Adrian Newey, Dietrich Mateschitz, Red Bull, Jerez, 2012

Mateschitz warns over Red Bull’s F1 commitment

F1 Fanatic Round-upPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Adrian Newey, Dietrich Mateschitz, Red Bull, Jerez, 2012Red Bull owner Dietrich Mateschitz warns Red Bull could leave Formula One, criticising the quieter sound of the new cars and the move towards a fuel efficiency formula.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

“Öffentliche Präsenz? Die Zeit ist mir zu schade” (Kurier, German)

Mateschitz also criticised the “politicisation” of the sport and insisted the FIA’s fuel flow sensors have been giving inaccurate readings since the start of testing. Some translations of his quotes can be found here.

‘Big steps’ to come from 2014 F1 cars (Autosport)

Pirelli motorsport director Paul Hembery: “We are taking the view that there is going to be a lot of development this year and there are going to be some big steps in performance.”

Marussia Sporting Director on engines, appeals and 2014 (Sky)

“For all there were various issues and problems, and certainly we experienced some circumstances on the fuel flow where we had to make some decisions, I think most of the teams made those decisions in accordance with how the FIA thought the teams would act, which is to err on the side of ensuring that your car is safe and legal at all times, which is the stipulation that’s in the Sporting Regulations.”

Video – Red Bull RB10 versus Mercedes F1 W05 (F1)

Comparison of the cars which shared the front row for the first race of the season.

Databytes: Why F1 needs fuel flow meters (Racecar Engineering)

“Rather than using a mechanical restrictor, similar to the way that boost pressure is restricted in turbo charged engines the FIA have chosen to monitor flow rate through an onboard data logger and impose a penalty should a team exceed the permitted limits. This requires a reliable method of measuring the flow rate while not affecting the flow itself so an ultrasonic sensor capable of sampling fuel flow up to 4000 times a second has been selected.”

7 Days in our F1 Wind Tunnel – Time Lapse (Sauber via YouTube)

The welcome sound of change (ESPN)

“Having kept journalists and broadcasters in the dark throughout the [2001] race, [Ron] Walker, as chairman of the organisers, chose to preface his remarks by announcing a record attendance figure. The next paragraph referred to the poor marshal, almost as an afterthought; as if the crowd figures were more important.”

Red Bull cannot ride roughshod over FIA regulations (The Times, subscription required)

“At least we now clearly know how Red Bull views F1 and it is not in the same spirit of participation as, say, Ferrari, McLaren and Williams. It is about ‘political influence’ and, presumably, winning every season.”

Success should come to Valtteri Bottas (MotorSport)

“If the new FW36 continues to go as well as it looks through the rest of the season there will be plenty more opportunity for Bottas to prove what only a few have seen so far and for that to be the launch pad for a great career. If it happens that way, the error he made in Melbourne will soon stop smarting. But if for some reason it doesn’t, if Melbourne turns out to be the most competitive the car ever was, then he’s going to carry that pain around for a long time.”


Comment of the day

@Wsrgo will be watching a lot more than just the 16 championships lists here yesterday@

Here I go: Auto GP World Series, Euroformula Open, Eurocup Formula Renault 2.0, Formula Renault 2.0 NEC, Formula Renault 2.0 Alps, Protyre Formula Renault, ADAC Formel Masters, BRDC Formula 4, FIA Italian F4, French F4 Championship, Formula Renault 1.6 NEC Junior, Formula Renault 1.6 Alps Junior, Formula Renault 1.6 Nordic Championship, British Formula Ford, Formula BMW Talent Cup, Formula Masters China, MRF Challenge F2000…

Site development

Some new functionality has been added to the groups and forums, details here:

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Guilherme Teixeira and Marc!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Alain Prost won for McLaren on his return to the team in the Brazilian Grand Prix 30 years ago today.

Team mate Niki Lauda was in the running for victory until an electrical problem put him out, and a suspension failure due to earlier contact with Lauda did for Derek Warwick’s chances.

Keke Rosberg and Elio de Angelis completed the podium. Meanwhile Prost’s future arch-rival Ayrton Senna made his first grand prix start for Toleman.

Image © Red Bull/Getty

163 comments on “Mateschitz warns over Red Bull’s F1 commitment”

Jump to comment page: 1 2
  1. I really think the Mateschitz interview is a no-story. He only talked about Red Bull potentially leaving F1 because he was asked what circumstances would force such a move, and nothing more. Everything else seems to be Montezemelo levels of rubbish-talking.

  2. SubSailorFl
    25th March 2014, 6:36

    Whether he likes it or not if some other team had not followed the rules then RB would be complaining. They are unhappy because they are behind and don’t like getting busted for not following the rules that they knowingly violated. If they had followed what was in place and still been up there because fuel wouldn’t have been an issue during the race we’d be talking about RB making it back to the point of the spear in Malaysia. Perhaps we’re seeing a little complacency from having been on top so long. And we’re seeing a team who thinks they are above the rules or allowed more leeway because of being on top so long.

  3. Huge misunderstanding by some people here. Mateschitz gets asked if it doesn’t make financial sense to be in F1 anymore, would he pull the plug? His answer: that is not the case. Redbull do demand fairness and political justice tho.

    Mateschitz does not say he is thinking about pulling out of F1. On the contrary, he is very exited about F1 comming to the Redbull Ring and race.

    This could have been made more clear in the summary of the roundup. Personally i think it’s a bit misleading.

    1. Exactly, his comments have been taken out if context, complete overreaction. The original article by Andrew Benson is to blame, it’s not the first time he has written such sensationalist rubbish

      1. Do you think Andrew benson was behind the worst winter ever stories in the express then???

    2. Well, this is what the Kurier interviewer says to Mateschitz:

      “You have repeatedly emphasized that it’s possible that Red Bull could leave F1 some day if it doesn’t make economic sense for the company anymore. What would have to happen?”

      Mateschitz doesn’t deny that Red Bull could leave F1, he only states that it’s much more about the sportsmanship and political influence than the economic sense and adds that “there is a clear limit to what we can accept.”

      So one doesn’t have to be sensationalist to interpret Mateschitz’s words as a threat to leave the sport. I would say that F1 Fanatic’s headline is more accurate than BBC’s headline though.

  4. “Can’t win, won’t play”?

    As Mercedes pointed out last week, the 2014 regulations were revealed ~1000 days ago. Now Mateschitz has suddenly realised that the new cars are too slow and too silent. Moreover, he is contradicting himself by saying that RBR’s future in F1 depends on “political influence” and yet complaining about the “politicisation” of the sport.

    No team is greater than F1 and if Mateschitz wants to go, then he should go. It might as well be only rhetoric though.

  5. If you want to leave because you’re not winning, that’s fine by me. Red Bull’s loss wouldn’t be anywhere as significant as the loss of Ferrari, McLaren or Williams.

  6. To be honest, if I was Didi spending as much as he does on F1 there needs to be a cost/benefit ratio that makes it worthwhile. The new regs have increased cost by a big margin but with race attendance dropping and TV audiences falling away one would have to crazy to keep throwing money into F1 unless, like Mercedes, it contributes to R&D. Didi sells drinks and needs exposure to the target market and improve brand recognition. F1 is going in the wrong direction to achieve that.

  7. Can’t read the times article, but the quote indicates it must be a satirical article. Unless Ferrari have changed the way they operate without anybody knowing.

  8. The Red Bull story is a classic case of journalists trying to make a story out of nothing.

    He was asked under what circumstances the team would leave F1. It is a heavily loaded question.

    1. Yes, I did point that out to people who referred to an english language piece where the quotes looked like it was a statement from Mateschitz (and pointed them to the original interview Keith has included in the roundup, which gets pretty accurately represented by the BBC translation also included) yesterday @ledzep4pm.
      But on the other hand, when you only look at the title, saying Mateschitz does not like to seek publicity for himself, and then realize the timing of it …
      What I take from that, is that it (the veiled threat of leaving if not getting their points back) was very much the impression he wanted to get people from the interview at this time. He is big enough in Austria to get an interview published when HE needs it, not leaving it to an editor to show interest.

  9. Having read that interview with Mateschitz, the bit about “we’re leaving” seems sort of taken out of context, he’s indeed asked, or rather, given suggestive questions to try and goad him to say whether he’d leave if that appeal goes the wrong way.

    That is a bit jarring, I thought, because he talks about what he wants F1 to be: fair, no politicking, not to much meddling, but then if you look at what his team actually practices, it does not actually seem to be following that. They were first to claim special rights and compensation from Bernie, did go along with the introduction of DRS, double points, etc. while having token words of ennui, and only changed things when tyres were not to their advantage; complained about the V8 Renault engine until it turned out to do EBD better than others.

    And he also maintains the same ‘we did nothing wrong’ about the appeal, of course, understandably, but still not fair in the sense that others did follow those rules.
    All of that doesn’t seem to give much credibility to talk about how formula 1 should be different, better and fairer, to me.

  10. Mateschitz raises a point which can very much relate to. The airshow, which nobody really needs or wants above the grid in Australia has used more fuel than the whole F1 field will for the next several races. Why does Formula 1 have to be pushed into the eco-direction? And why does it have to be by force?

    I don’t understand how anybody who actually believes F1 should have a relevance to road cars (absurd), is okay with the new engine formula being implemented as the only alternative. New technologies should always have their place in Formula 1, but maybe the Colin Chapman approach of adding lightness and keeping the cars simple would have been cheaper, faster, better for the environment and the fans. In a time when everybody talks about cutting costs these new engines are about as relevant as 8-wheelers.

    At the end of the day, as Red Bull proves, it doesn’t matter what’s inside the car, as long as your name is on it and the product is good. The majority of people who spend money on cars and other technology have no clue how hybrids work. If you tell anybody an F1 car has 900 hp, they don’t care where that comes from. But if you tell them it has 600 hp they wonder why the new Corvette has more. Making the cars more complex for the sake of complexity in a time when some teams struggle to even make the grid financially… We’re going into the wrong direction. Big time.

    1. It’s your classic double-edged sword. If the new engine formula had not been adopted, Renault (and possibly Mercedes) would have pulled out and Honda wouldn’t be returning.

      1. This is what infuriates me…
        When Honda dominated in the late 80’s and early 90’s, nobody asked why they don’t have V6 turbos, or 3.5 litre V10/V12 engines in their road cars. Same with the Renaults throughout the 90’s.
        Yet suddenly, over the last few years it matters what sort of engine the cars are running, instead of F1 simply being a test bed to show off how capable their engineering department is.

        1. Crashtor Malfunctionado
          26th March 2014, 2:10

          Dennis, you are 100% right…

          and lets say it was a test bed to show off their engineering capabilities, I think having V10/V12 engines, something that will never be seen in the common mans road car, will create a sense of exoticism and mysteque that vacuum cleaner sounding 1.6L V6’s can never acheive.

          and after all of this they will impose another engine freeze to drive all the manufacturers back out in the long run.

          Its just a viscous cycle of knee jerk reactions and bandaid fixes of something that was never broken to begin with pre 2006

  11. I said, when Red Bull got their first championship, teams like Ferrari, Mclaren, Williams and Sauber are there for the racing. Ferrari sell road cars to pay for their racing, Maclaren and Williams sell their tecnology for the same reason.

    Mercedes is in F1 to sell road cars and Red Bull is there to sell its (IMO) disgusting tasting soft drinks. Expect both to drop out when things don’t go their way.

    1. You can argue that Mercedes has been back in F1 since the 90’s with only sporadic spurts of genuine success.

      They’re still here…

    2. Exactly, mate.

      Williams EXISTS for racing. RBR exists to make dopey euro-wannabes think that sipping over-priced sickly-sweet fizzy drink the color of puke = cool.

  12. RBR… easy come… easy go ! No problem with me, you can leave. What the heck is a drinks company doing in a cars sport anyway… !? It’s not like they’re going to be at the same level with Ferrari, McLaren and Williams, given the prestige…. ever ! They’re simply missing “something” to reach that level. Not being a car manufacturer is one of the reasons. Being a young team is another good reason – they just “missed” most of the history of this competition in particular. So, they can leave, some new guys will appear to fill the gap and most of the staff will remain in business, especially the engineers (Newey in particular). We’ve seen lots of teams disappearing and/or being transformed into new teams over the decades. Nothing new and spectacular will happen.

    1. You clearly have no respect for the Milton Keynes team. Such a shame, as they have been better than the real classic car companies for the last 4 years. They are in fact a real racing team, and not just a soft drink company which buys a car and put a sticker on it. The thought of racing teams need to produce road cars is not of this time anymore. Get real and show some respect for the 600 people making the car be as good as it is.

      1. I have an enormous amount of respect for the people in the team from Horner and Newey downwards just no respect for the brand and where their money comes from.

  13. Being Bad losers isn’t exactly a good sporting image to have and that’s what Red Bull are putting out. We’re slow so we’re going home.

    See ya then.

    1. It’s reasonable to assume that Mateschitz is simply being a sore loser. But I’d rather give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that his complaints and Red Bull’s poor showing at Melbourne are a coincidence. In other words, I think he’s smart enough to have made the exact same complaints even if his cars had won.

      Now, if he was the only one complaining, you would have a stronger point, but he’s obviously in very good company on the points he’s made.

  14. Dietrich is absolutely correct on all points, and if we listen to others who say that the sound and other rules changes don’t matter, and that the Melbourne race “proves it”, we are marching down the wrong road. The ultimate racing formula should sound and look like the ultimate, and not like a quiet economy run.

    The FIA will always find those who applaud their efforts to dilute F1 until it loses almost all drama and real racing appeal, but the true race-fan knows that F1 cars are supposed to be painful and scary and awe-inspiring.

    If some engine manufacturers need the fuel limitations to justify their involvement, then let’s run half the races under the existing fuel limits, and half of them at double or triple the limit, while changing the exhaust configuration for all races. The results from the low and high limit events can then be used to sell whatever they’re trying to sell to their car-buying public.

  15. Dieter Rencken was RIGHT to warn about Red Bull’s total and complete LACK of sentimentality, passion, love (ha) or even concern for the long-term health of Formula 1™.

    Just look up his work via AutosportPlus to see how he predicted this moment, and the inevitable bending-over of F1 by Red Bull…

  16. So if he pulls RBR from the F1 grid, what would happen to the Austria race? Would he pull that as well?
    Mateschitz is coing off as a spoiled child who has been told he needs to share his toys. We then wonder why Vetell behaves they way he does; spoiled is what spoiled does.
    I too would be more concerned if the trinity of F1, McLaren, Ferrari & Williams were to threaten to leave.
    Just shut up & race already. You can’t win every year even if you think you deserve to. Your core F1 fans would find some other form of racing to follow. I know I personally stopped watching after the Idnia race. Quite frankly I got bored of watching Vettel pull off a 2 second lead in the first lap.

Jump to comment page: 1 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.