RBR 2016 Power Unit

[Cannonballer]

Firstly, have you read my article? I'm simply fleshing out the possibility, adding history to understand how it could happen. Secondly I've also gone on to debunk certain things in the comments section, simply because with time to think and do the necessary public information searches things don't stand up.
Furthermore, Noble/Motosport ran a piece yesterday which intimated, from an interview with Marchionne, that a similar arrangement could come to fruition with Ferrari.
I haven't said it is happening, rather, as usual I've sat on the fence and argued both sides. However, I'm not the only one who wrote about it the same day and was quoted in the Judges follow up article too..

I read your article and wonder about this portion:

"Whilst Bernie and the FIA might have needed convincing so too would Renault, however, from a legal standing the powerunit became an alliance the moment Red Bull started shuffling people and money through Viry's doors, something I'm sure Red Bull's lawyers could easily deal with if needed."

It has been repeatedly referred to in support of proposition that RBR has Intellectual Property rights to the Renault PU, such that RBR could force Renault into allowing RBR to use the PU as a starting point to build a RBR branded PU. That can't be what you meant right? If so, can you elaborate on the legal basis for that? Because that is unimaginable to me as someone trained in law...

[FoxHound]

Turbo,

I'm wondering what TJ13 said to undermine the AMuS story?
Schmidt quoted 3 sentences and garnered 5 paragraphs from it.

His denial was that he is not working at Red Bull in Milton Keynes, and that Renault have not used his proposal for an upgrade, and finally that he's interested in working on an alternative "cheap" engine.

Does all the above dispel the following:
That Red Bull could use a Renault PU next year and have Illien tinker with it?
That Red Bull have negotiated 50% IP of the Renault V6?
That Red Bull/Ilmor have the ability to develop these PU's?

None of the contentious subject matter was dealt with. Schmidt has issued this story as a denial of the above, when it has nothing to do with the TJ13 story.
Whilst you sharpen your pencil on the judge, you let Schmidt get away with that?
Cmon mate.

[Cold Fussion]

You have it all backwards, the TJ13 article has asserted a bunch of claims, it is up to them to provide evidence for these claims and not for others to 'dispel' them. The TJ13 article presents no evidence what so ever, there's no quotes from relevant people, not even a mention of having seen any documents. The only reason you could believe in such an article is if the author has a proven track record, which TJ13 does not. This is trash level journalism, not even the Daily Mail is this bad.

[FoxHound]

TJ13, much like Saward, Cooper and even Eddie Jordan, keep their sources private.
Schmidt is guilty of a few artistic articles himself, not least the rebuttal to the TJ13 article.

Nobody here is suggesting the article is definite and will happen.
More the suggestions are that it is plausible.
It's not the wrong way round when a story comes out with some claims, and another provides assertions that the story is incorrect by quoting words that have no relevance to the actual claims, as stated in my previous post.

[ReoPTy]

TJ13, much like Saward, Cooper and even Eddie Jordan, keep their sources private.
Schmidt is guilty of a few artistic articles himself, not least the rebuttal to the TJ13 article.

Nobody here is suggesting the article is definite and will happen.
More the suggestions are that it is plausible.
It's not the wrong way round when a story comes out with some claims, and another provides assertions that the story is incorrect by quoting words that have no relevance to the actual claims, as stated in my previous post.

paddock gossip isn't really like trustable sources !

i understand RB being upset, but you can't fight that

Sport Bild suggests Mercedes may even have slowed its own development program over the winter, and recommended that Ferrari hire Mercedes' hybrid specialist Wolf Zimmermann.

"We expected an improvement," said Sauber engineer Giampaolo Dall'Ara, referring to Ferrari's 2015 engine, "but such great progress in such a short space of time is difficult to explain."

Read more: http://autoweek.com/article/formula-one ... z3rBQ9TFdu

[R_Redding]

Sport Bild suggests Mercedes may even have slowed its own development program over the winter, and recommended that Ferrari hire Mercedes' hybrid specialist Wolf Zimmermann.

Thats Strange ... Everyone was stating that Zimmerman and Cornebois had left Mercedes for Ferrari in Nov 2014.
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/vette ... ri-report/

""Within the racing division at Ferrari, there have been 60 new hirings," added Perna, revealing that one of them is Mercedes hybrid specialist Wolf Zimmermann. And "Cedric Cornebois, an expert in combustion, also comes from Mercedes," Perna said. (GMM) "

[olefud]

Firstly, have you read my article? I'm simply fleshing out the possibility, adding history to understand how it could happen. Secondly I've also gone on to debunk certain things in the comments section, simply because with time to think and do the necessary public information searches things don't stand up.
Furthermore, Noble/Motosport ran a piece yesterday which intimated, from an interview with Marchionne, that a similar arrangement could come to fruition with Ferrari.
I haven't said it is happening, rather, as usual I've sat on the fence and argued both sides. However, I'm not the only one who wrote about it the same day and was quoted in the Judges follow up article too..

I read your article and wonder about this portion:

"Whilst Bernie and the FIA might have needed convincing so too would Renault, however, from a legal standing the powerunit became an alliance the moment Red Bull started shuffling people and money through Viry's doors, something I'm sure Red Bull's lawyers could easily deal with if needed."

It has been repeatedly referred to in support of proposition that RBR has Intellectual Property rights to the Renault PU, such that RBR could force Renault into allowing RBR to use the PU as a starting point to build a RBR branded PU. That can't be what you meant right? If so, can you elaborate on the legal basis for that? Because that is unimaginable to me as someone trained in law...

It’s all speculation. But from a legal viewpoint, think of Renault as owning the basis design and RBR having title to improvements now integrated into the design. This would be the basic/improvement patent standoff -

[PlatinumZealot]

James allen reports that now Marchione is offering RedBull a technical partership to build a custom engine for them. Marchione is a smart fella.

[ReoPTy]

James allen reports that now Marchione is offering RedBull a technical partership to build a custom engine for them. Marchione is a smart fella.

Marchione offert alot and for mounth renault is dead silent!

as W.S said " isn't Silence the perfectest herald of joy?"

[NL_Fer]

In a Ferrari Redbull partnership, i don't see Maranello sharng secrets with Milton Keynes, but what about the knowledge the Ferrari Engineers discover, during their detachement at Redbull? Can they take it home tot Maranello?

[tuj]

We'll see. TJ13 has been right on several exclusives before, so they may be on this one too. Or the situation may be "fluid."

In any case, there is something going on in Building 9 and its big. And RBR have bad-mouthed Renault so bad that I can't seem them running their engine without scrapping the heads / turbo / -K / -H / ES / CE components. They've not seen much progress from Renault and supposedly RBR paid for a lot of consulting to get the Renault engine running in the first place.

Ilmor happens to make the IRL engines of the same spec as proposed by Todt as an alternative that Ferrari could not veto. Seems the thinking is the 2.2L twin-turbos would get 30% more fuel and cost 1/2 as much as the current PU's.

Whatever is in the back of RBR next year, you can bet it won't have much more than 1 Renault piece; the block.

[turbof1]

In a Ferrari Redbull partnership, i don't see Maranello sharng secrets with Milton Keynes, but what about the knowledge the Ferrari Engineers discover, during their detachement at Redbull? Can they take it home tot Maranello?

They can. Even if there are contracts of confidentiality in place, nothing could stop an employee from Ferrari taking idea's/concepts back to Maranello. Especially since the PUs would be manufactured at Maranello.

If F1 continues on with 32 tokens for several years, manufacturers can change 48% of their PU every year. More then enough to incorporate ideas from the competition. Assuming of course Red Bull has something worthy of ideas, which I don't believe they have. Currently the biggest potential for more performance is the interaction between the combustion chamber and the fuel used, meaning you need to have a close working relationship with a good fuel supplier. Mercedes has petronas, Ferrari has Shell and Renault has Total. Red Bull has none at the moment.

Ilmor happens to make the IRL engines of the same spec as proposed by Todt as an alternative that Ferrari could not veto. Seems the thinking is the 2.2L twin-turbos would get 30% more fuel and cost 1/2 as much as the current PU's.

Oh, but Ferrari can! The reason why it has not been vetoed yet, is because there has not been filed a single rule change yet towards the alternative engine. The FIA will first have to launch a tender, select the most appropiate manufacturer and discuss the specs of the alternative engine, including fuel flow and fuel limit, and only then it can draw up the regulations. As soon as it is on the table of the F1 Commission, and it will have to, Ferrari is in the position to veto it.

[tuj]

TurboF1, I disagree. Ferrari's veto power was re-negotiated in 2013 to have some clause that allows the veto only in the interest of the sport. Todt has publicly said he will challenge Ferrari if they try to veto:

"Trying to suggest a [standard] customer engine for teams is not against their [Ferrari] interest? I am happy if we go and debate on that.”

[turbof1]

TurboF1, I disagree. Ferrari's veto power was re-negotiated in 2013 to have some clause that allows the veto only in the interest of the sport. Todt has publicly said he will challenge Ferrari if they try to veto:

"Trying to suggest a [standard] customer engine for teams is not against their [Ferrari] interest? I am happy if we go and debate on that.”

Since the IPO documents of the FOM got leaked late 2013, we had a clear indication Ferrari remains to have a veto right on every single rule change. They can veto this as well. Todt might indeed challenge it in front of court, but it does nothing about that Ferrari can veto it.

http://en.espn.co.uk/ferrari/motorsport ... 04589.html

The extent of Ferrari's power in F1 is buried deep in the 498-page prospectus for the flotation of F1 on the Singapore stock exchange which CVC has said it hopes will take place later this year. On page 179, in the section about the Team Agreements it states that "in respect of Ferrari only, Ferrari may terminate if the regulatory safeguards agreed between the FIA and Ferrari do not allow Ferrari to veto any change to the regulations already announced or introduced (subject to certain exceptions)."

It does state it is subject to certain exceptions. You and I don't have a single clue what this holds, but assuming Ferrari blocked a rule change on the engines, it can do this again in the future.

[wuzak]

TurboF1, I disagree. Ferrari's veto power was re-negotiated in 2013 to have some clause that allows the veto only in the interest of the sport. Todt has publicly said he will challenge Ferrari if they try to veto:

"Trying to suggest a [standard] customer engine for teams is not against their [Ferrari] interest? I am happy if we go and debate on that.”

You would have to show that a "client" engine, essentially a stock part, is in the interests of the sport.

While it is, on the face of it, for the good of the sport, it flies against 100 years of grand prix racing tradition. It also pushes the focus of performance squarely on the chassis, which has been too much the case in recent years.

Do the FIA want F1 to develop irrelevent aero and chassis, or push the much more useful technology in the current PU's.

And, let's be honest, a cheaper engine doesn't mean survival for teams. It means they will spend more on chassis development.