590 replies to this topic

[pdac]

I don't get this. Do you consider this ok? Would you want more of this? For me that is totally not ok. And I put this in the same category. Would you be ok if the championship would decided that way?

 

You can't realistically stop these sort of things. I remember they decided that team orders were against the spirit of racing and so banned it. The ban didn't last long. They decided that pit crews coming out to entice an opponent into making a stop was not right. So they banned it. But teams are doing that again now too.

 

The fact is if you ban these kind of things, they will happen anyway, just that no one will admit that is what they are doing.

[Bliman]

But that is happening

And the arguments against what AT and RB could potentially do can be used here. Fxing a problem that does not exist on a hypothetical that could still happen after you fix it

You keep repeating that but we have given examples about AT and RB already. And why not fix something before bigger damage can be done? Does you have to crash into a wall before knowing that brakes are handy on a car?

[Bliman]

You can't realistically stop these sort of things. I remember they decided that team orders were against the spirit of racing and so banned it. The ban didn't last long. They decided that pit crews coming out to entice an opponent into making a stop was not right. So they banned it. But teams are doing that again now too.

The fact is if you ban these kind of things, they will happen anyway, just that no one will admit that is what they are doing.

That is a fine argument. I think nothing has been done because we have a balance between engines being delivered to many teams and another owning two teams. I think it is a shark world that if RB would try something blatant that other teams would be right on it. But it has risks.

[New Britain]

You can't realistically stop these sort of things. I remember they decided that team orders were against the spirit of racing and so banned it. The ban didn't last long. They decided that pit crews coming out to entice an opponent into making a stop was not right. So they banned it. But teams are doing that again now too.

 

The fact is if you ban these kind of things, they will happen anyway, just that no one will admit that is what they are doing.

There is a dfference between 'this kind of thing cannot be stopped' and 'this kind of thing could be stopped if only the FIA would have the backbone to do so.'

How tough would it be to say that more than one pit crew person per team cannot enter pit lane until one of their cars has passed the solid line and is now obliged to drive into the lane?

[arrysen]

There is a dfference between 'this kind of thing cannot be stopped' and 'this kind of thing could be stopped if only the FIA would have the backbone to do so.'

How tough would it be to say that more than one pit crew person per team cannot enter pit lane until one of their cars has passed the solid line and is now obliged to drive into the lane?

That idea would be completely unrealistic and potentially dangerous - particularly for those teams near pit entry. Radio comms issues (which DO happen) for example could be an issue. If the teams are having to run out (& they would definitely need to run) then there is far greater risk of someone tripping or getting hit by the car during the process of running out, carrying tyres / gear, unhooking the airlines from the gantry hooks etc. & the risk would be magnified when multiple cars are stopping (under an SC for example) and then there's the question of who/what makes the fine judgement call on a car crossing the solid entry line and mechanics crossing into pit lane. What we have now is about as good as you can safely restrict crews coming out.

 

Yes, I do know that Indycar and NASCAR do it differently but they are set up completely differently too - it really is a chalk and cheese situation.

[PayasYouRace]

That idea would be completely unrealistic and potentially dangerous - particularly for those teams near pit entry. Radio comms issues (which DO happen) for example could be an issue. If the teams are having to run out (& they would definitely need to run) then there is far greater risk of someone tripping or getting hit by the car during the process of running out, carrying tyres / gear, unhooking the airlines from the gantry hooks etc. & the risk would be magnified when multiple cars are stopping (under an SC for example) and then there's the question of who/what makes the fine judgement call on a car crossing the solid entry line and mechanics crossing into pit lane. What we have now is about as good as you can safely restrict crews coming out.

 

Yes, I do know that Indycar and NASCAR do it differently but they are set up completely differently too - it really is a chalk and cheese situation.

There’s no danger. You could have a rule that mechanics aren’t allowed in the pit lane until the car is stopped in its box.

 

Not really sure what it has to do with the topic though.

[MikeTekRacing]

You keep repeating that but we have given examples about AT and RB already. And why not fix something before bigger damage can be done? Does you have to crash into a wall before knowing that brakes are handy on a car?

Because there is real world data that they do NOT do this.
You use mental gymnastics that they could against real examples of others doing worse.

Sorry can’t believe you and New Britain’s intentions are about fairness.

[Bliman]

Because there is real world data that they do NOT do this.
You use mental gymnastics that they could against real examples of others doing worse.

Sorry can’t believe you and New Britain’s intentions are about fairness.

Sorry but first we have real world examples from many camps. How do you doubt my fairness when I target many teams? And second there is something as foresight.

[arrysen]

There’s no danger. You could have a rule that mechanics aren’t allowed in the pit lane until the car is stopped in its box.

 

Not really sure what it has to do with the topic though.

As someone who has done it for a living, I can tell you that there is higher risk and danger - inevitable when people are rushing out in a restricted time frame. If everyone is out, settled and ready, the risk is reduced. Only mentioned it because New Britain suggested it as an example.

[New Britain]

There’s no danger. You could have a rule that mechanics aren’t allowed in the pit lane until the car is stopped in its box.

 

Not really sure what it has to do with the topic though.

Or a rule that if more than two (or whatever) team members set foot in the box, one of the team cars must pit and, if it doesn't, the cars get 5 sec penalties.

 

The reason it has been touched on is that another person posted that incidents such as Ocon's acting on behalf of Mercedes although he was driving for Force India at the time 'cannot realistically be stopped', and as another example of something that at least so far has not been stopped, notwithstanding that there is a rule against it, he brought up the fake pit-stop ruse.

 

So it's really about the question of the FIA's ability to enforce rules v the teams' ability to flout or sidestep them without consequences.

[gillesfan76]

Red Bull destroying F1 is like your forum stick

 

Ad hominem is weak 

[PayasYouRace]

As someone who has done it for a living, I can tell you that there is higher risk and danger - inevitable when people are rushing out in a restricted time frame. If everyone is out, settled and ready, the risk is reduced. Only mentioned it because New Britain suggested it as an example.

It’s quite common in sports car racing to not allow the mechanics out until the car is stopped. It’s the safest option

 

Not that I mind a bit of mind games with the pit crews. Was a key part of Stirling Moss’s Argentina win in the Cooper. Adds a bit of fun.

[pdac]

That is a fine argument. I think nothing has been done because we have a balance between engines being delivered to many teams and another owning two teams. I think it is a shark world that if RB would try something blatant that other teams would be right on it. But it has risks.

 

That phrase hits the nail on the head. Everything about F1 is a balance. Change one thing and it has knock-on effects. People in F1 try not to tinker too much for fear they have not considered all of the knock-on effects. So as long as the observed effects of leaving things alone are within acceptability, changes will not (and possibly should not) be made. It's always a case of better the devil you know.

Edited by pdac, Yesterday, 09:20.

[New Britain]

That phrase hits the nail on the head. Everything about F1 is a balance. Change one thing and it has knock-on effects. People in F1 try not to tinker too much for fear they have not considered all of the knock-on effects. So as long as the observed effects of leaving things alone are within acceptability, changes will not (and possibly should not) be made. It's always a case of better the devil you know.

Ah, but acceptability to whom?  

[pdac]

Ah, but acceptability to whom?  

 

Well, the stakeholders in F1 make the rules and decisions and are the ones that would be affected, so they are the ones that would need to find something acceptable or not. As to how they, collectively, reach consensus on any particular issue is up to them. After all, remember they "race as one".

Edited by pdac, Yesterday, 12:19.

[arrysen]

It’s quite common in sports car racing to not allow the mechanics out until the car is stopped. It’s the safest option

 

Not that I mind a bit of mind games with the pit crews. Was a key part of Stirling Moss’s Argentina win in the Cooper. Adds a bit of fun.

Sports car racing is very different, with (slow) overall timed stops being common and over the years, fuel filling part of the stop separated from tyres (not that tyres are changed every time) etc. When there is plenty of time like that, then yes it is quite safe but F1, 2 second stops etc. is a very different situation and having them out, ready and under control is far safer for F1. 

 

For sure the mind games are definitely part of racing and add something. Funnily enough, these days with the restriction on when teams can come out into the pit lane adds to the potential for mind games - easy for teams to head out, then head back into the garage and blame it on radio error, mis-heard message, that kind of thing. Back when we could hang in the pit lane unrestricted, and there were no speed limits in the pit lane, it was harder to stooge other teams but there will always be ways to do that kind of thing, as you rightly point out with Stirling. 

[arrysen]

Ah, but acceptability to whom?  

Specifically, the people and organisations with "skin in the game" and therefore, those with by far the most to lose. They of course are also the only people considering each situation as competitive professionals and make no mistake, if they see or suspect even the smallest of actions that they believe to be unfair, unreasonable or in contravention of the rules, they'll make a lot of noise and push for changes (as we saw with the accusations and carry on over the Red Bull front tray adjuster this year).

 

You may recall that in the "Pink Mercedes" case, the other teams made a lot of noise, asked a lot of questions and the FIA issued clarifications and we haven't seen such blatant copying again. The fact, as mentioned by me and others through this thread, that other teams haven't made any noise about Red Bull dual ownership speaks volumes and indicates that there hasn't been cause for concern.

[RedRabbit]

Even if we know the reality is that Red Bull owns both teams, does this reflect anywhere in the legal framework surrounding the ownership of the teams?

Are both teams owned by the same legal entity or is there a clear shared ownership somewhere? If not, and I suspect it will be "not", what exactly do any of the objectors think the FIA, or the WMSC or the EU or anyone else, will be able to do about enforcing a sale of one team?

[krea]

Even if we know the reality is that Red Bull owns both teams, does this reflect anywhere in the legal framework surrounding the ownership of the teams?

Are both teams owned by the same legal entity or is there a clear shared ownership somewhere? If not, and I suspect it will be "not", what exactly do any of the objectors think the FIA, or the WMSC or the EU or anyone else, will be able to do about enforcing a sale of one team?

When Red Bull bought Minardi there were way more legal ways for inter teams to work together, so teams could sell or share chassis and other parts freely. Something which is now banned, not just because of Red Bull but the somewhat nebulous constructs of Haas or Racing Point.

[DevilDare]

This thread has got rather bogged down in the weeds, has it not?

 

I thought I’d compile a list of major motor racing series groups by whether or not owners are restricted by the number of cars they may enter.

 

Enforced:

Formula 1 World Chmapionship (with Red Bull being the exception)

 

 

Wait, so if one of the other current teams wanted to buy/enter another team, that would not be allowed?

 

Whether or not it should be happening at all is one thing, but this does seem a tad unfair. Do RB get away with it because it was changed after the fact?

[RedRabbit]

When Red Bull bought Minardi there were way more legal ways for inter teams to work together, so teams could sell or share chassis and other parts freely. Something which is now banned, not just because of Red Bull but the somewhat nebulous constructs of Haas or Racing Point.

I know that. The interview or quote a page or 2 earlier is out of context in this thread. Red Bull bought Minardi because it was seen as a better option to develop their junior drivers going forward, rather than placing them into other teams. That's what the control refers to that Marko talks about.

It just so happens that teams back then were free to purchase an F1 conforming car from a 3rd party, so Red Bull Technology was created.

My question is, on what legal ground is there to prove a single entity owns both teams?

[krea]

Wait, so if one of the other current teams wanted to buy/enter another team, that would not be allowed?

Whether or not it should be happening at all is one thing, but this does seem a tad unfair. Do RB get away with it because it was changed after the fact?

Red Bull was literally offered the option to buy Minardi because there was a real threat that F1 could have ended with just 9 or even 8 teams after even the big car manufacturers didn’t want to pay the bills anymore.
Red Bull literally bought two teams which wouldn’t have existed in any form anymore.

[PayasYouRace]

Wait, so if one of the other current teams wanted to buy/enter another team, that would not be allowed?

Whether or not it should be happening at all is one thing, but this does seem a tad unfair. Do RB get away with it because it was changed after the fact?

I don’t see why it wouldn’t. They’d be able to point at Red Bull as precedent.

The rule is two cars per team, not per owner. Red Bull are only an “exception” in the sense that they’re the only owners with four.

[garoidb]

Red Bull was literally offered the option to buy Minardi because there was a real threat that F1 could have ended with just 9 or even 8 teams after even the big car manufacturers didn’t want to pay the bills anymore.
Red Bull literally bought two teams which wouldn’t have existed in any form anymore.

 

That's the choice. The non-existence of what is now known as the Racing Bulls team.  That's what Bernie was trying to avoid and that's why he conjured up a pitch to Red Bull with vague inferences about why it would be a good idea. People here are taking Bernie's sales patter as genuine  . It turned out to be an investment that gained value as F1 has thrived under its current arrangements. Why would they want to sell? How can they be forced to, when nothing has changed and the original deal was completely out in the open. If it is wrong now, it was wrong then.  

[New Britain]

Specifically, the people and organisations with "skin in the game" and therefore, those with by far the most to lose. They of course are also the only people considering each situation as competitive professionals and make no mistake, if they see or suspect even the smallest of actions that they believe to be unfair, unreasonable or in contravention of the rules, they'll make a lot of noise and push for changes (as we saw with the accusations and carry on over the Red Bull front tray adjuster this year).

 

You may recall that in the "Pink Mercedes" case, the other teams made a lot of noise, asked a lot of questions and the FIA issued clarifications and we haven't seen such blatant copying again. The fact, as mentioned by me and others through this thread, that other teams haven't made any noise about Red Bull dual ownership speaks volumes and indicates that there hasn't been cause for concern.

Re your first paragraph, the teams, the FIA, and Liberty certainly have 'skin in the game', but so do we fans, some of whom have been invested in and contributed to motor sport since when Stefano Domenicali and Mohammed Ben Sulayem were in short pants. And that is not to mention the interests of motor sport itself, which transcend the interests of us mortals and will matter long after all we mortals will be at that great race track in the sky. What is accepted in practice by them in power is not necessarily 'acceptable' to reason or fairness. The people in power are not the only ones who matter.

 

Re your second paragraph, I don't know about any other team owners or TPs, but Zak Brown has several times objected to the one-owner-two-teams loophole. I cannot recall a time when someone in this thread has argued that none of the teams had raised concerns but no one here corrected them on that point.

 

Zak Brown:

"No other sport to my knowledge allows co-ownership of two teams that compete against each other," Brown said when asked by The Race why he's been so vocal about A/B teams and co-ownership recently.

"So I think the sport, as we’re now in the budget cap era, has moved on to where we’re trying to have 10 independent teams from a sporting, from a political, from a technical point of view.

"I think they [Red Bull] are very much playing by the rules. I have an issue with the rules - and believe the FIA needs to address this."

 

https://www.the-race...b-f1-fia-rules/

[garoidb]

Re your first paragraph, the teams, the FIA, and Liberty certainly have 'skin in the game', but so do we fans, some of whom have been invested in and contributed to motor sport since when Stefano Domenicali and Mohammed Ben Sulayem were in short pants. And that is not to mention the interests of motor sport itself, which transcend the interests of us mortals and will matter long after all we mortals will be at that great race track in the sky. What is accepted in practice by them in power is not necessarily 'acceptable' to reason or fairness. The people in power are not the only ones who matter.

 

Re your second paragraph, I don't know about any other team owners or TPs, but Zak Brown has several times objected to the one-owner-two-teams loophole. I cannot recall a time when someone in this thread has argued that none of the teams had raised concerns but no one here corrected them on that point.

 

Zak Brown:

"No other sport to my knowledge allows co-ownership of two teams that compete against each other," Brown said when asked by The Race why he's been so vocal about A/B teams and co-ownership recently.

"So I think the sport, as we’re now in the budget cap era, has moved on to where we’re trying to have 10 independent teams from a sporting, from a political, from a technical point of view.

"I think they [Red Bull] are very much playing by the rules. I have an issue with the rules - and believe the FIA needs to address this."

 

https://www.the-race...b-f1-fia-rules/

 

It's not a loophole. Zak didn't bring up any concerns about links between teams through engine supply contracts, by any chance? 

[krea]

He started to be vocally against it when his wings were flexing a little too much. Classic Zak

[pdac]

Re your first paragraph, the teams, the FIA, and Liberty certainly have 'skin in the game', but so do we fans, some of whom have been invested in and contributed to motor sport since when Stefano Domenicali and Mohammed Ben Sulayem were in short pants. And that is not to mention the interests of motor sport itself, which transcend the interests of us mortals and will matter long after all we mortals will be at that great race track in the sky. What is accepted in practice by them in power is not necessarily 'acceptable' to reason or fairness. The people in power are not the only ones who matter.

 

Re your second paragraph, I don't know about any other team owners or TPs, but Zak Brown has several times objected to the one-owner-two-teams loophole. I cannot recall a time when someone in this thread has argued that none of the teams had raised concerns but no one here corrected them on that point.

 

Zak Brown:

"No other sport to my knowledge allows co-ownership of two teams that compete against each other," Brown said when asked by The Race why he's been so vocal about A/B teams and co-ownership recently.

"So I think the sport, as we’re now in the budget cap era, has moved on to where we’re trying to have 10 independent teams from a sporting, from a political, from a technical point of view.

"I think they [Red Bull] are very much playing by the rules. I have an issue with the rules - and believe the FIA needs to address this."

 

https://www.the-race...b-f1-fia-rules/

 

That quote from Zak was just a classic deflection tactic to transfer the focus off of the things that *his* team were up to (or, at least, being accused of).

[New Britain]

That quote from Zak was just a classic deflection tactic to transfer the focus off of the things that *his* team were up to (or, at least, being accused of).

In the off-season of December 2023, what things was he supposedly trying to take the focus off?

[New Britain]

It's not a loophole. Zak didn't bring up any concerns about links between teams through engine supply contracts, by any chance? 

 

loophole

/ˈluːphəʊl/

 

noun: loophole; plural noun: loopholes

1. an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

"they exploited tax loopholes"

 

I am not aware of any comments he has made about PU supplier-customer links, no. Unlike the one-owner-two teams problem which can easily be rectified or at least mitigated, however, the supplier-customer question is a conflict of interest with no obvious solution.

What do you suggest be done about it?

[arrysen]

Ah, but acceptability to whom?  

 

Re your first paragraph, the teams, the FIA, and Liberty certainly have 'skin in the game', but so do we fans, some of whom have been invested in and contributed to motor sport since when Stefano Domenicali and Mohammed Ben Sulayem were in short pants. And that is not to mention the interests of motor sport itself, which transcend the interests of us mortals and will matter long after all we mortals will be at that great race track in the sky. What is accepted in practice by them in power is not necessarily 'acceptable' to reason or fairness. The people in power are not the only ones who matter.

The people in power are the only ones that matter because they are the only ones who can take action if something crosses a line, they are also ones who will know far more about what is happening, have access to conversations and information directly from the other stakeholders such as themselves and the only ones doing this for a living. Whether fans find something acceptable or not is far less relevant (bordering on being irrelevant) because it would be extremely rare for the fanbase to have access to full information to start with and of course fans are not the group of people administering the sport. Now, it's possible that some fans may turn away from the sport if they feel something isn't acceptable but it would take massive fan movement away for those running and working in the sport to notice and even then, might not know why fans have left. Given that the fanbase has stayed & grown during the chronically excremental hybrid era, that the fanbase stayed after we lost Ayrton Senna and that despite some dips during periods of domination in recent years, has been on an upward curve, it's fair to say that fans generally don't seem all that fussed by dual team ownership either.

 

 

Re your second paragraph, I don't know about any other team owners or TPs, but Zak Brown has several times objected to the one-owner-two-teams loophole. 

 

It isn't a loophole - it is something that the regulations simply don't prevent, therefore is within the regulations and fully compliant. I have a lot of time for Zac and what he is achieving at McLaren but he is one voice only and has been "out there" in comparison to his fellow TPs on a number of subjects on a number of occasions. He also (in common with some other TPs) understands the value of stirring the pot and making the opposition uncomfortable by playing mind games and forcing them to respond. Signed affidavits anyone?

[New Britain]

The people in power are the only ones that matter because they are the only ones who can take action if something crosses a line, they are also ones who will know far more about what is happening, have access to conversations and information directly from the other stakeholders such as themselves and the only ones doing this for a living. Whether fans find something acceptable or not is far less relevant (bordering on being irrelevant) because it would be extremely rare for the fanbase to have access to full information to start with and of course fans are not the group of people administering the sport. Now, it's possible that some fans may turn away from the sport if they feel something isn't acceptable but it would take massive fan movement away for those running and working in the sport to notice and even then, might not know why fans have left. Given that the fanbase has stayed & grown during the chronically excremental hybrid era, that the fanbase stayed after we lost Ayrton Senna and that despite some dips during periods of domination in recent years, has been on an upward curve, it's fair to say that fans generally don't seem all that fussed by dual team ownership either.

 

 

It isn't a loophole - it is something that the regulations simply don't prevent, therefore is within the regulations and fully compliant. I have a lot of time for Zac and what he is achieving at McLaren but he is one voice only and has been "out there" in comparison to his fellow TPs on a number of subjects on a number of occasions. He also (in common with some other TPs) understands the value of stirring the pot and making the opposition uncomfortable by playing mind games and forcing them to respond. Signed affidavits anyone?

So you reckon that motor racing fans, and the best interests of motor sport, do not matter? Okay.

You can argue that only the three groups of insiders have power (although if every racing fan were to boycott Formula One, I think we would see pretty quickly who had ultimate power), but to argue that the insider groups 'are the only ones that matter' is quite a notion.

 

As to 'loophole', the very point of a loophole is that it can be exploited within the rules: exploiting a loophole is compliant. Smokey Yunick's super-large fuel hoses were compliant. McLaren's f-duct was compliant. As the definition of the term that I cited explains, a loophole is 'an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law'.

In this case there is not an ambiguity, but there is an inadequacy. That's my position, some people disagree.

[arrysen]

So you reckon that motor racing fans, and the best interests of motor sport, do not matter? Okay.

You can argue that only the three groups of insiders have power (although if every racing fan were to boycott Formula One, I think we would see pretty quickly who had ultimate power), but to argue that the insider groups 'are the only ones that matter' is quite a notion.

You asked "acceptability to whom?" - and as the only people who can affect any change, those that I mentioned are the ones who matter. If every fan was to boycott F1 (would never happen, particularly taking into account as examples the situations I mentioned in my post) then the FIA, FOM, Teams would want to survey those who were boycotting - if they did so, out of every 100 or so fans, there'd probably be 80 different reasons. Personally, I think that high ticket prices would have far more impact than a co-owned team but GPs are still selling out fast (here in Australia, the 2025 GP sold out within a couple of hours of tickets going on sale - that's over 400K tickets, pretty impressive).

 

 

As to 'loophole', the very point of a loophole is that it can be exploited within the rules: exploiting a loophole is compliant. Smokey Yunick's super-large fuel hoses were compliant. McLaren's f-duct was compliant. As the definition of the term that I cited explains, a loophole is 'an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law'.

In this case there is not an ambiguity, but there is an inadequacy. That's my position, some people disagree.

I definitely disagree with you - there is no inadequacy. If we all agreed, you could maybe call it a loophole, but we don't and you're using a dismissive name (loophole) to bolster your argument & I'm saying that it's not a loophole, no matter how much you'd like to call it that.

[MikeTekRacing]

Re your first paragraph, the teams, the FIA, and Liberty certainly have 'skin in the game', but so do we fans, some of whom have been invested in and contributed to motor sport since when Stefano Domenicali and Mohammed Ben Sulayem were in short pants. And that is not to mention the interests of motor sport itself, which transcend the interests of us mortals and will matter long after all we mortals will be at that great race track in the sky. What is accepted in practice by them in power is not necessarily 'acceptable' to reason or fairness. The people in power are not the only ones who matter.

Re your second paragraph, I don't know about any other team owners or TPs, but Zak Brown …

Somebody please think of the fans.
Taking Zak seriously while sleeping with a Horner doll for voodoo practice must be a very sad time.

Anyway, one of thr best comical posts I’ve read. And it’s only Jan 6th

[garoidb]

 

loophole

/ˈluːphəʊl/

 

noun: loophole; plural noun: loopholes

1. an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

"they exploited tax loopholes"

 

I am not aware of any comments he has made about PU supplier-customer links, no. Unlike the one-owner-two teams problem which can easily be rectified or at least mitigated, however, the supplier-customer question is a conflict of interest with no obvious solution.

What do you suggest be done about it?

 

 

It's not a loophole. It's deliberately and openly allowed and has been for decades. There is no ambiguity or inadequacy. 

Edited by garoidb, Today, 07:22.

[New Britain]

You asked "acceptability to whom?" - and as the only people who can affect any change, those that I mentioned are the ones who matter. If every fan was to boycott F1 (would never happen, particularly taking into account as examples the situations I mentioned in my post) then the FIA, FOM, Teams would want to survey those who were boycotting - if they did so, out of every 100 or so fans, there'd probably be 80 different reasons. Personally, I think that high ticket prices would have far more impact than a co-owned team but GPs are still selling out fast (here in Australia, the 2025 GP sold out within a couple of hours of tickets going on sale - that's over 400K tickets, pretty impressive).

 

 

I definitely disagree with you - there is no inadequacy. If we all agreed, you could maybe call it a loophole, but we don't and you're using a dismissive name (loophole) to bolster your argument & I'm saying that it's not a loophole, no matter how much you'd like to call it that.

Laws are constantly being changed in democracies around the world. The day before something becomes illegal, it is legal and therefore accepted by the powers that be, but the reason that it was going to be changed was that the subject was no longer considered to be 'acceptable'. Long before lawmakers decide to change laws, there will be civil societies that start the argument that a law should be changed or introduced. To those civil societies at the start of the process, the original law was unacceptable, although it was the law.

That is the distinction that I was making: the difference between what is operative and what (at least some) people consider to be right and fair.

 

It is not clear why the determination of whether something is a 'loophole' should require unanimous agreement. International tech companies whose assets are primarily IP are notorious for creating profit centres in tax havens when their real-world profits are generated in higher-tax jurisdictions. That is perfectly legal for them to do.

The companies doing so argue that their obligation is to act in the interests of their shareholders and it is governments', not businesses', responsibility to harmonise international tax law. I would call tax arbitrage the exploitation of a loophole or inadequacy in the laws which at the moment is accepted but is not acceptable. Some people defend tax arbitrage, many people do not.

[New Britain]

 

It's not a loophole. It's deliberately and openly allowed and has been for decades. There is no ambiguity or inadequacy. 

 

Well, the members of this forum care more about and have a better understanding of motor racing than the average fan does, and 59% of them have said that one party should not be allowed to own or control two teams. That does not necessarily make us 'right', but it clearly shows that many informed people consider the present rule, although unambiguous, to be inadequate. How can something be adequate if people think it should be changed?

You disagree - fine, but proof by assertion is not much of an argument.

The three arguments that have been made in favour of the status quo have been that:

- when GmbH bought Minardi it benefited the sport, and therefore the sport owes it to GmbH to retain Racing Bulls for as long as GmbH wishes;

- there are other conflicts of interest operating in F1 and therefore the one-owner-two-teams conflict of interest should be accepted along with the others; and

- despite clear evidence to the contrary, [supposedly] Red Bull Racing has never taken advantage of its control over Racing Bulls.

In your opinion is there another reason why the present rules are adequate and should not be changed?

[garoidb]

Well, the members of this forum care more about and have a better understanding of motor racing than the average fan does, and 59% of them have said that one party should not be allowed to own or control two teams. That does not necessarily make us 'right', but it clearly shows that many informed people consider the present rule, although unambiguous, to be inadequate. How can something be adequate if people think it should be changed?

You disagree - fine, but proof by assertion is not much of an argument.

The three arguments that have been made in favour of the status quo have been that:

- when GmbH bought Minardi it benefited the sport, and therefore the sport owes it to GmbH to retain Racing Bulls for as long as GmbH wishes;

- there are other conflicts of interest operating in F1 and therefore the one-owner-two-teams conflict of interest should be accepted along with the others; and

- despite clear evidence to the contrary, [supposedly] Red Bull Racing has never taken advantage of its control over Racing Bulls.

In your opinion is there another reason why the present rules are adequate and should not be changed?

 

Are you suggesting that the team be confiscated or sold off? Can this be applied to other teams in the future also, when someone decides to introduce a new sporting rule? I am very opposed to the seizing or forced sale of property when there was no skulduggery involved with its acquisition or operation and there are no clouds over the people or organisations in question. It's sinister. 

 

The survey is irrelevant. The framing is biased to begin with and it is polling people who, even if all teams had equal support, would contain a large majority of invested fans of competitor teams. 

[PayasYouRace]

So you reckon that motor racing fans, and the best interests of motor sport, do not matter? Okay.
You can argue that only the three groups of insiders have power (although if every racing fan were to boycott Formula One, I think we would see pretty quickly who had ultimate power), but to argue that the insider groups 'are the only ones that matter' is quite a notion.

Your argument that it’s in the best interests of all motorsports might carry more weight if ownership of different numbers of cars wasn’t acceptable in most motorsport series, even at the top level.

[krea]

The infamous loophole of getting it offered by the owners of F1

[kumo7]

Long discussions.
it, i mean prohibiting one owner two trams, will never happens.

1) FOM has more power than FIA, seen in Andretti entry;
2) DoJ never care about it;
3) Liberty wants owners to be happy;
4) FOM loves to show its power above trams, seen in Michael Andretti vs Liberty Boss.

Edited by kumo7, Today, 11:48.