About the F1 Resource Restriction Agreement

[Nando]

I honest don't understand why are you always askin question in the opposite direction when obviously we all know tat ferrari uses f1 technology to drive their road car program not the other way round.if you wsh to know f458 did adopted te f1 dual clutch system and their latest model is going to run kers as well.

Are they running dual clutch systems on F1 cars? I thought they ran zeroshift gearboxes or similar to that.

[CHT]

I honest don't understand why are you always askin question in the opposite direction when obviously we all know tat ferrari uses f1 technology to drive their road car program not the other way round.if you wsh to know f458 did adopted te f1 dual clutch system and their latest model is going to run kers as well.

Are they running dual clutch systems on F1 cars? I thought they ran zeroshift gearboxes or similar to that.

You coud be right but tat how Ferrari call it.

7 speed f1 dual-clutch

http://www.ferrari.com/english/gt_sport ... arbox.aspx

[Nando]

I´m not sure but i think that´s just PR talk, or some parts are F1 derived like the e-diff.

The gearboxes of modern Formula One cars are now highly automated with drivers selecting gears via paddles fitted behind the steering wheel. The 'sequential' gearboxes used are very similar in principle to those of motorbikes, allowing gear changes to be made far faster than with the traditional ‘H’ gate selector, with the gearbox selectors operated electrically.
Formula1.com

Formula One cars use semi-automatic sequential gearboxes, with regulations stating that 7 forward gears and 1 reverse gear must be used, with rear-wheel drive.[7] The gearbox is constructed of carbon titanium, as heat dissipation is a critical issue, and is bolted onto the back of the engine.[8] Full automatic gearboxes, and systems such as launch control and traction control, are illegal, to keep driver skill important in controlling the car.[8] The driver initiates gear changes using paddles mounted on the back of the steering wheel and electro-hydraulics perform the actual change as well as throttle control. Clutch control is also performed electro-hydraulically, except to and from a standstill, when the driver operates the clutch using a lever mounted on the back of the steering wheel.[9]
A modern F1 clutch is a multi-plate carbon design with a diameter of less than 100 mm (3.9 in),[9] weighing less than 1 kg (2.2 lb) and handling around 720 hp (540 kW).[4] As of the 2009 race season, all teams are using seamless shift transmissions, which allow almost instantaneous changing of gears with minimum loss of drive. Shift times for Formula One cars are in the region of 0.05 seconds.[10] In order to keep costs low in Formula One, gearboxes must last five consecutive events, although gear ratios can be changed for each race. Changing a gearbox before the allowed time will cause a penalty of five places drop on the starting grid for the first event that the new gearbox is used.[11]
Wikipedia.com

Fastest double clutch system that i´ve read about is 8ms in the Bugatti Veyron made by Ricardo i think.

[FoxHound]

The know how from f1 trickles down to the road cars sometimes.

But there is hardly any road car tech that comes into f1. The gearboxes and shift mechanisms, clutch, assembly and even materials are different beasts. You cannot compare the 2.
However, Ferrari do learn from F1 and apply that to their road cars. But it's important to remember, whatever they apply has to last however long the warranty is, and it must be usable in all conditions.

I don't see how a manufacterer can learn something from a road car, and then apply this to an F1 car effectively.
I'm not saying its never happened. But in modern day f1 it is aero that is the dominant factor. Engines and gearboxes matter little, given that it's frozen(within reason) and that the playing field is fairly level in comparison to aero.

[marcush.]

Everything quality and methodology is clearly automotive (but originally aerospace) derived.Automotive is not very adventurous but even worse is Motorsports sticking to proven concepts for all too long.
Hybrid and KERS technology is far ahead as a lot of money is available for this kind of technology so the real step or advance in formula 1 is material (cost no objective) and as a byproduct package and weight ,as a matter of safety margins and component life.
I´d think on materials ,process and base technologies just forget formula 1 as a technology driver .These things are invented and brought to feasibility somewhere else.
Formula 1 is at best a fast follower adopting things proven and readily available. there is no inventing new things in formula 1,it is applied known technology see flexy wings for which readily available calculation programmes exist ...not automotive ,sure but aerospace initiated.

[FoxHound]

Agree with you marcush in that automotive derived tech is pretty much dead now in f1.

Aerodynamics and aero elasticity along with sciences like gas flow(coanda) are the avenues which now dictate development.
The last few years stands as a monument to this.

Look at it in terms of just the last 4 years:

2009 double diffuser.
2010 fduct
2011 exhaust blown diffuser
2012 coanda exhaust/ddrs

All developments a car manufacturer will have no real world advantage over a supplier or f1 competitor.
Aero dominance is where f1 is and has been for many years.

I don't know what RBTech houses in terms of equipment, but would it be safe to assume there is aero work going on there?

[marcush.]

formula 1 is a marketing exercise in reality.long gone the days when formula 1 had relevance to everyday transportation...apart from 4 wheels ..erm 5 .
Therfore RBR must be a huge itch to Mercedes ,Ferrari and even Mclaren as it is hard to get beaten by a soft drink..3 years in a row..that tells a lot about real world relevance.

[FoxHound]

interesting....

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2012/12/02/f ... tezemolo/?

[henra]

Red Bull technology have a turnover of 350 million dollars which is more than Mercedes turnsover on it's
...
...
On top of this, Red Bull then turnsover a further 250 million on its racing team.

Didn't you read the explanation given by @WhiteBlue, @CHT, others or myself that you cannot simply add the turnover of RB Technology and RB Racing.
I mean technically you obviously can. But it's almost guranteed that it gives you a completely wrong result, even if it fits to your feelings.
It would be true if RB Tech were giving everything for free to RB Racing. But then again they would make a huge loss while in the figures of @CHT they showed a profit.
Even pretty basic economic knowledge should tell you to maybe rethink your statement, or at least to make it less absolute.

[FoxHound]

@Henra

I have given lee way for supplier status. I'm not saying every penny of the 350 million is used towards Red Bull.

1.What I'm saying is that if you are using the argument that Red Bull technologies is a supplier to other teams including Red Bull(Torro Rosso and caterham the other 2) and that the the 350 million reflects that, I would like to know why?

2.Why can Mercedes achieve 100 million for it's Mercedes HPE arm, yet supply 3 teams with Engines and KERS units which are vastly more expensive to produce and supply than suspension arms and gearboxes.
http://www.coreindex.co.uk/company-prof ... stryid=226
http://www.worksmart.org.uk/company/com ... d=01760288


Mercedes can produce an F1 car, run a factory and supply 3 teams with engines and KERS for less than Red Bull technologies supplies 1 top team and 2 lower rung teams. And I havent even started on the 250m RBR has for it's own team...
This doesn't strike you as strange in the slightest?

[gato azul]

@ Gato

I don't have the full account schedule for the year. So if you want, have it your way which is:

Red Bull technology have a turnover of 350 million from supplying Caterham and STR( ) And a few bits and bobs to Red Bull racing. Thats a third party supplier with a higher turnover than any current F1 team....If you think that's kosher then may the force be with you.

some stuff

You are free to speculate and conclude as much as yo like, but may be concentrate of what each party has said/written on here in the context of this discussion.
Our conversation started out with the following statements of yours:

Squadra Torro Rosso is a seperate entity and not included in the RBR or RBT companies house figures.

and

To be clear, Red Bull racing has a budget of 250 million. Red Bull Technologies has 350 million.
The total of the 2 combined is 600 million plus per annum. The companies are indistinguishably linked, by owners and by purpose...From Horner himself. Red Bull technologies supply Red Bull. They also supply STR and Caterham, but not to the extent of 350 million dollars. Otherwise we would have an STR or Caterham on pole every other race.

to which I ask you the following, very simple and straight forward questions:

Would you like to comment on your other statement made?
You know, the one that RBT's sales to Torro Rosso will not need to be shown in their companies house filing as Turnover/revenue or "Umsatz"?
And, may you state what your understanding of the term revenue/turnover/Umsatz is, and how you conclude, that it amounts to money spend, this would help to move the discussion forward, as it seems, we are not all using this term (Umsatz/Turnover) in the same context.
Thanks

There is no need for any account schedule to answer any of this, so why you keep beating around the bush?
How you make "Budget" out of a published figure for "turnover", and what is your understanding of the term "turnover"?

The mentioning of the Mercedes GP figures were only meant to illustrate the point, that one should not attempt to conclude
any "budget" or "money spend" vales solely from published "turnover" values.
Why Mercedes hat a "turnover" of ~115 mil GBP ( which equals ~184 mil US$ and is close to your claimed ~180 mil US$) it actually spend ~120 mil GBP in 2011. Which is all fair and good, just shows that your way of looking at numbers has it's possible downfalls.

Code: Select all

Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Ltd
Key Financials		                 % Change        Previous Year (2010) 
Employees	          526	     8.01%	                            487
Turnover	               114,853,000 GBP	    -7.83%	          124,605,000 GBP
Cost Of Sales	 120,217,000 GBP	    -0.54%	          120,873,000 GBP
Gross Profit	   -5,364,000 GBP	     -243.73%	3,732,000 GBP
Operating Profit	 -10,818,000 GBP	     -669.42%        -1,406,000 GBP
Pre-Tax Profit	 -10,568,000 GBP    -1012.42%	 -950,000 GBP
Post-Tax Profit	 -10,568,000 GBP	 -1012.42%	 -950,000 GBP

So what if RBT actually sells a bit more then just some "bit's and bobs", as you like to call it, to RBR?
Seeing that RBR only employs some 52 people, it is plausible to conclude that they actually purchase quite a bit more then
just some "bit's & bobs" from RBT.
What if ,let's say 150 mil GBP, of their ~171 mil GBP spend (Cost of sales) are purchased from RBT?
Would that not mean, it would have to show up in RBT's balance sheet as "turnover"?
Thereby accounting for the lions share of their total turnover of ~215 mil GBP.
That would "only" leave ~65 mil GBP for other customers such as STR & Caterham for example.
So how does this correlate to your 350 mil US$ claim?

Red Bull Racing
Employees 52
Turnover 176,844,000 GBP
Cost Of Sales 171,107,000 GBP
Gross Profit 5,737,000 GBP

for anyone with still an interest and a modicum of understanding of accounting and subsidiaries (RBR being a 100% subsidiary of RBT), the total cost in 2011 for RBR&RBT was ~185 mill GBP after all was said and done.
If you like you can compare this to the ~120 mill GBP which Mercedes spend, or to any other figure you like.
Yes, they spend more, and get good return for it, but nowhere near the money which was bandied around here earlier.

[gato azul]

Please can you point me where I said Red Bull racing's budget was 600 million?

Sure, we will argue for another 20 pages, but here you compared Mercedes spending on Chassis & Aero and claim, that
RBR & RBT would spend 600 mill US$ at the same time on Chassis & Aero.
And as shown in your other quote, interchange the term "turnover" with "budget" and/or "money spend".
Creative way to look at it.

Meaning Mercedes total spend on chassis and aero, is 180 million. Red Bull with Red Bull technology is 600million, as RB tech supply the Red Bull racing team.
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... &start=165
***********
And Because it's an ingenious attempt at making themselves look like they care while burning 600 million dollars in the background.
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... &start=360

Furthermore, you repeatedly claim, that RBR get his engines for free, do you have any prove of this?
I mean, in the context, that there is no money paid to Renault, in the context of the numbers for "turnover" & "cost of sales"?

I think, it is much more likely, that RBR get's money from Infinity (Nissan) in form of sponsoring which will show up as "turnover" in the balance sheet, and then hands all (or more likely at least a part of) the money over to Renault to pay for
Engines + KERS & Services. This money will show as "cost of sales" in the balance sheet.
So, yes it's effectively "free" engines, but they only can spend the difference between the amount of the Infinity sponsoring and the cost of the engines for "chassis & aero".
Which is less, then what you like to claim above, based solely on the "turn over" figures published by NZZ.

Red Bull has linked up with Japanese car maker Infiniti and will receive effectively free engines for the first time.

Red Bull previously had to pay the statutory 8m Euros (£6.8m) for their customer Renault engines but the funding from Infiniti will at least cover that amount.

source

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Red Bull Racing
Employees 52
Turnover 176,844,000 GBP
Cost Of Sales 171,107,000 GBP
Gross Profit 5,737,000 GBP

I'm not so much talking about budget here. Look at what is bolded above. Do you not see the stat that is worrisome? Red Bull Racing has 52 employees. Mercedes has 400-500. Ferrari, more than that. McLaren close to Ferrari.

But a racing team with 1/8th the employees of other racing teams has dominated F1 for 3 years. Amazing how so few people can do such a good job eh?

The problem is the Chief Designer, Aerodynamic Engineers, CFD guys, Wind Tunnel guys that work on Red Bull Racing F1 cars are not employed by Red Bull Racing, therefore they are not subject to the same restrictions that McLaren or Ferrari F1 teams are. They can do as much CFD analysis as they can stomach, other teams cannot. RBT can spend 24hrs a day in the Wind Tunnel with the RB8(or a car that bares a strikingly similar resemblance), but other teams cannot.
This is a huge advantage in Red Bull Racing's favor.

Red Bull Racing, with less than a quarter of the employees that other teams have, do as much work as companies 20 times their size. Amazing team.

[Neno]

Red Bull Racing and Red Bull tehnology are not same company. Newey and some engineers are employees of Red Bull Tehnology. I dont know how many Red Bull Racing have people, how many people who work on their cars as mehanics, how many as engineers, etc...

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Red Bull Racing and Red Bull tehnology are not same company. Newey and some engineers are employees of Red Bull Tehnology.I dont know how many Red Bull Racing have people, how many people who work on their cars as mehanics, how many as engineers, etc...

Exactly, hence they are not under the same restrictions as designers or Engineers from other teams.