Helmut and Horner are both criticising Lawson for defending so hard with Checo! They say he shouldn't do that to their brother team! Surely Lawson has to prove he is no pushover and defend no matter who is trying to overtake? It's a bit iffy of them to basically say that the 'junior' team should just be there to help the parent team! Once again red Bull are trying to use their 2nd team to help main team - surely this is against FIA rules?
Do you have quotes? I saw something that said he shouldn’t have been so aggressive with the sister team, which I took to mean damage his own/Perez’s car, but I wasn’t sure if the context was these two teams aren’t in direct competition (i.e save that for when it really matters), rather than because they are owned by the same parent entity? I’m expecting the reality is they’ve said something vague and mildly controversial, because it pushes the “all the other drivers are against Verstappen’s driving” narrative out of the news cycle?
From https://www.planetf1.com/news/liam-lawson-helmut-marko-ire-sergio-perez-mexican-gp-fireworks quoting EPSN interview with Marko: “We are brother teams and Lawson should not drive as hard as he did,” the Red Bull motorsport advisor told ESPN. “He [Lawson] reacted too strongly. From https://www.crash.net/f1/news/10592...awson-after-middle-finger-salute-sergio-perez Marko said to ORF: “[It was] an unnecessary collision, where I see Lawson as being more to blame.” Marko made it clear that he didn’t want to see aggressive driving between an RB and a Red Bull driver. “If it had been someone else, yes. But not the sister team,” he stated. Maybe I'm reading too much into it but recently RB/TorroRosso/Visa Cash App or what ever they are called this week, have been 'helping' Red Bull way too much, wasn't it Riccy who was told to come in to get fastest lap to deprive Lando of it at the US GP, then Marko starts saying that the brother/sister team shouldn't be racing the parent teams drivers! I know it would be difficult/impossible to stop but 2 teams owned by the same company will always have 'loyalties' to their parent company and do what they can to help but it does cause a slight unbalance - not sure how the FIA could/would stop it though - maybe Andretti could buy the junior team!
Thanks. This seems a bit like two things that can’t be true at the same time? On the one hand supposedly RB are helping RBR in one incident and the suggestion is they are colluding, then the second story is that they are fighting each other too hard in another incident, which suggests they aren’t colluding? Having read it through, I’m pretty convinced this is a carefully crafted way to move the news cycle on from the Verstappen bashing. It seems to very much walk the fine line of saying two things, but not equating them. We are brother teams and [so] Lawson should not drive as hard as he did and If it had been someone [anyone] else, yes. But not the sister team, both fan the flames of the Singapore fastest lap angst, but very explicitly leave just enough open to interpretation that it’s not something that would get them into any trouble. Additionally, it’s something that could have been said just as effectively behind closed doors, so then you have to question why it wasn’t. Ultimately Marko works for the parent company, not for RBR or RB and one of his main remits is to manage the drivers. If Haas aren’t competing with Ferrari next year and Bearman damages Hamilton’s car next year in a similar incident, no one’s going to bat an eyelid if Jock Clear says, “Oliver needs to remember the bigger picture” or similar…
FIA: “Hey, RedBull - Teams are dropping like flies, you’re rich - do you want to buy one to help the sport out? You’ll have to run them independently though, of course” RedBull “OK, we’ll think about it, we do need somewhere to put all our talented young drivers” 18 years later FIA: “Hey RedBull, you’ve got to sell that second team of yours” RedBull: “What, why? It’s proven really useful for bring through a load of drivers including two multiple WDC’s and a number of race winners and we’ve been able to invest in a Power Unit for your new regs given the stability we have from being able to provide it to two teams” FIA: “Sorry guys. F1 isn't in the ****ter anymore. There’s nothing we can do”
I'm fully aware of what they've done that's positive for the sport... However times change... Red Bull need F1 more than F1 needs red bull now. They'll likely get a billion out of it at least. Red Bull racing exists purely as a marketing arm of the drink.
Shouldn't the dialogue be more along the lines of..."Perez, you are underperforming and causing issues as a consequence". They are racing drivers, let them race when there are no points at play. I agree, it was an attempt to distract from Verstappen. Unless Verstappen has a DNF (I really hope) he is going to get WDC again this year. Even then I think he will get it. Perez insisted in a post race interview he would definitely be in the seat next year. Felt like he was putting the team under pressure in front of his own fans. I voted for Sainz to win, really chuffed he did. Sorry to see him go to a less competitive team. Just hope Williams can come to the fore again. I am doubtful Lewis will perform well for Ferrari. I think he has peaked. Hope he proves me wrong...but.
Ah yes Red Bull's principled commitment to giving more opportunities to young drivers and to enable investment in new power units. That'll be why they were such staunch supporters of the Andretti-Cadillac bid...
None of the teams supported the Andretti-(potentially Cadillac) bid, mostly because it will dilute their own value, and to a lesser extent because I don’t think anyone believes the Cadillac/GM bit was real. I’m not sure where you got “principled” from, I don’t have any doubt every decision they’ve made was in their own best interest, but the whole “Fizzy drink” manufacturer argument is so reductive. They’ve been in the sport for 20 years, done more races as a constructor than Mercedes, turned their first team into a regular winner and frequent championship contender, brought through a significant number of drivers including Vettel, and Verstappen, Ricciardo and Sainz as well as a number of highly successful engineers, ended the reign of arguably the most dominant competitor we’ve ever seen, formed a successful partnership with Honda where McLaren failed, redefined success in the sport (arguably twice) saved a team from going under, given that team it’s most successful period ever, made it a race winner and now are starting their own engine program. In the time they’ve been in the sport, no one has bettered their success, or had two successful periods and only Ferrari and Mercedes are in even in the same conversation in terms of what they’ve brought to the sport. I get why people don’t like Horner, I get why people don’t like Verstappen, but I don’t understand how any F1 fan can look at the last 20 years and be anything but (not universally, but predominantly) grateful for what RedBull has brought and continues to bring to the sport.
It's not about Red Bull's place in history. It's about whether a single owner should be allowed two teams. I would be equally as critical of Mercedes or McLaren should they attempt to purchase a B Team. It seemed to me that your point was that somehow Red Bull deserve to have two teams as some kind of reward for helping grow the sport. I bring up Andretti because, whatever the case in the past, modern day Red Bull actively blocks the very benefits you claim their ownership of RB has brought. They are not alone in that of course, but it undercuts any moralising argument in my view. From a practical point of view it's clearly no longer the case that forcing a sale would reduce F1 to 9 teams, so just as many opportunities for young drivers. Engine Suppliers would surely prefer an independent team that could be a legitimate works partner. And you make F1 fairer
If we're talking about the numbers of drivers Red Bull have brought through, we can't ignore the vast number they have put on the scrapheap. They're basically playing a numbers game. Bring one in, if it's not working immediately, off they pop, in comes another. The whole Red Bull team and methods seems pretty toxic tbh.
Although I quoted your most recent reply, I was also addressing Quagmire’s - “it’s just fizzy drink advertising” point. If you’re going to analyse the situation fairly then you have to start by analysing the two teams separately. In the case of RedBull it’s inarguable that their ownership has been extremely positive and stands comparison with anyone else on the grid. In the case of RB, then it clearly outstrips the teams that have come and gone, Haas and the various iterations of Sauber to date. You can have a conversation about Renault, Williams and Aston, and conclude that time will tell, but likely at least Aston will end up more positive. Then you can talk about the impact of the two teams having the same owners. In the positive column, evidence suggests that the RBPT is only happening because of the two team situation - no independent has ever tried something similar. None of the independent teams would have gone in with RedBull on the project on viable economic terms, because the risk is too great to pay market rates for an unknown quantity. I’d argue that the conveyor belt of talent has been a positive too (and they’d have to churn it twice as fast with only one team, before someone raises that point!) and the only other way to replicate that has been to be an engine supplier/technical partner. In the negative column, I’ll let the naysayers try and construct an argument but all the complaints I can think of from the past are essentially trivial supposition. You say F1 would be fairer, but unless we can establish that it’s currently unfair then I have to question how? In recent history we’ve seen that being the dominant engine manufacturer gives you an edge over the rest of the grid that takes years to overcome. If we’re looking for the most impactful step to make the sport fairer then, let’s go after, “you must supply any team at x cost” and prevent that happening again. Or maybe “no more secret settlements when it turns out that you’ve been running an illegal engine for a season” - those seem like things that have had a much bigger impact on results in recent years than anything RedBull might have done. Finally, it’s unreasonable in my view and more importantly in legal terms for it to be ok for RedBull to be able to buy Minardi under a set of conditions/rules, not break those rules and then be forced to sell them because it’s no longer necessary for them to own them to keep them on the grid. Yes they’ll make a tonne of money, but equally teams might be worth twice as much in 10 years time and they could make even more. Ultimately this is a business topic and if someone tries to change the rules to force a sale, then it’s going to be a long legal battle to achieve that outcome. Remember we live in a world where RedBull or City group clubs can play each other in European competition and that’s considered ok. I do genuinely understand that in an ideal world this might never have happened, but ultimately, it’s not really a problem, has had some benefits and now it’s here there isn’t a compelling reason to get rid of it.
Indeed, it might be what he needs. Is it 11 years at merc? Prone to mood swings, as he is, he may be reenergised.
Yes, you are right. Sadly, Horner is a person to dislike. The team, amazing job!. Of course, Horner lead the team. Also could you add the cheating they did to the list, 2021 over influenced the F1 race director, 2022 overspent the budget which gave benefit to 2023 too. Openly supported the use of violence post race (Brazil I think) by Verstappen on Ocon. Was it Horner or Newey that made the team great.
It’s a fair point that we can compare the negative sides too. I think you have to take Abu Dhabi and Masi’s decisions out of that list because that’s focussing on outcomes rather than actions and all teams have been and continue to be guilty of applying pressure to the officials. If I try limit myself to sporting topics (the fairness point from JC) that are proven - In the time we’ve had either RedBull team we’ve had Crashgate, Spygate, Teams being punished for team orders, the 6 car US GP, factory team specific engine modes, illegal tyre tests, illegal engines brushed under the carpet, various threats to leave the sport to get your own way, numerous flexi wing controversies, oil burn (personally I’d argue the last two shouldn’t really count as they are really pushing the limits of the rules rather than breaking them) and various cost cap breaches. From that perspective I’d say RedBull’s record stands comparison with any of the other major teams, they are certainly not the worst offenders and I think you can have an argument that come out of that comparison the best. More importantly for the wider discussion, nothing here has anything to do with an entity owning two teams - which is my central point - compared to actual problems, this one isn’t real so why is anyone worried about it? If we were to look at non sporting topics and things not (yet?) proven - then to be sure, Horner’s personal life & some of Marko’s “old man” values are I think as bad, and probably worse than anything we’ve seen from any other public faces a team leading role, Set against that - although they don’t shout about it and going only on TV shots to judge demographics, they’ve also lead the field in terms of diversity in the pitlane and on the pit wall.
I stand by my opinion that all red bulls sporting activities around the worlds sole job is marketing. The fact that some are run well and deliver success is irrelevant.
