Adrian Newey, Dietrich Mateschitz, Red Bull, Jerez, 2012

Mateschitz warns over Red Bull’s F1 commitment

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Adrian Newey, Dietrich Mateschitz, Red Bull, Jerez, 2012Red Bull owner Dietrich Mateschitz warns Red Bull could leave Formula One, criticising the quieter sound of the new cars and the move towards a fuel efficiency formula.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

“Öffentliche Präsenz? Die Zeit ist mir zu schade” (Kurier, German)

Mateschitz also criticised the “politicisation” of the sport and insisted the FIA’s fuel flow sensors have been giving inaccurate readings since the start of testing. Some translations of his quotes can be found here.

‘Big steps’ to come from 2014 F1 cars (Autosport)

Pirelli motorsport director Paul Hembery: “We are taking the view that there is going to be a lot of development this year and there are going to be some big steps in performance.”

Marussia Sporting Director on engines, appeals and 2014 (Sky)

“For all there were various issues and problems, and certainly we experienced some circumstances on the fuel flow where we had to make some decisions, I think most of the teams made those decisions in accordance with how the FIA thought the teams would act, which is to err on the side of ensuring that your car is safe and legal at all times, which is the stipulation that’s in the Sporting Regulations.”

Video – Red Bull RB10 versus Mercedes F1 W05 (F1)

Comparison of the cars which shared the front row for the first race of the season.

Databytes: Why F1 needs fuel flow meters (Racecar Engineering)

“Rather than using a mechanical restrictor, similar to the way that boost pressure is restricted in turbo charged engines the FIA have chosen to monitor flow rate through an onboard data logger and impose a penalty should a team exceed the permitted limits. This requires a reliable method of measuring the flow rate while not affecting the flow itself so an ultrasonic sensor capable of sampling fuel flow up to 4000 times a second has been selected.”

7 Days in our F1 Wind Tunnel – Time Lapse (Sauber via YouTube)

The welcome sound of change (ESPN)

“Having kept journalists and broadcasters in the dark throughout the [2001] race, [Ron] Walker, as chairman of the organisers, chose to preface his remarks by announcing a record attendance figure. The next paragraph referred to the poor marshal, almost as an afterthought; as if the crowd figures were more important.”

Red Bull cannot ride roughshod over FIA regulations (The Times, subscription required)

“At least we now clearly know how Red Bull views F1 and it is not in the same spirit of participation as, say, Ferrari, McLaren and Williams. It is about ‘political influence’ and, presumably, winning every season.”

Success should come to Valtteri Bottas (MotorSport)

“If the new FW36 continues to go as well as it looks through the rest of the season there will be plenty more opportunity for Bottas to prove what only a few have seen so far and for that to be the launch pad for a great career. If it happens that way, the error he made in Melbourne will soon stop smarting. But if for some reason it doesn’t, if Melbourne turns out to be the most competitive the car ever was, then he’s going to carry that pain around for a long time.”


Comment of the day

@Wsrgo will be watching a lot more than just the 16 championships lists here yesterday@

Here I go: Auto GP World Series, Euroformula Open, Eurocup Formula Renault 2.0, Formula Renault 2.0 NEC, Formula Renault 2.0 Alps, Protyre Formula Renault, ADAC Formel Masters, BRDC Formula 4, FIA Italian F4, French F4 Championship, Formula Renault 1.6 NEC Junior, Formula Renault 1.6 Alps Junior, Formula Renault 1.6 Nordic Championship, British Formula Ford, Formula BMW Talent Cup, Formula Masters China, MRF Challenge F2000…

Site development

Some new functionality has been added to the groups and forums, details here:

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Guilherme Teixeira and Marc!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Alain Prost won for McLaren on his return to the team in the Brazilian Grand Prix 30 years ago today.

Team mate Niki Lauda was in the running for victory until an electrical problem put him out, and a suspension failure due to earlier contact with Lauda did for Derek Warwick’s chances.

Keke Rosberg and Elio de Angelis completed the podium. Meanwhile Prost’s future arch-rival Ayrton Senna made his first grand prix start for Toleman.

Image © Red Bull/Getty

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 163 comments on “Mateschitz warns over Red Bull’s F1 commitment”

    1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
      25th March 2014, 0:05

      I’d hazard a guess that Red Bull have more political weight to throw around than Ferrari. If they want something changed, then they really let you know about it.

      1. And fair enough too…

        “It is absurd to race a lap seconds slower than last year. GP2 partially provides more racing and fighting and almost equal lap times as F1 with a small fraction of the budget.”

        Sums it up.

        1. 2014 cars are only a couple seconds slower in one lap pace, but much slower in race pace due to fuel saving, is that right? Be interesting to see how race attendance and TV audience numbers compare to previous years over the course of this season.

          1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
            25th March 2014, 0:38

            Personally I thought the Aus GP was more interesting than the racing at any point last year.

            I don’t think that just because they’re around 30 seconds slower over the course of the race (expect this gap to close btw, Melbourne being a high fuel consumption track, combined with little race run knowledge, the teams will improve this aspect) , doesn’t mean the racing will be worse. The racing was better if anything.

            1. Agreed, the Aus GP was good.
              The race time was 3 minutes slower than in 2013. I’d also like to throw in the consideration that there was a safety car in 2014’s race, whereas 2013 was lights to flag. 2012 also had 1 safety car but was 2 minutes slower than 2014. I imagine we’ll see similar race times by the end of the season, and therefore possibly faster in 2015, but having a slightly slower race doesn’t make the racing bad, just means there’s more time for it to go on for!

          2. Man, I think it’s too soon to judge the season.

            1. Yeah, what the heck! One race with brand new cars that aren’t really working yet and everyone wants to quit?

            2. LotsOfControl (@for-unlawful-carnal-knowledge)
              25th March 2014, 12:24


              Don’t be surprised. People are spoiled and stupid!

          3. It’s actually hard to tell what the difference in performance between 2013 and 2014 is for a number of reasons.

            Firstly, the tyre compounds that Pirelli brought to the Australian GP are much more conservative than in 2013, not just in terms of the compounds they selected but also in terms of construction.
            I think that Pirelli indicated that those changes alone would probably account for a lap time difference of around a second over a flying lap, so that already makes it a little harder to judge the performance difference.

            Secondly, the qualifying times are more or less worthless given that, in both 2013 and 2014, we saw the track conditions change wildly across the session. That also assumes that track conditions were comparable between 2013 and 2014, which is not necessarily true either (2014 was possibly slightly cooler than 2013).

            We also have to factor in the effect of the aborted start and the safety car period during the 2014 race, not to mention the fact that a number of teams later admitted that they were far too cautious during the race or hindered by technical issues.

            All in all, whilst the indication is that the 2014 cars are slower than the 2013 cars – which, given the large cut in downforce, higher minimum weight and harder tyres, is unsurprising – the actual difference is hard to judge.

        2. with a small fraction of the budget

          Yeah, funny how spec series work.

        3. Good lord. This argument just won’t go away. They are already close to last years times with little testing, they soon will be there and the reason has little to do with the engines, it’s the loss of aero. Incredible.

          1. And straight line speed is higher.

            1. straightline speed is higher because of the reduced rear wing size. if they could have more downforce (and hence more drag and hence slower straightline speed) then they would, because it’s quicker round the whole lap (except in monza maybe – and even then it’s more about getting up to speed quickly than lumbering your way to a higher speed).

              i’m impressed they are already close to last year’s times (and melbourne was probably ultra conservative by all teams) – but, as i’ve said before, last year is not a great benchmark because it was already slow by 2000’s standards.

          2. And don’t forget the harder tyres compared to last years “qualifiers” that’s easy 1 second a lap.

            1. I saw reports that it might be as much as 2-3 seconds even @hohum, instantly making these cars at about the same level of speed already!

        4. A great argument for Mateschitz to stop spending his way to the championship then I would say. As the biggest spender, and the first to take up Bernies offer and break away from FOTA (Almost immediately followed from the 2nd biggest spender, Ferrari), its certainly something Didi should think about.
          But its another thing he can easily change, when the team stops being at the forefront of fighting limits to what can be bought.

        5. When you realize that the cars have been getting slower and slower since 2004 I don’t think his argument (or any of the 2014 rules naysayers arguments for that matter) really stacks up. The FIA have historically tried to change the rules to make the cars slower from time to time, so the current rules aren’t unique in that context. The fact that last years cars hadn’t a hope in hell of beating the lap records at many of the circuits F1 goes to which were set in 2004 (and which ultimately look unlikely to ever be beaten) didn’t take anything away from the racing over the last 5-10 years.

          The simple fact is that Red Bull, like Ferrari, McLaren, Williams and Lotus (the proper Lotus I mean) before them , have gotten used to winning. They have dominated to such an extent that a certain sense of entitlement is starting to set in. The rules changes were necessary for a whole host of reasons, Red Bull shouldn’t feel singled out because they stand to lose the most as a result. They should knuckle down and get their incredible resources and great team working on solutions that will see them back at the front.

          1. I don’t think they are actually getting slower. It’s more lik,e the FIA tries to keep the lap times within a range.

            The cars go too fast and they change the rules, then the cars go faster and faster again until they need to change the rules again.

            The 2011 cars were about as fast again as the 2004 cars.

          2. In the words of IntoTheBarrier: Red Bull win 4 seasons in a row, no problem. Run a car illegally, threaten to quit.

            Well, maybe a little extreme, but I agree with you, they should knuckle down and not feel singled out.

        6. Its only the first race, that viewpoint is hardly justifiable. The cars haven’t been developed yet.

      2. It’s obvious because their targets are different and they make up for a larger percentage of F1. This resonance is not unfamiliar, last year RedBull management also adopted a very aggressive tactic to “persuade” changes in their best interest albeit aided by Mercedes. this time around they’ve gone a step forward and dropped a threat rather than an hint, effectively threatening to leave F1, above all I’m disappointed with the fact they are unfazed with practically committing a felony by following the trademark “persuasion” tactic, which is above all transpires a completely different image of their company.

        1. I’m disappointed too, but I think they view F1 in its purity. And I don’t disagree with that. Let the season play out, looks to be exciting.

          1. Redbull viewing F1 in its purity? Thats the funniest thing Ive heard in a long time.

            1. Win at all costs, guess you’re not too familiar with the sport

      3. Will it be like last year? Red Bull complaining, FIA changes rules, Red Bull starts winning?

        1. Nothing gets done without Ferrari’s consent, by the way.

          1. Yeah but have you heard Ferrari whining about the current situation?? If anything, they have been good sports about most of it. This RBR guy just doesn´t like the fact that they have to work harder again! He wants things the easy way. It´s disgusting actually.

            1. Red Bull simply do what they feel is best for them. No single team can act on or make change to the sport individually.

            2. @alebelly74 I guess it would be best for them to leave if they want , if they can’t compete with proper rules. Or maybe they can start Red Bull racing series or something .

      4. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
        25th March 2014, 10:33

        tophercheese21 – I completely disagree: just because Red Bull have won the last four championships it does not make them the most influential teams in the pit-lane, those honours remain with regards to teams that have played a more significant role in F1’s historical brand. F1 could not exist to its full potential without Ferrari, or without McLaren arguably, because the fan bases of each team make up an overwhelming percentage of the viewership. In this regard Ferrari, McLaren, perhaps even Williams, have more cards in their favour than Red Bull, of whose main root of influence is the breadth of their financial resources, but with Ferrari and Mercedes (and in 2015 McLaren) with the full backing of a major car manufacturer, this is hardly an exclusive institution.

        When Red Bull entered F1 in 2005, it was a “suck it and see” venture with relatively minimal investment. However despite their modest budget Newey managed to design and engineer the RB5 to #2 in 2009 WCC, and from there Red Bull have grown their programme to the dominant leviathan it is today, but what must be remembered is that that process can be reversed. Toyota, Honda and BMW withdrew their programmes despite having huge backing, so if the V6 era does not go well for Red Bull the plug may be pulled and Red Bull may find itself alongside other championship winning teams like Tyrrel, Renault and Brabham in the history books. Red Bull has simply not played a significant enough role in F1 history to be able to call the shots to ensure its survival. Whilst it is perhaps an exhausted argument, and an increasingly stale one owing to the fact that it is being said by a Ferrari fan, but it is very valid when Ferrari says that Formula 1 needs Ferrari as much as Ferrari needs Formula 1…

        1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
          25th March 2014, 10:47

          It just seems like for the past few years, because Red Bull have been so dominant, that they’ve been able to influence chances and alterations (however big or small) in the regulations to help them better suit themselves.

          That’s not to say that everything has gone their way over the times, but they just seem to have a lot more weight behind them for some reason. That’s just the impression I get.

          I know that Ferrari has obviously been around longer than anyone, but it seems that their standard procedure when opposing regulations is for Luca Di Montezemolo to come out with some vague statements saying it’s not the way the founding fathers of the sport would’ve wanted it, etc. etc.

          1. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
            25th March 2014, 20:28

            @tophercheese21 – Dominance doesn’t necessarily breed influence, as the move to ban tyre changes in 2005 against Ferrari’s wishes proves. I think this question is best answered by asking what would happen among the fans if Red Bull left? Some would be a bit dismayed not to have the energy station gracing the paddock anymore, but most would simply switch their attention to which ever team habours Vettel or Ricciardo instead. However if we lose Ferrari, McLaren and, at a stretch, Williams we would start to loose fans. Very seldom do fans attach themselves to teams not drivers, but with me myself being a scarlett exception, we start to see the influence that teams like Ferrari have. In essence, influence is about the number of caps you can sell, and whilst that fluctuates with the line-up, there are certainly a great deal more Ferrari caps worn at a GP venue than Red Bull, and as long as Red Bull doesn’t have that status, F1 is not indebted to its participation.

        2. Rather than comparing Red Bull to Brabham or Tyrell I would say they are more like Benetton, i.e. a company which sells consumer goods which started out as an F1 sponsor and then became a team owner as part of their worldwide marketing strategy. Red Bull is arguably a better team than Benetton ever was, and definitely more successful, but just as Benetton never really gained a strong following among fans (does anybody miss then? Is there still any nostalgia for them on a par with the likes of that felt for Tyrell?) Red Bull being the massive corporate entity that it is has not really inspired any passion and devotion, so if they did quit the sport then there would not be too much of a feeling of something being lost I think. After all, it wouldn’t be as if they were disappearingaltogether, you could still pop down the shops and get your Red Bull fix if you were so inclined…although having said that, Unted Colours of Benetton shops seem to have vanished, are there any still around?

          1. That was a good post, very informative. I never actually knew (and feel quite embarrassed about it) that Benetton were something to do with United Colours Of.

            To be fair to myself, I’m only 22 and had never ever heard of United Colours Of Benetton until I went to Milan (Monza GP) in 2012. So yes, they still exist, quite big from what I could gather in Milan. And I think there are one or two knocking around in London too.

            But, I do agree about the comparing RB to Tyrell etc, you are right there.

            Good post :)

          2. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
            25th March 2014, 20:35

            Yes, good point. Red Bull, like Benetton, is shoving a corporate brand in our faces, which is some of the reason why a) there are more Ferrari and McLaren fans and b) there would little real sorrow if they left F1 as long as Vettel and Ricciardo got seats elsewhere. And by the way, there’s a United Colours of Benetton shop in Mayfair…

            1. Mayfair? No wonder they’ve slipped off my radar then, I can’t even afford to go window shopping in Mayfair!

              Although back in the day Benetton was obviously in F1 to promote its brand worldwide, looking back its strange how little they exploited F1 to showcase its clothes, they could have really gone to town in using the glamour of the grand prix circus and having motor racing heroes at their disposal to model their latest fashions but I don’t recall them doing any of that, their marketing seemed more to focus on those shock images of people on death row, or whatever it was that got people up in arms back in the 90s. Presumably they didn’t think Schuey’s grinning mug would shift enough units by comparison!

              As well as Benetton, another team to compare Red Bull to I think would be British American Racing, whose entire reason for being in F1 was to hawk cigarettes around the world. Anybody pining for the name BAR to be back on the grid? Nope, thought not.

            2. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
              26th March 2014, 16:43

              I got that wrong, it’s not Mayfair, it’s Knightsbridge, which I know, is hardly better! I mean I’m by no means badly off, but if you go window shopping in Knightsbridge you find yourself with a MP4-12C, with the McLaren dealership there. What I don’t understand is if Benetton wanted a stylish racing driver to flaunt their brand, why on earth did they hire Johnny Herbert in 1995! I just thought Benetton was a surname until a chap I know from the Enstone team explained it to me.

      5. Four championships don’t make you Ferrari. Certainly Red Bull has gained momentum and prestige, but its hypothetical exit from F1 would be by no means as damaging to the sport as Ferrari’s or MaLaren’s exit. I think Mateschitz overestimates his hand is this game. It’s pure PR pressure before the hearing.

        1. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
          25th March 2014, 20:43

          @cyclops_pl – A hearty “+1” to that

    2. Red Bull owner Dietrich Mateschitz warns Red Bull could leave Formula One, criticising the quieter sound of the new cars and the move towards a fuel efficiency formula.

      Is that really the reason why, Dietrich? Or is it because Mercedes has taken over your mantle as the #1 team in F1?

      I’m not sure how anyone could support a team which cares so little about the sport that even after 4 consecutive championship winning years, they threaten to quit the sport as soon as things don’t go their way.

      1. OmarR-Pepper (@)
        25th March 2014, 0:19

        @kingshark oh, and who has the veto power?

        1. @omarr-pepper

          oh, and who has the veto power?

          The most successful team in F1 history, and the only team who has competed in all 64 seasons.

          Between 1980 and 1999, Ferrari went 20 straight years without a championship. Do you think that Red Bull would ever spend such a long time losing, yet stay dedicated to Formula 1?

          Dietrich Materschitz’s blatant lack of passion for F1 is a huge turn-off to me (personally).

          1. Between 1980 and 1999, Ferrari went 20 straight years without a championship.

            WDC only.

            1. But they didn’t win a WCC between 1983 and 1998. That’s still 15 years.

          2. OmarR-Pepper (@)
            25th March 2014, 0:47

            True, but I’ve heard many times Ferrari has threaten to leave. It’s business, as everybody knows, Ferrari also gets good marketing adds to sell their cars. You say sports cars and you say Ferrari. They need F1 to sell cars, and F1 needs them to attract people. It’s not selfless sacrifice they stayed for 20 years, it’s business.

            1. Actually i don’t think Ferrari needs F1 to sell cars, take Lamborghini for example…Ferrari without F1 would still sold a lot of cars, F1 needs more Ferrari than the othe way around…As for Red Bull i’m thining they’re serious, because beeing myself a F1 fan i0m sorry but i can’t relate to F1 like this, it’s not the same for me…

            2. Originally they sold cars just to fund racing.

            3. @omarr-pepper

              Ferrari also gets good marketing adds to sell their cars

              They have been doing rubbish in F1 in 2009 and 2010 was the company’s most profitable year

          3. Also, Ferrari were often winning races through that time though. You don’t see many recent race winners withdraw these days unless they’ve had a truly dreadful season since (BMW, Honda). So I think it would take more than not winning a championship to make them quit.

          4. I agree with this. Red Bull are amongst the newer teams on the grid despite how much success they’ve had in recent years. If they want to leave because they don’t like how things are now, then I say don’t let the door hit you on the way out, you won’t be missed.

      2. Ferrari needs F1 more than Red Bull does, but Mateschitz sounds quite petulant with his whinging one race into a new era. His impatience does nothing to improve his fan base even if he thinks he is throwing his weight around to effect changes to benefit his team. Too bad really. They have done so many things right to build such a successful F1 racing team and have made themselves very hard to like at the same time.

        1. Well said @bullmello, you’d think that on the strength of that team they should be able to show their worth, be back before long (a few races in?), but instead the whole organisation starts whining? I thought only Ferrari felt entitled to behave like that, and they are Ferrari (not that I am a fan of them; exactly for behaviour like this).

        2. totally agree, we’ll see how red bull deal with their first trough after hitting lofty heights for so many years. No one is immune to the cycle but the big teams always come back to the top (except williams…yet) for me this is a simple case of>

          red bull>pram>————–>toys

      3. Mercedes have won just one race ?????
        how is this taking over the reigning champs mantle ?
        lets wait till Abu Double before we celebrate new Champs.
        If Merc gives RBR a whipping then I’m all for standing and raising a glass of Amber Ale to our new Champs, but till then @kingshark , lets not jump to far ahead of ourselves :)

      4. And even if that wasn’t the reason: what an incredibly unintelligent timing to make such a statement! It is the exact behavior of some super-spoiled five year old not getting his will for the first time. This is absolutely disgusting and brings sad memories of the tire row.

        Even stating that F1 is too political when he has no interest what so ever in wining by means sporting competition but certainly by means of money and power!?!

        Actually I am somewhat happy that clean lines have been drawn: I was already in strong disagreement with the concept of pushing their grossly unhealthy anti-food chemical soup on children but this simply provides me with complete distaste for the brand and team as a whole. The drivers are no doubt great but this is so far below my standards for proper conduct that RB is permanently in my black book.

        And aren’t we just all scared?! At this point there is nothing I would rather see than this tantrum-baby’s quick exit from F1 and I am positive I am not alone.

        1. Mr win or lose
          26th March 2014, 20:20

          what an incredibly unintelligent timing to make such a statement! It is the exact behavior of some super-spoiled five year old not getting his will for the first time.


      5. The timing of his statements are bad and looks like whining – but nevertheless they are true. F1 became something different ever since they started to introduce gimmicks like DRS, degrading tyres, etc and now a new formula that is probably good in the long run but the implementation is not executed very well. Especially since a major factor was cost saving, which the new regs clearly failed to do.

      6. Red Bull want to leave F1 ? BYE

    3. It would a real loss to lose RedBull from F1 in my opinion. They’ve done well to shake up the F1 establishment at the sharp end of the grid and probably offer the only resources to challenge big-spending Mercedes.

      Mateschitz will be aware that his team withdrawing would be a blow to F1 and I think he’s using such a threat to play mind games with the Ricciardo appeal panel.

      I doubt there are plans to pull out anytime soon so it is ironic (to anyone who shares my opinion) when he moans about politics in the sport in his statement.

      1. I think you’re a bit confused, loosing the Milton Keynes F1 team with all those brilliant engineers and the people at the factory, yes it would be bad for F1, but loosing Red Bull as sponsors? Not quite.

        The only downside I can think of is possibly Toro Rosso disappearing and their young drivers program being cancelled.

        1. @mantresx

          No I think losing a sponsor/company/team-owner who puts £200m into F1 annually would be terrible for F1. It’s hard for teams to get big sponsors, look at Lotus and Mclaren, I’m not so sure a financial backer would come in and continue to operate “Milton Keynes F1 Team” at the same level as RedBull.

          1. Maybe, but it would be arguably easy to get sponsors in that case: you would be buying Red Bull Racing, who won 4 WCCs. The biggest loss would be their driver programm and TR.

        2. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
          25th March 2014, 20:47

          @mantresx – I completely agree. Red Bull’s biggest contribution to F1 is the young driver programme that gave us Sebastian “the kid miracle” Vettel. Beyond that it has spent the past nine years trying to make us buy a highly unpleasant energy drink…

      2. @calum:

        They’ve done well to shake up the F1 establishment at the sharp end of the grid

        And having done so, they seem to be aiming to be the new Ferrari, world champion moaners when things don’t go their way.

        “Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss”

    4. OmarR-Pepper (@)
      25th March 2014, 0:14

      Mmmmm, now I get it, They had all this winter problems because of the adaptation to this “New Formula”, they have read the public reaction is not optimal to continue with this “big and expensive commercial” and maybe with all this in mind, The RB team decided to ignore the FIA rules, so that they got disqualified, in order to make a big, major fuss about it during all the season, and then say “OK, F1 did all this to us to stop us from getting a 5WDC, it’s unfair so we leave F1″… I’m not inventing a conspiracy, I’m just giving an opinion of why they may have deliberately disobbey on the very first round.
      Don’t forget I support this team, but they just need a “credible” excuse to leave.

      1. @omarr-pepper I don’t think it’s about them actually trying to leave, I think they’re just trying to change public opinion to sway the FIA into changing the rules in their favour… if that’s ever worked I haven’t heard about it.

      2. @OmaR-Pepper
        , F1 didnt do all this to stop RBR !
        “all this” has taken years to implement, Its not like a new engine formula was dreamt up just last December ,,,,

        1. OmarR-Pepper (@)
          25th March 2014, 14:35

          @greg-c you missed one “R” on my name :P
          And I know it took years, but when I say “all this” I mean a bunch of things, and talking on them as an excuse, not as reality is. But let’s double check: Bye exhaust-blown diffuser, hello double points, moan about the new FuelGate… add the tyres if you want, and you have a good excuse to say all was done against them. Again, just the story Dieter wants to say and hear, not necessarily the truth (but EBD and Abu Double are absolutely real)

          1. Arrrrrrrr ! Me be a Scurvy sod forgettin yea R

    5. Dietrich, buddy. Those rules changes were all a plot by the other teams to persuade you to drop out of F1 so they could have a chance at getting Adrian Newey.

    6. Wow so Red Bull don’t get everything their own way and Mateschitz threatens to pull the plug!

      The difference is that Red Bull aren’t like Ferrari. If Ferrari quit F1, the team would cease to exist. If Mateschitz decided he was done with F1, someone else would take over. The factory would be bought together with the F1 entry and the team would simply be re-named. Ferrari would never get bought and re-named.

      There’s no reason the FIA should be worried about Red Bull quitting…. It’s simply an empty threat.

      1. I disagree. I hate Redbull ( as a team) but he is right about the way Formula One is going. Ok, some people blindly defend the new regulations & say “we’ll get used to it” or “it’s just a different sound”. I think he means there are MANY things in the last few years that have made the sport worse:
        -Pirelli (who makes a tyre that wears out after 5-10 even when being pushed only at what 60-80% of car performance)
        -Massive Run-off areas that don’t punish drivers
        -New engine formula with stupid fuel conservation (on top of tyre conservation) & horribly boring engines compared o v8’s and v10’s especially
        -Penalties for all kinds of overtaking attempts
        -Poorly written rules causing post-race classification changes.
        -Poorly written regulations causing stupid stepped noses & now these ugly, stupid looking cars (that aren’t really any safer to protect drivers. You can’t make this sport 100% safe & the FIA chasing this is hurting the sport)
        -I’m sure one BIG thing he’d love to say is CVC getting too much money & Bernie with too much control (ie, Abu Double + the fact nobody really, clearly wants to point out Bernie takes too much money)
        -Oh yeah, back to the egines…. “we need to reduce costs” but yet demand new ridiculously expensive to develop engines. Which now many people hate the sound & stupid fuel conservation BS)

        1. By the way, those are my opinion (above).

          Last thing, to those who defend the new regulations & technology because F1 needs to always have the latest technology. Then maybe we need to bring back traction control & ABS or invent a newer better version of those.

          There is a reason why at the time it was dropped, new technology isn’t always the best thing for F1

          1. I know downforce was cut for this year. However, I’m sure the problem with following another car will continue this year when cars (engines are similar in performance and on same tyre conversation and fuel conservation strategy).

            Why didn’t the FIA take advantage of this massive change to make an even bigger change in downforce levels? Why do teams still have 3,4,5,6 element front wings. Why not write the rules to only allow one & then something similar at the rear (on top of beam wing and everything else etc) to decrease dirty air.

            I think many things today & ESPECIALLY in F1 has tried to move forward too much. In my opinion now, we are at a point where major change is needed financially & technically. By technically, I think many people would prefer to drop a ton of technology in F1 and go back to F1 of I don;t know….15-25 years ago? Back to proper racing.
            Circuits that need to have runoff. Gee, maybe put sand or gravel for 5-10 feet right off the racing line & then put the tarmac the FIA wants. Is that really so hard & why didn’t anybody think of doing that?

            Some people won’t agree with me on this but those who do:
            We don’t need to keep watching what is called or supposed to be “Formula One” just because we have always watched F1.

            1. The rules originally did specify massively changed chassis & downforce regulations, but the teams (under FOTA) fought back on cost grounds because developing 100% new chassis would kill the smaller teams on the back of purchasing new, more expensive engines.

              Frankly, I was looking forward to the change in aero regs – Scarb’s mockup made them look like the mid-90’s cars again.

        2. @s2g-unit I think you’re missing the point. These issues may exist, but they don’t play a role in whether a team decides to pull out of F1 or not. Mateschitz is only talking about this type of thing because he wants fan support, in order to pressurise the FIA to change the new tech regulations in his favour.

        3. If you want to blame anyone for the new engine regulations then blame the engine manufacturer’s, There the one’s who said this was the formula they wanted.

          You can say these new engines are “more boring” than the V8/10s yet to the engine manufacturer’s its the total opposite, They were learning nothing from the old formula & therefore they wanted this formula because its far more advanced & allows them to learn from engine development again.

          F1 would have lost support from engine manufacturer’s had they stuck with the old formula be it V8s, V10s or V12s. Sure those engines were louder but there totally irrelevant in every way to the engine manufacturer’s & were boring in terms of the on-track spectacle because the V8/10s had no torque & were so drivable that the drivers had an easier time than they have now.

          some people blindly defend the new regulations

          Its not about been blindly loyal to F1, I’ve crisscrossed things like DRS & the Pirelli tyres plenty of times.

          The reason I stand up for the new engine rules is because im been realistic & not getting caught up in the hysteria by those who seem to care only about the noise.

          I understand the reasons for the new formula, why it was a needed step, Why the engine manufacturers wanted it etc…

          Sticking with an out-dated engine formula which engine manufacturer’s have little interest in simply because people believe F1 should be loud is ridiculous.

          1. @s2g-unit You’re spot on. ‘We’ll get used to it’ has been a sad campaign of sorts here on F1F. There is a ‘Formula’ in F1 that is a bit technical AND a bit entertainment. I can’t fathom that the sport would make changes that don’t appeal to the masses. That mind (and ear drum) blowing spectacle when the lights go out and 24 cars go screaming by in anger is what draws people in. It inspires, and that is EXACTLY what F1 should be doing. There is no F1 if there is no entertainment. Nobody goes to an F1 race to cheer on the fuel savings. It’s laughable. I see people here all the time lauding the neat tire squeals and turbo acoustics of this new formula. Funny, no mentions of birds chirping or wind-rustled leaves though. If I want tire squeal and crowd noise, I can go to the supermarket. F1’s formula is to be loud, fast, AND technically relevant. The balance is simply off a bit, and the response here seems to be that people are tired of hearing about it. How ironic.

            1. Yes, btw, I realise there are only 22 cars, perhaps if not for developing new engines and cars to satisfy constant rules changes every year, there could be 24…

            2. If you think 134dB is not loud, then you already have serious hearing damage my friend.

            3. @baron if you think this is simply about a decibel count you are already seriously lost my friend.

        4. @s2g-unit I agree with your points, apart from Engine (I watched a segment of Silverstone 1987 the other day and couldn’t hear too much of an engine noise), and I’m fine with fuel conservation (though the fuel flow limit is rather ridiculous).

          1. The fuel flow limit is necessary. There needs to be a limit on engine power. I wish people would try to understand rules before claiming they make no sense.

        5. QOFTD for me..i’m a RBR fan, but it’s tottaly my opinion…

        6. @s2g-unit


          finally someone who sees the problems! Totally agree with you.

          1. The ‘Noise’ won new fans in the past 25 years. I can’t say that these new ‘fans’ have brought anything to the party. If they don’t like it, they should go elsewhere and perhaps F1 will develop newer different fanbase more suitable to it’s current direction. Personally, I enjoy all forms of motorsport except a spec series. V8’s were becoming a spec F1 series motor with no room for expansion or change and now we have something completely different.

            Each to their own, but I wonder if people here really think that they can bring about another change? Don’t forget, this new formula has been 3 years in the making and I don’t remember any of the teams objecting to it during this time and they are the ones who have to shell out for the the goods.

            The only people to bring about change will be the promoters and the commercial sponsors, if that ever happens. I believe the involvement of the major manufacturers who I once cursed as the nemesis of F1, ironically now, to be the saviour.

        7. I think he means there are MANY things in the last few years that have made the sport worse:
          -Pirelli (who makes a tyre that wears out after 5-10 even when being pushed only at what 60-80% of car performance)
          -Massive Run-off areas that don’t punish drivers
          -New engine formula with stupid fuel conservation (on top of tyre conservation) & horribly boring engines compared o v8′s and v10′s especially
          -Penalties for all kinds of overtaking attempts
          -Poorly written rules causing post-race classification changes.
          -Poorly written regulations causing stupid stepped noses & now these ugly, stupid looking cars (that aren’t really any safer to protect drivers. You can’t make this sport 100% safe & the FIA chasing this is hurting the sport)
          -I’m sure one BIG thing he’d love to say is CVC getting too much money & Bernie with too much control (ie, Abu Double + the fact nobody really, clearly wants to point out Bernie takes too much money)
          -Oh yeah, back to the egines…. “we need to reduce costs” but yet demand new ridiculously expensive to develop engines. Which now many people hate the sound & stupid fuel conservation BS)

          I agree with some of these (but certainly not all), but the teams rarely give any indication of being against more than one or two of these.

      2. @s2g-unit – You mentioned DRS, poor tyres, poorly written rules, ugly cars, stepped noses and Bernie which were all issues last year. Why did Mateschitz threaten to pull out last year? Hmmm… I wonder.

        I agree with lots of his points – F1 is too political. I can’t see how trying to use your power to get your own way by threatening to quit isn’t a political move though… Surely it is?

        How about the F1 Strategy Group which excludes the smaller teams? How is that right? Didn’t notice him moan about that.

        How about the fact that following the tyre changes last year, Red Bull were miles ahead of the field? Didn’t notice him moan about that.

        I don’t disagree with what he says but you have to admit he’s saying it at a specific time for political reasons.

        1. @petebaldwin
          There is a good chance he said it for political reasons. I also believe that he, like many people are fed up of many things going in formula one. Every year for the last few years some new stupid thing is demanded, changed or added this sport.

          1. @s2g-unit – it’s so frustrating isn’t it. Every year you hear new botched rules that most fans highlight as a problem yet the teams, FIA and Bernie seem clueless.

            DRS is the best example – it only works on certain tracks and can make overtaking too easy. On others (ie Valencia), it creates overtaking spots that simply didn’t exist before. They said they’d refine DRS so to bear with them for a season or two. Ok… So their solution is to make 2 long DRS zones on all tracks…. Rediculous.

            F1 is caught in a power struggle between the commercial guys who simply want to make as much money from F1 as possible, the teams who only want whatever is best for themselves and don’t care about the sport as a whole and the FIA which consists of a bunch of old stubborn men who are completly out of touch with the fans. The problem is that none of these groups are fighting for what the fans want and as a result, you end up with the sort of F1 we have now.

      3. It is sad to think that any team can threaten to leave in order to influence the sporting authorities – if any team were bigger than the sport and could achieve that then it is no longer worthy of being a sport.

        If a team threatens to leave then let them. Maybe people won’t make as much money but there would still be exciting (maybe better) racing.

    7. I remember predicting a while ago, when RBR had illegal holes in the floor of the car, that a scandal like this would be the catalyst for them to leave F1.
      I don’t think they’ll leave because of this but the next controversy may be the last one for them.

      1. The holes weren’t illegal when they were on the car for 3 races. When the FIA changed the rules to make illegal, red bull changed the car accordingly to comply with the new rules. You could say the same for any other regulation.

    8. “We aren’t winning and it just breaks my tiny little heart. We’ll go home if you don’t let us win.” Mateschitz, 2014

      This is why I can’t stand Red Bull.

      1. merc threatend to leave last year if tyre fiasco wasn’t resolve in their favour.
        So you also can’t stand merc?

      2. It’s a shame nobody actually reads the article and draws these conclusions. It’s an even bigger shame we can’t have a proper discussion about the topic of how interesting F1 is for fans and sponsors, without feces being thrown around at either fanbase.

        1. I did read the article. It reads like a rich businessman kicking up a stink because the money pot might not be quite as big as he wants it to be at the end of the year.

        2. I regularly enter into such a discussion. And I am entering into a discussion here- it just happens to be about how Red Bull are coming across as very poor sports right now.

    9. Surely Mateschitz getting involved is pure politics!?
      It’s just posturing to try and put pressure on the FIA to take their side, like Mercedes did last year when they faced a huge penalty after the test.

      1. @bigwilk Except Merc had a somewhat vague email about possibly allowing them to go on with the test whereas RBR was warned repeatedly not to do what they were doing…

        1. Agreed, it’s not a comment on the validity of the claim, just the knee-jerk “we’ll quit if you don’t stop doing the thing that is currently making us unhappy” mentality. I’m actually a Merc fan, and being in New Zealand am surrounded by Ricciardo fans (no, we don’t hate the Aussies like you’d think)

    10. Ha! You constantly read people complaining about DRS, about Bernie, about the noise, about Tilke tracks, about tires, about fuel saving, about this, about that, and about the other thing. People saying that they won’t watch F1 anymore because of what it has become, because of all the “gimmicks” and because of the politics. But the minute that Red Bull says something, suddenly everything about F1 is great and Red Bull are just crybabies whining because things aren’t going their way and they want FIA to change something to suit them.

      1. I agree with you, completely.
        I won’t lie. I am a Red Bull fan. They are the reason I started watching the sport. I don’t have a problem with Red Bull dominance ending though. It had to end eventually. I just wish that it was not because of massive changes to the sports rules and regulations.

      2. It’s when they say these things. If they had won in Melbourne would they be so bothered? Of course not.

        Red Bull have never cared about the greater good for the sport, that’s why they blocked any attempts at a RRA and were first out of the FOTA door when it opened.

        1. Exactly that @john-h. If Didi now says its too expensive for what he gets out of it, only thing for him to do is look back at the last year or 2 and see where opportunities to stop increasing spending were lost by his team!
          As @geemac mentions, its a sense of entitlement teams/people winning a lot get, often it goes in hand with Bernie using them to stir up trouble too, just like in this case.

        2. They were complaining about the tires when they were winning races and leading both championships last year, and people still said that they were crybabies trying to get things their way, even after the Silverstone debacle proved Red Bull right. Regarding the fuel sensor issue, of course they’re gonna say it now, because it is happening now. Just like they complained about tires when tires were awful.

          1. But he’s not just talking about the fuel sensor issue is he @ironcito

            1. I can’t understand German, so I have to go by the BBC article. He talked about the fuel injectors being inaccurate, which is a technical thing that cost them a second place. It’s obviously important to them, and we fans can’t really say much without in-depth knowledge of the issue. The timing of that complaint is obvious. He also said that F1 had to be made like it used to be in the past, and indirectly criticized the fuel limits and the quieter engines, which are things that have been said ad nauseam by fans. You may or may not agree with his opinions, but I don’t see it as Red Bull trying to force anything to suit them.

      3. But the minute that Red Bull says something, suddenly everything about F1 is great and Red Bull are just crybabies whining because things aren’t going their way and they want FIA to change something to suit them.

        Yes, because they only say it when it isn’t going their way, so it strongly gives that impression.

        You constantly read people complaining about DRS, about Bernie, about the noise, about Tilke tracks, about tires, about fuel saving, about this, about that, and about the other thing.

        The trouble is that many of the most heinous things the fans (sometimes) legitimately hate are often not complained about by the teams. The problem, as with Villeneuve’s comments a few weeks ago, is that they pick on the wrong things to take issue with- the ones that sound entirely self-serving. Villeneuve talked far too much about the lack of power, painting a beautiful picture of his own racing days where he was some fierce warrior taming a beast better than any other driver- except that the new engines have almost identical power and more torque than his only successful years. That made it sound like complaining for the sake of it, completely demeaning the other valid points he actually made (I believe they were about DRS and super-double-fun-points).

        1. That’s because they’re teams, not fans. If they’re forced to use inaccurate sensors that could limit one team to 96 kg/hr of fuel and another team to 102 kg/hr, randomly, they’re going to complain. That’s more important and more urgent to a team than, say, a buggy live timing app.

    11. Go ahead Mateschitzzle sell Red Bull to Infiniti!

      I would love a completely purple car on the grid

      1. Grape Juice Racing?

      2. I quite like the Red Bull colours, although familiarity has made them a bit more plain. I do dislike the hint of purple at the moment because it makes the livery feel too busy. Block purple sounds great though.

      3. Thats… actually a great idea.

        If only we had Porsche representing VW in F1. )=

    12. all this guy cares about is selling more Red Bull. he couldn’t buy his way to the top of NASCAR, so he packed it in after five seasons. now, after running the F1 table for four straight years (especially the last two), they start the season behind the curve and he sounds like a petulant child that wants to take his ball and go home because you’re not letting him win. rather than getting on with the task at hand, he’d rather blame the rules, blame the sensors, blame the FIA, blame the sound of the engine. worst.

      1. If you read the article carefully, you will notice that he was answering questions.

      2. To be honest the FIA have been rather incompetent, there are as much to blame as Red Bull, The teams don’t build cars worth millions and then get given faulty fuel sensors to be used, If the FIA could not get a proper fuel sensor designed in the past year, they seem to have bigger issues. seriously a fuel sensor is quite trivial compared to the complex cars the teams have had to deal with(In my Opinion). if the sensor does not work, test it out. Maybe in a couple of practice sessions and then finalise a working model instead of asking each team to calibrate it to how the FIA feels “oh yeah thats about 100kg/s”.

        In some sense I admire Red Bull for standing up, when the other teams have been spineless.

        1. They are not faulty sensors though @venom, it just turns out that what is asked of the sensors, measure near instantaneous fuel flow with near absolute accuracy is technically not as easy to achieve as the FIA and teams had imagined, especially as the measurement should also not influence the fuel flow itself (hence these sensors that measure indirectly, which makes the calibration a tricky and very important, difficult, task).

        2. Spineless? How, by complying with the Technical Regulations?

    13. Ronald J Walker AC CBE.

      In 1997 Michael Schumacher criticised the Albert Park GP track as being “nothing special” (later explained as stop-start with no high speed sections). RJW AC CBE responded by making a personal attack on Schumi’s integrity and manhood for daring to criticise the circuit.

      When Melbourne won the right to host the 2006 Commonwealth Games (he was the chairman of the bid team and LOC) he proclaimed that they were going to be the biggest event in Australia’s history, even bigger than the Sydney Olympics.

      He insists on having his British Empire honours announced on the podium by Bob Constanduros. He is a First class muppet, and a close friend of Bernie’s. No one in Australia takes him seriously, nor should anyone else in the world.

      1. “First class muppet”. Beautifully put. I can’t agree more.

      2. @kazinho I would also be bitter about him taking the race from my lovely little Adelaide, but considering the amount of money the Vics have to put up each year to pay for the race and how successful the Clipsal 500 is, I actually reckon we South Aussies got the last laugh…

    14. Slackbladder
      25th March 2014, 1:49

      “You have to make F1 like it used to be – the top discipline of motorsports,”
      “F1 is not there to set new records in fuel consumption, nor to make it possible to have a whispered conversation during a race.”
      “It is absurd to race a lap seconds slower than last year. GP2 partially provides more racing and fighting and almost equal lap times as F1 with a small fraction of the budget.”
      Dietrich Mateschitz
      Mateschitz, 69, is estimated to be worth £5.6billion by Forbes, making him the world’s 134th richest man

    15. I couldn’t care less if Red Bull pulled out. Someone else will buy the team and life goes on. It’s not like they are Ferrari or McLaren, with factories that are producing their road cars, dedicated lands for doing their thing which is their whole purpose of existing. Red Bull would still continue selling drinks and trying to portray itself as an edgy brand, and factory would be bought and someone else would run it. Only thing that they might lack is money compared to Red Bull, but if that’s the most they are bringing, I won’t be too bothered for seeing them leave.

      1. They could as well disband 2 factories and leave F1 with 9 teams on the grid, possibly 8 if caterham would also leave. have fun.

    16. So having read that Racecar Engineering article of fuel flow metering, and noted it was written last year. How do RBR think they have a case?
      My understanding goes like this;
      Did RBR ask to use different fuel measuring system – No
      Therefore the FIA must assume RBR were using the fuel flow sensor mandated.

      Did RBR turn down the Fuel flow when requested by the FIA offical – No
      RBR are guilty under the sporting regulations.

      And all talk of RBR having a more accurate system of measuring the fuel flow rate can be disregarded. Therefore turning it into a dispute about the technical regulations can be ignored.

      Daniel Ricciardo deserved better from his team than this. Even finishing 5th or 6th would have been seen as great strides considering where RBR were during pre-season testing.

    17. He is obviously saying it to try to influence the outcome of the appeal… I hope they do leave the sport, we have enough with Ferrari getting special treatment from the FIA.

    18. Neil (@neilosjames)
      25th March 2014, 3:21

      Red Bull complaining about politics in F1 is like Justin Bieber complaining about crap music in the charts.

      1. COTD!!!!!..HAHAHAHAHA

    19. Dietrich Mateschitz – yet another billionaire [insert appropriately demeaning expletive relating to private parts here]. Can’t be too surprised. The guy’s all business first. There’s no innate car builder in there. He’s basically an obscenely successful soft drink salesman, isn’t he?

    20. I think everyone who has been complaining about the apparent lack of noise and the fact that the cars are lapping slower need to take a step back and look at the big picture.

      F1 was once sold as the breeding grounds for new automotive technology. A lot of F1 technology pioneered in the 80s and 90s are common place in our road cars now. Over the last 10 years, innovation has been stifled by regressive rules. The arrival of the new formula is the shot in the arm we needed in F1. More than anything else, it is relevant to the current market. LMP1 and WEC were more road relevant than F1. This is probably why it has thrived over the same period where F1 has remained stale.

      Yes it doesnt sound as great, and it does take some of the thrill away, but we need to be progressive. The pace will come, and it will be back to F1 speeds very soon.

      The change to the new formula has probably safeguarded the long term future of the sport. I’m being optimistic, but the return of Honda could herald the beginning of a new constructor era. I say this because, if the Porsche 918 and Mclaren P1 are anything to go by, this new high performance hybrid technology will be what every car manufacturer is coveting!

      Would love to see BMW and Toyota back as engine suppliers!

      1. Crashtor Malfunctionado
        26th March 2014, 1:56

        I think you need to look at the bigger picture (in the nicest way possible).. F1 is big business, and big business = big money. The technology you are referring to was a product of innovation, this current technology is a product of regulation. If F1 really cared about technology and the various industries that tech would theoretically filter down through, they would be opening the engine regs and allowing the worlds smartest people to come up with the most innovative solutions..

        Instead, they have pushed what that future technology will be and mandated it for everyone on the grid. All they wanted to acheive was a “green”, “socially acceptable”, “politically correct” image to lure back the sponsor and manufacturer millions they pushed away with the tobacco industry and frozen V8 engines.

        Its a money making campaign all in the guise of “ground breaking technology”… all its about is satisfying the marketing departments of the car manufacturers

    21. I really think the Mateschitz interview is a no-story. He only talked about Red Bull potentially leaving F1 because he was asked what circumstances would force such a move, and nothing more. Everything else seems to be Montezemelo levels of rubbish-talking.

    22. Whether he likes it or not if some other team had not followed the rules then RB would be complaining. They are unhappy because they are behind and don’t like getting busted for not following the rules that they knowingly violated. If they had followed what was in place and still been up there because fuel wouldn’t have been an issue during the race we’d be talking about RB making it back to the point of the spear in Malaysia. Perhaps we’re seeing a little complacency from having been on top so long. And we’re seeing a team who thinks they are above the rules or allowed more leeway because of being on top so long.

    23. Huge misunderstanding by some people here. Mateschitz gets asked if it doesn’t make financial sense to be in F1 anymore, would he pull the plug? His answer: that is not the case. Redbull do demand fairness and political justice tho.

      Mateschitz does not say he is thinking about pulling out of F1. On the contrary, he is very exited about F1 comming to the Redbull Ring and race.

      This could have been made more clear in the summary of the roundup. Personally i think it’s a bit misleading.

      1. Exactly, his comments have been taken out if context, complete overreaction. The original article by Andrew Benson is to blame, it’s not the first time he has written such sensationalist rubbish

        1. Do you think Andrew benson was behind the worst winter ever stories in the express then???

      2. Well, this is what the Kurier interviewer says to Mateschitz:

        “You have repeatedly emphasized that it’s possible that Red Bull could leave F1 some day if it doesn’t make economic sense for the company anymore. What would have to happen?”

        Mateschitz doesn’t deny that Red Bull could leave F1, he only states that it’s much more about the sportsmanship and political influence than the economic sense and adds that “there is a clear limit to what we can accept.”

        So one doesn’t have to be sensationalist to interpret Mateschitz’s words as a threat to leave the sport. I would say that F1 Fanatic’s headline is more accurate than BBC’s headline though.

    24. “Can’t win, won’t play”?

      As Mercedes pointed out last week, the 2014 regulations were revealed ~1000 days ago. Now Mateschitz has suddenly realised that the new cars are too slow and too silent. Moreover, he is contradicting himself by saying that RBR’s future in F1 depends on “political influence” and yet complaining about the “politicisation” of the sport.

      No team is greater than F1 and if Mateschitz wants to go, then he should go. It might as well be only rhetoric though.

    25. If you want to leave because you’re not winning, that’s fine by me. Red Bull’s loss wouldn’t be anywhere as significant as the loss of Ferrari, McLaren or Williams.

    26. To be honest, if I was Didi spending as much as he does on F1 there needs to be a cost/benefit ratio that makes it worthwhile. The new regs have increased cost by a big margin but with race attendance dropping and TV audiences falling away one would have to crazy to keep throwing money into F1 unless, like Mercedes, it contributes to R&D. Didi sells drinks and needs exposure to the target market and improve brand recognition. F1 is going in the wrong direction to achieve that.

    27. Can’t read the times article, but the quote indicates it must be a satirical article. Unless Ferrari have changed the way they operate without anybody knowing.

    28. The Red Bull story is a classic case of journalists trying to make a story out of nothing.

      He was asked under what circumstances the team would leave F1. It is a heavily loaded question.

      1. Yes, I did point that out to people who referred to an english language piece where the quotes looked like it was a statement from Mateschitz (and pointed them to the original interview Keith has included in the roundup, which gets pretty accurately represented by the BBC translation also included) yesterday @ledzep4pm.
        But on the other hand, when you only look at the title, saying Mateschitz does not like to seek publicity for himself, and then realize the timing of it …
        What I take from that, is that it (the veiled threat of leaving if not getting their points back) was very much the impression he wanted to get people from the interview at this time. He is big enough in Austria to get an interview published when HE needs it, not leaving it to an editor to show interest.

    29. Having read that interview with Mateschitz, the bit about “we’re leaving” seems sort of taken out of context, he’s indeed asked, or rather, given suggestive questions to try and goad him to say whether he’d leave if that appeal goes the wrong way.

      That is a bit jarring, I thought, because he talks about what he wants F1 to be: fair, no politicking, not to much meddling, but then if you look at what his team actually practices, it does not actually seem to be following that. They were first to claim special rights and compensation from Bernie, did go along with the introduction of DRS, double points, etc. while having token words of ennui, and only changed things when tyres were not to their advantage; complained about the V8 Renault engine until it turned out to do EBD better than others.

      And he also maintains the same ‘we did nothing wrong’ about the appeal, of course, understandably, but still not fair in the sense that others did follow those rules.
      All of that doesn’t seem to give much credibility to talk about how formula 1 should be different, better and fairer, to me.

    30. Mateschitz raises a point which can very much relate to. The airshow, which nobody really needs or wants above the grid in Australia has used more fuel than the whole F1 field will for the next several races. Why does Formula 1 have to be pushed into the eco-direction? And why does it have to be by force?

      I don’t understand how anybody who actually believes F1 should have a relevance to road cars (absurd), is okay with the new engine formula being implemented as the only alternative. New technologies should always have their place in Formula 1, but maybe the Colin Chapman approach of adding lightness and keeping the cars simple would have been cheaper, faster, better for the environment and the fans. In a time when everybody talks about cutting costs these new engines are about as relevant as 8-wheelers.

      At the end of the day, as Red Bull proves, it doesn’t matter what’s inside the car, as long as your name is on it and the product is good. The majority of people who spend money on cars and other technology have no clue how hybrids work. If you tell anybody an F1 car has 900 hp, they don’t care where that comes from. But if you tell them it has 600 hp they wonder why the new Corvette has more. Making the cars more complex for the sake of complexity in a time when some teams struggle to even make the grid financially… We’re going into the wrong direction. Big time.

      1. It’s your classic double-edged sword. If the new engine formula had not been adopted, Renault (and possibly Mercedes) would have pulled out and Honda wouldn’t be returning.

        1. This is what infuriates me…
          When Honda dominated in the late 80’s and early 90’s, nobody asked why they don’t have V6 turbos, or 3.5 litre V10/V12 engines in their road cars. Same with the Renaults throughout the 90’s.
          Yet suddenly, over the last few years it matters what sort of engine the cars are running, instead of F1 simply being a test bed to show off how capable their engineering department is.

          1. Crashtor Malfunctionado
            26th March 2014, 2:10

            Dennis, you are 100% right…

            and lets say it was a test bed to show off their engineering capabilities, I think having V10/V12 engines, something that will never be seen in the common mans road car, will create a sense of exoticism and mysteque that vacuum cleaner sounding 1.6L V6’s can never acheive.

            and after all of this they will impose another engine freeze to drive all the manufacturers back out in the long run.

            Its just a viscous cycle of knee jerk reactions and bandaid fixes of something that was never broken to begin with pre 2006

    31. I said, when Red Bull got their first championship, teams like Ferrari, Mclaren, Williams and Sauber are there for the racing. Ferrari sell road cars to pay for their racing, Maclaren and Williams sell their tecnology for the same reason.

      Mercedes is in F1 to sell road cars and Red Bull is there to sell its (IMO) disgusting tasting soft drinks. Expect both to drop out when things don’t go their way.

      1. You can argue that Mercedes has been back in F1 since the 90’s with only sporadic spurts of genuine success.

        They’re still here…

      2. Exactly, mate.

        Williams EXISTS for racing. RBR exists to make dopey euro-wannabes think that sipping over-priced sickly-sweet fizzy drink the color of puke = cool.

    32. RBR… easy come… easy go ! No problem with me, you can leave. What the heck is a drinks company doing in a cars sport anyway… !? It’s not like they’re going to be at the same level with Ferrari, McLaren and Williams, given the prestige…. ever ! They’re simply missing “something” to reach that level. Not being a car manufacturer is one of the reasons. Being a young team is another good reason – they just “missed” most of the history of this competition in particular. So, they can leave, some new guys will appear to fill the gap and most of the staff will remain in business, especially the engineers (Newey in particular). We’ve seen lots of teams disappearing and/or being transformed into new teams over the decades. Nothing new and spectacular will happen.

      1. You clearly have no respect for the Milton Keynes team. Such a shame, as they have been better than the real classic car companies for the last 4 years. They are in fact a real racing team, and not just a soft drink company which buys a car and put a sticker on it. The thought of racing teams need to produce road cars is not of this time anymore. Get real and show some respect for the 600 people making the car be as good as it is.

        1. I have an enormous amount of respect for the people in the team from Horner and Newey downwards just no respect for the brand and where their money comes from.

    33. Being Bad losers isn’t exactly a good sporting image to have and that’s what Red Bull are putting out. We’re slow so we’re going home.

      See ya then.

      1. It’s reasonable to assume that Mateschitz is simply being a sore loser. But I’d rather give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that his complaints and Red Bull’s poor showing at Melbourne are a coincidence. In other words, I think he’s smart enough to have made the exact same complaints even if his cars had won.

        Now, if he was the only one complaining, you would have a stronger point, but he’s obviously in very good company on the points he’s made.

    34. Dietrich is absolutely correct on all points, and if we listen to others who say that the sound and other rules changes don’t matter, and that the Melbourne race “proves it”, we are marching down the wrong road. The ultimate racing formula should sound and look like the ultimate, and not like a quiet economy run.

      The FIA will always find those who applaud their efforts to dilute F1 until it loses almost all drama and real racing appeal, but the true race-fan knows that F1 cars are supposed to be painful and scary and awe-inspiring.

      If some engine manufacturers need the fuel limitations to justify their involvement, then let’s run half the races under the existing fuel limits, and half of them at double or triple the limit, while changing the exhaust configuration for all races. The results from the low and high limit events can then be used to sell whatever they’re trying to sell to their car-buying public.

    35. Dieter Rencken was RIGHT to warn about Red Bull’s total and complete LACK of sentimentality, passion, love (ha) or even concern for the long-term health of Formula 1™.

      Just look up his work via AutosportPlus to see how he predicted this moment, and the inevitable bending-over of F1 by Red Bull…

    36. So if he pulls RBR from the F1 grid, what would happen to the Austria race? Would he pull that as well?
      Mateschitz is coing off as a spoiled child who has been told he needs to share his toys. We then wonder why Vetell behaves they way he does; spoiled is what spoiled does.
      I too would be more concerned if the trinity of F1, McLaren, Ferrari & Williams were to threaten to leave.
      Just shut up & race already. You can’t win every year even if you think you deserve to. Your core F1 fans would find some other form of racing to follow. I know I personally stopped watching after the Idnia race. Quite frankly I got bored of watching Vettel pull off a 2 second lead in the first lap.

    Comments are closed.