My choice of word wasn't appropriate probably, I meant to say team instead I wrote company. It should have read: "You cannot constantly regenerate a team, and Ferrari has been at it for 70 years now". Let's leave at that, shall we?
Yes, we're going to leave it here because your reasoning is baseless. Are you aware that there are very succesful football teams that were born more than a century ago?
on the brighter side Mclaren and Racing P. don’t have the funds to develop this year’s cars that much so third place is almost guaranteed
Ferrari has always been just a little above mediocre. Look at the lapse between F1 championships from 79 until Shu came. Ferrari just hangs around with the best drivers they can get and waits for a period when all the other teams are weak. More recently you have seen McLaren come and go, Red Bull come and go, but Merc is a little different. It's unlikely they will be weak as long as they choose to stay in F1. It's not that they are noncompetitive. It's more that they are seldom the best.
England has Motorsports valley which has the worlds largest pool of Motorsports engineers So the talent jumps from one team to another with tremendous wealth of knowledge that gets transferred in the process. Italy does not have such a Valley So the pool of talent is limited https://www.oxford-royale.com/articles/motorsport-valley/#aId=75666c1d-3102-4c0f-8615-cdf62e172092
I have argumented as much on this forum for years. There is a reason why most teams are based in Britain, even foreign ones.
no flak warranted, I get what you're saying - sometimes new blood/creative destruction is the only answer.
Get rid of the turbos in the cars and the ability to controlling the power units from the pits along with some technology and they will have more of a chance of being successful. F1 now is not about racing but managing.....engine, tires, aero, fuel consumption, drivers. It's not about who's the fastest anymore. Merc has better engineers on the current turbo engines. Thats why Hamilton went to Mercedes when the engine switched. Drivers has become less important over the years. DAS system ...what kind of BS is that!
And then people would say: oh, look, Ferrari 3 different team principals in 4 years, Mercedes always the same... Internet. Everybody is a ****ing expert.
I don't want to put words in @william 's mouth, but I believe his thesis is sometimes an organization can become less successful due to age. Not a radical notion, and seen time and again in history. Take General Electric, for example. As for Scuderia Ferrari? Is this the case? I certainly don't know for sure, but with a drought now entering its 13th year, nothing ignorant about positing if a total 'reset' is warranted. After all, God himself felt this was the only solution once.
Management changes at Ferrari are often a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived lack of success. It's the result of the blame mentality that has always existed at Maranello. When they fail, they must find a scapegoat. Mercedes works differently and tries to solve problems instead.
I´ll repeat: it´s baseless. There are centenary organizations that still work. Many states were founded centuries ago and still exist. On the other hand, most business fail after a few years and in some places they´re constantly at war to move the borders. After all, Ferrari, like all the things that have survived for quite a long time, is a ship of Theseus: little remains unchanged from the Ferrari of 1947. It´s not the age that kills companies, but the inability to adapt.
Some fair points, I can't speak for @william, but I am not calling for the total rebirth of SF, merely acknowledging that there may be inherent flaws that only a total a reboot could rectify. You may be right, a full reorganization causes more harm than good, I'm not hubristic and arguing for it, but I can acknowledge William's viewpoint is logically reasonable.
Binotto is a cheeto, but who is to say the problem doesn't come from above him? I don't know the answer to that, but if it is so, then replacing anyone will do nothing.
That´s the point I don´t agree with. A corporation is not a biological being subject to the natural degradation caused by entropy. When entropy killed the first owner of Ferrari, he got replaced. New factories were built, even they moved to England when they thought was needed. And if they have to sell electric SUVs because nobody is interested in sports cars anymore, they can do it. If their electric SUVs are not good, then they´ll die. If they´re good, they´ll sell lots of them and, oh, well, I suppose I´ll die.
Certainly not all corporations, but many organizations can decay and lose focus and efficiency, not saying this is definitively the case at SF. Still, given I am not privy to the inner workers, I'm open-minded to the possibility.
Yes, but most of the time that´s because they stayed still in a changing world, or because people within the company stopped working as before and the organization failed to replace them.
You don´t have to change anything when you´re winning. Todt wasn´t replaced when he was winning either. If Mercedes starts loosing tomorrow you can bet that Toto Wolff will be thrown through a window presto!
Agreed, is Ferrari changing fast enough? Obviously no, with Mercedes' car far superior. Hence the original point.
Don’t think this thread is fair. How can a team which consistently finishes second out of 10 not be considered at least competitive? As it turned out by running this year without the engine “cheat“, with an half decent aero we would have easily won last three years. And if Binotto is a cheat without actually ever been found guilty what about every other single team?
For sure they learned the lesson from good ol’ Mclaren. Instead of paying engineers for their knowledge while still at Ferrari they now just straight offer all of them jobs at Merc.