Infiniti Red Bull Racing 2015

[SiLo]

I understand the reasoning of Ferrari and Mercedes doing so. They consider the engine part of the effort the team puts in to get a competitive edge. It basically is the same as Ferrari asking for EBD tech from RedBull in 2013.

However, In my view it takes priority that the field does not shrink any further. Especially since Red Bull brings an immense promotion oppertunities for F1. If this particular companies leaves, it'll be a very heavy short AND long term blow.

A case where competition will destroy the sport. F1 needs Red Bull.

I think in this case we are both right (in essence). I agree they are needed in the sport, and I hope they stay, but I can understand why if they end up leaving and nobody wants to supply them engines.

[dans79]

However, In my view it takes priority that the field does not shrink any further. Especially since Red Bull brings an immense promotion oppertunities for F1. If this particular companies leaves, it'll be a very heavy short AND long term blow.

I'm the opposite, to me this is purelly a case of "you reap what you sow".

[turbof1]

Yes, I also agree they have not done themselves any favors in the past by their actions. It's not only how they behaved against Renault. The FOTA break up started with them. It left a very sour spot.

They are in worst position to barter any engine deal: a threat with a competitive engine, a very desperate position where they run the risk of not having any engine next year and no past actions to call favors upon.

To make matters worse: for Red Bull to use 1 year old PUs, the rules for next year have to be changed. The FIA corrected the error they made this year, and next year engines have to be homologated in February, meaning Ferrari can not supply the older engine anymore. Unless the rules are changed, and guess what: for that to happen, ALL teams have to vote in favor. Hey Renault, are you going to vote to save Red Bull? Yeah, thought so.

@dans79: yes, the chickens for red bull are coming home to roost. Unfortunaly, red bull dropping out will pull down F1 as well. You can compare it with the financial crisis where banks had to receive government aid. Well, Red Bull too is too big to fail.

[dans79]

@dans79: yes, the chickens for red bull are coming home to roost. Unfortunaly, red bull dropping out will pull down F1 as well. You can compare it with the financial crisis where banks had to receive government aid. Well, Red Bull too is too big to fail.

The thing is, the team is still fundamentally sound, the issue is the 3 guys at the top, constantly acting like babies. If they do leave, i can't see it being for long, as someone will purchase the team pretty quickly. I doubt Mateschitz has the guts to put several hundred people out of jobs, because he isn't getting his way. Imagine the negative PR headlines he would be getting hammered with then.

[AnthonyG]

F1 in a whole is a product, teams need eachothers competition and yet they want to win themselves by gaining an edge over others.

The fight will be spilled out in public because both parties have similar bargaining power, but in the end someone will have to provide Red Bull with a reasonable (2016-spec) power unit. It'll just be painfull for everyone involved.

[FoxHound]

3 car teams mooted if Red Bull pull the plug.

While the loss of Red Bull will have enough a big impact, I do think not inly will it be mitigated by the arrival of Haas (Ferrari B team for all intent and purpose) which cancels out Torro Rosso... but also by the following...

The prospect of Ferrari, Mercedes and possibly Williams going up to 3 cars.
Thinking speculatively, what if Alonso/Button wound up in a Merc or a Ferrari whilst McLaren sort their mess out?
Or Pascal Wehrlein?

If you have 6 competitive cars and at least 3 equal cars, racing becomes exactly that. And if it works out as well as I think it could, Red Bull will not only be kicking themselves, but their own trumpeted importance would be nullified.

[zeph]

F1 needs Red Bull.

Well, Red Bull too is too big to fail.

I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree. While the short-term consequences are indeed disastrous (only 16 cars on the grid?), I think F1 would be better off without RBR in the long run.

RedBull has bought itself a considerable presence in F1, I believe they are currently responsible for about 20% of the annual budget, and they have four cars on the grid. If that goes away, it will hurt big time.

But a team like RBR is not just going to disappear, somebody would buy it. It looks like VW won't anytime soon, but somebody will. Shoot, can you think of a better way to enter F1? It would suck for 2016 having to rely on B-spec engines, but someone with vision could procure engines for 2017 and beyond. Imagine team Milton Keynes without Helmut Marko; not too shabby, no?

Not having RBR in the sport will reduce Ecclestone's bargaining power, which may prove to be beneficial for the teams (although the flip side could be that Mercedes' and Ferrari's influence will become even greater).

But I don't think they will quit. If nothing else works out, they will just hammer out an 11th-hour deal with Renault, which would seem to be the best option anyway for now. In his interview, Ghosn was careful not to shut the door entirely. Mateschitz' threat to pull out is a hollow one, IMO. He painted himself into a corner but he has got too much invested in this to simply walk away at this point. I call bluff.

edit:
Joe Saward seems to hold a similar view, and expresses it better than I do:

Dietrich Mateschitz has been walking in the Austrian woods and has been considering pulling out of F1 but that is unlikely to happen because, in exchange for large sums of extra prize money from the Formula One group, Red Bull agreed to stay in the sport for 10 years (until 2020) and there is believed to be a penalty scheme, which means that the penalty for pulling out reduces from $1 billion by $100 million per year. This means that Red Bull can walk away from the sport if the company is willing to pay the Formula One group $500 million.
Given the bill, it is best for Mateschitz to keep his money and make the most of the mess the team is in and try not to screw up so monumentally in the future. The other option to save face would be for Mateschitz to dig even deeper and buy control of Delta Topco, the parent company of the Formula One group. He could then sell his teams without being red in the face. Bernie Ecclestone would probably like that as Matechitz would no doubt keep him on…

https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2015/09 ... rom-japan/

[Phil]

Ever since last season I've noticed that Red Bull get very petulant when things don't go their way. F1 has always been cyclical, teams will dominate for a few seasons because of a great bit of technical wizardry (coupled with a on form driver) then fade back a bit. (Williams is a great case in point).

Every team bar Red Bull understands this.

And after countless of pages, 33 races since the regulation changes and numerous direct quotes from Horner, Mateschitz etc, I'm baffled by how no one at all seems to be able to comprehend that the issue isn't not winning - it's from their POV the 1.) the incompetence of Renault of improving the engine since 2014, 2.) regulation restrictions making it more difficult to solve that issue that lies directly with the engine manufacturer [Renault] and 3.) the regulation changes that have made the technical expertise of the chassis team rather redundant because the engine in todays formula is the overdominant factor.

Again: The issue is not the not winning - it's them [and every other costumer team without a competitive engine] with their hands tied behind their back due to the regulations and nothing they do will suddenly change that.

Have people really not grasped what these new regulation changes have caused? The situation we have now has little to do with RedBull acting petulant; The issue is real and it's causing frustration at other teams too [Honda]. Perhaps we need RedBull and Honda to leave the sport (and any other potential manufacturer like VW to not enter due to difficulty in coming in and performing and at the risk of receiving bad publicity), then watch the smaller teams struggle even more to realize that the situation is a little more complex than not winning.

I'm not even sure why Williams is brought up here; Before 2014, it was in the ability of every single team to copy the winning team and fight for wins. This is of course not achievable by many due to lack of money, know-how, experience etc, but the point is; there was nothing in the regulations that prevented teams to catch the winning ones. This was very different to the situation that we have now.

[Cold Fussion]

Red Bull's problem is now an indefinite one unless the engines get frozen sometime in the future (like they were originally intended). Perhaps a 2016 Renault PU will be better than a 2015 Ferrari PU but once Renault F1 becomes a thing they'll just be another customer team and no longer the works team. Whether or not they stay in the sport will probably depend very much on what the engine regulations for 2017 on-wards look like. If the rules remain open you have to think they need to become a works outfit to realistically be fighting for championships again. It doesn't seem likely that they'll pull out for 2016 since they would have already spent a lot of money for 2016 so they may as well compete and get the marketing return for that invest and pull out for 2017.

I'm not even sure why Williams is brought up here; Before 2014, it was in the ability of every single team to copy the winning team and fight for wins. This is of course not achievable by many due to lack of money, know-how, experience etc, but the point is; there was nothing in the regulations that prevented teams to catch the winning ones. This was very different to the situation that we have now.

That's not a very fair characterisation. It's only because the old v8 engines were so close in performance, which was the result of 16-17 years of engine development prior to the engine freeze that allowed for it.

[FoxHound]

@ Phil

Direct quotes from Marko

"We cannot win because the engine is down compared to the rest"
"As a team we compete to win, and with this engine it is not possible"

Horner
"We have shown that our chassis is able to compete with the best, but we are let down by the engine. To win this year, we'd need failures from the front 2/3 teams.

Not about winning you say Phil?

[Phil]

Come on Fox, you know better than that. Put those two quotes from Marko together and into context what the full sentence means and you will see that the issue is wanting to win, but not being able to due to an uncompetitive engine that can't close the gap either through incompetence, regulations or both.

My post highlights above that RedBull is not vocal because they are not winning, but because they are not winning due to being heavily compromised with an uncompetitive engine.

I'm quite certain they wouldn't be acting the way they are if we had equal engines for all and it was absolutely within their own ability to ensure how well they perform in relation to their competitors. Sure, this is the RedBull racing thread, but they're simply the most vocal about it because they are investing more money into F1 and into winning than just about any other team. It's an issue that extends beyond RedBull and concerns every team with an uncompetitive engine and it most definitely also mirrors concerns from Honda, who are severely underperforming. It's also an issue for just about every other potential manufacturer that had thoughts of entering F1.

The partnership with Renault has gone down the drain because they have gone backwards from 2014 and RedBull have lost competence in their supplier to rectify these issues and provide them with a better engine. This is not withstanding the trend that Renault wanted out anyway [edit * from being a mere engine supplier], due to them wanting to buy into a team. Ron's latest interview from post Suzuka also highlights some concerns and why they believe signing up with Honda was the right way:

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12479/ ... en-in-2016

[talking about Alonsos' GP2 comments...]

"I think he vented his frustration. I don't think he needed to make the comments, it wasn't particularly constructive. We are here in Japan, Suzuka, Honda's home track, we had the president of the Honda motor company, we had the head of R&D, chief executive of Honda motors - the three most senior people who are totally committed to winning a world championship and their curve is much steeper than they anticipated, but their aspirations and commitment has not diminished. We are strong partners, we will take the pain as a learning curve, it is the only way to win a world championship. If you are not with a number one engine you will not win a world championship."

[dans79]

Have people really not grasped what these new regulation changes have caused? The situation we have now has little to do with RedBull acting petulant; The issue is real and it's causing frustration at other teams too [Honda]. Perhaps we need RedBull and Honda to leave the sport (and any other potential manufacturer like VW to not enter due to difficulty in coming in and performing and at the risk of receiving bad publicity), then watch the smaller teams struggle even more to realize that the situation is a little more complex than not winning.

Both Renault and RBR knew the rules where coming for several years. It's on them (and Honda) for failing period, end of story. Ferrari has shown the rules aren't to restrictive, as they went from being well behind RBR/Renault to well in-front over the winter.

[zeph]

Well, go figure. Here comes Lauda saying Mateschitz never even approached Mercedes!

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121055

Lauda is adamant Mercedes will not reverse its earlier decision by coming to Red Bull's aid.

"No, there was a long discussion we had internally," said Lauda.

"We don't have to go around and beg people to use the engine, it is the other way around. But we were never approached, so therefore we never thought about it."

Lauda claims it is Mateschitz's aversion to Mercedes that prevented a formal approach from being made.

"If I am not approached, what should I do? Throw the engine at him [Mateschitz] and give it as a gift?" queried Lauda.

"It doesn't work like this. There is a reason for it and I know the reason - he doesn't like Mercedes.

"I know him very well. Ferrari is his option now and it's up to him if he wants to take it or not."

[Phil]

Both Renault and RBR knew the rules where coming for several years. It's on them (and Honda) for failing period, end of story. Ferrari has shown the rules aren't to restrictive, as they went from being well behind RBR/Renault to well in-front over the winter.

Sure, and if F1 goes up in smoke because of it, it will be on no one. I agree that everyone knew what they were signing up for; the problem is that the FIA perhaps didn't anticipate what kind of a disparity these engines might have - and depending on the disparity, I suppose the believe was what was lost on the engine should/could be made up on the chassis front. The problem is; there is quite a large disparity and the FIA is finding itself between the conflict of allowing more freedom on the engine development front vs. cost control.

Despite me arguing in RedBulls favor, I'm not at all against these new engines. I also see the token system as an effective way (in theory) in protecting the smaller teams against rising development costs. I think one of the main issues is in the distribution of price money - which has led to rich teams becoming richer and poor ones poorer. Also the way how bigger more successful teams attract more valuable sponsors or the engineers of other teams just adds to problematic trends. Now with the engines, we have one more factor that is completely outside the [chassis] teams control and it's even a bigger issue because the engine is the biggest performance differentiator between cars.

So, while you are correct that it's Honda's and Renault's fault - sure. But if both eventually pull out because the F1 party has not payed dividends, what then? The engines were also brought into to make the sport more attractive for other manufacturers - the ultimate goal perhaps being 5-8 different engine manufacturers competing as work-teams and a few customer teams making up the rest - but at the way how Renault and Honda are performing, do you see any other manufacturers wanting to enter?


@zeph, I'm not sure, but I'm not sure to what degree Lauda's interview can be taken as factual. He sometimes misunderstands questions and answers them completely wrong. I've followed him quite a few times on RTL live and have seen this happen. I wouldn't bet my hand that he was answering the question specifically talking about Mateschitz and perhaps not knowing if perhaps Helmut and Horner approached other Mercedes higher up like Dieter Zetsche. I'm just speculating here. When watching Lauda, I don't always get the feeling he is actually answering questions as a Mercedes employee or as a personal view / consultant / ex F1 racer or RTL moderator.

[dans79]

Sure, and if F1 goes up in smoke because of it, it will be on no one. I agree that everyone knew what they were signing up for; the problem is that the FIA perhaps didn't anticipate what kind of a disparity these engines might have - and depending on the disparity, I suppose the believe was what was lost on the engine should/could be made up on the chassis front. The problem is; there is quite a large disparity and the FIA is finding itself between the conflict of allowing more freedom on the engine development front vs. cost control.

These rules where crafted by the teams manufactures and the FIA together, so they are all to blame. RBR's issue is they choose the wrong partner. Frankly, they should have known better considering Renault has had problems in the past with new engine regulations.

I think one of the main issues is in the distribution of price money - which has led to rich teams becoming richer and poor ones poorer.

That's not going to go away until Bernie does.