Toyota TF110

[Robin]

If HRT's plan goes through they should put Chandock and Senna in this thing, anything is better than what they currently have!

I wish Toyota had held on for one more season, the reason, Kobayashi... I feel his talent is wasted at Sauber with an underperforming car.

Robin.

 

[Ingram]

Sorry Ardius, there were a few things I was a little vague about before that I should clarify. I'll get this one out of the way first...

Ralf, Panis, Trulli, Salo all performed better in other teams. Even Zonta did.

I should have been more clear that I was focusing on the performance of their car last year, the previous years less so. I know there were some years where the car was below-par, so the point I am trying to make only really applies to the 2009 season.

No, you have got it the wrong way around. Trulli and Kobayashi are not performing as well this year because they are in unreliable and slower cars (interesting you avoid Glock).

I didn't avoid Glock, I didn't mention him because I chose instead to draw comparisons between the Lotus drivers. Due to the fact they have both had star team mates in the past, it is easier to draw reference from Trulli than it is from Glock. As you mention it, Glock scored a similar number of points to Trulli in 2009 so I would imagine that he probably posseses a similar amount of talent. In other words, there are a number of drivers on the grid who could have quite possibly out-performed Trulli, or Glock, in the Toyota. Also, I wouldn't say Trulli has been underperforming this year at all, I always believed that he and Kovalainen would be closely matched.

Kobayashi has suffered a terribly unreliable car but when it has worked, he has qualified and finished ahead of his teammate. He hasn't got that Sauber into Q3 3 times without some skill.

Kobayashi has hardly stood head and shoulders above De La Rosa, a man signed by Sauber for his excellent development skills rather than blinding pace. The Sauber is unreliable, but it is not fundamentally a bad car. As the midfield is so closely matched, I believe that the Sauber does have the potential to make it into Q3, and Kobayashi has managed this. Had Kubica not moved on, and assuming the Sauber wasn't as unreliable, I personally believe that he would have been capable of collecting a similar points haul this year as he has currently scored for Renault.

I agree that Toyota never had a star driver, but they did have decent drivers who would have won races given the chance. Toyota were never close to winning a championship for a number of reasons, and the drivers were not really one of them.
The principle reason for Toyota's failure was the management. Apparently, all decisions had to be passed through the board in Tokyo, which slowed all the decision processes down. They also didn't take kindly to people suggesting changes to this management structure, which led to the sacking of Mike Gascoyne after one of their most successful seasons.

There may well have been a number of reasons for their lack of sucess and I completely agree about the poor management. I know I implied that Toyota's sole reason for faliure was their lack of top class drivers, but I do accept there were a number of contributing factors, I just believe that the driver talent was a very big part of things. Had they chosen to flash their cash slightly more to bag themselves a really top driver, I am certain that they would have won races, and maybe challenged for a title, in their rather short and ill-fated spell in Formula One.

 

[Ardius]

I'm pretty sure Toyota did try to grab a top driver, I seem to recall certain drivers mentioning they had offers from Toyota, can't remember who right now off the top of my head though.
The problem wasn't that Toyota wasn't going after top drivers, it was that top drivers weren't going after Toyota.

I completely disagree still. I think Trulli and Glock got the maximum out of the car last year when they could. Lets take some examples. At Australia they were penalised for flexible wings in qualifying and had to start from the back. They made their way all the way to the front during the race.
At Monaco, Glock went from last on the grid to 10th at the end of the race. At the Nurburgring he went from 19th to 9th as well. At Hungary both drivers finished well up from their starting positions.

The car was good, but it was not fantastic and it was crippled with inconsistent pace track to track. It wasn't even logical issues, as it seemed to have problems at both fast and slow tracks while also being good at both kinds too. Toyota spent all year trying to sort out the setup of the car and never found the source of their inconsistent problems. The one time the Toyota was fastest to win, the drivers were held back by poor strategy decisions (I think it was because they ran the harder tyre in the middle stint if I remember correctly).

I massively disagree about "Kubica scoring the same points as he did at Renault if he was still at Sauber now". Are you suggesting Kubica can make an unreliable car finish?
The Renault this year is a good, no, great car. People are vastly under-rating the car and over-rating Kubica here, a terrible car wouldn't be scoring points regularly and keeping pace with Mercedes and Ferrari. The Sauber is no where near the Renault's pace and has had almost worse reliability than Virgin! And you're telling me Kubica would do better than Kobayashi and score 50-odd points! Excuse me but .

The Toyota was never a championship contender last year, it didn't matter who was driving those cars. I can honestly say if Hamilton or Alonso were at Toyota last year they wouldn't have done much better than Trulli and Glock. You can't perform to the maximum in a sub-par car, yes you can drive around some problems but its not like it would have suddenly won races if it was Lewis at the wheel. If that was the case, McLaren should have surely won last year?

 

[Ingram]

I massively disagree about "Kubica scoring the same points as he did at Renault if he was still at Sauber now". Are you suggesting Kubica can make an unreliable car finish?

No,

and assuming the Sauber wasn't as unreliable

...and my whole point clearly rotates around the fact is that, in my opinion, Kubica is extracting more out of a similarly capable car, because he is a better driver than either of the Sauber guys. You disagree with this, and I accept that. Despite aggreeing with some of what you've said, I still stand by my point of view.

It doesn't help that you created an argument based on the fact that you didn't read what I said properly before leaping into your response, perhaps I should hand the to you...

 

[Seismica]

No,



...and my whole point clearly rotates around the fact is that, in my opinion, Kubica is extracting more out of a similarly capable car, because he is a better driver than either of the Sauber guys. You disagree with this, and I accept that. Despite aggreeing with some of what you've said, I still stand by my point of view.

It doesn't help that you created an argument based on the fact that you didn't read what I said properly before leaping into your response, perhaps I should hand the to you...

The Renault is a far better car than the Sauber. Not just for reliability, but for pure pace. Kubica is running around a second faster at some circuits than both the Sauber boys. Considering De La Rosa was within half a second of Hamilton when testing at Mclaren, I don't think it's a fair assumption that the Sauber drivers are not very good. Especially when Petrov is consistently outperforming both Sauber drivers aswell.

Infact, Kubica was the main reason Kobayashi never picked up points in Spain... And that was his only race finish up until Turkey.

 

[Ardius]

No,



...and my whole point clearly rotates around the fact is that, in my opinion, Kubica is extracting more out of a similarly capable car, because he is a better driver than either of the Sauber guys. You disagree with this, and I accept that. Despite aggreeing with some of what you've said, I still stand by my point of view.

It doesn't help that you created an argument based on the fact that you didn't read what I said properly before leaping into your response, perhaps I should hand the to you...

The Renault is better than the Sauber on pace alone too, and this has been true at every circuit regardless of configuration. The fact you completely ignored "People vastly over-rate Kubica and under-rate the car" too doesn't help. In fact you pretty much ignored the rest of the paragraph.
Ok, I mis-read your initial comment, but I still backed up my argument further which you chose to ignore too.

 

[Ingram]

Kubica is running around a second faster at some circuits than both the Sauber boys.

There is some validity to the points you make, however, if you look at the outright pace of each car in the last two race weekends (in qualifying) Kubica was over a second quicker than the Sauber drivers, but in Monaco, which is a circuit where the driver can really make a difference. In Turkey and Spain, where the quality of the car is more important, the Saubers and Renaults were very closely matched (i.e. Kobayashi was within a tenth or two of Kubica, in both Q1 and Q2, at both tracks)

The fact you completely ignored "People vastly over-rate Kubica and under-rate the car" too doesn't help.

I didn't particularly ignore this point; I rate Kubica highly, so I dont really agree with your statement. I answered your point about the reliability, and I agreed with you that the Saubers' reliability isn't good enough, and is clearly hampering them this season. As for the pace issue, I hope that my answer to Seismica's point above is ok. Many of the races before were in such changeable conditions that outright pace becomes more difficult to judge, which is the main reason why I used those three races as reference.

 

[Seismica]

There is some validity to the points you make, however, if you look at the outright pace of each car in the last two race weekends (in qualifying) Kubica was over a second quicker than the Sauber drivers, but in Monaco, which is a circuit where the driver can really make a difference. In Turkey and Spain, where the quality of the car is more important, the Saubers and Renaults were very closely matched (i.e. Kobayashi was within a tenth or two of Kubica, in both Q1 and Q2, at both tracks)

Well for starters, Turkey is a relatively low downforce circuit. Top speed is important. The Sauber car has had more time to develop their F-duct than Renault (Renault do have one right? So many teams introduced theirs for Istanbul, I can't remember). This meant on the longer straights they closed the gap, in much the same way Mclaren closed the 0.8 second gap to the Red Bulls.

At Spain in Q3, Kubica was 6 tenths quicker than Kobayashi (And 4 tenths quicker than Kobayashi's fastest lap in Q2). In Q1 and Q2 Kubica only needed to set a decent time to get to the next stage, he wasn't going to go out and wear all of his tyres for the final pole position shootout. You have to compare both of their best times, and there is 4 tenths difference. There was also 4 tenths difference at Turkey. The difference was far greater at Monaco, where the Renault is better in the tighter turns. Even petrov was 2 tenths quicker than both of the Saubers, with Kubica a whole 1.6 seconds faster. At China, where the qualifying was in the dry, Kubica was over a second faster than both of the Sauber drivers again.

Face it, the Renault is a fast car, certainly amongst Ferrari and Mercedes. The Sauber is only just on par with the Force India, where Sutil and Kobayashi seem to be constantly fighting for the last place in Q3 (The odd one out of the top 10 being Petrov usually, but at Turkey it was Alonso lol).

I rate Kubica highly, but I agree with Ardius, the car is beyond what most people expected at the start of the season. I feel Petrov's inconsistency is making Kubica stand out far more than he did when he was teamed up with Heidfeld.

You can't really 'outperform' a car. Kubica is simply showing us what the car is capable of. Petrov is lagging far behind.

The Sauber drivers are pretty much on par with eachother. Just like the Mclaren teammates, the Red Bull teammates, the Mercedes teammates, to some extent the Ferrari teammates etc. Renault and Force India are the only teams with such big gaps between the times, and I think that highlights the second driver's weakness rather than the first drivers' strength.

 

[Ardius]

There is some validity to the points you make, however, if you look at the outright pace of each car in the last two race weekends (in qualifying) Kubica was over a second quicker than the Sauber drivers, but in Monaco, which is a circuit where the driver can really make a difference. In Turkey and Spain, where the quality of the car is more important, the Saubers and Renaults were very closely matched (i.e. Kobayashi was within a tenth or two of Kubica, in both Q1 and Q2, at both tracks)

I didn't particularly ignore this point; I rate Kubica highly, so I dont really agree with your statement. I answered your point about the reliability, and I agreed with you that the Saubers' reliability isn't good enough, and is clearly hampering them this season. As for the pace issue, I hope that my answer to Seismica's point above is ok. Many of the races before were in such changeable conditions that outright pace becomes more difficult to judge, which is the main reason why I used those three races as reference.

If we take Kubica's times as the maximum the car can do and compare it to the Saubers, the Renault is always at the front. Even without an f-duct, which is why the Saubers are closer at places like Turkey by the way.
I don't think it reflects on the Sauber driver's skills at all, we have barely had any races to really compare them to anyone else as their reliability has been so poor. Again, I think people under-rated De La Rosa and expect too much of Kobayashi as a rookie. Seeing as Kobayashi is beating De La Rosa but not by much, I think its fair to conclude both drivers are doing at worst respectable job in a difficult car. I hope Sauber's reliability and speed picks up for the remainder of the season, as this driver pair is the one I'm most interested in.

I think Kobayashi in a Renault would have brought in surprise results too and De La Rosa would have at the very least out-performed Petrov.

 

[freshseth83]

My question is if the toyota cars were so bad why is it that they were on podiums pretty often last year? Toyota was never a bad team. You can't just jump into F1 and be competitive, no matter who you are. Other teams have bought teams. Red Bull used to be Jaguar. Mercedes used to be Brawn who used to be Honda who used to be BAR. Toyota came into F1 on it's own. Built everything from scratch and hired who they could. The toyota way was in place but the management was different. It wasn't what F1 was used to and that caused problems. But Toyota was never a bad team.

Gascoyne came in and the team did good. Trulli was never a race winner, he won once at Monaco, the slowest track. He was always good at qualifying but in races he was called the Trulli train. He couldn't win in a car that Alonso could win in. In his one win in Monaco, he qualified on pole. Most of the races in Monaco are won from pole. Every other race hes qualified on pole, he has never won. Glock was never a good qualifier. He was sacked from F1 before and went back to GP2, then came back to F1 with Toyota and never matched Trulli in qualifying. Before Glock, Ralf Shumacher was washed up as well. He couldn't match Trulli in qualifying either. No one even offered Ralf a contract after his stint in BMW Williams. Neither one of those drivers were 'A grade' the way Alonso Hamilton or Raikkonen are. If they had one of those guys they could have won. But Toyota was fine settling with a Glock and a Trulli, who they could pay less and expect less as well. I'm not sure why anyone would think either of these guys are top drivers. If they were they'd be at top teams. Glock needed to work on his qualifying pace and Trulli needed to work on his race pace. We see where they're driving at now.

So if anything Toyota flattered them, it wasn't them who flattered Toyota.

There are 3 teams that have or had interest in Toyota's car. Stefan, HRT and Durango. I don't think there is a rule that states you can't build a new chassis for the season. If that were the case Mercedes would be illegal, as they built an entirely new chassis. If they can do it I don't see why HRT can't 'purchase' the designs of the TF110 and use it to make their own car. Also, to those saying that most of the Toyota crew is gone, that doesn't mean there are no Toyota employees. Pascal Vasselon is still employed by Toyota and he's the head designer of the TF108 TF109 and TF110.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

My question is if the toyota cars were so bad why is it that they were on podiums pretty often last year?

They had five podiums in seventeen races. Given that there are three steps on the podium, that means there were fifty-one podium places on offer, that meant they were on the podium 9.8% of the time. So I don't know what you mean by "pretty often". For comparison's sake, there was a Brawn driver on the podium 45.1% of the time. That, I think, is much more worthy of the description of being on the podium "pretty often". Toyota went nine straight races (Spain to Monza) without getting anywhere near the podium; the closest they came was fourth in Turkey.

Toyota was never a bad team. You can't just jump into F1 and be competitive, no matter who you are. Other teams have bought teams. Red Bull used to be Jaguar. Mercedes used to be Brawn who used to be Honda who used to be BAR. Toyota came into F1 on it's own. Built everything from scratch and hired who they could. The toyota way was in place but the management was different. It wasn't what F1 was used to and that caused problems. But Toyota was never a bad team.

How were they not a bad team? They certainly weren't in league with the likes of Minardi and the tail-enders, but in one hundred and forty race starts, they only got on the podium thirteen times. They claimed just three pole positions, three fastest laps and no wins. They were in the habit of employing mediocre drivers (Schumacher, da Matta, Panis, Trulli), and their most successful driver -Glock - had a success rate of scoring 1.5 points per race. Toyota may not have been a bad team, but they sure as hell weren't a good one.

Gascoyne came in and the team did good. Trulli was never a race winner, he won once at Monaco, the slowest track. He was always good at qualifying but in races he was called the Trulli train. He couldn't win in a car that Alonso could win in. In his one win in Monaco, he qualified on pole. Most of the races in Monaco are won from pole. Every other race hes qualified on pole, he has never won. Glock was never a good qualifier. He was sacked from F1 before and went back to GP2, then came back to F1 with Toyota and never matched Trulli in qualifying. Before Glock, Ralf Shumacher was washed up as well. He couldn't match Trulli in qualifying either. No one even offered Ralf a contract after his stint in BMW Williams. Neither one of those drivers were 'A grade' the way Alonso Hamilton or Raikkonen are. If they had one of those guys they could have won. But Toyota was fine settling with a Glock and a Trulli, who they could pay less and expect less as well. I'm not sure why anyone would think either of these guys are top drivers. If they were they'd be at top teams. Glock needed to work on his qualifying pace and Trulli needed to work on his race pace. We see where they're driving at now.

So if anything Toyota flattered them, it wasn't them who flattered Toyota.

I'm still failing how any of that proves your argument that Toyota were a "good team". If anything, you're arguing for them being a dismal failure.

There are 3 teams that have or had interest in Toyota's car. Stefan, HRT and Durango. I don't think there is a rule that states you can't build a new chassis for the season. If that were the case Mercedes would be illegal, as they built an entirely new chassis. If they can do it I don't see why HRT can't 'purchase' the designs of the TF110 and use it to make their own car. Also, to those saying that most of the Toyota crew is gone, that doesn't mean there are no Toyota employees. Pascal Vasselon is still employed by Toyota and he's the head designer of the TF108 TF109 and TF110.

Mercedes did not build an entirely new chassis. What they did was increase the wheelbase by moving the front wheels forward in order to get a better weight distribution.

Hispania cannot purchase and run the TF110 because they have homogated their chassis. Homologation is a process of standardising parts. In this case, the driver's survival cell. They submit the designs to the FIA, the FIA approves them, and after that, it is set in stone. They are not permitted to make any changes to the survival cell - they must use it all season long. The only exception is on the grounds of safety, which requires them to apply to the FIA for a special dispensation. Because the TF110's survival cell is different to the Hispania F110's, Hispania cannot run the TF110 this year. Nor can they take the TF110 parts and swap them for the F110's so that it's a TF110 with an F110's survival cell. These cars are designed as a whole, and it's likely a chop-job would just produce a worse car because they're compeltely different shapes. You could make the argument that they could employ the designers of the TF110 to synthesise the two together, but Hispania do not have detailed-enough schematics of their current car. I've heard that they won't be able to introduce upgrades until they finish reverse-engineering it, which will not be done untl Valencia at the earliest. Given that it would take months to design a hybrid TF110/F110 chassis, it would just be a waste of time, effort and money.

 

[Ardius]

Why is it so easy for people to forget Trulli's 2004 season? He battered Alonso up until the famous incident at the French Grand Prix. Then Flavio was on a mission to bury him after that.
I don't see how we can belittle his achievement at the Monaco Grand Prix either - being the slowest Grand Prix on the calendar really doesn't alter how impressive it is to win there. In fact, a win at Monaco is worth twice as much as anywhere else. Lets also not forget how he won that one - under immense pressure from Button right till the end. It wasn't come luck-in like Panis had (though Panis later proved himself in 1997).

As Ludes as stated, Toyota were quite an epic failure of a team really. With a results to budget ratio like that, how can you think they were anything but fail?
Never won a race, never in contention for a championship, and most of their success focused on one season where they fired the technical director who brought it about!

Being 4th once in the championship with a bigger budget than Ferrari is not "good". Red Bull had and have a miniscule budget in comparison and achieved far more, hiring the right people and they too had so called "mediocre" drivers like Webber (ho ho ho). Toyota were worse than even some backmarker teams, who arguably could have achieved far greater results with such a budget as they would have managed it properly.

I will never agree that the blame at Toyota rests on the drivers. They weren't superstars but they weren't terrible either. All of them had the potential to win races given the right car and a proper team who didn't screw up strategies, etc. At the very least, all of them except da Matta, McNish and Zonta were better than Fisichella who helped Renault secure the constructors twice and won several races, so in similar circumstances I think its fair to say Trulli and Glock could have won both championships, especially considering Trulli once dominated Alonso.

 

[freshseth83]

Trulli was never what Alonso turned out to be. When trulli was at Renault he was at the top of his game, then the next year when he went to Toyota it was probably his best years. After that he never did have the race pace that others had.

And by me saying they were on the podium often, doesn't mean every damn race. If you take things literally there is no use in arguing my point. Force India bought into a team and how many points have they scored this year? How about Last year? The year before? Their owner has boatloads of cash, has a 300ft+ yacht, owns an airline company. Where are there wins? Red Bull has wins because of it's drivers and Adrian Newey. Before newey came in they were midfield at best. When BMW stopped supporting the williams team they went downhill. One victory, are they so much better than Toyota? If you rate Glock and Trulli as top drivers you haven't been watching the same F1 as I have. I'm not making excuses for Toyota but they weren't a bad team. Bad teams don't score podiums or pole positions. Bad teams don't come in 5th or 4th place in the constructors championship. They could have done much better and should have, but they were far from a bad team.

If they were what does that make midland? HRT? Virgin? Toro Rosso?

Anyway besides all that this thread is about the TF110, I hope HRT can use it or use Toyota's help and not be hindered by their previous management (which doesn't exist anymore).

 

[Ardius]

Again, you miss the point, none of those teams you mention had anything like the budget Toyota had or the years of preparation. Toyota prepared 2 years before their entry in 2002 and had bigger budgets than Ferrari. Yet they never won a race and spent 8 years in the sport achieving very little for their money.
When Force India achieves a podium and pole position with a fraction of the budget, this is a huge success, they are making clear progress to the front each season.
And I agree, Red Bull and Williams were/are bad teams. Williams is still going downhill, and arguably has been since 1998. Red Bull is obviously a better team now, but their management still has weaknesses. Again though, Red Bull have made progress to the front of the grid, they didn't sack Newey and they aren't hamstrung by decisions waiting from Tokyo.

Toyota came 4th once in the championship - once! You cannot just look at singular results, look at the bigger picture.
Yeah, sure, Toyota were not backmarker bad, but they weren't championship good. The question was why didn't they win the championship and was this the drivers fault? The driver doesn't manage the team or design the cars.
Good teams build on results, not sack the technical teams who brought it about.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Trulli has always been underrated in my view. The Trulli Train was caused by Trulli's occasionally brilliant qualifying pace leading to a not quite on the pace car ending up higher on the grid that it otherwise would have. Therefore he would have faster cars behind him on the grid.

Since you can't do a qualifying lap for every lap of a Grand Prix, he had to run at a proper race pace for the car, this combined with his rather good defensive driving capabilities means he would inevitably hold up other drivers.

 

[Bram Turismo]

The question was why didn't they win the championship

Like Le Mans, you can't enter a championship with a huge budget and expect to win. Ferrari, Mclaren, Williams are all teams who are the very foundations of this sport so it takes more than money to beat them. In my view, the board in Tokyo never realized, or wanted to, the fact they could never win if they kept their management up like the way they did. I'd want to bet 50 bucks if they had a decent teamboss like Ferrari, Mclaren, Renault had, they would be right up there. Firing Gascoyne was also a mistake. They also seem to have a habit of not being able to keep up development throughout the season. They usually start off with a good car before results turn worse with every round that passes. Perhaps 2008 was an exception though as they became better at the end.

And whatever people say of Trulli, I still think he's brilliant. Give him a brilliant car and he will perform. I absolutely refuse to believe he lost his touch.

 

[Ardius]

People are too easily blinded by bad cars, hence their recent surprise at the form Webber and Button have shown recently. Results aren't everything for showing a driver's potential, particularly in a game like Formula 1, where the team is the most important part.
I and many others think Trulli would have beaten Alonso in 2004 and been far closer than Fisichella in 2005 and 2006 if Flavio hadn't turned against him.

It is also true that some drivers just don't perform in particular situations. The greatest examples being Button at Honda 2007/2008 and Kovalainen at McLaren 2008/2009 - both drivers have obvious talent and speed but in these environments with these cars they just didn't perform. Kovalainen's time at McLaren is particularly interesting as it appears he didn't really integrate with that team too well seeing as he is pretty happy right now at Lotus despite being a backmarker. The positivity is there at Lotus that wasn't there at McLaren. The same can be true for Trulli and Glock, I think Glock in particular has the potential to be an excellent top team driver given the chance - imagine what would have happened if he was at Renault this year like the rumours suggested?

The fact is, almost all the drivers currently in Formula bar the rookies are top drivers. There are very few that I felt were completely pathetic and would never have won a race, such as Piquet Jr, Nakajima, etc. Most of them are capable of front running, though here and there we have some drivers who lack the consistencey (e.g. Fisichella), but even so they can perform in particular situations. Fisichella is a perfect example of a driver who excels at midfield teams but not so much at the top teams. Perhaps it is pressure or perhaps its the whole environment.

 

[Seismica]

And whatever people say of Trulli, I still think he's brilliant. Give him a brilliant car and he will perform. I absolutely refuse to believe he lost his touch.

Both the Lotus drivers are excellent. Both have been outperformed and overshadowed by World champion teammates. Lotus have a good solid driver lineup and a good team of people behind them (http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2010/6/10865.html).

I think they will be well established in the sport by next year. Can't say the same for Virgin and HRT though.

 

[Ardius]

Both the Lotus drivers are excellent. Both have been outperformed and overshadowed by World champion teammates. Lotus have a good solid driver lineup and a good team of people behind them (http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2010/6/10865.html).

I think they will be well established in the sport by next year. Can't say the same for Virgin and HRT though.

If the afforementioned rumour is true though, HRT can definitely be considered a threat .

 

[Kingofweasles]

Like Le Mans, you can't enter a championship with a huge budget and expect to win. Ferrari, Mclaren, Williams are all teams who are the very foundations of this sport so it takes more than money to beat them. In my view, the board in Tokyo never realized, or wanted to, the fact they could never win if they kept their management up like the way they did. I'd want to bet 50 bucks if they had a decent teamboss like Ferrari, Mclaren, Renault had, they would be right up there. Firing Gascoyne was also a mistake. They also seem to have a habit of not being able to keep up development throughout the season. They usually start off with a good car before results turn worse with every round that passes. Perhaps 2008 was an exception though as they became better at the end.

Toyota never really had a full-time team boss, and when they did they didn't stay long enough to leave any kind of mark on the team. I personally think that was Toyota's biggest downfall as a team: No sense of direction and no management stabillity. Firing Mike Gascoyne was a huge mistake, no question, but then not actually HAVING a technical director was an even bigger one (Because, lets face it, Pascal Vasselon was a place-holder until Toyota's head office could work out a compromise).

 

[Ardius]

And John Howett was a bit of a 🤬 too, always seemed to be stirring it up in latter years with FOTA. Never really liked him as a teamboss, he actually reminded me too much of a typical english politician.
Arguably the team itself went downhill ever since Ove Andersson stepped down.

 

[Kingofweasles]

And John Howett was a bit of a 🤬 too, always seemed to be stirring it up in latter years with FOTA. Never really liked him as a teamboss, he actually reminded me too much of a typical english politician.
Arguably the team itself went downhill ever since Ove Andersson stepped down.

Exactly. Toyota builds up a team from scratch using TTE personel, test for one year, race for another...Then (This is how i personally read into it) force Andersson to step down and "Restructure" over half of the team?

Still...Seeing the TF110, in red, with Nakajima driving...It's scary how close Stefanovic really got to pulling that crazy scheme of his off!

 

[freshseth83]

I think some of you are mistaken, Pascal Vasselon is plenty good in his own right. Toyota wouldn't just hire him for no reason. He was behind the TF108 and TF109, back to back they were good cars. I think the talent surrounding him wasn't the best, but of course management situations were lousy too. Howett was iffy to me. But of course he was under the head honcho's back in Japan. I'd like to see them have another try at it with Akio Toyoda at the helm. He seems to know what the other bosses know but is more into the enthusiast scene. He even took part in the LFA racing at the Nurb 24hours last year. That's some pretty 'on hand' type of activity from the boss. Even this year he was there, he didn't race but he was there and congratulated the team when they took their class win. With Toyota right now they are in a consultant type of stage, where they will offer help and facilities to those with interest, for an asking price. This could bode well for a team like HRT, especially if they have the talent there and then improve upon it by teaming up with someone like Pascal Vasselon and some of the left over Toyota engineers. TTE you must remember when under Ove Anderson did quite well. Won WRC, just about won LeMans (their class but not outright), but when F1 came around John Howett was put into the role later on. I don't think it was entirely his fault, but he wasn't the greatest of team bosses.