Formula One's Engine Crisis

[FoxHound]

I don't know if you noticed, but I'm not talking about Red Bull in particular. It is generally speaking.

Sure, but seen as the "Formula One Engine Crisis" thread has been hijacked into a "customers are victims" thread, how else could your point be perceived?
In relation to what Phil said, surely the state of play has been since the first year a customer entered F1 in the 1950's.

So I reiterate, why is it an issue since 2014, when the sport has had this sort of playing field for 60 odd years?

And if we look conversely, with Red Bull not willing to build their own engines.....why should Renault be forced to build their own chassis by buying out an entire team in 2016 or risk no team running it's engines.?

[bhall II]

This is a really interesting read, related to this topic.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121538

"The other thing we said is if we supply Red Bull with an engine in Formula 1 there is a possibility of diluting the message around our own success, because they could be very successful with our engine. That would be fair and square, but in order to accept that we would need to know what kind of marketing activities we could deploy on a worldwide scale with each other."

Done appropriately, that could have proved to be a marketing coup for both Mercedes and Red Bull, because an actual competition between top teams at the front of the field would be far more compelling than the lopsided pseudo-fights we've witnessed thus far between Silver Arrows teammates in which the outcome is only rarely in doubt.

Gifted with such fertile soil, they could have done something similar to Reebok's successful (though ultimately ill-fated) campaign that hyped the expected showdown between decathletes Dan O'Brien and Dave Johnson at the 1992 Summer Olympics.

Early in 1992, Reebok hit on an advertiser's dream, discovering American decathletes Dan O'Brien and Dave Johnson, rivals who also happened to be co-favorites to win gold in Barcelona. The company devised an eight-month ad campaign, which featured the two (wearing Reeboks, of course), and their friends, in a series of ads boasting who would win. It was clever for two reasons: 1) Nobody outside of track and field ever heard of Dan and Dave before, and 2) the two really were almost evenly matched, with Dave holding a three-to-two lead over Dan in direct competition, but Dan boasting a higher best score in the event.

But at the U.S. Olympic Trials five weeks before the Games, the plan went awry. Dan blew the pole vault and failed to qualify for the Olympics. Reebok switched gears and ran some ads with Dan cheering on Dave for the title. But Dave finished a disappointing third in Barcelona.

Dan and Dave, the advertising campaign, actually turned out to be a success for Reebok. Dan and Dave, the decathlon rivalry, was the big bust.

Oh, by the way: Czech Robert Zmelik won the decathlon gold. Zmelik had also endorsed Reebok -- but not in the U.S. A Reebok-wearing unknown had won.

It's kinda surprising that a company with Red Bull's marketing savvy didn't immediately recognize the potential. But, it's good news for everyone else, I suppose, because it would have been very difficult to highlight the inherent inequity of the current ruleset if the end product was nonetheless exciting.

EDIT: Just imagine the commercials...

[turbof1]

Sure, but seen as the "Formula One Engine Crisis" thread has been hijacked into a "customers are victims" thread, how else could your point be perceived?

Since when did the group of customer only entitled Red Bull. Well it's not only 'that team' ( I'll call it like that for now to make it abundantly clear it's not about them in particular) alone. I think my point made that very clear when I mentioned how the 4 engine manufacturers were part of setting the rules through their teams, and did not point towards 'that team' in particular.

So I reiterate, why is it an issue since 2014, when the sport has had this sort of playing field for 60 odd years?

In 60 years the rules generally have never been more strict then currently. This has evolved rather gradual, but I think we are now at a point where having one disadvantage is very difficult to compensate due not being able to generate an advantage at an other aspect of the car. The way customer have been treated has generally not changed, but the competing conditions have. It's quite a paradox: teams never have been closer to one another, but at the same time never faced that much difficulty to found ways to close that last little bit. What good is it when you are only 0.1s behind while you struggle to even find 0.02s. The scope of development has become too low to overcome deficits.

Note how I'm describing the problem, but I am not pointing with the guilty finger towards the manufacturers. Make of that what you want .

why should Renault be forced to build their own chassis by buying out an entire team in 2016 or risk no team running it's engines.?

(I'm leaving the part of 'that team' out. I'm not going to drag another discussion down that hole. Period.) Renault is not forced to do anything. it can do as it desires. It doesn't even have contracts with Bernie Ecclestone forcing it to stay in the sport. Infact we are not even sure if they are going to be around next year. The decision is taking too long in my eyes and I'd be willing to say they have had enough of it.

[Tommy Cookers]

an earlier marketing coup for the Silver Arrows seems to have been such a success that its origins have been forgotten .....

in 1934 the GP Mercedes-Benz cars should have been in the FIA - prescribed German national colour (white)
as eg all Mercedes and Benz and Mercedes-Benz cars were previously

the 1934 - 1937 GP rules allowed eg unlimited engine size but demanded a maximum car weight of 750 kg unladen
at the first race the M-Bs (painted white) were overweight, so the paint and body filler was stripped off to meet the weight limit
the 'English wheel' (American really) panel-forming machine being unknown in mainland Europe, the panels were hand-beaten ...
and as rough as a badger's arse (ass), and so much filler had been needed

this stripping was the reason they became silver, it was the natural silver colour of the exposed aluminium

another German car, the Auto-Union, used partially fabric bodywork (aircraft linen cloth) for similar reasons

[FoxHound]

Since when did the group of customer only entitled Red Bull. Well it's not only 'that team' ( I'll call it like that for now to make it abundantly clear it's not about them in particular) alone. I think my point made that very clear when I mentioned how the 4 engine manufacturers were part of setting the rules through their teams, and did not point towards 'that team' in particular.

Check back, Williams, Manor, Lotus, Sauber and Force India have all expressed their satisfaction with the performance of the PU's.
Just not the cost.
So the issue at large for F1 is not about "competitiveness", but about supplying PU's at a rate of cost reasonable to the many.

Yet the "other team" as you put it, don't care about costs, and are primarily concerned by competitiveness.
So their issue of "compeitiveness" is not shared by the vast majority of customers who rank cost as their make or break.

(I'm leaving the part of 'that team' out. I'm not going to drag another discussion down that hole. Period.) Renault is not forced to do anything. it can do as it desires. It doesn't even have contracts with Bernie Ecclestone forcing it to stay in the sport. Infact we are not even sure if they are going to be around next year. The decision is taking too long in my eyes and I'd be willing to say they have had enough of it.

And this will be a greater loss to F1 than the "other team". 10 chassis manufacturers can compensate for the loss of 1 team exit. Torro Rosso will be sold and maintain it's grid slots along with new entrants Haas.
However, the loss of Renault will be greater due to their now being less expertise in the field of engine manufacture.
4 down to 3. The problem is exacerbated.

And the reasons will be that it may just have been hounded out of the sport by a team that has never built an engine, nor sees the need to.

[turbof1]

Yet the "other team" as you put it, don't care about costs, and are primarily concerned by competitiveness.
So their issue of "compeitiveness" is not shared by the vast majority of customers who rank cost as their make or break.

So now we are complaining that teams are primarily concerned about competitiveness? Force India does exactly the same as it publicly states it will defy Mercedes if it comes to a vote for an alternative PU. That's primarily out of competitiveness. It went together with Sauber to the EU Commission. Primarily out of competitiveness. Lotus would have joined but then got lured for a dance with Renault. Primarily out of competitiviness. Marussia switched to Mercedes engines. Primarily out of competitiveness. Everything these teams have done, do and will is primarily out of competitiveness. It's hardly anything new in the "each man to his own" world of F1. If Sauber, Lotus, Force India, etc had the endless resources they wouldn't care about costs too. They rank costs highly because it's a damper on their competitiveness. Everybody has something to complain about how their side is harmed by "anti competitive ways" in the sport, I think even Mercedes has a say or 2 on that.

And this will be a greater loss to F1 than the "other team"

It would be a great loss due 3 teams dissapearing, and 1 manufacturer. The grid size would shrink by 25%, the same with the manufacturer pool. Everything else then those numbers is subjective, although there in my eyes this will put more power in the hands of Mercedes, Ferrari and Honda since they would have ditched one engine manufacturer. Especially since that manufacturer seated on the F1 commission board.

[FoxHound]

Yet the "other team" as you put it, don't care about costs, and are primarily concerned by competitiveness.
So their issue of "compeitiveness" is not shared by the vast majority of customers who rank cost as their make or break.

So now we are complaining that teams are primarily concerned about competitiveness? Force India does exactly the same as it publicly states it will defy Mercedes if it comes to a vote for an alternative PU. That's primarily out of competitiveness. It went together with Sauber to the EU Commission. Primarily out of competitiveness. Lotus would have joined but then got lured for a dance with Renault. Primarily out of competitiviness. Marussia switched to Mercedes engines. Primarily out of competitiveness.

Come now Turbo...
Force India and Sauber are going to court for money my friend! How can they argue competitivness against Mercedes if Mercedes supply a contractually stipulated "equal" Mercedes engine? That is illogical and should be clearly so.
The problem with this engine is that it costs 20 million dollars, hence why a cheapo 6 million dollar unit that does the same job makes sense to the cash strapped teams that.... will go and spend 80 million on chassis and aero anyway.

Marussia switched to Mercedes because it is cheaper for them and because they will be using a Williams rear end that was designed to use....yup, a Mercedes engine.

[turbof1]

Force India and Sauber are going to court for money my friend! How can they argue competitivness against Mercedes if Mercedes supply a contractually stipulated "equal" Mercedes engine? That is illogical and should be clearly so.

Yes and to what extend do you think they intend to use that money. Primary concern is still competitiveness.

Marussia switched to Mercedes because it is cheaper for them and because they will be using a Williams rear end that was designed to use....yup, a Mercedes engine.

I seriously doubt a 2014 Ferrari PU is more expensive than an up to date Mercedes PU. They took that due the deal was actractive towards their own competitive state.

[FoxHound]

Wouldn't be that much more overall given that Ferrari charges more for their engines.

[efuloni]

Let me interrupt you and say this discussions seems pointless: its all about pros and cons, a cost-benefits account. It aint all about competitivness. And its not all about costs. It's about both. Without any of them (and without perspective of improvement) any team would leave the sport. Simple as that.

[FoxHound]

Yes and to what extend do you think they intend to use that money. Primary concern is still competitiveness..

And that is exactly why in reality, the saving brought on at the expense of a spec engine, frozen development, or some cheap world engine, will all be spent bringing aero and chassis development.

In 2013, 5 years into a frozen engine Formula, Sauber nearly vanished due to financial problems.
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/07/04/h ... situation/

What would they have blamed had they folded then? Aero costs? Aero was then and is still, the single biggest expense in F1.

Then you have examples of engine costs in 2014 as to why Caterham folded....which is complete nonsense.
Their participation was questioned from the beginning and was directly linked to a benefactor that gave up due to no progress being made in(ironically) a frozen or unfrozen engine formula.
Which brings into focus HRT folding in a (2013)frozen engine formula....can't have been the engines.

So are you(and Phil) stating categorically that these teams are suffering due to PU's?
Because I have just proven in actual fact customer teams suffer in spite of the PU. It should also be worth noting, that the pay driver trend started in a frozen and cheaper engine formula.

So this ideological high ground of protectionism for smaller teams looks massively rocky, when seats are sold to highest bidders. That takes away from the sporting context way more than a competitive or non competitive engine, and all this arose at a time engines were equal, and costs for engines low.
You just can't point fingers, completely ignore the situation aero and chassis play in costs, and expect a variable to be a constant. That's complete Bull$hit.

[Andres125sx]

Nobody deserve an A-spec engine, you must build it yourself, or make an agreement with some manufacturer to build it specifically for you

That's not something the manufacturers should be able to decide - it's something an impartial governing body should

Sorry but they invested the money, they did the job, they suffered and solved the problems, and they decide what to do with them.

Like it or not you can´t ask someone to do what you want with his product

You still failed to answer the question if a 2-tier championship is something you find acceptable.

If I didn´t I wouldn´t bother to watch F1, because it has always been a 2-tier championship, at least in last decades

I'm not arguing on behalf of a dominant manufacturer, I'm arguing on behalf of a F1 spectator that wants a balanced competition, not one where a dominant manufacturer can use its position to effectively give itself an even bigger advantage over the opposition by supplying weaker engines that can't compete with their own.

And I agree with this, but that´s something to solve from FIA ruling, not forcing manufacturers to share their products with their competitors.

Any imporant rule change usually comes with a dominant period because someone made a better job, the only way to solve that is: A- avoid any important rule change. B- allow free development to shorten up the dominant period before they reach the diminishing returns point

That´s were FIA should act

Prior to 2014 - we had 10 racing teams with expertise in building cars competing with each other. The future you are defending is one of 4 engine manufacturers competing among themselves with another 6 teams (maybe) to fill the grid and show up to fill what otherwise would be empty places.

Sorry but...

2013 WCC:

1- Red Bull Racing.......596
2- Mercedes............. 360
3- Ferrari.................354
4- Lotus-Renault.........315
5- McLaren-Mercedes...117
6- Force India-Merc......77
7- Sauber-Ferrari.........57
8- Toro Rosso-Ferrari....33
9- Williams-Renault.......5
10- Marusia-Cosworth.....0
11- CAterham-Renault....0

4th in the championship got more points than the 7 teams below togheter. It was same as always, four top teams on a different league than the rest

Sorry but not true, Honda found it attractive enough to come in

Errr, Honda's decision to join was way before they realized how (not) competitive they would be. The thought was they could use 2014 to see and gather info that would lead them to success in 2015. Turned out great, didn't it?

Not... yet

Anycase that´s a different problem caused by frozen rules, not related with what we´re discussing, I commented it because you said the formula is not interesting enough for manufacturers and the fact Honda is here proves the contrary. If no more manufacturers comes in after Honda´s problems is because of the rules limiting develpment, not because of the formula is not interesting

Even RedBull with an equal or higher investment can't match that because it's not an issue of money, it's an issue of ability and circumstance of allowing the sport to become something only 4 out of 10 can deliver (engines).

No, they invest the same as the rest for the season, but R&D investment Mercedes, Honda, Ferrari and Renault have done is not considered there, so no, they didn´t invest the same, probably they didn´t invest a half of any of them.

This is F1, of course it is an issue of money. If RBR buy any engine manufacturer and invest the supposed billion Mercedes invested in R&D, you can be sure they will be title contenders.... or not (Toyota), but without investing the same you can be sure you will never compete for the championship

[dans79]

Even RedBull with an equal or higher investment can't match that because it's not an issue of money, it's an issue of ability and circumstance of allowing the sport to become something only 4 out of 10 can deliver (engines).

Umm, this is still a money thing, it's just more money than RBR wants to spend.

[Just_a_fan]

"Bernie Ecclestone has revealed Red Bull served notice on Renault in the belief it had a Formula 1 engine supply deal with Mercedes following a meeting in July. In defence of Red Bull, or Christian in particular, the reason they cancelled their agreement with Renault is so they could do the deal they thought they had done with Mercedes," said Ecclestone."

And

"Unless Renault gave us the go ahead we couldn't move. It would be in breach of contract, and there is a much bigger picture involving Renault and Mercedes than Formula 1, such as the joint factories in Mexico.".

Precisely as I suspected all along. RedBull had talks with Mercedes over supplying them but said they would and could not act as long as their contract with Renault was still in place - then RedBull terminated that contract only to then later find out that the deal was off. Then to make matters worse, Ferrari and Honda both declined as well.

In both of those articles, RedBull didn't actually continue the process with Mercedes. Mateschitz didn't follow through after speaking with Lauda and the team didn't follow through after speaking to Toto/Mercedes. It appears that all RedBull heard in their talks was "we...could...engine...to you" and then started kicking Renault in the goolies. When nothing happened with Mercedes because RedBull didn't take the next step, they found themselves in an embarrassing situation; their default attitude was then to say that Mercedes were too scared of them to supply them with an engine! Sorry, but RedBull's arrogance is there for all to see.

RedBull have taken on the role of 1980s Ferrari - always threatening to leave if things didn't go their way. Ferrari grew through that phase, the question is will RedBull do the same or will they stomp off in a huff?

[henra]

If RBR buy any engine manufacturer and invest the supposed billion Mercedes invested in R&D, you can be sure they will be title contenders....

Now, any one spotting a potential problem for the Sport?
A Sport where the entrance fee for winning is 1.000.000.000 $

And there is anyone still really surprised this is going South?
I'm really not a fan of Bernie but he does have a sense for Business. And this sense tells him F1 is heading somewhere unhealthy.