Infiniti Red Bull Racing 2015

[Phil]

I didn't forget anything. I was just naming examples from a particular period you yourself brought up.

Look, this is getting repetitive. I'll try to sum it up one more time:

1.) rate of engine development is restricted by tokens and by them to specific areas of the engine
2.) therefore it's hard for engine-manufacturers like Renault or Honda to solve their issues and become competitive
3.) there are many customer-teams who are supplied by these engine-manufacturers and have absolutely no ability to change their faith - they are effectively bound by the ability and competence of their supplier
4.) worse; most engine deals are not year to year (but multiple) and a central part to the car and its design so can't be easily changed year by year according to the performance
5.) when a team does want to change (i.e. RedBull for 2016), they are being confronted being offered B-spec engines because they might be too strong a competitor

It's not much different than having two tire suppliers and one struggling, being limited to improve and the teams that run on that tire being at the mercy of that supplier and the rules.

I'm not arguing on behalf of the works-teams who control their own faith by building the engines and integrating it into their own chassis all under the same roof. I'm arguing on behalf of every single customer team who is being supplied such an engine they have no control over, but are bound by complex agreements to those engines and if they do get out, face the prospect of either A.) competitive engine manufacturer not wanting to supply them or B.) wanting to supply them with an inferior engine.

I'm all for an engine dominated formula (over an aero one), but then I want to see 10 different works-teams and not 2-3 that supply themselves and the rest of the grid (and no fricking way with inferior ones thank you).


EDIT: alexx_88, great post (I missed it in the page turnover before). +1

[FoxHound]

You are biasing all of it in favour of Red Bull.

"Too competitive to be supplied an engine".

I can list you a number of good reasons why an engine manufacturer wouldn't touch Red Bull with a barge pole.
Even outsiders coming into the formula would baulk at supply.

Mercedes faced a choice to continue supplying Mclaren but spent the thick end of 400 million and 3 years of mediocrity to be able to build chassis and develop aero.

They were subjected to your assessment of "too complex, would take too long, too expensive or they just didn't understand".

Well I'm calling it now, and using that exact same assessment to lambast Red Bull, and there's nothing to disagree on without condemning yourself to hypocrisy.

And that's me done on the matter. Until Red Bull's next PR outburst. ..

[ME4ME]

You are biasing all of it in favour of Red Bull.

Let's be honest, it's the universe compensating for your own Red Bull bashing including those avatars you put up

[FoxHound]

You are biasing all of it in favour of Red Bull.

Let's be honest, it's the universe compensating for your own Red Bull bashing including those avatars you put up

They bring it upon themselves, I'm merely voicing what the vast majority are thinking. Any wonder James Alien's website has 75% of fans unsympathetic to Red Bull's plight with only 17% feeling sorry for them. If you are upset at my "bashing" it would be well advised you steer clear of any forums or social media so as to keep your feelings from being hurt. I'm sorry for the avatar, if this offended you I'll change it to one more in keeping with your sensitivities.

If you want to continue the conversation I'm available on IM.

[turbof1]

Look, this is getting repetitive.

I agree. I said it a few pages back already, but the discussion is simply not moving forward, running instead in circles. I'm playing with the thought to close the topic until new, relevant and significant news comes up.

I'll leave it open just in case the discussion goes to sleep, but if not I'll have it closed by tomorrow around 10:00 GMT.

[bill shoe]

Bernie now claims three serious groups who want to buy Formula 1. Maybe he really has one.

Red Bull and Dieter are financially powerful entities that like to exercise their power by owning and controlling sports/marketing events lock, stock, and barrel. RB apparently had VW lined up for a long-term engine supply (starting 2018) but that has obviously fallen off the table. RB is about to get shut out of F1 because they lack the power and control to get the equal Ferrari engines they want. The obvious question is:

Is RB/Dieter planning to do the nuclear option and buy the overall sport? This would be a delicious victory for RB over the paddock power-brokers (Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault) who are currently savoring their power-play victory over RB. This would be the ultimate and consummate power-play for Dieter after a long and successful career in international business. And I can easily imagine the marketing draw of the "Red Bull Formula One World Championship". RB is the one brand that could be a title sponsor without ruining the marketing appeal for individual car companies.

Bernie values F1 at $10 billion. So a controlling interest requires at least $5 billion or so. Does RB have the clout to put together that kind of cash and financing in just a few months? I think probably. Joe Saward says F1 is not worth the $10 billion asking price, but that's just on the basis of cost relative to subsequent FOM income. If you also factor in the marketing value of being the only title sponsor in F1 history, then it might be worth $10 billion.

If the RB team continued under RB F1 ownership, then the FIA would be perfectly placed to create the (I would argue) illusion of an independent third-party entity that enforced the rules equally for all.

RB ownership of F1 would create interesting possibilities within the unholy committee of FIA/FOM/teams that currently create rules. The rules might suddenly say that all engine manufacturers have to provide equal engines to any buyer.

I don't know if RB might really buy F1, but the significance of it is large enough to make it worth pondering. I just don't see RB being permanently subservient to other teams via a long-term supply of year-old engines, or running away in power-play defeat at the end of the season.

Perhaps Dieter is using the nuclear-option threat to force equal engines out of Ferrari in 2016. Ferrari would be very uncomfortable if they were no longer the 600 lb gorilla of F1 with Bernie as their reliable zookeeper. The ramifications and decision-making process at Ferrari would be truly epic if Dieter forced a choice of nuclear-option or equal-engines immediately...

[alexx_88]

Actually, because of how the internal regulations of FOM are written, controlling the company requires only buying CVC's share of 30%. I can't remember the exact details.

Also, I don't think owning FOM alone allows you to push changes into F1 without the others agreeing. As far as I know, FIA has 6 votes, FOM also 6, while another 6 teams get 1 vote each. But yes, Red Bull owning F1 would be great for the viewers. They might actually revert the trend of switching to pay per view, as it's in their best interest to have more people watching.

[.poz]

Bernie now claims three serious groups who want to buy Formula 1. Maybe he really has one.

Is RB/Dieter planning to do the nuclear option and buy the overall sport?

If so he have to sell RB and TR.

[wickedz50]

Bernie now claims three serious groups who want to buy Formula 1. Maybe he really has one.

Is RB/Dieter planning to do the nuclear option and buy the overall sport?

If so he have to sell RB and TR.

Its not so easy as many of you think, at the moment I do not think there will be sufficient return on this investment. RB/ Dieter has better ways to get what they want and I really do not think they are a bidder.

[turbof1]

I'm closing the topic to let things cool down and to unhinge the discussion out of its vicious circle. It'll be reopened once more news is relayed to us.

[turbof1]

Reopened.

[Schuttelberg]

First of all, I want to address a section of the people that have this tendency to put the hammer down on RBR by saying that they're only in F1 for their marketing gimmick. Well, if that's the case then thank god they're not serious about racing otherwise I can't begin to think how monotonous F1 would have been from 2010-13.

Secondly, there is obviously a huge sense of nostalgia and romance attached to teams like Ferrari, McLaren and Williams. The purists always prefer them because of men like Enzo Ferrari, Ron Dennis and Frank Williams. Men that did whatever they did to have enough money to race and win. Well, I'd like to say that that's in the past. Ferrari don't make sports cars to fund their racing team, instead they now use the racing team to sell more road cars. This is the 21st century and we must accept that priorities change. Perhaps, rightly so because without strong funding you can have as much racing heart as you like, you'll ultimately quit. Having said that, these teams have prestige and history which is vital to the sport. My issue is with people that blame RBR for their marketing 'gimmick.' They're in every sense of the word a RACING TEAM. I think the sport I've loved for so many years is tougher than just some corporates coming in and winning four titles. It requires effort, work ethic, commitment and above all the reason why I'm writing this and people are reading this 'love and passion for racing.' Is there any other team on the grid that has a dedicated team just to give young drivers an opportunity? That in itself shows how committed RBR are. I don't see why they shouldn't eye any financial gain they can get out of their investments. Red Bull are very important to F1.

Now, on the contrary, I do feel that their success has got in their heads a lot. Success isn't their birthright, they've treated Renault, Mercedes, Ferrari and F1 poorly. They deserve all the slander they're receiving and as a young team they need to understand that their will be periods of plateaued success or lack of it in F1. They say that Merc/Ferrari need to keep the sport healthy and contradict that next day with repeated quit threats.

To conclude, RBR are a bright young team and deserve to be where they are. They need a serious lesson in respect because their legacy isn't a quarter of any of the other teams I mentioned which also includes Renault. Also, none of the teams are scared of them. They hold a competitive edge, which they don't want to yield. Like I said a lot of times before, RB should have been humble and worked with Renault to solve their issues as a premium customer. They chose to see the glass half empty by looking at Mercedes, but failed to see the glass half full relative to Honda.

[turbof1]

First of all, I want to address a section of the people that have this tendency to put the hammer down on RBR by saying that they're only in F1 for their marketing gimmick. Well, if that's the case then thank god they're not serious about racing otherwise I can't begin to think how monotonous F1 would have been from 2010-13.

It's a simplified version of the truth, but it is still the truth they are in F1 due marketing purposes. Only for marketing purposes? No, it'll have ancilliary purposes too. Marketing as the main purpose? Yes, I do think so.

However, using something for marketing is by no means a grade to how well you use it. Infact, Red Bull having to be in a winning position shows how serious they are for the sport. The team itself probably limits their end of the marketing concerns to spraying the car, while the mother company has to check if the return on investment is viable. The marketing here is generated by doing the sport very seriously, ending up in the highest position and gaining maximum exposure.

My issue is with people that blame RBR for their marketing 'gimmick.' They're in every sense of the word a RACING TEAM.

I think you have a very negative connotation on the word marketing. marketing does not mean in any way whatsoever that you are not a racing team. You are making a contradiction of it that is not there. Marketing is there to make an investment of 300 million responsible and viable. You cannot race without that money, and the parent company has responsibilities towards the shareholders. As long as the cost is justifiable, the team races.

Even a team like Ferrari justifies the cost of running the F1 team mostly as marketing. racing is the biggest side of their entity, their whole existance. They are by heart a racing team. However, in front of the (now future) shareholders and in front of their accountancy department, this goes as marketing. And in essence, it is just that: their own reputation drives the road car sales, and that reputation is driven by their success in F1.

Now, on the contrary, I do feel that their success has got in their heads a lot. Success isn't their birthright, they've treated Renault, Mercedes, Ferrari and F1 poorly. They deserve all the slander they're receiving and as a young team they need to understand that their will be periods of plateaued success or lack of it in F1. They say that Merc/Ferrari need to keep the sport healthy and contradict that next day with repeated quit threats.

I'm inclined to agree with you. However, we also have to respect that RBR has to make its own decisions and cary the responsibilities of those decisions. If they feel they cannot be racing without being able to justify the cost or without being competitive, and feel they should pull out, then that's their right to do.

[FoxHound]

Red Bull story incoming!!

We're possibly going to be forced out of Formula One - Mercedes and Ferrari have refused to supply us out of fear," Adrian Newey said.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/34513738

Fear?

Maybe it's simply they don't think it fair to share equal PU's with a direct competitor that had no hand in its development.
If there is going to be an open market for engines, Renault could buy a Mercedes or Ferrari engine and copy it.

The outcome then is that all progress is nullified as there would be no incentive for engine manufacturers to invest in development.
Engines once again become a backwater dead-end, but at least Red Bull get their engine.... to the detriment of people that actually build engines or those that may have intentions to do so.

The fact is Red Bull have an engine offer for 2016, but it is not the engine they want. That's their fear, and it is not one that should be shared by the entire grid.

[Facts Only]

Red Bull story incoming!!

We're possibly going to be forced out of Formula One - Mercedes and Ferrari have refused to supply us out of fear," Adrian Newey said.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/34513738

Fear?

Oh dear its spreading.... Red Bull managements "entitlement complex" has now spread to Newey as well.

They dont want to supply you with engines Adrian because you treated your last engine supplier like sh*t.