2016 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

[bhall II]

Turbulent times.

In my view, this is why Ferrari chronically underperforms...

[...]

Motorsport.com has learned that he has held a series of key meetings at Maranello with the chassis and aerodynamic departments – with a particular focus on speaking to those who report to department heads as well as their juniors.

Marchionne is determined to find out whether or not there is a belief from the shop floor that more potential can be extracted from the SF16-H, and if the true state of progress of the car is as he has been led to believe by senior management.

It is possible that Marchionne could take action after these meetings to tidy up internal structures – moving around those staff who he believes have not been exploited to their best, and moving aside those whom he believes have been holding things back.

[...]

It's the micromanaging of an engineering firm by someone who's not an engineer. Ferrari SpA can endure it - as similar automakers are often wont to do - because the brand is incredibly strong. But, that doesn't apply to Scuderia Ferrari in a world driven solely by performance, because reputation is worth exactly 0.0s.

By constantly rattling his sabre, Marchionne is showing himself to be no better than Montezemolo when it comes to getting the best from people hired specifically to do --- he doesn't understand. There's no reason to employ either a technical director or a team principal if those titles are ultimately meaningless.

[sosic2121]

Yes, but you have to consider the driver scoring those wins
although, 2006 Schumacher's engine blow up in penultimate race while he was leading comfortably? if I remember if that didn't happen he would lead championship into last race.
but it was Ferrari's slow start that "gave" championship to Alonso.

[PlatinumZealot]

Turbulent times.

In my view, this is why Ferrari chronically underperforms...

[...]

Motorsport.com has learned that he has held a series of key meetings at Maranello with the chassis and aerodynamic departments – with a particular focus on speaking to those who report to department heads as well as their juniors.

Marchionne is determined to find out whether or not there is a belief from the shop floor that more potential can be extracted from the SF16-H, and if the true state of progress of the car is as he has been led to believe by senior management.

It is possible that Marchionne could take action after these meetings to tidy up internal structures – moving around those staff who he believes have not been exploited to their best, and moving aside those whom he believes have been holding things back.

[...]

It's the micromanaging of an engineering firm by someone who's not an engineer. Ferrari SpA can endure it - as similar automakers are often wont to do - because the brand is incredibly strong. But, that doesn't apply to Scuderia Ferrari in a world driven solely by performance, because reputation is worth exactly 0.0s.

By constantly rattling his sabre, Marchionne is showing himself to be no better than Montezemolo when it comes to getting the best from people hired specifically to do --- he doesn't understand. There's no reason to employ either a technical director or a team principal if those titles are ultimately meaningless.

This. This is what Mercedes had since Brawn and still have today in Paddy Lowe. Never mind Wolff and Lauda those two are the side-shows. The guy who keeps things in check is Paddy (Bob Bell is gone now). An Engineer managing engineers. If the car is good Wolff and do whatever he wants - but he must be sure to keep the funds coming and the drivers happy.

[bhall II]

I thought the whole point of casting off Tombazis, Fry, etc., was to establish that sort of dynamic in the form of strong technical leadership under one person: James Allison. It can't work if the president of the company undermines that authority by interfering with mid-level technical managers. In fact, it's exactly that sort of culture which led to the inexplicable decision in 2013-14 to deliberately sacrifice engine power for the sake of aero. After four years of getting his ass kicked by Newey and Prodromou, Tombazis wanted to prove himself to the world by trying to out-Red Bull Red Bull, and no one within the team had enough technical juice to put the brakes on such a monumentally stupid idea.

Ferrari reminds me of this...

[flickerf1]

I thought the whole point of casting off Tombazis, Fry, etc., was to establish that sort of dynamic in the form of strong technical leadership under one person: James Allison. It can't work if the president of the company undermines that authority by interfering with mid-level technical managers. In fact, it's exactly that sort of culture which led to the inexplicable decision in 2013-14 to deliberately sacrifice engine power for the sake of aero. After four years of getting his ass kicked by Newey and Prodromou, Tombazis wanted to prove himself to the world by trying to out-Red Bull Red Bull, and no one within the team had enough technical juice to put the brakes on such a monumentally stupid idea.

Ferrari reminds me of this...

http://i.imgur.com/jamSePl.png

OT, but is your icon an Eagle Speedster? Love that car!

[ME4ME]

Anyone seen any interview lately with James Allison about Ferrari's current state and car? Would love to hear his side of the story.

[FW17]

Ferrari have never been great when it comes to change in regulations, 1998, 2006, 2009, 2014; don't see how 2017 is going to be different.

In 1998 and 2006 Ferrari fought for both championships (scoring 6 wins in 1998 and 9 in 2006), so you're not exactly right

1998 they were nowhere near the Mclaren
2006 they were competitive only after the TMD ban

[Schuttelberg]

Ferrari have never been great when it comes to change in regulations, 1998, 2006, 2009, 2014; don't see how 2017 is going to be different.

Well, by that logic England shouldn't play in any FIFA WC that isn't in England, Roger Federer should retire, England shouldn't be part of the fifty over cricket world cup and teams like Force India, Manor, Haas etc. should just stop racing because they've never won, ever. This is the same Ferrari because of which regulations were changed, points system was revised and what not. Just because of their sheer domination.

Sport is about emotion and effort and unless you try you won't succeed. Everyone here has a crystal ball and fair enough that you have this opinion, but the logic behind it is flawed. Just like past performance don't warrant anything being taken for granted on the present day, similarly, just because they've been bad in the past doesn't mean they'll be bad again.

[Schuttelberg]

Ferrari have never been great when it comes to change in regulations, 1998, 2006, 2009, 2014; don't see how 2017 is going to be different.

In 1998 and 2006 Ferrari fought for both championships (scoring 6 wins in 1998 and 9 in 2006), so you're not exactly right

1998 they were nowhere near the Mclaren
2006 they were competitive only after the TMD ban

I guess you mean the mass damper. So? They had anyway won at Imola and Nurburgring if I remember correctly.

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

Sport is about emotion and effort and unless you try you won't succeed.

Formula 1 is not a sport. It's an engineering competition. The team that produces the best car - regardless of having the best driver - has the best chance of winning. Yes, there are exceptions where the driver has transcended the limitations imposed by engineering (the car) and produced better-than-imagined results. These occasions are rare.

To produce the best car, you need:
a) excellent engineers.
b) the engineers organised in a balanced way that plays to their talents and allows their best work for the good of the team objectives.
c) an excellent management structure that provides an environment in which that engineering team can excel.

Ferrari undoubtedly have a strong group of people. For a while, with the introduction of James Allison it seemed they had the right organisational structure and, importantly, the trust to produce something competitive.

Sadly, there's a strong smell of corporate-meddling around the Scuderia. Sh*t travels down; Ferrari are a listed company, and the management answer to shareholders. The racing teams report to management. In more traditional corporate environments, when a section underperforms you fire the leader and promote up or bring someone successful in from externally. External hires are attractive because it shakes things up and - usually - they bring their own team to impose new proven working practices efficiently so the team improves quickly.

Trouble with applying this approach to Formula 1 is there's very few available candidates to bring in and it's very hard bring their team along too. 1996 springs to mind as a good example of this happening. 20 years ago by the way.

[giantfan10]

So your team is underperforming and the consensus im getting from the answer people here is that the head of Ferrari should just sit on his hands and see what happens? I am 100 percent in agreement with what he is doing... if you have ever been a manager of anything you will know that if your team/crew/ employees have all the tools needed to get the job done and they keep coming up short, the next step is to shake things up...verbally... meet with them and see if any voices that were previously muted for whatever reason have any constructive input....this is all par for the course in big business and im pretty amused that its supposedly big news.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

Code: Select all

[quote="Sevach"]Turbulent times.[/quote]
In my view, this is why Ferrari chronically underperforms... 

[quote="[url=http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/marchionne-holds-maranello-talks-amid-ferrari-s-struggles-798840/]Marchionne holds Maranello talks amid Ferrari's struggles[/url]"][...]

Motorsport.com has learned that he has held a series of key meetings at Maranello with the chassis and aerodynamic departments – with a particular focus on speaking to those who report to department heads as well as their juniors.

Marchionne is determined to find out whether or not there is a belief from the shop floor that more potential can be extracted from the SF16-H, and if the true state of progress of the car is as he has been led to believe by senior management.

It is possible that Marchionne could take action after these meetings to tidy up internal structures – moving around those staff who he believes have not been exploited to their best, and moving aside those whom he believes have been holding things back.

[...][/quote]
It's the micromanaging of an engineering firm by someone who's [i]not[/i] an engineer.  Ferrari SpA can endure it - as similar automakers are often wont to do - because the brand is incredibly strong.  But, that doesn't apply to Scuderia Ferrari in a world driven solely by performance, because reputation is worth exactly 0.0s.

By constantly rattling his sabre, Marchionne is showing himself to be no better than Montezemolo when it comes to getting the best from people hired specifically to do --- he doesn't understand.  There's no reason to employ either a technical director or a team principal if those titles are ultimately meaningless.[/quote]

Code: Select all

[quote="bhall II"]I thought the whole point of casting off Tombazis, Fry, etc., was to establish that sort of dynamic in the form of strong technical leadership under one person: James Allison.  It can't work if the president of the company undermines that authority by interfering with mid-level technical managers.  In fact, it's exactly that sort of culture which led to the inexplicable decision in 2013-14 to deliberately sacrifice engine power for the sake of aero.  After four years of getting his ass kicked by Newey and Prodromou, Tombazis wanted to prove himself to the world by trying to out-Red Bull Red Bull, and no one within the team had enough technical juice to put the brakes on such a monumentally stupid idea.

Ferrari reminds me of this...

[url]http://i.imgur.com/jamSePl.png[/url]

I wonder, how is that you haven't got down voted yet by the hardcode blind Ferrari fans? Every time when I criticized Ferrari and when you came to defend Ferrari, you got up votes. Oh Ferrari fans.... I tell you.

Well, what's wrong in Marchionne jumping to understand the Ferrari situation, from a 360 degree perspective? If anyone out here are a working part of the Corporate Management, they understand why it is inevitable for Marchionne's to be jumping in and trying to get a pulse check of the situation. It is two full season's free run that he gave to Arrivabene and Allison and he hasn't seen the team riding a rising wave of performance. Day in day out, he has only heard Allison and Arrivabene and it hasn't been fruitful. After the last season's surprising rise, it was natural for the Ferrari stake holders to expect a forward looking progress. Well, forget fighting for championship, they are moving towards downward spiral. It is only natural for the company President to feel agitated and he is on a mission to identify the root cause of the problem.

If the results would have been inline with the investment and the expectations set at the beginning of the season, he would have been attending some conferences trying to en-cash the positive vibes from the success of team's success in Formula One and broadening the market shares. Guess what, an executive car maker is beating them black and blue in a space that they were supposed to successful and that is more shameful in the market place. The bubble of the past success isn't going to stay long. No one would have imagined the kind of the fate the Nokia and BlackBerry would meet, if we were still in early 2000s.

Sport is about emotion and effort and unless you try you won't succeed.

To produce the best car, you need:
a) excellent engineers.

A look at the LinkedIn would reveal the unidimensional workforce they have, with respect to the global reach out of the talent. Almost every tom, dick and harry of the Formula One world has a profile in LinkedIn and it's not hard to see that in most of the lower to middle management, Ferrari has employed only local people. Their organization looks more like a third world country's government organization, where most of the positions are reserved for local citizens and hardly there a great global talent mix. For some people, it is a matter of pride that Ferrari is like that. So should they be with the results.
If Italy would have been a place full of world's premier engineering institutes, that wouldn't have been a problem. But that is not the case either. So, it's not given that Ferrari employs the best engineers in the world. Unfortunately, it is not the Chief Designer or the Technical directors who produce creative ideas. It's the low level engineers and their immediate leads. A Void there, would just cascades all the way up and the void would be visible through the management.
Ferrari kept firing people like Aldo Costa, Luca Marmorini, Nicolas tombazis, Stefano Domenicali and even Luca Montezemolo. Luca even claimed, they in fact fired Alonso too (of sorts) to bring in "THE NEO" Vettel as he has the ability to motivate the people (I wonder what's his own motivation level these days). Has all the firing changed anything?

c) an excellent management structure that provides an environment in which that engineering team can excel.

It is legendary in F1 circles of the kind of political environment that prevails in Maranello. [/quote]

Trouble with applying this approach to Formula 1 is there's very few available candidates to bring in and it's very hard bring their team along too. 1996 springs to mind as a good example of this happening. 20 years ago by the way.

A Frenchman as the team principal, A South African as the chief designer, A Brit as the Technical Director, A German "Talent Powerhouse" as the lead driver. Obviously, they must have created a global culture of team performance, a true Global Mix. Hence, It wasn't really surprising that they excelled. Well, James Allison was also there in those days.

[f1316]

Code: Select all

[quote="Sevach"]Turbulent times.[/quote]
In my view, this is why Ferrari chronically underperforms... 

[quote="[url=http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/marchionne-holds-maranello-talks-amid-ferrari-s-struggles-798840/]Marchionne holds Maranello talks amid Ferrari's struggles[/url]"][...]

Motorsport.com has learned that he has held a series of key meetings at Maranello with the chassis and aerodynamic departments – with a particular focus on speaking to those who report to department heads as well as their juniors.

Marchionne is determined to find out whether or not there is a belief from the shop floor that more potential can be extracted from the SF16-H, and if the true state of progress of the car is as he has been led to believe by senior management.

It is possible that Marchionne could take action after these meetings to tidy up internal structures – moving around those staff who he believes have not been exploited to their best, and moving aside those whom he believes have been holding things back.

[...][/quote]
It's the micromanaging of an engineering firm by someone who's [i]not[/i] an engineer.  Ferrari SpA can endure it - as similar automakers are often wont to do - because the brand is incredibly strong.  But, that doesn't apply to Scuderia Ferrari in a world driven solely by performance, because reputation is worth exactly 0.0s.

By constantly rattling his sabre, Marchionne is showing himself to be no better than Montezemolo when it comes to getting the best from people hired specifically to do --- he doesn't understand.  There's no reason to employ either a technical director or a team principal if those titles are ultimately meaningless.[/quote]

Code: Select all

[quote="bhall II"]I thought the whole point of casting off Tombazis, Fry, etc., was to establish that sort of dynamic in the form of strong technical leadership under one person: James Allison.  It can't work if the president of the company undermines that authority by interfering with mid-level technical managers.  In fact, it's exactly that sort of culture which led to the inexplicable decision in 2013-14 to deliberately sacrifice engine power for the sake of aero.  After four years of getting his ass kicked by Newey and Prodromou, Tombazis wanted to prove himself to the world by trying to out-Red Bull Red Bull, and no one within the team had enough technical juice to put the brakes on such a monumentally stupid idea.

Ferrari reminds me of this...

[url]http://i.imgur.com/jamSePl.png[/url]

I wonder, how is that you haven't got down voted yet by the hardcode blind Ferrari fans? Every time when I criticized Ferrari and when you came to defend Ferrari, you got up votes. Oh Ferrari fans.... I tell you.

Maybe what this should tell you is that it's not criticism that people object to - it's the seemingly baseless vitriol that you generally aim toward Ferrari (and its fans for daring to hope for victory).

[bhall II]

Even if folks objected, I'd still say it.

Well, what's wrong in Marchionne jumping...

I think what you've offered is a near-perfect distillation of why it's a bad idea for business leaders to interfere with technical leaders who are involved in a hyper-competitive technical exercise. You've described what the Japanese call kaizen, which is defined as a "business philosophy of continuous improvement of working practices, personal efficiency, etc." When applied to an engineering environment that's concerned with nothing else, i.e. no selling, it's effectively an attempt to democratize science, and it's arguably why Toyota spent several billion dollars in Formula 1 and left with nothing to show for it and why Honda's current foray into the sport has left a lot to be desired.

Something is either there, or it's not.

For example, to a relatively casual observer, Ferrari's recent spate of reliability problems might appear troublesome, as if there's a problem in the system, ergo reason for alarm (and perhaps a few meetings with "those who report to department heads as well as their juniors"). On the other side, an experienced engineer immersed in the work will probably understand that performance and reliability rarely go hand in hand, because achieving one typically means sacrificing the other.

...[his] idea of a Grand Prix car was it should win the race and, as it crossed the finishing line, it should collapse in a heap of bits. If it didn't do that, it was built too strongly.

That experienced engineer might then look upon Ferrari's impeccable record of reliability over the last 20 years as evidence of a team that's spent the last 20 years leaving performance on the table, ergo it's evidence the team is simply not accustomed to intelligently pushing boundaries nor does it have a cache of collective experience to guide its processes, and it's gonna have to break some --- before it can succeed.


Mercedes owes a great deal for its current place to the three years it spent doing stuff like this
Also, you know you've said way too much about F1 --- when Google searches for F1 --- regularly turn up F1 --- you've created in the past

That's just a very simplified scenario. Really, what I'm trying to describe here is this...

It is legendary in F1 circles of the kind of political environment that prevails in Maranello.

Meddling in affairs is politics.

I don't know what in the world Marchionne hopes to achieve by conducting meetings with underlings. Since F1 teams invariably operate on a need-to-know basis, low-level engineers are the ones most likely to be deliberately kept out of the loop with regard to the big picture, because they're the ones who are most likely to move to other teams. From my perspective, it looks like Marchionne is undermining his managers due to his own White Knight ego. (Ego's a bitch. I know this from experience.)

[Scuderia1967]

So, according to Mister "I hate Ferrari and to prove my point my profile picture features the helmet of a driver who won 5 of his 7 championships driving that very same red italian car" , Ferrari's CEO having meetings with his staff is wrong? To paraphrase the great James T. Kirk in "The Wrath of Kahn", I laugh at your superior intelect...