Red Bull could exceed three-engine limit: “Our goal is performance”

47 comments on “Red Bull could exceed three-engine limit: “Our goal is performance””

1. 

   Phylyp (@phylyp)
   25th March 2019, 0:40

   “excerpt”

   Pretty presumptuous of him to say that, I bet he’ll regret it come the end of the season.
   1. 

      Hare (@hare)
      25th March 2019, 0:45

      You say that, but he already has 6 titles to his name, so he is only one behind Schumacher.

      I reckon he is an excerptional talent.
      1. 

         Phylyp (@phylyp)
         25th March 2019, 0:58

         @hare – oh man, that’s priceless, you’ve one-upped me there. :)
      2. 

         eljueta (@eljueta)
         25th March 2019, 7:59

         Oh man it took me 3 reads to see that R. Maybe Keith makes these kinds of bold mistakes on the articles on purpose so that we have a better comment section.
   2. 

      maiagus
      25th March 2019, 1:01

      This was taken out of the context.
   3. 

      ruliemaulana (@ruliemaulana)
      25th March 2019, 6:31

      At least we knew now that RaceFans had a template of ten links for a round-up article. Maybe its a way to telling us there are less and less F1 coverage in the media these days.
2. 

   Phylyp (@phylyp)
   25th March 2019, 0:42

   Congratulations on the caption, @coldfly
   1. 

      ColdFly (@)
      25th March 2019, 1:03

      thank you.
      great to have Caption Competition back.
      1. 

         bernasaurus (@bernasaurus)
         25th March 2019, 6:54

         Nice work @coldfly
      2. 

         nase
         25th March 2019, 9:38

         @coldfly
         Awesome caption, had me chuckling louder than acceptable in the office …
      3. 

         Jimmi Cynic (@jimmi-cynic)
         25th March 2019, 9:50

         Great one, @coldfly! Will be hard to follow that.
   2. 

      Mog
      25th March 2019, 9:20

      Yep, thats a gem. good job
3. 

   maiagus
   25th March 2019, 1:18

   RBR decision makes sense.
   Apparently they still don’t have a competitive car in all tracks to mount a title campaign against Mecedes/Ferrari.
   But they have a winning chance in some of other tracks. It seems right to prioritize those tracks at expense of a bad grid position in the next event.
   As seen last years, grid penalties mean very little to top 3 teams. Bar some problem at first corner, by lap 10 top 3 teams were 10th or above even starting at the grid’s tail.
   So, if the best RBR would expect would be 5th, 6th in a given race, and this is attainable despite grid penalties, then is a reasonable price to pay for a previous win or podium.
   In fact, I’d like to see this available to other teams. Specially if gimmicky features were avoided, it would be nice to see a midfield teams/drivers given special allowance to push it to 11 in a couple of races with less cost than today.
   1. 

      Stephen Crowsen (@drycrust)
      25th March 2019, 7:12

      a reasonable price to pay for a previous win or podium.

      I think you should have said “a reasonable price to pay for a subsequent win or podium.”
      1. 

         anon
         25th March 2019, 8:36

         @drycrust, it could be a previous victory, in the sense that the team might have achieved a victory in an earlier race by pushing the power unit to breaking point in order to win that race. Equally, as you say, it could be a subsequent race if the team slots in a fresh engine before a race they’re hoping to win in order to maximise performance – it works both ways in that situation.
         1. 

            Robbie (@robbie)
            25th March 2019, 11:00

            Sure but I doubt RBR will take a penalty for a new engine for Monaco expecting to win from last place on the grid. They’d have to take the penalty in the previous race if a fresh Pu out of the normal order of things was desired for a race like Monaco where presumably they will be more competitive like last year.
            1. 

               anon
               25th March 2019, 11:21

               @robbie, that was indeed what I meant by saying “slot in a fresh engine before a race they’re hoping to win”.

               I’ll appreciate it could have been clearer, but the idea was that they’d take a penalty in the race before one that they were hoping to win (i.e. taking a penalty in the Spanish GP in order to have a fresher engine for Monaco, or taking a penalty in Germany to have a fresher engine for the Hungarian GP), not that they would be taking an engine penalty at a venue like Monaco.
4. 

   Jay Menon (@jaymenon10)
   25th March 2019, 2:01

   This budget cap discussion has been going for years on end now. What nobody’s talking about is how it will be policed.

   I’m certain that all the big players will find loop holes to circumvent the rules via means of creative accounting. Of course, it will be against the “spirit of the rules”, but seriously, when has that been a problem for F1 teams?

   How would you police what Ferrari does? Its F1 team and Road Car division operates under the same roof. Red Bull “buys” their technical solutions from Red Bull Technology. Will RBT be subject to the cost cap as well?

   I doubt the cost cap will change much. Like Bernie always used to say, the one thing F1 teams do very well is, spend money.
   1. 

      Phylyp (@phylyp)
      25th March 2019, 2:29

      @jaymenon10 – while I have some pessimism around how auditing a budget cap can be performed effectively, I am also reassured by the fact that there are caps on CFD simulation and wind tunnel usage in place, and those don’t appear to be circumvented. We know this to be the case especially because we’ve had high-profile personnel movements between teams, and it is likely that such shenanigans would come to light.

      For instance, last year we had the FIA investigate Ferrari’s car for the battery setup, an action based on a revelation that was triggered by James Allison’s movement, IIRC.

      So, in the next decade, F1’s battles might be fought by chartered accountants, and the big four audit firms ;)
   2. 

      BlackJackFan
      25th March 2019, 3:49

      “… but seriously, when has that been a problem for F1 teams?”
      In the 50s…? Maybe…?
      1. 

         Jay Menon (@jaymenon10)
         25th March 2019, 4:45

         hahaha..certainly in the 50s, when honorable gentlemen participated the sport…but it also wasn’t what you would consider a professional sport either.
         1. 

            anon
            25th March 2019, 8:45

            @jaymenon10, even back then, there were individuals who were pushing the limits of what was acceptable.

            When Cooper began wind tunnel testing of their cars at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory in the mid to late 1950s, they were taking quite a few risks in the process.

            The TRRL wind tunnel was a government owned organisation that was not supposed to be carrying out private testing for motorsport – the rolling road wind tunnel there was meant to be used only for academic research. Cooper was calling in quite a few personal favours to get the tests done there and was relying on the operatives at the TRRL to cover up the tests by producing fake test reports to pretend that nothing was going on – not just to other teams, but also to the government (who were having to foot the bill for operating the wind tunnel).
            1. 

               BlackJackFan
               26th March 2019, 1:41

               Wonderful little snippet of info, anon…
   3. 

      Stephen Crowsen (@drycrust)
      25th March 2019, 7:31

      The first step to introducing a budget cap is to have a “payment” cap. You can’t expect a team to have a $135M budget if you’re paying them $180M, so some of that extra income has to go.
      I know it sounds ungrateful, but I suspect those at the front end of the grid will feel they aren’t being rewarded for their efforts. However, at the other end of the grid there will be teams who will believe they are finally getting a fair reward for their efforts.
   4. 

      Jere (@jerejj)
      25th March 2019, 9:44

      @jaymenon10 ”how it will be policed.”
      – Precisely what I’ve wondered and pointed out as well.
   5. 

      Robbie (@robbie)
      25th March 2019, 10:34

      @jaymenon10 I’m not sure why you think ‘nobody is talking about it’ wrt policing caps. I would think that it is just as big an aspect within F1 in their meetings as deciding on what should be capped and by how much. While I’m not naive enough to think the teams won’t try to get away with some things, my sense is that the teams are quite on board with some sort of cap as a necessity going forward, not just something Liberty wants to do. If they aren’t talking about it publicly enough for you, that doesn’t mean they aren’t talking about it at all.

      Keep in mind some of the cost reductions will come from them tackling the low hanging fruit such as standardizing parts where that makes sense to do so without taking anything away from each teams uniqueness and room to innovate, and things that we fans don’t see or think about anyway.

      My sense is that the teams are for the most part quite on board with the changes Liberty wants to make, and then of course there have been disagreements and discussions and compromises, and that was always to be expected. It’s a process and won’t likely be nailed to perfection for 2021, but for me any of the changes they are making on their own and combined, to whatever degree they end up being, can only help F1. Less power and money to the mega teams, more for the lesser teams, less money needed to field two cars, teams that will be closer in performance, cars that will be able to race more closely, no drs needed, better tires.

      The thing about a cap is that once in place the teams will then have a benchmark beyond which if they want to try to cheat and overspend there is now the element of them getting caught and penalized and publicly shamed for breaching a rule that currently isn’t there. And as @phylyp points out, other restrictions have been adhered to, so the teams have shown they can indeed police themselves when there is an actual defined line they are not to cross without risk.
   6. 

      Velocityboy (@velocityboy)
      25th March 2019, 18:08

      I agree on the difficulty in policing a cost cap. In addition I don’t see how they can expect a team that designs and builds power units for example, to operate under the same budget as a team that doesn’t So are there going to be tiered cost caps where those who make certain components can spend more than those who don’t? Will this force teams to move to places where the cost of doing business is cheaper, or outsource their component making to cheaper places, putting “local” people out of work?
      Personally I think that these are smart people who should be able to lower the cost of participating in other ways and without making it a spec series.
   7. 

      bull mello (@bullmello)
      25th March 2019, 20:13

      @jaymenon10 – “policed…”

      …and, enforced?

      Will penalties apply to future races/seasons?
      Maybe a good way to chase teams out of F1. Next season you will be handicapped with financial or grid penalties.

      Or, will penalties be applied retroactively?
      So forensic accounting has determined the results from teams x, y, & z are hereby nullified or reduced. Meaning, the races that teams placed in and fans watched don’t count for much. Months later the accounting cops can alter those results. Forget that podium celebration, the joy of your driver winning. The race is now decided off track after the monies are counted and judgements applied.

      So, some may think this a farcical description of budget cap enforcement. I would love to hear your realistic examples of how budget cap enforcement would really work.
5. 

   Tristan (@skipgamer)
   25th March 2019, 3:16

   “Right now it looks like they are afraid of losing one team, two teams, three teams.

   “I think what’s really important is instead of having to live in fear we make F1 a platform that is again attractive enough to attract enough teams, so that you are not held to ransom by anyone.”

   Well, it’s a good thing to say in theory. But will anyone watch F1 without Ferrari, Mercedes and Red Bull? Would watching Renault and a bunch of independent teams going around the track on their own really be compelling? Would that really help bring on more teams, at least valuable ones that people care about?

   The three big teams and a B-team each of their choosing could make up a grid with 3 car teams… It sounds like a much more commercially viable product than losing them if push comes to shove. I can imagine that still bringing people to the track, where as I don’t think losing them with a less profitable proposition you can say the same.

   It’s a tough position to be in for the teams on the bottom but Liberty actually have a lot of choice with how they wish to proceed. I really hope they return to free to air/stream. Pile up on ads (which also lets them advertise their paid ad-free streaming service) and bring back viewers and sponsors back to the teams. Everyone’s thinking reduce the spending, but how about helping increase the spending for the rest of the teams and helping them increase budgets and grow instead? A little bit of give and a little bit of take, it’s the way forward I think rather than just capping the budgets to what works for Renault.

   Renault only seem to care about what’s good for Renault – they’ve even said in the past their model relies on budget caps coming in and the big teams being unprepared for the reduced level of spending.
   1. 

      DB-C90 (@dbradock)
      25th March 2019, 4:05

      The worrying factor behind Renault’s strategy is whether or not they’ll commit to a F1 future if the financial elements don’t work out as they hope.

      They’ve set in place a long term strategy that in part relies on the bigger teams having their spending significantly reduced and have been quite up front about that.

      The question that remains is what happens if it doesn’t. Will they stay in the knowledge that they’re unlikely to win a WDC or WCC or will they close down their operation.

      It’s going to be an interesting few months.
   2. 

      Ross
      25th March 2019, 5:09

      It would take a hit, but the racing would be much more exciting. As demonstrated by the F1 B Championship… I too have doubts about Renaults long term strategy, they need to play politics against the big three to achieve a cost cap that will suit their own team. I would much rather have seen them come in a flex the muscle of their parent company on a scale of the Mercedes team… but a cost cap while taking some of the ‘untouchable’ off the series will bring the pack closer together.
6. 

   ruliemaulana (@ruliemaulana)
   25th March 2019, 4:45

   Buemi was ordered to apply a certain brake pressure during his qualifying lap, which is understood to have been 100 bar.

   Why FIA order him to do that? Why during qualification? Haven’t FIA had lots of engineers to review whether a system violate a rule or not? Its like FAA telling 737 Max 8 pilot to recreate Lion Air accident to make a point.
   1. 

      Gabriel (@rethla)
      25th March 2019, 6:13

      @ruliemaulana
      FIA is thinking Buemi has a way of cheating during qualifying that slips through the sensors. I dont really see how this has anything to do with recreating a malfunction?
      Also i think Boeing has an armada of pilots working 24/7 trying to recreate that Lion Air crash….
      1. 

         ruliemaulana (@ruliemaulana)
         25th March 2019, 6:26

         @rethla It’s ongoing investigations since September last year. If FIA didn’t have the resources, they can do FAA, letting the manufacture assess their own design whether its comply or not with the regulation.
         1. 

            anon
            25th March 2019, 8:54

            @ruliemaulana, the problems with the 737 Max probably have arisen precisely because the FAA allowed Boeing to do exactly that, and it seems that Boeing provided incorrect information to the FAA on how their systems worked (although the information that Boeing gave to the FAA in itself should have been enough to throw up a few concerns).
            1. 

               ColdFly (@)
               25th March 2019, 9:34

               I assume it was sarcasm by @ruliemaulana; a good one at that if not for the tragic consequences.
            2. 

               ruliemaulana (@ruliemaulana)
               25th March 2019, 9:45

               @coldfly @anon Yeah, I hate FAA-Boeing so much as I hate Indonesian government choose Boeing over Airbus just because Europe had things against palm oil. And maybe because today I found out that some pilot fly without flight-plan just because the airplane wifi had a problem and he didn’t even required to download it first before take-off.
      2. 

         Paul Duggan
         25th March 2019, 7:52

         Er, yes. But they’re working in simulators!
   2. 

      BasCB (@bascb)
      25th March 2019, 7:52

      Well, from reading the article it appears that the FIA got a renewed indication that the car was not complying in the first part of qualifying, so they wanted him / the team to do this braking test to be able to look at the telemetry and be able to say with more certainty whether the car was actually compliant with the safety rules on breaking @ruliemaulana.

      Not sure when they would have been able to do so? Or would you prefer they just DSQ’d him from qualifying up front? It is clear that the FIA have been working on getting this clever dodging the rules suspicion cleared with Nissan for months. Nissan will have already had quite a few chances to prove their systems are fine, but clearly have not been able to do so up to now.
      1. 

         ruliemaulana (@ruliemaulana)
         25th March 2019, 8:37

         @bascb I prefer they DSQ’d him. It a sign that FIA knew what they’re doing.
         1. 

            BasCB (@bascb)
            25th March 2019, 10:12

            Ok, I get that.
7. 

   Jere (@jerejj)
   25th March 2019, 9:45

   Sensible decision by RBR.
8. 

   Pjotr (@pietkoster)
   25th March 2019, 15:41

   Honda is prepared to blow some million dollar engines to smitherenes just to find out what works best. They really want a WCC title.
   1. 

      anon
      25th March 2019, 16:56

      @pietkoster, it seems unlikely that they would actually blow the engines to smithereens, because doing so makes it rather hard to tell how exactly it failed in the first place.

      If it is the strategy that Red Bull discussed before the season, the more likely scenario is that they are expecting Honda to introduce four upgrade packages during the season and are planning on using additional engines so Honda can then test those engines on track. Of course, in the process it does mean that they can run the engines harder, since they’re effectively only aiming to use them for four or five races instead of seven.
      1. 

         Pjotr (@pietkoster)
         25th March 2019, 18:42

         Good explanation and good arguments. What I expect is they (Honda) want at least one win. They probably don’t care about an engine wich will last a couple of races. Of course they want more but they will be satisfied with one win this season even if this will cost them a handfull of engines. It is on their bucketlist this season.
9. 

   swh1386 (@swh1386)
   25th March 2019, 22:47

   Your thoughts on Jacques Villeneuve’s comments regarding Robert Kubica’s return?

   “I think it’s terrible. This is not good for the sport. I already said that last year and I am not going to change my opinion. Formula 1 should be the pinnacle of racing, it’s the king class.
   “It is not good for the sport if anyone with a disability can participate. At least not in Formula 1, perhaps in other classes. Formula 1 must be tough, must be difficult and almost unreachable. Robert’s return is not the right message.”

   I find these comments deeply distasteful and offensive to disabled and less abled athletes. Motorsport in particular is one of many sports that see disabled people compete (Eg Alex Zanardi, Billy Monger) equally and this should be celebrated!
   Villeneuve’s comments have always been outdated, irrelevant, often offensive but this time he has crossed the line!
   @keithcollantine
   1. 

      BlackJackFan
      26th March 2019, 1:53

      Villeneuve should have been muzzled years ago – for his own sake…!
      But the media love his usually pathetic, childish, verbal diarrhoea…

Comments are closed.