godlameroso wrote: ↑09 Sep 2021, 13:46
If the aim of the new regulations is to give more people a chance to win, and put more emphasis on the human side of competition then power unit parity will go a long way to setting the stage.
The engine freeze regulations weren't about parity and the human side, they were purely to give Red Bull a chance to run the Honda engine once Honda left - that's why Horner was so adamant about implementing it. If not, Ferrari, Mercedes and possibly Renault would have developed their PUs and left Red Bull behind. No doubt behind-closed-doors discussions included threats to pull RBR and AT out of the championship if the PU wasn't frozen. That's the nature of F1, of course, and has been since day one. Ferrari have used the "we'll leave if you do / don't do X..." method on numerous occasions as we all remember.
It's nice to think that things are done for nice reasons, but the reality is that they're done for political reasons. The politics of the engine freeze was that without it, Red Bull would risk becoming a back marker team if the others developed their PUs and they, quite understandably, didn't want to play that game.
Now, Red Bull are working hard to try to prevent Mercedes developing their PU ahead of the freeze. That's what the complaint/query is about. Nothing else. It's "how do we keep Mercedes where they are relative to us in the PU stakes?".
I don't blame Red Bull, although I wish that they'd put the energy in to building a PU previously and we could enjoy seeing what these PUs could be developed in to. Now, we're going to see them essentially stop evolving for a few years, which is a shame from a technical perspective. But that's politics for you.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.