September 14, 2014
The departure of Luca di Montezemolo from the role of chairman of Ferrari is undoubtedly the end of an era. For many this was perhaps necessary to get new thinking into the Scuderia, currently experiencing a period of underperformance similar to that of the early 90s prior to the ‘Schumacher era’. The irony is that the person who was responsible for turning things around back then, protecting Ferrari from Fiat’s corporate culture, and appointing Jean Todt to help build what became the most successful F1 team of all time, was Luca di Montezemolo.
With Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne now taking over as chairman and with the Scuderia being led by the former head of Ferrari’s US road car operation, Marco Mattiacci, it looks like history may be repeating itself. Back in 1988 when Enzo passed away Fiat’s stake in Ferrari shifted from 40 to 90% and resulted in one of the least successful periods in the proud history of the Scuderia. A long line of Fiat managers were parachuted in with disastrous results. You only have to look at the contrast between Jaguar Racing and Red Bull to see what a dysfunctional effect corporate management can have on entrepreneurial, fast moving F1 teams, you need racers like Christian Horner, not corporate managers to win in F1. Let’s hope Ferrari aren’t going through corporate paralysis once again – it took ten years to recover from the last time. If I was Fernando Alonso, I’d be seriously considering my options.
August 28, 2014
Interesting comments from Ron Dennis on the F1 drivers’ market
Originally posted on Adam Cooper's F1 Blog:
Ron Dennis says he’s satisfied with the performance of Jenson Button and Kevin Magnussen in 2014, but confirms that McLaren is keeping its options open on future driver choice as it enters the Honda era.
The names of Fernando Alonso, Sebastian Vettel and Lewis Hamilton have all been connected with the team, although in theory none are free until 2016 or even later.
Dennis was reminded that a few weeks ago he said that Jenson had to “try harder,” a remark that created something of a stir at the time.
“Anyone who has actually seen the TV interview in question will know that there was an element of humour in what I said,” he told the official F1 website. “Having said that, did I also intend to give Jenson a bit of a wake-up call? Yes, I did. But I did it softly, not maliciously. Indeed, perhaps the efficacy of…
View original 288 more words
July 29, 2014
Great piece from @willbuxton
Originally posted on The Buxton Blog:
The arrival of August may mean an enforced break for most of the F1 world, but not it would seem for some of the sport’s key decision makers. It emerged over the weekend of the Hungarian Grand Prix that Bernie Ecclestone intends to hold a crisis summit over the sport’s popularity. Formula 1 team bosses were made aware of this on Saturday in Budapest, along with the shock news that alongside a hand-picked selection of team chiefs and Ecclestone himself, would be media representatives and disgraced former F1 team boss Flavio Briatore.
Although it has been claimed that the meeting should not be viewed as a negative, to many it can only be deemed thus. Coming at a time when the fans of this sport, along with a growing number of dissenting voices in the paddock, are having their say on double points…
View original 1,120 more words
May 19, 2014
The nice people at Virgin have published another guest piece from me on the subject of what makes an industry ripe for disruption? You can see it here: http://www.virgin.com/entrepreneur/what-makes-an-industry-ripe-for-disruption
As you will see from the piece I consider that F1 is most certainly ripe for disruption and that Formula E may be the disruptor that changes the rules of the game. However it is also worth making the point that many disruptors do not actually destroy the existing businesses, but create growth through the addition of new customers into the industry. Low cost airlines have not replaced the entire airline business model, but extended the airline business into new markets. You could also see a scenario where Formula E actually attracts a new group of fan into motorsport – someone who is passionate about low carbon technology and who likes the edgy new technology and city racing that Formula E will be showcasing. Who knows we may ultimately see teams like McLaren and Williams entering cars into Formula E when it becomes open to other constructors in 2016. Stranger things have happened in motor racing.
April 22, 2014
Following on from my last post on the relationship between innovation and regulation the nice people at Virgin asked me to do a guest piece for the Virgin Disruptor’s website, you can see it here: http://www.virgin.com/disruptors/do-regulations-place-innovation-in-a-straitjacket-or-give-it-wings
I used the example of how Colin Chapman created a huge opportunity for Lotus and, as it turned out, the British motorsport industry when he had to adapt to the change in engine regulations back in 1966. My point was that you can see regulatory change as a threat or an opportunity, and it is those that focus on the opportunity who will ultimately succeed. Just look at Mercedes in F1 at present. It would be wrong to think that the reason for Mercedes’ current dominance was that they are just lucky enough to have a good power unit – the decisions that brought about their current success were taken some time ago, choices made to focus on car and power unit for 2014 were taken back in 2012 and are now bringing the success they hoped for. Of course many of these choices were made by Ross Brawn who is not the one enjoying the current accolades, but presumably enjoying a spot of quiet fishing somewhere. I’m sure that this hasn’t gone unnoticed and I’m sure that, should he wish to, there are one or two openings for him to do the same again elsewhere.
April 12, 2014
It outlines a series of cases where regulation, often stimulated by lobbying from the incumbents, attempts to stifle some of the creativity of innovators. Undoubtedly this is sometimes the case, but a question which has interested me has been whether regulation can also stimulate innovation and create game changing opportunities rather than just protecting the profits of some rather comfortable firms who have grown lazy from success and want to avoid new competitors at all costs.
Last year I put in a research bid for some funding from the Leverhulme Foundation which aims to provide two or three years funding for academics who would like to spend some time on researching something they are really passionate about, but due to admin and teaching responsibilities haven’t had the time to do it. I felt I was a good case (but they obviously didn’t as I didn’t get the grant!) and of course my passion was to look more deeply into the world of Formula 1 and in particular the relationship between innovation and regulation. The situation today is a case-in-point, for 2014 we have totally new propulsion system, with V6 turbo-charged 1.6 litre engines combined with sophisticated energy recovery systems which create a further 160kw from mechanical and heat energy recovery. These systems are innovative, but it’s been quite interesting how some of the well-established teams and movers and shakers are unhappy about the changes and the way it has shifted the balance of competitive performance between the teams.
A major regulation change is of course both a threat and an opportunity. Back in 1966 the FIA decided to change the engine regulations and move from a 1.5 litre engine to a 3.0 litre (interesting that we have now gone in the opposite direction). For the British teams such as Cooper and Lotus this was a major threat as their engine supplier – Coventry Climax decided that they could not afford the costs of designing a new, bigger engine and so it looked like well-funded teams with the engine technology, such as Ferrari, would dominate. Colin Chapman at Lotus had a different plan. He sought to persuade Ford to fund the development of a new 3.0 litre F1 engine which would be a technological revolution. The Ford Cosworth DFV was designed as a stressed component of the car which meant that the engine could be simply bolted onto the rear of the chassis with the rear suspension and gearbox fitted onto the rear of the engine. It was powerful, light and cheap (in 1968 an F1 team could buy the engine for £7500, so Ken Tyrrell told me!), it created the many F1 constructors based in ‘Motorsport Valley’ that still remain today with eight out of the eleven F1 teams all based within a fifty mile radius of Oxford. So occasionally regulation does stimulate innovation, and with some pretty spectacular consequences.
March 26, 2014
I’ve been interested to see the reaction of Silverstone to the planned Circuit of Wales, regarding whether or not they are receiving ‘illegal’ state aid (see – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-26712038).
I can understand why Silverstone may be concerned with a further circuit cropping up in the UK, their new Wing, which sits in the middle of the circuit is an impressive facility, but one which will require a lot of utilisation in order to keep it viable. In 2007 we already had 19 paved circuits in the UK (see – http://www.amazon.co.uk/Motorsport-Going-Global-Challenges-Industry), many of which are struggling to keep the cash flowing in and are heavily dependent on one or two big races either in cars or bikes, so why do we need another one?
For me the argument is simple. We have a unique capability in the UK to design, manufacturer and develop motorsport products, services and technologies. The UK has the largest concentration of motorsport turnover relative to GDP anywhere in the world and anything that adds to this capability is, in my view, a good thing. I understand that those who are fighting to capture as many big events as possible would see this as a threat, but if we take the perspective from UK plc it is a huge opportunity. But there’s a further point, if we capture the imagination of young people in the area who have never been to a circuit before, we may increase participation and the size of the cake, then we may also get some new Adrian Newey’s, Ross Brawn’s and perhaps even (showing my age) a Tom Pryce.