Infiniti Red Bull Racing 2015

[Phil]

Speaking about Renault, he said: “They take from us not only time and money, but also the will and motivation. There is no driver and no chassis which is able to compensate for this lack of horsepower.

Translation: "I was never interested in competing in Formula One, only the exposure gained from winning in Formula One."

To a certain extent, that's maybe understandable. But, personally, I want every team for whom that's the case to leave. Such unabashed self-interest is killing the sport, because it results in senseless regulations that have been pulled in a million different directions. I think there's no better time than now to cleanse F1 of these influences.

I couldn't disagree more. I snipped out the relevant part from the Mateschitz rant. It's a very real issue. Having an under-performing engine in the back of your car basically means that the 500-staff of RedBull (the actual race-team) are helpless in achieving anything. No matter what a perfect job they do on their field of experties; the actual chassis, has little bearing if they are on their 5th engine, taking penalties here and there but still can't remain competitive because they are substantially down on power.

How quick are we to forget that it's not only RedBull who has/is struggling. Last year, Sauber too were struggling, not only because they lack the money to develop their car, but the seriousness of their financial health was multiplied 100 fold because the engine itself demoted them to back of the grid. The only thing that helped them somewhat is the fact that Mercedes were the only ones that got it right and many in the midfield were struggling with sub par engines too.

This year is a bit of a wash because we are under some illusion that Ferrari has become more competitive. Have they? Not really when you look at the past few races. The only difference is that Ferrari are now where RedBull was last year.

The engine situation is a bit like... well, being the greatest cycling athlete bar none, but being handicapped by a bicycle that is double the weight than what your competitors are using. No matter how hard you train, you will be at a disadvantage. Period. Or rewind back to when we had two tire manufacturers; Find yourself on the wrong tire and there's no chance you'll compete, irregardless how talented your staff and how much better your car is.

It's a situation that will get better as tokens will be used to close the gap in engine performance and diminishing returns are reached, but it might take too long with these new complex engines and technology. And most importantly, it's an aspect of the car that is entirely out of the actual racing-teams hand. We need Redbull. They are good for the sport. Together with Mercedes and Ferrari, they are the 3rd team that has loads of money to spend in F1. If they leave, who will take their place? Unless other engine manufacturers jump in (and it becomes a more increasingly engine technology dictated formula - which will make racing teams and their talent more redundant - or engine freezes happen, which will then limit the appeal to engine manufacturers...), who are we left with? McLaren? They can't even find a main sponsor. Williams? Not really - they are riding on the engine advantage unlike any other team. ForceIndia? Sauber? Who else is left who is guaranteed to stay? When the big guys (RedBull/Renault) start falling, the appeal will eventually also be limited to Mercedes despite them winning everything.

Think about that for a moment.

[FoxHound]

Phil,

Red Bull do have the cash resources to do it themselves.
They also have the option of bringing another manufacturer into the sport, which now appears doomed due to the public lashings dished out.

The basic premise for me, is if they can't make the engine... or source a better one, then they should berate that situation, not Renault.

[iotar__]

I couldn't disagree more. I snipped out the relevant part from the Mateschitz rant. It's a very real issue. Having an under-performing engine in the back of your car basically means that the 500-staff of RedBull (the actual race-team) are helpless in achieving anything. No matter what a perfect job they do on their field of experties; the actual chassis, has little bearing if they are on their 5th engine, taking penalties here and there but still can't remain competitive because they are substantially down on power.
How quick are we to forget that it's not only RedBull who has/is struggling. Last year, Sauber too were struggling, not only because they lack the money to develop their car, but the seriousness of their financial health was multiplied 100 fold because the engine itself demoted them to back of the grid. The only thing that helped them somewhat is the fact that Mercedes were the only ones that got it right and many in the midfield were struggling with sub par engines too.

This year is a bit of a wash because we are under some illusion that Ferrari has become more competitive. Have they? Not really when you look at the past few races. The only difference is that Ferrari are now where RedBull was last year.

You just can't drag Sauber into it like that. Bringing finances that are negatively connected with special treatment and Ecclestone deals for Red Bull (which also enables running junior drivers team that takes money from Sauber!) is bad enough but then mixing teams, engines and season and comparing them? That does not make sense at all. It was Horner last season that was openly advocating disadvantaging customer team (Lotus) with 300+ employees and I can assure you that it was followed by actions. Engine is not a problem for Sauber anymore but finances (including drivers) are and yet you're using it as an argument for Mateaschitz's marketing stay or leave logic. There's simply no positive connection. Sauber doesn't have the money to compete against TR with better engine so how would brand new Red Bull's engine F1 with costs and competitive disadvantages help them?

The point is Red Bull was committed enough to engine rules as long as they expected to catch up and benefit from them, now they are saying something else but their problems are theirs only especially when they are the only Renault teams. It may change if Renault buy a team.

"This year is a bit of a wash because we are under some illusion that Ferrari has become more competitive. Have they? Not really when you look at the past few races. The only difference is that Ferrari are now where RedBull was last year."
Ferrari gains backed by numbers are not an illusion, choosing only races that suits you is wrong and not worth discussing.

[bhall II]

Having an under-performing engine in the back of your car basically means that the 500-staff of RedBull (the actual race-team) are helpless in achieving anything. No matter what a perfect job they do on their field of experties; the actual chassis, has little bearing if they are on their 5th engine, taking penalties here and there but still can't remain competitive because they are substantially down on power.

I don't disagree with that. I hate the current formula and its every machination with a passion normally reserved for genocidal despots and guacamole. I think it represents a philosophy that's entirely incongruent with everything F1 is supposed to be, and it tends to produce racing that's the complete antithesis of entertaining.

And like I said before, I can sympathize with Red Bull's situation to a certain extent. Any Ferrari fan who saw that team's run of success stopped by Bridgestone's inability to match Michelin's long-life tires in 2005 understands all too well the definition of futility. Even so, I'm sick and tired of the Horner/Marko Bitchfest. They never miss an opportunity to shoehorn complaints about their engine supplier into a conversation, and neither makes nary a mention of their own shortcomings. That's why I was very pleased to read Newey's recent comments...

I think in fairness this year hasn’t been as strong as Mercedes and Ferrari. But there’s been various regulation changes which have happened over the last 12 months which have meant the aerodynamic route we have taken prior to that we’ve had to revise and look at a different direction, which obviously takes time.

I imagine he's referring to the adoption of titanium skid plates that no longer allow for the kind of rake he'd like to have on the car. It's tough, but underbody downforce is usually first in line to get the axe when the powers that be decide to amend the formula. The same thing happened to Ferrari after bargeboards were severely restricted in 2009.

Also, keep in mind that Red Bull didn't exactly embrace KERS. They never ran it in 2009, and they only used it for starts after the FOTA moratorium ended in 2011. With only two years of full use prior to last season, that means they lack nearly two years of ERS integration experience that every other team has.

Moreover, the current Renault PU is only the 2nd power plant Red Bull has ever had to integrate into its chassis (or 3rd, depending on how you want to look at it). The RB1 was the Jaguar R6 with a different livery, and RB2 through RB9 featured the same V8, which happened to be the class-leading engine in terms of fuel efficiency and cooling requirements.

Given all of that, should anyone be surprised by the team's struggles? Is there any shame in it?

Like most team principals, Toto Wolff usually strikes me as a disingenuous prick. But, in this case, I have to agree with him...

Just get your --- head down, work hard and try to sort it out.

[Phil]

I don't disagree, but Toto of course has it easy to speak, them being a works-team that controls everything from the chassis to engine development, because both are in-house products... something only Ferrari can match. Toto's comment is as much worth, as when Sebastian said something along the lines of "Wir arbeiten, während die anderen ihre Eier in den Pool hängen." (While others have their balls hanging in the pool, we're still working)

I also think the situation is a bit more complicated than the public slugfest between Renault and RedBull. At first, I thought that perhaps Renault under delivered and RedBull started the whole public mud slinging we've been reading all too much about since 2014. Perhaps. Perhaps the situation is more complicated though; Perhaps Renault has indeed under delivered, but since 2015 hasn't been focusing hard enough on solving the issue(s) in the ways that would be expected from a next-best thing to a works-team team. Perhaps this is because Renault indeed is rethinking it's focus on F1, or its re-entry as its own team. One way or the other; RedBull as a team is frustrated because they are limited to an engine that doesn't work. Of course one can point to Torro-Rosso and say that they have less problems. But Torro-Rosso isn't the main partner here, they aren't the ones pushing boundaries on every single level to the extend that made Redbull-Renault 4 consecutive world-champions.

That engine has issues, and the issues are only that bit larger because RedBull still has a very aggressive but efficient chassis. A bit like McLaren's issues; They've gone aggressive and with a subpar working PU (once placed into that confined environment), it's exaggerating the problems and reliability issues they are having.

RedBulls public ying/yang has as much to do with putting Renault under pressure, perhaps because Renault is indirectly pursuing other options. Yes, direct talks between partners is the best - but this is probably not easy in a time when one doesn't know what the other is doing. It has dysfunctional partnership/marriage written all over it, and my best guess is it will come to an end sooner than later. The big question is; will RedBull still be in the sport with another competitive engine manufacturer and will Renault be there as well, or will we lose both?

One way or the other; one can hate Mateschitz for his ongoing crusade; and while I might not really like RedBull as a team (that actually sounds too harsh, I have full respect for the Milton Keynes team and what they have achieved), I can't find much fault in what he is saying about the current Formula.

EDIT: Just a minor point; you can't expect Mateschitz or anyone inside Redbull to come out and blast Renault for what is really going on. I expect lots of the issues to be actually confidential, so public mud slinging is pretty much the only thing you can do to put one under pressure. Doesn't seem productive, nor constructive, but I don't think Mateschitz is that stupid as a person.

[bhall II]

Perhaps...

Perhaps, as Adrian Newey has explicitly stated, there are discrepancies on both sides of the equation? I don't understand why it's so difficult to imagine Red Bull fallibility.

Applying pressure doesn't always work out. Remember this?

"We had a last-minute engine development in which we bypassed our normal quality and test bench validation processes," [Managing Director of Renault Sport F1, Cyril Abiteboul] told L'Equipe.

"It was these changes that caused the problems in Melbourne, and it is what we are now focusing on [changing] at the factory prior to Sepang.

"We were very aggressive because Red Bull wanted us to develop fiercely. Now we have to ask ourselves how we could forget our traditional methods. We have been manufacturing F1 engines for 37 years. We know what we need to do," he explained.

Winning four straight World Championships is no small feat and deserves all sorts of credit. But, I think it's important to recognize that Red Bull's success is as much indebted to organizational largesse as it is to sound engineering.

They were able to mitigate the in-season testing ban that was introduced in 2009 by having STR run identical chassis, just as it had the previous two seasons, which allowed Red Bull Technology to accumulate twice the working data as every other team. And Red Bull Technology itself is a scam born from a need to skirt the Resource Restriction Agreement...

Well if you look at the way the English accounts are presented, you’re looking at the gross turnover of each entity, whether it be Red Bull Technology or Red Bull Racing. Within the RRA we’ve complied fully with the RRA within Red Bull Racing, which is the entrant to the Formula 1 World Championship. Red Bull Technology is a supplier to Red Bull Racing.

Red Bull Technology supplies Red Bull Racing the same way blood supplies life; they're sorta inseparable.

Honestly, this is in no way meant to denigrate anyone or anything or to ruffle anyone's feathers. The same logic can be applied to any successful team in order to demystify the reasons behind their success. For instance, was Ferrari the best thing since sliced bread in the early '00s because it was completely staffed with engineering ubergeniuses, or is it helpful to have ready access to a private test track and the ability to pound out 200 laps every day? Is Mercedes one step removed from F1 deification, or is it relatively easy to protect the fruits of a half-billion dollar investment given rules that greatly restrict the ability of rivals to catch up?

Sometimes I get the feeling that perspective is completely lost when this particular team is the subject of a conversation. Red Bull may give you wings, but it doesn't let you walk on water.

“When we were winning – and we were never winning with an advantage that Mercedes has – double diffusers were banned, exhausts were moved, flexible bodywork was banned, engine mapping was changed mid-season – anything was done to pull us back,” [Christian] Horner said on Sunday.

Live by the sword; die by the sword. You can't dance around the spirit of the rules and then act surprised when someone stops the music.

[Phil]

Perhaps, as Adrian Newey has explicitly stated, there are discrepancies on both sides of the equation? I don't understand why it's so difficult to imagine Red Bull fallibility.

Again, I don't disagree. Though I do think the problem is quite simple: RedBull has a way of developing their cars. If we think back to 2010-2013, the years of dominance under the V8, we will also remember the reliability issues they had, explicitly in regards to KERS. Because KERS was not optimally integrated into the 'package', and afterthought, something that was seen as a compromise to the cars optimal configuration. This basically alludes to under what extreme packaging requirements Newey designed his cars. While people may point to this as being flaws in their cars, one could also say that even with those flaws, it proved to be the winning formula for many years. They were at the forefront of EBD, not the fastest car, but the quickest, a feat that was exploited race after race in the assumption one of their cars would start from pole and drive off into the distance.

Now in 2014, a new engines comes with new requirement, new packaging etc. Mercedes, even Ferrari, had the advantage to put those two facilities together and plan the whole packaging as one singular entity. I pretty much expect the engine guys to know what the design team was up to and vice-versa. It is what one would have expected to some degree by Renault and RedBull as well, given their recent historic achievements and partnership. Perhaps though, it's not that simple, with them being two different companies, each with some other alternatives if something doesn't go to plan, business goals etc. The other question is how much of a factor is development secrecy. How much intel is shared between these two companies despite the partnership that binds them in F1? Renault is sure to use the tech they develop inside F1 in their other markets in some form or another too - the sole reason why we even have engine manufacturers interested in being in the sport (not just the prestige).

It's not just a singular engine that needed to be designed here. It's an engine with many components - a turbo that needs to be placed, the ERS modules etc. Which only adds complexity and unknowns to the packaging requirements and the placement of its parts. We've speculated months leading up to 2014 how these engines would be arranged and packaged for the highest performance gains, the highest efficiency. Different solutions, yield different advantages and disadvantages.

RedBull being who they are and their design philosophies, I pretty much expect them again to have gone full aggressive on their car. Somewhere along the line of that perhaps the packaging requirements weren't exactly clear, because the engine was still under development. Perhaps Renault also had different variants in development (split turbo, combined etc) before they settled on a design they felt comfortable with. Who knows to what degree the packaging requirements changed throughout the development phase. I don't think any of these teams had the time luxury to first have a custom built engine, then build a chassis around it. With the exception of Mercedes and perhaps Ferrari as the two only fully dedicated works-teams who could actually plan their whole car as one entity, I think RedBull, even Honda-McLaren this year, have been battling under suboptimal development conditions. If you are dealing with a team like RedBull that is renown for being aggressive in their designs, extreme packaging, one could easily foresee a nightmare coming their way if one or the other fails to deliver, doesn't work inside the package or one of the components doesn't work along the expected parameters. The big question was always, how well are these two companies working side by side, together, to plan optimally.

Yet the result and what we saw in 2014 made the impression that these two teams were each doing their thing - and when the car was first run, the engine wasn't working properly. And it's easy to point to the finger; although the problem is more complex = perhaps the cooling requirements were off, so the engine overheated, causing components to fail. In order to solve that, the car needed to be modified, *compromised* if you like to solve reliability, but at the end of the day, they are still down on power. So who's to blame? RedBull? How? Because they built a car that didn't deliver enough cooling? Renault? For delivering an engine that perhaps didn't meet certain requirements? We don't know. What we do know, is that irregardless in what car that Renault engine is placed, they seem to be down on power. In the Torro-Rosso, last years Lotus and their main partner RedBull. So one can point to RedBull as much as they like, but the engine most definitely has its issues, at the very least in regards to performance. Can Renault be blamed? That depends on what was promised, what was expected and what was delivered. I am willing to believe that Renault did the best they could [within a certain budget/effort whatever], but they fell short inlight of what Mercedes managed to do, not only as a works-team, but also what customer teams could do with their purchased engines with less optimal 'packaging'. RedBull is simply frustrated and how much that frustration is rightly pointed at Renault depends on what was promised and how those parties worked with each other to A.) build and design their new car and B.) solving the issues at hand.

Perhaps it was ever unrealistic to expect two different companies in Renault and RedBull to come together and beat a works-team that had years to plan ahead and work together. I see much of what Renault and RedBull are dealing with in Honda and McLaren too.

The development freeze didn't help - though the tokens in 2015 do. But I fear it's a little too late and the partnership compromised to a point that it is well and truly beyond rescue. And with Renault perhaps thinking of entering the sport with the purchase of a team, one has to ask where this leaves RedBull and to what degree they are to be blamed for this fiasco if their main partner is building on becoming their own works-team and competitor again.

[djos]

Dan Ricciardo is being quoted in the press atm saying the car isn't being run in its optimal config and they've had to remove a lot of down force to counter the weak engine.

He also mentioned that Monaco is the only track they've been able to run the full down force package at (and they both were able to do a good job that weekend).

[FoxHound]

Again, I don't disagree. Though I do think the problem is quite simple: RedBull has a way of developing their cars. If we think back to 2010-2013, the years of dominance under the V8,

Could we also attribute this dominance to the fact that Mercedes and Ferrari could do almost nothing on the engine side to counter it between 2010-13?
I mean, we have to look at the logistics of the whole thing....employing 500 people apiece at Brixworth and Marranello to make an engine that is frozen(far more than it is today).

EDIT: Just a minor point; you can't expect Mateschitz or anyone inside Redbull to come out and blast Renault for what is really going on. I expect lots of the issues to be actually confidential, so public mud slinging is pretty much the only thing you can do to put one under pressure. Doesn't seem productive, nor constructive, but I don't think Mateschitz is that stupid as a person.

If not productive nor constructive, why say it?

It's an abortive attempt at protecting Red bull racing the brand. "Look it's not us, it's Renault".
Since the inception of the V6 turbo, the writing has been on the wall as to how important the PU will become. If we look at the rumoured investments into the engine, Mercedes and Ferrari's spend has been way higher than Renault's.

Now if there is such a shift, would it be prudent to ask the question as to what did Red Bull do to help Renault in terms of fiscal outlay and planning?
Is this a case of Renault supplying Red Bull with the V6, free of charge, absolved of any responsibility?
I think Red Bull knew what was coming, but did not put in the appropriate response. I'm not going to suggest there is a guarantee of a successful PU simply from a higher budget...but perhaps a bigger budget would have attracted a higher caliber of staff, rather than simply allowing Renault to foot the bill and supply free of charge?

Vettel hinted in the final race of 2013...

We have to remember these days boys, there's no guarantee they will last

It's also interesting that Vettel moved to a Ferrari, who of course make their own engines. I would guess that initial contact was made in 2013, with Vettel waiting to see how things unfolded at Red Bull. Middle of 2014 the deal is signed and sealed.
Gotta give it to Vettel, or his management...inspired.

But not without foundation, they must've known the situation at large.

And if we look at it in a general context, If Merc and Ferrari are forking out for making their own engines....does it not stand to reason that Red Bull pump some cash into Renault Viry to at the very least poach some brains from either these 2 competitors?

[Phil]

I don't see a correlation between RedBulls and Renaults performance and Vettel moving to Ferrari because it is a works-team. Back in 2014, RedBull was the closest to Mercedes, despite a log in the back of the car. No he moved to Ferrari because everyone wants to end up there eventually and with Ricciardo beating him on track again and again and again, his market value was at a serious risk of decreasing. It was helped by the fact that Ferrari was undergoing a huge transitioning phase and Alonso being anything but happy, so it was just as well in Ferrari's interest to "look around". He [Vettel] did well to say the least. I'm not sure Ferrari would have grabbed him up as quickly if he was going to be beaten convincingly two year in a row by his younger team-mate. In 2014, Ferrari was arguably doing even worse than the Renault teams. Who would have guessed they would turn it around that much? (though again, lets not forget that Ferrari is no more successful than RedBull was last year!).

There is a correlation however between Hamilton moving to Mercedes in 2013 because of the 'works-team' aspect. It was a much talked about potential, one no one perhaps took that serious, as people thought he was mad to leave McLaren who at the time was still a winning team.

Anyway, back to the Renault / RedBull relationship:

And if we look at it in a general context, If Merc and Ferrari are forking out for making their own engines....does it not stand to reason that Red Bull pump some cash into Renault Viry to at the very least poach some brains from either these 2 competitors?

I don't think it's comparable at all. The problem here I feel isn't money that was sunk into the PU project by Renault (other than perhaps not enough R&D), it's more to do with time and perhaps packaging constraints, the chassis or the way the car was built not working efficiently with the requirements the engine has. In the V8 days, you had a pretty much known quantity with the engine; the specs were clear, the fuel requirements, even the heat it produced, requirements, exhaust energy etc. With the V6 formula, it's not just the combustion engine, ERS is a significant part of the whole unit, and there are many ways into how you package all the parts. Some work better, some worse.

Who are we to know if Renault wasn't thinking about pursuing their own options by looking into buying a team to make a re-entry? Or that the engine just didn't deliver what was promised? How is RedBull - a racing team with expertise in building everything apart of the engine (hey, if they could, or had the means to, they'd probably do it themselves!) supposed to help Renault who has been building engines for the last millennium? If they couldn't get it right, neither could Ferrari on their first attempt - how could RedBull possibly succeed? It makes no sense. Besides, building engines isn't something you just start and do, not when they're as complex as these new V6T.

The problem is; no one knew what to expect of these engines. Everyone thought they would probably be comparable due to the fuel flow restriction limiting on a theoretical level how much power you can achieve. So you can't define it contractually saying that the PU shall deliver X amount of power, Y dimensions, Z efficiency etc. It's a new complex engine with lots of unknowns. Renault didn't deliver. And to make matters worse, they had packaging issues to boot because the RedBull is perhaps the most aggressively designed one on the grid.

I'll say it again; just look at McLaren-Honda. For the most part, they are dealing with exactly the same issues; A aggressively designed car and engine where both components aren't yet working within the package as a whole, causing reliability issues and is forcing the team to run a compromised car. McLaren needs to trust Honda that they can resolve their issues, and Honda must trust McLaren that they can build around the requirements of the engine so that they both can extract the maximum of their potential. Same applies to RedBull, but with a dysfunctional relationship, it gets harder and harder and in that example, it isn't helping that Renault is window shopping for teams to buy (and planing a future without RedBull) potentially leaving RedBull out to dry...

[FoxHound]

I don't see a correlation between RedBulls and Renaults performance and Vettel moving to Ferrari because it is a works-team.

But to boil your post into it's essence, you are effectively saying that Mc-Honda and RB-Renault are suffering because they are not in house operations.
I agree Vettel getting a bit of a beating from Ricciardo certainly accelerated matters, but it was not the catalyst in my view.

[Phil]

But to boil your post into it's essence, you are effectively saying that Mc-Honda and RB-Renault are suffering because they are not in house operations.

Indeed, which is sort of the point Mateschitz was making when saying that in such a formula, a customer engine team will not be able to compete with a works-team. I don't think the issue is that exaggerated - or it depends on a few factors; Will engine development continue to be at the forefront of the regulations similar to what aero was prior to 2013 with frozen engines; or will the formula go back to frozen engines with minimal development because it is said to be too expensive and outside the actual race-teams control?

We're getting a bit off-topic here in regards to this point, but IMO the relevance of engine manufacturers (essentially the big guys; the car manufacturers) wanting to be inside the sport has a lot to do with this aspect, as it is their field of expertise, one they can exploit to the fullest. With frozen engines, it somewhat limits the appeal for them. The question is; will the situation get better, will parity be reached? You can't freeze engine development as long as that doesn't happen, or the ones with an underperforming engine will be the first to threaten to leave.

I'm not necessarily on RedBulls side here; I just think that their relationship with Renault is far more complex than just a bit of public mudslinging and because RedBull are sore losers. It's a difficult situation. And in here, we're not even talking about the customer teams who simply get what someone else has designed for a very specific configuration. They just make due with what they have to. And I do believe that F1 would be wise not to lose one of the big players, which is on the verge of happening. If RedBull and/or Renault leave, I think they will leave quite a big void. Practically the entire midfield is standing on their last legs already...

[FoxHound]

I think Red Bull Renault are in effect a vast topic that encompass many things. Hence the variation of posts...
(Mods, strike me down if I'm telling porkies)

Indeed, which is sort of the point Mateschitz was making when saying that in such a formula, a customer engine team will not be able to compete with a works-team.

I can't accept his view. Red Bull cannot expect complete equilibrium if they don't make or assist in developing the engines.
The alternative reality is very stark IMO. Spec engines.
This will be complete equilibrium.

If we rewind 5 years, can you imagine if an engine manufacturer held F1 over a barrel because they couldn't compete aerodynamically? Mercedes have had to invest 100s of millions in their Brackley operation, Ferrari have had similar levels of investment for their factory, all in the name of being able to win or compete. In Mercedes case, it took 3 years and some ignominy along the way. All with a frozen engine formula that worked so well for Red Bull. Is there no irony evident here?

Red Bull have the money, they could very easily take Viry of Renault's hands and do it themselves. But this would not be without issues for Red Bull...namely responsibility for all factors of car performance. Complete control and complete risk.

I agree that the engine regs need to be loosened, but up to a point. Total freedom will drive out the small dudes, with them having to pay for the weapon's grade PU's.


But your point regarding the midfield being on it's last legs...nah. This has nothing to do with paying an extra 3/4 million a year for engines. Force India and Williams(perenial midfielders) are net benefactors that gain more than the extra cost of the engines they are paying for.
Sauber to a lesser extent too.

Blame the uneven distribution of cash on that one. And the massive escalation in competing costs since 2012.
Ironically, again, Red Bull are happy to accept this disparity.
And the double whammy irony slam dunk, costs rose at a time when FOTA became obsolete....due to Red Bull not wanting to be subject to the RRA and it's prying eyes.
Ferrari being Ferrari, had to follow suit to compete, with Sauber(Prize for a triple irony?) following Ferrari.

FOTA, RRA redundant.

Cost escalation.

Midfield teams can now trace back their demise in the event of any impending doom. And Red Bull want you to believe it's all the engines fault.

[bhall II]

I also think the situation is a bit more complicated...

...I do think the problem is quite simple...

C'mon, man. Make up your mind.

RedBull has a way of developing their cars...

Some call it "cheating." (Not me, but some.)

Red Bull's development strategy tends to rely heavily upon a flagrant disregard for the spirit of the rules. While I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever, it's nonetheless an unsustainable approach.

For example, Christian Horner signed off on this design in 2011...



...in spite of this...



...and then acted surprised when the rule was later clarified:

“When we were winning – and we were never winning with an advantage that Mercedes has – double diffusers were banned, exhausts were moved, flexible bodywork was banned, engine mapping was changed mid-season – anything was done to pull us back,” [Christian] Horner said on Sunday.

That's cognitive dissonance, if you ask me. But, Vettel took the Championship with a 122-point margin that year. So, who cares, right?

The problem is that the team now lags behind others, including Toro Rosso, who've employed a more conventional approach over the years. You don't particularly have to concern yourself with front wing efficiency at high speeds if you have one that flexes under load. Newey could tack on as much downforce as he liked, because he knew the wing would stall once the ride height of the tips dropped below a certain level and disrupted the end plate vortices responsible for creating downforce.


via McCabism

There have been examples like this all over their cars.

There's no need to be especially worried about pitch-sensitivity if you've ripped a page from the Ferrari F2007's playbook and adopted a flexible t-tray...




But, what do you do when the rules are amended to require less wear-resistant skid blocks, which compels added ride height/less rake, which then negates the ability to run wings with a low AoA at every circuit, i.e. when you have to shed downforce and increase drag at the same time?



Obviously, you blame the engine supplier.

This team is never short on excuses. Remember 2013? Rather than admit to a fundamental design error that too heavily favored peak downforce over consistency, Helmut Marko blamed Pirelli...

Red Bull's Marko said on Monday: "We want - as soon as possible - a tire that does not limit our potential," he is quoted by DPA news agency.

"It should be that you are able to get the most out of your car," he said at the Red Bull Ring circuit in Spielberg, Austria.

Marko argues that the current Pirelli tires are penalising the very best cars, like Red Bull's RB9.

"If we use our full potential, we cannot even last a full lap of qualifying. To tell your drivers that they are not allowed to drive some corners properly is not easy," claimed Marko.

Current Mercedes chassis secret: they stopped making that mistake. They realized you have to drive to the tires, not the other way around. When Ferrari made the same connection, Newey was so mystified by the development that he called it "luck." If making the decision to employ the former director of Bridgestone Motorsport is "lucky," then I guess he was right.

To talk about luck, Red Bull owes their 2013 World Championship to that year's British Grand Prix...

"I think we saw at the start of the season it was very tight. Ferrari started off very strong and Mercedes came on very strongly, and certainly going into August we were feeling that this was going to be really tough.

"And then I think we made some small improvements to the car, Pirelli also had to go back to the 2012 tyres which seemed to suit the car better and it suddenly fell into our hands."

Newey acknowledged that the original 2013 Pirellis had held Red Bull back.

"The tyre change certainly helped us, probably more than some of our competitors," he said.

Admittedly, most people don't pay attention to this kind of stuff, and the Horner/Marko Bitchfest sorta relies on a misinformed audience in order to be effective (like most PR campaigns). But, I do; I'm not; and it insults my intelligence when everything is thrown at Renault's feet. The folks at Viry-Châtillon are most certainly not without fault, but I'm not entirely convinced that really matters.

Red Bull went to the well one too many times, and now they're ---. There's no shame; it's how most dynasties end.

[bill shoe]

bhall II, thanks for big-picture overview.

I think your perspective on RB's development strategy being unsustainable is spot on. At the time it seemed like RB was getting away with every damn thing. And admittedly they won many championships, which ain't bad for "unsustainable" success.

However, the gears of FIA rule clarification do indeed grind forward even if they grind at an agonizingly slow rate. Now most of the RB loopholes are closed. Yes they were closed to stop RB specifically, but that's because RB became such specialists at violating the spirit of the rules. Live by the loophole, die by the loophole. Can't blame them for doing it but it doesn't give you perpetual success.

Is RB just an overfunded midfield team looking for the next semi-cheater loophole? Formula 1 is a very close-fought thing in this era. A few tenths is the difference between hero vs also-ran. One or two "cheater gimmicks" could turn Force India into championship contenders tomorrow. Interesting.

Anyway bhall II, excellent post regardless of whether you win the argument. I will say your argument is more sustainable in the long run. Cheers.