Transferring people to transfer success?

[Richard]

Often the individual components of teams don't achieve the same success outside the context of the original team, its not as simple as transplanting some people and expecting the same performance.

Lets not get too personal about Brawn, he had a very high profile role in the Ferrari team and did a good job of what was needed of him then. However, there is little rational evidence to assume that taking one person from a successful team will automatically lead to replication in a different environment.

Here's a useful article on the matter... money.cnn.com/2006/05/30/news/newsmakers/failures1_greatteams_fortune/index.htm

[munudeges]

However, there is little rational evidence to assume that taking one person from a successful team will automatically lead to replication in a different environment.

Red Bull would disagree there. The fact is that the cream always rises to the top wherever it goes, whether it be Gordon Murray, John Barnard, Mike Gascoyne or Adrian Newey. If you're any good there should always be a general correlation.

Like it or not Mercedes's current woes are a direct reflection on Brawn's abilities. No one with any serious experience of that kind of environment brings in three technical directors and gives them job titles to match and then turns around and says that the current Technical Director is concentrating on engines, of all things.

[wunderkind]

I just don't understand why John Barnard is held in such high regard by some of you.

His final cars(Ferrari's) were truly mediocre to be polite.

[Cam]

However, there is little rational evidence to assume that taking one person from a successful team will automatically lead to replication in a different environment.

Red Bull would disagree there. The fact is that the cream always rises to the top wherever it goes, whether it be Gordon Murray, John Barnard, Mike Gascoyne or Adrian Newey. If you're any good there should always be a general correlation.

Like it or not Mercedes's current woes are a direct reflection on Brawn's abilities. No one with any serious experience of that kind of environment brings in three technical directors and gives them job titles to match and then turns around and says that the current Technical Director is concentrating on engines, of all things.

No-one really knows what's happening in the background at Mercedes and it's importnat to keep that in mind when considering an individuals performance in a team. Red Bull may have given Newey an open docket without interference, Ross Brawn may have the complete opposite. Look at the reason Newey left McLaren - he simply wasn't allowed to fly, yet has flourished at Red Bull. Great people are only as good as they're allowed to be.

For all we know every great idea Ross has had in the last 3 years has been over-ruled. The fact is, none of us know.

[marcush.]

I just don't understand why John Barnard is held in such high regard by some of you.

His final cars(Ferrari's) were truly mediocre to be polite.

which one?

Each of his cars won races at Ferrari if I´m not mistaken -apart from 639 as that one was intended as test bed and never took part in races ..and the infamous 92 active car -which was not his design .
True to it his masterplan of british based R&D and initial manufacture of chassis components did not work out but believe it or not without Dennis and Barnard todays F€ormula 1 would not be what it is :

Full carbon monocoque
CarbonGearbox
Flexure Suspension joints
Semi automatic gearshift
Coke Bottle waisting of the Sidepods

are all Barnards inventions .....and there are a lot more .


On plus
He laid out concepted masterminded a lot of state of the art facilities and changed the ways how they work in formula 1 -I well remember how Briatore once said he just cannot afford to keep Barnard with his NASA programme approach of things....
look around and all teams work exactly like this .

[munudeges]

Red Bull may have given Newey an open docket without interference, Ross Brawn may have the complete opposite.

Ross Brawn is the team principal.

Look at the reason Newey left McLaren - he simply wasn't allowed to fly, yet has flourished at Red Bull.

He wasn't entirely unsuccessful at McLaren, despite not being able to get his own way a lot of the time.

The fact is, none of us know.

Claiming that none of us know is not a great excuse. The results are in front of us. Results over a lengthy period of time just don't lie.

[munudeges]

I just don't understand why John Barnard is held in such high regard by some of you.

With the greatest of respect, you don't understand very much.

[wunderkind]

I just don't understand why John Barnard is held in such high regard by some of you.

With the greatest of respect, you don't understand very much.

Sorry, but I still struggle to see how Barnard was ever the complete technical director who designed and engineered many championship-winning cars during his career.

Yes, you are correct that Barnard came up with crucial pieces of technologies that are de rigueur in F1 today. But does that mean he was the all-conquering designer/engineer like Chapman, Newey, and Byrne (I omitted Brawn to avoid controversy)? I think not.

[Richard]

However, there is little rational evidence to assume that taking one person from a successful team will automatically lead to replication in a different environment.

Red Bull would disagree there. The fact is that the cream always rises to the top wherever it goes, whether it be Gordon Murray, John Barnard, Mike Gascoyne or Adrian Newey. If you're any good there should always be a general correlation.

I said it didn't automatically lead to success.

I'm not sure Gascoyne can be considered in the same category as Newey, Barnard, or Muarry. We could add Byrne. So we have just 4 people in several decades of F1 who are able to replicate success. It also shows that the magic ingredient lies in a tiny handful of individuals. The other members of the highly successful team play a vital role (Horner, Brawn, Todt, Flavitore) but they are not the magic ingredient. Transplanting one of those key people does not lead to replication of the original team's success unless you transplant the one with the magic touch.

[Raptor22]

Todt was transplanted from Peugeot's LeMans campaign to Ferrari. He changed the way they work. Brawn merely slotted in and was fortunately to have a fst driver make his strategy calls work. Byrne, Todt and Schumacher are the consistent ingredients. Add Newey to that list.
John Barnard was chief Engineer at Project 4, Ron Dennis F2 team. He had poineered the use of Carbon Fibre along with Hercules Aerospace and Courtaulds in the UK. He snapped up a technology and put it on the map. He designed much of the MP4/2 himself along with a handfull of draughtsman (no CAD in those days).
When he joined Ferrari hemoved the tehcnical development centre to the UK because the facilities at MAranello were abysmal. He instigated an upgrade programme but worked out the UK till it the Maranello facilities met his approval. It tokk Todt to sort out the board and Monte before Baranrd got his way end of 1993. the fruits of those labours only materialised in time for the 1995 season but the driver never did get the best out of that package (Schumacher famously lapping it a full seconda lap faster tha either Berger or Alesi ahd ever taken it around the private track in Maranello.
Barnard is much better designer than he is given credit for.

[donskar]

Todt was transplanted from Peugeot's LeMans campaign to Ferrari. He changed the way they work. Brawn merely slotted in and was fortunately to have a fst driver make his strategy calls work. Byrne, Todt and Schumacher are the consistent ingredients. Add Newey to that list.
John Barnard was chief Engineer at Project 4, Ron Dennis F2 team. He had poineered the use of Carbon Fibre along with Hercules Aerospace and Courtaulds in the UK. He snapped up a technology and put it on the map. He designed much of the MP4/2 himself along with a handfull of draughtsman (no CAD in those days).
When he joined Ferrari hemoved the tehcnical development centre to the UK because the facilities at MAranello were abysmal. He instigated an upgrade programme but worked out the UK till it the Maranello facilities met his approval. It tokk Todt to sort out the board and Monte before Baranrd got his way end of 1993. the fruits of those labours only materialised in time for the 1995 season but the driver never did get the best out of that package (Schumacher famously lapping it a full seconda lap faster tha either Berger or Alesi ahd ever taken it around the private track in Maranello.
Barnard is much better designer than he is given credit for.

Mostly agree, but I think you are a little hard on Ross Brawn. We might add Dr Harvey Postlethwaite to the list of top designers. His untimely death came when he was at or near his peak of creativity.

[Raptor22]

The really innovative car he put on the grid was the tyrell 019. His Ferrari F188 won a race, Monza 1988 but only after the two McLarens faltered.

[marcush.]

The really innovative car he put on the grid was the tyrell 019. His Ferrari F188 won a race, Monza 1988 but only after the two McLarens faltered.

the Tyrrell was dr harvey postlethwaites work.
F188 was Gustav Brunners Design

Barnard was not much better educated than Brawn if i´m correct ...but hell he did change the face of formula 1 more than Newey did BY FAR.

[Raptor22]

Hmmm Brunner may have updated the car but it has its roots in the F1/86 and F1/87 cars which were under Postlethwaite's charge. If I recall he left Ferrari in 1987 and was replaced by John Barnard who designed the 639/640/641/642 Ferrari's

[marcush.]

Hmmm Brunner may have updated the car but it has its roots in the F1/86 and F1/87 cars which were under Postlethwaite's charge. If I recall he left Ferrari in 1987 and was replaced by John Barnard who designed the 639/640/641/642 Ferrari's

Postlethwaite was indeed followed up by Brunner ,who designed the 87car which was basically developped into 88s machine when Barnard joined in .
Brunner took the very design concept to Rial when he left after Barnard had put him on the sidelines..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_F1/87

Brunner was already with RIAL being responsible for the Blue Ferrari Rial ARC 001 in 1988.....His personal (!) Draughtsman Frison
had switched to Rial earlier starting the design of the car early enough to be ready for the 88 Season ...but the base of the F1/88 is clearly Brunners brainchild.the ARC is basically an exact copy of the 187 from tank forwards.

Brunner is actually the inventor of the femaale molding process for carbon fibre tubs -at ATS - his clever thinking was to build the tub without a floor (so you can layup the prepreg and bond the floor section to the upper half .

Barnard did not follow up these principles with his own work -639 etc - 641 was Scalabroni/Nichols , 642 was Migeot/Nichols ,No ?
Clearly these cars based on Barnards concept though.