39 replies to this topic

[David1976]

It's often mentioned in the press, be it by Bernie, Ron or others, that the customer power units (most likely the ICE) are less powerful than the works packages. Even if the ICE is only compromised a bit surely this compounds with the ERS's.  Being that the power units are dominating the package more than they have done for years even small changes could mean the difference between the podium and mid points.

 

How much benefit is lost purely in performance terms if you are a customer team as opposed to a works team?

 

What other benefits to works teams enjoy over their customers for the same power units?  What does this equate to in lap time?

[Marklar]

I've started a few weeks ago a thread based on one article where one point (engine integration) is nicely explained.
 

When we are talking about the reasons why works teams are so far ahead of their own customers, then we hear very often about the engine integration. But what does that mean? F1i.com features an article today with a lot pics of the Mercedes PU and also deals in one part with the differences between Mercedes, Williams, Lotus and Force India.







More pics and insights in the following article

http://en.f1i.com/ma...power-unit.html

Furthermore works teams can delay the software and new fuel for its costumer teams. Also the data can be restricted. And works teams are choosing the engines with the smallest deviation of power for themselves (apparentely this can be already 5-10 hp, depending on the quality).

 

It's difficult to say how much of a difference it makes, though. But it certainly makes a big difference.

Edited by Marklar, 14 January 2016 - 12:49.

[Fatgadget]

I think the key is intergration. The works car is designed from the ground up with the pu,the turbo, the chassis, cooling requirements etc etc complimenting each other as a package.And then of course fuel.And having first dibs at any updates

That is why Ron Dennis said what he said about being a works team and he knows the ins and outs of the subject better than anyone else because he has been both .

[David1976]

What about software?  I have heard this mentioned more than a few times.

 

Lubricants are obviously pretty important too.  

[AustinF1]

I think it's a very significant difference. Ron Dennis, others, and Bernie agree.

 

Ecclestone: Mercedes, Ferrari give less powerful engines to customers -  - F1i.com: http://en.f1i.com/ne...ecclestone.html

 

With eight out of the 11 teams supplied by either Mercedes or Ferrari, the 85-year-old supremo doubts any other squad can challenge the big two in 2016.

“Mercedes supply four [sic] of these power units to the smaller teams and obviously they supply them with a lot less power than they have in their own cars,” he told Canadian radio TSN. “So you’ve got rid of four teams.”

“Ferrari supply three teams in exactly the same way. Ferrari’s not as powerful, their engine, as Mercedes, but it’s getting there. Anyway they supply other teams and the teams they supply the engine’s not as good.

“So all we’ve got really and truly is Mercedes and Ferrari - I hope - racing each other.”

A staunch opponent of the current engine regulations, Ecclestone once again hit out at the 1.6-litre V6 turbocharged units by saying these are deterring new constructors from entering the sport.

“The problem we have is the power units. When Formula One was built, there was a manufacturer that made engines and everyone used it, except Ferrari. It was a level-playing field then. Now, it is not.

“So we’re in the process of doing something about it. We’ve just got to make these engines much more simple in order to have another manufacturer come in and supply people.”

 

Edited by AustinF1, 14 January 2016 - 17:00.

[taran]

I think it's a very significant difference. Ron Dennis, others, and Bernie agree.

 

Ecclestone: Mercedes, Ferrari give less powerful engines to customers -  - F1i.com: http://en.f1i.com/ne...ecclestone.html

 

The problem with these statements is that they are not to be trusted. Everyone has either a hidden agenda or perhaps mean additional things.

 

I wouldn't trust anything Bernie says, especially his current whining about engines. He had ample opportunity to arrange for the presence of a neutral engine provider. Even now, all he has to do is fund one. But instead of putting his money where his mouth is, he attacks manufacturers...because they aren't dependent on his handouts. And engines is just one (or perhaps even the only) weapon he has.

 

Dennis needs a factory deal. Not necessarily because it provides technical advantages but because it comes with with $$$ and additional technical resources. McLaren would be up **** creek without Honda handouts and Honda brings additional engineering resources to the table. They were able to win in 2010-2012 with good chassis and drivers before losing their way and their sponsors.

 

None of which doesn't mean a bespoke engine deal isn't a tremendous advantage but it isn't the silver bullet some would claim or is it the disadvantage some believe. Customer teams usually don't win races but is it really down to the engine? Williams is severely cash strapped compared to the top teams and it has Massa and Bottas as drivers. Massa was piss poor in his final years @ Ferrari and "rising star" Bottas is barely better. So why should Williams be able to challenge Mercedes? The same applies to Force India. Not enough money and drivers who aren't quite top notch.

 

Everybody believes Red Bull would challenge Mercedes if they had customer Mercedes engines so the disadvantages aren't really that big if you have enough money and quality drivers.

[David1976]

My thought was that with, say for instance, less optimal software/lubricants the ICE does not produce 100% of a works engine, thereby does not recover as much energy through the ERS and the overall customer unit is down on power more than you would anticipate?

 

I am no engineer but I'd be very curious to know what percentages we could be talking about here.

[Scotracer]

The intercooler differences could be down to how the contracts are written. If the teams are only receiving an 'Engine as shipped' and not an 'engine as installed' then they need to sort their own Intercooling & engine cooling solution. That's pretty standard in the industry...

[BenettonF1]

 

I think it's a very significant difference. Ron Dennis, others, and Bernie agree.

 

Ecclestone: Mercedes, Ferrari give less powerful engines to customers -  - F1i.com: http://en.f1i.com/ne...ecclestone.html

 

The problem with these statements is that they are not to be trusted. Everyone has either a hidden agenda or perhaps mean additional things.

 

I wouldn't trust anything Bernie says, especially his current whining about engines. He had ample opportunity to arrange for the presence of a neutral engine provider.

 

I think Bernie is spot on in the article.

 

In essence Mercedes and Ferrari confirmed Bernie's statements in the article when they refused to give Red Bull engines.

 

It would be naive to think that a manufacturer would supply engines of equal status to a team that would threaten them, which is understandable.

 

Hence the problem with Formula 1. Mercedes and Ferrari have their customers on a leash, Renault and Honda may likewise in the future, so non- manufacturer

teams therefore will never succeed in the sport, or are unlikely to.

 

We need an independent engine manufacturer, or two, to negate the above. But the cost of the current PU's, and seeing the struggles of Honda and Renault,

what engine manufacturer is going to enter the sport?

 

A very brave one i suggest.

 

So unless things change, enjoy the Ferrari and Mercedes show.

[taran]

I think Bernie is spot on in the article.

 

In essence Mercedes and Ferrari confirmed Bernie's statements in the article when they refused to give Red Bull engines.

 

It would be naive to think that a manufacturer would supply engines of equal status to a team that would threaten them, which is understandable.

 

Hence the problem with Formula 1. Mercedes and Ferrari have their customers on a leash, Renault and Honda may likewise in the future, so non- manufacturer

teams therefore will never succeed in the sport, or are unlikely to.

 

We need an independent engine manufacturer, or two, to negate the above. But the cost of the current PU's, and seeing the struggles of Honda and Renault,

what engine manufacturer is going to enter the sport?

 

A very brave one i suggest.

 

So unless things change, enjoy the Ferrari and Mercedes show.

 

Did Mercedes refuse to give customer engines to McLaren 2010-2014?

Did Renault refuse to give customer engines to Red Bull when they still had their works team?

 

Works teams don't like to lose to customer teams, that's a fact. But it is also a fact that strong teams have been given customer engines before. Is it really fair to say customer teams can't succeed? Are Williams and Force India (to use two examples) really in F1 to win the championship? WIth their level of funding, that is an unachievable task, even with the same engines as works teams. I think their definition of succeeding is by reaching the top 5 and getting enough money to thrive & survive.With the wish of once snagging a big sponsor or technical partner who can make them genuine contenders again.

 

What is mudding the waters here is that Red Bull can't get (good) engines. But let's not forget:

They asked for them very late in the year, causing genuine capacity issues for manufacturers. And they are notoriously nasty towards partners (if they win its them, if they lose its the engine). And they are so good at promoting their brand that the engine builder gets overshadowed. They insult anyone not bending over immediately for them (e.g. Mercedes & Ferrari are cowards!).

All those reasons might explain why Red Bull can't get the engines they want. Who'd want to work with them?

 

An independent engine supplier was a possibility but no team wanted those engines. So why piss and moan now?

Red Bull could afford an engine programme. That way, they'd be in full control of their own destiny. They don't want to do that however. So they'll have to take what they can get and be grateful. That's how supply & demand works.

 

So yes, that might mean the Mercedes & Ferrari show but at least that makes for a change from the Red Bull-Renault show....

[David1976]

The intercooler differences could be down to how the contracts are written. If the teams are only receiving an 'Engine as shipped' and not an 'engine as installed' then they need to sort their own Intercooling & engine cooling solution. That's pretty standard in the industry...

 

So a few years down the line (ie 2016) most of the customer teams will likely converge on their installation?

[AustinF1]

The problem with these statements is that they are not to be trusted. Everyone has either a hidden agenda or perhaps mean additional things.

 

I wouldn't trust anything Bernie says, especially his current whining about engines. He had ample opportunity to arrange for the presence of a neutral engine provider. Even now, all he has to do is fund one. But instead of putting his money where his mouth is, he attacks manufacturers...because they aren't dependent on his handouts. And engines is just one (or perhaps even the only) weapon he has.

 

Dennis needs a factory deal. Not necessarily because it provides technical advantages but because it comes with with $$$ and additional technical resources. McLaren would be up **** creek without Honda handouts and Honda brings additional engineering resources to the table. They were able to win in 2010-2012 with good chassis and drivers before losing their way and their sponsors.

 

None of which doesn't mean a bespoke engine deal isn't a tremendous advantage but it isn't the silver bullet some would claim or is it the disadvantage some believe. Customer teams usually don't win races but is it really down to the engine? Williams is severely cash strapped compared to the top teams and it has Massa and Bottas as drivers. Massa was piss poor in his final years @ Ferrari and "rising star" Bottas is barely better. So why should Williams be able to challenge Mercedes? The same applies to Force India. Not enough money and drivers who aren't quite top notch.

 

Everybody believes Red Bull would challenge Mercedes if they had customer Mercedes engines so the disadvantages aren't really that big if you have enough money and quality drivers.

So do you think Ferrari and Mercedes give a factory level of PU and support to their customers?

[taran]

So do you think Ferrari and Mercedes give a factory level of PU and support to their customers?

 

No, not at all. I just don't believe this is the end of the world. A well funded, well resourced team (like McLaren and Red Bull for example) should be able to overcome the power deficit customer engines inevitably entail.

 

But some people seem to think or suggest that teams like Williams, Force India, Toro Rosso etc. could be winning races if only they had the same spec as the works teams. That's bollocks. Unless extraordinary circumstances occur, they will not beat the top teams because top teams have the money and resources to build faster cars.

[AustinF1]

No, not at all. I just don't believe this is the end of the world. A well funded, well resourced team (like McLaren and Red Bull for example) should be able to overcome the power deficit customer engines inevitably entail.

 

But some people seem to think or suggest that teams like Williams, Force India, Toro Rosso etc. could be winning races if only they had the same spec as the works teams. That's bollocks. Unless extraordinary circumstances occur, they will not beat the top teams because top teams have the money and resources to build faster cars.

So then those statements can be trusted (you seemed to imply that since all those players have an agenda, then the statement is not worthy of consideration or even untrue).

 

As to the rest, you're saying a well-funded team (McL) with a power deficit should be able to find a way to beat even better-funded teams with a power advantage? Or a supremely well-funded team (RBR) with no engine should have to start at a power disadvantage relative to other teams if it wants to race? Why?

 

Re: the mid level teams: The point is not that those mid-level  teams would suddenly start winning races, but rather that they wouldn't be saddled with built-in disadvantage to the manufacturers that precludes anyone but a works team from thriving.

 

 

 

F1 is a multi-tiered ERS series. With these rules, that's where we are.

Edited by AustinF1, 15 January 2016 - 17:28.

[taran]

So then those statements can be trusted (you seemed to imply that since all those players have an agenda, then the statement is not worthy of consideration or even untrue).

 

As to the rest, you're saying a well-funded team (McL) with a power deficit should be able to find a way to beat even better-funded teams with a power advantage? Or a supremely well-funded team (RBR) with no engine should have to start at a power disadvantage relative to other teams if it wants to race? Why?

 

Re: the mid level teams: The point is not that those mid-level  teams would suddenly start winning races, but rather that they wouldn't be saddled with built-in disadvantage to the manufacturers that precludes anyone but a works team from thriving.

 

 

 

F1 is a multi-tiered ERS series. With these rules, that's where we are.

 

Not sure what you mean with statements. I feel you can't trust Bernie's statements EVER.

 

Having the biggest budget doesn't mean you automatically make the fastest car.

Having a budget that is comparable to the other top teams means you can possibly make the fastest car. Fast enough to compensate for less hp than a works entry with more hp and a less stellar chassis.

As McLaren did in 2010-2012 when they beat the factory Mercedes team with a customer engine.

 

You seem to think that a works engine will somehow improve matters for mid-grid teams, allowing them to thrive? I think that's rather naive. Even with similar engines, they still lack the $150m budget difference and technical resources with top teams to compete with them.

[Talisman]

Except if they had a works deal as you have already stated, a mid grid team would receive a significant funding and technical resources boost which I suspect make it a darn sight easier for them to thrive.

[shonguiz]

There's something that i would like to understand, people bitching about customer engine being less powerful invoke the fact that software and fuel is not the same which is true. In case a customer team has a different oil supplier than the works team, how can they ask for an identical fuel ? Do they want the works fuel supplier to give them the recipe of their oil ? Shouldn't their own fuel supplier test the engine and come up with their own upgraded fuel ?

[Fatgadget]

No, not at all. I just don't believe this is the end of the world. A well funded, well resourced team (like McLaren and Red Bull for example) should be able to overcome the power deficit customer engines inevitably entail.

But some people seem to think or suggest that teams like Williams, Force India, Toro Rosso etc. could be winning races if only they had the same spec as the works teams. That's bollocks. Unless extraordinary circumstances occur, they will not beat the top teams because top teams have the money and resources to build faster cars.

Ron Dennis doesn't agree with you and he should know more than you or anyone else.
And until RedBull do get their hands on what they consider a decent engine and prove otherwise, then I'm afraid that remains eh bullocks too!

[oetzi]

Ron Dennis doesn't agree with you and he should know more than you or anyone else.

Ronzo doesn't believe in title sponsors. But they exist.

[BRG]

Ronzo doesn't believe in title sponsors. But they exist.

Do they?  Where?  There are precisely no title sponsors of the sort we took for granted in the past -  mostly tobacco brands of course, mercifully gone.  

Edited by BRG, 15 January 2016 - 20:40.

[oetzi]

If you're looking, team names are usually a good place to start

[BRG]

Just because someone has paid a few quid to be mentioned in a team name, like Martini for instance, it doesn't make them a title sponsor in the real sense.  Mclaren could get Primark or Poundland on their cars and in their team name, but it would only get the income that a small logo used to provide in earlier times.  Ron Dennis understnads that, but you apparently don't.

Edited by BRG, 15 January 2016 - 20:54.

[taran]

Ron Dennis doesn't agree with you and he should know more than you or anyone else.
And until RedBull do get their hands on what they consider a decent engine and prove otherwise, then I'm afraid that remains eh bullocks too!

 

You missed my earlier point. Dennis says you need a works engine to be successful (I believe he means titles rather than wins) but how would that explain McLaren 2010-2012 when they were title contenders? That alone proves its bollocks. As did Red Bull in 2009 when they were a Renault customer. Or Brawn as a Mercedes customer while McLaren was the works team.

I think he actually means a team needs the additional funds and technical resources a manufacturer provides to keep up with the other factory teams. For example, Honda is putting considerable funds into the McLaren partnership, beyond simply providing an engine.

[Fatgadget]

^^With due respect,Its these current PUs being referred to.

[Talisman]

You missed my earlier point. Dennis says you need a works engine to be successful (I believe he means titles rather than wins) but how would that explain McLaren 2010-2012 when they were title contenders? That alone proves its bollocks. As did Red Bull in 2009 when they were a Renault customer. Or Brawn as a Mercedes customer while McLaren was the works team.
I think he actually means a team needs the additional funds and technical resources a manufacturer provides to keep up with the other factory teams. For example, Honda is putting considerable funds into the McLaren partnership, beyond simply providing an engine.

Don't you think McLarens decline from 2010 or so onwards was hastened by the loss of Mercedes works support? It can take time for a loss of backing and sponsorship to work it's way through to a decline in performance.

Do you think Sauber has been positively or adversely affected by BMW's departure?

If you were SFW or mallya would you accept or decline a works deal?

RBR is a special case, there aren't many similar cases where a sugar daddy owner who wasn't a car manufacturer was prepared to spend so much on a team.

Edited by Talisman, 15 January 2016 - 22:09.

[oetzi]

Just because someone has paid a few quid to be mentioned in a team name, like Martini for instance, it doesn't make them a title sponsor in the real sense. Mclaren could get Primark or Poundland on their cars and in their team name, but it would only get the income that a small logo used to provide in earlier times. Ron Dennis understnads that, but you apparently don't.

I'll take the sense of what you and he said - this about right?

'There are no brands desperate enough for publicity that they are happy to finance Ron's underground lair, particularly if McLaren's results are a little below expectations.

Therefore, paying to be a title sponsor and having your name as part of the team's official title no longer means you are a title sponsor.'

That about cover your thinking?

[v@sh]

You missed my earlier point. Dennis says you need a works engine to be successful (I believe he means titles rather than wins) but how would that explain McLaren 2010-2012 when they were title contenders? That alone proves its bollocks. As did Red Bull in 2009 when they were a Renault customer. Or Brawn as a Mercedes customer while McLaren was the works team.

I think he actually means a team needs the additional funds and technical resources a manufacturer provides to keep up with the other factory teams. For example, Honda is putting considerable funds into the McLaren partnership, beyond simply providing an engine.

 

Why are you even bothering comparing those seasons? They were the v8 era which is completely different where the technology was mature and there wasn't much difference in terms of overall power between all the manufacturers compared to this new v6 era where the differences are much more stark.

 

Did we have many problems in the v8 in terms of engine supply? No, because they were all roughly equalized and nowhere near the differentiation what we have currently in F1 today especially with Renault/Honda so far behind.

 

You are comparing apples to oranges when you keep referring to Brawn/McLaren/RB because that was the v8 era. No engine politics there.

 

When you have engines fairly equal, it's better to have more teams winning using your badge from a marketing POV even if it means customers winning as opposed to now in this era where the difference is much more stark where you can not only control the competitiveness of your competitors but ensure that you will always be fighting near the front with a superior PU. Dennis knew that straight away once the new engine regulations came in which is why he went after Honda support.

[Marklar]

You missed my earlier point. Dennis says you need a works engine to be successful (I believe he means titles rather than wins) but how would that explain McLaren 2010-2012 when they were title contenders? That alone proves its bollocks. As did Red Bull in 2009 when they were a Renault customer. Or Brawn as a Mercedes customer while McLaren was the works team.
I think he actually means a team needs the additional funds and technical resources a manufacturer provides to keep up with the other factory teams. For example, Honda is putting considerable funds into the McLaren partnership, beyond simply providing an engine.

The V8 were far less complicated and frozen. Therefore not much to gain for the works team.

[BenettonF1]

 

Did Mercedes refuse to give customer engines to McLaren 2010-2014?

Did Renault refuse to give customer engines to Red Bull when they still had their works team?

No they didn't, but what did Mclaren win between 2010 and 2014? 

 

Nothing, yet Mercedes won a Constructors title and a Drivers Championship.

 

There's a reason Mclaren boss Ron Dennis was quoted as saying a customer team will never be able to win an F1 World Championship under

the current engine regulations. It was the catalyst behind his move away from Mercedes to Honda, and the reason he was adamant Red Bull

was not going to get their hands on a Honda engine.

 

In 2010 Renault sold its majority stake in the team to Genii capital and turned towards becoming an engine supplier, coincidentally the same year

that Red Bull started its dominant run, and really became the principal works team for Renault.

 

Fast forward to 2015 with the start of Red Bull's decline, and we see Renault coming back as a full works team.

 

Its not a coincidence. Ron Dennis is not a stupid man. Today's Formula 1 is an engine manufacturer dominated series and its quite simple, if you are

not an engine manufacturer, you are not going to win an F1 World Championship.

 

Red Bull know this which is why they are kicking up a stink. Would you spend 468 million pound, 600 million if you include Torro Rosso, per year, if you

knew you would never have the chance to win any F1 World Championship?

 

And no new team is going to come into the sport faced with those facts. And no new manufacturer is going to come into the series with the cost and 

more importantly, the ability to develop the engine during the season, based on the current formula. They got a good preview through Honda's struggles

this year, even with two top drivers at the team.

 

Something has to change, and it needs to start with the power to run the sport taken away from the engine manufacturers.

 

 

[JdB]

No they didn't, but what did Mclaren win between 2010 and 2014? 

 

Nothing, yet Mercedes won a Constructors title and a Drivers Championship.

 

There's a reason Mclaren boss Ron Dennis was quoted as saying a customer team will never be able to win an F1 World Championship under

the current engine regulations. It was the catalyst behind his move away from Mercedes to Honda, and the reason he was adamant Red Bull

was not going to get their hands on a Honda engine.

 

In 2010 Renault sold its majority stake in the team to Genii capital and turned towards becoming an engine supplier, coincidentally the same year

that Red Bull started its dominant run, and really became the principal works team for Renault.

 

Fast forward to 2015 with the start of Red Bull's decline, and we see Renault coming back as a full works team.

 

Its not a coincidence. Ron Dennis is not a stupid man. Today's Formula 1 is an engine manufacturer dominated series and its quite simple, if you are

not an engine manufacturer, you are not going to win an F1 World Championship.

 

Red Bull know this which is why they are kicking up a stink. Would you spend 468 million pound, 600 million if you include Torro Rosso, per year, if you

knew you would never have the chance to win any F1 World Championship?

 

And no new team is going to come into the sport faced with those facts. And no new manufacturer is going to come into the series with the cost and 

more importantly, the ability to develop the engine during the season, based on the current formula. They got a good preview through Honda's struggles

this year, even with two top drivers at the team.

 

Something has to change, and it needs to start with the power to run the sport taken away from the engine manufacturers.

 

Now you are blaming Ferrari and Mercedes for the way F1 is managed? That doesn't seem right, they were not the ones who came up with the idea of a hybrid V6 engine, the FIA did. What's bugging you is that Mercedes and Ferrari (last season anyway) were the ones who did that the best, and i don't think that's fair. I can't think of any company who would give away their advantage to a rival, especially when they worked hard and spend lots of money on it to get that advantage. Formula 1 has never been an equal racing series, there were always some teams better then others, usually because of the engine, sometimes because they had a better design. That should be the case now, if you haven't got the engine to make the difference, you have to find something else. Formula 1 is a development series, it's prototype racing. If you want equal machinery, perhaps another series would be better? It's weird, since Ferrari and Mercedes are (supposedly) almost equal in power now, Honda and Renault are on it's way to getting to the same levels, and now people want to change the formula again, which will result in 1 manufacturer that will have a clear benefit over the others, who will have to spend millions to get to the same level. I think that would kill the sport, because if you change the engine formula again, i don't know how many manufacturers are willing to spend hundreds of millions on a new engine. I believe that if you leave the engine rules in place for a number of years, the engines will all end up having more or less the same amount of hp's, and the only difference between them will be the CoG, and size and weight. Then, teams will start to focus again on finding a solution on other areas, as they did before the engines switched to V6's, remember BrawnGP and Red Bull? They were dominating as well, so i don't see the big difference in Merceds dominating or RBR.

Changing the engines again, or forcing manufacturers to hand over their earned advantage will not help the sport at all.

[Lee Nicolle]

The problem with these statements is that they are not to be trusted. Everyone has either a hidden agenda or perhaps mean additional things.

 

I wouldn't trust anything Bernie says, especially his current whining about engines. He had ample opportunity to arrange for the presence of a neutral engine provider. Even now, all he has to do is fund one. But instead of putting his money where his mouth is, he attacks manufacturers...because they aren't dependent on his handouts. And engines is just one (or perhaps even the only) weapon he has.

 

Dennis needs a factory deal. Not necessarily because it provides technical advantages but because it comes with with $$$ and additional technical resources. McLaren would be up **** creek without Honda handouts and Honda brings additional engineering resources to the table. They were able to win in 2010-2012 with good chassis and drivers before losing their way and their sponsors.

 

None of which doesn't mean a bespoke engine deal isn't a tremendous advantage but it isn't the silver bullet some would claim or is it the disadvantage some believe. Customer teams usually don't win races but is it really down to the engine? Williams is severely cash strapped compared to the top teams and it has Massa and Bottas as drivers. Massa was piss poor in his final years @ Ferrari and "rising star" Bottas is barely better. So why should Williams be able to challenge Mercedes? The same applies to Force India. Not enough money and drivers who aren't quite top notch.

 

Everybody believes Red Bull would challenge Mercedes if they had customer Mercedes engines so the disadvantages aren't really that big if you have enough money and quality drivers.

We know Bernie is richer than many countries. But developing a 'customer' debacle out side the motor industry is a LOT of money even for him.

The problem with F1 is that the cars cost the earth, look stupid, sound crap,,, and the Bernie slugs the promoters a fortune so tickets are way too expensive

Compare Nascar,, I am not a fan BUT the cars sound great unike F1 that sounds like a few family hacks.

F1 used to sound great, way too hi tech for me but they did sound good, though they have looked stupid for a decade now.And 13" wheels??  They must be in the 70s.

[Nonesuch]

No they didn't, but what did Mclaren win between 2010 and 2014? 

Nothing, yet Mercedes won a Constructors title and a Drivers Championship.

 

McLaren didn't win the 2010 and 2012 WDCs because the team wasn't good enough. That's OK though, it also applies to Ferrari.

 

Everybody makes mistakes, and F1 is a competitive scene where mistakes and lapses of concentration are punished.

 

But the fact that McLaren had a customer rather than a works Mercedes engine had little do with that.

 

Just because someone has paid a few quid to be mentioned in a team name, like Martini for instance, it doesn't make them a title sponsor in the real sense.  Mclaren could get Primark or Poundland on their cars and in their team name, but it would only get the income that a small logo used to provide in earlier times.  Ron Dennis understands that, but you apparently don't.

 

Title sponsor is exactly what the words say. What Ron Dennis means is a sponsor that pays a certain percentage of the costs of being in F1. Ron Dennis can no longer find such a sponsor for his team for of a variety of reasons. The economic climate is one reason, as is F1's significantly smaller audience compared to 10 years ago, and another is that his team last won a race in 2012, last won a WCC in 1998, and was the laughing stock of the sport in 2015.

 

I get that he's a proud man who doesn't want to associate his team and company with lesser brands, and that's fine. As long as Mclaren and Honda can afford to go racing like they have then who are we to criticize that.

Edited by Nonesuch, 16 January 2016 - 08:44.

[Fatgadget]

We know Bernie is richer than many countries. But developing a 'customer' debacle out side the motor industry is a LOT of money even for him.
The problem with F1 is that the cars cost the earth, look stupid, sound crap,,, and the Bernie slugs the promoters a fortune so tickets are way too expensive
Compare Nascar,, I am not a fan BUT the cars sound great unike F1 that sounds like a few family hacks.
F1 used to sound great, way too hi tech for me but they did sound good, though they have looked stupid for a decade now.And 13" wheels?? They must be in the 70s.

Perhaps it's high time for you to drag yourself <kicking and screaming!> into the hi tech world of the 21st century mate!

Seriously,times move on and even more higher tech is the future; like it or lump it.
As the saying goes..time and tide wait for no man...or words to that effect!

[taran]

There's a reason Mclaren boss Ron Dennis was quoted as saying a customer team will never be able to win an F1 World Championship under

the current engine regulations. It was the catalyst behind his move away from Mercedes to Honda, and the reason he was adamant Red Bull

was not going to get their hands on a Honda engine.

 

Its not a coincidence. Ron Dennis is not a stupid man. Today's Formula 1 is an engine manufacturer dominated series and its quite simple, if you are

not an engine manufacturer, you are not going to win an F1 World Championship.

 

 

If nobody can win the championship without a works engine deal, why is Ron adamant Red Bull shouldn't get a customer Honda deal?

Why don't Mercedes or Ferrari want to give Red Bull customer current engines?

 

Because Red Bull has the funds and technical resources to build a competitive chassis that would allow them to take the fight to the works teams!

Red Bull can win the championship with a customer engine! And that's why they are a threat and can't get customer engines from Mercedes and Ferrari.

 

Williams, Force India, Toro Rosso, Haas etc. are not threats, even if they had a similar spec engine as the works teams. That's why they can get customer engines.

The problem isn't that a customer engine means you can't win (it can IMO if you have enough money to build a competitive chassis) but that a top team like Red Bull can't get a works deal. That's an entirely different issue and depends on Red Bull's red bull in a china shop behaviour and the lack of sufficient manufacturers.

 

I don't think this is a problem because in the past, engine suppliers had their preferred teams too and others would just have to get another manufacturer involved or take what was available.

As mentioned before, both Williams and McLaren lost Honda support at some point and had to make do with a customer deal until they could get another manufacturer to support their teams.

The problem is that Red Bull feels entitled and wants to depict its lack of a competitive engine as a F1-wide problem.

Edited by taran, 16 January 2016 - 09:23.

[Fatgadget]

If nobody can win the championship without a works engine deal, why is Ron adamant Red Bull shouldn't get a customer Honda deal?
Why don't Mercedes or Ferrari want to give Red Bull customer current engines?

Because Red Bull has the funds and technical resources to build a competitive chassis that would allow them to take the fight to the works teams!
Red Bull can win the championship with a customer engine! And that's why they are a threat and can't get customer engines from Mercedes and Ferrari.

Williams, Force India, Toro Rosso, Haas etc. are not threats, even if they had a similar spec engine as the works teams. That's why they can get customer engines.
The problem isn't that a customer engine means you can't win (it can IMO if you have enough money to build a competitive chassis) but that a top team like Red Bull can't get a works deal. That's an entirely different issue and depends on Red Bull's red bull in a china shop behaviour and the lack of sufficient manufacturers.

I don't think this is a problem because in the past, engine suppliers had their preferred teams too and others would just have to get another manufacturer involved or take what was available.
As mentioned before, both Williams and McLaren lost Honda support at some point and had to make do with a customer deal until they could get another manufacturer to support their teams.
The problem is that Red Bull feels entitled and wants to depict its lack of a competitive engine as a F1-wide problem.

Jeez!
Ron is just adamant that RedBull should not benefit from all the pain they <Mclaren> have gone through and rightly so.Simples!

He went out and courted Honda and THEY went through a painful year developing the motor; so why should RedBull benefit from that?

And sure RedBull are a threat.They afterall had the biggest budget of all in 2015. So it would be daftness personified for a rival team to further give them a helping hand through their blood sweat and tears so to speak!....It's up to RedBull to source a good engine.Not their rivals to privide them with one!

I can sense this thread meandering into a direction the mods will have to step in lol!

[pdac]

If nobody can win the championship without a works engine deal, why is Ron adamant Red Bull shouldn't get a customer Honda deal?

 

Because (quite rightly from their point of view and contrary to what anyone would say publicly) McLaren, like all of the other teams, would love it if Red Bull left F1 completely. It would be one less team to take money away from them. They don't just want to win on the track, they want to make a lot of money too.

[taran]

Jeez!
Ron is just adamant that RedBull should not benefit from all the pain they <Mclaren> have gone through and rightly so.Simples!

He went out and courted Honda and THEY went through a painful year developing the motor; so why should RedBull benefit from that?

And sure RedBull are a threat.They afterall had the biggest budget of all in 2015. So it would be daftness personified for a rival team to further give them a helping hand through their blood sweat and tears so to speak!....It's up to RedBull to source a good engine.Not their rivals to privide them with one!

I can sense this thread meandering into a direction the mods will have to step in lol!

 

Perhaps I am not making my point clear?

 

Some people claim that teams are being hobbled by only being offered a customer engine...and that if somehow manufacturers would be forced to provide "works" spec engines, they would be competitive and all would be well in F1.

 

I say customer engines don't really hobble most teams too much as they couldn't compete anyway with the top teams as they lack the budget to do so.

 

Red Bull seems a good example because it seems a given that they could compete with works teams, even with a customer engine, hence no works team is willing to give them such a deal.

 

Honda wanted to come into F1, fully knowing that they would have to eventually supply multiple teams. So Ron's pain has nothing to do with Honda supplying other teams. Hell, Ron's pain was not expected, don't forget Honda was hoping for podiums and wins. He got the benefit of being the full on works team but that includes the development pain. So now claiming that should prevent any other team from getting Honda's is...well silly. He certainly isn't using that claim to prevent Honda from (allegedly) talking to Sauber about engines.

 

What Ron is actually afraid of is that Red Bull will do better with Honda engines than McLaren can and that such a failure will lead to Honda preferring Red Bull. As he himself argued in 1993 when his McLaren-Ford's were outperforming the works Benetton-Ford's.

[sopa]

In the end it is all serious tough business and no sympathies - by this I mean that if you want to gain sympathy, you need to perform.

 

If Red Bull can design a better chassis than McLaren, and Honda sees Red Bull as a better partner to achieve results together, they would switch their allegiances without much hesitation. No matter how many fan-complaints there would be that "it is unfair" or "but McLaren went through the development pains". Buts and ifs don't count. If you are better, then you are better. It is always the game of F1 - some win, others sit on the losing side forever. Minardi was always a backmarker, regardless of how sympathetic or likable they were.

 

We can discuss on the forums forever.  In the end we should never take it too seriously, because the harsh-cold results are for all to see - Red Bull dominated, now Mercedes dominates. And there is nothing to do about it!

Edited by sopa, 16 January 2016 - 13:28.

[sopa]

The big discussion is as to why McLaren is not a Merc' customer any more.

 

I think the financial stability aspect is quite important. Honda CAN throw a lot of money into F1 project. Could McLaren have afforded to hire Alonso on such a big paycheque before 2014?

 

Title sponsors? Nah! Remember the Honda earth cars from 2007-2008. No sponsors at all, yet they were a big-budget team! Honda sponsored it all alone. Maybe that's why Ron Dennis can afford to play the game of being a bit picky now. However, despite that there is never enough money as the saying goes...

[BRG]

That about cover your thinking?

Nope.  

 

When people talk about 'title sponsors', they mean massive sugar daddies like Marlboro who underwrote the entire team and allowed huge and usually wasteful spending on unnecessary frills and furbelows.  There aren't any of these anymore and won't be until Bernie's deathly grasp on F1 is loosened and the 'show' is restored to something like it's former glory - including decent viewing figures.  

 

Ron Dennis doesn't feel like selling his team's name for fourpence ha'penny to some minor sponsor who in previous times would have got a small sticker on the rear wing for the same amount.  And why should he?  I know that you are keen to use this to show that RD has lost the plot, but it in fact shows that he has a better grasp of reality than many hereabouts.

Edited by BRG, 16 January 2016 - 17:47.