Archer Capital Gone

[GHOGH]

Gow suggestions to Supercars

The current BTCC cars are in the ballpark of Aus$500K

Suggests basic mechanicals and no telemetry.

https://www.speedcafe.com/2020/05/13...-masturbation/

I think Gow overlooks the value of the training and experience Down Under engineers can obtain by working with Supercar teams, that they have (in the past) later transferred to the International, US and European motorsport series that use telemetry.

[Casper]

I think Gow's CV gives him some idea of what works and what doesn't. Give an engineer a million dollars and he always spends that and more besides. They have some ludicrous way out there ideas and sometimes need a stern talking too in my very limited experience. I had a true stand up with one because of the stupid stuff he was trying to foist on us.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Casper

[Engineers] have some ludicrous way out there ideas and sometimes need a stern talking too in my very limited experience. I had a true stand up with one because of the stupid stuff he was trying to foist on us.

Your approach seems VERY counter-productive to me. Are you sure you at least evaluated and understood the potential of the ideas properly before quashing them?

Without the Frank Dernies of the world saying "let's write a computer program to optimise suspension geometry" (computing was radical stuff in the mid-1970's) "let's get a wind tunnel", "let's build an active suspension system" and so on, Williams Grand Prix Engineering (emphasis) wouldn't have got where they did... [Interview with Frank Dernie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWRQDbB0EJU ]

If that was quashed under "racing teams don't need wind tunnels, those are for eggheads building airplanes, I'm not wasting money on a three-axis force balance and data logging equipment to go with it either, what on earth is that for", they would not have found their advantage with Jones in the ground-effect years.

Similarly, "a racing car with a CVT, that's stupid" would have not allowed for development of this Williams FW15C CVT prototype banned for it's potential (increased) dominance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3UpBKXMRto

Of course a plentiful supply of sponsor dollars helped. But I think it's exactly that abundance of radical thinking that keeps race teams like Red Bull Racing (the rumours of systems of borderline legality like flexi-wings during the Vettel years are too many to mention ) and Mercedes Grand Prix at the head of the pack.

Recall the McLaren-Mercedes with the knee-operated fluidic "f-duct" to stall the rear wing and gain straight line speed... radical, crazy but it worked and found an improvement in laptime. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9QMYTiYHIk

Just this very year, Mercedes Grand Prix exploited the loophole that moving the steering wheel fore and aft is considered 'steering', to introduce a system that toes in as the wheel is pulled back on the straight (for reduced aero drag and better straight line stability) and toes out in the corners as the wheel is pushed forward: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_uKHNJLSQs

Chief engineer James Allison had a wry grin when talking about this cleverness to the press, just as he should have. I supposed you would have quashed this idea as radical thinking for minimal benefit and a waste of money?

A concept drawing or working study, like say active suspension concepts that seemed impossibly radical in the early 1980's, can within 5-10 years be turned into a real innovation on the race car with laptime benefit after all!

...Ever since Supercars in the early to mid 2000's caught up to the build quality of 1990's Super Tourers: everything placed on the floor, the driver as far back as possible, plenty of carbon and weight-saving; there hasn't been much in the way of interesting widespread technical progress in Supercars, which is a shame.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Casper

Give an engineer a million dollars and he always spends that and more besides. They have some ludicrous way out there ideas and sometimes need a stern talking too in my very limited experience.

One person's crazy outlandish flop:


Is another person's new industry standard:


Jim Rathmann's radical, laughed-at, Indy 500 car was the right idea, but just not implemented quite right (too big, too much drag!).

--------

I actually forgot, there's actually an example in the Frank Dernie interview of fitting the softest front springs Williams had ever used on Montoya's Williams-BMW that took pole in Monaco... A radical suspension gamble, with the springs made by turning down the existing Williams torsion bar springs on a lathe, so they weren't sure the springs would even last the whole race.

But they took the risk, and the springs did the trick to unlock the maximum potential of the Michelin tyres, and Montoya went on to win the race!

[If you recall, the Michelin tyres themselves were also tricky 'cheat' tyres... Within the maximum allowed width when new, but they wore down nearly to slicks (recall the F1 grooved tyre rule to slow the cars down) and become wider during the race...]

Don't you think it's exactly the stuff like this, and the Penske pushrod engine at Indianapolis, Brabham fan car, Lotus twin-chassis and so on that make motor racing interesting?

[justracing]

Alan Gow is very rarely wrong IMHO. I've been a big fan of the BTCC here in the UK and I also follow the Aussie series from afar and to quote AG:
“We looked at things like the engine, no one on the side of the spectator bank cares about the internal workings of the engine.
“No one cares what the gearbox is like. No one cares what sort of diff a car has. No one cares what the electronics are like. No one cares how much telemetry there is between the cars and the pits or if there is any.
“All the spectator wants to see is good, hard, close racing. If you can deliver that, whilst stripping away all the unnecessary costs, then you’ve found the formula."
Nothing wrong with simplicity, the minefield of rules and regulations that exist F1 today is the very reason for its' demise in attracting spectators.

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Recall the McLaren-Mercedes with the knee-operated fluidic "f-duct"

My favourite memory of that was a discussion with a McLaren engineer when it was copied by others. "Ferrari say they have an f-duct but that's impossible. It's only called an f-duct because the hole is in the f in Vodafone and they have different sponsors...

Originally Posted by justracing

“No one cares what the gearbox is like.

That one I do. H-pattern with a clutch, please. Let's make them drive it properly. Sequential shift semi-auto gearboxes are near the top of my list of 'things that have ruined motor racing.'

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Your approach seems VERY counter-productive to me. Are you sure you at least evaluated and understood the potential of the ideas properly before quashing them?

All the examples you quote are from Formula 1 and even there, engineers (like all other team members) need to work within the parameters (time, money etc) available to them.

This is a Supercar discussion and to let engineering run that free would blow budgets left, right and centre - precisely the outcome that is trying to be avoided.

...Ever since Supercars in the early to mid 2000's caught up to the build quality of 1990's Super Tourers: everything placed on the floor, the driver as far back as possible, plenty of carbon and weight-saving; there hasn't been much in the way of interesting widespread technical progress in Supercars, which is a shame.

Funnily enough that point is exactly where the problems started - the cars getting too technical, too expensive and the racing less good - the path advocated by Mr Gow is eerily similar to the path that Supercars and in fact the V8 regs from '93 or so onwards followed from the outset and you know what - it worked.

[chavez]

Originally Posted by justracing

“We looked at things like the engine, no one on the side of the spectator bank cares about the internal workings of the engine.
“No one cares what the gearbox is like. No one cares what sort of diff a car has. No one cares what the electronics are like. No one cares how much telemetry there is between the cars and the pits or if there is any.
“All the spectator wants to see is good, hard, close racing. If you can deliver that, whilst stripping away all the unnecessary costs, then you’ve found the formula."

I used to care about those things. It is what partly attracted me to the sport 35 years ago.

Today, maybe I don't care as much, but I think that as come about because of the sameness of the specifications of most cars in most series.

We have moved a long way from multiple chassis in IndyCar, multiple engine configurations in F1 and Touring Cars.

[Casper]

I first heard the term "engineering "w**kfest" in a motorsport video interview with Ross Brawn regarding F1 and he should know all about that. I think it is very apt and engineering will require different approaches at different levels that are appropriate at that level of racing. There is no way live telemetry is needed for SC but it is allowed so engineers use everything they can.

A funny story, I was involved in discussions when I was very young and totally naive about racing with someone who wanted to run a Cooper S at Bathurst when they were the big thing. I off hand suggested we needed a radio system that could be seen in the pits to monitor oil pressure and water temps and everyone laughed as then it was simply impossible no matter how much money you had. I often thonk of that discussion when stuff like this is raised because it was in the 1960's and that stuff was simply unheard of in motor racing.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Tourer

This is a Supercar discussion and to let engineering run that free would blow budgets left, right and centre - precisely the outcome that is trying to be avoided.

Originally Posted by Tourer

Funnily enough that point is exactly where the problems started - the cars getting too technical, too expensive and the racing less good - the path advocated by Mr Gow is eerily similar to the path that Supercars and in fact the V8 regs from '93 or so onwards followed from the outset and you know what - it worked.

Tell that to Dicky Johnson.

The engineers designed the DJR Falcon in '92 in good faith on the basis that the rules did not prohibit using the engine as a stressed member of the chassis, only to be told this was not allowed at the last moment.



PS. So much for the up to 2.5L runners who were assured the V8s would only have 450hp and would produce the same laptimes as their light and nimble vehicles with smaller engines too...

The Larko-mobile forms another great story. The right idea, but not executed quite right at the time. Time attack seems to be the only place where you see such radical engineering in Australia these days , shame that out-of-the-box thinking is regulated in most other classes.

"It's kind of sad in a way but I take 100 percent responsibility for it. We tried to do way too much too soon but I learnt a very valuable life lesson. There were plenty of good ideas in that car that emerged later on.

"The roll cage was beautiful. It was lighter than anything at the time. Everything on that car came from a blank sheet of paper. I've still got most of the drawings. Pretty much every component we designed from scratch.

"It didn't win anything but in terms of ideas it was ground-breaking. It wasn't until 10 years later that we centralised the driver in V8 Supercars. The DTM (German touring cars) later used a driver cell concept similar to what we had.

"Having been in an open wheeler, I thought why couldn't we have it like a tub with quick disconnects and everything could come out?

"The seat was mounted to the roll cage and not to the floor, which was common then. We used carbon manganese tubing that they were just starting to use in the British Touring Car Championship. It was lighter and stronger than chrome moly.

"The car was designed specifically to be a racing car. It had an extremely low centre of gravity but it did compromise reliability. We grossly underestimated the loads a V8 Supercar encompasses from kerbs and hits with other cars.

"The car was designed from a theoretical load point of view. In practice though it wasn't correct."

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by justracing

“We looked at things like the engine, no one on the side of the spectator bank cares about the internal workings of the engine.

I don't see anything wrong with this at all.

The trouble is that when a category engine is suggested, the Holden fans complain so much about their beloved GM vehicles having a Ford Coyote engine fitted to them. I don't understand why they are so offended!

If the rules require all the engines to perform all-but identically anyway, then who cares if they all use the same crate engine!?

[Casper]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

I don't see anything wrong with this at all.

The trouble is that when a category engine is suggested, the Holden fans complain so much about their beloved GM vehicles having a Ford Coyote engine fitted to them. I don't understand why they are so offended!

If the rules require all the engines to perform all-but identically anyway, then who cares if they all use the same crate engine!?

Use the Nissan motor...problem solved and they will both be unhappy.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Casper

Use the Nissan motor...problem solved and they will both be unhappy.

Genius!

[V8 Fireworks]

Mispost.

[Mixer]

Give me all the cars with the Erebus engine with the flat plane crank.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Tell that to Dicky Johnson.

The engineers designed the DJR Falcon in '92 in good faith on the basis that the rules did not prohibit using the engine as a stressed member of the chassis, only to be told this was not allowed at the last moment.

Which only shows that a new category wasn't run well at the outset, with the intent of keeping the cars (relatively) simple not covered well enough by those who wrote the rulebook at the time.

For sure there needs to be some capacity for good engineering but not the complete free-for-all that you were advocating in your earlier post.

I look at the example of HRT when it was dominating in the early noughties - rarely took the engines to the rev limit as they were built for flexibility, used 2-way dampers when the other leading teams used 4-way, used slightly older brake specs but good engineering and management had the team at the front consistently.

That to me is good engineering - taking what you have and making the absolute most out of it, rather than creating a spend-a-thon of new ideas because you can't get more out of what you already have.

[Tourer]

Resurrecting this thread as it seems the best sport to fit this article with Mr Adderton claiming to have shown interest in buying Supercars.

He claims that he didn't go ahead because the current structure is unworkable with the teams having the shareholding that they do - he mentions TC as an example of someone who ran a successful sports business as a benevolent "dictator".

Mr Adderton seems to be conveniently forgetting that when TC was in charge, the teams owned MORE of the company than they do now but TC was able to show them the path and be a genuine leader.

Perhaps Mr Adderton needs to put in the hard work as well if he wants to own it and run it - for sure there are a bunch of competitive team owners to win over but TC showed that it could be done - but it ain't easy.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Resurrecting this thread as it seems the best sport to fit this article with Mr Adderton claiming to have shown interest in buying Supercars.

He claims that he didn't go ahead because the current structure is unworkable with the teams having the shareholding that they do - he mentions TC as an example of someone who ran a successful sports business as a benevolent "dictator".

Mr Adderton seems to be conveniently forgetting that when TC was in charge, the teams owned MORE of the company than they do now but TC was able to show them the path and be a genuine leader.

Perhaps Mr Adderton needs to put in the hard work as well if he wants to own it and run it - for sure there are a bunch of competitive team owners to win over but TC showed that it could be done - but it ain't easy.

Why not just buy out the teams (35%?) share while he’s at it?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by one five five

Why not just buy out the teams (35%?) share while he’s at it?

Good point. Wouldn't surprise me if the teams had some kind of veto capacity in place for that though. Money talks of course but they'd also all be aware of Mr Adderton's *ahem* "unpredictable" tendencies so might not be keen to hand over their part of destiny control.

He could win them over with the right approach though - but it appears that he doesn't want to work at it.

[cavvy]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Good point. Wouldn't surprise me if the teams had some kind of veto capacity in place for that though. Money talks of course but they'd also all be aware of Mr Adderton's *ahem* "unpredictable" tendencies so might not be keen to hand over their part of destiny control.

He could win them over with the right approach though - but it appears that he doesn't want to work at it.

What worked for CochO is past its use by date ?

I would not be interested in running a team under the rules according to Adderton & nor would a series original in Gary Rogers.

Is trying to find a buyer for the unused RECs a financial measure?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by cavvy

What worked for CochO is past its use by date ?

Not sure that it would be. Cocho had 75% team ownership that he needed to convince - the teams only have a minority shareholding now. Regardless, to run the series successfully you need to engage / convince all stakeholders and Cocho did that successfully - quite why Mr Adderton doesn't think he can I don't know.

Originally Posted by cavvy

Is trying to find a buyer for the unused RECs a financial measure?

Presumably but it also fills out the field, has more in reserve if others decide to stop.

[Umai Naa]

Cocho was a leader. Everyone since has been not much more than a figurehead.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

Cocho was a leader. Everyone since has been not much more than a figurehead.

Wasn’t Cochrane nothing more than a figurehead once the Archer sale went through, leading to him getting out after 18-odd months of Archer control?

[Just Do It!]

Originally Posted by one five five

Wasn’t Cochrane nothing more than a figurehead once the Archer sale went through, leading to him getting out after 18-odd months of Archer control?

Cochrane was a great leader - he made decisions and stood by them, and did make the odd adjustment after the "off the cuff" comment or decision.

Most of Tony's departure seemed to be driven by Archer trying to move to a more formal corporate structure.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by Just Do It!

Most of Tony's departure seemed to be driven by Archer trying to move to a more formal corporate structure.

ie.... leaving Cochrane (and everyone in that role since) as little more than figureheads