Mercedes GP 2011

[xpensive]

I believe the paramount thing for Mercedes GP is to revamp and downsize the management, at least make it understandable.

I'm afraid there's been a lot of "decision by committee" over the past years, which can be detrimental to any organization.

A camel is a horse designed by a committee.

[wunderkind]

I believe the paramount thing for Mercedes GP is to revamp and downsize the management, at least make it understandable.

I'm afraid there's been a lot of "decision by committee" over the past years, which can be detrimental to any organization.

A camel is a horse designed by a committee.

I don't think the much criticised 'design-by-committee' ethos is to blame. I see a lot of people say the design should be lead by an Adrian Newey and not a committee. But how many Adrian Newey's are there on the pitlane? One - maybe two. At the end of the day, the million dollar question is still - how good is your aerodynamicist(s) and do you trust him/them completely to have everyone deferred to him/them?

Adrian Newey's expertise is much more than just aerodynamics. He is one of those designer/engineer from the old days who got an overall exposure to all parts of the car. Personally, I think Newey's big advantage is his deep understanding of aerodynamics and how to engineer every part of the car to maximise aerodynamic performance. Of course, Newey is ably assisted by Prodromou, Marshall, etc.

Younger designers and engineers tend to specialise in a certain area and may not have a good understanding of other parts of the car. This is where I think the design-by-committee is appropriate as it allows for cross fertilization of ideas and cross-roughing ideas and capabilities that may result in a better final product. Of course, this structure can become acrimonious and counter-production if not managed carefully. It was often cited as the reason why Newey left McLaren.


I don't think Mercedes GP needs to flatten or thin out its management structure. Brawn and Bell need to recruit new and better people to raise the game.

[xpensive]

The truly great F1 designers such as John Barnard or Gordon Murray would never had sat down in no committee, but I agree that it takes a world of xperience to shoulder the technical responsibility for the entire car.

Barnard was magic in that respect, aerodynamic innovations (carnard wings), gearboxes (semi-automatic and welded Ti),
materials (carbon-fiber chassis) and suspensions (active), all with the same panache.

Newey and Oatley both share the same wide field of technical xperience, no wonder their respective teams are on top.

[wunderkind]

Was Barnard really that good at aerodynamics as you claim? I was told that Barnard was more of a classical mechanical engineer specialised in mechanical aspects of the car and innovative packaging of systems.

Evidence: Barnard's cars were absolutely nowhere near the podium when aerodynamics became the decisive factor in F1. I think Brawn said at the time (circa his arrival at Ferrari in 1996) Barnard's 412T2 was the best handling but the aerodynamics were mediocre at best. Same with Barnard's final Ferrari in 1996, the initial F310 had the aerodynamic properties of a teletubby.

[marcush.]

Hmm.Newey is largely famous for his no compromise AERO dominated work -wich is crucially the name of the game in todays Formula 1 .
He had to learn the hard ways that mechanical engineering is also a thing of giving the guys a chance to work on the thing and about practical solutions..Just look up the nice pieces documented on gurneyflap about the restoration of CG901 by patrick morgan :
http://www.gurneyflap.com/leytonhousecg901.html
this is by far not the first of his formula 1 designs in fact it is the 3rd F1 car designed for March by him and still it was all in all a failure (even though it paved the way to Williams GP so for him personally it was success).Only CG881 had worked quite well and Newey did not quite understand why as the following cars did not deliver.(apart from GP held in France..as the tarmac was mirror smooth there)...

I´d say a comitee decision led car design will only work if the head of the comitee is a strong personality knowing his trade technically very well and able to do it alone if necessary.In those commitees I was participating the head was just too weak and the result showed ..

Barnard:coke bottle shape of sidepods ..for example. he was really a key person in Aerodevelopment in the 80s and early 90s

[wunderkind]

Also, I don't think there was as much aerodynamics in the 1980's when Barnard, Murray, and Head were at their prime.

In those days, the ethos was "Build them light, low, and stiff".

[raymondu999]

I think nowadays Newey doesn't go down and dirty to the nitty gritty design work, though I could be wrong. It seems to me that he will be setting the "direction." i.e. he'd be telling the designers what concepts they should be working on, and in what direction. THat way their focus is directed, and Newey has already though through the entire concept himself, so the parts should be working together well already.

[xpensive]

...
Barnard:coke bottle shape of sidepods ..for example. he was really a key person in Aerodevelopment in the 80s and early 90s

It is true that Barnard was not an aerodynamicist per se, the 1996 Ferrari was terrible, but he was indeed first with the "coke bottle" waisted rear including the canard wings for making use of the slow air-speed around the rear-wheels (McLaren MP4-2).

Also, he pioneered the fully raised nose (Benetton B191), though Newey had touched it the year before (Leyton House CG901).

@ raymond; I beg to differ, I have a strong feeling that Newey is xtremely hands on in every detail, my kinda guy.

@ wunderkind; Are you kidding, the late 70s to early 80s was the age of the venturi cars?!

[marcush.]

sorry i think its quite the opposite with them being off hands really.
guys like Newey and Head will intervene and break your neck if the details are not either exactly as they have imagined OR they are just a lot better than their own idea for the task (which rarely is the case).
They will share people around themselves they trust and who follow the boss with great respect ..yes they will throw in their own weight into discussions but they will not fight the masters dicision behind his back .

[xpensive]

I'm convinced that an authoritarian design engineering management is more or less a necessity in Formula One, where lead times are xtremely short and deadlines unforgiving, a committee deadlock would obviously be disastrous.

As an old role-model and mentor of mine so often said; "Teamwork? Fine, as long as everyone remembers it's my team!"

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Would it not be correct to say the MGP management structure is top heavy in terms of the admin side of things?

If anything, before Bell arrived they had no leadership technically whatsoever. With Bell in complete control it does fall under the model set out by x, one man controlling an orchestra.

[xpensive]

Would it not be correct to say the MGP management structure is top heavy in terms of the admin side of things?

If anything, before Bell arrived they had no leadership technically whatsoever. With Bell in complete control it does fall under the model set out by x, one man controlling an orchestra.

Indeed JET, it's very difficult to fathom Fry and Haug's contributions to Mercedes GP other than...whatever?

The lack of technical management is the most curious part, perhaps Daimler reckoned that Ross Brawn could double as that?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Yes you're right there X.

Perhaps brawn had too much on his plate running the factory, the team as a whole and also present at all gp venues.
I know of your dislike of him as an engineer and thus far he hasn't set the world alite on that front I concur.

Haug has to be there though. He is the necessary middle man in it all and he has the right connections with Stuttgart. Fry should not be there at all in my opinion, but he is a relic who may be out sooner rather than later.
As for the rest the German guy on the team list is actually mercedes hpe... Or so I'm led to believe.

Any how, I'm very optimistic for the simple reason we have had Bell at mercedes for 4 months and we are seeing his opinion being taken seriously by everyone at mercedes. He's asked for more of the right people and mercedes have the appetite to give him what he requires.

[xpensive]

...
Haug has to be there though. He is the necessary middle man in it all and he has the right connections with Stuttgart.
...

I beg to differ, Daimler should benefit from getting their info first hand from the TP or CEO, not through a journo with a spin to it.

[marcush.]

I'm convinced that an authoritarian design engineering management is more or less a necessity in Formula One, where lead times are xtremely short and deadlines unforgiving, a committee deadlock would obviously be disastrous.

As an old role-model and mentor of mine so often said; "Teamwork? Fine, as long as everyone remembers it's my team!"

there is no choice if your SOP is not going to be 2015....The whole process will be slowed down (bell ringing there?) when each and everything has to go through a comitee -meeting every tuesday...No it works like this :You got an issue approach the head of the show ,before checking what´s the impact of your problem and bring along the relevant persons and offering a workable solution.Of course chief in charge has had this very thing seen coming and wondering how long it took you to realise it and has a brilliant solution waiting on the table.AND you are lucky as your own solution is a variant of it not better not worse and you if it´s a good day you will have the honour to get your solution on the car..
What would I do with a boss who has no ideas and does not know a thing or is not really informed so he cannot see the obvious flaws in my concept (or only when it´s already on the car and too slow..)