Horner wants to warm things up


Exulted Lord High Moderator of the Apex
Staff Member
Valued Member
Simply type into the search box on the top right of your screen the word "unfreeze" and see the last time this appeared on CTA.

Or read this article from 2010 from Autosport http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/84119

Then ask yourself the following question, why after four seasons of winning everything going between 2010 and 2013 has this suddenly become an issue for Red Bull ??

In recent articles he has dismissed the plight of smaller teams who have faced financial hard times while at the same time threatening to tear up the engine regulations which he accepts would increase costs. A fact he says is ridiculous. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/29993990, and there was me thinking that costs weren't a problem for Red Bull.

Here's another example of Christian Horner's refusal to change things when Red Bull are on top:

The quotes below are taken from Adam Parr's book "The art of war" and describe a meeting that took place with FOTA members under the chairmanship of Martin Whitmarsh in late 2010 or early 2011 (the precise date is not quoted in the book)

"Since the Singapore agreement (resource restrictions) had been signed earlier in 2010 FOTA's secretary general Simone Perillo, had been putting together a more detailed agreement. The Red Bull Teams were blocking progress but we had reached a point where the other 10 teams were ready to sign up and let Red Bull do what they would. This meeting was crucial, FOTA needed to present the Red Bull Teams with an ultimatum, Sign up or everyone else will proceed without you"

Parr then goes on to explain that at the meeting, Martin Whitmarsh presents an entirely new set of principles on cost control which Whitmarsh presented to the teams as FOTA Chairman.

Parr says "I couldn't believe what I was hearing, as far as I could tell, these ideas had not been discussed with anyone other than Christian Horner. Suddenly instead of two teams being in the corner, the rest of us were now in a position where any objection would appear as if we were causing trouble"

Quoted from The Art of War Five years in Formula One by Adam Parr - Published by Adam Parr 2012

What this highlights is the continuing problem of self interest in F1 destroying any chance of an agreement between teams to further the sport.

How can any progress be found when a team at the top pulls the ladder up and then begs for it to be lowered again when they fall.
Based on your statements, I would put the blame fairly and squarely at Whitmarsh's door for that particular incident.

After agreeing a way forward with the rest of the teams, he then stabbed them in the back and did what Horner told him to do.

As far as the main discussion point is concerned, this is nothing new with Red Bull and Horner.
They got away with murder over the last few years, including the infamous bendy front wing.

Now that they are in the same position the rest of the teams found themselves in for the last few seasons, suddenly they want to change things.

Tough ****ing shit!

Self interest has always been F1's problem and the reason why Ecclestone became so powerful.
They only have themselves to blame.
Parr could still have voted against the Whitmarsh proposal. It was only two against nine!

As far as Horner goes, he's hypocritical and inconsistent - just like Enzo, Ron, Frank and the rest when it suits them. Voluntary agreements on spending will not work; many successful restrictions have been imposed by the FIA, usually with the agreement of the majority of the teams, and it may be time for Todt and co. to impose some in spite of the objections of some teams.

Instinctively I'm in favour of letting teams spend as much as they like. The top teams are consistently inefficient in this regard, luckily. But in this case, of course, by unfreezing the engines, supply bills could potentially rise for whatever customers Renault has left next season.

Rather than trying to get 9, 10 or 11 teams to agree, why not get the three engine manufacturers to specify a maximum price for a customer engine supply for a season (since the regulations now enshrine the number of units required, give or take a couple of spares)? Then any development has to be paid for by the manufacturer themselves, or teams voluntarily agreeing to fund it.
Brogan I agree with you re: Whitmarsh, as I started typing it what started off as a criticism of Christian "sing when you're winning" Horner became a much broader issue.

Galahad according to the book Parr did vote against the proposals however the FOTA constitution allowed for Majority voting and it went 10 to 2 in favor of adopting the voluntary restrictions agreement. In the process the teams would not back Williams taking the chair of FOTA and instead Whitmarsh "agreed" to stay on for another year. (which became two).

I agree with you on the funding of engines. If you want to make an engine for F1 you fund it and then sell it a fixed price. Exactly as happened with the DFV, Cosworth designed it, Ford funded it and they sold them by the unit. Different teams made different arrangements to have their engines serviced and re-built. Some went right back to Cosworth others to smaller companies such as Hart engineering.
The problem with Horner and every other Formula One CEO, Chairman or Team Manager, for some reason they all see the business side of the sport as a zero sum game. No prizes for guessing who likes to keep that appearance up. By this I mean that they all believe is someone asks for more of something then they are going to get less so the net result is that the total remains the same but the share is different.

Take finance, would giving Marussia more money have affected Red Bull in terms of the Championship? Of course not. Marussia had a half decent engine, a tidy chassis and a pretty quick driver. What they really needed was more cash to spend on R and D to enable them to keep up with developments on the car and close the gap to the midfield throughout the season. Would that have effected Team Horner? Nope. But Horner thinks thanks to the Zero Sum Game principle that more for Marussia means less money available in the pot, less in the pot means less for Red Bull and his job is to protect Red Bulls interests.

On the flip side of the coin, the Renault engine is no where near the pace of the Mercedes engine. Unfreeze the engine developments scream Horner, Ferrari and uncle Tom Cobley and all. No way says Toto Wolff, if they get that we may lose our advantage and we are back to that Zero Sum Game idea again.

The big question is, how does that mindset get changed? F1 has done incredibly well to get through the global financial crisis more or less in one piece. That can't go on forever. The sources of income to the sport for the greater part recently have been coming from wealthy backers funding races that mostly run at a loss and through sponsorship deals. The paying public are not showing up to races. The viewing figures are down in large markets across the globe and even the media is losing interest.
Forget that. I'd be happy if Red Bull doesn't win a championship for the next decade. I have full confidence McLaren-Honda will provide some competition to Mercedes. and even if they don't this Rosberg-Hamilton rivalry is great.
I think this simply demonstrates what I've maintained for a long time, the teams can't run F1. Bernie might not be the most popular person on this forum but if it weren't for his stewardship and management of all the egos involved Grand Prix racing would have disappeared a long, long time ago.
While I disagree with your last statement, Grand Prix racing would have found away, I completely agree with the first part of it. The teams shouldn't be anywhere near the running of the sport.
Top Bottom