bhall II wrote:If we're to believe that expenditure dictates outcome, thus prudent strategy, Renault's Championships as a works team in 2005 and 2006 should be viewed as miracles that made the company worthy of canonization.
Not miracles, no, more like logical consequence of rule changes that benefited some teams while hurting others. I distinctively remember Ferrari having trouble with their Bridgestone tires in 2005 for instance. Then we had changes to engine regulations too. Still, I don't get the relevance here.
Maybe the problem is that we can't simply look at total expenditure. Expenditure in the numbers you are quoting them, I assume, include pretty much everything; From R&D, to employees, factories, drivers etc. If there was a way to look at the number by division or field of expertise, I'm sure it would give a much more meaningful number. I.e. If we take the current F1; We can split up the cost of a F1 team into the aero/chassis team and the engines. And if we want more detail, I'm sure we can further split up the costs of the engines into the manufacturing process, R&D etc.
RedBull probably still has one of the highest budgets in F1 by the mere number of employees they have. And that those employees, engineering experts in the field of aero are largely made redundant because the engine represent a much higher factor since the 2014 V6s. This would further underline your argument that investment does not equal success. No it doesn't, but we need to look at the relevant numbers to form any picture. In that sense, in a F1 in which the engine plays a significant role, we need to look at the investments made in that specific area, not lump all the numbers of a F1 team into one giant can.
As for the rest of your post e.g. ---
That implies Renault somehow has different expectations, and I don't think a company's drive to succeed at the highest level should be brought into question simply because the results don't match. In any competition, success eludes everyone but the winner. --- I'm not sure how this in any way nullifies the point that two companies with different goals might not be acting in the best interest for both of them, but rather for them individually? I don't doubt that Renault does not have the drive to succeed - I'm still questioning how much that drive coincides in the roadmap RedBull expects in regards to their interest, not those of Renault.
I'll say it again; Under the assumption that Renault was happy to partner RedBull as a "works-team" and not enter the sport as its own factory-team, they might have acted differently as an engine-supplier. As a company with the intention of either leaving the sport or acquiring a team to enter as a factory-team in 2016, it does raise the question of what their ultimate goal is/was and how that has impacted 2015 and their level of commitment and development of their engine as a result.
Personally, I find it rather absurd to think that had no impact what so ever. If I were in Renaults shoes, of course the "big picture" - the longterm goal and the benefits of my own company, participation would take priority over that of a mere customer. If my goals coincide with that of my customer(s), fair enough, but if they don't - why should I pull out a leg for them if it limits my ability/competitiveness for next year?
