Infiniti Red Bull Racing 2015

[Kingshark]

It's not fair that Red Bull can't defend their championship because of Renault engines rather than a poor chassis. Then again, it wasn't fair that Bridgestone's inferiority to Michelin prevented Ferrari from defending their championship in 2005, and the underpowered Mecachrome engine prevented Williams from defending their championship in 1998. Sometimes, that's the only way dominant forces can be stopped.

[FoxHound]

If you think Renault are 100% to blame, would you care to suggest where RBR will get an engine from for 2017?

An overwhelming part of the blame falls squarely on renault's shoulders, and I fail to see any relevance in that and RB's engine supplier in the future.

If a customer starts demanding, as Renault have said, will that not start to put stresses and strains on getting components out the door in the guise Renault intended?
Think about hat Abiteboul is saying. Do we have any reason not to believe him?

Then think who in their right mind is going to want to supply Red Bull if they carry on as they have been.

[turbof1]

If a customer starts demanding, as Renault have said, will that not start to put stresses and strains on getting components out the door in the guise Renault intended?

A company breaking under stress due a malcontent customer, is not a strong company. It tells that its leaders act on emotion instead of reasoning.

The blame still lies with renault, only now you can add to its CV "breaks and fails when customers are rightfully demanding".

[dans79]

A company breaking under stress due a malcontent customer, is not a strong company. It tells that its leaders act on emotion instead of reasoning.

The blame still lies with renault, only now you can add to its CV "breaks and fails when customers are rightfully demanding".

I have to agree on this, most companies the size of Renault would have told RBR to stick where the sun don't shine by now.

[FoxHound]

If a customer starts demanding, as Renault have said, will that not start to put stresses and strains on getting components out the door in the guise Renault intended?

A company breaking under stress due a malcontent customer, is not a strong company. It tells that its leaders act on emotion instead of reasoning.

The blame still lies with renault, only now you can add to its CV "breaks and fails when customers are rightfully demanding".

But look at the situation as a whole Turbo. Renault are behind, and they got panned by Red Bull last year.
Renault held their hands up and continue to do so.
I would not say Renault are a weak company at all. I would say the stresses imposed on them in the face of competition and their own main customer/factory team lead to where we are today.

Desperate situations call for desperate measures, although finishing 2nd to Mercedes is hardly desperate....would you agree?
Maybe a disproportionate amount of pressure was exerted by Red Bull on Renault....time will tell...and I bet all of it will come out at some point.
Why not track test an item that requires track testing....this kind of corner cutting is why there are problems.

I hope Mario Illien exerts more authority at Renault to stop this sort of thing happening.

[FoxHound]

Here's another link to the story...worded differently.

http://en.f1i.com/news/7101-renault-ans ... nces.html?

Performance is linked to several factors: the chassis, the driver and the engine. As a package, we have lost ground over Mercedes. I am convinced that our engine has progressed, but we are currently dealing with some specific issues which prevent us from fully exploiting its potential. We implemented some last minute upgrades which bypassed some standard validation procedures, such as running on the test-bed. These upgrades are what posed a problem in Melbourne."
Red Bull led us to a frantic quest for development.
We must now think about how we dealt with the situation, as we sidestepped our conventional procedures. Perhaps we changed too quickly some parts of our engine, and maybe we now need to revert back to a more stable configuration which offers a satisfactory performance. We've been building F1 engines for thirty seven years, so our expertise is unquestionable."

They didn't even run it on the test bed!
Another question I have, is why would Renault do this unless it was a specific request from Red Bull?

[Juzh]

and maybe we now need to revert back to a more stable configuration which offers a satisfactory performance.

"satisfactory". To who exactly? I'm eager to see this satisfactory performance in action.

[FW17]

For some reason, the more they talk the worse they look; Abiteboul - What has Renault done in the 10 months from March 2014 to Dec 2014?

[turbof1]

Here's another link to the story...worded differently.

http://en.f1i.com/news/7101-renault-ans ... nces.html?

Performance is linked to several factors: the chassis, the driver and the engine. As a package, we have lost ground over Mercedes. I am convinced that our engine has progressed, but we are currently dealing with some specific issues which prevent us from fully exploiting its potential. We implemented some last minute upgrades which bypassed some standard validation procedures, such as running on the test-bed. These upgrades are what posed a problem in Melbourne."
Red Bull led us to a frantic quest for development.
We must now think about how we dealt with the situation, as we sidestepped our conventional procedures. Perhaps we changed too quickly some parts of our engine, and maybe we now need to revert back to a more stable configuration which offers a satisfactory performance. We've been building F1 engines for thirty seven years, so our expertise is unquestionable."

They didn't even run it on the test bed!
Another question I have, is why would Renault do this unless it was a specific request from Red Bull?

That's the issue. Why in earth would you put untested parts on a homologated power unit that needs to do on average 5 races? It's one thing that your customer is asking for this, but to actually give in to such a crazy demand. That's what I meant with it not being "strong": they should have told RBR that they can't do that. Putting blame at the team is not right since the manufacturer both has the responsibility and end decision.

Companies always are put under stresses. That's what management in a company is all about in the first place. A company needs to deal with the challenges it faces, being either growth, profit or product quality. Red Bull screaming at Renault to get a better engine should not lead to being overstressed and making infact the engine worse. Renault looks to have panicked and made a crucial mistake. Is that down to ignorant customer RBR or down to the company who actually builds the product? I'd say the latter.

To be honest, I'm dissapointed in Renault. They are giving me the impression they feel uncomfortable with the required rate of development. F1 never was about slow walking in the first place. They have been a long time in the sport, they should know that it's a hectic sport with a never ending rate of development.

[djos]

More excuses by renault, even after they admitted they messed up. Which one is it now?
Results and numbers on track are loud and clear.

Agreed, RBR telling Renault to pull their fingers out and make a competitive engine is hardly unreasonable imo!

[FoxHound]

More excuses by renault, even after they admitted they messed up. Which one is it now?
Results and numbers on track are loud and clear.

Agreed, RBR telling Renault to pull their fingers out and make a competitive engine is hardly unreasonable imo!

But Red Bull telling Renault what to put on the engine is ok?
Dont get me wrong, Renault should have held firm.
But as this is no ordinary customer/supplier relationship, was Red Bull correct to make the demands for the new untested parts?

[djos]

But Red Bull telling Renault what to put on the engine is ok?
Dont get me wrong, Renault should have held firm.
But as this is no ordinary customer/supplier relationship, was Red Bull correct to make the demands for the new untested parts?

Im a change manager by occupation, here's how the convo would have gone:

RBR: Renault, your PU is still not at a competitive level, what else have you got in the dev pipeline?
Renault: we have some new parts but they are not fully tested

RBR: how confident are you that they will deliver the gains we need?
Renault: we think they'll make a big difference

RBR: what is the risk to reliability
Renault: we think the risk is low

RBR: bolt them on the PU, we need everything we can get
Renault: consider it done

[Richard]

More importantly:

Renault - If we hold back we'll need another token to change from the winter test part to these newer parts later in the year.
RB - If you use that part now we can update it later as "reliability"
Renault - Correct
RB - Go for it.
Renault- After all "reliability" updates worked well for us last time.
RB - I'll start up the PR machine, we'll get Honda on board for the FIA to allow a reliability upgrade in May

[FoxHound]

More importantly:

Renault - If we hold back we'll need another token to change from the winter test part to these newer parts later in the year.
RB - If you use that part now we can update it later as "reliability"
Renault - Correct
RB - Go for it.
Renault- After all "reliability" updates worked well for us last time.
RB - I'll start up the PR machine, we'll get Honda on board for the FIA to allow a reliability upgrade in May

Where in this hypothesis does openly berating Renault fit? Carlos Ghosn(The Renault boz-boz) is having kittens over this, I can assure it.
Further, why would Abiteboul openly wade into this and call Red Bull out over the demands they made?

Those are precursors to a civil war, not a facade to get updates and performance allowances through some convoluted political game play.

[djos]

I bet Infiniti are on RBR's side on this as Renault is making them look bad by association!