Redbull not to use Renault engines in 2016
Discussion
MikeyC said:
hairyben said:
MissChief said:
The buyout hasn't been agreed yet and they do have a contract with Mercedes for next year. Until the buyout is announced then they are still using Mercedes engine.
Don't manor have their engine, and with FI, williams and the factory team that makes 4. Which is all merc are allowed to supply.If however Renault (maybe?) decide to keep the Lotus name for next year, not sure if Mercedes could bail out of the contract to supply engines to the team
or does this all boil down to who has the right to the Lotus name (again !)
I'm not sure merc would yoik the engine unless lotus were *okay with it.
- legally speaking, of course, I'm sure a few tears are being shed at losing the merc for a reanult...
hairyben said:
MikeyC said:
hairyben said:
MissChief said:
The buyout hasn't been agreed yet and they do have a contract with Mercedes for next year. Until the buyout is announced then they are still using Mercedes engine.
Don't manor have their engine, and with FI, williams and the factory team that makes 4. Which is all merc are allowed to supply.If however Renault (maybe?) decide to keep the Lotus name for next year, not sure if Mercedes could bail out of the contract to supply engines to the team
or does this all boil down to who has the right to the Lotus name (again !)
I'm not sure merc would yoik the engine unless lotus were *okay with it.
- legally speaking, of course, I'm sure a few tears are being shed at losing the merc for a Renault...
I wonder what will happen if the RB/Ilien engine tuyrns out to be quite good and another team, perhaps McLaren if Honda continue to prove every disaster has another one looming right behind it and decide enough is enough come 2017, what would RB do? They wouldn't really be in a position to say 'No, you might beat us!' and moan about it would they? Somehow I doubt it would stop them though!
Gaz. said:
In short, RBR have acted like a bunch of 
s for ten years and now it's caught up with them. Mclaren, who are multiple champions did not struggle to find an engine and could have stayed with Mercedes. Williams, the 2nd most successful F1 team ever were welcomed with open arms by Mercedes. Lotus, three times WCC winners had no problem obtaining a Mercedes engine. Haas had no problem obtaining a Ferrari engine and also had the option of a Mercedes engine. F1 does not have an engine crisis, RBR has an engine crisis and although I have a lot of sympathies for the shop floor staff, I sincerely hoped RBR would fk off after Abu Dhabi but I'll settle for them blowing up their versions of a Renault lump instead.
I'm not arguing that engines have never been important before, of course they have, but they've never been so complex, so expensive, and so integral to performance athey are today. On top of the performance deficit, Renault and Honda powered teams can't even get to the finishing line (the starting line sometimes for Honda) before their engines expire, and start races from the back of the grid due to penalties. Even with a Mercedes engine McLaren were convinced they would never be able (or allowed) to beat the factory team (rightly, imo), unfortunately for them, without it the only team they can beat is Manor.s for ten years and now it's caught up with them. Mclaren, who are multiple champions did not struggle to find an engine and could have stayed with Mercedes. Williams, the 2nd most successful F1 team ever were welcomed with open arms by Mercedes. Lotus, three times WCC winners had no problem obtaining a Mercedes engine. Haas had no problem obtaining a Ferrari engine and also had the option of a Mercedes engine. F1 does not have an engine crisis, RBR has an engine crisis and although I have a lot of sympathies for the shop floor staff, I sincerely hoped RBR would fk off after Abu Dhabi but I'll settle for them blowing up their versions of a Renault lump instead.As for the teams, Williams may be the 2nd most successful team ever (I didn't think so, but haven't checked) but they last won a WCC in 1997, Lotus (Renault) are a shadow of their former self and barely have the cash to pay their bills, and McLaren are a shambles. Red Bull on the other hand are a well funded, well run, serious competitor who won four consecutive WCCs as recently as 2013. I think that both Ferrari and Mercedes want to see Red Bull disadvantaged, and for good reason, it's a sensible move by the manufacturers but hardly good for the sport.
Edited by RYH64E on Sunday 15th November 08:41
RYH64E said:
I'm not arguing that engines have never been important before, of course they have, but they've never been so complex, so expensive, and so integral to performance athey are today. On top of the performance deficit, Renault and Honda powered teams can't even get to the finishing line (the starting line sometimes for Honda) before their engines expire, and start races from the back of the grid due to penalties. Even with a Mercedes engine McLaren were convinced they would never be able (or allowed) to beat the factory team (rightly, imo), unfortunately for them, without it the only team they can beat is Manor.
As for the teams, Williams may be the 2nd most successful team ever (I didn't think so, but haven't checked) but they last won a WCC in 1997, Lotus (Renault) are a shadow of their former self and barely have the cash to pay their bills, and McLaren are a shambles. Red Bull on the other hand are a well funded, well run, serious competitor who won four consecutive WCCs as recently as 2013. I think that both Ferrari and Mercedes want to see Red Bull disadvantaged, and for good reason, it's a sensible move by the manufacturers but hardly good for the sport.
that's just hypothetical trash talk.As for the teams, Williams may be the 2nd most successful team ever (I didn't think so, but haven't checked) but they last won a WCC in 1997, Lotus (Renault) are a shadow of their former self and barely have the cash to pay their bills, and McLaren are a shambles. Red Bull on the other hand are a well funded, well run, serious competitor who won four consecutive WCCs as recently as 2013. I think that both Ferrari and Mercedes want to see Red Bull disadvantaged, and for good reason, it's a sensible move by the manufacturers but hardly good for the sport.
Ron dumped Merc because of history, they wanted to buy McLaren, he blocked it, and then saw an opportunity to dump merc all together with Honda.
The Renault problem is nothing like as big as we are lead to believe, hell, Red bull are 4th in the constructors, ahead of Merc powered FI, Lotus, Ferrari engined Sauber, etc etc.
their DNF record is actually pretty good too:
Kvyat - 1 DNS (Aus - transmission problems) 2 x DNF (China - engine, Crash Texas)
Ricciardo - 2 x DNF (Silverstone - electrical failure, Spa - electrical failure)
so, red bull have had one IC engine failure (in a race) so far this year
So have Merc (Rosberg - Russia), and Ferrari (Kimi - Hungary - engine/ERS)
so to suggest they are massively unreliable is actually bogus.
the Renaults issue would appear to be more about the implementation of ERC - specifically the Turbo/MGU-H set-up not being able to recover anything like he power the Merc or Ferrari ones can.
Now, this 'new' engine will be much the same, but with Red bull doing their own ERS?
My question is how this will fit in the regs so far as engine upgrades go, it's still a Renault/Mecachrome engine, no matter what badge you put on it?
Scuffers said:
The Renault problem is nothing like as big as we are lead to believe, hell, Red bull are 4th in the constructors, ahead of Merc powered FI, Lotus, Ferrari engined Sauber, etc etc.
their DNF record is actually pretty good too:
I can't find up to date figures, but after 15 rounds none of the Mercedes powered teams had used more than their allocated 4 sets of power unit components, the Renault powered teams had used 7 or 8, and Honda 9 or 10. Red Bull have certainly used more since as Ricciardo used a new engine this week.their DNF record is actually pretty good too:
RYH64E said:
I can't find up to date figures, but after 15 rounds none of the Mercedes powered teams had used more than their allocated 4 sets of power unit components, the Renault powered teams had used 7 or 8, and Honda 9 or 10. Red Bull have certainly used more since as Ricciardo used a new engine this week.
that's also miss-leading.for example, Ricciardo's penalty this weekend was because they chose to run the new (improved?) engine, not because they had to.
Scuffers said:
that's also miss-leading.
for example, Ricciardo's penalty this weekend was because they chose to run the new (improved?) engine, not because they had to.
ffor example, Ricciardo's penalty this weekend was because they chose to run the new (improved?) engine, not because they had to.
ks sake scuffers, you'd argue a square is a triangle if it suited you.Renault powered teams have as yet been unable to introduce the new engine because they've already used up their full allocation of engines. That is due to unreliability.
Some Gump said:
fks sake scuffers, you'd argue a square is a triangle if it suited you.
Renault powered teams have as yet been unable to introduce the new engine because they've already used up their full allocation of engines. That is due to unreliability.
yes, for some, however, this weekends change was just about taking the new upgraded engine.ks sake scuffers, you'd argue a square is a triangle if it suited you.Renault powered teams have as yet been unable to introduce the new engine because they've already used up their full allocation of engines. That is due to unreliability.
Look, I am not suggesting it's not a dog, but it's nothing like the dog it's being made out to be, for that, see Honda.
It's only because of the constant barrage of propaganda spouted from Red Bull that's claiming it is.
if it;s such a dog, how come Max Verstappen is managing to make it look easy in a TR?
Scuffers said:
yes, for some, however, this weekends change was just about taking the new upgraded engine.
Look, I am not suggesting it's not a dog, but it's nothing like the dog it's being made out to be, for that, see Honda.
It's only because of the constant barrage of propaganda spouted from Red Bull that's claiming it is.
if it;s such a dog, how come Max Verstappen is managing to make it look easy in a TR?
link : http://www.crash.net/f1/feature/224475/1/power-uni...Look, I am not suggesting it's not a dog, but it's nothing like the dog it's being made out to be, for that, see Honda.
It's only because of the constant barrage of propaganda spouted from Red Bull that's claiming it is.
if it;s such a dog, how come Max Verstappen is managing to make it look easy in a TR?
Gist:
Number of engines used so far this year. I'd say it's quite damning.
Some Gump said:
link : http://www.crash.net/f1/feature/224475/1/power-uni...
Gist:
Number of engines used so far this year. I'd say it's quite damning.
it's is, but without knowing why they changed parts, it;s somewhat misleading.Gist:
Number of engines used so far this year. I'd say it's quite damning.
IE how many were changed to take upgraded parts vs. failures?
Chrisgr31 said:
The Renault powered teams may have used more engines than the Ferrari and Mercedes teams but they haven't broken any more in the race. Simple fact.
Quali? I've not been taking notes but remember Saints pulling over at least once. Not that it matters of course - the rules are quite simple. Teams can use 4 PU's in a season. This covers all sessions, testing, quali, whatever. If you need 8 engines to get to the end, then your engine are capable of doing 1/2 the mileage that was required. 50% of target is an epic fail in any scenario.As for the "how many for upgrades" angle - IMO it's irrelevent. Teams move to the upgrade at a logical time where they'd change the engine anyway. We've seen that from all of the Merc teams.
One point that has seemingly been over-exaggerated is the increased cost of the engines. Toto Woolf yesterday said they are around 20% more expensive than the previous ones. Pat Symonds last year said that the total engine bill for the year was lower than it had been in the past. I don't know the exact figures and it would be interesting to see them substantiated (although as Woolf said, they can't release them as that would be anti-competitive) but I'm not convinced the costs are as high as some would imply.
andyps said:
One point that has seemingly been over-exaggerated is the increased cost of the engines. Toto Woolf yesterday said they are around 20% more expensive than the previous ones. Pat Symonds last year said that the total engine bill for the year was lower than it had been in the past. I don't know the exact figures and it would be interesting to see them substantiated (although as Woolf said, they can't release them as that would be anti-competitive) but I'm not convinced the costs are as high as some would imply.
this is the problem.it;s never broken down to what it actually costs, all the 30M figures are the years contract costs for the team, ie, two cars, 4 PU's etc etc.
now, I am sure each PU costs a shed load more than the old V8's, BUT they used a lot more of the V8's than the new PU, and the (embedded) staffing costs (to the team) will not have changed much either.
Rumour last year was that the Merc was the cheapest PU out there.
Scuffers said:
Vaud said:
Scuffers said:
And these is no availability problems, just a problem with red bull being tw4ts.
I partly agree. But choice of one engine doesn't make for a great formula. Victim of their own success, other teams are terrified of a Newey designed car with a great engine.Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff