713 replies to this topic

[PayasYouRace]

It’s fine. I asked my friends about it and they said it’s ok and why would it bother anyone.

[New Britain]

Well, I’ll leave it at that because slowly I’m trying to get up on one of the several hills you choose to die on. I just can’t make clear to you your argumentation jumps from left to right, from future to the past, from reality to ‘what if’s’ and back. We’re playing tennis with a net and then without. It’s like trying to get a hold of a bar of wet soap. Have fun guys and remember: don’t eat yellow snow.

Not really a fair description.
I have argued that the one owner thing is wrong in principle. People who disagree have defended it by claiming that, to date, the two teams have not taken advantage of or exploited it - and therefore ‘what’s the problem?’
I then have replied to their claims by giving examples of how RB have exploited it. It has been the defenders of the status quo who have gone back into history to try to justify their position, not I.
If not to address their claim, I would not be especially interested in those past examples. To me the status quo is fundamentally wrong in principle, and I would argue for a change regardless of whether RB was or was not known to have taken advantage of it already.

[arrysen]

This is from the Fourth Concorde Agreement, which was agreed for the period starting in 1997. 

 

So this makes perfectly clear that:

1) In order to compete, you must be an F1 constructor, and

2) No constructor may use any chassis part designed or manufactured by another constructor.

 

It says that in black and white: the FIA did not want constructors sharing chassis. 

 

As for the fact that this happened 16 years ago, I pointed it out just because a few people here were arguing that Red Bull GmbH and its two teams had never exploited their unique one-owner structure. That argument was wrong, and this is one of several examples of why it was wrong.

Thanks NB - so no admission of a mistake and no evidence of that, so let's stop calling the legal methods used by Red Bull at the time a "loophole". 

 

I actually don't think you're quite right in saying that it says in black and white that the FIA didn't want constructors sharing chassis. As I pointed out earlier, nothing to stop 2 other teams both choosing to engage Dallara (for example) to design their cars (with different engines, so different COG, integration systems, cooling needs, bodywork) and both teams would be in compliance with the rules, same as Red Bull was at the time.

 

I take your point on why you keep raising a 16 year old, legal use of the rules by Red Bull but seriously, it has next to zero relevance to the current situation, where different rules, different PUs apply. It really is hardly any kind of smoking gun.

 

 

McLaren did what they did with/for Honda voluntarily. No one forced McLaren to enter into the contract with Honda. Indeed you may recall that, after the first year, Honda wanted to try to have a second team run their PUs because that would benefit Honda, but McLaren had a contractual veto on that and Ron Dennis said no.

STR/Toro Rosso/Racing Bulls have no ultimate veto on anything.

The two situations were totally different.

Do you really believe that there is no material difference between being owned with ultimately no freedom to make one's own decisions and being independent with the freedom to negotiate one's relationships and actions? 

Ron had and applied the veto because he believed in the capacity of Honda (he was right, just took them longer than expected, no doubt partially due to the heavy restrictions on development in the hybrid PU rules). TR likely had the same belief and went down the Honda path, believing in Honda's capacity to deliver. Now, unless you KNOW that TR was dragooned into using Honda engines against its desires, the rest of your points here are nothing more than pure conjecture. It's quite feasible in fact that Honda shared its plans, expectations and test results with TR and that provided the encouragement needed, particularly when it hadn't found the sweet spot with Ferrari or Renault PUs. To me, as a smaller team, it was a gamble worth taking.

[New Britain]

Thanks NB - so no admission of a mistake and no evidence of that, so let's stop calling the legal methods used by Red Bull at the time a "loophole". 

 

I actually don't think you're quite right in saying that it says in black and white that the FIA didn't want constructors sharing chassis. As I pointed out earlier, nothing to stop 2 other teams both choosing to engage Dallara (for example) to design their cars (with different engines, so different COG, integration systems, cooling needs, bodywork) and both teams would be in compliance with the rules, same as Red Bull was at the time.

 

I'll try again:

 

from Britannica Dictionary:

'LOOPHOLE

':an error in the way a law, rule, or contract is written that makes it possible for some people to legally avoid obeying it'

 

from Investopedia:

'What is a loophole?

'A loophole is a technicality that allows a person or business to avoid the scope of a law or restriction without directly violating the law.'

 

I could offer a dozen more.

If you think these definitions are wrong, why don't you tell us what you think the correct definition should be, and why you think what Red Bull did with the Red Bull Technology work-around was not a loophole?

You appear to think that what RB did was not using a loophole because it was legal, when, as you can see from these definitions, what makes something a loophole, rather than an evasion, is precisely because it is legal.

__________________________________

 

Your example of Dallara does not apply to the Red Bull situation. Dallara is not a constructor, it is an independent company creating its own designs. There would be no advantage to one of its customers if Dallara were to sell the same chassis to another of its customers. To the contrary, if the chassis were any good, the first customer would rather that Dallara not sell it to another team.

 

As I quoted previously, in 2006 Red Bull announced that Adrian Newey would be joining 'Red Bull Racing' - a constructor. Yet the chassis he designed were supposedly the products of Red Bull Technology. To the extent that it existed at all, Red Bull Technology was a creature of Red Bull Racing located within the Red Bull Racing building. In contrast to Dallara having two different customers that want each other to do poorly, Red Bull had two captive teams for which it was seeking to optimise its resources to the benefit of both.

 

Ron had and applied the veto because he believed in the capacity of Honda (he was right, just took them longer than expected, no doubt partially due to the heavy restrictions on development in the hybrid PU rules). TR likely had the same belief and went down the Honda path, believing in Honda's capacity to deliver. Now, unless you KNOW that TR was dragooned into using Honda engines against its desires, the rest of your points here are nothing more than pure conjecture. It's quite feasible in fact that Honda shared its plans, expectations and test results with TR and that provided the encouragement needed, particularly when it hadn't found the sweet spot with Ferrari or Renault PUs. To me, as a smaller team, it was a gamble worth taking.

Do you think that Toro Rosso would have spent a year running the Honda PU if Red Bull had not wanted them to do so?

Do you believe that, during the 2018 season, there were no conversations between Toro Rosso and Red Bull about how the PU was working?

Do you believe that, if any other team but Toro Rosso had been running the Honda PU, that other team would have shared with Red Bull any information that would have helped Red Bull to decide whether to use the Honda PU for the following season?

[arrysen]

I'll try again:

 

from Britannica Dictionary:

'LOOPHOLE

':an error in the way a law, rule, or contract is written that makes it possible for some people to legally avoid obeying it'

 

from Investopedia:

'What is a loophole?

'A loophole is a technicality that allows a person or business to avoid the scope of a law or restriction without directly violating the law.'

 

I could offer a dozen more.

If you think these definitions are wrong, why don't you tell us what you think the correct definition should be, and why you think what Red Bull did with the Red Bull Technology work-around was not a loophole?

You appear to think that what RB did was not using a loophole because it was legal, when, as you can see from these definitions, what makes something a loophole, rather than an evasion, is precisely because it is legal.

OK - I officially give up on my quest to have you be logical and non-emotive, in this case, YOU SUPPLIED A DEFINITION and when that one didn't suit your "argument", you went looking for more that suited you. Complete waste of my time I'm sorry to say.

 

Your example of Dallara does not apply to the Red Bull situation. Dallara is not a constructor, it is an independent company creating its own designs. There would be no advantage to one of its customers if Dallara were to sell the same chassis to another of its customers. To the contrary, if the chassis were any good, the first customer would rather that Dallara not sell it to another team.

Example of Dallara DOES apply. Red Bull Technology was not a constructor, it was a separate company creating its own designs. The WHOLE point I made on Dallara (if you'd actually read it) was that the regs at the time allowed it and that the framers of the rules may have had that in mind when the rules were drafted, so that multiple teams might access quality design at a reasonable cost (which was a hot button at the time). My point was made because your supplied definition of "loophole" included reference to a mistake made in drafting - you've since decided to move goal posts AGAIN on definition of loophole, so the whole point about Dallara is clearly lost on you - too logical I guess.

 

As I quoted previously, in 2006 Red Bull announced that Adrian Newey would be joining 'Red Bull Racing' - a constructor. Yet the chassis he designed were supposedly the products of Red Bull Technology. To the extent that it existed at all, Red Bull Technology was a creature of Red Bull Racing located within the Red Bull Racing building. In contrast to Dallara having two different customers that want each other to do poorly, Red Bull had two captive teams for which it was seeking to optimise its resources to the benefit of both.

.......as was completely legal under the regulations of the time (despite your use again of overly-emotive words such as "captive"). However, it was over 16 years ago, several Concorde Agreements and sets of regulations back and has no relevance - zero in fact - to your desire that in 2025 Red Bull be forced to divest itself of one team. If you had started this thread back then, maybe it would make sense in the conversation, but you didn't and it doesn't. You do claim that you only brought it up to answer questions raised by others but you keep coming back to it again & again & again & again even though it is so far in the past and wouldn't be do-able today without a massive breach of the regulations.

 

 

Do you think that Toro Rosso would have spent a year running the Honda PU if Red Bull had not wanted them to do so?

Do you believe that, during the 2018 season, there were no conversations between Toro Rosso and Red Bull about how the PU was working?

Do you believe that, if any other team but Toro Rosso had been running the Honda PU, that other team would have shared with Red Bull any information that would have helped Red Bull to decide whether to use the Honda PU for the following season?

Do you know that the only reason TR spent a year running the Honda was that Red Bull wanted them to? Or did TR want to run the Honda, as it was available, was a much better financial deal than the Renault, and worth the gamble given Honda's history of success. 

 

I expect that there were in fact conversations between TR and RBR about the Honda engine in 2018 and certainly, that the performance of the PU was visible, as it was to every other team in the pit lane. Sharing of information does in fact happen at times between separate teams - I'll give you one example from my past to illustrate:

 

At Brabham we took a risk and a chance to move from being a Judd customer to being the factory Yamaha team (meaning a HUGE cost saving on engines) even though Yamaha appeared to be struggling at the time, they had a strong reputation as engine designers/builders and it was a gamble worth taking (we all thought). It got us back to being a "factory" team as we had been with BMW. Ultimately, the struggle continued and Jordan GP were showing interest in the Yamaha engines. We shared information with them openly on exactly where Yamaha was on development, cooling needs, various data. Ultimately, Jordan took over the Yamaha deal but the point is that we were two separate teams, competing against each other, but like many things not understood by everyone outside the fence, F1 teams are all in the same business and cooperate with each other from time to time more than might be obvious. 

[Nemo1965]

Arrysen: when were you involved with Brabham?

[New Britain]

OK - I officially give up on my quest to have you be logical and non-emotive, in this case, YOU SUPPLIED A DEFINITION and when that one didn't suit your "argument", you went looking for more that suited you. Complete waste of my time I'm sorry to say.

 

Example of Dallara DOES apply. Red Bull Technology was not a constructor, it was a separate company creating its own designs. The WHOLE point I made on Dallara (if you'd actually read it) was that the regs at the time allowed it and that the framers of the rules may have had that in mind when the rules were drafted, so that multiple teams might access quality design at a reasonable cost (which was a hot button at the time). My point was made because your supplied definition of "loophole" included reference to a mistake made in drafting - you've since decided to move goal posts AGAIN on definition of loophole, so the whole point about Dallara is clearly lost on you - too logical I guess.

 

.......as was completely legal under the regulations of the time (despite your use again of overly-emotive words such as "captive"). However, it was over 16 years ago, several Concorde Agreements and sets of regulations back and has no relevance - zero in fact - to your desire that in 2025 Red Bull be forced to divest itself of one team. If you had started this thread back then, maybe it would make sense in the conversation, but you didn't and it doesn't. You do claim that you only brought it up to answer questions raised by others but you keep coming back to it again & again & again & again even though it is so far in the past and wouldn't be do-able today without a massive breach of the regulations.

 

Now you're just making stuff up. I don't appreciate the fictions, and especially I don't appreciate your personal insults. I do not need this, and shall not respond further.

[arrysen]

Now you're just making stuff up. I don't appreciate the fictions, and especially I don't appreciate your personal insults. I do not need this, and shall not respond further.

Nope, not making anything up (or at least, not making stuff up any more than you were, just offering alternatives). Good that you are not responding further.

Edited by arrysen, 12 January 2025 - 17:25.

[arrysen]

Arrysen: when were you involved with Brabham?

Hi Nemo, I worked there in the final years, mid 80s into 1991, when we were all made redundant and the factory closed down. I didn't make the move to Middlebridge's F3000 workshop in Milton Keynes, where the Judd-engined BT60s were run from.

[Nemo1965]

Hi Nemo, I worked there in the final years, mid 80s into 1991, when we were all made redundant and the factory closed down. I didn't make the move to Middlebridge's F3000 workshop in Milton Keynes, where the Judd-engined BT60s were run from.

Interesting. There are a couple of people who have worked in Formula One who post regularly or have posted regularly in the past. I’ve communicated extensively with a couple of them, and I often thought: a shame that we can’t now and then post a thread in which we interview forummembers who have worked in the business we are following so intensively.
Are there people on this forum you know from the past? I’ve had fascinating conversations with a guy who worked at Tyrrell when Jean Alesi debuted there. It has given me great insights about stuff that always had perplexed me in the past, like the surprising demise of Ivan Capelli after his wonderful time at March.

[arrysen]

Interesting. There are a couple of people who have worked in Formula One who post regularly or have posted regularly in the past. I’ve communicated extensively with a couple of them, and I often thought: a shame that we can’t now and then post a thread in which we interview forummembers who have worked in the business we are following so intensively.
Are there people on this forum you know from the past? I’ve had fascinating conversations with a guy who worked at Tyrrell when Jean Alesi debuted there. It has given me great insights about stuff that always had perplexed me in the past, like the surprising demise of Ivan Capelli after his wonderful time at March.

There MAY be people on the forum I know from the past, but as we mostly use alias names, there's no way to tell. Friend of mine has a Private Facebook Group called No Team Orders and they'll soon be doing some speaking tours in the UK with some great stories from the past - they're calling it the "They can't sack us now tour". Worth watching out for.

[PayasYouRace]

Interesting. There are a couple of people who have worked in Formula One who post regularly or have posted regularly in the past. I’ve communicated extensively with a couple of them, and I often thought: a shame that we can’t now and then post a thread in which we interview forummembers who have worked in the business we are following so intensively.
Are there people on this forum you know from the past? I’ve had fascinating conversations with a guy who worked at Tyrrell when Jean Alesi debuted there. It has given me great insights about stuff that always had perplexed me in the past, like the surprising demise of Ivan Capelli after his wonderful time at March.

If people would be willing, we could copy the format of the Paddock Club interviews.

[MikeTekRacing]

. I don't appreciate the fictions

lol. that's rich, most of your exposé is a spaghetti of allegations and dots connected without 1 shred of evidence. 

Edited by MikeTekRacing, 13 January 2025 - 02:43.

[New Britain]

lol. that's rich, most of your exposé is a spaghetti of allegations and dots connected without 1 shred of evidence. 

Please cite one thing I have written that is untrue. 

 

(Hint: I have recently discovered something I wrote that is technically wrong, although the mistake made no difference to the argument being made. )