Williams endured the worst season in its Formula 1 history in 2018 but its regression has continued early in 2019 with its two drivers struggling in the lacklustre FW42. Motorsport Week takes a look at the team’s problematic start to the year.
From third in 2014/15 to fifth in 2016/17 and, most likely, plum last in 2018/19. Williams’ slide down the competitive order since profiting from Mercedes’ hybrid engines and an aerodynamic strength in the early years of the V6 era has been stark. It has gone from challenging for victories to being a chasm away from the points. Williams is one of the greatest teams in Formula 1 history and thus its current predicament provokes sadness among many, akin to watching a once-great family pet losing its vigour; heaping criticism upon it feels almost cruel.
.jpg)
Williams’ slide had been gradual through late 2014 to 2017 – having been overhauled by the similarly-powered Force India team mid-2016 – but it was only last year when Williams’ true slump began. The Paddy Lowe-designed FW41 – created as a revolution to fix previous weaknesses – was fundamentally flawed amid high levels of drag, while there were reports of cooling problems and weight issues. Sergey Sirotkin often spoke of Williams struggling at venues with varying corner speeds – hence its relative strength in Azerbaijan – while a morose Lance Stroll bluntly stated mid-season that there was nothing positive about the car. The balance issues, which reached a nadir when an update caused a severe rear imbalance at Silverstone, led to problems all year, hindering development, meaning Williams lost sight of the midfield pack. It scored only seven points. It classified last of the 10 teams.
Williams accepted it faced a long road to recovery and over the winter period rumours grew that the team was struggling with its FW42 to the extent that, privately, it regarded 2019 as a write-off. A launch event revealed a new livery and ROKiT – the nascent communications arm of the ROK company – as title sponsor replacement for Martini, whose departure was confirmed at the start of 2018 once it reached the natural conclusion of its five-year deal.
The first real signs of 2019 trouble came when an initial shakedown was canned two days before the start of pre-season testing, which preceded confirmation that the FW42 was not ready for Monday’s opening test day in Spain. Tuesday came and went, and the car finally arrived in the early hours of Wednesday morning, making its track debut shortly after lunch. It left Williams playing catch-up and, while the team amassed encouraging mileage in the second week, there were glum faces as reality set in. Even the eternally enthusiastic George Russell was cautious while Robert Kubica stated he had completed only 20 per cent of his intended programme and had been told to avoid using kerbs. Even in doing so the FW42 was shedding parts; those that remained on the car had – on the final day – “degraded” to the extent that further running was a fruitless endeavour. Deputy Team Principal Claire Williams nobly accepted the situation was embarrassing but tellingly refused to blame an external supplier and was hesitant in her backing of Lowe. Williams’ technical chief stressed that it was vital the team stuck together, particularly in the wake of a raft of 2018 changes that resulted in Chief Designer Ed Wood, Head of Aero Dirk de Beer and Head of Vehicle Performance Rob Smedley leaving Grove. Days later Lowe was placed on a leave of absence. No reason was provided for the decision. He will not be returning. His departure came less than two years after his arrival was heralded as a “game changer” by Claire. Indeed, it was. Just not in the way the team anticipated.
.jpg)
Williams travelled to Australia knowing it was going to bring up the rear but few outside of the team expected such a dire display. Russell and Kubica were over a second off the pace in practice and qualifying, and occasionally resembled rolling roadblocks in the race, albeit with the Pole hampered by the substantial damage he sustained on the first lap. Williams was the only team to lose lap time year-on-year. In fact, its 2019 car was slower not just than the 2018 car, but also the 2017 car.
“There is one fundamental which I don’t want to discuss publicly,” said Russell in Australia. “We understand what that is but it doesn’t mean we can wake up on Monday morning and rectify it. To change something so fundamental will take months of development and work in the simulator. Unfortunately we’re looking at a number of races before we’re going to be able to fight. That’s just where we are at the moment. I think once we’ve solved that fundamental there’ll be a big leap, we’ll probably still be at the back of the grid but with a chance to fight. At the moment the fact is we don’t really have any hope because we’re too far behind.”
Its lack of running during testing and acceptance of its pace meant Williams regarded Australia as an extended test session, albeit with undertaking set-up work and aero evaluations tricky on an unrepresentative street track that rapidly evolves as the weekend develops, not to mention the restrictions once parc ferme rules apply. This all coincided with the end to Kubica’s eight-year absence from Formula 1 racing, and the Pole was understandably still getting re-accustomed to the championship. He expressed sympathy for Williams’ plight while frustrated at the team’s predicament, but also – for a self-described unemotional character – delighted at returning to the sport.
But Australia – to an extent – had been misleading. Kubica sustained floor damage in FP1 (simply by running over a kerb as normal) and thus the two cars were operating differently, as Williams was (and remains) short on spare parts. In Bahrain, when the situation repeated itself, despite identical set-ups, it raised a red flag.
.jpg)
“At least we understood that in Australia I ran a different set-up to George and we clearly see the different characteristic in the cars,” commented Kubica. “Here we started with the same set-up and the characteristic is still different, at least we have clear idea in Australia it was maybe caused by some damages on the floor and maybe different set-up, but at least after first session [in Bahrain] we get an answer here there is clearly we are driving two different cars in the same set-up so there’s something to understand and it’s quite obvious on the data. The priority is to understand the reason why two cars are so different in behaviour. It’s a priority because we don’t know the reason and it’s fundamental to have two cars running in the same way, otherwise it’s a lottery.” Kubica repeated the mantra after qualifying and the race, with Russell – while quite not as extreme in his assessment – backed his team-mate’s view. “There is definitely a difference,” said the reigning F2 champion. “That was clear. It doesn’t mean his is incorrect and mine’s correct, just there is a difference there. If you looked at the data you’d presume we’re running different wing levels but we’re not. It shouldn’t be different, so that’s something we need to look into. It doesn’t mean one’s right or one’s wrong, just that it should be the same.”
The pair at least had a scrap in race trim but Russell eventually pulled clear of Kubica, who revealed he felt like “a passenger” and was focused on not spinning due to tyre wear and the gusty conditions accentuating the ill-handling FW42’s lack of grip. Lando Norris’ sixth place left Williams as the only team not to score a point from the opening two Grands Prix. They’re not even remotely close to joining the leader board.
The big question is where the team goes from here, both short- and long-term.
Russell’s aspiration of addressing the “fundamental” weakness in a few months, judging by the history of Formula 1, is optimistic; without substantial investment, abnormalities or anomalies, rarely does a team close such a deficit in a short space of time. The competitive nature of the midfield, and the strength of the front-runners, also accentuates Williams’ predicament, with the highly professional nature of the sport meaning there are no terrible teams. Can it realistically close the gap in 2019? No. But it must try. And with stable regulations it must keep pushing because any 2019 gains will have a knock-on effect into 2020. Even so, given the chasm, it faces the very real possibility of being Formula 1’s worst team for three successive years. The carrot at the end of the stick is surely the yet-to-be-defined 2021 regulations and, given its current limitations, putting maximum focus on that ruleset – once they are published – must surely be the priority. The return of Sir Patrick Head – even on a short-term consultancy basis – will act as a boost, though equally underlines the current situation in which the team finds itself. Nevertheless, the acerbic Head may identify flaws the team has been blind to. External influence can have a drastic impact.
.jpg)
Williams can also take solace from two teams that have recently suffered a downturn but which have enjoyed a recovery. There are mitigating circumstances but Sauber/Alfa Romeo has surged from stone last to a front-of-the-midfield contender in 18 months. McLaren has had an uplift in form this year after 2018’s struggled prompted internal reflections and reshuffles. There are good, talented and hard-working people at Williams too…
Longer-term Williams faces a crossroads about the business model that it uses in Formula 1. It is fiercely proud of its status as a Constructor but in recent years the sport has shifted in a different direction, accelerated by Haas maximising the regulations to good effect, outsourcing what it can to Ferrari and Dallara. Red Bull and Toro Rosso have forged a stronger relationship for 2019 courtesy of joint use of Honda power units, with Toro Rosso effectively using the rear end from last year’s RB14, thus freeing up more team members to develop other areas of the car. Alfa Romeo has a looser connection with Ferrari than Haas – technically if not politically – but it has an alignment nonetheless. It has left Renault, McLaren and Williams fighting against the rise of so-called B-teams and given the resources and status – at least in the automotive world – of those three organisations then Williams is likely to be last. From the perspective of Liberty Media, a business being able to enter and compete – such as Haas – is a far more attractive proposition than a situation in which an entity needs substantial investment and resource to merely make the grid, even if it does raise other questions about competition between teams, which Cyril Abiteboul neatly outlined in Australia. The gradual move towards listed parts suggests B-teams are here to stay so Williams have to adapt if it is to thrive in the long run?
Sometimes a business needs to hit rock bottom to receive a wake-up call and it’s clear that Williams has plummeted to new depths. For the sake of one of Formula 1’s most successful teams, and its legion of fans, it needs to find a route back to respectability.
.jpg)
