Super Nowhere performance!

The Scrutineer · 12 Jul 2004, 12:35 (Ref:1034103)

What has happened to the once dominant Super Nova?Freisacher was
nowhere all season but put him back in a Coloni and suddenly he's on the podium and scoring points!Whilst Van Hoydonk has done nothing yet!Maybe the loss of the Petrobras/DBA sister team engineering information is holding them back?

BootsOntheSide · 12 Jul 2004, 13:31 (Ref:1034158)

That's got to be part of it, because Freisacher and van der Merwe was a good lineup on paper, and Van Hooydonk isn't too bad. Other teams have had more investment as a whole, and maybe Alan has struggled to adapt to F3000 cars which don't suit everyone (plenty of drivers have struggled at this levle but done well in F1)

sceptic · 12 Jul 2004, 18:55 (Ref:1034542)

I think it is simple really:

Not all the chassis in F3000 are equal. SuperNova had a good one when everyone was using the T96. They had a good one with the T99.

But their B2/50s aren't as good as the rest of the field. The only person to get anthing like decent results out of them was Bourdais.

Mr Jinxx · 12 Jul 2004, 19:16 (Ref:1034569)

How do you mean unequal chassis, sceptic? Which bits can/do vary sufficiently such that they would give an advantage? (and where can I get some)

Kicking-back · 12 Jul 2004, 20:49 (Ref:1034667)

The chassis are identical.

SuperNova won the title in 2002 with the current chassis.

It's down to drivers.

Mr Jinxx · 12 Jul 2004, 21:36 (Ref:1034712)

Drivers and, maybe more importantly, team set-ups

Kicking-back · 12 Jul 2004, 21:41 (Ref:1034718)

Indeed.

The performance of BCN from last year to this shows that.

Mr Jinxx · 12 Jul 2004, 22:04 (Ref:1034745)

I'm still intrigued by this idea of team's set-up abilities and how this reflects on the driver. It's so difficult to tell.

Compare Jamie Green and Lewis Hamilton in Euro F3.

Is Lewis rubbish?

Can he not get to grips with new circuits?

Are Manor (who have won Frenault and British F3, so have certainly got the engineering know-how) rubbish?

How can you possibly compare a driver except against his team mate, tempered with other factors such as experience, money, etc?

It's so easy to draw your own conclusions about a driver just from results, when results come from so many different factors, and it's so difficult to weight the importance of each of these factors. I'm increasingly of the view that the team's experience/setups are the most important factor. These differences can be huge.

There are differences in drivers, sure, but I think the drivers are much more evenly matched than the teams, the higher up the ladder you go.

Kicking-back · 12 Jul 2004, 22:07 (Ref:1034751)

Great analysis as ever, Mr Jinxx.

I think the Manor/Lewis situation comes from them being less experienced in the series for the team and the category for the driver - but it's getting better for them all the time.

Mr Jinxx · 12 Jul 2004, 22:16 (Ref:1034763)

That's primarily what leads me to that conclusion, K-B. Lewis is a very good driver, Manor are a very good team and engineer a 1st class F3 car; they know each other, he is a Mercedes blue-eyed boy, and they use Mercedes engines like Jamie, so why isn't he performing as you might expect?

It has to be circuit/set-up knowledge by the team.

Which begs the question, how did Manor win BF3 in their first year?

The Scrutineer · 13 Jul 2004, 07:42 (Ref:1034993)

Super Nova did win with this chassis but lets not forget that was the year when Enge got thrown out for failing a drugs test!Otherwise
we would have witnessed another Arden drivers championship.After 2002
Bordais chief engineer went to Arden and has been there ever since.
It would seem that with a one make formula you need a reasonable setup but the most important factor is the driver and how he works
with the team.

Kicking-back · 13 Jul 2004, 09:13 (Ref:1035074)

Manor won BF3 in their first year in a season when circuit knowledge wasn't an issue for them, and everyone was starting with a new generation of car, too.

Super Tourer · 13 Jul 2004, 09:53 (Ref:1035102)

Quote:

Originally posted by Kicking-back
Manor won BF3 in their first year in a season when circuit knowledge wasn't an issue for them, and everyone was starting with a new generation of car, too.

Quite, plus I think they came in with a fresh approach that worked and caught some of the established teams on the hop.

If you maintain your infrastructure, you don't 'forget' how to engineer a car, in the same way the very quick drivers don't suddenly get slower overnight- so it has to be outside factors like lack of circuit knowledge and experience of the environment you are competing in, as you say.

Reved Up · 15 Jul 2004, 20:09 (Ref:1037578)

Super Nova has two problems and one cause. The team has no money and no leader. From what I hear David Sears is hardly ever there and is certainly not bringing home the bacon in terms of sponsorship. How can the team be expected to perform in these circumstances. A bit less time in China Whites and a bit more hard work would bring the team back to where they were.

Russfeld · 16 Jul 2004, 07:37 (Ref:1037861)

But is it setups? I think its more drivers in these type of series. Look at the speed of Kirkaldy testing the AKA car in Renaults.

The Scrutineer · 16 Jul 2004, 07:51 (Ref:1037874)

Super Nova is definatly a rudderless ship!But I still think there is a problem in the engineering department.Freisacher claims the Coloni
car is mutch more predictable on the brakes and this makes him feel
more confident as his recent results show.It would appear that without access to the DBA set-up that Super Nova are stuck with a poor set-up.

JakeC · 16 Jul 2004, 09:54 (Ref:1037956)

Scrutineer,

Super Nova never had any Petrobras engineering information. Years ago (before Petrobras came in) the two teams communicated, but once DBA joined with Williams and Super Nova joined with Benetton all communication was ended because of confidentiality agreements.

It should be remembered that when both teams ran the new Lola in 2002 Super Nova had 6 poles and 3 wins while Petrobras didn't win any...

Apollo13 · 16 Jul 2004, 18:10 (Ref:1038420)

Jake C,
That is a very good point but what has happened since 2002?
They did'nt set the paddock alight last year and this
season they are a shadow of their former selves!Maybe they are too set in there ways?
Hopefully they will have a better run at Hockenhiem but it
I would not want to bet on it.

BootsOntheSide · 16 Jul 2004, 18:32 (Ref:1038443)

Welcome Jake and Apollo.

Some interesting thoughts here. I think the loss of Bourdais' former chief engineer is the big problem. Maybe they're saving moeny and concentrating on trying to get into F1 by 2006, or at least getting a head start on would-be GP2 rivals - I suspect van der Merwe would be in the team for that.

sceptic · 16 Jul 2004, 22:31 (Ref:1038647)

Let's look at some data:
In 2002 at Barcelona, Bourdais qualified on pole with a 1:32.779
This year in the same chassis vd Merwe set a time of 1:32.794

But Toccacelo did 1:33.3 in 2002 and 1:32.3 this year.

Monaco 2002, Bourdais on pole with a 1:28.5; Toccacelo also 1:28.5
Monaco 2004, vd Merwe 1:27.3; Toccacelo 1:25.8

These two sets of times seem to show that other teams are getting faster, and SuperNova are standing still.

But look at more data from the two seasons, and you see that these are actually exceptions, because the general trend is that F3000 lap times are getting longer.

Nurburgring 2002: 1:46.3; 2004: 1:47.7
Silverstone 2002: 1:36.5; 2004: 1:36.9
Magny Cours 2002: 1:25.3; 2004: 1:30.2
-Imola can't be compared because it was wet in 2002.

Conrod · 16 Jul 2004, 23:25 (Ref:1038686)

Quote:

Originally posted by sceptic
Let's look at some data:
In 2002 at Barcelona, Bourdais qualified on pole with a 1:32.779
This year in the same chassis vd Merwe set a time of 1:32.794

But Toccacelo did 1:33.3 in 2002 and 1:32.3 this year.

Monaco 2002, Bourdais on pole with a 1:28.5; Toccacelo also 1:28.5
Monaco 2004, vd Merwe 1:27.3; Toccacelo 1:25.8

I think you'll find that the configuration of both these circuits has changed since 2002

sceptic · 17 Jul 2004, 22:14 (Ref:1039280)

Which was partly my point about the cars getting slower - I forgot to write it down, but the lap times are faster at these circuits only because the lap is different.

Look at Barcelona data for 2003 and you'll see higher times than 2002.

The question is, why?

Kicking-back · 17 Jul 2004, 22:38 (Ref:1039301)

Tyres.

Conrod · 17 Jul 2004, 22:52 (Ref:1039307)

Quote:

Originally posted by sceptic
The question is, why?

It's actually because the drivers now have a free practice and not two qualifying sessions. If you look at the free practice times from this year, they are always quicker than the qualifying times because of the extra grip from the F1 rubber that is still on the circuit at the time. In previous years the grid was almost always decided in the first few laps of the 1st qualifying session, whilst the F1 rubber was still down.