FoxHound wrote:Cold Fussion wrote:You argue that they should knowing make an investment that with poor returns and you're complaining about people being hung up on semantics?
You argue that building engines IS a poor return. Purporting it like some kind of fact.
It is. Because these new rules were crafted in to make the sport more relevant to future technologies and make it more road relevant so that big manufacturers like Renault and Mercedes would be happy, or Honda and perhaps VW and potentially others would be lured into the sport to invest big sums of money.
These are all big car manufacturers with facilities, decades of know-how and vast resources worth billions that already exist. For these car manufacturers, an investment into F1 extends beyond their involvement in the sport; they can use the R&D for existing road car projects as energy recovery becomes an ever increasing importance as we move to more fuel efficient cars. To make the expenditure even more worthwhile; You have exposure that might lead to a better image and more sales in other departments and what isn't, perhaps can be made back by sponsorship and price-money (depending how successful you are).
The bottom line is; For just about any big F1 manufacturer, the investment is worthwhile because on some level they are gaining something by it.
For RedBull, this too made sense for a long time. The immense money they invested into two teams have paid off on some level. How much they are spending is a hard figure to put down, as I'm sure they have been regaining lots of it by sponsorship - a side result of their immense success of 8 titles - but also them selling more drinks as a result of their exposure in untapped markets.
But to become an engine manufacturer? Perhaps if it was as easy as simply designing a combustion engine, but these new V6T are much more complex. As Turbo has already said numerous times; It's not just about buying some engine manufacturer to get a working unit; It's about getting
a competitive one. We are speaking of an engine better than the 2014 & 2015 Renault, better than the Honda one, perhaps something even better than the 2014 Mercedes unit as the engines have become even better since then.
I hear Cosworth being mentioned, but there is little to suggest they could even achieve part of what Renault managed in 2014. They [RedBull] might have the money, I give you that, but they don't have the resources. Resources meaning 1.) time, 2.) know-how, 3.) experience.
I find it baffling to suggest any non car manufacturer like RedBull can just come in (or buy a manufacturer) and design something better than companies that have been in the field for decades. How much does this say about Renault and Honda, even Ferrari, that got it wrong in 2014? And you really want to suggest throwing a bit of money around will actually yield something better than what Mercedes has crafted with immense resources?
If they do this; with no means to distribute the costs and level of investment over various areas like all these car manufacturers can; The cost of winning or being at the top will come at a considerably higher price than what they have been investing up until now and into F1. And lets not forget again; Anything less than a competitive engine capable of winning will not cut it; or they are might as well continue to use a Renault PU or entertain the idea of using a B-spec engine without a fraction of that investment.
Why is it so hard to come in and be competitive with a new engine? Go ask Honda. Ask Renault. Even ask Ferrari. Again; to suggest infinite money can just come in to buy some arbitrary small engine manufacturer and magically create something better than these manufacturers with vast resources is a pipe dream. They lack the experience. They lack the engineers. Perhaps even the facilities. The know-how in specialized engineers. And even if they somehow accumulate that; you then have a token system that limits the rate of development, limited testing etc. And you won't be spreading your costs over multiple areas, so any investment on this level will be more costly - even more so if you never get there. Fact is; the further time moves on, the more difficult it gets, because you are no longer dealing with competitors with 1st generation engines, you are competing with 3rd, 4th generation ones with 3-4 seasons of on-track experience.
Some say RedBull should have seen this coming a long time ago. How? They, along with Renault and Ferrari, all the customer teams too, had full confidence in the FIA to come up with rules that the engines wouldn't be the over dominant factor. When these rules were crafted prior to 2014, everyone probably felt that the difference between a 'good PU' and an 'underperforming PU' would be smaller due to fuel flow restrictions and how much energy you can harvest or deploy. If this had turned out to be true, perhaps we wouldn't have had this situation. Perhaps we'd be seeing more variety of teams winning; Some more dominant on slower tracks, others on the power-tracks. Then it'd be an open game, a game between chassis/aero development and PU performance. But this isn't how it turned out; We've ended up in a much more engine dominated formula and the token system, here to protect the smaller teams and limit the rate of development of the engines, has made it much more difficult to gain competitiveness.
If it was that easy as you are arguing; wouldn't we be seeing more engine manufacturers in F1 already?
