Renault have had a bad time with the turbo's, but their V8 was a good one. They initally built it to be torquey rather than have outright power, so it had good shove out of the corners. Little boy Horner then moaned when they got passed on the straights at the quicker circuits when top end power ruled, so they were allowed to upgrade the engine outside of the normal rules. Another show of RBR's 'win or we go home' attitude that they have been childishly playing for years now. Most other circuits no one could get close to them as they just rocketed out of the turns. Renault made their engine work with Newey's design. How many other teams tried to copy it but couldn't for various reasons? If Renault couldn't make the engine mapping work with their unit then the whole system would have been a flop. As for the veto being against the law, that is rubbish. RBR have chosen to cancel the contract with Renault, so any issues their having now is of their own making. It is not for the other teams to open their arms to RBR because they have yet again spat their dummy out prematurely. Imagine if every team said we want a Mercedes engine or we're going to quit? The bigger issue, as F1 may now find out, is the inequality in money to the teams. Have RBR been fair about that or are they quite happy to keep loads of money for themselves rather than distribute it more fairly to the other teams? No? So, RBR want the best engines and the most money (at the expense of other teams who don't have parity with this) and will quit if they don't get it. Seems fair to me............. Actually, reading your quote, are you Horner in disguise?
Saxo Bank also rumoured to be pulling next years sponsorship! Lotus bosses admit Renault delay compromising 2016 car By: Editor please log in to view this image While the future of Lotus hangs in the balance, the team’s lead engineer Alan Permane has admitted every passing day risks adding compromises to the design of next year’s car. The troubled Enstone team is in the midst of a long delay as Renault considers turning its ‘letter of intent’ into the French carmaker’s new works team. If it happens, Lotus will need to adapt its 2016 car design to accommodate the Renault power unit, as CEO Carlos Ghosn has reportedly ruled out agreeing to a transition year with a Mercedes unit in the rear of a Renault F1 car. But Permane admitted to Auto Motor und Sport that the hour is getting very late, “As an engineer, you want to know where you stand as early as possible. March, ideally. “Once the current car is running for the first time, a special design group is already looking at next year’s car. But we will just have to cope with it,” the Briton explained of the situation. “We saw what Brawn GP managed to do, even though it was much easier with the V8s. Now there are so many more cooling elements to take into consideration. So the later you know what engine you have in the car, the more compromises you would have to consider,” said Permane. Another risk is that the delay could hold up the team’s start to the pre-season, especially as the re-jigged race calendar has also fast-forwarded the 2016 test programme. A similar delay also risks compromising the test programme of Red Bull amid its current engine supply crisis, team manager Paul Monaghan admits. “It’s getting a little bit late,” he said. “It’s wrong to say that anybody that runs the first test will automatically have a benefit on us. Yes, they might, but we could cope, so however the land lies, we’ll deal with it.”
1. teams can could copy, they are banned from doing that now 2. Publicly traded companies have a duty to their shareholders, throwing away £100m's for 'ego' or personal profit is a big no-no. http://smallbusiness.chron.com/corporation-owe-fiduciary-duty-shareholders-70243.html 3. Damn right they cancelled their contract, they have been supplied with sopmething that could be described as 'not fit for purpose'. would you keep spending your money on something that was useless? 4. As I said, once an engine is homologated it should be available to all, like the DFV was. 5. at least one person has to provide the argument in favour of RBR, the FIA have been trying to get them to lose ever since the 'fizzy-pop' team started winning, whilst allowing Mercedes to get away with all sorts of illegality. I want racing to be racing, not a corporate strategy decided in the boardroom
This...... Even if it was limited to X amount of teams, but should still be applied at a fixed price so teams can't be priced out of it.
A change for next year would require unanimous agreement of the teams, but a bullish Ecclestone insists that he could force his plan through. "I don't think we should get consent from the teams," he told The Independent. "I think we should just do it and say to them, 'If you don't like it you can go to arbitration'. We could get the V8s back next year. People can build them in no time so we ought to do it. "If Ferrari only agreed to supply one customer engine, Mercedes only agreed to supply one, nobody would have any engines. That's exactly what the situation is.
In truth Bernie wants what we want, a show. He/we want Vettel v Hamilton v Alonso, the best drivers in competitive cars. We want it beause it will be entertaining, he wants it because entertaining the fans = more £, and that's what we are not getting because of the manufacturer teams.
It's in the rules that a manufacturer cannot supply more than 4 teams. Mercedes have their four teams so are barred from supplying anymore without a waiver of those rules. It's what we all want, but the rules, as written practically by the big 4, don't allow for it. Maybe if the smaller teams had a bigger share of the money pot they would have better cars so get into the mix a bit more? Bernie needs it to be a good show, otherwise commercial revenues drop so he loses money. None of the racing teams are publicly traded companies in their own right. Their daddy companies maybe, but the teams are separate entities so not covered by this rule. RBR is a team run by corporate strategy decided in the boardroom! Win or we pull out. Hopefully Ferrari will take another step next year and properly give Mercedes a fight. McLaren are too far behind to make such a leap, and RBR can only do it if they stick with Renault who use up all of their development tokens wisely.
Bernie gets worse. 'Go to arbitration' and how long will that take????? Red Bull say their deadline is end of Oct. So Bernie thinks he can force v8 through and get through arbitration before end of Oct!!!!! This is the same man that said a day or so ago that Red Bulls engine problem is sorted yet nothing has been said by an engine manufacturer or RB.... He is just trying to create publicity. Can you imagine if he pushed v8's through. Renault, Merc and Honda would all pull out.
Yes, he needs to be doing something to keep F1 in the papers as otherwise the racing is so predictable it's getting less and less column inches just for that. But how great was the racing with V8's? 4 consecutive titles with RBR, Vettel smashing practically every record going for poles, wins, laps lead etc etc? It was basically the same as what we have now. But RBR should apparently be congratulated for finding a competitive advantage (exhausts) that they were able to exploit with a driver who used that to the maximum to achieve unbelievable success. What good would it be giving RBR back their Renault V8's if they can't use their special exhaust system with it. Apparently without it that engine was crap as well! so would still be languishing outside of the top 3.
** RANT ALERT ** (but it's not aimed at you, Big Ern)... Bernie certainly doesn't want what I want. I want a more level playing field for the teams (in terms of what they receive from F1). I believe in fairness, but I also believe this would reduce the performance differentials across the grid, would lead to better racing throughout the grid, and that the top drivers would be in more equal machinery so we'd finally get to see them go head to head. Bernie wants a show (as you say), but he has no interest in a level playing field, and actively conspires against it - divide and conquer. Yes, he'd love to have the top drivers battling it out, but the rest of the teams are just there as a backdrop, and to keep extra money coming in. He really doesn't give a sh*t about them. If one goes to the wall, they can f*** off and he'll get some other crowd in. Forgive my language. I'm normally a very easy-going person (to the point where I've been accused of having no strong feelings about anything), but one thing I do feel very strongly about is fairness. So Bernie most certainly does not want what I want. I want fairness, and I believe it will deliver better racing. Bernie wants to manufacture a show, (stacking the game in favour of a few preferred teams), and he believes it will bring him extra money. It makes me puke. ** end of rant - sorry everyone ** Edit: the opinion above is my own opinion, based on my perception of the state of F1 and how it is managed. It is not to be construed as the opinion of this internet forum or anyone that manages or moderates it.
Adapt it from what? Mercedes have already given Lotus's engine supply to Manor, they're clever people at Enstone they won't be designing for a Mercedes power unit, even if Renault don't follow through with the purchase there's every chance the Lotus team - if they're still on the grid - will have to run Renault engines any way. They'd be crazy to be designing to accommodate anything but a Renault engine right now.
Can anyone remember how long Lotus's pu supply contract with Merc is/was? I thought it included 2016. If so did Lotus actually come to a mutual agreement to end the Merc deal or was their a clause Merc used that if a rival PU manufacturer buys team then no PU from Merc? But Renault haven't actually bought Lotus. Either way I don't know how Merc have publicly have said they are now supplying Manor. Anyone have any info on the above?
I think it's all officially done from Merc's side. The impression I get is that if Renault don't buy Lotus then they are going under, so couldn't afford Merc units for 2016 anyway. Was in both sides interests to part amicably. RBR should take a leaf out of there book about how to break a contract without causing a ****storm.
yeah, one team going broke so they can't afford the best engine is the same as one team being able to afford very expensive engines that are quite clearly ****.
Again, you're just highlighting the disparity in the prize fund split that the big 4 orchestrated. I'm not sure what you're whole point is now on the matter of RBR. If it is simply because Renault have given them a supposed duff engine (which won 3 races last year), then unfortunately that happens from time to time with teams/engines. Don't hear McLaren threatening to pull out because Merc/Ferrari won't supply them and look at how **** their power unit is! What RBR need to look at closer is how well Torro Rosso have done on speed this year. Highlights quite clearly that RBR haven't produced a great car this year either. Should they now demand rule changes that apply only to themselves so they can get back to the front again, because they feel that it is their right to be at the front? No one has a right to win. Unfortunately their successes from 2009 - 2013 has only brought them an arrogance that is ultimately going to be their downfall.
no one has a right to win, and no one should have to £100m's to be supplied with something that isn't up to scratch, and as you mentioned, for two teams I'd bet you wouldn't either.
I understand people's displeasure over RedBulls handling of the situation, but confusing this with the ethics of engine supply are separate issues, which I'm sure is the point Big Ern is trying to make.
