McLaren Life banner
161 - 180 of 226 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
3,680 Posts
Maybe, but that acquisition happened in 2005, and it should never have been allowed in the first place. Other sports - the ones with some integrity and self-respect - forbid more than one team being owned by the same controlling party, because of the painfully obvious conflict of interest. Then again, those were the days when chief regulator Max Mosley was focused on helping Bernie and himself make more money, undermining Ron Dennis and Frank Williams, and getting flogged by women wearing Luftwaffe uniforms and barking at him in German.
F1 is a bit corrupt, no doubt. It was even more so in the past. I can’t help but wonder if your constant appeal to this checkered history as if it matters one iota is like me blabbering to my friends about how taxation is theft ;). Well, yes of course, taxation is theft and finances the greatest atrocities committed against humanity BUT that’s the world we live in and I don’t expect it to change for the better at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,329 Posts
Makes a lot of sense, I didn’t know he was so reluctant to help with the development/engineering aspect.
'The Australian driver admitted on the Gypsy Tales podcast that he doesn't pay much attention to the technical side of racing, and that he feels that it's an approach that works well for him.

'"I like not really knowing a whole lot. I like investing more of my energy into the driving and I like just being a little bit blase about it all."'



This was in January 2022. If your team had just paid a guy $25m for a year of under-performance, you might not appreciate that he 'liked' being ignorant of the technical side of his car and had no intention of trying to learn more.


Ricciardo admits to 'not knowing a lot' about certain aspect of F1
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,329 Posts
F1 is a bit corrupt, no doubt. It was even more so in the past. I can’t help but wonder if your constant appeal to this checkered history as if it matters one iota is like me blabbering to my friends about how taxation is theft ;). Well, yes of course, taxation is theft and finances the greatest atrocities committed against humanity BUT that’s the world we live in and I don’t expect it to change for the better at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I mention it because most racing fans (especially Americans, and this is an American-dominated forum) either have only a vague idea that something in F1's past was a bit dubious or they have no idea at all. This was not like the Patriots taking videos from unauthorised locations or the Astros stealing catcher's signs. Relative to what went on in F1, they were child's play.

This was systematic, pervasive corruption, a conspiracy between two guys, one the devoted son and political ally of his papa, the British Union of Fascists' founder, and mummy, who during the war kept an autographed photo of Hitler on her bedside table, and the other who was, shall we say, very well known to the police.
These guys got control of the sport for their own purposes, year after year systematically favoured one team (Ecclestone admitted this in an interview), broke EU anti-trust laws, and contrived an absolutely outrageous 100-year exclusive contract the total cost of which was less than half of a single year's revenue. (A well-known journalist told me that, in return for arranging that contract, Mosley was given a $300m 'thank you', and the real reason he soon after moved to Monaco was to avoid paying tax on it). Mosley was absolute scum.

Making matters worse, Mosley was the jackal who actually tried to put McLaren out of business, and settled for fining McLaren $100m for something that never happened. If people here are going to complain, 'What's wrong with McLaren?!", they need to be aware that the root cause of McLaren's problems was Mosley's contemptible behaviour, the unjustifiable fine, the besmirching of the team's reputation and invention of the 'Spygate' trope. That led directly to Alonso's leaving the team (the first time), to two world championships being stolen from the team, to Mercedes's decision to leave the team which created a huge hole in McLaren's finances, to Hamilton's leaving the team, to the team's inability to get a new title sponsor when the Vodafone contract ended, and to the Honda debacle.

It's debatable whether taxation is theft or rather part of a social contract, on the terms of which reasonable people may disagree. What Mosley did to Formula One, and specifically to McLaren, is not debatable: it is fact.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,680 Posts
I mention it because most racing fans (especially Americans, and this is an American-dominated forum) either have only a vague idea that something in F1's past was a bit dubious or they have no idea at all. This was not like the Patriots taking videos from unauthorised locations or the Astros stealing catcher's signs. Relative to what went on in F1, they were child's play.

This was systematic, pervasive corruption, a conspiracy between two guys, one the devoted son and political ally of his papa, the British Union of Fascists' founder, and mummy, who during the war kept an autographed photo of Hitler on her bedside table, and the other who was, shall we say, very well known to the police.
These guys got control of the sport for their own purposes, year after year systematically favoured one team (Ecclestone admitted this in an interview), broke EU anti-trust laws, and contrived an absolutely outrageous 100-year exclusive contract the total cost of which was less than half of a single year's revenue. (A well-known journalist told me that, in return for arranging that contract, Mosley was given a $300m 'thank you', and the real reason he soon after moved to Monaco was to avoid paying tax on it). Mosley was absolute scum.

Making matters worse, Mosley was the jackal who actually tried to put McLaren out of business, and settled for fining McLaren $100m for something that never happened. If people here are going to complain, 'What's wrong with McLaren?!", they need to be aware that the root cause of McLaren's problems was Mosley's contemptible behaviour, the unjustifiable fine, the besmirching of the team's reputation and invention of the 'Spygate' trope. That led directly to Alonso's leaving the team (the first time), to two world championships being stolen from the team, to Mercedes's decision to leave the team which created a huge hole in McLaren's finances, to Hamilton's leaving the team, to the team's inability to get a new title sponsor when the Vodafone contract ended, and to the Honda debacle.

It's debatable whether taxation is theft or rather part of a social contract, on the terms of which reasonable people may disagree. What Mosley did to Formula One, and specifically to McLaren, is not debatable: it is fact.
No doubt, your proselytizing is appreciated in this forum but at what point do you stop blaming things on the past and start calling people to account for what's happening now?

Question about the slave and master deal; if Alpha Tauri are purely test mules to help Red Bull cheat as you say, why aren't they faster or more competitive?
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,329 Posts
No doubt, your proselytizing is appreciated in this forum but at what point do you stop blaming things on the past and start calling people to account for what's happening now?

Questions about the slave and master deal. If Alpha Tauri are purely test mules to help Red Bull cheat as you say, why aren't they faster or more competitive?
My impression is that Red Bull use TR/AT whenever it suits them, and are not really concerned about what happens to TR/AT otherwise. In other words, TR/AT have to share with Red Bull, but Red Bull do not reciprocate.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,680 Posts
My impression is that Red Bull use TR/AT whenever it suits them, and are not really concerned about what happens to TR/AT otherwise. In other words, TR/AT have to share with Red Bull, but Red Bull do not reciprocate.
It seems plausible to me that that could be the case but it seems more likely that if there was indeed a slave master relationship where both are owned by one entity, there would be an even flow of information. But based on the lack of success from AT maybe the corruption involved has been uprooted.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,329 Posts
It seems plausible to me that that could be the case but it seems more likely that if there was indeed a slave master relationship where both are owned by one entity, there would be an even flow of information. But based on the lack of success from AT maybe the corruption involved has been uprooted.
I don't see it as corruption in the colloquial sense, just another case of Red Bull's breaking or at best circumventing the rules as they have done so many times.
I think it is pretty clear that Red Bull the manufacturer of silly drinks are obsessed with the success of Red Bull the racing team whilst not really giving a shit what happens to TR/AT so long as the lesser team can help the big team.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,891 Posts
Discussion Starter · #172 ·
I wonder how much of this year's Aston is really last year's Red Bull, seeing as how last year Dan Fallows came from Red Bull to become Aston's technical director. Red Bull have already commented on what one might call remarkable similarities.

We know how much Fatboy Stroll likes to copy other team's designs (remember the 'Pink Mercedes'?), and we also know that Fallows has the ethics of a snake.
A few years ago Fallows was already a very senior aerodynamicist at Red Bull and McLaren hired him. His contract with Red Bull had expired, he signed a new binding contract with McLaren - it was all above board.
Fallows did his garden leave and was due to report for his first day at McLaren on 'X' date. He didn't show up, nor did he show up for the rest of what should have been his first week. Supposedly he was not responding to McLaren's attempts to reach him, although in retrospect he was obviously still communicating with Red Bull, because after a week of being a no-show, he informed McLaren that, despite his contract, he had decided he would be going back to Red Bull. This was straight out of the Christian Horner book of 'How to Make Money Whilst Lacking a Shred of Integrity'. It may be required reading for all Red Bull employees.
This from zoroaster on F1technical.net Aston Martin thread
”following a concept, and blatently stealing and copying a design are 2 differnt things. i would challenge anyone to point out any visible area on the aston where the team has blatantly copied the redbull. if you see it, please point it out because i dont think its there. the problem for redbull is that there are many ways to achieve the same thing in aero design, and unless the team were dumb enough to copy and paste like they did with the mercedes a couple of years back, before fallows was there, its all conjecture. aston are just doing what every other team on the grid are doing with better people. thats not even taking into account that redbull are using fallows designs to start with.”

“they didn't copy anything
fallows made the RB18
when he joined aston martin he made a car with everything that was good in RB18 and improved where he wanted
the point is is RB19 and AMR23 are far ahead everyone and fallows seems to have a trick that no one knows yet , and it isn't about the sidepods but something that makes the ground effect cars work
ferrari and mercedes were 1 second faster in the simulator but failed on track
aston martin and redbull all hit their goals perfectly
and it isn't problems with the tool mercedes and aston martin use the same
i can see aston martin having better upgrades because redbull doesn't have fallows anymore
everyone is saying newey made the car but he doesn't have much imput any more”
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,329 Posts
This from zoroaster on F1technical.net Aston Martin thread
”following a concept, and blatently stealing and copying a design are 2 differnt things. i would challenge anyone to point out any visible area on the aston where the team has blatantly copied the redbull. if you see it, please point it out because i dont think its there. the problem for redbull is that there are many ways to achieve the same thing in aero design, and unless the team were dumb enough to copy and paste like they did with the mercedes a couple of years back, before fallows was there, its all conjecture. aston are just doing what every other team on the grid are doing with better people. thats not even taking into account that redbull are using fallows designs to start with.”

“they didn't copy anything
fallows made the RB18
when he joined aston martin he made a car with everything that was good in RB18 and improved where he wanted
the point is is RB19 and AMR23 are far ahead everyone and fallows seems to have a trick that no one knows yet , and it isn't about the sidepods but something that makes the ground effect cars work
ferrari and mercedes were 1 second faster in the simulator but failed on track
aston martin and redbull all hit their goals perfectly
and it isn't problems with the tool mercedes and aston martin use the same
i can see aston martin having better upgrades because redbull doesn't have fallows anymore
everyone is saying newey made the car but he doesn't have much imput any more”
Maybe, maybe not.
From Helmut Marko:

“It’s true that what Fallows had in his head cannot be erased,” Marko told Servus TV. “Copying the focus is not prohibited, but can you copy in such detail without having documentation of our car? We had three Red Bulls on the podium, only the last one with a different engine.”

I don't trust Marko, but I don't trust Fallows either, and I certainly don't trust old man Stroll.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,891 Posts
Discussion Starter · #174 ·
Maybe, maybe not.
From Helmut Marko:

“It’s true that what Fallows had in his head cannot be erased,” Marko told Servus TV. “Copying the focus is not prohibited, but can you copy in such detail without having documentation of our car? We had three Red Bulls on the podium, only the last one with a different engine.”

I don't trust Marko, but I don't trust Fallows either, and I certainly don't trust old man Stroll.
In this case Marko would have officially filed a complaint. He hasn’t-so smoke and bluster 😀
 

· Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
Thanks.
The thing is, although I suspect I do know more about F1 or motor racing than the majority here do (just as they know incomparably more than I do about countless other subjects), relative to the insiders at an F1 team I know next-to-nothing. For that reason it seems crazy for me to say that McLaren, for example, should be doing this or that differently. The operating people at every team are very smart and exceptionally hard working. Some of the team owners might be jerks, but that is a different story. As it happened, at the time I thought that McLaren should not cancel the Honda deal, but even if in retrospect I was 'right', it was only an uninformed guess based mostly on hunches and thin air.

What gets under my skin is this notion that McLaren 'should be' doing better. Any team that fails to win that year's championship 'should be' doing better.
Why have Red Bull done well? Maybe they have a great culture and an organisation filled with the most talented people. Maybe they are really smarter than everyone else.
There may be an element of truth in that, but we also know that on technical matters ever since 2010 they have been cheating and the FIA let them get away with it; they have the (probably) most talented driver but also the dirtiest driver and here again the FIA let them get away with it. They did not really win any title in 2021, although the record books fictitiously suggest that they won WDC. They have had the huge advantage of a second team that can be used to test out anything that they want, flouting the limits on wind tunnel and computational time. And even with all those advantages they could not help themselves, they just had to go ahead and be the only team that cheated on the 2021 cost cap, for which they were barely penalised. So, yes, Red Bull have been doing better than McLaren, but I don't see that comparison as evidence of a failure by McLaren. Merc and Fezza each spent at least a billion dollars more than McLaren in the time leading up to the cost cap, and some of the knowledge generated by that expense will still be valuable today. Not forever, but for a while more.

I don't think any of us will be in a position to opine on how well McLaren are doing until their new wind tunnel and simulator have had their effect, so next year. As to strategic dilution by participating in other formulae, my impression is that the brain drain from the F1 team has been minimal. The cost cap forced McLaren (and several other teams) to reassign some of their engineering staff, so (to generalise) those people would have been gone anyhow.
I was very disappointed that Seidl left, but McLaren knew several months in advance that he might ask to break his contract. They let him go when they did not have to do that and, despite the lead time, instead of looking outside they slotted Stella straight into the job, so either they are complete idiots, which they are not, or Stella is probably going to be a capable TP.

This stuff takes a long time to change, but it does change, and it helps us fans if we are patient.
I did not have brain drain in mind when referencing the wind tunnel/simulator or technical leadership, but the possibility that the capital used for other formulae could have been used to complete the infrastructure at a quicker pace. Or hire better technical leadership. Yes you could argue that their salaries would still have to fit under the cost cap but Mclaren still do not have the overall budget of RB, Ferrari, or Mercedes. There likely to be much more space to fit in more spending as opposed to teams who have to find areas to trim.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
372 Posts
I wonder how much of this year's Aston is really last year's Red Bull, seeing as how last year Dan Fallows came from Red Bull to become Aston's technical director. Red Bull have already commented on what one might call remarkable similarities.

We know how much Fatboy Stroll likes to copy other team's designs (remember the 'Pink Mercedes'?), and we also know that Fallows has the ethics of a snake.
A few years ago Fallows was already a very senior aerodynamicist at Red Bull and McLaren hired him. His contract with Red Bull had expired, he signed a new binding contract with McLaren - it was all above board.
Fallows did his garden leave and was due to report for his first day at McLaren on 'X' date. He didn't show up, nor did he show up for the rest of what should have been his first week. Supposedly he was not responding to McLaren's attempts to reach him, although in retrospect he was obviously still communicating with Red Bull, because after a week of being a no-show, he informed McLaren that, despite his contract, he had decided he would be going back to Red Bull. This was straight out of the Christian Horner book of 'How to Make Money Whilst Lacking a Shred of Integrity'. It may be required reading for all Red Bull employees.
Wow I was not aware of that. That changes my opinion of the situation greatly. Has Mclaren tried to make any “star” hires since?

Just read this interview. If his scruples aren’t up to par his management skills certainly are Newey’s lack of "technical arrogance" in F1 a great strength, says Fallows
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,329 Posts
I did not have brain drain in mind when referencing the wind tunnel/simulator or technical leadership, but the possibility that the capital used for other formulae could have been used to complete the infrastructure at a quicker pace. Or hire better technical leadership. Yes you could argue that their salaries would still have to fit under the cost cap but Mclaren still do not have the overall budget of RB, Ferrari, or Mercedes. There likely to be much more space to fit in more spending as opposed to teams who have to find areas to trim.
My impression was that the forays into other formulae were self-funding, in that they cost a fraction of what F1 does and McLaren has had some good 'local' sponsors (such as Arrow).
Brown has said that they had to make tough choices in making redundant or reassigning personnel in order to get under the cost cap.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,329 Posts
Wow I was not aware of that. That changes my opinion of the situation greatly. Has Mclaren tried to make any “star” hires since?

Just read this interview. If his scruples aren’t up to par his management skills certainly are Newey’s lack of "technical arrogance" in F1 a great strength, says Fallows
That rings true to me. I was on the grid walk at the Dutch GP (not something that I would normally do!) and, although by then Red Bull had effectively wrapped up the title and clearly had the fastest car, when I came upon Newey he was wearing ear defenders and intently studying the McLaren, recording his observations onto sheets of paper on a clipboard. He studied the McLaren the longest, then moved on to studying the Mercedes, then returned for more scrutiny of the Mac. Not a guy to rest on his laurels.

Star hires? I'm trying to think.... Historically they have not often done star hires on the technical side. Since they got Newey from Williams back in the '90s, they have hired a number of star drivers, but the biggest names on the technical side have I suppose been Prodromou (who was actually a re-hire), Pat Fry (another re-hire), Seidl, maybe Eric Boullier. Tombazis was a medium-level guy. They hired Sam Michael from Williams as Sporting Director, but (I mean no offence to him; he's probably a nice guy) he always seemed out of his depth. The idiot Mike Coughlan was an above-average name (although not that well-known to the public). Jost Capito was a notable hiring, but he had no F1-specific experience and was collateral damage when Ron got booted.
Probably I am overlooking some people, but I think the biggest name they have hired in the last decade has been Zak Brown.
 
161 - 180 of 226 Posts
Top