FIA Thread

[Just_a_fan]

It's the sort of thing Red Bull do - arms length the staff (no doubt for legally allowed tax purposes). Their published accounts claim they only have 52 staff (50 in racing, 2 in admin) compared to, say, Mercedes with 1004 staff (831 design, manufacturing and engineering; 173 admin). So where are all of the Red Bull people?

Red Bull Racing and Red Bull Technologies have always been separate companies, since at least 2006.

Red Bull Racing buys their stuff from Red Bull Technologies (at least on paper), just as HAAS F1 Team buys their design services from Ferrari SpA and their manufacturing services from Dallara.

It was part of the arrangement for how Red Bull Technologies could design the cars for both Red Bull Racing and Toro Rosso at the time when that was allowed in the rules, just as Honda Racing F1 did the same with Super Aguri using the same chassis as Honda (or a year old Honda chassis).

But those same arrangements can also be used to game the cost cap and the resource limitations - a team using one set of worker to design two cars can use knowledge from one to improve the other "for free". I would guess that is what the TD is now wishing to prevent - and rightly so as it drives a coach and horses through the whole principle of the cost cap / resource limits.

[karana]

Such arrangements have been taken care of in the financial regulations, meaning that those regulations don't just apply to the F1 teams itself, but also other entities of their legal group structure:

Article 2.5: For the purposes of reporting Total Costs of the Reporting Group, an F1 Team’s Reporting
Group shall comprise the F1 Team together with, where the F1 Team has incurred less than
95% of the costs of the F1 Activities undertaken by or on behalf of the F1 Team in the
Reporting Period, such additional entities within the F1 Team's Legal Group Structure as are
determined in accordance with Article 2.6

So, the fact that Red Bull Racing Limited doesn't design their cars itself, is for the budget cap pretty much irrelevant, because Red Bull Technology Limited is still part of the reporting group.

[Just_a_fan]

Such arrangements have been taken care of in the financial regulations, meaning that those regulations don't just apply to the F1 teams itself, but also other entities of their legal group structure:

Article 2.5: For the purposes of reporting Total Costs of the Reporting Group, an F1 Team’s Reporting
Group shall comprise the F1 Team together with, where the F1 Team has incurred less than
95% of the costs of the F1 Activities undertaken by or on behalf of the F1 Team in the
Reporting Period, such additional entities within the F1 Team's Legal Group Structure as are
determined in accordance with Article 2.6

So, the fact that Red Bull Racing Limited doesn't design their cars itself, is for the budget cap pretty much irrelevant, because Red Bull Technology Limited is still part of the reporting group.

Yes, but the regulations don't take account of knowledge learned within such structures. Why? Because it's almost impossible to do so. If RBT Ltd use time in their wind tunnel on the AT, then that knowledge is available for the RB car too. One group of people doing both cars means they double the ability to learn stuff but each team only counts it as a single expenditure. The simple solution is to abandon these structures going forward.

[karana]

Such arrangements have been taken care of in the financial regulations, meaning that those regulations don't just apply to the F1 teams itself, but also other entities of their legal group structure:

Article 2.5: For the purposes of reporting Total Costs of the Reporting Group, an F1 Team’s Reporting
Group shall comprise the F1 Team together with, where the F1 Team has incurred less than
95% of the costs of the F1 Activities undertaken by or on behalf of the F1 Team in the
Reporting Period, such additional entities within the F1 Team's Legal Group Structure as are
determined in accordance with Article 2.6

So, the fact that Red Bull Racing Limited doesn't design their cars itself, is for the budget cap pretty much irrelevant, because Red Bull Technology Limited is still part of the reporting group.

Yes, but the regulations don't take account of knowledge learned within such structures. Why? Because it's almost impossible to do so. If RBT Ltd use time in their wind tunnel on the AT, then that knowledge is available for the RB car too. One group of people doing both cars means they double the ability to learn stuff but each team only counts it as a single expenditure. The simple solution is to abandon these structures going forward.

I'm quite sure that this isn't allowed. See for example article 17.2.8 of the technical regulations:

Competitors may make available to other Competitors test facilities and equipment such as
(but not limited to) wind tunnels or dynamometers. The Intellectual Property involved in the
operation of such shared facilities may be used by and/or disclosed to the sharing party but
the results of any experimental or test work carried out on such facilities may only be used by
the originator of the work. Where facilities are shared, robust processes must be put in place
to ensure there is no transfer of Intellectual Property through common personnel and that all
data can only be accessed by the originator of the work. Any such sharing of facilities must be
declared to the FIA with a full description of the work that will be carried out, and also of the
processes that will be put in place in order to avoid an exchange of information that could
lead to the transfer of knowledge leading to the performance enhancement of an LTC (as
required by Article 17.3.4), or a TRC (as required by Article 17.5.8 ) or an OSC (as required by
Article 17.6.11).

[AR3-GP]

Such arrangements have been taken care of in the financial regulations, meaning that those regulations don't just apply to the F1 teams itself, but also other entities of their legal group structure:

Article 2.5: For the purposes of reporting Total Costs of the Reporting Group, an F1 Team’s Reporting
Group shall comprise the F1 Team together with, where the F1 Team has incurred less than
95% of the costs of the F1 Activities undertaken by or on behalf of the F1 Team in the
Reporting Period, such additional entities within the F1 Team's Legal Group Structure as are
determined in accordance with Article 2.6

So, the fact that Red Bull Racing Limited doesn't design their cars itself, is for the budget cap pretty much irrelevant, because Red Bull Technology Limited is still part of the reporting group.

Yes, but the regulations don't take account of knowledge learned within such structures. Why? Because it's almost impossible to do so. If RBT Ltd use time in their wind tunnel on the AT, then that knowledge is available for the RB car too.

Well, if Eric Blandin learns the ins and outs of aero at Mercedes, then that knowledge is available for AMR

You can't police the idea that an engineer learns something in his employment at 1 team, and then uses it somewhere else. Everyone is trying to build the fastest F1 car under the same rules. Anything they learn at any team, can be brought over for pennies on the dollar to a new team.

[Big Tea]

Such arrangements have been taken care of in the financial regulations, meaning that those regulations don't just apply to the F1 teams itself, but also other entities of their legal group structure:



So, the fact that Red Bull Racing Limited doesn't design their cars itself, is for the budget cap pretty much irrelevant, because Red Bull Technology Limited is still part of the reporting group.

Yes, but the regulations don't take account of knowledge learned within such structures. Why? Because it's almost impossible to do so. If RBT Ltd use time in their wind tunnel on the AT, then that knowledge is available for the RB car too.

Well, if Eric Blandin learns the ins and outs of aero at Mercedes, then that knowledge is available for AMR

As I said earlier, if he puts it into a book and publishes, it is available to anyone with the book.
Are there ways only selected recipients can receive the book and still be legal? You first have to know of its existence to seek it out.

[AR3-GP]

Yes, but the regulations don't take account of knowledge learned within such structures. Why? Because it's almost impossible to do so. If RBT Ltd use time in their wind tunnel on the AT, then that knowledge is available for the RB car too.

Well, if Eric Blandin learns the ins and outs of aero at Mercedes, then that knowledge is available for AMR

As I said earlier, if he puts it into a book and publishes, it is available to anyone with the book.
Are there ways only selected recipients can receive the book and still be legal? You first have to know of its existence to seek it out.

My point is that when it comes down to it, you can't actually stop what is being described, nor do I think it makes sense to try to. To use RB as an example, there's nothing stopping an employee from working at RB for 6 months, then taking everything they know to a job at AT down the road. Ferrari had a lot of people go to Haas.

There's a free flow of IP that you will never be able to stop. Otherwise you might as well say you aren't allowed to employ anyone with previous F1 experience

j_ah_f's issue that keeps being brought up is, "why does RB get to use people who know things about AT, to work on RB things". When it comes down to it, RB could hire these people on short term contracts from AT to do the same thing, much like many teams already do amongst one another.

[dans79]

I think a lot of people are missing the point.

The td is aimed at preventing a team from moving staff around within their companies and subsidiaries to skirt around the cost cap.

The extreme case would be A team circulating members of the design team through a subsidiary continually, to work on an unregulated side project that is highly relevant to the current and/or future technical regulations. Employees learn something conceptually important while working at the subsidiary, and then when the employees cycle back into the race team they bring that conceptual knowledge with them for free.

[Just_a_fan]

Such arrangements have been taken care of in the financial regulations, meaning that those regulations don't just apply to the F1 teams itself, but also other entities of their legal group structure:



So, the fact that Red Bull Racing Limited doesn't design their cars itself, is for the budget cap pretty much irrelevant, because Red Bull Technology Limited is still part of the reporting group.

Yes, but the regulations don't take account of knowledge learned within such structures. Why? Because it's almost impossible to do so. If RBT Ltd use time in their wind tunnel on the AT, then that knowledge is available for the RB car too.

Well, if Eric Blandin learns the ins and outs of aero at Mercedes, then that knowledge is available for AMR

You can't police the idea that an engineer learns something in his employment at 1 team, and then uses it somewhere else. Everyone is trying to build the fastest F1 car under the same rules. Anything they learn at any team, can be brought over for pennies on the dollar to a new team.

People moving between teams is one thing. People moving strategically between projects is quite another. I'm still of the opinion that Red Bull benefitted massively from the Valkyrie project, for example. And that's just the sort of project that the new TD seeks to prevent in future.

[AR3-GP]

Yes, but the regulations don't take account of knowledge learned within such structures. Why? Because it's almost impossible to do so. If RBT Ltd use time in their wind tunnel on the AT, then that knowledge is available for the RB car too.

Well, if Eric Blandin learns the ins and outs of aero at Mercedes, then that knowledge is available for AMR

You can't police the idea that an engineer learns something in his employment at 1 team, and then uses it somewhere else. Everyone is trying to build the fastest F1 car under the same rules. Anything they learn at any team, can be brought over for pennies on the dollar to a new team.

People moving between teams is one thing. People moving strategically between projects is quite another. I'm still of the opinion that Red Bull benefitted massively from the Valkyrie project, for example. And that's just the sort of project that the new TD seeks to prevent in future.

The TD doesn't prevent any manufacturer from developing a Valkyrie for their brand. Mercedes developed a hyper car using F1 technology: https://www.mbusa.com/en/future-vehicle ... es-amg-one

Just as you can't police Eric Blandin's knowledge of Mercedes going into AMR, you can't police someone who worked in one project, regurgitating his ideas elsewhere for a fraction of the true investment. You may ask them to "cite the true investment" but how realistic do you think this is going to be? If Dan Fallows can show up and regurgitate his ideas at AMR and claim "I just remembered the final product", then why wouldn't someone working on the Project One, the Valkyrie, or the 499P say the same thing?

[ValeVida46]

AMR Pro with Newey devising it's higher ground effect requirement floor.








RB19



I must say, it's a very intriguing comparison. Those deep tunnels....

[dans79]

Just as you can't police Eric Blandin's knowledge of Mercedes going into AMR, you can't police someone who worked in one project, regurgitating his ideas elsewhere for a fraction of the true investment. You may ask them to "cite the true investment" but how realistic do you think this is going to be? If Dan Fallows can show up and regurgitate his ideas at AMR and claim "I just remembered the final product", then why wouldn't someone working on the Project One, the Valkyrie, or the 499P say the same thing?

Seems the FIA doesn't agree with you!

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fia-n ... /10488184/

TD45, as it is known, has now come into force and makes it clear that, from January 1 this year, any IP passed from a technical division back into an F1 squad must be included in cost cap spending.

The FIA is taking the matter seriously and, as part of a much more detailed analysis of team activities, Autosport has learned that it is being active in checking what non-F1 staff at teams are actually doing.

It is understood that, as part of enhanced monitoring introduced since the first cost cap submissions were made in 2021, a deeper probe has been made to check on non-F1 activities.

This now includes interviewing staff who were declared to be outside the scope of the F1 cost cap, to try to get a better understanding of exactly what projects they were working on.

Furthermore, samples of work completed by such staff are being analysed to ensure that they are totally separate from the F1 team and that no knowledge is being passed across.

[AR3-GP]

Just as you can't police Eric Blandin's knowledge of Mercedes going into AMR, you can't police someone who worked in one project, regurgitating his ideas elsewhere for a fraction of the true investment. You may ask them to "cite the true investment" but how realistic do you think this is going to be? If Dan Fallows can show up and regurgitate his ideas at AMR and claim "I just remembered the final product", then why wouldn't someone working on the Project One, the Valkyrie, or the 499P say the same thing?

Seems the FIA doesn't agree with you!

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fia-n ... /10488184/

TD45, as it is known, has now come into force and makes it clear that, from January 1 this year, any IP passed from a technical division back into an F1 squad must be included in cost cap spending.

The FIA is taking the matter seriously and, as part of a much more detailed analysis of team activities, Autosport has learned that it is being active in checking what non-F1 staff at teams are actually doing.

It is understood that, as part of enhanced monitoring introduced since the first cost cap submissions were made in 2021, a deeper probe has been made to check on non-F1 activities.

This now includes interviewing staff who were declared to be outside the scope of the F1 cost cap, to try to get a better understanding of exactly what projects they were working on.

Furthermore, samples of work completed by such staff are being analysed to ensure that they are totally separate from the F1 team and that no knowledge is being passed across.

I don't think you have understood the point. What the FIA "wants" and what they will "get" are two different things. That's why teams were able to burn oil or flex their wings.

You can work at Haas for 6 months, then move to Ferrari. Everyone in this industry already knows what is relevant to F1 and the regulations are the same for everyone. An engineer doesn't need to be told to "study ground effect" or "study biofuel combustion". Often, teams are specifically recruiting people who worked on things which are relevant to F1, which allows them to bypass the actual investment required to acquire this knowledge organically.

[Just_a_fan]

The "what about staff moving from one team to another?" is a red herring. The issue that the FIA is trying to deal with is teams using their F1 staff on projects like this: https://www.redbulladvancedtechnologies ... -the-rb17/ and then bringing them back in to the F1 team (or using information found in such projects on their own F1 car).

I have no doubt that the FIA's move is to counter projects like RB17 being used to circumvent the cost cap and resource limits.

[vorticism]

Just as you can't police Eric Blandin's knowledge of Mercedes going into AMR, you can't police someone who worked in one project, regurgitating his ideas elsewhere for a fraction of the true investment. You may ask them to "cite the true investment" but how realistic do you think this is going to be? If Dan Fallows can show up and regurgitate his ideas at AMR and claim "I just remembered the final product", then why wouldn't someone working on the Project One, the Valkyrie, or the 499P say the same thing?

Seems the FIA doesn't agree with you!

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fia-n ... /10488184/

TD45, as it is known, has now come into force and makes it clear that, from January 1 this year, any IP passed from a technical division back into an F1 squad must be included in cost cap spending.

The FIA is taking the matter seriously and, as part of a much more detailed analysis of team activities, Autosport has learned that it is being active in checking what non-F1 staff at teams are actually doing.

It is understood that, as part of enhanced monitoring introduced since the first cost cap submissions were made in 2021, a deeper probe has been made to check on non-F1 activities.

This now includes interviewing staff who were declared to be outside the scope of the F1 cost cap, to try to get a better understanding of exactly what projects they were working on.

Furthermore, samples of work completed by such staff are being analysed to ensure that they are totally separate from the F1 team and that no knowledge is being passed across.

You present this as a rebuttal, yet it doesn't relate to the point raised. AR3-GP is talking about quantifying IP/experience held by an employee expressed in €/£/$ because that is what a cost cap deals in, limits defined by discrete numbers. The article can only make vague allusions to "enhanced monitoring" and "taking the matter seriously" (lol). This precedent if it has any teeth will only be used arbitrarily for politics akin to LCA and DEI because it uses objetivesque precisionish sciency language in lieu of maths and logic.

I must say, it's a very intriguing comparison. Those deep tunnels....

Same post but with less FUD:

Imagine being a TD and NOT working on car design as a hobby because it's fun. I mean, are those other guys even trying or are they just there to wave their hands around and draw a paycheck?