Formula One's Engine Crisis

[bhall II]

They should concede that they are too good for their own good, so none of the (competitive) engine suppliers wants to supply them with a competitive engine.

I dunno about that one.

It's exceedingly rare for any engine manufacturer to supply customers with top-shelf machinery if it also operates a works team of its own. For instance, Ferrari supplied Sauber with less-than-great engines re-badged as "Petronas Engineering" from 1997 to 2005, even though the team wasn't even remotely a threat to the Scuderia. That's just how it goes.

At the same time, no one is guaranteed access to competitive hardware, even former World Champions. See:

• Williams - Judd, Supertec, Cosworth
• McLaren - Ford (1993), Peugeot, Honda (2015)
• Benetton - Playlife
• Lotus - Cosworth (ancient DFV), Judd, Lamborghini, Mugen-Honda
• Tyrell - Cosworth (ancient DFV), Yamaha

This is nothing new. You either roll with it, or you go do something else.

[Phil]

That might be true, but I question how todays Formula is comparable to the older days. When I randomly open older races from that era, in QF, I see a rather large difference in lap times (seconds). Back in those days, we had a lot less reliability and technical issues across various parts of the car. Gearbox, drive-shaft, engines etc. Then we had much more erratic races too. I'd put that one down to the cars being massively more difficult to drive and as a result, a driver himself was a much bigger factor than in todays formula.

How does this make it different? Well, back then, I assume, the engine was overall a smaller part of the entire performance. You had driver, we had tires, the unreliability, the chassis/aero of the cars themselves and of course, yes also the engine. So even if an engine manufacturer didn't supply a customer team with the same machinery than their own, I'm assuming that to some degree, that deficit could have been overcome by the various other factors which were always a major contributing factor.

Compare that to today where cars are mostly separated by tenths and the driver has taken up a much smaller factor. If one element finds intself to be such a big performance difference, it's practically impossible to overcome by other factors. Essentially; the crux of the entire argument. RedBull could have the best aero/chassis on the grid, but it's meaningless because that engine is far below what the competition is running. Same applies to McLaren too.

[ChrisM40]

I they do leave I will certainly miss a competitive team, but I wont miss one single one of the 'personalities' involved. The only one i'd miss is Daniel Ric if he cant find another drive (or the team isnt re-branded).

[bhall II]

That might be true, but I question how todays Formula is comparable to the older days...

There's no doubt that today's power units play a bigger role than did the engines of the past. For me, that just makes Red Bull's scorched earth strategy all the more puzzling.

If you know your options are limited in any context and that the likelihood of scoring a better deal is virtually non-existent given historical norms, it's probably not a good idea to wow everyone with a top-notch impression of a (red) bull in a china shop, yanno? F1's cadre of fragile egos can't handle that ---.

I imagine what really happened here is that Red Bull was ultimately counting on VW to be its long-term solution. But, since that option has likely vanished within a thick cloud of diesel smoke, it seems they now need more from their short-term solution than their short-term solution is willing to offer.

[rgava]

I think some people here is confusing the whole RB team (hundreds of passionate workers) with the owner of this team and their two top managers.
And, besides this, the fact that only a couple of companies can dictate which team can succed and wich one not, because they are the engine manufacturers is far from fair and net competition.
IMO wining in this situation is much less valuable than doing it on the same machinery.
I will appreciate more a Merc or Ferrari victory if they are beating on track one or more competitors on the same engine.
All this makes me feel so sad of the situation F1 has been taken by its management.
The current formula could potentially be helthy if there were 6 or 7 engine manufacturers competing, but with only 4, 2 of them directly not wanting to supply customer teams and the other two not wanting to supply potential good competitors is destroying the spirit of competition.

[bauc]

As per Autosport, Redbull are still talking with Reno for 2016

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121233

[Phil]

If you know your options are limited in any context and that the likelihood of scoring a better deal is virtually non-existent given historical norms, it's probably not a good idea to wow everyone with a top-notch impression of a (red) bull in a china shop, yanno? F1's cadre of fragile egos can't handle that ---.

I imagine what really happened here is that Red Bull was ultimately counting on VW to be its long-term solution. But, since that option has likely vanished within a thick cloud of diesel smoke, it seems they now need more from their short-term solution than their short-term solution is willing to offer.

Oh, no argument there. I've been trying to detach myself from arguing the merits if the public mud slinging is appropriate or not, if it's petulant or stems from a very difficult internal situation that slowly made its way into the public. In regards to if they [RB] are right or wrong - or even responsible to find themselves in the situation they are in - well, it's hard to say without knowing the exact [internal] reasons that made things pan out the way things did. If we look at McLaren-Honda, even that relationship is strained by the problems they face - and it may only get worse if things don't get better.

Anyway, you are probably right in your assessment about them counting on VW. I also on some level believe that the higher ups at RB feel that they have brought significant money into the sport (I do too btw) and that losing both their teams would constitute a huge loss, so the bargaining chips in threatening to leave to be not insubstantial. If that's enough to get them competitive engines? Maybe not. Is it worth losing both teams over it? I don't think so.

So; while the arguments how RedBull have been acting blablabla are probably hard to argue, I think it's a huge shame that F1 finds itself in such a state that the future of the sport rest in the egos of two teams that refuse to supply a competitor with competitive engines. Perhaps you can't even blame both Mercedes or Ferrari for that - after all, they've worked hard to get where they are and made the best of the given rules. I'm more upset with the rule makers, the regulator who allowed this situation arise in the first place. And in light of protecting the sport from failing, I'd be working hard on rules that will make the sport more competitive and in that sense, make it more attractive for new manufacturers which was the whole point alltogehter. And if teams then feel that the steps being taken are good and give perspective, they might be willing to endure another difficult year, even if it means running on uncompetitive engines.

[Just_a_fan]

What goes around comes around?

Same will apply to Merc and Ferrari too

Yes, indeed so. But I don't think Mercedes or Ferrari would be bleating on like Red Bull are. Red Bull have built some great cars but the one thing they've never had is class.

[Sevach]

They should concede that they are too good for their own good, so none of the (competitive) engine suppliers wants to supply them with a competitive engine.

I dunno about that one.

It's exceedingly rare for any engine manufacturer to supply customers with top-shelf machinery if it also operates a works team of its own. For instance, Ferrari supplied Sauber with less-than-great engines re-badged as "Petronas Engineering" from 1997 to 2005, even though the team wasn't even remotely a threat to the Scuderia. That's just how it goes.

At the same time, no one is guaranteed access to competitive hardware, even former World Champions. See:

• Williams - Judd, Supertec, Cosworth
• McLaren - Ford (1993), Peugeot, Honda (2015)
• Benetton - Playlife
• Lotus - Cosworth (ancient DFV), Judd, Lamborghini, Mugen-Honda
• Tyrell - Cosworth (ancient DFV), Yamaha

This is nothing new. You either roll with it, or you go do something else.

Good point, but the current ruleset makes things a lot worst than usual, under the old sets of rules you could see a manufucturer turn things around with their engines between one season and the next (and sometimes during a season) so Honda and Renault wouldn't be in such a terrible position.

It happened many times in the past with Renault... with BMW... with Mercedes and Ferrari too.

[Just_a_fan]

My own view is that Red Bull should suck it up - they need to understand that winning isn't a right.

Yes absolutely. They should concede that they are too good for their own good, so none of the (competitive) engine suppliers wants to supply them with a competitive engine. With Renault buying into Lotus and in the process of becoming its own works-team again, how sure can we be that they themselves wouldn't want to too, assuming they ever get to having a competitive engine?

Honda? Same problem. They are close partners with McLaren. If we assume they too build a competitive engine for 2016, who is to say McLaren would want to have Honda supply RedBull those same engines? Wasn't this the reason why they moved away from Mercedes - a competitive engine - to Honda in the first place? I'd be willing to bet that there are clauses in that partnership contract that gives some sort of exclusivity of that partnership for a couple of years.

If people can't see how this is bad for the sport and all those teams that don't have the ability to build their own engines or tie up with an engine manufacturer that isn't in F1 yet (like McLaren did with Honda), of which they are practically none remaining, they are seriously deluding themselves as of the state of F1 as a whole - e.g. beyond Mercedes, Ferrari and RedBull.

Who would want to supply Red Bull anyway? If they win it's because they built a great car. If they lose it's the engine supplier's fault. Having watched them attack Renault (who gave them titles) would you want to supply them? Any failure will be your fault not theirs. Their lack of class has put them in this position.

Also, Mercedes is already supplying half of the field - why should they supply Red Bull too? If Red Bull are serious about F1 then do the hard yards developing the total package like Mercedes have. There are engine companies out there who can be bought just like Mercedes bought Ilmor. I'd rather see them do that; I'd cheer them on too.

[FoxHound]

Good point, but the current ruleset makes things a lot worst than usual, under the old sets of rules you could see a manufucturer turn things around with their engines between one season and the next (and sometimes during a season) so Honda and Renault wouldn't be in such a terrible position.

It happened many times in the past with Renault... with BMW... with Mercedes and Ferrari too.

The banning of Beryllium set Mercedes back a full 2 years. Ferrari had massive issues in transition from V12 to V10's which took around 4 years. Toyota never actually got their engine competitive, and Honda managed 1 year of competitiveness in 7 in the 2000's.

[Phil]

Who would want to supply Red Bull anyway? If they win it's because they built a great car. If they lose it's the engine supplier's fault. Having watched them attack Renault (who gave them titles) would you want to supply them? Any failure will be your fault not theirs. Their lack of class has put them in this position.

I think that's a very unfair assessment. During the V8s and their 8 titles, there was nigh on engine parity. Hence, the crucial difference between winning championships, wasn't the engine, it was the aero - which is why time and time again we hear Newey get more credit for those titles than even their driver Vettel...

Post 2014, the engine has become a major factor where the chassis/aero is not the biggest factor, but it's the engine. Hence, a lot of issues lie there in the first place. I'm fairly certain that had Renault built a superb V6T that would have been ahead of struggling Ferrari's and Merc's the tone they'd be singing would be quite different. And if not, there are contracts for those. I mean, if it's clear as day that it's the engine, why wouldn't they mention that?

[Postmoe]

Who would want to supply Red Bull anyway? If they win it's because they built a great car. If they lose it's the engine supplier's fault. Having watched them attack Renault (who gave them titles) would you want to supply them? Any failure will be your fault not theirs. Their lack of class has put them in this position.

I think that's a very unfair assessment. During the V8s and their 8 titles, there was nigh on engine parity. Hence, the crucial difference between winning championships, wasn't the engine, it was the aero - which is why time and time again we hear Newey get more credit for those titles than even their driver Vettel...

Post 2014, the engine has become a major factor where the chassis/aero is not the biggest factor, but it's the engine. Hence, a lot of issues lie there in the first place. I'm fairly certain that had Renault built a superb V6T that would have been ahead of struggling Ferrari's and Merc's the tone they'd be singing would be quite different. And if not, there are contracts for those. I mean, if it's clear as day that it's the engine, why wouldn't they mention that?

Renault engines characteristics were crucial for understanding RB success, for example in the case of the blown diffusers. Engines were quite inmportant in the end.

[mrluke]

Who would want to supply Red Bull anyway? If they win it's because they built a great car. If they lose it's the engine supplier's fault. Having watched them attack Renault (who gave them titles) would you want to supply them? Any failure will be your fault not theirs. Their lack of class has put them in this position.

Also, Mercedes is already supplying half of the field - why should they supply Red Bull too? If Red Bull are serious about F1 then do the hard yards developing the total package like Mercedes have. There are engine companies out there who can be bought just like Mercedes bought Ilmor. I'd rather see them do that; I'd cheer them on too.

+1

[Phil]

Renault engines characteristics were crucial for understanding RB success, for example in the case of the blown diffusers. Engines were quite inmportant in the end.

I'm not disputing that the unique engine maps did not play a role. But obviously they couldn't publicly state that as at the time of them winning, the whole world was speculating as to what RedBull was doing in the first place to gain such a substantial advantage. You don't throw out your advantage just like that. And it would have made it probably illegal in an instant if the FIA or teams could prove what exactly was going on. And crediting your engine manufacturer when the aero was just as important (the blowing/engine maps doesn't work without the aero there to take advantage of it).

Not going to get into an argument of who deserves more credit, but the other Renault engined cars did not have the same advantage that the RedBull had in those years, ergo - the maps played a role, but the chassis/aero Newey built were the big differentiator.