Results 21 to 30 of 36
Thread: Williams blues
-
21st May 2013, 12:10 #21
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Location
- Estonia
- Posts
- 6,744
- Like
- 145
- Liked 209 Times in 165 Posts
Originally Posted by zako85
Another aspect is the BMW era. BMW may have pulled out to leave Sauber in cold, but the era of 06-09 was useful for the team - they got the much-needed financial boost to upgrade the facilities and infrastructure. I think to this day it is pretty advanced, which enables the team to stay competitive. I don't know about Williams, but they could be more outdated. Williams tries to change some things, but they are reacting too little too slowly and competition has moved past them.
-
22nd May 2013, 11:32 #22Originally Posted by jens
Two world championships with Mika, and very nearly two more with Kimi. The fact that they did not dominate does not mean much when you consider how badly Ferrari dominated.
Look at 1999, aside from bad luck, the McLaren dominated. It was (or at least should have been) no less a whitewash than 2011 season. The car was on podium or retired. The fact that they didn't get results that they deserved doesn't mean it wasn't within a whisker.
Originally Posted by jens
Everything Williams does seems stupid to me. Their move to Cosworth was the stupidest one of all. Hiring Rubens, too, was pointless, as was getting rid of Hulkenburg.
-
22nd May 2013, 12:57 #23
Koz, you just reminded me of a big, institutional problem at Williams.
They seem to create (or have) an environment where some drivers cannot perform at their best.
Frentzen and Hulkenberg are the biggest examples of this. Both are considerably more talented than their results at Williams show, as seen by 1999 and the later half of 2012, respectively.
Originally Posted by Koz
Rubens would have done Williams' points tally a shred of justice in 2012, given the car was top 5 material at some points of the season.
Unlike Maldonado, who could have easily doubled his points tally, but for no other reason than repeated stupid mistakes. Or maybe it was just stupid decisions, as seen in Monaco and Valencia. Bruno Senna on the other hand seemed nowhere in terms of pace.
Other than that I agree with everything you said.
-
22nd May 2013, 13:20 #24
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Posts
- 3,778
- Like
- 3
- Liked 50 Times in 33 Posts
Originally Posted by Koz
-
22nd May 2013, 13:24 #25
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Posts
- 3,778
- Like
- 3
- Liked 50 Times in 33 Posts
Originally Posted by jens
Being based in Switzerland they find it difficult to recruit staff but those they do recruit tend to stay there.
Williams is based in motorsports valley and while in boom years its easy to find excellent staff now they are in a rut its difficult to retain the best people who end up sucked away by better funded teams not too far away. Its the same problem BAR/Honda/Mercedes have had as well.
-
22nd May 2013, 15:33 #26
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Posts
- 6,410
- Like
- 0
- Liked 32 Times in 32 Posts
Originally Posted by Malbec
James Key, for instance, highly regarded as technical director moves from one midfield team to another which can look illogical to the outsider.The world according to Taki Inoue: https://mobile.twitter.com/takiinoue/st ... 7249326080
-
22nd May 2013, 22:39 #27
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Location
- Philadelphia
- Posts
- 5,943
- Like
- 1,228
- Liked 373 Times in 289 Posts
Originally Posted by Kozyou can't argue with results.
-
22nd May 2013, 22:51 #28Originally Posted by Malbec
If 50 million for Pastor and 20 million for Senna is correct, how far off is their budget from Lotus?
It must be higher than Sauber, FI, STR at least. But they just don't deliver.
There is something inherently wrong with Williams' business model.
Did the dollars they save by going to Cosworth benefit them?
And last year they had a decent car let down by drivers...
They could have been on the podium consistently in 2010 if they had a decent engine.
If they need so much money from drivers to stay in F1, then I don't know what else I can say. You aren't going to attract the big sponsor by consistently being the weakest team on the grid, regardless of why they are the weakest.
-
22nd May 2013, 23:01 #29
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Posts
- 1,583
- Like
- 68
- Liked 182 Times in 139 Posts
Originally Posted by Koz
There is something inherently wrong with Williams' business model.
Did the dollars they save by going to Cosworth benefit them?
Yes. They posted profit at the time Lotus was incurring big debts. Lotus frequently owned money to Renault for engines, I think even the last year.
-
23rd May 2013, 00:40 #30Originally Posted by zako85
Williams is posting a profit, but at what cost?
They aren't going to attract big sponsors if they are languishing behind everyone else.
Fine, they aren't on par with the top 5 teams, but I refuse to believe that they SRT, FI, Sauber have lower budgets than Williams.
The way they are going, it seems they just want to exist and as long as they somehow post a profit to stay alive, that's all that matters.
This reminds me of a lot of failed businesses who always try to cut costs at the cost of cutting quality. It rarely works.
After 5 stages, top 11 covered by less than 30 seconds and top 20 covered by 1 minute 42 seconds.
[ERC] Royal Rally of Scandinavia...