Just read from page one on this thread and the reasons will surface as that poster seems to have a very good pulse of this team from what I've read. Swapping one very quick driver for another in the car next year does nothing to resolve the organizational structure that developed the disaster that this car is now. I wouldn't expect any miracles next year.FoxHound wrote:@seija
The top 3 teams all have differing structures. McLaren even have a design committee which on paper sounds dangerous to me. I don't think you have given a reason to why it's going to be an "unmitigated disaster".
Yes I did give a gave a very simple reason and mentioned the historical aspect.FoxHound wrote:@seija
The top 3 teams all have differing structures. McLaren even have a design committee which on paper sounds dangerous to me. I don't think you have given a reason to why it's going to be an "unmitigated disaster".
Magazine.Mika1 wrote:Link? Can't find it.raymondu999 wrote:So according to Brawn (in Autosport)Aldo Costa is doing the 2013 car and Geoff [Willis] is focused on the 2014 car at the moment.
"Unmitigated disaster", or "less than stellar" Which one is it? Either it is absolute, or it is none. Make your choice, this is so vague, not mention negative you could park a Mourinho bus through it.SeijaKessen wrote: It's going to be an umitigated disaster. MGP will be fielding less than stellar cars for the foreseeable future.
No it does not. Because he isn't currently winning doesn't mean "he knows little". You are not qualified enough to pass judgement on the man and whether he is qualified enough to do the job he has winners medals doing. He has the T-shirt, and the trophies, you have didley squat I'm afarid to say Mr kessen.SeijaKessen wrote:This really shows how little Ross knows about running a F1 team.
So what is your point? Hire Byrne?SeijaKessen wrote: Back in the days when he was MrM's representative to Benetton and then Ferrari, both teams when winning, used one designer. Rory Byrne was the one who designed those cars.
Bravo you have solved the riddle of Mercedes! ....Or not.And yet they currently have the fastest car.SeijaKessen wrote:McLaren takes the same approach to building cars...while they may challenge, their time of winning multiple titles was nearly 20 years ago.
It's about speed, the fastest car invariably wins. Not always, McLArens have been fragile, and are currently displaying the same characteristics. But Speed is all important for competitiveness, and this is what Mercedes desire.McLaren? Ferrari post 2006? Renault under Bell/and countless others?SeijaKessen wrote:All the historically successful teams tend to let one person run the design and delegate as necessary
Not anyone. Specifically assigned to incorporate their ideas. There is no great mystery as to what Mercedes are attempting to do. They are attempting to mimick the setup at McLaren.SeijaKessen wrote: When you start asking allowing anyone collecting paycheck to put their two cents in...well things tend not to work out so well...as we're seeing on a monthly basis with MGP.
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=13178richard_leeds wrote:Once again, this thread fell into the eternal abyss of debating what happened in 2010, along with personal bickering . That leads in only one direction...
Posts that sort of resemble a debate if you squint really really hard and try to give the benefit of the doubt have gone to purgatory
Posts reassembling children bickering in a playground have been deleted.
No more posts about 3 kings, the Merc purchase, or the Stuttgart-Brackley relationship please - unless there is something genuinely news worthy with current and objective sources.
Right, lets get back to talking about the racing team in 2012 shall we?
No I'm not. It's a response to your post which I disagree with, I'm allowed to right?SeijaKessen wrote:Foxhound-You're arguing for no other reason than to argue.
You can say that for certain? I believe Newey won 2 titles while working at McLaren....the McLaren way. He left because he didnt want to continue working under THEIR way, but he wanted HIS way. Something Jaguar offered, total freedom.SeijaKessen wrote:If Colin Chapman, Adrian Newey, and Rory Byrne had to design cars with the organizational structure that MGP currently has, they would not have been successful.
You clutching at straws. I can show you 100 huge Chinese companies growing faster than Apple with a collective management system. There is no single way to lead, there are many. Accept that and you are half way there.SeijaKessen wrote:Remember Steve Jobs? There's a lesson to be learned in his organizational hierarchy structure..
Are you serious? So because he wins, it's favouritism? My friend, Toyota and Williams had the same "favour", and Brawn outlined this "favour" to all the teams in 2008. He practically gave them the info, but it was decided the rules where sufficient. This is factual information you can research in your own time. Facts, Mr Kessen.SeijaKessen wrote:Why is he unable in 4 years of being a Team Principal at Brawn GP and MGP, only able to have success when the rules are bent in his favor (2009
Well this thread is a clean mirror image of MGPs state of affairs.Going round in circles...richard_leeds wrote:This thread is getting stuck on repeat again.
Type the word "kings" into the "search this topic" box up at the top left and you'll see the same old argument hashed out again and again and again, by the same people again and again and again.
Take the eternal debates about 3 kings to the abyss thread please.
Since it seems to de-rigour to repeat comments ad-nauseum, I'll quote from my post of 20th July ....
richard_leeds wrote:Once again, this thread fell into the eternal abyss of debating what happened in 2010, along with personal bickering . That leads in only one direction...
Posts that sort of resemble a debate if you squint really really hard and try to give the benefit of the doubt have gone to purgatory
Posts reassembling children bickering in a playground have been deleted.
No more posts about 3 kings, the Merc purchase, or the Stuttgart-Brackley relationship please - unless there is something genuinely news worthy with current and objective sources.
Right, lets get back to talking about the racing team in 2012 shall we?
You initiated the comparisons of Apple, to that of Formula 1. I get what you are trying to say, I really do. But it is not the only way of doing things. This is my point. For every 1 chief company like Apple, there is another committee like company ...Daimler anyone? They seem to be doing ok too, and have been for around 5 times longer than Apple.SeijaKessen wrote:The fact that you tried to compare Chinese companies to Apple, shows a severe lack of understanding regarding that subject
No Seija, that was not my point. The McLaren way is not to let one person rule the roost, as Newey prefers.SeijaKessen wrote:You actually made my point for me with your post about Newey at McLaren, and you don't even realize it. Thanks.
I thinks about as emphatic as you get. I would like to keep this amiable, and forward moving so we dont have to keep coming back to it. I promised the mods this will be my last contribution to this particular debate, so if it can move forward from here great. If not, then I don't see a way forward and we may as well give up altogether and wait for this topic to rear its nasty head again. In good faith here Seija.....But according to insiders, one of the reasons that Adrian Newey left McLaren is that for a time, a year or so ago, Newey felt that he was being ignored. The cars were not working and Newey reckoned that he knew how to fix them. It turns out that he did and the MP4-20 is, depending on who you talk to, evidence that Newey is someone who makes the difference. It boggles the mind that McLaren would ignore such a huge talent like Adrian. But then again, Ron Dennis is a greater believer in business processes than in maverick individuals. I suppose it’s what any management consultant would advise their clients. Rely less on individuals and let the process produce the end product. McLaren source hinted that it was felt the formula one design process had grown to the point that no individual was bigger than the team and consequently they were prepared to let Newey go. Again, according to sources close to McLaren, their chairman Ron Dennis and chief executive Martin Whitmarsh did not feel such an investment could be justified and have been prepared for Newey's decision to leave for some time.
man there is 2 reason why he choose MGP. 1. Money (he can deal with personal sponsors now)marcush. wrote:Interview of Button also about Hamiltons decision to race for his former team....´Judging from his well chosen words he has not much hope for Hamilton to succeed there methinks.I wonder if Hamilton had talks with Jenson about the ins and outs of
Brawn ,BAR,Honda..One would think two drivers in the same team occasionally do talk about experience with other teams or teammates and as lewis considered to go there it would be quite the obvious question to ask to Button why he left and WHY he knew that place was not providing top material for the next three years....
Or is Hamilton so ignorant and decided without properly investigating the terrain- basically thinking he is the missing piece in the puzzle or simply saying hey jenson was champ with them so I can do that year after year driving singlehandedly?
