Jump to content
  • Custom Search


Recommended Posts

On 5/22/2019 at 11:37 PM, fuzzymoomoo said:

About 4-5 years ago they brought in a lot of IT people for these new "mobility" projects which ultimately went nowhere. I get the impression this is where the bulk of the IT department cuts will be. My father-in-law is one of them, he's scared sh*tless right now. 

Hackett "bet the farm " on mobility and pushed it reaal hars because that was his original entry point to Ford, people ar now wondering if he's wrong about that then what about the other areas he's pushing hard with like AV and electrification, is it all underwater?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, akirby said:

Correct.   The CEO can absolutely influence how the designers and product teams operate.  He didn't come up with the styling but he said this sucks start over and it needs to be bold and beautiful.  It's all about setting expectations and guidelines for the folks doing the work.

I sincerely doubt we would be seeing the Aviator GT with balls to the wall performance under Fields.  

watched an interview wth Hackett, he came to Ford as not a car guy but has fallen in love with F series, I believe the man has changed and now gets the enthusiasm for the brand and how heritage products need to be treated with respect (Bronco & Mustang) I think in that respect, he challenged the designers to be braver and do more with their designs  especially Model E more than that's crap redo it.. he wants to see vehicles that buyers will love to buy, not just transport.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Hackett "bet the farm " on mobility and pushed it reaal hars because that was his original entry point to Ford, people ar now wondering if he's wrong about that then what about the other areas he's pushing hard with like AV and electrification, is it all underwater?

What it boils down to is investment "experts" think this way of the future and are driving down stock prices because of that-but its still not ready for prime time.

I think we are still  about 10 years out from major BEV market penetration (i.e. 40%+ of new car sales) and AV is still another 15-20 years before it makes a major impact on the market. 

Until someone figures out how to make money on BEV that only costs about $35K without incentives, you won't see major penetration in the market or if gas goes stupid expensive.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Hackett "bet the farm " on mobility and pushed it reaal hars because that was his original entry point to Ford, people ar now wondering if he's wrong about that then what about the other areas he's pushing hard with like AV and electrification, is it all underwater?

This happened under Fields when they were buying up mobility startups left and right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Hackett "bet the farm " on mobility and pushed it reaal hars because that was his original entry point to Ford, people ar now wondering if he's wrong about that then what about the other areas he's pushing hard with like AV and electrification, is it all underwater?

Hackett's bet was correct. Ford got lots of valuable data from its mobility services initiatives, including ones like Chariot that they cancelled. They're using the lessons they learned to come up with new and different mobility services. 

Mobility services (including shared vehicles) + electrification + autonomous vehicles represent the future of the whole global automotive industry. There will be some trial and error in all of these areas for sure. And just like Chariot, some of the EV and AV programs will eventually get cancelled. But Ford can't afford not to participate, otherwise they're toast. Hackett knows that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve seen the future of mobility services with 5G and we haven’t even scratched the surface of what is going to be capable in another 2-3 years.   All that early research and investment will pay off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 9:35 AM, Bob Rosadini said:

Question I would have is how does this happen? Where was Bill Ford?  Where was the Board?  If the manpower reduction was so brutal, wasn't head count such a very visible stat such that it would always be on the radar screen once Mullay left?  And if Fields was in fact reverting to the old ways, no one was "going up the back stairs" and cluing Bill Ford in?...Assuming he did not pay attention to head count/org charts?

And these discussions on span of control?   How long has the "flatter is better" trend been popular?    For some time I would think.

I think I have to go back to the library and read "Once Upon a Car" one more time.

My favorite read... "On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors" about John DeLorean's rise up the ladder at GM, his tenure at Chevrolet and Pontiac, etc. Of particular interest is the information on the manufacturing process and the unbelievable number of build combinations at the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 10:03 AM, mackinaw said:

Why do you think they fired Mark Fields?  They saw what was happening and fired the guy responsible.

The Board historically doesn't take action to force a CEO out until the Ford family sees a dramatic drop in their own portfolios. It goes back to the 70's in particular when McNamara ran the Company into the ground after al his Harvard MBA cronies ran everything by the numbers. McNamara and the rest were forced out and for years there was an unwritten policy not to hire Harvard MBA's because of the history, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ice-capades said:

The Board historically doesn't take action to force a CEO out until the Ford family sees a dramatic drop in their own portfolios. It goes back to the 70's in particular when McNamara ran the Company into the ground after al his Harvard MBA cronies ran everything by the numbers. McNamara and the rest were forced out and for years there was an unwritten policy not to hire Harvard MBA's because of the history, etc. 

You should read this:

http://www.denniscarey.com/publications/How the Ford board recruited Alan Mulally.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, theoldwizard said:

I am sure of that !  Just wondering who ?

CEOs have NOTHING to do with styling and features !  Maybe marketing and packaging.  Their job is to make sure the "right people are in the right place" to make those decisions.  I still say announcing to the world that Ford is getting out of the sedan business was STUPID.  Not actually doing it, but announcing it that way.

Well as an "insider" I always appreciate your perspective, but guess who ruined the first Taurus?  Sir Alex -or so I read someplace that when he was shown the redesign for the first generation Taurus, he looked at it and said..."more ovoid".  And that is how we got that ugly POS with the round back window and the bottom feeder "catfish" front end.  Again so I read someplace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mackinaw said:

Excellent - and it also referenced American Icon by Hoffman- I read that (at JPD -80's recommendation!)-and am going to read it again along with "Once Upon a Car" now that we have some history to compare.  And back to the piece on Mulally's recruitment, boy the "job rec" referred to in the Mulally search sure as hell wasn't followed when Hackett got the job IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Well as an "insider" I always appreciate your perspective, but guess who ruined the first Taurus?  Sir Alex -or so I read someplace that when he was shown the redesign for the first generation Taurus, he looked at it and said..."more ovoid".  And that is how we got that ugly POS with the round back window and the bottom feeder "catfish" front end.  Again so I read someplace.

What I always heard, t was Jack Telnack.  Father of the original Taurus and the "jelly bean" Thunderbird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jpd80 said:

Hackett "bet the farm " on mobility and pushed it real hard because that was his original entry point to Ford, people are now wondering if he's wrong about that then what about the other areas he's pushing hard with like AV and electrification, is it all underwater?

My issue with electrification and AV is the order of magnitude the "experts" (Big Jim's hero Tony Seba) have predicted.

16 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

What it boils down to is investment "experts" think this way of the future and are driving down stock prices because of that-but its still not ready for prime time.

I think we are still  about 10 years out from major BEV market penetration (i.e. 40%+ of new car sales) and AV is still another 15-20 years before it makes a major impact on the market. 

Until someone figures out how to make money on BEV that only costs about $35K without incentives, you won't see major penetration in the market or if gas goes stupid expensive.  

At least in the US, I don't think we will see more than about 25% market penetration for light duty vehicle sales before 2030.

14 hours ago, rperez817 said:

Hackett's bet was correct. Ford got lots of valuable data from its mobility services initiatives, including ones like Chariot that they cancelled. They're using the lessons they learned to come up with new and different mobility services. 

Mobility services (including shared vehicles) + electrification + autonomous vehicles represent the future of the whole global automotive industry   ...

MUCH TOO EARLY to say it is "correct" !

12 hours ago, akirby said:

I’ve seen the future of mobility services with 5G and we haven’t even scratched the surface of what is going to be capable in another 2-3 years.   All that early research and investment will pay off.

5G won't be available wide spread for more than 5 years and in some locations (graphically large, but low population density) it might be well over 20 years, IF EVER.  (Look at a 4G map.  Lots of "white space, even today.) My gut says, 5G will be a niche, but people will pay the premium for it because it is "cool".

 

Despite Hackett's rhetoric, he knows "which side his bread is buttered on".  Major investments in SUV/CUV, with or without hybrid, look like they will pay off.  This is imperative if he want to see electrification an AV actually get to production.  Wall Street still has not "rewarded" him/the company.  Long term investors won't buy the stock (which is at a close to a 10 year low) because they fear the dividend will be cut (as it has several times in my lifetime).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, theoldwizard said:

5G won't be available wide spread for more than 5 years and in some locations (graphically large, but low population density) it might be well over 20 years, IF EVER.  (Look at a 4G map.  Lots of "white space, even today.) My gut says, 5G will be a niche, but people will pay the premium for it because it is "cool".

The major benefits of 5G has nothing to do with cell phones.  The applications of 5G to other devices including connected cars and industrial campuses is going to be huge and you'll see accelerated infrastructure builds in densely populated areas (faster than LTE) - because that's where you get the benefits.   There isn't much benefit in sparsely populated areas.   It's about having single digit millisecond latency for 2 way communications between devices and between a device and an application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, akirby said:

 There isn't much benefit in sparsely populated areas.  

If those areas can't get broadband Internet-it will be a huge impact if 5G is deployed there. That seems to be what the Telcos are trying to do since its cheaper then running cable to every house. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

If those areas can't get broadband Internet-it will be a huge impact if 5G is deployed there. That seems to be what the Telcos are trying to do since its cheaper then running cable to every house. 

You can get 40 mbps on LTE - doesn't require 5G necessarily.   AT&Ts Airgig has the biggest potential to provide fast internet service to remote areas since it uses existing power lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, akirby said:

You can get 40 mbps on LTE - doesn't require 5G necessarily.   AT&Ts Airgig has the biggest potential to provide fast internet service to remote areas since it uses existing power lines.

Bring it!

I long for something higher than 7.5 mbps.  I've considered switching to LTE, but I can't get fixed IP, so I'm stuck for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, fordmantpw said:

Bring it!

I long for something higher than 7.5 mbps.  I've considered switching to LTE, but I can't get fixed IP, so I'm stuck for now.

Why do you need a fixed IP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, akirby said:

Why do you need a fixed IP?

I have a server that I use to host a few web sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fordmantpw said:

I have a server that I use to host a few web sites.

That's a good reason.   Move them to Azure!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, akirby said:

You can get 40 mbps on LTE - doesn't require 5G necessarily.   AT&Ts Airgig has the biggest potential to provide fast internet service to remote areas since it uses existing power lines.

But that is a joke when Cable starts at 100 mbps....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2019 at 8:11 AM, rperez817 said:

Hackett's bet was correct. Ford got lots of valuable data from its mobility services initiatives, including ones like Chariot that they cancelled. They're using the lessons they learned to come up with new and different mobility services

Mobility services (including shared vehicles) + electrification + autonomous vehicles represent the future of the whole global automotive industry. There will be some trial and error in all of these areas for sure. And just like Chariot, some of the EV and AV programs will eventually get cancelled. But Ford can't afford not to participate, otherwise they're toast. Hackett knows that.

They took a $300 million hit on Chariot, there are better less costly way to gain that knowledge than investing in dubious business models.

also, look at how the conversation has and is changing on AVs, now it’s about fleets getting on board and we can also push connectivity there... whole thing moved to Mexico tells me all I need to know about costs and that’s doubly true for Model E

The bottom line is massive over sell of emerging opportunities to make more profit for Ford while F Series is loaded up with paying for all of it. It’s like Ford wants to be anything other than an auto company.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×