Interviews

Planetlemans talks to Jody Firth (part 2)

© Planetlemans - Gabriel Portos

Continuing our previously published dialogue, Jody Firth tells us more about his views for the future and a potential Rmbassy Racing customer program.

PLM- How are team dynamics developing? Did those also change or evolve during 2008 given the needs of such an ambitious project?

JF- With the move to the new premises, we have in fact just undertaken a wholesale review of how we operate both at the circuit and in the workshop. What we had previously was a system that had simply evolved organically since 2004, but we have made some changes in procedures and people’s jobs to improve the team’s performance. Paraphrasing Jonathan I could say it does not cost any money to organize a team to work more effectively. It is basically all about small details, and these small details can have a fundamental impact on what we do, and how well we do it. For example, improving the communication between engineers and mechanics was one of our focus points. The adjustments are minor but the improvements significant. We also looked at the data stream feed and how can we get that effectively to the engineers and chief designer so they can make the best use of it.

PLM- I can imagine that being a bigger team has not made processes easier.

JF- I think that we performed very well as a 1 car team in 2007, however, it is a very big jump to go to 2 cars especially when that car is your own unique design. Although all the personnel from last year have been carried over, some of their responsibilities have altered, and like any business, success depends on having the right people in the right roles. We needed a lot of discipline from both management and staff, and a good structure to get where we needed, and I think that we are just about there now.

PLM- How do the 2 crews work with each other, collaboratively or competitively?

JF- Our overall priority is to have Embassy Racing succeed as an entity. Fundamentally we always work together as a team, and Jonathan is very keen on transparency within the team, and treats everyone even handedly. The engineers and drivers of both cars debrief together, and we avoid any situations which we consider may become divisive. It is obviously one of the benefits to being a two car team if it is decided in an engineering meeting that there are two specific, but opposing set-ups that we wish to verify. Equally it is good during testing to have one car concentrate on performance and one on reliability. With two cars we can hopefully get through twice as much work, as a one car team, whatever the reason we are testing. Every decision is taken for the best of the team as a whole, and for what we consider the best way to push WF01 forward, as our competitors are the other 12 or so cars in LMP2, not just the car at the other side of the garage. Ideally we want to be in P1 and P2, not P1 and P10, and although competition is healthy, it is in nobody’s interest to see one car succeeding at the expense of the other. That said, I’m sure that the crew of car 45 would always like to qualify and then finish ahead of car 46, and vice versa.

PLM- But I assume you share information, how do you go to work specifically on race weekend?

JF- The race engineers will confer over set-up, and collectively we decide which avenue both cars will pursue, and which configuration they will run in, as occasionally there may be specific areas that we wish to evaluate. We know our drivers are very closely matched to each other so should we have both cars running different set-ups in free practice, and given a clear run, we assume any big time differences will probably be setup related, so we can quickly assess which avenue is working, and hone in on that, and fine tune it. Towards the end of Friday and again before qualifying we all sit together with Michelin and Zytek, see what we’ve learned, put it all together and take the necessary decisions for the race. In terms of race strategy we can service both cars simultaneously so we can do a driver change, fuel and tyres, for each at the same time if a Safety Car situation appears, but normally the race engineers will call the strategy as the race unfolds.

PLM- So what are the objectives for the future, where do you see Embassy Racing developing towards in the future?

JF- Our objective long term is to develop the team, and the business, into an engineering led operation. Our idea is to develop an organization similar to Prodrive, Oreca or RML in the next few years. From a business perspective the LMS is our shop window, and we know how far we have come with the WF01 in terms of development, and improvements and how far we have come as a company in terms of structure and procedures. Improvements on the track are directly related to performance off it. As the structure and procedures are further refined, I am sure that you will see that reflected in our results. It is, however, a continually evolving process.

PLM- And how do you rate yourselves today?

JF- I think we have shown that we are already operating at a good level, nevertheless we are not yet where we want to be, and you have not yet seen the best from either the team or the car. We are capable of more, and we know we need to make solid steps, with improvements in every area. We are, however, awaiting the new A.C.O. rules for 2009 and with our wind tunnel programme already in place we should be able to react quickly and positively when the changes are announced.

PLM- What about potential customers? Jonathan was not planning on that last year when he announced the WF-01, have things changed?

JF- One of the reasons for Jonathan to be so strict about it is this: he’s been a customer before and he knows what the needs are. We’d like to offer the best possible service if we undertake a customer programme, nothing short of that. We want to be the best at what we do and this is no exception.

PLM- So would you accept a customer today?

JF- We could give it more consideration now than we could have last year. But, we are very ambitious; our benchmark in customer service is Porsche. We would want to be on par with Porsche from a service point of view, and that in itself would be a considerable financial and logistical undertaking. Would we take a customer today? We’d strongly consider it, but we would not make promises that we could not keep, and it would have to be for the good of the whole WF01 programme. I’m not sure what the answer would be if it were for someone wanting to run the WF-01 in LMP1, though. However, for LMP2 I’m sure we would; we have a car which is mechanically sound and the minor issues we have encountered are hopefully now behind us.

PLM- Was this part of the improvement process you described?

JF- Exactly. We had a big revamp on electrical procedures since Le Mans and we believe all is sorted now in that area. That’s one more reason for being proud of the analytical skills and the quality of our engineering we possess in-house here at Embassy.

A big step needs a strong leader of change and evolution and Jody Firth is demonstrating he is the man for the job. Solid concepts but also a good listener he has been able together with Jonathan France to lead Embassy along the steep learning curve of 2008. We go on talking about the expectations for the next races and how some fundamental new changes might bring the WF-01 even further ahead on the grid. A methodical quality approach bearing fruits that might surprise many in the next few weeks.