Formula One's Engine Crisis

[Phil]

I'd argue a team with a much lower investment has very different expectations, so i'm not really sure what the point is of quoting Tost and 'Mothership'. It's baffling actually. Maybe we should go ahead and dig out some quotes from Sauber too, who, thanks to an improvement of the Ferrari PU, is doing much better job than that catastrophic last year.

It's not unlike Force India who has on a few occasions said they are quite happy what they are achieving despite a much lower budget. It's all a matter of perspective.

You can't keep your level of investment and the technical staff, nor the sponsors happy of a team if the prospect of ever becoming competitive is disappearing. Watch what will happen to McLaren if Honda fails to improve.

[bhall II]

And I'd argue that a large investment doesn't entitle anyone to any level of success. See: Panasonic Toyota Racing.

It's easy to understand Red Bull's frustration. What's not so easy to understand is why things are supposed to be different just because Red Bull says so.

If Horner is sincere when he says, "[his] priority is seeing Red Bull in F1 next year," then he'll take whatever can get and continue to work toward a better long-term solution.

[Thunder]

Exactly. They have every right to not be happy with the Renault PU, but they have no right to demand a 2016 Merc or Ferrari Engine just because they want it.


From the Newey Interview:
"Red Bull should not be put in a position where they're only there to make up the numbers."

Usually i am a Fan of Newey, in all his Interviews he is pretty composed and on point but that comment reeks of Arrogance. Who are RB to demand to fight for the Win?

Nice Comparsion from the Autosport Forum:

Sigh... So Adrian (and other posters who believe Mercedes and Ferrari are the bad guys), imagine this scenario:

You have a house with a mortgage. And you think your interest rates are too high. What do you do? You go to another bank, or two. You put your papers on the table and say: 'Listen, this is the deal I have know. Can you offer something better?' Sure, that bank says, whether it is telling the truth or lying through the teeth. This other bank puts a proposal on paper, 'a letter on intent' one could say. Which is kind of an-if-and-when-contract: 'When you switch your mortgage from your bank to ours, then we will offer you this mortgage-plan for X interest rates.'

Then you go back to your original bank. And you start the negotiating -with the letter of intent of the other bank in your hand. And perhaps you will switch banks - because you have that offer of the other bank. Red Bull, on the other hand, would smear sh*t on the walls of the original bank, end the contract, stop paying and then say: 'Oy, other banks... give me mortgage like you have given persons A and X. Otherwise I will leave my house and let it become derelict.'

Because THAT is what Newey and many posters here want us to believe is completely normal: that DM went to the other 'bank' (being Mercedes), got no specific offer on paper (otherwise they would have shown it indignantly to the press), just some 'definitely maybe'... and on that account ripped his engine-supplier a new a-hole and terminated the contract. Riiiiight... because that is the way F1 teams do business, right? And that is now why Mercedes and Ferrari 'force' Red Bull out of F1...

Not only that... Red Bull ended it's deal (mortgage) with his current engine-supplier (bank), has no new in place... and then blames the party's for not giving them the deal... for which they never brokered!

Sorry Adrian, you are the smartest engineer F1 ever had. But in this case you are suffering from a temporal lobotomy...

That said, i feel a little Sorry for Christian Horner (wow, did i really just say that? ). He is just the Puppet of Mateschitz and Marko, doesn't negotiate anything but has to Deal with the Media as if he would have anything to say in the Matter.

No question Renault messed up, but you can't just Terminate a Contract and THEN say " Hey guys, give us the best Engines or we're out. kk?" I would fully understand RedBull to pull the Plug, that's a descision they have to make, but these Quit Threads for a competitive Engine are just lame.

[Phil]

Perhaps I don't put much weight on what people say and prefer to put more emphasis on what they do, or what the situation around them dictates. Everyone will say what is in their best interest, irregardless if it makes sense or is true given the larger picture at hand.

I think the business of F1 is not unlike some bigger cooperations/enterprises. For most, it's easier to grow, then going in the other direction. You grow with success. Once you have grown to a certain size, have made certain investments, you want those investments to pay off. If you don't capitalize, you have to start justifying your expenses, your investments. And in RedBulls point of view, their level of commitment and investment does not match their result. They are intelligent enough as a company and as a team to see where they are failing, hence their criticism (though arguably they are less to act correctly on a public level if we are to pick up on criticism here and in the media - or maybe they are and we are only yet to see the effects of their threats materializing...).

I also feel many in this very topic are putting way too much energy in slamming what is being said instead of reading between the lines. It also seems many are simply jumping on the wagon of criticizing statements that are being quoted out of context. As an example; Horner in quite a few interviews (last being on the BBC during the Sochi event) that he does not blame Mercedes or Ferrari for taking the position they are. They are simply using the power given by them by the rules of the current Formula 1 regulations. The underlying criticism extends further than those teams unwillingness to supply them with competitive engines - it's directed at the sport and at the situation as a whole.

This is a political struggle, one that will either lead to more open regulations to see engines close the gap and become more competitive and RedBull as a result and if not, no one can blame or criticize RedBull for having enough and deciding that inlight of their investment, their goals and targets are not and no longer will be met, to pull out and leave the sport to whatever consequences it may face as a result. The sport is not RedBulls responsibility, less so under these circumstances.

[turbof1]

I'm reopening the Red Bull team thread, since it spread to this topic.

[Sevach]

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-ma ... es-summit/

Let's see what comes out of this.

Most likely scenario, no one agrees on anything.

[turbof1]

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-ma ... es-summit/

Let's see what comes out of this.

Most likely scenario, no one agrees on anything.

Note on that it has to go to the F1 Commission, which contains all the teams. All of those have to agree on the proposed changes.

Renault: "Hey Red Bull, would you help us one last time and vote in favour of it?"

[wickedz50]

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-ma ... es-summit/

Let's see what comes out of this.

Most likely scenario, no one agrees on anything.

Note on that it has to go to the F1 Commission, which contains all the teams. All of those have to agree on the proposed changes.

Renault: "Hey Red Bull, would you help us one last time and vote in favour of it?"

F1 racing has reached such a point where the commission will never get an unanimous decision from the engine manufacturers. Its needless for such an activity. On the other hand the commission should look at different options which in a way can build engine power parity like aero, fuel-refuel, tyres and some out of the hat ideas. These options can be catalyst and provide the much needed entertainment the sport lacks now. It will keep the viewers interested and draw some better viewership audience and liven up a dead championship. The need of the hour is some artificial variables to even out the teams.

[FoxHound]

Mercedes are said to be open about the idea.

And it doesn't require unanimous team decision, just the engine makers who are all in favour of developing.
There's no issue in the desire, but it's the details of getting there that could pose issues.

[Gerhardsa]

Sure Mercedes might be open to the idea, but it will come with limitations they will try their best to insure.

There is no way they will give up their obvious advantage in the PU department.

All I see happening here is moving the problem from one sphere, relabeling it and moving it to another sphere. In stead of teams fighting for equality/parity in the engines from their supplier/manufacturers, it will become the manufacturers themselves going at it to get parity with Mercedes.

Its like moving furniture around on the Titanic... Doesn't matter where you move it, she is still busy sinking.

[turbof1]

Mercedes are said to be open about the idea.

And it doesn't require unanimous team decision, just the engine makers who are all in favour of developing.
There's no issue in the desire, but it's the details of getting there that could pose issues.

The proposed change require a change in the technical rules for next year. We have long past that deadline for decision by majority. At this stage all teams need to agree. There's no discussion about this since this is literally noted down in the regulations. In doubt, check through the regulations yourself. You are probably confusion the coming meeting of the manufacturers as a decisive organ. The reality is that it is nothing more then a saloon meeting which will send the conclusions of the meeting to the F1 commission.

[FoxHound]

You're right Turbo,

But the spirit of intent will be clear from the manufacturers. Which then leaves the FIA exposed to all sorts of issues.

[Sevach]

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-ma ... es-summit/

Let's see what comes out of this.

Most likely scenario, no one agrees on anything.

Note on that it has to go to the F1 Commission, which contains all the teams. All of those have to agree on the proposed changes.

Renault: "Hey Red Bull, would you help us one last time and vote in favour of it?"

Things are too complex to fathom, Red Bull is out for themselves but in this situation their interests might coincide with Renault.

Also teams don't always respect what the majority wants at those meetings, i remember last year everyone bar Mercedes wanted a relaxation of the restrictions.
But despite the fact that their "big boys club" was preaching for that, Mercedes got straight out of the meeting saying they would block it.

Also someone like Williams might be pissed at not getting the best engine and want full season freeze...

Last year Renault-Ferrari-Honda were non-commital on fully unlocked development, otherwise they could have had it for 2016 already.

[turbof1]

You're Turbo,

But the spirit of intent will be clear from the manufacturers. Which then leaves the FIA exposed to all sorts of issues.

Spirit of intent holds nothing in F1. Fact remains that one team voting against means no changes will be made next year. Development in-season will force the smaller teams again to accept lesser PUs like this year. The way the rules are plugged now they'll atleast get the same hardware as the works team. I don't even question teams are going to vote against that.

[FoxHound]

I'd counter that and say spirit of intent does hold sway in F1.

If you disagree, look at Bernie running around like a blue arse fly trying to keep Red Bull from their "intent" to quit.