Red Bull's quit threats are empty and unfair

Another year; another warning from Red Bull it could withdraw from Formula 1.

To be fair, the latest remarks, made by the energy drink's motorsport consultant Helmut Marko - a doctor of law, no less - was implied rather than stated outright, but the implication was clear: do as we demand, or we could walk away from F1.

As is generally the case when Red Bull makes such threats, the latest warning centres around the need for cheap, noisy engines to be made available by 2021 at the latest.

It emerged when Marko was posed this question by the official F1 website: "An engine customer will always depend on his supplier - you have probably learned that the hard way in the last four years. Is there any ambition from your side to change that situation one day?"

Marko's answer: "Of course - and not 'one day'. The latest must be 2021 that an independent engine supplier comes into F1.

"This is more than necessary - and the engine has to be simple, noisy and on the cost side below 10 million. We are talking about a much less sophisticated engine to what we have now - a simple racing engine.

"There are enough companies around that could supply. So, we expect from the new owners together with the FIA to find a solution at the latest by the end of this season. If that doesn't happen our stay in F1 is not secured."

Note the words "latest", "must be", "has", "more than", "expect", "doesn't happen", and "not secured" - hardly soft terms.

The last time the company threatened to exit F1 over engines was in 2015, at the height of Renault's problems. Marko, Red Bull Racing boss Christian Horner, his Toro Rosso counterpart Franz Tost and Mateschitz himself told all and sundry they were serious about departing unless given access to a more competitive engine - in the process treating Renault abominably - only to discover all alternatives were closed to them.

Indeed, team principals across the paddock expressed horror at Red Bull's badmouthing of Renault, with one suggesting it would be a miracle if it ever again successfully wooed an engine partner. At that time the Volkswagen Group was touted as a possible Red Bull partner with its Audi brand - but any thoughts of F1 surely went out the window in the wake of the diesel scandal.

One wonders, though, whether VW was not frightened off by Red Bull's belligerence, dieselgate notwithstanding.

At the time this columnist analysed the options facing Red Bull and Renault - and in the end Red Bull Racing managed to persuade Renault to continue supplying it, although Toro Rosso was forced to accept year-old Ferrari engines in 2016 before Renault relented from this year. In the process RBR lost its Infiniti sponsorship deal, and turned to TAG Heuer for an engine-badging deal.

By contrast, STR was left to fund its own bills for engines that were not updated during the season - a situation that not only cost the team at least one place in the constructors' classification, but a pretty wad of cash, for that placing was worth in the vicinity of $6million (£4m).

Amusingly, though, once the Renault/Ferrari deals were inked for 2016, Mateschitz denied ever having contemplated exiting F1 over the engine debacle, telling reporters: "Actually, I never thought of it.

"Of course there were circumstances that could have led us to take that route, for example obviously if we did not have a power unit supply."

Which, of course, his teams had all along, just not the more competitive Mercedes units. As an aside, imagine the pickle Red Bull and/or Toro Rosso would have found themselves in had Ron Dennis, then Group CEO of McLaren, not vetoed Horner's overtures to Honda; imagine the hullabaloo emanating from Salzburg after each grand prix run outside the points. At least Renault enabled Red Bull to win five grands prix since 2014.

Should we, therefore, treat Marko's threats (or warnings) seriously? Equally, do they stack up in the cold light of technical, sporting and economic reality?

There are four parts to his answer to that question: independent supply, noise, technical simplicity and cost. Taking the last one first, the agreement struck between engine suppliers and the FIA a year ago was that a two-car annual supply of complete power units should be made available to teams for €18m (£16m). That, remember, buys arguably the most exquisite and efficient engines ever to run in public in any form of motorsport.

Marko argues that the price should be "below 10million" - a delta of eight million in whatever currency. Given that he is Austrian and the FIA fixed the price in Euro, let us assume Marko propagates the cost to teams of €10m - which, given current exchange rates, computes to roughly values within 15% or so of Euro levels when quoted in sterling or dollars.

Consider Red Bull's 2016 budget: as outlined here, a feature complied with the co-operation of the team and official Companies House records, the team's income was £220m - or €257m at present rates. €8m represents 3% of that income for engines that represent the combined efforts of over 300 highly qualified, committed engineers and technicians.

Now consider that Red Bull's chief technical officer Adrian Newey is reputed to be earning at least £10m (€11.7m) per year - Ferrari insiders are adamant he turned down offers of double that to move to Maranello - and that the team's two drivers are on combined wages of around £10m. Is it not perverse that Marko jibs at €18m for two-car annual engine supplies, yet remunerates three staffers to that level?

Marko would do well to cast his mind back to 2005, when Red Bull first entered F1 as a team owner, having purchased Jaguar Racing. At the time an annual supply of engines came in at over $20m, yet Red Bull willingly bought into F1. As Alain Prost relates from his time as an F1 team owner, at the turn of the millennium engine costs were even higher - he recalls bills of $34m (due upfront) when Prost GP's total 2001 budget was $60m.

What, though, would Red Bull do with its €8m saving, were it to transpire? Here's betting the money would go straight into aerodynamic development, that the team's budget would not reduce. Of course, Red Bull could argue it would reduce its budget accordingly, but records show that its budgets increased steadily over the past eight years, and it was also first to withdraw from F1's resource restriction agreement.

Only with concerted efforts have engine costs reduced to present levels despite the inherent complexity of hybrid units. To lay the blame for current engines - if it should at all be apportioned, for the power units serve their purpose admirably - at the feet of the FIA is equally disingenuous, for the formula was voted through by the Formula 1 Commission, on which Red Bull's teams occupied two seats.

As for the sound factor: for every complainant, there is a fan of quieter F1, but, as in every walk of life, the squeakiest wheel gets heard first. While noise levels could certainly be increased, there is no doubt that incessant (and excessive) noise is increasingly being viewed as pollution, and a major switch-off for millennials - who will comprise the bulk of the next generation of F1 fans.

Marko demands that an independent engine supplier enter F1 by 2021. Why? Red Bull ran on Cosworth power in 2005 before hurriedly switching to Ferrari units and then to Renault when it became clear that not even Maranello's engine was cutting the mustard. Spot that pattern?

Equally, when Mateschitz acquired Minardi - now Toro Rosso - in 2006, the team was stuck with Cosworth units, which it soon swapped for Red Bull's Ferrari cast-offs (that pattern again). At no stage was either team competitive with independent units.

History relates that the last victory by an 'independent' - i.e. an engine without manufacturer backing - fell before the turn of the century, or even well before that, dependent upon your definition of the word.

When, at the end of March, the FIA issued open invitations to an exploratory engine regulation meeting to discuss the post-2020 landscape, just one independent engineer attended - Mario Illien, who until a year ago acted as a consultant to Red Bull on Renault engine matters. Marko may like to wonder why there was little interest among independents given that attendance was open and free. All the other parties present were manufacturers.

His expectation is that independent suppliers should be prepared to supply two-car teams for "10million" - so why not establish an in-house engine operation, as Red Bull contemplated doing in 2014? Against this background, he may like to explain why Red Bull had no qualms about purchasing a team, yet refuses to countenance building an own engine for its two teams.

The stock reply is, "We are a race team, not a technology company," yet Red Bull Technologies was established to provide technological support to both teams - and is now heavily involved in the Aston Martin/Red Bull hypercar project and support services for Britain's America's Cup entry. Supercars and super yachts, yes; F1 engines for in-house teams, no... obviously it's easier to throw stones left, right, centre.

Finally, the complexity of F1's engines: technology is as much a part of F1's DNA as driving skill, and has been so since grand prix racing started - approximately 100 years before Red Bull's drinks first hit the shelves.

Marko raced F1 BRM V12s (pictured above) in the seventies, and won Le Mans with technologically the most-advanced racecar of the seventies - the fearsome Flat-12 Porsche 917, as immortalised by Steve McQueen.

Yet, simply because Red Bull is no purveyor of engine technology - unlike Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault - he wishes to see F1's power units dumbed down simply to save 3% of his primary team's budget. Money that will likely be spent elsewhere on the car (or on wage increases to the favoured few).

Red Bull's constant threats to exit F1 unless it bends unto Mateschitz's will - with Marko and Horner doing his biding - do the brand, team, employees, and, above all, F1, no favours at all.

If Red Bull is dissatisfied with the way the championship has evolved despite the company having twice the regulatory input of other teams, then its executives face a simple choice: execute their quit threats, then see if fans really care.