Williams's Mistake?

[Led ZeppF1]

Does Williams make a mistake? Instead to build an evolution car from FW25 (which was proven as the title contender), they build all new car with radical looking nose?

Look at Ferrari. Their F2004, IMHO, was an improvement of all their previous weak areas and have managed to retain their strong points.

[climb]

Maybe they have realized that most of the car's stunning summer performance came from tyres much more than from the rest of the car.
Infact FW performed badly at the beginning and at the end of the season (cool weather), being on the contrary dominant in the middle.
Starting from the obvious observation that this conditions weren't sufficient to win the WCC/WDC title, they have apparently chosen to not depend exclusively on tyres, and build up a car that be good itself.
IMO ther was no alternative, cos nobody can be sure that Michelin heat dominance will continue this year.

[Skam85]

Williams were getting sick of coming 2nd year in year out and I applaud them for trying something new and radical.

[twig]

Hindsight is a beautiful thing

[Led ZeppF1]

Originally posted by climb
Infact FW performed badly at the beginning and at the end of the season (cool weather), being on the contrary dominant in the middle.

Yup, FW25 performed badly at the beginning, but not at the end. In Suzuka Montoya would beat Rubens easily if the car didn't break down. We could said, he had a win in his hand.

Ralf also quicker than Michael, at least had same pace. He had the car to collect point if didn't made too much mistake.

[climb]

Good precisation Led, but it's undisputable that, regardless of Suzuka particular conditions, FW have been dominant only during the hot summer.
You say that JPM would have easily won, well, even supposing that (i'm not that sure) it wouldn't have been a walkover like at Hungaroring.

[Kid Prozac]

I don't understand it. Just because the Williams has got a different nose it is seen as radical. How do we know that the rest of the car is not an evolution?

Its said that the Ferrari is an evolution because it looks the same, but I'm sure its got a different nose on, so why aren't we calling that radical?

Basically unlessyou work for a team, you can't judge how radical or how good a car is going to perform based on the shape of its nosecone............

[Led ZeppF1]

Climb, agree with you. Williams had been dominant only during the hot summer.

But I still though that they have the pace to win a race (not dominated) in Monza (if Montoya make no mistake in qualifying, and had right set up --too much downforce?), and Suzuka (if the car didn't give up).

[Led ZeppF1]

Kid Prozac,

I said, FW26 had radical looking nose. I didn said FW26 was a radical car.

And, "How do we know that the rest of the car is not an evolution?" I didn't know. But, CMIIW, Gavin Fisher (Williams's chief designer) had said that FW26 was all new car, not evolution from FW25.

F-2004 was evolution from F2003-GA? I think Ferrari (Ross Brawn or Rory Birne?) had admit its.

[Gt_R]

Only one race and we say Williams made a mistake?

Head had always wanted to switch to the twin keel format, and Michelins sort of work better with that nose-package, so really its' not an issue. Williams had built conservative evolutions for many years, so really it kinds of catch people off guard for Williams to dare such a radical approach.

Curiously, Ferrari tried this 'walrus' design 3 years back, and ditched it due to some problems and the lack of significant performance improvementsto warrant the problems. Then, one fellow who's involved in this project, a certain Terzi, decides to jump ship...

[Damon]

Nah, no mistake made. If they'd gone on an evolution of the second best car then there's no way they would ever catch up. They needed to go radical and did and for all we know it's worked. It's very difficult to say either way after just one race.

[shiny side up!]

Originally posted by Led ZeppF1
Kid Prozac,

I said, FW26 had radical looking nose. I didn said FW26 was a radical car.

And, "How do we know that the rest of the car is not an evolution?" I didn't know. But, CMIIW, Gavin Fisher (Williams's chief designer) had said that FW26 was all new car, not evolution from FW25.

F-2004 was evolution from F2003-GA? I think Ferrari (Ross Brawn or Rory Birne?) had admit its.

The FW26 not only has the distinctive nose, but it is also a double-keel car, and I don't think the 25 was. That is a huge change. And we have no idea how the internal packaging, anciliary components, and suspension geometries have changed (or not) to base an evolution vs. revolution call on... but I think it's clearly not an evolution.

[Damon]

It's impossible for a single keel car to "evolve" into in twin keel car! Both have completely different design principles behind them, meaning that the FW26 has to be a completely different car from the ground up. The nose is how it is for a reason, it's to take fullest advantage of the benefits that the twin keel layout offers, the old nose simply wouldn't work anymore.

[Led ZeppF1]

Originally posted by Damon
It's very difficult to say either way after just one race.

Yup. You are right.

I just read an analysis in gp2003.com (Our spies in Melbourne report) that FW26 has too much downforce in front compared to that in the rear and it also has poor traction.

At Imola the Williams engineers measured the car 10kph slower than the Ferrari 100 meters after the exit of the final chicane. The reason for that weakness is partly due to insufficient traction control and suspension geometry.

http://www.gp2003.com/index.php?lang=uk

[Jukebox]

The new nosecone of William's is more like the old raised nosecone design adopted in the late nineties but with style

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Led ZeppF1
that FW26 has too much downforce in front compared to that in the rear and it also has poor traction.

At Imola the Williams engineers measured the car 10kph slower than the Ferrari 100 meters after the exit of the final chicane.

Iirc, don't Williams have to run more weight at the front for the nose and twin-keel? maybe this is the reason for too much downforce and slower speed?

[Glen]

At virtually all circuits there is really no such thing as too much downforce (especially if you've got a BMW in the back) - rather the problem would be too little at the back in relation to the front, and also in relation to the tyre usage. That was the kind of imbalance that Ferrari struggled with throughout 2003, although I believe that was to do with weight distribution rather than aero.

[1 Lotus]

I think it FAR TO EARLY in the season to call their radically different front view a 'mistake' and I also think they will very probably be right in the mix for second place.

[facco]

I guess that no one remembers that the BMW people asked for a brand new paradigm and for this FW 26 got their hands into the chassis development.
It's too early to begin calling the Williams a failure or mistake as it is too early for McLaren to give up on that crapy Merc.

[Speed]

I thought this was a Ralfie thread...

[shiny side up!]

I'm sure Williams will consider any car not capable of taking the WCC away from Ferrari a failure. That being said, if you can't beat your competition by evolving what you have, you must make a radical change, which they have done. Maybe that will make the FW26 'less of a failure' than the FW25 (unless they are able to unseat Ferrari by the end of the year, which wouldn't make it a failure at all!!! )

[Led ZeppF1]

Originally posted by shiny side up!
Maybe that will make the FW26 'less of a failure' than the FW25 (unless they are able to unseat Ferrari by the end of the year, which wouldn't make it a failure at all!!! )

IMHO, FW25 was not 'a failure car'. Yes, FW25 was strugling in the beginning of last season. But since Monaco, Williams had the best package in the grid, or at least equal with Ferrari.

In fact, FW26 also strugling in opening race in Melbourne. They failed to catch Ferrari's pace. In Malaysia FW26 perform better, but still failed to beat Ferrari.

But, I agree is too early to conclusion that Williams make mistake in their approach to building car. We have to wacth some races again to have better view.

[Led ZeppF1]

Double post, ignoring.

[Kicking-back]

If you put a BMW or Toyota engine in an MP 4/19 McLaren I think we'd probably see more of a challenge to Ferrari!