Red Bull, Circuit de Catalunya, 2017

The Bull that cried wolf: Red Bull threaten to quit F1 again

CommentPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Red Bull threatening to quit Formula One is a headline you may have read before. And it’s back again as Helmut Marko has warned they may not stick around if the sport does not drastically change its engine formula at the next opportunity.

“The latest must be 2021 that an independent engine supplier comes into F1,” Marko told the official Formula One website.

“This is more than necessary – and the engine has to be simple, noisy and on the cost side below ten million. We are talking about a much less sophisticated engine to what we have now – a simple racing engine.”

“There are enough companies around that could supply. So we expect from the new owners together with the FIA to find a solution at the latest by the end of this season. If that doesn’t happen our stay in F1 is not secured.”

Daniel Ricciardo, Red Bull, Yas Marina, 2015
Red Bull threatened to quit after Abu Dhabi 2015
You don’t need to have a long memory of Formula One history for this to have a familiar ring. Throughout 2015 the only more predictable sight than a Mercedes race victory was someone in Red Bull team gear lambasting Renault’s power units and threatening to pull the plug on their F1 programme well before their current contract expires in 2020.

Owner Dietrich Mateschitz fired the first salvo in 2014, complaining about the introduction of V6 hybrid turbo engines and warning their commitment might wane. A trio of wins that season gave them cause to be cheerful, but the purgatory of a win-less 2015 was a different matter.

As the 2015 season began Marko repeated Mateschitz’s comments while Horner urged the FIA to introduce engine equalisation. Mateschitz himself reached for the microphone the next month and stated plainly the team would quit if they didn’t get a competitive engine.

Two months after that he added that Red Bull would not be held to their contract to race in F1 until 2020. In September he said a year-old engine would also be unacceptable for his team (it later turned out to be acceptable for Toro Rosso).

At the same time Marko raised the spectre of Red Bull quitting the sport within as little as two months. “The curtain may go down after Abu Dhabi,” was his stark warning.

In 2016 Red Bull won two races using Renault engines branded by TAG-Heuer. Asked about his many quit threats during the previous season, Mateschitz admitted “really, we never thought about it”.

That tells you a lot about how seriously Marko’s latest threat should be taken.

Like calling one of their rivals “barking mad”, quotes like these are a great way of creating headlines. And those are very useful for deflecting attention from the fact that in a season when the technical regulations have been changed to pretty much the specifications they demanded, Red Bull are presently far further away from winning races than they were at the end of last year.

Comment

Browse all comment articles

115 comments on “The Bull that cried wolf: Red Bull threaten to quit F1 again”

  1. Andrew Purkis
    20th April 2017, 22:01

    oh boo hoo boo hoo

    i was wondering how long it would be before RBR started bleating and throwing toys from its pram

    if u dont like it

    goodbye

  2. Merc, Renault and Honda are only in due to the complex hybrid power units with small litre small cylinder engines. Red Bull want old tech, less complex power units that make noise (less efficient = more noise). Ferrari are ok with current units but would probably not mind louder engines with more cylinders. If Red Bull are slightly serious somethings got to give.

    Grid full of Cosworth customer engines v Ferrari….how retro.

  3. No one can deny that as much as RBR may not have the chassis to create the downforce of the top 2 teams, Renault have fallen behind with their engines. If you have a weak engine then you need to reduce downforce to compensate.

    1. knoxploration
      21st April 2017, 0:37

      And nobody can *honestly* reply that Mercedes have had a carefully-regulated advantage over rivals ever since the start of the formula, because the token system, homologation / lifecycle management and lack of testing make it almost impossible to catch up once you’re behind. To whit, it’s taken a full three years for even the closest rival to get close to what Merc have on tap. Anybody who was around when homologation was first introduced will know that it was only introduced on the understanding that engines would be at approximate parity between all teams — yet for the last three years that parity hasn’t existed, and one engine manufacturer has been at a huge advantage compared to all others. And even without the token system, we still have the homologation / lifecycle management and lack of testing to artificially ensure Honda and Renault stay at the back for the foreseeable future. We either need to bring the engines to parity or we need to let the teams track test, change and replace engines as often as *they* choose, rather than requiring homologation and multi-race engines and restricting testing to almost zero.

      1. knoxploration
        21st April 2017, 0:37

        Errr that should say “honestly deny”, sorry. Honestly! ;)

      2. the higher drag cars further Mercedes dominance. Mercedes even helping Ferrari under the table to disadvantage other teams. It’s pretty unethical what Mercedes are doing. RBR have been getting screwed ever since F1 decided to go green, but really, there are no surprises, because going green means promoting wealthy manufactures over private teams and running competition out of business. :)

        1. @xsavior
          “Mercedes even helping Ferrari under the table to disadvantage other teams. It’s pretty unethical what Mercedes are doing.”
          PROOF???, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not what Marko said. What is really unethical is when lies have to be made to support arguments without a tad bit of evidence, it’s called Formula 1 not Formula babies. Mercedes deserve every bit of their success no matter how unhappy Red Bull and their fans are. If i ran F1 i’d equalised the distribution of Money and tell Red Bull to do one and make sure the door doesn’t hit em on the way out. They can get involved in engine discussions when they start to build race engines and pay for the independent supplier too.

          1. As far as I understand, Mercedes have helped both Ferrari AND Renault and are now possibly helping out Honda too @foreverred, @xsavior. I don’t see that as unethical. I actually see it as a sign that they know full well, that it is not healthy for the sport to have one engine dominate things for too long a period.

            In a sense, it helps equalise the engines without any formal rules doing so, which makes it a lot better for everyone (since both Ferrari and Renault, and in the future maybe Honda – let’s hope so at least – can boast about their improvements).

          2. Mercedes effectively had the last 2 championships handed to them on a plate. After the 2014 season when the lack of challenge from either of the other PU manuafacturers was apparent the homolugation and token system should have been abandoned. Instead we ended with a very broken F1, where the races in 2015 were mostly predictable and 2016 where the only rivalry was between team mates. Again, there has been a substantial rule change and limited track testing time again, which is mostly set aside for the young driver programme. This again will be affecting the PU development of the latest PU’s which is reduced to 4 of each component for the year (Honda of which have already blown 3 race PU’s for Vandorne)…

            Whilst I suspect Red Bull are just bluffing again (the 2017 Renault PU isn’t up to spec running some 2016 components) , a big look is needed to bring F1 back int

          3. As far as I understand, Mercedes have helped both Ferrari AND Renault

            ….. Errr no! This winds me up as there is no evidence of it at all!

            The whole Mercedes helped Ferrari thing were accusations Bernie and Helmut Marko made when they were trying to get the engine rules changed and the two manufacturers were blocking him.

            He said Mercedes did not want to change the engine rules because of their dominant position and that Ferrari were “sort of following with them”. He alleged Mercedes had “given an awful lot of help” to Ferrari with their engine design.

            Ferrari described Ecclestone’s accusation as “odd”, adding: “To us, Mercedes is – and has always been – a competitor to beat, and we believe they think the same of Ferrari.”

            Red Bull official Marko, however, smells a rat.

            “It is difficult to prove, but I am sure that Mercedes helped Ferrari,” he told the German magazine Sport Bild. “And we all know why.”

            Austrian Marko reportedly senses a political motive, and not just Mercedes’ desire to halt suggestions it is damaging F1 by dominating so easily. Marko might also be referring to the engine rules, with Ferrari having now joined Mercedes in backing the current turbo V6 era, even beyond 2017.

            The Ferrari and Mercedes engine architecture/philosophies are very different, probably the two ‘most differing’ on the grid so I’m not sure how much help Mercedes could give Ferrari anyway.

          4. @asanator Thank you.
            @bascb Evidence, the only thing close to evidence is Marko and Bernie’s suspicions.

      3. Merc also had a power boost mode that was probably illegal and bypassed the fuel flow regulator. RBR at least speak their mind and don’t let themselves get pushed around. Everyone squeals about drivers that have to toe the corporate line why is it so different when RBR speak out?

        1. @blik I can’t see how the scrutineers would fail to notice a fuel flow regulator being bypassed.
          While there are claims of more power when burning oil, I don’t believe them. These engines are designed to the fuel manufacturers product, and the fuel is designed by very clever chemists for that engine. If someone who doesn’t hold a degree in chemistry, say a driver, started adding oil to the fuel then the fuel would behave differently from what the fuel manufacturer designed, and the fuel burn inside the engine wouldn’t be as efficient, meaning the engine should produce less power not more power.
          It may be oil or some other additive affects the fuel flow regulator calibration, but a sample of fuel is taken from each car at the end of the race, and if an additive was detected that affected the calibration of the fuel flow unit then that would be taken the same way as an athlete who is caught taken a steroid masking drug, so I am sure heads would roll.

          1. @drycrust The Sky bit on burning oil was just silly. I don’t know who their technical guys are but to suggest Mercedes were burning oil that was being allowed to bypass the piston rings is either a red herring or stupidity.
            Bypassing the FIA flow restrictor with fuel from the fuel tank would be difficult if not impossible to hide. Hiding petrol in another area to bypass the restrictor could be done but it would be relatively easy to find and indeed there’s no spare space for it along with the fire / safety issue and bad press when found. No one would do this.
            Lubricating oil carries more energy per kilogram than petrol.
            In it’s most basic form here is how it could be done: The cylinder head has galleries that are pressure fed with oil for lubrication or hydraulic needs. There is no restriction on these galleries because all engines need them. All are high pressure systems fed from an oil reservoir/s and oil may be consumed during the course of a GP and up to this season there was no limit or check of oil consumption in terms of regulations. Internal galleries could be engineered to divert oil to an injector fuel rail / gallery deep within the cylinder head after the FIA flow device where it could be added on demand. Current F1 engines mimic diesels with their direct injection electronically timed multiple injector high pressure systems. Drivers wouldn’t be aware of this function other than it being a mode for restricted use. The race engineer possibly wouldn’t know either but may be told that “that mode” can only be used for a limited time.
            Many urgent radio calls were made to Merc drivers to desist from using a certain mode during races with follow up warnings if that driver ignored his engineer. This would have been to prevent oil dropping to a critical level or engine damage due to sustained use of that mode.
            The performance gap between some engine manufacturers has closed significantly this season and it may be more to do with a mode no longer being available this season as oil consumption is now monitored.

          2. @blik Thanks for your explanation, it sounds quite plausible. I was aware that oils have more energy per litre or kg than petrol does, which is why trucks and buses often use diesel engines, and ships use even oils that are solid at room temperature and have to be heated.
            Recently I saw an old Mythbusters episode about the effects of adding things to petrol, and one of the myths they tested was that adding mothballs to the fuel appeared to increase the octane rating, so they tested this myth and their claim was the engine sounded like it was running on higher octane fuel. If mothballs are made from hydrocarbons, then it could be they have more energy per kg than oils do, and they may well dissolve in petrol, again giving the fuel more energy per kg than the 95 Octane petrol they are supposed to use. The down side to this is mothballs should leave a trace in the fuel and if a team was caught in the post race fuel analysis to have anything other than straight petrol heads would roll.
            As I understand it, the engine is only allowed one injector per cylinder, which is why Mercedes and Ferrari are using the Mahl Turbulent Jet technology.
            I’m a bus driver and when I first started driving a bus they weren’t air conditioned and we still had a few 20 year old cars in regular use on the roads, and these cars often burnt oil. You could smell the burnt oil from quite a long distance behind the car with the old engine, often you can’t even see the car ahead, and these days if a car is burning oil you can’t be sure which one it is, but you’d know one has been there, and the smell would make me feel slightly ill if I got too close. If someone at the front of the grid or ahead of some cars was burning oil in the fuel (deliberate or not) the smell of it should also be detectable by the drivers in the cars behind. They won’t know exactly which car it was unless they saw actual smoke coming from the exhaust pipe (like I saw with one car at the Bahrain GP), but they would know someone ahead was burning oil.
            Regarding the oil going around the sides of the pistons, I have heard that can happen if massively too much oil is added to an engine, and in the case of a diesel engine the engine can be very frightening and refuse to turn off. With F1 engines the tolerances are so fine the engines have to be warmed up by an external heater before they are actually turned over because otherwise the engine will be damaged if someone tried to turn it over when cold. So it is unlikely oil would be able to do this.

          3. @blik When did you become an F1 PU expert, and a Mercedes F1 PU expert at that. Kind of ridiculous that you think you know what’s going on inside one of the most advanced IC engines the world has seen.

            My advice to you is know your place.

      4. Nothing has been handed to Mercedes on a plate, this idea is just stupid. Where the whole Mercedes engine dominance argument falls down, is the fact that there are other Mercedes engine cars on the grid. IF the engine was that much better, Williams, Force India (and the 2014 McLaren) would be running rings around Ferrari and Redbull. Yes the Merc engine was the best (Ferrari appear to be on par now), but their dominance is down to the whole package, it’s been so obvious since 2014. Could Honda and Renault have caught up? no, because they don’t have the resources to do so (the people or money), not because of the token system or homologation.

        1. @samandrew The factory wouldn’t supply the oil tech to other teams. The customer teams would need to know it’s part of the package and have to plumb their oil and modes to activate oil flow. This would make MB vulnerable as it would expose an in house secret.
          The oil can be used in different ways and leakage past the rings is not one of them as it cannot be controlled and would cause more problems than it solved IMO.
          Oil may even be used in a post injection after burn mode to power the turbine for energy recovery as well as a fuel flow increase strategy.
          @drycrust A modern oil (diesel) powered vehicle on a motorway has no detectable odour and the same would be the case in an F1 engine. We’re actually talking about very small amounts of oil being consumed over the course of a GP. All that’s needed is enough to give a boost to prevent being overtaken or try for an under/overcut. During qualifying the oil consumption can be significant as only three laps or so are covered and oil levels would not reduce to critical levels.
          Smoke on starting from cold (despite preheating) is normal across the field and an oil odour wouldn’t be abnormal.

  4. It’s because many people hate these engines. I’m not not even an RBR fan.

    1. The thing is tho i don’t think Red Bull could give a care less about the engines, it’s because they are not winning. Back to 2014 a few months after the V8 era was over they were already complaining.

      1. @foreverred, exactly – Marko has one motive in mind only, and that his trying to force the sport to bend to Red Bull’s will as much as possible.

        The main reason why they liked the V8 era was because of the enforced performance levelling, ensuring that Red Bull could dominate through their interpretation of the regulations on aerodynamics. They’ve never cared less about costs before – under the V8 era they actively voted against measures which were intended to cut costs which they thought would have cut into their performance advantages (didn’t Marko even mock the efforts of teams like HRT or Caterham trying to compete in F1 and say that the sport shouldn’t try and cut costs to benefit teams like them?). This reads like a fairly unsubtle attempt by Marko to try and force the sport back to a situation where engines are again an irrelevant factor.

        As Keith notes, the main reason for this outburst feels more like Marko trying to distract from the fact that, despite being one of the major supporters of this regulation package, Red Bull have made a terrible job of it so far. It certainly distracts from Marko’s recent admission that the main reason why their car has very few additional aero elements is not because of an intentional design philosophy, but because they had major aero correlation issues over the winter.

  5. Red Bull is in the same situation as Mclaren. They don’t want to be costumer to a supplier who has their own team. Mclaren convinced Honda. That failed. Red Bull needs to try to avoid that. Simplest way is to affect the rule making while they still can, making sure an independable manufacturer can come in and be competitive. The threat of leaving is probably solely put out there to gain leverage over the knee weak FIA. Unlike the article, I don’t think it has anything to do with current performance. It’s about post-2020 competitiveness.

  6. I agree for the sounds, but threatening to quit because of that is just ridiculous !

    Cost I agree could be brought down lower by the simple engines, but don’t really see that happening soon, seeing how much everyone has spent on developing these V6 beasts.

    And pretty much everyone knows they won’t quit F1, just trying to make things change faster, but like always I am pretty sure this will fall on deaf ears !

    1. Although amusingly, the last time they went on a rampage about engines, they just managed to increase their own engine costs and had to find a sponsor to re-brand them as!

  7. They are right when they say more manufacturers should be involved in F1, or that the sport should do something to attract them (Honda is doing no favours on that matter). However, threatening to quit is cheap and dare I say dumb. That only works with Ferrari, and given F1’s new owners, it may not even work anymore.
    That being said, I’d love to see the FIA giving in, changing the engines, watch RBR fail again and threaten to quit again. That’d be hilarious.

    1. Ahh but that is the point, the don’t want more manufacturers, they want an independent engine supplier who is quite specifically NOT a manufacturer!

      Otherwise I am sure Honda would be more than willing to supply ;)

  8. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
    20th April 2017, 22:19

    It’s their favourite trick, their signature dish: idyll threats served cold. It is also why the team with unquestionably the most engaging and exciting driver line-up persists to have a rather contrived and alienating public profile. As the thumbnail for every negative connotation that can be construed about Red Bull, you would say that at best Helmut Marko’s diplomatic style is somewhat crass. A more honest reflection might argue that his efforts to personify Austrian austerity rather grates against any and all.

    If Red Bull fail to be competitive this year, having been instrumental in instigating the regulation change, then you know what’s coming…

    1. @william-brierty The best thing is they can’t even publicly blame Renault. They are, after all, running a Tag Heuer, right?

      1. I already heard them blame the engine despite that this year @optimaximal. You know, when it became obvious during thesting that the chassis of the team is really not all that great so far.

    2. @william-brierty – This is what is so disingenuous about the way Red Bull attempts to affect change. They make demands and threats. Rather than try to work within the system, they think the system should bend over to cater to their desires. Why not state their hopes and desires, without the bombastic demands and threats, then try to have a dialogue with other teams, FOM and the FIA. Especially now when someone as experienced and knowledgeable as Ross Brawn is supervising the technical side of F1 management.

      The earth does not revolve around Red Bull. Is it unreasonable to expect Red Bull to be reasonable? They constantly do more to undermine their own popularity and good will nearly every time Marko or Horner open their mouths. Sad really, since they have two of the best and most popular drivers on the grid. People want to see them do well. Until their bosses start going barking mad.

  9. The current engine might be efficient and superduper hi-tech, and that’s great for people who like to read about them. But bottomline: it’s simply not a racing engine.

    When you see onboard GP2 footage you knów that it’s 10 seconds a lap slower, but you have the compelling feeling you are onboard a propper racing car. In real life it sounds much better than the F1 power train too.

    1. Takeitlightly
      20th April 2017, 22:55

      The racing feeling in GP2 is to be expected not because of the engine but because of the entire package since all cars are a single spec. And a single spec series will always have better racing, ever watch a go kart race?

      Once a series have more variables to add up such as F1, close racing is the first to go.

      1. Clearly you’re not watching MotoGP.

        1. I think the racing in MotoGP has been quite dull this season!

          Aside from that the physical size of the bikes allowing different lines, huge braking distances and slow corner speeds are all classic ways of creating overtaking opportunities however we have seen peoples reactions when F1 cars are slowed down and laptimes aren’t ‘the fastest ever’.

    2. And when you compare onboard footage of a GP2 car and an F1 car (except apparently, for Mclaren), you’ll see how much faster the F1 car is, partially thanks to that engine. And completing a distance as fast as possible is what “racing” is about. Therefore the current power units clearly are “racing engines”. Very good ones in fact.

    3. @jeffreyj So, are we also to believe that the devices propelling LMP1 cars aren’t racing engines?

    4. So V6 turbo hybrid engines that produce close to 1000hp from just 1.6l displacement and 100kg/h of fuel consumption aren’t racing engines? Seems legit.

      I’ve had cars with noisy engines that cackled and popped on the over-run and sounded mean as hell, but produced less than 100hp. I’ve also had a car with a turbo engine that produced close to 300hp and didn’t sound particularly mean (the turbo sounded cool, but exhaust note was quite flat). It doesn’t mean jack how good your engine sounds, performance is what sets apart good engines from bad engines.

      1. +1

        I even like the V6’s better than the GP2 engines. Especially the Renault. Anyone noticed their wastegate opening on the straights in higher gears? Lovely stuff.

        1. +1000. Moar Powa, not moar noise!

  10. Ferrari, Seb fan
    20th April 2017, 22:36

    Here we go again….. :( :( :( :( :( :(

    Don’t get me wrong though, I would like the idea of cheap engines. You just don’t get them from threats.

  11. Then just quit. You failed to develop the car to suit these regulations. Develop your car and work hard like Mercedes and Ferrari. We do not need more of these. They have probably the strongest driving pair in the grid and they do not use that to their advantage. How many times they complained already?

  12. Takeitlightly
    20th April 2017, 22:50

    For those people who keeps saying to return to V8 or V10, ditch the ERS and so on…

    Dream on, F1 will not go back there, it will be pointless, production sports cars right now are shifting to hybrid and turbo because in this point in time it is needed in terms of fuel efficiency and emmitions. F1 should be at the forefront of technology and to be primitive compared to production cars is unacceptable.

    The current PU is already good in terms of power but poeple complain about the sound, it can be cured by making it twin turbo, 2 small turbine instead of 1 big turbine to keep it on the same region of fuel consumption and power output.

    The cost will eventually go down, FIA can re introduce the token system or freeze development when all engines are near equalization, or do the same like in MotoGP when you freeze the already winning manufacturer and let the non winning catch up with more freedom with development and testing.

    Redbull is the one barking mad right now, the cost is just a reason they are riding along with the less financially capable team, come on… RBR is one of the richest team to compain about the cost, the only problem RBR fear is when Renault F1 team actually got good, then they could suffer the fate of the Mercedes customers like Williams who dont get the best engines, and now they have nowhere to go beyond Renault after taking a jab at Honda for thanking Ron for blocking them onto a Honda deal.

    1. HeyGorillaMan
      20th April 2017, 23:59

      I think the problem you’re having here is that you’re assuming that the current F1 engines are progressive. It depends on what you think is better. Personally, I don’t see these engines as ‘better’. I like engines that roar, that you can feel, that aren’t finicky, that don’t need a team of dozens of men on laptops to keep running. So, yeah, if you equate ‘better’ with boring and sterile, keep going. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with going ‘backwards’ if it’s better than what you have now. Seriously, didn’t we ditch this infantile notion of ‘primitive’ back in the 60s? Anthro/Socio 101 dude.

      You’re also running with that tired cliché that F1 has to be relevant to the car market. Really? So are you proposing that F1 cars become self-driving, because that’s where the car market is going. For that matter, when are you ditching F1 for Formula E? That’s way further down your evolutionary scale than what F1 has now.

      Red Bull has a great idea. They’re trying to lessen the influence of the engine manufacturers’ business interests so F1 can steer itself in a more competitive direction. In fact, I believe Ross Brawn has expressed the same sentiment quite a bit lately. So, maybe not so far-fetched, hmmm?

      1. I just can’t see a reversion back to the previous engines, but I can see the situation being better by 2021.

        And I can’t see RBR expressing this out of some compassionate plea for the future health of F1.

        Let’s give Liberty some time to shape things their way. Brawn will be huge in setting things right over the next 2 or 3 years, imho. He’s been saying some very good things. I don’t believe he wants to abandon these pu’s unless I’m mistaken, but he does want long term close competition, opportunity for small teams to flourish, and a growing audience.

      2. If everyone must have the same engine, then why not the same chassis too?

        1. Because suppliers don’t make the chassis for other teams. They all design their own.

          Getting a deal to buy Mercedes engines shouldn’t be more important than designing a good chassis or having good drivers.

    2. I think the engines will be at near equalization in 10 years

      1. @mbr-9 but will they wait 10 years to change it?

  13. I joked about it couple of times, but didn’t actually think Red Bull would really do it. They did… a joke!

  14. Neil (@neilosjames)
    20th April 2017, 23:22

    I have to appreciate Red Bull’s presence, because without them we’d only have eight teams and the only half-decent junior programme in the whole sport would be gone.

    But… really, the Red Bull team means no more to me than a team like Force India or Haas. They’ve had on-track success since they joined but I don’t think they’ve even come close to making it into that small group of teams who have an appreciable fanbase (fans who remain with that team regardless of driver lineup/success), or whose presence on the grid is deemed important by ordinary, ‘team-neutral’ fans. Ferrari are in that group, as are McLaren, Williams too, but I don’t think Mercedes have got there yet and nor have Renault. And Red Bull are even further away than those two…

    So as long as someone else replaces them and employs their staff, they can toodle off whenever they like. I’ll miss the junior team, but little else.

    1. @neilosjames – very nice comment.

    2. Agree. Let the Whingers get their own Wings to the F1 trash bin.

      Or…make their own engine – cheapskates.

  15. Helmut Marko is obviously inspired and becoming the Donald Trump of F1. It won’t be long until we hear Make F1 Great Again campaign.

  16. Ah, it would be a wonderful thing Dr Marko.

    We would just have to contend with Honda, Mercedes and Renault withdrawing as engine manufacturers, and in the latter regards as constructors if we go back to 2013 engine rules or earlier.

    Doesn’t sound quite as good then, does it…

  17. Like Red Bull can threaten to quit F1 better than Ferrari

  18. The problem with changing the engine rules is that a handful of teams/manufacturers spent a huge amount of money to develop the engines and they’re not just going to walk away from that investment. People seem to always forget that F1 is a business and large expenditures have to be amortized off the books, you can’t just shrug and say yeah, let’s try something else. There needs to be a mechanism in place to reimburse the manufacturers at least in part so that they will be more inclined to agree to a change if it turns out the rules went in the wrong direction. Ferrari for example spent hundreds of millions to develop an engine that has no place in their production line, and it’s incredibly naive to expect them to just eat that cost and move on to a new set of engine rules.
    Personally I think the ideal would be to have a formula where a customer can buy an engine and a chassis, bolt them together and go racing. The manufacturers supply engines and chassis, and the customers race them. Unfortunately I don’t see that ever happening.

    1. @velocityboy

      The problem with changing the engine rules is that a handful of teams/manufacturers spent a huge amount of money to develop the engines and they’re not just going to walk away from that investment.

      The engine rules are more than likely going to change from 2020 onwards anyway, I think the manufacturers have accepted this already, it’s just deciding what F1 moves to next.

      Ferrari for example spent hundreds of millions to develop an engine that has no place in their production line, and it’s incredibly naive to expect them to just eat that cost and move on to a new set of engine rules.

      Ferrari now have hybrids with a very similar architecture in their range such as the La Ferrari and FXXK as a direct result of the current F1 engine format. To say that the current engines have no place in it’s production line is simply wrong. That’s without even mentioning the Hybrids now produced by Porsche, McLaren, Honda, Renault etc…….

      Personally I think the ideal would be to have a formula where a customer can buy an engine and a chassis, bolt them together and go racing. The manufacturers supply engines and chassis, and the customers race them. Unfortunately I don’t see that ever happening.

      They do this now, it is called F2 (nee GP2) and most of the lower single seater categories. F1 has and always will be (I hope) a prototype series.

  19. Red Bull always talk of an independent engine supplier been a must, Yet I really can’t see them ever taking such an option even if it were available because Red Bull want more wins/championships & I just can’t really see an independent engine supplier been competitive against the big budget manufacturer’s.

    As to the engine formula, I like the current formula & don’t have any problem at all with the sound. There quieter yes but it’s not as if there silent & it’s not as if the sound they are producing is bad (They still sound like powerful race cars to me). Noise & Volume should not be the determining factor in what engines are used, In fact I think the sound/volume should be at the bottom of the pile when determining engine format.

    Let’s take the sound out of the equation & look at it from this perspective. The current power units are already producing more power than the V8’s & are about on-par with the V10/V12’s & are doing that despite been of a smaller capacity, Having less cylinders & using significantly less fuel, I just don’t see why everyone is so against that or simply opting to ignore that just because there so fixated on noise which has no bearing at all on anything that should matter (i.e. Performance).

    F1 has to move forward, It can’t be stuck in the past with engine formats & somewhat outdated engine tech just because they are loud. The motor industry, The technology within it & society as a whole have moved on & it’s right for F1 to look forward & move on with it. Smaller capacity turbo’s with hybrid technology is the way the motor industry seems to be going, F1 can’t ignore that & I don’t think it’s fans should either.

    1. When it comes to the cost, That is an area that could/should be looked at although cost’s generally go down over time (I believe there already cheaper than they were in 2014) so by 2020 it’s likely that cost’s won’t be the issue they are now, Especially if Liberty improve the distribution so that teams have more to spend.

      Also I think it’s important to remember that despite the claims, In real terms the current power units are not that much cheaper than the V8 or V10’s. In fact I believe that when adjusted for inflation the V10’s actually work out as been more expensive than the current power units.
      And the V8’s were been heavily subsidized the last few years they were been used so while teams may have been paying less than $10m for them, There actual cost was significantly higher & about on-par with the current power units.

    2. I don’t think the V12’s were more powerfull. They were last used in 1995 or so.

    3. Red Bull just want to make sure F1 depends for 99% on aero again. That’s where they spend almost all of their budgets whilst the engine manufacturers also need to spend money on designing their engines. So even if a team like Ferrari or Mercedes has the same budget as Red Bull, Red Bull will actually be able to spend more money on designing their cars.

      Everything Mateschitz, Horner and Marko say is 100% politically motivated. When they have a disadvantage their they all three start a combined effort in swaying public opinion to make sure this advantage for the other teams is ended. If they gain an illegal advantage (clearly flexing bodywork) they do the same thing to make sure they keep this advantage.

      Annoyingly enough it works. People are unfortunately this easily influenced that they actually start believing these “Bull stories”. Or alternatively they make sure to get extra influence to stab the other teams in the back and do a deal with Ecclestone to sell their soul for some extra support.

      RB fans would say other teams do the same, but other teams actually do display some intentions that they want what’s best for the sport. Of course what’s best for the sport is in the end also better for them, but the difference is that Red Bull wants what’s best for them without caring if it’s in the interest of the sport and usually the sport is worse off by serving their agenda.

      Funnily enough it was mostly Renault/Red Bull (with in the background BMW and a possible VW entrance) which insisted on the new engine formula. Hoping a new engine would make sure Renault would come out on top again. While Ferrari and Mercedes would rather see less change to the V8 engine formula.

      Renault/Red Bull got their wish, hundreds of millions were spent (if not a billion by now) and I’m happy to see it didn’t work out the way they hoped.

      The 2017 aero rules were also mostly instigated by Red Bull to bring aero dependency back and make cars rely less on the engines. Again they got their wish, but luckily the other teams got some of theirs in to at least that set of changes gave us faster and better looking cars. Also Red Bull seems to have dropped the ball again on these changes (so they keep complaining other teams need to lose their advantage).

      1. +1. Spot on.

  20. I see it this way. When if ever in the history of formula one has the engine specification had anything to do with road cars prior to the current formula? I’d say never. Turbos came in because they had the potential to be more powerful than the NA engines being used. Turbos were banned on safety and cost grounds, if my reading of F1 history is correct. Never to boost motor manufacturers. Until now.

    F1 has always had a balance between drivers, chassis, engines and tyres. It has also had a balance between manufacturers and private teams. Right now though could you really see a private team winning in F1, even a one off race? You could see it in MotoGP or in Indycars however.

    I agree with the idea that F1 must become cheaper for teams to be involved with for the long term stability and growth of F1. I also agree that while producing technical marvels the new engine formula has done little for F1 other than keep Mercedes in the sport and letting them dominate the last three seasons. I also still shake my head at the draconian restrictions placed on things like blown diffusers, on the grounds of cost, which RBR was ahead of everyone else with, yet no restriction at all placed on Merecedes who dominated the sport to a far greater degree. I digress, but it places the comments of RBR in context. They dominated, never as much as Mercedes, yet were constantly hobbled whenever they had a technical advantage, often on the grounds of cost. I bet blown diffusers were cheaper than the current power units too.

    So RBR sees a double standard in terms of rule changes, has no way of making up the massive difference in power, driveability, reliability, mode changing and economy of either the Mercedes or even the Ferrari, and is stuck with an engine partner which is still struggling in an engine formula it pushed for.

    Why would it continue?

    I love RBR, being an Aussie with Webber and Danny I had to really, and I love that their story is one of buying a lower midfield team and within five years being world champions. I love that they have a truly global junior driver program, and achieved their success through building up their own juniors, instead of shelling out millions for a world champion (are you listening BAR and Jaguar?) before their engineering was right.

    However as most fans and commentators agree the engine rules need changing. From being too simple in the V8 era the engine rules are now wildly too complex and need changing. RBR is not saying anything radical there. And if they don’t change and the situation is as it currently is in 2021, why would they continue? Surely RBR can do something else or be sold off to someone else, but to pour millions into a program that has little chance of success through a complex and expensive engine formula? I can understand their threat.

    It sounds like sour grapes to say it now, and I’ve never liked Marko and his appproach, but I for one can understand the reasons why it might be a reality.

    I hope not though!

    1. Well said, Clay. I absolutely agree!

    2. Very good point about the blown diffuser, a much more efficient way to use exhaust gas, and much cheaper too! These engines are nice, but a 20,000rpm V8 like in 2006 was perfect, with that, you could go unrestricted on the electrical side.

    3. Who cares if it ever happened or not. It’s the companies who have to pony up the hundreds of millions to design and build those engines now that want to see some return on investment.

      It’s just preposterous that people demand engine parity so quickly though. It’s a competition. If red Bull had given up their illegal flexing bodywork I would have accepted them complaining about other teams advantage. They kept their advantage while it was clearly illegal and the other teams waited in disbelief for this to be banned. Amazed how Red Bull kept getting away with it. Of course in the end all teams have it on their cars.

      If Red Bull wants a better engine they can go ahead and design one. Just like Mercedes and Ferrari do. They don’t want to because that’s where their edge comes from. They spend peanuts on their engines and can spend almost all their money on the cars.

  21. …and the engine has to be simple, noisy and on the cost side below ten million.

    These are just myths. You cannot have a simple 1.6 litre engine driving a car at 320 km/h, Honda will tell you that. Reducing the cost of a power unit means reducing its performance or reliability, both of which compromise the ability of a team to win. If you want to win then you need to pay for power units that have performance and reliability.
    There is already an agreement in place between the power unit manufacturers and the FIA to constrain costs. As I understand it the basic price reduction is of the order of 1M Euros this season compared to last year’s estimated 20M Euros for a year’s supply, and then a further reduction of 3M Euros next year, meaning a total cost of 16M Euros for a season’s allocation of power units. The power units used now are more powerful than those used last year, and next year’s power units will be better than those now used, and yet the cost of a year’s supply is falling. Part of the cost of the power units pays for the research and development necessary for a manufacturer to keep up with their competitors.
    If a manufacturer reduces costs too much then their R & D will be less effective, the power units will become uncompetitive and the teams supplied will want to use the power units of other manufacturers.

    1. Well it would make sure that car manufacturers withdraw from the sport (or wont enter) and Red Bull would be alone against Ferrari again.

  22. F1 should never equalise engines ever again, there is supposed to be competition between the engine manufactures, there is absolutely ZERO point in having anymore than 1 manufacturer if the engines are equal. I never heard of this equalise rubbish before 2009. I saw Mercedes, Ferrari, BMW, Toyota, Honda, Renault, etc …. battling it out to have the best engine. This comes to my other point, F1 imo is not meat to be cheap for anyone but the fans, every other form of top level sports the teams or participants are stinking rich, F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of Motorsport, if it aims to stay the pinnacle, cheap will not do imo. The supposed Pinnacle of Motorsport and teams struggling for 4 engines worth £20m(thanks to Bernie), i don’t know why Red Bull are trying to be the champion of the smaller teams, it’s obviously fake and their trying to get the engines equalised for their own benefit. You see the difference with this V6 Hybrid era and the latter years of the V8 era is that Red Bull/Renault engine deficit is actually legitimate that why Red Bull keep complaining. If Red Bull really cared about the sport they would give up their absolutely undeserved bonuses they get for participating (along with the others culprits), but Horner didn’t seem to willing when questioned on that last season. Equal distribution is a must, it’s a different sport and worth more than F1, but look at the Premier league, 20 million is pocket change to all teams. When money distribution is unfair you get your La Liga(Spain) and Bundesliga(Germany) the football equivalent to F1.

    1. Agree on the engine’s being a competition. Although I feel that some parity should be build in. It should give an advantage but natural evolution should draw the performance closer together. That was what the token system was supposed to do. Near the end of the life cycle of these engine regulations, the performance should draw closer and less budget would be needed to develop them further. Unfortunately two manufacturers make a complete mess of their engine designs and the whole plan fell to bits.

      Unfortunate to hear keith’s agenda on money distribution being parroted back again though.

      Red Bull spends somewhere around half a billion per year. Teams like Williams, Force India and such have budgets of a third or quarter of that. If those teams would all get 30 million extra that would mean pretty much nothing in equalizing the competition. The budget gap would still be huge.

      The only way to even remotely equalize things would be to limit the budgets to say 250 million. Still a staggering amount, but then the midfield teams would be able to run with more than half of that budget and at least have some chance to compete.

  23. Regardless of what you think of redbull what they are saying just makes sense. The hard reality of F1 is that the only way to compete for wins is to be an engine manufacturer. Only team that has achieved wins since 2014 that is not engine manufacturer is red bull.

    A simpler, better sounding and more racy engine would lower the costs, make the cars faster (because the current cars are obese) and would provide better racing because being an engine manufacturer is not the only way to compete. Teams like sauber, force india could enjoy very similar levels of engine performance as ferrari and mercedes which would allow them to be smart and beat teams with tons of money with engineering skills and strategy.

    The current engine regulations only play to the hands of the ferrari and mercedes. They can spend enormous sums to improve the engines for themselves whereas others are forced to save every penny just so they can buy 2nd rate (sometimes year old engines) at high cost. This has created several issues. One of which is how far ahead merc and ferrari are this year simply because they can run better engines. Unless both ferrari and merc cars dnf in a race red bull won’t have any chances to win. Just like they have not had since 2014. Just like everyone else have not had any chance to win.

    The solution is simple. Simpler engines, more engine manufacturers and move the tech focus of f1 away from engines into other bits of the car. Allow active suspensions, simplify front wings and re-write the regulation to force actually environmentally friendly technologies. Focusing on road car relevance has only one kind of ending. Self driving electric cars. If road relevance is all that matters to you then that’s your goal.

    1. That’s what Red Bull wants to make their disciples believe yes.

      Why should the focus be only on aero? Motorracing should be just as much about the engines. Besides, are Williams winning races with the exact same engine? Are Force India? So it’s obviously not just the engine. Mercedes has had a whole package that’s better than what the other teams have brought.

      I understand why Red Bull insist that F1 should be all about aero again. They had a 4 year dominance based on when only aero dictated who would win. But why should we want that?

      In fact it costs much more money to develop the aero. So the solution is simple. Give them all the same aero package an d a standard engine. Then we wont run the risk that one team is far ahead of the others. But then, why not just watch GP2?

  24. Red Bull threatening to quit when being the only challenger to a dominating team in a previous era: “Oh please don’t go.”

    Red Bull threatening to quit after 3 races into an unbelievably exciting 2017 season: “Sure, just close the door behind you quietly and DND.”

  25. Why do I think this is all just because of how fast Renault are improving, Red Bull know they need to get a new engine supplier before Renault become a championship competing team over the next few years. They’ll end up in the same boat that Mclaren were in and not have have their special arrangement anymore just becoming a regular engine customer.

    1. The problem is if Honda can’t get it right, then what is there to encourage another engine manufacturer to get involved in F1?

  26. I dislike all the criticism Red Bull receive for speaking openly. When the Renault engine was rubbish, they called them out just as Alonso has with Honda, and that should be admired in a sport full or PR speak.
    Red Bull threatening to quit makes a lot of sense. Their business is energy drinks and unless they receive return on investment for their F1 program it will end just as Toyota, Honda and BMW did when they failed to achieve the desired success. So is Red Bull threatening to quit when they aren’t competitive a tactic to deflect the media or is it just that they are being more open about their commercial realities?

    1. Speaking “openly” you say @f120-20? What is open about the team going on and on about how the engine is to blame when it is at least partly the limits of their chassis that cause issues. What is open about one of the first things this year in testing was to say that the engine is not a good update, as soon as their car showed not to be on the pace.
      What is open about claiming to want to quit the sport for almost a whole year, when the man in charge then says later that they never seriously even considered that (see the article above!).

      To me, it all shows a contrived communications strategy to bully a sport into giving the team what it wants. That worked fine when it was Bernie in charge, because they had a commong goal of cracking to manufacturers. Both only did that because the manufacturers stood in their way of dominating the sport.
      But they keep telling us how Red Bull is somehow concerned about the cost of racing? Or about equal chances? Or even better racing? I call Bull.

      When you look at ANY of the analyses of the marketing value of F1, there is not much that can beat it. Red Bull get far more out of being there than the money they put in. It IS great value for money for them. As it is for Ferrari, and for Mercedes. And by now probably for Renault as well. That is the reason all of them are there.

  27. The easiest way to equalize the engines is to get rid of the fuel restrictions. Let the weaker engines burn more fuel to get the decent horsepower. It seems the unequalization is due to having to get very efficient horspower with the fuel flow restrictions.

    1. That won’t make the weaker engined-teams any faster. They would now be heavier at the start of the races and hence, much much slower.
      One way to reduce the impact of inefficient engines is to bring back re-fueling. That way, the Hondas can only focus on reliability and not worrying about the fuel efficiency of the engine. While Mercedes/Ferrari will still have an advantage (faster and lesser pitstops), Honda can at least hope for a timely safety car or something to claw back some ground in the races.
      But re-fueling brings back even more worse problems i.e. passing in the pits.

      Regarding Red Bull, I think Red Bull need to be little patient. In 3-5 years time, electric cars and driverless cars are going to be the in-thing and these hybrids will be a thing of the past. Red Bull need to be partnering with some engine manufacturer (Mahindra or someone else who is active in FormulaE) in some way (other racing series, promotional events) and ready this partner for a launch into F1 when F1 goes electric

    2. Not really, it would rather achieve the opposite effect.

      1. There is one reason the world won’t go electric in 3 years, TAX.
        Driverless cars won’t happen either for one reason, TAX.

  28. MG421982 (@)
    21st April 2017, 6:22

    Don’t let the door hit you on the way out…

  29. Fact is they overestimated their basic chassis and weren’t expecting to be this far back since last season ended.
    Whole winter they were saying ”We’re ready to challenge Mercedes for titles.” They did a Ferrari all winter long and since the first test they’ve been lacking downforce. Can’t blame the power unit anymore. Hulk and Palmer made Q3 in Bahrain after all, Hulk getting within a few tenths of Max’s time in Q3. Didn’t see that happen from where they were last year.

    I don’t see Liberty changing the rules again to suit only their whim, seeing we finally have two teams fighting for wins.
    They’ve been playing hardball with Ferrari ever since over the ”history bonus money” since they took over. What chance does RB have then?

  30. …and the engine has to be simple, noisy and on the cost side below ten million…

    Then go to GP3, Marko.

  31. “There are enough companies around that could supply. So we expect from the new owners together with the FIA to find a solution at the latest by the end of this season. If that doesn’t happen our stay in F1 is not secured.”

    Why on earth would it be the FIA’s job, or FOM money to find that engine supplier?? Red Bull will just either have to convince a partner to invest like McLaren did (unlikely since they have shown themselves to be a bad partner with all the complaining about Renault and then the farce over engines last year), or they will have to take their own money and invest – either in cooperation with someone like Aston Martin (who do not have the money to do so, but might get to use the engine in a road car over time) badging it, or just as a completely independant engine that they can then sell on if they want.

    1. @bascb I think you’ve misinterpreted what is being said here. The current engine regs are effectively locked in until 2021 however beyond that point is an opportunity to change those regs to be basically whatever they want them to be. That’s when (most of) the agreements regarding governence expire as well, potentially breaking this monopoly the manufacturers have over setting regulatons in their own interest. However Red Bull are quite correct – in order to effect significant change from the current regs, a relatively well fleshed out plan for new technical regs should be in place by the end of this year. Because any new engine is going to need at least a couple of years development time so that costs can be spread and the technology understood by the time it hits the track – hopefully to avoid any repeats of the Honda disaster.

      But effectively what they’re saying here is that FOM and the FIA should draft a new set of technical regulations with the intention of making it an attractive space for indy engine manufacturer like Cosworth, Judd, Mechachrome, etc, to compete.

      The reality is that right now nobody is going to tool up to join F1 as a new engine supplier (either indy or manufacturer) with the technical regs as they currently stand. But RBR aren’t stupid – they know that in the next three years the law of diminishing returns is going to see a convergence of performance across all four engines, so regardless it’s not like they won’t eventually have a competitive engine. It’s just that they are (the only entrant) thinking about the long term strategy of the sport rather than just focusing on the current situation.

      The bluff about quitting unfortunately overshadows what is otherwise a really important, pertinent point.

      1. I’m not sure they are the only entrant thinking about the long term strategy, and I think Liberty and Brawn are taking everything into consideration as to a focussed and meaningful way of setting up F1 for a brighter future post-BE. I think one of the concerns has been the weight of the big teams being able to influence things to their liking and there’s reason therefore to think RBR are doing the same. I think RBR is best leaving their concerns with Liberty and Brawn for them to take under advisement going forward. It would be very interesting to know if indeed Liberty feel the need for a new engine format post-2021. They will no doubt be talking to ALL the teams very much over this season and beyond as they tweek things. From doing their due diligence over the last few years ahead of taking over from CVC/BE I’m sure they’re well aware of what the various teams’ issues are and are zooming in on solving problems for a better, healthier, and more forward thinking F1 than was the case under BE. If they think that will mean an engine or PU format change for 2021 and beyond, so be it, it’s going to be very interesting to see F1 evolve with this big new chapter and opportunity. I’m sure they already know it is not about any one team’s desires, it’s got to be a collective effort that everyone is on board with as much as possible and moreso than the past.

      2. I think that most of the engine manufacturers themselves have already signalled that they too would be in favour of somewhat less complicated engines @mazdachris, @robbie, especially the heat recovery part seems to probably be a step too far (and its components relatively expensive for manufacture, not just for their development cost).

        Liberty, the FIA and interested manufacturers are indeed planning ahead. The easiest part would be to just stay with what we have, possibly with a limit to development (by then they would have been more or less done with that, but it would hurt any newcomers). They had a meeting, and apart from the current crop, there were a few others.

        But I read what Marko said, I think I even got it in German this week, and he DID clearly put it to the FIA and FOM to provide a solution with an “independant” engine supplier. That is complete nonsense. Someone would have to pay for the development of that engine.
        It could be Red Bull (since they themselves seem unable to lure in a real manufacturer) financing that engine. It could be a new manufacturer, or an invester group (but in that case it would have to be financed by a team like Red Bull guaranteeing a reasonable ROI anyway). Regardless, that engine will still not be independant. There is just too much money needed for developing it. Cosworth came to be only because Ford financed it at the time, Mechachrome etc, came about when others quit the sport. Neither has the capital to invest into something like this by themselves.

    2. FIA actually tried to find one in the form of Cosworth, but they (Cosworth) understood that the investments would be huge and chance of success were minimal and thus were smart enough not to get involved.

      It’s even more bizarre that Red Bull are claiming for a independent engine supplier when they themselves have refused to work in such a relationship.

      It’s for an important part Red Bulls insane constraints put on Renault which made Renault waste tons of money on developing in essence three specs of “engines” instead of one. Which was a major contributor to them failing first time around. A Season later they insisted Renault would go for performance and skip their “unneeded dyno” tests. Red Bull insisted insisted Red Bull they would just do that type of testing on track. Resulting in an engine that was completely unreliable and indeed they did that dyno testing on track and it failed miserably again.

  32. The obsession with extra noise is ridiculous. When the cars became quietier thanks to the Turbos and KERS, F1 was left exposed. Noise shouldn’t be used to paper over cracks.
    If the sounds are going to be the focus of the event then why not race them up and down drag strips. It would be safer and much cheaper. Hell we could all have a go.

  33. Hi,
    I think Helmut thinks too highly of his team and shows arrogance to the extreme, He now thinks the team is above the sport forgetting the the sport has made the team. He needs to give more respect tot Formula 1 and think many teams have come and gone in its years of existence and his team is one among them. If Redbull withdraws it will affect themselves more than the sport and a new team will take its place. The sport should quickly think to reducing redbull to one team to avoid their bully talk and cut them to size. Redbull bluff is known to many, Redbull gets big returns from the sport for the products which they sell. Redbull would not go anywhere its empty talk. Redbull is in it for money and they get more money than they invest. If not they would not be here.
    Rupesh

  34. LIDL’s own-brand Energy drink tastes better anyway

    1. Maybe you should threaten to stop drinking Red Bull because it’s too expensive compared to other brands and insist Lidl becomes the customer supplier?

  35. The only point in all that RBR-blubber to take note of is that by 2020, will (engine) manufacturers still be interested in F1 or will Mercedes, Renault and Honda feel that they have gotten all they can out of their F1-programmes and quit? If so and if no other manufacturers can be enticed to enter (BMW, Toyota etc), whither F1? Even Ferrari hint that they need to be in Formula E by then so their participation is not a foregone conclusion. F1 might find itself back to the Judds, Mugens, Ilmors etc and the engine formula by necessity a simpler one.

  36. Why would Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault, Honda or any other manufacturer want to race in F1 if everyone uses the same engine??? I cannot see it happening and if it does happen, it will be a tragedy. I would imagine you would end up with team red bull fighting it out on track with dr pepper and pepsi right behind and starbucks in last place, not my idea of excitement.

  37. quotes like these are a great way of creating headlines.

    and many many comments by fanatics ;)

  38. Only liked Red Bull because of Vettel really, so wouldn’t mind if they leave – if, of course, they can find new ownership so that we don’t lose another team in F1. Can’t stop rolling my eyes every time this old man opens his mouth.

  39. Tony Mansell
    21st April 2017, 10:03

    Its dangerous having a team of 4 cars on a 20 team grid. They carry some clout and other than Ferrari, perhaps the most. Whether you or I take it seriously is irrelevant frankly.

    More importantly I don’t see why we cant have engines that sound like hyper cars. They use both boring accountant retentive electric power and brilliant soul enhancing ICE.

  40. Unfortunately, when a team is owned by a business that’s core values are heavily based around effort and success, I can’t see Red Bull remaining in F1 after 2020.

    They have had a good run, made market inroads etc by being involved, but I can see that ending and the owners will just say “that’s it we’re leaving”

    Hopefully they’ll be able to sell both teams to new committed owners but I don’t hold out hope.

  41. I completely see the benefits of lower priced engines from a new supplier. However, F1 has to be relevant in terms of the technology it develops. It’s meant to be a pinnacle of tech development and that means hybrid engines which push beyond the boundaries of todays power units. It’s the only real way that the likes of Mercedes can justify staying in the sport as something beyond a team sponsor, by driving improvements and development they can introduce and showcase features which flow into road cars and eventually become standard.

    In an increasingly environmentally aware world, it’s also a way F1 can agrue green credentials – better hybrid/ERS when applied to millions of cars worldwide equals a change for the better.

  42. The threat right now is somewhat a warning. But think about if Sauber and Force India fold, then Red Bulls 4 cars make up a large % of the grid. They walk and its a joke category of racing.

    If more minnow teams fold their threat carry’s big weight. Unless costs come down the chance of the smaller teams folding increases.

    On another note, the green F1 does not work. Racing itself is a waste of energy technically. Bring back V10’s and let them scream up to 16,000 Rpm again. The fans want to see and hear the show, not one person on race day at the track cares how much fuel they have used. If you cared about that you wouldn’t watch Motorsport at all!!!!!!

  43. If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen, close the door on the way out……

  44. Too complicated expensive engines, no testing allowed, only 4 engines allowed during the season, fuel limits……

    This really has to go. I’m with redbull here

    1. MG421982 (@)
      21st April 2017, 20:09

      But doesn’t 4 engines per season save some money compared to using +30 engines per season?! Remember when a team used 1 engine for the race, 1 engine for the Quali etc?? I hardly believe 4(8max) engines cost as much as +30 V10/V8 engines…

  45. Past – We’re not winning so we don’t like the way the aero is. Change it.

    Present – We’re not winning so we don’t like the way the engines are. Change them.

    Future – We’re not winning so change whatever it is we think needs changing to make us win.

  46. The headline for this article should be FIZZY IN A TIZZY.

  47. Ooohh bla bla bla bla

  48. Their moans in the past have seemed childish and petulant but this time I can’t help but think that they have a point.

    Mercedes have done a supreme job and they should rightly be congratulated for it. The problem though is that despite vast sums of money and people, Renault (and to a much greater extent Honda) have shown that competing is exceptionally difficult. Even without restricted resources, they can’t get the necessary track time to catch up.

    Again, this is all fine and dandy…but don’t expect any new engine manufacturers to show up anytime soon.

  49. Evil Homer (@)
    21st April 2017, 13:39

    I usually liken Helmut Marko to the drunk uncle at a family show, give him another beer, put him in a corner where no one can here what he says and let him go.

    However we all know his comments come from Dietrich and as pointed out above with 4 cars on an already small grid Red Bull do hold some power and are showing an early hand to Liberty and FIA for 2021.

    As always F1 is like a Godfather movie with everyone pulling their political strings 🏁

    1. The vibe I’m getting from Liberty or at least from things Brawn has said is that going forward there has to be more careful, considered, collective agreement on what F1 wants to be and how to get there. Ie. I think the likes of RBR ‘showing their hand early’ is going to have less weight than ever now that this is no longer BE’s show. Things like Ferrari potentially have their massive because-we’re-Ferrari bonus taken away…great example of Liberty/Brawn looking to level the playing field for a healthier grid overall…makes me feel like ALL teams concerns, indeed all aspects of F1 are being addressed as we speak. RBR should have no more nor less weight as they’ll be heard no more nor less than anyone else that has constructive input as to how to better the entity over the coming years. It feels a bit like RBR are trying a BE like thing with their threat at a time when F1 is moving past the BE style. None of this to say RBR aren’t onto something that Liberty would agree with. That’s possible but I know it will be because of a careful consideration of everything and everyone within F1, not because of one team’s threats.

  50. Go RB, you won’t be missed, like a meteor… ussshhhhh… gone

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.
If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.