Horner says Renault deal should be sealed soon, but…

But… well, this entire Q and A with Autosport leaves me thinking: Something isn’t right.

Here is the relevant part:

Q. Does Renault’s inclusion on the FIA entry list for 2010 as Red Bull’s engine supplier mean the deal is done?

Christian Horner: I wouldn’t read too much into the entry list. We’re obliged to put an engine as per the regulations. But we are allowed to change the engine at any point up until the first race. Obviously we have to put an engine on the list and the most likely engine to have in the car next year, at this moment, subject to Renault’s confirmation, is a Renault engine. We have to put an engine on the list, and that’s the logical choice so far.

Q. Is Cosworth still an option for you?

CH: At this stage, realistically no. In principle we have an agreement with Renault and hopefully in the next week or so everything will be finalised.

Q. Is the only uncertainty from their side?

CH: It’s subject to contract at the moment, but in principle we have an agreement. We have to put something on the entry form and at this point in time it makes sense that it’s Renault. We’ve enjoyed three good working years with them. They’re a very good partner and it’s been a very successful collaboration with them. They’ve supported us well through difficult times this year, particularly with Sebastian Vettel’s car, where we’ve had to limit the engine mileage. They obviously have concerns over engine parity at this point in time, and until engine regulations are clear, I can understand a hesitation on their side.

Perhaps it is all the qualifications Horner puts forth in his answers, and maybe he just doesn’t know what Renault is going to do. Scratch that, I’m sure from his comments he doesn’t know what Renault is going to do, and that’s what’s troubling: I think if he had a sense that Renault was staying in F1, either as a team or just as an engine supplier, he’d be hedging his bets differently.

And then there are these lines: “We’ve enjoyed three good working years with them. They’re a very good partner and it’s been a very successful collaboration with them. They’ve supported us well through difficult times this year, particularly with Sebastian Vettel’s car, where we’ve had to limit the engine mileage.”

Does that not sound like PR spin after a business relationship is over? Where’s the “We’re looking forward to more success next year” line?

I think we better begin preparing for Renault, at the least, to be gone from F1 as a team, and now I’m wondering if we won’t see if out entirely. [Which would open the door for VW in the future.]

That said, here is some more from Horner on the situation with F1 engines. More fuel for the Renault exit fire. Jump to the site to get some thoughts on the driver test from today.

Q. Would Renault pull out of F1 as an engine supplier if it pulled out as a team?

CH: I think it depends on what’s done with the engine regulations moving forward in terms of parity. The teams have decided that the engine should not be a performance differentiator under the frozen rules. I think it’s vital, not just in the case of Renault, but in the case of all the engine manufacturers, that a solution is found.

Q. What is the sticking point over engines?

CH: I think the teams are incapable of agreeing, because there’s always too much self-interest involved. I think the best way forward is for it to be regulated through the FIA. You just need to make sure you’re comparing apples with apples, rather than apples and pears. Next year, despite there being no refuelling, power is still a big issue. The fact is it’s remarkable how much the engines continue to evolve, despite the freeze. I think on the clear understanding that an engine is not a performance differentiator, it’s been unanimously agreed that engine parity is a key issue for all manufacturers.

Q. Should one manufacturer be penalised though for spending less money and making a better engine?

CH: If you go back to the start when the freeze was put in place to save cost, you’d have to say it’s done that. The problem is you freeze an advantage or disadvantage. One manufacturer did a huge amount of work just before the freeze came in. And now we find a situation where the spread under a freeze involves engines being worth 0.3-0.5 seconds per lap. That’s too wide.

Am I the only one who sees smoke here and expects to find fire soon enough?

Share on Facebook