35 replies to this topic

[Cplus]

Can't believe there is no thread on this yet, but anyway

It is looking increasingly likely that Toro Rosso and Red Bull will race effectively the same chassis in 2007.

I've been reading the articles on this everywhere this week and are wondering everyone else's thoughts on the matter.

Personally, I don't like it. In reality they've just created a company on paper to get around it - I hate when this happens in business (ie: to reduce possible litigation etc) and I don't think it should come into sport either.

BUT - the rules are as they are and the teams are going to use them to their advantage whenever possible. I've had a look at the rules, and from what is being said I don't think there is grounds for appeal.

Seems like RB have pulled off somewhat of a masterstroke, whether you agree with it / like it or not....

and more to the point, if it does get canned in the coming weeks (I don't think it will) what the hell are STR going to do - they'll be screwed!!

/discuss.

C+

[Nathan]

My question is, are chassis suppliers aloud to track test cars on their own behalf, and if so do they have a testing mileage limit?

[Spyker MF1]

I think its crap that Red Bull are effectively running 4 cars(almost). But their in the sh*t if they don't change the cooling a lot. As it has been mentioned in commentary that the Ferrari engines require completely different cooling than the Renault engines. I hope they haven't changed this and it causes the STR engines to blow up every race. And the crew aren't able to adapt the right cooling to it

[Timstr11]

Originally posted by Cplus
Can't believe there is no thread on this yet,...

Well...there is..http://forums.autosp...&threadid=91709

[Dudley]

It's been discussed at length.

Personally I'm all for chassis selling but I'm not fond of this attempt to get around the 2007 rules against it.

[CWeil]

Honestly, I'm all for it. Let there be more competitive teams fighting for the top spot- wouldn't you rather have 5-6 teams capable of winning on any given day than 2 (or 3, on a good day)? The sport NEEDS more competitive teams.

[Dudley]

Originally posted by CWeil
Honestly, I'm all for it. Let there be more competitive teams fighting for the top spot- wouldn't you rather have 5-6 teams capable of winning on any given day than 2 (or 3, on a good day)? The sport NEEDS more competitive teams.

Well yes. But this sport needs many things that are currently against the rules.

[Cplus]

Originally posted by Timstr11
Well...there is..http://forums.autosp...&threadid=91709

oops

technically, that is a SA thread though

[Ivan]

Originally posted by CWeil
Honestly, I'm all for it. Let there be more competitive teams fighting for the top spot- wouldn't you rather have 5-6 teams capable of winning on any given day than 2 (or 3, on a good day)? The sport NEEDS more competitive teams.

And that is why the teams use that loophole to get around that FIA law.

[CWeil]

So, technically, they are not breaking the FIA law, just the SPIRIT of the law. So, perhaps Montesquieu would argue that that is indeed worse, but look at it from the perspective of the general viewers (ie, not the ones who keep up with every behind-the-scenes news and develop) who make up the majority of those who watch the race: they see more competitive teams, more competition in races, different race winners, different winning teams, more variations in point scorers, less single/double team domination, etc etc.

From that perspective, it is EXACTLY what F1 needs.

There is a HUGE difference between this and what happened at Monza this year- few see this, but everyone saw what happened in Italy. That is what F1 doesn't need.

No, Spyker doesn't like it, but if you think they wouldn't do the EXACT same thing if they could, you'd be lying to yourself. They get mad, though, because they can't. I can appreciate Williams stance on it, but then again they'll be working closely enough with Toyota with technology sharing that they probably can't say TOO much about team independence.

Nowhere in here did I say that it is the most ethical thing to do from an absolutist stance, but neither did I say that I would be opposed to it. This is ultimately entertainment, and more competition means more entertainment.

For the record, I'm not opposed to what SA is doing, either. Hell, if someone could get Ferrari to give Spyker some tech support in key areas, I'd say go for it. If it puts every team closer to a level playing field, all the better.

Think about it- 2003 was one of the most exciting years recently, mostly because there were so many winners, which is partly attributed to the fact that many teams were close on performance to each other, due to either cars or tires. Of course, there was plenty of luck thrown in, but it was a great year because it wasn't like 2002 or 2004.

Whatever gets ultimately closer to that is good for the sport, even if perhaps not good from the FIA's legal perspective.

I'm generally a straight purist, but in this respect I've had trouble lately, mostly because I'd like to see F1 get back get to more close racing.

Edit: For what it's worth, anyone in F1 (or any sport, for that matter) that finds a loophole that will increase their competitiveness is stupid not to take it, because even if they don't someone else will anyway. Red Bull, in this respect, have just been the most clever and resourceful with the one they found. More power to them.

From a money standpoint, it's hard to argue against it at this point, because it'll be legal in 2008 anyway. It'll keep from throwing away less money needlessly. I didn't say it would save it, but just make it less of a waste to develop a car they toss in 2008 for the RB3/4. In Mosley's cost-effectiveness fueled F1, he'll have a hard time arguing his way out of himself.

[Limits]

We saw how a third car helped McLaren 2005 and BMW 2006. Add another car and you get more help. I don't know how different the homogulated 2007 engines are, but I guess they can not copy values 1-1, but it will still be a huge advantage. Remember that Toro Rosso and Red Bull is basically the same team. They even have the same name.

FIA has to be careful here, selling/buying chassis is different from having a 4 car team.

[WACKO]

I have said before that this is a precedent which is harming F1 on the long term. You already see the power play strategy being adopted by Honda, Mercedes will probably follow suit with Prodrive. Ferrari allies with Spyker, Renault with Red Bull; it's like in the cold war. It's bad for the sport, it's leaving a team like Williams, the last genuine privateer, no chance of success, despite their alliance with Toyota. Toro Rosso moreover are only there for the taking, it is giving absolutely zero back to Formula One.

[Dudley]

Well it's legal from 2008 so get used to it.

[Ben]

Originally posted by Dudley


Well yes. But this sport needs many things that are currently against the rules.

They haven't broken the rules, they've exploited them and done something that makes the two teams legally able to run the same chassis.

Spyker need to stop worrying about it and develop their own car.

Ben

[Mauseri]

I wonder if it'spossible Red Bull buys/enters a couple more teams and them all use the same chassis. And when the manufacturers quit, they keep doing this and we have a Red Bull spec series left

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally posted by Dudley
It's been discussed at length.

Personally I'm all for chassis selling but I'm not fond of this attempt to get around the 2007 rules against it.

F1 is 100% about following the letter of the regulations NOT the spirit. Red Bull have set this up correctly with the same employees working for two businesses using the same R & D to make 2 British cars one for Red Bull Racing and one for Red Bull Technologies which is the constructor for the italian make Toro Rosso.

Or is there one ideal for Ferrari and McLaren but humble Stewart Racing must be honourable?

[Lontano]

Originally posted by Ben

They haven't broken the rules, they've exploited them and done something that makes the two teams legally able to run the same chassis.

Spyker need to stop worrying about it and develop their own car.

Ben

in fact, if spyker is able to beat the RedBull, he'll beat the Toro Rosso too, so they can make 4 places by beating only one team!

[Owen]

Not really liking RBR's cynical loophole exploitation but to punish them once the cars have actually been produced doesn't seem fair on them either. I suspect they may get away with this. :

[mmmcurry]

Originally posted by Owen
but to punish them once the cars have actually been produced doesn't seem fair on them either.

Since when has fair come into this?

I wonder, it must have been obvious to them that people would complain, will they have a backup plan if they do get blocked.

My own thinking is that its once again the spirit of the rules vs the letter. I'd prefer it for all the teams to have their own cars though.

Steve.

[angst]

Originally posted by mmmcurry


Since when has fair come into this?

I wonder, it must have been obvious to them that people would complain, will they have a backup plan if they do get blocked.

My own thinking is that its once again the spirit of the rules vs the letter. I'd prefer it for all the teams to have their own cars though.

Steve.

Well, people can complain all they like. If it's legal then it's legal. As I've said before, quite where and on what grounds the other teams may seek arbitration is an interesting question.

[mmmcurry]

Originally posted by angst



Well, people can complain all they like. If it's legal then it's legal. As I've said before, quite where and on what grounds the other teams may seek arbitration is an interesting question.

God knows how much money will be spent 'cos some team found a way to get round what the rules intended, its not gonna be good for the sport.

Steve.

[Just]

I wonder what the RB drivers think of this? Are MW and DC pleased, as having twice as many miles driven on their chassis means extra development of the car for them? Or are they secretly pissed off (not admitting it in public, of course) as it means they now have two extra teammates that they "have to" beat, and yet could now be a threat? Or maybe MW and DC think that Luizzi / Speed aren't a match for them anyway.

[tidytracks]

People, let's not forget that the engine in the back of the Red Bull and the engine in the back of the Toro Rosso will be completely different.

There will no doubt be major differences in the rear design of the cars in order to accomodate the different engines, not to mention different characteristics for both cars. Its not simply a case of having 4 identical cars.

The interesting thing with Red Bull is somthing whoch grandprix.com pointed out. The RBR and STR have been designed, apparently by "Red Bull Technologies." The interesting thing here is the question of Newey. If he is employed by Red Bull Technologies and the design of the car has been made 100% by this company then, as far as I understand, that is within the rules. But if Newey is employed by Red Bull Racing and has been designing for a supposed external company named Red Bull Technologies there's a problem, as the IP would be RBR's because Newey is employed by RBR, and therefore not available to STR.

I may be wrong, but thats certainly how it seemed from grandprix.com's article.

[SirSaltire]

Originally posted by tidytracks
People, let's not forget that the engine in the back of the Red Bull and the engine in the back of the Toro Rosso will be completely different.

There will no doubt be major differences in the rear design of the cars in order to accomodate the different engines, not to mention different characteristics for both cars. Its not simply a case of having 4 identical cars.

The interesting thing with Red Bull is somthing whoch grandprix.com pointed out. The RBR and STR have been designed, apparently by "Red Bull Technologies." The interesting thing here is the question of Newey. If he is employed by Red Bull Technologies and the design of the car has been made 100% by this company then, as far as I understand, that is within the rules. But if Newey is employed by Red Bull Racing and has been designing for a supposed external company named Red Bull Technologies there's a problem, as the IP would be RBR's because Newey is employed by RBR, and therefore not available to STR.

I may be wrong, but thats certainly how it seemed from grandprix.com's article.

Newey is employed by Red Bull Technologies according to the latest F1 Racing mag. I think you will see both cars being quite different, especially at the back. Also the cooling characteristics of the Renault and Ferrari engines are different so the cooling inlets and structures will also be different.

[valachus]

Originally posted by tidytracks

The interesting thing with Red Bull is somthing whoch grandprix.com pointed out. The RBR and STR have been designed, apparently by "Red Bull Technologies." The interesting thing here is the question of Newey. If he is employed by Red Bull Technologies and the design of the car has been made 100% by this company then, as far as I understand, that is within the rules. But if Newey is employed by Red Bull Racing and has been designing for a supposed external company named Red Bull Technologies there's a problem, as the IP would be RBR's because Newey is employed by RBR, and therefore not available to STR.

There is no problem, since IP rights infringements may be invoked solely inter partes, by their apparent holder or self-claimed holder; no third party has that prerogative.

[Dudley]

Well not quite, because the FIA can still intervene.

[carbonfibre]

Originally posted by SirSaltire
Newey is employed by Red Bull Technologies according to the latest F1 Racing mag. I think you will see both cars being quite different, especially at the back. Also the cooling characteristics of the Renault and Ferrari engines are different so the cooling inlets and structures will also be different.

Yep the Renault engine is supposed to require less cooling and is supposed to be a bit more fuel efficient as well.

Could result into smaller airintake and sidepods.

[valachus]

Originally posted by Dudley
Well not quite, because the FIA can still intervene.

I am sincerely curious to learn on what regulation grounds they could.

[EDIT: to make myself clear - the FIA might be many things, but a justice court specialized in IP lawcases they aren't - they're nothing more than a non-profit association subject to French, EU and international IP laws.
Any party that would want to invoke to FIA some IP infringements committed by STR/RBR/Super Aguri would have to produce a real-world court decision to that effect - which in the real world only designers and IP right holders could claim. Not the rival teams, nor the FIA can rule that STR actually do not hold IP rights of any kind, only a justice court can.]

[AyePirate]

The FIA can say to anyone they can't race though.
Considering Red Bull helped blunt the GPMA a bit I don't see them doing so.

[Ceejay]

The exclusive rights conferred by intellectual property laws can generally be transferred (with or without consideration), licensed (or rented), or mortgaged to third parties. Like other forms of property, intellectual property (or rather the exclusive rights which subsist in the IP) can be transferred (with or without consideration) or licensed to third parties. In some jurisdictions it may also be possible to use intellectual property as security for a loan.

IP is conferred to protect, not to restrict. This thread is a non-issue. When, last year, STR was allowed to run the RB1 as a STR-1 it was entirely legal.

WilliamsF1 and Spyker may well chose to protest the STR-2, and other teams may agree they have a point, but they will be wasting their time.

[TT6]

F1 is all about using loop holes in the rules, speculating about the rule interpretitions, protesting and politics. Legal innovations go hand in hand with technical inno.vations. Good work Scuderia Red Racing Bull.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally posted by Ceejay

IP is conferred to protect, not to restrict. This thread is a non-issue. When, last year, STR was allowed to run the RB1 as a STR-1 it was entirely legal.

WilliamsF1 and Spyker may well chose to protest the STR-2, and other teams may agree they have a point, but they will be wasting their time.

Actually Honda - do'h a Red Bull issue ally! - and Toyota may want to be protesting too. Let's hope that Red Bull shall be "steam-rolling" - just hanging on for good placings really - to 4th in the WCC with top 3 grid placings and the like (it's not that hard a few tenths here and there:up: ) the more close "train" racing there is with time-wise similar lapping the easier the more plausible it is for Red Bull to be near the front. For example near the front of say a 3rd through 7th train (not cars being held up as such though, just lapping similarly) with for example a 2 sec gap to another train, 8th through 14th, of cars containing the Toro Rossos.

[Limits]

Funny arguments about the legality when everybody knows that FIA does whetever they want. Legal or not - Max decides. Pretty soon I guess.

[Dudley]

No, those of us who aren't mindless trolls don't "know that".

[Limits]

Am I the "mindless troll"?

I took me some time to read some of your posts - great stuff

[scottc]

Originally posted by V8 Fireworks


F1 is 100% about following the letter of the regulations NOT the spirit. Red Bull have set this up correctly with the same employees working for two businesses using the same R & D to make 2 British cars one for Red Bull Racing and one for Red Bull Technologies which is the constructor for the italian make Toro Rosso.

Or is there one ideal for Ferrari and McLaren but humble Stewart Racing must be honourable?

I agree. At the end of the day, F1 is all about exploiting the rules. McLaren did it with their 2 brake pedals controlling different wheels in 98. Then there was the fact of Ferrari using a clever method of power limiting technology to deliver the then illegal traction control, without it being called traction control. History is littered with teams using loopholes to gain position. I see this as an interesting fact of F1. As long as they are not out and out breaking the rules, bending them to the limit is interesting to watch.