Red Bull and Renault mechanics, Suzuka, 2015

Red Bull ‘to pay more’ for Renault engines in 2016

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Red Bull are expected to continue using Renault engines next year but it will cost them more.

Pre-order the official 2015 F1 season review video

The official 2015 F1 season review video is now available to pre-order on Blu-Ray and DVD.

This year’s highlights video is due for release on December 21st so make sure you reserve your copy to get it in time for Christmas.


Porsche 919, Circuit de Catalunya, 2015
Former McLaren man Kevin Magnussen was among the latest drivers to test Porsche’s LMP1 car

Kevin Magnussen and Oliver Turvey tested a Porsche 919 LMP1 World Endurance Championship car at the Circuit de Catalunya yesterday. Magnussen called the Le Mans 24 Hours-winning machine “probably the most advanced race car in the world at the moment”.


Comment of the day

Ron Dennis, McLaren, Shanghai International Circuit, 2015
‘$5 million for the offence and $95 million for Ron being…
Is F1 really less scandalous than athletics or football?

The unfair advantage Russian athletes were given is nothing compared to what Ferrari are given.

FIFA has nothing on Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone stealing the entire sport and fining someone $100m because they don’t like him.

It’s just that in F1 it’s routine, and Bernie controls the accreditation.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Brendan, Catalina and Drmouse!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

It’s two years since Daniil Kvyat earned his F1 superlicence.

F1 Fanatic earns a commission on products sold via the links to our affiliate partners above, however you are not charged any extra. See here for more information.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 166 comments on “Red Bull ‘to pay more’ for Renault engines in 2016”

    1. After spending the last 2 years slagging publicly slagging Renault, RB deserve to pay a lot more to make up for all the PR damage they’ve done to Renault.

      Sure, Renault could have done better, but the public floggings didn’t help anything and came off as very low class.

      1. @daved, Yep, worked out really well for them. LOL.

        1. @hohum
          What’s funny is that RB seem to be genuinely tone deaf to the fact that they are the bad guys in all of this and they’ve even turned many fans against them that weren’t anti RB before.

          1. Pretty much reflecting how Ferrari acted in many occasions when they were the ones doing that @daved!

            1. Honestly, F1 fans seem to have a very short memory. I really doubt they care.

              It’s ALL about getting the words and brand Red Bull in to the subconscious, good, bad, or otherwise. You might be out talking to your friends one day about Red Bull, and someone might overhear that not even listening to what you’re saying about.

              An hour later they’re at the shops and their brain just goes “oo I want a Red Bull.”

            2. Ferrari are at least improving in that regard

      2. I was wondering if you could post more than 3 original stories that quote Red Bull “bashing” Renault?

        I’ve been unable to find more than 2 myself so 3 will seem like a real strike of gold.

        Of course, you could just find the 1000 reposted articles that didnt include any new or original quotes. Or the 10000 articles about the 1000 articles about the 2 naughty things red bull said in the press.

        Renault failed. end of story.

        1. Failed? They have won the same number of races as Ferrari under the new powertrain regulations and yet no one has said anything nearly as bad about Ferrari as Red Bull have about Renault. Then think about how McLaren have reacted to the powerunit that Honda has produced.

          1. Thats a very naive reply, consider where all other Renault powered cars finished, even Lotus moved to mercedes engines.

          2. @geemac

            They have won the same number of races as Ferrari under the new powertrain regulations

            While that is undoubtedly true, you only have to look at how many each won last year and how many each won this year to see which one is making progress and which one has stagnated at best. I’m not defending Red Bull’s conduct, which I think has been infantile, but nor is the Renault a competitive proposition at the moment.

            1. Fully agree, but my point is simply that Red Bull are slamming someone who, statistically at least, is performing as well as Mercedes main competitor (who are also miles off beating them). Their apparent “we’ll win with anything but a Renault lump in the back” attitude is very annoying.

            2. Whilst I find it difficult to defend their conduct, there does seem to be a fair bit of evidence that Renault were being most “unhelpful”, particularly after arriving at testing with a disaster of a PU. They rebuffed all offers of help, technical assistance and more or less just shrugged their shoulders.

              As a buyer of product that I use in my business, I certainly have no problem in telling the world about my suppliers shortfalls/inadequacys after countless meetings and communication with them about their issues which got a similar shrug of the shoulders.
              At some point you have to say “enough” – pretty much what RBR seems to have done.

            3. Yes, but I’m willing to bet you also acknowledge when those suppliers do a good job; Red Bull didn’t.

            4. Forgot to say I also assume you exercise considerably more tact than Red Bull too.

            5. @raceprouk Actually they did praise Renault on several occasions. Has been proven here on this very site…

            6. I’d like to see these items I think; anyone got any links?

          3. @geemac McLaren chose this path and knew it was going to be terrible from the start, they threw away the best PU to take a massive gamble, and why would Ferrari say bad things about their very own product. You don’t hear Manor drivers about how terrible their chassis is compared to Red Bull because they made it themselves. Both examples of relations/complaints are irrelevant in the debacle Renault-Red Bull. The hate towards Red Bull has become so blind people forget what a terrible PU Renault made. As a company who wanted these new rules you’d expect that for a million dollar investment you at least get some value. They paid the lot and got nothing but an unreliable PU with a 40-50 bhp deficit. In a world of F1 that surely warrants some complaints, though I agree Red Bull did chose the most elegant way of bringing those complaints to the world.

        2. ColdFly F1 (@)
          11th November 2015, 8:41

          Well Layercake, any kid using Google can easily find quotes by Horner, Marko, Mateschitz, and Newey making disparaging comments about Renault.
          Even using blinkers it’ll be difficult to only find two.

        3. Great job by Renault if they did indeed fail they are now going to get more money. Hope in a little way it hurts Red Bull.

      3. Yup! RB really cooked their goose this time!

    2. It serves them right. Renault has done a fantastic job in F1 even after all the troubles they’ve had and RB should be praising them and thanking them that they even have an engine for next year.

      Glad for all the jobs for the awesome people at Milton Keynes that are still gonna be there next year.

      1. No they haven’t.

      2. Look at the history – Vettel and Webber suffered a great deal of alternator failures and various other power train problems during their 2010-2013 winning streak.

        I was also of the opinion that RB needlessly dragged Renault’s name through the mud, but I’ve since heard from a couple of guys who actually work there who said that it was after months of trying to find a solution – offering to throw engineers and money at it – and at the point of maximum frustration and zero alternative options that they decided to go public with their criticism.

        1. Nope, Renault did a terrible job last year and this year even worse. Even in the RB glory days it was often a bad engine that prevailed them from winning even more races (I did like the unpredictability of those races though :-) ), and the Renault PU was never ever the most powerful, although they did a great job in engine mappings.

          The RB Renault bashing wasn’t nice, but I can understand it: they were frustrated as hell. Don’t expect McLaren to play nice to Honda if the engine of next year is worse than it is now!

          1. Oops, this supposed to be a reply to Colonel RPG!

          2. @favomodo It wasn’ that bad in the V8 days, not at all.

            1. Clearly you have a short memory as well! The Renault V8 was always under power and even back in the V8 days Renault gained dispensations for upgrades and development long after it was supposed to be frozen. Do a little research.

              Renault have always lagged behind in the engine department, including the V8 days. The new engines from Renault are an abomination and they deserve EVERY public flogging they get!

              If anyone thinks ANY of RB’s championships are down to the Renault V8, you’re clearly dreaming!

        2. Sorry but those alternater failures had nothing to do with renault they are all on redbull.

          1. @ads GRO had one.

        3. @altitude2k, in the period from 2010 to 2013 inclusive, Vettel had a grand total of three DNF’s which occurred due to engine failures. If we look at other teams, Alonso had two DNF’s due to engine failures in the same period, whilst Hamilton and Button had one each, although Michael Schumacher had two engine failures when driving for the Mercedes works team in the period from 2010 to 2012 – so I wouldn’t say that Red Bull had a “great deal” of engine related issues in that period compared to their rivals.

          Furthermore, it should be noted that, although some other Renault powered teams did have signs of increased component wear on their alternators, Red Bull had made modifications to the cooling system of the alternators that was linked as a contributing factor to their failure (they were the only Renault team that used an air cooling system instead of a water cooling system to regulate temperatures).

          @favomodo, on the contrary, in private Newey pointed to Renault as being the main reason why Red Bull was as successful as they were in their glory period. If you concentrate solely on a single metric – peak power – then yes, the peak power wasn’t as high as their rivals, although independent analysis suggested that the power discrepancy was half what Horner claimed it was.

          However, if you look at a wider range of important metrics, then the Renault engine actually looked like a much better deal. Asides from the advantages that Renault had in terms of engine mapping, their engine also had the lowest cooling requirements, the lowest fuel consumption and the broadest usable power curve (so although the peak power was slightly lower, the power output at partial throttle was slightly higher than the power output of the Ferrari or Mercedes engines). When you took into account the wider issues, Ferrari’s engine was generally considered to be the worst manufacturer engine on the grid, not Renault.

          Those reasons were why Newey vetoed an attempt by Horner to secure a deal for Mercedes engines during the V8 era – for the design philosophy that he wanted to pursue, the Renault V8 was better suited to the task than the Mercedes or Ferrari engines were.

    3. In regards to the Porsche LMP1 testing, Mitch Evans is also over there testing with then.

      1. @jarred-walmsley Indeed: after they’ve season they’ve had I bet a lot of drivers want to get into that car for next year. Still I wonder whether VAG will continue to see any benefit in running the sister Audi squad with its diesel engine given their current problems, and whether that will soon be shuttered, putting a lot more WEC drivers on the market

        1. Hmm, I doubt when they are still beating Peugeot and Toyota that they’d throw in the towel now, unless they replaced Audi with Bentley running the Porsche engines.

    4. Kimi, Jenson & Felipe could all end up retiring after next season, if Nico gets destroyed again Mercedes could start looking for someone new. That would open up an unusually large number of seats at some of the top teams for 2017.

      1. @beneboy I don’t see any reason why Mercedes in dire need of replacing Rosberg, unless he pulled a Webber and start getting beaten by Ferraris or other teams. As long as Rosberg can consistently deliver 1-2 finishes for Mercedes, even though he’s always 1 lap behind in position 2, his seat is safe.

        1. @sonicslv, the only way that I could see Rosberg being out of the team would be if he decided to walk away, having decided that his best chance of future success lay outside of Mercedes.

        2. @sonicslv Curious how Webber is usually used as the benchmark for this kind of thing even though he did far better compared to Vettel than Massa did compared to Alonso at the same time.

          1. @keithcollantine I can assure you it’s just a coincidence :) I like Webber too, but Hamilton/Rosberg situation is much more like Vettel/Webber because they all have dominating cars instead of Alonso/Massa who not exactly racing alone in the top of the pack. But the point is still stand though, Webber do look much more beatable compared to Hamilton/Vettel (and Rosberg until now) who seems really out of reach from the rest of the field.

            1. @sonicslv Championship-winning yes, dominating…….as for the Red Bulls, not quite all that much.

          2. I agree, seems that everyone has forgotten the year that Webber actually should have become WDC and had the edge on Vettel.

            So much so that Vettel, who is an extraordinary talent, upped his game by a large percentage the next year.

            Despite people’s opinions, Webber was a great driver and without him and his competitive streak, Vettel may not have achieved the greatness he did. He certainly was more competitive than Rosberg is currently.

            1. Yep, Webber, quite simply, always had horrible luck. He undoubtedly had the skill to be a WDC.

              The knee reco didn’t help, but when he finally landed the top machinery (which he helped to develop mind you)… All of a sudden he has Wunderkid sitting next to him.

          3. Every time I see anything that brings up how poorly Massa fared against Alonso I’m happy.

            I have a real feeling that Williams would be a beast and Easily a #2 contender if they had a top driver.

          4. @keithcollantine, as one theory, perhaps it is because people feel that the structure of the team was so heavily weighted in Alonso’s favour that Massa was expected to underperform – this is, after all, a team that went to the extent of ensuring that Massa earned a grid penalty to move Alonso up a place in the 2012 US GP.
            Although claims of bias have surrounded Red Bull, at the same time it was felt that Webber himself sometimes simply went through the motions (particularly in 2013) – so, overall, I think that perhaps the public feel that Webber’s lack of performance owed more to him and less to the team, hence why the comparison comes up.

        3. @sonicslv Well, given that Nico dropped behind Seb at one point despite the car advantage, it’s possible.

          1. To be fair, he still finished in front of Vettel most of the time until now. Next year though, who knows :)

          2. He only dropped below as a result of car failures.

      2. @beneboy
        Who would Mercedes replace Rosberg with? Verstappen is the only rational replacement with proper potential. The likes of Bottas, Grosjean or Hulkenberg are not an upgrade over Rosberg. If anything, they are downgrades.

        If Red Bull kept a 35 year old Webber after his appalling performance in 2011, Rosberg is going to have to do something phenomenal to lose his seat.

        1. In 2017 I assume Ferrari will have caught up a bit more with Mercedes and that Kimi will be replaced, possibly with a driver that can challenge Vettel. And if Rosberg is beaten again, then one, Mercedes will probably consider a replacement, and two, Rosberg will probably need to move to re-build his career in another team without the Hamilton pressure.

          Can you say that Bottas, Grosjean or Hulkenberg are not a better partner for Hamilton when non of them has been in a front running car. This year Bottas is ahead of Massa even though he missed the 1st race and was walking wounded for the next 3, so if they were equally good drivers Massa should be about 20 points ahead considering how good some people think he is, yet he is 9 points behind.

          1. possibly with a driver that can challenge Vettel

            @w-k Not going to happen. In the coming 7 or more years Ferrari is not looking to get any champion unless it is Vettel. That’s just their philosophy.

        2. @kingshark

          The likes of Bottas, Grosjean or Hulkenberg are not an upgrade over Rosberg. If anything, they are downgrades.

          Are you sure about that? Rosberg gets beaten thoroughly by Hamilton, only masked by the car being so far ahead that rarely any other can drive in between them. Alonso and Button have already proven to provide at least equal points to Hamilton in an equal car, and it´s reasonable to suspect Vettel would do that as well. From what we have the scene, that adds Ricciardo, and thus in further consequence Kvyat to the list as well. Then there´s Verstappen… Rosberg is easily replacable by half the field.

          1. Nice line of reasoning there @crammond.

            First of all, Massa got a beating from Alonso at Ferrari, and he clearly has ups and downs in form. But while Bottas is now clearly ahead, he has not convincingly beaten even Massa over the two years they are in the Williams together. Hulkenberg is currently having trouble consistently beat Perez, Grosjean was about level with Kimi (who was motivated at the time), and was able to put pressure on the Red Bulls in his last year in a solid car. Verstappen is very promising, but its far to early to put him in a Ferrari. And I think putting him in with Hamilton right now would possibly give a similar kind of tension we last had between Alonso and hamilton. All of them look like a good/solid choice though.

            But now lets look at Rosberg but lets not forget to look at Hamiltons form as well. Sure, Rosberg has clearly had a hard time getting out of the “second driver” feeling this year. But if you look at their years, its more that Hamilton has upped his form, cut out mistakes and upped his qualifying pace than that Rosberg has fallen behind. And yes, beating Hamilton on track remains a weakness in that comparison.

            Rosberg is right behind Hamilton for most of the season, he is pushing him onward. That is exaclty what Mercedes needs – a driver that is close enough behind, is motivated to find an angle to win but will be a team player. I doubt any of Bottas, Grosjean or Hulk would be doing a much better job, I agree with @kingshark here.

            Verstappen? Maybe, in a year or 2-3 he might. For now, probably not. Lets also consider, will Max be a team player? He will want to prove himself against Hamilton. That might work, but only once Hamilton gets over his prime and can act as the “elder statesman” Massa found in Schumacher in their 2 years together at Ferrari

            1. @bascb, the comparison between Kimi and Grosjean is not a particularly fair one though, because Kimi had clauses written into his contract that ensured that he had preferable treatment over Grosjean.

              2013 was a particularly egregious example of that bias – in pre-season testing, Grosjean was not supposed to be given the chance to test the Melbourne spec aero package at all (whereas Kimi was given a full four days worth of time to test it), and Grosjean eventually only got the chance to try it for half a day because Kimi was sick.

              Throughout the flyaway races, Grosjean was kept at least one upgrade package behind Kimi – Grosjean was essentially given Kimi’s old parts when Kimi’s car was updated – and Lotus also went to the trouble of developing a long wheelbase version of their car which was intended for Kimi to use that season. It’s not so hard to be motivated when you know that the team will cater to your every whim, and that is exactly what Lotus did – it is notable that, as soon as the team began to switch more support to Grosjean when it became apparent Kimi was leaving the team that year, Grosjean’s performance dramatically improved.

          2. What if a decision has to be made next year and Rosberg thrashes Ayrton. Could Ayrton Hamilton be shown the door should he throw one of his tantrums and post Merc engine secrets all over the internet?

            1. Could Ayrton Hamilton be shown the door should he throw one of his tantrums and post Merc engine secrets all over the internet?

              With the high amount of drivers all relatively close to each other in performance, any driver could be shown the door when he throws a tantrum and posts internal technical secrets. Hamilton might be a bit safer due to his marketing value, but the only ones really safe are at the back of the field, when the teams survival depends on their pay-driver-cheques.

          3. @crammond
            Hulkenberg is getting beat by Perez, the same Perez who was comfortably brushed aside by Button.

            Button did not match Hamilton on anything but points, and that involved a lot of luck, especially in 2012. Overall, Hamilton was comfortably a better and faster driver than Button. When you compare the pace of both to Hamilton, Rosberg is a faster driver than Button.

            Bottas is hardly any better than Massa, and Grosjean was outperformed by Raikkonen. Neither Raikkonen or Massa are top drivers, as Alonso and Vettel have shown us.

            None of those guys I mentioned above (Hulkenberg, Bottas, Button, Grosjean) are an upgrade over Rosberg. I would only rate Alonsl, Vettel, and Ricciardo ahead

            1. Points is what counts. You can also flip that comment and say Button had more points over 3 years and so was unlucky to lose out twice whilst beating Hamilton once. Hamilton beat Button 2-1 but Button still beat Hamilton over a season. In fact no top driver currently in F1 has not been defeated by a team mate. Alonso is the only driver never to lose on points to a team mate but looks like Button will do that this year.

        3. If Red Bull kept a 35 year old Webber after his appalling performance in 2011

          Ten podiums including a win is appalling?

          1. @raceprouk With an RB7……I don’t think so but I won’t really blame someone for thinking so.

            1. I guess they’re comparing it only to Vettel’s 11 wins from 17 podiums, completely ignoring the other 20 cars on the grid.

          2. @raceprouk
            With an RB7, comfortably the best car on the grid, he managed the extraordinary feat of not being able to win a single race on merit (Brazil was a gift) or even finish second in the WDC.

            1. So ten podiums is appalling?

            2. @kingshark So with a car twice as dominant Rosberg is doing an even worse job. He only just has more wins than Vettel in a car a good .5 seconds behind on pure pace… Webber in his prime is twice the driver Rosberg is.

            3. @xtwl
              Mate, Rosberg already has surpassed Webber in wins, he matched him back in Spain 2015. At the time, Rosberg drove 1.25 seasons in a dominant car (2014) and 1 season in a decent car (2013). By contrast, Webber drove 2 seasons in a dominant car (2011 and 2013), two seasons in the best car (2010 and 2012), and one season in a very good second best car (2009).

              Webber, even in his prime, when he had a car 0.5 seconds quicker than anyone else (2010) and lost 80 less points than Vettel because of bad luck, still couldn’t win the WDC or even finish 2nd. Webber was a decent driver, but underperformed severely once he got in a top car. Rosberg is better, probably the best driver who is not a WDC along with Ricciardo, and better than several WDC’s, including Raikkonen and Button.

              In an RB7, yes.

            4. @kingshark I simply disagree. The dominant car Rosberg had and still has is always good for the win if Hamilton can’t or on the day he can beat his teammate which all drivers do on occasion. In 2010 and 2012 the Red Bull hardly was the best car, not even always good for the podium. They had such fierce competition an easy win was never possible, and even then he still had to beat Vettel, Alonso AND Hamilton in competitive cars. In 2011 and 2013 again we should not forget who he was up against in the same car. Vettel was better than Webber, so it’s only logical he does not finish ahead all the time, same for Rosberg of course. Webber surely had a terrible season in 2011 and I agree he should have been able to win more that season. But whenever Webber was in his element, see 2012, he did win, see Monaco or Silverstone. Next to all that the RB was much more Vettel minded which is not at all the case at Mercedes.

              All Rosberg his wins come on tracks where overtaking isn’t the easiest and only made harder if you want to overtake the same car. To this day his most impressive win remains his first. The tracks he has won at show very similar to Webber that he is only really good at some tracks and not all like the real champions of the sport. To me they both have very similar careers, not given the right machinery at the right time and in the end maybe not worthy of that machinery. Though if I had to hire one I’d put my money on Webber, surely after his last few WEC races where he is also showing not be a slow guy…

              I’m not saying Webber should be ranked among Vettel and Hamilton but for me Rosberg hasn’t proven much that would give him the title ‘best driver without a title’, not saying Webber does either. For example how about Montoya?

            5. @xtwl

              In 2010 and 2012 the Red Bull hardly was the best car, not even always good for the podium. They had such fierce competition an easy win was never possible, and even then he still had to beat Vettel, Alonso AND Hamilton in competitive cars.

              I would disagree that easy wins were not possible in 2010 or 2012. There was always Spain 2010, Monaco 2010, Hungary 2010, Suzuka 2010, Brazil 2010, Japan 2012, Korea 2012, and India 2012 where Red Bull were dominant.

              In 2011 and 2013 again we should not forget who he was up against in the same car. Vettel was better than Webber, so it’s only logical he does not finish ahead all the time, same for Rosberg of course.

              Thing is that Vettel won 12 races (inc. Brazil) in 2011 and 13 races in 2013, and yet Webber was unable to win a single race on merit. Not a single race. That is downright poor. When Hamilton wins 11 or 10 races in a season, at least Rosberg wins 4 or 5.

              All Rosberg his wins come on tracks where overtaking isn’t the easiest and only made harder if you want to overtake the same car. To this day his most impressive win remains his first.

              Are Melbourne, Silverstone, Hockenheim, Red Bull Ring, and Interlagos really disproportionately difficult to overtake at relative to the rest of the calendar? That’s one of the strangest criticisms I’ve read of any driver.

              The tracks he has won at show very similar to Webber that he is only really good at some tracks and not all like the real champions of the sport.

              Rosberg’s speed is far more consistent than Webber’s. Webber regularly finished 30 seconds behind Vettel. How often do you see that happening with Hamilton and Rosberg?

            6. @xtwl
              I would also like to point out that Rosberg won races in 2012 and 2013 without the best car, he also got podiums in 2008 and 2010 with significantly inferior car.

            7. yet Webber was unable to win a single race on merit. Not a single race. That is downright poor. When Hamilton wins 11 or 10 races in a season, at least Rosberg wins 4 or 5.

              @kingshark As I said before I agree he isn’t the best out there but the comparison doesn’t work this way, for me. Rosberg will always come second and if Hamilton isn’t there he will win. This was never the case with Webber. There was always Hamilton, Button or Alonso of which two in lesser cars were a total better package. The Red Bull as a car was never anywhere near as good as the Mercedes has been. This is not a comparison between Vettel and Hamilton but what Vettel did with that car is far more impressive compared to what Hamilton is doing now. Webber only on occasion could use the car to its fullest.

              I think I can make my opinion (because that is in the end still what it is, not a fact) most clear by his race wins; I know wins are not everything but they are often the most fond memories.

              China – Beaten old Schumacher on a day Mercedes was quick. Impressive.
              Monaco – Great pole, but Monaco wins aren’t that hard after the start.
              Silverstone – Gifted after both Hamilton and Vettel crashed out.
              Melbourne – Hamilton crashed out.
              Monaco – Again, there wasn’t much Hamilton could have done, cheated to pole?
              Austria – Hard to overtake, had pole and Hamilton had to come from lower back.
              Interlagos – His second best win if you ask me, Hamilton had been ahead when he didn’t spun.
              Spain – Easy win when Hamilton got stuck behind Vettel, hard to overtake anyway.
              Monaco – We all know why he won this one…
              Austria – Same story.
              Mexico – His third impressive win, was faster than Hamilton all weekend.

              7/11 wins on hard to overtake tracks, 2/11 gifted, 2/11 proper wins.

              Nurburgring; Worked his way back after a DT penalty.
              Interlagos; Mark outpaced Barrichello in the second phase of the race.
              Spain; One of Webber his most dominant weekends over Vettel and the field.
              Monaco; Rosberg and Webber both have Monaco wins, same story.
              Silverstone; One of few good starts, hunted by Hamilton and kept his ground.
              Hungaroring; Vettel got his penalty but when in P1 he got rid of them both.
              Brazil; Gifted
              Monaco; Gifted pole after Schumachers penalty, controlled the race, again Monaco.
              Silverstone; Ferrari had a good weekend. Webber was simply fast on his best track.

              4/9 wins on hard to overtake tracks, 1/9 gifted, 4/9 proper wins.

              They both have the resume of a number two driver in the end really only being fast on several tracks and lacking overall consistency, Rosberg his many second places make it seem so but he has the problem too. But if I look at the way they won their races, the way they go on in a battle, the speed they have in qualy, and the misfortunes they have had that shaped their races. I would put Webber ahead. Had Rosberg been in Webbers place I don’t think he would have done any better against Vettel.

            8. @kingshark Forgot Rosberg his win in Germany. Hamilton had to start from the back so it’s not like he had even the slightest competition.. (changed the numbers down)

              China – Beaten old Schumacher on a day Mercedes was quick. Impressive.
              Monaco – Great pole, but Monaco wins aren’t that hard after the start.
              Silverstone – Gifted after both Hamilton and Vettel crashed out.
              Melbourne – Hamilton crashed out.
              Monaco – Again, there wasn’t much Hamilton could have done, cheated to pole?
              Austria – Hard to overtake, had pole and Hamilton had to come from lower back.
              Interlagos – His second best win if you ask me, Hamilton had been ahead when he didn’t spun.
              Spain – Easy win when Hamilton got stuck behind Vettel, hard to overtake anyway.
              Monaco – We all know why he won this one…
              Austria – Same story.
              Mexico – His third impressive win, was faster than Hamilton all weekend.

              7/12 wins on hard to overtake tracks, 3/12 gifted, 2/12 proper wins.

            9. @xtwl
              What was wrong with Rosberg’s win in Austria? He nailed Hamilton at the start and then Lewis could seemingly not keep up with him all race. Also, Hamilton has no one to blame but himself for his poor start in Spain.

              Out of Webber’s wins, how many were impressive? Red Bull was comfortably the fastest car at Nurburgring 09 and Vettel got stuck behind Kovalainen in the first stint. Red Bull was comfortably the fastest car at Brazil 09 and Vettel started 16th. Spain and Monaco 2010 were deserved, although he only had to beat Vettel with a dominant car. At Silverstone 2010 Vettel got a puncture, and in Hungary he got a DT. In Brazil 2011 Vettel’s gearbox failed. His win at Monaco 2012 is basically the same as Rosberg’s at Monaco 2013. Silverstone 2012 was perhaps his only impressive win.

              China – Beaten old Schumacher on a day Mercedes was quick. Impressive.

              He didn’t just beat him, but by 0.5 seconds in the same car.

            10. @xtwl

              As I said before I agree he isn’t the best out there but the comparison doesn’t work this way, for me. Rosberg will always come second and if Hamilton isn’t there he will win. This was never the case with Webber. There was always Hamilton, Button or Alonso of which two in lesser cars were a total better package. The Red Bull as a car was never anywhere near as good as the Mercedes has been. This is not a comparison between Vettel and Hamilton but what Vettel did with that car is far more impressive compared to what Hamilton is doing now. Webber only on occasion could use the car to its fullest.

              There were a lot of races where Red Bull was, often very comfortably, the best car by a huge margin but Webber simply failed to deliver. Australia 2011, Valencia 2011, India 2011, Canada 2013, Belgium 2013, Singapore 2013, and USA 2013 all spring to mind. In those races, Red Bull had Mercedes-level dominance in Vettel’s hands. Webber was downright atrocious.

              They both have the resume of a number two driver in the end really only being fast on several tracks and lacking overall consistency, Rosberg his many second places make it seem so but he has the problem too. But if I look at the way they won their races, the way they go on in a battle, the speed they have in qualy, and the misfortunes they have had that shaped their races. I would put Webber ahead. Had Rosberg been in Webbers place I don’t think he would have done any better against Vettel.

              1. Rosberg already has more pole positions than Webber did, and has beat Hamilton in qualifying more often than Webber beat Vettel. Rosberg is the better qualifier.

              2. There was absolutely nothing special about any of Webber’s wins apart from Silverstone 2012.

              3. Webber’s so called “bad luck” is a huge myth. Webber was hands down the luckiest driver in 2010. He had significantly better luck than Vettel (by about 70 points) and had a much faster car than Alonso and Hamilton. Still he couldn’t win the WDC when it was handed to him on a silver plate.

              4. I highly doubt Rosberg would have finished 100, 150, or even 200 points behind Vettel like Webber did from 2011-2013. He is not that incompetent. I also think that Rosberg would have been good enough to win at least one rate on merit while spending 38 races in either an RB7 or RB9.

              Rosberg won more races in 2012 and 2013 than Webber did with a far weaker car.

            11. @kingshark So again, our perception of the dominant car is different thus we don’t agree on the level of difficulty of some things that have been achieved. Therein lies our different idea of both drivers.

    5. Really? I mean, after all of that pontification. After all of those threats. They’re just going to carry on using a product that was supposedly so poor, its fundamentals so questionable, its performance necessitated this whole mess in the first place.

      So strong was the language used, from RB in particular, that it makes me somewhat doubt the validity of this story.

      On the other hand, if this is true, I hope that humble pie tastes good in public as it has in the meeting rooms.

      I hope they stay, but what a disaster…

      1. @andybantam I never bought the story that RB chassis is still the best and if Renault have 30bhp more it’ll win races easily. The fact is RB pace is much closer to STR (the only team with Renault engine) in this year than previous years. Also if Renault is as weak as they said and Mercedes advantage is engine only, they should be passed easily by Force India and Williams in long straights, which never happened.

        I see RB as delusional team at the moment, believing every Newey car has the best design. Sadly as good as Newey is (and he did make lot of championship winning car) his car is still beaten every now and then, otherwise we would call 1998-2005 McLaren dominance era (not to mention 1998 McLaren wins because the ingenious 3rd pedal instead of aero).

        1. did you miss the rain soaked first half of the US gp?

          that should tell you all you need to know.

          1. That a car set up for rain works better in the rain than a car set up for dry running?

            1. No such thing as a wet setup and in the dry RBR’s speed deficit was only in the rain.
              That chassis is the best on the grid, remove Vettel from Singapore, and they would have dominated the race!

            2. How long have you been following F1 to declare no such thing as wet setup? Also why not we remove Hamilton, Rosberg, and Vettel from every race so Red Bull will dominate every race!

            3. @sonicslv – I used to think there was a difference too until I had an arguemnt with a friend about it. My side was that there is a difference after saying before a race that I hoped some drivers would gamble on a dry set up.

              He showed me a pre-race interview online with an engineer from a different race asking if they were going with a wet or dry setup. His answer was that such things didn’t exist and that there was no difference between wet and dry setups anymore. He continued to say the only difference is ride height and that was due to the wet tyre’s increased diameter, not something set up on the car (i.e. once the slicks went on, the ride height would be back to a dry setup height).

              Since then it’s always been an awkward joke between us whenever we’re watching races and the pundits mention wet/dry setups.

              I know that’s very vague and completely lacks evidence, but I can’t seem to find the article online of it – I’ll keep looking. Perhaps Rockie’s reply was based on the same thing? I remember being shocked at hearing it too; I was completely under the impression that there was a huge difference and that teams could gamble one way or the other in races forecast to be changeable.

            4. @sonicslv
              Long enough to know since the ’09 aero change theres little to no difference between dry/wet setup.
              The only difference is basically the engine mapping and power delivery!
              That’s why cars with good chassis come to the fore in wet races as engine power is not important.

        2. The Renault could have 500hp more and it still might not win races. The real trick is one of science and engineering, not catch lines a dealer/commercial will feed you.

    6. I still think Grosjean’s move is wrong if he aims to go forward. It won’t work, with all the exciting prospects around (Verstappen, Bottas, Stoffel, Kvyat, Sainz, to name a few, plus Ricciardo and Perez, both are still very young). Grosjean is level with Hulkenberg, maybe, and that’s already a hard enough battle.

      Considering the number of seats, and the vast options for Ferrari (who doesn’t want to go there?), Grosjean will probably be overlooked and that’s it. His career will end at Haas or some other midfield team, but he’ll never return to the position he had at Lotus in 2012-2013, I’m sure.

      I said it before, he’ll do a Timo Glock. In 2 years, maybe 3, he’ll be racing in DTMs, WEC or whatever. Which is incredibly sad IMO, he came really close to his a win many times.

      1. @fer-no65 I think of it as Grosjean trying to do a ‘Barrichello’, replicating his move to Stewart GP after Ferrari signed his Jordan team-mate a year earlier. He just has to hope that they don’t change their policy of picking well established drivers, after losing Bianchi, with Verstappen on the table.

        Long term, I could see them wanting Ricciardo as a successor to Vettel. But they would incessantly use an Italian pronunciation of his name and he would hate it!

        1. @fastiesty

          I think of it as Grosjean trying to do a ‘Barrichello’, replicating his move to Stewart GP after Ferrari signed his Jordan team-mate a year earlier.

          I think that’s about as good a comparison as there is to be made. It’s definitely a gamble but given that Lotus are unlikely to be competitive next year even if they do transmogrify into Renault, it’s the right time for him to be gambling.

          1. But with all the changes in 2017, Lotus-Renault may have a race winning car by then …

            1. @paeschli If so, and if Haas moves too far away from Ferrari/disappoints in 2016, and thus he doesn’t land the 2017 Ferrari seat, then he could always try and get back to Renault – unless they pick out Vergne, they might want a leading French driver to go alongside someone with potential.

          2. @keithcollantine True. I see 2016 as another 2014 for Lotus, with the aim to transition into another 2012 for the new rules in 2017. Plus, it’s hard to see a return to the mid-2000s, given their likely budgetary constraints.

      2. I think it is important to look also at the other side of the equation. What prospect would Grosjean have if he stayed in Lotus? Given the recent history of both Lotus and Renault, it looks like a case of misery attracting misery, truly fitting partners. I find it quite likely that Grosjean managed to leave a sinking ship. Of course we do not know, but I would not be surprised if next year we would see Haas as a safer team than ”Enstone whatever they decide to call it at the moment”.
        We need not look far for a possible source of trouble. Lotus is severely strapped for cash and Renault’s management was not willing to fund the engine development sufficiently and seriously considered (considers?) pulling out of F1 entirely. And it wouldn’t be for the first time with them, either.

    7. The UnStoffable Vandoorne… about to enter the second (arguably third) wasted year of his career parked at the McLaren Young Driver Stop Sign.

      1. I wish McLaren would set up a B team. Or at least help ART come into F1 and support them financially. They’ve been a top team in GP2 for years.

        1. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
          11th November 2015, 10:17

          Or just another Aguri Honda team

        2. @selbbin Have you seen McLarens latest financial situation? They can be lucky to still exists themselves…

          1. So wrong Mclaren is growing and well funded, they might not have sponsors on the car but Mclaren as a company is not in trouble.


              And it will get worse for the team as end of this year they don’t get a respectable amount of money from the pot. In 2014 they still got all of their points from 2013. In 2015 it’s all from 2014, and in 2016 the little cash from the points of this season. They’ve been lucky to get those 5th places to at least get some position in the standings.

      2. He should have taken that Toro Rosso seat two years ago, he can only blame himself.

        1. @paeschli Nothing but a rumor and denied by himself in Belgian media. Besides where would that put him now?

          1. In the Toro Rosso instead of Kvyat @xtwl

            From what I’ve heard he refused because they only offered a one year deal.

            1. * I mean Red Bull of course, I’m tired …

              Could you also give a link to an article where Vandoorne denies the rumor? I couldn’t find it after a quick Google search (I’m Belgian too so language shouldn’t be a problem :P)

    8. Renault, we blew the bridge sky high and it looked awesome when it exploded, but can you rebuild the damn thing so we can cross it!
      thanks! love ya, well maybe not that last part ;)
      Red Bull.

    9. F1 is still less scandalous than the IAAF and FIFA. The russian probe only happened because no one likes Russia. WADA knows that Russia is the first step for the widespread global revelation of the doping on athletics and one day maybe football. Doping in sport starts on the amateur level. Personal experience – 9 year old football kids drink “tea” at half-time. From a sporting perspective the similarity with IAAF and FIFA against F1 is that there’s an widespread knowledge that everyone dopes in IAAF and FIFA yet both organizations turn a blind eye. In F1, Ron had the intel from Ferrari yet everyone in F1 knows this sort of stuff happen with frequently. In the end these blatant violations of the sporting code are only revealed when one sees fit. In IAAF and FIFA we are discussing the immediate health and safety of sportsman. It’s a story that will as in the case of cycling, not avail anyone.

      1. @peartree, sorry, I don’t quite understand your personal experience remark. What are you saying these kids are drinking, pennyroyal tea? ;-)

      2. The russian probe only happened because no one likes Russia

        LOL @peartree.

        The probe happened more from a combination of WADA finally starting to tackle cases (new team wanting to be shown to do something about it), probably in reaction to new means of proving it, and being shown up as failing and Russia overdoing it. Simply, they pushed their luck and got found out.

        Thing is, Russias sports infrastructure dwindled at the same time as the economic downturn in the 90s and doping was the easiest/fastest way to get back to winning.

        1. If that’s true, being WADA i’d probably check in UK way before looking at Russia. The amount of medals the UK got at the last olympic games is quite frankly ridiculous if you compare their results to the likes of France, Germany and Italy (comparable countries), even for a hosting nation…oh wait, the WADA president is British…

          1. I think they did look Bio. but doubt they were able to find anything like as brazen as they found in Russia.

            But lets also not forget the infrasturcture investments made before those games. The UK did invest a huge amount of effort into getting those sporters primed for the games too.

            1. For the records, they found eleven “irregular” countries so far and named only Russia (why?), I wonder which are the other ten or if they’ll find more…and btw champions came through talent, skills and hard work, (too often with the help of doping), certainly not because you build fancy infrastructures. London 2012 stinks, just my opinion.

            2. Most of them will be countries close to Russia, former Soviet blocs if you like, like Belarus, Ukraine etc. There are also big question marks around Kenya and Jamaica’s lack of out of competition (OOC) testing infrastructure given their successes on the world stage.

              The UK success is a result of public investment programs (national lottery funding) in the athletes themselves as well – do France, Germany and Italy have that? Similarly, before this existed, the UK was nowhere in the mid-90s.

      3. There’s a whole issue about institutions @peartree, and FIA is basically the same easily corrupted structure as FIFA, with a small number of voters who can be bought with various benefits. God knows what an investigation of F1 would turn up, as Gary Hartstein says.

        1. Aside from all the issues surrounding BE wrt bribery etc. I would start the investigation around the time of contentious Briatore/Benetton/MS and carry it through the shift of that shifty setup over to Ferrari with their veto power, their extra hundreds of millions, and their relentless push to see MS end the Ferrari WDC drought and create a new chapter post-Senna.

          And in recent years we have heard Max Mosely reiterating his concerns over high unsustainable costs in F1…the very costs he and BE escaladed by starting the MS/Ferrari era, and then simply telling everyone who complained about the trumped up one-sided mega team that it was up to them to compete.

      4. @peartree @bascb

        Russia is simply top of the list, or the closest to ‘state-sanctioned’ enterprises of old, probably due to still having the old infrastructure/doping expertise/lack of accountability. Events-wise, the 800/1500 and walks really need to be sorted out first, hence the focus on stripping London 2012 medals.

        One big scandal was the destruction of evidence in Spain and now Russia – but Operation Puerta’s evidence was ordered to be destroyed by the Spanish courts! Talk about a 1994-level of mishandling..


      The Judge 13’s take on the Autosport article concerning RB and Renault…he is still defending his coup/theory that RB will be using Illien’s services next year and developing their own power unit. It does make logical sense albeit with a fair amount of assumption mixed in.

      For mine, neither this Autosport article or the Illien denial of a few days ago have removed doubt about specifics regarding RB’s 2016 power unit. If RB do produce their own unit, and race against the Renault works team, well, headlines will be made that is for sure. And I personally will think it exciting.

      1. Is this guy paying people to mention his site everywhere on the internet? I had honestly never heard of him until a few weeks ago when references to him as some sort of F1 Oracle started popping up in comments here and on other blogs (like Joe Saward’s).

        1. I first noticed the site last year @geemac; often interesting news, but tone and reliability quite mixed. Also, Joe Saward seems to not think much of them in general, might be biased, but that does carry weight with me.

          1. One jurno not thinking much of another jurno?! Who’d have thought it. Time will tell if The Judge 13 becomes a respected F1 news site depending on how many of their ‘stories’ turn out to be true. That’s the reason why I don’t like Eddie Jordan, sick of his predictions that rarely come true. Most people ignore those though for the few ones he does get right.

          2. That’s also what I thought @bosyber. He has many failings does old Joe, but he is present in the paddock, he does have contacts and he does talk sense (most of the time).

        2. @geemac I have seen suspicious comment activity relating to the promotion of certain F1 sites before and do take action to prevent the comment areas being spammed. Which, as anyone who’s run a site like this will know, is a huge problem…

          1. @keithcollantine I only mentioned it because this guy’s name seems to be popping up more and more often in places I trust. probably nothing to worry about, but it is interesting to see how sites gain traction.

            I haven’t read his site as it seems he is trying to be a news source and give insight into paddock rumour (even though he isn’t there by all accounts) rather than taking the approach which you do which is to provide comment on breaking news and create a forum for fans to discuss all things F1. There are plenty of reputable places to get news and paddock insight other than his site I think.

            1. @geemac It’s just over 3 years old now; interesting to have seen it grow in that time, as you say. I think the anonymity element is there to protect sources working in F1.

    11. So Renault are going to make RBR pay more for their engines, money which I daresay will be invested in the works team?

      1. that seems to be the plan, yes.

    12. So the only thing that Red Bull achieved, is to pay even more for the same engine. The one they’ve said is too bad as it is, even with its current price. :) Talking about screwing yourself over. :)

      1. It was a rather stupid move yes … But I guess paying more for the Renault engine makes more sense than paying a 500 million fine to Bernie to quit the sport.

        Anyway, I’m happy they stay in the sport. For all the hate they may get, I’m relieved we won’t have a 16 car grid next year.

    13. A nice interview with Tavo Hellmund in the Austing American Statesman

      Seems he is involved in a project to get a race going the West of the USA but also that he is involved with an investor group trying to buy Manor (and wants to put Dale Earnhart Jr. and/or Rossi in one of the cars!)

      1. At the same time, it seems that COTA is getting in a bad position and might not be able to afford staging the race next year …

        1. Would be quite sad if we’d lose COTA that way @bascb – similar issues as in EU: it just costs too much for the show, so audience isn’t convinced they are getting a good deal, the government isn’t paying the difference, and people around the track care about noise and planning permissions more than racing. Together with Bernie happy to poor oil on any fire for tracks he isn’t big buddies with.

          1. I don’t think the noise complaints are that significant @bosyber. The population density around the track is very low, and the international airport a few km north makes far more noise with over 150 flights per day in and out.

            1. Well, noise and environmental issues @gregkingston, there are people who are against Motorsport on principle and airports are seen as economic necessity, races not so much.

            2. As bosyber mentions, its easier to fight an airport. And an airport making noise can also be a good reason not to add another source of noise!

            3. Never underestimate the power of people that move close to a racetrack knowing it’ll be noisy, and then complain to pushover authorities about the noise.

            4. @dave

              You clearly know about Croft then…

              The sad thing is that few know of the struggles the number of bottom level karting tracks that our stars started at like Dunkswell (Button), Shennington (Mansel) Buckmore (Herbert/Lewis etc etc) and others in the UK not built on old airfields (which have other just as difficult issues) have and continue to suffer from ridiculous ‘townies’ just knowing they can get a bargain in a local commuter village and then due to the daft semi-green, left wing bias and crazy planning rules of many areas of local councils, simply mount petition after petition to get rid or restrict the use of these hugely wonderful circuits that have survived for years and years on their own efforts providing country wide entertainment, jobs and sport (or maybe the cynic in me suggests councils are just corrupt entities or completely ignorant of the benefits to young people – who knows – more than a reduction in salt in kids food is anyway!)

              For Gearbox Superkarts it has already turned into a ‘find a track that allows you that can be afforded’ (try Silverstone entries fees or any of the big boys let alone Croft…) yet this is slicks and wings racing at its basic level and one that truly bridges karts to F3 and above (just for those that don’t know – a superkart brakes better and is usually faster than F3 – it’s certainly able to top 175mph) funny thing – MV would not have been able to get a licence to race in that class in Europe or the Uk – just like F1 is now..

              Anyway – visit South Africa or the Eurpeon tracks and the locals just love you coming over to race – France, Denmark Germany, you name it, they work really hard to make this level of racing accessible and enjoyable – What is going wrong here?

              Back to the point – it’s bad enough to see Motorsport imploding – it has enough issues just at floor level!

            5. [People keep mistagging, so I changed my display name :)]

              I didn’t know Croft was so affected actually; I was referring more to the limitations placed on Oulton Park. Which is a cracking circuit in its own right. But then we all knew that already :)

          2. Would be quite sad if we’d lose COTA that way

            I completely agree. COTA is one of the best tracks we have seen in the modern Tilke age.

            The main problem here is FOM charging too much for the races. All the tracks are businesses in the end, and they have to look at ROI. If you can buy a product for £1, spend another £1 on expenses, but only sell it for £2, you are not going to do it. If you can sell it for £10, you will. There is a point at which it becomes worth it. At the moment, many tracks are struggling to make a profit, which means either they need to charge more or pay less. They can’t charge more, as people already baulk at the cost of going to a GP, and they can’t pay less because FOM won’t let them.

    14. I need that t-shirt, it’s quite applicable to me…

    15. Regarding the story about Lotus preparing 2 designs, one for a merc and one for a renault engine… I thought with Manor taking merc engines next year there is no room for another team like lotus to use them now? as Merc can only supply 3 teams…

      1. That exactly was my first thought as well. Technically Mercedes isn’t an option for Lotus anymore as they (Mercedes) already have 3 customer teams for next season.

    16. Cool. Glock did answer me on twitter

      1. Stupid Phone that logs me out for everything..

        1. ColdFly F1 (@)
          11th November 2015, 9:44

          Well done @marussi. And also mentioned in the round-up.

          1. Thank you :) man i was hoping he would say yes to a seat xD i liked glock

    17. COTD, the 100 million is a poor comparison to the FIFA scandal, the fine should have been far higher and more action taken it has more in common with the VW scandal it was an organisation cheating. The corruption was McLaren were not thrown out the sport for a year and their drivers stripped of all their point in 2007, this was indeed corruption that McLaren were let off so lightly.

      1. You know the dossier was for Honda @markp?

        1. It was used by Mclaren staff and thier drivers!

          1. Oh no it wasn’t. The FIA only ever found 3 trivial items – fast fill,, quick shift and tyre gas.. They were ideas Coughlan brought in or revived as an individual.. Like the individual who modded Benetton’s fuel rig…

            1. @lockup, Ron Dennis himself stated that Coughlan had technical drawings and manufacturing details relating to the design of the floor and rear wing elements on the F2007, indicating that Coughlan held onto a lot more information than you think.

              Whilst Ron Dennis claimed that Coughlan disguised the fact that he was using those documents as a source of information, it was the information that Coughlan acquired from those documents that enabled McLaren to file a report with the FIA that eventually declared Ferrari’s floor to be illegal, forcing Ferrari to withdraw the component from use.

              Dennis also stated that Coughlan presented technical drawings to other members of McLaren, including to Jonathan Neale, that came from documents that Coughlan had acquired from Ferrari via Stepney – again, indicating that Coughlan had acquired more information than you think.

            2. Coughlan had the entire Dossier anon, but it was for him and Stepney to take to Honda.

              Stepney just told Ron about the Ferrari pre-buckled stay, via Coughlan, because he’d kept telling FIA and they’d ignored him. So Ron asked Charlie if he could do it too. That was what opened the connection that became the leak.

              The McLaren team had no more connection with the crime than Benetton had with the fuel rig fiddling – for which they were let off, like Renault who were caught with McLaren drawings on their system.

              Lots of people still think spygate was a mega crime, but Max just made it look that way. And Monty and Todt of course.

        2. Amazingly said my friend. Mosley made a flee seem like an elephant while ignoring a lot worse simply because Ron’s face wasn’t to his liking.

      2. +1000
        Couldn’t agree more. Justice is sweet.

    18. On the “budget” engine issue, I had a thought. Is this not just a ploy to try to get an American engine manufacturer involved in the sport? I don’t think it is an accident that the spec touted by Bernie and the FIA is exactly what Chevrolet and Honda (HPD to be exact) run in Indycar at the moment. The fact that it could potentially be a headache for those running according to the 1.6l V6 hybrid formula could be a nice carrot to dangle in front of them. We all know that Bernie is keen on raising F1’s profile in the US, so having a team (next year), a driver (at the moment at least) and an engine supplier would be great for the image of the sport in the US.

      1. But the Indy powertrains aren’t hybrids; they’d need a fair bit of work to convert the designs.

        1. True @raceprouk, but the plans which were mooted included mating them to a rudimentary KERS.

          1. It’s not just a case of bolting bits on though; they’d have to rethink both cooling and packaging, which could lead to extensive changes to the engine itself. Plus there’s the difference in fuel: IIRC, IndyCar use ethanol instead of petrol.

        2. @raceprouk It depends on the type of hybrid system, but it really doesn’t need to involve that much work at all. The KERS systems in use in F1 until 2013 were (for the most part) crank-driven systems which could be retrofitted onto just about any engine. I’m not saying it’s the work of a moment to simply bolt something on, but the modifications should be relatively minor. And that’s assuming they were to go for a hybrid system which drives via the engine and not the flywheel or transmission.

          But going back to the original point, I think it’s more a ploy to get the existing engine manufacturers to capitulate. It gives a very real threat to them – work with us to reduce costs, or we’ll bring in a significantly cheaper alternative to your products which will allow other teams to be competitive without your engines. See already that Ferrari have made noises about working with RBR to develop a PU just for them.

          1. That covers the MGU-K part of it @mazdachris, but there’s also the MGU-H part to consider. Unless there won’t be an MGU-H, in which case the 2.2s may as well be a separate class.

            1. @raceprouk Realistically they’ll be a separate class no matter what – there’s no way they’ll meet the current engine regulations because the regs are currently very prescriptive. So there’s no real benefit in having an MGU-H as they can get whatever power they need from a conventional turbocharged engine plus a conventional KERS system. They’ll also have to run to different fuel regulations as they won’t be as efficient as the current engines. But they should have near bulletproof reliability and as an off-the-shelf solution with no need for development, they could be produced extremely cheaply compared to the current PUs. That’s the real kick in the gears for the current manufacturers – it’ll show that there’s nothing about their hyper-tech engines which makes them more powerful, just more efficient. But then since none of the manufacturers have actually done anything at all to promote the technology or the improvements in efficiency, that’s probably not much of a loss.

            2. But then since none of the manufacturers have actually done anything at all to promote the technology or the improvements in efficiency

              I would argue against that, but the only road cars that actually use hybrid tech are Toyotas, and they pulled out of F1 six years ago. OK, Ferrari and McLaren have hybrid hypercars, but they’re not exactly common, are they? :)

            3. @raceprouk Most manufacturers of road cars these days sell at least one hybrid model, with some boasting hybrid options across nearly all of their range. Ironically, Renault are one of the few who don’t actually sell hybrid cars, and if you go onto the RenaultSport site you’ll see a lot of promotion around Formula E but no reference at all to F1. Mercedes do have a number of hybrid models in their range including a flagship S class model with mega performance. But again, look at the Mercedes site and other than an F1 car lurking in the background of a picture of one of their hybrids, you’ll struggle to find any reference to the sport whatsoever. And this is from the company which said it was considering pulling out of F1 if they didn’t change to a greener engine formula.

              I’m just saying, it seems like a wasted opportunity. If I owned a road car company and I’d invested billions into developing a supremely competitive, high tech power unit, I’d be shouting it from the rooftops. Why aren’t we seeing loads of features showing off the technology and showcasing the different technical solutions? Why aren’t Renault and Mercedes using their participation in F1 to build that brand association?

              I guess what I’m driving at here, is that they could object to a cheap alternative engine for a number of reasons but I don’t think they could legitimately claim that it undermined the advertising they get from the sport. Since they aren’t actively using the sport to promote their products in any more meaningful way than simply having their logos on the cars. Mercedes would be getting just as much brand recognition if they were using cast iron V8 engines, it simply doesn’t matter.

            4. People are forgetting something.

              As it stands there are restrictions to the amount of energy that can be gathered alongside fuel use and quantity restrictions.

              At present, the only area (because of its innovation and at present slightly limited understanding) that is completely free of any restriction is the MGU – H – the one area that without doubt all parties are focused on as it provides ‘free’ energy’ and most importantly allows for ‘drive ability’ variation and flexibility.

              I laugh when I see ‘gurus’ attached to different ICE matters as if they could suddenly pull an extra 10% efficiency out of the ICE package. It cannot be done. It’s mature technology and while there are small worthy gains to be had, the efforts are on finding a reliable base ‘drive able’ bed unit that allows you to exploit the battery and free ‘energy’ via ‘H’ in the best, most efficient way so that the whole package can get lighter (fuel batteries etc etc) through less fuel, more energy etc as that’s the better option.

              Polishing ports has little impact here!

              With the same restrictions, the ‘new engine’ would complete about 2/3 of a race and I can’t see how that can be got through the various committees without a great big free marketing shout for the true hybrids and/or a real step back from what the FIA are trying to promote at all levels.

              Unless the FIA are completely stupid, the very work put into the true hybrids will create an absolute 2 tier class and much as I am sure people think that new spec means noise and speed, sorry – it’s just not going to happen and will just like RB ‘sticking’ a KERS unit on (like they are sitting around the garage) a Renault engine, be completely numptied by the big boys.

            5. I don’t really understand the point you’re making here.

              Yes, it would be a two-tier championship, in the same way it was in the 80s when you had turbocharged and naturally aspirated engines racing together. The BoP tweaks in WEC demonstrate that you can end up with performance equivalence from completely different technical solutions. The ‘alternative’ F1 engine would be a complete, out-of-the-box unit with the energy recovery levls, boost levels, fuel flow lovels, etc etc, all adjusted to give it equivalence with the current hybrids. Given a set specification, you can manipulate the power levels to a very fine degree, allowing for it to be adjusted up or down until it’s at an acceptable level.

              The FIA are the regulatory body and they can make changes for 2017 without it having to go via the strategy group. If they decide to make an allowance in the rules for cars running to two different formulae, then that’s within their gift to do.

              As I said above, this wouldn’t just be a case of allowing a different engine, it would be alongside a totally different formula in terms of fuel flow, fuel allowance, weight limit, etc etc. But fundamentally there’s no reason why you couldn’t achieve performance parity from two completely different solutions. And it would be much, much cheaper as well.

            6. The WEC regs were designed with BoP/EoT in mind; the F1 regs weren’t. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it’s gonna be tricky trying to balance a 1.6 and a 2.2 within the current framework.

            7. No real point @mazda other than people keep an irrational focus on ‘new names’ being able to suddenly transform the RB PU – it’s not so.

              The major work is in the fuelling of the ICE to improve the efficiency of the MGU-H (oh it would have helped if it had been called turbo and generator unit!)
              Fuel development is improving the conditions by which the combustion can be modified to help the turbo and thus MGU (h) to receive more ‘H’ which is actually just more exhaust output (actually kinetic energy to be blunt but that will confuse) and thus turbo and motor spin which as ‘unrestricted energy’ is the area most development in will have most impact on lap time.

              At the mo – most tokens are being spent on maximising combustion to do this. Not as most assume to get an extra 100bhp out of the ICE – because that’s not happening. Not ever no matter your name.

              The developments are focused absolutely on the turbo, MGU unit (h) and how the workings of the engine can extend the output of the ‘heat’ and this relies on the developments within the fuel and oil people.

              That’s where the extra power is coming from.

              Particularly as you can use it.

          2. And to complete the point – it’s tied to other posts by people.

            There is no real point in two tier F1 – it has never worked in any real sense in that anytime it happens it’s a mess and scars the championship years.

            Further – I really do not think that anyone who sees or experiences the closing speeds such as experienced by say Button in COTA due to an effective two tier system, would wish for this to happen given its really unnecessary.

            The bottom line is Bernie is losing power to those that make the engines, he hates this and thus must ensure this breaking of the line is restrained. Jean, fresh from fixing the worlds road safety and wrecking WRC, also feels out of the loop and joins forces to get some power back under the ‘it’s too expensive’ moan (no offence but teams have always spent the money somewhere regardless of what you force in savings) and thus, let’s do another engine.

            Immediately switching off all but RB fans…

            No – not for me. Just look at the mess MotoGP is in as a result of similar tactics.

    19. Really feel sorry for Sainz. At the beginning of the season it looked like his experience would keep him ahead of at least close to Verstappen. That quickly changed though and now the difference in ability is quite clear.

      Of course he tries to go for the “unfair strategy advantage” claim (which turned out wrong) and now he plays the “Oh I’m so unlucky” card when he knows full well that Verstappen had just as many car failures as he did.

      It even looks like Sainz is starting to try too hard to keep up and in doing so he tends to fly off the track a lot lately. That’s only going to cost him more. It’s really not helping his effort (or reliability) if they need to rebuild the car almost every weekend.

      1. Hard to say. He has out qualified Verstappen so far and when his car fails it tend to be at the tracks where Torro Rosso are capable of a lot of points. The points gap is far larger than the gap between the drivers if there even is one. Sainz has been in a no win situation anyway with Max constantly being talked up by his team and the media. Sainz must however beat Max next year and if the issue of reliability comes up then tough better lucky than good. Next year will be very interesting similar in a way to Ricciardo beating Vergne the 1st year then Vergne beating Ricciardo the 2nd year. If he lets his head drop though and Max wins again by a clear margin I doubt there will be any chance of a top line drive in future years.

        1. I’m already looking beyond Sainz. Who will be at Toro Rosso in 2017? Pierre Gasly and Dean Stoneman aren’t exactly impressive this season.

    20. Very glad they have an engine!!!
      The big question is …. what about Toro Rosso?

      1. Engine is clear: Ferrari! (Not yet confirmed but even Ferrari openly talks about it)

        The question is which spec. The indication so far is referring to the 15 spec, but that is explicitly prohibited in next year’s regulations!

    21. I’m very amused by Red Bull’s karmic tale, but also horrified by the prospect of a two-tier engine formula. That absolutely must not happen.

    22. Red Bull team has a lot of problem… This is a very difficult situation.

    Comments are closed.