Dear all / os / is
Blinded by our supposed independence, we assume that we are completely free when carrying out our acts. But that is quite debatable. I will not attempt to give philosophical reasons, there are. Nor am going to take this entry to the courses of the biochemistry and DNA, and they alone are able to cast doubt on free will. No, today I will try to show how societies and institutions change the behavior of individuals, and this has a direct impact on what we regard to us, which is the Formula One
will show three general examples and splashes with comments on other possibilities. The first example I want to show is that of Japanese society, and I will elaborate a bit more as we are, to some extent unknown. It is one of the most advanced industrial societies in the world, highly urbanized and dependent on high technology and communications. The most striking feature is the dominant impassive to the pursuit of social independence. This spontaneous and general acceptance of an order is established as an ancestral instinct whereby each individual feels in community and it takes its rightful place. Is the lift force of the whole Japanese social architecture. The peculiar geographical location of Japan and its status economic and an overpopulated country with limited natural resources have created a strong sense of social cooperation rooted in centuries of shared agriculture, vital for their survival. In this regard it should be noted that the way individuals interact is through ongoing consultation, is the country of meetings for excellence, the maximum consensus and extreme hierarchical harmony. With a high sense of obligation to receive a favor, which brings a sense of duty and a sense of righteousness and justice that drives appropriate favors reciprocity and respect, above all, his own personal dignity. For this philosophy equal, which has led them to success in many aspects of life, is at the bottom of its failure to design an F1 car champion.
Toyota Remember? It is the ultimate motorist Japanese company, a leader in worldwide sales and paradigm of how to succeed to the client, even when their cars have proven built without much care. When all this potential, and how work was carried Formula One failure was deafening. It was, without doubt, the team's top investor in every imaginable area of \u200b\u200bthe development of a car. It was the envy of any other development department rivals that failed Why? Roughly we could say that his work ethic. All departments of Toyota had the same weight and the same right to impose their junk on others. Everything was done respecting the development of other parts of the car and arrived at a consensus. As a result there never designed an F1 quality but on a white paper put solutions of different departments so disjointed and without developing storyline. So that they could have two great gadgets but cancel each other, not being the additive result, quite the opposite. The lack of a clear idea to conduct them, and cultural need to reach a consensus continued, made them fail and have to flee from the F1, being their designs a collection of meaningless solutions.
On the opposite side is the Anglo-Saxon individualism. In it, each person is totally responsible for his actions and is not morally constrained or conditioned by what he says the neighbor. That is the underlying reason, why in their right of inheritance parents can completely disinherit the children and donate their goods to the charity of your choice barking. As an example of this behavior we have Red Bull. I know, the team runs a licensed Austrian and wages are paid in euros, but the team is the current prototype of the English team. In this team are clearly defined the various areas of power and conflict zones or gray are settled by Adrian Newey. He is responsible for the successes and failures. He only responds to Dietrich Mateschitz and directs all the car's design to the smallest detail, requiring all departments to meet your requirements. And as we've seen is an optimal way to get the win. Other teams have followed or follow this pattern such as Williams, but over time the Head chief designer, and no relief in time, ordered the team to the parties ignoble of the table.
McLaren also follows this model individualistic. However, if you have certain nuances worthy of a spy movie. The qualification began in 1986. In the first half of the 80, the most clever engineer F1 was John Barnard who had crushed his rivals with his designs for Dennis. Ferrari continued failure caused the typhoid demand the hiring of the best. And that's what made Don Enzo, giving English all the freedom they wanted, but not the power I needed. Barnard's life in the UK and work in Italy was a total disaster. And although there were their comings and goings, the results were pathetic and traumatized Ferrari, then never allow any engineer living outside Italy. This theft, perpetrated by the arch-enemy, Red, Ron Dennis made it blurs the role of design engineer to avoid possible new theft. Policy is still Martin Whitmarsh.
 |
| Tombazis |
The third model is the patriarchal (or matriarchal) Latino. This model is rooted in the lack of a legitimate government supported by its citizens in these countries, which makes individuals to become the institution most simple, as is the family. Grow in these circumstances has its advantages, allowing you to experience new things without great prices you pay or to have large implications for the future, as the family head will protect you. But it has direct consequences rigged as corrupt institutions (My family above all else!). In addition, overprotection makes individuals more children and conservatives. And that's what happens in Ferrari. His current patriarchal structure does anybody wants to take responsibility anyone resigned or was expelled by the disaster that was continued from Byrne, Brawn? The answer is always the same, We are a family and we support each other. But this is Formula One, not an institution to educate young boys. The patriarchal paranoia comes to the point that knowing that in today's F1 only thing different between teams is aerodynamics, and that's where you have to invest, they are obsolete and defective systems, following the maxim of Don Enzo L ' aerodynamic รจ per chi non sa fare i motori .
 |
| old Byrne Design |
The signings of Fry and Martin might suggest that it is changing the mentality, but seen occupy positions within the organization, and seeing that the usual (Costa, Tombazis, Domenicali, Almondo) are pulling the strings in the design, we can only think that we are heading for a repeat of the Barnard experience.
Have you noticed the new RB or the new McLaren? Are not more imaginative than the F-hundred and fiftieth? Can you imagine what the future of this patriarchal system design? Will be several decades without winning again to react?
Lord John Jacob Philip Elkann, as future Fabbrica Italiana Automobili head of Torino, destroyed once the patriarchal sense Ferrari, and put the best in everything in front of the relevant department, before Luca Cordero di Montezemolo dare go to bridge political Ferrari.
0 comments:
Post a Comment