Red Bull told to “live with what they get”

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Sauber team principal Monisha Kaltenborn tells Red Bull to accept they won’t get a deal with their preferred engine suppliers.


Can't wait to drive it 😍 Do you know which car is it ?

A photo posted by Jev (@jeanericvergne) on

Comment of the day

Cyril Abiteboul, Christian Horner, Sepang, 2015
Red Bull-Renault relations may be irreparably damaged
Were Red Bull really too slow to credit Renault for their role in the team’s successes in 2009-13?

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

Even last year, Red Bull, 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 Red Bull 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 Red Bull have (in no small part because they themselves couldn’t keep quiet) been cast as the bad guys.
DB-C90 (@dbradock)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Danthorn, Shaggymike, F1Yankee and The Abbinator!

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

On this day in F1

Walter Brun, whose Euro Brun team raced in F1 between 1988 and 1990, is 73 today.

Author information

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

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

Posted on Categories Uncategorized

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

  • 81 comments on “Red Bull told to “live with what they get””

    1. The only reason why RedBull had such a success between 2009-2013 is that the old formula was not entirely engine-dependant. People tend to forget that Renault may have had RedBull seeing the championship slip away from their hands. Just remember two engine failures in Valencia 2009 for Vettel during the same weekend. Korea 2010 for Vettel. Valencia 2012 for Vettel. Alternator failures in 2012. Along with lack of top speed compared to Merc and Ferrari. Aerodynamics was the key to RBR success not the Renault engine.

      1. renault engine might not have produced the most bhp but renault mastered the exhaust blowing with their throttle maps and no other manufacturer could do this and this was the reason why even lotus were very good despite struggling financially

        1. @aqibqadeer: I thought it was James Allison who helped with the design of car not harsh on tyres who helped Lotus in their brief success. Besides that Renault team in 2009 and 2010, Williams and Caterham in 2012 used that engine without any measurable success!

          1. yes that was also one of the reasons why lotus were successful but they benefited from renault engine’s better drive-ability with exhaust blowing and the fact that they could copy some of red bull’s concepts as a result of having the same engine in the back but renault had a big part to play in the exhaust blowing technology even vettel spoke about it recently

          2. Judging by the troubles Williams had with the Exhaust Blown Diffuser in 2013, when they actually got better results once they stopped using it (CotA if I remember correctly), it’s likely they didn’t really get it right in 2012 either. Still, they went from 5 points in 2011 to 76 in 2012, they got their first win in years, and they could have done much better with 2 good drivers (although this might just highlight how horrible the Cosworth engine was).

            Caterham though, they needed a miracle, not a better engine.

            1. @casjo That’s pretty unfair on Cosworth. Williams didn’t fare much better when they ‘upgraded’ to Renault. Clearly the chassis was the major issue.

          3. Williams in 2012 to Williams in 2011 was a massive difference, just not really in their standings
            points 76 (8th) with Maldonado (45 points for 15th) and Bruno Senna (31 points for 16th)
            points 5 (8th) with Barrichello (4 points for 17th) and Maldonado (1 point for 19th
            even though they got more than fifteen times the number of points they got in 2011 (with one race more in 2012) they only moved up one place in the constructors championship (76 points would have netted 5th in 2011).
            also can i point out Crashtor actually won for Williams in 2012.

        2. The reason why Renault was able to go farther than others with engine maps and exhaust gases was because they worked with Red Bull.

          Red Bull started using blown diffusers at least a year and a half before everyone else. Renault gave them what they asked for from the engine. If they were working with another supplier, they probably would have got it anyway.

        3. @ ed…not entierly true at all. the blown diffuser technique was a combination of renault and adrian newey’s designs.

      2. @malik You are right. The alternator was built by magneti marelli. RBR have been trying to get the support of Mercedes ever since they got into F1, they have also tried to convince VW and they are sponsoring Honda in motogp. One thing is certain RBR dropped Ferrari to STR because they knew they needed the full support of a manufacturer but they also immediately learned that Renault for varied reasons was not the manufacturer to supply the most competitive package. DC and Webber were hammering Renault back in 08 before they were winning and they never stop doing that until now. RBR though actually thanked Renault when they won, even though everyone knows that Renault was no better than Ferrari and Mercedes. RBR have destroyed Renault through all media outlets, sometimes making it sound like Renault is the culprit of everything that’s wrong with the team which can’t be true when the STR was as competitive. In the end it is Renault who’s at fault. They haven’t invested enough and it shows when they make the same mistakes get further from the leading manufacturers and end up taking 3 quarters of a season to introduce upgrades to their ailing PU.

      3. I don’t think the turbo era is either. Renault, Ferrari and Mercedes engines have all won races. Mercedes have a superior chassis/engine package. The same as when Red Bull dominated 2013. In the last two seasons no other Mercedes powered car has won a race, and very few have been on the podium as much as the Renault or Ferrari powered cars.

        1. Very overlooked point.

        2. That is a very interesting point. One has to wonder why Red Bull are making such a fuss about this when, if they were supplied with Mercedes engines, they can only expect to not win races.

      4. @malik, the difference in top speed is something that was far more heavily influenced by Newey’s aerodynamic design philosophy – the difference in power between the Renault V8 and Mercedes V8 was much smaller than Red Bull made out, and the Renault powered Lotus was fairly competitive in terms of top speed too.

      5. Sometimes team s push the engines too far and they break. Especially in practice sessions they tend to use the high mileage engines. So an engine failure could also be attributed to the way the team used it.

        See the issues Rosberg had in Monza. Two engine failtures in one weekend. So Mercedes is really ruining it for themselves right?

      6. Random question that pops to mind: do you guys think the Brawn GP would have been a dominant car had Honda stuck around or would it have been hampered by a crap Honda engine? I’m not entirely sure but i seem to remember the Honda V8 wasn’t particulary great either. Come to think of it i also remember a whole lot of hondas V10s smoking in the back end of BARs and Jordans…

        1. @mrboerns : That was pretty much the impression I got at that time too: If Honda had remained they would have probably been towards the end of the grid. My suspicion is the key to the success of that car is it was built for a weaker engine, and when the more powerful Mercedes engine was fitted it was more like a rocket than a bottom of the grid car.
          I think a lot of the credit has to go to Brawn because without him the team would have been shut down.

    2. I agree with Cotd. I think there’s no way Renault could have had better exposure from their F1 victories, even with infiniti sponsoring you wouldn’t say those cars were Renault. Renault also didn’t make any tv ads that I can remember of showcasing their F1 victories, the ones I can remember are the Alonso championships. Renault need to get their name and livery back on the grid to get exposure for F1, but from f1 they need to advertise their success.

      Vergne’s on a 126c2, I don’t think he’s showing an appropriate reaction to driving such car.

      I think Ricciardo is right but for Honda and Renault it’s not going to be easy. I can’t believe how is Ricciardo’s turn 1 lunge not on the top10 overtakes of 2014!

      Magnussen for Renault!

      1. @peartree In Belgium after every Renault ad there is a RB F1 car driving across the screen leaving their logo and something along the lines of ‘world champions’…

      2. Also agree with COTD.

        I remember Vettel thanking Renault on the podium interview in one of the last three races in 2013.

    3. Funny but I don’t remember Red Bull offering any support, that wasn’t paid for, to teams such as HRT, Marussia or even Caterham when they were in dire straits. So now the shoe is on the other foot and they are screaming. I totally agree that Red Bull is in no position to dictate to the engine manufacturers. At the same time the manufacturers are not obligated to supply Red Bull at all. The team created this situation by its arrogance, and now find that there are consequences.

    4. @aqibqadeer: I thought it was James Allison who helped with the design of car not harsh on tyres who helped Lotus in their brief success. Besides that Renault team in 2009 and 2010, Williams and Caterham in 2012 used that engine without any measurable success!

    5. I’m no Red Bull/Toro Rosso fan, but why are so many people ready to cut off their nose to spite their face? ‘Live with what they get’? Well, unless there’s something behind the scenes we don’t know about, that means they’ll be pushing the car around the track. Is everyone going to sit back and smile, thinking ‘ah, it’s so good that they got what they deserved,’ when there are 4 less cars on the grid? As usual in F1, people just don’t seem to be able to think about what’s good for the sport. It’s getting old.

      1. Well said. RBR might not have done things in a popular manner publicly but I admire their desire to be competitive and win. Isn’t that what F1 is about!? It seems to me that their desire to be competitive will possibly see them leave the sport and it’s even more worrying that there seem to be so many people celebrating the potential exit. How can F1 be considered a top tier competition if the only teams competing have been pacified by Ferrari and Mercedes? The way things are at present only 2 teams can compete for wins, the rest are inhibited by their engine suppliers. I’m reluctant to say that
        Bernie is right – revolution is needed…

      2. I’m hoping they can resolve their Renault issue and retain them, as a customer not works team, at least for the next season. I think they can still be competitive and Renault has the capabilities to manufacture the extra units. But they can’t have ‘works team’ privileges without being a works team. That’s why McLaren is going through their pains at the moment, because you have to put in the effort to reap the rewards. You can’t just expect to muscle your way in.

        1. That’s why McLaren is going through their pains at the moment, because you have to put in the effort to reap the rewards.

          @selbbin : It would only have been fair to cite the McLaren example, if they had two teams running the same engines. Just double the current frustration, which sometimes leaks out of the strong McLaren PR, and you would hear a similar outcry to that of Redbull.

          1. What I’m saying is that McLaren understood that their best chance to win was to be a works team, not a Mercedes customer team, and have chosen to take a risk in order to make that happen rather than demand unrealistic parity as a customer.

      3. People are assuming Renault will take them back.

      4. I agree that it would be a bad thing for F1 to loose RBR.

        However, they need to gain some humility. At the moment they are demanding a top flight power unit package. Personally, I believe they are expecting Bernie to step in and force Merc or Ferrari to comply, on RBRs terms or very close.

        What they should be doing is negotiating with all possible engine suppliers, with a view to a compromise. Their current attitude, while possibly just a negotiating tactic, is sure to be irritating any potential suppliers. It certainly irritates me.

        So, no, I am not wanting to “cut off my nose to spite my face”. I just don’t like RBRs apparent attitude of entitlement.

        1. What they should be doing is negotiating with all possible engine suppliers, with a view to a compromise.

          How do you know that this is not happening? The press doesn’t cover EVERYTHING.

    6. My memory is that Horner was always going on about how they were 30 bhp down.

      1. Mine too. Every race in fact. I don’t agree with the cotd.

      2. Yeah, the only times they might have been saying something positive about Renault would have been after Renault reacting not amused about another big rant over how bad the engines were

      3. @lockup – yes, I remember Seb praising Renault a few times. Most of the comments coming from Red Bull in their championship years seemed to imply that they were doing well despite the lack of top-notch engines. However, this may have been true; perhaps they feel that they carried Renault for four years and now they’ve been let down? Who knows. It certainly doesn’t warrant the “entitlement” bad attitude that now exudes from every pore.

    7. I don’t agree with the COTD much. We heard a lot from Newey and Horner about how the Renault engine was lower in horsepower than others and how it was unreliable.

      What we didn’t hear was that failures happened because Newey tightly packaged the car at the expense of cooling capacity of the engine (not unlike what Honda has done in 2015).

      We rarely heard the fact that Renault was the most fuel efficient engine which was a huge factor in the now refuelling era when Vettel could start with less fuel at the start, rocket off in the first two laps thanks in part to a lighter car and then control the pace.

      No one is denying that Renault dropped the ball in 2015. No one is accusing Red Bull of saying false things about the engine to the press and defaming Renault. The very fact that Red Bull is talking to the press directly is the problem.

      1. My understanding is that there was a lot of closed doors conversations before the press became involved. Renault apparently failed to be able to provide any solutions to resolve reliability and performance issues, at which point the relationship had already broken down considerably. RBR used the press to try to motivate Renault to pull finger and I guess the rest is history…

        1. yeah, I have heard that as well @antznz. But also that part of those talks were Renault requesting a larger part of the budget available to go to engine development, which RBR did not agree with …

          1. Instead RBR offered their help to Renault to fix the engine problems. but Renault did not want this…

            There are a lot of stories floating around, but in the end we have two teams not having a competitive engine and one team on the verge of falling down (I don’t see Renault coming back, otherwise they would have done it by now). And if solutions are found in the next day or weeks, it is to late for these teams to come with a decent package at the start of 2016. So we again have a crippled start of the season. Bad times, F1, bad times.

        2. If what you say is true, other manufacturers must have known about it and they would understand the negative press being dished out the Renault. But guess what, Red Bull went ahead and bad mouthed Ferrari and Mercedes, accused them of being scared even before negotiations with either had reached any meaningful stage.

          What was the motivation then for giving bad press to others too?

      2. What evidence do you have to back up the claim that the failures in the renault PU are down to packaging issues from RBR? I’ve seen a lot of speculation, but nothing from either Red Bull or Renault to suggest this at all.

        1. Newey’s cars have a history of being unreliable. The McLarens of late 90s, the 2005 McLaren, the red Bulls from 2009-2013 are perfect examples.
          Newey has said it on record that the the Renault V8 was most tightly packaged out of other V8s, which was probably the only good thing Newey and Horner said about the Renault engine.

    8. Renault shouldnt blame RBR for not getting enough publicity..they didnt make use of the winning years to market themselves better!

      1. The point is that Red Bull were bad mouthing Renault even when they were winning 4 championships in a row. Renault did market their F1 victories, but Red Bull kept stating over and over that the Renault engine was the worst.

      2. Exactly!

        Renault were incompetent in their marketing, they pointed RBR towards Infiniti, didn’t do any ads or marketing to promote the fact that their engine was in the back of the car during the WDC/WCC years and expected RBR to do all the marketing for them. Then because they didn’t think they were getting enough marketing exposure because of their own incompetency they threatened to quit F1 and force in these new engine regulations that not many like.

        Then they produced an engine that had:
        – The worse performance
        – The worse reliability
        – The most expensive (people don’t even blame Renault for the demise of other teams that wasted a whole lot of $$ on the rubbish engines because they are too busy hammering RBR for telling it how it is)
        – The year after they built another PU that had worse performance and still poor reliability
        – It is still expensive
        – RBR sent software engineers to help with the engine, brought in a consultant to help with engine development and yet Renault still rejected
        – Renault have spent the whole year spending no tokens and according to the BBC, most of these tokens will be wasted on a 0.15s gain

        Who in their right mind would want to use the Renault PU? I think if Honda sort out their ERS for next year, Renault will look even more silly and be even further behind.

        RBR haven’t gone about giving their partner stick in the press exactly right but I don’t blame them for all the promises Renault have given in the past, the end product is just poor and Renault seem to have no answer how to fix it. Had this been some other industry, RBR would have dumped them ages ago.

    9. I think we’ve all used Mclaren as the shining example of how to partner and work with a struggling engine partner.

      If this year was their second year and the situation had not improved, would Ron, Eric and the drivers have been as gracious as they have been at present?

      It’s one of the things I’ll watch with interest at testing 2016.

      1. I think we’ve all used Mclaren as the shining example of how to partner and work with a struggling engine partner.

        @dbradock You’re kidding right? All they are showing is how to deal with it with the press, ‘all is fine’ whilst we all hear on the radio nobody is really happy.

        1. McLaren also signed up for a teething period, RBR never did. Different situation. RBR tolerated it somewhat last year but then Renault went backwards this year. Imagine if McLaren are slower again next year..

    10. A fine maybe but it seems harsh that that Dhokia guy (the track intruder) should get a possible 6 month prison sentence.

      1. @broke84 A fine is something you pay, a prison sentence is indeed something you will carry for the rest of your life and will influence a whole lot more going from job interviews to his social life. He did something wrong but 6 months in a prison is a bit overkill…

        1. @broke84 @xtwl He put driver’s lives in danger. It was obvious that going on the track would be stupid but he did it anyway. It would have been possible for him to research the possible sentences in advance of doing it. He did it anyway. It was deliberate. It was dangerous. It was stupid. He didn’t care about other people. This sends a clear message to everyone else to not try it in future. Seems reasonable to me.

          1. Unless he’s been living under a rock he’ll have been aware that Singapore shows little leniency for public-order offences. You’ll get a stiff fine for dropping gum in the street. Given the harm he could have caused it’s hard to feel sympathy for him.

      2. Willem Cecchi (@)
        20th October 2015, 9:10

        Could have been the 1977 South African Grand Prix all over again. This time with a civilian instead of a marshal.
        The intruder should be punished.

        The Russian Grand Prix marshal that ran onto the track should also be disciplined.

        1. Well, whoever sent the marshal out then. I doubt he would have run out on his own without instructions from either the sector or course marshal. But they did wave yellows, at least.

          1. I think the marshal ran out on his own accord, I don’t think any competent supervisor would have approved it, he could easily have been killed. However, it does raise a point, which is how do marshals and the other track staff communicate in this high noise level environment?

      3. @broke84 I wonder how it compares to prison terms for more common offences like burglary?

        I don’t think we should underestimate the risk he posed to the drivers, though – I think @willemcecchi has got it right with the comparison with the crash which killed Tom Pryce and Jansen van Vuuren.

        1. This is the thing really. What penalty is really needed for deterrence? As a behaviour it was just stupid, not malicious. IMO any assault or theft is worse. And what penalty is being dished out for leaving a gate onto the track unlocked and unmanned?

          It needs more of a sense of proportion and less reaction to the drama and the fact that it was on telly.

          1. @lockup Imagine if there was a big accident right in front of the gate, which was locked as you want it to be. “Oh, sorry, we can’t rescue you from your car right now because we have to find the key and operate the lock. Just a moment…”

            1. Well the gate was locked AND unmanned, is the point. The only people who were there to use it were the fans! If it had been either manned or locked there’d have been no problem.

              It’s quite easy to imagine someone naive/drunk/a bit dim seeing the gate and thinking “how thoughtful of the organisers, a gate to go through.” Because gates are for going through, obviously. That is their role in life :)

              Apparently the organisers have said they’ll have more marshalls next year and that will solve the problem, in which case no deterrence is needed at all, really. Certainly not a prison sentence. It was a mistake more than a crime.

        2. As a marshal myself I of course sympathise with the danger he put others in and yes, it certainly brings up horrible comparisons with 1977. However I see people getting less punishment for greater crimes and that seems wrong, the guy was an idiot to do it but doesn’t deserve to go to prison. The idiot guy from last year who drove his girlfriends VW onto a circuit got no such sentence, granted that was here in England and not Singapore but still!

    11. Case of sour grapes Monisha? Or perhaps an accurate assessment of why red bull is not going to get an engine from merc or ferrari

    12. Ha! Monisha ‘Let’s hire 4 drivers for 2 seats’ Kaltenborn is advising Red Bull to ‘live with what you get’! That’s rich! Why didn’t you live with the first drivers you hired, Monisha? Talking about the log in your own eye…

      1. True, but Pat Symonds agreed with her. Seems to me Red Bull has managed to alienate pretty much all the other teams. It’s not long since Bob Fernley had a pop at them in a press conference live on worldwide TV.

        Carlos Ghosn is clearly waiting to see what the PU development is looking like for next year, and if he’s not impressed he’ll pull the plug on F1. There’s no point being in F1 with a Renault engine at the moment. He’s already pulled out of WSR, presumably influenced by the FIA’s superlicence points system which so devalued it, and that was probably crafted by Bernie’s right hand man Charlie. It’s 100% possible Ghosn will walk away from Bernie’s F1 and Bernie’s favoured team.

        So Red Bull are on the brink, it seems to me, and they should indeed live with what they can get, as opposed to being so uber entitled. Ferrari offered them an engine and got an instant kick in the teeth for it. If Renault stay in F1 it will be with a better engine, so Red Bull ought to find a little long-lost humility and ask nicely. Personally I’d prefer F1 without them, so I’m hoping somehow Renault stay in without selling engines as Ghosn said.

        1. I don’t want to see any team leave but I’m getting bored of RBR whining now. So what if Ferrari won’t sell you a works engine. That’s their perogative. Perhaps if you didn’t bin them off so quickly the last time, they might be more open to sell their secrets.

          The boot was on the other foot when we had front wings that were clearly flexing, tyres being aggressively cambered and reverting back to a tyre construction that clearly gave them an advantage. Their political machinations from yesteryear has closed some doors in the pit lane for them.

          Never forget, Red Bull make soft drinks. They do not sell engineering services. They do not sell engines. They do not sell cars. Their reason to be here is one of product marketing and on that front, it’s ‘job done’. Their venture into motor racing has given them a brand awareness that others could only dream of.

          I have to admit, I was never that keen on them joining F1 as a constructor. I couldn’t understand why a manufacturer of soft drinks wanted to go one further than title sponsorship and run their own team. They’ve done much to publicise the sport. They’ve even done much to make it look more fun and open, less pompous, whist fighting to break down the old fecade of the old, grumpy team bosses. They have improved things greatly.

          But, and here’s the rub. Did you honestly expect them to stay as long as, say, Williams, McLaren and Ferrari? Really? Did you? Come on… I knew, even then, they would only hang around until it suited them.

          Entrants and teams have been subject to flux since day one. So, as I’ve already written off next year and firmly looking towards 2017, I don’t really care for RBR and their constant stream of politically loaded remarks, so I won’t be that bothered if they go. Someone will replace them eventually. I won’t be that bothered if they stay, either.

          Monisha is quite correct. RBR should put up, or shut up. Four titles doesn’t entitle you to everything the other teams have. They don’t have to share, just like RBR didn’t share much during their run. Go, or stay. Either way, this story gets more and more dull the longer it runs.

        2. Still no news about Renault buying Lotus, is there?

    13. We have seen Saxo Bank decals on the side of a Lotus car before – when Marco Sørensen was competing (and winning) in FR3.5 with the Lotus Team. I certainly hope we see that ensemble again, because Jenson is right, Magnussen is by far the best driver available to Renault at the moment.

      Vergne, whilst worthy of a place in F1 (and would certainly be a better choice for Haas than Gutierrez), didn’t manage to convey as much promise in his three seasons of F1 than Magnussen did in his single season (IMO). Fortunately, you sense that KMag is currently in pole position for the seat.

    14. Sauber: ‘Red Bull should accept whatever engine they get’ (Sky)

      I think its high time FIA come up with a mechanism to regulate the engine suppliers. As with other components, for example ECU etc. where McLaren do not have a choice or rather they are obligated to supply to all the teams, engines should be dealt in the similar manner.

      This is what I propose:
      1. Each engine manufacturer needs to have the resources to supply four teams for a current season
      2. Engine manufacturers do not get to choose whom they want to supply to. They can however specify the price.
      3. Only one type of engines can be produced by an engine manufacturer (includes software, oil etc)
      4. Teams put forward their engine requirements to FIA (or a FIA sanctioned body or committee)
      5. The committee shortlists the engines which meets the teams requirements and presents the same to the teams requiring the engines, as per the availability
      6. The buyer teams can then choose amongst the engines, depending upon their characteristics and price
      7. First come first serve basis
      8. Buyer teams would have the option to do a single year contract or multi year contract for the engines

      Would welcome more suggestions

      1. Not a bad idea, but I believe what really is getting Formula 1 in trouble are too many artificial rules to make the sport more competitive.
        F1s value should be two-tiered; First it should provide companies a avenue to market their product. Sadly the F1 leadership is a few decades behind when it comes to marketing and modern brand management/exposure. When I started F1 even the worst cars on the Grid never seemed to struggle finding sponsorships.
        Second it needs to be cutting edge technology, which will eventually come down to a level of Road relevance. So if modern cars need to be more fuel efficient, Fuel efficiency should be part of F1. With so many brilliant minds already in the sport why not reduce the rules to (this is an exaggeration):
        1. Height, length and width of the Car
        2. 100kg of fuel a race or whatever number you want.
        This would allow teams to come up with new ideas in Aero and engine technology etc. And this would really make F1 relevant to the road, because they are not only improving on current ideas but even creating new ones. And lower budget teams have a chance of winning if they have some cutting edge stuff, but in the end the big teams will always win…

      2. And the same for aero parts for engine manufacturers who only want to build engines and deserve a state of the art chassis?

        I like point 2 as Merc, Ferrari can make a profit, £200 million a year per team. If there are no advantages to make your own engine they will want a profit from it.

        Or leave it as it is, Williams Sauber etc will never be top teams again and Red Bull can afford their own engine if they are prepared to dog it out for 3 or 4 years as Merc, Ferrari, McLaren etc have done in the past as a prelude to their huge success and ironically so did Red Bull from 2006 to 2009.

        1. Like Enzo said ‘A chassis is there to put the engine in’ or I would also add aerodynamics are for people that cannot build engines. This used to be mocked a few years back as old fashioned and although aero is very important it is lovely for me to see the huge importance of engines as for me only real teams make both. At the start of F1 teams had to do both, Ferrari, Maserati, Alfa Romeo, Mercedes, BRM, before F1 Bentley, Bugatti.

          Ford have a strong F1 history just for engines. These engines have helped these great brands on an international scale. Sauber, Force India, Williams etc are never going to have a future beyong what they are now although Wiliams do have an engineering consultancy.

          The little teams will take what they are given or build your own engine. Come on Red Bull you have the budget stop trying to free load of others expertice so you only have to focus on the one aspect of a car you are good at.

      3. I don’t think that that would be workable.

        for example ECU etc. where McLaren

        The ECU is a totally different situation as it was always intended to be a spec part and the FIA chose McLaren to supply the ECU (on the FIA’s behalf) to all teams. This was more a case of putting out the ECU supply to tender and then selecting a partner to fulfill the contract (a supply for the whole grid), similar to the tyre contract.

        (includes software, oil etc)

        How will this work with exclusive partnership deals, sponsorship by fuel companies etc.? Currently customer teams have some freedom to modify their own engine maps to suit the characteristics of their car. The supplied software will always be written to optimize the performance of the manufacturers own car, would all flexibility to tailor it for the customers car be banned?

        First come first serve basis

        I don’t see how this would work. Presumably there would have to be a date set for teams to submit their requests, and an earlier date for the manufacturers to inform the teams of the price of the engines etc. What if eight teams all want the same engine and all submit their request as soon as as requests are open? Surely you would end up needing a lottery to decide which team gets which engine.

        multi year contract

        How long would multi year be? Do the manufacturers get any say in this?

    15. I think it is a bit odd that some people seem to think that the reason mercedes and ferrari are not willing to sell engines to rbr is that “rbr was not thankful enough with renault”. Or how rbr treated renault so bad. Give me a break!

      The only one single reason mercedes and ferrari are not willing to sell engines to rbr is that rbr can build a better car. The easiest way for mercedes and ferrari to beat rbr is to either not sell and engine or try to sell slower and less reliable old engine at high price. Thankfully the latter is not possible anymore because of that rule change. More engine equality is good for the sport period.

      As far as that rule change goes I’m thinking mclaren is having some serious nightmares now. One of the reasons they had to go with honda was that the mercedes engine mclaren were getting from mercedes was not as good as the mercedes engine the factory teams got. If the mclaren’s engine was 0.5s slower per lap then mclaren would have needed to design 0.5s faster car to compete against the mercedes factory team. And knowing that if mclaren could have been able to design such a fast car then mercedes could just deliver even slower engines to mclaren. Clearly mclaren had to do something to try to win. Williams is probably in this situatuon now. Factory team has better engines than williams so for williams to compete with mercedes factory team williams would need to design faster car. And if they did it the engines could suddenly become little slower…

      Now with the rule changes it looks like mercedes (and ferrari) can’t hold the better engines for themselves. If you want to sell engines in F1 then at least you need to sell competitive spec engines and not some tools to slow down teams who are getting too close to your factory teams.

      With mclaren this kind of sucks. Ron must be kicking himself. They had mercedes deal and in 2016 with mercedes engine they could have been getting the same engines as the factory team. They could be fighting for wins. Now with honda they are in development hell with no guarantee they will ever catch or even close to mercedes.

      The current formula is mainly engine competition. Therefor only engine manufacturer factory teams can really go for the wins. It is not a surprise that mercedes is winning everything. And it is also not a surprise that none of the other mercedes powered cars are not winning. Ferrari is the only one that can challenge mercedes because they are a full manufacturer as well. With the rule change williams can become little faster now. But if rbr got competitive engines we could have 3-way battle for the wins in 2016. Or at least it would be hamilton winning everything but there would be great racing for positions 2 onwards.

      But no. People seem to prefer to see less cars and less racing just so rbr get what they “deserve”. Maybe this is the f1 we deserve? Rigged competition where factory teams openly sell 2nd rate engines to competitors who have no choise but to pay top dollar for the said engines all the while the championship is completely dominated by the 2 big spending engine manufaturers and their factory teams.

      1. There is no rule. TR are close to securing 2015 Ferrari units, apparently…

        That’s just a rumour, but the thing about the rule is gospel.

        1. There is going to be some kind of rule in 2016:

          It is little better what we have but at least in 2016 everybody will be using 2016 spec engines. But of course ferrari and merc will use bewer and better specifications of the engine as the rules allow the engine makers to abuse their powers. Come 2016 and as the season goes on mercedes and ferrari use newest spec engines while the rest are stuck with the february 2016 spec as long as stocks last*.

          *until the end of the season unless engine manufacturer can be certain that better unit won’t bring the customer team too close their factory team.

      2. Maybe Red Bull can build a better chassis maybe not what is certain is they cannot build a better engine so game set and match to Ferrari and Merc, if you cannot build an engine you cannot build a car Red Bull are just a coach builder so Merc and Ferrari build better cars.

        1. There are only 2 teams in F1 that build their own engines. The rest are as you say “coachbuilders”. If you are trying to say everyone needs to build their own engines to be competitive in F1 then at least you seem to be getting just that.

          1. Yes, but maybe my comment was a bit harsh, however Red Bull had a good engine partner but they have struggled recently but they should have worked at it rather than finishing the relationship with knowhere else to realistically go. McLaren, Williams, Ferrari have all had issues in the past in between eras of great success but they worked at it. Red Bulls 1st downturn in fortunes and they want to leave. Had Renault quit and Red Bull wanted them to stay I would have great sympathy for them but I have none at this point as they should work with Renault evevn if it takes 5 years. When McLaren joined with Merceds it took 3 years to win a race then a few titles came their way and McLaren is a much more successful team than Red Bull and they are currently working with Honda despite great difficulties as they know they cannot crawl to Merc or Ferrari for engines and they would not want to. Williams put up with not having equal specs to Merc as they understand the reason why but if there are any more manufacturers out there wanting to come in I bet Williams will at that point try and get a works agreement but for now they will bide their time.

      3. Lol, so uniformed is funny. The rule about equality of engines was actually there before. Now it is that it’s won’t be there.

    16. I don’t get the sympathy for Red Bull saying “Engine manufacturers have too much power”. Aero-strong teams had too much power from 2007-2013. Tyres had very high importance before that. Every era has one trump card. Its not the one you have. Tough. Live with it.

    17. Yes Red Bull, listen to Monisha “We steal money from our pay drivers” Kaltenborn. At least when RBR employs 4 drivers, they actually have 4 cars…

    18. @keithcollantine That top picture of the Red Bull is amazing! Do you happen to know during what GP was it taken?

    Comments are closed.