Red Bull ‘prepared to quit F1 after Abu Dhabi’

2015 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Both Red Bull-backed teams could be pulled out of Formula One after the last race of the season according to the company’s motorsport director Helmut Marko.

In an interview with the official Formula One website, Marko said the company owner Dietrich Mateschitz is prepared to pull his teams out if they do not have an engine which allows them to compete for victories.

“The curtain may go down after Abu Dhabi.”
“If we don’t have a competitive engine there is no future in F1 for Red Bull Racing,” said Marko. “The curtain may go down after Abu Dhabi. That is Mr Mateschitz’s opinion.”

“He knows that it costs the same amount of money to race at the front or, like we are now doing, in the ‘premium midfield’ – and he is not willing to do that for another season.”

Red Bull has participated in F1 since 2005 and junior team Toro Rosso arrived one year later. However Red Bull has been strongly critical of the Renault power units both teams use and is seeking an alternative for next year.

With Mercedes unwilling to supply Red Bull with engines and Honda a no more attractive to Red Bull than Renault, Marko said the only options open to the team at present were to use Ferrari engines next year or leave F1. However they insist on being given a fully competitive package which extends beyond equal hardware.

“If it were a few horsepower less we would not be concerned,” he said. “In the end you can check that very easily with the GPS data and other parameters to see what you really get.”

“The truth is that the engine – the hardware – is not the real issue. That is the software and the same fuel.”

Red Bull is known to have signed a commitment to race in F1 until 2020, however other teams have broken such deals in the past when they have decided to leave. If F1 were to lose the four Red Bull and Toro Rosso entries it would be left with a field of just 18 cars in 2016, when new team Haas is due to arrive.

2015 F1 season

Browse all 2015 F1 season articles

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.

200 comments on “Red Bull ‘prepared to quit F1 after Abu Dhabi’”

  1. Where do teams get this idea that they have some god given right to be at the front of the field? Ferrari went more than 20 years without a championship until Schumacher arrived, Williams are coming up on 20 years without a championship. I’d rather see Red Bull go and have Bernie forced to reform the sport than allow them to bully their way to engine parity.

    1. Would you also rather see Ricciardo, Verstappen, Kvyat and Sainz go?

      1. Yes. RB have no right to bully F1.

        1. i think they do have a right to bully given what great publicity they have given f1

        2. “Bully”? wow guys. That’s a fair demand, it’s up to Ferrari to accept it or not. There’s no foul in what they’re asking, they want the best for them.

          It would be cool if Renault showed up in pre-season with a competitive PU… poetic justice :)

      2. I’m confident those drivers could all find a drive, perhaps not for 2016 for pure lack of seats but definitely for 2017. Verstappen and Ricciardo could find a seat even if none is available.

      3. Replacements for Kimi, Jenson, Massa and Maldonado.

        1. Massa, Kimi and Maldonado already have seats for 2016

          1. OmarRoncal - Go Seb!!! - @omarr-pepper (@)
            23rd September 2015, 13:12

            Would you let Ricciardo go even if Maldo has 2 contracts? I wouldn’t. Same applies for the other 3 guys. I would find them a place in Manor if necessary, as I’m sure they would easily attract better aponsors than having Merhi and Stevens

          2. @omarr-pepper Yes, but if you think about it, breaking an existing contract for a good driver who doesn’t bring money doesn’t work from a financial stand-point, especially for a team like Manor, Lotus or Sauber, who are basically balancing on the precipice of the abyss anyway.

      4. I care more about Formula 1 than any driver. It’s no excuse to cave in to the demands of Red Bull who are threatening people left and right. I wish they would go away now. Ferrari should not cave in to their bullying and threats.

        1. Honestly, what kind of threat is it to leave? Just as Ferrari and Mercedes obviously have the right not to sell their engine to RBR, so too RBR has the right to withdraw from F1. Do you have a god given right that RBR must stay in F1 no matter what?

          Renault also might leave! To leave F1 like not to sell an engine to anyone is completely legitimate.

          1. “Do you have a god given right that RBR must stay in F1 no matter what?”

            Nooo. I never claimed such things. They can do whatever they want. But they cannot threaten others.
            Have you heard of emotional abuse? This is media abuse. They are trying to pressurize Ferrari into making the deal they want.

            I have never heard of Renault saying “gimme chassis, gimme, or i leave”.

          2. @ oya,

            Look at this forum, how does it help them to say this publicly? 99,9% are against RBR. So, not one bit!

            I say it is completely legitimate to say (of course only if this isn’t a lie): We leave if our conditions aren’t met. The same counts for Ferrari, they can make their demands as they see fit. It is not Ferrari’s fault if RBR leaves if they are not willing to supply the engine RBR wants. And nobody here would blame Ferrari obviously.

            Also, Ferrari threatened to leave F1 in past multiple times already as well… So?

          3. Oh don’t worry. Listen to press during weekend on Sky/BBC, they will be saying Ferrari should give them the engine, what else? It obviously doesn’t matter what we think. Do Red Bull give you the impression they have any idea how to handle PR?

            I’m saying Ferrari shouldn’t give them whatever they demand. They don’t have to. They shouldn’t. It’s quite obvious to me. Problem is do Ferrari management have the backbone to say that? Or are they gonna get cornered and bullied??

          4. Red Bull Racing is under contract until 2020– it’s part of why they’ve been getting a much larger share of the pot than they deserve, frankly, and part of why the smaller teams have been struggling.

            Given the terms of their agreement, I would expect FOM and the rest of the teams to descend on RBR like a plague of legal locusts if RBR drops.

            So, sure… RBR can drop from F1, and take their toys and go home. They should however, be concerned about the potential consequences.

          5. @ oya

            Ok I will.

            Regarding the engines. I think it should be obvious that any customer (if he can pay for it, and RBR can) should get the same engine and I mean the total package (including SW and Fuel/Fuel Info) else what is the point of being a customer team anyway? All teams are chassis constructors but not all are engine manufacturers, in fact most aren’t. It doesn’t make sense if an engine manufacturer only gives B spec engine packages to customers who are too good, because then you clearly have a two tier field per definition.

            I also don’t think Ferrari should give them “whatever, but asking for the same engine as Ferrari are using it is in my view completely normal. Else do you think Mercedes should stop supplying Williams with engines or only give them detuned engines if they happen to beat them for the championship? This is the implication in your argument.

            In in my view the FIA needs to establish the rule that an engine supplier at least needs to offer the same engine package to its customers which itself is using. Currently there are only 8 cars on the track really competing for the championship, the rest are there only for cosmetic reasons. The problem is not just there for RBR but all customer teams. And it spoils the sport when you know that most cars are declined even a theoretical chance from the get go.

          6. @ grat

            I don’t know the contract between RBR and the FIA but I guess any termination fee will be a lot cheaper than keeping up the F1 engagement. And as far as I heard RBR would not be the first team to leave before the contract was over.

        2. Yeah man, good riddance to RBR. They are entertaining, but I despise their “I’m taking my ball and going home” mentality one+ years after winning four years in a row. They pulled an Alonso (a la 2014 drive) now, by saying they’re leaving without knowing where to go. They hoped F1 would lean on Merc or Ferrari, but it doesn’t seem to be working out.

          They are aero geniuses, and tactical business idiots.

      5. Like no team will give them position. they won’t go. Others will go to make room for them.

    2. Indeed. Let them leave. Even if that means that their own policy of down-talking their engine supplier and the fact that they were woefully unprepared now for 2 seasons in a row has clearly backfired on them. The more Marko speaks the more people will start disliking Red Bull for it. They have their contracts in place, are part of the Strategy group which entitles them to lots of money for no reason than being just there. Let them leave, both Torro Rosso and Red Bull are great teams to buy as an investor so Marko’s words are hollow.

      The only reason why he is saying this, together with Honda and Ferrari lobbying for more relaxed engine development regulations, with Bernie now saying the same, is that we will see a more relaxed regulation towards engine development. Green light Audi at that stage because they are waiting for that to happen. Also, I remember Bernie saying he would quit F1 if Audi entered the sport, so keep an eye out.

      1. Also, I remember Bernie saying he would quit F1 if Audi entered the sport, so keep an eye out.

        No, that was an off-the-cuff remark when asked for a response to the claim that Piech didn’t like Bernie.

    3. You mean the FIA, they are who takes care of entries.

      Bernie puts it on TV then pays them.

    4. @spawinte – It’s not about having a god given right to be at the front though. It’s having an equal chance to be at the front. If Usain Bolt was told he could only pick between 3 different shoes to run in however one company wouldn’t work with him, one would potentially give him inferior shoes to other runners they supply and the remaining shoes didn’t have spikes or shoe laces, I can imagine that he would be making the same threats.

      If Red Bull design a car that is a second quicker than the rest, is easy on the tyres, handles perfectly etc, they would still end up slower than the Mercedes if they are stuck with an engine that is miles off the pace.

      As things stand, they have 3 options. One is to drive around at the back of the field with McLaren. Another is to use Ferrari engines however as mentioned in the article above, there would be lots to sort out and negotiate and it’s very possible that Ferrari will say no or will offer them inferior equipment. The 3rd is to quit the sport.

      I don’t believe for a second they will quit though. They are just “pulling a Bernie” – making bold statements in the press to put pressure on whoever you are negotiating with. In this case, Ferrari and Bernie himself.

    5. Ferrari actually went 16 years without a championship as they won the constructor’s title in 1983, and then wouldn’t win it again till 1999. Sure the driver’s title drought was 1980 to 1999, but the WCC matters quite a bit to these teams.

      Williams hasn’t had any more titles because their ignorance set them on a path to mediocrity. If they would have given Newey what he wanted instead of thinking he was just another cog in their wheel, they wouldn’t have squandered the BMW engine supply for all those years.

      I think many of the posters here really misunderstand what RBR’s main issue here, and it’s the restrictive engine design, as well as inability for an engine manufacturer to truly catch up in any reasonable amount of time. Were the engines simply to have a maximum fuel flow rate, and all else goes, the opportunity for improvement would at least exist. As it stands now, it doesn’t really exist unless you are willing to spend gobs of money. That’s the predicament Honda and Renault face now. Do you spend hundreds of millions without any assurance you’ll be competitive when all is said and done? It’s a valid question that doesn’t have a good answer.

      This engine formula was always going to be a disaster for this reason.

  2. Bullying isn’t cool, bullying is lame, bullying is ugly and has a stupid name. And it’s name is Red Bull.

    1. Red Bullying :)

      1. I think you just won today’s edition of the internet.

        1. Yup

      2. NJR wins. Hahaha.

      3. Brill – and true!

  3. Thank you for your contribution to F1 and goodbye then. The sport shouldn’t be put to the sword because a team isn’t winning. It’s nobody’s fault but their own.

    They enjoyed great success for 4 years and, truth be told, are still challenging for podiums/victories on selected weekends in this, their “worst” season since 2008.

    Of course, it’s their choice should they wish to leave the sport, but threatening to do so unless they get their way is childish to say the least.

    1. Their way of doing business is apparently threatening others. It was obvious when they couldn’t handle the relationship with their own engine partner.

    2. Red Bull *have* engine parity. Always have.

      They have absolutely every right to build their own as Mercedes and Ferrari have.
      Also to use their judgement to pair up with the right partner (Renault, Audi, Honda?) and
      have the patience and courtesy to work with them. Their treatment of Renault after years of success,
      and Vettels comments about best blowing tech are noted, smacks in petulance, impatience, and a childish
      demand to always win. Red Bull’s judgement of PR is now so poor they’ve blown all the good will their F1 activities
      created anyway.

      Mateschitz is annoyed to be spending and not winning. Boo hoo. So are other teams. You stuck it for
      years till the chance came round and if you haven’t got what it takes to do it again then go sponsor
      boarder dudes in the X-games.

      Red Bull are better at aero than other teams. This seems to be demanding to be lifted up where they are weaker than the competition and remaining stronger where they are strong.

      I don’t hear Ferrari demanding Aero parity and the right to Red Bull’s wings (despite the advertising slogan suggesting red bull gives them away).

      Hamilton was right. Who are they? Just a soft drink company.

      1. That’s a big problem though isn’t it? Ferrari and Mercedes now run the sport because without their support, you aren’t going to get anywhere near the front. Ferrari and Mercedes are engine manufacturers. Williams, Sauber, Force India, McLaren…. These are all teams that could be put in the position Red Bull are in now but because they don’t have a competitive budget, Merc and Ferrari aren’t worried about them and are happy to supply engines.

        1. Agree with that.

          The other teams need a cosworth type helper.
          Friendly, non-competing engine vendor.

          They’re all paying 20M a year ; rb, tr, w, fi, s, l, m, possibly mclaren. Thats 140-160M p.a.

          Big incentive for a cosworth if they can take it to mercedes/ferrari. That was what Max longed for
          for years (to aid the privateers, guess he longed for other things too.) Problem is renault and honda
          have shown it to be difficult.

          Williams have some pretty decent energy recovery / storage tech as side business.

          Bottom line — if merc and ferrari won’t tolerate getting beaten by another team with their own engines,
          the other teams need a different engine supplier if they want to win.

          That is the logic that drove Mclaren/Ron away from Merc to Honda *even* *if* there are a few lean years. It’s Ron’s shot for a dominance period. You need a pet engine maker if you don’t make them yourself.

          Mateszich is slowly waking up to Ron’s clear logic, and finding himself in a mess having burned his
          bridges with Renault and with too much face to lose from saying too much in public.

          If RBR want to win like they did before they need to be with an engine partner who is not
          near the front of the competition. This worked when Renault were in the doldrums and happy to have
          RBR win, but wouldn’t have worked if Renault were challenging.

  4. Just quit already. I’m tired of reading this “give us a great engine or we will quit” nonsense every grand prix week. You win some, you lose some. If you can’t take that don’t bother being in F1.

    1. People (including us fans) should really push FIA for equal software and fuel! Not for RBR, but for F1.

      1. I don’t care for Red Bull. Why would I be pushing Ferrari to give their engines to another team and make them more competitive than themselves? I’d much prefer Ferrari to be ahead of them. And mind you I don’t support Ferrari and haven’t had a problem with Red Bull until today.
        It doesn’t make sense for Ferrari at all. And I would be supporting the Red Bullies if I ever demanded Ferrari to give them engines and software and fuel.
        Why do Ferrari have to carry the weight for a more enjoyable F1 for you and I? We should definitely be supporting Ferrari NOT to give them their engines the way Red Bull demands. So that they don’t get pressurized like this. Though, if they caved in, that would be on their heads and I wouldn’t be supporting them over Red Bull either. That’d be plain stupid or cowardice for Ferrari.

      2. They are bullies. No one should yield to their demands!!!

      3. I mean independent teams actually.

    2. You might be tired of it but in reality – what are they supposed to do?

      Good news guys. We don’t have an engine for next year but we’ll be on the grid in Australia! We’ve cut holes in the bottom of the car so the drivers can propel themselves Flintstones style!!

      1. They themselves are to be blamed for their current situation. Had they worked more effectively with Renault instead of bashing them publicly at every opportunity, things might have been better for them.

        Even earlier in the season, there were reports that RedBull forced Renault to bring updates in PU, without them being tested properly on dyno. How are you supposed to make progress when you dont allow your engine partner to test properly.?

  5. I wonder if this will affect the driver market in some way. With 7 seats still not confirmed, and therefore potentially available for 2016, will someone be waiting on whether Ricciardo becomes available, or perhaps Verstappen?

    I doubt McLaren will have someone other than Button, Magnussen and Vandoorne alongside Alonso next year, and Haas will have one Ferrari driver for certain. And I doubt Manor would take a driver that doesn’t bring a budget or is supported by a team.

    Still, Force India, Renault/Lotus and Haas have still not confirmed a driver, and Daniel Ricciardo would surely be a very attractive option for all of those.

    1. A Ricciardo/Renault could definitely work. Force India or Haas would want some sponsoring to take on those drivers I think.

  6. YEP!!!! :D:D :D Very pleased with the progression of this situation then. Please go away Red Bull.

  7. Very brave of Red Bull. Blackmailing Scuderia Ferrari on press. Good form.

    1. Yes. They’re hardly endearing themselves to Ferrari right now.

      1. If Ferrari caves in they will look bad. They shouldn’t cave in.

      2. Well, they’ve upset Renault and Mercedes want nothing to do with them. Once they’ve annoyed Ferrari sufficiently, will they turn to Honda?

        It’s a strange strategy they’re choosing. They have a point about the lack of competitive engines, but they choose to put it across in a way that’s almost guaranteed to alienate any potential engine suppliers. If you were Ferrari (or Honda) would you want this team anywhere near your product? They’re quick to take the credit for success, but if they start losing, they moan and cry about it like spoiled children.

  8. Just give next year’s car to Manor, they will take good care of it.

  9. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Win 4 drivers/constructors chamiopnships on the bounce and then pull out because you didn’t win the next 2 while dragging your engine partner through the mud to the point that they consider pulling out. At this point I would WANT them to leave and never come back except I don’t want the team personnel to lose their jobs or the factories closed. Red Bull you can kiss my derriere if you think I’ll be buying any of your sugary water after your self entitled sore loser every-rule-should-be-changed-until-we-win or we’re leaving attitude to F1.

    1. + any number you like (marko should go now)

  10. I don’t like Red Bull, I don’t like Dietrich, Marko or Horner, but it would still be bad if we were to lose those two teams, especially if it’s over something that is genuinely bad for the sport and could be sorted out quite easily.
    I could sit here and laugh about their arrogance and hubris coming back to bite them, but this whole engine saga is just too stupid for words, and should never have been allowed to get to this point.
    The FIA need to change the engine regulation immediately and allow the manufacturers unrestricted development, and a greater number of engines and PU components for the rest of this season, and next season. They should also force the manufacturers to supply the latest version of their engines, PU, software, fuel and lubricants to customer teams at a fixed cost, with the option of a cheaper, older version for those teams that want that option.

    I like the new engine/PU, but its introduction has been a joke, and the FIA and F1 management need to take a long, hard look at how it’s all gone wrong so that we can avoid this kind of situation from happening again next time we have a big change to the rules.

    1. Nothing is worse than Red Bull threatening and bullying Scuderia Ferrari to give them engines. That’s IT.

    2. @beneboy It’s been mis-managed, yes, but no manufacturer is going to shoulder the R&D cost of improving these engines without having customer teams pay for them. This new Current-1 rule will just result in the mid-field paying less and thus the engine doesn’t get developed, leaving us with a fixed status quo.

      Mercedes stance on not currently supplying their development unit to customers is, honestly, right – imagine if it turns out Rosberg’s FP failure in Monza or Hamilton’s race failure in Singapore were a result of the actual new developments and *all* the engines failed the same way (like the ’14 units were doing in their later life)?

      What’s more interesting is Ferrari not giving Sauber upgraded engines for about 4-5 races – was that the same reason or were they worried Sauber might be competitive whilst the S-F15T was a little bit wayward?

      1. Do you really believe Ferrari was worried Sauber would be “competitive”? What were they gonna do? Beat SF? lol. It’s more likely Sauber didn’t have the money.

      2. Ferrari didn’t give the engines to Sauber at Canada, so they got that engine the next time around. Same thing is happening with Mercedes. What is weird with that?

      3. Money

      4. @optimaximal
        Who said the teams wouldn’t have to pay for them ?
        I’m not suggesting that customers get them for free, but at a fixed annual cost, with a discount for teams that would rather take reconditioned older engines instead of the most up to date spec the works team are using.

        1. @beneboy Neither did I.

          I said all the mid-field will just accept the proposed ‘good enough’ Current-1 spec*, meaning V8 levels of spends vs the current spec the works team will run, because they’re not going to pay themselves to use it.

          Thus the perpetuated cycle of the works teams always being the most competitive allied with stagnated development because the money pipe gets turned down.

          * – After all, why would Manor pay for a ’16 Merc PU when they could get the current dominant ’15 unit at discount and possibly blitz Sauber, McLaren, Lotus/Renault and possibly Haas through engine grunt alone?

      5. As for the Sauber part, you have to remember 7th race of the season (Canandiand GP) was fairly early to use 3rd PU for any teams, unless it’s inflicted by reliability issues. Ferrari the team seemed to have already decided to use 5th PU some time later and face penalties consequently, hence the aggressive 2nd/3rd installation schedule. Officially Sauber denied it was due to financial issues and they would stick to their plan(3rd PU in Spa, they received the Canada spec one there, AFAIK). I don’t know how truthful the statement was but it definitely sounds reasonable. SF shouldn’t force them to follow their unusual PU usage. (If Sauber like to get 5th PU would they pay extra money for that? Then the answer is clearer. Costing extra money + receiving penalties, which Sauber don’t need) As said above I really doubt they were worried Sauber might get too competitive.

    3. The engine introduction has not been a joke, what was a joke was the failure of the manufacturers other than Mercedes to do a good job with their engines. They should be ashamed and, as Ferrari has done, go away and work within the rules (ok, within the rules which were already bent a bit to help them) to improve their PU.

      Even Renault don’t seem to be complaining as much as Red Bull, they have been there before several times and know that it takes a lot of effort and often many years to build a championship winning engine and that it’s not magic or some preordained right. The idea that Red Bull have the right to take the best bits from someone else’s work (software, fuel, lubricants) is a disgrace. Why weren’t they giving away all of their aero design secrets from 2009 onwards – did they think that was unfair?

      The rules as intended were exactly what was required to balance the amazing technical nature of the new generation PU against cost, the only reason it hasn’t worked out is that too many people don’t understand the concept of competition.

      1. …the only reason it hasn’t worked out is that too many people don’t understand the concept of competition.

        I don’t think it’s just that, its the stark realisation from a bunch of rich old white men that they can’t just spend their way to success every time!

        1. Or their insistence that they should be able to spend their way to success.

      2. You mention that Renault aren’t complaining as much as Red Bull…. I imagine Red Bull have lost out on quite a lot of money by finishing lower down the field. Do Renault get paid less because their engines are rubbish?

    4. @beneboy – Absolutely agree with that. I’ve been saying for a while that prices should be fixed at a set price which includes the latest version of everything. Teams like Manor can buy last year’s spec if they choose but if you go for the current year’s spec, you get everything that comes with it.

  11. As much as I would like to see it, Red Bull probably won’t leave Formula 1, simply because I can’t imagine Ecclestone won’t allow it to happen. He will probably pressurise Ferrari until they give Red Bull an engine, as in ‘if Red Bull won’t get your engines, you can say goodbye to your end-of-the-year bonus’. Now Red Bull are demanding the top-notch 2016 Ferrari engine, so Ferrari is effectively trapped.

    Looking at it from Red Bull’s perspective, the ‘we will quit unless’ attitude is a compromise. On one hand they need to make such arrogant statements to ensure they get the engine that fits their ego, but on the other hand this is doing enormous damage to their reputation. And for a team that isn’t already the most well-liked team in the world, that’s a huge sacrifice.

    So as much as I enjoy seeing Red Bull begging for engines, I hope (and think) they will find one. It would be a shame to lose Milton Keynes and Faenza, and it would be a shame if Ricciardo, Kvyat, Sainz and Verstappen are suddenly left without a seat.

    1. @andae23 You’ve got some interesting points that I hadn’t even considered yet, especially the part about Ferrai being ‘trapped’ by Red Bull. I guess that’s on Sergio Marchionne who opened the door for Red Bull earlier in the season.

      Still, would Bernier dare to threaten Ferrari in such a manner?

      1. Ferrari should respond in a strict and proper manner to show they are not to be bullied. Otherwise it is their reputation at stake.
        They can even threaten to quit because they are being pressured to provide something they don’t feel comfortable with. And I for one wouldn’t begrudge them it. Actually I would support it. Actually, I would be infinitely more uncomfortable if they supplied whatever Red Bull demands.
        Marchionne should show some backbone. He’s making an example with this situation and showing how his reign will be with Ferrari. Is he gonna just cave in and put his team at a disadvantageous position?

        1. I agree. This is the big moment really, the moment where the ‘new’ management shows their worth. If they cave and give Red Bull factory status then they will lose a lot of respect from the Tifosi.

          1. Ferrari should release a WEC mock-up, just so Bernie realises the danger of putting RBs interests ahead of theirs.

          2. I think you are getting way ahead of yourselves, Ferrari have already said that they are happy to provide engines to redbull and haven’t said (afaik) that it is on the condition that it is a current -1 spec. Indeed Marchione specifically said that he doesn’t fear Redbull hveing the same engine and welcomes the competition. Whether that is still the case when it comes to signing the paperwork is another matter.

            But Ferrari have definitely not been cornered. If Bernie starts trying to force them to give what they don’t want to they can give him a choice, Redbull or Ferrari, which would you prefer in your championsip!

        2. This! Omg this… Someone demands Ferrari and Mercedes bow to them right after they spited allower Renault.

          They worked hard to gain an advantage for years. And for 4 years they keept it. Did you see them complaining in 2007? No they keept head down and start winning. How can they expect to win again with this attitude?

          They are now in prrmium midfield, but their attitude is unbefitting. Maybe Horrner needs to resign, or something..

    2. Ferrari should call Red Bull’s bluff. If they pull out at the end of this year, they will likely face civil litigation from suppliers, drivers, sponsors, race organizers etc. Basically anyone who stood to make money from Red Bull’s participation in F1 may be in a position to sue.
      Ferrari would be mad to go into business with a partner that will bad mouth them at the first instance of bad form.

      1. lol, a company as large as Red Bull has had all of those contracts written to their advantage, not the other way around.

        There wouldn’t be any civil litigation because no company like Red Bull would agree to any deal without an escape clause, especially in a sport as fickle as F1.

        You’re hilarious though with those thoughts.

    3. Bernie pressuring Ferrari; I’d pay to watch that tiff!
      So Ferrari says no to Bernie, then what? Bernie pulls Ferrari’s bonus? Right then, Ferrari pulls out too.
      So now you have no Red Bull, no Torro Rosso, no Ferrari, and half the remainder of the field scrambling for engines. Bloody Bravo!

      1. That sounds funny :D

    4. @andae23 – People need to see it from Red Bull’s perspective a bit here though. Why should they invest millions in the sport if they aren’t going to be competitive because of the way the sport it set up?

      What happens if Ferrari say no and Honda say no? Do they just leave by default because no-one will offer them an engine?

      What if Ferrari, Mercedes and Honda say they will no longer supply anyone else? Do we just have a 3 team championship? Or is it just because it’s affecting Red Bull who everyone hates that it doesn’t seem like a massive problem with the sport at the moment? How about if Honda decided to pull out for next year and Mercedes and Ferrari said no to McLaren. Would we all be reacting in the same way?

      1. But Red Bull ended here because they treated the guys giving them engines like shιt.
        As about being competitive. Well they are competitive right now aren’t they? They got some podiums, they get decent points every race etc. They just ain’t fighting for the championship competitive.
        So do they have some God given right to be at the very frond of a championship battle every year because they invest millions? Others invest millions too.
        What we expect is for them to act decently and understand that this is MOTORsport not AEROsport and there nothing wrong with the engine being part of the competition and accept that since their partner didn’t manage to make the best maybe they have to accept finishing 3rd or 4th for a few years until they get it better or new rules come.
        That is life in F1. Mclaren knows it. Red Bull seem to not have.
        They should have just keep working nicely with Renault. But what is done is done. Now instead of throwing threads again they should just take whatever engine they can find and run until they can get something even better and fight for championships again etc.
        But NOOOOO, they just can’t accept that they may have to spend a few years with the 3rd best car. What sort of entitlement is that?

  12. So, Lewis Hamilton was correct when he said they Red Bull is just a soft drink producer riding on the fame of Adrian Newey.

    They started 2015 with a bad chassis. If I am a leading engine manufacturer I will definitely NOT supply them with an engine. The behavior and remarks against Renault in public were childish. They (RBR)showed no respect for contracts.

    They are should have ride the storm out and take the good with the bad.

    Demanding will bring them nowhere.

    1. So, Lewis Hamilton was correct when he said they Red Bull is just a soft drink producer riding on the fame of Adrian Newey.

      Did anyone expect much else?

      Lewis got a lot of flak from the comment because everyone assumed it was because ‘he wasn’t winning’ but it was hung off a comment about the heritage of certain teams in F1. After all, for all their waxing lyrical, the Red Bull teams are the only teams whose parent company exists for something other than racing cars or selling them.

      1. Please. Lewis was right. But he wasn’t thinking about “the heritage of Red Bull” while he was saying that.

        1. @darren

          “I am 100 per cent certain that neither McLaren nor Ferrari will ever let that happen,” he said. “They [Red Bull] have not been there as long as our teams. Our teams have got status they would like to keep.

          “For many, many years it has been McLaren and Ferrari at the front and now we have got a new team that has come and knocked us off the top. But I am really certain that either team will do absolutely everything in their power to make sure they can remain at the top.

          “Red Bull are not a manufacturer, they are a drinks company. It’s a drinks company versus McLaren/Ferrari history. I don’t know what their plan is. Our team is building to become a bigger manufacturer, like Ferrari, and I can only see our team being there for a ridiculous amount of time. It is a pure-bred racing team.”


  13. They started insulting Ferrari before they made a contract. Good riddance. Please go away Red Bull.

  14. People are seriously underestimating the negative effect that losing Red Bull will have on Formula 1.

    For a start, you lose four cars on a grid which is too small as it is. Also, this is not like losing Caterham and Marussia as we did last year, we are talking about two actually competitive teams. And with no guarantee that the Enstone and Manor teams will survive until 2016, we could see a grid of a pathetic 14 cars next year.

    Not just that, but look at the talent you lose immediately from Red Bull pulling out. Daniel Ricciardo, Daniil Kvyat, Max Verstappen, Carlos Sainz and the likes of Pierre Gasly and Dean Stoneman in their junior programme. Those drivers are all either already great, or have the potential to be great. What a substantial loss losing those drivers to other categories would be. In fact, the two Toro Rosso drivers have been one of just a few positives for me this season.

    In losing Red Bull, you also lose a name which has been in the sport for upwards of 20 years. That’s a pretty long time. You lose one of the names commonly associated with modern F1 and based on this era alone, that’s more off a loss than the likes of say McLaren or Williams.

    Whilst I fully understand why Mercedes has opted to not supply Red Bull with power units, I am a touch disappointed. I’d also be very disappointed to see Ferrari not offer parity regarding their units as well. To lose a top team and a solid and exciting midfield team in the blink of an eye would simply be a complete disaster for Formula 1, when it is doing enough as it is to shoot itself in the foot.

    In the end, I find it amazing how many people almost seem to want Red Bull to leave based on the fact that they plan to if they can’t find competitive equipment, and the reason why they can’t find competitive equipment is not down to money, but simply because the top two manufacturers seem to be worried that Red Bull could develop a better chassis/team/driver combination than them.

    1. You kinda missed the point with your last sentence/paragraph.
      It’s more to do with Red Bull guys throwing their toys out the pram, once something is not going their way and making big-mouthed threats and accusations.

    2. People are seriously underestimating the negative effect that losing Red Bull will have on Formula 1.

      @craig-o Nice try, Helmut! But seriously, completely agree with this, but it just shows how bad Red Bull’s PR really is.

    3. @craig-o Your points are valid, but you’re missing the key fact – Red Bull have actively engineered this problem for themselves slowly over the last two years, obviously flowing with hubris following their championship success.

      They naively pressured Renault into tearing up their development process in order to bring performance without reliability testing and it cost them about 5 consecutive engines as a result. Then they tried to bring a new manufacturer to the sport whilst publicly dragging their existing supplier through the mud, despite all the success.

      That is why people are looking at these developments with a degree of schadenfreude.

      Mercedes and Ferrari supplying them engines is not (and never was) a given – for all Bernie’s & FOM’s wealth, Ferrari and Mercedes are richer, so it’s always going to boil down to a business decision with the multi-national company at the core of the decision, not some poky expensive prototype racing series that goes to Russian car parks and Arabian sandpits chasing the Bernie bucks.

    4. I agree with you. But perhaps if Red Bull do leave it will trigger a real evaluation of what exactly the sport is doing at the moment. This whole thing is a complete mess. Not just the monetary side, but the whole issue of how the new engine formula has been implemented.

      A lot of people here seem to be willing to cut off their nose to spite their face and would let Red Bull leave, which is a testament to how bad Red Bull’s PR has been over the last 5 or 6 years or so. However if Red Bull leave, F1 will be in a serious hole and Mateschitz and Marko know that. That is why I think that they will get their Ferrari engines, as if they leave, there will only be an 18 car grid. But it’s even worse than that because both Manors and both Haas cars are unlikely to be competitive, Honda’s engine problems are well documented so Mclaren will not be strong, and then you have Lotus, Sauber and perhaps Force India which are in serious financial trouble. That leaves Mercedes, Ferrari and Williams. Potentially only three teams in a good position going into a season. It’s just a joke.

      1. I disagree with the comments on the detrimental effect of RBR and TR leaving to a significant extent. Yes, I would prefer a bigger grid but to me this is less-bad than losing two small teams (as we recently did) as it would move the sport back to a more competitive field throughout and probably drive costs down. Merc and Ferrari wouldn’t need to spend so much to stay ahead and the remaining independent teams are generally happy to get the best engine deal they can get or afford and just get on with doing the best job possible. Four less cars to take points/money = a more secure future for the rest of the grid. Of course a preferable option would be for both teams to move into independent ownership of people who want to race and don’t have such a sense of entitlement. Has Paul Stoddart saved up enough money for another go with Minardi yet?

      2. @debaser91 If Red Bull aren’t there, creaming their money off the top of the commercial rights money, that will mean more money in the pot for the smaller teams, just like how Force India were circling like vultures over Marussia’s still warm corpse.

        1. @optimaximal – I think I spotted a typo there (or a joke?). You typed “more money in the pot for the smaller teams.” :D

          I think you meant “more money for Ferrari, Mercedes and Bernie”.

          1. @petebaldwin True, but given the Column 1 & Column 2 payments would be split 8 ways rather than 10, it means teams like Manor & Sauber already have ~$15-20 million more in their pockets!

            Remember, this pocket change was why Force India (under the auspices of representing the smaller teams) made a case for Manor’s obliteration.

    5. Nothing would happen don’t worry.

    6. @craig-o I think you cannot really blame Ferrari or Mercedes for not wanting to provide their rivals with engines. Can you imagine McLaren-Ferrari in 2000 or McLaren-Renault in 2005? I cannot recall any example in the history of F1 where a leading manufacturer would have their own team and give their engines to their fiercest competitors at the same time.

      I agree with you that it would be painful to lose two strong teams and four strong drivers now and that it is clearly not something that F1 needs at the moment. However, I would rather do everything to keep Manor and Team Enstone alive than please Red Bull because building a healthy F1 where real racing teams can enter, survive and compete is a more sustainable strategy than trying to keep a drinks company that will leave sooner or later anyway.

    7. Why should Ferrari provide RBR with same software and fuel as they use? Do Mercedes provide same software and fuel to all their customer teams? AFAIK they dont provide it. Then why should Ferrari do the same?

      In 2014, Mclaren were also a customer team of Mercedes and they were not provided much assistance because from this year, they were going to use Honda PU. Mclaren never complained or threatened to quit sport. Why are RBR threatening everytime?

      1. @mjf1fan

        Why are RBR threatening everytime?

        Simple, because they’ve not got much else…

        The facilities, IP & workforce only has so much value (pretty much nowhere near the perceived value of the team) and their two F1 entries are worthless if they don’t have an engine to compete with, so it’s fallen back to threatening the commercial & governing bodies that they’re almost definitely going to be taking their ball home, soon, possibly, if they don’t get to move their goalposts and handball as much as they want…


        1. @optimaximal – Well tough luck for them then. It would be better if they left the sport. I know 4 very good and talented drivers along with hundreds of people working at factory will be jobless, but RBR can not hold F1 for ransom.

          They can not say – give me this or else I will quit. They shot themselves in their foot by behaving very badly with Renault. They could have got Mercs PU had they been more appropriate towards dealing Renault.

          1. @mjf1fan Pretty much. Alas, Mateschitz and Marko have their money and other business interests to fall back on, which is more than can be said for the hundreds who depend on the company for their mortgages and livelihoods.

            To serve notice on their Renault contract without a replacement contract with either Mercedes or Ferrari smacks of lacking due diligence in business dealings and the hubris that meant they were expecting another manufacturer to just walk into their lap, open arms, is negligent.

            Luckily, the team were paying nice bonuses to every staff member (£10k per head), so you’d hope they all kept something back for a rainy day, knowing how fickle F1 can be…

  15. At the end of the day, lads, you are an energy drink company, and you have no God given right to be at the front. I hope if they do pull the plug them someone else steps in and takes over at least one of the teams

  16. Ridiculous thing. Are they trying to be works Ferrari team now that they botched their job as a works Renault team…

  17. If I was Ferrari, I would offer the current PU, “at all times”**and the default software. And let them supply their own fuel, Ferrari’s partner, Shell, has spent millions developing fuels and lubricants specifically for Ferrari over the years, why should RBR benefit.

    ** “at all times” – There will be times when the current PU will introduce failures, let Red Bullying be a test bench also.

  18. Red Bull has turned into such a megalomaniac team. So they win a couple of titles and now they have demand the right to be at the front of the grid? Ferrari and Williams both endured long stretches without winning any titles. Now Red Bull has been suffering a bit of a dip in form for two years and they’re already threathning to quit (again!). Red Bull, the team that was winning races last year and has recently been spotted on the podium again! What a disgrace of a team, where is the love and comittment for the sport, the commitement they had when they came in. God Red Bull was such a ‘cool’ team back then. Now they have been reduced whinning and sourness. What on earth happend there?

    Besides it seems a lot fo people seem to mistake the term ‘engine parity’. Customers teams receive the exact same engines and components Ferrari has. They are not inferior or down on power for that matter as some sources have stated. They are 100% identical. The parity comes along later in the season, when Ferrari starts using tokens. That’s when customers have to wait a bit to get the update. Parity also comes along in when it comes to software. For instance we know for a fact that Mercedes isn’t sharing it’s qualifying mode with it’s customers, and no dobut Ferrari won’t share their’s either with Sauber.

    I don’t see why a factory team should give 100% parity. Is it such a horrible thing if you have to wait a couple of races before the new parts are confirmed to be reliable and performing?

    1. Actually, that’s EIGHT titles. EIGHT titles in FOUR years. I’m not keen on the whining either but what’s the point in pretending that as a racing team they haven’t earned some respect? They don’t have the right to be at the front of the grid, but it’s in F1’s interests that teams are allowed to be competitive, especially teams that showcase great engineering and have made huge investments in helping produce the show. Whoever’s to blame, whoever argued for it, this engine formula has been a disaster for F1 in every way you can name.

      1. I’m not saying Red Bull shouldn’t be getting the respect they deserve for winning those titles. I’m saying that the fact you once won those titles does not give you the right to bully others into giving you what you want.

        Red Bull is acting like they will get inferior engines that won’t be able to challenge the factory team. That’s simply a lie. I’ve already explained what engine parity truly means and I stand by those words. If Red Bull, who is so famous for its engineering can’t overcome that fact they are merely a customer, then they have no place in F1. Back in the day they did exactly this. The Renault V8 was known to be 30 (later 20hp) down on the others and still they found ways to be innovative and overcome those issues. I don’t see why they wouldn’t be able to do the same with a customer Ferrari that is exactly the same as the factory one bar the token updates and some qualifying settings.

        Again Red Bull is pretending their titles grants them the right to demand factory treatment. You don’t hear Williams demanding that qualifying software from Mercedes. No, Williams does it’s best to overcome it’s customer status on its own. Now there is a committed F1 team unlike Red Bull who only whine when things don’t go their way.

        I’ll be honest, as much as I want them gone, I also don’t want two healthy financial teams disappear from a gird that is already too small for its own good. So I’m still hoping for a deal in which Red Bull accepts things as they are and try their best to be innovative and beat Ferrari on their own. Now that would earn them some respect from fans and followers from the sport alike.

        1. I agree mostly. And I don’t doubt that Red Bull have the smarts to do a great job on their own qualifying mode. I just disagree in principle with the whole idea of customer vs factory engines. You say that the only difference it would make right now would be with respect to the recent token updates. They’re not exactly looking like a small deal, are they? In the same way Merc should be forced to only use what they are willing to make available to their customers, and at the same time as they make it available (whether the customers want it straight away is another matter).
          In F1 terms engines are really neither here nor there. Teams are really ‘constructors’; chassis constructors. Of course every chassis needs an engine and some chassis constructors are also engine suppliers. I’m strongly against the idea that being a supplier of an engine should entitle you to a built-in advantage over the people you agree to supply your engine to.

          1. You make some strong points but I disagree with the last bit. Mainly because that’s how it’s always been.

            In fact I don’t think giving your customers updates on exactly the same moment you update is a good idea. Remember Ferrari’s infamous ‘Canada-update’ that was going to help them challenge Mercedes? Well it wasn’t reliable and subsequently they needed until Hungary to make it work and properly. Sauber got their update in spa, the race right after. If they had gotten it in Canada as well they too could have run into trouble.

            As for the software I believe it’s not even that evident to just hand your customers that software. Those qualifying settings are specially designed for the SF-15T, not the C33. So just putting in a USB and transferring that data won’t do them much good either.

            Full 100% engine parity doesn’t exist if the supplier is an F1 competitor itself. It never has, and probably never will be. You’re always bound to be one step ahead or behind in one way or another. Be it updates, software or simply outright chassis compatibility. Remember that because Ferrari has chassis and engine in one building. So it’s only natural they always have better harmony with chassis/egine. That’s something customers are always bound to be one step behind on.

            But I do agree that this engine formula, while innovative and exciting, has been far from perfect, effectively reducing the grid to its weakest state in years without many people looking to come in and set up new teams.

  19. I won’t watch F1 or support Ferrari if anyone gives way to their demands.

    1. I hope you know what are you talking about, because it sounds silly to me.

      1. What are you talking about? Should we support bullying and blackmailing and threatening behavior? I agree with ireni.

  20. I certainly wouldn’t be upset to see DM and HM leaving the sport but the teams at MK and Faenza deserve better, as do the drivers. In the end though, as a point of principle, should it not be against the rules to supply customer engines of a different standard to that available to the works team, never mind a point of contractual wrangling between teams. Otherwise we get two-tiers by the back door. I know; ‘it’s always been like that’, but shouldn’t it be different?

    1. Same with chassis then, Red Bull should provide aero data to other teams so not to have an advantage. It works both ways.

      1. I don’t think anyone is saying that Ferrari should be forced to hand over their engine design data to the other engine suppliers so I don’t understand how what you said is relevant to my point.
        Taking it as an argument in its own right; it would make no sense for any team to invest money in developing a chassis only to turn the results over to competitors. Your logic only makes sense if you push it all the way and end up with a spec car. There are series that run spec cars but F1 isn’t one of them.

        1. Not quite. If you are saying engine suppliers should give the same spec they use to customers that customer is benefiting from your research and data and only concentrating on a chassis. If Ferrari lost to RedBull the difference would be the chassis. As a car is half engine half chassis then Ferrari can say you benefited from our engine we want you aero data. Red Bull simply want their cake and eat it. No competitive cars in LMP1 use customer engines it’s one of those things if you do not build the lot then tough luck on you. The alternative is to have a works team agreement which Red Bull had but did not like so they now want to blackmail F1 so they can take a competitive advantage from a rival for relatively little, even demanding same fuel and software. I find it that arrogant I would rather have 3 car teams from proper teams to make up the shortfall and rescue the very good 4 drivers currently working for what amount to sporting terrorists.

          1. You’re missing the point of F1. As I said in another comment F1 teams are required to construct their own chassis. Therefore a team is really a chassis constructor and the job of an F1 team is design and build a chassis that beats the rest. This is why chassis and chassis design data will never, or at least shouldn’t be (yes Mike Coughlan, yes Toyota; I’m looking at you) shared between teams.
            Engines are neither here nor there. They just shove the chassis around the track. So some chassis constructors make and supply engines? So what? So the same engine is used in different chassis? So what?

          2. No competitive cars in LMP1 use customer engines

            Rebellion are competitive in WEC, although they’re not directly ranked with the manufacturer teams.

          3. Rebellion are many laps down each race and unless there is an issue for Toyota Audi or Porsche will never be in the top 6.

            F1 and Grand Prix history was built originally on teams making everything including the engine.

            Red Bull make a great chassis, Ferrari make a good chassis combined with a very good engine as a complete team to then say Red Bull must have exactly the same engine, software and fuel is saying Ferrari spend more on developing an engine to help their performance but have to provide this advantage to rivals and make less money back from it than they spend. They are not a charity so unless you can build your own engine or find a manufacturer as a works team as they have got then you will have 40bhp or so less. If Ferrari are struggling with the same engine against RedBull then they should demand some aero staff including Newey to help them on the chassis. If Redbull cannot take it and pull both teams I would rather see 3 car teams which they have at Lemans and I like LeMans. Red Bull need to compromise they are currently accepting no compromise and are not in a position to do so.

        2. “…it would make no sense for any team to invest money in developing a chassis only to turn the results over to competitors.”

          It would not make sense for manufacturers to invest money in developing their PUs only to turn the results over to competitors either. But they do it because they get some money, more test/data and they have some little secrets left unsold.

          1. Exactly for great expense the manufacturers must have a few secrets so they get 30 or so more bhp otherwise why do it?

            Red Bull are blackmailing F1 that they want complete parity which they get on hardware but also they want software and fuel parity. They are in no position to demand this as by most reports even the Ferrari engine Sauber has more power than they have now and reliability, from a bad situation they have a lifeline and they still try for everything.

            Why don’t all the little teams pool together and pay Cosworth to make them an engine, a shared engine for all the semi-teams that only do chassis. F1 has a constructors title not chassis title, that means construction of everything to me and the advantages that it can bring in reward for the extra investment required.

          2. Cosworth won’t be able to get a credible engine together in the short time they have, plus the rumoured speculative interest from VW might make that a no-go for the foreseeable future.

            I wonder, do the new PUs have emissions targets?

          3. I know knowone can bring in a new engine now so Red Bull will just have to take an engine without the same fuel and software, quit or like a number of top teams have done in the past have a 5 year plan which includes paying someone like Cosworth to build an engine knuckle down and get on with it. Mercedes started in 2010 and did not kick off they were not winning straight away, Ferrari, McLaren, Williams have in the past also realised it will take time and a good plan to get back to the top and not left the sport. Ferrari have threatened but it was clearly posturing, Red Bull have such venom in their comments. Even if they get their way if Ferrari beat them on chassis they will kick off that Ferrari are not giving them the same PU even if they are.

    2. Even if the engine manufacturers gave their customers full parity (including software and fuel), there would still be the issue of them cherry picking their customers, as shown by Mercedes willingness to supply Manor (whose finances are precarious), rather than Red Bull a team they view as a threat to their own success.

      If Mercedes are not prepared to supply a major rival why should Ferrari?

      However, I don’t think this is a healthy situation for the sport and is due to the fact that there are only two competitive engine manufacturers and the PU is now so important that a superior chassis (something in the hands of the team) can not make up for an engine deficit (the team is dependent on the supplier).

      I do not want to see to one well funded and one financially stable team leave F1 because of the lack of an engine deal, but maybe Red Bull should be more willing to except a slightly less than works team spec engine (software & fuel, not hardware), particularly if it is a stop gap solution before they team up with a new engine partner like VW/Audi, after all it is true that they could have continued with Renault in the interim.

      1. However, I don’t think this is a healthy situation for the sport and is due to the fact that there are only two competitive engine manufacturers and the PU is now so important that a superior chassis (something in the hands of the team) can not make up for an engine deficit (the team is dependent on the supplier).

        Absolutely 100% spot on. Whatever anyone feels about Red Bull, this situation is terrible for the sport. Try and think of it as Honda pulling out and McLaren being stuck without an engine to get a different perspective on things.

        The deciding factor in F1 should be the car and driver. Instead, it’s the engine which most teams have nothing to do with.

        1. Fine. Merc spent hundreds of millions to get no advantage. Then as a business. Take 600 million or whatever they have spent, 20 percent profit so 720 million then divide by 3 customer teams so 240 million per customer team, want a return in 2 years so 120 million a customer team a year for the engines sounds fare to me.

          Or 15 million a year for 30 bhp less as now.

        2. The car is chassis plus engine. F1 is chassis plus engine plus driver plus engineers and trackside operations. I prefer engines over aero but F1 needs a balance. For years engines were restricted and it was all aero now it is more engines which is fine if each team had its own unique engine or a spec engine for the minnows but a balance needs to be found where engines and aero can be brought closer together in their impact on performance.

          As it stands it is what it is so for next year RedBull should accept the same Ferrari hardware but tough on fuel and software it will still be a huge step up in pu performance from what they have. Beggars can’t be choosers.

      2. However, I don’t think this is a healthy situation for the sport and is due to the fact that there are only two competitive engine manufacturers and the PU is now so important that a superior chassis (something in the hands of the team) can not make up for an engine deficit (the team is dependent on the supplier).

        Yes, this! 100%.
        The F1 rulebook defines ‘constructors’ as chassis constructors. Engines should not be the huge differentiator that they’ve become and they certainly shouldn’t be this expensive and complex. Considering that the FIA has been (rightly) saying for years that it should be less expensive to be competitive in F1, and that audiences don’t care about technical stuff that they can’t see, the engine situation that’s been foisted on the sport is frankly pathological.

  21. Bring back Stewart & Minardi please..

    1. F1 history is that teams made engines and chassis. Teams later started using customer engines or buying in engines from elsewhere. Enzo Ferrari said a chassis is just to hold the engine. They hold equal sway and I am now getting more confident Red Bull will just go. Renault hopefully will come in as a full constructor, McLaren have a works partnership which is how you should do it the others will just have to make do with lesser spec engines, build their own or get a manufacturer on board with a works team agreement. I think for too long engines had to take a back seat it is nice that engines hold such sway now as they were becoming less important starting with an influx of the little garage teams in the late 50’s. At it’s source Grand Prix racing was Auto Unions, Mercedes, Lancia, Maserati, Alfa Romeo and when new teams arrived they made their own engines like Ferrari.

    2. We have Minardi. It’s called McLaren.

  22. 4 fewer cars on the grid will help McLaren score points! :)

  23. Bad news for young driver development. No other team really spend money sponsoring talented young drivers from lower category and provide four F1 seat like Red Bull.
    Expect Vettel, Hamilton, Alonso & Ricciardo seat be unchallenged until their 40.
    The only good news is I could share excitement of Max Verstappen passing with my future grand child, 20 years from now.

  24. Let them go sore losers if you ask me, Haas is coming next year and have Honda but torro rosso as the b team they been wanting, problem solved no less cars on the grid next year and no more cry baby red bulls giving everyone ear ache

  25. So if they quit, are they selling?

    Because I’m sure something like Red Bull Racing would be very appealing for any manufacturer or team that just wants to get into F1 without having to establish its own factory.

    1. I can only think of Renault. However if they would not buy RBR, there is no great appeal in buying them except if you accept that you won’t be able to compete for the championship per definition as you would not get a top spec engine neither from Merc nor from Ferrari.

  26. So let’s see. To fill up the gap on the grid that Red Bull & Toro Rosso leave behind – the 4 top teams will be asked to run a 3rd car. These 3rd cars will be allowed to carry a different livery and sponsorship. Insert Red Bull. Win-win situation for Mateschitz, no matter which engine will be best in 2016 – Ferrari or Mercedes – the Red Bull will be on it. P.s. Bernie was this your idea?

  27. How I wish Giancarlo Minardi could buy back his old team…

    1. Yes, getting Minardi back would be the best thing that could happen out of all of this. Unfortunately, there´s no sign of that currently.

  28. Missing you already.

  29. Bye then.

    It’s such a shame that all the workers, drivers and 3rd party companies who work with them will be left struggling based on the whims of a few arrogant men.

    You must earn parity (like McLaren before Mercedes AMG F1 arrived) you cannot expect it.

  30. He’s a vile man, Helmut Marko, and sounds like a ‘sore loser’, to put it into plain words. The loss of 4 cars in F1 would be terrible, Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes, and Williams have all gone through years of having little success, and they are still here. At some point in history, 7 of the 10 teams on the grid have been front running competitors, through various owners and names, but they haven’t just quit. Red Bull can only blame themselves for this mess. Don’t forget they had the chance to build their own engine, and they had the chance to help Renault and collaborate with them, but instead they sat there whinging about how unfair dramatic regulation changes are – the very thing which got them to the front to begin with.

  31. It would be a shame to see the grid shrink by 4 cars for no particularly good reason, other than that the owner is a sore loser. It would also be a shame to see the excellent bunch of people working for Red Bull forced out of the sport. But if Red Bull, as a company, decide to pull out, then I say good riddance to bad rubbish. I just hope a third party could take over the team, like Ross Brawn and Peter Sauber have done.

  32. I’m sure that Red Bull pulling out of F1 of its own accord due to something as trivial as not having the up to date engine, causing hundreds if not thousands of people to lose their jobs, as well as the contractual implications with FOM and the FIA, is not going to happen.

    We’re all used to Christian Horner, Helmut Marko et al spouting B.S. loudly to further their own ends.

    If however it does happen, its no real loss in my opinion, I consider them to be one of the teams with the least sporting attitude to F1, and would rather see Stewart/Jaguar and Minardi back on the grid!

  33. Honestly, to me it seems like they are digging their own hole, even when they were winning and had a great package they were already giving it to Renault. That’s not a healthy way to do business with anyone let alone an engine supplier. So it’s perhaps not surprising that it’s come to this.

    I have no respect for such a threat, just as when Monty made them leading Ferrari, it’s not healthy for either F1 or the team. And on the management front the sooner they are gone the better.

    But, it’s not just the puffed up idiots running the show, there’s two whole teams at stake, 4 race drivers and many others in the development program. There’s literally hundreds of people who have their jobs at stake. If Renault doesn’t take over Lotus it might mean the exit of Renault from F1 altogether. This is Minardi we are talking about here. They have survived and excelled for such a long time. If they left suddenly like this, how can a buyer be found so soon? It’s not possible or healthy for one team to dominate the sport. If they were arguing for more even engines for everyone, I could buy that. But they are not. It’s purely self interest and they would not and did not lift a finger should it be them ahead.

    If the threat is serious, then as a fan of F1 it makes me sick. And if it’s not, then they joke on people’s careers. I can’t feel that’s any better.

    I hope they decide to turn things around. Because they should be better than that.

  34. I don’t particularly mind the current posturing and politics that’s going on at the moment with Red Bull but I think they shot themselves in the foot with their abuse of Renault. They could have had the Merc engine had they not given Renault such a public flogging as it’s clear that only Toto stood in the way of that and his reasoning has been all about protecting the brand that Red Bull would be so quick to rubbish.

    It would be interesting and very plausible to see them go though as Red Bull doesn’t care for F1’s target audience (middle aged white men) as it doesn’t really fit with their marketing profile, I get the feeling Red Bull are in F1 because Dietrich wants to but certainly doesn’t need to.

  35. People (including we fans) should really push FIA for equal software and fuel!

    1. Of course not! Why would a manufacturer supply another team who has the same budget with equal hardware & software & fuel?

      Ferrari don’t have to take this abuse, nor should they!!!

    2. @Park Why?

  36. So many people are just so happy to bash RB and wish them (and TR to boot) to leave, coz it’s the team they love to hate. And to such an extent, that they are actually gleefully willing to let about a thousand of people and four very good drivers to lose their jobs. Were it some other team, perhaps more people would actually think about the extremely valid point that RB is trying to make.

    F1 has gone very wrong way with these ultracomplex and expensive PUs, and the number of companies that can actually produce these beasts has shrunk to the point where the choices for the teams are virtually nonexistent. Under these circumstances, if parity between the engines used by the manufacturer teams and between the engines used by customer teams is not guaranteed, then F1’s sporting side, however limited it is, will go down the drain completely, since at no point a customer team will get a shot at wins and championships while a manufacturer team with the same engine brand is competing. And since the number of engine manufacturers is extremely limited, and they are not always able to produce equally good PUs, this makes for championships with a single title contender. How long will this kind of show, where there is officially no competition since it is allowed to supply customers with subpar products, hold the interest and provide the income for the sport? How soon until Ferrari and Merc customers fail and quit one by one when they’ve got abandoned by all their sponsors coz it’s crystal clear that they’re just there to fill the grid and under no conditions will be allowed to challenge? As of now, there is huge internal tension in Honda, with Arai’s head hanging on a thread, and there are rumors that the F1 project might be abandoned if the results are not improved dramatically really soon. Where would McLaren go then? Back to the Merc engines? Ron said it was pointless for them, for the same reason – Merc would not allow them being competitive enough to challenge the works team. I bet there would be a lot less happy smiles here if McLaren decided to quit F1 due to the lack of a competitive PU. And then there is Renault, which does not want to invest into the development of PU as much as Merc or Ferrari, so even if they will get the ‘historical’ money from Bernie to buy out Lotus team, they might do what they did recently, i.e. quit after the results will not be to their liking. How many cars will be left on the grid then?

    F1 is in serious trouble now, and it is extremely myopic to welcome RB’s departure at this point. It makes much more sense to actually enforce what is already written into the technical regulations. I.e. that only one PU can be homologated per manufacturer. I believe this year the teams found a loophole in the homologation rules, which might at least partially account for the ridiculous situation when in Italy there were 3 different specs of Merc and Ferrari PUs each running at the same time. But, in order to guarantee that F1 remains a sport, it should be made part of the regulations that if a manufacturer introduces a new spec engine, it must be offered to all of its clients as well. Should some of them decline on the basis of reliability, that would be their own choice, unlike when the works team gets exclusive perfomance boost, which is called ‘experimental’ and not offered to anyone else.

  37. Oh no, how will the sport survive without sugar-water money, we all know what happened when T-Shirt money pulled out. We’ll be left with only car manufacturers, garagistas and globally-optimised structured technology companies competing.

    Running a junior team should be subject to investigation at every single GP for unsporting collusion, for a start. Remind me, how many times did Vettel struggle to pass a Toro Rosso?

    As you might have guessed, I wish them all the luck in the world outside our sport. I’m amazed they’re arrogant enough to assume anyone will miss them outside of CVC’s board.

  38. K, bye to Red Bull then.
    I’m certainly not going to miss them.

  39. I think Red Bull are bluffing but if they are not, Ricciardo can easily fill Button’s seat…..but the question is whether he will want to join the uncompetitive McLaren-Honda team. Maldonando should be got rid of asap by any team before he kills someone but with his money I doubt if they will.

    Most likely, Renault will come up with a more powerful package that might suit Red Bull.

    But if RBR do break-up, the most sought after person would be……Adrian Newey. All teams would probably at his doorstep with blank cheques an hour after the announcement is made.

  40. This makes me dislike them even more. Please stupid, arrogant Marko and your puppets, leave F1. We will forget you very soon. F1 is made of McLaren, Williams and Ferrari. All the rest are meteors and mercenaries, prostitutes of business. Go do your skydiving and your beautiful extreme snow sports. F1 is not for you. YOU DONT DESERVE IT

  41. So why can’t Red Bull build their own engines? If you have what it takes to build a highly complex F1 car, then you surely can build a highly complex F1 engine, too? Hire some smart people, invest millions and you’ll have a competitive engine in 2017 or 2018.

    Of course, you need time and resources for that. I believe that RBR simply do not want to spend that kind of money on their own engines and F1 is not a long-term project for them anyway. Perhaps Renault have not been committed enough over the last two years but Red Bull do not seem to be committed to F1 themselves. That is why it would be unwise to keep them at all costs because if things go wrong (e.g. Ferrari’s engine is not competitive for some reason next year), we will again be reading the same headlines in no time.

    1. @girts I think you’re rather underestimating the task of designing and building a competitive PU under these current regulations. Setting up an operation to do so would require billions not millions, if you’re starting from scratch. And out of the four companies that have tried so far, only two have been able to design decent ones. Renault’s PU is useless, and the Honda is a bad joke. Do you think they don’t have talented people and lots of resources? Then you’ve got the development cycle. Once you’ve established the facilities, the equipment, the workforce, you’ve then got to design the thing, test it, develop it. Honda had over two years to develop theirs and it’s garbage. Even if they could make a decent PU, you’re talking 2018 at the earliest before it’s ready. That’s two years of messing around with uncompetitive cars, for the sake of a set of rules which will then be canned just two years later.

      No part of that makes the least bit of financial sense.

      If developing a decent PU was easy, there would be more than just two companies in the world who can do it.

  42. Mercedes have got off really easily here. They refused (as they should) and now the entire onus comes on Ferrari. Which I think is really unfair.

  43. Didn’t Bernie want Horner as his successor recently?
    I wonder how this will play out. I can’t imagine Ferrari agreeing to offer their reputation as a hostage to fortune, ready to be bad mouthed by Mateschitz if things don’t go as he wants (and he seems to want a lot).
    So let’s imagine Mateschitz withdrawing both teams. All of a sudden, Horner has nothing to do and might just consider taking on the job to understudy Bernie. But they would be ministering over a reduced field of just nine teams.
    Does Mateschitz get on with Bernie?

  44. The way I see it this is just a bluff, there’s no way they would let hundreds of people working in both teams without a job, at least with so little warning.

    Eventually they’ll race for next year but of course they want the best possible engine they can get from Ferrari. And by the way they’re already whining for next year aren’t they? jeez that’s what got them into this mess in the first place no wonder no one has sympathy for them right now.

  45. If Ferrari are struggling with the same engine against RedBull then they should demand some aero staff including Newey to help them on the chassis

    This is actually expressly forbidden by the rules for the reason that teams must build their own chassis.
    Teams do not have to build their own engine. Also though, engine builders do not have to agree to supply an engine, and they don’t have to agree to supply one of equivalent spec to everyone who they do supply it to. Under these rules though the position is that a top team (that is recognised by F1 as being important enough to receive a bonus payment) will either leave for lack of an engine (taking another two cars with it) or be forced to race against Ferrari with one hand tied behind its back. This is not a healthy sport.

  46. Observation of the day: If an announcement makes you smile, it’s not a threat.

  47. Way to motivate you staff Dietrich. The prospect of not having a job in a few months time must be giving your staff in Milton Keynes and Faenza exactly the motivation they need to keep working round the clock 24/7 for the rest of the season to promote your product.

  48. I will be in the minority here, obviously, by saying I don’t consider this a threat, nor bullying. I think RBR has earned through their wins in recent years to be considered a top team, and therefore are feeling the pull to get back there. It would be different if a team that hasn’t been winning races and championships were asking for more than they have proved they deserve, but RBR have elevated themselves with SV’s run, and that has changed the equation for them going forward.

    Many manufacturers have come and gone throughout the years, usually when the expense of being in F1 can no longer be justified with return on the dollar, for various reasons. If RBR decides to pull out feeling they won’t have a competitive engine, they have every right to do so, no doubt having to cut a cheque to F1 for not staying until 2020 as is their apparent agreement, but no doubt a cheque far smaller than RBR envisions staying in F1 in the mid-field would cost.

    I predict Ferrari will supply them PU’s that are appropriate. DM has even said they can be down a few HP but not too many because that can be checked. But today’s F1 is so much about the marriage of PU to chassis and Ferrari knows that. There is certainly no ‘threat’ to Ferrari here, as they would only be better off with 4 less quality cars out there. It is simply a business fact for RBR that without quality PU’s they are not interested in throwing good money after bad. That’s all DM is saying. RBR will either leave or stay with what Ferrari supplies them. Ferrari won’t be so ‘cheap’ or obvious as to supply them garbage, and RBR won’t know what they have until the deal has been long done, as the real work of marrying the Ferrari unit to the RBR chassis will take time, and then we’ll all see what the new RBR/Ferrari will look like. There are far too many variables for there to be any chance, after what DM has said, that if out of the box they are down a bit to the Ferraris it will be straight down to some big conspiracy.

    Much ado about nothing I say.

    1. I think RBR has earned through their wins in recent years to be considered a top team, and therefore are feeling the pull to get back there.

      Well, I am sure so do Lotus, McLaren and even Williams…

  49. It would be awful for those 4 excellent drivers but it would be awful to watch them beating Ferrari in every race with their engine.
    They should have looked at another engine manufacturer or bought Cosworth.
    I’m prepared to see them go even if it reduces the field to half.

    Am a RB fan but this is getting ridiculous

    1. Extremely well said and spot on. I definitely agree with every word.

  50. I wonder if RB really want to stay in F1. I have a feeling they don’t. There are 4 engine manufacturers (3 since Renault might be leaving). Honda themselves don’t know if they will ever get competitive. That leaves Mercs and Ferrari.

    Mercs already ruled out supplying engines and RB threaten Ferrari despite the fact that they are the only viable option remaining on the table?

    I think RB will be tough to beat even with the Pre-Monza engine of Ferrari. If Ferrari further develop the engines, they can give them the post Monza one and have the new ones to themselves.

    Even Mercedes don’t give their customers the latest spec engines. This is while leading the championships by a fair margin. Can’t expect Ferrari to not make a similar deal.

  51. The BBC has just reported that Winterkorn has resigned as boss of VW. He was keen for VW to buy the Red Bull team. It must now be highly uncertain as to whether VW will continue down that path, especially as they have to put aside so much cash to cover the emissions scandal.

    Also, if Jenson Button was contemplating a Porsche or Audi drive in WEC next year, he might have to think again – VW might well cut back those programmes too.

    The prospect of losing two teams in the next few months – not to mention the perilous position of Lotus – could leave the 2016 grid with only 16 cars, 4 of which would be the mobile chicanes of the Manors and McLarens. That would leave 12 cars racing, but only 4 with a realistic chance of a win. Does anyone think that would be a spectacle worth paying to watch? TV companies would want their cash back. Race promoters would struggle to sell tickets. Sponsors will demand better terms. F1 could be about to enter a very damaging period.

  52. Today in Hypocrisy 101, it is OK for a team to not supply an engine to minimize competition whereas asking for a engine to become competitive is bad. How on earth can two and half engines and nine teams be the pinnacle of motorsport?

    RedBull might be wrong in the way they might have whined but they weren’t wrong about whining.

  53. RED BULL are an “Asset” to F1, and the f1 regulations have ruined the positivity brands like Redbull can do to F1, and inturn have ruined F1 and turned viewers away.
    When Red Bull entered F1, we as fans didn’t not understand the contribution they would give to this sport, FAR FAR more then car manufacturers, yet now so many people are hating on Red Bull. have you all forgot the driver programs they do? have you all forgot how many great drivers have come in to F1 thanks to Red Bull??

    Redbull is not just a “brand” they are a team of world leading racing car engineers and personnel. Red Bull F1 team employs the best of the best. Redbull invested so so much to succeed in f1, and then F1 turned sour with stupid regulations that turn away investors like “Red Bull”. under the current regulations, NEVER AGAIN will we see the likes of a Red Bull rich company invest in this sport that has became a farce and a joke.

    I do not want to see Red Bull leave, and i feel what Red Bull has achieved in F1 allows them the power to “try” to dicate terms about their possible future power unit options – that is just poletics.

    Redbull can play their cards, imagine Redbull drop 4 cars off the grid, F1 would collapse to the lowest it has ever been. let Redbull play the political game, it might make F1 better :)

  54. I think Ferrari and Mercedes are all giving their customers the engines that they are using. It’s part of the rules, especially in 2016 when you can only homologate engines once at the start of the season.

    About the fuels, Ferrari has nothing to do with that. Sure they work with Shell to make the best fuel possible for their engine, but it’s Shell technology. Red Bull has a contract with Total, but if they opt to buy fuel from Shell, Ferrari can’t stop it. Also, they can’t force Ferrari to give them fuel informations, because it’s Shell’s property.

    The fact is that customer teams are not likely to win championships. At the end of the day, Ferrari is building the engine for its car, Mercedes is building the engine for its car also. One can’t simply put the best engine on the grid in the best chassis on the grid and make the best car.

    Like McLaren, they were having the best engine in the V6 era, why would they choose to take a risk and pour money into the Honda relationship?

    So if Red Bull is only here to win, they may as well leave.

    1. I think Ferrari and Mercedes are all giving their customers the engines that they are using.

      ‘Used’ would be the correct word. The customer teams certainly don’t have the latest spec of the manufacturer engines.

  55. Red Bull Racing and their owner are in the sport of auto racing, but are only sportsmen when it suits them. They are the ones who put themselves into the predicament they currently find themselves in. It’s as if Mr. Mateschitz only discovered that after severing ties with Renault that he really has no plan B. He has mistreated and bullied Renault and that did not work out. He tried to coddle and semi-bully Mercedes and that didn’t work out. Now he is trying to bully Formula 1 and Ferrari into giving preferential treatment, not just an engine package.

    Will F1 and Ferrari cave to his threats? The future of F1 hangs in the balance. Setting a precedent to let a substantial, but not a long time historic team dictate policy over F1 and all other teams in F1 based on their own rather selfish performance desires would be the death of F1 as we know it. It would set a dangerous precedent for how F1 and the teams would operate in the future.

    Should F1 help to resolve this issue without Red Bull Racing leaving F1? Certainly. The affected parties should come together by agreement, not by force or threats if such an agreement can be worked out. If not, then Red Bull Racing can leave F1 and suffer the legal and financial consequences. Which, by the way, the costs of staying in F1 and spending whatever money and resources to help their now former partner Renault to solve their mutually related power unit problems would have been a mere fraction compared to what they will spend as consequences of leaving F1 in acrimony. Not to mention plenty of bad PR.

    Dear Mr. Mateschitz, sometimes throwing your weight around to try and force an outcome could be the right way to move forward. In this case you have overplayed your hand every step of the way.

  56. It’s probably best for Red Bull to leave.
    The advertising benefits of having two teams in F1 is quickly being overtaken by their increasing image as whiners and bad sports.
    Honestly, why would anyone want to partner with them after seeing how they p*ssed all over Renault this season. All year, they have acted like the proverbial “spoilt child” who takes his ball home if he can’t win. That can’t be good for sales…

  57. Everyone keeps talking about RB “bullying” F1 and coming down on them for it. Everyone seems to forget that Ferrari has been bullying F1 for decades and they also threatened to leave the sport a few years back. They also have the ability to veto any technical changes, although this may have recently changed, and override all the other teams. This was a fact that was kept secret for many years and Bernie gave Ferrari whatever they wanted. Now that RB is doing the same thing, you’re going to demonize them for it? I don’t agree with the strong arm tactics, but the truth is that F1 needs RB more than RB needs F1. In the end, the whole system needs to change and needs to eliminate special powers/priviledges that some teams have, the less than equitable distribution of wealth and contain the sky-rocketing costs. It would also help of the smaller teams received some assistance in order to help them survive long enough to become viable.

  58. Now this is a problem…
    For some reason, I really like the taste of Red Bull (the drink) once in a while… But if this is the real face of the guy who peddles these drinks, now I feel I should not patronize it – an ungrateful, thankless bully.
    With Red Bull sponsoring so many Sports, so many sport personalities, so many fearless thrill seeking Dare Devils… they need still need to look up the words “Sport” and “sportsman spirit”.
    Take a lesson from McLaren, Williams, Lotus… all champions at various times, fighting at the wrong end of the grid and even fighting to survive financially…
    Your situation is your responsibility… It would have helped if you had not put Renault out to dry from the moment you learnt the engine is not up to it… How can you just FORCE another manufacturer to GIVE you their best Engines??!!
    I can understand if you do not like not winning… Like any driver who feels he doesn’t have it anymore to fight it out and retires, admit it and leave… don’t bully the sport

  59. Yes Red Bull, because we all know how much this season has been pinned together by your very presence…

    I don’t care if Red Bull go. If F1 can’t do without them then it might as well roll down the shutters and go home now. And if the remaining teams can’t then divvy-out the excess prize money more towards the back of the grid then they can all go home too. In fact all of them can go home. Give a load of Formula F2000 chassis out to blokes with moustaches and women with perms and let them race for a year. I don’t care.

  60. OK, Red Bull is demanding equal engines.
    But if the others demand to know Red Bull’s aero secrets? Would they do that?

  61. Threatening or informing.. Kind of depends on your point of view I guess.

    RedBull are a fiercely competitive team and they´ve always said that they´re goal was to fight for the championship and since they bought Jaguar late in 04 they have invested huge a amount money and effort to be able to do so. It took them 6 seasons of hard work and a lot of investments until they reached that goal.

    During the negotiations about a new engine based lower downforce Formula, Renault and Mercedes informed that they would withdraw from F1 because the current formula didn´t suit their interests.

    They got what they wanted, but the problem was that Ross Brawn had been a major part of shaping the new regulations which gave Merc a huge head start on the others, while Renault on the other hand (seemingly) didn´t have clue on how much recurses, research and know-how that was needed to make a competitive engine.

    So Red Bull ended up with a real dud of and engine in 14, which meant that had no chance to fight for the championship that year. Renault had however promised a huge step up in performance in 2015 so even if RedBull probably already was grinding their teeth in anger, they kept their part of the bargain and they did not criticize publicly either.

    But when the promised

  62. Dear Red Bull,

    You sound like a whining child. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

    A fan who is tired of your whining.

  63. Threatening or informing.. Kind of depends on your point of view I guess.

    RedBull are a fiercely competitive team and they´ve always said that their goal was to fight for the championship and since they bought Jaguar late in 04 they have invested huge a amount money and effort to be able to do so. It took them 6 seasons of hard work and a lot of investments until they finally reached that goal. And they won 3 more titles in a row even though there were quite drastic regulation changes every year in an effort to try to slow them down.

    During the negotiations about a new engine based lower downforce Formula, Renault and Mercedes threatened or informed that they would withdraw from F1 because the current formula didn´t suit their interests. They (in this case Merc) is also a fiercely competitive team who are in the sport to win, which they wasn´t capable to do under the previous regulations.

    I can´t see that there any major moral difference between their approach to “informing” about their intent to withdraw if they can´t get what they want than RedBull doing so to be honest.

    Anyways, they got what they wanted, but the problem was that Ross Brawn had been a major part of shaping the new regulations gave Merc a huge head start on the others, while Renault on the other hand (seemingly) didn´t have clue on how much recurses, research and know-how that was needed to make a such an engine competitive.

    So Red Bull ended up with a real dud of an engine in 14, which meant that had no chance to fight for the championship that year. Renault had however promised a huge step up in performance in 2015 so even if RedBull probably already was grinding their teeth in anger, they kept their patience and their part of the bargain too (making a great car), and they did not criticize Renault publicly either.

    But when Renault managed to produce an even worse engine this year, Redbulls patience begun to run out. And things went from bad to worse when Renault pretty much refused all the help that was offered by RedBull to improve things. So they were now into the 2nd season with a POS engine and without any chance in hell to be competitive throughout the season.

    Combine that with numerous broken promises and the constant delaying of performance updates (use of tokens), RedBull finally said, enough is enough and terminated their contract with Renault and I can´t blame them for doing so.

    The timing was perhaps not ideal, still lacking a new engine contract, but the decision to ditch them was 100% correct imho as Renault have failed them miserably for 2 year in a row, and there´s nothing that indicates that Renault will get any better soon.

    There´s actually serious talks that Enstone will keep their Merc engines during the 2016 even if Renault can find others to buy and finance the team in 2016. That says a lot about how bad of an engine that Renault have produced.

    Remember that RedBull is in F1 to win. Becoming an also-run just going through the motions might suit other, but that´s not why Redbull have create and invested so heavily into their F1 team. And if they realize that they are gonna end up without and competitive engine, I sure can understand why they aren´t interesting of taking part anymore.

    There´s a lot of people that are saying that Red Bull only are racing because of marketing and that they´re not real racers which to me is pretty silly when you look at facts. Yes, they do own a company that sell fuzzy drinks and they are successful in doing so too. But they have invested more into F1 and other motorsport than anyone else the last 20 years, without a single doubt.

    They bought and saved 2 team on the brink of extinction. They have created a really successful Junior Drivers Academy from which 5 of the current F1 drivers comes. They also bought and restructured a racing track to the highest standard and now a lot of you jumps on the hatred bandwagon just because they have the nerve to criticize Renault who have failed them miserably for 2 years (to say the least), and the fact that they see no reason to continue to spend a fortune each year without a chance in hell of achieving their main goal (winning) in the foreseeable future due to lack of a competitive engine.

    1. And so what? Anybody who follows F1 for at least 10 years knos that there were engines handycap at any time. The problem here is a corporation that it is not interested i the sport, but only on winning. Let them leave. Whatever is left of F1, it will be a lot better, after the proper adjustments.

    2. I also made a mistake while posting:-) Continued… At the very least motorsposrt would have about 1000 very skilled people looking for a job. This alone would be a hell of a cut in costs for the sport (which probably has a job market with salaries inflated by these same whinning rich employers).

  64. I think it’s worth looking at the bigger picture here. In F1 you now have just two companies able to create competitive power units, and they’re in a position where they can ensure that their competitive power units are only available to their factory affiliated teams. What that means is that there are two teams able to fight at the front, and everyone else, no matter how much money they spend, will only be able to fight over the lower spots. Not only does that mean that they won’t get to win anything, it also means that the two teams at the front will get the lion’s share of the money. Both of whom also happen to have very favourable commercial terms.

    Given that situation, what’s the point in teams spending billions to just take part? Why should RBR keep spending all that money? Why would prospective sponsors bother spending their money on tie ups with F1 teams who will always be beaten? Preserving their position at the front is obviously a very attractive prospect for Mercedes and Ferrari, especially since neither of them is capable of designing a chassis as good as Red Bull’s, but this situation isn’t just harmful for Red Bull, it’s harmful for the entire sport. It’s harmful for us as fans if we’re to be forced to watch the same two teams at the front for the next five years.

    Sure, the senior management at Red Bull don’t come across well at al, and it certainly seems to smack of sour-grapery. I’m also heartbroken for the poor people in those two teams who have had to suffer a year (at least) with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, wondering whether they’ll still have jobs in a few months’ time. That’s hard. And as a resident of Milton Keynes, it’s painful for me too. I don’t like the rhetoric and I don’t like how this is being handled at all. I have no great love for the senior people at Red Bull. But I do have a lot of love for what they’ve managed to achieve in the years they’ve been here. They’ve demonstrated that they are the best team in F1 right now. They came in and absolutely schooled the old hands at Ferrari and McLaren in how you go about designing a Formula One car. That kind of quality is a massive loss to the sport.

  65. I have a compromise offer. Ferrari gives RedBull the exact same engine they use. RedBull gives Adrian Newey to Ferrari.

    And yeah, just to say, I do support everyone above who said that bullying (ahh, fits their name so will innit) should not be allowed.

  66. lol, I accidentally seems to have posted my half finished “Threatening or informing” post in the middle of writing it at 20:17, hence the double entry I guess. I got redirected while I wrote it and a bit surprised I pressed backstep and finished it and posted.

    I guess that I had the cursor on the post button and accidentally touched the left click pad button.. :D

  67. Ferrari should just give them the engine and re-badge it Maserati because Maserati are owned by the Ferrari stable (or at least Fiat). Then it becomes a win-win. If they then beat RedBull, good for them. If the Maserati engined RedBull wins, great publicity for the brand anyway. It also brings another iconic name back to F1.

  68. Marko´s reasoning is so fun to follow: we have the best chassis and aero pack, if Ferrari doesn´t give us the best of their hardware, software and fuel so that we have the best of everything, we quit. I wonder if he also wants somebody to rub his tummy and tap his head…

  69. Nothing says “QUITTER” quite like Red Bull. The quit NASCAR because they couldn’t hack it. Now they hit a rough patch in what has actually been a successful F1 run and they cry like babies so much they have to take their ball and go home. Next time you are dealt a poor hand Red Bull, learn to keep a poker face and play it better.

  70. It’s true that the difference in performance and reliability between engines is too wide for whatever reason (I’m not technical) for F1 to be properly competitive, and Red Bull do have a very valid point.

    Unfortunately, the threat to pull out – instead of calling for ways to resolve the matter – makes it all sound like sour grapes, made all the worse by the fact that this is a team that was virtually uncontested for four years straight. Ferrari managed five years straight with Schumacher before that, so long term dominance is hardly a new thing.

    Merc has only dominated for two so far, so RB can’t throw their toys out and expect to be taken seriously for at least another two years, ideally three.

Comments are closed.