What is wrong with Redbull?

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

with all due respect, thats not how i remember it.

if memory serves the fall out of crashgate resulted in the World Motorsports Council effectively telling Renault that they should be banned for life. a fate they only saved themselves from by agreeing to not contest the charges, firing flav and symonds and selling Enstone to Genii for peanuts. they didnt scale back or leave happily...they left in shame imo.

luckily for them though, Viry-Chatillon stayed relevant because RB took on their engine supply and won with it.

so good for Renault. they have rode out their self imposed exile with grace and humility and should be welcomed back with open arms.

But weren't Renault only forced into that unforgiving and untenable position by Flav and Pat's actions?

There's no way the top brass in France would've supported that nonsense.

I do not see that episode as the manufacturers fault at all...

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by chunterer

But weren't Renault only forced into that unforgiving and untenable position by Flav and Pat's actions?

There's no way the top brass in France would've supported that nonsense.

I do not see that episode as the manufacturers fault at all...

I understand what you're saying but wasn't it similar to the recent VW diesel emissions scandal? VW are adamant that this was caused by 'a few rogue engineers', but the event isn't referred to as 'The few rogue engineers' scandal, it's the mothership VW who are taking the flack. Renault (IMO) were in the same boat...

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

I understand what you're saying but wasn't it similar to the recent VW diesel emissions scandal? VW are adamant that this was caused by 'a few rogue engineers', but the event isn't referred to as 'The few rogue engineers' scandal, it's the mothership VW who are taking the flack. Renault (IMO) were in the same boat...

Yes ultimately it's the company involved that does take responsibility. The employer of the individuals at fault are accountable.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by chunterer

Yes ultimately it's the company involved that does take responsibility. The employer of the individuals at fault are accountable.

Your point is well taken. Slightly OT but I do remember many many years ago I pranged and wrote off a company vehicle, my boss asked how I'd feel if he deducted the value from my salary. My reply: "That'll be fine as long as every time I save or earn any money for the company that shuld also go in my pay packet."

When you have staff you expect they'll make you money and enhance your reputation but in exchange if they do the reverse you take it on the chin.

[Mike Harte]

I appreciate that this part of the Red Bull saga has almost been flogged to death, but another day goes by and yet another senior member of the team starts whining again. This time it's Adrain Newey ( http://www.pitpass.com/55461/Newey-fears-spending-war ) under the pretext of complaining that dropping the token system will lead to a spending war by the PU suppliers.

His real beef, though, is that he "fears" Renault won't spend the same sort of money that the likes of Mercedes will do, so the gap might grow greater. Then he brings up discussions that took place during 2012 and 2013 in the Strategy Group, where it was suggested that power units should be frozen but that teams behind would be allowed to keep developing. What absolute nonsense - I would really like to say something quite a bit stronger, but fear I might be put on the naughty step.

Can anyone imagine what a row would have broken out if Red Bull had been stopped developing their cars, when they won 4 championships on the trot, until the other teams caught up and possibly usurped them?

Some personnel in F1 have such tunnel vision, and seem to have completely lost touch with reality.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I appreciate that this part of the Red Bull saga has almost been flogged to death, but another day goes by and yet another senior member of the team starts whining again. This time it's Adrain Newey ( http://www.pitpass.com/55461/Newey-fears-spending-war ) under the pretext of complaining that dropping the token system will lead to a spending war by the PU suppliers.

His real beef, though, is that he "fears" Renault won't spend the same sort of money that the likes of Mercedes will do, so the gap might grow greater. Then he brings up discussions that took place during 2012 and 2013 in the Strategy Group, where it was suggested that power units should be frozen but that teams behind would be allowed to keep developing. What absolute nonsense - I would really like to say something quite a bit stronger, but fear I might be put on the naughty step.

Can anyone imagine what a row would have broken out if Red Bull had been stopped developing their cars, when they won 4 championships on the trot, until the other teams caught up and possibly usurped them?

Some personnel in F1 have such tunnel vision, and seem to have completely lost touch with reality.

I really wonder why any supplier would want to be involve wit this petulant bunch... Everything that's good is theirs, anything that's bad is the fault of someone else. I'm beginning to think that we'd be better off without them.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

I really wonder why any supplier would want to be involve wit this petulant bunch... Everything that's good is theirs, anything that's bad is the fault of someone else. I'm beginning to think that we'd be better off without them.

It pains to me say that I agree. (Not that you said it, but that it is is time that they either moved on or that they started to stop feeling sorry for themselves just because they are not winning anymore.)

[old man]

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

This time it's Adrain Newey...

I have been giving RBR a hard time recently and agree with the sentiment in the posts directly above, but when I read that article I agree with some of what Newey is saying. I think in the short term more money will be spent. But is that a bad thing?

I suspect that teams like Renault, Honda and Ferrari have already been spending a lot of money to figure out how to solve the problem "within the current token system", which is a likely a costly way to engineer yourself out of the current situation. The lack of freedom means it is harder to fix known issue. I suspect each manufacture has learned a lot over the past few years about these engines, but can only do so much to implement improvements. Maybe the gates will burst open with solutions that they just couldn't previously implement and maybe already have somewhat paid for with respect to R&D?

Quote from Newey from the article...

"These engines are still relatively infant technology," he continued. "We have already seen the steps that can be made, there's no reason to suspect they've suddenly reached a plateau."

He is probably right. I doubt Mercedes has reached that hard plateau or development ceiling. So I expect Mercedes to make forward steps as well. But I don't agree that it is likely that gaps will increase between the manufactures. I expect they will shrink, but with Mercedes still likely at the front.

Another Newey quote...

If you look back on the original technical working group meetings and minutes from 2012-13, the agreement at that point was that the engines would be frozen but teams that were behind would still be allowed to keep developing. That's not happened

I have no opinion on the accuracy of that statement (i.e. was that the goal back in 2012-13??) But similar to the comment above, as a spec has been in place for awhile a development ceiling appears. I expect that unless F1 totally revamps the rules in a major way, this tokenless solution with the current spec is not a bad thing. Hopefully that development ceiling is not to far away and that ongoing development WILL allow manufactures to close the gap as they get closer to that ceiling. So maybe in a way what he is looking for is going to happen, but just at a slower pace.

One thing that is not mentioned that I think is a real possibility is that if the new tokenless system comes into play in... 2017 (or maybe 2018 ?) and given that Renault expects 2016 (and 2017?) to be rebuilding years with the rebuilding mostly on the F1 team side, I can imagine Renault saving their money and not pushing out significant changes via the current broken token system in 2016. Basically focus on the 2017 tokenless engine and for the most part write off the 2016 engine (maybe some minimal development that might already be in the works). Which could leave RBR in the dark for 2016.

Notice that if anything, Newey actually says some nice things about Renault in that article (such as Renault has given them access to the primary or "full power" software package for the customer engines). RBR are still petulant, but maybe they are trying to re-court Renault (2017 and beyond?) in their own awkward way?

On a related note, I am still curious if parts standardization is part of the lower cost PU for the customer teams. How is that (if at all) tied to the tokenless engine proposal? More parts standardisation should help close the gaps as well.

Richard

[chillibowl]

in fairness, Newey does say some nice things in that article about Renault being the best engine supplier (because they offer the current spec software) so thats a bit different then the usual RB complaints.

despite the back and forth though, i feel like the new rule/no tokens and Renault's public commitment that it is prepared to spend a lot in F1 does make Newey's point a bit moot and also i think the door to Renault and RB extending their partnership is once again open...or at least on its way to opening up again.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Notice that if anything, Newey actually says some nice things about Renault in that article (such as Renault has given them access to the primary or "full power" software package for the customer engines). RBR are still petulant, but maybe they are trying to re-court Renault (2017 and beyond?) in their own awkward way?

had the same though as i just posted without having read your post first.

we know Merc and Ferrari are prepared to spend. Honda are capable of spending and if Renault are willing to do the same then within a year or two we could have 4 engines all converging and that i think would be both stabilizing and make for better competition at the same time.

i would like to see a full transcript of Newey's comments as i feel some of his quotes are old points he has made...im not convinced they were all made post the token change. pitpass is suspect imo

[Mike Harte]

The same is being reported on Motorsport dot com.

Underlying all his comments, though, is the thread that he is still carping on about the fact that the regulations have cut back on the advantages that he creates with his aerodynamics and other body modifications. His repeated mantra is that the winning cars only cross the line first because of the power units, whereas, unspoken, he believes that the competition should be derived via the bodywork.

It's an old hymn, but he still keeps singing it!

[BSchneiderFan]

What do we think Red Bull are going to do about engine supply after this year? Ferrari and Mercedes-Benz seem to be closed doors, so it looks like the options are sticking with Renault as a customer, trying to do a deal with Honda, or luring a new manufacturer into F1.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

It pains to me say that I agree. (Not that you said it, but that it is is time that they either moved on or that they started to stop feeling sorry for themselves just because they are not winning anymore.)

I think a lot of this is because they thought they had a VAG deal in the bag that would lavish unlimited budget on a whizz bang engine, plus buy branding on the car and eventually give DM an even bigger pay day by buying RBR entirely.

The dieselgate episode has put a line through that for the forseeable future and now they are just a 'customer' team. If RBR had a manufacturer deal they would have no problem with a spending arms race on engines and would no doubt encourage it.

Of course Newey wants to focus on aero, this is his forte....

[FAS33]

Early days but Riccairdo 3rd Fastest with plenty of laps under the belt. Better start then last year.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by FAS33

Early days but Riccairdo 3rd Fastest with plenty of laps under the belt. Better start then last year.

Same complaints though: Dan reckons same as last year.

http://www.racer.com/f1/item/126347-...-renault-power

[FAS33]

Well at least it didn't break down like last year. Its a start I guess.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

Same complaints though: Dan reckons same as last year.

http://www.racer.com/f1/item/126347-...-renault-power

After reading the article, I have a mixed take on it and think the headline is somewhat misleading. He says...

"We are still not on race trim, in terms of power, and we don't have all of the bolt-on bits on it at the moment," he added. "For now it is as expected.

It sounds like they are not running a newer spec. Maybe something similar to end of last year which is about what he says.

But... The article has a few swipes at Renault with respect to comparison of the Renault to the Ferrari at STR.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Looks like Dietrich Mateschitz is at it again: "If we don't get a competitive engine after 2016 we have no choice but to consider our future."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/123226

[chillibowl]

i cant say i blame him. its crazy to spend 300mil plus a year (plus whatever STR spends) in the first place but even crazier to do so knowing you cant get your hands on a competitive engine.

without rehashing much of what has already been discussed in this thread, my default position tends to favour the independent/non manufacturer teams so im more inclined to see this from RB point of view.

that said RB have money so perhaps they have just failed to make an offer adequate enough to convince Merc or Ferrari to sell them one.

[VIVA GT]

Personally, I'm getting pretty fed up with their petulant "We're not getting our own way and unless we do we're not going to play anymore" attitude. They were more than happy when they were dominating the sport, but then seemed to get too big for their boots and slagged everyone off who they thought they could blame for their lack of form. It's no wonder that the engine suppliers don't want to deal with them!
Let's face it we'd have lost Williams & McLaren (for example) ages ago if they'd adopted the same attitude!

[BSchneiderFan]

I'm with VIVA GT. Red Bull is entitled to pull out if it feels it's not getting a decent return on investment, but F1 doesn't owe the team a living. After it's relationship with Renault, I have every sympathy with Ferrari and Merc in saying "No, thanks".

[dsg]

What a poor attitude by Mateschitz. How dare he not want to be an also-ran. Simply not the F1 spirit.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by dsg

What a poor attitude by Mateschitz. How dare he not want to be an also-ran. Simply not the F1 spirit.

[old man]

I have little sympathy for Mateschitz, IMO their position comes because of their aggressive stance against a partner who helped them to 4 titles. A partnership such as they enjoyed with Renault deserved better, deserved more help and encouragement, perhaps some extra investment to solve their partners problems.

I do feel sorry for the Red Bull staff who now must feel uncertain of their future