Redbull not to use Renault engines in 2016
Discussion
I wonder what engine renault would be willing to supply to red bull?
Ironically if the music stops now, way I see it is all they'll have achieved for this big saga is losing their renault factory team status to being a customer team. Are they definitely set to lose total/infinity branding $$$ too?
Can someone clear up a question I posed earlier but had no response to- I thought new power unit regs were that engine builders had to supply identical engines to factory teams/customers, I remember a lot of debate on this- how are fez etc offering anything different- was this requirement dropped or is the "2015" engine simply a sneaky of supply a b spec engine and circumventing poorly written rules?
Ironically if the music stops now, way I see it is all they'll have achieved for this big saga is losing their renault factory team status to being a customer team. Are they definitely set to lose total/infinity branding $$$ too?
Can someone clear up a question I posed earlier but had no response to- I thought new power unit regs were that engine builders had to supply identical engines to factory teams/customers, I remember a lot of debate on this- how are fez etc offering anything different- was this requirement dropped or is the "2015" engine simply a sneaky of supply a b spec engine and circumventing poorly written rules?
I read a news article the other day saying the split from infinity and total sponsors has been concluded so I would imagine there's no going back to them, didn't infinity only become when RBR became the works Renault team, it became infinity red bull racing, now that they haven't got works status well........
Interesting question your other one, I don't know?
Interesting question your other one, I don't know?
hairyben said:
I wonder what engine renault would be willing to supply to red bull?
Ironically if the music stops now, way I see it is all they'll have achieved for this big saga is losing their renault factory team status to being a customer team. Are they definitely set to lose total/infinity branding $$$ too?
Can someone clear up a question I posed earlier but had no response to- I thought new power unit regs were that engine builders had to supply identical engines to factory teams/customers, I remember a lot of debate on this- how are fez etc offering anything different- was this requirement dropped or is the "2015" engine simply a sneaky of supply a b spec engine and circumventing poorly written rules?
I think the question you have is one of the bargaining points Red Bull are said to have - at present the rules are that the engine homologated for that year has to be the one which is used so it would require a change in the rules to allow the use of the engine from the previous year which RB could veto through through the requirement of a unanimous vote. That is my understanding but having said that, I'm not sure which engine Manor have been using this year.Ironically if the music stops now, way I see it is all they'll have achieved for this big saga is losing their renault factory team status to being a customer team. Are they definitely set to lose total/infinity branding $$$ too?
Can someone clear up a question I posed earlier but had no response to- I thought new power unit regs were that engine builders had to supply identical engines to factory teams/customers, I remember a lot of debate on this- how are fez etc offering anything different- was this requirement dropped or is the "2015" engine simply a sneaky of supply a b spec engine and circumventing poorly written rules?
hairyben said:
Can someone clear up a question I posed earlier but had no response to- I thought new power unit regs were that engine builders had to supply identical engines to factory teams/customers, I remember a lot of debate on this- how are fez etc offering anything different- was this requirement dropped or is the "2015" engine simply a sneaky of supply a b spec engine and circumventing poorly written rules?
That was my understanding. I also thought they were obliged to supply a certain number of teams, perhaps once they have supplied that number they can offer whatever they like to the remainder.hairyben said:
Can someone clear up a question I posed earlier but had no response to- I thought new power unit regs were that engine builders had to supply identical engines to factory teams/customers, I remember a lot of debate on this- how are fez etc offering anything different- was this requirement dropped or is the "2015" engine simply a sneaky of supply a b spec engine and circumventing poorly written rules?
Extract from Autosport:Manor was allowed to use year-old Ferrari engines this season after it exploited a loophole in the regulations that required only concessionary permission to use such units.
Appendix 4 of the technical regulations was tightened with each manufacturer only allowed to supply one specification of a homologated power unit in any calendar year.
But a proposal was drafted to allow the use of older-spec engines, subject to the approval by the FIA on a case-by-case basis, at the Power Unit Working Group meeting earlier this year.
Piginapoke said:
noell35 said:
Perhaps Renault will buy Red Bull instead of Lotus?
This seems to be a much more natural fit than lotus, with a long term merc engine deal and a lot of debtWould also explain why the lotus deal is not done?
It's a win win win situation. Anybody got Bernie's phone number?
asjoseph said:
... this constitutes a TOS violation. And, moderators here aren't doing their jobs.
If moderators aren't cracking the whip on personal attacks, and ad hominems, then they're not doing their jobs.
This happens almost everywhere in board culture where, indicative of bureaucratic drift, those gravitating toward roles as moderators degenerate (pardon my French; no gentle way of putting this) into sick-f###ks, who aren't here for their love of the subject matter, but to feed off the conflict.
If you aren't coming down on ad hominems, then you're not doing your job. And, you need to be busted down from moderator status, and replaced -- Samuel, '88 AW11 4agze.
Can I just ask, in the nicest way, why exactly *do* you persist in adding a signature to your posts when it is clear that this is not a site that uses them, to the extent that it doesn't even have the facility to add them automatically? This surely means you must manually cut and paste it. Are you just yourself trolling for conflict? You must realise that it detracts from your posts as it sidetracks people into commenting on it rather than what you are saying. If moderators aren't cracking the whip on personal attacks, and ad hominems, then they're not doing their jobs.
This happens almost everywhere in board culture where, indicative of bureaucratic drift, those gravitating toward roles as moderators degenerate (pardon my French; no gentle way of putting this) into sick-f###ks, who aren't here for their love of the subject matter, but to feed off the conflict.
If you aren't coming down on ad hominems, then you're not doing your job. And, you need to be busted down from moderator status, and replaced -- Samuel, '88 AW11 4agze.
Edited by JonRB on Saturday 10th October 17:14
asjoseph said:
... this constitutes a TOS violation. And, moderators here aren't doing their jobs.
If moderators aren't cracking the whip on personal attacks, and ad hominems, then they're not doing their jobs.
FYI - it's a reactively moderated site, they can't watch every thread. If you click on the report button next to the post then mods will investigate.If moderators aren't cracking the whip on personal attacks, and ad hominems, then they're not doing their jobs.
asjoseph said:
... this constitutes a TOS violation. And, moderators here aren't doing their jobs.
If moderators aren't cracking the whip on personal attacks, and ad hominems, then they're not doing their jobs.
This happens almost everywhere in board culture where, indicative of bureaucratic drift, those gravitating toward roles as moderators degenerate (pardon my French; no gentle way of putting this) into sick-f###ks, who aren't here for their love of the subject matter, but to feed off the conflict.
If you aren't coming down on ad hominems, then you're not doing your job. And, you need to be busted down from moderator status, and replaced -- Samuel, '88 AW11 4agze.
Wibble.If moderators aren't cracking the whip on personal attacks, and ad hominems, then they're not doing their jobs.
This happens almost everywhere in board culture where, indicative of bureaucratic drift, those gravitating toward roles as moderators degenerate (pardon my French; no gentle way of putting this) into sick-f###ks, who aren't here for their love of the subject matter, but to feed off the conflict.
If you aren't coming down on ad hominems, then you're not doing your job. And, you need to be busted down from moderator status, and replaced -- Samuel, '88 AW11 4agze.
You lot need to lighten up. PS: i see no problem with awesome signatures.
"Pebbles167 - sexy as f
k - 206 gti with a k&n air filter and remap, rapid m8. (Build thread on the way)"
Circumnavigate the swear filter at your peril!
Oops... was trying to emulate typical chav speak.
"Pebbles167 - sexy as f
k - 206 gti with a k&n air filter and remap, rapid m8. (Build thread on the way)"Circumnavigate the swear filter at your peril!
Edited by Big Al. on Saturday 10th October 17:28
Oops... was trying to emulate typical chav speak.
Edited by Pebbles167 on Saturday 10th October 17:31
JonRB said:
asjoseph said:
... this constitutes a TOS violation. And, moderators here aren't doing their jobs.
If moderators aren't cracking the whip on personal attacks, and ad hominems, then they're not doing their jobs.
This happens almost everywhere in board culture where, indicative of bureaucratic drift, those gravitating toward roles as moderators degenerate (pardon my French; no gentle way of putting this) into sick-f###ks, who aren't here for their love of the subject matter, but to feed off the conflict.
If you aren't coming down on ad hominems, then you're not doing your job. And, you need to be busted down from moderator status, and replaced -- Samuel, '88 AW11 4agze.
Can I just ask, in the nicest way, why exactly *do* you persist in adding a signature to your posts when it is clear that this is not a site that uses them, to the extent that it doesn't even have the facility to add them automatically? This surely means you must manually cut and paste it. Are you just yourself trolling for conflict? You must realise that it detracts from your posts as it sidetracks people into commenting on it rather than what you are saying. If moderators aren't cracking the whip on personal attacks, and ad hominems, then they're not doing their jobs.
This happens almost everywhere in board culture where, indicative of bureaucratic drift, those gravitating toward roles as moderators degenerate (pardon my French; no gentle way of putting this) into sick-f###ks, who aren't here for their love of the subject matter, but to feed off the conflict.
If you aren't coming down on ad hominems, then you're not doing your job. And, you need to be busted down from moderator status, and replaced -- Samuel, '88 AW11 4agze.
Edited by JonRB on Saturday 10th October 17:14
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff