Perhaps we need to define the word
works-team a bit more carefully then (and yes, I know I've been throwing the term around, perhaps a bit too easily).
Does the works-team (in the context of RedBull and Renault) include...
- a collaboration on a technical level? If yes, to what degree?
- or is it a collaboration primarily based on sponsorship and branding? Perhaps even financially?
- a collaboration to the extend that we can expect a car to be developed by both parties together?
Lastly, how different is this collaboration in context to say, the Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team?
Reading some of your links, this distinction isn't all that well established. On one hand, there are references that point to especially a collaboration on a sponsorship and branding level; E.g. Renault wanting out as their own full team (Enstone) and moving it more to a lighter type investment where they can concentrate on being an engine supplier without having to run their own team with the associated draw-backs (like NOT winning, or having to carry the full investment). Being your own team is great when you're winning - if you're not, it's a major pain, as Toyota, BMW and others have already found out the hard way. Especially in light of economic changes. For Ferrari it's great, because their marque is built on heritage and its participation/association of F1, even if they fall short of winning now and then. Mercedes it's working too, because they are currently dominating. For others, it's been a mixed bag lately, even for Renault who was in huge criticism after 2009. Doing a 'works-team' deal is great, especially when you are backing the current WDC and WCC team. You get lots of branding, free sponsorship if you will at a bargain price (compared to running your own team). Of course, the above links also point to a collaboration on a technical level. In one of your links it says:
"It guarantees stability, it makes us the premier, factory team of Renault Sport, so our colleagues where the engines are produced will be working hand in hand with the engineers and designers at Red Bull"
That was in 2011 mind you, when I suppose that type of development was rather limited to certain aspects of the engines because of the engine freeze. In regards to 2014 and the V6, well, who knows to what degree that collaboration was exploited and to which extend the two teams worked closely together. Despite whatever the PR machine will have you believe on how grande that deal is that Redbull and Renault struck together in 2011, my hunch is that Mercedes (and Ferrari) have had a better structure to benefit of these new engine regulation changes, because they are of one of the same company. Renault and Redbulls partnership as gone sour and I'm not sure if that had already started in 2013 or only as the new V6s came into production. Maybe because the two companies had different ideas on how to approach 2014?
As of 2014, the PU has the potential to influence the design of the car. I think the McLaren shows this very nicely: Honda and McLaren opted for a design that offers some inherent advantages, but also disadvantages. From what I understand, the engine and its alignment of turbine, ERS, but also the way the cooling needs to be placed results in a rather vertical design, meaning that the car's rear as a result is very
very slim, offering the potential to get more airflow to the rear wing. The inherent disadvantage of that design is that there is probably a higher CoG the team needs to tackle. If this design proves to be an ace or just an alternative design with potential that can't be fully exploited, well, we'll find that out in the next coming weeks I suppose. The point is rather to highlight to what degree the PU influences the package around it. The danger is also that such a design can't be changed over night (and to some degree is limited by the token system in place). I guess they owe it to themselves to figure out how well it works, when it works - or to abandon it completely in search for a better solution. In regards to Renault and RedBull - one or the other, or both, settled on a different design, that hasn't really worked out either. As I said, it's easy to point at one or the other for blame, but RedBull can't second guess Renaults 'expertise' because they are not an engine manufacturer. Neither can McLaren in regards to Honda - trust is key and a lot fails and succeeds with the competence of your partner to look at all the promising different approaches and figure which one is best. When I look at Renault though, and them officially looking around at buying a team (or leaving the sport), I can't help but think that something in their partnership with RedBull went seriously wrong. And I don't think it went wrong
because of the public mudslinging - I see the public mudslinging as the
effect of a much deeper
cause that may have been going on behind the curtains for a while now...
I'm not one to put the blame to Renault for that partnership not working out. My posts have always been about legitimizing some of the criticism of Mateschitz and Horner towards F1 as a sport and the direction it's taking, and partly about understanding the frustration directed at Renault - which I think has more to do with it
not working, reliability issues etc, than outright lack of performance. Or perhaps it is
working (in 2014), but the
power just isn't there and RedBull is finding themselves in a position where nothing they do, will actually change anything about their performance because it's entirely up to Renault to solve what needs to be solved first. Perhaps easier said then done, when you're 'partner' is out looking for other teams to purchase or to leave the sport... If we look at McLaren and Honda, we see a partnership that despite a lot of issues is still functional, because one trusts the other and they are both trying to solve issues. At least on the outside. Easy to say though - their partnership is still fresh and at the beginning of a loooong road.
And hey, this may be the RedBull topic, but I think some of the criticism from Mateschitz/Horner directed at F1 as a sport (and the whole danger of having an engine dictated formula) is just as relevant for all the customer teams too.