Formula One's Engine Crisis

[Phil]

Williams, FI, etc. would prefer A-spec engines, obviously, but their target is not fighting for titles, they know they´re on a different league so they´re fine with B-spec engines while their real competitors (the rest of midfielders) also have B-spec engines. But RBR tries to compete with works teams, without the investment and development involved when you´re a work team That´s the reason they´re vocal while the rest don´t.

This is what we can essentially call a 2-tier championship. Two teams fighting it out with A-spec engines, the rest on B-spec engines. It effectively means that no team with a B-spec engine will compete with a A-spec team. The engine-manufacturer have control over this. How? By choosing who gets a A-spec engine, who gets a B-spec engine and who doesn't get an engine at all. Is that the kind of sport we want?

I'm baffled by the number of people unwilling to discuss this specific point. They're obviously enough people voicing their displeasure at Mercedes walking away with another 2 championships this year and the lack of competition at the front, but instead of arguing in favor of bringing the field closer together, people really think the above highlighted situation is acceptable.

Maybe more teams are not happy with this, but it´s only RBR who complains for a simple reason, they´re the only team aiming for championships with no engine manufacturer deal.

No, the other teams are not complaining because they are limited in their capacity to do so. Williams is one of the biggest profiteer since the regulation changes. That Mercedes engine has propelled them from 9th ('11), 8th ('12), 9th ('13) to 3rd ('14) on the grid. In 2015, they will finish 3rd again. Lotus-Renault, have gone from 4th and 315 points ('13) down to 8th with 10 points ('14) on Renault engines, then moved to Mercedes for 2015 and are on the best path to finish 8th with currently 70 points. That teams future has always been in doubt and they would be careful to criticize their former engine supplier because of their history as the factory Renault team and potential takeover for 2016.

Force-India is also a profiteer of the Mercedes engine. Their position and competitiveness has been relatively consistent throughout the last 5 seasons. Despite them not being on the newest engine, their position in the championship is relatively settled and they are profiting of the strength of that engine. If they'd complain - Mercedes would simply ask them if they'd prefer to use B-Spec engine of another manufacturer or god-forbid, a Renault or Honda engine.

Sauber is one of those teams that has gone through hell in 2014 with the state that Ferrari engine was in. In their financial crisis, they've been relying not only on Bernie with a pre-payment of price-money to pay their suppliers, they're also most likely dependent on Ferrari, either by paying engines in rates and my guess, at a cheaper price in exchange for supporting Ferrari Driver Academy in retaining Raffaele Marciello as test-driver. They'd be careful to openly criticize Ferrari while that hand is feeding them. If Ferrari - who are not dependent on Sauber - tell them to sod off, where would they go? Mercedes has no reason to supply them, they already supply most of the grid. Who else is there? Renault and perform even worse?

If you want to compete with works teams, you can´t seriously expect one of those works team will provide you his best engine so you can beat them. McLaren got it and did the necessary effort to solve it, and we all know it was a big effort.

RBR should take note and do the same, quit, or shut up

Those are mighty words Andres. Yet you are ignoring the simple fact that the sport, despite best intentions, has failed to make the sport attractive enough for other manufacturers to come in and fight to supply F1 teams. It's all nice and rosy to put that responsibility in the teams hands - but it isn't. McLaren have been fortunate to attract one of these manufacturers as their sole supplier - but that partnership hasn't payed dividends yet - and there is still a big question mark over if it will in the imminent future. The problems remain the same and have been discussed over the past 40 pages - development that is limited by PUs per season and limited tokens to control the areas of development. These rules have been conceived for a reason; To protect the struggling teams over an uncontrollable development war they have no influence over and could push them completely out of the sport by being unable to bear these costs that won't benefit them in the first place - not if they are stuck on cheaper but still too expensive B-spec engines. This limits the attractiveness to new manufacturers contemplating entering the sport. The failure of RedBull or any "poor" customer team as you put it to attract their own unique engine supplier into the sport isn't their failure Andres, it's the failure of the sport and the regulations. Meanwhile, all eyes are on Honda, the negative publicity they're receiving and the utter failure to regain competitiveness. No, this will not lure any other manufacturers into the sport, not in a million years.

So, what should RedBull in your eyes do? Quit? Sure - but then we're back to the hypothesis we've been discussing 2 pages back - the one that will lead to 4 cars leaving this grid - a team that has pumped millions into F1 and helped its success, brought in new and exciting drivers into the sport and a lot of exposure. I'm not saying RedBull didn't benefit, of course they did and it's the only reason they are even in this sport. Doesn't change however what they have brought to the sport in a mutually beneficial situation. To lose them, would mean that we'd likely see 3 car teams to fill the grid which would only significantly add to the problem we already have. That being, making the sport even more unbalanced between those manufacturers that supply more cars over those that are mere customers. This would also raise the cost for any other potentially interested manufacturers to join, which would make that scenario even more unlikely. Sure, it's a rather pessimistic picture - one where either manufacturers, the FIA or Bernie in another desperate attempt might come in to make adjustments, but the question will be when will that happen and at which cost? After already losing RedBull and TorroRosso in this hypothesis, who will be 2nd in line? ForceIndia and Sauber? How much loss can the sport sustain before it becomes beyond saving?

I get it that many don't like the arrogance RedBull has portrayed. But as I've said numerous times; if the problem can be applied to other teams on the grid, it isn't a solely a problem of "RBR's own creation". The belief that they are vocal only because they are not winning is rather short-sighted. They've never said anything to suggest that. They are vocal because they are being taken the chance to compete.

And the problem they are in is a little bit more complex than that their arrogance got them there. From Autosport:

"Bernie Ecclestone has revealed Red Bull served notice on Renault in the belief it had a Formula 1 engine supply deal with Mercedes following a meeting in July. In defence of Red Bull, or Christian in particular, the reason they cancelled their agreement with Renault is so they could do the deal they thought they had done with Mercedes," said Ecclestone."

And

"Unless Renault gave us the go ahead we couldn't move. It would be in breach of contract, and there is a much bigger picture involving Renault and Mercedes than Formula 1, such as the joint factories in Mexico.".

Precisely as I suspected all along. RedBull had talks with Mercedes over supplying them but said they would and could not act as long as their contract with Renault was still in place - then RedBull terminated that contract only to then later find out that the deal was off. Then to make matters worse, Ferrari and Honda both declined as well.

Not blaming Mercedes (nor Ferrari and Honda, it's a logical consequence through circumstance after all) here, but it does give a little bit of insight in what kind of variables came together. I'm sure that on some level, Mercedes was willing to supply RedBull, but who knows, maybe they felt it was unlikely that Renault would allow RedBull out of that contract and didn't entertain the idea with enough critical thought until suddenly RedBull did get out their partnership with Renault. Then the questions were asked; Okay - if there's a possibility that RedBull could beat us, how can we still make this a win for us? Either these are results of real constructive ideas to supply RedBull or the Mercedes board simply thought of ways to make it a rather impossible deal for RedBull to accept. Either way, it's RedBull now that looks rather dumb, even though they were in a lose/lose position. Stay with Renault - who has failed to make improvements from 2014 to 2015, heck made a step back, and has failed to use tokens for 3/4 of the season and who is also pursuing their own plans to become a factory team and has no more reason to supply RedBull with identical A-spec engines in 2016 than Mercedes or Ferrari - or terminate that failing unbearable partnership after encouraging talks with Mercedes, Ferrari and Honda only to then face the same consequences. Yet, it is somehow their failure to... not do what McLaren has done by attracting Honda in a sport that has failed to become more attractive for exactly these new manufacturers?

And here we are wondering why the 'sport' as in Bernie and the FIA have joined forces in a proposition to bring new alternative 'competitive' engines for 2017? It might be a laughable idea to most - a severe back-stab to the manufacturers that have invested millions into the development of new engines (to be fair, benefits them outside F1 anyway, so it's not an entire loss), but it is perhaps the only way to force them into leveraging their power to a degree that either results in a maximum price cap being agreed upon and the requirement to offer the same engines to customer teams. This would allow a more leveled sport - the factory teams would still have the advantage of having full insight into their PUs and the car, but equally that advantage might not be too big not to be leveled through other aspects. The freeing up of development could then make it possible for struggling manufacturers to catch up without the risk of exposing struggling customer teams. It would also make the sport more attractive for outside manufacturers to join, because they would be able to make improvements through less restrictive rules as long as they are willing to bear the costs themselves (which is only fair given they can use that R&D for outside markets) without charging their customers beyond what they can pay. Win/win.

I'm all for constructive talk here, but in order to do so requires a little more than short-term thinking.

[toraabe]

DM reluctance to Mercedes was the key factor to the collapse of the negotiations.

[bauc]

Autosport article says STR are now weeks away from a engine deal, so it leaves only RBR without an engine for next year.

[Andres125sx]

Williams, FI, etc. would prefer A-spec engines, obviously, but their target is not fighting for titles, they know they´re on a different league so they´re fine with B-spec engines while their real competitors (the rest of midfielders) also have B-spec engines. But RBR tries to compete with works teams, without the investment and development involved when you´re a work team That´s the reason they´re vocal while the rest don´t.

This is what we can essentially call a 2-tier championship. Two teams fighting it out with A-spec engines, the rest on B-spec engines. It effectively means that no team with a B-spec engine will compete with a A-spec team.

Obviously, when works teams invest 300-400 million euros (without considering R&D of new PUs) and the rest invest under 100 million euros (and nothing more), it will always be a 2-tier chamionship, independently to the engine specs.

What you want is works teams doing the effort and investment in R&D to then share that work with the whole grid. F1 manufacturers are not NGOs, they´re here to win, and they invest those amounts of money to earn an advantage, not to share it with their rivals

RBR problem is RBR problem. You´re insinuating that´s not only RBR problem, but reality is Williams, FI, Sauber and Lotus, all of them togheter invest less money than RBR alone, so no, they´re in completely different scenarios, midfielders are midfielders and they have no problem with B-spec engines, while RBR think they must be fighting with works teams so they think they deserve a A-spec engine.

Nobody deserve an A-spec engine, you must build it yourself, or make an agreement with some manufacturer to build it specifically for you

If you want to compete with works teams, you can´t seriously expect one of those works team will provide you his best engine so you can beat them. McLaren got it and did the necessary effort to solve it, and we all know it was a big effort.

RBR should take note and do the same, quit, or shut up

Those are mighty words Andres. Yet you are ignoring the simple fact that the sport, despite best intentions, has failed to make the sport attractive enough for other manufacturers to come in and fight to supply F1 teams.

Sorry but not true, Honda found it attractive enough to come in

And Renault and Mercedes are still here thanks to the new PUs

And there are rumours about VW building a F1 engine in secret

And if RBR can´t find any manufacturer, they still can do what many others did before, buy some manufacturer and build the PUs theirselves


But no, they don´t want to invest that amount of money, yet they still think they deserve same material than those who did that investment

Yes I also want a Ferrari at Peugeot price, but if I don´t pay for a Ferrari, I´ll only get a Peugeot

[FoxHound]

In the link kindly provided by Phil, it does state clearly...

On Mateschitz:

But he never came back, so the discussions never really started, and the whole thing died away."

Mateschitz failed to bury his very public hatchet with Mercedes, failed to come up with a symbiotic PR strategy for both companies, and failed to start actual negotiations.

These are failings on Red Bull's part, how can a supplier be blamed for any of the above? Especially when the team owner has complete disregard for the supplier(Mercedes).
This goes further to drive home the point, not that it was needed, that Red Bull are in this mess because of their own doing.

[alexx_88]

I don't get it, where did this feud between Mateschitz and Mercedes start? What possible reason could he have to sabotage hundreds of millions of euros for a personal vendetta?

If F1 were a normal sport, you'd have FIA and/or FOM setting the rules, not the teams. Leaving it up to the ones who compete to make the rules will always favor the ones holding the cards. And, starting 2014, those are the PU manufacturers. This is wrong. Everyone should compete within the rules set by the governing body. Otherwise you end up with a state of permanent compromise, where a lot of things are changing, but because there are so many opinions that need to be balanced, the end result is close to nothing.

[Phil]

Nobody deserve an A-spec engine, you must build it yourself, or make an agreement with some manufacturer to build it specifically for you

That's not something the manufacturers should be able to decide - it's something an impartial governing body should, if it's in the interest to do so. Hence why the sport has come in year after year and changed regulations; They did it in order to make things interesting, to create new challenges (despite engine freezes). These rules changes have never been RedBull interest and made it challenging for them, despite their 8 titles, to remain on top. If RedBull had had a dominant say as the two competitive engine manufacturers have now, chances are we'd have seen a dominance to the same degree as we do now, one where they can actively influence the faith of their competition.

You still failed to answer the question if a 2-tier championship is something you find acceptable. You simply dodged the question to the point you're saying if a customer team deserves a part of the cake or not. From the manufacturers perspective, absolutely not, they have every right to act in their interest. I'm not arguing on behalf of a dominant manufacturer, I'm arguing on behalf of a F1 spectator that wants a balanced competition, not one where a dominant manufacturer can use its position to effectively give itself an even bigger advantage over the opposition by supplying weaker engines that can't compete with their own.

You seem to think the unbalance starts with the amount of investment with teams. That's partly true. Take 2012: Thanks to lottery-tires and a further increase in the restriction of aero rules enabled many teams with huge differences in investment to be competitive with one another. They were separated by tenths, not seconds to even teams that have 3-5 times the resources. You can throw as much money at a problem you like - there is always going to be a point where that money seizes to be an advantage because you've already reached a threshold where more money doesn't buy you more performance. Mercedes nor Ferrari aren't dominant because they are spending half a billion now - they are dominant because they have the resources and expertise to build competitive engines and can control who they supply what to. Even RedBull with an equal or higher investment can't match that because it's not an issue of money, it's an issue of ability and circumstance of allowing the sport to become something only 4 out of 10 can deliver (engines).

Prior to 2014 - we had 10 racing teams with expertise in building cars competing with each other. The future you are defending is one of 4 engine manufacturers competing among themselves with another 6 teams (maybe) to fill the grid and show up to fill what otherwise would be empty places. The present is 2 engine manufacturers competing with 2 in limbo and another 6 filling the grid.


Edit: Small point;

Sorry but not true, Honda found it attractive enough to come in

Errr, Honda's decision to join was way before they realized how (not) competitive they would be. The thought was they could use 2014 to see and gather info that would lead them to success in 2015. Turned out great, didn't it? This has surely caused other manufacturers to seriously reconsider any idea they might have had to join F1 as an engine supplier. Why? The rules are restrictive and the advantage of those within the sport who have season after season of experience can use that to create even better engines puts others entering at a higher disadvantage. Look at Renault; they even openly considered (and still do) leaving F1. Those are not signs of a healthy environment, especially not when most engine suppliers like Renault are realizing that in order to compete and be successful, merely supplying is not enough. They need to invest even more and enter as a factory team to make the most of it. So no, the point still stands.

[FoxHound]

I don't get it, where did this feud between Mateschitz and Mercedes start? What possible reason could he have to sabotage hundreds of millions of euros for a personal vendetta?

If F1 were a normal sport, you'd have FIA and/or FOM setting the rules, not the teams. Leaving it up to the ones who compete to make the rules will always favor the ones holding the cars. And, starting 2014, those are the PU manufacturers. This is wrong. Everyone should compete within the rules set by the governing body. Otherwise you end up with a state of permanent compromise, where a lot of things are changing, but because there are so many opinions that need to be balanced, the end result is close to nothing.

The FIA and FOM do set the rules, and not the Manufacturers.
The bottom line here is F1 needs engines, and it needs development and innovation within that remit.
What happened for 5 years should never happen again (frozen engines). My feelings are that it is directly because of the frozen engines, we are having problems today.

The reason for that is that more money was diverted from engines, to other parts of the car during this era.
There was no engine development, stagnant innovation, but the engines were affordable!
Now teams find themselves over reliant on their team cost expenditures and face big engine bills on top of this.

As for Mateshitz, his vendetta against Mercedes is "long running".
Details scarce as would be expected.

[turbof1]

The FIA and FOM do set the rules, and not the Manufacturers.

Actually, Ferrari, Mercedes, Honda and even Renault are part of setting the rules, through their respective teams (well Renault will not next year). They might not have equal voting rights individually against FOM/FIA, but they are part of it.

And let's not forget Ferrari's veto right on just about every rule change.

[FoxHound]

Phil,

Can you stick up for Sauber prior to BMW involvement in 2005?
10 years with customer engines.
Or Williams from 2005 to today?
10 years a customer.
Force India have had it rough with customer engines dating back to Jordan days... 27 years ago.

Why is it only now a problem?
If it's an issue today, it's been an issue forever since a customer team entered F1 over 50 years ago, denial of this is hypocrisy.

[FoxHound]

The FIA and FOM do set the rules, and not the Manufacturers.

Actually, Ferrari, Mercedes, Honda and even Renault are part of setting the rules, through their respective teams (well Renault will not next year). They might not have equal voting rights individually against FOM/FIA, but they are part of it.

And let's not forget Ferrari's veto right on just about every rule change.

Turbo,

I can quote you word for word where you said the manufacturers can't force anything through.

[turbof1]

The FIA and FOM do set the rules, and not the Manufacturers.

Actually, Ferrari, Mercedes, Honda and even Renault are part of setting the rules, through their respective teams (well Renault will not next year). They might not have equal voting rights individually against FOM/FIA, but they are part of it.

And let's not forget Ferrari's veto right on just about every rule change.

Turbo,

I can quote you word for word where you said the manufacturers can't force anything through.

Try me; I'll be sure to clarify whatever I said.

It's different then setting rules. Any decision for next year requires unanimous voting of the F1 commission, so in that regard they cannot force things through. However, they are part of the official decision making organ, through their respective teams, so they do set rules in principle. A majority of the FOM/FIA is enough to void any force the manufacturers want to use, on conditions those 2 do cooperate.

And I also only came recently to realise that Ferrari's veto power was still in effect. I was let to believe that right expired in 2012, but apperently not. That changes things by quite a bit for one manufacturer.

[FoxHound]

How is the Veto of any use when Red Bull have the same amount of victories as Ferrari since the Turbo PU's came into effect in 2014?

As for the quote...Once my lap top is set up I'll find the incriminating evidence for you Turbo

But i see you've backtracked somewhat... "making rules through a decision making organ via their teams".

So do all teams

This cannot be indies v manufacturers if they all use the same body. There has to be consensus, and if there are 6 independent teams and 4 manufacturer teams... well you do the math.

[turbof1]

How is the Veto of any use when Red Bull have the same amount of victories as Ferrari since the Turbo PU's came into effect in 2014?

As for the quote...Once my lap top is set up I'll find the incriminating evidence for you Turbo

But i see you've backtracked somewhat... "making rules through a decision making organ via their teams".

So do all teams

This cannot be indies v manufacturers if they all use the same body. There has to be consensus, and if there are 6 independent teams and 4 manufacturer teams... well you do the math.

I don't know if you noticed, but I'm not talking about Red Bull in particular. It is generally speaking.

[rgava]

This cannot be indies v manufacturers if they all use the same body. There has to be consensus, and if there are 6 independent teams and 4 manufacturer teams... well you do the math.

6 are not independent because they have to "be very carefull" with the ones who give them engines. If not, they will find themselves in the same position RBR & TR are now.