We have already built the best F1 engine and so our job is 90% done.

[neilap]

Did I miss someting here. Don't their motros still blow up as opposed to the perfect year that Ferrari had (for MS anyway). Also, isn't it rumored that the Toyota was just about as powerful? They did not have as many blow-ups did they? http://www.planet-f1.com/Home/story_10358.shtml Again, I have more reason to believe BMW and Williams have reached their peak. So Mclaren will be the only "team" that will post a challenge for Ferrari. I hope for the sake of the sport this is not true. But BMW is becoming a bit annoying.

[BootsOntheSide]

I expect BMW to strike out on their own in 2005, which could be the end of Williams as a racing force. The days of private teams may be coming to an end. BMW were definately stronger than Williams last year, as witnessed by their form at power circuits like Monza. Gerhard Berger has said that the challenge of overseeing BMW building its own chassis would tempt him to stay on, so maybe that's playing in their minds.

However, I think it would be a mistake from a raicng perspective. The first few cars will be unlikely to challenge at the front, and that makes poor publicity for BMW as an organisation. The ideal would be to completely buy out Williams, Sam Michael and maybe Patrick Head included, but would Frank sell, even as he approaches 60?

[Glen]

The idea that because a car does better at power circuits than "handling" ones the chassis must be crappy and the engine good is not necessarily true - what it means is that the chassis is good for the circuit as well as the engine. It still takes phenomenal quality in the chassis and aerodynamics to get a decent result in F1 - the chassis must be good on the brakes, turning in and over the kerbs for example.

If the Williams was such a poor slow circuit car, how did JPM get Monaco pole?

[Sodemo]

I think its partly the chassis and partly the tyres, you don't get 7 poles with a **** chassis.
The tyres need improving a bit, and so does the chassis, I think a lot of bad things have been said about the Williams chassis which are unfounded.

[Glen]

Another point - I would strongly dispute the assertion that the '02 BMW was the best engine - championship points are awarded at the end of the races, nothing else counts.

The Ferrari was clearly the better engine, with (I think) only one failure all year (and only one the previos year too).

Judged by these criteria Williams could be fully justified in defending themselves vs BMW - the rest of the car was more reliable than the engine.

[Damon]

see post on "report card for Williams"...

[Glen]

Here's a choice quote from further down the story - from a "pitlane source", a riposte to Berger's arrogant posturing
"Toyota at least had a track record of building sportscars before they entered F1. BMW's Le Mans car was built by Williams. If BMW want to enter the sport and compete against Minardi, building their own car would be the best way posible."

Couldn't agree more. If BMW do the dirty on Williams I would be very pleased to see them languishing at the bottom of the rankings for years. Toyota are living proof that a phenomenal racing heritage and massive resources aren't nealry enough to compete in F1 today. Toyota even have the engine side sorted out... and are still no-where.

Williams are a great team and it is difficult to see how their result for 2002 could have been bettered. A little better on the tyre-wear, a little sharper on the car set-up (esp for the inexperienced JPM, who frequently suffered with a car that he didn't ful understand)... but not even McLaren could do anyting about Ferrari in 2002.

[Gt_R]

The Ferrari is definitely the OVERALL best engine last year. It is a wonderful package.

But the BMW is definitely right up there with the Ferrari. Sure, it isn't as good a package, but it has many edge over the Ferrari.

And Williams chassis last year is NOT a bad one. The problem is that it is conservative and hence, not as good as the radical Ferrari. If compared to the rest of the pack, bar Mclaren and Ferrari, Williams do stand up well.

As for why the Williams could have done such wonderful Quals tricks, yet falter in races... i think the pattern lies with how Ferrari, and Mclaren, perform too.

Williams is believed to use its rubber harder, hence, in quals where there is only 3 laps, the car can get the performance out of the tyres quicker. However, the same tyres used in the race would be quick to be used up. Mclaren on the other hand is easy on the tyres, hence they have problems in extracting as much performance from the tyres as Williams in quals. However, in races, the car can keep the tyres competitive for a longer time, hence explaining Mclaren's strong race pace compared to WIlliams especially mid-way through races.

[TheGreatJuan]

So Berger is planning to beat Schumi as a real team builder. Good luck to him. I guess he is tired of the crancky Head that keeps on talking rather than working on that piece of **** of chassis.

[Glen]

How do you reckon Williams got to second place in the WCC with this **** chassis? Give us the benefit of your special breed of F1 wisdom. Remember - you've already clearly stated that driver skill makes no difference...

I very much look forward to your answer, oh confused one.

[TheGreatJuan]

Originally posted by Glen
How do you reckon Williams got to second place in the WCC with this **** chassis? Give us the benefit of your special breed of F1 wisdom. Remember - you've already clearly stated that driver skill makes no difference...

I very much look forward to your answer, oh confused one.

BMW. You have to blind not to see it. BMW people are not happy and you must have heard that they could drop Williams. Head blamed Willis as an excuse for the bad chassis. What else do you need?

[Wrex]

I'm not sure your understanding us humans GreatJuan. Regardless of how powerful the BMW engine is, how is it possible to end up 2nd in the WCC if the chassis is useless? It's not the Ferrari equal at all, but useless?

Do you remember prost and Sauber both having the engine from the previous years WCC champions? How do you explain that?

It may pay you need to think before typing TGJ, your making yourself look very niave.

[james_williams]

Its not that mclaren or williams are that bad, its just Ferrari are so good!

[TheGreatJuan]

Originally posted by Wrex
Do you remember prost and Sauber both having the engine from the previous years WCC champions? How do you explain that?

Talk about naive. You know they did not give them their illegal stuff. You know those two team don't have 1/10 of the Ferrari megabudget.

[JonesF1]

Originally posted by james_williams
Its not that mclaren or williams are that bad, its just Ferrari are so good!

Actually McLaren was bad this year. Thats why Williams ran away with 2nd.

[Wrex]

*claps hands*

OK TGJ, you've got it all worked out

[JonesF1]

Originally posted by TheGreatJuan
Talk about naive. You know they did not give them their illegal stuff. You know those two team don't have 1/10 of the Ferrari megabudget.

Well, maybe that (shrugs) and the fact that all costumer engines are detuned.

[Glen]

TGJ

Don't stop, whatever you do - you're the funniest thing on here for ages. Provided you don't mind all and sundry having a good laugh at your expense, please carry on as you are. Don't learn anything about F1, whatever you do - that would spoil it.

[TheGreatJuan]

Originally posted by Glen
TGJ

Don't stop, whatever you do - you're the funniest thing on here for ages. Provided you don't mind all and sundry having a good laugh at your expense, please carry on as you are. Don't learn anything about F1, whatever you do - that would spoil it.

Are you really laughing? Sounds more like Whining

[Glen]

No, I'm definately laughing. The deeper you dig yourself, the funnier it gets.

[ASCII Man]