Daniil Kvyat, Red Bull, Suzuka, 2015

Hamilton bemused by Red Bull’s “odd” threats to leave

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Lewis Hamilton finds Red Bull’s threats to leave F1 because they don’t have a competitive engine “really odd”.

Tweets

Comment of the day

Fernando Alonso, McLaren, Singapore, 2015
Alonso cut his last Ferrari contract short by two years
Fernando Alonso reaffirmed his commitment to McLaren yesterday – but how seriously should we take it?

It is actually quite interesting to review F1 Fanatic articles that contain Alonso’s comments on Ferrari during his final two years there. Here are some that I found:

10th April 2013: “Asked during a fans Q&A session if he would finish his career with the team Alonso said: ‘Yes, that’s what I’m going to do.'”

5th September 2013: “I still have three-and-a-half more years with Ferrari which I intend to respect and hopefully to increase a little bit and, as I say, try to finish my career with the best team in the world, which is Ferrari.”

3rd September 2014: “It’s a year now that I’ve been saying I want to stay at Ferrari and extend my contract. That’s my wish, I repeat it every two weeks, at the end of every race.”

18th September 2014: “It’s sad when these [Vettel] rumours are created in Italy […] It’s a shame as it’s not helping Ferrari […] it’s not clear to me what is the purpose of these rumours coming from Italy.”
@Girts

Happy birthday!

No F1 Fanatic birthdays today

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

On this day in F1

Kimi Raikkonen scored an astonishing victory in the Japanese Grand Prix from 17th on the grid ten years ago today:

Author information

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

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

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

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

  • 95 comments on “Hamilton bemused by Red Bull’s “odd” threats to leave”

    1. Hamilton is playing mind games perfectly.
      It’s clear that Merc and Ferrari are happy to fight each other, and it’s clear they don’t want anyone else with them. Ecclestone is the only one worried with RBR, but again, ever since Bernie lost his grip to the guys that don’t want to sell. F1 is steered by the top teams for the top teams. Sporting wise the decision making should never be up to the teams, in this case it defrauds racing. In the end Bernie let F1 fall in disgrace.

      @bascb Read this, don’t nitpick my comment any further.

      1. “and it’s clear they don’t want anyone else with them”
        No its not. You just made that up. What is true is that neither team is prepared to hand RBR competitiveness on a when they worked to achieve it, and RBR cant be bothered and expect it as some sort of right.

        1. “…Neither teams is prepared to hand Red Bull competitiveness…”

          Looks like they’re handling it very well.

          F1 is not only racing, it’s heavy political, and Mercedes and Ferrari are suffocating Red Bull perfectly on this field at the moment, and glad they’re doing exactly that way.

          ;)

          1. Yep…. why should either of them help Red Bull… they can push it to the wire, then do a deal after its too late for Red Bull to properly design their car around the engine. They’ll get an engine but their design will be compromised.

      2. RBR only spends money on chassis, and wants a great engine easily, with tiny money… not gonna happen… Merc n Ferrari are their own brands and teams, why would they wanna give their best engine to a team who won 4.5 years in a row! More to this is RBR is a sour apple to grasp, no matter what you do, it is sour! They bitch about their supplier openly too much…

      3. Yes, that article is exactly what we have been trying to tell you all the time @peartree and you kept saying that somehow they did have a choice and it was their fault.

        1. @peartree, @bascb – take it from someone who knows about signing contracts being right and fair ;)

          “Even if you sign something, it doesn’t make it fair and it doesn’t make it right,” said Kaltenborn.

    2. Great COTD!!!! It show the kind of people Alonso is…

      1. Have you ever had to leave a job because of your employer’s sudden change in attitude? Or perhaps not delivering on previous agreements?

        Being a racing driver is still a job, ok, not your everyday job, but he is an employee nonetheless. Who knows what went on in the background. I still think that Fernando was forced out. After Domenicialli left, it was pretty much the beginning of the end for him. Sergio Marchionne wanted ore control at Ferrari, he got rid of the LdM structure, which included Alonso.

        1. @jaymenon10, Motorsport magazine has made exactly that claim in the past – that Marchionne saw Alonso as being too closely aligned with the previous management (given Alonso had made comments that were supportive of Domenicali after he was fired), and therefore hired Marco Mattiacci for the sole purpose of forcing Alonso out of Ferrari in order to create room for Vettel, whom Marchionne saw as being more marketable and easier to manipulate.

          Yes, it is true that relations between Alonso and Ferrari were rocky, but the claim is that Alonso was still committed to the team. It was the senior management who wanted Alonso out, and therefore set out to provoke him until he could no longer tolerate being at Ferrari and walked out, achieving the result they wanted without having to pay Alonso compensation for terminating his contract.

    3. Shame that on the Sky article you get people saying stuff like “He was reportedly keen for Ferrari to keep the past it Kimi because he could beat him rather than risk looking like a fool against Bottas”. Because Bottas is doing so well against Massa, who was equal to Kimi, both as teammates to each other and in their performance against Fernando Alonso.

      1. Bottas looked really good against Massa in the first half of 2014 (until around Belgium); which made a lot of people believe that he was a top driver. However, once Massa stopped getting involved in silly accidents (most of which weren’t his fault), he has been consistently matching Bottas for over a year now.

        Increasingly Bottas is looking like a tier 2 driver, on the same level as Massa and Kimi.

        1. So true. Bottas isn’t looking too great on racecraft this year. Been overtaken quite easily a few times this year. Normally without defending his position.

          1. Bottas is the kind of driver who more “looking at the big picture”. If he knows someone will eventually passed him either because tire difference or they can just undercut him in pit stop anyway he probably prefer to save his own tires instead. However if he knew he can keep the position until chequered flag, he will protect that position. Remember how he defended his positions numerous occasion against Ferrari and even Mercedes, although his good racing line style and Williams is fast in the straight makes he rarely in position to be overtaken at the end of the straight, hence people might see him as not defending positions at all.

          2. @sonicslv @maxv
            Bottas reminds me of Rosberg in 2009-2010. I wonder if he will turn out to be a driver of similar style.

            1. @kingshark I don’t think that’s a bad style, but it sure made them look “weak”. Honestly I think most Finns drive like that. Hakkinen and Raikkonen also have similar style. But, both of them shown proper aggression when they hunt for the championship. Let’s see if Bottas can do the same somewhere in the future.

    4. Alonso´s comments from 2013 and 2014 as mentioned with Cotd might have actually been his true plan and not PR-talk bordering on lying, if it wasn´t him leaving Ferrari on his own but rather him being fired by Ferrari… which probably wouldn´t look too good on him, too.

    5. “Rest of the world bemused by Hamilton’s “odd” haircut”.

      1. No, we’re not. It’s just you, bemused that not all peoples fashion sense matches yours. You know, as if they are individuals with individual tastes and styles.

        1. It’s really horrible though,
          up there with Jacques Villeneuve

          1. I may think it looks terrible, you may think so too, as may each and every one of us, but I strongly believe that we should celebrate those who don’t follow the norm, stick to the safe fashions that get pushed down our throats by several billion dollar industries and what they say is in season.

            Maybe I just want to wear a half-cape without getting funny looks!

        2. “We”?

          Thanks for speaking for me without asking my permission first.

          1. I think you’ll find that it was Johanness who did that. By demonstrating that his statement he made on your behalf was wrong, by being one person who was not bemused, I negated his entire statement as objectively false. He split the rest of the world as a group opposed to Lewis . So by proving his statement false, I was perfectly correct to use the word “we”, the group that Johannes created that includes me, him and you is correctly reffered to with the pronoun we, but please don’t accuse me of speaking on your behalf, because I was railing against the person who diod that for you for the exact same reason.

    6. Hamilton, like so many others are missing the point.

      In years past, if you started the season with an uncompetitive package, a constructor could regain ground via chassis and aero updates.

      Since the change to the engine formula, there appears to be no real way for a pure constructor to make up for 100+ hp differentials, so teams are effectively finished at testing before the season even starts if the PU manufacturer sits on their hands. It’s no secret that it’s not easy upgrading a PU (ask Honda or Renault).

      So why would any constructor remain in an expensive sport when there’s nothing they can realistically do to be competitive if their PU is massively behind all the others? If the regulations are not evened out to give a constructor more chance RBR won’t be the only ones driven out.

      1. @dbradock Best example of this is 2009 – McLaren started the year behind, having poured everything at the 2008 title campaign. But in the second half of the year they had recovered with a B-Spec car, and Hamilton scored the most points of anybody.

        2015 – Honda are in the same position – but cannot bring a B-Spec engine, strangled by the token amount. Thus they must wait for 2016, and if their solution isn’t ready by Feb 28th, they have to revert to a back up plan of simply copying Mercedes.

      2. Ian Laidler (@)
        9th October 2015, 2:01

        I think it is you that is missing the point here ….. I don’t recall hearing Ferrari, McClaren or any of the other teams (including the minnows of the sport) threatening to quit because they are not winning …. but RBR start acting like spoilt brats and throw their toys out of the pram the moment they stop winning … do they think they have a divine right to win everything.
        I feel sorry for the mechanic’s, design staff and drivers of RBR and Torro Rosso but Marko and Horner etc make me sick with their constant threats to quit and moaning about how unfair it all is
        Instead of this persistent threat to walk away they need to do 1 of 2 things, get their heads down and sort out their power unit problems (privately) or put their money where theirs mouths are and just go.

        1. Sorry @grumpy, but this

          ….. I don’t recall hearing Ferrari, McClaren or any of the other teams (including the minnows of the sport) threatening to quit because they are not winning ….

          just means that you ignore the regular outcry from Ferrari that this “aero dominated F1” is not real F1 and we are out that were repeated more or less every year they were not winning.

        2. How about when Merc threatened to leave the sport unless the engine formula changed? Or did you conveniently forget that?

          1. Good try but actually that was Renault….

            Not Mercedes

            1. They both did

            2. No, just Renault. Well and VW or so it was rumoured.

              Perhaps you are confused by the debate that started after the choice was made for a 4 cylinder line engine. Indeed then Ferrari and Mercedes pushed for a V6 instead.

        3. I don’t recall hearing Ferrari, McClaren or any of the other teams (including the minnows of the sport) threatening to quit because they are not winning …. but RBR start acting like spoilt brats and throw their toys out of the pram the moment they stop winning

          @grumpy Did you even read @dbradock his comment?

    7. Too many of the new tracks have too little character. There are exceptions – Abu Dhabi, for example, and Austin – but this one does not stand out so much.

      Oh dear, if Lewis thinks that the Abu Dhabi circuit has character, he is better off not ever designing any circuits. Unless of course he is talking about the surroundings rather than the layout, in which case fair enough.

      Speaking of which, if the Sakhir circuit was located in a country that has any passion for the sport instead of Bahrain, it could easily become one of the classics on the calendar. Whether people like to admit it or not, the circuit layout is fantastic for wheel-to-wheel racing. The location is the only thing about it that stinks.

      1. I think Hamilton refers to your last point, racing character/ circuit layout. Not the fact that is in the middle of nowhere.

      2. @kingshark, @maxv I guess Abu Dhabi has some attempts at making it more than just a flat 90 degress corner track – it doesn’t look all that well done to me, but I haven’t raced there (let alone been in fight for win on all visits there), so maybe I should revisit that thought!

        I feel another quote might help here to voice my feelings about most of the new tracks as opposed to many older ones:

        I feel that quite often the new generation of tracks don’t grasp the true essence of F1. I know there are restrictions to do with safety and so on but the circuits often feel too calculated.
        I don’t know how calculated Suzuka was but it feels like they found a great spot and went with the flow of the land. That makes a real difference.

        Well said.

      3. @kingshark No offence but I think I will take the word of someone who has actually raced on the tracks in questions

        1. @realstig
          Raikkonen has also raced on Abu Dhabi before, he had a slightly different opinion!

    8. I am I the only one that sees that Red Bull is in a great position to setup a breakaway series? Classic venues? No Drs, Unlimited budgets and v10s allowed? Top teams, top drivers, faster and louder than f1. Hell they could even have Bernie ringmaster it if he sells his shares tomorrow. Not that they need bernie, Red bull now have experiene of every part of the model.

      1. They could, but I don’t imagine they’d have anyone to race against. Which might suit them…

        1. What a grid that would be @neilosjames:

          Red Bull Renault
          Toro Rosso Renault
          Rooi Bulle Renault
          Rouge Bull Renault
          Toro Rojo Renault
          Touro Vermelho Renault
          Roter Stier Renault
          Ред Бул Renault
          ريد بول Renault
          レッド ・ ブル Renault

          :)

      2. ColdFly F1 (@)
        9th October 2015, 8:47

        RBR was in a great position to set up a breakaway series until December 2011 when they stepped out of FOTA!

      3. Well I think their accountant realize it won’t be profitable to them. There are no other motorsport that attract F1 number of views around the year, even if we say the spectator is dwindling now. Not WRC in their glory days, not DTM, not MotoGP, not NASCAR, Indycar, Formula E, SuperGT, or anything. LeMans probably could do it, but it only once a year and people recognize LeMans 24h better than WEC.

        Starting new series is incredibly difficult and probably not worth it. The only high profile in recent years that I remember is A1GP and we know how that turns out. And many series actually run multiple categories at one event to bolster the participants number, including WEC and many GT championship. 18 cars that we said few in F1 is a god bless for other series if one of their category can reach that number alone.

    9. RBR are being made to be the bad guys here, unfairly imho. Renault if you recall were one of the biggest drivers of the new engine formula. They messed up monumentally. Twice. Even though their V8 was not the best it wasn’t far off the Mercedes so RBR could make up the difference with their chassis. However the turbo was rubbish. Still is. Ferrari have made massive advances this year on their engine package. Renault is still rubbish. All RBR have said is the truth.

      Now imagine if the Renault engine was like the Mercedes, the best there is in F1. Imagine if RBR screwed up the chassis side of things as badly as Renault have the engine side. Would Renault remain silent? Would RBR remain the quasi-works team after two poor seasons? No way in the world. Renault would walk away, forming an works team alliance with someone else. Look what happened after two poor cars in a row at Williams in ’04/05. BMW walked away and formed their own team, fed up with Williams underperforming. From my recollection of that time ten years ago the situation here is exactly the same, just reversed and involving RBR, who many F1 fans love to hate now after their consecutive years of success.

      I can understand why both Ferrari and Mercedes do not want to give their engines to RBR, however don’t for a minute think this is because of their fear of being publicly slated by RBR. It’s because they fear being beaten by their own engines.

      RBR are a story of a mid-grid team being purchased by a wealthy benefactor, a team principal who did the right thing of establishing the best technical team he could rather than chasing a very expensive driver hoping that would fix everything (BAR anyone?) and from this mediocre starting point built their team up over five years to become world champions, and then won four times in a row. They deserve respect as a great team and F1 success story, not as ‘just a fizzy drink company’.

      So while their current approach to engines may seem a little aggressive, put in perspective I for one don’t disagree with their stance. If they need to pay for engines, they should be given the option of top line engines. Not sloppy seconds…

      1. +1 This should be COTD.

        IMO engine manufacturers should be required to offer EQUAL SPEC engines and tech support to ALL of their customers. Otherwise why should the privateer teams bother even trying to compete if they are performance handicapped by a lesser engine spec as well as financially handicapped by the payment system.

        F1 is such a mess right now…

        1. ColdFly F1 (@)
          9th October 2015, 8:53

          IMO engine manufacturers should be required to offer EQUAL SPEC engines () to ALL of their customers.

          This is actually in the rules!
          There are 2 exceptions in 2015: 1) Manor as unanimously agreed, 2) the ‘token loophole’.
          Hopefully we see single spec PU’s next year.

          1. Didn’t they just changed the regs to allow for different specs again?

          2. @coldfly Number 2 isn’t even actually a violation to that rule. All the team will get the revised engine too, but its up to them when they want to install that new engine (thanks to 4 engine per season rule).

            1. ColdFly F1 (@)
              9th October 2015, 12:13

              @patrickl – regs haven’t changed and still states that ‘A manufacturer may homologate no more than one specification of power unit.’ (appendix 4 Sporting Regulations 10/07/15).
              That also means that when they enforce this rule, even with tokens allowed during the year, that all teams have to change at the same time if there is a spec change! @sonicslv

            2. @coldfly I more interpret that rule as when there’s an token update (spec change) it indeed change the homologated engine to the newest spec. However every team doesn’t required to change to the new engine immediately, but any engine change they made after that must be the new spec engine. For example Sauber doesn’t require to change to Ferrari B spec engine when Ferrari introduces it. However, the next time Sauber want to change an engine, they must use the B spec and can’t use A spec instead (and of course Ferrari required to supply the B spec at no extra cost).

            3. @coldfly, Those rules were an epic fail which allowed the token development during the year.

              They changed the regs for 2016 (or this change is pending) so smaller teams could get a cheaper “last year” engine. Plus the development during the season loophole would be closed

              So from 2016 indeed they can homologate only one engine per season, but it would also be allowed to use the homologated engine of the previous season.

        2. Great idea and then all the customer teams should share the total cost, so Merc spend up to this point say 800 million from when they 1st started on the engine, to be fair all teams should burden the cost, so these engines have been going for 2 years so 400 million a year, 4 teams use the engine all should pay 100 million a year to make it fair, unless you are saying Merc are a charity and should pour 100’s of millions into an engine to then be forced to get no advantage from it and make a loss whilst doing so. That sounds really fair….F1 should not be about pulling big teams back to the lowest denominator which is Sauber et al. Red Bull have more than enough money to build an engine and all the lower teams can have an engine built for themselves by pooling budget together and getting Cosworth for example to build a customer engine, they could act as a form of buying group for their own engine. Instead you think the manufacturers should give 100 million a year’s worth of identical engine for 10 million?

      2. +1 I agree completely.

      3. +1 also agree completely…

        I always found kind of fun to see Red Bull beating a bunch of established teams. people came up with a lot of reason for hating them, but truth is they throughly deserved their years at the top!

        1. Totally agree.
          Sick of all the whingers slagging Red Bull.
          It’s a poor state of affairs when there are only four engine manufacturers and two of the manufacturers engines are total crap.
          I can totally understand why Ferrari and Merc don’t want to supply A spec engines to Red Bull and the rules governing engine development hamstring the likes of Renault and Honda.
          It is a difficult situation though because these engine development rules are in place to curb spending.

          1. Ferrari managed to turn around their engine troubles just fine for 2015. So how was Renault hamstrung by the rules making it impossible to do just the same? They simply dropped the ball again.

      4. @clay, I would disagree that Renault “messed up” with the V8 engine – it was not as uncompetitive as Horner and Red Bull liked to claim for political reasons.

        There was an independent study by the University of Cologne that demonstrated that the different in power between the Mercedes and Renault V8’s was far smaller than Horner claimed (15bhp, or half of the 30bhp deficit that Horner was claiming, in qualifying trim, dropping to 10bhp in race trim).

        However, whilst the peak power was slightly lower, the Renault V8 had a wider usable power band, the lowest cooling requirements of all of the engines and the lowest fuel consumption – which is why Newey reportedly overrode Horner’s efforts to secure a Mercedes engine, as he felt that the Renault engine was better suited to the overall packaging of the car.

        If anything, independent studies suggested that the worst engine in the field was actually Ferrari’s engine – it produced 5bhp more than the Renault engine, but had the highest cooling requirements in the field and the highest fuel consumption, factors which outweighed any potential power benefit.

        1. This point is backed up by facts too. Red Bull had the Ferrari engine and wanted the Renault engine badly enough that they put pressure on Ferrari to switch the Ferrari contract to Torro Rosso so that they could get the Renault engine in their top cars. They then moved Torro Rosso onto a Renault supply for the new era, presumably on the basis that they expected it to be the better option still.

      5. Now imagine if the Renault engine was like the Mercedes, the best there is in F1. Imagine if RBR screwed up the chassis side of things as badly as Renault have the engine side. Would Renault remain silent? Would RBR remain the quasi-works team after two poor seasons? No way in the world.

        While I agree, I do believe that they have been much too vocal about it. They have then chopped off their own feet by ditching Renault without having an agreement in place for a replacement. This puts Merc and Ferrari in the driving seat for negotiations, as it’s one of them or nothing. It was a pretty idiotic thing to do.

        So while their current approach to engines may seem a little aggressive, put in perspective I for one don’t disagree with their stance. If they need to pay for engines, they should be given the option of top line engines. Not sloppy seconds…

        The manufacturers have spent insane amounts of money on their engines. I suspect the negotiations actually come down to 3 things:
        * Ferrari are supplying 3 teams. In order to supply RBR & TR they would need to nearly double their manufacturing capacity by the start of next season, as well as all the support surrounding it. This is not easy or cheap to do.
        * Even if they are prepared to do so, it costs money. They have also invested a lot in the engine. Therefore it is likely that any negotiations surrounding supplying Red Bull will probably involve a high price tag for even close to parity (e.g. “you pay our expansion costs, plus a fair share of our R&D costs, and we’ll consider it”).
        * Ferrari also need to consider the less tangible costs. It costs them both money and reputation if they are beaten by a customer. So the price they charge RBR must reflect this, and probably attempt to reduce their spending on aero, in order to be worth it.

        I would support a more sporting set of regulations with regard to engines. My own, personal approach would be to say:
        * All teams must have chosen their engine for next year by a set date, for example the end of the summer break. This gives time for a manufacture to prepare their manufacturing capacity for the next season.
        * All manufacturers must produce a single engine specification available to any team, for a set (advertised and limited) price. These prices must be made available to the teams by a set date (for example, 2-3 months before the date set for the teams to finalise their engine choice).

        However, in a way it would be unfair to do so now. The manufacturers have put a lot of money into the initial R&D on these engines, and are expecting to recoup these costs over the life of this engine formula. Many business decisions will have been made surrounding this, probably including the fact that their works team will have a higher spec of engine.

        In short, it is all very complicated. It is certainly not as simple as “RBR deserve parity with a works team” or “RBR should take whatever they are offered”.

      6. If they need to pay for engines, they should be given the option of top line engines.

        I don’t see the logic in this at all. Where does the ‘should’ come from? What’s the basis for the entitlement?

        Merc and Ferrari run big, expensive engine departments so they can win the competition, not so they can help some other team to beat them. Red Bull’s position is absurd.

        They had great engines, spent the whole time telling the world they were down on power, now they’ve spent the last two years complaining in public. They’re unpopular because of how they behave.

        F1 was an aero formula and they cleaned up. Now it’s an engine formula so they need to make an engine. They don’t want to do that. Can’t even stay civil while they’re negotiating with Ferrari, making it obvious Ferrari’s reward for supplying a 2015 engine would be endless badmouthing, so I won’t be surprised if Marchionne withdraws that offer altogether.

        Red Bull are 100% the authors of their own situation.

      7. @clay So many inaccuracies it’s hard to know where to start or even cover them all. RBR’s domination was largely down to blown diffuser, without the Renault engine and development they would not have achieved this. In this period, therefore, the Renault engine was arguably the best engine they could have. They constantly complained about being down on power to try and gain further advantage despite this.

        When BMW walked away from Williams this was due to its desire to field a works entry, they offered to buy out Williams but Frank wouldn’t sell which is how they ended up with Sauber. Yes, there was a bit of finger pointing on both sides but ultimately it was their desire to have a works team and not simply chassis performance which caused them to go elsewhere.

        Finally the reference to “if they need to pay for engines” misses the point that they don’t need to pay for engines, they could do what their competitors do and design and build their own. Except from their two years with Renault they know it isn’t as easy as it looks, much better to try and force a competitor who has worked hard on their own to hand it over with all of the secrets behind it too so that they can save their money and invest it in areas which give it an advantage whilst its competitors are forced to hand over their best bits.

        Red Bull have made their bed and now they must lie in it, hopefully Honda will agree to provide an engine supply for 2016 (maybe 2015 spec though).

      8. Mercedes and Ferrari build their own engines. They spent at least $200 million (if not $300 million by now) on those to get a competitive edge. Why would they sell that to RBR for 20 million?

        Let RBR plonk down $200 million of their own money and develop an engine.

      9. @clay They’re rightfully called the biggest bad guy here. However Renault screws up, they don’t deserve the amount of shaming RBR has said about them. For using the “rubbish” engine they somehow still sit comfortably 4th in WCC, beating all Ferrari and Mercedes customers team except Williams. They also easily challenged for the best of the rest after Mercedes and Ferrari works team in races.

        If they need to pay for engines, they should be given the option of top line engines. Not sloppy seconds…

        But it’s not mass production item here. Mercedes, Ferrari, and Renault have agreement on how many teams they can support per season. That’s why Lotus can get Mercedes this year because they replacing McLaren slot, and Manor next year for replacing Lotus. Which makes the only slot left is Ferrari and Renault. And Ferrari slot is previous year spec left by Manor (which is bull I know, because it’s cheaper to produce only 1 spec, but its Ferrari we talking here).

      10. Even if RBR had a Mercedes engine, I highly doubt Riccardo and Kyvat could match Hamilton

    10. I’m sorry but i’m sick of Lewis Hamilton. He has never driven a dog of a car and he always cries…he has been quoted how he wants competitive racing from other teams but doesn’t want RBR to have a decent engine?

      It’s an insult to compare him to Senna as a 3x World champion considering the differences in how noncompetitive the cars are after Ferrari and Mercedes, I won’t even get into the level of drivers also…Prost and Mansell to name just two.

      Bring back seasons 2009,2010,2012 – tight racing and cliffhanger results at the end!

      1. I’m sorry but i’m sick of Lewis Hamilton.

        You are in for a long haul!! The domination has just begun.

      2. Yup Bill, we all remember how rubbish those ’88 to ’91 McLarens were. Senna was a hero winning championships in the underdog car.

        Also, one of the seasons you suggest we “bring back” (I’d love to know how you bring back a season) was 2009, when Hamilton was, in fact, driving a dog of a car.

      3. Yeah Mansell wasn’t very good, but Prost was so what’s your point?

      4. Bill – you should take a look at the first half of the 2009 season again and revisit your absurd first and second statement.

        Or as I suspect, the only good seasons for you are purely where Lewis is only allowed a third or fourth best car…

        I am amazed how so few remember Lewis won many many races prior to 2014. In fact more than anyone else during the SV era…

        Even with WC team mates.

        In a non championship car…

        Surely even the most blinded loons can accept that if there someone on the grid that enjoys a racing dog fight regardless of the result, then it’s Lewis and long may it continue.

        1. I am amazed how so few remember Lewis won many many races prior to 2014. In fact more than anyone else during the SV era…

          Apart from Vettel and Alonso of course…

      5. It’s an insult to compare him to Senna as a 3x World champion considering the differences in how noncompetitive the cars are after Ferrari and Mercedes,

        I believe you do Hamilton an injustice. I was able to see two of the previous races (I think it was the Belgium GP and the British GP) from the perspective of the onboard camera, and took the opportunity to note the top speeds of some of the different cars and drivers. One of the interesting things was Hamilton’s absolute top straight line speed was much lower than that achieved by quite a few other drivers, including those driving cars with Renault engines. Hamilton won both races, meaning his average speed for the entire race was higher than that achieved by any other driver, but as I said, his absolute top straight line speed was lower, meaning he is better going around corners than other drivers are. How he was able to do this is a mystery to me, but the fact remains: he was faster than everyone else even though the absolute top speed he attained was slower.
        One thing I did notice about his driving was he was very conservative in his use of “revs”, he never seemed to push the engine into the “high rev range” that other drivers use. His limit was about 11500 rpm, and he would change at almost the same RPM every time, other drivers pushed their engines to much higher rpms than this and didn’t seem as precise in their gear changes as Hamilton is.
        I don’t know if his better driving around a track and arguably better use of an engine is sufficient to put him into the same category as Senna, but maybe the question should be “Is Senna in the same category as Hamilton?”. Both drivers have to race under different rules and have access to different technology, so making a comparison is difficult, but the fact remains that Hamilton has to be exceptional because he is able to maintain a higher average speed around the entire track than any other driver on the grid when he uses less top speed and “revs” to do it. I don’t know enough about Senna to know whether he was able to do the same, but if he couldn’t then one could argue Hamilton is truly in a class of his own.

      6. It’s an insult to compare him to Senna as a 3x World champion considering the differences in how noncompetitive the cars are after Ferrari and Mercedes, I won’t even get into the level of drivers also…Prost and Mansell to name just two.

        Vettel & Alonso to name just two more.

        No, it is not an insult to compare a 3x champion to a near 3x champion- Senna’s Mclarens were no slouches, especially in 1988.

    11. Hammy needs to keep his mouth shut.
      He is usually the first to whinge when things aren’t going his way.

      1. No one whines as much as Horner and Marko. Even when they were dominating F1 for 4 years in a row.

        How do you get on whining though? The remark was about leaving at the first hurdle.

    12. Lewis won’t be saying that if he starts getting beaten by Seb.

      Honestly there is two options, have a fight and possibly lose or dominate and win easily. Thinking of the world championship if I were a racing driver I’d pick the second option.

      1. @Ambrose –

        Honestly there is two options, have a fight and possibly lose or dominate and win easily. Thinking of the world championship if I were a racing driver I’d pick the second option.

        But you are not a racing driver. You are not a competitor. You are not a winner. And i know from your comment, you are not the best at whatever you do.
        When you believe you are the best, you have no fear going up against anyone else. the worst that can happen is that they beat you. And that forces you to raise your game.
        Eventually though, it may become hard to accept; but it doesn’t keep them from trying. This is WHAT separates winners from everyone else. They are NOT afraid of failure.

        1. @kbdavies No, he is still aracing driver, competitor, and winner for picking 2nd option. And if he’s genius level and the next best person can only achieve 95% of what he capable of, doing 96% will still make him the best at whatever he do.

          What he’s not is a fighter who do 100% every time. That’s it.

          Some people prefer the trophy, some people prefer knowing they throw all they have. What separates winners is they prefer the first, while fighters prefer the latter.

        2. When you believe you are the best, you have no fear going up against anyone else.

          Go to the F1 Fanatic article on “Rosberg denies Hamilton pole in Russia” and look at the picture of Rosberg and Hamilton. To me your comment describes Hamilton’s pose exactly: he believes he is the best, he will win the next race, and that he has no intention of apologising for winning the next World Championship.
          http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2015/10/10/rosberg-denies-hamilton-pole-in-russia/

      2. Hamilton’s comment reminded me of Rosberg’s comment in Australia. Rosberg then said that it would be better if Ferrari came a bit closer, and Vettel won the next race. Hamilton now says that it would be better if they had wheel-to-wheel action with Sebastian, he might just lose the next championship.
        Though, I would love to see some wheel action with Lewis and Seb too. So I actually understand him and agree with him.

    13. Sylt’s article does not make any sense. F1 is “unsaleable”, yet Silverstone is sold out? Also, if F1 really returned to “the Stirling Moss” days, then Allen would soon be unable to sell any tickets to speak of as the average fan would be bored out of his mind. In the 1950s, the championship was often dominated by one driver (Fangio, Ascari) and gaps between drivers were often measured in minutes or even laps, not seconds. Even though I do not like Joe Saward, I have to agree with what he said in his latest blog post: “There are no standards left in modern journalism and so people can say whatever they like and it will be reported”.

      1. In a way the F1 races of the olden days are like Le Mans is now. Cars driving around disappearing in the woods for many minutes before returning for the next lap and then minutes and laps between the cars as well.

      2. @girts In the 1950’s, comemntators would talk about how a driver won by only 10 seconds………

    14. i miss being excited and looking forward to a f1 grand prix…

      1. this is my post, forgot to log in

    15. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/features/34454559

      If only he started to wear clothes that look great before he dyed his hair…….

    16. Stupid thing to say from Hamilton.

      Firstly Ferrari and McLaren were very vocal about Red Bull’s period of success and arguably contributed to efforts to reign them in and secondly this situation is very different.

      Red Bull’s advantage for their four titles was less about the engine and more about the aero – an area that could yield very strong gains to make up for an engine deficiency. However now, it’s largely about the engine and the complicated PU’s and if you don’t have a strong engine no matter how good your aero is you’re not going to get that missing time back.

      Although I don’t agree with the way they’ve complained about it, I do feel terribly bad for Red Bull who are between a rock and a hard place. They understand without a top-tier engine they’re not going to be able to fight for championships regardless of how good their aero is and the engine rules stop Renault and Honda – and to a lesser extent Ferrari – from catching the dominant Merc unit. Granted it was them who burnt their bridges with Renault, but now they either take an underpowered Ferrari unit or go home? The rules blatantly favour engine manufacturers rather than privateers and to me that seems a good reason to quit.

      But then again F1 has always had problems like this. Although it’s nice to see big car names driving about, they’re more likely to take their ball and leave if they aren’t competetive. The privateers, like Red Bull, Williams, Sauber, Manor and Force India are what should be protected, not hampered with an underpowered engine.

      I honestly don’t understand why people seem perfectly fine with Merc and Ferrari deciding not to give their ‘current’ spec engine to their competitors. How is this fine? They are deliberately hamstringing their competitors! Yes you can have our engine – but not as good as ours – and you’ll pay us for the privilege? That is not fair and just smacks of them being afraid of a fight. The fact they’re happy to give it to Manor, Williams and Force India but NOT Red Bull says a lot about how they feel about their customers.

      Maybe the FIA should get a company to build a good, current spec engine but not enter as a constructor. Like a default, basic engine for F1 that would be powerful and reliable for situations like this. It’d probably attract more teams if the engine wasn’t a considerable worry too.

      1. @Adam –

        I honestly don’t understand why people seem perfectly fine with Merc and Ferrari deciding not to give their ‘current’ spec engine to their competitors. How is this fine? They are deliberately hamstringing their competitors!

        Well, thank God you dont run the FIA then. Or any business for that matter. By your logic, competition means giving your competitors the very thing that make you competitive…right? Can you give a single example of a sport, business or enterprise that does this? Or did Red Bull offer Ferrari, Mercedes and McLaren their chassis and aero design during their championship days?
        A business has the right to decide who it sells to – as long as it is not discriminatory based on gender, race, sexuality or religion. Somehow, i do not see this issue fulfilling any of that criteria.

    17. I did some home work on Silverstone found out that the grandstand have a capacity of 60 000. The cheapest ticket for this year was 295 pounds. If may match does not let me down (295 * 60 000) that is an minimum income of 17.7 million pounds. There is noway it is F1 fault for the Silverstones financial problems. I do know that silverstone cut some prices to 99 pounds but as far as i know they never cut the prices for grandstand. If the figures of 140 000 people is correct then Silverstone mad a killing with F1.

    18. I have a question… If RBR leaves F1, do othernteams get their revenue increases?

      Also FOM, gets to keep bonuses they would have to pay RBR?

      Seems like other teams and FOM are financially motivated to see RBR leave… Imagine if you are McLaren.. Instead of 9th spot you pick up 7th spot Revenue.. Yeeha. Or Ferrari, instantly guaranteed atleast second spot. Plenty of teams are probably really happy to see them Go.

      This is why you cannot have F1 teams govern the rules. The moment stuff hits the fan, they are motivated to keep the fan spinning.

      1. This is why you cannot have F1 teams govern the rules. The moment stuff hits the fan, they are motivated to keep the fan spinning.

        How on earth do you jump to that conclusion all of a sudden?

        What does’Red Bull digging a hole for themselves have to do with regulations? How does the governing of the sport even remotely have anything to do with this?

        It’s just getting absurd now that people who have no clue about how F1 is actually organized burp down a rant and then simply conclude this is because of unfair governance.

        First of all, F1 team DON’T govern the rules. Not even remotely. 6 teams together have only a THIRD of the votes on the rule change advising comittee. The FIA then decides to accept these changes or not. So in the end it’s solely the FIA who governs.

        Red Bull dug this hole for themselves with their big negative mouths. Would you seriously sell them an engine if all you get back for your efforts is negativity? Even when they won 4 titles in a row they were smearing Renault.

        If RBR leave then the others will get more money obviously. That is always the case when money gets divided. How is that a bad thing?

    19. I think I finally figured out a way for rbr to be competitive next season. First rbr needs to buy manor. With manor they also get mercedes engine. Rename manor Redbull Mercedes racing. Then sell either rbr or toro rosso. Or both. Or just kill both those teams. Move all people from rbr and toro rosso to the team they just bought. Now they have the best engine and should be able to fight head2head against mercedes.

      Neither merc or ferrari want to sell engine to a team that can build a better car so rbr needs to throw some money around if they want to be competitive.

      Too bad caterham is not in F1 anymore. Merc could have sold them an engine too and then rbr could have 2 teams like they have now.

      1. @socksolid

        With Manor they also get Mercedes engine.

        Not if there’s a ‘change of ownership’ clause in the contract. Don’t bet on there not being one!

    20. ILuvSoundtracks (@)
      14th October 2015, 8:13

      I’m seeming to agree with what Hamilton’s saying.

    Comments are closed.