Williams not looking like best of the rest
- This topic has 29 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Williams last years were understandably conservative with their approach to race weekends. Last years was a resurgence from a run of very bad form in previous years. I thought with a hungrier attitude they would have one a race or two last year.
With this first race at Albert Park Melbourne, they do seem to showing they right mentality of a team geared up to win races. The williams pit wall seem still conservative which cost them a podium today. There are no excuses this year as they have the car and drivers to be harrying the merc when they are not on form or at least keeping Ferrari in check. Today Ferrari was hungry and the Ferrari pit wall that is notorious for making dorgy calls got it spot on to take advantage of Williams not so good reading of the race when they brought Massa in early. Williams would need to improve on its strategic analysis and decision making during races or they set to beaten squarely by Ferrari by the end of the season.
With Bottas out due to a back problem, l would have thought this was an opportunity to give Susie Wolff a chance to race. I really do not understand why they would rather race with one car. This is an example of the defeatist mentality at Williams thay l am talking about. With so many cars dropping out due to reliability issues, Susie would have had a good chance of scoring some points for Williams today. She would easily have been faster than the force india cars.
I suppose, this decision actually tell us more than Williams being cautious. It hints at how confident the team are of their development driver. Which is disappointing as they would never really know unless they gave her a chance. I would really like to see a female driver in a formular one race and this race was a great opportunity for that to happen. Unfortunately Williams lacked the courage to give the F1 fans the chance to see this. Make you wonder if these female F1 driver are for publicity purposes. If teams are not going to race them when the opportunity like today arises they should not waste the slot and give it to those many young drivers struggling to find a drive like Van Der Gard. I personally think thes female F1 drives should be given a car to race when a glaring opportunity like today arises. If it turns out that they are not good enough then Williams shopuld get a better driver. But if they are, then they be given the opportunity to showcase their talent to help them improve their prospects for a permanent drive.With Bottas out due to a back problem, l would have thought this was an opportunity to give Susie Wolff a chance to race. I really do not understand why they would rather race with one car. This is an example of the defeatist mentality at Williams thay l am talking about.
A team is not permitted to enter a driver that has not engaged in a session for them during that weekend for the race. Or would you call adhering to the rules a defeatist attitude?
Nick l would call it poor preparation for all eventualities. William should have a driver on standby to ensure they have two cars in the race if one of their top two is unable to race for any reason. Which ever way you look at it, Williams has not ensure they take the most points possible this weekend. And don’t get me wrong, l am a Williams fan, not a happy one l must add.
Sauber with their two rookies are well deservedly 3rd because they had two cars on the grid. There were cheap points to be had this weekend and Williams missed out on obtaining the most from the opportunity. The right winning attitude, great preparation and determination to win was what l remember of Williams of old. I can’t see that at the moment.Nick l would call it poor preparation for all eventualities
Not what one’d call conservative and defeatist.
Williams weren’t conservative, they were stupid! Simple maths could show them Massa was going to come out in traffic, and I think Ferrari tend to be harder on the tyres, so they should’ve simply stayed out. That said, I think their performance should have been better and that Massa should have caught up with Vettel.
David, the defeatist aspect of Williams weekend is not having the fighting attitude to appreciate the potential for points. They have nothing to lose by letting their test driver have a go. At worst she would come 12th and last which is no different from not racing the 2nd car at all. At least they would have won the fans respect and appreciation for trying. Not trying when they have a capable driver available is defeatist in my opinion.
You are ignoring the fact that the rules did not permit Williams to put in another driver instead of Bottas, no matter how much they may have wanted to do so it is against the regulations. Its got nothing to do with a defeatist mentality.
There was no rules that prevented Williams from putting Susie Wolff in the car for the race. She took part in the weekend session and had a coming together with Felipe Nasr l recall during one of the free practise sessions. That make her qualified to drive during the race if permitted by the team. The FIA would not have prevented Susie from racing. Williams did not even attempted to clarify this fact with the FIA as far as l know. More so, Clare Williams has said quite clearly that Susie Wolff shall not be racing in malaysia if Bottas is unable to race at Sepang. This clearly a team decision. the interesting thing is that they may find a male driver with lesser experience of the car than Susie to race in Malaysia. And this would underline my point.
I think the claim by Williams is that Susie is the test driver and not the spare driver. That said, the team had two additional drivers available to them for the Australian GP, namely; Susie Wolff and Alex Lynn. The team does not have a spare driver, such a position has never existed in Williams in the last 5 years, as far as l know. Test drivers typically perform the function of the spare drivers as they have as much knowledge of the car as the main drivers. The interesting thing is they did not use any of their additional drivers to fill the vacant 2nd car and do not seem to be looking to do so in Malaysia if a similar scenario as Australia arises.
This is a situation that cannot go unnoticed. There is something amis with Williams and their support driver lineup. However way you look at it, it still remains that Williams are not prepared for eventualities where they do not have one of their main driver available on race day and this is reflected on the constructors championship leader board.I agree, Williams need to up their game strategically if they want to be competitive this year.
I thought getting Steve Nielson in was supposed to help with that?
I think its is too easy to make assumptions about the teams and how they ran their races. In hindsight maybe they should have pitted the same lap or one lap after Vettel but that is the beauty of the sport, it is about gambles and predictions at the pit wall, I don’t think there is any shame to be runner up to the might of Mercedes and a good strategy from Ferrari.
As for having a second car in the race, that would have been a breach of the rules as Bottas pulled out after qualifying.I think the rules would have allowed a replacement for Bottas to start from the pit lane as they did not partake in the qualifying sessions. More or less what would have happened if Manor Marussia were to wish to take part in the race after missing the quali sessions. The F1 organisers want as many cars on the grid as possible as do the fans.
Well Williams have to gamble smartly for the rest of the season or they shall finish behind Ferrari with a car better than the Ferrari at this stage. You have to bear in mind that Ferrari are going to throw alot of money and resources to developing the car during the season. One would expect them to make up their deficit to Williams and surpass them before we get to the european races. The 2015 Ferrari package; the chassis and drive unit seem to have more scope for development. There is more speed inherent in the Ferrari 2015 package. Hence Williams have to make hay now they have the advantage. They cannot afford to throw away opportunities like they did in Australia while taking on the might of Ferrari. This Ferrari team is quite a different team from the Ferrari of 2014. They energized by the arrival of Vettel and a new team boss [Arrivabene] and other new personel.There was no rules that prevented Williams from putting Susie Wolff in the car for the race. She took part in the weekend session and had a coming together with Felipe Nasr l recall during one of the free practise sessions.
You are mistaken a testing day in Barcelona for Free Practise in Melbourne.
Even if Williams had signed 3 reserve drivers, they would still not have been allowed to use them, as Bottas and Bottas alone drove his car for the Friday sessions, as you can read on this very website.
Friday sessions:
Wolff and Nasr incident:
Furthermore, most teams do not have or bring a driver that is race-ready to races, as recent times have shown it is unlikely for a driver to have to be replaced after FP1 in time for a replacement to be inside the regulations. De La Rosa was not signed with Sauber when he replaced Perez at Canada in 2011, for instance. You’ll find the position of test/reserve driver has been largely replaced with simulator driver, as that is a more productive position for both drivers and teams. Test/reserve drivers no longer exist in the same manner they did before the testing ban and putting a driver, no matter how closely aligned with the team, in the car with no preparation can stand to cost a lot more than a team could gain, especially from drivers who have no (recent) experience in racing F1 cars.
Mind you, the ‘Williams of old’ you are referring to put DC in a car largely unprepared and look what that got them for 1994. Mansell had to come back in, go out again, their season was a mess, with unlimited testing. Williams will also remember the times they had to replace Ralf Schumacher and Nick Heidfeld which did not go too well in the middle of the season. Going by my interpretation of your argument, they were prepared then, but the result was still a disappointing one. With less preparation and less experience from the available drivers, would one expect a finish?
Personally, I think you have done something I have seen many fans of teams who are not winning doing (even outside of F1); making up an argument that reasonably allows one to remain a fan, but also identifies why it isn’t going well. You’re entitled to do so, but I find it odd you’re ignoring a rule and arguments from other posters on here.
John Stiels, the rules do not allow driver changes once qualifying begins. It says in Article 19.1a of the Sporting Regulations that changes of drivers are allowed before the start of qualifying, because Massa and Bottas were the drivers for Williams in qualifying it means that only Massa and Bottas are allowed to start the race for Williams, not Susie Wolff or anybody else. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
Steady Robert, this is a banter not an argument. Nick l shall make time to investigate this further. I shall turn my attention to Malaysia as Australia is gone now. Why is Clare Williams saying Susie is not going to race in Malaysia if Bottas is still unable to race? If not Susie then who is likely to get the nod? Maybe they are going to race one car again at Malaysia.
Maybe Alex Lynn will get the nod to take over the 2nd car. The question is, does Williams have a capable driver to take over the 2nd car in Malaysia if Bottas is unable to drive? Clearly Clare Williams do not think Susie is up to the job, is Alex Lynn up to the job and by what criteria. Or are they going to bring in someone like Van Der Garde or Jean-Éric Vergne for one race? Running one car in Malaysia is not a smart option they know it and you know it.
My qualms is the obvious lack of confidence in their test driver which gives me cause to ask why have they not snapped up Jean-Éric Vergne who is clearly available. If opposite is the case, then l see no reason why they are not giving Susie Wolff at opportunity she has spent years preparing for.What, its banter to keep making the same argument, even when you’ve been conclusively proven wrong. Funny definition of banter. Your posts are full of so many holes and flaws in your logic.
The incident between Nasr and Susie Wolff happened nearly a month ago, and yet you think it happened this weekend…?
I also don’t know why you’re fixating on Susie Wolff. Both her and Lynn are test drivers, which is not the same as a reserve driver. Williams do not have a designated reserve driver this season. They will have to cross that bridge if they come to it, maybe bring in someone like Pascal Wehrlein if Bottas doesn’t make it. And anyway Susie Wolff is not good enough for F1, everyone knows her being given time in the car is a publicity stunt more than anything else. Just look at her results in DTM, she was absolutely nowhere. I’m not even sure the FIA would grant her a superlicence.
You then mention Jean-Eric Vergne but don’t seem to realise that Ferrari signed him as a test driver way back in December, so he is very unlikely to drive for Williams. Van der Garde? Have you been paying attention this weekend? He has his own problems to sort out with Sauber.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.