no comparison. Sadly, if that's how PW thinks he's going to keep failing....he needs to sit back and be honest with himself about why the team failed and make sure it doesn't happen the same way again. Parping on about Project 4 he's giving himself a ready made excuse for the next couple of failures at least.

In fact - here's what he said in the interview.......

“A friend said to me recently that a bit of humiliation is always good for the soul and, as hard as that is to swallow, I know deep down that she is right. I don't think we were the only start-up company not to make it through the recession – and we made it much further down the line than many other race team projects. You think Frank Williams began only in 1978? You think there weren't three less successful Projects prior to McLaren's Project Four? David Richards' F1 operation never made it past the entry stage.

“No disrespect meant to any of those people or companies – but let's keep things in perspective"

Let's see:

Frank Williams - his struggles are well known, but when opportunity knocked he didn't put a foot wrong, made the right calls and got the job done.

Ron Dennis - You would hardly call his previous operations failures and when the door cracked open, he put the right pieces in the right places and has been setting standards ever since

Dave Richards - Didn't make F1 - so what! His record speaks loudly enouugh of success. I'm sure DR would say he chose NOT to do F1 because he knew it wasn't going to work for him.

KA & PW failed to spot that - in fact if you read the interview they tried to change every convention in the book rather than focus on making sure the job was done....in this case 'job done' is a half decent car sitting on the grid ready to race.

[gridwalker]

I think that we should all try and contact the editorial staff regarding that blatant misrepresentation : we cannot allow blatant lies to stand without some kind of scrutiny, else other poor souls may get sucked into the Winsor Reality Distortion Field ™

I'll be firing off a rather indignant email very shortly.

[czt]

Just read the interview - nice to see PW trotting out the same old story....

It's just a list of excuses, "we only got the go-ahead late", "Lotus already had a team of guys who knew what they were doing working on a car", "we couldn't set up a company or start until we had an entry", "even DR failed to get a team going"....

The bottom line is they didn't have a clue what they were taking on, or any idea how to tackle it. The fact that PW seems to see something different only highlights his limited grip on reality.