AR3-GP wrote: ↑06 Sep 2024, 16:48
I think this is a bit of semantics. You aren't going to find a piece of paper in the news saying Adrian Newey has a veto but his powers at Red Bull since 2006 were to this extent. His job title said so. It is only recently when his influence was rejected that he left the team.
I don't think it's semantics, but it is a fine line. When you are CTO you are invested with certain power and influence, but not the power to have everyone do what you want because you think it. I think this tension is good because it forces you as a CTO to engage which makes you a better CTO, as ultimately you are still high up in the chain and would benefit from lower level feedback.
If you can just tell people what to do, or veto their work, what's your incentive to invest time to gather lower level feedback? I think this fundamentally changes the dynamic.
People will generally do what you want as a CTO, so what could possibly have prompted the need to have veto power in the next contract? We are talking about Adrian fricking Newey, and he's in need of veto power otherwise people wouldn't listen when they are ready to pay him 100mil on the nose?
AR3-GP wrote: ↑06 Sep 2024, 16:48
The detail is in the stories that have been published and the change of technical structure. Pierre Wache was promoted to Technical director in 2018 and reporting to Newey. Gradually between 2018 and 2024 Wache gained more authority to the point that the RB20 was developed against Newey's wishes.
https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/289400/a ... -rb20.html
Yes I remember those articles, but that's not context, it's just one side of the story at best, the team wouldn't comment on it for various reasons including legal ones. Do you think it's realistic that somehow one day Horner decided that Newey needed to be ignored in favor of Wache? What was Horner's thought process there? Why did it happen?