USF1 -- F1's All-American Challenger

[nipo]

Another article on USF1's alternative methods of car development.. This one, for once, seems to be genuine, credible and above all, believable.

Link

“We have considered our options and believe that this is the best solution available to us,” team principal Ken Anderson told the press. “Magic is a promising and under-used development tool in Formula One, and we plan to use it to its fullest extent.”

LMAO!!!

[Pandamasque]

This is genius

[xpensive]

This is genius

No it's definately not! Au contraire, it's mean, lampooning and outright offensive! To every magician I know.

[segedunum]

When I decided to learn to program for the iPhone, my goal was "In threee months I will have a small menu based app compiled on my iPhone".

This very quickly changed to "I need to find Objective-C for Dummies by tomorrow".

You've adequately described USF1's problem right there. You, and they, don't think ahead and don't grasp the gravity of what you're undertaking from the start. Was that initial three month assessment actually based on anything and shouldn't you have worked out that you needed Objective C for Dummies before you made it? Yes, you should have.

Some people are just totally incapable of spending some time thinking ahead properly and prefer to knee-jerk their way from one thing that should have been foreseen to another. That is not 'learning as you go along' I'm afraid. It's just a disaster. In technical disciplines you don't last very long with that approach, and in a very black-and-white world like Formula One you last as long as it takes you to blow a lot of other peoples' money.

[imightbewrong]

not sure if this has been posted:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVYZDsc6XWo[/youtube]
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... assis.html

[Giblet]

When I decided to learn to program for the iPhone, my goal was "In threee months I will have a small menu based app compiled on my iPhone".

This very quickly changed to "I need to find Objective-C for Dummies by tomorrow".

You've adequately described USF1's problem right there. You, and they, don't think ahead and don't grasp the gravity of what you're undertaking from the start. Was that initial three month assessment actually based on anything and shouldn't you have worked out that you needed Objective C for Dummies before you made it? Yes, you should have.

Some people are just totally incapable of spending some time thinking ahead properly and prefer to knee-jerk their way from one thing that should have been foreseen to another. That is not 'learning as you go along' I'm afraid. It's just a disaster. In technical disciplines you don't last very long with that approach, and in a very black-and-white world like Formula One you last as long as it takes you to blow a lot of other peoples' money.

As usual, u assume too much seg, and are comparing apples and Formula 1 teams.

I was merely jumping in with both feet, I made no promises to the media, and have no sponsors to answer to. My goal was a realistic goal and I in fact accomplished that goal. I am part of the developer network, have a development iPhone, and can write basic apps and run them on the simulator or compile them directly to my device. If I was still banging my head against the wall that would be different. I planned a budget, time, and everything I would need. As usual u missed my point entirely that goals are not set in stone and the metrics of those goals need to change over time as a project evolves.

But I did have to do some things based in risk. Buying a mac was an unknown for me, and could have been a waste. However my goals were very modest and I made no promises.

How was I supposed to know that Objective-C for dummies was the best book for me? Exactly, I couldn't. But I did know I would need books, the right title was just sematics. I had a budget for books.

My whole point as usual was lost on you. Goals need to change for a project to be successul, for you to think anyone can know every little thing that can come up, is ridiculous. But having a plan, a budget, and the right people and resources are the best place to start every time, for any project, be it programming or building a space shuttle.

Did I mention you missing the point?

[marcush.]

Ican only speak of things I fathom to have at least a good feeling for and I have the firm opinion that it is virtually impossible to work out a complete plan of a complicated project before startup and have it done so perfect that you will not have to change at least details before the project gets signed off.
The main point at the start up is of course you have to know your goals and how to achieve them .....to fathom you know it all before and just tick off boxes is not a project to me it is a stupid 8-7 occupation.
Inevitably you will run into the limits of your recources ,knowledge or limits of your original thinking....and then a good planning pays dividents -having planned in additional time slots for analysing the issue , having a good network of competence to get new input if your own forces or imagination is stuck , solving the issue and getting on with the job .

[Richard]

Good project management starts with managing expectations, and adapting to circumstance without appearing to flip-flop.

I think that's where USF1 have gone wrong. For example, the comments about being the most open team ever with webcams everywhere... followed by nothing. Windsor's latest comment is that the silence was deliberate and planned. See what I mean?

Fewer pronouncements, with a drip of small tit-bits of substance, would have been a better start.

[marcush.]

the comments are a good example of a outfit were not all people are on the same page
of the book.
But in big companies this is not really unusual that outward pr talk has no relation to what is reality inside. ...
I know of companies selling their expertise in company management to third parties at unbelievable rates but acting completely useless in their own stable..so perception and reality do not necessarily match up.

[WhiteBlue]

I know of companies selling their expertise in company management to third parties at unbelievable rates but acting completely useless in their own stable..so perception and reality do not necessarily match up.

let me have a guess.....Siemens

[nipo]

Good project management starts with managing expectations, and adapting to circumstance without appearing to flip-flop.

I think that's where USF1 have gone wrong. For example, the comments about being the most open team ever with webcams everywhere... followed by nothing. Windsor's latest comment is that the silence was deliberate and planned. See what I mean?

Fewer pronouncements, with a drip of small tit-bits of substance, would have been a better start.

Spot on!

Giblet, I think your point is very valid with your IPhone app example. Just that you haven't really explained yourself in the first post. It is not segedunum's fault that he missed your point, so there's no need to get too excited about it.

That said, I think the main point, as Richard has mentioned, is the inconsistence that USF1 has been showing. You may well say they are actually on target with everything, and, like Giblet's IPhone app, will finally deliver come March 2010 despite continuously changing plans. The not-so-smart thing they did was to attract sceptism with the way they project themselves to the public. I think F1 fans are not stupid and are generally not carried away by the big bad claims that Peter Winsor was making in the first place, not to mention silly little things like a calendar with wrong dates and wrong flags. I'd go as far as to say they are making fun of themselves with their PR.

Plus, when other people in the business seem to suggest USF1's presence at the first GP is in doubt, I think there is some weight in it, suggesting USF1 really has a problem or two in its management that they need to fix really quickly.

[Giblet]

If you saw the posting history of Seg and I, you would understand why I actually needed to be so thourough and lay it all on the table, and be a little harsh aobut it. I can leave no room for discussion if he is wrong, or the mud starts to sling.

Nothing against the guy personally, but I hate his argumentative posts

I think with USF1, Windsor was guilty of saying too much, and is now over compensating by saying too little.

Almost like Hurly and Anderson gagged him to keep his foot from cramming furter down his throat.

I just saw Mr.Windsors excitement as over-exuberance. If I was starting my own F1 team, good luck getting me to shut up about it for 5 minutes.

[xpensive]

I think the problem here is that people in general behold Windsor as a responsible and accurate manager of a company,
when the reality is that he's a journo, which is something of a contradiction in terms to those mentioned qualities.

Think about it, a modern journo writes for the day only, how many times haven't you been aggravated by a journo who appears to be changing his mind on your favourite sports person from one day to another? Tiger Woods perhaps?

If you try to read Windsor's at times contradictory and confusing statements from that perspective, such as "this one is
his first comment on the importance of a wind tunnel", perhaps things will become a little more understandable?

Not that I would have wanted a person like that for my boss though.

Happy New Year everybody, for 2010 I will bore the hell out of you from Oslo!

[Chaparral]

Take a look at the overall profile of USF1 from a forum point of view (even being in a derogatory lampooning profile and its any forum you would like to mention) and from a smaller courteous base the specialist media - what other of the 4 start up teams is everyone talking about on the forums or specialist press (NONE) for instance this thread runs 75 pages god forbid - everyone is in some way talking about USF1 (what a brilliant profiling campaign to have the name embedded in the F1 fan base) - they seem inept in every way if you listen to some and the press statements/website etc etc not professional in any way BUT whats going on behind the scene - what if they turn up with a car thats half way decent and a couple of drivers who can rise to the occasion - shock horror many forum members eat their words but the name USF1 is embedded in everyones heads - if thats the strategy Im all for it - it would be deemed quite a brilliant marketing ploy

[donskar]

Take a look at the overall profile of USF1 from a forum point of view (even being in a derogatory lampooning profile and its any forum you would like to mention) and from a smaller courteous base the specialist media - what other of the 4 start up teams is everyone talking about on the forums or specialist press (NONE) for instance this thread runs 75 pages god forbid - everyone is in some way talking about USF1 (what a brilliant profiling campaign to have the name embedded in the F1 fan base) - they seem inept in every way if you listen to some and the press statements/website etc etc not professional in any way BUT whats going on behind the scene - what if they turn up with a car thats half way decent and a couple of drivers who can rise to the occasion - shock horror many forum members eat their words but the name USF1 is embedded in everyones heads - if thats the strategy Im all for it - it would be deemed quite a brilliant marketing ploy

Chapparal, I want to go on record to say how bitterly disappointed I am at this post of yours. Here I am at work at 0730 local, having had 5 hours sleep, looking for a good laugh, and what do I get: reason and intelligence! =D>

Seriously, you are right on. Posters in this thread seem to overlook one key fact -- USF1 (or whatever they call themselves) are like every other F1 team: their target audience is a general market -- not F1 geeks and nerds. No insult meant here; on my best days I like to think I am a bit of an F1 geek.

For better or worse, sponsors drive F1. They provide the money to make the show happen. And those sponsors do not care about a handful of fanatics. They care about mass "eyeballs." This thread is very POSITIVE for USF1's sponsors. It indicates that on race day this small sub-market of F1 fanatics will pay more attention to USF1 than any other new team -- if only to see if they fail. As for the audience in general, they don't know anything about USF1's potential problems -- they mostly don't even know there are new teams coming. And when they learn that USF1 is new and from the US, they will then pay a bit more attention. All good for USF1's sponsors.

Bottom line: smart sponsors know that the more exposure their name/logo gets, the better. And if that exposure is the result of USF1 being a total laughing stock, that's OK. Example: if you see "Chivas Regal" or Spaten Brau" or "Apple iPod" for several minutes during a race broadcast, you will remember the name/brand and are more likely to buy it. You are NOT likely to think "I won't buy this iPod because a car carrying its name lost."

I am purposely NOT inserting an "IMHO," because in THIS ONE case, I've been there. ("There" being marketing/branding at Digital when they sponsored Ferrari and Compaq when they sponsored Williams.)