Horner: Qualy modes should be banned!

[Gaz.]

His doesn't work, so it needs to be banned - every team handles this way, and that won't ever change.

...

Sport is not fair and F1 has never been fair. Honda powered cars won 6 WCCs on the spin in the 80s then immediately afterwards Renault won 6 on the spin and in the naughties Ferrari engines won 6 on the spin, just look at the WCC over the years to show some dynastic eras:

1982: Ferrari
1983: Ferrari
1984: Mclaren
1985: Mclaren
1986: Williams
1987: Williams
1988: Mclaren
1989: Mclaren
1990: Mclaren
1991: Mclaren
1992: Williams
1993: Williams
1994: Williams
1995: Benetton
1996: Williams
1997: Williams
1998: Mclaren
1999: Ferrari
2000: Ferrari
2001: Ferrari
2002: Ferrari
2003: Ferrari
2004: Ferrari
2005: Renault
2006: Renault
2007: Ferrari
2008: Ferrari
2009: Brawn
2010: Red Bull
2011: Red Bull
2012: Red Bull
2013: Red Bull
2014: Mercedes
2015: Mercedes
2016: Mercedes
2017: Mercedes

Renault had pushed hard for this engine and Horner knew it when they extended their agreement in 2012 which would cover many years into the hybrid era. In Jerez 2014 a few Renault mechanics went on record to say that RBR were not allowing them full access to the car to see what the overheating problems were. Horner and Marko have been combative at best in their relationship with Renault, so in light of this would you supply RBR with an engine if you didn't have to? I certainly wouldn't and Cyril doesn't look overly keen to do so either hence Renault returning as a fully fledged works team and Ferrari and Mercedes have made damn sure they didn't have to.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/ ... s-takeover

Regarding your tyre analogy- if Merc had partnered Michelin and Michelin then begged for the rules to be changed to suit them or they'd leave so the rules are changed, then Williams' new Dunlops spank everyone while the Michelins explode every other Sunday, just how much sympathy would you have for Merc and Michelin? If Merc then slagged off Michelin at every single opportunity, would you expect Dunlop to supply Merc if asked or keep their distance?

Ultimately all of the engine manufacturers and all of the teams voted in favour of these hybrids except Ferrari on most occasions who still wanted V8s. Even Monisha was in favour of the hybrids before they were introduced.

Ultimately it is motor racing, it shouldn't be a surprise that a major motor manufacturer nailed their engine. Ferrari are there or thereabouts, they came close in 2017, it really was silly things that robbed them of so many points as the fundamentals of the car were fine. I do agree with you that the teams have far too much power and I think Liberty should be prepared to call Ferrari's bluff- and anyone else's for that matter.

I'm not a fan of any team nor driver by the way.

[Gaz.]

His doesn't work, so it needs to be banned - every team handles this way, and that won't ever change.

It's not his, it's his engine suppliers that doesn't work.

Some of you have a very warped perception of what constitutes a fair sport. I've outed myself numerous times as a Mercedes and Hamilton supporter, but being a supporter of the dominating team does not make me blind to a few flaws in current F1 regulations:

- We have only 4 engine suppliers in a sport with 10 teams
- We have 10 teams that can build and construct cars/chassis.
- We only have 3 factory-works-teams, that being Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault
- 7 teams are mere customers. They don't exactly have free choice as to which engines they want to run.
- the engines are a significant factor in determining who can compete with whom and for what

RedBull obviously isn't a factory-works-team. They are a mere customer. They don't exactly have a free choice as to what engine they can run. They wanted Mercedes engine, yet Mercedes don't want to supply them. They wanted Ferrari engines, but Ferrari don't want to supply them. As per the existing contracts and the regulations in place, they are forced to run either Renault or Honda engines, both which are not exactly competitive.

Obviously, none of these customer teams have the ability to simply become engine-suppliers themselves and create their own engine. If one of the largest manufacturers in Honda can't simply come and do it and fails, how could any team/company do so. The engines are too complex, expensive and the (engine) regulations in place do not allow this or encourage it. The only means a team like RedBull and 6 others have to compete is on the chassis and aero side - the area of their expertise. The engine isn't theirs, they have no influence over what Renault does and supplies.

How is this fair? This is by definition a two tier championship. The only true competitors with a level playing field within this sport are Mercedes vs Ferrari vs Renault. No customer team has the complete ability to compete in all areas. It is therefore quite logical that Horner/RedBull are criticizing the one aspect of the sport they have no control over: the engine.

If the other remaining 6 customer teams weren't dependent (financially and otherwise) on their engine, they would probably be more vocal too.

Imagine for a second this scenario: What if Mercedes suddenly decided to buy Michelin and somehow found a way for the sport to accommodate them using their own tires. What if for some reason, these tires are much better than whatever Pirelli supplies the rest and at every race, we would see Mercedes lapping at 2 second quicker than the rest. Would that be fair? Would it be fair to force the remaining 9 teams to become their own tire manufacturer to compete in this area too? Is that the idea of a fair and level sport? No doubt, we would still have some people downplaying the "tire factor" and simply applauding Mercedes for the better car that they have built.


I don't mind having an engine driven F1. In fact, I love the engines from a technological view point and I am amazed and can only marvel at what Mercedes have constructed and bettered with every year since. But this isn't fair in a sport with only 3 factory-teams competing against their own customers. What the sport needs are 10 engine suppliers with their own teams battling each other. If this is not possible, then why allow the engine to become/to be a significant factor in who wins and doesn't?

The answer to that is simple: F1 allowed the teams too much power at the risk of losing them. If the governing body of F1 was in full control, they would have never allowed this to happen. I am by no means a fan of RedBull and Horner, but this isn't healthy by any stretch of imagination and at this rate, the sport will be destroyed. The essence of competition is that anyone participating has the means to compete. If this can not be ensured, what's the point of calling it a competition?

I'll expect 30 downvotes from the RBR devotees but hey that's the way this forum goes now with 'like' buttons.

Sport is not fair and F1 has never been fair. Honda powered cars won 6 WCCs on the spin in the 80s then immediately afterwards Renault won 6 on the spin and in the naughties Ferrari engines won 6 on the spin, just look at the WCC over the years to show some dynastic eras:



1982: Ferrari
1983: Ferrari
1984: Mclaren
1985: Mclaren
1986: Williams
1987: Williams
1988: Mclaren
1989: Mclaren
1990: Mclaren
1991: Mclaren
1992: Williams
1993: Williams
1994: Williams
1995: Benetton
1996: Williams
1997: Williams
1998: Mclaren
1999: Ferrari
2000: Ferrari
2001: Ferrari
2002: Ferrari
2003: Ferrari
2004: Ferrari
2005: Renault
2006: Renault
2007: Ferrari
2008: Ferrari
2009: Brawn
2010: Red Bull
2011: Red Bull
2012: Red Bull
2013: Red Bull
2014: Mercedes
2015: Mercedes
2016: Mercedes
2017: Mercedes

Renault had pushed hard for this engine and Horner knew it when they extended their agreement in 2012 which would cover many years into the hybrid era. In Jerez 2014 a few Renault mechanics went on record to say that RBR were not allowing them full access to the car to see what the overheating problems were. Horner and Marko have been combative at best in their relationship with Renault, so in light of this would you supply RBR with an engine if you didn't have to? I certainly wouldn't and Cyril doesn't look overly keen to do so either hence Renault returning as a fully fledged works team and Ferrari and Mercedes have made damn sure they didn't have to.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/ ... s-takeover

Regarding your tyre analogy- if Merc had partnered Michelin and Michelin then begged for the rules to be changed to suit them or they'd leave so the rules are changed, then Williams' new Dunlops spank everyone while the Michelins explode every other Sunday, just how much sympathy would you have for Merc and Michelin? If Merc then slagged off Michelin at every single opportunity, would you expect Dunlop to supply Merc if asked or keep their distance?

Ultimately all of the engine manufacturers and all of the teams voted in favour of these hybrids except Ferrari on most occasions who still wanted V8s. Even Monisha was in favour of the hybrids before they were introduced.

Ultimately is is motor racing, it shouldn't be a surprise that a major motor manufacturer nailed their engine. Ferrari are there or thereabouts, they came close in 2017, it really was silly things that robbed them of so many points as the fundamentals of the car were fine. I do agree with you that the teams have far too much power and I think Liberty should be prepared to call Ferrari's bluff- and anyone else's for that matter.

I'm not a fan of any team nor driver by the way.

[adrianjordan]

Okay, first off what was the context of Horner's quote?

Did he out of nowhere complain about the qualy mode in a rant? Or was he asked what he thought of it in an interview with a leading question by a reporter who was just out to get a headline? (Or somewhere in between)

Personally I don't mind qually modes and, for that matter I don't think the Merc PU is that far ahead of the rest now, otherwise a) Bottas would have come through the field quicker (think back to previous years where Ham/Ros could finish 2nd after starting at the back quite happily), b) Force India and Williams would be further up the grid, c) Hamilton would have been allowed to use Qually Mode to get past Vettel.

I like that we have cars with different strengths and I suspect that the RBR car is better in dirty air than the Merc, so that's to their advantage and they are not far off the pace in the race itself anyway.

[Phil]

Sport is not fair and F1 has never been fair. Honda powered cars won 6 WCCs on the spin in the 80s then immediately afterwards Renault won 6 on the spin and in the naughties Ferrari engines won 6 on the spin, just look at the WCC over the years to show some dynastic eras:

I never argued that F1 has been fair. You're probably right, it has never been. Though I'd argue that there is quite a difference between then and now: Back then, the whole sport was cheaper, the stakes overall lower. It allowed many teams, entrepreneurs, such as Williams, Sauber, Jordan even Ferrari and McLaren and many others to join and compete. The sport wasn't dominated by huge corporations worth billions. They were small racing teams at the time and when they entered. Some of them worked with engine manufacturers but even then, those engines were nothing compared to what they are now. While the sport was dominated by few, it still allowed small teams and entrepreneurs to enter and grow.

Fast forward to today and some of those small teams are now backed by corporations worth billions. Ferrari has the backing of Fiat, Renault, Mercedes and Honda have entered themselves. These companies have the ability and the infrastructure in place to compete both financially but also technically. The sport since has grown exponentially, but so has the cost of entering and competing. It is no longer possible for a small team to enter and compete, not without the backing of a multi billion corporation with necessary infrastructure in place.

Even McLaren, one of the most successful teams in F1, is reduced to being a mere customer without the ability to compete with a competitive power-unit of their own. They are just as reliant on their engine supplier as the 6 other customer-teams.

It is no longer possible for small racing teams to enter. F1 has become too expensive so that it is only a viable business venture for the biggest car manufacturers, of which only 4 are currently interested enough in participating and only one or two (Mercedes and Ferrari) of those are somewhat competitive.

Ultimately all of the engine manufacturers and all of the teams voted in favour of these hybrids except Ferrari on most occasions who still wanted V8s. Even Monisha was in favour of the hybrids before they were introduced.

Sadly, this just shows you the depths of how much the sport is broken. Williams and Force-India who are contracted to Mercedes will do and say whatever Mercedes wants. Same applies to Sauber and Haas, customers of Ferrari. The only customer team who is financially strong and independent enough to be vocal enough is RedBull. All others will do and say as their engine suppliers demand. There was a time when both Sauber and Force-India were willing to stand up and fight for more financial equality, but even that had its limits.

Ferrari is/was happy enough to engage romantically with Mercedes as long as it suits them. Now that Liberty and the FIA are trying to achieve more equality beyond the current agreements and are threatening to leave. Ferrari is also happy as long as they believe they can catch Mercedes with their own power-unit. Once they realize that there is no way they can beat them, they too will pursuit their own agenda to succeed. Either way, the 4 engine-manufacturers are dictating terms and the future of a total of 5 independent teams too. Teams with great heritage and racing pedigree. Teams that once contributed to build the sport to what it is today - and still do. Without them, we'd just have a grid of 6-8 cars.

Some are arguing about if F1 could survive without Ferrari. Can it survive without Mercedes and Renault too? Or will it survive with just having Mercedes, Ferrari and perhaps Renault at the expense of Williams, Sauber and McLaren too? At what point will McLaren pull the plug if they are limited to an engine that can't compete? At least Williams, Force-India, even Sauber are living off F1. They will fight till the end, but they are at the mercy of their financial sponsors.

The sport was once driven by racing teams building race cars. It is now driven by the might of a few big car brands that merely look at F1 as a means to promote their image and sell cars. Effectively running an expensive ad-campaign.

[Nickel]

The sport wasn't cheaper, there was just way more money kicking around via tobacco sponsorship. My goodness the rose tinted glasses around here...

[Sieper]

Phil is spot on and has written two of the most informed, well balanced and well written posts I have read in a long time here. Especially as he is even stepping past his own team preference. Well done sir!

[Just_a_fan]

Phil is spot on and has written two of the most informed, well balanced and well written posts I have read in a long time here. Especially as he is even stepping past his own team preference. Well done sir!

Er, no, he's just written something you agree with. Doesn't mean it's all correct. For example:

Even McLaren, one of the most successful teams in F1, is reduced to being a mere customer without the ability to compete with a competitive power-unit of their own. They are just as reliant on their engine supplier as the 6 other customer-teams.

Forgets that McLaren have always been an engine customer: when did McLaren last build their own F1 engine? They have had engine title sponsors i.e. McLaren Mercedes, but they always relied on someone else to produce the donkey.

Back in the day, F1 - or rather Grand Prix racing - was a manufacturer sport. Most left, Ferrari stayed with others dipping in and out as it suited. The small teams arriving to fill the void were held in low regard by Ferrari: he called them garagistes as an insult. Having the right engine was key to winning, hence Ferrari's "aerodynamics are for those who can't build engines". Indeed, Lotus's securing of the DFV (after success with the Coventry Climax) was key to them winning and led to a DFV-dominated grid. Eventually, aero became more important until we reached the "ground effect" days and silly speeds were the norm. Since then, the sport has tried to control aero in order to control speed for safety reasons. The engineers have tried to get around this to improve performance. The engine continued to be vital because a weak engine meant less aero because drag couldn't be offset by engine power (remember power absorbed by drag increases with the cube of the speed). Indeed, a decent engine has always been key to F1 success, whether back in the day of the Silver Arrows or the days of the Lotus 49, the Williams FW14b etc.

At no point was F1 "cheap". It was cheap compared to today but it was still an expensive sport. Remember that quite a chunk of the increase in the expense of F1 over the years has been safety related, as well as performance related. Building a fast car is a lot cheaper than building a fast, safe, car.

Too many people wearing rose coloured glasses on here. F1 was never some halcyon time where the racing was perfect every Sunday, the teams were all able to compete, all was fair. It never happened.

[Sieper]

Er, Ofcourse I agree with it, otherwise I wouldn’t have made that post. Doesn’t take away from the fact it is well written and thought out. Also your post is imho not even so much in disagreeance with what Phil posted.

[Sevach]

I don't like artificial limitations, either take all the toys away (aka the engine must be set up inside the boxes, once the car is released it's up to the drivers right foot) or nothing.

[Phil]

Forgets that McLaren have always been an engine customer: when did McLaren last build their own F1 engine? They have had engine title sponsors i.e. McLaren Mercedes, but they always relied on someone else to produce the donkey.

You are right of course. I didn't want to suggest that McLaren used to build its own engine, more that there was a time when they could have. With these engines now days and the technology and complexity involved, there's just no way. I came across this interesting article, published in 2015, quoting:

Williams won its first world constructors championship in 1980, on a budget of £2.2 million. Twelve years later it won its fifth, for £32 million. Index-link that 1980 figure for inflation and the ’92 equivalent of the £2.2 million would equate to £4.4 million. Had F1 spending simply kept up with inflation £4.4 million would have been the ’92 title-winning budget. Taking inflation out of the equation, getting Nigel Mansell and Riccardo Patrese to 1-2 in the ’92 championship was almost 400 per cent more expensive than getting Jones and Carlos Reutemann to 1st and 3rd in 1980.

Yet that £32 million is £8 million less than the extreme budget cap proposed by Max Mosley for 2010 and which attracted the three new teams that have since gone out of business. Not even they got to such a low spend. Index-link that 1980 Williams spend to today and the budgetary equivalent would be £7.4 million – which if you don’t spend time in F1 sounds like more than plenty of money just to put two racing cars on track for a season, and it would be. Yet the top teams are now spending around two hundred million pounds. Taking inflation out of the equation again, that is an 800 per cent increase on 1980’s budget.

As the article outlines, it's not technology that was the driver of increased costs, but more the ingenuity by teams to negotiate tobacco sponsorship (and later car manufacturers) that allowed them to grow exponentially in size and spend more in search of better performance. With these new engines though, the sport has allowed itself to open a sorts of pandorasbox allowing only a few to realize such technologically complex engines. A team as big and successfull as McLaren, who not so long ago had a spending budget of €465M/year is no longer in a situation to determine their own competitiveness as they are reliant on what their engine manufacturer supplies. It's a matter of time until they too will become more vocal. They can't have Mercedes engines, neither will Ferrari supply them. They were fortunate enough to receive Renault engines.

What do you think will happen if for some reason, Renault suddenly has a big breakthrough and somehow constructs the best engine and one or both their customer teams start beating them to race wins and even championships? Would they happily supply their own customers to see themselves being beaten? Or will they act just as Mercedes or Ferrari who are simply looking after their best interest when determining who to supply or not? Mercedes and Ferrari are both in very comfortable positions with only having to supply teams with less than a quarter of their own budget and have made powerful allies at the same time with them.

[foxmulder_ms]

Horner is joke for me. He reached a new low. I really hope Redbull leaves the sport.

[Phil]

I'm sorry, but I find your repeated remarks about "Horner being a joke and hoping they'll leave the sport" incredibly ignorant and short-sighted.

I hope you are aware that RedBull account for 4 cars on the grid. Two of which are keeping Honda in the game. Hypothetically, if RedBull pull the plug, you're also saying farewell to Honda. The less "competitors" you have, the more it diminishes the achievement of those that remain. Renault loses a customer who is now paying for engines (rebadged or not), decreasing their revenue too. Sure, the pie slices become fewer, so in theory, the remaining teams may get more from the overall money pie. But long term? Who's next? McLaren? At what point will they pull the plug because as far as I see it, their expenses in F1 are immense. At what point will they (or their sponsors) figure and realize that this venture is too expensive for too little return? All indicators are that this year will show how willing McLarens sponsors are willing to keep the tap flowing. Switching to Renault and losing large sums of sponsorship money of Honda will hurt when the results they are targeting are not met. Being stuck with Renault, once they start voicing criticism, will you call them a joke too and hope they leave the sport?

I see fundamental problems in the sport here. Instead of criticizing the critics, I think challenging the root of the problems and issues are more constructive. Horner is as little a joke for complaining about a disparity in engine performance than Ferrari is about criticizing/clarifying suspensions designs they can't copy or Mercedes clarifying the second oil tank they discovered Ferrari were using last Canadian GP. It's all part of the game. Just wait; If Ferrari find themselves unable to challenge Mercedes, they will fight the political game just as much as any team (and have done so far on numerous occasions, in the past and recent-past).

[TAG]

I see fundamental problems in the sport here. Instead of criticizing the critics, I think challenging the root of the problems and issues are more constructive. Horner is as little a joke for complaining about a disparity in engine performance than Ferrari is about criticizing/clarifying suspensions designs they can't copy or Mercedes clarifying the second oil tank they discovered Ferrari were using last Canadian GP. It's all part of the game. Just wait; If Ferrari find themselves unable to challenge Mercedes, they will fight the political game just as much as any team (and have done so far on numerous occasions, in the past and recent-past).

I understand your point here Phil, but arguing against something that's legal and clearly used by all engine manufacturers (they all have some form of qualifying max mode) Is not the same. Teams arguing about things that are indeed illegal and demonstrably shown to circumvent existing rules or at least the spirit of the rule can be wiped out with a simple rule clarification and introducing new tests to the scrutineering process.

There's a difference between hypocrisy and gaining a sporting advantage. Red Bull benefited from the inherent efficiency of the Renault engine being able to do the overrun blowing during the Red Bull hey days. Mercedes has an advantage here, they had and advantage them. To say there's anything other than smarmy hypocrisy on Horner's part is to be naive IMO. I'm actually rather enjoying seeing him squirm, coming from the team telling others when he was on top, that they simply needed to work harder.

[dans79]

I hope you are aware that RedBull account for 4 cars on the grid. Two of which are keeping Honda in the game. Hypothetically, if RedBull pull the plug, you're also saying farewell to Honda. The less "competitors" you have, the more it diminishes the achievement of those that remain.

Have you considered that maybe its time for the whole circus to come to an end.

[Schumix]

I'm sorry, but I find your repeated remarks about "Horner being a joke and hoping they'll leave the sport" incredibly ignorant and short-sighted.

I hope you are aware that RedBull account for 4 cars on the grid. Two of which are keeping Honda in the game. Hypothetically, if RedBull pull the plug, you're also saying farewell to Honda. The less "competitors" you have, the more it diminishes the achievement of those that remain. Renault loses a customer who is now paying for engines (rebadged or not), decreasing their revenue too. Sure, the pie slices become fewer, so in theory, the remaining teams may get more from the overall money pie. But long term? Who's next? McLaren? At what point will they pull the plug because as far as I see it, their expenses in F1 are immense. At what point will they (or their sponsors) figure and realize that this venture is too expensive for too little return? All indicators are that this year will show how willing McLarens sponsors are willing to keep the tap flowing. Switching to Renault and losing large sums of sponsorship money of Honda will hurt when the results they are targeting are not met. Being stuck with Renault, once they start voicing criticism, will you call them a joke too and hope they leave the sport?

I see fundamental problems in the sport here. Instead of criticizing the critics, I think challenging the root of the problems and issues are more constructive. Horner is as little a joke for complaining about a disparity in engine performance than Ferrari is about criticizing/clarifying suspensions designs they can't copy or Mercedes clarifying the second oil tank they discovered Ferrari were using last Canadian GP. It's all part of the game. Just wait; If Ferrari find themselves unable to challenge Mercedes, they will fight the political game just as much as any team (and have done so far on numerous occasions, in the past and recent-past).

Please keep in mind that F1 racing is also about engines' competition, not only aerodynamic or chassis or driver. It has always been the case and I hope that the engines' will keep having a big impact on F1 results.
Instead of criticizing or crying all the times when they can't not match with the level of their competitors, Red Bull really need to manufacture their own engine. Or may be they can convince engines' manufacturers such as BMW, Audi, Cosworth, Illmor, etc. to come into the competion. But everybody knows that these engines' manufacturers will have to be prepared to accept public charges or claims if Red Bull fail to win titles as it happens with Renault.
Many F1 fans are not interested by aerodynamic war only. If so, it will be better for them to switch to the Red Bull Air Races or something similar.
In F1 racing, you can win but you can also be defeated. And when you are defeated, the best think to do is to work hard.