About the F1 Resource Restriction Agreement

[Raptor22]

How is Williams sttructured/ they have a technology founded for development of their Flywheel KERS.

Anyway, I highly doubt the RRA can stipulate very specifically what constitutes a team since the likes of Ferrari and McLaren are likely also using work around structures. Its just that RedBull positiond themselves very cleverly once they bought Torro Rosso. That was more likely due to legal requirements operating in Austria, the UK and Italy.

Their current strcuture also allows the race team to be sold easily without having to unbundle the RBT arm. That arm would be the core team for all technology projects. They could retain a presence in F1 as a sponsor or Technology partner while no longer being a listed F1 race team. They would not have to go through the pain of selling the race team to the team withouth being able to easily reabsorb it if the buyer opts out in the future aka PEter Sauber and the BMW caper

[bhall]

[...]

So at this point the secrecy kills the RRA or the inaccuracy of its wording. Perhaps we will never know. But we can say with some certainty that the RRA did not work as advertised because the basic definitions were too ambiguous, verification was not not stringent enough or policing of violations became politically unsuitable. Whatever the reason was the fault was already build within the system in 2009. IMO you cannot install a cost control mechanism if you try to do it without a proper participation of the governing body. I hope the teams will learn from this and it looks to me like they did. The next solution they will try to implement will involve the authority of the FiA or they can give up completely on cost control.

I sincerely have no idea how you can continue to hold the idea that a cost cap is anything more than a device to give the outward appearance of "control." Have you not learned anything here? There are no definitions specific enough, no level of transparency clear enough, and no authority high enough to change the very simple fact that cost caps are nothing but an illusion.

The paddock could unanimously and enthusiastically agree to an annual cost cap of $1, and if they moved their articles of incorporation to Switzerland or Singapore, no one could ever, ever, ever challenge their reports to prove they spent otherwise. And that's just one of the thousands of ways to usurp any financial rule. You're up against generations of business-friendly laws and regulations, a status quo that even governments cannot defeat.

[Cam]

The beauty of the Red Bull Racing team and it's setup with RBT is in the cloudy muck it creates.

Example: RBT could conceivably state that they do indeed perform full scale F1 tests everyday of the year. They say they're are building they're own CFD system and are using full scale models to test and develop it - with the premise to sell their own CFD solution "RBT CFD v1.0". What better way to test and calibrate their CFD than to use current components on a real F1 car, then ask and receive the track data from Red Bull Racing and Toro Racing to compare it - purely as a means to test the RBT CFD v1.0 system only. All of this would be perfectly okay under the RRA.

Would some components born from this RBT CFD developments find their way onto a car? Sure, but the line is know so clouded. RBT could argue they built experience from their own testing and development which they then apply on behalf of a paying client.

This is a no-win situation and can never be regulated or prevented short of the FIA themselves issuing cheques to approved suppliers. Spec series anyone?

[Raptor22]

even though its hypothetical there nothing wrong with it.

[FoxHound]

Would some components born from this RBT CFD developments find their way onto a car? Sure, but the line is know so clouded. RBT could argue they built experience from their own testing and development which they then apply on behalf of a paying client.

Agreed.

They could even take a hit on the development costs, by underselling their "product", for the subsidiaries gain.

[FoxHound]

You quite obviously have a misunderstanding.

Please tell me what I'm misunderstanding. The RRA has not been published has it?

And we did get this from reliable sources.

The next step, as laid out by the RRA, was for a full audit of the accounts of the team about which there were suspicions - if a certain number of teams wanted this to happen, the accused team had to agree

[raymondu999]

So it probably is in the RRA that if there was some sort of majority - maybe 6 or 7 minimum - to agree on Team X needing a full-blown audit, then Team X would have to go through audit right?

Obviously then 4 or 5 thought that there weren't enough causes for suspicion.

[bhall]

[...]
Example: RBT could conceivably state that they do indeed perform full scale F1 tests everyday of the year. They say they're are building they're own CFD system and are using full scale models to test and develop it - with the premise to sell their own CFD solution "RBT CFD v1.0". What better way to test and calibrate their CFD than to use current components on a real F1 car, then ask and receive the track data from Red Bull Racing and Toro Racing to compare it - purely as a means to test the RBT CFD v1.0 system only. All of this would be perfectly okay under the RRA.
[...]

I think you've missed a bit of the big picture here. There needn't be any false premises. Red Bull Racing is the entity that's entered into the FIA Formula One World Championship. That means Red Bull Racing is the only Red Bull-owned entity that's subject to any rules and regulations that apply to Formula One. Red Bull Technology, on the other hand, is a "supplier" to Red Bull Racing. As such, it's subject to absolutely no oversight whatsoever. It can undertake full-scale wind tunnel testing or even full-scale track testing if it chooses. It can even notify the FIA, FOM, and every team of those activities, and they can't do anything but say, "OK."

There are so many ways around these rules that I simply do not know why they even bother implementing them. It's all a waste of time and paper.

(Disclaimer: As this is the Red Bull Racing thread, I've confined by comments to Red Bull Racing only. The rules are obviously the same for each team, meaning the loopholes available to each team are the same.)

[FoxHound]

But when you own STR and supply Caterham, as well as being the title bearer for the Renault, who have strong links to the Lotus team you never will have a unanimous vote.

Maybe I'm too cynical.

[raymondu999]

Renault, who have strong links to the Lotus team

Other than Lotus themselves being the artistes formerly known as Renault, I'm quite sure they don't have any further link other than being engine supplier and customer now. Red Bull are now the "default" Renault team, close to how McLaren were pre-2010. Hence why Red Bull is the team that's giving YDT days to WSR champs (in the way Williams gives, without question some YDT time to whoever the F2 champion is)

[FoxHound]

So you are dismissing the link because Lotus don't provide YDT?

[raymondu999]

No - but every source I read calls Red Bull the new works team. James Allen, Joe Saward - and so on and so forth. Hence why Red Bull is so intertwined with Infiniti now.

As I understand it, a Red Bull YDT is also heralded as the prize for winning WSR now, in the same way that a BMW test was a prize for winning Formula BMW, and the same way that a Williams YDT is the prize for an F2 title.

Unless you can prove otherwise - by which time I will be happy to apologise and rescind my words - the Enstone-based Lotus team is NO LONGER the Renault works team, now being only a customer of Renault Sport F1 engines, and the Milton Keynes-based Red Bull Racing team is the de facto works team.

As Christian Horner puts it,

It guarantees stability, it makes us the premier, factory team of Renault Sport, so our colleagues where the engines are produced will be working hand in hand with the engineers and designers at Red Bull.

Source: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/94534

[WhiteBlue]

I think you've missed a bit of the big picture here. There needn't be any false premises. Red Bull Racing is the entity that's entered into the FIA Formula One World Championship. That means Red Bull Racing is the only Red Bull-owned entity that's subject to any rules and regulations that apply to Formula One. Red Bull Technology, on the other hand, is a "supplier" to Red Bull Racing. As such, it's subject to absolutely no oversight whatsoever. It can undertake full-scale wind tunnel testing or even full-scale track testing if it chooses. It can even notify the FIA, FOM, and every team of those activities, and they can't do anything but say, "OK."

I'm quite sure that you are wrong with that assumption. Red Bull Racing as a company cannot satisfy the regulations of the RRA. They would have to buy too much services from their outsourced design team. That is the rason why Red Bull have most likely done it in reverse order. They have outsourced the racing team and nominated the main division of Red bull technology as the team entity. There are numerous advantages in playing it that way round. With the outsourced race team Red Bull Technologies section RBR as I call that company outsources just 47 people and what they provide in services. That is easily under the 40m allowance. The design team can be maxed out at 300 people and can generate massive overtime and cost which isn't controlled by the RRA. The outsourced race team can also be used to pipe the revenues from sponsorship into the group. They take the cash injection which RBR gets for the advertising value equivalent from the drink company and other sponsorship earnings. In comparison with a company that has no outsourced racing resources Red Bull Racing can easily generate 15-20% more development and conform with the RRA. People tend to forget that the RRA does not regulate budget but head count and outsourced services.

[bhall]

I'm quite sure that you are wrong with that assumption. Red Bull Racing as a company cannot satisfy the regulations of the RRA. They would have to buy too much services from their outsourced design team. That is the rason why Red Bull have most likely done it in reverse order. They have outsourced the racing team and nominated the main division of Red bull technology as the team entity. There are numerous advantages in playing it that way round. With the outsourced race team Red Bull Technologies section RBR as I call that company outsources just 47 people and what they provide in services. That is easily under the 40m allowance. The design team can be maxed out at 300 people and can generate massive overtime and cost which isn't controlled by the RRA. The outsourced race team can also be used to pipe the revenues from sponsorship into the group. They take the cash injection which RBR gets for the advertising value equivalent from the drink company and other sponsorship earnings. In comparison with a company that has no outsourced racing resources Red Bull Racing can easily generate 15-20% more development and conform with the RRA. People tend to forget that the RRA does not regulate budget but head count and outsourced services.

We've been going over this for a couple of weeks now. It's disheartening to see that you haven't been paying attention.

Straight from the bull's mouth (for perhaps the third or fourth time):

Well if you look at the way the English accounts are presented, you’re looking at the gross turnover of each entity, whether it be Red Bull Technology or Red Bull Racing. Within the RRA we’ve complied fully with the RRA within Red Bull Racing, which is the entrant to the Formula 1 World Championship. Red Bull Technology is a supplier to Red Bull Racing…

(If that's not enough for you, have a look here, here, and here.

Additionally, I have no idea how you're still able to look at all these numbers and take them at face value. Do you seriously not understand that the whole --- point of the Red Bull Technology/Racing scheme is to avoid having to adhere to the proscribed limits? Or do you honestly believe Red Bull GmbH went to all the trouble to create both Red Bull Racing and Red Bull Technology to somehow be better quipped to comply with even the spirit of the RRA?

And finally, when was the RRA released for public consumption? I've never seen it, only speculation. (I haven't seen anything about a "40m allowance" since 2010.) Yet, you quote these things like they're psalms. Would you please be so kind as to share this document with us?

(Disclaimer: As this is the Red Bull Racing thread, I've confined by comments to Red Bull Racing only. The rules are obviously the same for each team, meaning the loopholes available to each team are the same. Long live the Bull.)

[CHT]

OT on the subject.

Did a check on Mercedes Benz Grand Prix Ltd, surprise to see that Honda Yasuhiro Wada is still an executive member at the team.

http://investing.businessweek.com/resea ... Id=5853925