(Colin) Chapmanism

[Peter Mallett]

In another thread Glen said:

Originally Posted by Glen

I just think it unlikely that the McLaren culture will shift towards reliability to any appreciable degree - therefore I think at least one mechanical failure in six races is inevitable.

And Adam said:

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

Ron Dennis has said as much. I paraphrase, but he said that while they would always try to rectify problems they wouldn't sacrifice any speed for reliability.

This is pure "Chapmanism" and you have to respect Ron for his stance here. But it does beg the question of who would suit this philosophy best and indeed, who would win under trhese circumstances.

Looking at the early 60's we had Jim Clark, possibly the greatest ever but he drove his car sympathetically and won. We had Graham Hill not so sympathetic in terms of technique but a driver with the soul (if I may) to understand the car and use it to its best abilities.

But what now? MS can make a car dance. Kimi can drive the wheels off it and so can Fernado which is why he's beating Fisi. Trulli and Rubens can take a good car and make it better and so can JPM.

Ralf is smooth but needs relaibility whilst Sato who is the best of the rest (actually I should include Mark, Nick etc. but I'm practising shorthand here), just drives. I exclude DC for no reason other than he's past it, but I'm glad to say doing very well.

But having seen some UK coverage over the past couple of weeks I noticed that someone (I think Brundle) suggested that JB was using less traction control than others but putting in good times.

Does this mean that JB would be a better fit for teams who follow "chapmanism"? Or indeed Ron Denis' philosophy?

[Kicking-back]

In modern F1 cars, I don't think there's really much to choose between the drivers in terms of "mechanical sympathy".

[Peter Mallett]

Yet taking the quotes above there must be some kind of sacrifice, and if it isn't in the actual control of the vehicle (I sincerely hope it is to an extent) then it must be in the control of the systems, in which case the driver must have an input (because telemetyric control from the pits is banned).

[Snrub]

Obviously McLaren sacrifices some speed for reliabilty. Everyone has to or else every mechanical peice would be made as light as possible and made such that there was only a 90% chance of any given peice surviving a race. I will agree that McLaren has been more reluctant than the other teams to meet the new high reliabilty standards set by Ferrari.

I think KB is more or less right, but remember last year how Sato's engine kept expiring whereas Button's didn't. It's not fair to blame Sato when the team was unable to figure out what was happening, but clearly some drivers are a little easier on the equipment than others.

Top F1 drivers simply do not have performance gaps of consistantly nearly a second a lap between them in identicle equipment. Something else is going on with Fisi. If we look to his performances in the 2nd half of '04 and compare it to Alonso in the Renault he was probably closer at that time than he is now.

[John Turner]

I would be very reluctant to 'tar' Ron Dennis and Mclaren with the same brush as Colin Chapman since some of his sacrifice of reliability for speed (his almost fanatical approach towards lightness) made some of his cars very marginal on safety as some Lotus drivers have testified over the years. I don't believe that Mclaren have ever compromised in the area of driver safety. I think the philosophy alluded to above by Peter, is a 'racer's' one rather than Chapmanesque! On the other hand I do think Kimi's natural talent is akin to Jim Clark's but that is a separate issue.

[TomS]

Safety wasnt such an issue then though ie teams now have to go through the FIA tests etc

[Woolley]

Interesting thread, Peter, so some thoughts.

Modern cars are harder to break by being rough, but it seems certain driving styles - a combination of factors - can lead to problems in certain cars. Witness Taku's engine failures last year which (I think) were attributed to a certain something he did disagreeing with a certain something the engine did in spectacular fashion. No fault with the driver suggested, just an unfortunate meeting of circumstances. Other than that, driver 'aids' must make a difference - no dodgy gear changes, no missed gears, no over-revs, etc. etc.

Components, quality control and general design systems have further enhanced reliability and two-race engines virtually render it compulsory, so there's no particular reason for car failures on the whole. Furthermore the points system penalise non-finishes exceptionally harshly.

I would suggest, then. that while Ron's strategy is commendable, it's not a way you can win a championship at the moment. I hope it becomes so in the future, but right now it's sporting suicide. Or to paraphrase, F1 is at its best when the structures mean someone like Colin Chapman can be succesful.

[John Turner]

No, safety wasn't such an issue but it was Lotus that pushed the envelope on lightness to the extent that it added to those dangers that already existed for all drivers of the time.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Snrub

Obviously McLaren sacrifices some speed for reliabilty. Everyone has to or else every mechanical peice would be made as light as possible and made such that there was only a 90% chance of any given peice surviving a race.

agreed and ron denis's statement definatly needs to be taken with a grain of salt. speed and reliabilty are at different ends of the spectrum such that a reduction of one end is a gain for the other.
but if you take ron's statements as true, why not have a driver who can get the most reliabilty out of the chassis/engine considering that it is already built to be faster. instead they have a driver who can quite literally drive the wheels off his car?
IMHO, i think this is alot of smoke and mirrors. the mclaren car is not reliable and has not been for several years and to cover up some inherent problem they have they are putting out this noble philosophy that they would rather be fast than reliable. its a cool attitude to have but it puts too much emphasis on getting lucky to finish races.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Woolley

I would suggest, then. that while Ron's strategy is commendable, it's not a way you can win a championship at the moment. I hope it becomes so in the future, but right now it's sporting suicide. Or to paraphrase, F1 is at its best when the structures mean someone like Colin Chapman can be succesful.

But there's hope? Agreed CC did push the boundaries to what is now (but not then) an unacceptable level. But he was a racer! I'm trying to draw a parrallel here where Ron is saying the same things (and we all know he's a racer) but applying them to our new and improved "enlightened age".

I do realise that technology etc. has changed but the sheer enthusiasm from RD's quoted statement immediately brought CC back to mind. Sorry.

[John Turner]

No need to be sorry, Peter. If you are simply saying that Ron Dennis approach to racing as 'a racer' puts you in mind of Colin Chapman's, but without some of the connotations I alluded to above, I agree!

[Peter Mallett]

That was my point. It therefore asks us to look beyond our perception of good driver bad driver to see if we are missing something.

Some have been doing this for a while but (IMHO) misdirected. The current cars are seriously unsympathetic so JPM (as a fr'instance) and others will lose out. If Ron wants to race in the current scenario he must realise that driving the wheels off isn't the way to go but making the car more reliable (ergo slower) needs drivers of a different style.

Fair play to him for his attitude though.

[Kicking-back]

But JPM's only had two car failures in 11 starts...

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

If Ron wants to race in the current scenario he must realise that driving the wheels off isn't the way to go but making the car more reliable (ergo slower) needs drivers of a different style.

Suddenly, Renault and Alonso have drifted into my mind!

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

But JPM's only had two car failures in 11 starts...

It might not sound bad, but it's not good enough still. 100% reliability is attainable.

And looking at the teams reliability as a whole, it is an even worse picture.

[emjaya]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

But having seen some UK coverage over the past couple of weeks I noticed that someone (I think Brundle) suggested that JB was using less traction control than others but putting in good times.

Button at Monaco said they were running less traction control,for more speed out of the corners.

[Kicking-back]

Originally Posted by knowlesy

It might not sound bad, but it's not good enough still. 100% reliability is attainable.

And looking at the teams reliability as a whole, it is an even worse picture.

Yet they're 2nd in the championship, ahead of 8 other teams

[VIVA GT]

When I saw this thread I was expecting a list of the legendary stunts Colin Chapman had pulled over the years to fool both his fellow competitors, and sometimes the scrutineers!

Surely, there's a story where he was told he needed a metal bulkhead between the driver & the engine. Not wanting to add too much weight, he made one out of paper, then painted it with aluminium paint!

And, isn't there another one where he baffled his competitors into thinking he was running special coolant in his racing cars due to it's purple colour? Apparently this was just a smoke screen, and the coolant was coloured with Ribena!

Obviously, these are both alleged incidents (being careful here), come on, some of you must know more of these entertaining stories about CC?

Maybe if another 'story' is true, and he's actually still alive and living in Brazil, he'll be a subscriber here himself, and tell us straight from the horses mouth?

[SpawnyWhippet]

You would have thought that as the cars carry some ballast, they could re-engineer the most un-reliable parts utilising some of the ballast weight?

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

Obviously, these are both alleged incidents (being careful here), come on, some of you must know more of these entertaining stories about CC?

Maybe a new thread?

[Rennen]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

When I saw this thread I was expecting a list of the legendary stunts Colin Chapman had pulled over the years to fool both his fellow competitors, and sometimes the scrutineers!

Surely, there's a story where he was told he needed a metal bulkhead between the driver & the engine. Not wanting to add too much weight, he made one out of paper, then painted it with aluminium paint!

And, isn't there another one where he baffled his competitors into thinking he was running special coolant in his racing cars due to it's purple colour? Apparently this was just a smoke screen, and the coolant was coloured with Ribena!

Obviously, these are both alleged incidents (being careful here), come on, some of you must know more of these entertaining stories about CC?

Maybe if another 'story' is true, and he's actually still alive and living in Brazil, he'll be a subscriber here himself, and tell us straight from the horses mouth?

I recall when the type 24 was a world beater he sold several cars to competitor teams and then beat them all again the following season with his revoloutionary type 25 which was the first to have an lightweight but stiffer aluminium monoque chassis tub, whereas the 24 had a heavy steel tube spaceframe.

CC worked on aircraft principles lightweight needs less power to haul it.

His type 23 sports racer had a 4 bolt rear hub...scrutineers at Le Mans threw it out as unsafe. CC had 5 stud hubs made overnite and shipped out, but for probable political reasons scrut's rejected them also...CC never went to Le Mans again! Nothing to to with the thread but if I told you Sato telemetry stuff v JBs I'd get my wrist slapped (again) Can I tell 'em about F3? ("No!") Doh!

[Born Racer]

Yet they're 2nd in the championship, ahead of 8 other teams

Yes, but if we are to go along with the speed vs reliability trade-off line of argument, suggesting that you have to lose one to maximise on the other one (which I don't believe is so clear-cut as that, some of Mclaren's failures don't appear to have stemmed from maximising speed leading to mechanical lack of sympathy towards the car), then Mclaren really should be ahead of 9 teams, because they have such a significant speed advantage that they could afford to go a tad slower.

[Dani Filth]

Originally Posted by Rennen

Nothing to to with the thread but if I told you Sato telemetry stuff v JBs I'd get my wrist slapped (again) Can I tell 'em about F3? ("No!") Doh!

you can PM them . i promise i won't make them public

Originally Posted by chillibowl

"IMHO, i think this is alot of smoke and mirrors. the mclaren car is not reliable and has not been for several years and to cover up some inherent problem they have they are putting out this noble philosophy that they would rather be fast than reliable. its a cool attitude to have but it puts too much emphasis on getting lucky to finish races."

chillibowl might have a point there .. after all they didn't actually raced the beat all MP4/18 and prefered the reliable MP4/17

[GolddustMini]

Originally Posted by John Turner

No, safety wasn't such an issue but it was Lotus that pushed the envelope on lightness to the extent that it added to those dangers that already existed for all drivers of the time.

i have a book about colin chapman and in it it has an article (from motor racing magazine, where colin explains why lighter cars are safer, lighter = less enegy to disapated in an acident etc. its a facinating book (Colin Chapman, Lotus Engineering (theories designs and applications) by Hugh Haskell)

whilst a number of his designs were flawed colin had some amazing designs and is responsible for more development in formula one designs than almost anyone else.

[John Turner]

I'm sure that is true but if you lighten certain components (eg suspension) to the extent that they break during the race and cause that accident, it's not much consolation to the driver that less energy has been generated by that lightness!

I accept Colin Chapman was a genius and contributed much to the development of F1, but as you say, he had his flaws.