Professor Derek Pugh, now Emeritus at the Open University, a member of the team who conducted the ‘Aston Studies’ of the 1960s, once said that every organisation has the strength of its weaknesses and the weakness of its strengths. What (I think) he meant was that strengths can become the source of a downfall, and weaknesses may provide the basis for new opportunities. .
This logic can also be applied to individuals, and in many ways you could portray this as a real sign of greatness: someone who is able to grasp the opportunity to turn a weakness into a strength. As a fan of music, and particularly the guitar, I am reminded of Django Reinhardt the great jazz guitarist who was badly injured in a fire at eighteen years old. Reinhardt re-taught himself to play the guitar and developed a unique style, only using his index and middle finger on his left hand when playing solos, as his other fingers had been paralysed as a consequence of the blaze. His distinctive style was sometimes referred to as ‘hot’ jazz, and for many he remains one of the greatest guitarists of all time.
A recent tweet from Richard Williams, concerning Ayrton Senna and his performance at the European Grand Prix at Donington in 1993, got me thinking about this question as it relates to Senna and his legacy. A few years ago I was chatting to someone at Cosworth about this amazing drive, and particularly the first lap when Senna moved from fourth, back to fifth, and then to lead the race by the end of the first lap. It is no secret that, at that time, the Cosworth in Senna’s McLaren was significantly underpowered, particularly when compared to the Renault engine in the Williams’ of Alain Prost and Damon Hill. However my friend regarded this as a potential advantage in the wet conditions, when it would be difficult, if not impossible, to use the power advantage of the Renault due to the low grip on the wet track. But he remarked that the Cosworth also had a smoother, flatter power curve which meant that it was easier to control than the more aggressive power curve of the Renault in low grip conditions, exactly like those at Donington in 1993.
One interpretation of this information is that perhaps Senna’s drive was not that exceptional because he had an engine advantage for the damp conditions that existed at the time. I prefer to look at it another way; he recognised the limitations of the Cosworth power unit during the 1993 season – which was why he moved to the Renault powered Williams for 1994 - and he therefore made sure that, given the wet track at Donington, he would exploit this opportunity to its very maximum. That day he drove in a way that showed a confidence and commitment that none could match on the first lap. Recognising the opportunity in a weakness is what greatness is all about.
February 21, 2013
Luca Marmorini, Ferrari’s Head of Engines, has been quoted in Autosport.com as saying that it is important that Ferrari have a second (ie in addition to Sauber) customer for their 2014 power unit – note the term ‘power unit’ as effectively these are engine + energy recovery systems, so the simple term ‘engine’ no longer seems to do it justice.
The reason for this concern is that their current second customer Toro Rosso have recently announced that they will be shifting to a Renault power unit in 2014, which makes sense organizationally as they are co-owned by Dietrich Mateschitz of Red Bull with Red Bull Racing, so presumably they can share more data during development and racing and therefore improve the performance of both teams. However Toro Rosso’s location in Faenza makes Maranello the ideal partner from a logistical point of view as they are literally a few kilometres down the road. Location matters in F1, otherwise we wouldn’t have Motorsport Valley in the UK, and so the proximity between the power unit supplier and customer cannot be ignored. For this reason, Marmorini hopes that all is not lost with Toro Rosso and that they may review their decision to go to Renault, as he says on the Autosport site: “I don’t know if Toro Rosso will be with us next year. We are still working very well with them now. They’re an important contribution to Ferrari engine development, but I also think we are giving them a competitive engine.”
A key factor in this is data. Derek Gardner, the now sadly departed designer of the six wheel Tyrrell, told me that a key problem that they had with the six wheeler was the speed of development of the front tyres, which were far smaller than the standard F1 front tyre that Goodyear supplied to all the other teams. As a consequence they were getting far less data on the performance of the tyre – as it was only fitted to two cars and so were unable to develop it as fast as the other which had feedback from twenty four cars (there were 13 teams racing back in 1976). Data therefore is everything if you want to improve performance.
So currently it seems (and things could still move around a fair bit) that if Toro Rosso move to Renault then Renault will be the leading supplier with power units in five teams: Red Bull Racing; Toro Rosso; Lotus; Williams and Caterham. Mercedes will be supplying power units to three teams: their works team plus McLaren and Force India. Ferrari will be supplying two teams – themselves and Sauber. It seems very unlikely that Cosworth, who currently supply Marussia, will be in the frame for 2014 (but never say never) and so who knows, we may see Ferrari supplying the power unit for Marussia, which will make an interesting dynamic in their race with Caterham to tenth place.
December 1, 2011
With the 2011 season now at an end the teams are working even harder on their 2012 cars. We are also getting more clarity on driver line-ups, with F1 very much in tune with work practices in general - extending the retirement age with Kimi Raikkonen now returning to F1, this time with Lotus Renault, not sure if he’s having to make bigger pension contributions.
But while much of the media attention focuses on 2012, the movers and shakers: the Team Principals and FOTA, the FIA, Formula One Management and CVC are all focused on 2013. This is when a new Concorde Agreement should come into effect. Recently in the FT, Leisure Industries Correspondent, Roger Blitz aligned the politics of F1 to those of the Eurozone, with an intense battle emerging between the haves (Bernie and CVC) and have-nots (FOTA and FIA) – my definition not Roger’s. The complex web that is the governance of F1 is yet again going to be stretched and rewoven, and currently, no-one is quite sure how this will all end up. Certainly we will see Bernie at his best – he always enjoys a good fight – and will undoubtedly be focusing on divide and rule with the teams, not a new strategy, but always an effective one, but who knows perhaps Martin Whitmarsh and his peers will be able to keep FOTA united and carve out a good result? The key is going to be where the FIA end up. In the past they have traditionally aligned against the teams, but perhaps this time we will see a new permutation? Expect plenty of off-track fireworks during 2012.
However there are those in F1 for whom 2012 and 2013 matters not a jot: for the technical strategists in the teams work is well underway for the 2014 regulations which will require the cars to have 1.6 litre V6 power units and substantial Energy Recovery Systems (ERS) to harvest and reuse the energy to improve performance. The engine manufacturers are well underway with a variety of permutations and concepts and the teams will be keen to see how they can build the optimum package from this new powertrain.
All in all the next few years are going to be a busy time for anyone involved in F1, regardless of whether or not the Eurozone holds together.
The World Motorsport Council meeting of last week will be best remembered for its ‘unanimous’ decision to reinstate the Bahrain Grand Prix in 2011, although it appears that any changes to the calendar require the agreement of the teams themselves, and so there are still quite a few twists and turns to go on this story yet.
But the other interesting piece from the meeting was the announcement that the engine regulations for 2013 were approved and that these will be four cylinder 1.6 litre units with ‘extensive energy management and energy recover systems (now known as ERS)’ this effectively ratifies the decision made in December 2010. However, the interesting bit of the statement is as follows: ‘In consultation with the main stakeholders, and following the outcome of this consultation, a fax vote by the WMSC could be considered by 30 June latest to redefine [my underlining] the implementation date of these technical regulations.’ In other words the regulations are agreed, but when they actually come into force is not, the implementation date may be put back, presumably this could depend on the timing and costs of developing the new engines. I wonder what the implications may be for the cash flow projections of Craig Pollocks new venture – PURE? So let’s see if anything happens by 30 June, latest.
There have been some rumblings around the new engine regulations which are to be established for F1 from 2013 onwards. The proposal appears to be that a small (1.6 litre) four cylinder hybrid (ie with a KERS type system) replaces the current 2.4litre V8, this has provoked negative responses from a number of F1 luminaries, not least Mr E himself, who has claimed that the development costs will repel engine manufacturers from F1 and will also reduce the attractiveness of F1 as a TV spectacle and so TV companies will also pull out. The first part of his argument is based on sound logic, I remember Bernard Ferguson, the former Cosworth Commercial Director, saying to me that the biggest cost in F1 was obsolescence and so, as far as engine manufacturers were concerned, the fewer and less radical the rule changes the better. In an era where F1 is battling to reduce its cost base surely continuity of engine supply is one area where costs could be contained by sticking with the current format for a further five years, or for however long the next Concorde Agreement is going to be in force? The second part of Bernie’s argument is also persuasive, there is nothing quite like the sound of an F1 car, and if you put 22 of them together at the start of a race it is an incredible sensation akin to putting your head in the speaker of a PA stack at a Ramones concert (which a friend of mine did try for ninety seconds – the typical length of a Ramones composition). The sound is amazing, although I have to say that my most enduring memory of F1 is going to Silverstone in the late seventies and hearing the flat 12 Ferrari before it became obsolete – that high-pitched scream sounded totally different to the Cosworth powered competition, today the cars sound incredible, but they all (to my untrained ear) sound pretty much the same. However for me the sound is very much part of the spectator experience (try being in a garage when they start an engine up and you forgot to put in your ear-plugs – not recommended), which is not something that has been at the heart of the F1 business model, in fact, apart from the corporate market, spectators haven’t really been anywhere in the F1 business model. So I’m not sure that the TV viewing experience would be that much poorer for different sounding engines.
But the real clincher for me was when I recently gave an F1 talk in Geneva and someone had said to me that his fourteen year old son was mad on cars and so he’d taken him to the Geneva Motor Show a couple of weeks before. I asked, what kind of cars is he interested in, Ferrari? Porsche? No, came the reply, he’s really into electric cars and doesn’t care about the make. The big danger is that current F1 merges seamlessly into historic F1 without us noticing. The internal combustion engine is on the way out and it doesn’t matter who you talk to in the automotive industry they all agree, we are moving into an area where the hybrid will transition us into electric cars and other low emission solutions. The iceberg waiting for the F1 Titanic is that it suddenly becomes very outdated and totally out of step with the new generation of fans that it needs to attract to remain viable, and of course without the fans you don’t have the TV and without TV you don’t have the sponsors. So my vote is for change, it will cost more in the short term, but it will cost far more in the medium/long term if we don’t do it.
March 2, 2011
Over the years car manufacturers have come and gone from F1, given the mass exodus we had in 2008/9 with Honda, BMW and Toyota all leaving and with Renault downscaling to engine supply, you could be forgiven for thinking that we were entering another manufacturer free period, similar to that that existed in the 1970s when only Fiat (via Ferrari) and Ford (via Cosworth) were involved.
However we have recently seen a new phenomenon with car manufacturers such as Proton’s Group Lotus and Nissan’s Infiniti entering F1, not as constructors or even engine suppliers, but as sponsors. This is an interesting shift and one which seems to suggest a changing business model for the manufacturers in F1. It may be that both Lotus and Infiniti will become more involved, but currently they have decided the acquisition of a team or building, or badging, their own engine is not the way to go. Perhaps we will see more partnerships of this kind between car manufacturers and F1 teams – watch this space!
December 3, 2010
Apologies for the gap, but hopefully this is a return to a more regular posting pattern on the blog.
I’ve been watching the machinations around Team Lotus, Group Lotus and Renault with some interest, and although there seems to be some way to go (and presumably a lot of legal fees and a few trips to court) before we know which Lotus will be on the grid, we can be pretty sure that there will be a Lotus Renault of some description in 2011.
It is now clear that Renault’s strategy in F1 is to go in exactly the opposite direction to Mercedes, who have moved from being an engine supplier to a full constructor with the acquisition of Brawn GP at the end of 2009. Renault however are in the process of moving from being a full constructor to an engine supplier, having sold a significant proportion of their F1 team to Genii Capital, also at the end of 2009, it looks like they will continue this exit strategy and focus on purely supplying engines. After all, in partnership with Red Bull, they are the world champion engine supplier this year, their first since 2006. So as Renault withdraw as a constructor who will take their place in the Enstone based operation? Well, one scenario is that Group Lotus – with their new CEO, ex-Ferrari man Dany Bahar, and new ambitions: a full range of product concepts from the new Esprit due in 2013, to the four door, Lotus Eterne which looks to take on competitors such as the Porsche Panamera – will invest in the F1 team and create the new Lotus Renault F1 operation. Of course there is one problem to this scenario and that is the existence of Tony Fernandes’ Team Lotus who were the most successful of the new teams in 2010. Team Lotus is a separate legal entity to Group Lotus and continued to race in F1, following Lotus founder Colin Chapman’s death in 1982, until 1994 when they went into administration and the company, including the name and branding, were purchased by David Hunt, brother of F1 world champion, James Hunt. Hunt having recently sold the company to Fernandes’ F1 operation.
For 2011 Team Lotus have switched engine suppliers from Northampton based Cosworth Racing to the French manufactured Renault Sport power unit which proved so successful in the Red Bull chassis (and was also able to hold off Alonso’s Ferrari at the Abu Dhabi grand prix in the Renault chassis). Interestingly the new arrangement also includes gearbox and hydraulics from Red Bull Technology, so in effect the Team Lotus car of 2011 will be the same powertrain as the Red Bull. So whatever the outcome of the Lotus wars, we should still see a Lotus Renault of some kind on the grid in 2011, whichever one it is, it will be interesting to see how it compares to the Red Bull.
May 25, 2010
There’s an interesting piece in the June edition of F1 Racing which suggests that Williams are less than happy with the performance of their Cosworth engine this year and are exploring a link up with Porsche.
It is clear that Williams are, so far, not delivering the kind of performance you would normally expect from the Grove based team, and given the strong racing tradition within the company, I’m sure they’re not too pleased with it either. As they are the only established team to be using Cosworth power this year, it is difficult to get a clear benchmark as to how much the engine is impacting on their performance. Certainly the Renault (Red Bull and Renault) and Mercedes (Mercedes, McLaren and Force India) power units appear to be strong, and although Ferrari have been doing well with their own cars, the only established teams yet to score a point are Toro Rosso and Sauber, both of whom use Ferrari customer engines. Of course aerodyanmics are the biggest driver of performance these days, but although the engine designs are effectively ‘frozen’ they can make a difference in terms of overall power, the way the power comes in when the throttle is used (driveability), reliability, shape – to help aerodynamics – and also the centre of gravity which can impact on handling. The F1 Racing article suggests that there are concerns with the driveability of the Cosworth engine and also its ability to maintain optimum performance with increased mileage. Apparently Cosworth are working on these issues and hope to have improvements in place for the Turkish Grand Prix.
Porsche have a fairly chequered history in F1. They entered a full works team in 1961 to take advantage of regulation changes to use a 1.5litre V6 engine, they remained until the end of 1964, shortly before the regulations changed again to permit larger 3.0 litre engines, but were not really able to enjoy much success during this period, they did win one race – the 1962 French Grand Prix at Rouen. They came back as an engine supplier in 1983 when their power units were used in the McLaren F1 car and branded Techniques Avant Garde (TAG) as this was the sponsor who funded the project. This relationship ended in 1987 when Ron Dennis had persuaded Honda to move to McLaren away from supplying – guess who? – Williams.
So why is there speculation about Porsche and Williams now? Well it seems to be one of these ‘by association’ links. Williams Hybrid Power (WHP) was set up by Williams to develop their KERS system for 2009, using a electro/mechanical (generator/flywheel and electric motor) system rather than the electrical (generator/battery and electric motor) system adopted by the other teams. However WHP is also a stand-alone operation which is looking to commercially exploit this F1 based technology for other applications. Recently they have collaborated with Porsche to produce the hybrid system for the new 911 GT3 R Hybrid race car. This was announced at the 2010 Geneva Motor Show in March and the car recently lead the field at the Nurburgring 24 hour race before succumbing to engine problems. Porsche clearly believe that hybrid technology is consistent with their high performance products and are using Williams’ F1 technology to develop this. However, it is unlikely that Porsche would entertain the idea of supplying an F1 engine in the short term with F1 engine regulations being very restrictive. However the FIA is currently working on new engine regulations from 2013, which are likely to emphasize hybrid technology, so this could be something for the future, and may provide an opportunity for Porsche or other VW group brands. However for the time being it looks as though Williams will have to hope that Cosworth make some progress in terms of catching up with Renault and Mercedes.
February 1, 2010
As the Valencia test gets underway this week, aside from the car and driver comparisons that can be drawn, the one I’m going to be looking out for is engines. Admittedly Valencia is not likely to be an ‘engine’ circuit, but the performance of the engines, both in power, reliability and fuel economy is going to be a critical factor in explaining the performance of the teams in 2010. Fuel economy is a potentially critical issue as there will be no in-race refuelling and so the ability of the engine to require less fuel to complete a race is going to be a big competitive advantage. An announcement was made recently that the 2009 spec engines would not be ‘equalised’ . The FIA had given the engine suppliers the opportunity to adjust down the more powerful units if there was a view that there was an inequality, but it looks like (surprise, surprise) this could not be agreed. Of course this did not include Cosworth who have based their 2010 power unit on their 2006 spec engine. The engine was originally designed to run at 20,000rpm and will now run at the regulated 18,000.
The word on the street is that, of the 2009 engines, the Mercedes and Renault power units are likely to be the best combination in power and economy, with the Ferrari engine looking to be thirstier. Commentators have noted that Ferrari have recently registered a number of ‘reliability upgrades’ which are allowed under the regulations, which have been interpreted as Ferrari trying to address this problem. One of the most successful corporate and technological partnerships in F1 is that between Ferrari and Shell, in the past Shell have worked with Ferrari to develop fuels that both weighed less and gave a power advantage, I’m sure, if there is a problem, that it will be addressed before too long. But the really interesting question is how well the Cosworth engine will perform. The message I’m hearing from the Cosworth people is a bullish one, they are optimistic that they will be right up there in terms of performance and economy, however there are concerns that as the team have not run an engine in F1 since they partnered Williams in 2006, there could be reliability issues. Either way it will be interesting to look at the times at Valencia in terms of engines as well as cars and drivers.
Valencia first session, it looks like the engine order is Ferrari (Ferrari, Sauber); Mercedes (Mercedes, McLaren), Cosworth (Williams) and then Renault (I’ve excluded Toro Rosse [Ferrari] on the assumption that their poor performance is due to the fact that they’ve had to design their own chassis for the first time!)
December 2, 2009
Having just returned from teaching on an executive programme in Shanghai – my first visit to the city, two things struck me. First how, despite the internet appearing to be the same as usual, I was unable to blog, twitter or access Wikipedia and second how the internal combustion engine has to be replaced sooner rather than later. I came to the second point after going on a range of exciting taxi trips – the drivers here outshone Rome and Rio for sheer lunacy, but it was the mind blowing number of vehicles that struck me. Shanghai is a huge city – officially the population is just below 20 million, but unofficially probably closer to 30 million, larger than the populations of Australia and New Zealand put together, and it sits in a cloud of permanent smog which will undoubtedly get worse as more of the population acquire cars. Many manufacturers are well advanced in their plans for electric vehicles and it won’t come soon enough for China. I only hope F1 will take a real lead in the new technologies that will propel cars in the future. The sooner we get KERS back the better, as far as I’m concerned. Let’s hope the post 2012 regulations give the engineers the opportunity to develop some creative new ways of powering F1.