Everyone is talking about JV but i would look at Matt Harman and Pat Fry design philosophy.
JV:
"...There are thousands and thousands of small details that need to be gotten right, and we haven't done it; it's as simple as that. What people see from the outside is that it's because we lost Barcelona, but there are many more details behind it,.."
"...There are a number of things we've pushed to the breaking point, and as a result, it will take us some time to recover. We have a very aggressive program for the next six months to achieve this, but it's not a matter of a week..."
The communication here is very similar to alpine 24. Harman was TD, Pat Fry had already left, but the strategy looked similar : push a new chassis as far as possible, use the same chassis to develop on top on 24 and 25, in the hope to get an edge and free ressources for 26. This turned out to be catastrophic stratergy for alpine, but maybe it will work for williams this time.
Some quote from alpine 24 early season :
Bruno famin then TP :
We had to redo some tests, some homologations tests,” he said. “But I think it’s just the normal process.”
“If you pass all the tests the first time, it means that you have not been ambitious enough. So, let’s see what will be the final result, but the fact of having to redo some tests is not at all a criticism.”
“I think we will need a lot of resources to start working on the ’26 project quite early in the season, and the 2025 car might be only a mild evolution of the ’24 one.
“It was important to make a big step into 2024. We will see how fast is that.
“There are a lot of new things, and we don’t know absolutely where we are going to be on the grid. What will be important is our ability to develop the car during the season.”
Matt Harman, then TD of alpine :
We have pushed some elements to the limit and, in some cases, beyond that,”
"By applying these changes, we are giving ourselves much wider scope to add performance across the next two seasons even if there has been some compromise on reaching certain targets,
The williams technical leadership of 26 is basically the alpine of 24. And my take on this is that they prefer to take some gamble, push the boundaries far first and develop/refine it later. It seems they are not super keen on stopping in time to hit a deadline
ME4ME wrote: ↑20 Feb 2026, 23:01
It's not all about one person but I wonder if Vowles made the same mistake Seidl made at Audi and focused too far into the future and failed to actually improve day to day.
It's possible technically they aim to high and drown, hitting deadlines is also important part of project management.
This is where i would stop the comparaison, williams is in a much better position than alpine big mess of 24. And to Pat Fry credit, it did work in alpine 22/23, where what they called their "modular" chassis allowed them to sustain a pretty big development rate. They were proud about it, and with good reason.
But personally i reserve jugement of how good williams is in those regs to after the first third of the Season when they have had times to refine the concept.
Pat fry, on joining williams.
“I look back at the first three years I was there, and we improved Enstone dramatically,” Fry said. “Year on year, we built a better car -- if you put the three cars next to each other, each one was a massive step. Credit for everyone there; the various teams were collaborating a huge amount better. I think everyone there should be proud of what we achieved in those three years.
“I guess I'd gone back there with that, ‘Go back to the place you started your career and try and rebuild it’ and I think we did really well. From a distant fifth, were a solid fourth.
“But I didn't feel there was the enthusiasm or the drive to move forward beyond fourth. And I decided that from the start of March that really I want to be pushing things forward. I don't just want to sit there and not be able to do things. So for me, that was time to stop and move on, really.
“So it's one of those things -- I think as a company they almost weren't set up to push hard enough. You can say you want to be first, but the difference between saying it and achieving it is monumental, isn't it?”
“James had been talking to me for a little while, and it wasn’t until another couple of months after that, that I decided to come here," he said. "But I guess the thing that excites me about this opportunity is the board is fully on board with what it's going to take to move this place forward. They're willing to invest what it takes and support us in building a team.
“And again, it's a nice thing isn't it, to rebuild an old British icon. It's a bit like my romantic view of going back to Benetton to rebuild them, really. So it's another exciting prospect. But as I say, James is pushing hard to try and improve this place. The board is fully behind him, moving the place forward, and that's the thing that excites me. We're not going to be limited in what we can achieve. We're just going to do the best we can in the time and move things forward.”
Is there such a thing as trying too hard, beyond what is realistic ? Possibly. Romantic views have the tendency to clash with hard deadlines.
