Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What's causing Red Bull Racing such a hissy fit? Speculate here.


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 TDIMeister

TDIMeister
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 17 March 2015 - 00:52

http://www.autoblog....kusauto00000016

 

 

Marko points to the engines as the source of the problem with the sport's current era: "These power units are the wrong solution for F1, and we would say this even if Renault were in the lead."

http://www.dailymail...ns-advisor.html

 

http://www.worldcarf...-f1-quit-threat

 

 

Red Bull is now taking steps to get more involved in Renault's development process, including bringing in the Austrian giant AVL and engine guru Mario Illien.

But Marko, designer Adrian Newey and Horner insist the FIA also needs to step in, for the sake of F1.

 

http://www1.skysport...ons-are-changed

 

Team boss Christian Horner hit out at Red Bull’s engine suppliers Renaultafter the race, describing them as “a bit of a mess”, and calling on the FIA, F1’s governing body, to consider implementing “an equalisation mechanism” in order to clip Mercedes’ wings.

“The problem is the gap is so big. You end up with three-tier racing and I think that’s not healthy for Formula 1,” Horner said.

Ecclestone agrees. "They are absolutely 100 per cent right," he said. "There is a rule that I think [former president] Max [Mosley] put in when he was there that in the event...that a particular team or engine supplier did something magic - which Mercedes have done - the FIA can level up things.

 

Other than RBR being whiney babies for not winning, what technical issue or perceived unfair advantage at Mercedes are they bellyaching about? Discuss!



Advertisement

#2 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,635 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 17 March 2015 - 04:53

It certainly was disappointing to see the silver cars disappear over the horizon - even lapping Ricciardo in 6th place. OTOH I don't want to see the gap pared back by a rule change - unless MB have a secret weapon hidden away somewhere.

 

'When we were winning, and we were never winning with an advantage that Mercedes has, double diffusers were banned, exhausts were moved, flexible bodywork was banned, engine mapping was changed mid-season - anything was done to pull us back,' Horner told reporters.

 

Once again - if MB are doing something different and a rule change will equalise things - perhaps. But I don't think that's the case, MB are simply doing everything better.



#3 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 6,776 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 17 March 2015 - 10:16

And everyone else is failing to catch up because rules pretty much prevent it. No testing, homologated engines and all.

 

All this stuff must go down.



#4 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 17 March 2015 - 10:41

Marko/Horner have publicly complained about Renault pretty much from the start. I remember when they were first having strong seasons(2009) complaining if the engine blew in practice or whatever. But I never seem to remember them praising Renault when they do well. Though "the engine was fantastic this weekend" doesn't anchor in your memory in the same way.

 

I dunno, maybe there's a cultural thing. Like you have to criticise them openly to embarrass them into action.



#5 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 2,629 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 17 March 2015 - 10:45

Liberating more tokens seems the quickest and simplest way to fix it.  Merc would also get them, but the law of diminishing returns should equalise the pack ... hopefully.



#6 TDIMeister

TDIMeister
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 17 March 2015 - 16:54

What is it that RBR doesn't like about the power pack rules? Are they so far behind Mercedes in turbo and xERS technology-wise that they want to nix one or both of them to gain a more level field? Do they not like the fuel-limits?



#7 TDIMeister

TDIMeister
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 17 March 2015 - 16:55

Liberating more tokens seems the quickest and simplest way to fix it.  Merc would also get them, but the law of diminishing returns should equalise the pack ... hopefully.

I am not familiar with the tokens.  Care to elaborate?



#8 J. Edlund

J. Edlund
  • Member

  • 1,323 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 17 March 2015 - 19:20

The token system allow restricted engine development for and during the 2015 season. For 2015 all engine manufacturers except Honda got 32 tokens to use for modification of their homologated powerplants (Honda got 9 tokens for in season development, an average of what the other engine manufacturers have left to use). Different components are weighted differently, but the complete powerplant is 66 tokens, so they are allowed to change the design of roughly half the engine.



#9 TDIMeister

TDIMeister
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 17 March 2015 - 19:24

Awesome thanks!



#10 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 4,169 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 17 March 2015 - 22:20

They've built a crap car this year, there is only so much blame they can heap on Ren. , so now they're threatening to take their ball away



#11 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,635 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 17 March 2015 - 22:41

According to Horner the chassis is 1/2 sec quicker. The truth or otherwise should become evident as the season progresses and the engine gets sorted. There is no doubt in my mind there are technical issues. You only need to look at the reliability of the RB cars leading up to qualy - they were hard pressed to complete a lap and get back to the pits. Things suddenly improved for qualy - I bet they dialled in a conservative tune/strategy to make the grid, albeit with a significant power reduction.



#12 Peter0Scandlyn

Peter0Scandlyn
  • Member

  • 727 posts
  • Joined: September 14

Posted 19 March 2015 - 04:22

 

 

Once again - if MB are doing something different and a rule change will equalise things - perhaps. But I don't think that's the case, MB are simply doing everything better.

 

They're not the team you could be supposing in your thread on FIA fuel flow directive?



#13 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,635 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 19 March 2015 - 06:26

No guesses from me - except to say probably not Red Bull or McLaren.



#14 Peter0Scandlyn

Peter0Scandlyn
  • Member

  • 727 posts
  • Joined: September 14

Posted 20 March 2015 - 03:01

No....probably not.

Someone's had a quiet whisper in an ear though which lead to the directive? Possibly. In which case one needn't look too far....



#15 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 2,325 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 20 March 2015 - 19:47

A list of what is wrong from a racing point of view with the new rules may well fill several pages but one FIA rule ( which has nothing to do with Hybrid PU per se) may help MB more and more - it  is the 4 engines  per season rule

 

One team ( TR I think) has lost an engine already on one car. If you lose more than , say , two engines on car early in the season you face a terrible choice, run the last two very conservatively and have to " cruise", or risk missing a late race and incur huge financial penalties and sponsor anger by having no engines to race with.

 

So being way ahead is not just a matter of tokens for MB. They can  run their engines more gently and still win until there is sight of closer competition. Conversely if you are chasing MB you either use the engines flat out and risk losing one or NEVER see if you can close the gap.

 

This engine loss risk may be one reason the McLaen/Honda crept round Aldelaide way off the race pace.

 

As it takes 300 to 600 people to do an F1 engine/PU programme the " cost saving " benefits of having 4 engines this year versus5 last year is effectively non existent.


Edited by mariner, 20 March 2015 - 19:48.


#16 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 29,343 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 20 March 2015 - 20:31

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the cost of building 40 units was hardly more than the cost of building 4--assuming it was all planned that way.  The per-unit cost would obviously be massively lower.



#17 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 4,169 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 20 March 2015 - 21:41

they don't miss races , if they take a 5th or 6th they get grid penalties as per last year.

your basic contention is true though



#18 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,635 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 March 2015 - 22:41

Pretty sure Ricciardo lost a complete PU in practice and the other McLaren (not Button) blew up on the warm-up lap.



#19 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,402 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 20 March 2015 - 22:53

Pretty sure Ricciardo lost a complete PU in practice and the other McLaren (not Button) blew up on the warm-up lap.

 

Ricciardo did lose an engine in opening practice - that is the ICE. Might have been in the first half hour!

 

And, yes, Magnussen had one of Alonso's engines go kaboom.



Advertisement

#20 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,402 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 20 March 2015 - 22:54

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the cost of building 40 units was hardly more than the cost of building 4--assuming it was all planned that way.  The per-unit cost would obviously be massively lower.

 

Particulalrly if it was only the ICE they were changing, keeping restrictions on the turbo, control electronics, energy store, MGUH and MGUK.



#21 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,402 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 20 March 2015 - 22:58

What is it that RBR doesn't like about the power pack rules? Are they so far behind Mercedes in turbo and xERS technology-wise that they want to nix one or both of them to gain a more level field? Do they not like the fuel-limits?

 

What I think they don't like is that it isn't all about the chassis (ie aero) with the new Power Units. It is a factor over which they have little or no control.

 

They much preferred the old frozen, homologated and equalised engines so their chassis can shine and their engine would never be too far behind.



#22 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 20 March 2015 - 23:47

Sometimes I wonder if F1 would work better by putting engines out to tender. So mid 00s Audi would have supplied turbo-diesels. Maybe these days Toyota or Merc would be running the current gasoline hybrids. 

 

Everyone gets the same engine, and either free engines(as part of the global deal) or dirt cheap. It's written off as an R&D exercise by the manufacturer since they can play around and since they don't have to compete they can make really sturdy units and upgrade them slowly. 

 

It instantly becomes more competitive, and you can probably open up the chassis regs a bit. You also eliminate the risk of the big all spending all conquering manufacturers, and the holes they create when they eventually go home(win or lose).

 

You'd obviously lose Ferrari. But if the gain in competitiveness/lowering of costs/whatever more than offset it, it'd be a price worth paying. 

 

People want to see Driver battles, team battles, engine battles, an tire battles. Pretty much in that order. 

 

And remember. The 'golden era' was pretty much customer Cosworths and a set of Goodyears. 



#23 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 4,169 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 21 March 2015 - 09:29

Engine manufactures to carry the cost as R+D could work even with current regs., especially if/when Renault has enough of Red Bull ungrateful whinging [notice there was no apology for falsely blaming Renault for Kvyats gearbox failure] and starts their own works team.

Why should the teams who only want to go racing have to foot the bill for OEM marketing benefits , it was the OEMs who insisted on these incredibly complex/expensive PUs,[I like the tech. but it is killing the sport due to cost]



#24 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 8,402 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 21 March 2015 - 10:54



Engine manufactures to carry the cost as R+D could work even with current regs., especially if/when Renault has enough of Red Bull ungrateful whinging [notice there was no apology for falsely blaming Renault for Kvyats gearbox failure] and starts their own works team.

Why should the teams who only want to go racing have to foot the bill for OEM marketing benefits , it was the OEMs who insisted on these incredibly complex/expensive PUs,[I like the tech. but it is killing the sport due to cost]

 

The V8s had a cost cap in later years. Why not these PU's?

 

I'm sure teh smaller teams woudl welcome a reasonable price for their supply?



#25 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,635 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 22 March 2015 - 04:50

People want to see Driver battles, team battles, engine battles, an tire battles. Pretty much in that order. 

 What - no fuel-chemistry battles!



#26 TDIMeister

TDIMeister
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 26 March 2015 - 17:37

Hamilton amused by Horner's equalisation comments

 

 

Lewis Hamilton says he finds Christian Horner's calls for equalisation "funny" considering the success Red Bull enjoyed in recent years.

 

After Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg's dominant one-two in Australia Horner called on the FIA to rein in Mercedes. Red Bull dominated the sport before the V6 era started last year, with four consecutive drivers' and constructors' championships between 2010 and 2013, and Hamilton thinks that makes Horner's comments all the more bizarre.

 

"I find it quite funny and interesting that the opinion is coming from individuals who have had so much success," Hamilton said. "Bearing in mind it has only been one race, so to already have comments like this is what I find funny. It was a big step for me to come to this team that had so many years of poor performance."


Read more at http://en.espnf1.com...UV5Zddk28tUV.99

 

Good one, Lewis!! :thumbup:



#27 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 9,389 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 28 March 2015 - 15:50

As silly questions go, this one's a lulu. They're having a hissy fit because they are not winning any more - Seemples.