Christian Horner, Red Bull, Albert Park, 2015

Horner denies hypocrisy over Red Bull quit threats

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Christian Horner, Red Bull, Albert Park, 2015In the round-up: Red Bull team principal Christian Horner says it is not hypocritical for them to threaten to quit F1 if steps are not taken to cut Mercedes’ advantage.

Comment of the day

Today’s round-up comes in spite of the following suggestion from @Girts in response to Sauber’s statement on Giedo van der Garde:

Keith, I think you should replace tomorrow’s round-up with the following statement:

“I’d have very good links, tweets, pictures and comments for you but they would only encourage criticism and discussions and I will not lend myself to that.”


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

Horner denies Mercedes complaints are hypocritical (Crash)

"I can understand that (the hypocrisy suggestions), but when we were performing, we never had the level of dominance we are seeing, nowhere near."

Red Bull leave a sour taste (The Telegraph)

"If Mateschitz throws a tantrum and walks away now, he risks leaving a feeling that his involvement in F1 was only ever about cold commercial calculation."

Prost: Mercedes dominance part of the F1 game (F1i)

"Mercedes has been preparing for three or four years to reach the top. Unfortunately, this might take two or three years before someone reels them in, but it’s part of the game."

McLaren has best shot at Mercedes (Autosport)

"(At the) apex you would get washout at the front; it was very dirty in the way the aerodynamics worked. This is different. It's very clean and we can build on what we have."

Could McLaren struggle for years? (BBC)

"What we know is the car is already good compared to last year's but we also know that the aero or vehicle dynamics development we can bring on this car in the next months is massive."

Michael Schumacher son Mick in 100mph crash (The Independent)

"The 15-year-old is understood to have been unharmed in the incident at the Lausitzring speedway in Brandenburg last weekend."

FIA Director of Communications (FIA)

"Pierre Regent will be leaving the position of FIA Director of Communications & International Relations Advisor on 1 April 2015 to take up a new position as Diplomatic Advisor to former French President Nicolas Sarkozy."


From the forum

Happy birthday!

No F1 Fanatic birthdays today

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Five years ago the 107% rule was a subject of debate:

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

  • 158 comments on “Horner denies hypocrisy over Red Bull quit threats”

    1. OmarR-Pepper (@)
      19th March 2015, 0:07

      Regarding the VDG Sauber situation:
      1. Maybe Giedo’s future in F1 is not over. He has 15 million pounds back (I guess his sponsors will retain most of it), but given how Manor mentioned Stevens and Merhi will drive “the first races”, maybe he can inject some cash to get that seat. It’s not as if Giedo was especially spectacular after all, but he can give it a try.
      2. I have not lost respect for Sauber as an institution, but for the people who took these decisions. Just in the same way Briatore and Symonds were critiziced for what they did, but you can’t bash the rest of people who are doing an amazing job, such as the engineering staff and Nasr.

      1. As @girts wrote in the other threads, maybe it would be healthy for Sauber for Monisha to leave.

        1. GB (@bgp001ruled)
          19th March 2015, 5:32

          the best for sauber would be to fire her!

          1. ColdFly F1 (@)
            19th March 2015, 6:40

            I would be happy with ‘decided to pursue her career somewhere else’.

            There is a lot Sauber can achieve this year, just need to clean out a bit at the top.

            1. Unfortunately I highly doubt she will step aside the very year they are finally making some progress …

          2. we’ve been told she owns 30% of the team

          3. not sure that’s possible, is she not a co-owner? I read that somewhere…

          4. @bgp001ruled Don’t be ridiculous, they can’t just get rid of her if she has a contract in place. Oh…wait.

            1. ha ha haaaa! Good one!

      2. Well put Omar. Thanks Keith for highlighting the lighter side but I know you are as miffed as most of us as your articles are not so usually damning. Pay drivers will always exist but and they do have talent to get there (many examples exist) so this episode of mismanagement leaves a bad taste for most of us. Safety concerns abuse are pitiful and I don’t blame Sauber with their long history of sport, it’s Kaltenborn for me, I used to like her.

      3. @omarr-pepper, That is not how the real world works. Sauber is around today because of those people you want to despise. If they had not made the hard decisions and decided to act “selfishly,” those very engineers and staff you want to admire and praise would have been laid off and Sauber would not exist today. Imagine for a second that Sauber went around and surveyed all their staff and engineers: We either fold as a company and lay everyone off, or we do this shady deal and hangout GVD and his backers out to dry? How do you think they would have responded?

        The point is that its not a black and white issue, not simple good and evil. Business and life are more complex than that. Sauber chose to breach a contract, or knowingly mislead GVD and his sponsors so that they can keep the institution that is Sauber alive today. What they did was wrong because they essentially used GVD and his backers, but it is also admirable that they manage to keep the organization and alive under such tough conditions. If Monisha was the mastermind behind this, I would be very disappointed if Sauber threw her to the wolves as the scapegoat. If she single handedly kept Sauber alive, she should be praised from a business point of view rather than ridiculed. I bet her stock has just risen in the business world as a leader. If Sauber dump her, she won’t have too hard a time landing a position as CEO of a major company, IMO.

        I’m glad GVD was able to get compensation. It is rightfully his, and he has every right to pursue legal action. The lesson we should all be learning from GVD is always make sure you are protected when doing business. Keep records, make sure every deal is contractually binding and not just by word of mouth. I was pretty upset when McLaren dumped Perez like yesterdays newspaper. But I bet McLaren was able to pay off Perez and his backers, a luxury Sauber could not afford at the time before they got that Swedish and Brazilian money. At the end of the day the business is going to look after its own self interest, always remember that. As an individual/employee always look after your own self interest also. I know it sounds selfish, but when ish hits the fan or things go pear-shaped, no one is going to be looking to make sure you’re taken care of.

        1. ColdFly F1 (@)
          19th March 2015, 6:46

          @sudd, actually it is black and white.
          And justice caught up with Sauber as a result of the ‘grey’ area they wanted to play in.
          If Sauber would have honoured vdG’s contract they would have been financially better off than they are today.

          1. @coldfly, and you know this how? You’re saying Sauber who was in desperate need of revenue, said no to money so they could keep GVD out of their cars?? Right. Secondly, I highly doubt GVD and his backers would outbid Nasr and Ericssons backers. Nasr literally brought a bank on board. And by the looks of things, he’s pretty talented behind the wheel too. I bet Sauber now has enough funds to not just pay the bills, but also invest a little in R&D and the more success they have, the more sponsors they’ll get on board to make them an even stronger team. Honoring GVD’s contract was probably just enough to keep them afloat while the Nasr and Ericcson deal gave them an even larger budget.

            1. ColdFly F1 (@)
              19th March 2015, 7:55

              The GBP10m/EUR14m Ericsson is sponsoring is less than the EUR15m Sauber has to pay vdGarde; hence worse off financially. @sudd
              And then all legal costs over and above.

            2. @coldfly
              I think you’re confusing the judgement against Sauber vs the actual money VDG brought to the table which I read elsewhere as EUR8m. So the extra EUR6m that Ericsson brought probably made them think it was worth the risk.

              It’s easy to criticize Monisha because what she did was rather slimy. But faced as an executive who has had to make hard decisions and layoff as many as 500 people before, I can’t say I wouldn’t have done the same thing if I could have saved those other people’s jobs. I might have gone to VDG and said: Hey Guido, we’re going to go under as things stand. We’ll give you back some or all of your Eur8m and keep you as a reserve driver if you’ll just let us survive.
              Who knows what conversations went on in the back rooms before all of this bubbled up in court. And GVDG clearly has an overblown sense of his own worth as a driver so maybe he didn’t want the money…he wanted his racing seat and wouldn’t budge?

              We were not there and don’t know if Monisha was purely evil or if Guido was stubborn/foolish.

              I think what @sudd is saying may have some merit. I’ve been in Monisha’s position and it’s NOT fun to look hundreds of people in the face and say: “sorry folks, no more paychecks”. She may have felt the lesser of two evils was warranted here.

            3. ColdFly F1 (@)
              19th March 2015, 23:17

              @daved, thanks.
              Don’t get me wrong I agree that what @sudd said makes a lot of sense.
              My only point was (and I did take the EUR8m into account) that in the end it proved to be financially worse for Sauber, because the extra money that Ericsson brought has now been spent to settle with vdG.
              And Monisha should have managed this better.

              In the end they are all worse off. Sauber’s name and financial situation; Monisha’s reputation; Nasr/Ericsson’s uncertainty last week; vdG might have a bit more cash but his F1 career cut short abruptly (and I’m sure he wishes he drove one of the Saubers into the points).
              As always the only winners are the lawyers (PS – good for Australian economy, might flip the balance on how much organising the GP costs).

            4. @coldfly
              +1 on the Australian economy comment!!! LOL

              Yes, I can see your point. Even if Monisha started off thinking it was a good deal money wise…it certainly didn’t work that way. And it certainly did no good for her reputation, Sauber’s reputation or even Formula 1.

              Frankly, I’m very ticked at Bernie for being so greedy and putting all the teams in this position where they are desperate and doing stupid stuff anyway. :(

        2. @sudd So the next time you order something on-line, pay for it and then it does not come, you’ll say, well, it’s not all black and white, they needed my money to keep the business running ?

          Here’s a simple test: Did Monisha use her own money to save Sauber? Nope. So the situation was not so bad.

          Now you might be right about her stock in business world rising, using other people’s money to your advantage has always been a popular trick in certain circles, but this does not make it right. Being popular with gangsters is nothing to feel proud about.

          1. *1 is to first Guy (@sudd) post.

        3. @sudd One of my least favourite posts that I can actually understand, perhaps even agree a bit with. Welcome to Earth, I guess.

          And no, @sudd‘s not claiming that it’s correct to not honour the contracts.

        4. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
          19th March 2015, 13:24


          Your reasoning is flawed. The worst thing Sauber could have done is to sign 3 contracts for 2 cars and receive payments. The fact that Giedo wasted a year being a test driver and now is out of F1 when Sauber is relatively competitive is not right. There’s no justification for that.

          Sauber could have gotten funding directly without stealing the money and destroying a career and dragging a driver to courts.

          They have gotten a small slap on the wrist when they should have received a punch from Muhammad Ali and been hospitalized for a couple of months… Seriously!!!

          If the FIA wants to do something good, they can penalize Sauber especially now that they might get a larger piece of the winnings if they do well and put that money in a fund to promote drivers entering F1.

      4. I would think his chance to drive for a competitive mid-field team is probably over, Manor GP is going to be way off the pace this season – not sure how much a driver will be able to prove even if he goes around the track .5 of a second faster than his teammate.

        Other pay options for GVD:
        Mercedes – No
        Ferrari – No
        Williams – No
        Redbull – No
        Torro Rosso – No
        McLaren – No
        Lotus – Guess you could argue Pastoris a pay driver, but then he is not a complete rookie, in fact a race winner and has in the past shown a turn of speed, not much chance here
        Force India – Money definitely would help here, but they have kept a high standard of driver – cant see them taking on GVD
        Sauber – Obviously out
        Manor – Not competitive

        1. you forgot Haas…- possible.

    2. What a cry baby! it doesn’t matter HOW dominant were Red bull, they were in fact dominant! and EVERYONE complained, as everyone complained about the Ferrari-Schumacher dominance. Look, this is F1, and it always been like this, with teams getting the best of a rule set than others. And yes Mr Halliwell, you’re an hypocrite. If your team perform as good as it looks this year (this is, medium pack) would you accept to be cut down on the FOM Money? because… if Force India, or Sauber performs better than you, then they should be getting not only more money, but also a say in the rules (like the ones you’re now suffering, but you helped to get going) So, please, soure loser, shut up and play along. Even Ferrari seems to be more of a sportmen than you, and that’s a lot to say…

      1. and another thing: as far as now, no one accused Mercedes of getting an advantage out of cheating, as Red Bull has been (and being proved in more than one opportunity)

        1. “cut Mercedes’ advantage” How?

          More to the point, in their dominance, RB were always using some aero hacks/cheats, and everyone were very vocal about them. Also they were the only team If i remember correctly to be allowed to modify ECU software. If RB/Horner suspects something, why doesnt he come forward and ask for X devices to be banned/limited its use etc…

          Worse, RB were caught and punished for using illegal devices! Mercedes and many teams were using FRIC, and some teams asked for it to be banned, and it was banned! Nothing has changed, in fact it effected others more then it did to Mercs.

          When they were dominant for 4.5 years, they were complaining of rule changes to break their dominance, and now look who is talking!

          1. RB were always using some aero hacks/cheats

            Cheats, loopholes aren’t cheats. They are as the word itself says openings in the rules, free for interpretation. Every lawyer would look for those and use them to his advantage and that is exactly what RB did. NOT ILLEGAL at all.

            Worse, RB were caught and punished for using illegal devices.

            Red Bull had stuff on their car that passed scrutineering for one race and was banned the next, that’s hardly illegal if you ask me.

            When they were dominant for 4.5 years

            How often are we going to see this? 2010 was hardly dominant and neither was 2012. In 2011 a lot of other drivers knew they could win on their good day as did happen that season. 2013 pre-Spa was a proper competitive season as well. I’d say RB got two years of domination if you like but really just had a better car in 2010 and 2012, not at all by the margins, for me, good enough to use the word dominant.

            1. @xtwl, it isn’t so simple. The rule makers/FIA were extremely lenient with Red Bull because they effectively run 4 cars on the grid. F1 kind of had to to tip toe around Red Bull so as not to scare them away. And Red Bull has been capitalizing on this bargaining chip for years now. The amount of influence they have in F1 now is probably on par or greater than Ferrari.

              Red Bulls behavior when they lose is exactly whey they won’t be remembered for their achievements. Four titles in a row is a major deal, but year in and year out they keep tarnishing that reputation. Eventually they will just have to quite and confirm they are just a fizzy drinks company or their threats will become meaningless.

            2. You are correct that loopholes are not cheats. However red bull were no using loopholes they were purposefully designing the wing to pass the fia test while then deforming under real conditions. This is seen as cheating not finding a rule loophole.

            3. @sudd

              The rule makers/FIA were extremely lenient with Red Bull because they effectively run 4 cars on the grid

              Which ended just as RBR started to be at the front of the field?

            4. No, they had a ride-height adjustment mechanism that was a flat-out violation of the rules– the rule said the ride-height adjustment must require a tool to be operated. Red Bull’s was hand-operated.

              So unless you’re willing to say that Vettel was a tool, they were in violation of the technical regs on that one.

              Then there was the engine map that didn’t quite conform to the regs.

              And of course, the wings that flexed (but not during the load test). To be fair, that was gaming the system as well as breaking the rules– the rule said the wing must not flex, and here’s how we test it… Red Bull built a wing that flexed, but passed the tests.

      2. Thank you for saying it!! I totally agree but I’m already sick of saying it and in lost of words with all this madness and sorry, but stupidity around F1, lately… It was just the first race of the season, for God’s sake! At least try to do your best during the season and then complain in the end if everything still the same.

      3. Thank you! Red Bull practically forced the governing body to CLARIFY the rules because they always came up with solutions derived from some pretty suspect interpretation of said rules. Flexible wings, holes in the floor, blown diffusers, exhaust mapping essentially used as a sort of driver aid… they were always skirting the rules. Mercedes were widely reputed to have the best FRIC suspension & they didn’t whine when the FIA binned it. As far as I know, there hasn’t been a single suggestion that they are doing anything iffy or suspect. They just built the best package within the confines of the rules.
        I remember in the frozen V8 era when RBR lobbied for Renault to be allowed to make engine changes in the name of reliability, & after those supposed changes that powerplant was all of a sudden much quicker. This is what they do best: game the system. The first race of last season they were already pushing the boundaries with the fuel flow sensors & acted like they were correct to do so!
        Finally, let’s not forget that the biggest proponents of this new engine formula were Renault themselves! Now all Mercedes engined cars should be made to suffer because Renault did a shyte job!? They also did the least development (supposedly they have used the least amount of tokens… Merc have used the most) & now expect to be rewarded for it while those who did a better job get punished. I really, REALLY dislike those blokes… Horner & Marko especially.

        1. +100

        2. Let’s not forget they were caught cheating last season in Abu Dhabi when they found a leaf spring in the front wing which allowed it flex under certain conditions. Something Horner tried to deny.

          1. I had forgotten about that!!! And the shameless way they handled getting caught as well! First there was denial, then accusations of being singled out (while simultaneously accusing other teams of doing the same thing… without any basis whatsoever), & then my personal favorite, Marko claiming it was just “a silly mistake” on their part due to a “naive interpretation” of the rules! (“We thought it was within the regulations”, he said… yeah… right…) Those same regulations that had to be explicitly clarified because of them skirting the rules in the first place! Imagine that: a bunch of engineers including one of, if not the best aerodynamicists the sport has ever seen “naively” thinking a hidden leaf-sprung wing mount complied with rules calling for all body work to be rigidly mounted. Go figure! :)

            1. It would be wise to find out the truth about the last race event. Funny how it was allowed for so many races yet not the last one guess who complained starts with M

            2. @patfreak…

              No one complained about Redbull, it was discovered during scrutinering.

        3. Meanwhile Mercedes threatened to quit the sport if they were punished for breaking the rules and committing an illegal test.

          All the teams are selfish children, Red Bull and Mercedes included.

          1. I don’t recall Mercedes threatening to quit– I do recall they contacted various people ahead of time, and got permission for the “illegal” test, and the ultimate result of the investigation was that Mercedes was found to A) have broken the rules on testing, but B) acted in good faith when they did so, and believed they were not in violation.

            They *did* threaten to quit over going back to the V8’s, or changing the engine rules in such a way as to totally screw them on the development costs of the V6 turbo hybrid engine– I imagine they need 3-5 years to recover that development cost.

            1. yes only because like Renault wanted and the FIA at large, V8s of the past serve no purpose in being road relevant some where down the line.

        4. Nathan (@il-ferrarista)
          20th March 2015, 13:16

          ….And Ferrari never gamed the system (in Schumachers time particulary) ?

      4. A bit off topic- I like the Ferrari quote there. In meeting the Team Principal at the Australian GP it seems to me that we have a more friendly and consultation Scuderia and that they may be willing to play fairer in the future. I loved the fan interaction.

        1. Nathan (@il-ferrarista)
          20th March 2015, 13:19

          When was that team principal meeting?

      5. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        19th March 2015, 13:34

        Horner is somewhat right – the rules are too complex. However, Mercedes has managed to get it right and therefore they should reap the rewards until the next big change comes in a few years.

        All Horner can do is just sit back and hope he can snatch podiums and maybe a victory here and there.

        My suggestion is they relax the rules about testing (maybe double it) especially for the engine manufacturers and run engines in a “stock car” if possible so one constructor can’t benefit. After all, you only want to test the engine’s capabilities. This will help Honda sort out their issues and Renault find their competitiveness over 2-3 seasons.

        1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
          19th March 2015, 13:38

          Oh I forgot to mention that he’s also the biggest hypocrite on the paddock, bar none cause they crushed Mercedes for 4 years and they did not complain once. On those grounds, no concessions should be made for Red Bull.

    3. OmarR-Pepper (@)
      19th March 2015, 0:19

      I wonder if the works on the simulator include Mercedes lapping the McLaren and running away from the Ferraris.

      1. Well, it is supposed to simulate.

        1. But in all seriousness I think it only simulates their car, not other manufacturers racing against them too.

      2. I wonder what power it was running at? 50%

    4. VDG career is over. Even if he can buy his way back….he is not a wealthy driver (Maldonado, Perez) He is more like Ericssonn….guys that can bring arround 20M. That will buy him a Manor, seat (he cannot longer buy at Sauber).
      How long can he last paying 15M? In Manor with no real chance of getting a seat by himself…..? He is done.

    5. Ian Laidler (@)
      19th March 2015, 0:26

      Fed up reading about the constant moaning from RBR, Mateschitz, Marko and Horner …. lets just rename RBR to CBR … Cry Baby Racing and move on to something more intersting

      1. Ha! Excellent!

      2. @grumpy So you’re going to add that ‘C’ to every teams name then as when time comes they all do?

        1. Cryrrari, Crycedes, CryLaren, Cryro Rosso, it’s quite fun actually

          1. “squadra piagnucolone”!

          2. To go with the engine ‘freeze’.. what about Toro Cryo :P

            1. “Crying bull” haha

      3. Nathan (@il-ferrarista)
        20th March 2015, 13:23

        JUST ANOTHER DRINKS COMPANY — as Lewis rightly said some years ago. I don’t like this kind of crocodile capitalist F1 team that are there ultimately just to promote themselves and their ‘drinks’.

    6. I agree with Horner. Over the years there has been clear efforts to curb their dominance, he gives good examples. I find it hard anyone arguing against that.

      But there were others before Red Bull getting the treatment as well, and if it’s already in FIAs mandate then there’s no real mystery.

      So questioning why nothing is being done against such a dominant team as Mercedes is entirely reasonable, but the real outrage should be against handicapping new engine manufacturers like Honda when it’s clear for anyone they would need a lot of development to get on par.

      1. Things were done against Red Bull because they were breaching the rules. Always trying to find a way to get some advantage.
        There is no indication that Mercedes have done that so far.
        And last year FIA banned the FRIC suspension in order to cut down Mercedes advantage.
        So yes, Horner is being a hypocrit. And to add to that, in 2013 the field were close at some level and Red Bull tried everything to change the tyres. Yeah, they were really worried about the competition…

        1. I don’t think it’s right to say that FRIC was banned because of Mercedes, IIRC everyone had it and they all said it wouldn’t affect performance as such if removed. I also think Lotus were most affected by it.

          1. Ultimately, Lotus got hammered the most by the FRIC ban, but it was assumed by most in the paddock that the FRIC ban would hurt Mercedes a fair amount, and it was certainly aimed at slowing down Mercedes.

        2. In addition to your comment, FIA has almost full knowledge and technical insight of all teams (based on the fact that they homologated the designs, and measured and tested and continuously (in random) checking compliance! So if Merc were to use any hacks/cheats that is obvious as were RB cheats, why they dont come forward and point them out?

          What do RB really expect? Stop Merc from racing? Ban their current engine/turbo etc internal stuff? They should be clear about “HOW” and not just moan about it. Like you said, people complained about RB for obvious cheats!

          1. RB did propose switching to a simpler single turbo “to save cost” … so yeah, they would love for the current turbo to be banned. If that’s not hypocrisy I don’t know what is.

            1. @hircus When? In recent weeks, they’ve been pushing for a 2.2L twin turbo V8.

        3. Also, in 2013, Redbull wanted tyre changes as there had been several instances with tyre punctures. Pirelli then decided to change the construction of the tyres or something before Silverstone and we all know what happened during the British GP and after it. Now, who’s being hypocritical?

        4. Maybe the general trend of responses is a good indication that f1 isn’t a good marketing environment for red bull and that it would be better for business if they did leave the sport?

          1. that could be. In fact, going out, as a rogue team, fits their brand image “we’re misunderstooded, boo booo” Rich emo kids…

          2. probably the same logic that led to no changing helmets during the season as ‘majority’ of the fans couldn’t distinguish the drivers out on track

        5. Things were done against Red Bull because they were breaching the rules.

          No, they were not. Things were done against Red Bull because they were winning.

          Always trying to find a way to get some advantage.

          Goodness gracious! Who ever heard of a sports team looking to gain some advantage? What’s the world coming to?

          1. Wait till the new fuel line pressure rules come into play. one team it seems has been cheating with the pressures in the fuel line the results being a lot more hp I’ll give you a hint which 2drivers had wrong fuel reading in aus gp thinking they were low when not. Might be hope for a good season yet

          2. Come on, Red Bull were consistently breaching the rules with their flexible bodywork at higher energy inputs, along with all the dubious engine mapping stuff. The problem was FIA’s testing couldn’t catch the flexing at least. It was a constant cat and mouse.

            Mercedes have simply done a better job clearly within the rules. Rule changes that Red Bull’s own engine designers pushed for. So really, time to accept defeat graciously and work harder, or leave the sport in an ungracious tantrum.

        6. “Breaching the rules”? FIA doesn’t react to teams breaching the rules by changing them which I’m sure you know so it’s difficult to understand why you would put forward such an argument.

      2. How can you agree.

        The first item on that list, double diffusers were banned (FIA decision Fen 2010) for the following season before RBR won any of their 4 wins, it was not a RBR idea that goes item to Ross Brawn and his team, so he cannot claim that as a reason they were better than the rest and had to be pegged back for it.

        And for all the other items they and every body else knew the were pushing the envelope too hard.

        He’s just a whinger and should be ignored. In fact the press should stop interviewing him until he has something sensible to say. Because virtually everything he has said publicly for the last year has been all about how RBR has failed and it’s not their fault.

        1. @w-k, in fact Red Bull were one of the first teams to launch a formal protest against the double diffusers, mainly because they knew they had the fastest non double diffuser car on track and wanted to gain a competitive advantage by having it banned.

    7. A lot of people are forgetting just how dominant Red Bull were in the 2nd half of 2013. Vettel overtook Hamilton easily in the opening laps of Spa and was pulling away at a rate of 1.5 seconds/lap before Rocky begged him to slow down. In Singapore Vettel pulled a 6 second advantage on Rosberg in about 3 laps, before he once again slowed down dramatically after his gap was comfortable. Then he proceeded to pull out 30 seconds on Rosberg in about 15 laps after the safety car bunched up the field and he had to make his strategy work. In Japan, Grosjean had an epic start and was driving a brilliant race, but was simply overpowed by Red Bull in the end. In India, Vettel was about 30 seconds ahead of the field and pulling away at 1 second/lap before Webber (his only competition that race) retired, and his pace suddenly dropped out of conservatism. In Abu Dhabi, Vettel’s pace simply destroyed the field when he pulled 30 seconds on everyone in about 20 laps, then as usual, he slowed down a lot when the race was in the bag. In Brazil, Webber had a bad qualifying session and two terrible pit stops, yet easily beat Alonso in the 2nd fastest car (and Alonso is a much better driver than Webber).

      The RB9 post-summer break was almost as dominant as the W05 was. Difference? There wasn’t any competition between the teammates either. The second half of 2013 was hands-down the most boring time I’ve ever observed in the sport, and as I’ve gone through both 2002 and 2004, that is quite an achievement.

      1. I think the best chance to stop merc is with ferrari. They have the resources to make a good car and engine and unlike red bull the ferrari of ’15 is much better car and also has better engine both in terms of reliability and power. It is practically impossible to happen without major rule change. Merc is just so far ahead. The good thing is the merc allows lewis and nico to race. When ross brawn was a merc he instantly jumped into the radio whenever their cars were within seeing distance of each others. Same with rbr and their poor management of on-track events. Merc is overpowered but things could be far worse if merc had chosen to not let them race.

      2. A lot of people are forgetting just how dominant Red Bull were in the 2nd half of 2013.

        A lot of people are pretending that how dominant Red Bull were in the second half of 2013 is how dominant they were from March 2010 onwards. And they’re also pretending not to know that they were only that dominant in the second half of 2013 because they aggressively developed their 2013 car while all the other teams gave up on the season and switched focus to 2014.

        The RB9 post-summer break was almost as dominant as the W05 was. Difference?

        The most significant difference is that the W05 was an incredibly dominant car all season long, while the RB9 was only one AFTER the season was already effectively over. From Australia to Hungary 2013 saw a variety of different cars winning races and taking poles. It was a much more competitive and entertaining season than 2014.

        1. 2013 was more entertaining than 2014? I’d strongly beg to differ. The racing was much more entertaining in 2014, we had various races such as Bahrain, Canada, and Hungary which all scored above 9.0 out of 10 on the rate to race polls.

          By contrast, not a single race in 2013 even reached a rating of 8:

          As for the championship battle, again 2014 is a clear winner. The WDC went down to the final race in Abu Dhabi, and would have done so regardless of the double-points rule. In 2013 the WDC was mathematically over by India, although realistically it was over in Belgium.

          We also had more variety on the podium in 2014 (six teams, ten drivers) than we did in 2013 (four teams, eight drivers).

          2014 was far from the best season in F1, but it beats 2013 any day of the week.

          1. @kingshark I think you can’t use the ratings as we all know people instantly vote lower if Vettel wins.

            1. @xtwl – I don’t think anyone will have a problem with Vettel winning in a Ferrari. RBR was a PR disaster zone for him. Come to think of it, RBR is still a PR disaster zone. Thank goodness they have Ricciardo to bring some “up”.

      3. +1 Agree entirely, the second half of 2013 was easily the worst since the Schumacher years in terms of tedium. The only thing that made it bearable was knowing 2014 would be different.

        The thing is, Mercedes have designed something actually rather good beyond F1: a more efficient and powerful engine unit. To equalize the field means what, then? Making them less efficient? Or just being patient and waiting for Ferrari, Honda, Renault etc. to achieve the same? The latter scenario makes much more sense and is more justifiable.

        1. +1!!!

          I was around in the V8 and V10 era and yes the sound was awesome and they were fast and everything. But F1 should be aware of the future and I really think this V6 Hybrid engine is a good idea! But like all the good ideas, it takes time!!!
          I’m sure when all the teams understand this kind of engine, they will work in the sound and everything else, because they know what the fans want. And if we see that in just a year they were almost 2 sec faster, imagine in 4 years?!
          Maybe change the time allowed for development but more changes in the rules and engine department will just be worst for the teams and F1, having to start all over again.

      4. Nathan (@il-ferrarista)
        20th March 2015, 13:44

        Count also in all of 2011 @Kingshark , their first (of two) *very* dominant season. Maybe they were even more dominant in 2013, …I don’t know all the statistics.

        1. Nathan (@il-ferrarista)
          20th March 2015, 13:47

          In other words; RB7 was also very dominant.

        2. @il-ferrarista
          the RB9 was slightly more dominant than the RB7 on Sunday (they won more races and scored more 1-2 finishes) but the RB7 was stronger on Saturday. Both cars were a clear class of the field, so was the RB6, but it was unreliable and the drivers made too many mistakes.

    8. ColdFly F1 (@)
      19th March 2015, 1:00

      @f1fanatic_co_uk tweet :)

    9. I can understand Horner’s issue but I think it is a bit misguided.

      When Red Bull had a distinct advantage (e.g. blown diffusers and off-throttle blowing) their advantage was – at least on some level – understood by other teams and the FIA. Therefore, the FIA could ban a specific practice which gave RB a distinct advantage, in the interest of parity.

      By contrast, it appears Mercedes’ current advantage is an aggregate of multiple factors – such as fuel efficiency, energy recovery, overall horsepower, engine packaging, aerodynamics, etc.

      Therefore, it may simply be unrealistic, or even impossible, for the FIA to level the playing field by banning a particular Mercedes practice, as they did previously with Red Bull. Furthermore, if Mercedes’ advantage is largely the result of years of engineering to create the current power unit, then any attempt to limit the advantage would require a redesign of the unit – something neither Mercedes nor their customers would support.

      In any case, as Prost observes, this is part of the game. RB won big with Renault and, understandably, they appear reluctant to slip down the order and fight in the upper mid-field. That said, all of F1’s top teams – Mercedes, McLaren, Ferrari, and Williams – have walked this road before. It might be time for Horner to quit talking and focus on moving his team forward.

      1. @pandaslap – Agreed. And Toto Wolff put it very succinctly.

      2. @pandaslap

        It might be time for Horner to quit talking and focus on moving his team forward.

        I hate it when people have this illusion of “if the team principal’s talking they’re not developing the car!”

        1. Do you hear Dennis/McLaren/Honda complaining like this, though? No, because they have some confidence (belief) that they can sooner or later produce a strong competitive car. Horner/Red Bull’s problem seems to be their own disbelief in Renault. Which suggests they don’t see ‘developing the car’ as a solution. Which would mean their only solution is to change the rules.

          And by the way C. Horner etc.: had Red Bull let their drivers race when they were dominant, I’m sure a lot more people would be willing to hear their complaints now. Mercedes seem to have sussed that out from the start: they knew they’d have a dominant car and that would increase pressure from other teams for rule changes etc. to reel them in, so they insisted early on that Hamilton and Rosberg would be allowed to race. Which by and large they have stuck to.

          1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
            19th March 2015, 14:23

            Daniel’s wins last year are going to cost Red Bull dearly – it wasn’t that he won and I love the guy. It was that he won brilliant races while passing Vettel whose car resembled Mark Webber’s and whose team was treating Seb like Mark. I was surprised to see Red Bull act the way they did.

            Seb left and when the driver with the better long-term results leaves, the team suffers. I believe drivers bring a lot more to the team than we assume they do. Some drivers may be brilliant but are not car constructive drivers and I believe Alonso might be in that category. I think Lewis and Vettel are car constructive drivers meaning they can help the team make a better performing car. Yes, the engineers have to work together, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH but unless the driver can perform in the car, the performance is irrelevant as we’ve seen with Renault’s HP improvements.

    10. “we never had the level of dominance we are seeing, nowhere near.”

      That was because Mark, as much as I love him, never pushed Vettel hard enough for him to make risks and go faster. In 2011 your team scored all but 1 pole, and easily had the best car. Had Mark been on the same level as Rosberg (in terms of equality in pace to his team mate), all those “mistakes” or problems Seb encountered, would’ve been picked up by Mark.

      But he was far off pace. So they were picked up by Alonso, Button or Hamilton. Yet Seb won 11 races, more than Hamilton, and scored more poles than Rosberg.

      And more to the point, he talks about adaptability. Well, Mercedes pushed hard to adapt better than anyone to the new set of rules. Red Bull did the same year after year between 2009 and 2013. So where’s the difference?

      1. @fer-no65
        Imagine if Rosberg was in the other Red Bull in races like Singapore and Abu Dhabi 2013, pushing Vettel from lights to flag. The gap between the winner and nearest non-Red Bull would not be 30-35 seconds, but well over a minute. Then absolutely no one would question the ridiculous dominance of the RB9 post-summer break.

        1. @kingshark Nobody, effectively nobody, is argueing the second half of 2013 was a dominant act by RB. NOBODY, but stop pretending they were like that since Melbourne 2009…

        2. Imagine Rosberg wasn´t faster than Webber, and Red Bull had won only 2 out of those 4 championships with Hamilton instead of Vettel ;)

          1. Seeing how Ricciardo destroyed Vettel, that scenario doesn’t seem very likely.

      2. RBR were dominant during their title winning years, one way or the other. But the other teams were not restricted in finding the same amount of gains as RBR. But here the restriction on PU is such that you can only improve so much while your competitor also does the same effectively nullifying the change.

        I am not asking for equalization, but for more allowance in spending on engine. Although I am surprised if they never discussed this during the formulation of the rules. It is as though each one thought they would build the best PU and didn’t care about what if it didn’t happen :)

        1. When Renault were lobbying for this engine formula, I recall them being very bullish on their prospects, touting the fact that small displacement turbocharged engines were somewhat of a specialty of theirs. But just it seems just as they underestimated the impact of KERS in the V8 era (Red Bull weren’t too keen on it either, ignoring it completely at first, running Renault’s half-assed system in ’11 before designing their own specific installation in ’12… then they took over that side development from RenaultSport after they got rid of their works team & quit developing it, IIRC) they did it again with the V6s. Remember at the beginning of last season, Horner said they had to have RBR techs helping RenaultSport get a handle on the MGU-K because they were completely in the weeds? It seems to me that Renault severely underestimated the impact of the hybrid side of things, while seemingly not doing the best job on the ICE either. Overconfidence? Maybe… maybe they both collectively thought Red Bull’s usually superior aerodynamics would give them the edge regardless. Either way, they seem to be at a standstill at best, or perhaps even gone backwards.

    11. If I was Horner, I’d be shouting at Renault and Red Bull employees to produce an engine+chassis capable of battling the Mercedes.

      Sort of… “Mercedes was able to build it in a cave! With a box of scraps!”

      Of course, he’s probably already doing that.

      1. and they have some kind of bald Tony Stark (with less of a playboy attitude.. well at least i can’t imagine Adrian Newey being like that)

    12. They should change their motto to ‘Red Bull gives you whinge’.

      1. @stigsemperfi – Excellent! I got some strange looks where I work from laughing so hard.

    13. Well at least we know now that Horner is the right amount of delusional to take over Bernie’s seat

    14. Many here were commenting on how Monisha had ‘flipped’ the team successfully getting Ericsson into picture along with Nasr as well as getting rid of Sutil, Guti. Fast forward to current times, they are baying for her head.

      As much as I agree Sauber were in the wrong to have sold more tickets for the two seats available, I applaud her for keeping the team alive. They have scored a healthy amount of points and might score more in the coming races. Maybe this year they will earn some cash to stay afloat rather than solely depending on sponsors.

      VDG settling for money puzzles me. If that is what he wanted, it could have been resolved much earlier unless Sauber didn’t offer him the deal earlier. This seems to be more complex than what is seen on the surface. But I hope Sauber are able to continue and get a healthy total of points this season to keep them going.

      1. @evered7 – Money didn’t seem to be what he wanted. But if you can’t get what you want, at least get your funds back to try and get a seat elsewhere! It seems like small compensation for a career already sullied, needlessly.
        Let’s hope this sort of situation has been flagged up for all players as “potentially painful for the team” so other drivers don’t have to suffer similar indignities.

      2. He paid a ton of money for probably his only option to race. Why would he want money not to race?

        He was put with his back to the wall by Kaltenborn. She would rather risk being put in jail and destroy the whole team rather than give the seat to vd Garde.

        Guess she was that desperate not to lose the Ericsson funding. Which demonstrates Sauber didn’t have the money to pay him back either. Would you accept the promise of a team fighting bankruptcy to pay you back several million? Ecclestone made that a viable option by giving his guarantees.

        So all in all it’s not surprising that in the end he was forced to settle for getting the money back.

    15. A very curious point about Horner in this article is his opinion about how F1 became more complicated with this new generation of cars:

      “…Maybe these things are just too complicated. We’ve made life complicated and off the back of that is cost and off the back of that is why teams are in trouble – Manor couldn’t even start their car. How right is that?…”

      So, this is the same man who leads a team that invested gazillions in a very “complicated” and flexible carbon fibre – and bargained a special deal with Ecclestone to take out more money from F1, showing he really don’t care about smaller teams.

      So, looks like every word that come out from Horner’s mouth is pure and plain hypocrisy!

      I really don’t care about them and I will be happy to see them finally leave F1 – and I hope to see that happen soon.

      1. At least Lewis was complimentary of Seb driving well & doing the best job, even saying he deserved his success.

        1. So was Vettel last season, and has been this season…

          Hamilton and Fernando made enough remarks of Newey and Vettel to allow Vettel to mention their car once or twice.

      2. ColdFly F1 (@)
        19th March 2015, 6:58

        It’s a bit different though, @aussierod

        Hamilton did not say that the rules had to change allowing other teams to catch-up with RBR. And that is exactly what Horner says. Neither is he threatening to quit like Dr Marko is.

        He just states that fans could get bored and both he and Rosberg are saying the same today (albeit half jokingly at the press conference).

      3. @aussierod You will see the amazing abilities of Hamilton supporters, who will turn any negative story / aspect about him into something so positive, that you will regret pointing it out in the first place..

    16. People are throwing this word “domination” around far too loosely. If Mercedes “domination” consisted of winning roughly half the races in a season, qualifying for pole by about two tenths of a second over their rivals, and defeating their rivals in the final race of the season, very few people would complain. In fact most would agree that this would be a competitive season and not a “dominant” one at all.

      The problem is that that stuff, which featured in the so-called “Red Bull domination”, is not what we’re seeing with Mercedes. We’re got one car which, assuming it does not break down, wins every race of the season by a huge margin.

      1. Just compare how many different teams/drivers won races during the Redbull domination period versus the Mercedes domination. Only two teams won race last year, two out of 11. This time ??

    17. So now Mr. Horner is worried about Honda and Manor situation, it’s funny, i don’t remember when he talked about Cosworth engines when Williams, HRT and Marussia used it. Or when these same teams failed to have an exhaust blown diffuser because of this same engine, back in the days RB was the blown diffuser king, which clearly was determinant to have a proper competitive car back then…. How right is that?

    18. GB (@bgp001ruled)
      19th March 2015, 5:26

      “If Mateschitz throws a tantrum and walks away now, he risks leaving a feeling that his involvement in F1 was only ever about cold commercial calculation.”
      isnt this exactly what haas wants to do? he said it in one of his first interviews: he is entering F1 to make his brand known to the world…

      1. @bgp001ruled I don’t remember correctly, but didn’t Mercedes threaten to leave F1, if V6 turbos were not introduced quickly..

        1. That was Renault. Although they were calling for a 4 cylinder inline turbo engine.

    19. I don’t know what strikes me most Horner his comments, because I do find them a bit premature after one race, or how hypocrite a lot of people are now these comments are coming from there ‘hated’ RB instead of their loved Ferrari/Mercedes/Mclaren who all have had their fair share of complaining during the previous season.

      1. Red Bull are remarkably unpopular @xtwl. Why is that though?

        One might have thought a fun, music-playing team with all that admirable success would be super popular, like Ferrari were when they were dominant.

        1. @lockup I have no problem with anyone not liking a team/driver/person. But sheer fanaticism to the point where you talk bad about drivers/teams/people for actions whilst you defend/praise your favorite for doing the same is a bridge to far for me.

          1. Well is it the same @xtwl ? I can’t think of another TP brazenly calling for rule changes like this.

            Other teams have called for the rules to be enforced, like when Red Bull were relying on the FIA’s own test table to pass the floor flex test, but even then it was mostly behind closed doors.

            And we can all see that RBR chose Renault for their engine supplier and now Ferrari have made a massive step, with tokens in hand, demonstrating that it’s not about the rules at all but engineering excellence, as it should be. Even Renault don’t want to change the engine regs.

            So Horner just looks very unsporting, not entirely honest, and he’s being criticised for it. I think the horse is very much before the cart in this case.

            1. @lockup

              I can’t think of another TP brazenly calling for rule changes like this.

              I can:

              Ferrari has “run out of patience” with F1 rules

            2. Lol @keithcollantine I’d forgotten Monte already :)

              Though now you mention it Arrivabene has been praised for his new and opposite approach, leaving Horner looking a bit on his lonesome in the win-by-rule-fixing arena.

          2. @xtwl – Fair point. Some people need to realise that regardless of who you support or who you dislike, everyone in F1 is roughly the same. They all want what is best for their team and that usually is at odds with regards to what is best for the sport.

            I can guarantee that if the Mercedes PU was rubbish and Renault was blowing the field away, Toto would be complaining and Horner would be saying “everyone always complains when we win!” If Ferrari were dominant, Toto and Horner would be complaining….

    20. Well … Horner was always a whiner, so I don’t know what the outrage is all about.

      Heres, some food for thought –

      Personally, I think there should be performance limitations set by the FIA – Peak output of PU.. Chassis rulebooks should be clarified to limit misinterpretation.. Suspension, brakes and other racing parts innovation should also be clearly defined.. etc.

      The amount of loopholes should be reduced over time, and teams should be closer to being standarised, similar to GP2. All the rich team will oppose this, but at least they can use their money and heritage in attracting the best drivers, which should be the differentiating factor in racing. All the fans will be happier with the sport since the best driver is usually winning, and the legacy teams in f1 should eventually be happy cause they would be in the title hunt every year. Winning and losing is more up to their operational efficiency, strategy and skill rather than engineering genius and rulebook interpretation

      A lot of people would say that this is not essentially ‘Formula 1’ , but lets face it, it might be a more interesting sport

      1. There’s already a GP2 and a WSR, and they’re on tv. There’s no point adding a third spec series. F1 is a prototype series, that’s fundamental.

        We got great coverage of a lot of racing in Oz. We mainly need better info like GPS and ERS. For example I could see Lewis with a lower top speed in S1 for a lot of early laps, coasting, saving fuel, and in the end that foiled Rosberg, but the Sky commentary missed it. They routinely miss ERS tactics. This is the way forward. The cars are fine.

        1. There’s already a GP2 and a WSR, and they’re on tv.

          Yes, they are. Unfortunately, they don’t have the F1 brand to capture that sort of viewership. You cannot deny that GP2 actually makes for more interesting racing than Formula 1

          1. @todfod I’d say that a key part of the F1 brand is the engineering competition. The fact that the GP2 and WSR teams are running the same car IS great for the racing, I totally agree, but it does cost that cachet of being the most clever. Winning there is a lesser achievement, and we notice.

            1. @lockup – but a major part of the problem is that engineering competition is rendered pointless if you’re stuck with an engine that doesn’t work. Red Bull can spend whatever they want on aero but if the engine blows up on the way to the grid, it’s pointless.

              I would be 100% against the cars all being the same but I fail to see the benefit of having such disparity between components some teams have no control over.

            2. But I feel RBR do have control @petebaldwin. They chose to switch to Renault from Ferrari when Newey joined.

              Now Renault have screwed up, like any other supplier could. And they’re going to recover a LOT even by Sepang.

              Ferrari have shown the token thing has been wildly exaggerated. Some observers reckoned they were not far off Merc for sheer power.

              So it’s not about the rules or complexity or any of Horner’s other excuses. It’s F1 engineering. Renault themselves want to stay with it, credit to them.

              At the end of the day they all have 100kg/hr to burn, 100kgs for the race and any number of common factors like bores and angles and CoG and KJoules. It’s a very level playing field, really. I think Renault will get there, and FIA will clearly allow pretty much anything under the reliability/economy card, on top of the tokens Renault still have.

          2. You cannot deny that GP2 actually makes for more interesting racing than Formula 1

            GP2 USED to have better racing than F1.

            However with the Dumb Racing System this year the racing in GP2 is going to be just as bad as F1 because its going to be full of boringly easy highway passing & much less of the great competitive wheel to wheel racing & competitive/exciting overtaking whihc we have come to know & love in GP2 :(

            1. It’s such a huge shame. There was some great racing over the last few years including some amazing defensive drives but this won’t be possible anymore. If someone is faster than you, there is nothing you can do to stop them.

    21. In almost every other major sport there is a mechanism in place where those who finish last have first crack at improving themselves, ie. through a draft of new players, etc. F1 might want to consider what could be done or how this could be achieved. For example more tokens to Renault and Honda, less to Ferrari and fewest to Mercedes in a bid to create a more equal playing field. I mean Mercedes would still be mopping up this year but the others would be closer and feel they may have a chance, eventually. As it stands the season is over for the Renault teams and for Honda too. They will be making up the numbers. Ferrari will challenge Williams for second and every now and then one of the other Mercedes and/or Ferrari teams will nip in there. Done. Right or wrong Red Bull have a point. Also, barring an unforeseen turn of events Hamilton may even clinch the title before the end of the summer. Not much optimism for 2015.

      1. American sport has that mechanism but European sport rarely does. If you win the Premiership, you get millions in TV revenue, sponsorship revenue and Champions League revenue and despite this, they ALSO get paid the largest amount in regards to prize money. The teams that finish at the bottom get relegated, lose sponsorship money, lose gate receipts AND get paid less by the Premier League.

        I like the token idea though. 10 tokens for the winning engine manufacturer, 20 for 2nd, 30 for 3rd and 40 for 4th.

        Of course for anything to happen in F1, the teams would have to agree and because they all only care about what is best for themselves, that idea is already dead in the water.

    22. Red Bull, take your ball and go home.

    23. Best COTD…….Ever!

    24. @KeithCollantine Come to think of it, I prefer a round-up and a COTD to such a statement :D Thank you!

    25. OK lets get one thing straight – it is hypocritical to complain about other cars dominating the sport when you are Red Bull and have dominated the sport for half a decade. For me, it’s not how much you dominate by – it’s how long you dominate for and Mercedes still have a long way to go to catch RBR up there!

      Having said that – I actually feel a bit sorry for Red Bull and Horner. He’s right that over the last few years, Red Bull’s domination has always been challenged by other teams. If nothing else, Red Bull hadn’t done anything on their car that another team couldn’t do. There was nothing stopping other teams from copying them (if they could figure out what was going on). Their success was largely down to Adrian Newey’s brilliant cars. A Red Bull employee designing a Red Bull car.

      With the new V6s, Red Bull are screwed. Ferrari and Mercedes won’t supply them so they are stuck with Renault or taking a chance on a new supplier which as you ask McLaren, doesn’t guarantee success! With no reason to believe the Renault will be able to catch up to the Mercedes, what can Red Bull do? It’s largely out of their hands….

    26. Horner talks utter rubbish. 2011 AusGP Red Bull were 22 seconds ahead of their nearest rival and likewise in many other races over 4 years. And yet, rather than showing class like Williams when things go away, they cry and moan like little children.

    27. Yes, it is kinda tiring hearing about how complicated these new power-trains are.
      We saw the previous aero-dominated formula, complicated aero stuffs weren’t going to attract new manufacturers or keep the current ones.

    28. I do not really think that it is a bad thing that Red Bull is in F1 because of marketing. After all, I am sure that its people (Horner, Newey, drivers, mechanics) are as passionate about the sport as their competitors. Red Bull has certainly done a lot for F1 – it turned Jaguar Racing into a top team, it raised Vettel and Ricciardo, it brought back the Austrian GP. However, I also believe that Red Bull should leave the sport if it does not suit the company’s needs anymore.

      Teams come and go, F1 has always been like that and there is nothing bad about it. The problem is that F1 needs cars on the grid and we are not sure if RBR and Toro Rosso (or Sauber and Manor) would be able to find buyers. Instead of artificially balancing the performance and giving the big guys millions of dollars every year just because they are awesome, FIA and FOM should establish a system that would be working with or without Red Bull, Ferrari and Mercedes and turn F1 into a sport that would make manufacturers, multinational corporations and privateers knock at its door all the time.

    29. I like that Horner guy. Always good for a laugh.

    30. I think Horner is right on some points and hypocritical on others. He is right that they had F1 trying to curb their dominance. And that has happened before in F1, so RBR was not uniquely being picked on…not saying Horner is suggesting that though. But my point is the curbing of their dominance was incremental such that they still managed 4 Championships in a row. For Horner to be complaining already does indeed seem hypocritical. We had four great years…we don’t think Merc should have more than two.

      Sure RBR weren’t always hand over fist dominant, but sometimes they were, and one can reasonably ask how many times SV was so in control he backed things down and still won easily but not nearly by the margin he could have. I get the impression that while Merc have that advantage too, of dialing it down because it is not necessary to win by half a minute, the unique thing here is that the Merc drivers can likely afford to do that less because you can often throw a blanket over them pace wise. Domination still exists when it is the same team or driver winning all the time, no matter the margin of victory.

      @mazdachris and a few us had a good conversation about this…one of his main points being similar to what Horner is saying…perhaps things are just too complicated right now for F1’s own good. Perhaps. Problem is, it hasn’t been too complicated for Mercedes, and it seems like at least Ferrari are getting on top of it too. I’m sure Williams is thrilled with their recent upsurge in the standings…you get my point.

      Interestingly this article citing quotes from Horner doesn’t have him saying the homologation has them locked into subservience for the next 5 years, doesn’t have him saying their hands are tied and that is the difference to when they dominated. His points are it is too complicated and Merc is too dominant. So yes that does sound a bit whiny.

      But have no fear Mr. Horner. Mercedes is inevitably going to have their wings clipped at some point because that is the F1 way even without your complaints. But why shouldn’t it be incremental and over this and the following two years, to be fair?

      Meantime, do as all other teams have been told to do in the past when they were up against MS/Ferrari and SV/RBR…it’s up to you to compete. You say you can’t compete because your hands are tied with homologation? I say there have been opportunities and will continue to be opportunities to compete, built into this homologation concept, and so far you and Renault have not done a good enough job capitalizing on those opportunities. You are not competing, and that is not Mercedes’ fault. But the rules aren’t fair and are too restrictive? As usual, they’re the same for everyone. Merc didn’t have some special set of exclusive rules such that they have locked in supreme dominance, and F1 only puts up with such dominance for so long even in the case of MS/Ferrari when F1 themselves set everything up for them to end the Ferrari WDC drought. In that case F1 eventually curbed even the very beast they themselves created but only after many years of Ferrari actually getting to shape the very rules to their advantage.

      Fear not Mr. Horner…nothing lasts forever.

    31. Wow, if they can’t take the bad with the good then Red Bull are not real racers nor do they hold racing dear to their hearts. After all that success… bailing on us. Let em go. Obviously he was never in it for the racing anyways.

    32. Sauber has announced Singapore Airlines as its Official Airline Partner. Coming up next, Sauber announces BA as Official Airline Partner.

      — F1 Fanatic (@f1fanatic_co_uk) March 18, 2015

      Independent and objective blog. Yes, sure….I dont see jokes about teams electrocuting its drivers, or jokes with the new Mc Laren sponsor….

    33. I think the McLaren will improve a lot of in the second half of this season.

      1. I do too. Perhaps even before that. Nobody is likely to touch Merc this year anyway, and of course Mac will want to, and be trying to, place as high as they can. But they needn’t panic, needn’t knee-jerk anything. They have what they have and will work it. Nothing else TO do. Work in progress. A blast to observe from our end.

      2. @saubers1 I do too, but what year…

    34. Losing Red Bull would be a pity but not a disaster. However such statement from the ownership is shameful. Ferrari, Williams and McLaren have gone through decades with no wins and never gave up. They made noise, complained, yell and screamed, cheated, played politics, fired and hired people, lied in front of evidence, made up rules etc etc but never missed a race. Luca, Ron and Frank made the history of F1 in good and bad. If Red Bull thinks that they can scare F1 by making such a childish, hilarious statement, they are very wrong. We have lived without them for 50 years and we had a lot of fun. They were never missed when they were not there, they will be soon forgotten if they go, like the most beautiful of the girlfriends. Goodbye sweetheart, we’ll find another one. Losing with grace is not easy and the attitude comes with years of pain and frustration. Look at Dennis after the bad race in Australia: he was still finding the good things in the weekend. Class, respect. So mr taurine, i would expect you to apologise to everyone involved, fans, drivers, constructors, sponsors, shareholders, family and friends… otherwise, please go and don’t come back

    Comments are closed.