Merc confirms their lack of desire to give other teams any parity. Despite mounting fears Red Bull's engine impasse will result in owner Dietrich Mateschitz withdrawing both of his teams out of the sport, potentially reducing the grid to as few as 18 cars for 2016, Wolff says Mercedes ultimately decided that bailing out Red Bull would fly in the face of their own F1 strategy and investment in the team if they gave away their current advantage to a chief rival. "In Formula 1 normally - 2014 and '15 are maybe different years because we had a solid margin - it's about tiny margins and tiny gains," the Austrian added. "When Mercedes decided in 2009 to buy a team and not be an engine supplier anymore only, that is still the main strategy. You can't take any prisoners. This is the approach you have to take and dilute yourself. "We have invested so many years into the development of that power unit, into the cooling, into the hydraulics, into the electronics - would you take those bits and give it to another team which hasn't been involved in that? You probably don't do it." The simple fact is that a team would sign for a tenure, 3 years, 5 years....who knows? The said team would be involved in the future development of that engine, surely the feedback of a RedBull would far outweigh feedback from a Manor? Anyway, its a good job Whitmarsh didn't take this view with Brawn, otherwise Mercedes as they are now wouldn't even exist!
Sorry, why should they give parity? They spend more on engine development than they will ever get back from the amounts they charge the other the teams to use their engines. All Merc teams started the year with the same spec engines, it's only more recently that Merc have said they can't supply the upgrades to the others before the end of the year, but come start of 2016 all teams will be back to the same spec again. Same with Ferrari powered teams where they have agreed to supply current year engines. Perhaps if Red Bull hadn't bad mouthed Renault so badly, tried to shaft Ferrari and Mercedes at any given opportunity, then maybe engine manufacturers would be happier to supply them. F1 is in 'crisis' because RBR don't know how to handle themselves in a dignified way. Maybe they should plough hundreds of millions of pounds into engine development? All they have done to date is buy in engines at a relatively low cost in F1 terms, then spent hundreds of millions all on aero and other tech. No wonder they have had great success when all they have to do is focus on the car and forget about anything to do with splitting their time on engine performance as they can leave it to someone else to do. Which means they can then blame the engine supplier outright when it all goes wrong. Didn't hear much from RBR about Ricciardo's suspension failure. Imagine if that were a Renault related part?
I'm not in anyway defending the behavior of Red Bull, discussions surrounding the way they have conducted themselves is separate to engine supply. I'm simply noting that the supply rule is flawed - its wrong that any team should have to run engines that put them at a competitive disadvantage. Why would anybody pay millions of pounds for an engine supply that is not equal to the engines that others teams either have or will be provided with? The only reason is because they have to, otherwise they would be engine less and unable to compete. I have always stated - and still believe - that if a manufacture or engine supplier supply engines to other teams, that engine should be equal. If not, then simply don't supply the engines and then Merc and Ferrari can race themselves in their own formula - all four cars - or maybe six, after all they seem to be angling for the independents to leave the sport. The rules need rewriting to protect the supplied teams in the interest of fair competition. If written properly (and for the good of the sport) then individual engines suppliers like cosworth may actually exist, be competitive and make some money. This is not about Red Bull, this is about the sport and teams preventing any form of competition. Everybody moans about the lack of competition and the inability of smaller teams to survive but it seems the sport is happier to confine them to an engine down on power and efficiency and then mock them for not being competitive and sponsor less.
If all a team can afford (i.e. Manor) is an inferior spec engine because there will be no development on it, then that's the game. Always been the way, the parity now is better than it has ever been. Back in the 90's, some teams were going round in engines 2 or 3 years older than the specs being run by the 'works' teams. Now we're talking spec differences of one or two upgrades at most. Problem with having manufacturer teams in F1, is they will always give the advantage to themselves. Why wouldn't they? They want the publicity and will always get more if their home team wins. If Williams won, there would be a small mention of Mercedes, but the picture blazened across the back pages would be of a Martini sponsored car, not a Mercedes car. It's back to the age old problem about money. If Williams/Lotus/Force India were giving more of the cash pot, they could design cars that are closer to the Mercs and Ferrari's. The main difference is in the development of the cars now, differences in engine specs are minimal.
It might be the old age problem but that doesn't make right or fair. The difference in engines is not really minimal, both the Ferrari and Merc upgrades were estimated at 40 bhp increase plus additional efficiency - that's massive. However the main issue with parity, is that we have an engine driven formula which not only has a manufacturer over manufacture advantage but is now wanting to introduce a team over team advantage. This is no longer Merc over Ferrari, over Renault over Honda - this is the sport being held to ransom. Like I said, if the rules were written properly and as you say the financial resources were fair - teams may be more inclined to produce their own engine or at least be part of the calibration with a tuner etc. For me though the fact that the likes of Ferrari and Merc rape the financials and then can control the performance of their competition so they can continue to profit and weaken their competition further is morally bankrupt!
Interesting discussion, and a rare occasion in which I feel I can chip in without making an ass of myself due to my lack of knowledge. (I might be about to prove myself wrong.) What we're seeing (in RBR / Renault's case) is a strategic decision that worked spectacularly well for many years, and has now 'backfired'. As ASC says... RBR's strategy was based on an assumption that everybody's engines would be pretty close on power, and therefore the differentiator would be aero. When the engine rules changed, suddenly their strategy was working against them, rather than in their favour. Ferrari struggled for a long time due to their car not working as well on the track as their aero modelling suggested it should. Nobody said that RBR should let them have Adrian Newey to even things up. (I know it's not a direct comparison, but my point is that Ferrari was arguably at a disadvantage because it had to invest in engine development as well as solving its aero problems, as opposed to RBR's advantage, that ASC described above.) Parity vs fairness I think we need to be careful about the difference between parity and fairness. For me: Parity = a different formula (no longer what F1 is about). And if all teams had engines that were on a par, their design and investment just gets shifted into narrower areas where they can eke out an advantage. Fairness = more equal distribution of money, and then see what the teams do with it. Any team could still come up with an amazing design solution, and start trouncing the opposition. But I think people would be more accepting of that, as it would be clear that their advantage came from ingenuity rather than a huge chequebook. Don't get me wrong - like most people on here, I'd love to see Alonso, Hamilton and Vettel battling it out in equal machinery. But that would be a different formula, and we'd lose part of the magic of F1. A bit harsh, calling McLaren a smaller team.
I wasn't actually referencing Red Bull I was more referring to the Merc supplied teams, but reading back I probably wasn't specific enough. People need to seperate the debate of engines from the Red Bull situation. The Red Bull situation is self created to a certain extent, but my main concern is the smaller independents who are in the vicious circle of being restricted by budget, which restricts development, which restricts results which restricts sponsorship opportunity. For good measure they are then forced to race with engines unequal to teams with bigger budgets, bigger development, better results and bigger sponsorship opportunity. I'm talking, FI, Sauber, Lotus etc.... And even Williams to a certain extent. Like you say the freedom to out think through creativity has been stifled! We are literally heading to seperate formulas within F1. If we are not careful Ferrari and Merc will be very lonely.
Ah, yes - I interpreted your points too narrowly. Sorry about that. I agree, it's a real shame that F1 is so skewed in favour of the big teams with the big budgets. I wish we could see a return to the conditions that allowed Colin Chapman to come in and do what he did with Lotus. Or an even cooler example would be in motorcycling, with John Britten's self-created machine. Sadly, neither of those scenarios is ever going to happen again. (By the way, if anybody gets the chance to see a Britten motorcycle in the flesh, you must do it. If you know the story behind it, it's a genuinely moving experience just standing near it.) <edited to correct a typo>
FIA rule customer power units to be same specification as works team Regulations seemingly rule out Red Bull using year-old engines By William Esler please log in to view this image The FIA have ruled customer power units must be of the same specification as that of the works team in 2016. Paddock rumour in Russia suggested Ferrari were willing to provide Toro Rosso with a 2015 specification unit next year, as the Red Bull-backed teams struggle to find an engine supply for 2016. However, the newly-published FIA F1 Sporting Regulations stipulate that all engines must be the same specification as the unit homologated on February 28 next year. 'Only power units which are identical to the power unit that has been homologated by the FIA in accordance with Appendix 4 of these regulations may be used at an Event during the 2016-2020 Championship seasons,' reads article 23.5 of the 2016 sporting regulations. However, it remains to be seen if such a strict application of the regulations would be implemented at the potential cost of Red Bull and Toro Rosso leaving the sport. While Red Bull have demanded engine parity from their prospective suppliers, Toro Rosso are rumoured to have agreed a deal with Ferrari that would see them use 2015-spec units next season. Underlining the potential for compromise, the Manor-Marussia team currently run with a year-old supply of Ferrari engines this term. Under the 2015 Sporting Regulations the 2014 homologation remained legal, but manufacturers could also homologate a new unit. That has been closed off for 2016. No mention is made of in-season development being permitted as was the case with a token system in 2015, but Appendix 4 does permit reliability and cost-cutting updates. 'A manufacturer may apply to the FIA during the course of the homologation period to carry out modifications to their homologated power unit for the sole purposes of reliability, safety, cost-saving,' it reads. Adrian Newey claimed the FIA had the power to balance the performance of power units and it appears there may be some scope for this in Appendix 4. 'Any manufacturer intending to homologate a new power unit during the 2016-2020 period must provide the FIA with full details of the power unit on or before 28 February of the year of homologation,' it reads. 'The FIA must be satisfied, at its absolute discretion, that such a power unit could fairly and equitably be allowed to compete with other homologated power units.'
I've got a feeling I'm not going to like the outcome. There needs to be a big lift in engine restrictions. The FIA really are in Mercedes' pocket right now, they could've made the changes unilaterally a year ago, but now they need all the teams' consent, putting everybody at Mercedes' mercy. Nothing good will come of this.
Don't know about common sense. Allowing Power Unit manufacturers to supply different specs of engine to their customers is bad!!! Lets face it if your bonus depended on your team winning the Manufacturers Championship would you give your customers your most powerful/economical engine or would you give them one down by 50hp??? My guess is this is the only way Bernie/FIA could get engines to Red Bull. In that Renault will now supply engines as per their existing agreement but will develop in season for their Lotus team. Plus it allows Honda to develop and test quickly. Not good news in my opinion as PU manufacturers will win no 2 ways about it. But at least by end of 2016 we might have 4 PU manufacturers fighting for wins at the expense of the 'mid field teams'. I do hope FIA managed to limit costs of non works spec engines.
I don't think it will pass. Mercedes can agree in principle knowing the grand prix team will veto it. Older engines are the only way Red Bull and Toro Rosso will be on the grid next year, I can't see the likes of Force India voting for that. It needs unanimous agreement, Ferrari, Red Bull, Toro Rosso, McLaren, Sauber and Haas (if they get a vote) will probably be the only ones in favour. I'd be surprised if any Mercedes powered team backed this, and it only takes one to block it.
Good post, lesser of two evils really. Atleast we will have a fight next season, but it's going to be harder for the likes of STR and Sauber. Unless the midfield teams agree to help in the constructor title fight, much like STR did with Redbull in 2010.
I've made no bones about the fact that the manufactures PU's (IMO) should be the same spec to all customers - I'm still unsure whether this will technically be the case because my understanding is that the regs will remain in that there will still be a homologated engine in February and this would be the engine supplied to the teams - except for teams agreeing to a previous years unit. The grey area will be in the in season improved versions - which we have seen with both Merc and Ferrari - not being supplied. The only way to force Mercs or Ferraris hand would be to offer the alternative - which I think is Bernie's idea. A parity V8 being an option which could threaten the Manufactures will surely be worse? Like mentioned, it still has a long way to go and plenty of Veto's along the way.
