This blog has now closed. Please visit my new blog, Stepreo.

Archive: business

Is Korea another Turkey?

19 October 2011 16:09

Categories: Formula 1

Are hopes for a Korean Grand Prix in 2012 disappearing down the plughole?

Last weekend saw the second Korean Grand Prix. Already there are murmurs that it may be the last. Autosport are today reporting that the Korean Grand Prix organisers are seeking to renegotiate their contract with Bernie Ecclestone in order to stem their losses. Good luck with that one.

Watching the Korean Grand Prix over the weekend, it was difficult not to draw a parallel with the Turkish Grand Prix. It seems to suffer from a lot of the same problems, with an extra few problems on top just to make sure.

Istanbul Park was notorious for being in the middle of nowhere and tough to access. The Korean circuit, located at Yeongam, appears to be similarly remote. Although close to medium-sized city of Mokpo, it is several hours away from the main hub Seoul. This has been the source of some grumbles from within the F1 fraternity over the past two years.

But more striking was the emptiness of the grandstands. It did not seem quite as bad as Turkey, but it certainly was a cause for concern and a topic of conversation over the weekend. It seems as though Formula 1 has failed to capture the imagination of the Korean public.

Apparently, almost no other events take place at the circuit during the rest of the year. So it is not difficult to imagine that the facility might be struggling financially.

A lot of surprise was expressed at how little has been done to the circuit since the inaugural race last year. Even then, the circuit famously faced a race against time to even be ready to stage the race at all. In the end, it is said that corners were cut, raising concerns about the safety of the race.

Drainage was poor, the newly-laid tarmac was slippery, leading to some of the worst visibility conditions in memory. Earlier this year, Fernando Alonso said, “it remains quite shocking what we did in Korea.”

Some elements of danger have clearly not been removed in the past year. The pitlane entrance and exit are both viewed as unsafe. I had expected the pitlane exit at least to be modified following the first race, but no.

I am staggered that such a patently inadequate design to both the entrance and exit has come about. During the BBC commentary, David Coulthard joked that Hermann Tilke must have had his YTS designers working on the circuit.

Hermann Tilke has come up with a lot of goofy circuit designs, but this problem takes the biscuit. How many failed circuit designs do there need to be? You really do wonder how he has managed to be almost the only person involved in designing or redesigning Formula 1 circuits in the past 15 years, yet still manages to come out with stuff like this.

The original vision was for a city to surround part of the circuit. But none of the city appears to be in place yet. Part of the circuit is even described as a “temporary street circuit”, though quite how can you call it this when the streets themselves do not even exist yet?

The circuit itself is nothing special in terms of racing either. At least Turkey had a good circuit, with its instantly-legendary quadruple-apex Turn 8. I was also keen on the last few corners, where there was often some great wheel-to-wheel racing. Korea International Circuit has none of that.

In a way, it was a shame that the Turkish Grand Prix has ended up being dropped from the calendar (although it remains on standby to step in, just in case any more races — Bahrain, the USA or Korea — fall off the calendar). But at least Turkey managed to get seven races under their belt. Korea has two so far. Would anyone miss it if there wasn’t a third?

1 comment

Who calls the shots at Williams?

5 May 2011 13:00

Categories: Formula 1

Here is a list of names:

Patrick Head
Sam Michael
Adam Parr
Frank Williams
Toto Wolff

This has been a turbulent week for Williams. Sam Michael has resigned as the team’s technical director. Along with him, chief aerodynamicist Jon Tomlinson will also go. The team’s Chairman Adam Parr also offered his resignation. It is a sign of just how desperate things have become after Williams have hit yet another new low at the start of this season.

But the recent moves just the latest in a Williams team that seems to endlessly change its shape. I am far from a business expert. Far be it from me to tell Williams that they are doing it wrong. But from the outside, it does sometimes seem like a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth.

Who calls the shots at Williams? It’s hard to say. There are the five names I listed above. To that list, you can now add the public shareholders, whose views also surely have some sway.

This too many cooks phenomenon appeared to be underlined by the apparent confusion over whether or not it has been announced that Patrick Head is planning on retiring within the next year. Adam Parr had announced it, but it appears as though he jumped the gun.

The Guardian went as far as to describe it as “open conflict”.

In a conference call Parr told reporters: “Patrick has made it clear that he will be retiring this year. That’s nothing to do with the restructuring, it’s just the fact that he’s turning 65 and had already signalled that it’s time for him to move on to his next set of interests in life.”

But Head has since denied Parr’s claims, saying: “What you are telling me is news to me. I wasn’t aware that Adam had said that.

“He wasn’t in a position to make that statement. My plans are not in the public domain and they will only be when I make my own statement later in the year.”

Ouch.

Adam Parr is obviously good at his job. That is clear from the fact that Williams did not accept his resignation offer. But does he overstep his remit?

People who read F1 news websites will be highly familiar with Adam Parr. He is chairman now, but even as CEO he was a very prominent figure in Williams. He is constantly in the news, providing everyone with information about what’s going on at Williams.

But how many could name Mr Parr’s predecessor as CEO? It is Chris Chapple. He wasn’t in the job long, but nevertheless the point remains that I had never heard of him. I have not even been able to find out who was the head of finance at Williams before then. How many could tell you who the current CEO is? (It’s Alex Burns.)

As part of this picture, what is the role of Frank Williams? Of Patrick Head? How about Toto Wolff, who bought a share of Williams last year? He appears to exert a fair bit of influence too — he was making rumblings in the press last week just before the turmoil truly began.

I think with most other teams you could name one or two people that are so prominent within a team. From the outside, it is not a clear structure. At McLaren, for instance, you can say the buck stops with Martin Whitmarsh. But where does it stop at Williams?

This is probably as a result of an attempted handover. It is about preparing for — or reacting to — a time when Frank Williams and Patrick Head have less energy and motivation than they had in the 1980s and 1990s when Williams could be world-beaters.

But the handover seems to have been botched — and the picture only gets more complicated as time goes on. Have the money men taken over from those that love racing and want to win? I was interested in a point made by Todd over at Formula1Blog.com. They seem to be settling for sixth in order to meet their business obligations and no more.

Clearly this is a difficult time for Williams. Yet more change is in the works. I hope they can get it right soon, because no-one wants to see Williams doing so badly.

Comments closed

Blue flags debate reveals F1′s problem

5 October 2010 22:59

Categories: *, Formula 1

Two influential figures in Formula 1 have begun to argue in favour of getting rid of blue flags in F1. The problem is that neither appears to understand motorsport.

Both are businessmen who are in F1 to make more cash. They both also happen to be involved in F1 teams that are stuck at the back of the grid, so are more heavily disadvantaged by blue flags.

Tony Fernandes and Richard Branson are the ones calling for blue flags to be removed from the sport. But it’s funny, because I don’t remember Mr Branson being so concerned about blue flags not being “fun” enough when he was backing the championship-winning Brawn team last year.

The pair seem confused. They try to justify their stance by talking about how exciting it would be. Apparently it would increase overtaking! Er, no. Fans at home don’t think that Lewis Hamilton in 1st place is racing with Sakon Yamamoto in 21st place — because he isn’t! The idea that people would tune in for this, or derive entertainment from it, is nonsense.

Worst of all, an F1 without blue flags would be wide open to corruption. If you didn’t like the team orders controversy of Hockenheim, you had better cross your fingers that blue flags remain in F1. Because it would open up a situation that would be like team orders on steroids.

Take, for instance, the 1997 European Grand Prix. It is a weekend memorable for many reasons. How about that moment when Norberto Fontana, a lap down, held up Jacques Villeneuve but allowed Michael Schumacher to breeze by?

As Martin Brundle pointed out in his commentary as it happened, Fontana’s Sauber car was powered by a Ferrari engine. What a coincidence! Or was it? Nine years later, Fontana claimed that he was asked to do whatever he could to help Schumacher win the championship. It is an allegation that was denied by Jean Todt and Peter Sauber, but the suspicion remains.

Now let’s say — for the sake of argument — you have a backmarker team that is disgruntled with its current suppliers of engines and transmission systems. It is in negotiations with one front-running team to supply better engines, and another championship-leading team to supply a gearbox and hydraulic system. It might make the negotiations go more smoothly if the backmarker team could do certain things on the track to benefit particular front-running teams.

I’m not suggesting that any team would do that. But the scope would be there if any unscrupulous team wanted to do so.

It is true that backmarkers can be unfairly disadvantaged by blue flags. But this is an occupational hazard of motor racing. It is the case that the blue flag rules have become stricter in the past couple of decades or so. It may be a good idea to relax the rules a little. But blue flags have been a part of motor racing since the 1910s.

To talk about “the days of Ken Tyrrell” is a bit misguided in my view. In those days, blue flags may have worked well as a gentleman’s agreement. But that was in the days when there were still gentlemen in the sport. Today it’s full of money men constantly looking after their self interest.

2 comments

What went wrong with Williams?

26 May 2010 23:27

Categories: *, Formula 1, History

I’ll be upfront here. While many like Williams, with their “plucky underdog” status and stridently independent approach, they have never been my among my favourite teams. To the extent that I have ever liked them, it has been as the anti-Ferrari. In other words, I like them about as much as I like McLaren, which is not very much — but hey, at least they can beat Ferrari.

Today, Williams can’t beat Ferrari, so I am rather indifferent about them. But at a time where the majority of the grid is made up of manufacturers — of cars and drinks — even I can see that there is something romantic about Williams. I think it would be good to see them at the front again.

But if I was a fan of the team, I would probably have well and truly lost patience by now. Every year the team says, “just wait — next year we’ll be back”. They spend all winter making positive noises. And then when it comes to the big day itself? They are even slower than they were before.

One of the most successful teams in history

When they last won a Constructors’ Championship in 1997, Williams had won more of them than Ferrari. The record was staggering — nine Constructors’ and seven Drivers’ Championships in just 20 seasons. It was an utterly fearsome record.

At that stage, Williams had won races in all but two of its seasons — its very first in 1978, and a brief drought in 1988 when the team had to make do with inferior Judd engines after Honda jumped ship to McLaren. Even then, Nigel Mansell managed to wring a couple of second place finishes out of it, which is more than can be said for what came after 1997.

Once again, Williams was left in the lurch after the departure of the front-running engine manufacturer — this time Renault. To make matters worse, chief designer Adrian Newey left Williams to join McLaren. 1998 was a year of continuity for Williams, in all the wrong ways — using what were effectively year-old Renault engines and what some said was the 1997 chassis adapted for 1998 regulations.

In 1999 the team faced further difficulties with Alex Zanardi struggling to adapt to F1 after a successful time in ChampCars. While the wins dried up, this difficult spell was thankfully short lived, as in 2000 Williams forged a new partnership with BMW.

2000 was a learning year for all concerned, but successes came between 2001 and 2003, when Williams returned to winning ways. Williams were even strong title contenders in 2003, with four victories and nine podiums, Williams were a strong player in a tight three-way battle for the championship. As unlikely as it seems today, Juan Pablo Montoya was almost a World Champion!

The slide from the top

Unfortunately, things started to go pear-shaped again in 2004. A radical “walrus nose” concept brought little in the way of performance, and a more conventional design was brought out midway through the season. Montoya managed to win the final race in Brazil, but this race remains the team’s last taste of success.

Almost every year since then has seemingly seen Williams slip back a bit further, with the successes of the old days becoming an ever more distant memory. In the past five years, the team has had just four podium finishes. (Barring success in Turkey, that number will reduce to three this weekend!)

The brightest spot has been 2007, when a consistent set of results from Nico Rosberg helped the team bag a commendable fourth place in the Constructors’ Championship (although that was after McLaren’s disqualification from the Championship). Apart from that, Williams have become a fixture at the back of the midfield — if you can call 8th out of 10 teams the “midfield”.

Arrogant enough to believe their own excuses

All the while, the excuses came, and fans were reassured: “next year is our year”. And next year comes and everything is all the same. Even if they trick people into thinking they’re fast by topping Friday Practice times, as Williams did in the first half of last season, people soon become wise to the fact that the car is not truly capable of it.

Before, there was always a positive spin to put on the situation. In 2009, Williams were bad — but at least Renault were worse and BMW weren’t much better. In 2008 people were more concerned with the alarming lack of pace in the Honda. 2006 was regarded as a tough deal for Williams, struggling with apparently sluggish and unreliable Cosworth engines.

It’s difficult to sugar-coat this year’s results in the same way. Although seventh doesn’t sound too bad, in effect the only teams that are behind them are either new (in the case of Virgin, Hispania and Lotus), facing hugely difficult political and financial constraints (Sauber) or have designed their own car for the first time (Toro Rosso). The shocker is that Williams are even being compared to teams like this.

Meanwhile, Force India look a great deal more convincing, and Renault have again leapfrogged Williams and look like potential challengers to the top four teams. Indeed, Toro Rosso even look like they can realistically challenge Williams on the racetrack, particularly with a couple of feisty young drivers who are stepping up to the plate in style, particularly in the case of Jaime Alguersuari. Meanwhile, in China Nico Hülkenberg finished behind the Lotus of Heikki Kovalainen.

It seems as though Williams allowed arrogance to get the better of them. It was always someone else’s fault. But increasingly, Williams have been made to eat humble pie.

Williams lay the blame for their early-2000s dip at the door of BMW. This ended in an acrimonious split in 2005, by which time each party had become convinced that the other side was not pulling its weight. But BMW did a pretty good job when they joined forces with Sauber, the disappointment of 2009 notwithstanding. Meanwhile, Williams became inert — a permanent fixture of the midfield.

Of course, if it wasn’t the engine’s fault, it was the drivers’ fault. I was very interested to see Frank Williams admitting that, in the light of Mark Webber’s recent successes, the team was too hasty to lay the blame at the door of its driver for their average spell in 2005 and 2006.

When we had him obviously our car was a disappointment and we felt he was part of the problem. He probably wasn’t actually, with hindsight. The major point was that the car had problems.

Is there a way back?

I think the Williams of today is a great deal less arrogant than the Williams of four or five years ago. But now the damage has been done. Is there a way back to the top for this proud team? 13 years on from its last Championship success, it’s difficult to see.

Already, there are rumours that Williams are unhappy with Cosworth (just like in 2006). Rumours are linking them to a partnership with Renault. Williams were linked to Renault last year too, and Frank Williams confessed that the prospect of “Williams Renault”, a reminder of the team’s most dominant period in the 1990s, was exciting.

Other rumours link Williams to a partnership with Porsche, with whom they have collaborated on kers. But the problems run deeper than the matter of their engine supply, as surely the lessons of the BMW split show.

Despite all of its history and past successes, Williams have tried and failed to recover for too long now. Sadly, it seems as though this year Williams have to make do with racing against the likes of Sauber, a zombie team that is on emergency life support, and Lotus, a team that didn’t even exist a few months ago.

I hope they can make it. I was privileged enough to be invited to the Williams factory and museum last year. The museum is a wonderful place, brimful of some of the most successful grand prix cars there have ever been. The team only goes back just over 30 years, but it is such a huge part of Formula 1′s history. It would be such a shame if Williams were stuck at the back of the grid forever.

5 comments

Tentative thumbs-up for the Conservative—Lib Dem coalition

12 May 2010 23:58

Categories: Current affairs, Politics, Scotland

A few days ago I wrote optimistically about the prospect of a coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Now that we have a coalition for real, I feel even more cheered.

Part of my argument in my earlier post was that there needs to be cultural change in politics. When I listened to the radio last night and heard David Cameron and Nick Clegg enthusing about the “new politics”, I felt like a major hurdle had been crossed. Of course, a lot of it is probably hollow rhetoric. But with the parties’ actions so far, they have shown that they can put aside party differences and constructively work together. This is — without a doubt — a great thing.

Is there enough action on the voting system?

Of course, it is not easy to stomach some of the things the Liberal Democrats have had to concede. For instance, I did not think a referendum on Alternative Vote represented radical enough electoral reform to secure agreement.

Another Liberal Democrat member I know was much more enthusiastic than me a few days ago. Believing that AV can be a staging post to proper electoral reform. I don’t like the idea of having to change the voting system several times if it is possible to make the right change once.

But we have to be pragmatic about it. On this issue, the Conservatives have given up a lot of ground. They have never shown any sign of being interested in moving from first past the post, but now they have opened the door that may let it happen. I’m sure if I was a Conservative, I would be feeling much more pain over this than I am as a Liberal Democrat.

The cabinet

All-in-all, I think the Liberal Democrats have done very well out of this deal. They have just 16% of the MPs, but have secured a lot of power. I was surprised that they have ended up with five cabinet seats, even though none of them (with the exception of Deputy PM) are particularly big posts.

In fact, the way the Lib Dem cabinet posts have been handed out seems to be more about convenience. They couldn’t credibly leave Vince Cable out, but making him Business Secretary keeps him at arms length from the George Osborne’s plans for economic policy.

Giving a Lib Dems the Energy and Climate Change job is also quite convenient for both parties. The Conservatives can be associated with green policies while being able to explain it away to grass roots members who may not agree with action on climate change.

And isn’t it useful to be able to give a Liberal Democrat the role of Scottish Secretary? With one move, the Conservatives have insulated themselves from accusations that the government doesn’t represent Scotland.

On the Conservative side, the picture is very mixed from my point of view. The party’s “good guys” (chiefly Kenneth Clarke and William Hague) are outweighed by the more dislikeable element (George Osborne, Liam Fox, etc.).There has already been criticism for the appointment of Theresa May as Equalities Minister. This is an odd choice for a party that is trying to avoid its “nasty party” image!

Policy

On policy, too, my feelings are mixed.

I am delighted with the political reforms, that have been proposed. It looks like reform of the House of Lords — using proportional representation no less! — may finally happen, along with a reduction in the number of MPs and the ability to “sack” corrupt MPs.

Political reform was one area where Labour did well in its early days in 1997, but it had long run out of steam and dithered on making reforms that have become overdue. The agreements in this area made by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats offer a lot of promise in my view.

The Liberal Democrats have lost big time on foreign policy though. My views on immigration are probably even more liberal than what the party had outlined in its manifesto. But it is clear that this issue, along with the party’s stance on the euro and Europe in general, is a big electoral liability for the Lib Dems. As such, it is no surprise that the Lib Dems have had to drop its policies here. It’s disappointing, but understandable.

Nor am I very happy that the Conservative proposal to give tax breaks to married couples has been given the go-ahead.

Civil liberties — the great area of agreement

But while some of the Conservatives’ social policies still seem a bit antiquated, they offer a great deal of hope on the issue of civil liberties. At last, the relentless assault on civil liberties will be reversed by the new government.

The attitude towards civil liberties is central to the Lib Dems’ ideology, and crucially it is also an area in which the Conservatives have good form. This is one of the core reasons why I favour the Conservative–Lib Dem coalition. At long last, we have a liberal government. The Conservatives can help deliver a genuinely liberal agenda in a way that Labour simply don’t know how.

What’s to hate about the Tories?

While the Conservative party still generate a lot of anger among some, it’s not clear to me just why. Thatcher is 20-year-old news, and no-one holds Labour to account for Michael Foot’s policies.

I think the left must realise because you hear the shrieks of “poll tax” much less often than you did even just a couple of years ago. I have found it very interesting that time and again people instead bring up fox hunting. Admittedly, this is sometimes in a light-hearted way. But it has clearly become the new lazy way of criticising the Conservatives.

Is fox hunting really the worst thing about the Conservatives today? If so, I see no reason to worry too much. It’s an odd issue to get worked up about. If you are worried about a few dead foxes, why don’t thousands of dead Iraqis matter so much?

Let’s be fair. Labour have had their time, and it was not pretty for a liberal. It has been 13 years. Let’s at least give the Conservatives a chance.

Overall: a tentative thumbs up

There’s no doubt about it — there be dragons, potentially. Both sides will have plenty to disagree with, and a lot of it is difficult to swallow.

But this is the way coalitions work. We see coalitions work like this in democracies around the world, and they have worked in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

I am delighted at the grown-up way in which the political parties have handled the situation. Although some voters clearly have a bit to go, this bodes well for the idea that this country truly is ready for positive political reform. A “new politics” gets the thumbs-up from me — but time will tell whether it can last.

Most of all, it pleases greatly me to see a liberal — big ‘L’ and small ‘l’ — government. It already feels like a breath of fresh air.

3 comments

doctorvee