Williams 'radical' car design?

[Sodemo]

One thing I don't understand is all this talk of Williams "getting radical" with their design for the car next year.
So someone tell me, what exactly does "getting radical" actually mean. Why don't they "get radical" every year? Is there a chance that by going radical they could actually go too radical and end up with a total dog of a car, worse than this year's.

Is anyone else confused about all this "radical" talk?

[JonesF1]

Isnt the willimas launch date jan 30? I guess we'll see then.

[Tristan]

Weel, put it like this. William's cars of late have been very conservative. few new design innovations, essentially evolutions of old cars. A tweek here, a nudge there, a blatent copy there!!

Willimas as we all know are under considerable pressure to perform as BMW has been pretty non-plussed by these conservative chassis.

Of course, the risk with going against convetion is that it doesn't work.

[RT]

I think radical means "please Herr Theissen give us one more year, we've just cloned Adrian Newey and we'll treat him right this time".

It's just a byword to make sponsors and the Bavarian group believe their 2003 won't be another aerodynamic joke.

I'd sort of believe Frank and Patrick if they said something like "Newey has rejoined the team and we're developing a radical new design"

It all sounds to me right now as a feeble effort to keep the faithful around.

[TheGreatJuan]

Anything should be better than that piece of **** they produced this year. If not for the BMW they would have ended behing BAR

[Lee Janotta]

Radical would mean twin-keep front suspension with a radical dip in the middle of the front wing, a short wheelbase like McLaren's, a less pronounced raised to the nose, a more compact gearbox, and a more radical rear suspension instead of the design they've got which has slowly evolved since '98.

[Jukebox]

Can't wait to see their 2003 contender......but then, if this year's package going to be 'radically' changed from their previous conservative designs...then they would need at least a year or so to get the right combination for WCC.

They sure are lucky to have BMW powering those chassis...

[Glen]

Radical really means ever more marginal in every way... That might be excessively tight on radiator size and shape, for example, which you can only get away with if the engine epartment are 100% hand-in-hand with the chassis engineers. The F2002 was reportedly absolutely borderline for cooling, but they got away with it.

Another key target would be weight - ultra skinny transmission and engine block would enable more ballast to be carrried further forward (another F2002 hallmark) but brings a significant risk in terms of chassis stiffness and reliability.

Then there's aerodynamics - a bold move like the twin keel design has virtually endless knock-on consequences for the rest of the car design, so this would be considered risky because it brings in unknown factors which require millions of pounds worth of testing to resolve.

Williams have decided not to flirt with Michelin's new camber-compensating suspension layout because it brings in too many new variables.

BTW, Williams are one of the more innovative teams and not, as was suggested earlier, inclined to do "blatant copies".

Roll on the end of the month - I'm hoping for a much slimmer car with new slimline transmission. Twin keel would be nice, but Ferrari have proved as conclusively as can be imagined that that is not strictly necessary (F2002 not having it).

[Armco Bender]

Radical=an excuse when your car doesn't win anything this year,"Our car was too radical this year,it will do better in 2004".

[golem]

Me personally, one thing I'd like to see mucked about with is a fibre optic system on a flip up visor that allows their helmet to use a movable camera mounted where the usual T-cam on top of the snorkel is, giving the driver a more birdseye view of the car , apex and so forth.

Cue Juan Pablo Skywalker flipping back down his FO system at the season decider of 2003, and Patrick barking from the pits: There is no such thing as the force Juan! Use that freaking expensive system damn you!

[DNQ]

A "radical" FW25 is something to look forward to. It might mean the cars expires after 20 laps of every race, it might mean it's a monster to handle on some circuits and perfect on others - but ultimatly it means a car that on it's day is as quick as an F2003...and that is what we want! Some close lap times

[Sodemo]

If they did produce a car that expired after 20 laps, then maybe they could make the same car turn invisible using some kind of cloaking device, great for overtaking.

Also when the car dies, they could just 'sneak' another car onto the track - genius!.

[z2252314]

The fact that its being released late Jan means it cant be too radical. Expect Ferrari and Mac to launch late Feb or later and then youll see what radical means.

[KA]

Originally posted by The Monster
Is there a chance that by going radical they could actually go too radical and end up with a total dog of a car, worse than this year's.

That's always the big risk- by taking a really big step and introducing something radically new you maight just be coming up with a huge leap forwards in performance- or you might find yourself stuck with a car that just doesn't work....

[Mania]

I'll believe the "radical design" when I see it in Australia. Seems to me, Williams are scared that the BMW boys are getting ready to pull the plug on them and thats why we've seen Frank and Patrick come out with a lot of promising statements off late.

We'll see what happens - though I still believe it will be Mclaren who take the fight to the Ferraris this year..and sadly not the Williams duo, despite them having the best driver partnership in the game today.

[JonesF1]

Heres the scoop: Williams means theyre building a chassis thats 2 years behind the times rather then the usual 5 years.

[Jukebox]

Originally posted by Glen
That might be excessively tight on radiator size and shape, for example, which you can only get away with if the engine epartment are 100% hand-in-hand with the chassis engineers. The F2002 was reportedly absolutely borderline for cooling, but they got away with it.

Another key target would be weight - ultra skinny transmission and engine block would enable more ballast to be carrried further forward (another F2002 hallmark) but brings a significant risk in terms of chassis stiffness and reliability.

I totally agree with what you have wrote besides these two points Glen.

I believe that the F002 side pods and the inside tunnel leading to the radiators were not much different from their F2001 contender as what was noticable is that it's lower. The radiators can be positioned as to blend well with the shape of the chassis.

The engine block was not much different and certainly not ultra skinny...they've managed to get rid of the heavy and huge transmission bellhousings, that's why the F2002 gets it's bottleneck shape at the rear end.

[Speed]

Originally posted by Mania
I'll believe the "radical design" when I see it in Australia. Seems to me, Williams are scared that the BMW boys are getting ready to pull the plug on them and thats why we've seen Frank and Patrick come out with a lot of promising statements off late.

Don´t worry, BMW boys know exactly what WILLIAMS ENGINEERING LTD boys are doing..., they work together in that project.

[Sodemo]

Then again I suppose the advantage of bringing the car out reletivly early is that they can test it and iron out any problems more so than if its released late.

[ParkLife]

This will probably sound very high and mighty, but people who clearly know nothing about engineering should not make such foolish comments about chassis design.

Go and read a book on chassis dynamics, do a degree in an engineering related subject, or spend many years working in a technical design field. Then you will have earned the right to criticise the technicalities of a Formula 1 car chassis.

And for anyone who thinks that Williams made a terrible car last year and say that second in the championship was solely down to the engine blatently doesn't understand F1.

Many people will joke about Minardi, how slow they are, how 'behind the times' their engine and chassis is, but when you consider the fact that the Minardi F1 car is probably the tenth fastest car in the world, and only a few percent slower than THE fastest! you will perhaps respect these F1 teams a bit more.

Most of you will now probably think I'm a nob, but I felt it needed to be said. Blatantly criticising something as advanced as an F1 car is massivly disrespectful to the engineers and designers that work in the sport.