Colin Kolles interview about 2010 season

[FullMetalJack]

http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews/2010/12/11607.html

The ridiculous thing he said was that inexperienced drivers were the reason they didn't finish 10th. Yeah, i'm sure that was it.

[watka]

This is old news, Kolles has been blaming the drivers since the end of the season. Not that experienced drivers would have done much because they couldn't exactly develop the car anyway.

[Peter]

Well, yes they could. They could give feedback and share their previous experiences, and the team can translate their words into what they can do to improve their car. Rookies are like empty notebooks, experienced drivers would be more like big textbooks. Which will help you more? I can guarantee you that Lotus wouldn't have gotten 10th if they had 2 rookies. Lotus knew that experienced drivers are the way to go in a 1st season, and they had the money to do so, so they did.

[TomWazzleshaw]

Well, yes they could. They could give feedback and share their previous experiences, and the team can translate their words into what they can do to improve their car. Rookies are like empty notebooks, experienced drivers would be more like big textbooks. Which will help you more? I can guarantee you that Lotus wouldn't have gotten 10th if they had 2 rookies. Lotus knew that experienced drivers are the way to go in a 1st season, and they had the money to do so, so they did.

All the experience in the world isn't going to help you if you don't know how the bloody car works to begin with (Just ask Toyota)

[BigG80]

Rookies are like empty notebooks,

I disagree with this because yes, the drivers may have been F1 rookies but they are still professional racing drivers who have been plying their trade for a large number of years prior to F1.

However I do agree with you that experienced drivers are best for a first season in F1 for a team, I just don't feel that HRT's drivers are to blame for the team not getting 10th. It's definitely more to do with them running an undeveloped child's toy rather than a Formula 1 car.

[Phoenix]

I don't know what to make of Colin Kolles' statement that they could've been 10th in the Constructors Championship with more experienced drivers. True, their input would've been of some value and they would've extracted more out of the chassis, but there were some serious drawbacks: HRT cut their ties to Dallara, who made the chassis, and quite unwisely, already at the beginning of the season, the money was in short supply and the outfit was as a whole pretty amateurish, not only in the driver lineup. So, my thought is that they should be really happy to be ahead of Virgin in the standings.

[mario]

I don't know what to make of Colin Kolles' statement that they could've been 10th in the Constructors Championship with more experienced drivers. True, their input would've been of some value and they would've extracted more out of the chassis, but there were some serious drawbacks: HRT cut their ties to Dallara, who made the chassis, and quite unwisely, already at the beginning of the season, the money was in short supply and the outfit was as a whole pretty amateurish, not only in the driver lineup. So, my thought is that they should be really happy to be ahead of Virgin in the standings.

I agree that in many ways, HRT are extremely lucky to be where they are, seeing how they almost didn't make it in the first place. They also had the benefit of being more likely to make it to the end of the race, surprisingly, which was probably their biggest advantage over the other new teams.

Given that normally reliability improves as the season progresses, a team at the back is most likely to make up places in the first few races, when the big teams are more likely to hit trouble. After all, HRT's best place occurred at the second race of the season, in Australia, which is famous for its high attrition rate. Now, in the first four races, Virgin Racing only saw the flag once, whilst Lotus Racing failed to finish four times (although Trulli was still classified in Bahrain as he got to three laps from the end before his hydraulics gave way).
However, HRT managed to get to the end of the race five times (and recorded the first double finish of the new teams, in Malaysia and China), and that was a big advantage at a time when there were several races where multiple drivers dropped out (Australia and China). Given that several of those races were somewhat difficult (mixed conditions in China and Australia), having a more experienced driver who can correctly judge and access the conditions will help you get to the end. However, it also helps if you're still running - despite having rookie drivers, the fact that they were able to keep going when others failed was their saving grace.
An experienced driver might make you more likely to get to the end of the race, but he can't magically make a car repair itself out on track if it breaks down, nor can he create new parts by himself to make the car faster.

[FullMetalJack]

Dear Colin Kolles, be extremely grateful for finishing ahead of Virgin, considering they had one of the best drivers on the grid.

[watka]

I don't know what to make of Colin Kolles' statement that they could've been 10th in the Constructors Championship with more experienced drivers. True, their input would've been of some value and they would've extracted more out of the chassis, but there were some serious drawbacks: HRT cut their ties to Dallara, who made the chassis, and quite unwisely, already at the beginning of the season, the money was in short supply and the outfit was as a whole pretty amateurish, not only in the driver lineup. So, my thought is that they should be really happy to be ahead of Virgin in the standings.

I agree that in many ways, HRT are extremely lucky to be where they are, seeing how they almost didn't make it in the first place. They also had the benefit of being more likely to make it to the end of the race, surprisingly, which was probably their biggest advantage over the other new teams.

Given that normally reliability improves as the season progresses, a team at the back is most likely to make up places in the first few races, when the big teams are more likely to hit trouble. After all, HRT's best place occurred at the second race of the season, in Australia, which is famous for its high attrition rate. Now, in the first four races, Virgin Racing only saw the flag once, whilst Lotus Racing failed to finish four times (although Trulli was still classified in Bahrain as he got to three laps from the end before his hydraulics gave way).
However, HRT managed to get to the end of the race five times (and recorded the first double finish of the new teams, in Malaysia and China), and that was a big advantage at a time when there were several races where multiple drivers dropped out (Australia and China). Given that several of those races were somewhat difficult (mixed conditions in China and Australia), having a more experienced driver who can correctly judge and access the conditions will help you get to the end. However, it also helps if you're still running - despite having rookie drivers, the fact that they were able to keep going when others failed was their saving grace.
An experienced driver might make you more likely to get to the end of the race, but he can't magically make a car repair itself out on track if it breaks down, nor can he create new parts by himself to make the car faster.

On this logic, they should have put Klien and someone else fast (Sato?!?) in the cars for the first few races, bagged the 12th/13th placed finishes, and then chucked them out for Senna and Yamamoto!

[Aerospeed]

Well, yes they could. They could give feedback and share their previous experiences, and the team can translate their words into what they can do to improve their car. Rookies are like empty notebooks, experienced drivers would be more like big textbooks. Which will help you more? I can guarantee you that Lotus wouldn't have gotten 10th if they had 2 rookies. Lotus knew that experienced drivers are the way to go in a 1st season, and they had the money to do so, so they did.

Jacques Villeneuve?
Lewis Hamilton?
Emerson Fittipaldi?
Jackie Stewart?
Mark Webber?
Clay Regazzoni?
Even Phil Hill perhaps?

EDIT: Oh, and don't forget Michael Schumacher.

[shinji]

Well, yes they could. They could give feedback and share their previous experiences, and the team can translate their words into what they can do to improve their car. Rookies are like empty notebooks, experienced drivers would be more like big textbooks. Which will help you more? I can guarantee you that Lotus wouldn't have gotten 10th if they had 2 rookies. Lotus knew that experienced drivers are the way to go in a 1st season, and they had the money to do so, so they did.

Jacques Villeneuve?
Lewis Hamilton?
Emerson Fittipaldi?
Jackie Stewart?
Mark Webber?
Clay Regazzoni?
Even Phil Hill perhaps?

EDIT: Oh, and don't forget Michael Schumacher.

6 World Champions and a two near misses are hardly a representative cross-section of rookies.

[Myrvold]

And I think he meant for a team in it's first year. Which of those drivers drove for a brand new team in theire first season?

[TomWazzleshaw]

And I think he meant for a team in it's first year. Which of those drivers drove for a brand new team in theire first season?

Technically speaking Schumacher did.

[Peter]

And I think he meant for a team in it's first year. Which of those drivers drove for a brand new team in theire first season?

Technically speaking Schumacher did.

Only about 100 metres.

[TomWazzleshaw]

And I think he meant for a team in it's first year. Which of those drivers drove for a brand new team in theire first season?

Technically speaking Schumacher did.

Only about 100 metres.

It was his own damn fault for burning out the clutch

[Irisado]

I don't know what to make of Colin Kolles' statement that they could've been 10th in the Constructors Championship with more experienced drivers. True, their input would've been of some value and they would've extracted more out of the chassis, but there were some serious drawbacks: HRT cut their ties to Dallara, who made the chassis, and quite unwisely, already at the beginning of the season, the money was in short supply and the outfit was as a whole pretty amateurish, not only in the driver lineup. So, my thought is that they should be really happy to be ahead of Virgin in the standings.

It's hardly amateurish compared to some teams that we have seen down the years. If you want to talk about amateurs, then I think that you need to start discussing Andrea Moda and Life, who were far worse than any contemporary team could ever be.

Hispania had a better season than I expected, particularly in terms of reliability, which I thought would be of BAR 1999 standard, in view of their lack of preparation. Colin Kolles confuses me as a team boss. He often blames drivers for poor performances, yet he has overseen some pretty indifferent cars, so I think that he needs to put his own house in order before slating them too much. Chandhok, Senna and particularly Klien, all did well enough with the equipment at their disposal, and even Yamamoto didn't disgrace himself, and didn't make many errors. The car was never going to be that fast, and so to finish ahead of Virgin, who had a much better car, but paid the price for poor reliability in the first half of the season, was actually a massive achievement. Kolles should be focusing on that, and on how to improve the 2011 car instead of complaining about his drivers.

[Aerospeed]

Well, yes they could. They could give feedback and share their previous experiences, and the team can translate their words into what they can do to improve their car. Rookies are like empty notebooks, experienced drivers would be more like big textbooks. Which will help you more? I can guarantee you that Lotus wouldn't have gotten 10th if they had 2 rookies. Lotus knew that experienced drivers are the way to go in a 1st season, and they had the money to do so, so they did.

Jacques Villeneuve?
Lewis Hamilton?
Emerson Fittipaldi?
Jackie Stewart?
Mark Webber?
Clay Regazzoni?
Even Phil Hill perhaps?

EDIT: Oh, and don't forget Michael Schumacher.

6 World Champions and a two near misses are hardly a representative cross-section of rookies.

So what? That doesn't mean Chandhok could one day win the world championship... you never know...

[Ferrim]

Technically speaking Schumacher did.

Only about 100 metres.

It was his own damn fault for burning out the clutch

And maybe it costed him the race win. But let's go back on thread

[Phoenix]

I don't know what to make of Colin Kolles' statement that they could've been 10th in the Constructors Championship with more experienced drivers. True, their input would've been of some value and they would've extracted more out of the chassis, but there were some serious drawbacks: HRT cut their ties to Dallara, who made the chassis, and quite unwisely, already at the beginning of the season, the money was in short supply and the outfit was as a whole pretty amateurish, not only in the driver lineup. So, my thought is that they should be really happy to be ahead of Virgin in the standings.

It's hardly amateurish compared to some teams that we have seen down the years. If you want to talk about amateurs, then I think that you need to start discussing Andrea Moda and Life, who were far worse than any contemporary team could ever be.

Hispania had a better season than I expected, particularly in terms of reliability, which I thought would be of BAR 1999 standard, in view of their lack of preparation. Colin Kolles confuses me as a team boss. He often blames drivers for poor performances, yet he has overseen some pretty indifferent cars, so I think that he needs to put his own house in order before slating them too much. Chandhok, Senna and particularly Klien, all did well enough with the equipment at their disposal, and even Yamamoto didn't disgrace himself, and didn't make many errors. The car was never going to be that fast, and so to finish ahead of Virgin, who had a much better car, but paid the price for poor reliability in the first half of the season, was actually a massive achievement. Kolles should be focusing on that, and on how to improve the 2011 car instead of complaining about his drivers.

But this is 2010, not the 80s and 90s, when every man with his dog could form an F1 team from scratch. So, considering their limited funding, the fact they missed all pre-season testing and were quite lucky to be in Bahrain, some of their silly mistakes (like sending Sakon Yamamoto out with a tyre warmer), that the car had virtually no development all season and they had to rely on pay driver Yamamoto, as well as being usually a second slower than Virgin, yes, they were pretty amateurish for 21st century standards. Only reliability saved them.