Quote:
Originally Posted by wnut
So in other words they have overruled the original agreement and ensured that RBR cannot be fully competitive with a works entry - just as Ron Dennis spelled out apparently.
|
I am confused. Either scenario (2016 only engines in 2016 or combo of 2015 and 2016 engines in 2016) would have not ensured anything with respect to RBR. In both scenarios it is the engine manufactures who are saying "no" to RBR having an identical spec not the rules. I believe the hangup with RBR is not with the mechanical spec, but the software spec which is not part of the engine homologation. RBR didn't want to have a current mechanical spec, but then be hobbled by customer software (and associated parameters that hobble performance).
And maybe I don't get it, but that Pitpass article doesn't make an sense to me when it says that the initial 2016 rules (customers get same mechanical spec as manufactures) would push RBR away. If anything that is in their favor even if it doesn't solve the software issue? With the proposed revision to allow 2015 engines, that just puts that back on the table. Could that open the door for Mercedes to provide RBR a 2015 engine if RBR can't work a fresh deal with Renault and a 2015 Ferrari is not good enough for them?
The Autosport article...
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121328
Seems to be more up-to-date as it talks about they are talking about adjustments to the 2016 rules which would allow manufactures to give customers the year old mechanical spec. This may be designed to help STR and also note that is "allows", but does not "require" so to put a positive spin on things it allows more flexibility.
On a positive note, the additional tokens is a good thing
Now my personal opinion is that they still should require the same spec for all (including software), but we are nowhere close to that happening (unfortunately).
Richard