The subject of engine tokens in F1 is one that gets some folks very excited and others hopelessly confused. What is an engine token and why does it matter? A token is, in effect, the right to change a specific part of an engine. The FIA has broken down the engines into components or “families of functions”, with each being given a level of importance (Category 1, 2 or 3). The token value of the complete power unit is 66, made up of the sum of these ranked items. The number of components that can be changed in a season is limited, to keep down costs, and the limit was supposed to reduce year by year. A poorly written rule allowed the teams to change this so they could “spend” their tokens at any time during the year, thus making development possible, rather than having everything frozen for 12 months at a time. This year the number of tokens that could be used was 32 with 25 planned for next season. The engine manufacturers have now agreed with the FIA that the number will remain at 32 and development can continue to be constant. In theory this means that the level of performance of the engines will get closer, but there is a danger that it might also allow Mercedes to increase its advantage.
The meeting has also agreed to allow the supply of older engines to continue, which will allow Toro Rosso to run 2015-spec Ferrari engines next season. The suggestion that there could be other spec engines allowed, such as old V8s, has been rejected.
The changes will now be rubber-stamped by the F1 Commission and the World Motor Sport Council.
The token system is a good idea in principle, allowing sensible development, rather than letting things be changed from race to race and even session to session, but it does not stop manufacturers spending whatever they like on engine research and development. It simply restricts what they can modify at any one time.
The passage of time will, nonetheless, bring closer performance and there is no doubt that the fastest and cheapest way to get up to speed is to hire engine designers from the rival companies, rather than spending huge sums in laboratories, as the pioneers have had to do. It was ever thus. This also means that any new manufacturers wanting to get into F1 can do so, if they hire the right people.
This probably means that Red Bull will end up with Renault engines next year, as a quid pro quo between Renault and the Formula One group in relation to a nine-year commercial deal they have shaken hands on. It may be that the engines will be given another name and will come from Mecachrome, which builds all Renault engines these days, but another name will act as a fig leaf to cover Red Bull’s embarrassment at having stomped rudely away from Renault and then having to crawl back on bended knee. Given the arrogance (and/or naïveté) of the initial move, the swallowing of humble pie will be painful for the Red Bull ego, but it would be sensible for the firm to understand and accept what happened and become stronger by making sure it does not happen again. Running away, screaming ‘It’s not fair’ is another option, but that would compound the image of the company being like a spoiled child in need of a good spanking.
joeblogsf1 
It is being said that Todt finally emerged from his cocoon and contributed to the meeting at which these points were resolved. Whatever next? Has Sauber and Force India’s complaint to the EU had a positive result?
Joe there is a rumour that Ferrari will run an early version of its’ 2016′ F1 PU in Austin . If used do you believe Ferrari could then offer this interim Spec ‘2016’ Pu to RBR and maybe STR for next season while Ferrari Sauber and Haas use versions of the PU which have been further developed over the winter couldn’t they?
I believe that Ferrari has said no to RBR
Ah but if RBR are offtered an interim ‘2016’ spec engine rather than the post winter full banana may that be compromise if Ferrari offer engine that they may use in Austin this year rather than a specification developed before Melbourne 2016 over Winter . In this case RBR would get more parity towards those running 2016 spec PUs and Ferrari wouldn’t need to worry about being beaten by a customer . This would give all parties a chance to think again and say yes would it not?
Having already apparently said no to RBR, I don’t see why Ferrari would then do this. It makes no sense.
“the company being like a spoiled child in need of a good spanking”
Or else like a very successful racing constructor that is frustrated at spending $300million a year, yet is facing a 3rd year of being unable to compete because of something that is outside of their control. I would be frustrated too.
The engine development and testing restriction regulations have led to the single most dominant period of F1 in history. However that’s not the problem, right?
It must be very de-motivating for Red Bull engineers to know that no matter how brilliant their aero/suspenion work is, they simply can’t compete at the front.
It seems to me that they are screaming “It’s not fair” because it is not fair. When Red Bull had an aero advantage the regulations were changed against them. Now that Mercedes has an engine advantage, the regulations are supporting it.
Fair play to Mercedes for developing a good engine, but they should get maybe 1/2 a season advantage before others can catch up. Not 2 seasons of runaway dominance with a potential 3rd coming up. Without any serious testing and with tightly restricted engine development it was always likely that one team would start with an advantage and be able to keep it…it just happens that it is Mercedes (and as a result Williams/Force India) that are benefiting.
You seem to be taking quite some satisfaction from the Red Bull engine saga Joe.
I am not…I want a battle at the front, for Red Bull / Ferrari / Mercedes / McLaren to have similar engines and the top drivers to be racing each other for the win. This is the first season in a very long time that I am not watching races and am switching off during qualifying.
It is fair because they chose their partners and if they screwed that up, they have only themselves to blame. I take no satisfaction in any of this, but I object to the way in which RBR is trying to hold the sport to ransom with its threats. They screwed up, they have to suck it up, as generations of teams have done in the past. The sport owes them nothing.
Completely agree, Red Bull have had plenty of ‘help’ from various places over the years, their current situation is entirely of their own making, so not up to everyone else to compensate for their actions.
Peter
They chose their partner in advance of knowing what the engines were like. They didn’t choose Renault knowing they were going to be this far behind.
Just because they had a choice does not mean it is fair.
If 4 people get to choose from 4 envelopes, three of which contain $1million and the other which contains nothing. You could argue that it is ‘fair’ because each chose their own envelope. But I would argue that it is not fair because the difference in outcomes vastly outweighed the input of choosing the envelope.
I am not saying that choices should not be made and contracts should not be signed. I am saying that the engines need to be at least broadly similar in the medium to long-term for a choice to become ‘fair’. That is not the case.
With little testing in advance of large-scale change, and with restricted development afterwards, large differences in performance become more likely.
Red Bull happen to have ended up with the wrong engines because of how things worked out. What exactly did Williams/Force India do so wonderfully that Red Bull has not apart from win the engine lottery?
Lack of testing and development freezes work when things are stable and equal. They have the opposite effect when there are regulation changes and things are unequal.
Do you really think that with free development and testing we would still have Honda and Renault being this far behind despite having very successful partners (McLaren and Red Bull) and being well-funded?
The engines needed to reach a stable level of development before restrictions kicked in.
This is what always happens when there is a new formula. Some get it right, some get it wrong. In the end these things balance up but those that make the right choices benefit and others lose. It is a bit like Brabham-Repco back in the 1960s, before the Cosworth arrived.
10 teams got to choose from 12 or 16 potential engine supply contracts. That sound pretty fair to me
That’s not their fault. They didn’t screw up, that is sport that screwed up. And Renault of course. And rules are written in that fashion that RB is now locked into the deal with Renault. Of course other manufacturers don’t want RB to use better engines since everyone knows who will be on podiums then and who will fight for the championship.
Also only they can scream because who else. Ferrari? McLaren? Williams? Don’t think so. Williams are above their abilities thanks to engine. Ferrari really have only themselves to blame. McLaren have to bite and wait, since it’s only their first year with Honda. And all of them couldn’t say they’ll leave the sport. Because it’s the only thing they really have.
Of course they screwed up.
DM has squllions to run the team however he wants, they were only too happy to torpedo the Ferrari deal when Newey preferred the heat rejection figures of the Renault V8 (the Ferraris were passed down to Toro Rosso).
They could help fund the programme easily if that was the prime issue at Renault. After all, Engineering is brains and resources. If Merc can do it, so can Renault. Had Red Bull not been moaning about Renault’s peak power output since 2010 and instead been supportive to Viry, perhaps when the Merde hit the fan both parties would have been more willing to dig in and fight together.
Williams *are* using their engine to gain places on the grid. Exactly right. They were smart enough to see what was coming and do a deal, take on Susie Wolff, and generally give up a little of their fiercely guarded independence to land a version of the best engine. That was a very savvy decision, and they are getting the payback now. Good luck to them.
I strongly beleive that a portion of this is bluster because the senior management at Red Bull have mismanaged the situation for years based on the arrogance derived from the strength of a Newey-led technical department, and the fact they found Sebastian Vettel.
Regardless of any performance shortfall, to treat Renault in the way they have is pathetic. They are perhaps now only realising how fast their car is likely to go with a big hole where the PU should be.
This, all of it.
I’d have a lot of sympathy for RB now if they hadn’t been dumping on Renault over peak power for years and not saying a word about any of the Renault V8’s strengths, or giving the company any credit for making any contribution to all those championships.
And I don’t believe Merc or Ferrari would be -quite- as reluctant to power a Red Bull that beats them, if they thought they’d get some credit & respect for doing so.
I think one can safely assume that Red Bull could have gone to Mercedes in 2014 (when Williams did), but they chose not to stick with Renault. They made the wrong choice and they’ve paid for it. They then compound things by treating their engine partner in a way that would make any other Engine manufacturer wary of dealing with them; and further compound things by ceasing a contract without having a plan B.
So a mixture of poor choices, a negative attitude to their partners, and incompetence at the negotiating table have got them where they are today. They have reaped what they have sown, but have remained full of hubris and arrogance. The satisfaction people may or may not feel comes from a feeling that they are getting their comeuppance.
The changes in aero-regulations came about because designers, whilst sticking to the letter of the rules, were often going way beyond the spirit of them, and there was a consequential need to clarify the rules. Designing to engine regulations is much more binary, and there is a lot less scope for the kind of ‘interpretation’ one sees in aero, which is why the rules remain the same.
There also seems to be an emerging myth that returning to a more aero based formula would lead to greater parity; clearly the people spouting this don’t remember Williams in ’96 or Ferrari in ’02
Hi Vin, I don’t agree with your comment about this being “the single most dominant period of F1 in history”… There have been numerous periods of dominance stretching to more than one season down the years. One of the fascinating aspects of F1 is the ability of engineers and designers to gain an advantage over the others by simply being better.
I cannot remember many seasons where we’ve had more than 2 or 3 teams (or drivers…) being able to compete for a win realistically. All sports have periods of dominance by teams or players; that’s why its called sport I think.
Red Bull won races last year, so it’s only really this season that they’ve been really “uncompetitive”.
Ferrari have proved that catching up is something that can be done this year, but in a team sport I believe that motivation and team spirit must have a part to play in the end result – and it’s maybe the fact that Red Bull has publicly criticized its engine partner and taken the decision to end a relationship without first having a suitable replacement that has led to this feeling of negativity regarding them as a team. That plus the way they threaten to leave unless they get a good engine – it’s like Chelsea saying they will stop playing and leave the PL because they can’t win at the moment!
I believe you should relish the challenge and prospect of seeing Red Bull or another team beat Mercedes in the future, rather than switching off.
“Or else like a very successful racing constructor that is frustrated at spending $300million a year, yet is facing a 3rd year of being unable to compete because of something that is outside of their control. I would be frustrated too.”
Having a go in the media at a manufacturer that has let you down for two years is one thing; then continuing that attitude to another, Ferarri, with which you are not even yet a customer, no many has changed hands, they are offering you a way out of the corner you have backed yourself in.
There is no way you can logically or morally defend Red Bull’s attitude to Ferarri, but everyone out there, apart from Red Bull, or their fans, can see why no-one wants to co-operate with the sulky bullies.
Red Bull puts people’s backs up. Anybody co-operating with them at this stage can try to justify to themselves that they have done it to benefit Formula One, but looking themselves in the mirror, would feel:
“I gave in to blackmail. They threatened to leave F1 if they could not get their way, and I caved.”
“If RB win with Ferarri engines, I am going to be hated by the Tifosi, heck, all of Italy. But hey, I helped F1. But history is not going to remember that. It will note that Ferarri went without a podium for so many years, and then, when it looked like it was making progress, it handed its advantage back to Red Bull, and extended its period in the doldrums.”
That’s ridiculous. They are going through a rough period as many F1 teams have, including some greats (McLaren now, Williams since 1997, Ferrari from the late eighties to the late nineties). The difference is every one of these teams put their head down and got on with fixing their issues; Red Bull are instead blaming everyone else for their misfortunes. You either deal with your issues and move on like McLaren/Williams/Ferrari, or get out like Jordan/Minardi/BMW/Renault/Honda/Toyota.
Remember how the world ended when BMW/Renault/Honda/Toyota all left F1?
No, neither do I…
It’s just ‘their turn’, like it was their turn to dominate and win 4. It happens to all highly successful race teams at some point. Going from dominance to mid field is part of the F1 tapestry. It’s how you deal with it that marks a team out. Ref Williams, Ferrari and Mclaren for how professional grown ups deal with it, ref Red Bull for how spoilt children who think they have some sort of entitlement deal with it. No wonder everyone who isn’t a RB tinted spectacles fan is enjoying a ‘serves you right’ grin.
+1.
Just personally, I compare teams through history more on whether (& how often) they bounced back into being championship contenders after a period in the wilderness than I do on how many actual titles they won.
That’s what’s made Team Lotus, McLaren and Williams so great, and why I’d personally rate Brabham higher than teams like Tyrrell and Cooper which were hugely successful for a time, but IIRC didn’t really manage to repeat that after the setbacks that initially took them out of the winner’s circle.
So the jury’s still out I think on whether Red Bull will ever be seen with hindsight as a truly great team, whereas Brackley has already been up, down, and come back up.
The Tyrrell team became (in a roundabout way) the Brackley team you admire.
Team Lotus have been, well Team Lotus. The current incarnation being derived from Toleman/Benetton/Renault/Genii.
Names change but the factories and staff often remain.
I agree completely with your last sentence.
Personally, I don’t consider BAR to be heirs to Tyrrell, even though they bought the entry; Pollock, Reynard et al closed down the factory & the organisational structure, although I know many ex-Tyrrell people were re-hired.
Similarly, the factory & organisation of the current Lotus F1 have as you say evolved from the Symonds / Byrne Toleman operation, not Colin Chapman’s team (although more controversially, I don’t see purchase of a moribund name off the shelf as having bestowed a meaningful Team Lotus connection upon the former Caterham team, either).
It’s a grey area. I know lots of people disagree with me about Tyrrell / BAR (& more or less everyone disagrees with me about Caterham).
Red Bull is a company based almost entirely on hype and brand recognition.
Their incompetence and the damage they have done to their own reputation is almost on a VW scale. Maybe the two will make good partners in the future, or maybe they will avoid each other like a bad smell.
Red Bull and VW currently make very good partners. Red Bull is writ large on the Volkswagen WRC team, the Audi World Rallycross team, sponsors the Porsche WEC team (in the form of Mark Webber) and Audi’s DTM programme. If any of the VW brands ever go to F1 it would be decidedly odd if Red Bull wasn’t involved in some way. But for the time being they work together in almost everything else.
Good point, suggesting that either these other co-operations are better/more tactfully managed or possibly less subject to direct interference from the big boss.
Let them have the old V8s but with the current fuel limit.
It is not going to happen
Is Mecachrome still owned by Flav?
It has never been owned by Flav. It is owned 35 percent by ACE Management, a private equity investment fund that specialises in the aerospace and defense sectors, 35 percent by the Fonds de Solidarité des Travailleurs du Québec (FTQ), a development fund designed to create and save jobs in Quebec and 30 percent by France’s publicly-owned Fonds Stratégique d’Investissement (FSA).
I’d always understood Mechachrome were based in France so the Quebec connection got me wondering – well worth a look at their website and the huge range of things they are involved with (I must admit I’d only ever heard them mentioned in the same breath as F1 before).
It is a big company that moved its HQ to Quebec a few years back for tax reasons. Then they went bust and they were taken over by this hotchpotch consortium. They are way bigger than small-time types like Briatore. This is serious industry
I think you mean Supertec, which supplied Renault designed, Mecachrome build engines in 1999 – 2000.
Yet another sticking plaster.. Ignoring the larger issues.
I’ve long been an advocate of these hybrid engines but now think it’s time that F1 changes the formula as it’s clear that these regulations do not work.
F1 needs to decide what it wants to be, at the moment it doesn’t seem to know. It’s not attractive to manufactures and it’s actually lucky to have the four it (almost) has.
I think the regulations are too restrictive.. All the engines are essentially the same, there’s no variety, very little room for innovation.
The cost is prohibitive and has pushed out the independant suppliers like Cosworth.
I think the engine formula as it is and the regulations as they are now need to be scrapped.
Open up the regulations, tell a manufacturer “Right! You can built whatever you want, petrol, diesel, turbo, normally aspirated, hybrid, V6,8,10,12 whatever… No tokens, do development freezes BUT a budget cap (the tricky part) and an obligation to supply at least two teams, whether as works or customer.
Bringing down the costs could attract the independents back in, imagine the options the smaller teams could have again if the likes of Cosworth, Judd, Hart etc were available to power their chassis. Meanwhile the manufacturers could choose the best engine type to suit either their own technological or marketing agenda, e.g. Toyota hybrid Prius.
But above all we could have variety.
I don’t see the logic in your remark. The engines are not the same. If they were the racing would be closer. It is important for the sport to be aligned with the industry and what they want. The regulations will work fine. The problem is the cost of customer engines.
Since the begining of F1 (and GP racing before that) F1has always had its element of ‘win on Sunday, sell on Monday” – especially so for Ferrari and presumably a little more so for Mercedes now, so non-industry relevant engines and PUs would definitely be the wrong way to go. As for Cosworth, etc. I’m sure they would be delighted to build F1 engines – provided someone paid them to do it! The days when these smaller companies can afford to develop an engine by themselves have gone the way of individual aircraft companies designing and building their own prototypes in competition with all the other companies – no-one can afford to do this anymore …
I personally really like in-season engine development. As technical achivements and development are important reasons why I like F1, then this whole engine development race is giving new depth to the whole series.
It also gives hope. Last year no-one couldn’t develop engines during the year and everything was decided after homologation date. This year I have always felt that there is hope, that maybe Ferrari, Honda or Renault could have a sudden breakthrough, even though it didn’t really happen. But at least there was a chance compared to everything being frozen.
So I’m happy about this.
And logically, new gains should come harder and they should be smaller. So everyone else should gain on Mercedes with every year, with every token spent. If Mercedes is doing such a good job that they increase their advantage over Honda or Renault for next year then it will probably be bad for the show but no-one else to blame than Honda and Renault.
And concerning money… Hasn’t it been made clear that curbing areas of development isn’t really going to make anything cheaper? I have a feeling that teams, manufacturers will still spend as much cash as they can afford, but focus more of their efforts on smaller areas with potentially smaller gains. But they’ll still spend it.
Totally agree. One of the attractions of F1 is the cars and now they’re developed over the season. Watching one team catch up or leap frog over a rival. Thus if you’re behind, there’s always hope you can catch up. McLaren was good at this.
I remember the battles between Honda and Ferrari in the past.
But the bit I would like to see change is the token system for new entrants. What incentive is there for newcomers when they have a reduced token stack to play with, compared with more established engine manufacturers?
I’m still surprised that Marko and Horner haven’t been shown the door, the more so since it looks like they’re ready to maintain their above-the-rest attitude
Am I right in believing that Renault has spent zero of its tokens so far this year?
This suggests to me that Renault have something (possibly) special up their sleeves and are not willing to share this with Red Bull.
If this is the case then I can totally understand Red Bull’s frustration.
Why would Renault want to keep all this under wraps?
Because they would like to reform a factory team?
I can’t help thinking that Renault have played Red Bull very successfully and the team have taken the bait hook, line and sinker.
Putting the team’s woes to one side for a moment, the real shame for us fans that Red Bull won’t be able to challenge the front runners despite having the wherewithal to do so, and that two fantastically popular, determined and quick drivers are planted at the back of the grid.
I do hope something gives. Imagine how brilliant the sport could be if only it did?
I personally was looking forward to a Red Bull withdrawal. Torro Rosso would have been sold off and the sport would be rid of team so caught up in self interest, that quiting was a realistic option over hard work and competing.
As if they have a divine right to win, or run Ferrari or Mercedes engines. Not even Ferrari at the height of their arrogance could get close to the ill will Red Bull have inflicted on F1.
I can only hope the torrents of drivel coming out of Red Bull and their mouthpieces cease now with immediate effect!
What is a 2015 ferrari engine, what do you think, is that the one they had at the start of the season or the one at the end of the season?
How much is the time will the 2016 spec be faste then the 2015?
Manor now has the 2014 spec engine will Toro Rosso will become the new Manor? Should they not stick with renault?
If Red Bull do indeed use some form of Renault derived power plant, whatever it is badged, in 2016, doesn’t this whole fiasco put both Christian Horner and Helmut Marko in an untenable position?
Obviously we don’t know what was said behind closed doors, but these two gentlemen were the ones making the very public criticism of their engine supplier.
They may be team principals, but as with the current VW problems, surely those responsible should either step down or be removed from office.
I belive, the current engine rules are poison to F1. Manufactures Should be able to pull itself out of the sump if they want.
Looking at Honda, no one will try to Enter the sport. Because it is in the DNA of the rules that you cannot catch up.
They can.
I don’t really agree. Toyota came into the sport with a brand new operation and never did get up to speed in F1. This was during an era of relatively open engine, aero, and chassis development. Plus equally big budgets with little thought given to cost controls. I think most people would agree it was likely a management/operation weaknesses that probably hurt them the most.
Is it not likely it’s the same issue with Honda? They admitted to underestimated the size of the challenge plus they will not concede their mistake by hiring experienced staff from other engine manufacturers (Mercedes, Ferrari). Both sound like managerial/operational weaknesses.
Not to mention completely open engine development wouldnt exactly prevent mercedes from simply improving their product, no? I suppose you could argue they have less room for improvement (diminishing returns) than others but what’s to keep renault or Honda developing the wrong way?
You mean how it was during the BAR period? 🙂
Vin@
[quote:] It seems to me that they are screaming “It’s not fair” because it is not fair. When Red Bull had an aero advantage the regulations were changed against them. Now that Mercedes has an engine advantage, the regulations are supporting it. [/quote]
I can’t say otherwise than that I have the same toughs about this situation.
RBR can’t change anything because the are a client of Renault. In the past with the V8 engines the combination of a good chassis and aerodynamic bodywork make the difference in the race. Now days the power of the engine is 90% what gives you a chance to battle in the front. It is very understandable that RBR was complaining this season because the felt powerless to make there car more competitive. When RB leaves the sport, It really would be a shame for the F1.
When Red Bull screamed about tyres the rules were changed and they won all the remaining races…
Those tyres almost killed Alonso at Silverstone in 2013. Change was necessary, RBR screaming or not.
These things happen if there is no testing
I’m not certain Red Bull would’ve complained if changes to the tires would’ve hurt their performance.
+1.
Joe, I don’t see any advantage for Renault if they supply an engine with a different name. Having said that, they already have been badging their engine with Red Bullies as Infinity for several years. However when the manure started flying, it wasn’t at Infinity, but Renault. So, it wouldn’t seem to matter all that much if it is called a Mecachrome, Infinity, or Pierre’s F1 Motor, Renault gets the brunt of spoiled little brats. This of course brings us back to having Maneschitz, Marko, and Horner fitted with S&M ball gags at all the races and when dealing with the press. The ball gags would actually serve two purposes. A) it would shut them up B) serve as a penance for the brushes, tarnish,and embarrassment they’ve caused F1 this year with their petulant non-sportsmanship conduct. On the other subject you touched on regarding hiring engine talent, I think this may be a bit more restricted than it appears. Call it pride or arrogance, but Honda has stated this year that they have no desire whatsoever to hire any outside talent. They have shown us this season how difficult the current formula is to get into and be something that is not the laughing stock of pit lane. Let’s not forget that Honda didn’t just waltz into the F1 grid this year as a complete novice, they had been developing their power unit all of last year and before, just like everyone else. I think if another manufacturer actually started looking at F1, Honda is the blueprint of what to expect. There’s a ton of very unique technology in F1 currently that frankly doesn’t exist elsewhere, and the talented engineers who have the experience required can only be found within the F1 community, so the only option being to pilfer talent from competing F1 companies, as opposed to the aircraft, automotive, space, or military industries.
Money
Will the Infinity / Total deal’s be reinstated do you think?
I doubt it
The engines have always been badged Renault, and there has always been Renault badging on the engine covers, confusingly Infiniti then came in as a sponsor which must have caused some interesting discussions at Group Board level. I distinctly remember one RBR race win when the podium constructor representative was a Renault guy in a yellow Renault polo shirt and Horner made him cover it up with an RB T shirt….
I think Alonso and Ricciardo must be wondering about the future rewards that that vacant Lotus/Renault seat might bring.
It will be very future rewards. One cannot expect any good from Renault in 2016, unless a miracle happens.
I was more writing in response to the comments that Renault have been sandbagging on upgrades to hold them for their eventual own team. Say they do get their act together and catch up at the rate Ferrari caught Merc over the 14/15 winter. Would be funny if ALO went back to Renault and won another championship. GRO may be playing the long game going to Haas, but it may be that the very seat that he vacated will be the place to be in 2 or 3 seasons. Wishful thinking perhaps – but as history has shown, Enston can get their act together once every decade for a season or two.
The team probably has the 8th best chassis in F1 right now, just behind Force India and ahead of Sauber, Manor and no-one else (I may be being too harsh on Sauber here).
There’s been no money to develop the 2015 car, so presumably none to develop the 2016 car either.
Confirmation that the Renault deal is going ahead is not expected till December at the earliest. Nor is any Renault money, & nor is confirmation the team will even get Renault engines. So even if the deal goes ahead, the team may perhaps struggle even to have a car physically ready for Australia, never mind testing or performance.
If the team gets Renault engines, it will switch from the best 2015 to likely the worst 2016 engine (because most of Honda’s problems can be solved overnight with a magic bullet structural change that isn’t however possible mid-season; Renault’s problems are more complex and organic).
Renault clearly only want to continue in F1 if they can do it on the cheap (because that worked so well for Ford), so even post-takeover, budgets will be tight,.
If the Renault deal collapses, Lotus have no money, no engines and presumably no 2016 car either.
I’m sorry to have to say it, but I think it’s probably best to keep expectations fairly modest for next year.
I guess the ‘spoilt-child’ tactic was simply engineered to get the attention of an octogenarian ‘father’ as that’s the way this sport appears to be run at present.
RB were just playing it to the hilt –
A strategy to keep the media ‘bottom-feeders’ busy and highlight F1’s negatives.
‘Keeping it in the family’ doesn’t work when ‘dad’ has become too autocratic.
Entertainment indeed . . .
Joe,
Speaking of Cosworth any idea what the company is up to these days? Or if they even exist?
I read that they were working on a F1 engine but I guess with the cash needed to build an F1 engine they would only start if someone is ready to front them the cash.
Which brings me to the question if any other company would consider it.
http://www.cosworth.com
wow, awful website – they’re not very good at selling themselves are they – some really good stuff there but had to dig around to find it.
Good to see they’re finding their niches within the market
Website seems okay. Not as flashy as it could be, i suppose (does it need to be?).
Joe, while I am sure there is a way around it, you previously theorised Renault would need the CCB money, and whatever Red Bull paid to pre-maturely terminate the contract, to purchase Lotus.
If Renault are forced to supply engines to Red Bull, doesn’t that endanger the Lotus rescue?
I don’t see why it would. Renault is supplying two teams this year and could supply two teams next year
So NOT receiving the money Red Bull would have paid for early termination, means Renault still has sufficient cash to take over Lotus?
I see no reason why Renault would give back the early termination money. Red Bull would need to negotiate a new deal.
Red Bull have been saying publicly that they’re terminating for breach of contract by Renault, and that early termination money will be flowing the other way.
Whether or not that’s fair, nothing’s been reported about any agreement on terms of termination, and it’s easy to see how this could be dragged out through the courts for years and years.
Joe, how optimistic are you that this has been or will be resolved sufficiently soon and on terms sufficiently favourable to Renault for this to all happen? (And, is that why it won’t be finished till December? Because Renault need RB to agree and pay up first??)
Tosh
Is there a requirement that all the teams rubber stamp this change?
I don’t know
Some of the comments made about Renault and Redbull and it not being fair might have forgotten that it was them that effectively forced the change to hybrid V6’s in the first place!
The other teams just did a better job getting a handle on the new regulations.
“That’s another fine mess you’ve gotten us into.”
Marko pretty much is the sporting side of Red Bull (not to mention the driver programme), so I don’t see him quitting over this, but as James Allen mentioned, other heads might have to roll if RB stays with Renault, changing the name of the engine will not be enough to gloss over this episode. I also don’t really see Toro Rosso getting Ferrari power in that case, because they will run rings around the Mother Team.
Probably someone from Renault will have to go, and I personally would imagine someone like Horner as well, but Red Bull seem as reluctant to let senior staff go, as they are to dump drivers from their development programme (although Ricciardo’s, Sainz’s and Verstappen’s – and Kvyat’s – performances do seem to support the logic of such a brutal scheme).
Frankly, given the poor strategic and tactic handling of all this, Der Dietrich should fire himself… Then again, the engine people at Renault should be spanked as well. Really curious to see whether Honda can pull itself together for next year, and thus save its own reputation as well as that of these new engine regulations.
Funny how F1 mirrors real life. I mean who, if they can afford a mercedes, will choose to buy a Renault or a Honda? and even if you are super rich enough to afford a Ferrari you might still prefer the reliability, ride comfort and build quality of Merc 🙂
Have you ever *driven* a Merc?
I think I understand the question.
I have often used a merc to transport myself from A to B in an acceptable degree of comfort but minus the “driving” experience of a performance car.
I have on far fewer occasions had the pleasure of “driving” a Ferrari. 🙂
> transport myself from A to B in an acceptable degree of comfort but minus the “driving” experience of a performance car.
I think that’s an exceptionally fair summary. Thank you.
Yes, I own one and it’s a far nicer car to drive than the Honda I had before it.
What I still don’t understand is why it is so hard for Renault to catch up (yes I know they started later than Merc on the whole hybrid thing, but still). I think they also said it is unlikely they will be able to catch up in 2016, so why would RB want their engine as the gap to Merc and Ferrari is likely to remain more or less the same? Ad to that it is reasonable to assume that aerodynamic advantages will also significantly reduce next year with stable rules on that as I understand it, so really there is no way RB will win races and they would be better off doing something else and get out of this PR fiasco. Yes there might be this $500m clause but I’m sure RB could turn that into some F1 wide sponsorship or something. I think there is still a very good chance they go and that is sad and ultimately the fault of Max Mosley who forced through this engine change that has brought greater expenses for all teams, less noise and a merc only championship.
‘Embarrassment’ and bruised egos and the like are not obstacles to true professionals, and should never be seen as such. If they have to eat humble pie, then lets have oodles of it. Here we are lying flat on our backs, please come kick us and jump up and down on our stomachs.
That’s the advice RB would pay well to get from any business consultancy.
And the sooner they begin a massive charm offensive to placate Renault the better.
How about a big “Renault is the greatest” touring festival starting in Dallas next week…. Horner and Marko dress up as the bad sisters, with Mateshitz as Cinderella and I guess Abitboule [don’t ask me to spell his name] might agree to play the prince with the shoe that fits.
Surely true professionals would not get into such a mess?
Can’t disagree! 🙂
Abiteboul, takes 2 seconds using google + cut and paste (other search engines are available), quicker than typing: [don’t ask me to spell his name]
Do you have any idea of how to get an engine costs caps while Ferrari hold and threaten to use their Veto?
I at least found it interesting that according to AMUS Mercedes say they would have spend less if there was a cost cap. That is an odd thing to say in public, no?
If Ferrari ever use its veto, the European Commission might not like it.
Would they not object to its existence in any case?
Anyone who thinks this is the “single most dominant period of F1 in history” is a bit wet behind the ears…
Understanding the engine rules for the average punter would be easier if they didn’t come from the mouth of David Coulthard. I can see why people just don’t get it.
Merely an observation, not a complaint. F1 is a great gift, but the wrapping paper could be addressed.
Joe, sorry to write under this topic but I was surprised to learn that Kevin Magnussen was ‘released’ by McLaren by Ron’s personal assistant, on his birthday! Nice personal touch there I thought. Tough at the top, fair enough, but doesn’t sit well with fans. Where’s Eric Boullier in this, I thought he managed the team? By the way, he completely blanked DC on the grid on Sunday – about time he and Ron got some help with PR.
I think that Kevin knew what was going on long before the official decision was made. I certainly did.
It seemed to be obvious but the first time I read about it was this week in an interview. Ron cocked this up in my view, as he did with Jenson’s contract renewal. From the outside Eric Boullier looks like Ron’s assistant – who do you think is in charge…?
I have a certain amount of sympathy for Brown Cow. About the same amount as I’d have for Robert Mugabe if I heard he’d stubbed his toe. And if I was occupying the pit next to them I’d be round after the race with a 14 lb lump hammer to re-program their “music” system. They are not bigger than the sport (Ferrari, apparently, ARE bigger than the sport but that’s a different matter altogether).
I’m tempted to wonder whether an engine manufacturer could quietly do a massive amount of development work, paint the result a different colour and rock up to Captain Cook’s Mistake next year saying “No, no, this is our all-new 2016 PU and as such is not covered by the rules on developing existing engines. See, all the part numbers are different!” but then I’m hopelessly ignorant of how such things work in Real Life.
You appear to have just enough sympathy for RB to play a very, very tiny violin for them.
Pity it wouldn’t be heard over their sound system, then.
Your phrase “sensible development” made me laugh. “Sensible” and “Formula 1” rarely go together, especially as it relates to spending money.
This whole debacle has really shown that Ron Dennis was right when he said it is impossible to win in F1 as it is currently without full engine manufacturer backing. Once the Engine companies feel you are a threat they will either refuse to supply you or give you year old engines. Any team that accepts year old engines is basically admitting they are only in F1 to make up the numbers.
I think that rule is a huge mistake and the FIA, FOM or whoever should force the engine companies to at least make sure all customer teams are given the same engines as the main team.
Horners face is already like a well slapped arse! Ha ha oh how I will chuckle if they end up with the same donkeys! Should have acted with some humility! No one cares if you leave! Away and sell soft drinks!
Joe, for how long do you suppose VW/Audi have been working on their expected F1 unit? Considering Audi were confirmed as participants in the initial manufacturer round-table sessions for the new PU many years ago, is really be surprised I’d they didn’t have current F1 engine tech on the dumps at Ingolstadt. Red Bull still need a medium-long term engine solution here and the Audi deal just seemed too perfect for all involved for it all to just fall away. Winterkorn resignation or not, surely a wider team were involved in the green lighting of any Red Bull F1 deal and not sure how all that ground work and planning would just fall away with Winterkorns stepping down. VW/Audi still need to promote their brand, now more so than ever.
Joe,
A slightly technical question for you, can customer teams ever fully ascertain if they have the same spec engine with same number of performance modes and same fuel mix as the ‘home’ team like Merc ?
Who ratifies that everybodyin the family has the same toys to play with ?
What tools can help you get a fix on the facts here with respect to the engine ?
They cannot
Red Bull just needs to write a check, buy Cosworth and build it’s own engines. as you said hire the right people and get on with it.Go back to Ferrari, eat a bit of crow and run this year’s engines(and maybe hire some of their engine designers). sure it’s going to be painful but not anymore painful than the last 2 years, plus they can sell the naming rights of the engine to who knows.
Come on now! What have Cosworth ever done to you that you would wish them owned and run by the numpties at Red Bull?
“making sure it does not happen again.”
But there is only one reliable way: to release Mr. Marko from his duties, as he in all probability would be the major hinderance to peace with Renault. I am sure that would be Nr. 1 on the Renault agenda. In every other CEO position he would have been fired already for good. Come on, the guy is 73 old, he would be no welfare case being hotel keeper and real estate tycoon in his hometown (“Schlossberghotel” at Graz city). But in F1, things are running different: he went to school with Niki and built snowmen with Bernie (or something like that) so he will be in….
Red Bull was running Cosworth but sacked them in favour of Ferrari after one season.
there is some banter here and there that Cosworth have these days F1 PU on shef for grabs. Is there any truth and if yes, then could it be the reason for Mark Gallagher’s departure coz He didn’t want it , but some1 was pushing hard n heavy for it ?
can’t post links but if you google ‘racecar engineering cosworth F1’ there is some info about and pictures of the beastie!
I think that Renault should relent and give Red Bull engines but insist on badging them with a different brand in the group…
…Dacia
Joe – surely the simplest solution to the whole mess is to standardise the electrical components. I’d be surprised if there are major differences in the power/torque output of any of the contenders. Costs would come way down. FIA face would be saved. Level playing field would maybe help the EU enquiry. Bernie would be happy.