Mercedes GP - Inauguration and 1st season

[xpensive]

I found this on the web:
...
His passion was racing and in 1976 he quit the atomic industry and got a job with March Engineering at Bicester as a milling machine operator.
...
He is working successfully in F1 since 34years now..you do not stay in such business for that long if you do not have what it takes to keep your political contacts afresh.

I'd say that such an early career-move was reflecting the most long-term of ambitions, wouldn't you think marcush?

The italic is my manipulation of course, sorry about that one.

[marcush.]

ah ,I can stand this easily..
I do not think that a good sense politically will make you survive in the technical department of a F1 team...when every other week your commncepts and work are taklen to the ultimate test.
Same goes of course for management skill and mechanics..you don´t do what is needed and it will sort out in no time ...you will be removed.
political approaches do work in the industry especially automotive ,yes but motorsport at that level does not work like this ..at least when you are providing winning combos again and again.

[mep]

xpensive I don't really get what kind of problem you always have with Brawn.
Just that he can't show any degrees doesn't mean that he is not smart enough or can't be a good designer.
It's a bit patronising when you just look on the degrees a person has. However this is the common habit in industry especially when hiring new employees but I don't think its a very good way.

[xpensive]

I can't recall having any problems with RB, au contraire, I think he's a street-smart and politically savvy manager,
a brilliant race strategist and organizer. But a hands-on Formula one designer he is not.

...political approaches do work in the industry especially automotive ,yes but motorsport at that level does not work like this ..at least when you are providing winning combos again and again.

I can truly appreciate your dark sense of humour marcush.

[segedunum]

Petrov was hired because he got the money Renault needed.So without him Renault had not as much money for development .You are going round in circles here.

That's just the point Marcush. There was an upside and a downside to Petrov. With Schumacher we have yet to see the upside. The Pirelli tyres might magically change things, but as a control tyre I doubt it.

[segedunum]

Rory Byrne is 66, born in Pretoria SA whaddaya know, wonder if RB and MS are toying with the idea of...naah.

Just remember that there was more to getting a decent car together than Rory Byrne xpensive. He was brought in in 1997 when John Barnard told Ferrari to get lost and they realised they had no design department at Maranello.

Rory was Chief Designer and wasn't big on the aerodynamic side of things which is where 'this team' have consistently fouled up over the years and went backwards when they got ahead. I love how this thread has been renamed to give us that impression that this is their first year and Mercedes created their own team by the way.

I loved this comment in an Autosport article I read recently:

One experienced F1 technical man I was chewing the fat with in Singapore nodded in the direction of Adrian Newey's Red Bull and said, "It's a bloody good job that thing hasn't got a Mercedes in the back of it..." Then, a bit mischievously, he nodded towards the Mercedes and added, "and if that had a Renault in it, it would be fighting with the Toro Rosso..."

[marcush.]

We have seen Schumacher near Rosberg all season ,and he did defintely do a lot better than Rosberg in the first laps making up for his qualy deficit usually in the opening minutes.
He did not deliver as many points as Rosberg .But he delivered the goods to make merc a solid 4 th place in the standings.The question here is:how much is the difference for 4th over 5th ? is it more than the 7 millions Mercedes has to pay for schumi? Heidfeld was paid as well he did not even drive...and would Sutil have done any better when drivinga Merc? Or any other potential driver that was available?
contrary to what you are saying Schu was not blown away ,he was beaten in his comeback season ,not more than that .It was tenths ,not seconds separating the two drivers.And the gap was not more spectacular than Vettel towards Webber,Hamilton towards Button,Alonso towards Massa,Kobayashi towards his teammamtes,Trulli towards Kova...so where is the point?


and to be honest.. the Toro rosso has a Ferrari engine in it ...who would say this was ---?

The Merc was good enough to leave the other merc poweered thing the Force india way behind as well...and Renault was having as a team with that shitty motor also a quite competitive season ....that motor advantage is a myth and whoever is prepared to believe this pr bollocks is a bit naive as facts have not been brought up that we see anything significant between all the manufacturers ...btw Renault won the championship didn´t they?

[lolzi]

Petrov was hired because he got the money Renault needed.So without him Renault had not as much money for development .You are going round in circles here.

That's just the point Marcush. There was an upside and a downside to Petrov. With Schumacher we have yet to see the upside. The Pirelli tyres might magically change things, but as a control tyre I doubt it.

It would surprise me a lot if all the attention gained from the "OH MY GOD HE'S BACK!"-ness didn't earn them a bit of money.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

that motor advantage is a myth and whoever is prepared to believe this pr bollocks is a bit naive as facts have not been brought up that we see anything significant between all the manufacturers ...btw Renault won the championship didn´t they?

Precisley Marcush,
Renault arent as far down as 30hp, and at certain tracks its fuel consumption advantage is clear. At the last race, I didnt see Alonso close up any over the long straight on Petrov, which says it all.

[segedunum]

that motor advantage is a myth and whoever is prepared to believe this pr bollocks is a bit naive as facts have not been brought up...

We've been through this before Marcush, and that Autosport article is very clear as to what the insider view is in the paddock. The Renault powered cars were absolutely nowhere at places like Monza and the only way they gained anything was through a decent F-duct by the end of the season. With Alonso and Petrov Renault had taken as much downforce off the car as they dared and you could see that with how Alonso closed up through the corners. As for fuel efficiency, it counts for nothing. If you want to save fuel you turn the engine down.

There's been ample evidence that the Renault has been down on power and straight line performance versus the Mercedes this season. Either we have homologation or we don't as far as I'm concerned.

btw Renault won the championship didn´t they?

Yes they did, which puts the Autosport quote into perspective.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

As for fuel efficiency, it counts for nothing.

From this I deduce meaningful debate over.

[xpensive]

Think about it JET, I think seg means that "fuel-efficiency" is not a relevant parameter in itself;

- If the Renault would have the same power as Mercedes from less fuel; The Renault is more fuel efficient.

- If the Mercedes has more power than the Renault from the same amount of fuel; The Merc is more fuel efficient.

- If Renault has less power from less fuel than Mercedes; Everyone would go with the Merc anyway. If they could.

[segedunum]

From this I deduce meaningful debate over.

This is the kind of non-sensical crap and inability to read that makes me tire of these forums......

As for fuel efficiency, it counts for nothing. If you want to save fuel you turn the engine down.

This was the point in full, and I can only assume that you didn't quote it in full in the hope that no one would notice - or you really just don't want to see it. It explains what I mean, but it doesn't alter the central point that the Renault is down on power. This fuel efficiency argument is just an attempt to say "The Renault engine is more fuel efficient so it's OK if it's less powerful".

You would always choose horsepower over an engine that is slightly more fuel efficient because you can easily turn the power down when you don't need it and you've made the most of your advantage. There have been figures quoted on some other threads as to how efficient the Renault engine is compared to the Mercedes and it's miniscule. Look them up and then this 'debate' might have some purpose.

[n_anirudh]

http://motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=395914&FS=F1

Interesting comments from Schumacher, wonder why there was not much co-ordination between the two sides of the garage. Fduct not working in two high speed circuits. Seems a bit strange to me

[xpensive]

There you have it, RB deliberately giving MS a shitbox with poorly adjusted front wings and an erratic f**k-duck,
surely to disgrace him, all in order to convey the image that the five Ferrari titles were not thanks to the driver!