Red Bull ‘must have competitive engine soon’

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Red Bull’s Helmut Marko says the team must have a competitive engine irrespective of its commitment to compete in F1 until 2020.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

BEAST!!!!! #classic

A photo posted by Lewis Hamilton (@lewishamilton) on

Comment of the day

When the flag drops, the politics stops:

While I am sick of a lot of the politics already, I am massively excited for the season.

Time will tell, but I think it is going to be a great season and I cannot wait to follow every practice, qualifying and race as close as possible. I cannot get enough of F1 personally.
Brian Kneis (@Clustr1)


Alexander Rossi, Andretti-Herta, IndyCar, St Petersburg, 2016

Alexander Rossi ended the first day of practice for the Grand Prix of St Petersburg 13th fastest despite a spin up an escape road. Join us to follow the race on F1 Fanatic Live this Sunday.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Daniel, Garf, Michael Griffin, Monkzie, Nitin24, Obi-Spa Kenobi and Dodge5847!

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

Fernando Alonso won the opening round of the 2006 season ten years ago today.

Author information

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

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

87 comments on “Red Bull ‘must have competitive engine soon’”

  1. Can’t blame Hamilton on this one… he’s flipping right!

    1. @strontium I don’t come down on either side on this topic.

      On one hand I’m sure there is a lot of repetition in what he gets asked and I’m sure it does get tedious. And there’s no doubt that at one end of the media market are some publications who will pounce on him at the slightest provocation – today’s ‘takes swipe’ story being an example of that.

      On the other hand Hamilton’s complaint about journalists’ questions could often be applied to his answers. In the FIA press conferences he tends to trot out formulaic responses irrespective of what he’s been asked. And just a few days ago when asked for his opinion on Halo – certainly not a subject he’s been repeatedly quizzed on for the past ten years – he refused to respond, then went on Instagram, slagged it off, and later deleted the post. Complaining about being asked unoriginal questions and then refusing to answer the more unusual ones does smack of hypocrisy. (Come to think of it, I remember asking him a question about simulators a few years ago which he refused to answer).

      So when it comes to Hamilton versus the media I tend towards the view that both can be as bad as each other.

      1. they all say the same thing over and over again. just like the racing. At least Lewis dares ;) even if he has to pull litigious commentary off Instagram (who is principally involved in pushing the whole Halo idea?) maybe Mercedes told him to shut up? wink wink, nudge nudge. The real question is what is written in to Lewis Hamilton’s contract, and what is he not allowed to talk about.

      2. No One Better (@)
        12th March 2016, 5:18

        Your response clearer leans towards the media. He deleted the post because he knew the media was going to have a field day with it. Which they did. The media guys were more upset that Hamilton didn’t give them the scoop track side more than anything. Hamilton can be chatty when he wants. But he’s had enough guys like James Allen. He gives him one line answers all the time and I don’t blame him for it.

        1. Do you give kimi the same slack? Kimi has known from day one the media is snakes and not to give them one ounce more than they deserve, yet it’s somehow disrespectful when Kimi ‘respects’ his own life and privacy he is due.

          Again, Lewis is just showing what a follower of other true greats he is.

          Thank god for the fastest car in history, can only imagine the headlines if he was losing again without the fastest car.

      3. david mcgrory
        12th March 2016, 7:35

        why did the “pure racer” not have the guts to say it when asked ? seb would have

        1. And there in lies the problem, Lewis has to be like every other driver on the grid.

          He has to live the same lifestyle, dress/talk/look/act/eat/sleep etc the same.

          It doesn’t matter what he says or doesn’t say, the likely outcome will be one of two things, “he gets criticise for giving his opinion or he gets criticised for not giving one”

      4. The Media press conferences are terrible, the journalists all have the same question and when someone else asks it they ask it again anyway.

        you get the impression some of them are only covering F1 because their publication has told them too & they would rather be doing football or whatever.

        The questions they ask they should be ashamed of themselves as journalists as they are bloody terrible.

      5. In defence of the journalists, some questions are evergreen and people are always asking journalists about the same things. Also, they get asked similar questions from different angles because the readers/listeners/consumers of their content often believe (rightly or wrongly – which it is depends on the question) that subtle changes to the question make large differences to the “true” answer. This is especially problematic in English, which has a vocabulary of over half a million distinct words, each with a different set of connotations. (Other languages have fewer words and therefore relatively reduced scope for such linguistic contortions of understanding, hence why British journalists are more likely to ask questions almost the same as the colleague just before them).

        In defence of Lewis, it’s kind of hard to give many different answers to the same question if the true situation is the same as before (or feels the same as before, in the case of subjective questions). Lewis doesn’t seem to believe in giving jokey or completely false responses either, further limiting his options for variation. And journalists usually only have to put up with the repeated question situation when in press conferences – Lewis gets to hear every single (near-)identical question he’s asked, and it’s a lot. (Though I do wish he’d stop doing the moan-and-delete option on posts with no legal implications – for the last few years, doing so is pretty much the equivalent of moan-and-leave-the-comment-posted-forever thanks to a combination of comment archiving and gossip. If he’s being advised to do it, and there isn’t a legal issue with the comment… …the advisor is wasting their time).

        Both sides are probably thinking, “Come on, give me something to work with here!”

      6. Almost all drivers have had too much media training. They all say the same boring thing.
        That’s why I like Kimi a lot. He does not engage in these pre programmed media responses.
        What I really miss are the days of Eddy Irvine. He just told you the way it was. No BS. If you had it coming…. You’d get it full frontal.

  2. knoxploration
    12th March 2016, 0:27

    My goodness! It only took two years of total dominance — winning 84% of all races — for Merc to pay lip service to actually letting their teammates race each other.

    That’s amazing news! I mean, it’s not that they’ll actually do anything differently, but at least now they’ll pretend to do so, and pretending is what F1 is all about these days.

    1. Given that winning races is what F1 is all about… can you really blame them for their tactics the last two years? They were successful… they won, a lot… they earned it.

      1. knoxploration
        12th March 2016, 1:51

        Given that they’d still have won both championships by a country mile while letting their drivers fight — and they knew themselves how dominant they were better than anyone — then yes, I’d say not allowing their drivers to fight was rather cowardly and unsporting, and robbed fans of their only hope at somewhat interesting racing up front.

        1. While I get what you are saying, “cowardly and unsporting” may be a bit harsh for a company that spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the sport with the intention of trying to win and dominate. They spent the money to win, not to appease fans.

          1. knoxploration
            12th March 2016, 3:55

            …and they’d still have won regardless. Nobody would’ve criticized them for applying team orders once rivals had any realistic chance of catching them, had letting their drivers fight gone badly. All they’d really have risked is a less marketable driver taking home the trophy.

    2. THESE days? Only these days?

      1. knoxploration
        12th March 2016, 3:53

        Hah! Point taken, but at least in years gone by there was some actual racing to accompany all the posturing.

    3. Mercedes started off with an attitude of “let them race each other”. It was only after Spa 2014 (where Nico and Lewis hit each other) that they revoked this, which… …didn’t go down too well.

    4. So long as they share a strategist, Mercedes will maintain enough control to limit the racing.

  3. I still find it utterly stupid that there is an american town called St. Petersburg. Come on! Make an original name!

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        12th March 2016, 10:06

        It was quite original during most of its existence!
        We should blame the guys who didn’t like Petrograd or Leningrad.

        1. St.Petersburg (Russian one, my hometown) was called St.-Petersburg since its foundation in 1703. It was called Petrograd for less than a decade at the beginning of XX century before being renamed into Leningrad.

        2. @coldfly
          Please tell me you were being sarcastic. :)

          1. ColdFly F1 (@)
            12th March 2016, 21:03

            Indeed ;-)

            But the fact that @njoydesgn’s hometown had a different name for some 77years last century is still an interesting fact, certainly since the American copycat can’t be older than 125-150 years.

    1. You would run out of names before each town had it’s own. New York for instance is named after the Duke of York (England).

      1. Why do you say the ‘Duke of’ York rather than just York?

        1. @matt90, the name was taken from the title, rather than from the city, because the Duke of York was a patron of early explorers to North America and was involved in the administration of the Province of New York (where the city was located).

    2. At least it’s not an entire country named after a province (looking at you, New Zealand :)

      1. Lets not even mention New South Wales

      2. There is lots of stupid in the world. In English the days of the week are named after ancient gods. That idea didn’t come from NZ, it came from some place in Europe.
        I find it stupid that the New Zealander who was essential to the winning of the Battle of Britain hasn’t been given a place of Honour in London like Lord Nelson has. I also think it is about time you gave Alan Turing a place of honour too. Without him you wouldn’t have cracked the Enigma code as quickly as you did.
        F1 wants to be popular, and it wants to sell the TV rights to the highest bidder. That too is stupid.

          1. @raceprouk My thanks for correcting me. It was foolish of me to have commented without checking my facts.

          1. @matt90 Ah ha! Well done! I stand corrected! I was the one who was stupid for not checking my facts. “Unveiled 15th September, 2010.”

    3. It’s right next to Tampa, and St. Petersburg is a part of the Tampa metro area. But there are cities in the United States that have the same names as major international cities. Believe it or not, there is even a town not far from Washington, D.C. called Damascus.

    4. A lot of American places (though by no means all) are named after the location from which the core of its original European immigrants came. This is how come there are American villages (and occasionally towns) named after tiny European villages (Roseto is the small-town example that comes to my mind first, but there are quite a lot of others).

  4. The aero kit around the rear of the IndyHondas looks waaaay nicer than last year. If they removed those side rear wings it would look better than current f1 imho

    1. Last year Honda front wing looked f1-like, now it looks more chevy-like.

  5. I kinda hope Red Bull really push to find a solution rather than just another torrent of media complaints.

    Why not do a Mclaren and Work with an established manufacturer?

    1. That would be nice but what’s in it hot an engine manufacturer?

      Under the current rules, there’s basically one chance to get it right or suffer a year long embarrassment for producing a poor PU.

      Actually, it’s worse than that – this year they would have had 8 days only to test if their PU was up to scratch.

      Given the Honda experience and even the Renault one – why would any manufacturer willingly choose to join F1? Have to be a brave group indeed to think they could get the job done

      1. Darn “What’s in it for an engine manufacturer” , how the heck did I type “hot”

        1. Did you have Autoguess turned on? (That’s my jokey name for autocorrect – which rarely seems to make the correct prediction for what I am trying to type).

      2. Dropping the tokens from 2017 is one thing, but no one seems to address the testing limitation.

  6. Why?
    It is a common practice for migrants when they settle in a new territory to name the new town after the town they came from. Just think of how many Hamiltons there are around the world. They haven’t all of a sudden been name to honour Lewis.

  7. The 2015 Ferrari PU could have been a decent option for RBR but they refused it (i’m looking forward to see the STR11 ), Ferrari offered them the possibility to develop for them a PU (development costs to be paid by RBR) and rebadge it as an Alfa Romeo PU and they refused that too. All these options are not ideal for them especially if they want to win the WDC again but still better than what they have at the moment.
    The thing is RBR don’t only want a competitive PU, they wanted cheap too.

    1. To the Max !
      12th March 2016, 2:25

      RBR didn’t get an offer for 2015 Ferrari PU, and the offer for the development of an Alfa Romeo engine was also only done to STR and not to RBR.

        1. That wasn’t about the Alfa Romeo offer and about the 2015 Ferrari engine.

  8. RBR will never be allowed a competitive motor in F1, again. Period. Mercedes and Ferrari will see to it.

    1. RaceProUK (@)
      12th March 2016, 8:28

      Because only Ferrari and Mercedes make F1 engines?

      1. Because only they make engines Red Bull currently regard as “competitive”. And after the mud-slinging Red Bull have engaged in, I can’t blame them for not being any more accommodating than required by the regulations. I think Toro Rosso may get a current Mercedes/Ferrari engine simply by the FIA closing the current loophole for previous-year engines, and that may be the saving of the squad, because when that happens I can see the entire Red Bull resource being combined into that team and the current Red Bull Racing being sold off.

  9. And Red Bull must have better flavor soon!

  10. sunny stivala
    12th March 2016, 7:29

    The totonator said there will not be team orders this year, does it mean there was team orders last year?.

    1. It means that some of the rules between the 2 drivers that have existing since 2014 may no longer apply in 2016. All teams have rules or order for their drivers. For example Mercedes said that no driver can be higher engine performance mode than the other person unless team allows this, which to my understanding both drivers broke in 2014 but not 2015. One thing that was pretty clear from Mercedes from 2014 onwards is that they haven’t got a number 1 driver in the team. The both get equal equipment and equal opportunity on the track.

      1. Well, actually LH broke it in the last (or was it second last) race of 2015 when he was frustrated that the team wouldn’t take extreme measures to give him a better strategy to get by NR. He cranked his setting up only to have the team tell him they’ll only just instruct NR to do the same so he might as well crank it back down. Which yes, I agree, means they have no number one on the team. Two roosters on the top team….thank goodness.

  11. On the engine front, there’s no point a “new” manufacturer entering now. The current agreement runs to 2020, which is only 4 years, and do we really see a new manufacturer being able to get an engine designed, built, competitive, reliable etc in that time frame? Nope.

    Fact is, the current rule book was designed by the teams, for the teams. The rules are, in effect, an insurance policy.

    You also have to take Bernie into account here. Until 2020, there’s little he can do, especially without Todt backing him up. The manufacturers have made the investment, the contracts have been signed, everything’s in place until 2020, with some wiggle room in there if required.

    Come 2020, do we really think Bernie, and to a similar extent Todt, are going to permit this complexity/expense of engine again? I doubt it.

    They’ll still be hybrid, but crucially, they’ll be able to be built by an independent manufacturer too.

    To me, this means we’ll get something akin to a V6 twin-turbo with a more powerful KERS system, and that’ll be it. Maybe something like Formula E’s, upping from 120kW to the mid 200’s? Maybe even 300 further in the future.

    I think the MGU-H will go, as fantastic a piece of engineering as it is, for the simple reason that an independent manufacturer cannot build it on a commercial basis. In WEC terms, Porsche run a GU-H (not MGU-H), Audi chose not to run one after R&D’ing the thing, and Toyota run 2 KERS systems. If the 2 largest manufacturers in the world don’t run an MGU-H, being completely free too if they want, I think it’s reasonable to suggest it’ll go. I’m sure that will draw ridicule from the engineering fans in the community ;).

    1. There was supposed to be a tender for an independent engine. If the FIA had really wanted one, they’d have maintained the tender against the teams’ protests, as it is not something that requires the teams’ permission.

      1. That tender is still active. It’s just on the backburner atm. No agreements/contracts have been signed RE: cost of supply, performance convergence etc.

    2. Ferrari is not a huge organisation though @thef1engineer, and they’ve managed it. Accepted convergence, recruited and learned from the example Merc set. It’s how things progress.

      Honda bungled it by refusing to learn and Renault bungled it by being too small and so badly managed they got worse instead of better.

      All a new entrant has to do is use a BIG turbo, poach one or two of the right people, and listen. MGU-H is complex as you say, but the wheel has been invented now.

      And don’t forget all four engine manufacturers are in it together. In it for MGU-H. They won’t let it go, I feel sure.

      1. Agree fully on first 2 paragraphs, however;

        3rd paragraph first sentence – by the time that process has had chance to take effect amongst the other 2 manufacturers, it’ll be 2020 and this “era” will be over.

        MGU-H isn’t as integral to the progress of the auto industry as say, the wheel. Appreciate the analogy though :).

        As a closing remark, the MGU-H was the first item on the table in this latest round of engine discussions ;). This 12 million cost-capped engine is a complete nonsense. The customer teams will get next to nothing but the hardware, the devil’s in the detail, the manufacturers are just trying it on, as is their right.

        1. 100% agree it was a nonsense to offer a PU with no fuel or lubricants @thef1engineer :)

          They should always have been cost-capped as Todt acknowledged. Afaik FIA could still do it though, if they made their minds up.

          That wouldn’t fix it for Red Bull to win, is the real problem I think. Especially now Horner has carelessly helped make the 2017 cars more power-dependent ;)

          1. Oh absolutely, the FIA CAN do whatever they like, it’s their championship at the end of the day, it’s their name above the door.

            However, the problem is, and I don’t like saying this because he’s a lovely bloke, the problem is Jean Todt. He wants everyone to agree, and as you, I, and pretty much everyone who’s involved in Formula 1 knows, be they a fan, media, engineer, whoever, that is IMPOSSIBLE.

            Teams are quite rightly self-serving, self-interested and paranoid, so why on earth would you give them the voting rights to sign-off any rules.

            I don’t like harping back to the past, I’m one for thinking you should always move forward, but I can’t help but think we never would have had this situation had Max Mosley been in charge.

            At the end of the day, the FIA/FOM need to spec the engine rules as such that it can be built by an independent manufacturer on a competitive, commercial basis, then 90% of F1’s problems would disappear over night.

          2. @thef1engineer

            However, the problem is, and I don’t like saying this because he’s a lovely bloke, the problem is Jean Todt. He wants everyone to agree, and as you, I, and pretty much everyone who’s involved in Formula 1 knows, be they a fan, media, engineer, whoever, that is impossible.

            Teams are quite rightly self-serving, self-interested and paranoid, so why on earth would you give them the voting rights to sign-off any rules.

            Todt didn’t, Ecclestone did, and he did it to break FOTA.

          3. Back at the end of last decade, beginning of this, when these hybrid engines were on the drawing board, Max Mosley had been working with Dr Gerschel I believe it was at BMW, to bring hybrid engines into F1 in such a way, that an independent manufacturer could supply them to the customer teams on a commercial basis.

            The next step in that process was for the FIA to go to the likes of Cosworth, RML, Mecachrome etc, and ask them to frame a set of regulations in such a way that they could indeed supply a hybrid engine on that commercial basis. I believe Cosworth still even have their 1.6L V6 turbo ICE sitting about in storage.

            Going on through all this was of course the succession to Mosley’s presidency by Todt, but guess what, Todt never followed up on that 2nd phase of negotiating hybrid engines into Formula 1.

            Yes, you are quite right in Ecclestone breaking FOTA, but he did that with the individual commercial contracts to 2020, TV and otherwise, the engines you certainly can’t lay at Bernie’s door.

    3. I interpreted Bernie’s comments as developing a engine with a similar power output but not to the same regulations imposed on current manufactures. That way they could make something with much lower R&D costs and a lower cost per unit costs. A larger displacement with less restrictions around fuel-flow and volume could be interesting, as using that engine would mean a weight penalty that diminishes towards the end of the race.

      For the points you raised I just can’t see it happening before 2020 either.

      1. None of us in F1 knows what Bernie means, not even Bernie himself most of the time :).

        The thing is, as interesting as a 2.2L V6 twin-turbo with it’s own fuel reg’s etc etc would be, the hybrid manufacturers won’t accept it, at least not until 2020, because equalising performance whilst from an engineering standpoint is entirely possible, it’s a retrospective action, and as such, not being from a clean sheet of paper it’s always likely to incur an unforeseen disadvantage somewhere.

        You COULD have 2 different engine specs in F1, but it needs to be agreed from day 1, from that blank sheet of paper. Then, it’s fair to everybody. Everybody has the same rules to play by, then if you make a mistake, it’s not because a fundamental rule has changed.

        I’ll borrow the words of Alex Hitzinger to round off this comment (Porsche LMP1 technical director), “all we want is a level-playing field, it’s then up to us to do a better job.”

    4. @thef1engineer, I might be mistaken, but I believe that the WEC does not permit the necessary mechanical linkages that would permit teams to run the same sort of systems that are used in F1 (I believe that only one mechanical linkage is permitted between the hybrid energy systems and the drivetrain).

      There are also strict restrictions on how electrical energy can be transferred between components that would render the solutions used in F1 illegal in the WEC. In F1, there is no restriction on the amount of energy which may be transferred from the MGU-H to the MGU-K (the regulations state that it is unrestricted), whereas in the WEC that coupling is not permitted – the regulations mean that any energy recovered from the thermal energy recovery systems can only be used to charge the batteries. That is the driving reason behind teams running two separate energy recovery systems in the WEC – the regulations mean that the thermal and kinetic energy recovery systems effectively have to be decoupled.

      As for independent suppliers, it was within the means of some independent suppliers to create such systems – Cosworth produced a complaint powertrain package in 2014, but the program had to be put on ice because they couldn’t find any customers to buy it in the first place. You can try to skew the engine regulations towards independents but, as Cosworth found under the V8 formula, it’s no good if the teams simply don’t want to buy your engines in the first place.

      1. I may be missing something here (it has been known :D), but Audi were well known to be developing an MGU-H to compliment their existing front axle KERS. Last I spoke to Ulrich he described the loss of the MGU as “less of a concern to the engine department than you might think,” I believe were his words, “as we’ve decided to focus more on economy than performance.”

        If we bypass the whole technology/engineering discussion and cut right to the chase, hybrid technology exists, ultimately, to go in our road cars doesn’t it. And 99% of road car users are going to want economy out of their car, before they want performance. Yes, the performance is nice, and tbh from an electric motor/battery set-up the torque/acceleration is bloody terrifying :), but nevertheless, the “economy” message comes first.

        I remember reading Cosworth had the ICE ready-to-go. Nothing about the hybrid systems though. Zytek rings a bell? More than happy to offer my apologies and eat humble pie if you’ve got any info to the contrary :).

        1. @thef1engineer, I thought that it was the case that Audi cancelled their development on their thermal energy recovery systems for different reasons. I recall Ullrich giving an interview to Autosport where he claimed that the reason they’d ditched development of their thermal energy recovery systems was because it would push the car over the minimum weight limit, and the overall loss in performance from the car having a sub optimal weight distribution and being over the minimum weight was greater than the potential gains that being able to move into a higher energy recovery class could yield.

          With regards to Cosworth, the program was cancelled at a reasonably early stage due to a lack of interest, but there was an indication that Cosworth were looking towards Zytek to supply the necessary expertise (so your recollection of Zytek is indeed on the money). Zytek have been involved for a number of years as a supplier of the necessary hardware for a number of F1 and WEC teams, so a tie up with Cosworth would have been well within their capabilities.

          1. So to sum your first paragraph up then, economy ;).

            Yea I’ve done a bit of delving since you raised that topic this morning, thumbs up for getting me thinking :).

            You’re quite right, it’s well within their capabilities, however, the “real-world” comes riding into the equation pretty abruptly. Zytek could do the hybrid, but out came the old chestnut of “we’re an R&D lead company,” and “we have no intentions of entering F1 at this time.”

            Cutting through the PR and getting straight-down to the engineering, I don’t for a second doubt that Cosworth and Zytek could indeed build a current-spec Formula 1 power unit, should they be guaranteed the finances to do so. What I do doubt, is that they’d be able to develop and support it to the same level as the works manufacturers, and this is where the problem ultimately lays, and why I say the engines really need to be simplified.

            Ultimately, an independent engine, joint project or not, will quickly fall behind any works effort due to the complexity and investment required to get it even halfway competitive. F1 teams know this, and ultimately this is why the funding for the project dried up.

            A current-spec “B-spec” works manufacturer power unit is better than a current-spec “A-spec” independent power unit. The End. Even if the cost is 3-4 times as much.

            Until the power units are simplified, sadly, the above will always be the case.

    5. Shouldn’t they have made the life of the present complex PU longer. As it stands presumably the four manufactures want to get their investment back, with the short guaranteed lifetime then this makes the costs high.
      So if the FIA et al were to extend the lifetime of this PU design then the price could come down.

      Re: the MGU-H, do they use the M part for power output, I may be wrong, but I thought the only Motor used for traction was the one in the MGU-K.

      1. @w-k The MGU-H & MGU-K are the systems in which they harvest the energy into the battery which then powers the electric motor.

        The ‘H’ is harvesting energy via heat from the turbo & the ‘K’ is kinetic energy generated under braking.

      2. GT Racer has answered your 2nd paragraph so I’ll answer the 1st :).

        By “made the life of the present complex PU longer,” do you mean they have to last longer than 4 grand prix weekends (for arguments sake), or longer than until 2020?

        There is a key point that has to be made up front here, the real cost of these power units is in the R&D, not the manufacturing. Yes, of course manufacturing these things isn’t the cheapest exercise in the world, but in terms of setting up your machines to make 5 V6 engines or 20, the cost really isn’t that different. Obviously it would be in terms of what a normal person earns typically of a year, but for a multinational conglomerate road car manufacturer, I’m sure you get my point.

        That said, should we have 20 different engines per season? No. Of course not. But when teams say “we’ll use 1 less engine next season to save costs,” don’t for 1 second buy that that makes any real difference to their operational costs/budget for the duration of their contract. It’s simply another one of these, “we’ll do this to make it look like we’re willing to do something” type offers.

        Get used to them. They’ll be a whole load more flying about throughout the season as engine contracts still aren’t signed, Red Bull will be whinging, Sauber are at risk, amongst others, and Bernie has contracts in place whereby if the grid falls below a certain number all hell will break lose.

        If you like F1 politics, strap yourself in for a bumpy ride, last season will look like playschool compared to this ;).

  12. “Bernie Ecclestone hints he could fund development of new F1 engine”

    If Bernie would fund an engine he would commercialise every aspect of it. There would be a fee for naming the engine in interviews. Every engine would be a bit more expensive than the previous one. Issues with it would never be the fault of the engine, but of the team running it. It would output different power curves based on the tyre choice. The turbo’s would have a release valve which would open as the DRS is activated.

    If the bathtub is overflowing…. You first need to close the tap (get rid of Bernie). Only then can you clean up the bathroom. Currently F1 is mopping the floor with the tap open..

    1. I’m sure Bernie could fund a new F1 engine development. That’s merely a confirmation of Bernie’s wallet size. There simply wouldn’t be any point in his doing so, so it won’t happen.

    2. ColdFly F1 (@)
      12th March 2016, 10:18

      Let him fund the development of one; that would be great for the sport. @tychop
      But the technical requirements have to be exactly the same – no two-tier formula!

      1. @ColdFly, I know, I know… I was’t that serious. I’m only serious about F1 without BE.

        1. ColdFly F1 (@)
          12th March 2016, 21:11

          Donkey Kong. Right? Great one! @tychop.

  13. 1: the story was from The Daily Mail
    2: it was written it was written by Johnathan Mcevoy

    Think just about sums it up

  14. Finally Bernie putting money where his mouth is.

    Entice VW or Ford with major development subsidy? Exciting.

    1. RaceProUK (@)
      12th March 2016, 12:57

      If VW was interested in F1, they’d have entered already.

    2. Makes a nice change. Usually the only thing that goes near his mouth is his foot when he says something stupid.

  15. After warning the team and drivers that any in-fighting and camps forming is the worst that can happen to the point he might consider letting a driver go, now Wolff wants to drop one of the main things that has kept the peace?

  16. “BEAST!!!!!” Seriously, Lewis? In a good way?!
    That was the worst McLaren for years and years – at least until 2015…

    1. Wonder if that one was one of the ultra rare ‘Super size’ models from that year, made specifically to accommodate the ‘Arse of Mansell’ :-P

  17. That picture makes me realize that I like Red Bull’s stripped down livery this year, looks like a car that means business.

    And it will certainly be interesting to see if Mercedes stand by their policy no matter what, but on the face of it it’s a far more sporting attitude than Ferrari’s was at the height of their dominance.

Comments are closed.