Red Bull, Circuit de Catalunya, 2015

Renault may quit if engine rules don’t change – Horner

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Red Bull, Circuit de Catalunya, 2015In the round-up: Red Bull team principal Christian Horner says Mercedes should rethink their opposition to change of F1’s engine rules as his power unit supplier Renault may quit if they stay unchanged.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Engine rules could force Renault out - Horner (Reuters)

"If you are effectively shutting that down (the engine development) in February, you are almost waving goodbye to them (Renault). So (Mercedes) need to have a bit of a grown-up think about it."

F1 rulebook needs to be simplified, says Ferrari's Sergio Marchionne (Sky)

"Unusually, Marchionne even suggested that Ferrari themselves – who dominated the sport with Michael Schumacher in the early 2000s – were as culpable as other all-conquering outfits of recent years in trying to sustain their advantage through the rulebook."

Ferrari Canada meeting claims denied (Autosport)

"We have not given any mandate to Mercedes. What we did do at last month's Strategy Group meeting is say that fundamentally we're not in favour of customer cars."

Button: Podium finish is beyond McLaren (The Telegraph)

"It is one team, not Honda and McLaren, McLaren chose to work with Honda and that is the way it is. We won’t get a podium this year but we have to do the work, or you don’t deserve a podium."

Jenson Button slams reports he is set to be axed as McLaren frustration boils over (The Mirror)

"I don’t know. I have not even thought about. And the team have not even thought about it either."

Formula 1 searches for its identity & future (The Way it Is)

"Without doubt the best F1 cars are beautifully built and presented and they are impressive to watch, but equally without doubt there are too few of them. As you walk down the grid the field gets very thin very quickly and if it's to continue to live up to its name of Grand Prix racing F1 must find a way to build and develop more quality teams and cars. "

Canada masked Ferrari's positive engine gains - Maurizio Arrivabene (ESPN)

"Unfortunately this weekend was not a good one for a number of circumstances. The response we had from the engine was good."

Wolff plays down call to manage Rosberg attack (Crash)

"It is always a balance. There is a fine line between not interfering in the racing, letting them fight it out, and trying to make sure the car survives."

Analysis: The hidden battle that helped Mercedes win (Motorsport)

"In one fascinating radio snippet we heard him ask 'How's the other car on fuel?. Can't comment, can't comment.' Was the repetition of that specific phrase code for better, or worse, than you?"


Comment of the day

Pastor Maldonado, Lotus, Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, 2015More Canadian Grand Prix stats from Julien:

Perez has scored yet another 11th place. He now has 16 finishes in 11th place. He has to score one more to equal the record of most finishes just outside of the points. Johnny Herbert currently holds the record with 17 seventh places. At that time only the first six drivers got points.

With his six points scored in Canada. Pastor Maldonado has scored more points in this race alone than he scored together in the last 46 races. Finally Maldonado’s total points scored in his F1 career is more than double the amount he scored with his sole win in Spain 2012. Before Canada he had scored 49 points, 25 of those points came from his victory. Now he has 55 points.
Julien (@Jlracing)

From the forum

Happy birthday!

No F1 Fanatic birthdays today

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Sebastian Vettel won the Canadian Grand Prix for Red Bull two years ago today.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 92 comments on “Renault may quit if engine rules don’t change – Horner”

    1. Another day another threat to quit.

      1. And from the very people who insisted on the Turbo-Hybrid formula, careful what you wish for.

        1. Especially when they performed so well under the old regulations.

          1. – by cheating

            1. thepostalserviceisbroke (@thepostalserviceisbroke)
              9th June 2015, 2:10

              and throwing tantrums when others did better momentarily

            2. I love how everyone assumes Merc aren’t cheating. I’m not saying they are, but this is F1 and you’d be a fool to not leave the possibility open.

            3. @dam00r @thepostalserviceisbroke
              RBR-Renault didn’t win 4 drivers & constructors titles through cheating, they won through having the best combination of driver and car, which is how it always worked in this sport.

      2. Was aero development highly restricted while red bull were winning?

      3. Red Bull Gives You Whinge!

      4. If I don’t get my way I’m going to leave F1, sue F1, whine excessively and continually…..Seems like only the team that’s winning at the time is happy and all others are stomping their collective feet about something. F1 is clearly broken and needs to be blown up and started from scratch. Unfortunately Bernie holds the teams by their private parts and that kind of change can not take place.

        1. @velocityboy It’s annoying how many of you completely miss the point they are making. The fact is they made a teribble engine, like Mercedes had terrible aero in 2012. The big difference is Mercedes could just update their aero at every single race. Renault can’t even touch their engine bar some precious tokens. There simply is no way of catching Mercedes their engine because nobody can develop theirs. Why do you think Honda is hopeless this year and will be for the rest of the year.

          1. @PorsheF1, the annoying part is that you have a myopic view of the discussion. It’s not just about engines as the engines are not the only issues teams are grumbling about. Tires, free strategies, distribution of money, cost to host a race, European races being eliminated….F1 has a number of woes, whether real or imagined and it seems like nothing short of a major overhaul of the sport will put the sport on the right footing.
            Perhaps you should fully read and understand a post before you reply to it

            1. @velocityboy But as soon as RB opens their mouth about engines people say they’d be fine with them quitting. Everyone realises the other issues and everyone talks about them but it is only when RB talk about engines we get this very aggressive behaviour from fans towards the team. That is my point, so perhaps you should follow your own advice eh…

      5. Agreed, Red Bull have a parrott in the press office methinks.

      6. Oh for God’s sake, just quit already. We’re over it..go away.

      7. knoxploration
        11th June 2015, 17:13

        And frankly, I hope they follow through on their threats. It’s high time the powers that be realized that a regulated and homologated advantage for one specific manufacturer is neither fair nor sporting, and that either the engines should be brought to parity or simply replaced with a spec power unit, or that rivals *must* be allowed to do everything within their power to catch up.

        When engine homologation was introduced, the engines were brought to approximate parity first. The engine homologation rules were never intended to protect a catastrophic advantage for one specific manufacturer, but that is precisely what they are doing now by limiting development and testing.

    2. I was so excited about the prospect of watching the highlights from Montreal last night that I forgot all about it, I wonder how long it will be before I forget that a live-coverage broadcast is happening.

      1. Out of sight, out of mind.

      2. That’s a bad sign. When the enthusiast lose interests for real….not good.

        1. knoxploration
          11th June 2015, 17:19

          And this situation has been “not good” for a long time now.

          Speaking personally, I watched pretty much every single race since 1991, every qualifying since 1991, and for the last decade or so, every practice that was available to me as well, not to mention attending numerous races as both regular and paddock club access.

          Last year, I watched the first handful of races until it was clear that what I expected before the season started was going to happen — that Mercedes gigantic advantage would be protected by the rules and that there was no chance of a rival catching up. This year, again, I watched about the first three races until it was clear that the rules simply don’t allow any rival to catch up, and again I’ve stopped watching completely.

          Now, I glance at the F1 news briefly now and then online, and that’s the sum total of my involvement in a sport that I’d watched for close to a quarter-century, and for which I had personally proselytized amongst my friends and colleagues. When a friend talks to me about F1, I tell them it’s a pathetic husk of its former self, and simply not worth watching any more.

          It’s sad, but it’s true. Eventually the penny will drop and Mercedes advantage will be corrected either by removing homologation and testing bans, or by requiring all power units to be brought to parity or replaced with a spec engine. Any of those options is better than what we have now: A situation where one manufacturer has a vast, yawning advantage in the engine department, and its rivals aren’t allowed to properly develop their engines, nor really test their new ideas at all.

    3. I’m so tired of red bull wining and crying. Just leave. You are an energy drink. Go away. What a spoiles brat red bull and Renault are, I’d every one quitted after a few bad years there would be no one left. Shut up and race.

      1. The saddest thing is that when they were dominating, they always said ‘we aren’t taking it for granted’, and ‘we never know if it will last’. They were so humble and respectful, and now they’re proving themselves as liars.

        1. Wait, what? They were just as whiny then as now…

          “Totally unfair they’re coming down on our flexi-wing”. “Our pitbox is too close to the end”. “Those tires favor the other cars”

          …And I remember there being many more ridiculous outburts, just not the details.

      2. renault, you say? i haven’t read a word of complain from Renault. It’s redbull complaining all the time!

        1. ColdFly F1 (@)
          9th June 2015, 9:57


      3. Funny thing is, we haven’t hear Renault whining at all.

        1. Has it ever occurred to you that due to lengthy contracts between Renault and RB that RB might be the partner that is the loudspeaker? Unless you’ve know otherwise, I’d say it’s a higher probability that Renault is just fine with RB’s vocal position than the opposite.

      4. I feel that many F1 fans feel bad about McLaren struggling to score points or even finish races, not long ago it was Williams but with Red Bull people are just getting annoyed with their whining and they’re not getting much love… seems to me, for many folks, despite their impressive record, Red Bull is just a drinks company and will not be missed if they quit. Tough luck.

        1. @jcost
          If you suggested to Frank Williams that they quit F1 he’d laugh you out of the room, even at their worst Williams were focused on getting back to the front of the grid and while I’m sure they were lobying the FIA/FOM quite a lot in private, they rarely made any public complaints or threats.
          I’ve just googled “Williams threat to quit F1”, I got 10 pages of results about Red Bull threatening to quit, then got bored of looking.

          Even McLaren (who are far from being my favourite team) aren’t crying to the media about it being unfair, they and Honda are just getting on with the job of trying to improve as best they can.

          Red Bull are just bad losers, although to be honest, they were often bad winners too. The team has a serious problem in the PR department which has turned many fans against them. Quite surprising really when you consider that their owner is an expert in marketting and PR.

          1. @beneboy I guess we can tell a racer from a drinks company…

          2. Frank Williams is kind of stuck with his F1 commitment. He doesn’t have a Thai glucose & caffeine energy drink to sell.

            And Honda? Well, they have to sell cars.

            As for RB, they can sell their poison on surfboards, base jump parachutes, Hollywood autox, skateboards, or any other venue with an audience. F1 is only incidental to the marketing strategy.

      5. Yeah, Red Bull, that company that Funds 2 F1 teams, has brought more super stars into the sport than any team in recent history, and also rehabilitated one of the great F1 tracks and offering one of the lowest ticket prices on the calendar. Man those guys arent racers for sure.

        How many race tracks do you own? Didnt see merc stepping in to save the German GP, sure they ‘talked’ but talk is cheap.

    4. Suppose they do quit, it could genuinely be a problem. Supposing there are 11 teams, and Honda continues to only supply McLaren (or even one other team), that would leave 10 (or 9) other constructors to 2 engine manufacturers. What then?

      They didn’t think this through. When I heard about these new engine regulations, my first thoughts were ‘what if a new engine manufacturer wants to join?’. There is no scope for development. It’s not even as though Cosworth can come back, as they will be like Honda only with no development.

      F1 has messed up big time, with a problem which was easily forseen.

      1. Oh no sorry, Bernie’s solution is to get rid of a few teams.

      2. There is no scope for development.

        @strontium – that is not only true for new ones but also for Honda, Ferrari and Renault. if you had it wrong in 2014 you will continue to struggle untill a new series of engine rules mess up the order again. There is no single way the engines are catching up to mercedes. That is why Red Bull is very well justified with coming out like this.

        Renault and Red Bull want to force open development for engines and even then them catching up isn’t at all a certainty.

      3. Agreed. I actually think it’s a reasonable demand to allow more scope for development. If the threat ends up being genuine, the rules will have to be relaxed. F1 can’t afford to lose Renault or Red Bull.

    5. I have three thoughts from today’s round-up.

      I feel Renault deserve more respect than they currently receive in F1. The most vocal complaints are always against them and usually it’s from the team they won 8 straight titles with. A Renault engine has won the title 5 times to Mercedes 3 and Ferrari’s 1 in the last 10 championships. They positively endorsed a change away from the V8 era, a span of 8 seasons where they won races in every season but one, and do not complain in any way about the treatment from Red Bull. What’s more there is also talk of Renault rebuying Team Enstone and starting fresh. With Michelin, surely, entering the sport within the decade, that may not be a terrible idea.

      Secondly, I believe Button waste of a McLaren seat at the minute. Not because he is incapable, he is clearly driving the MP4-30 to its limit but he can not realistically expect to be at his prime by the time this project becomes good. It’s not doing his career much good and he will probably be out at the end of next season. If he foresees that to be fighting for wins, he will stay but if it’s a midfield battle again then perhaps jumping ship to WEC might be a smarter move. McLaren have two hungry drivers waiting in the wings and would be better long-term options so I can well believe talk of his retirement.

      Lastly, the team radio ban is another classic F1 mess. Yes it was brought in with good intentions, but in the last two races we have seen blatant attempts from the champions to circumvent them. It’s the old team orders rule again and it leaves officials looking ham-fisted. From what I’ve seen on tack the ban is changing nothing from the racing side so I can see rules in this area being amended.

      1. If they really want to enforce the radio ban, drivers should be penalised for asking the question. Surely they know by now what their engineers can’t answer?

      2. I think you are being a bit hard on Jenson, until this car is a winner they need brains and experience much more than they need lightning reflexes and bravado, not that I think Jenson lacks the latter qualities anyway. Even A. Senna felt he would be more successful in a Williams than he could be in a McL.

        1. @hohum That’s a nice idea but Button is basically not worth anything on engine development. No drivers are, they can just say what computers already show; ‘yes we have more horsepower’ or ‘yes we are faster now’. So you’re talking about feeling with the car, put a rookie in it and he might even have a better approach because he does not know a perfect handling Mclaren like Button had in 2012, or an easy Brawn to compare this horrible Honda with…

          Development drivers are just people who drive simulations; drivers their influence on the car in these days of electrics is very small…

          1. @xtwl, There is no longer a mechanical connection between the right foot and the power output, on top of that there are 2 sources of power that have to be combined in a manner that will provide the driver optimum control of the power delivery, this I think is an area where feedback from Jenson could be invaluable.

        2. @hohum. I guess it’s all down to perspective on the great unanswerable question: Stick with what you know or risk on potential. As I say, I don’t think anyone questions JB’s ability, so it would simply be a matter of replacing him with a driver who can fight for the championship in 2017. I think if McLaren are serious about getting back to the top then at least one of the seats for 2016 should be Magnusson or Vandoorne. A year’s preparation beside Fernando and the potential to lead the team from 2018 onwards is a better option than Button imo. I simply can’t see Hamilton returning to McLaren without proven results and the only other option worth looking at is Bottas, who appears to be better linked to Mercedes. The classic ‘not enough seats’ argument then comes up and if I were a driver whose chance at the championship had gone, I would be considering WEC seriously.

      3. Totally agree with the Renault point: Got almost none of the glamour when it was them coming up with a lot of the innovations that helped RB win their championships. Gets all of the blame when clearly both car and engine has trouble.

        Like @HoHum, I’m not sure that I agree that McLaren would be better off without Button (and I’m even a Dane. I want Kevin back!), but I do agree that Button don’t have the time to sit around waiting for McLaren to get its act together. WEC can still bring him years of victories, but it requires a top team, something he wont get if he spends the last years of his F1 career in a slow McLaren.

        I’m not sure about the radio ban. Rosberg has surely felt its sting, almost every race we hear him getting a “nope, can’t tell you that”.

        1. Hamilton said it in an interview, which i cant quote when and where…

          Rosberg would always get Hamilton’s best config data on set up and lines, and would ask for it to apply it to his during practice sessions, then he would try the setup on his car and use the lines to see advantages and disadvantages, and then wouldnt do best lap when he found it, until the qualis… He wouldnt share his strategy or lines, despite getting all the good from his teammate… And you would hear him almost every race weekend asking team about Ham’s status/statistics…

          Hamilton when he was explaining it, was pretty mad about it… You dont hear Hamilton asking on the radio about Rosberg’s car as much as Rosberg asks, if at all…

          1. I would like a quote on that and even then won’t believe all of it. I accept that Rosberg will use Hamilton data to better his setup but I refuse to believe that he can choose to not share his own data. That information belongs to the team not him and the team decides whether to share it or not. If Hamilton refuses to look at it, that’s his problem.

    6. “Unfortunately, what we did was to build a castle of complex rules in order to defend positions of domination, and even Ferrari is guilty of that.”

      I’ve been talking about this subject for a week now. This subject is where in sporting terms, the teams are hurting F1. I love the current powertrain, but the championship is meant to be discussed on an yearly basis, and the current rules for next year yet again enhance the position of dominance. Renault wanted these engines, it’s true that Renault were not aware that Merc used their influence to get what they wanted but still Renault is an advocate of the hybrid name tag. I hope the rules will allow again for engine development, not as in the loophole that made the 2015 in season development possible. The best scenario would be to achieve the same performance gaps of previous engine freeze era.

      1. I don’t believe in an engine freeze ever, I believe the only regulations for the car should be min/max limits, how the designers achieve performance within those simple parameters should be open. I could go on and list the parameters like 1600cc ICE, 100kg fuel, max width 2m. etc etc. but you no doubt all have an understanding of what’s needed in regulation.

        1. @hohum

          Opening up the rules on the engine side will only play into Mercs hand. Do you remember in the beginning of the season when Ferrari ask for the twin turbo, and Renault and Honda said that Merc will most probably just dominate that as well.

          The spread of where all the engines on the leader board are is quite good.
          1) Merc, 2) Ferrari, 3) Merc, 4) Renault, 5) Merc
          6) Ferrari, 7) Merc, 8) Renault, 9) Honda, 10) Ferrari
          Merc : 1, 3, 5 and 7th
          Ferrari: 2, 6 and 10
          Renault: 4 and 8th

          If Merc is aloud to do as they please they will dominate even more. The problem in F1 today is not engine else we would have had Merc,Williams, Lotus and Force India as 1,2,3 and 4 on the championship leader board, but that’s not the case. At the moment Merc engines are placed 1 ,3, 5 and 7th in the construction championship. They are spread quite equally across the championship leader board. There are two reasons for it on is finances and the one in the case of Williams using some of there on parts (gearbox witch mean they must all so use a different set of engine mappings to Merc) .

          The problem is not the engines but the fact that Merc has build a complete car throw factors of being a manufacturer witch the independent do not have .

          1. @koosoos, You are right and wrong, there is no denying that the Renault and Honda engines are just not competitive at the moment, but Ferrari are sufficiently competitive to equal the MBPU supplied teams, so either we allow Renault and Honda to continue development, without at the same time preventing MB and SF from developing, either throughout the season or between seasons, until they become competitive or dropout. I can see no point in F1 without technical advancement, if identical engine performance is what is wanted they may as well all use the same engine, and without any technical development taking place they might as well just opt for a twin turbo, 6L, alloy, chevrolet V8 smallblock, 1,000 very cheap and reliable horsepower.

          2. Agreed. If Mercedes only supplied engines and did not field a team, we would not even be having this discussion about whether the so-called freeze is unfair.

        2. @hohum
          I’d be quite happy to see the engine rules changed in the way you describe, as long as they add another rule that requires the manufacturers to supply engines/PU to the other teams at a fixed (and affordable) price per season.
          If the manufacturers want to spend huge amounts of money developing engines/PU then we should let them, just as long as they’re willing to absorb that cost themselves.

          1. @beneboy, totally agree and have said so in the past, manufacturers should be able to maintain a small advantage by being ahead on development but the smaller teams should be able to buy the best engine available at a price = to manufacturing cost + 20% or thereabouts with an FIA imposed cap, development and design costs to be borne by the company whose name is on the engine and team, eg. McLaren Mercedes, Remember back when McLaren were winning races, Mercedes were quick to point out that even if Mercedes cars hadn’t won Mercedes engines had. Of course PU regulations would need stability for this to work.

      2. I agree with Marchionne. The rules committee must be made up of people with no association to the teams, otherwise you will always have teams looking to improve or consolidate their position without regard for the overall well being of the sport.

    7. Simon (@weeniebeenie)
      9th June 2015, 6:33

      I really miss the days when engines weren’t a major talking point because they were all give or take pretty equal.

      Of course we don’t want a spec series but I think most people will be happy when we at least get back to rough engine parity and it’s no longer an issue.

      1. Funny, I hate that idea for engines but it’s my greatest wish for tyres to be the same for everyone and not even a minor talking point.

        1. @hohum I thought Pirelli supplied the same tires to all the teams on the grid? What am I missing here?

          1. @evered7, yes it’s true they do supply the same tyres to all teams, but they supply different tyres at different tracks, and those tyres work differently on different cars and at different temperatures so there are too many variables for the engineers to design a car that always gets the best out of the tyres supplied.

            1. And then as well the team have to use both tyres which doubles the difficulty.

      2. Personally I think the problem is more people complaining about that inequality than things being different for different engines as such.

        I had a good time watching the last race on the BBC. It spared me the endless whine about tyres, engines, fuel limits, and what ever else is holding F1 back that the Sky guys keep repeating during the race. DC and Edwards mostly focussed on commenting what we did get on track, and paired with a decent amount of in car footage, it was enjoyable to see drivers battling on track (a lot of Massa, Vettel, some bits Alonso, Ericsson, Grosjean, Maldonado, Kimi, Kvyat, Verstappen) from that perspective.

        1. Interesting to read Brundles column about that. Seems he realizes that a large part of not enjoying it is with actually knowing about all the issues to “save” because of more access and information. And then talking it down – i.e. a lot is from perception.

          Instead F1 should look how to better use all the great stories in the sport. Make an in depth feature about McLarens struggles. Make one about Nasr explaining how he came to open DRS to crash. Give us a nice feature piece about the hundreds of engineers analysing data and how they are involved.
          Oh, my, there are just soo incredibly many angles a full time TV channel could look at – just look at the success of things like all the discovery channel features on boats, cars, planes, strategic mishaps, battles etc. We are really missing the story.
          And during the race, instead of enjoying that we know what is going on, we complain about it. As Brundle mentions, in the 1990s they were managing far more issues, just look at reliability.
          On the one hand we might be happy for more of that now (reliability issues make for surprises) but when a team gets it wrong instead of being applauded for finding the limits, they get bashed or laughed at for not getting it right.

          1. Completely agree with that @bosyber; I think that “The hidden battle that helped Mercedes win – by Adam Cooper is a good way to show what the extra info could be used for. So why did it remain ‘hidden’ during the broadcast?!

            1. Sigh, @bascb, no thanks autocorrect :)

      3. I really miss the days when engines weren’t a major talking point because they were all give or take pretty equal.

        What’s funny is that back in the early 2000s the BMW engine was widely considered head and shoulders above the rest in terms of power, yet Williams never benefited from such an advantage. The same goes for the Honda (BAR) engine from 2005-06.
        The key to a winning car back then was good mechanical and aerodynamic grip, and less influence and reliance on engine power.
        If the rules and regulations are less restrictive and can allow greater design innovation from the constructors, they will surely be less inclined to moan about engines letting them down and concentrate on the inefficiencies of their designs.

        1. The key to a winning car back then was good mechanical and aerodynamic grip, and less influence and reliance on engine power.

          Its not much different now though, @pukktpie.
          Thing is Mercedes made a car that was very well thought out, its aerodynamics are the best of all the teams, AND they make best use of their own engine. For example last year Williams were not great aero wise (apart from efficiency, i.e. low drag) while Red Bull were pretty decent on aero, but the engine was a weak spot.
          This year RBR have worsened in both aspects, while Williams has more or less stayed where it was while Ferrari has catched up on both car and engine, but not quite enough to be even with Mercedes.

          Off course next year everyone will make steps once again, and they should be able to get closer to Mercedes, or even ahead if they get it right, or if Honda gets it rigth. And then Mercedes will probably have to go look for new ideas to get back on top.

          Ok, that got me sidettracked a bit. But to get back to the point, the only difference is that Mercedes nailed both engine and chassis. Compare to Ferrari having a good engine, great chassis and tyre advantage. Or Red Bull having great chassis, engine with mileage advantage and a nice trick box to use to boost DF. You can win some if you get one part right, to win championships you need more things to get together. And to win several years, you need all of that, but also keep it going.

          But if the rules are less restrictive, be prepared for teams to whine just as much. Because they WILL complain when someone else comes up with a new idea they don’t have (because it will cost them time and money to catch up).

        2. What’s funny is that back in the early 2000s the BMW engine was widely considered head and shoulders above the rest in terms of power, yet Williams never benefited from such an advantage.

          Well it’s weird to say that they didn’t benefit while they managed to win a couple of races with Ferrari having such a superior car. The reliability though was a nightmare, the engines would break almost every 2 races, especially Montoya’s.

      4. Jack Birchley
        9th June 2015, 9:34

        What was wrong with the old F1 you took a big V8 or V12 or H16 and bolted into a chassis, you raced flat out often on the same tyres right through the race and a true spectator sport was enjoyed by all.
        This sanitised, save fuel, save tyres, pit stop F1 is boring. I have been a lifelong F1 fanatic but now I cannot be bothered to rush back home to watch it Its boring its not racing its more a strategy sport. I would rather watch Rally cross which is old style flat out no holds barred racing.

        1. What was wrong with the old F1 you took a big V8 or V12 or H16 and bolted into a chassis, you raced flat out often on the same tyres right through the race and a true spectator sport was enjoyed by all.

          Pray when was that time everyone was happy?

          The V12s were too heavy and gas slurping, that was one of the reasons Ferrari pushed for refuelling (it lessened their weight disadvantage a bit). H16 never were competitive at all and the V8 were homologated and never really loved as far as I remember (they were down tuned V10 anyway).

          Complaints about everything has been part of F1 for more or less as long as I remember. Just think back about the arguments over active drive, over traction control, automatic gearboxes, over tyre advantages (bridge stone bringing Ferrari optimized tyres for everyone), or earlier over Turbo boost, over ground effect use and many many more things.

      5. I’m not sure which days those were, @weeniebeenie

        During the Vettel dominated years, everyone was talking about the Renault engine and it’s great drivability. How Mercedes and Ferrari might have more power, but not enough to do much about Red Bull. In 2009, everyone was talking about how great the Mercedes engine in the Brawn was. In the early V8 era, there was a lot of talk about Renault getting it right, with the same as above being said about Ferrari and Mercedes. The final part of the V10 era was very heavy on the unreliable Mercedes engines, with Ferrari having the best engine, but everyone talked about Honda and BMW having ‘over 900 horsepower’. In the 90s there were a lot of teams changing engine suppliers a lot, so it wasn’t exactly quiet on that front then either.

        I’d agree talk of F1 engines has intensified over the past 10 years, but to say they weren’t talked about in a similar manner as now, seems to me absurd.

    8. Here is a completely alternative approach – ditch the current engine rules completely and bring in Hydrogen powered cars! I believe that’s the future. With Toyota releasing their new Mirai hydrogen car it may entice them back in the sport…or better yet just open up the engine rules and allow teams to use what ever engines they want, that might be simpler!

      1. @dave124 if you’re talking hydrogen cars, Honda have one too. However, if its only taken 10 years for hybrid cars to make its way onto the grid, we’ll be waiting a while for these units to get on the grid, and thats only if we see Hydrogen cars take off. We already have Liquid Gas, or Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles around the world, but these haven’t necessarily taken the world by storm just yet.

        1. Yes and don’t forget Mercedes and BMW have been into Hydrogen decades ago without pursuing it further.

    9. Make pitstops slower – only 4 people work on the car at one time, one jack, only gravity fed fuelling two man job (safer too)They can refuel and change tyres but teams won’t b keen to waste so much time? Have all tyre options open at every race and teams choose tyres they want for race after quali. Unlimited wet tyres.

      No drs, less aero on cars free up engine regs.

      Also I actually agree with Mad max and have more open regs for teams with budget cap – a bit like moto gp and the treatment ducati get etc.

      1. Making pit stops slower will only make the teams inclined to stop less, thus making them try to save the tyres even more. For me, one of the most impressive aspects about an F1 pit stop, is seeing all of these mechanics working within a few seconds to get the tyres changed.

        1. But is that really racing ?

      2. Also, on that point about MotoGP, I have lost all respect for that series now. That rule is incredibly forged and artificial, and unfair. I think F1 would not be doing itself any favours whatsoever by doing something like that.

        1. @strontium
          MotoGP didn’t have much choice, the series was on the verge of collapsing a few years ago so Dorna and the teams made the decision that it was better to have a less than perfect set of rules that would allow the series to survive, rather than sticking to tradition and watching the series collapse.
          The changes may have resulted in a situation that the purists don’t like but given the alternatives it’s difficult to criticise them for chosing the option that guaranteed the series survival and allowed more manufacturers to compete until the financial side of the sport improves enough for them to return to a single set of rules for everyone.
          If the FIA and F1 teams were able to follow their example and make decisions that were good for everyone, not just the big teams, F1 would be in a much better state than it’s in today.

    10. Christian Horner:

      “If you are effectively shutting that down (the engine development) in February, you are almost waving goodbye to them (Renault). So (Mercedes) need to have a bit of a grown-up think about it.”

      Mercedes need to have a bit of a grown-up think about it?!! Really?!

      Pot. Kettle. Black.

      Red Bull’s childishness has been laid bare for everyone to see – since the start of this season especially – and Horner has the audacity to come out and say that…

      Here’s a quote from Eric Boullier in 2011 (the then Lotus Renault managing director don’t forget):

      “The tendency of the road car market, especially for Renault, is to go to smaller engines with more hybrid technology to make fuel savings. F1 has to move forward. We need new regulations and new technical challenges for our engineers.”


      This is my favourite line from the same article, the opening sentence:

      “Renault is threatening to pull out of Formula 1 if the much-discussed new 1.6-litre, four-cylinder turbo engine formula for 2013 is not soon confirmed by the FIA.”

      Someone really needs to remind Horner of this and tell him to grow up.

      1. @bad_whippet :

        “Renault is threatening to pull out of Formula 1 if the much-discussed new 1.6-litre, four-cylinder turbo engine formula for 2013 is not soon confirmed by the FIA.”

        You have spotted it. Renault wanted a four cylinder engine, not a six cylinder. They could never get FIA to implement that. However one team succeded, they wanted a V6, or else they would quit, guess which team?? … It was Mercedes

        1. No it wasn’t. I am sick of you uniformed bystanders. The V6 came to be because Ferrari wanted bigger engine and was strictly against a four cylinder. So the V6 was a compromise to keep both Renault and Ferrari in the table. Mercedes has nothing to do with it.

    11. Why can’t they just limit the amount of horsepower that engines can spit out? There would still be some engines better than others (perhaps depending on track) while keeping the difference limited to a marging that allows for competition.
      The RB domination days didn’t make me switch off because at any race it was possible for a team to bring aero updates that can beat Red Bull. With the current engine freeze and state of affairs we know already that no team will turn up better than Merc. It’s like we established the order in Australia 2014 and that’s when the competition ended.

      1. Except that wasn’t really true @earmitage, last few years starting with the wrong, or just not quite fast enough, concept meant waiting for next year to really try again. Only lots of money allowed some good progress in season.
        Mercedes have a good complete concept now, as Red Bull before, that’s why the are hard to overtake, see Ferrari who are now about equal on the engine.

        1. Well you could bring revised wings at every GP if you so wished in the RB era. Teams not catching up was because RB had a big budget and kept improving as well.
          Now you are simply not allowed to bring updates that account for the biggest discrepancy without going behind on tokens in hand. If the max power you can use is capped at say, what Honda are outputting, Merc would probably still have an advantage engine wise but not the current 1s – 2s per lap. You would have at least 4 teams competing for podiums every race.

          1. Engineers have said time and time again that this engines can be majorly changed with the current rules. Before 2014 even began a Renault engineer actually said that even during the complete freeze with V8 their engine was 90% changed.
            So all this “they can’t do anything” is drivel really.

    12. Go on then Horner…dare ya!

    13. I suspect McLaren were able to make a fairly large contribution to Jenson’s retirement fund. That’s the only reason I can think for why he didn’t tell Ron where to stick his dithering at the end of last year.

      All the top teams have had bad years, but McLaren’s woes this year are spectacular and sponsors must be getting antsy. It might be that they just can’t afford Jenson on top of the huge sum no doubt budgeted for Alonso. But bringing in a rookie driver isn’t going to help their development program at all, and that’s where they’re really hurting.

    14. What a rag the Daily Mirror is! (Jenson Button slams reports he is set to be axed as McLaren frustration boils over (The Mirror)..”Slams, rants, rage, fury” and that’s in the first paragraph!

      PS Well done @keithcollantine for the Twitter caption…

    15. The nightmare scenario for McLaren Honda must be the spectre of Haas F1, new to the sport in 2016 and already quicker than McLaren out of the box…

      1. Given the source of their PU and their access to Ferrari’s aero notes, I think this is highly likely.

        1. @baron, @dmw – With proper aero they could just be the 4th best team, looking forward to it.

    16. It’s amazing to me that people complaining about the engine “freeze” do not consider whether Mercedes would be even further ahead without said freeze. Furthermore, the freezing situation is part and parcel of the new formula. I’m certain that Renault would not have pushed for and joined this complex, expensive formula without some general constraint on costs of development. Additionally, given that we have many “control” examples, one cannot conclude the the factory Mercedes team is far ahead because of the state of development of the PU–they are smoking every other Mercedes powered car, many of which lag behind Renault and Ferrari powered cars. Thus, this moaning about how the “freeze” is an advantage to Mercedes per se lacks foundation. It seems based merely on the hope that Mercedes would make a mistep or reach some technological barrier before other engine builders if development is opened up. This is like saying that the poor student would have somehow matched the star student if only everyone had another week to study for the final or if the exam was “open book.”

      1. The point is that the formula is ridiculous with the freeze because with the current regulations engine freeze implies grid order freeze. If the grid order is frozen then what’s the point of staging any sessions at all? Without the freeze you at least have the possibility that slower teams will catch up. In fact history shows that with time teams generally converge to similar engine performance when rules are fairly stable even with no stringent freeze.
        A closer example is running a qualifying session once in two years and forcing everyone to stay in those positions during the next 40 races or else take a 10 second time penalty for each overtake made. Sure it rewards the guys that worked and excelled during that qualifying session and it’s fair because everyone knew the rules before the start but it’s a ridiculous set of rules for a sport.

        1. The so-called freeze does not freeze the grid order, because the engine is not the only factor affecting grid order, not nearly. As I pointed out having a Mercedes PU is not the determining factor in F1 today. Indeed, if Mercedes only supplied PUs and did not field a team, a Mercedes-powered team would not even be at the top of table and we would not even be having this discussion. In any case, in what era of F1 did relative engine development affect the actual grid order over the course of a season? History does not show that teams will significantly converge in lap time over a season when they or their respective engine suppliers have free rein to develop engines. If anything, it is developments in aero (and changing aero rules) that have had the most obvious effects on grid order within a season.

    Comments are closed.