Formula One's Engine Crisis

[bhall II]

How much of an advantage was it? It's anyone's guess. Might have been a few tenths, might have been more, or less. 2 seasons were ridiculously close, despite the changing of regulations in regards to aero and how EBD could be used. I'll just leave it at that.

As for how central Renaults role was. If Renault had pioneered the concept completely on their own - why were the other Renault power cars, among the own works-team, that far off? To suggest RedBull excellent aero staff had little to nothing to do with that is ridiculous.

I tend to think the effect of the EBD is a bit "overblown," because it was available to everyone. More central to Red Bull's success was the Renault V8's footprint. Its class-leading fuel efficiency and minimal cooling requirements, not to mention its superior driveability, wove the canvas upon which Newey's aerodynamic masterpieces were painted, and those advantages were locked-in by homologation.

To further illustrate the benefit of such characteristics, Red Bull initially left the extra horsepower of KERS on the table, because packaging it meant interfering with the master plan; Ferrari deliberately tanked the output of its 2014 PU in an attempt to emulate that plan; and McHonda is currently going through a world of pain in an optimistic bid to implement it without the compromises.


The original Size-Zero

To your earlier point, though, about how this whole thing is indicative of poor rules, I agree 1,000%. This ruleset was never going to benefit anyone aside from those in the marketing department of the leading manufacturer, and blind arrogance conned everyone into thinking they'd be the ones with the requisite Midas touch. A part of me is sincerely rooting for Red Bull disaster simply because I think it might be the only outcome that can shine a spotlight on the formula's toxic landscape.

[FW17]

So you mean to say had the Renault Block been replaced by Merc RB would not have won 4 Championships?

This is a war between manufacturers and privateers and the privateer is getting muscled out.

[bhall II]

So you mean to say had the Renault Block been replaced by Merc RB would not have won 4 Championships?

Do you mean to imply that it's guaranteed Red Bull would have won four World Championships with Mercedes engines? That certainly didn't prove decisive for the Mercedes-backed teams Red Bull defeated.

Either way, logic doesn't permit such deductions.

[Phil]

Neither does it permit us to conclude they won because of unique characteristics of the Renault engine over perhaps it more being multiple of various factors and aero characteristics [that kept the competition grasping at straws] either. (This is more in reply to previous discussions on the matter, not to you Ben)

IMO the RedBull between 2010 and 2013 - even in the more dominant years of 2011 and 2013 - wasn't always that dominant. It often showed that in traffic, the cars characteristic didn't work as well as when optimized for starting from pole and maintaining that lead in clear air as the general set-up was more downforce at the expense of top-speed. This shows that the car overall was able to run at the best compromise. It wasn't a league in its own in all areas. It just ticked the right boxes and was able to exploit this brilliantly. This is nicely underlined by the outcome that the driver who often started from pole (Vettel) was nigh on unbeatable and a class of his own, whereas the other driver who didn't (Webber) often struggled as he found himself in traffic and compromised races. In 2013, better handling of tires also played a significant role too.


Anyway, in regards to the engine crisis, Bernie said something interesting in a (probably translated) interview posted on AMuS:

Also hätte man die Hersteller dazu zwingen müssen, eine Mindestzahl an Teams zu beliefern?
Ecclestone: Zu welchem Preis?

Sagen wir 10 Millionen Euro?
Ecclestone: Ich sage Ihnen, was dann passiert. Die EU würde das als ein Kartell betrachten und es zerschlagen. Vor zehn Jahren gab es diese Probleme nicht.

(Source: http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 96769.html)

In other words, it's about the question if the engine manufacturers could have been forced to supply other teams with engine, opposed to just supplying their own factory-team.

Ecclestone then asks back, to what price? The interviewer then says, i.e. 10 million Euros, to which Bernie replies that it's not possible as the EU would then look at it as a cartel and would break it etc.

I've seen this often mentioned as a possible solution opposed to using tokens - as the tokens and engine limits per season are effectively a means to control development rate and protect costs skyrocketing which would hurt smaller non engine-factory teams; e.g. the alternative being; forcing the engine makers to only to be able to sell their engines at a specific price that would then protect the struggling teams and a form of cost/development control. Bernie in the above interview pretty much rules this out as it make them a cartel. Is this correct? Anyone with any lawyer knowledge that can confirm or explain this?

[TAG]

Leading up to the 2014 new regulations, Ron Dennis said when they announced the Honda deal, that unless a team was a works team, it would be impossible to win a championship again. Red Bull thought they could, McLaren felt differently.

There's a lot of complexity as to how we got here but in the end Red Bull has been a public relations case study of what not to do and how not to do it which, from a company so well versed in marketing, should have known better.

It's also somewhat baffling the way Renault has comported. It was obvious from the beginning of the season that Renault's focus was on saving all development tokens from this year and combine them with next year's development in order to fulfill a longer term plan of revising their engine to their desired endpoint. I think ultimately what Red Bull (really who are we kidding here? Mateschitz) is furious about was having to go through the growing pains and a season of being a third rate team in order to fulfill Renault's development plan. More like Red Heifer if you ask me.

[FoxHound]

A good post TAG, and something lost on the defenders of Red Bull's antics.

As far as I'm aware, Renault have used none of 2015's tokens. Red Bull pushed on specific developments that backfired this year, and we saw Renault retract and implement a strategy that was for the longer term rather than a quick fix.
If you can improve the hit rate of your tokens, then it's well worth the gestation period pains... (sorry).

[dans79]

I've seen this often mentioned as a possible solution opposed to using tokens - as the tokens and engine limits per season are effectively a means to control development rate and protect costs skyrocketing which would hurt smaller non engine-factory teams; e.g. the alternative being; forcing the engine makers to only to be able to sell their engines at a specific price that would then protect the struggling teams and a form of cost/development control. Bernie in the above interview pretty much rules this out as it make them a cartel. Is this correct? Anyone with any lawyer knowledge that can confirm or explain this?

It could definitely be considered that, A manufacture could complain that they are getting squeezed out, because the price is to low and they can't turn a profit. A team could complain the price is to high and that the manufactures have set it deliberately to squeeze them out. To me, any kind of price fixing like that is a ticking time bomb.

[Jonnycraig]

Horner hinting at staying with Renault for next season:

“Nothing is officially finished with Renault yet. Again there’s lot of speculation. It’s difficult to envisage how we go forward. But this is F1, and nothing is impossible. We are still waiting to hear what are Renault’s plans for the future. Are they going to buy Lotus, are they going to stop themselves?”

In stark contrast to the criticism he’s heaped on Renault recently Horner indicated some support for the French manufacturer.

“What you don’t see is what happens behind the scenes, and the commitment that’s gone in to trying to make this power unit work, the investment that’s been made, and the solutions that have been provided.

“My priority is seeing Red Bull in F1 next year, I want to see our cars with our drivers on the grid, That means taking to all parties that have a potential interest in us being here next year.”

http://adamcooperf1.com/2015/10/10/horn ... impossible

[bhall II]

I'd never considered how a price cap might violate antitrust protocols, but Ecclestone is absolutely correct. Different companies in competition with one another cannot establish universal pricing for goods and services. That's collusion, and it's very illegal.

To mitigate the law's demand for open pricing between competing companies, I wonder if PUs could be leased at fair market value to a single intermediary who would then sublet them to teams at the desired fixed price.

Neither does it permit us to conclude they won because of unique characteristics of the Renault engine over perhaps it more being multiple of various factors and aero characteristics [that kept the competition grasping at straws] either. (This is more in reply to previous discussions on the matter, not to you Ben)

We don't need deductive reasoning for that; we can do it the old fashioned way. (I don't mean for my comments to seem like I'm singling you out here. Your thoughts just happen to regularly tee up things I want to say.)

I'm pretty sure the V8s were more or less level in terms power output. The gaps were certainly no greater than 10-20bhp, and that's not necessarily a significant handicap, especially if chassis rules aren't overly-prescriptive. For instance, Ferrari's powerplant in 2002, the Tipo 051, is reputed to have been down on power compared to BMW's P82. Yet, F2002 positively annihilated FW24 - and everything else, for that matter - on its way to becoming arguably one of the quickest cars the sport has ever seen.

Renault's advantage was a diminutive nature that allowed for all sorts of packaging flexibility. Excellent fuel efficiency meant the cars didn't require large fuel tanks, and superlative cooling efficiency meant they didn't need large sidepods. The effect of those traits was multi-faceted.



When air flow follows a curved surface, it accelerates, and the resultant increase in dynamic pressure reduces static pressure. Smaller radiators allow lower sidepods, which allows bodywork curvature of larger radii, which reduces the tendency of the sidepods to generate lift.

The smaller frontal area also reduces drag (CdA). Reduced drag allows wings with higher AoA.

A slim Coke-bottle area increases mass flow over every aerodynamic component on the car: diffuser, underbody, beam wing, rear wing, "brake ducts," etc. Even front wing efficiency is improved, because downstream events have upstream consequences.

Tighter packaging brings weight closer to the car's centerline, and that improves handling. It's also lighter, which allows greater ballast flexibility to better optimize weight distribution, and that improves tire management.

All of this is just stuff off the top of my head. There were other advantages in play that were just as real.

This is how it often looked after Mercedes tried...



And this is how it looked after Renault ceased to offer its usual benefits...







(I feel like I had a larger point to make, but it seems I lost it somewhere in the sea of words and pictures above.)

[djos]

Hope they get something competitive!

They do not deserve anything after the way they have behaved and treated Renault

They must take what they can get or leave

So RedBull hand over 40 million a year for competitive engines and get a pos in return and you think they have no right to complain?

I'd hate to be a customer of yours trying to get a defective product fixed under warranty!

[henra]

So RedBull hand over 40 million a year for competitive engines and get a pos in return and you think they have no right to complain?

I'd hate to be a customer of yours trying to get a defective product fixed under warranty!

Well in a way ou are right. They pay a lot of Money and it seems Renault invested much less than Ferrai and Mercedes (Merc easily spent twice the Budget and staff for developing the new era engine compared to the Viry Team). So in a certain way Renault is to blame for underestimating the challenge. The fact that RBR got nervous/frustrated when Renault couldn't fix it even in the second attempt this year I can easily understand.
That said it is a bit about the whole way they dealt with Renault all the time. When they were successfull it was all their achievement and when they failed it was all Renault's fault.
And that is why they are somewgat rightfully in a difficult Position now.

[Blackout]

About EBD: According to J.P.Menrath (He workend on all Renault's engines since 77 and is the director of testing and development today) Renault sacrified 40hp for the EBD...

[ME4ME]

Newey speaking out about the broken relationship with Renault:
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/newey ... out-of-f1/

I that's pretty much it, Red Bull doesn't want to continue with Renault cause there is no light at the end of the tunnel to motivate rebuilding their partnership.

I think Red Bull will pull out of the sport at the end of the season, which will be such a shame Toro Rosso will probably run old Ferrari engines, and with Haas joining grid numbers will therefor be the same.

[ScottB]

Newey speaking out about the broken relationship with Renault:
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/newey ... out-of-f1/

I that's pretty much it, Red Bull doesn't want to continue with Renault cause there is no light at the end of the tunnel to motivate rebuilding their partnership.

I think Red Bull will pull out of the sport at the end of the season, which will be such a shame Toro Rosso will probably run old Ferrari engines, and with Haas joining grid numbers will therefor be the same.

This apparent belief that they have some sort of right to expect to be eternal championship challengers is baffling. Newey and many of the rest of them know well enough that periods of dominance come and go, we don't get Ferrari, McLaren or Williams threatening to bail because they aren't winning. If that's the terms RBR are willing to stay in for, then they should go, because if it's not the engine, it'll be something else if they go another year or two without winning then?


If they do leave, I'd expect at the very least RBR to continue, Brawn style if need be (Arden F1 anyone?), simply because it would be cheaper than paying off Bernie and all the staff.

[bhall II]

This apparent belief that they have some sort of right to expect to be eternal championship challengers is baffling...

It's infuriating to me, because it's soooooooo brazen.

If a surefire ability to compete at the sharp end of the grid is somehow a requirement for participation in the sport, then it would seem those at Toro Rosso have just as much of a right to complain about their circumstances as anyone else, because they sincerely believe they have a car that can do just that.

Carlos Sainz on the strength of STR10:

"We look at GPS data after every session and compare ourselves with Ferrari, Williams and even Mercedes," said Sainz when asked by AUTOSPORT about where the car would be with a stronger engine.

"After watching our data from Barcelona, I'm convinced that this car, with a very decent engine, will be fighting with Williams and, on some occasions, with Ferrari.

Instead, a pragmatic Franz Tost hasn't allowed himself to lose sight of the bigger picture.

"We know it's late, so the option of using the 2015 specification Ferrari power unit in 2016 will be acceptable to us," boss Franz Tost is quoted by Russia's Championat.

Now compare that to the mother ship's stance.

"We're possibly going to be forced out of Formula 1 - Mercedes and Ferrari have refused to supply us out of fear," [Adrian] Newey told Reuters in a interview on Monday.

No one has refused to supply Red Bull. A refusal to supply exactly what a potential customer wants is not synonymous with a refusal to supply that customer with anything at all. In fact, Mercedes offered everyone a slightly simplified version of its all-conquering power unit. But, there were no takers.

The only fear is that of being used as a patsy. Like someone with a sort of Tourette's Blame syndrome, Christian Horner can't help himself.

“My priority is seeing Red Bull in F1 next year, I want to see our cars with our drivers on the grid, That means taking to all parties that have a potential interest in us being here next year, and it will clearly be their fault if we're not.”

Some unsolicited advice: if you smell bullshit everywhere you go, check the bottoms of your shoes.