Sebastian Vettel, Ferrari, Singapore, 2015

Red Bull hit out at Ferrari over engine offer

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Red Bull criticise Ferrari’s “cheek” in only offering them a deal for 2015-spec F1 engines.


Comment of the day

Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Suzuka, 2015
The championship top five finished in order at Suzuka
@Andae23 reckons he’s found an unique statistic about the Japanese Grand Prix:

I believe this is the first Grand Prix in history where the top five in the championship also finished in that order.

There have been a handful of Grands Prix where the top four in the championship finished in that order (for instance the 1999 Monaco Grand Prix, where Michael Schumacher, Irvine, Hakkinen and Frentzen finished one-two-three-four), but never the top five.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Donwatters!

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

On this day in F1

The first ever GP2 championship title was won by Nico Rosberg on this day ten years ago. Rosberg beat Heikki Kovalainen to the title with one race to spare:

Author information

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

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

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

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

  • 138 comments on “Red Bull hit out at Ferrari over engine offer”

    1. If RBR could find an engine that runs nearly as good as they run their mouths they would be untouchable in 2016!

      1. Took 8 minutes, but I think we have our comment of the day, @bnkracing

        1. COTD suppose to mean 3rd place Vettel will win WDC by the end of the year?

      2. There are several teams that are surviving to race another year thanks to Renault and Honda, and while they want F1 to continue to earn billions so they can get a share of the pie they also want to get a bigger share than RBR,STR and McL, which they might well do as long as their MB and SF engines remain superior, those teams may even feel that the risk of F1 going into terminal decline is worthwhile so long as they get a bigger slice of the shrinking revenue pie.

        1. It appears that F1, like the person in charge, is fading into the sunset. The only positive is the bold statement it is making for the enforcement of a mandatory retirement age.

          1. @fast, It’s nothing to do with age, if Bernie was paid a salary/bonus dependent on the number of teams racing and the number of people watching instead of how much money he and CVC can wring out of F1 before they dump its corpse on a naive public, or Bernie goes to the big IPO in the sky, F1 would be in much better shape, but Bernies daughters might need to limit the size of their many homes to only 20 bedrooms per house.

            1. @HoHum partly agree with you, I think Bernie’s age plays a role in his decision making process but the incentives scheme in place doesn’t push him towards more balanced decisions.

      3. I’m a little underwhelmed by all this, all it says about Ferrari and Mercedes, is that they don’t believe they are actually capable of beating a ‘drinks company’ at building a car.

        RedBull have been a driving force behind F1, name another team that has brought back one of the ‘Heritage’ tracks to the calendar, I can recall one that refused too help one. They have invested tens of millions into new talents, while, barring Merc, Ferrari, and McLaren other teams have merely opted to bring in the next driver that comes with the biggest pay day, no matter how dirty the money is.

        Renault have gone backwards compared to last year and they seem only to be developing their engine for their own team in 2016. If I was spending hundreds of millions of dollars for a car that relied on such a supplier for an engine, I’d be pretty annoyed too, hell I might even use a global platform to try and kick them in the guts.

        1. engine is part of a car

        2. I’m a little underwhelmed by all this, all it says about Ferrari and Mercedes, is that they don’t believe they are actually capable of beating a ‘drinks company’ at building a car.

          From what I heard, I’m starting to change my mind on this.

          I heard from someone at Merc that they were approached by RBR, but then heard nothing more. They had provision for a certain number of customer teams, and in the end had to make a decision. With only one slot remaining, they gave it to the only team who had progressed to the final stage of negotiations, Manor. RBR had not.

          As for Ferrari, they have now offered an updated 2015 spec engine. It is not what RBR want, but is likely the best they can get*. All the engine manufacturers have already set up the resources for their engine supply. It is not as simple as “giving Red Bull an engine”, they have to increase resourcing, build more engines, supply more staff….

          Add to that how much damage RBR would do to their reputation if they complained as much in public as they have done about Renault, and I can see why Merc and Ferrari can’t or won’t supply them.

          *It may be that Ferrari are just playing hard ball on contract negotiations, though. It would not surprise me if RBR ended up with a standard, customer 2016 spec Ferrari PU. It would surprise me if they managed a full work-spec, including software etc.

          1. I think that on the BBC coverage of Suzuka one of the Merc management made the statement that RB had not made a definite request for engines, only an initial enquiry. But then, he did not say whether RB had not pursued it because the Merc answer was ‘no way!’

        3. Yes, you have a point. I too think Ferrari and Mercedes decision not to supply Red Bull with equal engines is questionable and more than showing respect to Red Bull’s skills it shows weakness from Ferrari and Mercedes.

          Mercedes have no problems supplying Williams and McLaren (years ago) but now they fear the Bulls like their engineers of the chassis side cannot beat Red Bulls.

          However, Ferrari and Mercedes have the right to say no to Red Bull because the financial benefits of selling equal engines to Red Bull can be offset by loosing prize money or even sponsors if Red Bull becomes a dominant force again, so their decision can be justified for both sports and financial reasons.

          You’re right when you outline Red Bull’s enormous contribution to F1 and it’s feeder series in the last 12-15 years, I think the sport will miss the Bulls if they decide to quit by the end of 2015 but we cannot blame neither Ferrari nor Mercedes for that because Red Bull has/had an engine supplier in Renault but their deficit of patience and lack of class deteriorated their relationship to the point of no return. We all know Renault failed to build a competitive PU again but there’s no reason to believe they cannot do a better job in 2016, they’re part of Red Bull’s success and deserved more respect from the Bulls, in my book: Renault is keen to buy Lotus because they want to show Red Bull they can do a good job and I wish them tons of luck.

          1. You could also argue RedBull are scared of making their own engine and attempting to take Ferrari and Merc on by making 100% of their car instead of using their huge budget to concentrate only on chassis and be given a top class engine for 15 million or so when yearly development cost on this is over 100 million.

            1. They are a drinks company, why would they spend another hundreds of millions in infrastructure to build an engine that they can’t use in their own products. While Ferrari and Merc are not using their F1 engines in their cars they will be using the development process to improve areas of their road going cars ( that’s the very core or Motorsport ).

          2. Mercedes have no problems supplying Williams and McLaren

            True. And they have the infrastructure in place to supply them.

            It is not a simple matter of building another engine (in fact, at least another 16 engines, 4 per car, 4 cars, unless they are reducing the limits again) next year. They have to increase manufacturing capacity, secure additional supplies of components, allocate additional staff both to manufacturing them and to supporting the 2 teams. At this late stage it is not easy to do so, and they may run in to hard limits. Their present manufacturing facilities may be too small, they may not have enough staff and have to recruit, their suppliers may not be able to guarantee enough supply of components.

            Merc had, from what I have read, one spare spot available to supply engines. Red Bull had made no more than an enquiry, whereas Manor were fully signed up and waiting. They gave that spot to Manor.

            1. I’d love to hear the shareholders thoughts on Mercedes giving its final engine contract to a team that is more than likely going to go bankrupt mid way through the season, rather than a team flush with funds, promotional capability and experience to run at the front of the grid.

            2. @ross

              It is a valid thought, but i would see no problem if the money is paid upfront or in short/quick periods early in the season…

              there are many things we dont know in this story, and there are more known technical dangers/concerns supplying redbull from major teams… partly because they had the best aero package of all, and they only missing on a reliable and fast engine…

              would you give away your winning engine to a team who was the 4 time (almost 5) in row champs before yours… do you think redbull would share their aero package with merc/ferrari in those 4 years?

            3. Yes. Because I would covert the satisfaction of beating the best.

            4. Totally agree with this. They might not have capacity to build so many of the latest spec where the old spec can start to be built as soon as agreement is reached as they know it’s fixed design.

              As for previous comment on Red Bull would not invest in engines as it is not part of their business as they are a drinks company I have never seen an aerodynamic carbon fibre Redbull drinks bottle for sale in any shops either so what are they building a chassis for?

          3. I think the main difference between supplying Red Bull and supplying other teams is the attitude Red Bull have shown, more than any other factor.

            Think about it: last year, Williams were the closest to Mercedes at many of the races, and Mercedes have no issues continuing to supply them engines. And Merc happily supply Lotus because Lotus said ‘We’re not happy with the Renault ones, so we’re going to look elsewhere’. And then they got the Merc ones, and said ‘Hey, these engines are pretty sweet!’.

            Red Bull, on the other hand, have been more like ‘Renault are pathetic and useless and we’re sick of their rubbish and we’ll quit if they don’t improve and…’. But when they were winning, it was all ‘Our car’s great! Oh, the engine? You mean you don’t want to marvel at how tight the rear is packed? Or how much aero grip we generate?’.

            Basically, if Red Bull approached me for engines (and I ran a company capable of making them), I’d also say ‘Yeah… no.’

            1. Also lets not forget that with Red Bull’s attitude there is no wining for the one giving them engines.
              If Merc gave them engines and they ended up taking the championship from Merc then Merc would look like fools but if Merc gave the engines and still hold an advantage in races then Red Bull would definitely whine that they aren’t getting the best engines and throw a tone of innuendos that supposedly they are getting cheated etc even if Merc gave them perfectly fine 2016 engines.
              Why bother when no matter what you do you will get the bad end of the stick?

      4. Thumbs up for that one @bnkracing!

        I see Red Bull is either completely over the top blind to its own failings in thinking that this helps them get a good engine, or its been their exit strategy for a year and a half now.

        It started with Bashing Renault to chase them away, continued with heaping dung on Mercedes for the engine while at the same time seemingly not even really trying to talk to the manufacturer to get that engine (if we can believe Lauda on that matter) and now they seemingly are trying to threaten Ferrari. Good luck with that strategy guys!

      5. Inciredible that Red Bull people think bashing Ferrari and accusing them of being disrespectful and playing games before the contract makes sense!!! Especially with the history they have! Ferrari could legitimately say that they don’t have the capacity to provide them with anything other than 2015 engines, and no one could credibly claim that they are lying and that they have the means to do that. And even if that is not the main reason for Ferrari not supplying Red Bull with a full works engine including all the maps, and fuel and everything, how can you blame them? These 2 teams have more or less the same budget. Ferrari spend a substantial part of that budget on R&D for power units and their manufacture. So, in a way they have less money left to spend on their chassis because selling those engines most likely won’t be compensating for the cost. Now fans and Red Bull and everyone expect Ferrari to produce a chassis with considerably less money than Red Bull. Because it is somehow “unfair” to Red Bullies? So they have to sell their hard work at a substantially low price, because they are being threatened? How is any of this fair to Ferrari!?!?!

        1. Good point about the fuel. Perhaps neither Shell nor Petronas wants the cost of sponsoring another team, or at least one which is so willing to bad-mouth suppliers in public.

    2. Even if Ferrari give Red Bull a 2016 PU, Red Bull, with the way their acting, are probably still gonna act suspicious.

      1. It’s a no win situation for Ferrari. If they give an equal PU and RBR beat them Ferrari look bad, if Ferrari beat RBR you can bet that Horner et al will complain that there’s funny business going on.

        The whole thing is getting so bad I’m starting to wish RBR would leave.

        1. The good question is not “Who wants a costumer like this?” It is: “Does this costumer really want an engine supplier?” Maybe the decision is already taken, and a good way to circumvent eventual fines is creating a no-no situation…

          1. The question actually is “who wants a customer like this?” No one wants to agree to give Red Bull engines knowing that if they don’t win (which is a possibility, given Mercedes form and Ferrari’s upward swing) they will be lambasted exactly like Renault have been for the last 18 or so months and if they do win (which, given their budget, is also a possibility) they will get zero credit.

            If you are looking for a solid commercial rationale for a deal to give Red Bull engines, there just isn’t one. Sporting arguments yes, a commercial rational…nope.

        2. There is another interesting aspect to it. RBR departure would also show the farsical side of F1 business model for a costumer team: nobody will provide a top 25 millions/year engine for a costumer to win.

          I wonder what former detractors would say about Ron´s decision of going after Honda. Ok it was a bet he lost, but he preferred to risk being behind instead of, not being a works team, the certainty of being there. I also remember Massa haters joking about his suspicion that Mercedes were not providing their best for Williams. The fact is that there is no real competition out of Mercedes and Ferrari, when there is any. This sport is doomed, as sad as a 30+ years fan would like to admit.

          1. You’re right about Ron, but the “this sport is doomed” part is an exaggeration, I’ve hearing this for too long to believe it, it’s still the crème de la crème of motorsports and should still be for the foreseeable future.

    3. I’d much rather not lose two interesting F1 teams, but there’s no way that the situation they find themselves in isn’t entirely Red Bull’s own doing. Trashing their engine partner publicly was only the last step in the process. Long before that, they were wielding their power in their own self-interest, rather than in the interest of the sport in general, but now they want folks to think of what’s best for F1 and let them have access to top-tier engines… despite the fact that they had access to the best engine on the grid for years and then immediately threw their supplier under the bus at the first sign of difficulty.

      It’d be awful for promising drivers like Ricciardo, Kvyat, Sainz, and Verstappen to lose their drives, obviously. But Red Bull made their bed – not just by trashing Renault and not having an option lined up, but because they’ve never worked for the good of the sport, and are now relying on the goodwill of their competition to somehow extend them a liferaft. It’s nuts.

      1. It absolutely is nuts. Red Bull have burned their bridges and shown their true colours. Why would you bother giving them a 2016 engine for them to trun around and complain that it isn’t as good as the Mercedes engine, and thats why they aren’t winning.

        If Red Bull are so quick to publicly rubbish the company who gave them the manufacturer treatment that lead to 8 titles, then they are in no position to demand loyalty from anyone.

        Red Bull are hypocrites, and if I was Volkwagen Audi Group, I would be more interested in slowly distancing myself from this toxic omnishambles of an outfit, than eyeing up any long-term partnership.

    4. I have my bets on RBR leaving. Nobody wants to give them an engine, and even if someone stepped up, all this saga means they have no idea what kind of car is going to pop out in winter testing, since I find it very difficult to believe a RB12 is being drawn, let alone developed. Same goes to STR, which is sad, since many of those guys are there since the Minardi days and look at what they have achieved.
      In a perfect world Minardi would return and RBR would ring Craig Pollock for some PURE engines. :)

      1. I think Cosworth has an engine they can buy ;)

        1. I too heard cosworth had an current hybrid F1 engine on the shelf, I guess it wouldn’t fit RBR’s definition of competitive though.
          Renault power more often than not 40% of the point scorers on any given weekend. Statistically they are not as bad as RBR make them out to be.

    5. No British Grand Prix, no Italian Grand Prix, no German Grand Prix, McLaren failing to make gains, Red Bull, Toro Rosso, and Lotus on the brink of potential departure, Bernie is annoyed with his two leading teams.

      And who’s going to have the courage to tell him, “we all saw this coming.”

      1. Yes (@come-on-kubica)
        29th September 2015, 0:33

        I’ll be happy to.

      2. Maybe Keith could arrange one of those huge greetings cards, and every F1 Fanatic reader could write a small personal message inside it?

      3. I thought there is going to be a German GP again next year. It’s on the provisional schedule for July at Hockenheim.

        1. There should be yes, but the lack of one this year is a disgrace, and beyond 2016 its future is unknown.

      4. In an email dated 2006, from his people, in reply to the forecast of a changing future — were the assurances that they were on top of it all, with all the necessary resources to adapt accordingly.

      5. @strontium +1 I’m quite surprised Bernie hasn’t really acted upon it already like it’s a path towards F1 folding. While I doubt that’ll ever happen, it certainly doesn’t have a promising future atm

    6. 18 cars on the grid is an acceptable risk to shut up the Red Bull whingers. We want race teams, not crybabies.

      1. To be fair, the drivers and the people who make and engineer the Red Bull cars are real racers. It’s just a shame the owner is such a fool*.

        *Substitute for a stronger word.

      2. The Blade Runner (@)
        29th September 2015, 8:01

        It is provided the majority of those 18 cars are competitive.

        Unfortunately if we lose RBR and STR we lose 4 top ten finishers and 2 that are able to fight for the odd podium and even a win.

        F1 is in such a mess at the moment.

    7. The Nigel Bennett words of wisdom in the Gordon Kirby article should be a must read for all those who are supposed to be deciding the future of F1 regulations and design. He addresses points nobody seems to even bring up and has sensible solutions for what is ailing F1 today. Somebody, please listen to this man and heed his advice!

      1. Indeed, it was a very good article. But as usual the people at the top making rules wont understand such simple solutions provided by Nigel Bennett.

      2. He’s convinced the right way forward is to reduce downforce, including going to much simpler front wings, and by making some radical changes in tire sizes.

        He’s not the only one, it’s such an obvious solution that it’s difficult to understand why it’s never been adopted.
        It’s a good article, well worth a read.

        1. @beneboy – And going to simpler front wings would be a money saving move too. The ridiculously complex front wings are a waste of money and technology resources that could be put to better use.

      3. 2 words “Vested interests”.

      4. The teams are insisting on a return to 2008 like regulations. It’s almost as though the OWG never existed. And they call it the ‘strategy’ group!

      5. Yeah, this article, and the last one (focused more at Indycar, but equally important for F1 IMO) really hit the nail on really thinking about what improves the cars, racing and safety and make it look more spectacular @bullmello.

        When compared with the proposed ideas for 2017 F1 (MORE front aero, Wider tyres making for higher cornering speeds) go more or less exactly in the opposite direction

        1. I agree with much of what he says except for a few things. The ‘appendages’ added to the Indycars were to help prevent wheel on wheel contact with such close racing cars on high speed ovals, due to some horrific crashes from tires touching. Fasten them better perhaps, but I sure don’t know that I’d be too quick to eliminate them.

          And regards to F1, I don’t believe that 5 seconds faster cars would be too dangerous. They were that much faster before, and now the crash tests are stricter and can always be made a notch stricter yet, and the tracks have been dumbed down more. I think F1 needs to be more spectacular and can do so without risking the drivers. I do also question less grip from the tires, as I think we need to see drivers with the mechanical grip and less dirty air effect so that they have confidence again in the car in corners. Less grip sounds to me like cars driving around slowly as if in rain ie. like on ice, and I’d rather see them racing on a fine edge between grip and no grip than some fuzzy edge due to no grip at all. I envision drivers still limited from pushing themselves and the car if they have less grip.

          Overall I think Bennett makes some strong points but I think if he had his way F1 would be truly as slow as GP2 from the sounds of it.

          1. @robbie
            I think his point about the tyres is that the fronts should be smaller and thinner than the rears, which makes a lot of sense if you’re going to reduce the effectiveness of the front wings and get rid of the current weight distribution limits.
            It would be a return to what was typical until the 90’s with small and thin tyres at the front, and big and wide tyres at the rear, with most of the weight at the rear of the car and front wings that are there mainly for adjusting the trim and ballance.

            1. @beneboy You’re right and that part is quite interesting and little talked about, but it was when he talked about reducing downforce and overall grip that has me concerned about drivers’ confidence in the car. He doesn’t seem concerned about the speed of the cars and many think F1 needs to speed up and indeed that seems to be what they want for 2017. Indycar, sure, may need to slow down on the high speed ovals given their closeness to each other on the track. But for me for F1 I do think they need to speed up and if that is by making them faster on the straights due to narrower tires great but I just think they shouldn’t be lacking grip in the corners…that’s what they’ve been suffering for so long in dirty air…the corners are where they need the mechanical grip for exciting passing. Or…maybe he has a point that longer braking distances due to narrower tires would create said excitement, but somehow, less grip just doesn’t sound right to me for the pinnacle of racing. Less aero grip and more mechanical grip is to me what would really put the control in the hands of the drivers, less tire grip taking away some of said control, slowing them in the corners, handcuffing them.

            2. @beneboy – Yes, thinner front tyres can make it a bit faster on the straights but much slower in the wiggly bits, leading to more stress on the brakes but longer braking zones. And as the article points out, bigger braking zones means more opportunity for overtakes, favouring drivers with a good feel for the brakes. Verstappen the younger would definitely put on a show.

            3. @robbie
              I agree, to an extent. I’d happily swap aero grip for mechanical grip, but I’m not necessarily of the opinion that we need higher cornering speeds.
              If the cars were faster on the straights but slower through the corners we’d get increased braking and acceleration zones, which would allow more opportunities to overtake. And less grip overall would make life harder for the drivers as they’d have to be able to balance the car through the corners a lot more than they do now, with more oversteer and some drifting, like we used to get.

      6. I also think Nigel Bennett has a lot of good ideas. I only wonder about more downforce from the floor – the reason the floors were restricted was because the downforce vanished when cars mounted kerbs and were no longer close enough to the ground. The results were some spectacular flights over the runoff straight into the barrier, with no loss of speed and the potential to reach spectators. It is probably counterproductive to bring flat floors back – it would allow cars to corner faster, reducing braking distances and the resulting overtaking opportunities.

    8. RBR again b_it_c_hing about their potential engine partners and at a time when there is no deal done at the table. Imagine what levels they will stoop when they will get a deal and then beaten by Ferrari.

      I said yesterday as well.. Ferrari should just say “NO” to them like Mercedes said. These guys dont have any intention of continuing racing from 2016 onwards. They are just placing more and more hurdles in their way so that they could leave the sport, blaming someone else when in actual its ONLY their fault for being in such situation.

      If they wanted to continue, then who in their right mind will again slam their potential new partner in media?

      Money isnt everything for Ferrari. They already have a works team competing in F1. Why would they need another works team by supplying “works parity PU” to RBR? I can only imagine one scenario when this thing would be working out i.e. Ferrari deciding to quit F1 and just remain as an engine supplier ( which wont happen ever)

      If RBR wants to stay in F1, they should better accept whatever PU they will be getting from Ferrari or else develop their own engine or call some other engine manufacturer to join sport and make engines for them (audi, vw)

      I will be really sad to not see those 4 talented drivers on grid next year and thousands of men jobless, working at Milton Keynes and Faenza. But I just dont wanna see Horner or Marko or Mateschitz again. They are just bad losers and because of their attitude, many people’s future is in jeopardy.

      1. At this late stage, RBR should consider themselves lucky to obtain a supply, whatever the spec. They can’t compare to Sauber and Haas, who are both are on-going partners.

    9. I’m so infuriated by Red Bull’s attitude that I can’t even formulate a decent comment to express my opinion on it…

      1. artificial racer
        29th September 2015, 9:54

        Well they want to win. F1’s engine rules have made it so that finding a competitive engine partner is evidently virtually impossible. It’s not just Red Bull, it’s McLaren, and really the rest of the field too, even though we’re used to them being perpetual losers with no hope. Would you be happy if RBR and McLaren both disappeared? What if they pulled the plug on Williams too? We can just throw everyone out and have a Mercedes vs. Ferrari race every weekend. Oh but we’re getting Haas! Another team to join the rest of the rolling chicanes for Mercedes.

        Why do people here get so angry about RBR’s comments? They are only honest, right? Are you guys really the types to buy into banal political correctness? People used to complain here about teams and drivers being too PC. Do you really want them to have simply praised Renault up and down for the last 2 years?

        1. I get angry with RB for having a public slanging match with their sponsors. When they accepted Renault/Total as sponsors they undertook to promote them, not put them down. Any disagreements should be in private because neither party benefits from a public slanging match.

    10. It is a cheek to offer us 2015-spec engines when, at the same time, Sauber and Haas F1 are going to get 2016-spec engines.

      No, its a cheek to expect manufacturers’ with teams to supply engines to a well funded major competitor. Why should they, there isn’t any obligation on Mercedes, Renault, or Ferrari to supply any team at all. They do so entirely for their own profit, and a condition of that supply is they want they own team to have the lions share of podiums, glory, prestige, prize money, etc, and to have their same engine supplied other teams to squabble over what they can’t get or don’t want.
      What I find strange is why Red Bull so quickly decided to dump Renault without having some sort of cast iron contract with another engine supplier. Red Bull and STR management should have made moves by now to get some sort of deal with someone.

      1. Unless, it a strategy to quit F1 altogether in a victimized state and avoid the penalty and/or revive the Cosworth engine and negotiate three seasons worth of development tokens.

        1. Okay, maybe Red Bull do want to have their own independent engine supplier, but why wouldn’t you have a cast iron contract with someone (e.g. Toyota, Yamaha, VW, Cosworth, etc) before dumping Renault?

    11. This is no longer a sport it is a soap opera, anybody watch that MotoGp, wow!

      1. @trymark Exactly right. Im losing interest. And yes, how good is this years MotoGP season

      2. What a fight between Rossi and Pedrosa in the closing laps (Aragon), AMAZING!

    12. Where’s Enzo when we need him.
      I want to see those three idiots getting slapped by him.

    13. Red Bull leave, Haas hire all their best staff and win the Championship in 2017 ;-)

      But seriously if Red Bull leave doesnt that mean Torro Rosso go too?

    14. Why wouldn’t RBR just simply place 6-pack of Red Bull energy drink into their chassis for next year?

      You know, I never liked the idea of third cars for teams, but now it looks more attractive for me than endure RBR presence in F1 for another season. Just imagine: we could see Wehrlein straight in Mercedes, not Manor; McLaren will retain both Alonso and Button and at the same time finally run Vandoorne; Ferrari for sure will go for Verstappen; Ricciardo and Sainz won’t stay without a seat as well. We could even see Susie Wolff at Williams! (jk)

      As for serious, I just can’t stand this “you-MUST-give-us-the-engine!” demeanor. “We want to win races and YOU have to do this for us”. Actually, Toro Rosso did win with previous year’s Ferrari engine already. In my opinion, the best solution is RBR and STR to be sold to somebody. In that case with new owners I don’t think Ferrari still would refuse to give them 2016 engines.

    15. Chris (@tophercheese21)
      29th September 2015, 6:35

      I’m still hopeful that all this bad news about teams potentially folding, legendary tracks being dropped from the calendar and teams doing nothing but complaining is all just part of Bernie’s large plan to devalue Formula One and by it back off CVC and claim full control and then restore F1 to its former glory.

    16. RBR and TR may pull ouy.. suddenly, having let the “beggars” Manor participate and survive seemed like a great idea, wasn’t it Bernie?…

    17. I can’t help but just see a lot of double standards here. Badmouthing is if you say something which is wrong. But to say that the Renault engine is crap and especially is (at least was in the first half of the season) significantly worse than last year, then this is the TRUTH not badmouthing. And they even proved it with the races in Hungary and Singapore. When Alonso complains what a crap the Honda engine is on tele in JAPAN he gets defended, by far not the hate RBR gets…

      Also all the talk of “just take whatever you get, and race no matter how much money you put in there” makes me sick. I am sure Mateschitz could dial the budget down to Minardi level and then maybe it was worthwhile. However but with this current budget racing even in the midfield is suicide! Noone does that, or would do that. And Minardi level racing is not what he wants, and this is a legitimate want. And it is in my view absolutely legitimate to say, if we can’t find top spec engine we leave. What the heck is the problem with this? They are not asking for a god given right… They should have the same rights as Ferrari (= ask for something and make the consequences clear if they don’t get it), who are by the way the ones threatening with an exit of F1 on a regular basis, but have never done it so far, go figure. Just as McLaren already made clear (=threated) that Honda might leave if rules don’t change on engine regulations…

      However now I really understand why McLaren went the way they did, but maybe they may drown as well. It is really not looking good for them, since they also can run a top team budget on those results only for so long…

      1. Also as we can see above it might very well be that Button also is just playing the “threat with an exit game” to get what he wants, also not much hate for him to be seen here for him… Everything already used up for RBR it seems.

      2. Why the heck they should have the same rights as the manufacturer who supplies the engines??? Read the above comments. It makes no sense for a team to spend half their budget on something and then sell it to a comparable abysmal price to another team who has the same budget as them. Can you imagine Red Bull selling their chassis with their aero to Ferrari if the rules didn’t prevent that? Equally mind-boggling.

        1. Please read what I wrote again. I didn’t say at any point RBR have a right to the same engine with current regulations.

      3. @skylien well said – totally agree. At the end of the day this is a serious multi million £ business negotiation for RBR as well as a major sporting challenge. People / businesses take all sorts of “positions” whilst negotiating such deals knowing full well that in the end both sides will move to the middle ground or a deal won’t be struck. He time for criticism is when / if it all goes wrong.

      4. Badmouthing is if you say something which is wrong. But to say that the Renault engine is crap and especially is (at least was in the first half of the season) significantly worse than last year, then this is the TRUTH not badmouthing.

        Well, let’s don’t forget that RBR have already critized Renault harshly in the 2014 season in spite of winning three grand prixs!

        And it is in my view absolutely legitimate to say, if we can’t find top spec engine we leave. What the heck is the problem with this?

        But doesn’t tell this a lot about RBR’s attitude + intention? In my view it just states the following: They have never really loved formula1! Look at Williams, they have been struggling for years. Did they always have the best engine? No. Did they complain like RBR? No. (And keep in mind, when we are talking about RBR we’re talking about the ultimate winner form 2010-2013 and 3 GP wins in ’14)… You will say: …. “Well Williams is a race-team only whereas RBR is primary a Powerdrink producer”. No. The moment they hired hundreds of people and signed a contract with F1 until 2020 you are a race team! If RBR is not prepared to go through some rough patches after dominating the sport it just proves: they never loved F1 + they are sore losers.

        1. As if Merc and Ferrari just love the F1 and would be happy to fight for 10th place. The difference between Williams on one side and Merc, Ferrari and RBR on the other is that the latter have the budget for fighting for top spot. And they want a realistic chance. And that is not possible as customer team if no one gives you an up to date engine. And besides for Merc and Ferrari F1 also is a commercial issue. They want to sell cars on Monday after winning on Sunday. That is why they are not giving top spec engines to other teams capable of beating them, so that says something about their attitude (I hope I am proven wrong about Ferrari).

          I just see a F1 that per definition! only allows 8 cars a realistic chance to win the championship. The other 12 cars are just pawns in the game of their engine supplier. I can understand that RBR doesn’t want to be just a pawn either for Ferrari nor for Mercedes.

          As a customer you can’t know what your supplier does. You can’t control what he does. So if you lose trust in your supplier (and absolutely nothing gave any indication that something would change for the foreseeable future) then you have to cut the losses and switch or get out. It is too much money at stake. And who are you to know when is the time for what? (Endure some rough patches or get out..)

          And I am not an RBR fan.

          1. @skylien: generally I understand your POV but I think it is too short-sighted and too single-sided and neglects a lot of the history of recent F1

            As if Merc and Ferrari just love the F1 and would be happy to fight for 10th place.

            Of course they are not JUST in F1 for F1’s sake but also for commercial reasons. But I think it is absolutely fair to say that they feel a greater responsibilty for F1 and appreciate the tradition and history of the sport on another level than RBR does.

            I just see a F1 that per definition! only allows 8 cars a realistic chance to win the championship. The other 12 cars are just pawns in the game of their engine supplier

            If you’re complaining about that, then i guess you never enjoyed F1 at all. Because i can’t recall many occasions in F1 where more than 8 cars had a realistic chance to win the championship. The only problem right now is that no one is in Mercedes’ League. If there was just one team that was battling Mercedes for the title, there would be no complaints. And what you call “definition”: The rules do not state “Mercedes has to be the dominant team”.!The rules for the V6 were agreed upon by the teams and Mercedes, at that time lead by Ross Brawn, put their hopes and massive resources on this and are now picking up their rewards for their work.

            As a customer you can’t know what your supplier does. You can’t control what he does. So if you lose trust in your supplier (and absolutely nothing gave any indication that something would change for the foreseeable future) then you have to cut the losses and switch or get out.

            What kind of short-sighted argumentation is this? Again: RBR finished second in the constructors ONE YEAR AGO. And I doubt that even if they had a Mercedes PU in 2014 that they would have won the title because Mercedes’ chassis was a good one too (same this year). SO 2015 is the first year since 2008 in which RBR won’t finish first or second in the constructors! Wow, what a record. And now they want to pull the plug? That’s ridiculous. Talking about trust: I think RBR did their fair share to destroy the trust to Renault when they began bashing them publicy back in 2014. So, if RBR and Renault stuck together, why wouldnt it have been possible to leap forward like Ferrari did for 2015. Were the “indications” of Ferrari leaping from 4th to 2nd from 2014 to 2015? It just shows that it is possible.

            If you follow F1 you know that there will be a major revolutions in the rules for 2017. And if you look at the history this always opens up massive opportunities. Ferraris, RBRs and Mercedes dominant years were each accompanied by a revolution in the rules. So in the foreseeable future, of course, there is massive opportunity for RBR.

            And if you have followed F1 for more than just a year, you know, that there have always been factors, that influenced the performance of a team. Factors that cannot be influenced by the team directly: Different engines, think of the tyre ware between Bridgestone and Michelin, Restrictions and Rules (e.g. think of the ban of Renaults mass dumper 2005). So, if that in your opinion is unfair and the conclusion should be that everyone’s using a standard PU or the rules get adjusted that everyone else can catch up and in the end only the aerodynamics and the driver and the strategy make the difference then you should probably switch to another sport.

            1. First, right I only woke up to the general engine problem due to the RBR saga. When McLaren switched to Honda and made this bad start in the season, at first I was still wondering why they ever switched away from Mercedes which is the top engine by far. Unbelievable I thought. Now I understand.

              Of course that problem existed already with the V8s but I didn’t notice it (also I am only following F1 closely since about 3-4 years), especially because at that time all engines available were much closer together, and it was mainly one on aero which every team does itself, and no one ever had a problem getting a competitive engine if they had the money.

              Now not anymore. The engine or better PU is so important and the performance descrapancy is so big, that it is impossible to overcome the customer disadvantages on the areo side. That is what I mean by definition. Pre 2014 it was not per definition, there it was still possible theoretically. It depended on the teams to get enough money, get the aero right, reliability and driver. Now you can be best in all those, but you still have no chance because in this case you are only offered obviously last years engine and this without SW and right fuel (info)…

              Listen I am not saying that RBR have made the right choice. The only thing I know is that it went from bad to worse over two years and I am sure Renault didn’t screw it up intentionally. And I have no idea what happened behind closed doors which might or might not warrant a loss of confidence additionally. And I guess you can’t know it either.

              And I agree there are many things wrong, but the PU conflict of interest of the engine suppliers who are competing teams at the same time is one of them and a very big one. And if they are not able to sort that out, I might withdraw from F1. All I am saying is that RBR doesn’t do anything much different than Merc or Ferrari or what Renault already have done in the past. They are looking to get the best deal. However RBR gets bashed for it constantly und unfairly.

            2. Hey skylien.
              Of course you are right pointing out that F1 in current state is far from perfect and i can understand and comprehend your arguments and aspects that you consider unfair. But when looking at alternatives I think it is not easy to come up with a fairer solution that satifies all teams. I hope that things will change for the better and you can keep enjoying F1 for a lot of additional years. :)

            3. @Oliver Lieb

              Yes it is not easy. I guess either something like one or more independent engine manufacturers (with no F1 Team) are needed, or rules require all engine suppliers to deliver actual equal engine packages which are finally assigned randomly to the respective teams (similar to the tyres). I hope so too. Thanks for the conversation. :)

      5. The problem I have is when I looked at the absolute top speeds attained by Renault powered cars using the Onboard Camera video at some other races, they are about the same as those achieved by Mercedes powered cars, meaning the engine power of a Renault powered car has about the same power output as the Mercedes engine. I did look at the calculated top lap speeds for each car at Suzuka, and it was apparent there was a gap between the Mercedes cars and the rest, but why this is I don’t know, because as I said my observation was the absolute top speeds on a lap seem to be about the same for Renault as Mercedes powered cars. Maybe the acceleration on a Mercedes engined car is better than for a Renault engined car, although that shouldn’t be so because there are limits on the amount of fuel that can be fed to an engine.
        One thing I have noticed is Mercedes drivers seem to limit their “revs” much lower than Renault drivers do, and one would expect the internal workings of a Renault engine to differ from a Mercedes engine, so maybe there is some slight difference there.
        The problem here is Red Bull are complaining, they and Renault aren’t trying to figure out why there is a difference in performance.

        1. @drycrust – on your top speed observations, it may be that the Renault-powered cars have less downforce in order to attain better straight-line speed. Lap times would be compromised in the corners where it is arguably easier to defend. This could lead to the results you’re seeing.

          1. @tribaltalker Thanks, I hadn’t thought of that. Yes, that could be one reason for the difference, but is it the full answer? Consider Lewis Hamilton: he often doesn’t attain the same absolute top speeds other drivers do, his top speeds are lower. So how is it he wins? My guess is he does this by being better at going around corners than everyone else.
            So yes, Red Bull may have compromised on their downforce to get a higher top speed, but surely the point is to get a setup that gives you the highest average speed around a track. A driver might only be to get their car to its absolute fastest for a short amount of time, e.g. 10 seconds, so why wouldn’t you choose to have better cornering and a slightly lower top speed. I guess the difficulty you have is lower top speed = more chance of being overtaken. Mind you lower cornering speed = more chance of being overtaken as well, so we are almost back at the beginning. If Hamilton can have lower top speeds and high corner speeds and win, then there isn’t any reason Red Bull can’t do something similar.
            The problem I see is Red Bull seem only too happy to blame Renault for their predicament, they and Renault don’t actually come up with reasons as to why the Mercedes engines are better, nor do they try to incorporate those reasons into their own engines.

            1. @drycrust – You’re absolutely right, it’s very complex. That’s one of the reasons I like F1 though. On Hamilton’s top speed – it’s been reported that he has a good feel for the “lift and coast” fuel saving strategy, last year he always seemed to have plenty of fuel in hand when he needed some quick laps. As he’s also known as a very late braker, you’d naturally expect him to have a high speed at the end of a straight… the “lift and coast” idea may explain this, but you’d have to talk to a real racer for better insights. Maybe @fastiesty could help, he seems to know his onions.

    18. Yeah ah, first you burn your bridges with Renault and now Ferarri is the bad guy in all of this? Hate to break it to you but…..

    19. If Ferrari offer Red Bull 2016-spec engines, then they might as well sell a copy of their actual chassis to Williams and lend Vettel to Sauber for a few races so that he can score some more points for them. That deal has never made sense to me as you do not make your direct rivals stronger, that does not happen in any sport that I know.

      I doubt if Red Bull are really good for F1 anymore, given all the bad publicity that they have created this year. We are here to win, not to play. FIA should do something with the rules to help us as we are too weak to catch up ourselves. Our current engine partner is miserable. Our potential engine partners are evil. Remember that we don’t really need F1 and can quit any time we want to. Given these statements, you have to ask if Red Bull truly want to stay in F1 or if they are just trying to find excuses to quit.

      On the other hand, their situation is very unfortunate. Imagine that you are an F1 team that spends a lot of money to be successful but have an uncompetitive engine and you do not believe that your engine partner is committed enough and will ever build what you need. So you start to look for new options and find… nothing. As mentioned above, it makes no sense for Mercedes and Ferrari to sell latest-spec power units to someone, who can beat them. The same goes for Honda that is focused on McLaren so an outdated “GP2 engine” is the best they can offer.

      If F1 was a long-term project for Red Bull, then they would bite their tongue and try to find an interim solution (such as weaker Ferrari engines), while working on something better (attracting a new engine manufacturer to F1 or building their own engines) for 2018. However, that does not seem to be the case so I believe F1 should simply let them go now.

      1. Agreed. I think there is something wrong with Formula 1. Because it makes no sense for a manufacturer to supply a customer team with the same engines as they use in their team if that customer has the same budget as them! That would actually make them quite unintelligent as they will then have to beat that team by creating a better chassis with a lot less money left!!!

    20. Red Bull is bashing Ferrari, saying that they are “playing games.”

      Guys, what if – just a thought. After all of this Ferrari says “no” to Red Bull Racing but “yes” to Toro Rosso?
      Toro Rosso is registred as an Italian team, based in Faenza, Italy. Proud little Italian team with a Ferrari engine (once again).
      A press release from Ferrari of how happy they are with Toro Rosso joining them as a customer. And how they are looking forward of continuing their partnership with Sauber and they are welcoming Haas F1 to Formula 1. And if then people start to ask questions about, why only Toro Rosso not both of the Red Bull teams? Ferrari can say that they are about quality not quantity and 4 teams using Ferrari engine is enough (which as a figure of teams per engine manufacturer ism at least in my opinion, more than enough).

      But coming back to reality, I do not think that Toro Rosso would be so independent in their decisions and DM would not allow something like this to happen.

      1. This is the correct move for the Red Bull brand in my poinion, drop the ‘need to win’ flagship outfit, and just keep this young exciting race team for bringing new talents into the sport.

        This fits far more comfortably with the cool-guy x-games branding than trading politics with Toto et al.

        In a few years, we could go back to seeing Red Bull as energetic and fresh and good for the sport, rather than the parasitic back-stabbers they appear to be today.

    21. Surely it would make @keithcollantine ‘s life easier if he created a rule which automatically generated a Round-up headline which read “Red Bull hit out at everybody over everything”…

    22. RBR to Ferrari: “2016 engines or you’ll get less TV time”
      Ferrari to RBR: “less time being insulted on TV, you mean? Deal”

    23. Ross Brawn showed that when you need an engine desparately how to go about it. I don’t believe his method was the same as Red Bull

      1. Actually Brawn GP ARE the issue with supplying a ‘manufacturer’ level team with an engine.
        if you supply a manufacturer level team, which brawn were when Honda designed the car, you could end up with a lot of egg on your face if they are more competitive than you.
        also for a brand like Ferrari, who exist to sell cars, it is more important to protect your image in this market than it is for red bull, who sell us tiny cans of caffeine that taste like (censored)

    24. I think as a point of principle, suppliers should be obligated to provide whatever the customer is prepared to pay for. I think that should be part of the deal when it comes to being a supplier. Because otherwise, with only two viable suppliers, if they are allowed to cherry pick the one team which receives their decent products, you’ll only ever have one or two teams at the most who are able to win. Maybe from a sporting spectacle this is fine – a battle at the top between two teams sounds great. But from a commercial perspective this is basically suicide for Formula 1. Teams like RBR invest mind blowing sums of money to be there on the basis that they want to be able to compete at the front. If they can’t do that, they will leave. And if teams at the back have no hope of improving, they won’t get sponsors, won’t get money, won’t get prizes, and will eventually fold.

      The only people who benefit from this situation are Mercedes and Ferrari – the two cowardly teams who want to make sure that the best team in the sport is hobbled, rather than genuinely beating them on technical ability. How sad that people are cheering them on, these two underperformers who are afraid of taking on the best.

      1. Have you considered that the current engine suppliers might have a problem supplying more than three or four teams. Certainly in the past Renault said they would prefer to only supple three teams and that included themselves.

        It may not be possible to construct more than enough brand new components for 6 PU’s at a time, and therefore any other supplied PU’s will have to be older spec which can be ordered well in advance.

        1. Well let’s hope that isn’t the case, because if it is then there can only be 16 cars on the grid..

      2. That makes no sense at all. I could as well say that Red Bull were just a bunch of underperforming cowards from 2010 until 2013, who did not deserve any of their titles as they refused to give up their competitive advantage and were also helped by frozen engine development, which meant that their stronger rivals were artificially held back.

        Do you seriously believe that building a strong engine equals “underperforming”, while building a strong chassis equals “technical ability”? I am pretty sure that Enzo Ferrari would disagree with you. Also, what should Ferrari do in 2017 (or later) if it turns out that their engines have become stronger than Mercedes? Will you call them cowards again if they refuse to sell their actual engines to Mercedes? Why should F1 not have a standard engine then? What about a standard chassis?

        I admit that the current engine situation is wrong and should be changed. There are not enough engine manufacturers in F1 (or interested in F1), the costs are too high and a team like Red Bull should have more choice. But that is no excuse to call Ferrari and Mercedes names.

        1. @girts Of course it’s cowardly. Designing a great engine is fantastic, but in the end they are also a supplier. Your flipped round example seems to be suggesting that RBR should have shared listed parts which would be against the regulations. In fact, the regulations at the moment seem to require that all customers get current spec power units, and it is Ferrari and Mercedes who are pushing to be able to pick and choose to supply inferior spec kit to customers. To me, they’re the ones creating the situation, they’re the ones running away from competition – it’s not possible for anyone else to step up and supply competitive engines now, so they have the monopoly. Well done to them, sure, but the whole sport suffers if they’re allowed to monopolise things. F1 is in a poor enough state without this kind of nonsense.

      3. I understand your frustration but not where you’re directing it; blame the governance of the sport and its rulemakers.

    25. The fear of Andrian Newey is too strong and obvious. There’s nothing to hide.

    26. reporting that Force India and Sauber have officially complained to the European Union about the governance of F1.

    27. Why would Ferrari coorporate with a team that likely will try to damage their brand like they did to Renault?

      1. Did RBR damage Renault’s brand? I kind figured the damaging thing for Renault was that they built an engine that was underpowered, had poor power delivery, and was unreliable. All RBR did was become quite vocal about how the power unit wasn’t good enough and that Renault needed to get its act together. Which isn’t exactly untrue.

        1. I get that most here hate Red Bull but in reality giving Red Bull the Ferrari engines could actually help Ferrari as it might be the only way that a Ferrari engine can really fight for and quite possibly win the championship. I think the turn around from Ferrari is after seeing Merc use up all their tokens and they are now working out if they think they’ll have enough to beat Merc in 2016 which is an interesting question.

          If I absolutely had to bet, I would bet that Red Bull chassis + Ferrari 2016 engine has a better chance of beating Merc next year than Ferrari chassis + Ferrari engine. Vettel is doing a great job to help improve the car floor aero but I don’t think it will be enough to beat a Milton Keys chassis.

    28. I don’t see Marchionne taking this well, somehow.

    29. For all people who wish RBR would leave, just think about the current situation with the engines, and what a team needs to win in F1. Compare the stats of all races from 2014 season and 2015 season, only Mercedes, Ferrari and Redbull have won GPs (and all of these have works PU). So how much ever you support Williams, Force India etc. on sticking to F1, they will not be winning races any time soon, because they are customer teams. For this generation of engines, if you are not able to secure a works PU standard engine, then forget about winning. I am sure most here, who wish RBR don’t get a competitive engine, want only Ferrari/Merc to win, else there is no chance some other team winning. That is the reason McLaren went with Honda.

    30. Watching the trend and dynamics we are heading for a manufacturers/engine factories team era. In a decade this will change again, no worries but this is what it is firn now. Focus should be on getting more of those factory teams in. So let’s not waste any more time on these RB guys. Others will step up to the plate no doubt. RB has shown enormeous lack of management skills and sportmanship towards F1 and their partners once they didn’t have the wind in their backs. Instead of debating continuation scenarios F1 should feel releaved with them leaving and focus on the opportunities arising when they are gone. Together with a rstructuring of the FOM the future will be bright again.

    31. “It is a cheek to offer us 2015-spec engines when, at the same time, Sauber and Haas F1 are going to get 2016-spec engines.”

      they are right. i would charge them twice as much, with an extra 5% every time someone bitches.

    32. LOL :D They dont even have the engine and already they criticize engine supplier. I would make them beg and pay double what sauber is paying… and then give them same engine as Sauber. Take it or leave it.

      1. OH And i would place in contract under any circumstance you are not to criticize engine supplier at any point and then in detail describe penalties for criticism:

        1.) Lack of drivability 1M €
        2.) Lack of fuel efficincey 2M €
        3.) Poor engine maps 3M €
        4.) Lack of power… 10M € and immediate termination of supply.

        Unheard of, back in da day Enzo Ferrari would show them the door.

        If anything RBR should call Ford on the phone and ask them if they wanna beat Ferrari again 5 years in a row?

        1. You’re right, they should speak to Ford. But who in their right mind would work with Red Bull Racing? They’re poisonous to third parties.

    33. I hope Red Bull stay somehow. There are one of the best chassis builders the sport has seen and their aggressive approach with in season developments, driver choices/program and race strategies provides good excitement which I enjoy. They have been (inexplicably) severely let down by Renault this year so much that they realize they can’t overcome the PU deficiencies with their chassis alone so for me it’s not surprising that they complained about it and sought a way out.
      If they somehow stay I’m going to make them my favorite team.

    34. So, it seems that not showing Mercedes might really have been on purpose – or would Bernie say they might have overdone it a tad be just his humor (or playing up his real might, always use the opportunity offered by an interviewer, eh) @gt-racer

    35. I am only sorry for the 2000 euro per month employees of Redbull and Toro that may lose their job in a very critical moment for europe. Apart from that mr Redbull can take his toys and go back to his room and play alone, so he can win all the times. “Gnegnegnegne, i want the best of everything, so I can win everything, gnegnegnegne!!!” The other kids are offering their older toys? Well mr half sportsman, if it was me, I’d offer you the 2014 engine, not even the 2015. I am sick of these mercenaries, zero history in the sport, selling damaging water and manufacturing nothing. Get lost!! Again, go back to your skateboards and bmx bikes (very cool, i love them). F1 is for Frank Williams, Ron Dennis, Montezemolo, Ross Brawn, Patrick Head and those people who can lose in dignity and never give up. None is going to miss you

    36. I have some sympathy for the Redbull drivers and ten personnel, but the management of the team are responsible for this mess. They have disrespected other teams by going behind their backs and getting the best deal from Bernie, in the process creating a dilemma for the smaller teams.
      They have ridiculed their engine supplier at every opportunity for many years showing they are not interested in working as partners.
      They have arrogantly insisted on having their own way or beneficial concessions to the detriment of F1.
      They even tried to push for engine development to be included in the team cost which would have greatly affected those teams that carry out research and development of the engines, because at that time they had an engine supplier.
      Redbull gets paid more than Mercedes, they have a competitive advantage. And they expect to be handed over engines knowing they have stabbed Mercedes in the back previously.
      If they want competitive engines they should make their own and let’s read the narrative when they don’t find it to be a simple task.

      Redbull is already ahead in aero development and with the restrictions on aero work it is hard for teams to make up these deficits. Being paid more helps them maintain their competitive advantage, and they expect to be handed even more incentives to go back to their dominant years.
      They should leave if they want to, others have stayed in the sport even during very lean years.

    37. We will not miss you Red Bull. I only hope those hundreds of employees will find a better job after Red Bull goes back to sponsoring BMX Races

    38. Its like everyone involved with F1 needs a constant reminder that it is a self-interest business.
      Bernie, Teams, Drivers, Circuits, Media, Fans are all out for themselves. The governing constantly looks for a compromise between them.
      Martin Brundle keeps repeating “either you are giving pain or taking pain”.
      Neither Red Bull nor Fernando in regards to respective engine woes have done any “wrong” as per the standards of F1.

      1. Agree 100%. However in this sport there still should be a code of honour and respect for the true meaning of motorsport. When I see Frank Williams on his wheels and then I listen to an interview of Marko, I can see that despite of the business interest, there is a gigantic difference in the attitude and in the passion for racing

    39. Solution…supply Sauber, Haas, and RBR the updated 2015 spec engine…none of them getting the 2016. If that’s not good enough for RBR to stay, and F1 can handle them leaving, so be it, RBR made it’s own bed. If F1 can’t handle RBR leaving then they’ll have to intervene and figure something out for RBR. It’s cheek for RBR to expect the full package from Ferrari. They would never allow their own team TR to beat them so why would they expect a competing team to set them up to dominate? Time for them to either get out, or make due with what they get for next year while securing their own maker going forward and becoming a works team again and not be dependent on a competitor, which they would be no matter what spec or year of engine.

      1. Yeah @robbie I like your thinking, though I suspect Ferrari will want to batch-produce their main supply of hardware and are charging RBR enough to make the hassle of an extra spec worthwhile. Or for just one team can flog them the leftover spares from this year maybe.

        But as you say nobody, least of all Ferrari, is going to help RBR beat them, the whole concept is a fantasy. Maybe the 2015 offer is just a sop to Bernie.

        I also suspect Sergio Marchionne is NOT gonna respond: “Oh Helmut I didn’t mean to be cheeky I do apologize do have the 2016 unit by all means.” I get the impression he’s a guy who’ll say something pithy and unprintable. And terminal :)

        1. @lockup Lol. Or something like…”Whatta you want? Seb back too”?

    40. Gosh, those RBR guys are tiresome and annoying. Just stop, Marko, your sense on entitlement is way to big even for F1 standards. Just walk away.

    41. Good riddance RBR. F1 isn’t a spec series; they’re no more entitled to a Merc power plant than the rest of the grid were entitled to an Adrian Newey chassis a couple of years back.

    42. If Redbull leave f1 will be a joke next year and the people to blame are the FIA, MERC, FERRARI and worst of all RENAULT. The reasons f1 is in such strife today is the engine formula. The geniuses who agreed to this ridiculous engine formula should be sacked. Ferrari went along the FIA and, as for Merc and Renault they pushed for these pathetic changes and they threatened to quit otherwise. That’s when Bernie should have said bye bye, because the facts are all these teams would have stayed. The engines were at the peak of there development, cost to produce the engines were coming down and the manufactures of those engines were actually making money on the sales. F1 is soley about marketing. Ie the colour of the cars and sponsors is what people remember not that they are running a v6 with MGUK, ERS, ABC what every they call the components on the engine. All that need to be done to fix the sport was to tweak the aero and mechanical formula (less wings, wider cars and tyres) and maybe consider increasing kers performance.

      The FIA has deliberately gone out of its way to kill f1 and it has successfully done it so it can introduce a cost cap which will never work. 2016 will be a grid powered by Ferrari and Merc motors. Honda will likely pull out if it cannot get its act together by the end of next year, Renault whilst buying a team wont be able to produce anything competitive as the engine is poor. The only two teams that will be vying for a championship will be Merc and Ferrari and to top it all off if one of them produces a poor car or engine (highly likely) it will be another runway championship. F1 is in serious trouble, the engines are pathetic, the tyres are a joke, and the racing is ordinary the way money is distributed is out of touch. F1 is the only sport in the world where it earns 1billion a years and its number one stakeholders (teams) are running at a loss.

    43. The fact that Japan 2015 has been the only race in 66 years which has finished with the top 5 in championship standings seems incredble. Just look at the last five years. On paper, it looks so likely that Alonso, Webber, Hamilton, Vettel and Button finished in perfect order from 2010-2013, but apparently not! Even look at 2015. A Hamilton win, followed by Rosberg and Vettel, with Raikkonen and Bottas fourth and fifth respectively seems like it happens almost every weekend. It has only happened once this year (China), but Vettel was ahead of Rosberg in the championship at the time. Incredible how for one reason or another, it just hasn’t happened!

      1. That’s why stats are sometimes more interesting than the action!

    44. Great work @andae23 for that interesting stat!

    45. I think Ferrari would agree to provide engines to both teams but not under current ownership and not to Horner. If they go, which they are threatening to, problem will be solved. They should just let them. It’s not like the two teams will simply disappear and be sold for scrap. Someone else will take them over.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.