Infiniti Red Bull Racing 2015

[FoxHound]

Turbo was referring to the years leading up to the v6 era, the FiA was pushing for 4 cylinders engines and Mercedes and Renault both said v6's or we quit.

Are you sure?

I remember reading Adrian Newey insisted on V6 because a 4-cylinder could not be made to be a load-bearing part of the chassis.

4 cylinder turbo's were never a problem for either Mercedes or Renault.
They were made in order to attract VW, and when they declined it moved to the V6T as a middle ground for keeping Ferrari interested who don't have, and never have had a 4 cylinder.

Don't know who dreamt up that Merc and Renault would quit over 4 cylinders...

[djos]

Hmm, maybe I'm getting my wires crossed but I do recall Ferrari also campaigned against a 4 pot too but never made any threats.

Edit: ok the that was to leave if small turbo engines weren't introduced.

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2011/06/f ... n-the-air/

"The solution is palatable to Ferrari – whose legendary V6 turbos powered Gilles Villeneuve in the 1980s – and Mercedes as well as Renault, who had threatened to leave the sport if it didn’t move to small turbo engines."

So basically Renault threatened to quit and then screwed the pooch implementing what they asked for. *golf clap*

So fox, how's that for irony?

And another link to Renault threatening to quit:

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/f1 ... -rages-on/

"Renault is threatening to pull out of Formula 1 if the much-discussed new 1.6-litre, four-cylinder turbo engine formula for 2013 is not soon confirmed by the FIA. "

"Renault is the only enthusiastic supporter of the tiny turbo concept, which has failed to attract interest from new manufacturers. Both Ferrari and Mercedes-Benz prefer V8s or at least V6s, and everyone is worried about the costs of building and developing new engines"

[bhall II]

I think any invocation of a threat to quit is probably useless, because it's a tactic employed by everyone in F1's nursery of infantile egos.

F1 noise row: Mercedes would have quit without V6 engines

Mercedes to quit if F1 revives V8 engines - Lauda

Mercedes threatens to quit F1 (because of Concorde Agreement dispute in 2012)

Mercedes could quit Formula 1 (because of Ecclestone bribery scandal in 2013)

Mercedes May Quit over 'Tyregate' Rap

I don't have the will to dig through the mountain of threats issued by Ferrari and Red Bull over the years, because doing so would subtract several hours from my life, and I'd never get them back.

EDIT: And just to be fair, I'm guilty of mentioning them from time to time as well.

[FW17]

I think it is more likely that Red Bull will pull out. To avoid the commercial issues with FOM, they will continue just for the heck of it with just income from price money which should be 150 million at least.
They will get an 1.6 l engine done in a hurry with minimal ERS just to continue racing for the next few seasons.

[Gerhardsa]

Or they can follow this path
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/analy ... -f1-rival/

[nanocustic]

"Ecclestone declares Red Bull F1 future is 'sorted'"

Well, I'm willing to bet they're going to be supplied by Renault through '16.

[bauc]

"Ecclestone declares Red Bull F1 future is 'sorted'"

Well, I'm willing to bet they're going to be supplied by Renault through '16.

Thank god, I just hope a official announcement will be made soon so we can all put this long long discussion behind us.

[FoxHound]

"Ecclestone declares Red Bull F1 future is 'sorted'"

Well, I'm willing to bet they're going to be supplied by Renault through '16.

Yup, the only plausible solution. The termination contract has not been signed and Renault will be given historical payment cash in taking over Lotus, as worked on by Bernie.

[FW17]

So the picture of the political game is getting clearer

Bernie wants power back

3 teams with no engine for next year (1 may not get to next year)

alternate 3.5 v6 turbo charged with BOP

Bernie Ecclestone is still contemplating an alternative to the current V6 hybrid power unit, and if he succeeds in pushing it through it could mean that the F1 grid will feature two different engine types as early as next season.

The two alternatives he has been considering in recent months are a return to pre-2014 V8s - with Renault or Cosworth as the possible sources - or the use of a 3.5-litre twin-turbo V6, with a simple KERS package.

Ecclestone has access to a third party example of the latter.

Any move towards an alternative engine would require significant last-minute rule changes to be forced through, and would obviously come up against considerable opposition from teams.

It is not clear how even Ecclestone could pull off such a coup, especially as FIA president Jean Todt is unlikely to support any move that would suggest that the V6 hybrid rules have failed.

However, the ongoing saga over the current lack of a 2016 power unit supply for both Red Bull Racing and Scuderia Toro Rosso could give Ecclestone the ammunition he requires, in the form of force majeure.

Red Bull is known to be aware that a 3.5-litre V6 is potentially available. In addition, the Lotus and Renault deal is still far from concluded, so a third team could yet require an engine for 2016.

Ecclestone insisted throughout the Russian Grand Prix weekend that Red Bull would find an engine solution, and that there would be 22 cars on the grid next year, despite Ferrari and Mercedes both making it clear that they would not be supplying the Milton Keynes team.

The newly-published sporting regulations also still specify that manufacturers can only supply one spec next year, so there is currently no formal provision for them to be able to provide year-old engines, as was the case with Manor this season.

That's one of the key issues being discussed today at the Geneva meeting of engine manufacturers and the FIA.

Parity key

If Ecclestone is serious about creating room for a different type of engine, then inevitably the biggest problem would be ensuring that there is some form of parity between the current hybrids and any alternative.

However, Ecclestone's end game may be to use the threat of Red Bull having access to a viable alternative powerplant to force Ferrari or Mercedes to agree to supply a current spec hybrid V6 in 2016.

Having spent hundreds of millions on their hybrid programmes, Ferrari boss Sergio Marchionne and Mercedes CEO Dieter Zetsche will not be keen to compete against a low-tech, low-budget alternative.

There is also a wider political picture, in that Ecclestone is keen to wrest back some power from the manufacturers by giving teams an alternative – and also ensuring that there are 'independent' teams on the grid who are not forced to vote for what Ferrari or Mercedes want due to their hands being tied by their supply deals.

Red Bull has of course traditionally been Bernie's biggest supporter in all FIA matters.

Ecclestone made his thoughts on that subject clear in an interview with Sky's Martin Brundle at Sochi.

"If you had a team and Mercedes supplying you with engines, and they wanted a vote on something, you'd have to put your hand up and vote for whatever you wanted," he said.

"Otherwise you're maybe not going to get the engine that you want. We need a good... We need another Cosworth. That's basically what we want. You and I can start a team, and then we can go and get an engine. Today we don't know."

Done before

The idea of an alternative engine emerged earlier this year, and Ecclestone has insisted that it would not be the first time that F1 had two types of engine running concurrently, telling Motorsport.com: "We used to run turbos with normally aspirated engines before. You can do either."

"It's an interesting concept," Red Bull boss Christian Horner told Motorsport.com in April. "We ought to have a good look at it and explore the pros and cons, to be honest with you.

"It's happened before, and you might get certain engines competitive at different tracks, and it might move things around a bit. It's certainly worth a good debate. It's certainly interesting."

Regarding the problem of ensuring parity, Horner added: "There are all kinds of permutations that clever engineers can come up with, but first of all let's have a look at the concept.

"These days simulation is very accurate, we can simulate what the outcome could be, and then decisions could be made on an informed basis rather than guessing."

[NL_Fer]

A low tech engine, would set back a team with 50-60 kg more fuel at the race start. So they will need even more power, to compensate for the weight. Then they will have more tyre wear, so have to pit more and earlier.

But at the end of then race, they will have lost the weight disadvantage and still more power, so can run in and do an overtake race. Entertaining at least.

[DiogoBrand]

The engines are already unbalanced using the same very tight fomula. There's not a single chance for two engine layouts to be competitive against each other. They weren't in the 80's when Turbos basically ate the NA's, and they won't be now. Apart from that, if they decided to make a low tech low budget alternative after what's been one of the biggest rule changes in the sport's history and after all the investment from engine developers just because Renault wasn't competent enough to make a competitive engine, they can end the sport once and for all.

[Thunder]

NA or Twin Turbo V8's have been denied at yesterdays Engine Meeting. And rightfully so to me. I can't even imagine the amount of whining this would have produced.....

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121347

[bauc]

NA or Twin Turbo V8's have been denied at yesterdays Engine Meeting. And rightfully so to me. I can't even imagine the amount of whining this would have produced.....

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121347

Finally some good news, I just want this thing to get sorted out so we can focus (hopefully) on good racing and close battle's at the race track in 2016 instead of politics in the sport.

[alexx_88]

What close battles? Ah, you mean for the midfield positions. Sure, that sounds interesting

[r_b_l]

NA or Twin Turbo V8's have been denied at yesterdays Engine Meeting. And rightfully so to me. I can't even imagine the amount of whining this would have produced.....

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121347

Finally some good news, I just want this thing to get sorted out so we can focus (hopefully) on good racing and close battle's at the race track in 2016 instead of politics in the sport.

I'm a little bit confused why this is a good result, surely to get additional engine manufactures into the sport and take away this whole "Quitting" mantra that teams & engine manufactures are using. The engine manufacturers are only doing this because currently no one else can provide these PU to teams with the current regs. Honda have tried, possibly a year early, and have/will be playing the catch up game. Renault, as far as I am aware have not been using their tokens.

Now I was too young to know the politics of the sport in the 90's, so I am unsure if engine manufactures had fights, had the power to block rules etc over having V12, V10 & V8's in one season.(I do remember the racing)

For example in one season:

-Mercedes-Benz V10
-Renault V10
-Yamaha V10
-Ferrari V12
-Ford ECA V8
-Peugeot V10
-Mugen Honda V10
-Hart V10
-Ford HB (C/D/E/F) V8
-Ilmor V10

Now just looking at the 1994 championship finish, in regards to engines, Renault V10 finished first, followed by a Ford V8 & Ferrari V12. Not bad for different configured engines!!

I am am of the opinion that having alternatives to the current stringent engine rule-set/regs etc (i.e relatively closed market) is not necessarily a bad idea, apart from Mercedes. I am also sure that midfield teams - or in this case Redbull - that could have alternative options, due to budget, poor relationship, poor results or opportunities/partnerships (Honda-McLaren), would or at least could, take them if they were implemented into the sport in an adequate manner.

I'm not against the V6T's, nor the overall direction of these PU's, but I am against anti-competitiveness & this oligopolistic engine market F1 has found itself in.