TBK-Light.com

There's too much clutching at straws and speculating fantasy situations. RBR won't attempt something that makes little to no sense to them commercially or competitively.

Think what you want but I for one refuse to believe red bull will end their marriage first and then Think about a new partner.

I think they're messing around with one or two potential partners for over a year now and things have gotten serious enough to openly bash Renault this much.

There is a deal already done with one of the other 3 or it will be an outside shock surprise.

no second teams for Honda then ?

Surely that's also one of the things affecting the quality (or rather, lack thereof) of the engine.

At least Renault gathers data from several teams, enabling them to add some improvements.

Red Bull Honda ...

It would be awesome if a new manufacturer came into the sport, but lets be honest. That is highly unlikely.

Cosworth had an engine ready for the new specs.
I'm keeping the Cosworth option open for now. Mercedes doesn't seem to want to supply them. Ferrari claims they are but its doubtful they'll like it once Red Bull starts beating them.

Running Cosworth and funding it themselves would actually benefit them. A-Spec guaranteed and no chance of the main board deciding F1 was fun while it lasted (likely for Mercedes, Renault, Honda and other manufacturer that might enter.)

Why Red Bull could get year-old Ferrari engines

DIETER RENCKEN asks how Formula 1's engine supply situation can have got so desperate, and suggests Red Bull's only 2016 option could be year-old power units

By Dieter Rencken
AUTOSPORT contributor

That Formula 1 is in crisis mode when it comes to engines is clear: there is a team (Red Bull) with arguably the best race car designer (Adrian Newey) of the past 20 years or more, yet this four-time constructors' championship-winning team could conceivably find itself without a motor come Australia next year.

True, some of it is self-inflicted - one should not, after all, heavily and publicly criticise crucial partners where no competitive alternatives exist - but the fact remains that there are simply not enough engine suppliers to cover the full grid.

Consider that the four, one (Honda) is sticking doggedly to supplying one team (McLaren) despite the obvious technical advantages of supplying a second operation, while Renault sources confirm that the decision to withdraw from the customer market has been taken at the highest level within the company. "Whatever happens in 2016 [whether we buy Lotus or not], will not supply customers," a high-ranking source shared at Monza.

That leaves just two engine suppliers to service nine, possibly 10, teams come 2016 - and, crucially, both those operate their own teams to whom they would understandably wish to give priority. As matters stand at present the situation is as follows, with the arrival of Haas in 2016 further diluting the engine pool:

Team Engine
Mercedes Mercedes (works teams)
Ferrari Ferrari (works team)
Williams Mercedes
Red Bull ?
Force India Mercedes
Lotus Mercedes (Renault works?)
Toro Rosso ?
Sauber Ferrari
McLaren Honda
Manor Ferrari (Mercedes?)
Haas Ferrari
As an aside, imagine the further complexity of the situation had the FIA granted the go-ahead to the two entities whose applications were eventually rejected in July after failing to meet the governing body's criteria for new teams.

To rub further salt into this this extremely perturbing state of affairs, consider that the World Endurance Championship has just five different teams contesting the top (LMP1) class - yet each has its own bespoke engine.

Whatever, matters have now reached a critical point - and F1's powers-that-be really should wake up and reflect on the root cause of the situation, and not simply (and conveniently) point to global economics.

There is something intrinsically wrong with the highest level of motorsport when it cannot attract more than two (works) operations willing to supply customer engines to a globally broadcast championship.

After all, if the VW Group can develop two different engines (Porsche 2.0 V4 petrol turbo hybrid/Audi V6 turbo diesel hybrid) - each at greater cost than an F1 project - in addition to Nissan producing its own power unit for Le Mans and Toyota being due to announce a new design for a single championship consisting just eight rounds, there cannot be too much wrong with the economic situation, can there?

According to sources the 2014 R&D budgets of the top five spending motor manufacturers were:

Company Annual R&D Budget
VW Group £10bn
Toyota £7bn
GM £5bn
Daimler £4.9bn
Ford £4bn
Note that of the top five spenders, just one (Mercedes/Daimler) competes in F1. Equally saliently, the VW Group's annual R&D spend equals five times the total budgets of all teams contesting this season's championship - so much for the so-called poor economic environment.

However, as proven by Honda - incidentally, sixth on the list after Ford with £3.9bn - it takes major motor manufacturers equipped with state-of-art research and development facilities at least two years after being given the green light to gear up for (half decent) power units. Thus the earliest F1 could benefit from any additions to the ranks of engine suppliers would be 2018 - working to a set of technical regulations due to expire at the end of 2020.

Sure, going forward the basic engine architecture could be retained, but, as always in F1, there are bound to be major changes come 2021, with no manufacturer now likely to commit to a set of regulations with sell-by date of 2020.

The other issue is cost: where the previous (admittedly archaic) V8s cost teams £7m per season in basic form (and £10m including ancillaries and KERS), the current crop runs in at £15m-£20m. Although the FIA has pledged to reduce engine costs, in terms of its agreement with the EU Commission the governing body may not involve itself in commercial matters, and is unable to impose such cost caps without unanimous agreement.

Equally, F1 cannot simply force Mercedes or Ferrari to supply Red Bull - why, it cannot even persuade Honda to up its involvement to two teams nor force Renault to supply a single customer - with the flip side being that neither Mercedes nor Ferrari is likely to welcome being beaten by a customer team.

After all, why blow hundreds of millions on scores of the best engine talent, only to allow yourself to be beaten by a team paying just twenty-five big ones for the same engine? Then, take an extreme case: how happy would Monster Energy be knowing its partner Mercedes is being trounced by market competitor Red Bull only because 'its' team myopically forfeited its competitive advantage?

Thus the teams, commercial rights holder FOM and F1 - and, by extension, the FIA - are in a quandary of Herculean proportions, for not only does a supplier (Renault) no longer provide customer engines, but a prime competitor (Red Bull) whose involvement extends not only to dual team ownership but also to race promotion (the Austrian Grand Prix) could conceivably end up on the sidelines in 2016 due to a lack of power unit. That is 1500 jobs on the line.

As matters now stand, Mercedes seems unlikely to supply Red Bull, but only after fairly persuasive arguments against the deal were brought to bear at Daimler board level - supported by hard-hitting objections from current customers - which leaves a single option open for Red Bull: Ferrari's largesse.

Why, though, should Ferrari forfeit its hard-won advantage to a team with equal (or more) financial fire-power, (arguably) a better design team and (probably) stronger political connections with commercial rights holder Formula One Management?

Indeed, why was Ferrari team boss Maurizio Arrivabene so nonchalant when this question was put to him? Could it be that he has something up his sleeve, and intends supplying year-old power units to both Red Bull teams while providing the latest specification engines to long-standing customer Sauber and Haas F1, the latter virtually a satellite team on account of its complex technical and commercial relationships with Maranello?

Consider the arguments from both sides: not only would year-old Ferrari engines be infinitely better for Red Bull than the best Renault could throw at its teams, but such an arrangement would keep the existing customer base sweet without jeopardising Ferrari's fight at the sharp end with Mercedes.

True, the Red Bullers would hardly be happy, but beggars cannot be choosers, plus Red Bull is reaping what it sowed. If Red Bull boss Diedrich Mateschitz objects to being an engine customer the answer is simple: either invest in your own engine design, or bring sufficient pressure to bear on a manufacturer to enter the sport with his teams.

There is, though, one slight complication: Manor ran 2014 Ferrari engines this season after exploiting a loophole that required only concessionary permission to run year-old power units; however, following a revamp of Appendix 4* the plan is to close this option to minimise confusion and place all teams on equal (specification) footings.

This loophole was further exploited by Mercedes at Monza: the works cars alone ran upgraded engines to devastating effect, and are likely to do so until sufficient units are available for customers - which is, of course, a rather elastic term.

While there are laudable sporting considerations to outlawing different specifications, it also makes absolutely zero commercial sense: Why demand that the likes of Mercedes and Ferrari invest hundreds of millions in engines for their own teams, then expect them to supply exactly the same specification to direct competitors at a fraction of development cost, which in turn reduces the incentive to supply a variety of teams?

However, Strategy Group insiders advise that the revised Appendix 4 paragraph will again be revised to permit different specifications to be supplied during the same season - enabling the Red Bull teams to (again) be powered by Ferrari power units (as they were variously during the mid-2000s) without posing a major threat to Maranello.

In addition such revisions would enable Manor to acquire year-old Mercedes engines - should Lotus survive various administration hearings without being sold to Renault and continue with the Three Pointed Star in 2016 - without disrupting Mercedes' self-imposed limit of three customer teams in addition to its own effort.

As always in F1 there will be a trade-off: sources suggest the FIA will only countenance such a concept - dubbed 'Current -1 engines' - should the suppliers agree to reduce the cost of what would in any event be units destined for the scrapheap.

Figures of £6m for base engine/ERS units and £10m for the 'full monty' were being bandied about at Monza - which would enable FIA president Jean Todt to make good on his pledge to make engines affordable. While there would obviously be a performance deficit, the 'Current -1' engines would eliminate all talk that engine costs have crippled F1 while opening a second supply tier.

Clearly, though, F1 needs to undertake some serious soul searching as to why mainstream motor manufacturers simply to refuse embrace the championship despite clearly having the budgets to do so. Something, somewhere is inherently wrong when motorsport's premier category runs out of motors.

*2016 Appendix 4, Para4: Other than any parts agreed by the FIA at their absolute discretion to be solely associated with power unit installation with different teams, each manufacturer may supply only one specification of homologated power unit during any given calendar year, subject to any changes permitted by the FIA in accordance with the procedure set out in 5) below.

I hope rbr and especially torro Rosso go ferrari.

Ferrari-Torro Rosso sounds like an awesome name reminiscent of their sports car in the 90s

Aaaaand Maldonado has been confirmed for another year at Lotus or Renault or whatever.