2016 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team - Ferrari

[Phil]

I just struggle to see how a modular platform designed to accommodate front- and mid-engine layouts won't compromise one or both.

When have cars ever NOT been a result of some compromise, bar perhaps the F1 or Veyron?

[bhall II]

That's not a good argument for further compromise.

[SR71]

I just struggle to see how a modular platform designed to accommodate front- and mid-engine layouts won't compromise one or both.

not sure why it would compromise one or both. could you explain why you think that will happen?

Have you seen the platform? You might be a bit mislead on how many common parts will be between all the cars....

Are you saying a common tub with bespoke front and rear ends for each model would be a significant compromise?

Lotus worked on a similar system, not sure where it's currently at but no reason Ferrari cannot produce something even better, more tuneable for each model, and without compromising a damn thing all while saving costs...

http://www.lotuscars.com/lightweight-st ... tudy-evora

its called progress.

[Phil]

That's not a good argument for further compromise.

Need there be one? Road cars are not F1 cars. They must appeal to a broad range of usages as well as comply to various rules and regulations for road and safety. This results in compromise.

Furthermore, the market is an erratic place. Riding on brandname and exclusivity or rarity alone will not guarantee you success. With the market shifting to more efficient cars, one could argue that the market of exotic cars running big V8 or V10 engines is soon coming to an end and a thing of the past. Also, the EU is tightening regulations for noise emissions too, so those tasty sounding Ferraris will be muted down sooner than later. Not a great outlook for a brand like Ferrari (and others) then.

As a fan of exotic super cars, sure - it's not something I'm particular happy about. But this kind of progress is inevitable, sadly, if you don't want to risk standing still.

[Jolle]

That's not a good argument for further compromise.

Need there be one? Road cars are not F1 cars. They must appeal to a broad range of usages as well as comply to various rules and regulations for road and safety. This results in compromise.

Furthermore, the market is an erratic place. Riding on brandname and exclusivity or rarity alone will not guarantee you success. With the market shifting to more efficient cars, one could argue that the market of exotic cars running big V8 or V10 engines is soon coming to an end and a thing of the past. Also, the EU is tightening regulations for noise emissions too, so those tasty sounding Ferraris will be muted down sooner than later. Not a great outlook for a brand like Ferrari (and others) then.

As a fan of exotic super cars, sure - it's not something I'm particular happy about. But this kind of progress is inevitable, sadly, if you don't want to risk standing still.

First of all, even a F1 car is a big compromise, maybe even more so then a road car (it needs to be fast around corners, straights, safe enough to crash at extreme high speeds and have some fuel efficiency). But there is some common sense platforming for any car maker. In electronics for instance (a growing part of a car) and engine components (what a company like Ferrari is already doing). I could also see the use of suspension part becoming more and more modular (together with the electronics). With a diminishing importants in costs of the structural design of a mid-low volume sports car, the question arises, is it even necessary?
Reading about MS and the way he dealt with the Fiat-Chrysler crisis, it's painful clear that he tries to do the same thing to a healthy part of the group thereby destroying the nature of the beast.

[bhall II]

As a fan of exotic super cars, sure - it's not something I'm particular happy about. But this kind of progress is inevitable, sadly, if you don't want to risk standing still.

If I thought it might make the cars better, I wouldn't have anything to say about it. However, this is purely about black ink.

It's also why Montezemolo left.

Montezemolo chose to leave rather than let the axe fall. Bloomberg quoted the Ferrari Chairman as saying "Ferrari is now American." He also said it was, "the end of an era."

(Actually, Ferrari is now a Dutch company.)

In on-topic news, Arrivabene says Ferrari must increase downforce.

[Phil]

I was more referring to that F1 is pretty specific in its aim to be as fast as possible within the current regulations. A road car can never be that specific, see the Aston Martin topic for example. But yes, even in a F1 car there are compromises that are necessary (but less than in a F1 car than road car, given all the reasons you named are also applicable to road cars and that to a higher degree).

As for if more is necessary; Obviously, the answer to that is yes, if even other larger volume brands are going down that path. In fact, it's been a trend that has been on going for a long time now, just look at Lotus for instance. The more you can share between models, the less costs you have. If the end user actually will care about that is an entirely different matter. Many Ferraris are bought for the prestige, not their lap times around any circuit where such a compromise might be 'felt' or noticed.

Yes, the purist in me doesn't like it either. But the purist can't change the trend and market shifting either.

[Fulcrum]

That's not a good argument for further compromise.

Riding on brandname and exclusivity or rarity alone will not guarantee you success.

And yet, this is precisely what Ferrari had done for so long, so well, even until very recently.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ferrari- ... 6R20130508
http://www.news.com.au/finance/business ... 6637987988
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2013/05/ ... -of-brand/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... ivity.html
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/f ... 55553.html

Of course, everything changed with the advent of the IPO.

Ferrari didn't require the funding, Fiat needed to extract as much money as possible from the brand value in order to help ease their debt burden. It's like selling your gran's heirlooms to pay for your gambling debts; you kick the can down the road, solve the symptom but not the underlying problem, and potentially create further complications.

Ferrari are now beholden to shareholders who demand results. This means production capacity is forced higher - got to maximise the brand potential and revenue streams.

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1027 ... ly-by-2019
http://www.businesspundit.com/ferrari-9 ... aybe-more/

It's the forced increase in production numbers that demand the modular approach, not the other way around. For Ferrari, as a brand, this is a huge departure from previous 'best' practice. They've traded on bespoke, handcrafted, production-limited vehicles for decades, and very successfully too.

Marchionne's power plays may rescue Fiat, but at what cost to Ferrari? This is difficult to say, but shareholder relationships and board accountability are very different for listed companies than those that conduct their business behind closed doors.

'Modular' does not correlate very well with 'bespoke'. Modular design and increased volumes imply a drop in perceived brand value, and may translate into a very real drop in build quality. Doing the same thing as your competitors doesn't differentiate you either. Nor does it play to their existing strengths.

For a company valued so highly, largely on the basis of goodwill, this isn't necessarily the best strategy.

http://moneymorning.com/2015/10/14/is-t ... nyse-race/
https://theboar.org/2015/12/ferrari-ipo ... uperstock/

I hope things turn out for the best, but I'm 100% certain Marchionne does little, or nothing, for the benefit of Ferrari.

[Phil]

'Modular' does not correlate very well with 'bespoke'. Modular design and increased volumes imply a drop in perceived brand value, and may translate into a very real drop in build quality. Doing the same thing as your competitors doesn't differentiate you either. Nor does it play to their existing strengths.

Modular design and increased volumes are two different things. One may lead to the other, but the key point here is that the modular design obviously gives more possibilities; It will make production cheaper, and quicker. That can lead to increased volume and also higher profits.

These are key points, especially looking into a very uncertain future for exquisite sportscar manufacturers that aim their cars at petrolheads - a market that is rapidly decreasing, because the market and road safety and regulations are forcing us to. Uncertainty requires flexibility, if you want to adapt to a changing market.

This will not have any (or little) bearing on how the car will look or appeal, so arguably will have little impact on the image of the brand or the car.

In a couple of years or decades when petrol engines will for the most part have disappeared, who will have re-invented itself will survive and stay successful. Those that don't, will probably disappear or to the point of insignificance (small volume brands).

[bhall II]

Ferrari to adopt McLaren-style technical structure

[...]

But although Allison's immediate successor Mattia Binotto does not have extensive experience of aerodynamics nor chassis development, Arrivabene has said that a new approach to its technical operation means he is the right man to lead things.

"He will work with the team to help improve the car," said Arrivabene. "All the technicians talk to each other, but the difference is very important: there will be no more of 'this is 'Mr X's' car'.

"There will be a car that will be the result of the co-operation between all the working groups involved in the project."

Looking within

While Ferrari had considered roles for Ross Brawn and Toro Rosso's James Key, neither have shown any interest in getting involved at Maranello.

[...]

Not at all surprised that neither Brawn nor Key wants anything to do with the mess in Maranello.

[godlameroso]

Would you? I wouldn't feel right working someplace that unrealistically puts me on a pedestal, and then turns around a crucifies me for not being their savior. All the while never being truly in charge of anything.

[SR71]

Would you? I wouldn't feel right working someplace that unrealistically puts me on a pedestal, and then turns around a crucifies me for not being their savior. All the while never being truly in charge of anything.

+1

Only thing not rotten within Ferrari are the drivers.

Kimi is the only thing bringing soul to the company and he's the Iceman for peets sake! Cannot wait till Vettel is at McLaren

http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2016/07 ... -from.html

[f1316]

Ferrari to adopt McLaren-style technical structure

[...]

But although Allison's immediate successor Mattia Binotto does not have extensive experience of aerodynamics nor chassis development, Arrivabene has said that a new approach to its technical operation means he is the right man to lead things.

"He will work with the team to help improve the car," said Arrivabene. "All the technicians talk to each other, but the difference is very important: there will be no more of 'this is 'Mr X's' car'.

"There will be a car that will be the result of the co-operation between all the working groups involved in the project."

Looking within

While Ferrari had considered roles for Ross Brawn and Toro Rosso's James Key, neither have shown any interest in getting involved at Maranello.

[...]

Not at all surprised that neither Brawn nor Key wants anything to do with the mess in Maranello.

It's been reported by James Allen that Brawn wanted complete autonomy - that doesn't mean not interested, that means interested in certain circumstances. You could argue 'interested in fixing the mess'.

I don't think it's illogical to do any of the things they've done though, presuming we believe the stories that say Allison wanted to leave to be back in England due to tragedy and it was amicable on both sides. Key could be great but has never made (nor had the opportunity to make) a winning car, so turning your entire operation upside down for his sake would certainly be a gamble.

Uncovering talent in your lower escalons is always positive and, speaking on experience of extremely large corporations, very often those towards the top know very little of the lower level detail that, despite what anyone may tell you, is vital to making the right decisions. If those in more senior positions are not properly utilising those talents at Ferrari then it's extremely refreshing to see them taking this stance.

[lkm9719]

How about Mike Gascoyne ? Is he ok for Ferrari ?

[TAG]

Marchionne's power plays may rescue Fiat, but at what cost to Ferrari? This is difficult to say, but shareholder relationships and board accountability are very different for listed companies than those that conduct their business behind closed doors.

The minute the announcement came this was my thought. If you're winning nobody cares the F1 "brand image" is doing what it's supposed to. However if you're not winning, if you're struggling for a decade and two teams have basically come in from scratch and built winning legacies while you've been struggling for success... the board is going to begin to question a half billion euro annual investment in the F1 team to finish third.