Red Bull at it again.
Discussion
I think they've served their punishment for being so smug when they were winning. They deserve a chance to fight at the front and it looks like their engine supplier are holding them back. The rules allow for understandable self interest from the best engine manufacturers. This situation is not good for the sport.
Mr_Thyroid said:
I think they've served their punishment for being so smug when they were winning. They deserve a chance to fight at the front and it looks like their engine supplier are holding them back. The rules allow for understandable self interest from the best engine manufacturers. This situation is not good for the sport.
A sport only takes place when there is a level playing field. When the two top engine suppliers refuse to supply engines to the only team capable of producing a better chassis and having a well-managed team, there is something really wrong.Another big problem is the re-writing, or translation, of what CH, DM & HM actually say into the Internet's interpretation of what they say. Certainly, it is not good to slag off your engine partner, but when Renault were an instigator of these dumb engines and then produce a pup in year-1, followed by an unreliable pup in year-2, I believe any reasonably competetive person would demand changes.
Anyone remember what FA said about the Honda PU at Suzuka? Yet somehow that got interpreted that Honda and McLaren were in it together, but I doubt that will hold true, the first time a PU lets go this year.
Despite having assured everyone that his drivers were allowed to compete, it seems odd that Toto now thinks it best for F1 if his drivers actually drive competitively in 2016.
Meanwhile genuine fans are leaving in their droves. There are certain issues that are wrong about F1 and they need to be aired and rectified. Having FIA certified media nodding in agreement, all the time, achieves absolutely nothing.
EnglishTony said:
The question is, would F1 be better off without them?
Yes. They're intent on trying to make F1 look bad unless they get their way, and now they want the FIA to step in and order Mercedes to give them an engine because they've burned all their bridges that would enable them to get one the 'normal' way. Ferrari offered them a year-old supply, which they can see from Toro Rosso's performance is a decent unit, but RB decided to be t
ts about it and lost the chance to get that.It would be a great shame to lose Toro Rosso, though i reckon backers could be found to keep that team going. Red Bull will probably just disband their A-team rather than sell it out of spite for the sport that they basically don't give a s
t about. rdjohn said:
A sport only takes place when there is a level playing field. When the two top engine suppliers refuse to supply engines <clip>
Couldn't disagree more. All sport has winners and losers, it;s never a level playing field. At the moment Mercedes and Ferrari are producing the best engines at a time when engines are dominant. So, step up the challenge Renault and Honda. Was everyone complaining when Colin Chapman's genius meant his chassis was dominant, no. Do you want to force the best engine suppliers to give their product to competitive teams? To me that's madness... There's plenty I would change but that's not something I'd even consider. rdjohn said:
A sport only takes place when there is a level playing field. When the two top engine suppliers refuse to supply engines to the only team capable of producing a better chassis and having a well-managed team, there is something really wrong.
.
So football isn't a sport any more? Or cricket or, well, just about any sport you can name..
And I very much doubt any team, in any sport, would hand its biggest potential competitor a key player or function unless it was compelled to . Why would you?
REALIST123 said:
rdjohn said:
A sport only takes place when there is a level playing field. When the two top engine suppliers refuse to supply engines to the only team capable of producing a better chassis and having a well-managed team, there is something really wrong.
.
So football isn't a sport any more? Or cricket or, well, just about any sport you can name..
And I very much doubt any team, in any sport, would hand its biggest potential competitor a key player or function unless it was compelled to . Why would you?
But imagine Man U have an exclusive contract for Adidas boots, Arsenal have an exclusive contract with Nike and Chelsea have one with Umbro.... what do Liverpool do? They are forced to sign a contract with Crocs.
If they weren't so unlikable maybe they would have a Merc engine. I certainly would think long and hard before supplying them, especially over Manor, and especially with that helmet Helmut in the fold
I do feel sorry for the drivers though...
Perhaps Merc could swap the engine for access to all of Red Bulls aero data from 2014 onwards. Seems fair...
I do feel sorry for the drivers though...
Perhaps Merc could swap the engine for access to all of Red Bulls aero data from 2014 onwards. Seems fair...
Edited by Inertiatic on Sunday 13th March 22:06
PW said:
So it's unfair for a team to have an advantage in one area of the car - the engine - that they keep to themselves, and don't give to their closest rivals.
What about the rest of the package? No one was complaining that it was "unfair" that Red Bull had the best chassis/aero, or threatened to leave the sport because Red Bull wouldn't share Newey.
No one complains about the top teams hogging all the best drivers.
No one complains about other teams having better strategists, or pit stop crews.
I can't think of any point in motorsport where one team that has built a really good car has been forced to hand bits of it to other teams because it's "not fair" that they're better, and other teams don't have the knowhow, man power, or in Red Bull's case, diplomatic skill to get onto an equal footing.
Why do they think they're entitled to success? Mercedes worked hard to build the best engine, the best car, get the best drivers. Why should they, or any other team, be forced to hand over what they have invested in because someone else wants the success without doing that work?
That is a weak argument because aerodynamic development has never been frozen - engine development has been extremely limited and has prevented RedBull catching up. Remember 2009 when Brawn started with a dominant car but RedBull and McLaren were able to catch up. For the past two years this has been impossible.What about the rest of the package? No one was complaining that it was "unfair" that Red Bull had the best chassis/aero, or threatened to leave the sport because Red Bull wouldn't share Newey.
No one complains about the top teams hogging all the best drivers.
No one complains about other teams having better strategists, or pit stop crews.
I can't think of any point in motorsport where one team that has built a really good car has been forced to hand bits of it to other teams because it's "not fair" that they're better, and other teams don't have the knowhow, man power, or in Red Bull's case, diplomatic skill to get onto an equal footing.
Why do they think they're entitled to success? Mercedes worked hard to build the best engine, the best car, get the best drivers. Why should they, or any other team, be forced to hand over what they have invested in because someone else wants the success without doing that work?
Whilst I agree with the sentiment of most of the posters so far there is one key difference with the problem that RB find themselves in.....
They can't design/spend their way out of the problem.
I can't think of another time in the sport where the decisions taken by their third party suppliers have meant 3 years of competitive exclusion the way the new engine rules have. It's as simple as that, Mercedes have come up with such a brilliant package and the rule book precludes the other manufacturers from copying them.
I agree that's great for Mercedes and they should get to enjoy their day in the sun, but for homologation rules to stop anyone else from being able to learn from them and to copy them for such a long time is rediculously short sighted by the governing body.
Ridiculous.
They can't design/spend their way out of the problem.
I can't think of another time in the sport where the decisions taken by their third party suppliers have meant 3 years of competitive exclusion the way the new engine rules have. It's as simple as that, Mercedes have come up with such a brilliant package and the rule book precludes the other manufacturers from copying them.
I agree that's great for Mercedes and they should get to enjoy their day in the sun, but for homologation rules to stop anyone else from being able to learn from them and to copy them for such a long time is rediculously short sighted by the governing body.
Ridiculous.
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Whilst I agree with the sentiment of most of the posters so far there is one key difference with the problem that RB find themselves in.....
They can't design/spend their way out of the problem.
I can't think of another time in the sport where the decisions taken by their third party suppliers have meant 3 years of competitive exclusion the way the new engine rules have. It's as simple as that, Mercedes have come up with such a brilliant package and the rule book precludes the other manufacturers from copying them.
I agree that's great for Mercedes and they should get to enjoy their day in the sun, but for homologation rules to stop anyone else from being able to learn from them and to copy them for such a long time is rediculously short sighted by the governing body.
Ridiculous.
But, they could spend their way out of the problem if they wanted to. Talk to a car manufacturer nicely, we'll fund then engine, you put your name on it.They can't design/spend their way out of the problem.
I can't think of another time in the sport where the decisions taken by their third party suppliers have meant 3 years of competitive exclusion the way the new engine rules have. It's as simple as that, Mercedes have come up with such a brilliant package and the rule book precludes the other manufacturers from copying them.
I agree that's great for Mercedes and they should get to enjoy their day in the sun, but for homologation rules to stop anyone else from being able to learn from them and to copy them for such a long time is rediculously short sighted by the governing body.
Ridiculous.
The problem is they are too impatient and arrogant to accept that F1 goes in cycles, and they have had theirs for a few years, and they want a solution now, and they are going about it in a very childish fashion.
PW said:
rdjohn said:
Mr_Thyroid said:
The rules allow for understandable self interest from the best engine manufacturers
A sport only takes place when there is a level playing field. When the two top engine suppliers refuse to supply engines to the only team capable of producing a better chassis and having a well-managed team, there is something really wrongWhat about the rest of the package? No one was complaining that it was "unfair" that Red Bull had the best chassis/aero, or threatened to leave the sport because Red Bull wouldn't share Newey.
No one complains about the top teams hogging all the best drivers.
No one complains about other teams having better strategists, or pit stop crews.
I can't think of any point in motorsport where one team that has built a really good car has been forced to hand bits of it to other teams because it's "not fair" that they're better, and other teams don't have the knowhow, man power, or in Red Bull's case, diplomatic skill to get onto an equal footing.
Why do they think they're entitled to success? Mercedes worked hard to build the best engine, the best car, get the best drivers. Why should they, or any other team, be forced to hand over what they have invested in because someone else wants the success without doing that work?
If everyone has a pretty good idea of the outcomes of the WDC and WCC before the first race, it's a bit of a turn off.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff