Infiniti Red Bull Racing 2015

[Felipe 92]

Rons biggest problem was that his supplier (Merc) was also a competitor. And could (did) influence the customers performance, by delivering lesser engines or manipulate information that is given to the customer.

Please, stop posting complete garbage. They didn't deliver lesser engines, or manipulate data. What they did was optimize the engine to work with the works teams Aero & chassis Philosophy.

Engines were exactly the same, but (as Ron and Boullier stated on number of occasions) with this PU configuration it`s more important how you harvest energy, which engine maps you have and which fuel and oil you are using (last year McLaren was 20-40 bhp down on power just because of Mobil). And Mercedes wasn`t stupid to give them (or anybody else who uses Merc engines) all data, especially when McLaren said they are moving to Honda for 2015.

[FoxHound]

Engines were exactly the same, but (as Ron and Boullier stated on number of occasions) with this PU configuration it`s more important how you harvest energy, which engine maps you have and which fuel and oil you are using (last year McLaren was 20-40 bhp down on power just because of Mobil). And Mercedes wasn`t stupid to give them (or anybody else who uses Merc engines) all data, especially when McLaren said they are moving to Honda for 2015.

It's not a question of giving data.

It is determined by the team how it is harvested. Mercedes cannot impose that on any of it's customers, and works together with all it's customers to develop maps best for each team. These PU's are not 1 size fits all in terms of maps...
And this business of Mobil is due to McLaren having to run Mobil lubricants contractually. Mercedes are not going to spend millions helping a customers lubricants contractual obligations be met.

[dans79]

And Mercedes wasn`t stupid to give them (or anybody else who uses Merc engines) all data, especially when McLaren said they are moving to Honda for 2015.

No company is going to hand over valuable intellectual property to a customer. I'm sure even Honda isn't telling/showing McLaren everything.

[basti313]

As far as I remember it the problem with McLaren/Merc were too conservative numbers on size and cooling of the engine.

[PlatinumZealot]

Rons biggest problem was that his supplier (Merc) was also a competitor. And could (did) influence the customers performance, by delivering lesser engines or manipulate information that is given to the customer.

Please, stop posting complete garbage. They didn't deliver lesser engines, or manipulate data. What they did was optimize the engine to work with the works teams Aero & chassis Philosophy.

Engines were exactly the same, but (as Ron and Boullier stated on number of occasions) with this PU configuration it`s more important how you harvest energy, which engine maps you have and which fuel and oil you are using (last year McLaren was 20-40 bhp down on power just because of Mobil). And Mercedes wasn`t stupid to give them (or anybody else who uses Merc engines) all data, especially when McLaren said they are moving to Honda for 2015.

That mobil one fuel was only a rumour. Mercedes HPP only allowed petronas fuel in the merceds engine because at the end of the day its his them who have to service those engines. I think andy cowell or was it pat symmonds said all the mercedes engines ran the same fluids. There was no disadvantage to any of the customers.

[damager21]

I hope McLaren does have veto power on which teams Honda can supply engine in 2016 and beyond. McLaren is having the worst year this season where they will finish 9th in the constructors championship. I dont think it is justified for them to have done all the hard work this season only to have Red Bull get Honda engine next year.

Its been year's since McLaren won a championship and they decided to go with Honda thinking that this is the best option for future. Red Bull with Honda engine will make it tough for them to win a championship again.

I bet, Red Bull is looking at a stop gap arrangement for a year while they will continue to scout for potential partners to enter in 2017. Why should Honda give away its engine secrets to such a team?

McLaren already had a bad experience when Mercedes tied up with Brawn and they won the championship. Imagine the amount of negative publicity for McLaren if they were to be beaten by Red Bull next year despite longer association with Honda.

While this is a sport, this is also a business. I dont think there is any need for McLaren to take a moral high ground. They are already struggling this year with loss of sponsors, they will finish 9th in the championship leading to further financial loss for the team. When you are already in a hole you try to come out of it and not give a drilling machine to your competition.

[bill shoe]

Is this the thread where we muse about the empty hole in the back of the 2016 Red Bull chassis?

I agree it would be a bit unfair for McLaren to suffer all the 1st year development, only to have Honda give it away to a Teir-1 competitor (Red Bull) the next season.

But ultimately here is the order of agreement enforceability in formula 1 (from weakest to strongest):

1. Clear verbal agreement, "handshake agreement".
2. Written agreement such as a clearly worded contract.
3. Written agreement that any party is willing to enforce via arbitration and/or courts.

Giedo van der Garde learned that 1 and 2 mean nothing in the paddock unless you have the financial backing and the will to pursue the hell out of 3.

Predictions of cheap-spec V6 turbos in 2017 or issues involving McLaren/Honda/Red bull have to be considered against the 3-tier list above, and who is willing/able to go to step 3.

As a separate note, I think Japanese business sensibilities are often misunderstood, but nonetheless they are different than traditional Western ones. Does anyone foresee a happy marriage between Honda (home of struggling powertrains) and Red Bull (home of bitter, shrill criticism of any supplier that doesn't win them world championships)? I don't see any way to fit that square peg into the round hole regardless of the exact nature of Japanese business sensibilities.

This is interesting! Formula 1 is too crowded at the top-- It's now too expensive and high-profile for manufacturers and Teir-1 teams to accept anything other than clear success. Yet there are more manufacturers and Teir-1 teams involved than the amount of success that's available. So something must give. We are in the process of watching it give even though we don't know the final result yet.

[djos]

I think it's really simple, Honda is a tolerable option for RedBull simply because Honda had clearly demonstrated it is committed to putting in the money and resources required to be competitive.

Renault on the other hand seem to be dithering and not doing enough to be taken seriously!

[alexx_88]

I think it's really simple, Honda is a tolerable option for RedBull simply because Honda had clearly demonstrated it is committed to putting in the money and resources required to be competitive.

Renault on the other hand seem to be dithering and not doing enough to be taken seriously!

I think this difference is key here. In 2014 Renault had the most expensive PUs on the grid and, even so, they put the least amount of money in R&D for 2015. I really think RB is getting too much stick for a reaction that many of us would consider natural if put in their shoes. People become unhappy and start moaning really fast if they paid for something that is not up to their expectations. More so if the supplier of that product isn't doing *anything to make it better.

PS: "Anything", by F1 terms, means working smarter and harder than the competition.

[sectionate]

I think it's really simple, Honda is a tolerable option for RedBull simply because Honda had clearly demonstrated it is committed to putting in the money and resources required to be competitive.

Renault on the other hand seem to be dithering and not doing enough to be taken seriously!

I think this difference is key here. In 2014 Renault had the most expensive PUs on the grid and, even so, they put the least amount of money in R&D for 2015. I really think RB is getting too much stick for a reaction that many of us would consider natural if put in their shoes. People become unhappy and start moaning really fast if they paid for something that is not up to their expectations. More so if the supplier of that product isn't doing *anything to make it better.

PS: "Anything", by F1 terms, means working smarter and harder than the competition.

I don't remember many Ferrari engined teams complaining loudly last season. Red Bull have dragged what should have been a behind doors discussion directly into the light in an attempt to force Renault to do something about it, but it back fired on them

[toraabe]

remember in the V10 aera when the Merc v10 tend to blow up, was mainly due to insufficient cooling. The car was fast but maybee to tight built..

As far as I remember it the problem with McLaren/Merc were too conservative numbers on size and cooling of the engine.

[bhall II]

I think it's really simple, Honda is a tolerable option for RedBull simply because Honda had clearly demonstrated it is committed to putting in the money and resources required to be competitive.

Renault on the other hand seem to be dithering and not doing enough to be taken seriously!

I think this difference is key here. In 2014 Renault had the most expensive PUs on the grid and, even so, they put the least amount of money in R&D for 2015. I really think RB is getting too much stick for a reaction that many of us would consider natural if put in their shoes. People become unhappy and start moaning really fast if they paid for something that is not up to their expectations. More so if the supplier of that product isn't doing *anything to make it better.

PS: "Anything", by F1 terms, means working smarter [BH2: emphasis mine] and harder than the competition.

From my point of view, I'd rank the struggling manufacturers' recovery strategies as follows:

1. Renault, because it would have made absolutely no sense whatsoever to hastily run through a development program as if there existed some remote opportunity to supply winning hardware this season. With nothing to lose, the more sensible and disciplined approach is the one that was adopted (despite enormous pressure for a quick fix): delay action while collecting as much data as possible in order to make the eventual action that much more certain/potent. Anything else would have ultimately postponed definitive resolution(s) to the problem(s). Or worse yet...

Now, Renault is hitting back, “We had a last-minute engine development in which we bypassed our normal quality and test bench validation processes.

“It was these changes that caused the problems in Melbourne, and it is what we are now focusing on at the factory prior to Sepang,” he told L’Equipe.

Abiteboul claimed: “We were very aggressive because Red Bull wanted us to develop fiercely. Now we have to ask ourselves how we could forget our traditional methods. We have been manufacturing F1 engines for 37 years. We know what we need to do.”

One would think this should be easily understood by the brain trust at Red Bull...

With the first pre-season test kicking off at Jerez in Spain on Sunday, Red Bull's new Renault-powered challenger has only just begun construction at its Milton Keynes base.

That move comes after design chiefs were given the green light to maximise development time on the car to ensure the team did not let any opportunity go to waste in its bid to topple Mercedes.

2. Though it arguably took Honda too long to recognize the way forward, it would have been a waste of time to prioritize the impact of grid penalties, or even Championship points, ahead of solving problems.

A realistic assessment of a problem and its resultant competitive limitations can also open up the door to strategies that may not seem obvious at first. As an example, I'm not quite sure I understand McLaren/Honda's PU strategy thus far, given the following: if the penalty for using more than the allotted number of PUs over the course of a season is to be docked grid places, and if the current need for reliability requires the PUs to be detuned to such a degree that the cars qualify dead-last anyway, then there is effectively no penalty for using as many PUs as you want. So, wouldn't it then make sense to push the PU to the limit every time in order to work out its problems?

3. N/A

4. I've assessed a one-spot penalty to Ferrari, because there's never been a valid reason for the deliberate compromise of its PU. It was mindless, and the team's recovery this season testifies to a situation in which a competitive design was never really out of reach; it just didn't happen.

"In short: it was made ​​to pass the idea that all the woes of the F14T are the fault of the power unit," Marmorini is quoted as saying by Italian journalist Leo Turrini. "As if in a company with the history of Ferrari had forgotten how to make engines! I mean, I accept any accusation, but do not tell that to Maranello [as] there are people who do not know the business, the turbo, hybrids, etcetera.

"With my colleagues I packed a power unit with a certain size, ie, [a] smaller version of the Mercedes and Renault, because we were asked by the project manager of the car, Mr. Tombazis.

"[They] said we want a very compact power unit, with small radiators, because the less power [we] will compensate with aerodynamic solutions that will guarantee us an advantage over Mercedes and Renault. It's been exactly like that, except that, when we are confronted with the competition, the horsepower was less obviously, but this was not compensated by aerodynamics!"

Point being:

[Phil]

1. Renault, because it would have made absolutely no sense whatsoever to hastily run through a development program as if there existed some remote opportunity to supply winning hardware this season. With nothing to lose, the more sensible and disciplined approach is the one that was adopted (despite enormous pressure for a quick fix): delay action while collecting as much data as possible in order to make the eventual action that much more certain/potent. Anything else would have ultimately postponed definitive resolution(s) to the problem(s). Or worse yet...

I can't help but think that Renault would have put more focus on improvements if their own factory team was being supplied and driving for points, position, sponsorship, viewership and ultimately (price-) money. That they haven't, perhaps emphasizes the point how a mere customer-supplier partnership doesn't hold the same importance to a supplier than being their own works-team. This is only exaggerated once you consider that an engine design team might have different goals than a team designing a car does. The people designing the car want a smaller package and more room for aero purposes - the engine team perhaps the opposite - as their goal is to create more power from the energy source. How well both these teams work together to find what only can be described as a compromise from both parties or not is crucial in that sense.

I also can't help but think that Renaults ulterior motives to buy a team and enter as a works-team in 2016 must have influenced how they take on 2015 as a year. Can you blame Renault for acting in the best of their interest? Absolutely not. But can you blame RedBull for doing the same? I wouldn't think so. It's merely a logical consequence of two parties acting as individual entities, not as essentially one partnership out to achieve the best outcome for both.

[dans79]

That's the Newey effect......

My best Newey impression
"The only thing that matters is aero......"

remember in the V10 aera when the Merc v10 tend to blow up, was mainly due to insufficient cooling. The car was fast but maybee to tight built..

As far as I remember it the problem with McLaren/Merc were too conservative numbers on size and cooling of the engine.

[bhall II]

I don't have an opinion one way or the other about Renault's possible external motivations, but I think this...

I can't help but think that Renault would have put more focus on improvements if their own factory team was being supplied and driving for points, position, sponsorship, viewership and ultimately (price-) money. That they haven't, perhaps emphasizes the point how a mere customer-supplier partnership doesn't hold the same importance to a supplier than being their own works-team.

...sorta misses the point.

What we've seen from Renault is a focus on improvement, and it's one not unlike the very common practice of abandoning the development of a stricken chassis after it becomes clear that resources would be better spent on the next year's design. No one, not even the great Mercedes AMG Petronas, has the ability to successfully address two tasks as quickly and efficiently as they could address one; something has to give, or else the deficit will just continue to grow.

It's obviously not ideal, and the sacrifices involved make the process painful. But, if the goal is genuine recovery as quickly as possible, it's unavoidable.

bitter pill
noun
1. a distressing experience or result that is hard to accept (often in the expression a bitter pill to swallow):
Being passed over for promotion was a bitter pill to swallow.