Could we ever see a Red Bull Racing team in MotoGP?

motortom said:

Today's little power outage gave me some time to write up something I've been thinking about for a while. Basically, will the almighty marketing monster of Red Bull ever spread to two-wheeled racing to the same extent as it has in F1. Of course they're a major sponsor, but they've actually designed and built their own championship winning car - why not do the same with the bikes? I know the history behind RB's founding is quite complex, originating somewhere in the deep dark days of Jordan, but I still think it's pretty interesting to look at how a company that makes energy drinks has taken over the motoring world (almost

).



What do we think? Not enough money in MotoGP to warrant them taking on the current manufacturers? Or will they be content to do what Repsol have with Honda and essentially become the main backing of a factory team rather than try and compete from scratch?



Would it even be a good thing to introduce another manufacturer?



My thoughts/pics from Red Bull Speed Jam in Cardiff a few weeks ago:



http://whoneedsfourw...to-moto-gp.html

Click to expand...

Yes and no, they have built a chassis and have designed body work, but they have not built their own engine. That's when you can truly say, they built a championship machine. At this time, the only F1 team who builds chassis body and engine in house is Ferrari. It is rumored that McLaren may try an in house engine when their contract with Mercedes is up, but we will see.If we did get a RBR GP team, would they build their own engine, or try and lease.

Interesting read.





(btw, change to the background opacity really helped.)

motortom said:

Today's little power outage gave me some time to write up something I've been thinking about for a while. Basically, will the almighty marketing monster of Red Bull ever spread to two-wheeled racing to the same extent as it has in F1. Of course they're a major sponsor, but they've actually designed and built their own championship winning car - why not do the same with the bikes? I know the history behind RB's founding is quite complex, originating somewhere in the deep dark days of Jordan, but I still think it's pretty interesting to look at how a company that makes energy drinks has taken over the motoring world (almost

).



What do we think? Not enough money in MotoGP to warrant them taking on the current manufacturers? Or will they be content to do what Repsol have with Honda and essentially become the main backing of a factory team rather than try and compete from scratch?



Would it even be a good thing to introduce another manufacturer?



My thoughts/pics from Red Bull Speed Jam in Cardiff a few weeks ago:



http://whoneedsfourw...to-moto-gp.html

Click to expand...

The article seemed to miss that red bull sponser red bull rookies! Sometimes in my own experience just as exiting as the 125's and Moto2 races

Sounds like a CRT bike would be the way to go for RB if they were to enter. They would have the budget to buy all the fancy bits from the factories.

motortom said:

they've actually designed and built their own championship winning car - why not do the same with the bikes?

Click to expand...

No they haven't, they've paid someone else to do it under their name. The new CRT rules could pave the way for the same application in motogp in the future, except that RedBull would be serious about winning and wouldn't do this unless CRT had proven to be genuinely competative/equal to the factory teams, which it could be in the future.



Simply speaking it would require RedBull to have an agreement where a chassis builder, like Kalex for example would build bikes and call them RedBulls. That's exactly what they have done in F1 and it isn't a new trick either, a long time ago there were formula one cars entered as John Player Specials, despite the fact that they are just a tobacco company. It isn't unfeasible of course that RB could set up all the infrastructure from scratch, poaching staff and expertise from elswhere in the sport or industry, it'd be the same deal though at the end of the day

If Redbull entered MotoGP there is no way they would go CRT. They like to win or be at the front.



They'd want to buy factory Hondas or Yamahas.



Suzuki with the Redbull budget & 2 leading riders would be a possible front runner.

Tom said:

No they haven't, they've paid someone else to do it under their name. The new CRT rules could pave the way for the same application in motogp in the future, except that RedBull would be serious about winning and wouldn't do this unless CRT had proven to be genuinely competative/equal to the factory teams, which it could be in the future.



Simply speaking it would require RedBull to have an agreement where a chassis builder, like Kalex for example would build bikes and call them RedBulls. That's exactly what they have done in F1 and it isn't a new trick either, a long time ago there were formula one cars entered as John Player Specials, despite the fact that they are just a tobacco company. It isn't unfeasible of course that RB could set up all the infrastructure from scratch, poaching staff and expertise from elswhere in the sport or industry, it'd be the same deal though at the end of the day

Click to expand...

The car is designed by Red Bull so they aren't paying someone to put the Red Bull brand where it doesn't belong. If Red Bull didn't own the design, the manufacturing company would sell it to everyone. The car belongs to Red Bull, and it is designed by Red Bull, but they outsource the construction. Big deal. A third party manufacturer or a production car manufacturer can spread the capital costs over hundreds of racing vehicles, but an F1 teams can only spread the capital investment across 20 or 30 cars per season. It is a matter of economics.



Will Red Bull run a MotoGP team under the current rules? No.



1. F1 engines are homologated, equalized, and available for a lease price that is a fraction of their income-earning potential. MotoGP engines are not homologated or equalized, and the engines are not sold and will not be sold at a fraction of their income-earning potential (b/c MotoGP revenues are too low).



2. RBR F1 is self-sustaining. F1 generates over a billion dollars in revenue each year, and half of it is reserved for the F1 teams. Autosport reported that teams like Red Bull who do not supply engines and who are not historically significant (or Ferrari) will take home over $100M for winning the championship. Modest investments from Red Bull, and revenues from merchandising, video games, website revenue, etc allow the team to achieve their rumored $150M budget. MotoGP does not generate as much income for the teams. The cost of producing a global feed is in the $100M-$200M range for 20 championship rounds on 3-4 continents. In F1, who cares? $100M is less than 10% of revenues. In MotoGP, $100M is pushing 40% of revenues. IRTA teams supposedly cost around $5M a pop, and there are roughly 5 IRTA teams. See the problem? There is no money for anyone, least of all Bridgepoint, in this absurd 21L 800cc sport.



CRT gives Red Bull an opportunity, but companies like Red Bull don't show up unless they are guaranteed competitiveness, and value for money. MotoGP has neither.



MotoGP's problems could be over with the introduction of a single rule--fuel capacity = 24L. Engines would be relatively cheap to obtain and relatively easy to design. MotoGP would be a boom-town. Is it not obvious why the MSMA cling to 21L as if their life depends on it? Private companies have shown that they only need access to engines in order to embarrass the manufacturers. 1000cc, 4-cylinders, 81mm, and 24L are simple engine regs. The MSMA (aka Honda) do not want 80/20. That's all you need to know. If the fans and Dorna do whatever it takes to get 80/20, the sport will make remarkable improvements.



Sadly, success in 2012 is the biggest impediment to long-term success, imo. If the racing is fantastic, no one will care about fuel capacity, and the MSMA will consolidate their stranglehold. Private teams like Red Bull will probably never enter MotoGP if fuel capacity remains at 21L.

Redbull-Yamaha factory team. Sound ok to me.

(and probably to lorenzo too)

mylexicon said:

The car is designed by Red Bull so they aren't paying someone to put the Red Bull brand where it doesn't belong. If Red Bull didn't own the design, the manufacturing company would sell it to everyone. The car belongs to Red Bull, and it is designed by Red Bull, but they outsource the construction. Big deal.

Click to expand...

Red Bull didn't use their own infrastructure, their own knowhow, their own technology or their own people to design the F1 car, they simply bankrolled a team that were already designing, building and racing an F1 car. In that sense it isn't really a redbull product. I know they own it totally and exclusively, but my point is that in the future if motogp changes to allow chassis manufacturers and race only teams to compete at the top like in F1 there is no reason RB couldn't do the exact same thing if they wanted to. I would be surprised if they went in on just a title sponsorship deal, and even more surprised if they went CRT. For Red Bull motor racing is nothing but marketting (you could argue it is little more than this to anyone else), so branding is everything. They don't want a Honda winning with RedBull stickers, they want RedBull to win.

Didn't they already sponsor the WCM Yamaha team? They have forayed into the sport a little bit.

Tom said:

Red Bull didn't use their own infrastructure, their own knowhow, their own technology or their own people to design the F1 car, they simply bankrolled a team that were already designing, building and racing an F1 car. In that sense it isn't really a redbull product. I know they own it totally and exclusively, but my point is that in the future if motogp changes to allow chassis manufacturers and race only teams to compete at the top like in F1 there is no reason RB couldn't do the exact same thing if they wanted to. I would be surprised if they went in on just a title sponsorship deal, and even more surprised if they went CRT. For Red Bull motor racing is nothing but marketting (you could argue it is little more than this to anyone else), so branding is everything. They don't want a Honda winning with RedBull stickers, they want RedBull to win.

Click to expand...

It's the same for every team in the paddock. They all buy/sell/lease technology, personnel, and capital assets.



The manufacturers create the illusion that F1 cars are still constructed from company-developed assets and technology. Back in the day, the cars were constructed exclusively from manufacturer technologies, but since the monocoque was introduced, F1 cars are cobbled together with technologies from aerospace, defense, and IT, with business process supplied by outside consultants. With a few exceptions, the machines, personnel, and technologies are available to everyone. Ferrari didn't pay for Ross Brawn's schooling or Michael Schumacher's carts, they simply hired them away from another team. Engine builders are bought and sold as well. The manufacturers are to F1 what Man U is to football. They contribute financially and they organize, but they should not define the sport or monopolize it.



The myth of manufacturer-contribution is lucrative for the manufacturer branding, but the myth is bad for the sport b/c it is financially unsustainable. The small club of engineers and drivers are the real power in F1, hence, the GPMA was dissolved and turned into FOTA.



MotoGP is a little bit different b/c GP bikes are more similar to production bikes than F1 cars are similar to production cars. However, some of the most sensitive technologies are still supplied by third parties. The pneumatic valve systems are leased by Yamaha and Suzuki. Carbon brakes are supplied by Brembo and Nissin. Suspension by Ohlins. Electronics are supplied by MM and Mitsubishi, and the software is written by a very small band of competent engineers. The MSMA only supply the engines, but even engines can be designed and developed by outside companies like Oral Engineering, Cosworth, Ilmor, et al. Truckloads of shareholder money, exploitation of the rulebook, continuation of the 21L rule, and blatant disregard for the financial well-being of the sport (commercial rights payments) are the only methods the MSMA can use to maintain control of MotoGP. The money is drying up. Dorna are angry about the rules. The 21L rule is driving people mad. Bridgepoint is furious with the lack of revenues.



These convoluted themes are all part of the underlying war that is constantly raging behind the scenes in the world of racing. "European model" proponents who represent the whims of the manufacturers b/c the manufacturers have cash vs. "American model" proponents who performance balance and specify equipment to support specialty racing companies and deregulate the victors. Many people have tried to stop the war. Chapman wanted fuel-flow-limiting. Bowlby wants open sourcing. Mosely wants financial controls. Alt energy guru want energy balancing. But no matter what ideas are proposed, the march towards fatter rulebooks continues unabated as the manufacturers and the sanctioning bodies war with one another.



Red Bull are just following the basic procedures taught to them by the major manufacturers. I don't see any reason why their wins should be any less credible simply b/c they make energy drinks, not midsized sedans.

mylexicon said:

The myth of manufacturer-contribution is lucrative for the manufacturer branding, but the myth is bad for the sport b/c it is financially unsustainable.

Click to expand...

I think this is absolutely true, as is your point in your earlier post about redbull being viable in F1 because of the engine rule there, where as I understand it they have basically frozen the engine technology, meaning that having adrian newey is a bigger advantage than when ferrari could just build a more powerful engine. It still surprises me that the RBR renault engine seems to actually be equivalent to the renault renault engine though.

There nearly was a Red Bull MotoGP team. They nearly had Stoner in a one-man Honda team in 2010, but Honda prevaricated too long.

Kropotkin said:

There nearly was a Red Bull MotoGP team. They nearly had Stoner in a one-man Honda team in 2010, but Honda prevaricated too long.

Click to expand...

You beat me to it Krop. I may be wrong but I thought that in 2010, Honda were going to run a two rider Repsol team and a Red Bull team with Stoner onboard. It seems that Honda really couldn't make a decision and Red Bull also wanted a lot of control of the team. No agreement was made, so a 3rd Repsol appeared.



Is that right Krop ?

Willski said:

You beat me to it Krop. I may be wrong but I thought that in 2010, Honda were going to run a two rider Repsol team and a Red Bull team with Stoner onboard. It seems that Honda really couldn't make a decision and Red Bull also wanted a lot of control of the team. No agreement was made, so a 3rd Repsol appeared. Is that right Krop ?

Click to expand...

That's just about what I heard from someone with connections to Red Bull.

Kropotkin said:

There nearly was a Red Bull MotoGP team. They nearly had Stoner in a one-man Honda team in 2010, but Honda prevaricated too long.

Click to expand...

I bet they're kicking themselves in the ... for that one.

Kropotkin said:

There nearly was a Red Bull MotoGP team. They nearly had Stoner in a one-man Honda team in 2010, but Honda prevaricated too long.

Click to expand...

Prevarication and procrastination often indicate an avoidance-avoidance situation. Budget cutbacks and cost-cutting was certainly one of the bad choices. Giving Casey Stoner to Red Bull or doing any business with Red Bull was the other bad decision. Here's my interpretation of the events that transpired.



HRC: Suppo, we're broke. Drum up some business.

Suppo: Hey, Mateschitz. How would you like to run soon-to-be 2011 world champion, Casey Stoner?

Red Bull: Sounds like your broke. We'll send over our demands.

Suppo: Red Bull want in. Here are their demands.

HRC: RB are despots, but we need the money, and Honda HQ demand a title.

Repsol: If Stoner rides a Red Bull to the championship, you can forget renewal. If you think we're bad, just wait until Red Bull run this place.

HRC: We might do it. Sweeten the deal so we don't have to cut back, and you get Stoner.

Repsol: We'll run some numbers.

3 months later

Repsol: Not gonna happen. Try to get rid of Dovi.

HRC: Suppo, ask RB to run Dovi.

Suppo: Mateschitz, how bout you run Dovi?

Red Bull: Thanks for wasting our time.



It was probably never going to happen. Red Bull are like Marlboro. The want complete control b/c they have marketing demands like photo shoots, media, public appearances, B2B events, cross-branding at other sporting events. After they get control of a team, they go to work on the organizers to secure more commercial funds. They don't particularly care what the technical regulations are, and Honda F1 know that Red Bull were a big part of the engine homologation, equalization, and lease arrangements. HRC were never going to take a chance with Red Bull b/c their business model is based on being cash-neutral and self-sustaining. Repsol subscribe to the "exposure" business model which means they live as an expense on Repsols income statement.



Red Bull don't slap their brand on other people's equipment. HRC don't relinquish control of technical regulations or commercial rights bargaining. Honda's budget cutbacks and their 3-rider-conundrum made the RB deal look believable, but the mechanics of the arrangement were probably never functional. Casey, himself, may have been the biggest impediment. He couldn't even handle the Marlboro schedule. Imagine what he would say to a company that was trying to get him to backflip a Baja truck off of a skyscraper.