David vs. Goliath(Red Bull vs. Ferrari), myth or truth?

[SiLo]

Over the past season I have come to dislike Red Bull. Especially because of the big gay horner. Always claiming stuff like "we passed the tests we are just faster than everyone else". It just rubbish and you can see right through it.

I also believe they are the biggest team on the grid, especially considering how massive the Red Bull company is.

The headcount thing was stupid, as Mosley said, you could still employ the best 100 guys, but if you have a budget cap, you need to be more efficient with money, meaning getting in designers that may not be as good/less experienced.

[xpensive]

But worst of all is this never ending bs about having an inferior engine to the Mercedes...first of all, I don't think it is,
secondly if Newey really wanted FI's engine contract, I'm fairly certain that Mateschitz would make it happen.

[CHT]

Well.. red bull is bigger than ferrari. Ferrari defintely has the experience advantage.

As mosley said, with money you can get good engineers, drivers, etc..

What do you mean by bigger? AFAIK, FIAT group which own Ferrari has an annual turnover of EUR50b (2009) while REDBULL parent company was EUR3.3b. For Ferrari, they have big sponsors like Shell, Philip Morris and Santander, while RB is the main sponsor for RBR.

IIRC Toyota came into F1 with the biggest budget, but didnt even managed a win.

[est1984]

Well.. red bull is bigger than ferrari. Ferrari defintely has the experience advantage.

As mosley said, with money you can get good engineers, drivers, etc..

What do you mean by bigger? AFAIK, FIAT group which own Ferrari has an annual turnover of EUR50b (2009) while REDBULL parent company was EUR3.3b. For Ferrari, they have big sponsors like Shell, Philip Morris and Santander, while RB is the main sponsor for RBR.

IIRC Toyota came into F1 with the biggest budget, but didnt even managed a win.

For some reason i find this hard to believe, what evidence is this based on?

[jamesddd]

there is no myth or truth in F1.. there is money and no money.. thats all in my opinoin!

[gridwalker]

IIRC Toyota came into F1 with the biggest budget, but didnt even managed a win.

For some reason i find this hard to believe, what evidence is this based on?

I have heard that Toyota had the biggest budget from many sources over the years, including commentators and hard-copy journalists : I do not have any official sources that can confirm this, but it was seen to be an open secret in the paddock.

A quick google search reveals the following (easily disputed) figures for the 2008 season :

Including sponsorship, supplier deals, prize money, team owner contributions, tyre provision and supply of customer engines where appropriate.

1. Toyota: $445.6m
2. McLaren: $433.3m
3. Ferrari: $414.9m
4. Honda: $398.1m
5. Renault: $393.8m
6. BMW Sauber: $366.8m
7. Red Bull Racing: $164.7m
8. Williams: $160.6m
9. Toro Rosso: $128.2m
10. Force India: $121.85m
11. Super Aguri: $45.6m

Money may buy you a lot, but spending that money wisely is the difference between success and being an also-ran.

[SiLo]

Well.. red bull is bigger than ferrari. Ferrari defintely has the experience advantage.

As mosley said, with money you can get good engineers, drivers, etc..

What do you mean by bigger? AFAIK, FIAT group which own Ferrari has an annual turnover of EUR50b (2009) while REDBULL parent company was EUR3.3b. For Ferrari, they have big sponsors like Shell, Philip Morris and Santander, while RB is the main sponsor for RBR.

IIRC Toyota came into F1 with the biggest budget, but didnt even managed a win.

EUR50Bn? Seriously? What do you think this is Microsoft? I think this should clear things up. We are also looking at Net Profit here, which is different to annual turnover, but still 50 billion euros is massively off target.

http://www.bullfax.com/?q=node/196869

[donskar]

A few points on the above posts:

Turnover is very important, but profit is what counts the most.

No team that can afford Newey is "small."

Horner's personality aside, he is just doing his job -- and he does it well.

[imightbewrong]

Fiat
Revenue (turnover): €50.10 billion (2009)
Profit: -€838 million (2009)
http://www.fiatgroup.com/en-us/shai/ban ... K_2009.pdf

Red Bull
Revenue (turnover): €3.3 billion (2009)
Profit: ??? (2009) [Net income: €650 million (2006)]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull_GmbH

Red Bull spent an average $135 million a year on its main Milton Keynes, England-based team since 2005, according to company filings in the U.K. by Red Bull Technology Ltd., allowing it to rely less on sponsorship from other companies to cover costs, said Mick de Haas, a motor sports sponsorship consultant who has advised ING Groep NV.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-1 ... rrari.html

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

The team nearly imploded in itself with his mishandling if the webber vettel calamity. The drivers barely speak and they retained webber for 2010.
On top of this he bangs on about phantom mercedes/Ferrari engine superiority(rubbish especially the 30hp figure he uttered) yet becomes uber defensive the moment someone raises suspicion of their own cars(mclaren with the flexi wing and Renault with the spark plug).

For me, the real management comes from newey designing brilliant machines. Horner is just along for the ride and to spend red bulls cash.
I mean it doesn't take a great manager to sign newey does it?

[xpensive]

Before we canonize Adrian Newey, we have no idea as to how important RBR's flexing wing/nose/and whatever was to the cars performance. They simply found a way to cheat, which was flat out impossible to pinpoint for the x-brabham spannerman.

Quite comparable to Brawn's 2009 "Double diffuser", if you ask me, while how much Newey's input was, we just don't know.

[autogyro]

I have no doubt that the 'ex brabham spanner man' knew exactly what was being done by all the teams including red bull.

[xpensive]

But sadly enough, the FIA's technical delegate was unable to formulate testing methods to prevent the obvious cheating.

Even with rules written in a fashion which outlawed every kind of bending under any circumstance, much like a technical
equivalent of "Bringing the sport into disrepute", "Un-american activities", or even being a "Counter-revolutionary".

[donskar]

Before we canonize Adrian Newey, we have no idea as to how important RBR's flexing wing/nose/and whatever was to the cars performance. They simply found a way to cheat, which was flat out impossible to pinpoint for the x-brabham spannerman.
Quite comparable to Brawn's 2009 "Double diffuser", if you ask me, while how much Newey's input was, we just don't know.

With the extremely restrictive rules in place, I think it may become difficult to differentiate between a "cheater" and a "great designer." I don't canonize Newey, but who would you rank ahead of him among designers currently active in F1?

[xpensive]

That's the problem right there Don, in the 70's I know for a fact that Gordon Murray penned every bolt and nut on the BT44, while I am equally convinced that John Barnard designed most of the MP4's with his own hand, perhaps with a little help, but still.

But with today's vast design-engineering/r&d departments in F1, it's difficult to tell who's doing what, not the least who is actually designing anything? What is a "technical director" anyway? I have a business card with that title, but with a staff less than your fingers and toes, it's pretty easy to tell who's designing things.