Redbull not to use Renault engines in 2016

Redbull not to use Renault engines in 2016

Author
Discussion

glazbagun

14,259 posts

196 months

Saturday 10th October 2015
quotequote all
s3fella said:
Wow, what a diatribe! (Ad HomerSimpson)


Clint Rock'ard, 50m Swimming Certificate.
Arnold J Rimmer. BSC. SSC. hehe

AW111

9,455 posts

132 months

Sunday 11th October 2015
quotequote all
asjoseph said:
AW111 said:
rohrl said:
asjoseph said:
Samuel, '88 AW11 4AGZE.
You don't need a signature on this site, we can all see your username next to your post.
You fool - his username is joseph. Samuel is an account hijacker who found the unlocked phone wink
... 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.
Wow!

One jibe, aimed as much at rohrl as you, about your signiature being different to your username, and you go pop!

By all means report me to the mods, as I would like to know if a remark like I made is a breach of TOS. Seriously.

Adrian, '86 AW11/AE111 4age.

Gazzab

21,061 posts

281 months

Sunday 11th October 2015
quotequote all
asjoseph said:
Vaud said:
No, on this I disagree. It's not his fault his bosses have slated Renault - what was he to do - say his bosses were wrong and undermine them?
Man upstairs put many a fine thing on Mr. Horner's plate. Took it all for granted, didn't he? He's forgotten what's truly important.

A lesson in life from Frank Williams, Mr. Christian Horner's number 1 job isn't performance of his team. Mr. Christian Horner's number 1 job is, the nurturing, the caring, and the feeding of his people. Somewhere along the way, Mr. Horner never learned that lesson.

The man upstairs didn't just give Mr. Horner a racing team to care for. He entrusted him an F1 team, the fate of many thousands of people resting, in the palms of his hands. What's he do ex post sweeping 4 consecutive championships? He fumbles his relationship, with Renault?!!

What a putz!!

All those high-power money jobs in the UK, directly supported by Red Bull F1, resting in the palm of Mr Horner's hands. Once gone, those jobs never come back. Red Bull F1, teetering precariously at the brink of extinction...

"Oh, Pilot! 'Tis a fearful night! There is danger on the deep!" (Thomas Haynes Bayly, The Pilot) -- Samuel, '88 AW11 4agze.
Your communucation style reminds me of the life coach types - piston heads requires a different sort of approach.

Pebbles167

3,417 posts

151 months

Sunday 11th October 2015
quotequote all
Whilst the raging signature argument continues, i think we can all agree that the 4AGE engine was pretty awesome.

Anyway, the race is on soon so I'm off to the other threads.

Pebbles167 - Millennium Falcon

williamp

19,213 posts

272 months

Sunday 11th October 2015
quotequote all
putz indeed. Could Renault be in the unusual position of being an F1 engine provider without anyone running their engines?? Will..er.. Dave 1.2 turbo natch

JonRB

74,401 posts

271 months

Sunday 11th October 2015
quotequote all
I suspect from FourWheelDrift's post about Mr Ad Hominem having left the building, that further comment towards him could well be fruitless.

Chrisgr31

13,440 posts

254 months

Sunday 11th October 2015
quotequote all
To return to the topic of engines I dont really understand why last years engine would be so much cheaper than this years.

F1 engines are not mass market things, they are building a limited number a year, and they in turn have a limited life. So in order to supply an older version of the engine the manufacturer has to produce more of them. How is that cheaper than just making more of the current version? Isn't it just an element of man maths and isn't it just the case of the manufacturers realising that some money is better than none.

JonRB

74,401 posts

271 months

Sunday 11th October 2015
quotequote all
Chrisgr31 said:
To return to the topic of engines I dont really understand why last years engine would be so much cheaper than this years.

F1 engines are not mass market things, they are building a limited number a year, and they in turn have a limited life. So in order to supply an older version of the engine the manufacturer has to produce more of them. How is that cheaper than just making more of the current version? Isn't it just an element of man maths and isn't it just the case of the manufacturers realising that some money is better than none.
It depends on whether or not there is a production run of certain components, and whether there are surplus of those for last years engine that can be made use of. But broadly speaking, I completely agree with you.

RYH64E

7,960 posts

243 months

Sunday 11th October 2015
quotequote all
JonRB said:
Chrisgr31 said:
To return to the topic of engines I dont really understand why last years engine would be so much cheaper than this years.

F1 engines are not mass market things, they are building a limited number a year, and they in turn have a limited life. So in order to supply an older version of the engine the manufacturer has to produce more of them. How is that cheaper than just making more of the current version? Isn't it just an element of man maths and isn't it just the case of the manufacturers realising that some money is better than none.
It depends on whether or not there is a production run of certain components, and whether there are surplus of those for last years engine that can be made use of. But broadly speaking, I completely agree with you.
I think you're probably over complicating things, last year's engine is cheaper because there's less risk of customers beating the works team with an underpowered 'power unit'...

rohrl

8,712 posts

144 months

Sunday 11th October 2015
quotequote all
asjoseph said:
AW111 said:
rohrl said:
asjoseph said:
Samuel, '88 AW11 4AGZE.
You don't need a signature on this site, we can all see your username next to your post.
You fool - his username is joseph. Samuel is an account hijacker who found the unlocked phone wink
... 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.
At first I wasn't sure but now I'm absolutely convinced that this is a Turing test.

MartG

20,622 posts

203 months

Sunday 11th October 2015
quotequote all
AW111 said:
asjoseph said:
AW111 said:
rohrl said:
asjoseph said:
Samuel, '88 AW11 4AGZE.
You don't need a signature on this site, we can all see your username next to your post.
You fool - his username is joseph. Samuel is an account hijacker who found the unlocked phone wink
... 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.
Wow!

One jibe, aimed as much at rohrl as you, about your signiature being different to your username, and you go pop!

By all means report me to the mods, as I would like to know if a remark like I made is a breach of TOS. Seriously.

Adrian, '86 AW11/AE111 4age.
laugh

^ Gratuitous smiley as an excuse to write....

Martin, '86 AW11 with Chargecooled AE111 4AGZE

NewMetalSystem

351 posts

178 months

Monday 12th October 2015
quotequote all
I don't know if this has been mentioned before before it doesn't seem to have received much press, but Joe Saward has some interesting information on Red Bull's current contract with F1.

Apparently a few years ago when they were negotiating for a bigger share of the commercial rights between 2010 and 2020, Bernie inserted an 'penalty clause' worth (wait for it) $1billion - which works out at $100m for every year that they leave before the end of their contract. If they quit at the end of this year, they owe Bernie $500m.

You'd have to really want to leave if you were willing to pay half a billion dollars just to walk away.

BigBen

11,610 posts

229 months

Monday 12th October 2015
quotequote all
RYH64E said:
JonRB said:
Chrisgr31 said:
To return to the topic of engines I dont really understand why last years engine would be so much cheaper than this years.

F1 engines are not mass market things, they are building a limited number a year, and they in turn have a limited life. So in order to supply an older version of the engine the manufacturer has to produce more of them. How is that cheaper than just making more of the current version? Isn't it just an element of man maths and isn't it just the case of the manufacturers realising that some money is better than none.
It depends on whether or not there is a production run of certain components, and whether there are surplus of those for last years engine that can be made use of. But broadly speaking, I completely agree with you.
I think you're probably over complicating things, last year's engine is cheaper because there's less risk of customers beating the works team with an underpowered 'power unit'...
Isn't it more like the development costs of the previous spec engine were amortised across them when they were current so being able to sell them later is a bonus. Repeating a build of something relatively well tested and understood is cheaper than always running the latest unproven bits.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Monday 12th October 2015
quotequote all
RYH64E said:
I think you're probably over complicating things, last year's engine is cheaper because there's less risk of customers beating the works team with an underpowered 'power unit'...
no, nothing of the sort.

it's cheaper because there is no development cost associated with making another existing engine, every one you make after the initial development is purely a production and support cost, and the cost of actually manufacturing these engines is a very small % of the development cost, so even if they sold them for 25% the cost, they are probably actually making money (in the sense that they would bring more money in than it costs to make & support them).

BigBen said:
Isn't it more like the development costs of the previous spec engine were amortised across them when they were current so being able to sell them later is a bonus. Repeating a build of something relatively well tested and understood is cheaper than always running the latest unproven bits.
EXACTLY!

Last years engine to merc is dead, to be able to raise some cash by flogging them is a bonus.



Munter

31,319 posts

240 months

Monday 12th October 2015
quotequote all
I think there is also an element of being able to keep the "production line" such as it is, busier over the year. In this off season while the 2016 designs are still being tweaked, you can run off a batch of 2015 spec engines all together as you know they will not be changed. Then those are done, and shipped out to the customer, leaving the guys to concentrate on the 2016 builds throughout the testing and racing season for 2016.

rdjohn

6,135 posts

194 months

Monday 12th October 2015
quotequote all
Has anyone read that in-season development will be permitted next year?

I read that the loophole, so poorly exploited by Renault (as they have yet to spend any tokens) has been firmly closed for 2016.

The new bits will be holomogated at the end of testing in February. So they same engine spec will be manufactured for the rest of the season.

FourWheelDrift

88,381 posts

283 months

Wednesday 14th October 2015
quotequote all
FIA rules now say all customer engines must be the same specification. So no year old options.

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/224138/1/fia-rules-cu...

aeropilot

34,299 posts

226 months

Wednesday 14th October 2015
quotequote all
Probably what Bernie was inferring when he told Mr.Spice "It's all sorted" as per BBC interview with CH at Russian GP.


suffolk009

5,344 posts

164 months

Wednesday 14th October 2015
quotequote all
I doubt that Bernie's idea of "it's all sorted", matches yours or mine.

andyps

7,817 posts

281 months

Wednesday 14th October 2015
quotequote all
FourWheelDrift said:
FIA rules now say all customer engines must be the same specification. So no year old options.

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/224138/1/fia-rules-cu...
When I read the news piece on this on motorsport.com my thought was that maybe the manufacturers could homologate two engines, the 2016 one they will use in the factory cars and the 2015 version for customers. Not sure if it would be allowed but they could use sub-brands for this so Ferrari could homologate the 2015 engine badged as a Fiat and Mercedes would be able to do the same with the Smart brand. That might make a Dacia engine available to Red Bull next year!