You don't want to debate it, you just want to comment .
'JUST a drinks company' would be disparaging.
'Not a manufacturer they are a drinks company' simply means they are not primarily a racing organisation.
Red Bull Racing is primarily a racing organization. They do not make drinks. Their only business is racing.
This is similar to McLaren's part ownership by the middle eastern entity that is not in the car manufacturing business.
They are an an advertising vehicle,
RBR is a money making concern. They earned the most purse money in F1 the last two seasons. Advertising vehicles are cost or extremely low income items, not money making cash cows.
dependent on funding from one one guy; and a guy who doesn't actually attend many races.
Do you have evidence for that statement? As a matter of fact, we do know that sponsors contribute to RBR. Infiniti (the car manufacturer) does not get to plaster their insignia on the back of the RBR car for free.
They may eventually become a racing organisation like Williams or McLaren, or they may not.
They may remain in F1 or not; is that what you mean? Because RBR is only a racing organization. In addition, Red Bull KTM is only a racing organization - which is distinct from Red Bull sponsorship of drivers like Raikkonen or riders like Pedrosa or Stewart.
Or perhaps you are talking about the parent company? That one day they will not sell drinks but instead manufactur cars full time? Why would they do that? General motors did not stop selling cars to go into the kitchen electronics or telephone business (among others) - you just start a new subsidiary or division or other entity type under the company umbrella. That is what Red Bull has done with RBR. Which is separate from Red Bull Satallite or Severus TV. All under the umbrella of RB, but quite distinct lines of business.
It would sound quite silly to say "Severus TV is a drinks company" the same goes for Red Bull Racing.
But it seems clear Bernie and the FIA want to encourage them into the fold. The new deal probably guarantees they can find a buyer of some kind after Dietrich, while Newey and Charlie obviously have their own deal going.
Why would Bernie and the FIA discourage constructor teams that make it in F1? They are not an upstart or start up company as some have tried to say. They took over established teams and crew, factories and equipment. They built on a F1 foundation. Should they be disdained or should we be gratified that companies are still willing to invest so much money into the sport we love and keep it viable? Virgin was airline, telephony, space travel, etc., not primarily a car manufacturer, but Virgin Racing was a 100% dedicated racing organization.
I do downgrade their achievement a little because some of their performance does constantly seem to stem from running outside the rules for some races, then notching it back but keeping the points. But that's more the FIA to blame than Red Bull.
It is FIA to blame and you downgrade RBR anyway? How is that fair? Perhaps I am reading too much into your statement, but it appears as if you are trying to intimate that RBR are the only innovative team that has ever had its innovations disapproved after approval. That is simply not true.
Edited by bourbon, 30 June 2012 - 17:04.