- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
By the time they'd enter (likely 2017 / 18 at the earliest, surely?), I doubt the media or the public at large will be all that fussed about the current scandal.NL_Fer wrote:I have one more theory. Say Dieselgate, decides VAG to phase out TDi technology, in favour of gasoline (TSi, TFSi). Maybe they dump WEC and embrace Formula one, for their new green gasoline hybrid fired image?
We've already had this talk. In that, we've established that engines as complex as these V6T don't grow on trees and not within a short time. If Honda can't do it even after a year of learning from the others and is struggling as much as they are - who else in their right mind could swoop in and save the day within any reasonable time and investment? Answer: Likely none (due to various reasons).Andres125sx wrote:Any reason RBR can´t do the same? RBR is far from a victim
Even so they were fast to criticize Renault and say publicly how slow is their engine and how useless is Renault because they´re sure their 2016 PU will be unable to compete....Phil wrote:So as you can see, there's not an awful lot RedBull can do.
What fair or isn't is pretty irrelevant from our point of view. We're just reading the glamour press pages here, putting 2 and 2 together, filling in the gaps. Hindsight is a beautiful thing though, isn't it?Andres125sx wrote:I´m not saying the situation is perfect. Obviously F1 has some problems, but since RBR peferctly knows this, they should have been a lot more patient. Specially with the supplier wich allowed them to win 8 titles in 4 seasons. Criticizing them that hard after only 2 seasons without success is not fair with them, and not wise either when you still don´t have any replacement
By your argument why should a manufacturer supply any customer?Andres125sx wrote:When RBR beat Ferrari and Mercedes without the investment of engine R&D F1 was fine and none cared about the manufacturers wasting money on engine department to only be beated by a team that does not need that investment
But now if manufacturers can make the most of their investment F1 is in crisis... Sorry but I don´t see it that way. F1 is a motorsport, so companies investing in engine R&D need some return or they would stop investing.
If that´s what you want then let´s convert F1 into a spec series. Otherwise RBR must assume since they don´t invest in R&D they have a handicap. They were lucky enough in 2010-2013 to not suffer this handicap (thanks to the stupid engine freeze) and they make the most of that situation. None complained, but that couldn´t last long
And that's RBR's fault for pushing them to make changes before they where completely ready.Phil wrote: - Renault went backwards in 2015 with even more reliability issues than before
Whats the point of using tokens to improve performance if the motor isn't reliable?Phil wrote: - Renault did not use any tokens until the US GP - race 16 out of 19.
would you want help from someone who doesn't even give you credit when you do a good job (v8 era), and tells the entire world you suck every chance they get when you fail?Phil wrote: - RedBull offered help in form of development in regards to the Renault PU (cylinder head) - none which was accepted
Incorrect, Merc said they needed the OK from Renault (a business partner)s, that it was Ok to enter into talks with a Renault Customer. They did not say the contract with Renault needed to be cancelled.Phil wrote: - Mercedes made noises that said that they may be willing to supply, but first RedBull and Renault would have to split
- RedBull and Renault split (we assume), but then neither Mercedes nor Ferrari are suddenly willing to
This is not un-common when it comes to technology. Usually it involves working with the out going supplier to ensure their intellectual property is protected in some way, and then they sign off on you talking to a new supplier. Perhaps RBR didn't want to ask, because they feared Renault would tell them to shove off. who knows, But Merc didn't say cancel your contract."Where we said from the Mercedes standpoint, after Niki met Dietrich Mateschitz, there are two points which are extremely important for us. One is we need to have a carte blanche from Renault. Renault is an industrial partner of Mercedes, we will never do something against Renault.
"Before Renault give us a go-ahead, we can't move, because it would breach of contract, so we wouldn't do that, and because there is a much bigger picture between Mercedes and Renault than F1. We have joint factories in Mexico."
Well that's a lot better than catering to 1 team like it did in the past!Phil wrote: And that is the problem right there. And it not only applies to RedBull, it applies to every customer team. Because the sport is no longer catering to the majority of the grid - it's catering to the expertise of 4 teams, the 4 engine manufacturers that are pulling the strings. Which, my guess is, no majority would have signed up for if they prior to 2014 knew what was about to happen down the road.
You don't want racing then, you want a show, you want the automotive equivalent of the WWE. In real, non-contrived racing, you will have a gap, and in some gases it will be a damn big one.Phil wrote: I don't see the engine as the direct problem; more mismanagement and the inability to shape rules with a bit of forward thinking to limit the possibilities and therefore the gap between failure and success. And perhaps the inability to set a clear plan in motion "what if these engines are further apart, how can we allow a competitor to catch up etc".
read what I quoted, then read what I actually said, and remember the context is specifically related to F1.sgth0mas wrote:Dans79, you lost all credibility with this:
"You don't want racing then, you want a show, you want the automotive equivalent of the WWE. In real, non-contrived racing, you will have a gap, and in some gases it will be a damn big one."
Spec series are still racing. Open formula is not the only form of real racing. Open formula or semi open formula (f1) is more a challenge in engineering than anything else.
Thats why its been said many times that the best skill a modern F1 driver can posses is the ability to pick the correct team. In modern F1, engineering trumps driver skill massively.
I stand by exactly what i said. Shaping rules to promote closer racing is no more like WWE than maintaining rules that keep one manufacturer way ahead of others. Neither are like the WWE but one is detrimental to the sport. Whether the engine rules INTENDED to lock in mercs advantage or not doesnt matter when it hurts the sport as a whole.dans79 wrote:read what I quoted, then read what I actually said, and remember the context is specifically related to F1.sgth0mas wrote:Dans79, you lost all credibility with this:
"You don't want racing then, you want a show, you want the automotive equivalent of the WWE. In real, non-contrived racing, you will have a gap, and in some gases it will be a damn big one."
Spec series are still racing. Open formula is not the only form of real racing. Open formula or semi open formula (f1) is more a challenge in engineering than anything else.
Thats why its been said many times that the best skill a modern F1 driver can posses is the ability to pick the correct team. In modern F1, engineering trumps driver skill massively.
Completely disagree,sgth0mas wrote: I stand by exactly what i said. Shaping rules to promote closer racing is no more like WWE than maintaining rules that keep one manufacturer way ahead of others.
Youve already gotten lost.dans79 wrote:Completely disagree,sgth0mas wrote: I stand by exactly what i said. Shaping rules to promote closer racing is no more like WWE than maintaining rules that keep one manufacturer way ahead of others.
By your own admission F1 is about engineering. Engineering breeds gaps, no matter how tight you make the rules, gaps will always appear if any form of engineering is allowed to take place. Some smart individual will come up with a novel way of gaining an advantage (Lotus 78). Even with cost caps someone will find a way to gain an advantage.
Thus,
If you have rules that all agree to play buy, and that no one has broken, then changing the rules because of the results of a previous contest in the hopes of altering the outcome of a future contest is exactly the same as WWE. You are trying to script a result. In this case, a championship where everyone regardless of budget or ability has a chance of winning.