Formula One's Engine Crisis

[dans79]

It's hardly relevant what the sport was a 80, 50 or even 20 years ago. The sport has changed over the years, so have the dynamics. Teams have left, among which were also big car manufacturers, and new teams have joined as well. The sport has also grown from an investment point of view and has been on a steady increase over the years. The only relevant point to this topic is the now and present and what constitutes a viable sport for the imminent future - which is what we're discussing here

Go back and look at the dates of those comments by Bernie and Todt, they are from last 3 years. So it's not history, It's right now they care more about getting the manufacturers involved than they do the small teams. At this point you are just talking yourself in circles.

[Phil]

I'm baffled - it's a lot of talk and nothing to show for. I've never argued why these new f1 engines have came about. That much is logical. They were made with the sole purpose to keep Mercedes and Renault happy and the prospect of luring more car manufacturers into the sport. No argument there. But somewhere along the way, 2 out of 4 are struggling as a result of incompetence (exaggerating a bit here) and regulations that are in place to protect the sport as a whole and it's had the opposite effect. Right now, there are no other manufacturers entering F1 for 2016 besides the ones that are already here and what will happen in 2017 and beyond is anyones guess. So any talk on what Todt and Co are praying for is hardly relevant to the rather long post I just made.

What is real however - and it's outlined in my last and various other posts - is the momentary state of F1 and its teams, among which is RedBulls predicament, caused by the shift of dynamics inside the sport, that may see them not be on the grid next year and thus resulting in potentially 4 cars less. Then there is also the predicament of the 4 other teams, which are also forced into irrelevancy... and the best argument you can bring up, is some prospect, the faintest hope that Todt and Bernie are desperately trying to get more engine manufacturers to enter (all the while proposing preposterous alternative cheap engines to gain back some power...). Hum... riiiiight.

Seriously - i think we have reached the point where we can happily admit that the future is anything but rosy, it's a huge big mess. And I'm happy to bet that if RedBull and Torro-Rosso fail to make the 2016 grid, we'll have 4 cars less and any short-term solutions you, Andres, fox are arguing (like 3-4 car teams) will further push the sport down the drain, as it will make the remaining teams only more redundant to the point they'll drop out too, eventually. And if engine manufacturers, among one big one who is entangled in the biggest crisis of its existence, is willing to step in to fill those gaps in rather short notice, well... I'll be very surprised.

[dans79]

What is real however - and it's outlined in my last and various other posts - is the momentary state of F1 and its teams, among which is RedBulls predicament, caused by the shift of dynamics inside the sport, that may see them not be on the grid next year and thus resulting in potentially 4 cars less.

RedBulls predicament is of their own making. The other teams and manufactures didn't make them act the way they did towards their Engine supplier.

Then there is also the predicament of the 4 other teams, which are also forced into irrelevancy...

Some points you don't seem to get.

1) Historically The mid field on back has always been irrelevant.
2) Most people don't care. Your average person cares about the team/driver they follow, and that's it.

we'll have 4 cars less and any short-term solutions you, Andres, fox are arguing (like 3-4 car teams) will further push the sport down the drain, as it will make the remaining teams only more redundant to the point they'll drop out too, eventually.

Two cars less, Haas comes in next year, don't forget.

Other than Williams who is currently in-front of RBR, all those irreverent teams are going to be real happy next year when they slide up the WCC rankings and get more money because RBR & maybe TR aren't there.

[Phil]

Keep on repeating that dans, it doesn't make it more true (it being RedBulls own predicament) - it's been clear from the get go that it's their competitiveness that is the main issue. Straight from the horses mouth (Toto, Niki and others). Further, it's common-sense. And I'll remind you again, we're not only talking about them not receiving engines; we're talking about the situation as a whole, where 6-7 teams who are not engine manufacturers are either A.) not getting engines or B.) not competitive ones or C.) competitive ones because they aren't a threat to the factory-team. RedBull is only as an example of what happens if a team is suddenly deemed to be too competitive to the factory-team.

1) Historically The mid field on back has always been irrelevant.

I'd argue that historically, teams from the mid-field have been able to progress. Some of them have become winning-teams, some of them not. The issues we are discussing is one where this can't happen, as discussed under the topic of a 2-tier championship - the A-B spec engine situation. The future as its shaping up will only see factory teams at the front, everyone else behind eventually with no prospects to improve that, no matter how much money they throw at it (unless they magically find a way to grow their own competitive engines in their backyard).

2) Most people don't care. Your average person cares about the team/driver they follow, and that's it.

I agree partly. They will however care if as a result of that, we will see factory teams filling up the grid to replace teams dropping out. RedBull has also brought a lot of exposure to F1 through their involvement. I still stand by that losing them would be a big loss with consequences. One can argue about the value Williams, Sauber, Force-India, Torro-Rosso bring to the sport, but as a sum of all of them, I'd say substantial, even if they have been in the mid to backfield. The question therefore remains, if for every team that potentially drops out, if there is a major manufacturer waiting to jump in. I think not. The signs ain't there. We've had more drop outs in the last few years than teams entering.

Two cars less, Haas comes in next year, don't forget.

Point taken. It would still be a historical low since a long time - not sure at which point 3 car teams become a question. But I think it further just highlights in what mess the sport is.

[dans79]

Keep on repeating that dans, it doesn't make it more true (it being RedBulls own predicament) - it's been clear from the get go that it's their competitiveness that is the main issue.

What on earth are you talking about? RBR had a signed valid contract, through 2016 with Renault. They are the ones that created an untenable relationship with Renault, & cancelled the contract early.

[Phil]

I think what I'm saying is that your point about their valid contract with Renault through to 2016 is a topic best suited to the RedBull topic (and has been discussed at lengths there), and this topic - the engine crisis thread - is centered around the situation where the actual competitiveness of a team represents a problem in them being able to secure any alternative competitive engine deal, as well as other issues tied to the current engine regulations, the talk evolving around engine manufacturers wanting A and B spec engines, no maximum price threshold and what kind of an impact this all has on the overall sport.

I think you will find a willingness to argue how stupid (or not) RedBull were to end their contract with Renault in the RedBull-topic, but this topic here is a little more complex in that it includes the situation of various teams, of which RedBull is only one of many.

I hope this clears it up.

[NL_Fer]

Just one more engine builder and allot could be solved.

Say Redbull pays 30M, Torro Rosso 20M, Sauber cuts its ties with Ferrari and joins for another 20M and Bernie finds another new team, ready to pay 15M for an engine. Thats 85 million each year, there must be someone who want to enter F1 and sell some engines?

Or they should alter the engine formula, so it's cheaper for a new supplier to come in, but doesn't make the current four suppliers their developments useless.

[dans79]

I think what I'm saying is that your point about their valid contract with Renault through to 2016 is a topic best suited to the RedBull topic (and has been discussed at lengths there), and this topic - the engine crisis thread - is centered around the situation where the actual competitiveness of a team represents a problem in them being able to secure any alternative competitive engine deal, as well as other issues tied to the current engine regulations, the talk evolving around engine manufacturers wanting A and B spec engines, no maximum price threshold and what kind of an impact this all has on the overall sport.

I think you will find a willingness to argue how stupid (or not) RedBull were to end their contract with Renault in the RedBull-topic, but this topic here is a little more complex in that it includes the situation of various teams, of which RedBull is only one of many.

I hope this clears it up.

Ok Phil how about you address what I posted earlier instead of dancing around it?

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/analy ... %5D=19&s=1

"Then the other thing we discussed, if we would give an engine, we want to grow together. We give an engine because we want the Red Bull young kids driving A-classes. We would like to see a nice co-operation between the Red Bull mark, and Mercedes. And this is how we ended."

"Where we said from the Mercedes standpoint, after Niki met Dietrich Mateschitz, there are two points which are extremely important for us. One is we need to have a carte blanche from Renault. Renault is an industrial partner of Mercedes, we will never do something against Renault.

"Before Renault give us a go-ahead, we can't move, because it would breach of contract, so we wouldn't do that, and because there is a much bigger picture between Mercedes and Renault than F1. We have joint factories in Mexico."

"The other thing we said is if we supply Red Bull with an engine in F1 there is a possibility of diluting the messaging around our own success," said Wolff. "Because they could be very successful with our engine.

"That is fair and square, but in order to accept that we would need to know what kind of marketing activities we could deploy on a worldwide scale with each other.

"If we are being damaged on the F1 side, how much can we benefit on the global side. Can we do a colour scheme, can we do joint events, can we do joint platforms? Please come up with the person we can talk to."

The marketing aspect was of such immediate interest to Stuttgart that its top executive in that field, board member Ola Kallenius, was ready to meet with Horner.

However, heading into F1's summer break, things lost momentum. Mateschitz was on holiday, and so too were key Mercedes people. For some reason, the Kallenius meeting didn't take place.

In short Merc was willing to supply Renault with engine, but had 2 very specific requirements.

1.) make sure it's OK with your currently contracted supplier, that we start seriously discussing a deal with you, because they are a business partner, and we need to tread lightly.
2.) Some form of marketing had to be agreed to upfront in-case RBR did better than Merc.

RBR didn't do either one of those things, so they have no one to blame but themselves.

[dren]

I don't see any sort of PU crisis in F1. Red Bull created their own mess. The rest of the teams seem just fine. I like the hybrid PUs. I hope F1 sticks with this formula.

[NL_Fer]

I don't see any sort of PU crisis in F1. Red Bull created their own mess. The rest of the teams seem just fine. I like the hybrid PUs. I hope F1 sticks with this formula.

For those who cannot look beyond today: If Ferrari wont get their act together in 2016, we will have another Mercedes dominant year. 2010 - 2013 wasn't this boring. And we have seen Ferrari in this position for more years then they were an actual title fighter.

We need more teams, that are able to fight for the championship, we need Redbull with a more competitive engine and McLaren back up there. Battle like we seen 2006-2012 more or less. Like Schumacher - Hill/Hakinnen/Montoya/Alonso fighting for P1 every race again.

Or the fia has to push the balance more to aero again and make the pu a little less important.

[ME4ME]

I don't see any sort of PU crisis in F1. Red Bull created their own mess. The rest of the teams seem just fine. I like the hybrid PUs. I hope F1 sticks with this formula.

And yet this threat has 53 pages, half the field is rendered noncompetitive as well as half the field is struggling paying for them. All is not fine. That is not to say that these PU's are rubbish, not at all actually.

[Cannonballer]

I think what I'm saying is that your point about their valid contract with Renault through to 2016 is a topic best suited to the RedBull topic (and has been discussed at lengths there), and this topic - the engine crisis thread - is centered around the situation where the actual competitiveness of a team represents a problem in them being able to secure any alternative competitive engine deal, as well as other issues tied to the current engine regulations, the talk evolving around engine manufacturers wanting A and B spec engines, no maximum price threshold and what kind of an impact this all has on the overall sport.

I think you will find a willingness to argue how stupid (or not) RedBull were to end their contract with Renault in the RedBull-topic, but this topic here is a little more complex in that it includes the situation of various teams, of which RedBull is only one of many.

I hope this clears it up.

Phil: Do you believe that any engine manufacturer(ing team) should be forced to supply any team that ask with engines? If so, does the manufacturer get to set the terms under which they will supply their engine?

[Andres125sx]

Don´t have the time to reply everything right now, but I´ll reply this

You could say the same about RBR, and actually people said it when they entered F1... An energy drink company building F1 cars?

Oh my... You are aware that RBR simply bought a team right?

Obviously you missed the point Phil, that´s exactly what I was pointing out. Money do it all. RBR bought a F1 team to compete with experienced F1 teams and they did it great despite being an energy drink company with no experience in motorsports or F1.

Any reason they cannot do the same with some engine manufacturer? Please don´t say the PUs are too complex for any engine manufacturer, building a F1 team is not easy either, but with the correct amount of money you can buy the resources and engineers to do it flawlesly, as they did with former Jaguar team improving what they had been doing before the purchase.

You´re trying to explain money is not enough to build a PU, and sorry but I can´t agree with that. In F1 it´s all about the money.

[toraabe]

Ok Merc did the best job.. And it is not their fault that Ferrari or Red Bull are not competing in the top. So... I don't see any difference between Hamilton dominance and Schumacher dominance, exept that he was driving a Ferrari. Hamilton is driving a Mercedes. Any difference ?

I don't see any sort of PU crisis in F1. Red Bull created their own mess. The rest of the teams seem just fine. I like the hybrid PUs. I hope F1 sticks with this formula.

For those who cannot look beyond today: If Ferrari wont get their act together in 2016, we will have another Mercedes dominant year. 2010 - 2013 wasn't this boring. And we have seen Ferrari in this position for more years then they were an actual title fighter.

We need more teams, that are able to fight for the championship, we need Redbull with a more competitive engine and McLaren back up there. Battle like we seen 2006-2012 more or less. Like Schumacher - Hill/Hakinnen/Montoya/Alonso fighting for P1 every race again.

Or the fia has to push the balance more to aero again and make the pu a little less important.

[giantfan10]

[quote="toraabe"]Ok Merc did the best job.. And it is not their fault that Ferrari or Red Bull are not competing in the top. So... I don't see any difference between Hamilton dominance and Schumacher dominance, exept that he was driving a Ferrari. Hamilton is driving a Mercedes. Any difference ?


Shuey era : open development... test whatever you want whenever you want to catch up

Hamilton era: restricted development... no real way to combat the obvious advantage after first test session.
add to that mercedes blocking any relaxing of the restrictive engine rules to preserve their built in advantage.

MAJOR difference.....they may have both been driving off into the distance in their eras but how they got their is majorly different.
i have a lot more respect for the ferrari and red bull dominant years because their dominance came from constant innovation and being flat out better than the competition . maybe Mercedes would have won 2 championships even with open development,the fact that their championships have been aided by the current rules cheapens it for me