258 replies to this topic

[Lazy]

Where did you see that?

Red Bull founder Dietrich Mateschitz has warned that the energy drink manufacturer isn't infinitely committed to Formula One, after Daniel Ricciardo was excluded from the Australian Grand Prix over disputed fuel flow sensor data.

Speaking to Vienna-based publication Kurier, the Austrian billionaire admitted that Red Bull could leave the sport if it is no longer producing the desired results.

"The fact is that the federation's sensor has given inaccurate values since the beginning of the (winter) tests," Mateschitz told Kurier.

"We can prove that we were within the limits [in Australia].

"The question is not so much about whether it makes economic sense, but more to do with the sporting value, political influence and the like.

"We have had it all but on these things from our perspective there is a clear limit to what we can accept."

The normally private Mateschitz added that he is somewhat frustrated by the FIA's decision to take the sport into a greener, quieter era with the focus on more efficient V6 engines.

"Formula one should be again what it always has been: the ultimate discipline," the 69-year-old added.

"It is not there to set new records in fuel consumption, or so you can talk at a whisper during a race and the greatest thrill is the squealing of the tyres.

"I consider it equally absurd that we are going a second slower than last year and that the junior series GP2 is almost as fast as formula one with a fraction of the budget.

Despite his dislike for the new F1 regulations, Mateschitz added that the reigning World Champions will continue developing their car throughout the season in the hope of catching up with the Mercedes-powered cars.

"We are working around the clock with our partner Renault and will make another big step in the next two to three weeks. There are 18 races to go," he continued.

"We will be back."

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=641896492530990

[Lazy]

"Formula one should be again what it always has been: the ultimate discipline," the 69-year-old added.

 

I would suggest to him that it has just come back to being that which is why they are finding it a bit tricky.

Edited by Lazy, 24 March 2014 - 09:31.

[Maustinsj]

Red Bull founder Dietrich Mateschitz has warned that the energy drink manufacturer isn't infinitely committed to Formula One, after Daniel Ricciardo was excluded from the Australian Grand Prix over disputed fuel flow sensor data.
 

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=641896492530990

 

Is it a case of "if we don't have an advantage, there's no point in being in the sport...oh and the engines are quieter too, so we should go back to where we had the measure of everyone else, which would make it better for everyone". 

[slideways]

Some real haters in force here.

Ironic how they ignore the recent (completely biased of course) Ferrari poll showing the Tifosi agree with Mateschitz.

Through all the incidents and scandals RBR have gone through during their time in the sport, I don't think I have ever read a comment from DM that I disagreed with or that I felt was unfounded.

And after all of the personal wealth he has invested into and arguably reinvigorated the sport with, during the era of manufacturers withdrawing and championship or successful teams struggling to continue to exist, he has the right to speak his mind on governance.

[Lotus53B]

""I consider it equally absurd that we are going a second slower than last year..."

 

What a load of cobblers - the FIA regularly introduce regulations to slow the cars if they feel they are going faster than is safe (e.g. grooved tyres, engine shrinking - chicanes...)

 

This really is toys out of the pram territory, he sounds a fool.

[Lazy]

Some real haters in force here.

Ironic how they ignore the recent (completely biased of course) Ferrari poll showing the Tifosi agree with Mateschitz.

Through all the incidents and scandals RBR have gone through during their time in the sport, I don't think I have ever read a comment from DM that I disagreed with or that I felt was unfounded.

And after all of the personal wealth he has invested into and arguably reinvigorated the sport with, during the era of manufacturers withdrawing and championship or successful teams struggling to continue to exist, he has the right to speak his mind on governance.

He has indeed, and we have the right to comment on whether we think he is making a valid criticism or just sulking because things aren't going his way.

[andrewf1]

Lol @ Mateschitz threat. As if anyone would be really upset and miss Red Bull if they were to quit.

Edited by andrewf1, 24 March 2014 - 13:58.

[redreni]

Red Bull founder Dietrich Mateschitz has warned that the energy drink manufacturer isn't infinitely committed to Formula One, after Daniel Ricciardo was excluded from the Australian Grand Prix over disputed fuel flow sensor data.

Speaking to Vienna-based publication Kurier, the Austrian billionaire admitted that Red Bull could leave the sport if it is no longer producing the desired results.

"The fact is that the federation's sensor has given inaccurate values since the beginning of the (winter) tests," Mateschitz told Kurier.

"We can prove that we were within the limits [in Australia].

"The question is not so much about whether it makes economic sense, but more to do with the sporting value, political influence and the like.

"We have had it all but on these things from our perspective there is a clear limit to what we can accept."

The normally private Mateschitz added that he is somewhat frustrated by the FIA's decision to take the sport into a greener, quieter era with the focus on more efficient V6 engines.

"Formula one should be again what it always has been: the ultimate discipline," the 69-year-old added.

"It is not there to set new records in fuel consumption, or so you can talk at a whisper during a race and the greatest thrill is the squealing of the tyres.

"I consider it equally absurd that we are going a second slower than last year and that the junior series GP2 is almost as fast as formula one with a fraction of the budget.

Despite his dislike for the new F1 regulations, Mateschitz added that the reigning World Champions will continue developing their car throughout the season in the hope of catching up with the Mercedes-powered cars.

"We are working around the clock with our partner Renault and will make another big step in the next two to three weeks. There are 18 races to go," he continued.

"We will be back."

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=641896492530990

 

If these quotes are genuine and the translation is accurate, then in my opinion Red Bull should be charged additionally under Article 151c because making these comments constitutes an act prejudicial to the interests of the championship. It risks undermining public confidence in the integrity of the competition. "Political influence?" Come on... Stewards' decisions, and appeals against them, need to be seen to be free from political influence - they directly affect the results of races and, therefore, the championship standings. If they're crooked, you don't have a sport. It would be hard to think of a more unfortunate set of comments for a party to an appeal to make at this juncture.

 

When the testing saga broke there were suspicions that Mercedes was relying on an implied threat to withdraw, but it was only implied. And it didn't come from the boss. The question coming from the shareholders was, basically, is F1 a sound investment? Most of the people who were complaining were opposed to Mercedes' involvement in F1 to begin with and still are, so it was not a case of them saying "give us more political influence or else..." which is essentially what Mateschtiz seems to be saying here. This sort of thing cannot be allowed to slide.

 

And the irony is, if the appeal is successful, everybody will now assume that the FIA has simply capitulated to Mateschitz's bully-boy tactics.

[oetzi]

If these quotes are genuine and the translation is accurate, then in my opinion Red Bull should be charged additionally under Article 151c because making these comments constitutes an act prejudicial to the interests of the championship. It risks undermining public confidence in the integrity of the competition. "Political influence?" Come on... Stewards' decisions, and appeals against them, need to be seen to be free from political influence - they directly affect the results of races and, therefore, the championship standings. If they're crooked, you don't have a sport. It would be hard to think of a more unfortunate set of comments for a party to an appeal to make at this juncture.

 

When the testing saga broke there were suspicions that Mercedes was relying on an implied threat to withdraw, but it was only implied. And it didn't come from the boss. The question coming from the shareholders was, basically, is F1 a sound investment? Most of the people who were complaining were opposed to Mercedes' involvement in F1 to begin with and still are, so it was not a case of them saying "give us more political influence or else..." which is essentially what Mateschtiz seems to be saying here. This sort of thing cannot be allowed to slide.

 

And the irony is, if the appeal is successful, everybody will now assume that the FIA has simply capitulated to Mateschitz's bully-boy tactics.

He may mean political influence outside the sport - introductions to the leaders, movers and shakers in so many countries. And if he doesn't, I'm sure he'll say he does.

[EthanM]

If these quotes are genuine and the translation is accurate, then in my opinion Red Bull should be charged additionally under Article 151c because making these comments constitutes an act prejudicial to the interests of the championship. It risks undermining public confidence in the integrity of the competition. "Political influence?" Come on... Stewards' decisions, and appeals against them, need to be seen to be free from political influence - they directly affect the results of races and, therefore, the championship standings. If they're crooked, you don't have a sport. It would be hard to think of a more unfortunate set of comments for a party to an appeal to make at this juncture.

 

When the testing saga broke there were suspicions that Mercedes was relying on an implied threat to withdraw, but it was only implied. And it didn't come from the boss. The question coming from the shareholders was, basically, is F1 a sound investment? Most of the people who were complaining were opposed to Mercedes' involvement in F1 to begin with and still are, so it was not a case of them saying "give us more political influence or else..." which is essentially what Mateschtiz seems to be saying here. This sort of thing cannot be allowed to slide.

 

And the irony is, if the appeal is successful, everybody will now assume that the FIA has simply capitulated to Mateschitz's bully-boy tactics.

 

 

yeah lets think of the children, what will become of the children

 

DM was asked a specific question, basically what would it take for RB to withdraw from F1 ... would it be when F1 stopped making financial sense, what would it take for this happen? and he answered no it's not just a matter of it making financial sese, it's also about the sporting value of the sport, political influence in it etc.

 

And from that you just decided 152c.

 

Lol I say.

[Shambolic]

"Political influence?" Come on... Stewards' decisions, and appeals against them, need to be seen to be free from political influence - they directly affect the results of races and, therefore, the championship standings. If they're crooked, you don't have a sport.

It's only political influence when it goes against you. When it goes in your favour, it's objective policing.

Much as being a second a lap slower is only a retrograde step if everyone else is only nine tenths slower.

And engines should be loud if you've got the quiet one that doesn't work.

I have a feeling there's more than a little Bernie infiltrating the sorts of noises coming from Red Bull, but there's also a hint of entitlement and petulance seeping through too. Strange, considering when they're dominating they claim the rules are the same for everyone, and it's down to the others to work harder and not wait for rewards to be offered them on a plate.

[PassWind]

Really DM exerting to much influence over the sport? One word! Ferrari! End of that rubbish.

Red Bull in it's interests to protect it's competitive ability has taken the right route.

The Marshalls exercised their duty as they should of.

Now hopefully the crux of the issue, in a sport of precision the imprecise gets sorted out.

[EthanM]

It's only political influence when it goes against you. When it goes in your favour, it's objective policing.

Much as being a second a lap slower is only a retrograde step if everyone else is only nine tenths slower.

And engines should be loud if you've got the quiet one that doesn't work.

I have a feeling there's more than a little Bernie infiltrating the sorts of noises coming from Red Bull, but there's also a hint of entitlement and petulance seeping through too. Strange, considering when they're dominating they claim the rules are the same for everyone, and it's down to the others to work harder and not wait for rewards to be offered them on a plate.

 

more nonsense

 

what he said had nothing to do with sensors, stewards etc It was an answer to a very specific question

 

journalist

Sie haben immer wieder betont, dass es irgendwann möglich ist, dass sich Red Bull auch wieder aus der Formel 1 zurückziehen könnte, sollte es für das Unternehmen ökonomisch keinen Sinn mehr haben. Was müsste dafür passieren?

DM

Die Frage ist nicht so sehr, ob es ökonomisch Sinn macht, vielmehr würden das Gründe sein, die mit sportlicher Fairness, politischen Einflussnahmen etc. zu tun haben. Das hatten wir alles schon. Diesen Dingen gegenüber gibt es unsererseits eine klare Akzeptanzgrenze.

 

and you people should learn to read the source material (even if it means going through google translate) rather than BS copy/paste articles.

[jrwb6e]

If Red Bull promises to leave the sport, I'll promise to buy them a good-bye cake.

[scheivlak]

 

 

 

what he said had nothing to do with sensors, stewards etc It was an answer to a very specific question

 

Die Frage ist nicht so sehr, ob es ökonomisch Sinn macht, vielmehr würden das Gründe sein, die mit sportlicher Fairness, politischen Einflussnahmen etc. zu tun haben. Das hatten wir alles schon. Diesen Dingen gegenüber gibt es unsererseits eine klare Akzeptanzgrenze.

 

 

It's not that strange to associate " Gründe (....), die mit sportlicher Fairness, politischen Einflussnahmen etc. zu tun haben" with sensors and stewards.

[EthanM]

It's not that strange to associate " Gründe (....), die mit sportlicher Fairness, politischen Einflussnahmen etc. zu tun haben" with sensors and stewards.

 

sure if you close your ears and shout nanana when the actual question he is replying to comes up

[scheivlak]

sure if you close your ears and shout nanana when the actual question he is replying to comes up

It looks like that exactly the thing that you did when you read the question. You might read the answer as well 

[KnucklesAgain]

""I consider it equally absurd that we are going a second slower than last year..."

 

What a load of cobblers - the FIA regularly introduce regulations to slow the cars if they feel they are going faster than is safe (e.g. grooved tyres, engine shrinking - chicanes...)

 

This really is toys out of the pram territory, he sounds a fool.

 

Indeed. So by the expectations they will be 1 to 3 secs faster than last year by the end of 2014. Not sure if huge problem

[FBJim]

""I consider it equally absurd that we are going a second slower than last year..."

 

What a load of cobblers - the FIA regularly introduce regulations to slow the cars if they feel they are going faster than is safe (e.g. grooved tyres, engine shrinking - chicanes...)

 

This really is toys out of the pram territory, he sounds a fool.

This, and the whining about the noise comes across as cynical attempts to get whining fans on their side. I highly doubt Red Bull were actually surprised that the cars are initally running slower after a major regs change, something that has happened again and again in the history of Formula One.

[Lazy]

Indeed. So by the expectations they will be 1 to 3 secs faster than last year by the end of 2014. Not sure if huge problem

Indeed, I'm not sure he's played this bit of politics very well.

[baddog]

He is right on general principles, no question. The regulations are stupid, overcomplex, over-regulated and will always go wrong. The new formula is a bit ****.

 

He is wrong on the specifics, teams cannot just ignore rules they think are not good. The ONLY justification I can think of is that the team are willing to throw some results to the wolves in order to make this a public fight and maybe change things.

[scheivlak]

Indeed, I'm not sure he's played this bit of politics very well.

It's like he's deliberately aping his pal Bernie - producing some would-be popular quotes mixed with a barely hidden threat.

 

The mark of a bad loser.

Edited by scheivlak, 24 March 2014 - 20:39.

[BullHead]

Shame he didn't mention double points, that would be a justifiable rant to me. As it is, I agree his comments need to taken in context with the question he was being asked. It's like when Christian Horner spoke last year of the team not necessarily needing Red Bull as the main backer. He was talking about the team in the future having plans in place for such a possibility.

Edited by BullHead, 24 March 2014 - 20:42.

[redreni]

I've now had time to read the original (although my German isn't very good, but good enough to put the remarks in some sort of context at least) and I've also had the benefit of the confirmation from those whose language skills are better that the translation I originally responded to was pretty good. Personally I'm still concerned that Mateschitz's remark about sporting fairness, uttered in the context of a question specifically about the conditions under which he would pull his team out of F1, was at the very least ill-judged given the timing. Especially since, while we're talking about context, it followed on directly from a question about the Melbourne disqualification.

 

Maybe I've got a stricter attitude than most towards this sort of thing, but I think the competitors ought to be very careful what they say when appeal hearings etc are pending. Yes, you could find an innocent interpretation for the comments, but the very fact that you can (and a number of people will - it's not just me) interpret the remarks as an attempt to use the threat of withdrawal to put pressure on the ICA ahead of the appeal hearing, is enough to give rise to the perception of bias, which is bad for the repuation of the sport and prejudices the interests of F1. Okay, he was asked about potential withdrawal rather than him bringing it up, but he could have simply reiterated his previously stated position that they would withdraw if it no longer made financial sense to stay. He didn't have to bring up sporting fairness, which has every appearance of being an extremely thinly veiled reference to the upcoming case, or political influences.

 

I do agree that my original interpretation, that Mateschitz was saying that Red Bull might withdraw unless it had what he would regard as the right amount of political influence, was wide of the mark. It looks more like he was complaining that decisions in F1 are too political (which if you ask me is a bit rich coming from him - I bet he doesn't think the decision to race at Spielberg was too political). 

[bourbon]

I've now had time to read the original (although my German isn't very good, but good enough to put the remarks in some sort of context at least) and I've also had the benefit of the confirmation from those whose language skills are better that the translation I originally responded to was pretty good. Personally I'm still concerned that Mateschitz's remark about sporting fairness, uttered in the context of a question specifically about the conditions under which he would pull his team out of F1, was at the very least ill-judged given the timing. Especially since, while we're talking about context, it followed on directly from a question about the Melbourne disqualification.

 

Maybe I've got a stricter attitude than most towards this sort of thing, but I think the competitors ought to be very careful what they say when appeal hearings etc are pending. Yes, you could find an innocent interpretation for the comments, but the very fact that you can (and a number of people will - it's not just me) interpret the remarks as an attempt to use the threat of withdrawal to put pressure on the ICA ahead of the appeal hearing, is enough to give rise to the perception of bias, which is bad for the repuation of the sport and prejudices the interests of F1. Okay, he was asked about potential withdrawal rather than him bringing it up, but he could have simply reiterated his previously stated position that they would withdraw if it no longer made financial sense to stay. He didn't have to bring up sporting fairness, which has every appearance of being an extremely thinly veiled reference to the upcoming case, or political influences.

 

I do agree that my original interpretation, that Mateschitz was saying that Red Bull might withdraw unless it had what he would regard as the right amount of political influence, was wide of the mark. It looks more like he was complaining that decisions in F1 are too political (which if you ask me is a bit rich coming from him - I bet he doesn't think the decision to race at Spielberg was too political). 

 

It just sounds like you are milking his comments for a negative result. 

 

I don't know what you expect from the boards and presidents overseeing billion dollar investments in the industry.  Like Mercedes last year and McLaren before that and Ferrari before that, the comments coming out of the representative functionaries will always be tinged with their own political slant based on the best interest of their companies.  You seem to believe he shouldn't publicly support his company at all.

[Brother Fox]

Lol @ Mateschitz threat. As if anyone would be really upset and miss Red Bull if they were to quit.

Yay! More Marussia's and smaller grids

[redreni]

It just sounds like you are milking his comments for a negative result. 

 

I don't know what you expect from the boards and presidents overseeing billion dollar investments in the industry.  Like Mercedes last year and McLaren before that and Ferrari before that, the comments coming out of the representative functionaries will always be tinged with their own political slant based on the best interest of their companies.  You seem to believe he shouldn't publicly support his company at all.

 

I think you're milking my comments for a negative result a bit, there. I think while the matter is pending, it would be better if Red Bull would refrain from commenting or, if they must comment, say something helpful like "we have faith in the FIA", which is what Montezemolo said last time Ferrari was an interested party in an FIA hearing. Thus he could say something that is supportive of, rather than hostile to, the governing body's right and duty to govern the sport,

 

He can support his company all he likes, but we've come to a pretty pass if F1 can't go through its normal regulatory and disciplinary processes without one of its major investors and participants saying it might withdraw if there isn't "sporting fairness". We all know that Mateschitz's idea of sporting fairness is never going to involve the disqualification of his cars, so the threat is clear and it is unacceptable and it is just not true to say that you hear this kind of thing from Maranello in similar circumstances.

Edited by redreni, 24 March 2014 - 22:14.

[redreni]

Yay! More Marussia's and smaller grids

 

Yeah that would be terrible, wouldn't it? I guess the FIA had better let them off, then?

[Lazy]

I don't know what you expect from the boards and presidents overseeing billion dollar investments in the industry. 

 

I would expect them to make a much better job of their political moves, he made himself sound a little clueless tbh.

[Brother Fox]

Yeah that would be terrible, wouldn't it? I guess the FIA had better let them off, then?

If you were paying attention you would notice it was in response to the quote wishing for Red Bull to leave the sport.

[bourbon]

I think you're milking my comments for a negative result a bit, there. I think while the matter is pending, it would be better if Red Bull would refrain from commenting or, if they must comment, say something helpful like "we have faith in the FIA", which is what Montezemolo said last time Ferrari was an interested party in an FIA hearing. Thus he could say something that is supportive of, rather than hostile to, the governing body's right and duty to govern the sport,

 

He can support his company all he likes, but we've come to a pretty pass if F1 can't go through its normal regulatory and disciplinary processes without one of its major investors and participants saying it might withdraw if there isn't "sporting fairness". We all know that Mateschitz's idea of sporting fairness is never going to involve the disqualification of his cars, so the threat is clear and it is unacceptable and it is just not true to say that you hear this kind of thing from Maranello in similar circumstances.

 

Mateschitz did not say he might withdraw at all.  He was asked if Red Bull's leaving would be only for economic reasons - he was asked that.  His response was that it was not only a matter of economics but also of sporting fairness and political influence.  From that, the reporter intimated that Mateschitz found the sensor issue to be given to political influence and unsporting - and could cause RBR to withdraw - and you are doing the same thing.  But Mateschitz did not say any such thing.

 

The same applied to Maranello in 2009 over the budget caps.  Ferrari's threat was in ink: it would not participate in the 2010 WDC unless changes were made - and this was publicly stated by Ferrari while the matter was under consideration.  The press intimated that Ferrari's statement was a threat what it might withdraw from the sport altogether - forever (not just in 2010) if they didn't get their way - and even Bernie joined in, going so far as to express his concern over the threat of Ferrari leaving the sport. 

 

And as you indicated, last season, Mercedes statements were also intimated to be a threat to withdraw last season during the time testgate was going on, although never flatly stated.  Many believe the threat resulted in the wrist slap penalty Mercedes received - including the other top teams.

 

So you can suggest this is a Red Bull thing - but we all know this behavior is shared by all the top constructors when their backs are against the wall so to speak.  Red Bull is not behaving out of the ordinary.

Edited by bourbon, 24 March 2014 - 22:50.

[redreni]

If you were paying attention you would notice it was in response to the quote wishing for Red Bull to leave the sport.

 

I was paying attention. Poster says it would be no loss if Red Bull leave. You pointed out (rightly) that it would be a bad thing if they left. I was making the point that it is therefore poor form for them to threaten to withdraw if there isn't sporting fairness when there is an ICA appeal pending, as this could be construed as a threat. I wouldn't care if Marussia got disqualified and then intimated that they might pull out if they felt there wasn't sporting fairness in F1, because the threat would be laughable and no sane person would think the ICA would be affected by it.

[redreni]

Mateschitz did not say he might withdraw at all.  He was asked if Red Bull's leaving would be only for economic reasons - he was asked that.  His response was that it was not only a matter of economics but also of sporting fairness and political influence.  From that, the reporter intimated that Mateschitz found the sensor issue to be given to political influence and unsporting - and could cause RBR to withdraw - and you are doing the same thing.  But Mateschitz did not say any such thing.

 

The same applied to Maranello in 2009 over the budget caps.  Ferrari's threat was in ink: it would not participate in the 2010 WDC unless changes were made - and this was publicly stated by Ferrari while the matter was under consideration.  The press intimated that Ferrari's statement was a threat what it might withdraw from the sport altogether - forever (not just in 2010) if they didn't get their way - and even Bernie joined in, going so far as to express his concern over the threat of Ferrari leaving the sport. 

 

And as you indicated, last season, Mercedes statements were also intimated to be a threat to withdraw last season during the time testgate was going on, although never flatly stated.  Many believe the threat resulted in the wrist slap penalty Mercedes received - including the other top teams.

 

So you can suggest this is a Red Bull thing - but we all know this behavior is shared by all the top constructors when their backs are against the wall so to speak.  Red Bull is not behaving out of the ordinary.

 

Re. the bolded parts, you can play semantics all you like, he was asked what would need to happen for RBR to withdraw and he answered by naming two factors, in addition to financial considerations, that would play into that decision. Specifying the conditions under which you might withdraw entails and involves saying that you might withdraw - that's the only way you can make sense of the answer Mateschtiz gave. There is a stronger case for denying that Ferrari gave Massa a team order to move over in the 2010 German GP than for denying that Mateschitz has said that Red Bull might withdraw..

 

Regarding the threat not to enter the 2010 championship, didn't pretty much all teams bar Williams make that threat? You know perfectly well that Ferrari were not standing alone holding the rest of the sport to ransom in an attempt to get their way, they were joining together with nearly all the other constructors including Red Bull to achieve a common goal. It's just not the same.

 

And regarding Mercedes, I didn't approve of them hinting at withdrawal either, although 've already explained why I think this case is much, much worse than that one.

[Kingshark]

Red Bull are by far the loudest and most obnoxious team in F1, I suspect that they are politically even more powerful than Ferrari. If RBR want something changed, they really let the world know about it.

[DanardiF1]

Red Bull are by far the loudest and most obnoxious team in F1, I suspect that they are politically even more powerful than Ferrari. If RBR want something changed, they really let the world know about it.

 

Isn't that what they're trying now with this whole fuel flow thing?

[Tsarwash]

I suspect the FIA are going to take a dim view of this attitude.

[Solari12]

RedBull, Toys, Pram... They just won 8 titles for goodnes sake..

Edited by Solari12, 25 March 2014 - 00:41.

[Doughnut King]

Red Bull are by far the loudest and most obnoxious team in F1, I suspect that they are politically even more powerful than Ferrari. If RBR want something changed, they really let the world know about it.

 

Having four cars probably helps.

[RealRacing]

Aside from conspiracies of political manipulation, I do agree with this:

 

"Sie ist weder dazu da, neue Rekorde im Benzinverbrauch aufzustellen, noch dass man sich im Flüsterton während eines Rennens unterhalten kann, das Lauteste der Boxenfunk und das höchste der Gefühle ein quietschender Reifen ist".

 

"She [F1] is not there to either set new records in fuel consumption, nor for people to be able to converse with each other in a whisper-tone during a race, pit radio the loudest (noise) and the highest of sensations a squealing tyre." 

[teejay]

Once you are the top, there is only one way you can head...

 

They must not be enjoying it, even if it might only be a lull in proceedings.

[bourbon]

Re. the bolded parts, you can play semantics all you like, he was asked what would need to happen for RBR to withdraw and he answered by naming two factors, in addition to financial considerations, that would play into that decision. Specifying the conditions under which you might withdraw entails and involves saying that you might withdraw - that's the only way you can make sense of the answer Mateschtiz gave. There is a stronger case for denying that Ferrari gave Massa a team order to move over in the 2010 German GP than for denying that Mateschitz has said that Red Bull might withdraw..

 

Oh come on - the whole topic was about RBR withdrawing - so obviously he was talking about the conditions under which RBR might withdraw.  I was clearly speaking about you and the journalist linking what he said directly to the hearing - as if he was threatening that RBR would certainly withdraw if the outcome wasn't to his liking.  That is simply not the case.  That is all I was saying.
 

Regarding the threat not to enter the 2010 championship, didn't pretty much all teams bar Williams make that threat? You know perfectly well that Ferrari were not standing alone holding the rest of the sport to ransom in an attempt to get their way, they were joining together with nearly all the other constructors including Red Bull to achieve a common goal. It's just not the same.

 

And regarding Mercedes, I didn't approve of them hinting at withdrawal either, although 've already explained why I think this case is much, much worse than that one.

 

 

I respect your right to not like this type of behavior, and as you know, I am not a fan of any team, only of drivers, but I have to call you on trying to make Red Bull out to be worse in this regard than the others because I disagree with that, and I disagree with the distinctions you raise to support the idea that the others "weren't so bad".   

 

Ferrari was indeed the ONLY team that threatened to not participate in 2010 if changes were not made.  Don't change the topic to how many teams agreed with them - those other teams did not threaten to leave and that is the topic we are discussing:  A team threatening to leave while a matter is under consideration in order to get its way.  ONLY Ferrari did that at the time.

 

As for Mercedes last year, their threat to leave prior to the tribunal resulted in their getting a mere slap on the wrist instead of just punishment.  I do not see how this case is "much, much worse" - than that.  That was completely unfair and unsporting behavior.  Exactly how is this much, much worse?   The fact that only SOME shareholders, but not all, made the statements is immaterial considering those statements were not retracted by anyone at Mercedes prior to the tribunal, so the impact of the statements was in full force at the time the decision was being made.

Edited by bourbon, 25 March 2014 - 01:21.

[lbennie]

Lol @ Mateschitz threat. As if anyone would be really upset and miss Red Bull if they were to quit.

 

Don't be ignorant.

RBR has a massive fan base. There is a world outside of the UK you know.

Edited by lbennie, 25 March 2014 - 01:54.

[bauss]

lol @ RBR having a massive fan base....

 

must be the fan base that kept booing Seb in every GP last season.

 

of all the top teams, RBR easily has the lowest fan base, easily.

[FBJim]

Don't be ignorant.

RBR has a massive fan base. There is a world outside of the UK you know.

All their "fans" would just switch to whatever other team started winning everything. 

[slideways]

There are those of us who appreciate the 46 years of combined history of their two teams, the thousands of F1 jobs spanning two nations (three if you count Austria), their willingness to spend extra to maintain and upgrade the Minardi facility in Faenza rather than shut it down and relocate STR to the UK as had seemed likely. Reinvigorating the ex Jaguar team & facility in Milton Keynes, introducing the first and only real young driver program that spans continents/nations and which has 3 of 22 seats dedicated to new talent, single handedly undoing any remaining post war Australian - Germanic relations.

 

We have a lot to thank them for !

[bourbon]

lol @ RBR having a massive fan base....

 

must be the fan base that kept booing Seb in every GP last season.

 

of all the top teams, RBR easily has the lowest fan base, easily.

 

He was not booed in every GP.  He was NOT booed in:

 

Malaysia,

China,

Bahrain,

Germany

India,

Japan,

USA,

Abu

Dhabi,

Brazil,

Belgium,

Korea,

Spain,

Monaco

 

I would suggest your evidence does not support the point you countered with your post.

[Brother Fox]

But they're just a soft drinks company remember

[lbennie]

lol @ RBR having a massive fan base....

 

must be the fan base that kept booing Seb in every GP last season.

 

of all the top teams, RBR easily has the lowest fan base, easily.

Every GP huh? keep saying that - it might become true.

 

I was lucky enough to attend quite a few GPs over the last couple of years in a few different locations and there was always a TON of people sporting red bull merch. More than most other teams (accept monza as you can imagine).

 

All their "fans" would just switch to whatever other team started winning everything. 

 

You mean like how Mercedes seem to have half of McLaren's old fan base now? 

[Kingshark]

He was not booed in every GP.  He was NOT booed in:

 

Malaysia,

China,

Bahrain,

Germany

India,

Japan,

USA,

Abu Dhabi,

Brazil,

Belgium,

Korea,

Spain,

Monaco

 

I would suggest your evidence does not support the point you countered with your post.

 

Vettel was definitely booed in Belgium, I don't know what you were listening to. Likewise, he didn't finish on the podium in either China nor Spain, so you don't know what reaction he would have received (I'm 100% certain that the Spanish would have booed him).

 

Nonetheless, bauss' point about Red Bull having by far the lowest fanbase of any top team is a very valid one. Red Bull haven't got half of the fanbase that the likes of Ferrari and McLaren do.

Edited by Kingshark, 25 March 2014 - 04:08.

[bourbon]

Vettel was definitely booed in Belgium, I don't know what you were listening to. Likewise, he didn't finish on the podium in either China nor Spain, so you don't know what reaction he would have received (I'm 100% certain that the Spanish would have booed him).

 

Nonetheless, bauss' point about Red Bull having by far the lowest fanbase of any top team is a very valid one. Red Bull haven't got half of the fanbase that the likes of Ferrari and McLaren do.

 

He was not booed at every GP which was what Bauss said.  Which was incorrect. 

 

Furthermore, in Belgium they were booing an activist above the stage, which is why you heard loud cheering when Seb was introduced which then turned to boos (or did you feel they simply hadn't recognized him for the first 5 seconds?) and China and Spain most certainly are counted for their reaction - he didn't finish in Silverstone either and he was booed there for all to hear anyway.

 

Bauss' attempt to paint the entire fanbase with a brush of poor sportsmanship is invalid, imo.  The booing of 1 driver in specific locations does not support a global lack of appreciation for RBR.  In fact, at PR events and so forth, we have seen massive support for RBR.

 

If RBR left the sport, I believe the majority of f1 fans would be unhappy about it.  what most want is good racing and to see the sport continue to move forward.  Team's like Red Bull make that happen.  Thus, DM's statements regarding the Melbourne incident and RBR's position in the sport would be very meaningful to many people.

Edited by bourbon, 25 March 2014 - 04:45.