Daniil Kvyat, Red Bull, Sochi Autodrom, 2015

Should Mercedes or Ferrari give Red Bull engines?

Debates and Polls

Posted on

| Written by

Red Bull has repeatedly warned it is at risk of being left without an engine supplier in 2016.

Neither Mercedes nor Ferrari have been receptive to Red Bull’s requests so far. If Red Bull was to withdraw from Formula One it could take junior team Toro Rosso with it, leaving F1 with four fewer cars.

Should Ferrari or Mercedes step in to ensure Formula One does not lose even more teams?

For

The F1 field has shrunk in recent seasons and action must be taken to prevent grid sizes sinking any further – and the possibility of job losses.

Not having access to a competitive engine has turned Red Bull from championship contenders into midfielders, and F1 is sorely in need of more competition at the front of the field.

It would reflect badly on F1 as a whole if Mercedes and Ferrari were seen to be taking advantage of an opportunity to get rid of one of their rivals via political means having previously struggled to beat them on the track.

Against

By giving Renault little credit when they were winning races, and by pillorying their engine supplier now the silverware isn’t piling up, Red Bull has created the crisis it is now experiencing.

Their past successes do not entitled them to whichever engine they feel will make them the most competitive.

Red Bull already receives preferential treatment from FOM when it comes to prize money – another reason its rivals should not feel obliged to give them a level playing field when it comes to engine supply.

I say

Are Mercedes and Ferrari really afraid of giving Red Bull identical power units, software, fuel and lubricants? I think this is an oversimplification, even though it’s clear Red Bull is considered a greater threat than Williams or Force India – let alone Manor.

The investment Mercedes and Ferrari have put into developing their hardware in the first place is gigantic. What incentive do they have to turn over that expensive hardware to a rival who will then use it to beat them? There is little reward to be had from doing this: Ask Renault how much credit they felt they got from Red Bull’s four years of championship success.

So should Mercedes or Ferrari give Red Bull an engine for the good of the sport? No. It’s one thing to use that argument to encourage teams to accept rules changes which ultimately affect them all the same and will help the sport survive. It’s quite another to compel one manufacturer to surrender its advantage. After all, it’s not as it Red Bull would give up Adrian Newey’s aerodynamic secrets that easily.



You say

Should Mercedes or Ferrari give Red Bull engines? Cast your vote below and have your say in the comments.

Should Mercedes or Ferrari give Red Bull engines?

  • Mercedes should give Red Bull engines (3%)
  • Ferrari should give Red Bull engines (4%)
  • Mercedes or Ferrari should give Red Bull engines (19%)
  • Neither Mercedes nor Ferrari should give Red Bull engines (69%)
  • No opinion (5%)

Total Voters: 587

Loading ... Loading ...

An F1 Fanatic account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here. When this poll is closed the result will be displayed in stead of the voting form.

Debates and polls

Browse all debates and polls

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 2015 F1 season, Debates and PollsTags ,

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

  • 161 comments on “Should Mercedes or Ferrari give Red Bull engines?”

    1. They don’t have to unless they want to. They don’t have to to save the sport or any other reason but they, Ferrari or Mercedes, themselve want to. I would be very happy to see it happening but if it is going to be a forced relationship from the start maybe it is better that RB pulls out, kind of throws F1 into an extra bad state (worse than it already is) and possibly it might triger the needed people to finally make changes to the sport to make it more viable and competetive to all.

      1. I also would like to see them offer their engines to RBR, and I also see a mountain of troubles that comes with it. But, when I read Toto Wolff’s statements about wishing that Ferrari can compete some more next year, well, why not dear to fight with RBR with a Mercedes engine. Having three teams fighting for the title always gives the best seasons!

        How come Ferrari and Mercedes are so scared of the aero of RBR. Do they really think they never can match them? It’s actually an really awkward message they’re sending by not offering their engines, when you think of it…

      2. I think the problem here is that Red Bull have no real options to carry on in the sport if one of the 2 don’t agree to give them engines. This problem is because of the stupid regulations which ensure engines cost a fortune and are too complicated for smaller companies to make.

        Don’t be fooled here though – if it was Red Bull who made the best engines and Mercedes wanted to buy one, they’d say no. The idea wouldn’t even be entertained. Mercedes and Ferrari are acting exactly as Red Bull would in the same situation.

        1. @petebaldwin

          Completely agree. However I also think Mercedes and Ferrari would basically do exactly the same as RBR now if they were in the same situation.

        2. 100% Agree

          At the moment competing at the front of F1 is locked out to less than a handful of teams and that wont change until a competitive works engine is available. Lotus, Williams, Sauber, Manor, Haas, Force India, Torro Rosso are there just to make up the numbers.

          Should the real question not be – Should non-work teams have access to the latest engines, software and lubricants as per the works team? I.E. Have a level playing field when it comes to the engine, KERS etc

          Maybe have a separate engines WC to give the manufacturer credit.

          At the moment , as Ron Dennis will tell you, as a customer team you really have no chance of winning the WC – at the moment even Mercedes powered customer cars are not able challenge for a race win. That means only 4 teams actually really have any chance, Ferrari, Mercedes, Honda Works Team and Renualt Works Team. Two of those engines are so poor that we left with only two teams in a position to fight for the WC. Plus there is no easy way to break into this group if you wanted to join. If there was a “Ford Cosworth” type solution and all teams had access to a competitive engine and suddenly we go from 4 potential race winners to 14 – and major excitement each weekend.

          The most exciting thing that could happen in F1 right now would be for Mercedes Team to pull out BUT they remain to purely supply engines….

    2. Although of much entertaining in could be, this is still a competition and as such they should not give the engines if they do not feel into it..

    3. After the way RBR have treated Renault publicly, why would anyone want to deal with them. Feel most sorry for the 700 or so employees at the whim of a few spoilt, childish people.

      1. Red bull have said stupid things but that doesn’t hide the fact that renault have been working 24/7 on solutions which get tested on the dyno (same for other engine manafactuars ) and have not been able to make a decent engine even before tokens are concerned. People having a pop at red bull is actually making an excuse for renaults incompetence.

        With regards to customer engines. Only the engine hardware has to be the same for customers but i think the software and fuel should be the same as well, this is one reason merc(chassis is another reason) are so much better than e.g williams with the current engine rules

        1. People having a pop at red bull is actually making an excuse for renaults incompetence.

          Absolutely not, Renault has done a poor job with the V6 that much is obvious. However for something that is obvious to the the fans well that doesn’t need to be pointed out loudly and often rudely by their biggest partners on a frequent basis. Red Bull were given a middle of the road engine which sucks for them but they sure let the world know just how middle of the road Renault & their engine was as often as they could, throwing your partner of 8 years which included 4 world championships under the bus in such a short period of relative uncompetitiveness is not the done thing.

          1. You forget that Mecedes AND Renault, both held the sport hostage, threatening to leave if this new hybrid engine wasn’t adopted and now you disparage RBR for countering with their own reality? Like it or not, this is a business decision, why continue to throw $100m a year at a losing venture. We all know this hybrid engine is a joke and a massive departure from the F1 phyilosphy we all love. If I were RBR I would either leave until the regulations changed of develop my own engine.

            1. wow, guys, “Mercedes and Renault held the sport hostage? They just told the world that they would lose interest with the same old big engines with no reasonable development when their production models are all focussed on smaller turbos.

              F1 could have at that point chosen not to go along with the ideas the automotive companies (including Audi and as far as I know Honda and probably Toyota when the plans started) and found an alternative route. And at the same time have searched for a source of money to pay for the engines (be it a smaller amount than what the current eninges cost).

              Sure, when Bernie tried to baulk out of the project (at the instigation of Ferrari doing their own regular “change this or we will quit” mimics) and go for bigger engines, the parties sat down and agreed on V6s – at that time part of the investment into the new engines had already been made, but they could still have chosen an alternative route.

              The situation here is quite a bit different. In effect Red Bull cancelled their existing and valid contract because they thought they could get a better engine. But apparently they failed to make sure they have an alternative lined up. And now instead of taking what is offered, they play the “give us the best engine available or we will quit” and try to pass it off as being given no choice.

            2. We all know this hybrid engine is a joke

              No we don’t ALL know this, this is simply your opinion.

              why continue to throw $100m a year at a losing venture

              So you’re saying that if you cant win you should leave the sport, That’s great lets hope all team listen to this message and we can kiss goodbye to 80% of the grid. Red Bull won 3 races last season (mostly by luck admittedly) they have been in the media spot light so much more in the last 18 months than they were in the “glory” days. So much for a losing venture, The guys in the RB team might be there to win, Red Bull is there so the publicity and they’re getting it.

              Like it or not, this is a business decision

              Actually that is the last thing I would say it is. Its Dietrich Mateschitz having had his fun and success and taking his money and running as he has done many times in the past in “sport”.

              the F1 phyilosphy we all love

              There isn’t a single philosophy to F1, we all have our own reasons why we love this sport and some cross over but there is no one single philosophy that encompasses us all. The fact that there is a poll above and this website exists with a comment sections demonstrates that.

            3. @woodyd91

              So you’re saying that if you cant win you should leave the sport, That’s great lets hope all team listen to this message and we can kiss goodbye to 80% of the grid. Red Bull won 3 races last season (mostly by luck admittedly) they have been in the media spot light so much more in the last 18 months than they were in the “glory” days. So much for a losing venture, The guys in the RB team might be there to win, Red Bull is there so the publicity and they’re getting it.

              You need to consider the budget. With an RBR budget like today being midfield is per definition a losing venture. If they would be willing to be midfield (maybe until new engine regulations or a different manufacturer give them a better opportunity) without losing 100m or I guess rather more they would need to scale the budget down (fire some people etc..) and become a midfield team budget-wise as well.

            4. @skylien Which is perfectly possible, although they already have a mid field team in Torro Rosso so I’m not sure if they would want another one. But if the opportunity is there so the brand then there is no reason why they couldn’t do that. But like I say I don’t think it has anything to do with that at all.

            5. RBR to Renault: We are not winning, give us a faster performing engine then Mercedes and Ferrari.
              Renault to RBR: Yes, we will.
              RNR to Renault: Where is the faster engine?
              Renault to RBR: We are working on it – honest.
              RBR to Renault: We want it now!!! What is happening?
              Renault to RBR: We are still working on it – have not found the solution yet.
              RBR to Renault: If we don’t get it now – we will leave you – honest.
              Renault to RBR: It is still taking more time then we envisaged.
              RBR to Renault: This is not good enough, we want a faster engine – we want to win…………

              How pathetic? RBR just need to realize where they ACTUALLY stand in F1 – and understand what the word TEAM means – it includes the engine manufacturer.
              Next will be Pirelli they will have a go at when they can’t win.

              I think there are only 2 options left:
              Option 1) They get an engine that is the older one from last year – and not the same one. Take it leave it.
              Option 2) They get disolved and all the great people from the team will go onto other teams. The poorer performers in other teams will be replaced by the good RBR workers. Thus clearing the dead wood.

          2. @woodyd91

            However for something that is obvious to the the fans well that doesn’t need to be pointed out loudly and often rudely by their biggest partners on a frequent basis.

            Does the same therefore not apply to Pirelli?

            1. @petebaldwin

              Does the same therefore not apply to Pirelli?

              I’d say there is some crossover between the two yes, however there is no denying that the Renault engine performance has been lacking so this is obvious to the fans while the Pirelli situation is much more down to personal opinion on the tyres so it’s not “obvious to the fans” in that regard as opinion on them shifts. In regards to publicly denouncing Pirelli, while I don’t agree with it is somewhat different because of the nature of the relationship between drivers/teams and Pirelli. They aren’t really partners in the same way that Red Bull & Renault were/are.

            2. Does the same therefore not apply to Pirelli?

              Erm, no. Pirelli have done exactly what they have been asked to do. They didn’t set out to make tyres which would last the whole race and fail at it, they were asked to produce tyres which degrade to “spice up the show”, and that’s what they did.

    4. I say yes purely for the sake of the sport at this stage. I really don’t think we can afford to lose four cars from the grid, no matter who they are.

      1. Vote the same for the exact reason.

      2. Should Ferrari/Merc have to give Red Bull engines? No.

        Should Red Bull have the option to buy a competitive engine providing they are willing to pay whatever is required? Yes.

        Ferrari and Mercedes aren’t to blame – those in charge of F1 are to blame for not ensuring the regulations make it realistic for others to design engines. Creating a situation where no-one is going to be able to catch up to Ferrari/Mercedes with 2 years less development and without testing has made this an issue.

        Anyone can blame Red Bull for having a go at Renault but that is because the Renault engines have been rubbish. Whatever anyone wants to say about how RBR have acted, it doesn’t change that fact. That means they are stuck with poor engines or…. nothing?

        Surely, your car and driver should be more important than your engine – the one bit that most teams don’t have any control over?

      3. Yes, but the alternative solution of a good engine like the current (2015) Ferrari or MB for RBR next year has not been included in this conversation. There is this alternative, F1 has done this before.

        1. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
          19th October 2015, 22:47

          It has, RBR said they wouldn’t take 2015 Ferrari engines

    5. When Newey said Mercedes and Ferrari didn’t give Red Bull engines out of fear, he ruined the relationship before it didn’t happen.

      I mean, thrashing your potential deal before it happen? That just sums up how messed up Red Bull’s politics are.

      And, what makes them think they have a right to have good engines. “We can’t compete with a bad engine, so give us a good one or we’re out.” Yeah go back to selling soft drinks, this is a competition, a sport.

      Red Bull has been great at promoting young talents, most noticably Seb Vettel. But they are getting too cocky. Leave. If anybody who’s not winning act like Red Bull, we’ll soon only have 1 or 2 teams left in the paddock.

      1. You may not like the words but Newey is right.

        However much I dislike the situation relating to both Mercedes and Ferrari being quite rightly scared to provide an engine contract to RBR, there is another option.

        What did McLaren do in the early 80’s when it became clear that teams needed a turbocharged engine? They could not get a Ferrari, could not get a Renault, and did not want a Hart. They instead approached Porsche, a world leader in turbocharged engines, as a paying customer to have them design a bespoke turbo engine for them and them alone. The resultant TAG Porsche engine dominated F1 for three seasons in white hot engine competition.

        RBR have the same option open to them. They could approach Porsche, Audi, or Toyota (as they all have hybrid power unit experience from WEC, just like Porsche had with turbo Le Mans engines back in the 80’s) and ask them to design and build a F1 power unit for them, funded by RBR. BMW could also be an option, as they have previous KERS experience from 2009 and have a lot riding on their electric/hybrid road cars.

        The idea of RBR becoming a paying customer of one of these manufacturers might gall RBR management, but it could work. It has before, with dominant results. Or maybe they already have, and Bernie knows they are about to spring the ultimate surprise on the F1 world…

        1. A partnership with Porsche/Audi was the plan, from what I understand, only it got torpedoed by the VW emission cheating scandal…

          1. mmmm Interesting. Any link supporting that statement perhaps?

            1. @fernanzazpi

              Horner came out and confirmed this to be the plan and said it’s never going to happen now because of the VW scandal. It was here on a previous news roundup.

        2. Agree – If Red Bull really wants a works engine deal, they should approach a new manufacturer.. I’d add Cosworth to the list of vendors as they supposedly had a turbo power unit in the works last year.

          The problem is timing, of course.. It is essentially impossible to develop a competitive power unit in a few months – even with experience.. so for 2016 RBR needs to mend fences with Renault (which ought to be entertaining), make a deal with Ferrari or pay a massive penalty for leaving the sport prematurely.

        3. @clay, BMW is very unlikely to be interested in such an approach given that it does not fit into the image they want to create.

          The ACO has been trying to lure them into the WEC, but BMW has already publicly stated that they have no interest in racing a hybrid vehicle when their long term interest is in developing electric vehicles under their “i” division. If BMW does not believe that hybrid power units have a role in their advertising portfolio and rejected the ACO out of hand, it is unlikely that BMW would have any interest in an F1 spec hybrid power unit.

          As for the brands under the VW marque – Porsche and Audi – neither of those seem likely when VW is still in the midst of the emissions testing scandal and is having to build up much larger capital cushions (the €6.5 billion they’ve already put aside now looks like it will not be anywhere near enough).

          VW has already cancelled more than €1 billion a year in Research and Development work in order to pay for modifications to existing cars and is currently in the midst of a major recall within their home market in Germany. Amidst a fairly major internal crisis that is likely to cost them billions, VW is unlikely to approve an expensive new motorsport programme – there are already some who wonder if this might kill off their WEC programme, which is tying up a lot of capital and now not looking like such a good investment when their diesel engines have become a negative, rather than a positive, promotional tool.

          1. Diesel is looking unattractive, but VW have won more races in WEC this year with a V4 Petrol engine… There’s a good chance the Audi team will be wound up in favour of retaining Porsche.

        4. Yeah my understanding is that they did approach those companies but because of F1’s backwards rules, they weren’t interested…

          Why would a company like Audi want to get involved in F1 now? They don’t have the experience Ferrari and Mercedes have and are already 2 years behind. There are no agreements on future regs so if you sink millions into development and do manage to catch Ferrari or Mercedes up, the rules will get changed and they’ll have to start again!

        5. @clay Trashing their partner and insulting Mercedes and Ferrari won’t help them much for attracting new partner even that not in F1 currently. If you running a corporation, do you want to work with someone that publicly blaming their partner for the failures even though that same partner has major part in their previous successes (which coincidentally also not given enough credit for that). Also keep in mind, that Renault failures also contributed by Red Bull demand that compromised their heat management (and basic design). This is the same situation that Honda faced now because McLaren demand of size zero rear-end. In the end, all thing pointed out that whatever happens RBR engine partner is in the losing side.

    6. Voted for “Mercedes should give Red Bull engines”.

      The article fails to mention there are different specs of engines to be given, thus let me clarify my choice: I think Mercedes would do well in giving Red Bull either full power 2015 engines and software+fuel, or 2016 engines with top-performance settings disabled.

      Why should Mercedes do that? Increased competition at the front, while maintaining part of it’s advantage. Toto Wolf himself admits Mercedes needs more competition to increase the value of a GP-win. They would also be seen as the “good guys” saving F1, and take advantage of brand association with Red Bull.

      Why not Ferrari? They are in a battle of their own right now. They haven’t won for a long time, and don’t need more competition at the moment. Mercedes on the other hand have won everything in 2014 and 2015, another easy 2016 championship win will not add much prestige when there is a lack of competition.

      Whether Red Bull would accept any of these engines is another question.
      By offering any time of reasonably competitive engine, Mercedes would be blameless regardless of what Red Bull decides.

        1. @jonchalk, Not according to Autosport (15th of October)
          http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121347

          Either way, like I said they could offer limited-2016 engines.

          1. Or Fiat group could offer RBR Maserati engines, Maserati already use slightly less powerful Ferrari engines in their road cars so doing the same in F1 makes perfect sense.

      1. Different specs of engines are not allowed by the rules.

        1. theyre allowed… the same day they allowed the in season development.. they changed the rule back.. so probably we gonna see toro rosso with Ferrari 2015 engine…

      2. Imagine Red Bull losing to Mercedes using a slightly less competitive PU. Horner, Marko, Mateschitz and ultimately Newey would not stop whining about how unfair this is making Mercedes look like a bunch of losers not allowing true competition.

        Or imagine that they actually beat Mercedes with it. Not unlikely because RBR have much more money to spend on their aero than Mercedes does, becuse don’t have to spent a fortune on developing the engine. They just pay a small amount for customer engines. They would make Mercedes look like a bunch of tools being defeated with their own secret weapon.

        It’s a huge lose-lose scenario for Mercedes.

        1. Yup @patrickl, spot on.

      3. @me4me – So in effect, control the field and make sure no-one is too competitive? “Red Bull looked quite quick in Canada so we’re turning their engines down for Silverstone”

        1. @petebaldwin, No definitely not. What I propose is just a 2016 engine with Strat 1 & 2 (perf settings) disabled for the season – OR a fully unlocked 2015 engine. Nothing should be altered in-season.

    7. ColdFly F1 (@)
      18th October 2015, 12:27

      I’ll plead scyzofrenia here.
      Nobody should be obliged to do anything, especially giving up their hard fought engineering advantage.
      Also of all teams RBR deserves it the least. Having treated Renault badly the past 2 years, and never really thanked them for the many World Titles, or even mentioning that they benefited most from FIA’S equalisation rules during the old engine rules.

      But having said that, I still voted that they should get the PU’s. NOT because they would walk otherwise (that would be a reason not to give them these PU’S) but I’M for 2 reasons:
      – all teams should have access to competitive engines;
      – Mercedes and Ferrari already offer the PU’s to other teams, thus ‘not done’ if they treat RBR any different.

      1. I don’t believe that red bull deserves the least when you look at their situation. That engine was poor last year and even worse this year. I would be not only complaining but giving as much data as possible to fix the situation, which I am sure rbr has done till they are blue in the face. i don’t see public denouncement as being helpful however rbr are probably beyond frustrated after this years hondaesque performance.
        Any why should nostalgia play into any of this. We fans are nostalgic but these are businesses. Marketing Giants. Why the hell is rbr responsible for marketing a Renault success ? Who gave who the championships?
        I voted the same as you Coldfly. For the same reasons btw..

      2. Mercedes and Ferrari already offer the PU’s to other teams, thus ‘not done’ if they treat RBR any different.

        @coldfly The logical extension of that argument would be that Mercedes or Ferrari would be obliged to supply the whole grid if all the other teams wanted their engine, there have to be limits on what it is reasonable to expect from the engine manufacturers.

        Mercedes say they are “full” with three customers (the regulations require permission from the FIA for a manufacturer to supply more than three customers).

        Ferrari say there is not enough time to build enough 2016 engines to supply any new teams in addition to their two current customers due to logistical and engineering reasons (e.g. they are redesigning their engine block to be narrower, and this change has long manufacturing lead times). It has been reported that they would be able to supply at least one team with 2015 engines and they may have offered this option to either Toro Rosso or both teams. Supplying 2016 engines to both teams would be asking them to double their number of customer teams at short notice.

        Red Bull and Toro Rosso do still have options other than leaving F1, they could stay with Renault, or accept a 2015 engine for next year.

    8. whole thing has gone from a RBR “Dont you know who we are?” to me thinking “who do you think you are?”

    9. It seems to me that if you are going to split from your engine partner why would you not line up a replacement first?
      The ficklty of it all shows in the fact that after 2013 title torrorosso also went with Renault and within a few races redbull were berating them. Total mess up purely from redbull and their own mess to clear up. It is not up to other manufacturers to help their rivals and ferrari and Mercedes don’t even need to excuse themselves in my opinion.

      1. Agree. Merc and Ferrari have no case to answer. The sport didn’t try this hard to save Minardi, don’t see why Red Bull are a special case.

      2. yep. 100% Red Bull’s own fault. They made their bed, now it’s time to lay in it.

    10. Voted “No opinion”. They don’t have to give RBR anything. But it would be bad for the sport to lose 4 RB backed cars and hundreds of personnel. So a compromise can be found that will make it fine for one of those engine makers to give RBR engines, and it’s not Mercedes. Their engines even spec-2015 ones are too good. Ferrari might be ok with giving them customer spec 2015 engines. It would be good for their image while not particularly threatening the works team. Especially given the short design and optimization time left for Newey to do his magic, at least for 2016. It would also be good for RBR. First because even spec 2015 Ferrari engines are better by far than anything Renault could come up with up to now. Second, they would be seen as true fighters, and not spoiled kids who pick up their toys and go home. And lastly it would give them a reprieve to work on a long-term solution to pair up with a manufacturer and become dominant again. I’d say that’s a win-win for everybody. Whether it’ll pan out that way remains to be seen

      1. Cant use 2015 engines next year.

        1. @petebaldwin,@me4me,@montreal95, This is F1, of course you can use a 2015 Ferrari engine in 2016, you just re-name it Maserati, as I have said above Maserati use Ferrari designed engines in their road cars so it would make sense in F1 too.

        2. @petebaldwin @hohum You’re both behind the curve. This was supposed to be that way. But recently there was a meeting in Geneva with Bernie, the FIA and the teams , and suddenly it’s all cool

          http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121347

          1. @montreal95, Yes, it’s cool today, and maybe tomorrow or maybe not, but in F1 there is always a way, and I have outlined one way above.

            1. And don’t forget Maybach !

    11. Totto said that Merc did consider giving Red Bull engines & requested discussions on a possible commercial deal re road cars & branding. Red Bull weren’t interested. Don’t think Mercedes have forgotten Red Bull pushing for a bigger penalty for the tyre testing saga in 2013, no love lost there.

    12. If and when Red bull and Toro rosso leave’s the sport it will be a major blow and i can’t see F1 as a whole recovering even with Haas coming next year, soon the WEC will overtake F1 as the pinnacle of motorsport.

      1. WEC, the championship that has seen a period of consistent dominance by Audi and now looks toward a period of dominance by Porsche – both of whom are VW companies.

        The ACO has a lot to do to tidy up WEC before it can touch F1, no matter how much it may be rising (or F1 falling)?

    13. No, because Red Bull are crybabies, got themselves in this mess and I hope to see them go. However, I would not want to lose the 4 Red Bull drivers as they are all very talented and young.

      1. @ultimateuzair Easy to forget Renault built a terrible engine in the first place and have showed not a single sign of improvement since, but yeah it’s all RBs fault…

        1. Red Bull actually hindered Renault’s development of the PU with their demands that Renault don’t “waste” time on dyno testing and on supplying other teams. Which meant the PU that resulted was completely unreliable and couldn’t be run at anywhere near full capacity for most of the season. Only supplying red bull teams also means less testing and mileage.

          So yeah Red Bull hurt Renault a lot with their demands.

          Red Bull did try to “help” by hiring Mario Illien to develop a single cylinder version, but Renault couldn’t do much with that. It’s not like they can just abandon their own design and go for something completely different.

        2. @xtwl Yes, it is all Red Bull’s fault for crying and being little babies, and treating Renault like their slaves. Also, Red Bull didn’t mention Renault at all, not even a simple thank you when they powered them to 4 world titles from 2010-2013. I guess they like to take all the credit for that and just cry about Renault when they don’t win. It just further proves that Red Bull is a team full of a whining bunch of babies who throw their toys out of the pram when they don’t win, and they like to blame other things for their problems. They need to get this fact in their little childish brains: You can’t win the championship EVERY SINGLE YEAR. You get periods of time where you drop in performance, but you have to deal with that. It happens in sport. Red Bull really need to take inspiration from teams like Williams and to some extent, McLaren. When things go wrong for them, they don’t cry and moan like Red Bull, they try to fix the problem, and that’s what gets them support from other companies. I’m not remotely surprised at all that Mercedes and Ferrari don’t want to supply Red Bull, because they spew out rubbish from their mouths all the time. Red Bull need to grow up.

          1. @ultimateuzair

            not even a simple thank you when they powered them to 4 world titles from 2010-2013

            Stopped reading at that. Absolute boulderdash, on many many many many occasions in the post-race / qually drivers conferences I explicitly remember the drivers thanking Renault.

            1. The drivers might have thanked Renault, yes, but the rest of the team, no! I am disappointed with the top management people at Red Bull, not the drivers.

          2. You forget that Mecedes AND Renault, both held the sport hostage, threatening to leave if this new hybrid engine wasn’t adopted and now you disparage RBR for countering with their own reality? Like it or not, this is a business decision, why continue to throw $100m a year at a losing venture. We all know this hybrid engine is a joke and a massive departure from the F1 phyilosphy we all love. If I were RBR I would either leave until the regulations changed of develop my own engine.

            1. Reposting the same comment is lazy and shameful. And it’s worth noting that Red Bull poisoned their own wells when they made the “size zero” demands, the very same demands McLaren made of Honda.

              It doesn’t work in reality just because it looks good on paper.

              While Red Bull is free to voice displeasure in their situation, they have no right to be upset about their engine supplier showing them the door after breaching the contract repeatedly. Similarly, they have no right to be shocked that their rivals won’t supply them with engines. Competition aside, Red Bull have been political and cutthroat about every fault and misstep taken by Mercedes and Ferrari. They created bad blood with everyone on the grid and are predictably suffering for it.

            2. We all know this hybrid engine is a joke and a massive departure from the F1 phyilosphy [sic] we all love.

              I certainly don’t.

              For many years, F1 has been at the forefront of technology. Then the V8 era came along, freezing engine development. By the end, the engines were no where near the forefront of technology. They were old tech, which was completely irrelevant to the automotive sector.

              The new engine formula has brought F1 back towards being the pinnacle of automotive racing technology. It still needs to advance further to reclaim this crown, but it’s at least moving in the right direction.

          3. We all also forget that Red Bull pushed Renault to continue working on the 2014 engine so that they could win the championship, when Renault wanted to start on on the 2015 engine, not giving them much time to work on them. Now it’s been a problem for Red Bull but they put themselves in this position.

    14. The question should be:
      Why should they?

    15. I think the real question is whether Mercedes or Ferrari have any codified obligation or indeed semantic responsibility to uphold the health of F1. Is this “Prisoner’s Dilemma” scenario at all avoidable?

      Unfortunately, by every conceivable measure, the answer must be “no”. F1 has a single, fundamental and lasting structural flaw: it is dependent on the participation of manufacturers who aren’t dependent on F1, and can comfort themselves with road-car revenue if the F1 dream looks to be waning. Unlike a football team, the money and commercial engagement behind F1’s powerhouses originates from a completely separate business model and from a completely separate boardroom, where net gains are the only figures that matter. And if, like Toyota, BMW and Honda in 2009, the figures don’t look good, withdrawal is always the best option. F1 is inherently a game of major brand appeasement.

      So yes, there can be no obligation for Mercedes and Ferrari to intervene, but can there be a more moralistic responsibility? Arguably so when you consider what an excellent 2015 both teams are having. Both have been impressive on track, both are fully exploiting their resident global superstar, both have welcomed new sponsors and both can expect a hefty payout from the FIA at the end of the year. F1 is being thoroughly worthwhile for both teams. So surely, they are responsible for ensuring its longevity by retaining the engagement of brands like Red Bull?

      Of course they aren’t. Mercedes and Ferrari are in their enviable position because both have heavily invested in technology, drivers, personnel and indeed F1 itself. They are rightfully being rewarded for their commitment to F1, a commitment they would completely undermine by equipping such a capable team with the fruits of their labours. Red Bull are in the position they are in because they overestimated their true influence on the sport and crucially forgot who holds the cards in F1: manufacturers.

      1. Hear-hear!
        Nobody HAS to do anything, but then something MUST happen…
        Follow the money and we have our answers to untangle the mess of arguments. For RBR F1 is just a marketing tool. They must be winners to make their point. Or else it is “drink Red-bull and be very mediocre”. As soon as the sport starts to be less attractive for their target buyers – and i’m afraid that is the case with all the “green rules” – they will be gone and stick their brand on something more exiting. And have no problem with it.
        For car manufacturers that is not an option. They are the ones with a real dilemma: 1. force RBR out of the sport and kill the sport that they are part of, or 2. keep them in and most likely lose their top position.
        I think they will, reluctantly, have to go for option 2 creating as much of an advantage as they can by supplying a less powerful spec. Than for next year that is that. In 2017 something drastic will have to change in order for F1 to survive as a sport, because fans will turn their black on it. Berny, for godssake, do your thing!

    16. The other factor that may have an influence on Redbull’s long term plan is, they won’t be any engine suppliers primary team. They won’t have the same ability to drive the development direction, get early access to the specs to build the package around etc. With the VW Group stopping all unessential spending, its very unlikely that we’ll see them partnering with Redbull in the next few years.

      If anything it’s Torro Rosso that I don’t want to see go. Sainz and Verstappen this season have been a sensation, by far the most entertaining drivers in F1 today.

      1. If anything it’s Torro Rosso that I don’t want to see go. Sainz and Verstappen this season have been a sensation, by far the most entertaining drivers in F1 today.

        +1

        1. Also Franz Tost excellent leader. Morecompetative sometimes thqn RBR.

      2. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
        19th October 2015, 22:56

        I agree I think they should dump the have-to-win team and keep on Toro Rosso with Ferrari power, and concentrate on having exciting young drivers which fit the RedBull brand anyway.

        They would get good brand exposure at a decent price that way, rather than scratching around for manufacturer treatment that isn’t there, because u need to get your €100m back.

    17. yes. for the sake of the sport. losing 4 cars would very likely mean three car teams and that would kill the sport. Do you really think Mercedes and Ferrari give they’re customers the same engine that they use? im 100% sure the customers get a weaker version. thats why i dont see any problem with this.

      1. Yes, but Red Bull are demanding that they not get the ‘weaker’ version.

      2. You can be 100% sure all you want, but customers do get the exact same engine. FI and Williams have this in their contract and they can check this from dyno and GPS data.

        Although right now Mercedes is using a slightly newer version of their PU and it’s not known when their customers will get this updated version. When Mercedes has enough of these manufactured to let everyone use them.

        Next season the in-season development could be stopped going by the FIA regulation changes, but Autosport claims that everybody agreed to still allow this for 2016. Either way, that’s the only way the hardware can differ.

    18. Voted for “Neither Mercedes nor Ferrari should give Red Bull engines”.

      To me, it boils down to two bare essential facts about Red Bull. The first being the lack of recognition towards Renault in the years they actually were competitive together. Better yet: they were unbeatable for four years straight. It’s generally known that in lots of jobs managers fail to recognise their employees/partners for successes, while they’re quick to point the finger in worse times.

      That said, the second fact is that Red Bull purposely dropped Renault as an engine partner, while still holding a contract for next year. It’s also a fact they did so without already having a new engine partner. Like they say: “Don’t throw away your old shoes until you have new ones”. That’s exactly what Red Bull did. A professional company like them should know better.

      And they probably did (know better). They must’ve known that Renault couldn’t deliver an engine much better than next year and they wouldn’t be able to ask for an identical engine from Mercedes or Ferrari (and Honda isn’t ready for customer teams anyway). So they chose to let the bull run in the streets of Pamplona just to see how far they can come before everyone is fed up with them. Either this or someone with deciding authority within Red Bull is just a plain idiot. And I don’t expect the latter to be true.

      So yeah, Red Bull forced themselves in this position and if I were Mercedes/Ferrari, I’d say: “listen, we don’t want to be treated the way you treated Renault, so if you really must you can have our 2015 engines for 2016, but nothing more”. The problem now is that Red Bull need to prove themselves again, every engine supplier is hesitant and probably asks for a couple of years (2-3) of stability and dedication before supplying an identical specced engine.

      To put this in perspective: Red Bull has no heritage in F1 whatsoever. Sure they dominated a couple of years, and introduced a new junior team as a learning school for the big team, which Ferrari more or less does in 2016 with Haas. But it’s nothing compared to the decades of dedication from teams such as Williams, McLaren, Ferrari and McLaren. Heck, even the former Jordan was far more dedicated to the sport itself.

      Even though I hope they stay in F1, partly because of my fellow countryman Max Verstappen is likely to gain a Red Bull seat in 2017, I can’t honestly say they deserve it.

    19. I think Mercedes should give them an engine in one condition : Red bull must shut up.
      But why didn’t you mention Honda, they come up with a good package next year, also the combination of the best chassis with the best engine will be surely be beneficial for the show.

    20. Redbull have probably not done themselves any favours in the way they have managed Renault or their potential suppliers. And normally I am comfortable for any given supplier to say no to a particular customer, especially if you were to look at the way the Renault relationship has unfolded – why would Mercedes or Ferrari want to risk the same?

      The part of the debate that frustrates me is the comparison between the concept of selling an engine to a competitor, and why should anyone expect Mercedes or Ferrari to do that, when Redbull would not even consider sharing Newey’s aero or chassis development. It overlooks the fact that these suppliers do already supply other constructors, and have done for many years.

      While I understand the need to protect a competitive advantage, it implies that the only way to reach the top of the sport is to either develop your own engine, or reach an exclusive agreement with someone with the capability.

      If we are to create or support an environment where engine suppliers can chose their customers based on likely performance, how would we feel if Mercedes cancelled their supply to Williams if they became a championship threat? Or are we comfortable with further embedding a two-tier championship – and the next Rebull that comes along (Haas?) doesn’t even get a foot in the door?

      1. Exactly, it is an engine formula now – you have to be a works team to win. And entry for a new manufacturer is almost impossible. The best we can really hope for is that the Ferrari works team can challenge Merc…

        1. But it used to be just an aero formula which was equally frustrating for me as only huge teams like Red Bull could have any success as well.

          I feel Merc and Ferrari can supply who they want and they can have a better spec of engine as they design it for this purpose same as a winglet on the car. Ferrari and Merc apportion some budget to their engine the rest to the aero for a complete package where Red Bull have the same budget and put it all into aero. They had a works agreement then blew it knowing there was not really anywhere else to go.

          For me the issue is engines should be cheaper to design and build so more people like Red Bull can have a go at it, the ERS is neither here nor there and would not be an issue if it was standardised like the ECU, more teams can then design different types of engine to best fit in with the standard ECU.

          1. the ERS is neither here nor there and would not be an issue if it was standardised like the ECU

            If the ERS were standardised, there would be no development of it. One of the major reasons for this engine formula was to encourage development of these components.

            There is no comparison with the ECU. The ECU was not even standardised to control costs, it was mainly (IIRC) to stop the teams being naughty, introducing features they weren’t allowed to hidden in their complex ECU design.

            I generally say no to any standardisation in F1, but I feel strongly that the ERS systems are one area which should definitely be freely developed. It’s advancing technology in a way which will benefit us all.

    21. Yoseph (@yshibeshiyahoo-co-uk)
      18th October 2015, 13:25

      I undrrstand this might be very unpopular, but RBR should go to Honda, I am amazed Honda is hardly considered as a choice given the dire situation RBR put themselves into, but they have made respectable gains since joining, and should request another special treatment in increased engine tokens to develop further.

      1. @yshibeshiyahoo-co-uk

        Honda have already said they’re not in a position to supply other teams yet. So even if RB wanted their engines, and I doubt they would, Honda would say no.

    22. Neither Mercedes nor Ferrari should give them engines. If there are not enough engine suppliers in F1, then Ecclestone and Todt should do something about that. If the engine rules are too complicated or there are not enough development opportunities, then let us adjust the rules. Finally, if Red Bull want to win but do not want to compete, then they should leave F1. The same goes for Ecclestone, who can join the new “RBR international Formula series” if he believes that show is more important than competition.

      1. @girts
        I think that’s the crux of it. In the past they would be able to find another potential engine supplier, but with these hybrids the development costs are so exorbitant that no one wants to get involved. Honda obviously being the exception that proves the rule.

    23. Give them a Honda engine.

    24. Mercedes and Ferrari have no reason to supply Red Bull. Red Bull seem to think that they have a divine right to a competitive engine and in doing so have burned nearly all their bridges. For what reason would Mercedes and Ferrari supply a direct competitor and hinder themselves at a shot at the WDC and WCC?

      That being said loosing two teams and four extremely talented drivers would certainly hurt the sport a lot more than people think. If Manor and McLaren don’t step up we could very well end up with a grid of 6 competitive teams which looks a bit pathetic really for the so called pinnacle of motorsport.

    25. Neither Ferrari nor Mercedes are obliged to provide RB with engines. Getting a new engine partner is solely the job of the customer. Also, it’s not the job of the engine manufacturers’ to concern themselves with possibility of Red Bull leaving. Leave that to FOM & FIA. Let them fix things. They do not have any reason to surrender their advantages.

      Bashing your engine partner in public week after week, declaring pre-mature termination of contract yourselves, yet not confirming a new partner(apparently)…. What do you expect, Red Bull?

    26. Ya like a lot of people I’d feel more for them if they hadn’t run Renault down…if they hadn’t left themselves in this spot…if they would acknowledge that they (both RBR and Renault) held development on their PU to help ensure a 4th Championship…if they hadn’t risked all those employees’ jobs as they have.

      They probably should have accepted a late-2015 spec Merc before the rule was changed and would have done better with that next year than with the Renault.

      Bottom line for me…they’ve made their own bed and will have to lie in it. If they go I’ll be most disappointed about not seeing Max grow. They say they’ll direct their employees to other projects but that won’t help the drivers.

    27. Every manufacturer should sell to everyone.

      1. @peartree

        If the rules were changed to this, I would support it, with caveats.

        One such condition would be that engine suppliers for next year must be set well in advance. Asking Merc or Ferrari to supply RBR now would not be easy, and would probably hamper their development for next year. Ferarri, in particular, would need to almost double it’s manufacturing and support resource in a few months. Even Merc would still need to find the resources to supply 4 more cars.

        At the moment, however, the rules do not specify this. An engine is supplied to a team based on a one-to-one contract. This must be negotiated between the 2, and it is a commercial agreement with commercial consequences. No team ever gives away a competitive advantage unless forced to by the rules, why should this be any different? Did you see RBR offering to supply designs for the EBD and engine maps to go with it to other teams?

        In fact this situation is not much different to a team sacking their aero guys, then saying “We can’t race without a decent aero package, we want Red Bull to give us theirs”.

    28. Anybody know that fraze ˝In it to win it¨.I get the sense that Red Bull is seen as the bad guy here,as if most of us want them out,because they are bad sports,sore losers.The only way this sport makes sense for them,is for them to compete for titles,that’s just their business model,If they can’t do that,they might as well leave. And some of us will say,good,let them leave.But the truth is that we the fans will lose way more then Red Bull ever will,they will walk away with eight titles and a marketing job well done.We will lose championship winning team,solid midfielder,four fantastic drivers,and a greatest young drivers program ever.Half the field is on glass legs,and we wish to push out two stabile teams out,i just don’t undestand some of you guys … It’s not like they want something special,unfair advantage,is asking for a competitive engine so unreasonable?

      1. Well…they’re not two stable teams right now because they haven’t secured that for themselves. And they’re not just ‘asking’ for a competitive engine, they’re demanding one. One from either of their two top rivals.

        1. couldnt have it said myself better!

          “they’re not just ‘asking’ for a competitive engine, they’re demanding one.”

          “Red Bull doesn’t want to have customer engines that have 30 to 40 [b]hp less and can be manipulated by the constructor in case of the customer team endangering the works team … Red Bull would like to continue in F1 only if Ferrari is willing to provide true works engines that are on the same level as the engines of [Sebastian] Vettel and [Kimi] Raikkonen.”

          This is not a simple “please give us an engine.” request from RBR! They are demanding their rivals’ top spec level engines and nothing less…

          Mateschitz:
          “As a customer team you will only get an engine that is good enough to take away points from their immediate rivals. But this engine will never be good enough to beat the works team. With such a customer engine we will never be world champion again. And if that’s the case we lose interest.”

          There is no denying the statement is wrong. However, there is no rule stating that an engine supplier has to give a customer an engine that will make them instant champion!

          Worst is that threatening at the end of their remark!

    29. Despite all those marriage problems between RBR and Renault, I think it’s better to stick with Renault for RBR. So mr. Horner, mr. Mateshitz and mr Marko should say sorry to Renault for all the bad publicity they’ve spread. I don’t know if that contract between Renault and RBR is actually dissolved, but if not, then they are still tied together for 2016. Let’s see what 2016 brings you with Renault, give it a chance and if it doesn’t work out in the way you would’ve wanted it you can break up in a proper way and dissolve the race team in a proper way (that is giving your employees a clear prospective about what’s going to happen, so that they can look for another job).
      And my personal thoughts are: stop crying Red Bull Racing. Just work hard to win and stop whining, because you do have the (amount of) people and money to win. Good luck and see you in 2016!

    30. I would like to see Red Bull get a competitive engine. But it’s neither Ferrari’s nor Mercedes’ obligation to do so. If I was in Ferrari or Merc’s position I wouldn’t be giving away the engines to Red Bull. So no, they shouldn’t give their engines to Red Bull. But it would be nice if they did.

    31. F1 teams go bust or get sold all the time – Bernie has that drama as a permanent part of his strategy, it’s just his fave team this time.

      Bye bye Red Bull, give the money to Manor, along with Verstappen and Sainz. Ricciardo to Lotus/Renault, job done.

      We only have one TV screen, one pair of eyes, after all, so we can’t actually watch even 18 cars anyway, especially with FoM’s coverage.

    32. I see I am one of a very small minority that voted that Red Bull should be supplied engines. To tackle your arguments, @keithcollantine, Ferrari and Mercedes are engine suppliers, so I think they have an obligation to supply other teams in the sport. It’s not like RBR are suppliers of aero parts, so the analogy with Newey’s design is somewhat flawed.

      It’s true (I suppose, I don’t actually know) that Mercedes and Ferrari have spent enormous amounts of money on their engines, but first of all that was their choice, and second of all, that is now part of the problem. No other engine manufacturer (let alone an independent enterprise like PURE) can come in and build competitive power units, which means that for the forseeable future, Ferrari and Mercedes dictate which teams may compete with them.

      Finally, I do feel Ferrari and Mercedes have an obligation not only to supply engines, but also to save F1 from the current situation it finds itself in. If F1 goes down the drain, then so does their investment. Of course, I appreciate that it is not all their responsibility, and perhaps the FIA should ensure that future engine regulations prevent this situation from occurring (though I do not know how – see the tweets in the round-up today to the effect that: before the engine regulations, there were fears of one team dominating and of a spending war, and now we have both), but right now, if Ferrari and Mercedes don’t step in, we will have four cars less on the grid.

      So, Toto, if you are reading this, just give them engines for a year or two, just to tide them over until they can sort out a proper deal with someone. In 2016 they will probably not be competitive anyway, given the time they have lost in development already.

      1. no one can FORCE Mercedes or Ferrari to supply Red Bull with engines, it`s a free market…

      2. @AdrianMorse Ferrari and Mercedes supply a few other teams with engines but they are not engine dealers, who are ready to sell their engines to anyone, who visits the shop. A sport that consists of only 10 teams does not work and cannot work like that, every deal between two teams is a unique agreement. For instance, Red Bull used to supply Lotus with gearboxes but that did not make them a gearbox supplier. If one team supplies another team with engines or anything else, it is because they want to, not because they have to – I believe that F1 has always worked like that.

        I agree that engines are part of F1’s problem but I do not think that this is the right way to solve it.

    33. Rb has no roots in car production and in reality-simply a marketing project by energy drink manufacturer, this means they have no roots in the sport, because marketing wise they already got everything they wanted, and struggling without wins kinda lowering their value while pulling up will do no further damage.
      Mercedes and Ferrari (with McLaren and Renault as well),on the other hand, are deeply connected within car production and f1 history, so they have to think twice, about giving up their engines and, more important, supporting their rivals.

      another part of this situation is Bernie and his money interests, he is very closely tied with RB money, so he`s pulling all the ropes to secure RB`s future on the top spot, maybe little too much…

    34. Give them engines are you nuts? This sounds like Bernie screwing around again.

      Let Red Bull figure out the path to success. If that means playing nice with Renault, great. if that means buying out another team, great. Or maybe, they take their engine software and expertise and go in joint with Toyota or BMW.

      If Bernie gets out of the way, and Formula 1 gets back to a race series instead of “entertainment”, I think many other engine manufactures would love to partner with Red Bull. But who wants to enter with the Bernie show constantly screwing everything up?

    35. I’m clearly in the minority here as I think either Merc or Ferrari should give Red Bull an equal engine.

      But then I don’t like the idea that the engine ‘works’ teams have a distinct advantage over the privateer teams. Of course Ferrari and Mercedes aren’t keen on the idea of supplying Red Bull – because Red Bull have the technological might to match or beat them. To my mind that’s a massive insult to Williams, Force India, Manor/Lotus and Sauber that their ‘partner’ only supplies them because they’re not a threat.

      This feeds into McLaren’s thoughts that a customer team cannot win championships, which was the ethos of why they took the Honda engine. If this is what F1 is all about, that the works teams of the engine manufacturers have signficant advantage over everyone else, then why are privateers even in the sport? Theirs is already a massive uphill struggle before they’ve even started. Surely if an engine manufacturer comes in and offers to supply engines for a fee, you should be able to buy the same power unit as everyone else. Maybe I’m wrong, but to me that isn’t the same as buying aero. Having two distinct PU’s, the works team unit and the customer unit to me gives the works team an unfair advantage, but that’s just me.

      Granted, Red Bull’s treatment of Renault has been nothing short of despicable. They’ve been a petulant child whinging when things don’t go their own way – however, if the chassis had been diabolical, I could certainly imagine Renault becoming indifferent in their own way too. This itself confuses me – I’d rather both companies were open about whether the system is bad, whether it needs improvement rather than the ‘everything is fine’ mentality McLaren have when everything is very much not fine at all. People say they want people in F1 to not speak in PR speak, but when they don’t they’re attacked for it? I’m by no means condoning what Red Bull have said about Renault but I can’t be angry at them for speaking their minds.

      More than that if Red Bull do leave that’s potentially four drivers out of F1, two teams and a track, let alone the vast amount of money Red Bull bring in terms of talent and support to the sport. How can anyone be a fan of F1 and think this is a good idea? Difficult or not, this isn’t like Caterham vanishing – Red Bull disappearing would be sorely missed. Furthermore, do we want just a constant battle between Mercedes and the occasional Ferrari on a good day? Do we really want to lose a team that is a consistent and powerful frontrunner? Red Bull leaving would be disasterous to the sport.

      Personally I’d have a hell of a lot more respect for either Mercedes or Ferrari if they did give Red Bull their top of the line engine because then they’d actually have a fight. Makes you wonder how honest Merc’s want of a competetive Ferrari truly is when they’re shy of giving Red Bull their unit.

      Admittedly this is a problem of their own design but I honestly think losing Red Bull, and losing a competetive Red Bull, would be very bad.

    36. No. But…

      I think rules should aim to equalize competition. Not have equal cars or equal PUs, but allow the same opportunities for success thru different routes.

      Was it wrong that RBR were dominant because of their superior aerodynamics in spite oh having 95% of ICE power? Yes, because the rules were designed to make aero advantageous beyond what could be gained by strategy, mechanicals or horsepower. Back in 2012 when we had those glimpses of brilliance from the Sauber C31 through a combination of multiple factors we had a good show. That should be the so called “DNA of F1”, variety, either by outside the box thinking by the smaller teams, crazy strategies by midfielders, balls-of-steel from drivers or a combination of that.

      It’s not fair to force either Mercedes or Ferrari to do something that’d hurt their own chances. But it isn’t fair to have Daniel Riccardo get penalty after penalty for using hardware that’s one or two steps below to the rest his team’s abilities. Does anyone find any pleasure in seeing two WDCs start from the back of the grid and then have a 20 km/h deficit to cars that are essentially last year’s model with a much better engine?, or seeing that there’s no team to outsource KMag’s services to?

      I want some balanced competetion, and the creme of the crop should not give their engines to Red Bull, but if forcing them to makes them fight for more balanced rulemaking in the future, then by all means, force Mercedes and Ferrari to supply their rivals.

    37. F1 – you’re either in it to sell cars (e.g. Mercedes, Ferrari) or you’re in it for the sport (e.g. Williams, Sauber). If you’re only in it to promote your brand, which has nothing to do with cars or racing, then you’re a sponsor.
      The problem with RBR is that they never really decided why they were in F1.

    38. I would like to see RB in F1 next year and beyond so I defend either Mercedes or Ferrari should give them engines but I would not blame them if they decide against it because Red Bull has conducted very poorly this engine issue.

    39. It’s irrelevant as RBR will be using Renault engines in 2016.

    40. Should Barcelona give Messi to Real Madrid? C’mon now, off course they shouldn’t. Theres no contract and as Ferrari stated they don’t have the time to build more 2016 spec engines for more customers.

    41. One Red Bull Mercedes and one Red Bull Ferrari. Not a bad idea? And a Toro Rosso Renault Team or a Minardi Ferrari Team.

    42. I want Mercedes to say no, Ferrari to do likewise, Renault to turna round and say oh sorry you cancelled the contract with us, remember? and Honda to point to the exclusivity deal for McLaren and say soory our hands are tied. Once Red Bull withdraw, I then want the former Toro Rosso tem to be saved on the 11th hour by Ferrari, claiming they are helping a fellow Italian team out, and revive the Minardi name. Meanwhile, Newey and Horner take their pitiful whining elsewhere and we can get on with F1

    43. Earlier this year I was able to watch a few races via the Onboard camera mounted on the cars, and it seemed to me the absolute top straight line speed of Renault powered cars was about the same as the absolute top straight line speed of Mercedes engined cars, and maybe slightly faster than Ferrari, meaning the power out of a Renault engine was similar to that of Mercedes and Ferrari.
      If Ferrari don’t think their engine has as much power as the Renault engine, they aren’t going to say that in public, but it does pretty much guarantee they won’t be supplying Red Bull or STR, so that leaves Honda, Mercedes, or someone else.
      The big question that needs to be answered is why Red Bull (and STR) just didn’t suffer with their current engine? There is another year in F1, with new rules and new engines, more tokens to be used, etc.
      I am just amazed they broke off their contract with Renault before they had a cast iron contract with someone else. It looks so obviously like a bad move to make, and yet they did it, and now they are in a predicament.

    44. It would be in the best interests of the sport to have Red Bull remain, and more challengers to Mercedes domination would be welcomed as well… but the teams cannot be forced to act in the best interest of the sport, and in this case what’s good for the sport is bad for Ferrari and Mercedes.

      It will certainly be disappointing if Red Bull leaves, and disappointing that Ferrari or Mercedes chose to shirk away from the challenge… but not unreasonable.

    45. Of course Mercedes and Ferrari should be in a position to make independent decisions regarding who they supply and on what terms. The more meaningful question is – does it make sense for the sport to have sustained and significant development restrictions in an area where one or two teams have a clear lead? It is not clear to me that Honda, Renault, or any new manufacturer can contest this lead for the foreseeable future.

      I don’t think the last few periods of sport domination – McLaren in late 90s, Ferrari in early 2000s or Red Bull more recently had their positions as irrevocably entrenched because of the rule book. From a selfish perspective, races more recently have been more of a snoozefest of late than during the heights of the previous periods of domination. When was the last time a top driver said – I hope my leading rival team catches up and can bring the fight to me?

      For those who’ve followed F1 for longer – has there been a precedent for such a scenario?

    46. They should have checked they had another engine available before ditching Renault …

      Also, they worked together with Illmor to develop a new engine, why not use this one? Show the world a drinks company can not only win the constructors championship, but can also win with it’s own engine, beating renown manufacturers like Mercedes and Ferrari.

      Anyway, I hope Renault buys the Red Bull team.

    47. As with the majority of the vote, I don’t think Ferrari or Mercedes should supply Red Bull. I will be gutted to see 4 cars leave the grid (if that’s what happens), but where is the incentive for either team?

      If Red Bull lose to the works team, they will lambast the engine, or claim that they aren’t up to the same spec…or at least that’s the impression that Red Bull themselves have created based on their current behaviour. But also consider the noises that Red Bull would be making right now if they were Williams? “The works team have the upgrade and we don’t…” (incidentally, I’m not supportive of Merc taking SO long to provide their customers with the upgrade, but that’s a poll for another day!)

      If Red Bull beat the works team, they will hail their aerodynamics department and pretty much refuse to mention the engine supplier’s name…again, based on their behaviour. My other half, despite not being a fan, patiently watches F1 with me, and she had assumed until last year that Red Bull made their own engines. She only heard Renault’s name when Christian Horner started complaining.

      Based on that, where is the incentive for Merc or Ferrari to supply Red Bull? Or indeed, ANY engine supplier? Can you imagine a new supplier being genuinely excited about entering the sport to supply Red Bull? Try thinking through the pitch to the board of directors? “I think we should spend millions in R&D to win at the pinnacle of motor racing – F1” “Good thinking, how much advertising will this provide us?” “Based on the last time they won, maybe 2 mentions per year when we win, but if the customer isn’t happy, they’ll tear us to shreds during every interview”…

      The shortened version of this comment was “They made their own bed, and now they don’t have an engine to power it”

    48. This one is easy: definitely no.

      F1 is not a spec series and part of the job of being in F1 is building your own car, including securing supplies for the parts except ones that homologated and supplied by FIA (like ECU). If they can’t secure something then it’s no one responsibility to clean their mess. Besides if they want to leave then leave. Even without RBR and STR, next year we still have 18 cars with Haas. Not a good number but F1 won’t die that easily. And unless Mr. Mastechiz really hate F1 so that he willing to take the loss of 2 F1 team, RBR and STR most likely will up for sale and as soon as 2017 we can see the same people again but with different team name.

    49. I think money should be granted to those which contributed the most instead of the perverse current way of “because I am a big guy or a bully”

      Then is you give engines to more teams, that should reflect your contribution. So Mercedes, Ferrari – as well as Renault, Honda or anyone else – can take decisions and investments accordingle.

    50. Why should Mercedes or Ferrari have to give their engines, which they have spent a lot of money and effort to get where they are now, to a competitor who were previously stating that they were the Renault works team?
      Red Bull received preferential treatment from Renault at the expense of the other Renault teams and for a long while and profited from this.
      As soon as things go bad they decide not to stick it out like other teams have had to in the past but think that by acting like spoiled children and bad-mouthing their engine supplier in public that this automatically entitles them to use the competition’s machinery.
      They boast about how good their chasis is but they wouldn’t allow a competitor access to their chasis if it were possible.

      The right thing to do would have been to either stick it out with Renault and have some patience until things improve (you can’t win all the time in F1) or wait until they are able to secure another engine deal, not throw all the toys out the cot, embarrass Renault and then expect the competition to supply you with their equipment.
      Other great teams such as McLaren and Williams have had to endure difficult times with poor engines until they were able to secure something better.

      Do we really need a team like Red Bull in F1?
      I would say Renault is far more important to F1 than they are and Renault has a longer history in the sport yet because of Red Bull’s actions they almost left (and may yet leave) the sport.
      I think F1 will be just fine without them and their preferential treatment from FOM which has been to the detriment of smaller teams.

      We have HAAS coming in next year so if Red Bull and Toro Roso leave we’ll only have 2 cars less than in 2015.
      I feel that at some stage Red Bull will leave in any case, it may as well be now.
      It will be quite pleasant not to have to see or hear Horner or Marko again.

      Lastly as others have said who wants to supply engines go a team that has no qualms about embarrassing you publicly when they’re not winning?
      I won’t be sorry to see Red Bull go.

    51. Red Bull has no moral right to claim a competitve engine. Their relationship with Renault was marked by disastrous negativity even in times of greatest success (i.e. when Red Bull was winning race after race, and Renault-powered Lotus was scoring regular podiums), and they somehow managed to make it even worse when they weren’t successful. If no-one wants to share their precious PU for a fixed price with a team that’s going to put all the blame on them, that’s the only logical consequence of Red Bull’s behaviour.
      I see only three options for them:
      A) They grudgingly continue their partnership with Renault (they still have a valid contract, after all), accepting their fate as a pontential No. 2 if Lotus become the factory team
      B) They manage to negotiate a customer contract with Mercedes or Ferrari, according to which the supplier needs not supply them with all their latest technologies
      C) They put their money where their mouth is, leaving the sport

      Every option would ultimately be their own fault.

      1. Well said.

        F1 is more than a sport, it is a business for each and every team. Discussions addressing total income against total expenses do not include the intangibles like market exposure and, to a lesser extent, advertising. Advertising with regards to the teams themselves, not those who pay to have their names displayed on the cars. By winning, teams can more easily justify any budget income shortfalls than those who do not make the podium – the market exposure/self-advertising ‘costs.’

        Additionally, when viewing the teams strictly in a successful business model, your vendors are your partners rather than simply suppliers. Suppliers are a dime a dozen. RBR (and STR) quite obviously viewed Renault as a [poor quality] supplier to them, far from equating them as a partner with the goal being their mutual success.

        A prudent businessman (sexist, I’m sorry) negotiates from a position of power or strength. What position did RBR put themselves in? The operant word being ‘themselves.’ A very poor one, indeed. They severed their relationship with Renault to what? then demand a competitive engine from Mercedes or Ferrari. What was their position of power/strength? None, short of “We’ll quit of you don’t give us what we want.” Per the poll results and dialogue, many of us feel that their doing so would be quite unfortunate (the grid loosing two teams, the fate of their drivers and employees) but not their prerogative to make such threats/demands.

        Marko/Horner et al appear to be looking for a new engine supplier, rather than engine partner. That is not only unfortunate but terribly short-sighted. As neither Merc nor Ferrari seem to be jumping at the opportunity to be that new supplier to RBR then they’ll be either eating a lot of crow or moving on to something different. Should neither competitor view being RBR’s new engine supplier as a win/win arrangement, that is their choice to make, and no one else’s.

        I would have expected RBR to have acted MUCH wiser than they have shown themselves to be…

    52. Considering that cars cannot run without an engine, I would say that FIA should have some control over these scenarios. FIA should protect the sport/itself from losing competitors through a silly reason that Red Bull find themselves without an engine.

      Red Bull are totally responsible for their situation. They had a solid contract with Renault and they had engines, but they choose to terminate it without getting guarantees from another engine supplier. Should Mercedes or Ferrari supply them engines is totally upto them but FIA should have some say in all these matters. Either they should force teams like Red Bull from not breaking up their contracts with their engine suppliers through severe penalties or alternatively if for some reason a team is without engines due to unforeseen circumstances then they should be able to force an engine supplier to supply engines.

      Also it might not be a bad idea to have a engine manufacturer championship so that FIA provide recognition/money to engine suppliers. If that happens wouldn’t both Ferrari and Mercedes want to supply as many teams as possible? The reason they are refusing now is because they both are running their own teams and the only incentive/recognition they get is by winning the constructors title. Maybe and engine manufacturer title is not a bad idea!

      1. FIA should protect the sport/itself from losing competitors through a silly reason that Red Bull find themselves without an engine.

        In every sport there is a level of responsibility that has to fall on the competitor, and part of that responsibility is arriving at the venue in a fit state to compete. For F1, part of that responsibility is arriving at the venue with cars that will be fit to race and comply with the 107% ruling. Up to now Red Bull and STR haven’t had any problems with complying with the 107% ruling, so the Renault engine is sufficiently powerful for them to race with.
        Up to now Red Bull have 149 championship points, and STR have 45, so they are getting results. For the Red Bull team, they are currently 4th in the Constructors’ championship, and there are Mercedes engined teams that have scored less points than them, so there is no guarantee that even with a Mercedes engine that they will get more points.
        The steps Red Bull took to get themselves in this situation were ones that were plain and obvious. Even the most low paid employees at Red Bull know that they turn up for work and don’t say the wrong things, at least until they’ve got another job. Red Bull broke their contract with their engine supplier before they had a cast iron contract with another supplier, and they made it obvious they believed Renault engines, which propelled them to their now 4th in the WCC, were holding them back.

    53. tgu (@thegrapeunwashed)
      18th October 2015, 20:53

      When top teams give their engines to others it’s an acknowledgement on both sides that they’re not really competing at the same level. Red Bull is clearly a top tier team, it should be expected to stand on its own two feet – exactly as McLaren is doing.

      1. @thegrapeunwashed : That is a good point, Red Bull is a top team, so they should be getting the best engines from someone. There are reports in the media that they actually asked a company called Illmor, who make racing engines, to make them an F1 engine, which they did, and supposedly is better than the Renault engine they have used until up to now. I don’t know why that haven’t been more open about this.
        As Honda has shown, making a top engine for a top F1 team isn’t easy.

    54. I say yes, Ferrari should. 1y contract 2016 same spec as Sauber. No fancy factory secret engine maps. Then use data they get as engine supplier to win against Mercedes.

      If RBR Beat them, stop delivering them updates…

      Mercedes have nothing to gain and much to loose.

      Ferrari on other hand would come out as heroes, galant saviours of the sport and even if RBR won title, they would make it seem like a victory. I have no doubt Italiand are able to pull that off. Ferrari is also doing an IPO soon, signing up supply to a leading team is another goodnews… So is saving F1….

      Maybe they can milk Bernie for somextrasavedsportbonus… And use RBR for Mercedes stoping votes… They need a strategy group ally.

      So Ferrari can pull many wins from this… Mercedes however can loose the win they have by default. Wolf is a good Director and said No Way on the spot.

    55. Mercedes and Ferrari do whatever they like. Red Bull can find a compromise, sign a contract, but if the two engine manufacturers haven’t agreed anything is because they have more to lose than to earn from a partnership. Nor Wolff nor Arrivabene are fools, and if the money to be earned counterweighed the increase in performance of their common rival this matter would have been settled months ago.

    56. Before choosing and answer just remember when Red Bull betrayed everybody (fans included) and left FOTA to sign a preferential deal with Bernie.

    57. Let’s put it this way: Ferrari last won a WCC in 2008 and 2007 was the last time the had one of their drivers win a WDC. Do you see them complaining about not winning!?!?!?

      In all seriousness, Red Bull need a massive slap in the face. They are still probably the richest team in F1 at the moment and if they can’t win, bad luck. Do you even hear Williams complaining about not winning anymore? These days, they’re over the moon if either or both of their drivers make it on the podium.

      In my eyes, Red Bull should look up to and learn from both Ferrari and Williams for their persistence, courage and love for F1 cause they’ve had a longer and harder road than Red Bull

    58. Mercedes should give them engines. And rbr should give newey to mercedes. Then everyone sacrificed their advantage …

    59. Keith, the question is a nonsence, the word give should have been sell, i am surprised anyone said yes to the question you have posed, Horner himself would say no, they don’t want it given, they are happy to pay juatlike other customers. If Mercedes and Ferrari were keeping their engines secret thatwould be different, at the moment they are picking potential winners.

    60. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      19th October 2015, 5:01

      I think the answer is pretty obvious – Ferrari and Mercedes should each give Red Bull half an engine:-)

    61. Horner and Marko should leave RBR. New management can create the possibility to successfully negotiate a power unit from Renault firstly, then Ferrari and/or Mercedes

      1. +1. Damn, I should’ve read this first. Just said it myself but I can’t seem to delete my message :p .

    62. So no engines for them?? Huh. Guess they will have to make do with the wings Red Bull gives.

    63. No, definitely no.

      Its like saying I should give my answer sheet to the other guy sitting in a exam so that he get the same score as i do, so when trying to find a job, this guy is suddenly a competition to me cause he has the same academic results as me, but i did all the hardwork but this guy benefited without a sweat.

    64. Red Bull never mentioned Renault when they were winning then when there is a problem they bad mouth them constantly. You reap what you sow! I suggest they ask Honda!

      1. Interesting, I see this a lot.

        I must be going quite senile as I definitely recall Vettel, Webber and RBR having a lot to say when thanking their engine partner Renault during their winning years.

        Even last year, RBR, on quite a few occasions made reference to their relationship with Renault and the fact that they were confident that together they would return to their competitive standing.

        Unfortunately that seems to have soured (to put it mildly) on both sides, when Renault turned up in 2015 with a package that clearly had not stepped forward and seemed to be quite unwilling to work with RBR to bring about improvement.

        My suspicion is that their “nobody mentioned us we we provided a winning engine” has been a prelude to Renault exiting F1 and avoiding the expense of honouring their 2016 contract. Strangely enough it resonated with the press and RBR have (in no small part because they themselves couldn’t keep quiet) been cast as the bad guys.

    65. Ok going out on a limb here, why is the question “…should give…”?! Red Bull would be a paying customer for an engine supplier no one is giving them anything. Charge them what you want and get on with it.

    66. This worn out subject has cicumnavigated the globe more than Ellen MacArthur. Shall we go one more time please.

    67. All these discussions are between commercial entities, competing in the sport for some sort of benefit. If one supplier doesn’t see a commercial advantage or benefit to supplying another then they should be able to act freely and independently as they wish.

      I’ve no real love for the way that Red Bull conduct themselves in public – the culture is difficult to warm too. But there’s no doubt that they have some fantastic talent within their team. If Red Bull decide to pull out I hope they quickly find a new home, either with a new owner or in other teams. F1 will continue, just as it did before Red Bull decided to join.

    68. Give no, sell ( or even better, become an “engine partner” for a larger fee) yes.

      The problem with the current rules is there’s no incentive to be a “supplier” of engines for possible new entrants, and the things are so complex that even if you get the hardware, there are so many other factors (software, fuel, etc) that needs to be developed.

      Best option – force all manufacturers to sell but allow all manufacturers to scale their fee structure for the options to buy all the peripherals.

      So if you want to pay the base fee – all you get is the hardware.

      Software – that’s another fee, fuel technology, more money again, unless the manufacturer wants to waive those costs.

      That way RBR, Williams and the other “non engine building” outfits can choose just how much of the PU package they want to buy to compete and how much they want to spend on their own software etc to try to tweak the power on their own.

      Until new suppliers come on stream, there’s just too much disparity – far more than there was when the cars were to aero dependent, so yes make them sell their engines, but let them set the fee they want to charge the likes of RBR.

    69. I voted “No opinion”, but I believe the question is flawed.

      Neither Merc nor Ferrari should give RBR an engine. It comes down to a commercial agreement.

      Merc & Ferarri both need to assess the pros and cons of supplying and not supplying RBR and come to a decision. These need to factor in the risks, costs, benefits etc. of both actions.

      For example, risks of supplying them include RBR beating them in the championship and RBR slagging them off. Risks of not supplying them include falling F1 popularity due to a smaller field, and being seen to be scared of the competition, damaging reputation.

      If it works out, commercially, to be advantageous to supply them, terms can be negotiated, and it is possible to supply them (whether within their current manufacturing facilities, or by expanding them), they should supply them.

      But neither should give their engines to RBR.

    70. Screw them! Worst team in management after the Nelson Piquet scandal! Don’t get me wrong I am thankfull for them for bringing in Vettel and for winning 4 titles in a row with Vettel. However this gets overwritten by the things they did with their drivers. First they screwed up Webber, then in 2014 they screwed up Vettel and I’m sure it isn’t done right now… So really whats the point in giving them such good engines?

    71. The team is called Infinity Red-Bull. Infinity is a subsidiary of Nissan and Nissan is a subsidiary from Renault.
      Infinity Red Bull must keep using Renault engines. Period.
      They are being sorry losers

    72. I am divided here so had to vote “No opinion”.
      It is bad to loose 2 teams (4 cars) in one go, and one of them that was competing for the WCC and WDC in the last seasons.
      BUT they got themselves into this situation, by severing the ties with their current supplier without having a new one in place, and of course, nobody should be forced to supply a team if they don’t think it is worth it. However I could see the organizer stepping in to provide a solution but of course a supplier that also has its own team, risks of loosing a lot by being beaten by a customer team and that is the problem of F1 these days, where there are too few people involved and almost impossible to find a 3rd-party solution…

      The only solution I can see is Red Bull accepting an older-spec engine, or client-spec let’s say but are they going to accept it?

    73. I would say from a purely PR point of view for the teams. No good can come from either Mercedes or Ferrari supplying engines.

      Suppose they do supply an engine to RBR.
      1. They do well and either beat Ferrari/Mercedes.
      2. They do poorly and say the engines suck and RBR demand upgrades.

      I see no benefit from either of the teams to supply them. It would most likely just give them both bad press.

    74. It’s strange how Mercedes or Ferrari are afraid of selling their units to Red Bull.

      If Red Bull succeeds with it, wouldn’t it still be success for them? Red Bull MERCEDES, or Red Bull FERRARI World Champions?

      In the end of the day they are afraid to be defeated by a drinks brand at their own game, yes.

    75. “None of the above”, or, “If they want to”.

      May they? Yes. Must they? No.

      Should they? – I suppose I will make my answer a “No”.

      Perhaps they should get an old Cosworth engine. They wouldn’t beat anyone and people could stop complaining about “noise”. Win-win!

    76. As to the issue of losing Red Bull? We’ve lost Lotus, Brabham, Ligier, …. on and on. The world still turns. Heck – we lost Stewart and Jaguar even.

    77. Should RB make their own PU ?

    78. When 71% vote no, it’s probably time for Red Bull to go.
      The point of the exercise is public relation for the drinks company, and when almost 3/4 of you target audience think you’re twats you should reconsider your marketing plan…
      – just sayin’

    79. Mercedes and Ferrari should absolutely not be obliged to supply Red Bull engines. Any team regardless of their success or time in the sport is not above the sport or the arrogance and unsportsmanlike behavior displayed by Red Bull. They can easily be replaced just as Stewart Racing became Red Bull and so many others…

    80. If they can’t continue with Renault then I hope they can get engines from Ferrari or Merc.

      However badly they have behaved/ brought this upon themselves, it would be a shame for the grid to shrink if TR were also to leave. Four really good/exciting drivers there.

    81. Well, if RBR refuse to race because they haven’t got one of the two top engines, let them leave F1. Otherwise, we might as well demand that Mercedes must provide engines to everyone on the grid.

    Comments are closed.