Aston Martin in F1 talks with Red Bull over Mercedes engine

Aston Martin in F1 talks with Red Bull over Mercedes engine

Author
Discussion

Dingle Dell

Original Poster:

218 posts

138 months

Sunday 5th July 2015
quotequote all
While the F1 deal seems unlikely, it only takes Renault to buy out Lotus (to run as their factory team), as is being touted, to open up Mercedes to be able to supply another team.

Despite some denials from others, Toto Wolff has not ruled out supplying Red Bull / Torro Rosso in 2017, though no mention was made of Aston during that particular interview.

ds2000

2,685 posts

192 months

Monday 6th July 2015
quotequote all
Redbull Aston Martin Mercedes rolls off the tongue smile

MiniMan64

16,904 posts

190 months

Monday 6th July 2015
quotequote all
ds2000 said:
Redbull Aston Martin Mercedes rolls off the tongue smile
Except it would be RedBull Aston Martin wouldn't it?

Speedraser

1,656 posts

183 months

Monday 6th July 2015
quotequote all
GingerMunky said:
5. Add basic electronic features that luxury car buyers the world over expect and can be found on a £20k Nissan. All round cameras, automatic parking, collision mitigation, speed sign recognition, auto everything, phone apps, etc...
I take your point re: marketing, but I couldn't possibly care less about any of that. I'd rather not have it in the car than have it but not use it.

old phart

404 posts

110 months

Tuesday 7th July 2015
quotequote all
DB9VolanteDriver said:
Yeah, that's it. Add more electronic crap to go wrong. Pretty some it'll be as unreliable as an MB. Astons are not meant to be mundane daily drivers, where you do want all that crap to entertain what is a boring drive. Astons are meant to be enjoyed and none of that stuff is needed for that. If you do want that stuff, just go buy an MB.
At a computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated: "If GM had kept up with the technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon."

In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release (by Mr. Welch himself) stating:


If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:

1. For no reason at all, your car would crash twice a day.

2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road, you would have to buy a new car.

3. Occasionally, executing a manoeuver such as a left-turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, and you would have to reinstall the engine.

4. When your car died on the freeway for no reason, you would just accept this, restart and drive on.

5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought 'Car95' or 'CarNT', and then added more seats.

6. Apple would make a car powered by the sun, reliable, five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would run on only five per cent of the roads.

7. Oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be replaced by a single 'general car default' warning light.

8. New seats would force every-one to have the same size butt.

9. The airbag would say 'Are you sure?' before going off.

10. Occasionally, for no reason, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key, and grabbed the radio antenna.

11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of road maps from Rand-McNally (a subsidiary of GM), even though they neither need them nor want them. Trying to delete this option would immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50 per cent or more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the Justice Department.

12. Every time GM introduced a new model, car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

13. You would press the 'start' button to shut off the engine.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/autos.asp#LXPvzd...

MiniMan64

16,904 posts

190 months

Tuesday 7th July 2015
quotequote all
The 95/NT and Apple references show just how old that joke is!

Little Donkey

1,544 posts

141 months

Thursday 9th July 2015
quotequote all
See this is doing the rounds on Twitter this evening.


downr

3,803 posts

128 months

Thursday 9th July 2015
quotequote all
it ain't happening

Jon39

12,820 posts

143 months

Friday 10th July 2015
quotequote all

The historical participation by Aston Martin in F1 is not often mentioned.

1951 - Project scrapped.
1959-60 - Nil points.
1960 - Proposed rear engine car - Project scrapped.

They probably decided that it is racing sports cars, that sells sports cars.

Surely this F1 talk is a non-story.

The number of teams that have withdrawn from F1 (28 since 1990, and I think over 70 since the formula was established) demonstrates the financial difficulties.

How would AML (with considerable borrowings, and only two or three profitable years out of 102) benefit by putting money into F1?



RichB

51,531 posts

284 months

Friday 10th July 2015
quotequote all
Jon39 said:
The historical participation by Aston Martin in F1 is not often mentioned.

1951 - Project scrapped.
1959-60 - Nil points.
1960 - Proposed rear engine car - Project scrapped.
Which is true however it disguises the fact that the DBR4 was a very fast car when launched. I read recently that it could well have beaten the Vanwalls to being the first British F1 car to win a championship but as you say David Brown didn't have the finances to fund both F1 and Sports car racing. His determination to win Le Mans meant the DBR4 was put on the back burner for a year and by 1959/60 rear engined cars were dominant. Then of course the 1.5 litre formula was introduced. The DBR4 was caught out by a step-change in F1 car design when previously it quite normal for a design to last 2 or 3 years. David Brown did win Le Mans and the World Sports Car Championship so perhaps in fact he got it right scratchchin

mikey k

13,011 posts

216 months

Friday 10th July 2015
quotequote all
Little Donkey said:
Redbull gets it engine and Aston Martin gets world wide brand awareness for the cost of a sticker.
Aston doesn't need wider brand awareness, its up there with Apple in the top ten coolest brands
IMHO they would be better off using this money and what ever "non exec chairman" Bez is wasting racing on improving product quality to their customers to ensure they keep coming back

JohnG1

3,471 posts

205 months

Friday 10th July 2015
quotequote all
MiniMan64 said:
What a bizarre turn that would be!

How does that work with the limits of number of engines supplied? It's not a Merc engine if it's got an AM badge?
Isn't Mercedes High Performance Powertrain based near Milton Keynes, pretty distinct from AMG and it used to be Ilmor? So not even really a Mercedes engine...

Jon39

12,820 posts

143 months

Friday 10th July 2015
quotequote all

JohnG1 said:
Isn't Mercedes High Performance Powertrain based near Milton Keynes, pretty distinct from AMG and it used to be Ilmor? So not even really a Mercedes engine...

Their address is Brixworth.
I think Ilmor were in that area.

Is the team factory in Brackley (BAR then Honda, Braun, Mercedes)?

As you say, British built.





downr

3,803 posts

128 months

Friday 10th July 2015
quotequote all
mikey k said:
Little Donkey said:
Redbull gets it engine and Aston Martin gets world wide brand awareness for the cost of a sticker.
Aston doesn't need wider brand awareness, its up there with Apple in the top ten coolest brands
IMHO they would be better off using this money and what ever "non exec chairman" Bez is wasting racing on improving product quality to their customers to ensure they keep coming back
Sorry mikey, I don't think that's right, or rather it's a very UK-centric view. The brand is very strong here. But has absolutely no resonance for many overseas markets and in particular China (albeit Chinese luxury car sales are on the decline at the moment).

James Bond or GT racing just doesn't cut it globally in the way that an F1 association would